Racial Bias in Policing: An In-Depth Analysis of Stopping Practices by the Long Beach Police Department

Acknowledgements 

We would like to express our deepest appreciation to the Long Beach People’s Budget Coalition for their tremendous help and guidance in this research project. Over the years, the Coalition has been at the forefront of efforts to reimagine and redefine public safety, by trying to eradicate racial profiling and eliminate threats to human life posed by law enforcement. 

Our research project was done with the explicit aim of providing the Coalition with a comprehensive insight into local policing practices. This effort marks the first step in a long journey to meaningfully engage the community in finding alternatives to traditional policing approaches. By shifting the focus towards investing in upstream services and fostering thriving communities, we collectively aspire to create a safer and more equitable future for all residents of Long Beach. 

The Context

We all want to live in safe communities, and we spend tremendous public dollars on law enforcement to achieve this objective. This approach operates on the assumption that investing in law enforcement efficiently ensures safety. However, data on police activity suggests otherwise. During their community patrols, police often spend the majority of their time stopping people for minor vehicle equipment and administrative issues, such as a broken taillight, an object hanging from a rearview mirror, or outdated registration. Research shows that dedicating public resources to such non-safety-related traffic stops undermines community safety and inflicts devastating harms on people of color, including trauma, dehumanization, and economic extraction. Furthermore, it reduces our capacity to make meaningful investments in addressing the root causes of traffic safety risks, such as enhancing roadways and vehicle safety. 

The Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) has a historic record of excessive policing and racial profiling. This concerning trend continues today. Based on data collected under the Racial & Identity Profiling Act (RIPA), it is evident that LBPD dedicates a majority of its patrolling resources for traffic-related infractions rather than responding to community concerns about more serious safety issues. These practices fail to meaningfully improve safety, while also inflicting significant harms on Black, Latinx, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and South Asian, Southwest Asian, or North African people.[1] Now is the time for Long Beach to invest in alternatives to law enforcement to make communities safer for all. 

For the best viewing experience, please view the charts on this page on a desktop browser or by turning your phone sideways.

The Data  

We utilize RIPA data to analyze LBPD patrol activities, specifically how their stops impact different communities by race and geography. RIPA mandates law enforcement agencies, like LBPD, to collect and report data on all pedestrian and vehicle stops. This data includes details such as the reason for the stop, the race of the person stopped as perceived by the officer, actions taken during the stop, and other pertinent information. We use 2019 stop data because it was the most recent available data at the time of our analysis that was unaffected by the significant changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as “stay-at-home" orders and other policies that impacted daily life activities. We analyzed the data to identify racial and geographic disparities in the time officers spend on stops and the actions they chose to take. In sum, the data reveals that LBPD engages in racial profiling of people of color in Long Beach. This practice places an undue burden on communities of color, subjecting them to increased interactions with police rather than contributing to community safety.

1. LBPD spends most of their patrol time on officer-initiated traffic stops that are racially biased and not a threat to safety.

A prevalent narrative suggests that allocating a substantial portion of public funds to the police is essential for preventing serious crimes. The theory assumes that officers are primarily engaged in combating crime and responding to requests for assistance during critical situations. However, the data paints a different picture. Specifically, the data reveals that LBPD patrol time is mostly dedicated to racially biased officer-initiated stops for traffic violations rather than more serious issues, such as violence.

Within the RIPA data, officers must report if they made a stop in response to a call for service (e.g., 911 call) or initiated a stop themselves. We refer to these stops as “calls for service” and “officer-initiated stops,” respectively. Additionally, officers must document the primary reason for the stop, including if the stop was made for a traffic violation, reasonable suspicion of a crime, or another motive. A third important category is the result of a stop, such as whether a person was cited, arrested, or if no action was taken at all. 

In this analysis, we examine the data based on the reasons behind the stops, their frequency, the time officers spent on them, and how they vary based on the perceived race of the individuals involved. Our findings reveal that LBPD patrol spends more time, and consequently significant public resources, on officer-initiated stops and not responses to calls from the community. These stops frequently pertain to traffic violations that do not require an armed officer response and disproportionately impact people of color. 

A. LBPD spends most of their patrol time on officer-initiated stops rather than responding to concerns from the community.

Nearly 76% of LBPD patrol time (or 3 out of every 4 hours) is dedicated toofficer-initiated stops. In contrast, only 24% (or 1 in 4 hours) is spent on responding to calls for service from the community.Our analysis centers on officer-initiated stops primarily due to the significant amount of time officers spend on these stops and to evaluate the results of stops officers initiated themselves.[2]

B. Officer-initiated stops are largely dedicated to traffic violations for offenses that rarely require an arrest.

When examining officer-initiated stops, we analyze the time officers spent on stops based on their reason and then by result. Our findings reveal a majority of stops are related to traffic violations, with 2 out of 3 stops (or 61.7% of stops) falling into this category that are resolved with a citation, warning, or no action. If we distribute these traffic stops across 100 hours and consider how officers spend their time based on the result of the stop, we observe that more than half of these hours (54.5) are spent on stops resolved with a citation, 16.9 hours on stops that end in a warning, and 11.3 hours where no action was taken. Only 4.6 out of 100 hours are spent on stops that result in an arrest.  

Notably, the top five offenses for which people receive citations are infractions related to moving violations. Research in transportation and criminal justice suggest that, instead of relying on law enforcement to stop people and issue fines and fees through tickets, implementing street design improvements such as narrowing travel lanes are more effective means at reducing speed and preventing serious injuries than direct police contact.[3] This research underscores how investments in street design improvements are more effective in improving roadways.  

C. Stops are racially biased and disproportionately impact people of color. 

Officer-initiated stops are more likely to impact people of color in Long Beach. As a part of RIPA data collection, officers are mandated to report the race of the individuals they stopped, based on the officer’s perception. The data show that LBPD officers disproportionately stop people they perceive as Black, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (NHPI), and South Asian, Southwest Asian, or North African (SSWANA).[4] For example, LBPD officers stopped 169 Black people for every 1,000Black people in Long Beach. By comparison, only 61 out of every 1,000 White people were subjected to such stops. 

We narrow our focus on traffic stops that resulted in no action to evaluate whether there is a link between racial disparities in stops and pretextual stops. A pretextual stop occurs when an officer has a “hunch” that a person may be connected to an illegal activity, but that “hunch” is insufficient to stop the person. In order to justify the stop, the officer then identifies a minor traffic violation or other infraction (referred to as a “pretext”) and proceeds to investigate the person for more serious criminal activity. Pretextual stops are a central pathway for racial profiling because those “hunches” often stem from racial biases.   

A stop that results in no action such as, no citation, warning, or arrest is an indicator of pretext. The reasoning behind this is that if there was a serious safety risk, presumably, a citation, arrest, or other enforcement action would occur. We find that people LBPD perceived as two or more races, or as Black, were stopped at the highest rates for stops resulting in no action.[5] In 2019, 1 in 5 (20.6%) traffic stops of people perceived as Black by LBPD resulted in no action. These figures are important because every additional police encounter has implications for community health and wellbeing.   

Studies show that police encounters and harassment increase anxiety and trauma among people of color, particularly Black people.[6] In a study conducted in New York City, it was observed that young men who reported more police contact and intrusive encounters exhibited higher levels of trauma and anxiety symptoms as a result of their experiences.[7] In Baltimore City following the high-profile murder of Freddie Gray, researchers found that Black residents connected the stress and fear of police harassment with community fragmentation and poor community health.[8] Another study in New York found a significant association between more invasive pedestrian stops and the prevalence of chronic health conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, and obesity.[9]  

2. LBPD unjustly targets low-income communities of color with unnecessary stops.

We also analyze variations in the location of LBPD officer-initiated stops to understand how stops differ across communities. We map the approximate locations of officer-initiated stops by council district, race, and result.  

First, we show how stops are distributed across council districts in relationship to race.  Then, we look at how the results of officer-initiated stops vary by district. The data reveal that council districts with higher concentrations of people of color experienced the highest stop rates. Specifically, council districts in the West side of Long Beach, encompassing districts 1, 6, and 7, registered the highest number of stops and stop rates. These council districts also have higher concentrations of people of color and lower median incomes compared to the east side of Long Beach.[10]  

It is important to note that higher stop rates in a district do not translate to a greater likelihood of stops resulting in an enforcement action such as a citation or an arrest. In districts with a higher concentration of people of color and more stops, LBPD is more likely to spend time on stops which result in no action. For instance, the East side of Long Beach comprising districts 3, 4, and 5, had a lower overall number stops, but the police spent a lower percentage of hours on stops with no action compared to other districts. Districts 3, 4, and 5 coincide with areas in the city with a higher concentration of White people and a higher median income.  

A. People of color are stopped at higher rates across council districts.

Across council districts, LBPD stops people of color at the highest rates.  When plotting stops by race and council districts, we find a greater density of stops of Black and Latinx people across the city.  

People perceived as Black by LBPD have the highest stop rates in five out of nine council districts despite making up only a small portion of the population. For example, in Council District 3, located on the East side of Long Beach, Black people make up only 5.6% of the population while White people account for 59% of the population. However, LBPD stops people they perceive as Black at a rate 3.6 times higher than White people. In Council District 9, where Black people make up 14.5% of the population, LBPD stops 103.8 people perceived as Black for every 1,000 Black people in the district.  

People perceived as SSWANA and NHPI by LBPD also experience the highest rate of stops in two council districts. LBPD stops people they perceive as NHPI at higher rates than others in districts 6 and 8. In districts 7 and 9, they stop people perceived as SSWANA at the highest rates. In each of these districts, SSWANA and NHPI people constitute a small percentage of the population but are more likely to be stopped than other community members. In Council District 9, where SSWANA people make up only 0.7% of the population, they have the highest stop rate at 106.1 per 1,000 people who identify as SSWANA. In Council District 8, LBPD stops people perceived as NHPI at a rate of 159.7 per 1,000 people who identify as NHPI, despite representing only 1% of the population in the district. 

The east side region of Long Beach, consisting of council districts 3, 4, and 5, have a larger White population compared to other parts of the city and have higher rates of stops for people of color. People LBPD perceived as Black have the highest stop rate in all of these districts. Additionally, people perceived as Latinx by LBPD have the second highest stop rate in Council Districts 3 and 4 and the third-highest stop rate in District 5. Lastly, people perceived as NHPI by LBPD have the third-highest stop rate in Council Districts 3 and 4 and the second-highest stop rate in Council District 5. In summary, people of color, specifically people perceived as Black, NHPI, SSWANA, and Latinx, still face the highest stop rates in majority White-districts in Long Beach.    

B. More hours are spent on unnecessary stops in communities of color.

Higher stop rates in communities do not necessarily translate to a higher likelihood of detecting serious crimes. We calculate the percentage of hours LBPD spends on officer-initiated stops that resulted in no action such as no citation, warning, or arrest in each council district. These officer-initiated stops waste public resources that could be invested in more effective and equitable approaches to community safety.  

Council districts 1, 9, 6, and 8 have higher rates of stops that result in no action. Council districts 8 and 9 have a large concentration of residents who identify as Latinx and Black. These districts are located in the North side of Long Beach and have a lower median income compared to the East side of the city based on data from the Neighborhood Data for Social Change (NDSC).[11] The east side region of Long Beach, consisting of council districts 3, 4, and 5, has a larger White population compared to other parts of the city and has lower rates of stops that result in no action. In these council districts, officers are spending less than 10 percent of their hours, or less than 1 in 10 hours, on officer-initiated stops on stops that result in no action, in contrast to more than 18 percent of their hours, or almost 1 in 5 hours, on stops that result in no action in District 9.  

3. Traffic stops are an inefficient means of advancing safety and pose a greater burden on people of color.

A common narrative is that traffic stops and police presence are necessary for safety in our communities and roadways. In reality, built environment and street design improvements can be a more effective means for improving traffic safety that do not expose communities of color to unnecessary contact with law enforcement.  

Traffic stops and police presence increase trauma for communities of color already disproportionately impacted by traffic injuries. Police presence alone can heighten feelings of anxiety among people of color, specifically Black people, and increased interactions with police are associated with intensified symptoms of anxiety and trauma.[12] Analysis of police stop data routinely shows that traffic stops of people of color are less likely to lead to evidence of a crime and that people of color are overrepresented in stops that lead to no enforcement action.[13] And in addition to being disproportionately burdened by unnecessary police stops and traffic injuries, communities of color often must contend with worse street design and conditions that undermine safety for pedestrians.[14] 

Data show that these trends prove true in Long Beach. In this analysis, we map stop rates for traffic violations by council district and high-injury networks for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes. We also analyze the hit rate, or percentage of searches among traffic stops that yield evidence or contraband, by race. The resulting data demonstrates that traffic stops are concentrated in low-income communities of color most impacted by high-injury networks. Data also show that people of color are also most impacted by unnecessary searches made by LBPD. 

A. Low-income communities of color are dually impacted by traffic stops and traffic injuries. 

Low-income communities and people of color are overrepresented amongst victims of traffic collisions based on research in Los Angeles and nationally.[15] In Long Beach, we compare 2019 traffic stops to high-injury corridors and intersections identified by the Safe Streets Long Beach initiative in 2013-17 to examine how communities of color are being impacted both by the burden of law enforcement stops and traffic injuries.[16]  

Council districts 1 and 6 have the highest number of high-injury corridors and the highest rate of officer-initiated traffic stops. These districts also have high shares of people of color and coincide with areas in Long Beach that have lower median incomes.[17] In contrast, council districts 3, 4, and 5, the districts with the lowest percentages of people of color, have fewer high-injury pedestrian or bike corridors. In other words, low-income communities of color in Long Beach are disproportionately impacted by traffic injuries and police stops. Research has shown that more police stops do not reduce traffic injuries or fatalities. Based on data across 33 states, the National Institute of Health found no significant association between police stops and vehicle collision death rates.[18] In order to effectively address the harms caused by high-injury corridors, public investments should be primarily focused on traffic safety and not on traffic stops 

Prior research and recommendations from transportation practitioners underscore how traffic safety can be increased without the additional trauma of police interactions. In Seattle, reducing speeds and increasing sign density lowered speeds and led to fewer crashes in the city.[19] However, communities of color and low-income communities are less likely to have features of street design known to help with pedestrian safety.[20] Highway siting decisions, traffic engineering practices, and other street design decisions can also result in substandard, dangerous streets for communities of color.[21] Rather than using traffic stops to enforce traffic safety, enhancing urban design (such as through street/sidewalk lighting, marked crosswalks, pedestrian-friendly medians, traffic islands, curb extensions and traffic circles) should be considered as a solution-driven alternative.[22]  

B. Traffic stops lead to unnecessary, intrusive encounters with LBPD. 

Instead of creating safer communities, officers use routine traffic stops to profile and harass people of color. Data on traffic and pretextual stops consistently show that stops are ineffective in finding evidence of a crime and disproportionately impact people of color.[23] Traffic stops also have little efficacy in preventing or reducing crime. In one case study, when police conducted fewer stops in response to law enforcement scrutiny, there was no observable increase in total, violent, or property crimes.[24] 

In Long Beach, LBPD officers use routine traffic stops to search for people, but this practice overwhelmingly yields ineffective results. We find most searches, nearly 4 in 5 across all community members, lead to no contraband or evidence found for a crime. In addition to these searches being ineffective generally, they are more ineffective when applied to people of color. In over 85% of searches done during traffic stops of SSWANA, Black, Multi-racial, Asian, and AIAN individuals, LBPD officers found no contraband or evidence. 

The Solution

RIPA data show that LBPD’s patrol unit spends a significant amount of time and public resources racially profiling Black and Brown people through officer-initiated stops. This results in numerous racially biased harms, including dehumanization, degradation of public health, administering a disproportionate rate of fines and fees, physical harm, and a devaluation of life.[25] To address these problems, Long Beach should adopt four reforms: reinvest law enforcement dollars to Long Beach’s People’s Budget Coalition, invest in traffic calming strategies, limit law enforcement’s role in minor traffic violations, and decriminalize minor traffic offenses that do not pose a significant safety risk.   

1. Justice Reinvestment:  

On average, law enforcement spending typically consumes nearly half of Long Beach City's General Fund, which is the city's most flexible source of funding in any given year. This means that the remaining half of General Fund revenues must be divided among a dozen other crucial city services. These services include workforce development, emergency services, road and sidewalk improvements, housing, libraries, healthcare, and parks and recreational services – all of which many families rely on for their well-being. 

Simply stated, the way the city currently allocates its funds leaves insufficient resources for essential programs that could significantly enhance the quality of life and improve public safety for many Long Beach residents. It's time to seriously reconsider and acknowledge that departments other than law enforcement also play a pivotal role in ensuring public safety. They deserve a fair opportunity to expand their services and contribute to the betterment of the community. 

A. Invest in the Long Beach People’s Budget Coalition Priorities:

Formed in 2018, the Coalition is a multiracial, multilingual, and multigenerational alliance that stands in solidarity with the Black, Immigrant, and Indigenous communities and is committed to actively deepening that solidarity for the liberation of all peoples. The Coalition was formed to bring equity and justice to the Long Beach City budget by calling for investments in the creation for a rental housing division, community land trust, services for the unhoused, language justice, and funding for universal legal representation for immigrant rights, banning facial recognition technology (FRT) and automatic license plate readers (ALPR).

B. Invest On-Going Resources in Street Infrastructure to Improve Traffic Safety:

Year after year, Long Beach Police tend to request for more money to combat “crime”, however, Long Beach RIPA data clearly demonstrates that relying on police officers is not improving traffic safety. Research demonstrates how jurisdictions can reduce vehicle collisions by investing in transportation infrastructure and by implementing best practices in street design and engineering. For example, traffic calming strategies could include lane narrowing, speed bumps, traffic roundabouts, and radar speed signs. In addition, expanding public transit systems are also a safer alternative to driving and can be considered a traffic calming solution.  Overall, investing in traffic calming strategies in the built environment would reduce the need for law enforcement to police roadways and thereby reduce racial profiling and the potential harm caused by police stop encounters. 

2. Limit Law Enforcement’s Role in Minor Traffic Violations:  

Unfortunately, we’ve witnessed far too many incidents in which Black people have lost their lives due to racially biased traffic stops. For example, Philando Castile, Samuel DuBose, and Duante Wright tragically lost their lives during traffic stops for minor traffic infractions. That underscores the urgency of reevaluating the role of law enforcement in traffic enforcement and monitoring efforts.  

A. Shift Towards an Unarmed Non-law Enforcement Traffic Safety Model: 

It is essential that we explore non-law enforcement approaches to traffic safety, such as assigning unarmed public employees the responsibility of monitoring and addressing minor traffic violations. This shift can begin restoring the trust between Black and Brown community members and their local government. When unarmed personnel handle low-level traffic safety matters, the likelihood of racially biased interactions with police is reduced, and it opens up the opportunity for Black and Brown Long Beach community members to collaborate with the City when implementing roadway protective measures and care-centered alternatives toward public safety. 

3. Decriminalization: 

Lastly, we strongly advocate for the decriminalization of minor traffic offenses that do not pose any significant public safety risk. Minor infractions like broken taillights, expired registration, or objects hanging from rearview mirrors are frequently used as pretext to stop individuals, providing a basis for law enforcement to search for other offenses as a means of “proactive policing.” Additionally, there needs to be clear parameters set when defining crimes as “severe” and “dangerous” to combat police officers’ common narrative of utilizing their own discretion when they subject someone to physical harm. Ironically, Long Beach's RIPA data makes it clear that Black and Brown residents are disproportionately subjected to these stops, which end in a physically unnecessary search that yields no criminal evidence or contraband being found. 

In this regard, it's worth noting that other jurisdictions, such as Los Angeles City, have already implemented policies to restrict the use of minor offenses as grounds for pretextual stops. Long Beach City should take a leadership role in following suit, thereby curbing the harm and dehumanization inflicted upon innocent motorists by these unnecessary stops. By doing so, we can promote fairness and equity within our community.

"This report comes at a pivotal moment when our communities have been calling for a budget that addresses the root challenges of gravely under-resourcing and pervasively criminalizing our communities which inflict violence, generational harm, and trauma. Our elected officials can no longer sign blank checks to law enforcement agencies. We must invest in our Black, Brown, and Immigrant communities by funding life affirming resources like the ones that are outlined in this report and the People’s Budget!" - Joanna Diaz, Civic Engagement Program Manager with Long Beach Forward.

The Takeaway

The majority of the Long Beach Police Department’s time is spent on racially profiling its community, namely Black and Brown people. For example, Black people are stopped at almost 3 times the rate of White people but, in stops for traffic reasons, are nearly 1.5 times more likely to not have that interaction result in an action taken by Long Beach Police. This data points towards a history of racial profiling without a clear connection to improving public safety.    

For the City of Long Beach to approach issues of public safety in a solution-oriented manner, it calls for reallocating dollars from police to more sustainable measures of public safety, such as, investing in health-promoting services to the community and in traffic calming strategies to name a few. Additionally, limiting the role law enforcement in enforcing minor traffic violations, and decriminalizing low-level traffic infractions would help reduce armed pretextual stops for situations that do not pose any safety risk to the public. If the City of Long Beach wants to improve the overall quality of life for its residents, there needs to be investments in alternative solutions to policing that prioritizes community health and wellness.      

Methodology 

Please visit our methodology page for more information about the data and analyses behind this report in addition to a discussion about important limitations to consider when interpreting the trends shown. 

To view or download the methodology, click here>>