Associate Magazine FBINAA Q1-2023

Continued from "Non-Traffic Safety Stop", on page 9

Traffic stops represent a key challenge to the procedural jus tice paradigm, for it is from this common citizen/police encounter that allegations of unjust treatment regularly arise, namely in the form of racial bias complaints. There is a clear belief in policing that the procedural justice paradigm is an effective solution for preventing racial bias by the police during traffic stops, and as a result, a great deal of emphasis is being placed on procedural jus tice training. And yet there is an argument being made that racial bias during traffic stops, often equated with racial profiling, is a problem that cannot be addressed through training because it is a problem inherent in the institution of American policing; training officers to treat motorists with procedural justice only addresses a symptom. If policing is to continue investing in the procedural justice paradigm, then a close examination of the supporting evi dence is warranted. Furthermore, it is the non-traffic safety stop, sometimes referred to as the investigatory stop, which should be of the most concern in this examination, as these have been at the heart of racial profiling complaints from the Black community. 5 THE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE PARADIGM In their literature review, Nagin and Telep outline the proce dural justice paradigm as it has come to be generally accepted. 6 First, officers treat citizens with dignity and respect during indi vidual interactions, they display trustworthy motives, and they act in an objective, unbiased manner. Officers also provide citizens the opportunity to be heard. These behaviors are the “pillars” of procedural justice. Next, citizens respond to procedurally just treatment by accepting the police (individually and institutionally) as a legitimate authority of the criminal justice system. Finally, because of police legitimacy, citizens voluntarily comply with laws and cooperate with the police as partners in keeping the commu nity safe. The traffic stop is the crucible for the procedural justice paradigm, as it is the most common involuntary and intrusive encounter with the police that citizens experience. 7 For the proce dural justice paradigm to work, citizens must be willing to accept intrusions into their individual freedoms, in this case the freedom of movement, because they accept the government’s legitimate authority to do so through the agent of the police officer. Further, it is the non-traffic safety stop that presents the truest test of the procedural justice paradigm. As part of a study conducted by Epp, Maynard-Moody, and Haider-Markel, traffic safety stops were defined as stops for speed ing seven miles an hour or more over the limit, DUI, red-light violations, reckless driving, and for stops associated with DUI check lanes. 8 Non-traffic safety stops were defined as stops for turn signal or lane change violations, malfunctioning lights, driv ing too slowly, stopping for an excessive amount of time, expired tags, and driver’s license checks. The authors collectively refer to these non-traffic safety stops, and stops for which officers give no reason, as investigatory stops, for they contend that such stops of minorities are for the primary purpose of investigating the pres ence of other crimes. The distinction between the two types of stops is important because for traffic safety violations, the study showed both Black motorists and White motorists are stopped at similar rates, receive similar outcomes, and report similar interactions with the officer. 9 For non-traffic safety stops, however, this study and several others showed that Black motorists are stopped at significantly higher rates, are subject to search and arrest at significantly higher rates, and report significantly different interactions with the officer. 10

Blacks are stopped at nearly twice the rate of Whites for non-traffic safety violations, and racial disparities in stop data is the sole product of non-traffic safety stops. 11 Both White and Black motor ists view traffic safety stops as legitimate, 12 but Black motorists view non-traffic safety stops as illegitimate far more than White motorists, and Blacks also see the criminal justice system as far more illegitimate than Whites. 13 Many in policing see procedural justice training as the solution to overcoming these perceptions, but what does the research say about the impact of procedural justice training? PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND POLICE TRAINING Overall, Nagin and Telep conclude that the literature shows no compelling evidence that the procedural justice paradigm is likely to achieve the results that are hoped for by the police, community leaders, and legislators. 14 The authors emphasize that procedural justice in policing should be sought as a goal in and of itself, as there is intrinsic value in treating everyone with dignity and respect, displaying trustworthy motives, making unbiased decisions, and allowing others to be heard. Their fundamental critique of the procedural justice paradigm, however, is that legitimacy is a “product of a lifetime accumulation of historical, cultural, community, and familial influences, not just one or more interactions with the police or other representatives of the [crimi nal justice system].” 15 In studies specifically related to procedural justice training, results have been mixed at best, with the majority being unrelated to traffic stops. In one study that did involve traffic stops, re searchers found that procedural justice training had a significant positive impact on trust and confidence in the police, but there was no effect on citizens’ willingness to obey the police or to co operate with them in improving public safety. 16 In another study that specifically looked at traffic safety stops (as defined by citizen focus groups), results showed that procedural justice training did increase citizen perceptions of legitimacy, though evidence suggested that the outcome of the stop (warning vs citation) was a contributing factor. 17 Perceptions were not analyzed by race, and the study did not examine the effects of non-traffic safety stops. Two studies explored the use of procedural justice train ing with recruit officers, with one finding that training positively impacted officers’ perceptions of the tenets of procedural justice except for trust, and the other finding no evidence that training impacted officers’ attitudes about procedural justice, though their communication skills did show improvement during role-playing scenarios. 18 Neither examined any actual change in officer behav ior in the field. In another study with recruit officers, researchers found that attitudes toward procedural justice were positively im pacted, and this translated into more procedurally just behaviors in the field; however, positive attitudes diminished over time, and there was evidence that some citizens, namely those suspected of criminal behavior, were deemed less worthy of procedurally just treatment. 19 Another study showed that procedural justice train ing based in cognitive behavioral therapy reduced arrests during citizen encounters, but the largest reductions were in geographic areas where officers were the least likely to experience encoun ters that had a high probability of arrest. 20 Additionally, results showed some evidence that prior to training, officers may have been unnecessarily engaging in actions that alienated the public. Finally, one study found that training improved officers’ willing ness to display procedural justice during scenarios, but there was

continued on page 31

10 F B I N A A . O R G | Q 1 2 0 2 3