International Journal of Police Science & Management Volume 16 Number 1

Page 26

International Journal of Police Science and Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, 2014, pp. 26–35.DOI: 10.1350/ijps.2014.16.1.325

Police stop-and-frisk practices: an examination of factors that affect officers’ decisions to initiate a stop-and-frisk police procedure

Avdi S. AvdijaDepartment of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Holmstedt Hall, Room 242, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809, USA. Tel: +1 812 237 9652; email: avdi.avdija@indstate.edu

Submitted 15 October 2013; accepted 4 November 2013Keywords: stop-and-frisk, racialised policing, proactive policing, high-crime areas

Avdi S. Avdija, PhD is an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at Indiana State University. His broad research interests include community policing policy, problems related to the implementation of evidence-based polic-ing, crime prevention strategies and tactics, and methods of criminal investigation, including techniques of interviewing and interrogation. Dr Avdija has published fourteen research articles in various academic journals and two books. His current research interests are on testing the effectiveness of eyewitness identification meth-ods, factors that affect police officer’s decision to use force, stop-and-frisk police practices, and the effect of work-related stressors on police officer’s health-related issues.

AbstrAct

The purpose of this research is to examine the fac-tors that affect an officer’s decision to initiate a stop-and-frisk procedure. The primary objective of this study is to rank-order the typical reasons that were reported by police officers and that were determinis-tic on initiating a police stop procedure. The second objective of this research is to test whether there is empirical evidence suggesting racialised policing. The analyses are based on data that were originally col-lected and archived by the New York Police Depart-ment on stop-and-frisk police practices in 2006. The analyses in this study show that the top five highest rank-ordered reasons for initiating a police stop were

high-crime area, time of day fits the crime incident, fugitive movements by the suspects, casing a victim or location, and proximity to a crime scene. Factors that influenced an officer’s decision to frisk the suspect after the initial stop were suspect’s gender, followed by suspect’s physical proximity to the crime scene, suspect’s evasive responses to questions and race.

INTRODUCTIONStop-and-frisk police procedures are com-monly used in large cities. Although a stop-and-frisk is considered a proactive police procedure in the USA, it cannot be initiated without meeting the minimum legal require-ment of reasonable suspicion. State laws in the USA vary from State to State, but for a police officer to make a legal arrest, for example, there should be some form of probable cause indicating that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime. To make a simple stop, however, police officers are not required to meet the ‘probable cause’ level of justification. Since Terry v Ohio in 1968, the police need to meet the ‘reasonable suspicion’ standard, which is a lesser justification level than prob-able cause. Moreover, the reasonable suspicion level of justification extends to the frisk proce-dure also. A police officer can initiate a police stop and escalate it to a ‘frisk’ based on only a reasonable suspicion level of justification. It is noteworthy that the reasonable suspicion level

by guest on August 24, 2016psm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Avdija

Page 27

of justification is open to interpretation and that interpretation is frequently influenced by an officer’s judgement, which in turn is affected by a host of interrelated factors.

Reasons for initiating a stop-and-frisk procedureA stop-and-frisk police practice is a form of a field interrogation conducted for a variety of reasons. Some of the typical reasons for the initiation of a police stop-and-frisk pro-cedure include: proximity to the crime scene, suspicious behaviour, high-crime area, time of day fits the crime and geographic hetero-geneity (Lippman 2013; Ridgeway, 2007). If a serious crime has been committed in an area, the police are more likely to conduct stop-and-frisk procedures on individuals for safety reasons. However, according to Harris (1994), proximity to a crime should not be justified entirely based on the reasonable suspicion standard. Thus, officers must also add in fac-tors such as suspicious activity, officer’s safety concerns, and to some degree, knowledge about the suspects, because no one reason is good enough by itself to warrant a frisk of a person (Harris, 1994). Nonetheless, research shows that crime-scene-related factors, time of day, environmental factors and suspect’s behaviour, either individually or as a group of factors, have a significant influence on an officer’s decision to stop-and-frisk suspects (Fallik & Novak, 2012; Ridgeway, 2007).

In addition to crime-scene-related factors, time of day, environmental factors and sus-pect’s behaviour, research shows that being a member of a minority group is an influenc-ing variable in an officer’s decision to initiate a stop-and-frisk police procedure (Gelman, Fagan, & Kiss, 2007). Moreover, a large body of research shows that race is a determin-ing factor during police–citizen encounters, regardless of the type of encounter, with minorities being targeted more than Whites (Alpert, Dunham, & Smith, 2007; Durose, Schmitt, & Langan, 2005; Fagan & Davies,

2000; Gelman et al., 2007; Harris, 2007; Lee & Rivera, 2007; Lundman, & Kaufman, 2003; Weitzer & Tuch, 2002, 2005; Weitzer, 2000; Withrow, 2004). However, there are other studies that do not support this conclusion. Alpert, Macdonald, and Dunham’s (2005) study, for example, shows that being a minor-ity does not have a significant influence on an officer’s decision to initiate a stop prac-tice, other than building suspicion on sus-pects. Nonetheless, according to Alpert et al. (2005), being suspicious did not rise to the level of initiating a stop-for-questioning police procedure (Alpert et al., 2005). Race surely correlates with the number of police stops. However, it is not the only factor that influences officers’ decisions to initiate a stop-and-frisk procedure; research shows that gender, age and situational factors also have a significant influence (Schafer, Carter, Katz-Bannister, & Wells, 2006). This tells us that one should not rush to judgement by selectively choosing one single isolated factor that influences an officer’s decision to initiate a police stop by building a case on it to sup-port one’s point of view

THE PRESENT STUDYThe purpose of this study is to investigate the relevant factors that significantly affect an officer’s decision to initiate a stop-and-frisk police procedure. The primary objective of this study is to rank-order the typical reasons that were reported by police officers and that were deterministic on initiating a police stop procedure. The second objective is to test whether there is empirical evidence suggest-ing racialised policing. This includes testing the effect of race on a police officer’s deci-sion to frisk a suspect who has been initially stopped by the police for questioning. The third objective is to determine what factors other than race are statistically significant in predicting an officer’s decision to initiate a frisk police procedure on the suspect.

by guest on August 24, 2016psm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Police stop-and-frisk practices

Page 28

METHODOLOGY

Outcome variablesThe analyses in this study are based on sec-ondary data that were deposited to the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) by the New York City Police Department on police stop, questioning and frisk practices in 2006. The outcome variables of interest in this study are: (1) police officer’s decision to initiate a stop for questioning the suspects, and (2) police officer’s decision to frisk the suspect after the initial stop for questioning. Because the data were actual police–citizen encounters, there was no specific variable listed in the data indicating whether police stopped a suspect for questioning to compare with those who were not stopped. In other words, all case files in the data set that were used for the analysis in this study are considered police stop practices. For this reason, to address the first objective of this study, the analyses are limited to rank-ordering typical reasons that affected the police officer’s decision to initi-ate a stop procedure. The typical reasons for initiating a police stop procedure (Table 1) are rank-ordered based on the frequency and the mean score for each variable. A higher frequency and a mean score for each predic-tor (reason for stop) indicates the total effect on the officer’s decision to initiate a police stop procedure. The officer’s decision to ini-tiate a frisk procedure, however, was meas-ured dichotomously with ‘Yes, the suspect was frisked’, coded 1, and ‘No, the suspect was not frisked’, coded 0. Because of the binary nature of this outcome variable, logis-tic regression was used to determine the race effect on officers’ decision to frisk suspects.

Independent variablesIt is noteworthy that, in this study, there are two sets of independent variables or pre-dictors. The first set of predictors includes typical reasons for initiating a police stop

procedure. There were 14 predictors or rea-sons that were typically used by the police officers to justify the initiation of a police stop procedure on a suspect (Table 1). All were recorded/measured dichotomously with binary (yes/no) response catego-ries. The second set of variables, however, includes suspects’ demographic charac-teristics (eg, age, gender, race and suspect’s height), crime-scene-related factors (eg, proximity to the crime scene, time of day fits the crime and known hot spots area) and suspect’s behaviour, which includes evasive responses to questions after being stopped by a police officer for questioning. Crime-scene-related variables were measured dichotomously with ‘yes/no’ response cat-egories. The officer’s perception of whether or not the time of day fits the crime was also measured dichotomously with ‘yes’, coded 1, otherwise, coded 0. The second sets of vari-ables were selected with a specific objective in mind. They were selected for the purpose of testing whether or not there is empirical evidence suggesting racialised policing. Race was re-coded into dummy variables, with Whites being the base category. Suspect’s height was measured in inches. Age was measured in years, and gender, as a dichoto-mous variable, was coded 1 for males, and 0 for females.

Data source and the sampleThe data analysed in this study came from the ICPSR depository. The data were com-puter files in a form of a database that was deposited in the ICPSR by the New York City Police Department. There were over 500,000 police–citizen interaction cases recorded by the New York City Police Department in 2006. These data came into the public domain and were made avail-able for analysis in 2008. Of the 506,491 total police- initiated stop-and-frisk proce-dures in the database, a sample of 1,500 cases was selected for analysis in this study. This

by guest on August 24, 2016psm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Avdija

Page 29

sample was selected using a random system-atic sampling method. To select the sample, the total number of cases was divided by the desired sample (506,491/1,500 = 337). This marked the interval that was used to system-atically select cases for inclusion in the sam-ple. Next, the starting point was chosen using the table of random numbers. Once the start-ing point was chosen, from there every 337th subsequent case was selected and included in the sample, achieving a total of 1,500 cases for the analysis.

ParticipantsThe sample of cases included 1,500 sus-pects that were stopped for questioning by the police in the New York City. In terms of the demographic characteristics, this sam-ple consisted of 1,256 (83.7 per cent) males and 107 (7.1 per cent) females. There were 137 cases that were coded as ‘missing data’ on gender, totalling 9.1 per cent. In terms of race, 129 (8.5 per cent) of them were White, 742 (49.5 per cent) were Black, 398 (26.5 per cent) were Hispanic/Latinos and

35 (2.3 per cent) were Asian/Pacific Island-ers. There were 197 (13.1 per cent) cases that were coded ‘missing data’ on the racial clas-sification of the subjects. The subjects ranged in age from 12 to 76 years, and the average age was 28 years (SD = 12.0). The descrip-tive analysis shows that of the 1,500 sub-jects in the sample, 629 (41.9 per cent) were frisked after they were initially stopped for questioning by the police, 119 (7.9 per cent) were searched and 70 (4.7 per cent) were arrested. Of those who were frisked, 57.7 per cent were Black, 32 per cent were Hispanic/Latino, 7.3 per cent were White, and 3 per cent Asian/Pacific Islanders.

FINDINGSThe first objective of this study was to rank-order the typical reasons that were reported by police officers and that were determinis-tic on initiating a police stop procedure. The results are presented in Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2. There were 14 variables that were rank-ordered based on the frequency and the

Table 1: Police reasons for initiating a stop procedure ranked by mean score

Reasons for stop Frequency Mean SD

1. High-crime area 800 0.53 0.499

2. Time of day fits crime incident 523 0.35 0.477

3. Fugitive movements 469 0.31 0.464

4. Casing a victim or location 382 0.25 0.436

5. Proximity to crime scene 341 0.23 0.419

6. Change of direction at sight of officer 308 0.21 0.404

7. Suspect fits a relevant description 285 0.19 0.392

8. Suspect acting as a lookout 259 0.17 0.378

9. Action indicative of a drug transaction 152 0.10 0.302

10. Action of engaging in a violent crime 147 0.10 0.297

11. Suspicious bulge 134 0.09 0.285

12 Associated with known criminals 60 0.04 0.196

13. Wearing clothes commonly used in a crime 53 0.04 0.185

14. Carrying suspicious object 48 0.03 0.176

by guest on August 24, 2016psm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Police stop-and-frisk practices

Page 30

mean score. The mean scores ranged from a low of M = 0.03 (carrying suspicious objects) to a high of M = 0.53 (high-crime area). The results in Table 1 (and Figure 1) show that the top five highest rank-ordered reasons for initiating a police stop were high-crime area (M = 0.53, SD = 0.499), time of day fits the crime incident (M = 0.35, SD = 0.477), fugi-tive movements by the suspects (M = 0.31, SD = 0.464), casing a victim or location (M = 0.25, SD = 0.436) and proximity to a crime scene (M = 0.23, SD = 0.419). This indicates that the suspects were more likely to be stopped by the police in high-crime-scene areas during times that were considered by the patrol officers as more crime-prone (see Figure 2). It is important to note that officers considered the ‘high-crime areas’ based on their own perception and experi-ence as patrol officers. In terms of time of day, the data in this study show that police stops occurred most frequently between 6pm and

midnight and least frequently between 4am and noon (see Figure 2).

There has been a long debate in the USA about racialised policing. People argue that police procedures such as stop-and-frisk are racially motivated (Gelman et al., 2007; see also Lundman & Kaufman, 2003; Meehan & Ponder, 2002; Weitzer & Tuch, 2002, for racial disparities in police practices). Thus, the sec-ond objective of this research study is to test whether or not there is empirical evidence suggesting racialised policing. In other words, to investigate whether or not a suspect’s race plays an important part in officer’s decision to initiate a routine frisk procedure after the initial stop for questioning. The results of this study (Table 2) show that, overall, race is a decisive factor that has an effect on a police officer’s decision to initiate a frisk procedure on the suspect. The analyses show that Black suspects were 1.68 times more likely to be frisked by the police compared with White

Figure 1 Comparing the mean scores of the typical

reasons for initiating a police stop procedure

by guest on August 24, 2016psm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Avdija

Page 31

suspects. Similarly, Hispanic/Latino suspects were 1.73 times more likely to be frisked by the police compared with White suspects, controlling for the effects of all other vari-ables in the model. In this 11-variable model, gender recorded the highest odds ratio (OR = 2.814, p < 0.001). This means that male suspects (coded 1) were 2.8 times more likely to be frisked by the police compared with female suspects. Proximity to the crime scene recorded the second largest OR in the model (OR = 1.965, p < 0.001), indicating that sus-pects who were stopped by the police in the vicinity of a crime scene were twice as likely to be frisked by the police compared with those who were stopped in other areas.

Table 1 and Figure 1 showed that high-crime area was the highest rank-ordered reason for initiating a stop police procedure. For initiating a frisk procedure, however, this research shows that high-crime area was not a statistically significant factor (p = 0.318) in terms of influencing an officer’s decision to frisk the suspect (see Table 2). Suspect’s age and height both had a negative effect on an officer’s decision to frisk the suspect. The OR for age was 0.974, indicating that for each

year’s increase in a suspect’s age, there was a 2.6 per cent decrease in the likelihood of being frisked by the police, holding all other variables constant. Suspect’s behaviour, which was measured in terms of evasive responses to police questions, recorded an OR of 1.896. In term of the effect size, suspect’s behaviour was the third most influential variable in an officer’s decision to initiate a frisk procedure on the suspect. Suspects who responded eva-sively to an officer’s questions were 1.9 times more likely to be frisked by the police com-pared with those who did not.

DISCUSSION

Reasons for initiating a police stop procedureThis research study shows that the top five highest rank-ordered reasons for initiating a police stop were: high-crime area; offic-er’s perception that the time of day fits the crime incidents; fugitive movements exhib-ited by the suspects, which indicate that the suspect is getting ready to flee the scene or flee from temporary police custody; suspect

Figure 2 Percentage of stops made by the police by time of day

by guest on August 24, 2016psm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Police stop-and-frisk practices

Page 32

Table 2: Logistic regression analysis: predicting an officer’s decision to initiate a frisk procedure on the suspect

Variable B SE Wald Sig. Exp (B)

95% confidence interval for EXP (B)

Lower Upper

Age −0.027 0.005 26.607 0.000 0.974 0.964 0.984

Gender (Male) 1.035 0.257 16.197 0.000 2.814 1.700 4.658

Race (Asian) 0.755 0.408 3.416 0.065 2.127 0.955 4.736

Race (Black) 0.522 0.218 5.717 0.017 1.685 1.099 2.584

Race (Hispanic) 0.550 0.230 5.718 0.017 1.733 1.104 2.721

Suspect’s height −0.047 0.014 11.725 0.001 0.954 0.929 0.980

Proximity to the crime scene

0.676 0.144 22.093 0.000 1.965 1.483 2.604

Evasive response to questions

0.640 0.160 16.065 0.000 1.896 1.387 2.593

Associated with known criminals

−0.420 0.326 1.658 0.198 0.657 0.347 1.245

High-crime area −0.127 0.128 0.995 0.318 0.881 0.686 1.131

Time of day fits the crime −0.273 0.134 4.147 0.042 0.761 0.585 0.990

Constant 2.046 0.943 4.711 0.030 7.737 — —

(C & S) R2 = 0.080 (N) R2 = 0.108 Correct classification of cases = 65.3%

Note: Dependent variable = Police officer’s decision to frisk the suspect

casing a victim or location; and proximity to a crime scene. The most debatable factor in prior research studies that has been shown to affect a police officer’s decision to initi-ate a police–citizen encounter is race. Prior studies show that race is empirically and atti-tudinally (people believe so) a deterministic factor for a variety of police–citizen encoun-ters, including stop-and-frisk practices, with minorities being over-represented during such police encounters (Durose, Schmitt, & Langan, 2005; Fagan & Davies, 2000; Gel-man et al., 2005; Lundman, & Kaufman, 2003; Weitzer, 2000; Weitzer & Tuch, 2005; Withrow, 2004). Concurring with prior research studies, this study shows that Black suspects (49.5 per cent) and Hispanic/Latino suspects (26.5 per cent) were targeted more

by the police compared with White suspects. At first glance, this racial disparity points toward a form of racialised policing, indi-cating that certain races are more prone to police practices than others. However, when looking at the gender factor and its effect on police stop-and-frisk practices, this research shows that male suspects (83.7 per cent) are more likely to be stopped by the police com-pared with female suspects (7.1 per cent). Thus, based on this evidence, one can also argue that this is a form of gendered polic-ing, where one gender is targeted more often than the other. This gender disparity is not very often mentioned in research, because it seems as though it may cast a shadow on the race effect. The reality is that race and gender are only two isolated variables that do not

by guest on August 24, 2016psm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Avdija

Page 33

have much explanation power in terms of the total effect on an officer’s decision to initiate a stop-and-frisk police procedure.

Frequency of stop-and-frisk practices by time of dayThis study shows that the typical time of day when police officers initiate more frequent stop-and-frisk procedures is between 6pm and midnight. Making police stops during these times of day is somewhat justifiable, because this time interval represents the time that crimes disproportionately occur more frequently than other times of day (Felson & Paulson, 2003; Miethe, McCorkle, & Listwan, 2006), even though the crime occurrences may vary by the type of crime, geographi-cal location and population density. In addi-tion, research shows that fear of crime is also a factor that plays a significant role in deter-mining the implementation of police stop-and-frisk practices during specific times of day. Research shows that citizens are more afraid to go out in the city at night than dur-ing the day (Taylor, 1999). This gives police stop-and-frisk practices some legitimacy by proactively preventing crimes before they occur. Being proactive is part of targeted policing, which ‘is a form of policing that is place-specific, offense-specific, offender-specific, and time-specific’ (Avdija, 2008, p. 111). Certain times of day, in this case even-ing hours, become targeted by the police by proactively stopping more citizens for ques-tioning.

Racialised policing and frisk practicesThe second objective of this research was to test whether there is empirical evidence to suggest that police stop-and-frisk practices are racially biased. The logistic regression analysis in this study measured the effect of 11 different variables on an officer’s decision to initiate a frisk procedure after the initial stop for questioning was initiated by the police. Overall, the findings are consistent with

prior studies (Gelman et al., 2007; Rojek, Rosenfeld, & Decker, 2012), which indicate that policing is selective in terms of who gets stopped and frisked and who does not. The analyses in this study show that Black suspects were 1.68 times more likely to be frisked by the police after being stopped for questioning compared with White suspects. Similarly, Hispanic/Latino suspects were 1.73 times more likely to be frisked by the police compared with White suspects. Moreover, the descriptive statistics show that most of the suspects (92.3 per cent) who were frisked by the police were minorities, 57.3 per cent Black, 32 per cent Hispanic/Latino and 3 per cent Asians, respectively. Aside from race, gen-der recorded the highest OR in the model. The analysis show that males were 2.8 times more likely to be frisked by the police com-pared with female suspects. Proximity to the crime scene recorded the second largest OR in the model (1.965), indicating that suspects who were stopped by the police in the vicin-ity of a crime scene were about two times more likely to be frisked by the police com-pared with those who were stopped in other areas. Overall, this study sheds some light on the argument that race is an important pre-dictor of police stop-and-frisk practices, but it is not as good a predictor as other factors such as gender or being in the vicinity of a crime scene.

In conclusion, this study offers one piece of evidence suggesting racialised policing. However, the debate about racialised polic-ing has two sides. One is the evidence sug-gesting that minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisked by the police, as shown in this study, and the other relates to address-ing the cause of this racial disparity in stop-and-frisk police practices. In other words, the question is why are minorities stopped and frisked more frequently and more selec-tively than Whites? Statistically speaking, the reason for this racial disparity in police stop-and-frisk practices is that minorities, owing

by guest on August 24, 2016psm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Police stop-and-frisk practices

Page 34

to ecological concentrations, commit dispro-portionately more crimes than Whites (Hart-ney & Vuong, 2009; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997; Skolnick, 2007; Snyder, 2012). Certain police tactics are primarily based on induc-tive crime/criminal profiling; profiles that are based primarily on existing statistics of prior crimes. When adopting a proactive form of policing that is based on inductive crime/criminal profiling, the race factor becomes an issue in police practices. Consequentially, it is very easy to blame racial profiling for the stop-and-frisk disparity in police practices, but, at the same time, the action of actors should not be ignored or underestimated. In this case, the actors are individuals who com-mit crimes, regardless of their race, that com-pose the inductive crime/criminal profiles administratively in the criminal justice sys-tem. The legitimacy of stop-and-frisk prac-tices in terms of racial disparity comes from administrative data, based on which induc-tive profiles are developed. In terms of racial disparity in the police stop-and-frisk prac-tices, this study answers the question of who is stopped more frequently. This study does not answer the question of who commits more crimes that lead the police to develop and rely on inductive profiles, which in turn influence an officer’s decision proactively to initiate stop-and-frisk police procedures on suspects.

references

Alpert, G. P., Dunham, R. G., & Smith, M. R. (2007). Investigating racial profiling by the Miami-Dade police department: A multimethod approach. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 25–56.

Alpert, G. P., Macdonald, J. M., & Dunham, R. G. (2005). Police suspicion and discretionary decision making during citizen stops. Criminology, 43, 407–434.

Avdija, A. S. (2008). Evidence based policing: A comparative analysis of eight experimental studies focused on the area of targeted

policing. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 3, 110–128.

Durose, M. R., Schmitt, E. L., & Langan, P. A. (2005). Contacts between police and the public: Findings from the 2002 national survey. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Fagan, J., & Davies, G. (2000). Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race and disorder in New York City. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28, 457–504.

Fallik, S. W., & Novak, K. J. (2012). The decision to search: Is race or ethnicity important? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28, 146–165.

Felson, M., & Paulson, E. (2003). Simple indicators of crime by time of day. International Journal of Forecasting, 19, 595–601.

Gelman, A., Fagan, J., & Kiss, A. (2007). An analysis of the New York City police department’s ‘stop-and-frisk’ policy in the context of claims of racial bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102, 813–823.

Harris, D. A. (1994). Factors for reasonable suspicion: When black and poor means stopped and frisked. Indiana Law Journal, 69, 659–688.

Harris, D. A. (2007). The importance of research on race and policing: Making race salient to individuals and institutions within criminal justice. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 5–24.

Hartney, C., & Vung, L. (2009). Racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Lee, T., & Rivera, R. (2007, February 4). As officers stop and frisk, residents raise their guard. The New York Times, A31.

Lippman, M. R. (2013). Criminal procedure (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Lundman, R. J., & Kaufman, R. L. (2003). Driving while black: effects of race, ethnicity, and gender on citizen self-reports of traffic stops and police actions. Criminology, 41, 195–220.

Meehan, A. J., & Ponder, M. C. (2002). Race and place: The ecology of racial profiling African American motorists. Justice Quarterly, 19, 399–430.

Miethe, T. D., McCorkle, R. C., & Listwan, S. J. (2006). Crime profiles: The anatomy of dangerous

by guest on August 24, 2016psm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Avdija

Page 35

persons, places, and situations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ridgeway, G. (2007). Analysis of racial disparities in the New York City Police Department’s stop, question, and frisk practices. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Rojek, J., Rosenfeld, R., & Decker, S. (2012). Policing race: The racial stratification of searches in police traffic stops. Criminology, 50, 993–1024.

Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1997). Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States. Crime and Justice, 21, 311–374.

Schafer, J. A., Carter, D. L., Katz-Bannister, A. J., & Wells, W. M. (2006). Decision making in traffic stop encounters: A multivariate analysis of police behavior. Police Quarterly, 9, 184–209.

Skolnick, J. H. (2007). Racial profiling—then and now. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 65–70.

Snyder, H. N. (2012). Patterns and trends: Arrest in the United States, 1990–2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Taylor, R. B. (1999). Crime, grime, fear and decline: A longitudinal look. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, (1968).

Weitzer, R. (2000). Racialized policing: Resident’s perceptions in three neighborhoods. Law and Society Review, 34, 129–155.

Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2002). Perceptions of racial profiling: Race, class, and personal experience. Criminology, 40, 436–456.

Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2005). Racially biased policing: Determinants of citizen perceptions. Social Forces, 83, 1009–1030.

Withrow, B. L. (2004). Race-based policing: A descriptive analysis of the Wichita stop study. Police Practice and Research, An International Journal, 5, 223–240.

by guest on August 24, 2016psm.sagepub.comDownloaded from