Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement - Research Paper Example

?Running head: IMMIGRATION LAWS Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of and Local Law Enforcement (school) Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement Introduction The September 11, 2001 bombings prompted various changes in the United States. For one, the immigration laws and enforcement in the United States have been tightened and strictly implemented. The fears of another attack and the proliferation of terrorist activities in the US have spurred local and national officials to tighten the borders and to establish new ways of screening entrants into the country. The fact that illegal immigrants have also been labeled as huge burdens on government resources has been considered a factor in the implementation of immigration laws. The federal and local law enforcement officials have also been limited in terms of resources and these limitations have curtailed the efficient implementation of the laws. The implementation of these laws has been difficult for the most part because of various factors and elements which impact on immigration. This paper shall discuss these factors and the issues which affect the implementation of immigration laws. It will also consider the role of the state and local enforcement authorities in the enforcement of these immigration laws. This report, through extended research, will evaluate the responsibilities of state and local law enforcement officers in the evaluation, arrest, and apprehension of all immigration violators. It will also assess whether local law enforcement is adequately prepared with the needed resources and legal authority to do so. Specific focus shall be given to the states which have recently passed or are considering the passage of strict laws and policies focused on minimizing the illegal immigration problems currently being faced in this country. Discussion The enforcement of immigration laws in the United States has often been considered a challenge. From the very beginning, much controversy was seen on the significant number of lawbreakers and their very low wages alongside the perceived benefits that foreign labor has been able to bring to the economy. However, the September 11, 2001 attacks shifted the attention towards the tightening of the borders, regardless of any economic considerations. The adequacy of the interior immigration enforcement, including the limited federal resources has been highlighted in the implementation of immigration laws its related provisions (Seghetti, Vina, and Ester, 2004). Before the 9/11 attack, the INS had about 2000 immigration officers who were tasked with the implementation of immigration laws in the US. Even as this number has hardly changed since the attacks, the combination of various government agencies to formulate the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), under the Department of Homeland Security has led to the doubling of the number of agents enforcing immigration laws (Seghetti, et.al., 2004). Nevertheless, even with the increase of enforcement agents, the numbers of officers seem to be insufficient. Moreover, the merging of the agencies has also led to the increase in functions of these agencies which now include the monitoring of drug trafficking, of money laundering, and similar criminal activities. The implementation of immigration laws within the US also includes the assessment of aliens violating the INA and its related provisions. Before the 9/11 attacks, the immigration laws were focused on: assessing aliens who were carrying out crimes; evaluating fraud among illegal aliens; evaluating suspected smuggling and trafficking of aliens; and evaluating suspected work violations (Seghetti, et.al., 2004). Since the attacks of 9/11, most of the resources of the immigration officials have been focused on controlling and monitoring terrorist activities as well as actions which impact on the national interest. At present there are federal laws which assist law enforcers in assisting federal officers in the implementation of immigration laws regardless of the circumstance. These policies were entrenched under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Seghetti, et.al., 2004). There are various issues and factors which affect the implementation of the immigration laws. These issues will be discussed below: Racial profiling and discrimination The strict provisions and the implementation of the immigration laws have a danger of being implemented in a discriminatory manner. The enforcement of immigration laws places racial migrants and minorities in danger of being stopped by law enforcement officers for suspicion of being illegal migrants (Engel, Calnon, and Bernard, 2002). There is no other way for local law enforcement officers to implement the strict immigration laws, like that which was passed in Arizona except to stop individuals who do not look like white Americans. In the process, the stereotypes for illegal migrants looking like Latinos or Asians are taken against all individuals who look like Latinos or Asians (Engel, et.al., 2002). There may be no adequate consideration given to the fair implementation of the laws; instead the focus may just be on summarily implementing its provisions with hardly any considerations given to its fair application. The General Accounting Office (2000) defines racial profiling as an instance when police officers use race as the main factor in deciding the initiation of a traffic stop. In a similar vein, it also refers to police-initiated actions which focuses on race, ethnicity, and national origin, not on the behavior or actions of an individual and not on information which leads police to a particular person identified as having or being involved in criminal activity (Novak, 2004). Racial profiling, in effect, is seen when race is used as the only basis impacting on police officers and their decision to arrest or pull people over. There are two main elements involved in this definition, the first is that the arrest must be initiated by the police and the second is that police officers must utilize race and not behavior to make their decisions on arresting or stopping individuals on the street (Novak, 2004). Research indicates that racial and ethnic minorities are overly represented in the criminal justice system (Walker, 2001). However, providing an explanation for such overrepresentation is difficult. Racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is not a novelty; this topic has been in existence for many years and has involved various interest groups. Racial profiling was first seen in a 1993 civil case which involved Robert Wilkins who was a Black attorney who narrated how he was stopped by the Maryland State Police because of the fact that he was black (Harris, 1996). Such accusations then resulted to a consent decree which led to John Lamberth’s research. His research of traffic and enforcement patterns on Maryland highways led to the discovery that although Blacks usually represented about 17% of all traffic violators, they actually made up 35% of individuals which the police did stop, and 72.9% of those who were searched by police officers were actually African-Americans (Novak, 2004). Another survey was also carried out in New Jersey and similar results were seen. Due to the early inquiries, police officers started voluntarily reviewing their enforcement procedures to determine if racial profiling was being carried out in their jurisdiction and the same results were revealed. Blacks, as compared to whites, had 2.76 times more likelihood to be ticketed. Similar results were also found on Hispanic drivers as research with the San Diego police department revealed that although the Hispanic population made up only about 20% of the residential population, they made up 28% of all vehicle stops (Novak, 2004). Another research was carried out in New York City and the study revealed that Blacks were 1.23 times more likely to be stopped than Whites and Hispanics even had a higher rate of being stopped as compared to Blacks and Whites (Novak, 2004). In an assessment of Richmond Virginia area, minorities were 1.16 times more likely to be pulled over as compared to whites, and yet, the likelihood for these searches and stops leading to arrests or ticketing violations was lower as compared to whites (Novak, 2004). This helps support the truth that many of these stops and searches were largely unfounded. The September 11 attacks resurrected government reliance on the statistical possibilities related to racial profiling and after the attacks, individuals of apparent Arab ancestry were often questioned for their apparent links to terrorism; and they were often removed from airplanes and subjected to a significant amount of scrutiny (Akram and Johnson, 2002). To various individuals, such scrutiny was acceptable because racial profiling was seen as a means for battling terrorism. The federal government also persisted in profiling Arabs and Muslims in their criminal investigation and these actions gave a certain legitimacy to racial profiling (Akram and Johnson, 2002). It has also challenged the government efforts to prompt state and local law enforcers to end the practice of racial profiling. Incidents of racial profiling have been seen even among high-profile individuals when a Congressman of Lebanese descent was prevented from boarding a flight to the Middle East (Akram and Johnson, 2002). A similar incident was also seen when one of President Bush’s secret service agents who was of Arab descent was also refused access to a commercial flight. Investigations by the police and federal officials had a tinge of racial profiling after the September 11 attacks (Akram and Johnson, 2002). Many law enforcement agencies prompted by their refusal to support any semblance of racial profiling refused to cooperate with the Attorney General’s request to interview Arabs and Muslims. Nevertheless, the war against terrorism prompted the federal government to reassess its jurisdiction over immigration enforcement and assess the extension of its power to the state and local enforcement agencies to implement the immigration laws (Akram and Johnson, 2004). This act has given power to the local authorities to implement immigration laws. However, in the light of incidents where civil rights have been violated during the implementation of these immigration laws, there is a need to reassess the impact of these actions (Akram and Johnson, 2004). In one of these incidents, local police officers were videotaped beating up undocumented Mexican immigrants wanting to flee the Border Patrol. In Arizona, in order to eliminate undocumented immigrants, local officers in Phoenix violated the constitutional rights of US citizens and lawful immigrants of Mexican descent by pulling over people because of their skin color or their affinity and use of the Spanish language (Akram and Johnson, 2004). If the stringent immigration rules were to be implemented by the government, racial profiling would become rampant and would subject many individuals to suspicion according to group-based qualities, not so much on individual actions and capability (Miller, 2005). Racial profiling would also trigger the reliance on statistical probabilities which actually support racial profiling. The profiling of Middle Eastern men which was done since September 11 is being carried out as a managerial and actuarial process which is involved in prevention, not risk management of terrorism (Miller, 2005). Before September 11, the racial profiling of African American men was condemned by the federal authorities. However, after the attacks, racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims took center stage; it was also popularly supported by the general population. The White House even released guidelines which prevented federal officers from using race as a standard in carrying out routine investigations, however, these guidelines also expressly exempted investigations in relation to terrorism and threats to national security (Miller, 2005). In the same vein, noncitizens were also subjected to broad reporting requisites which then increased their visibility to the homeland security authorities and criminal enforcement officers. Racial profiling was seen when male visa holders from countries labeled as Al-Qaida supporters were pulled out for inquiries. The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System or Special registration at all ports of entry was also implemented. This was narrowed down to male visa holders 16 years and above who were from Arab and Muslim nations; and the special registration required them to report to local district immigration offices to be photographed, interviewed, and fingerprinted under threat of deportation (Miller, 2005). These individuals were also asked to present documentation, as well as records of employment and records of their lawful admission to the US. What this system was able to effectively achieve was the pushing out of thousands of immigrants for technical reasons, while discovering few terrorists (Miller, 2005). The male visa holders who were chosen for the voluntary interviews were chosen based on ethnicity, nationality and race. After the attacks, the noncitizen Arabs living in the US who had no ties to terrorism were also required to report to law enforcers to be interviewed in relation to terrorist activities (Miller, 2005). This voluntary interview made these aliens look suspicious, but it also effectively showed how law enforcers zeroed in on immigrants based on prejudiced contentions, not so much on their actual and accurate knowledge about these people. This process has been criticized for its bigotry and for spreading fear among the noncitizen immigrants; and yet not much progress on the war against terror was achieved by this process (Miller, 2005). All in all, these government initiatives demonstrate the US government’s strategy in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. It was a major effort to cast a wide net on Arabs, in the hope of catching the terrorists among them (Miller, 2005). The implementation of immigration laws carry with them inherent dangers which have to be fully evaluated. Allowing the strict implementation of these laws has opened the floodgates of racial profiling, as well as the biased detention and investigation of individuals simply due to the color of their skin and their religious affinity. In these instances, the immigration laws seek to detain a huge number of noncitizens until the threat they pose can be assessed (Miller, 2005). Moreover, the limited options of relief from detention and deportation often encourage noncitizens suspected of terrorism to cooperate with homeland security. The Homeland Security’s utilization of the S-visa shows how the government is willing to do anything to exert societal control over Arabs and Muslim noncitizens (Miller, 2005). Limited resources The enforcement of immigration policies is also affected by the limited resources available to the border patrollers and the immigration officials. The physical borders of the US span several thousand miles and serve as entry points for various illegal immigrants. Law enforcement officials cannot be sent to guard every inch of these borders, there is just not enough manpower to carry out such an operation. In effect, the borders are open to some extent and vulnerable to the burden that illegal migrants pose. The involvement of local police authorities in the immigration agenda is not sufficiently funded by the federal government. As a result, the limited resources are often taken from the other law enforcement allocations. This act however serves to undermine the resources for community police activities (National Immigration Law Center, 2000). Since the creation of the Department for Homeland Security (DHS), the funding for the major police units has been decreased. And yet, these local agencies have already been ordered to take on more responsibilities which have usually been handled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose responsibilities and resources have now been diverted to anti-terrorism activities (Ferrell, et.al., ). Moreover, with the limited resources, high cost of personnel and equipment for use by local agencies, the significant number of immigrants presently in the US would be daunting for these agencies to handle (Parra-Chico, 2008). A significant amount of investment in immigration enforcement leads to budget-revenue shortfalls in cities which are also coping with shortage in budgets for transportation, waste management, for schools, and parks. It is therefore important to note that costly immigration enforcement goals in the state and local levels often lead to the inappropriate allocation of resources (Parra-Chico, 2008). Costly litigation of immigration laws and violations thereof Another issue which may be seen with the implementation by the police of immigration laws is that of the significant cost and burden of litigation. Many immigrant plaintiffs have managed to be successful in various courtrooms in the US and as a result, many states have been left to bear the burdens of litigation expenses (National Council of La Raza, 2007). The different local agencies do not have sufficient power to implement immigration laws and they are often limited in the implementation of warrantless arrests. They are also prevented from carrying out racial profiling. Moreover, they do not have the adequate training in the enforcement of federal immigration provisions (Parra-Chico, 2008). In effect, local police officers which choose to implement federal immigration policies also face the burden and risk of being held civilly accountable. The Chandler Roundup and the cost of the subsequent litigation exemplifies how local police officers act in the implementation of the DOJ’s inherent authority which supposedly empowers the local law enforcers to implement immigration laws and yet later facing the risk of losing in court (Parra-Chico, 2008). In the Chandler case, policemen from Chandler, Arizona joined federal officers in a five-day operation which led to the deportation of about 400 Hispanic immigrants. The City ended up paying about 400,000 dollars to settle the case when the plaintiffs emphasized that they were stopped for questioning because they appeared to be of Mexican descent (Parra-Chico, 2008). The Attorney General of Arizona also pointed out that the individuals were stopped for no reason, other than their Mexican appearance and their speaking in the Spanish language. This Roundup also led to the filing of a 35 million civil rights case against US citizens against the city of Chandler (Parra-Chico, 2008). There are however remedies around this dilemma. By implementing laws which directly prevents local police officers from implementing immigration laws not expressly mandated by law and by avoiding the presence of the ICE in civil immigration violations, the state and the local governments can effectively avoid the astronomical costs of litigation which later becomes the burden of the taxpayers (Parra-Chico, 2008). Reduced focus on criminal investigations Allowing the state and local police officers to implement immigration laws through their own non-federally supported programs creates a situation where the criminal investigation may be de-emphasized and the focus of their functions now become immigration enforcement. This is a not favorable for the agencies which have to do their best to comply with all their functions as law enforcers (Seghetti, et.al., 2004). Observers point out that in some areas, the response times to 911 calls have become very slow and the police officers have not been able to investigate some crimes due to their added functions. Law enforcers in the local communities have to allocate more time on the enforcement of laws which only they can actually implement; and they need more resources in order to keep their jurisdictions and their neighborhoods safe (Parra-Chico, 2008). The kinds of criminal acts which prompt immigration consequences include criminal activities which involve moral turpitude, such as theft, fraud, and abuse; crimes which involve controlled substances and firearms; domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, and other specific offenses (Golub, 2003). These crimes will lead to the arrest and the deportation of offenders. When police officers carry out their jobs, which include the implementation of criminal acts and improvement of public safety, it would be natural for some illegal aliens to be arrested. However, arresting an individual for the violation of civil immigration violations does not necessarily mean that crime would be prevented or avoided (Parra-Chico, 2008). For individuals calling police authorities to report an incident of domestic violence, it would be counterproductive for the police to have to check on the family’s insurance or taxes before assisting them (Parra-Chico, 2008). It is possible for the population to comply with the essential requisites of the police however their ability to cooperate with the police would not be as high as before. In the same sense, as local law enforcers fail to comply with their main functions of keeping their neighborhood safe, they would likely subject the citizens to dangerous conditions. Issues on collaboration between ICE and the police Collaboration between the ICE and the police calls for close observation in the local jails. In the current practice, if policemen arrest an illegal alien and bring them to the jails, regardless of the length of their stay and even if they are found to be innocent of criminal charges, these offenders will likely be offended (Parra-Chico, 2008). In the contemporary context, various immigrants are in the ICE custody because they have violated state and local laws. Based on state laws, the jailer who would process the offender in jail is required to report to the ICE if they believe that the offender is an illegal alien (Langer, 2008). Police officers and jailers often end up highlighting offenders with foreign-sounding names or foreign-looking faces. The ICE, police officers, and jailers have the choice to establish a report to the ICE in instances which involve illegal aliens. At present, there are no federal or even state provisions which provide guidance in these aspects of reporting; also, there are no decided court cases to help establish clear decisions (Langer, 2008). In instances when the ICE would receive a report of an illegal alien in custody, almost always, it already issues an immigration detainer through an I-247 to the jailer. This detainer is meant to notify the jailer that if they would release the detainee, that they would first have to inform the ICE (Parra-Chico, 2008). This detainer allows the jailer to keep the suspect for up to 48 hours after their release in order to give the ICE a chance to act on the arrest or the case (Parra-Chico, 2008). The detainer then does not allow the immigrant to be released even with a bond. It also ensures that the alien would be escorted to immigration custody upon their release. The ICE is not allowed more than 48 hours, and it must also appear in person within said time in order to gain physical custody of the illegal migrant (Parra-Chico, 2008). Without these essential elements, the detainee must be released. In the same manner as detainees must be charged within 48 hours, this same concept is required for detainees under the violations of immigrations laws. In cases when the police or prosecutors file criminal charges, then the detainee must be released if the charges would be dropped, if the detainee is given bail, if the case is won by the detainee, and when the sentence imposed is served (Parra-Chico, 2008). However, in some areas with large immigrant populations, the ICE officials are very vigilant at the jails as they often interview immigrants. Since the ICE and the police work with each other, the ICE would inquire about the immigration status of the detainee and have him transferred to the custody of immigration (Parra-Chico, 2008). In cases when the police would flag individuals suspected as ‘illegals’, even when they are not actually illegal aliens or regardless of the fact that charges may have been dropped, the ICE would still carry out procedures which are within its responsibility (Parra-Chico, 2008). It is therefore sad to note how many immigration detainees are being deported before they are given a chance to prove their immigration status. Various complications and issues arise from this immigration detainer policy. Most often, the 48 hour period is violated. Different accounts have been revealed on the passage of significant amount of time (way beyond 48 hours) before the detainee is transferred from the local detention centers to the immigration detention centers (Hernandez, 2007). In one case, a Mexican illegal alien was detained for three months until she was transferred to a detention facility. Habeas corpus actions are very much ripe based on the violations of the terms of immigration detainer. However, majority of immigrants are not aware of their rights in this regard and the remedies in place. Traditionally, the ICE would establish holds on people for going against criminal immigrations laws, including theft or domestic violence. In the present context, the flagging of immigrants for the civil immigration violations establishes a new trend which focuses the agenda to arrest and deport anyone who is suspected of violating immigration laws (Parra-Chico, 2008). In other common cases, individuals are caught for driving without license and are taken into custody where the ICE arrests them. “Not only does arrest for minor offenses followed by a flag for ICE to impose a hold create evidence that may fall short of the requisite probable case standard for the arrest, but it calls into question police tactics if immigrants are being stopped based on their appearance (Parra-Chico, 2008). The police officers are capable of consensually communicating with a detainee without reasonable suspicion; sometimes, they may also ask about their immigrations status. If the individual reacts or becomes agitated, sometimes, the police may have sufficient evidence to decide illegal entry into the US. By law, the police are not allowed to arrest individuals for civil immigration violations, and yet, these police officers are doing so in areas where the immigration laws are not clear. The ICE, the police officers and the jailers must work with each other in order to flag, arrest, and later implement immigration detainers on illegal aliens. In instances when individuals are seen by the police for mere civil immigration violation and then taken to immigration for deportation, an anti-immigrant policy emerges – one which is dangerous for immigrants and one which endangers constitutional rights (Parra-Chico, 2008). Distrust of police When no firm policy exists in establishing reasonable suspicion in the implementation of immigration laws and when local police officers carry out immigration laws without clear authority from the federal government, a significant risk and burden falls on the community. The prevention of crime and the safety of the public suffer greatly and most residents end up distrusting the police. Illegal aliens are often cautious about reporting crimes or assisting the police in criminal investigations when the police sully the relationship with the communities they are servicing (Parra-Chico, 2008). Fear of being deported often prevents individuals and family members from reporting abuses, thereby it becomes more difficult for the police to carry out their responsibilities (Hernandez, 2007). Based on the National Immigration Forum, the importance of protecting the community has prompted police departments to reject policies which would increase roles in federal immigration law enforcement. Attorney General Wood has stated that mutual trust and respect is essential in improving the ability of local officers to gain data from citizens in order to fulfill their mission to protect and serve (Parra-Chico, 2008). To establish trust, the police must avoid implementing immigration laws. Two states and some municipalities have implemented procedures that have discouraged their involvement in the enforcement of immigration laws. These procedures have sometimes been implemented through ordinances and special orders from the police chiefs (Hernandez, 2007). Some of these procedures specify that funds cannot adequately or indirectly be utilized for the enforcement of immigration laws. These measures by the police help establish trust. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, there are major difficulties which would likely be encountered by local and state officials on the enforcement of immigration laws. First and foremost, the issue of racial profiling is a significant risk which may emerge from the enforcement of immigration laws. Secondly, limited resources also make the implementation of laws difficult. Thirdly, the litigation of cases is often too costly for the local governments to be burdened with. Fourthly, passing the implementation of immigration laws to local officials might also cause distrust of the police and cause issues of collaboration between the ICE and the police. Finally, there may also be a reduced focus on criminal investigations because of the increased focus on immigration laws. These difficulties and issues are considerations which the government has to evaluate before implementation of immigration laws can be passed on to the local and state officials. Works Cited Akram, S. & Johnson, K. (2002). Race, civil rights, and immigration law after september 11, 2001: the targeting of Arabs and Muslims. NYU Annual Survey of American Law, volume 58: pp. 295-396. Chandler, A. (2006). Why is the Policeman Asking for my Visa? The Future of Federalism and Immigration Enforcement, Tulsa J. Comp. & Int’l L. volume 15 (209). Engel, R., Calnon, J., & Bernard, T. (2002). Theory and racial profiling: Shortcomings and future directions in research. Justice Quarterly, volume 19, pp. 249-274. Ferrell, C. (2006). Major city chiefs immigration committee: recommendations for enforcement of immigration laws by local police agencies. Major Cities Chiefs. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://www.majorcitieschiefs.org/pdfpublic/mcc_position_statement_revised_cef.pdf. General Accounting Office. (2000). Racial profiling: Limited data available on motorist stops. Washington, DC: Author. Golub, J. (2003). Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n, Past and Present: Safeguarding American Civil Liberties. AILA. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=8848. Harris, D. A. (1999). Driving while Black: Racial profiling on our nation’s highways. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://www.aclu.org/profiling/report/ Hernandez, B. (2007). Officials: Immigrant Detainers Increasing, Star Banner. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://www.ocala.com/article/20070722/NEWS/207220346/1001/NEWS01. Johnson, K. (2001). The Case for African American and Latina/o Cooperation in Challenging Race Profiling in Law Enforcement. National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies Annual Conference. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/naccs/2001/Proceedings/7 Langer, S. (2007). Langer Law. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://www.stevenlanger.com/immigration-detainer.html Miller, T. (2005). Blurring the Boundaries Between Immigration and Crime Control After September 11th, 25 B.C. Third World L.J. (2005), Retrieved 15 october 2011 from http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/twlj/vol25/iss1/4 National Council of La Raza (2007). Too costly for my town: the dollars and cents of an immigration ordinance. NCLR. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://www.nclr.org/files/4 National Immigration Law Center (2004). Introduction and background: sample background for policies limiting the enforcement of immigration law by local authorities. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/ sample%20policy_intro%20brief_nov%202004.pdf 9130_file_Too_Costly_for_My_Town_FINAL.pdf Novak, K. (2004). Disparity and Racial Profiling in Traffic Enforcement. Police Quarterly, volume 7; pp. 65-96 Parra-Chico, M (2008). An Up-Close Perspective: The Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws by State and Local Police. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, volume 7(1), pp. 321-370 Seghetti, L., Congressional Research Service, & The Library of Congress (2004). Enforcing immigration law: the role of state and local enforcement, volume 4(27). Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2005, 1026-crs.pdf. Walker, S. (2001). Searching for the denominator: Problems with police traffic stop data and an early warning system solution. Justice Research and Policy, volume 3, pp. 63-95. Read More