Today Iíd like to talk to you about one agency's approach to dealing with this issue--the U.S. Customs Service, where I served as Commissioner from August 1998 through January 2001. Before the beginning of my tenure, Customs began to receive allegations from certain members of the traveling public that, in specific incidents, agency personnel had selected commercial air passengers for physical searches based on race. These allegations were very disturbing, to say the least. It was certainly not agency policy to use such tactics in our enforcement mission. In no way were we prepared to accept it as part of our practice. As you know, one of Customs' chief responsibilities is to keep dangerous contraband from crossing U.S. borders. The fact is, the great majority of travelers entering our country are law-abiding. But there exists a small percentage who are not, and who contribute to the illegal drug menace by smuggling narcotics. It's the difficult job of the Customs service to stop these individuals. The job is even more difficult when it comes to stopping those who conceal drugs on or in their bodies, particularly those arriving by commercial air.

To put this in the proper perspective, Customs searches an extremely small amount of the approximately eighty million commercial air passengers entering the U.S. each year. Today, that figure is about one out of every nine thousand travelers who arrive.

To accomplish this difficult aspect of its mission, Customs has been granted very broad search authorities the broadest of any law enforcement agency in the land. Inspectors can stop, search, and detain travelers based on reasonable suspicion-that is, based on specific factors that may lead those officers to believe someone may be carrying drugs. Those criteria are clearly outlined in the intensive training provided to Customs personnel. Under no circumstances, whatsoever, do these factors ever include a person's race. When complaints of racial profiling surfaced, we moved quickly to review all aspects of our personal search policy. Our preliminary reviews showed no specific incidents of bias. But we did find lapses in management and supervision that contributed to instances of improper conduct, poor judgment, and insensitivity to the rights of travelers. Not satisfied with an internal assessment alone, we immediately appointed an independent, outside commission of government and community leaders to conduct a study of Customs personal search practices in April of 1999.

Commission members were given unfettered access to Customs facilities and personnel across the country. They were also provided with whatever statistics and information they needed to compile their reports. In the meantime, we began a number of immediate reforms. First and foremost, we increased the role of supervisors in the personal search process. Where, in the past, any individual inspector could decide whether or not to make a personal search, we ensured that a supervisor subsequently approve that decision. Moreover, any decision to move someone to a facility for a medical examination had to be approved by a port director, the highest-ranking customs official on site. We bolstered training for our employees. We mandated new cultural interaction and personal search training for all our inspectors...that's about eight thousand people.

We also rewrote our personal search policies, eliminating any phrase that could remotely be construed as bias, and compiled them in a single handbook. We increased legal oversight of the process. We made Customs lawyers available 24 hours a day by phone to inspectors to advise on the legal grounds for searches. We implemented a new policy that requires Customs officers to consult with the local U.S. Attorney's office for any prolonged detentions. In the past, Customs could hold someone indefinitely without permitting contact with friends or family. New notification rules allow anyone detained to inform someone of his or her delay within two hours.

Record keeping, in general, was poor. Data collection on personal searches was weak and inconsistent. We instituted mandatory data collection on the race, gender, age and citizenship of persons searched, as well as the reasons for the search. We formed a national passenger data analysis unit at headquarters to examine that data. I received updates every morning on the searches we conducted.

We made major investments in new, non-intrusive technology and x-ray equipment. These included the purchase of body scan machines and mobile x-ray equipment that minimize the need for physical contact and time-consuming trips to the hospital. That technology was deployed at major international airports across the country .We undertook a major information campaign with the traveling public. That campaign began with an outside consultantís review of our passenger processing areas. Based on the consultantís findings, we implemented a series of changes including better signage. Enhancing the role and visibility of Customs' passenger service representatives. And designing new declaration forms to eliminate confusion for travelers. We also put out new brochures that explain why Customs performs inspections and searches. These include a document entitled "Why Did This Happen to Me?" which explains the personal search process to those who are referred for a secondary inspection. We also developed a passenger rights brochure that explains the rights of travelers and their obligations under U.S. laws. We created a new customer satisfaction unit at headquarters to handle complaints and other issues. And a national comment card program, through which travelers can submit their feedback to Customs.

To sum up:

While changes like these require time to take hold, we were very encouraged by the early results. Nationally, Customs was searching far fewer people than it ever did before, while maintaining its overall level of seizures. Customs cut the number of personal searches significantly--from just over 43, 000 thousand searches in 1998 to just over 9,000 in the year 2000. Yet, the number of positive searches yielding drugs actually increased dramatically. Those numbers showed us that we could engage the narcotics traffickers vigorously, without allowing the rights of the law-abiding public to become casualties in the counter-drug fight. In addition, our comment card program indicated that our changes were being well received by the public. We mandated that officers give anyone who goes through a secondary inspection a comment card. They were also made available to any traveler passing through our processing areas. As of the close of 2000, we received well over 15,000 cards. Eighty percent complimented Customs and the work of our inspectors. I understand that rate has held steady through today.
In June 2000, the personal search commission and the independent advisor issued their reports. They acknowledged, in their words, the series of "bold reforms" Customs had taken. While neither report found specific evidence of bias they did state that more precautions could be taken, and offered twenty recommendations to further safeguard the rights of travelers. We assembled a special, high level internal committee of customs managers to assess, implement, and monitor those findings. Having been involved with this issue for a long time I know one thing for certain. This is not a problem from which law enforcement can simply walk away and declare victory. Policies must be monitored constantly to ensure that changes become embedded in the culture of the organization.

It is my hope that enforcement agencies will voluntarily adopt policies that require the recording of stops and searches of all citizens. Emerging technologies will make this process less time consuming and easier for management to monitor. It is my view that such practices will not adversely impact on the effective law enforcement in any way. It is also my hope that respected national law enforcement organizations, such as PERF, will support such policies and publish documents outlining best practices regarding the carrying out of stop and frisk procedures. However, if federal and state agencies lag in the adoption of these policies, then legislation will be required. There is simply no place for racial profiling in American law enforcement. Not in the Customs Service or anywhere else.