In
my experience, there is no greater
threat to the credibility of law enforcement
than racial profiling. Any agency that
ignores this threat, or delays in taking
precautions against it, risks not just
the reputation of the organization
in question--but the very compact of
trust and fairness between government
and the people upon which civil society
rests
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:
- Improved supervision
- Better training
- Enhanced legal oversight
- Better data collectio
- Better technology
- Better communication with the traveling
public
- These were the pillars of our
reforms.
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.
|
