How Dragnet Policing Keeps Millions from Participating In the Economy
How does the arguably illegal police stop of a white man in Utah relate to removing millions of African Americans from participating in the United States (U.S.) economy? They are connected by a law enforcement practice called “dragnet policing.” Dragnet policing is defined as the proactive targeting of “neighborhoods and groups in which crime is thought to be clustered” (Padula, 2017, p. 479) and it leads to the removal of millions of citizens, mainly African Americans, from participating in the U.S. economy. The policy needs to be abolished or severely reduced.
Law Enforcement in Utah
Law enforcement officers are everywhere in Utah. Some cities have their own police departments, such as the Salt Lake City Police Department, while other cities utilize the Unified Police Department, which shares resources to reduce costs while protecting different cities and regions across Salt Lake County. Universities and school districts also have police departments like the University of Utah Police and Granite School District Police. The county and state also have law enforcement departments, such as the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office and the Utah Highway Patrol. Utah even has a police department for their light rail system called the UTA Transit Authority Police. These officers follow policies, procedures, and practices to carry out their daily duties to serve and defend.
The Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) follows the guidelines established by CALEA: the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies law enforcement manual, created in 1979 as a credentialing authority. Moreover, they made an 838-page Police Policy Manual that explains their procedures, policies, and compliance with state and federal laws. This policy manual instructs officers on when a search and seizure is permitted or not permitted, how to treat transgender persons, how to handle media relations, how to issue warrants, and everything in between. However, it is not a step-by-step guide on what to do as the manual itself states, “the nature of any law enforcement contact may vary substantially from one situation to the next” (Salt Lake City, 2020, p. 251).
History of Dragnet Policing
Unfortunately, throughout the years, many police departments have been accused of abuse of power and of violating the public’s civil rights. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated in 2016 that many of these accusations resulted from institutionalized training procedures that teach officers how to circumvent civil rights (Sack, 2017). Regrettably, evidence suggests such institutionalized practices are used primarily on minority populations. Furthermore, these practices lead to long-term negative economic consequences for those targeted by dragnet policing.
Guy Padula, a professor at Renmin University of China Law School, looked at 40-years of history demonstrating the existence of racially targeted dragnet policing practices — proving the reality of institutionalized selective enforcement practices within policing in the U.S. (2017). Padula divides his historical analysis by first looking at the “War on Drugs,” and how the evidence shows racially targeted dragnet policing began around 1974 in Michigan airports before escalating nationwide. Second, history indicates that by the 1980s, this style of policing permeated into long-distance buses and trains with the target of Black and Latino passengers, and eventually to automobiles by targeting minority motorists. Lastly, around the mid-1990s came the start of gun control, where, unfortunately, history shows pedestrians of color became the primary target (2017, p. 473–474). By 2007, there were almost six hundred thousand African Americans in federal and state prison, compared to less than five hundred thousand Caucasians (Gramlich, 2019).
A local example of a dragnet policing practice comes from a 2006 encounter between Edward Streiff, a white man, and the SLCPD. The police drug tip line got an anonymous message detailing that probable narcotic activity was happening at that location. A SLCPD officer stopped Streiff after he left the house and was on his way to a convenience store. The officer was suspicious that the site was a drug house, spoke with Streif, and asked for some identification. The officer asked the dispatcher to run Streiffs information and check for a warrant (leaving a house is not probable cause to request a person’s identification). The dispatcher found a small traffic warrant that was outstanding. Streiff was arrested, searched, and the officer found a small bag of meth and drug paraphernalia in his pockets. Streiff ultimately pled guilty but appealed the trial court’s denial of a motion that eventually made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority opinion ruled against Streiff and stated that while the practice of illegal stops was unconstitutional, the evidence found from it could not be dismissed as there was an outstanding arrest warrant present (Sack, 2017).
Examples of Racially Targeted Dragnet Policing
Lamentably, this type of warrant check is used more often against people of color. Lucius T. Outlaw III, a professor at Howard University School of Law, studied policing practices in Baltimore, Maryland, and came to similar conclusions as Padula. He finds jurisdictions where outstanding warrants are prevalent, and the police engage in dragnet policing practices. Black neighborhoods cover large parts of Baltimore, many of which abound in poverty, and see racially targeted dragnet policing undeterred by fear of criminal or civil liability. The Civil rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), in their 2016 Findings Report on the Investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department, found that the department is
(1) making unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests [and] (2) using enforcement strategies that produce severe and unjustified disparities in the rates of stops, searches and arrests of African Americans… Many of these unlawful stops… appear motivated at least in part by officers’ desire to check whether the stopped individuals have outstanding warrants that would allow officers to make an arrest or search individuals in hopes of finding illegal firearms or narcotics. (Outlaw, 2020, p. 41–42).
Outlaw confirms the phenomenon of institutionalized dragnet policing practices is not particular to Baltimore but occurs throughout the nation by citing a recent report from the DOJ, which investigated the Police Department of Ferguson, Missouri, and their practices from 2012–2014. While the city is composed of 67% black people, blacks make up “85% of vehicle stops, 90% of citations, and 93% of arrests” (Outlaw, 2020, p. 45). At one point, Ferguson’s population was approximately twenty-one thousand people; sixteen thousand people had outstanding warrants, most for failure to pay a fine or missing a court appearance (Sack, 2017).
Furthermore, Justice Sotomayor adds to Outlaw’s views when pointing out, in her opinion to a case seen by the Supreme Court, that warrant checks are a policy practiced by police departments in St. Louis, Missouri, and Newark, New Jersey. She indicates that this practice will negatively impact millions of people because, as of 2016, there were nearly 8 million outstanding arrest warrants in the United States for things like missed court appearances, curfew violation for a probationer, and failure to pay a traffic fine. Additionally, she fears police will factor in your ethnicity, what you wear, how you behave, or where you live when stopping someone and doing a warrant check (Outlaw, 2020). The data from Outlaw’s research supports Justice Sotomayor’s opinion that dragnet policing disproportionately impacts poor communities and communities of color.
Long Term Criminal Consequences
One study finds that institutionalized racial policing styles permeate the court system concerning charges brought against and sentences handed to people of color. A study published in the Journal of Political Economy found that whites receive sentences that are almost 10% shorter than blacks arrested for the same crime (Rehavi and Starr, 2014, p. 1349). While investigating data sets of cases referred to federal prosecutors from 2006 to 2008, the study determined that most of the disparities in sentences between whites and blacks are due to how prosecutors originally handle the case and if they bring charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences. In the end, the study discovers that 12.4% of black arrestees get a charge carrying a mandatory minimum compared to 7.5% of white arrestees. This disparity percolates into convictions as 7.5% of black arrestees are convicted of such charges compared to 4.5% of white arrestees (Rehavi and Starr, 2014, p. 1336). The study asserts:
There remains the possibility that the observed disparities are driven by discrimination… the mechanism for preference-based discrimination might well be implicit biases such as racial disparities in empathy that drive selective leniency rather than animus. Statistical discrimination might for instance, be based on expectations concerning criminal recidivism (Rehavi and Starr, 2014, p. 1348).
To summarize, the data suggests there is evidence of whites getting shorter criminal sentences than their black counterparts when arrested for the same crime. Prosecutors hand out charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences more often to black arrestees than to white arrestees. Whites are convicted less often of the exact charges than their black counterparts. This disparity is due, in part, to implicit bias demonstrated by prosecutors who show more leniency to white arrestees or fear higher rates of recidivism of black arrestees.
To be sure, the police carry out many essential duties that keep all of us safe. They put their lives in danger every day, and many of them get hurt and even die on the job. There are some dangerous people with warrants out for their arrest who should not be free. There are convicts on parole who break their conditional stipulations and have warrants to take them back to prison. When police officers stop them and pull up their information, they can pull up not just wanted criminals in their state but also from national databases. Criminal prosecutors use the evidence at their disposal to charge delinquents and hold them accountable for their misdeeds. Nevertheless, when the evidence shows law enforcement implement institutionalized discriminatory practices — they are no longer fulfilling their purpose to serve and protect. When implicit bias impacts prosecutorial decisions that keep millions of people from participating in the economy — they are no longer acting as good public servants.
The consequences of dragnet policing, higher rates of mandatory minimum charges, and higher convictions among African Americans are best evidenced by the significant disparity seen amongst the U.S. prison population. In 2017, while Hispanics made up 16% of the U.S. adult population, Hispanics made 23% of the U.S. prison population. African Americans made up 12% of the U.S. adult population but made up 33% of the U.S. prison population. Whereas Caucasians made up 64% of the U.S. adult population, only made up 30% of the U.S. prison population. African Americans sentenced to federal and state prison come to nearly five hundred thousand as of 2017 (Gramlich, 2019). These are people removed from their families, their homes, their jobs, and the economy.
Long Term Economic Consequences
If someone is arrested, the public knows that person is plucked out of traditional society when jailed. Arrestees leave their families and jobs behind to be arraigned, appear before the court, and plead guilty or innocent to their charges. If convicted of crimes, convicts may pay a fine, could receive a sentence to go to jail or prison, or will spend months or years incarcerated. We see how dragnet policing specifically targeted people of color, which led them to suffer more arrests and convictions than their white counterparts. On top of that, economic collateral consequences exist even for those who plead guilty to lesser charges; many criminal records last for a lifetime.
When convicts end their sentences, they face roadblocks that keep them from participating in the economy. Felonies and misdemeanors will populate on the background check run by an employer — even when someone tries to volunteer at an organization (Natapoff, 2018). Most employers will not hire someone with a criminal record. Felonies and misdemeanors can prevent people from getting professional licenses in many fields across the nation, even when people seek to be self-employed. When ex-convicts cannot find jobs or work for themselves, they cannot be self-sufficient and turn to government assistance; however, some states even keep ex-convicts from some government assistance benefits (Natapoff, 2018). Therefore, these criminal records negatively impact ex-convicts for decades when entering the workforce long after paying their debt to society.
Furthermore, when landlords screen applications for renting a property, felonies, and misdemeanors will show up during the search. The law permits landlords to refuse renters based on criminal records (Natapoff, 2018). When ex-convicts are unable to rent a room or home, they are more likely to be homeless. As a general rule, job applicants will put their address on their resume, but this is not an option for homeless ex-convicts. Moreover, homelessness begets more “crime” as it is illegal in many places to sleep overnight in parks. This crime is evident in Seattle, Washington, and it is also illegal to park your car and sleep in it in Berkley, California (Natapoff, 2018). These “crimes” carry fines and even jail time, thus starting the same cycle all over again.
In culmination, if we want people of color, particularly African Americans, to be self-sufficient, participate in our economy, and provide for themselves and their families, we must do away with racially targeted dragnet policing practices used by law enforcement throughout the nation. How can we expect millions of African Americans to stay off welfare, to “pull themselves by their bootstraps”, to get off the streets, or to get an education and find housing if our criminal justice system targets, arrests, incarcerates, and gives them longer sentences than the rest of the population? To add insult to injury, criminal records weigh down ex-convicts as those records keep them from getting hired at most jobs or renting a room or an apartment. If law enforcement stopped treating minorities differently than Caucasians, unemployment among minorities would decrease. We would see a reduction among minorities for welfare benefits like financial assistance, food stamps, and Medicaid. There would be fewer minorities needing section eight housing — all because millions of people would not be removed from participating in our nation’s economy.
The policy and practice of dragnet policing by law enforcement, as demonstrated in the example of Edward Streiff, should be altered or ceased altogether. Many police departments get away with carrying out illegal stops by checking for outstanding warrants in the hope of finding something incriminating. It is even more important for this practice to stop since the evidence shows poor communities and communities of color disproportionately suffer the consequences. Because of the disparity in arrests, the effects of dragnet policing are exacerbated amongst blacks due to higher conviction rates and longer sentences than whites facing the exact charges. These criminal records keep many, especially millions of African Americans, from actively participating in the U.S. economy for decades as they are unable to secure jobs and find housing.
References
Gramlich, J. (2019, April 30). The gap between the number of blacks and whites in prison is shrinking. Pew Research Center.
Natapoff, A. (2018). Punishment without crime: How our massive misdemeanor system traps the innocent and makes american more unequal. Basic Books.
Outlaw, L. (2020). Unsecured (black) bodies: How baltimore foreshadows the dangers of racially targeted dragnet policing let loose by utah v. strieff. New Mexico Law Review, 50(1), 25–58.
Padula, G., (2017). Utah v. Strieff: Lemonade stands and dragnet policing. West Virginia University 120(2), 469–536.
Rehavi, M. M., & Starr, S. S. (2014). Racial Disparity in federal criminal sentences. Journal of Political Economy, 122(6), 1320–1354.
Sack, E. J. (2017). Illegal stops and the exclusionary rule: The rule of consequences of Utah v. Streiff. Roger Williams University Law Review, 22(1), 263–286.
Salt Lake City Police Department. (2020, October 6). Police policy manual. Salt Lake City Police Department: Salt Lake City, Utah.
