U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–956 PDF 2010

RACIAL PROFILING AND THE USE OF SUSPECT 

CLASSIFICATIONS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 17, 2010 

Serial No. 111–131 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JUDY CHU, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

DAVID LACHMANN, Chief of Staff 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 17, 2010 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Civil Liberties .................................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, 

Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties ......................................................................... 6 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 

and Civil Liberties ............................................................................................... 6 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties ............. 6 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

Mr. Christopher Burbank, Chief of Police, Salt Lake City Police Department 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

Mr. Brian L. Withrow, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Texas 

State University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Ms. Deborah Ramirez, Professor of Law, Northeastern University Law School 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

Mr. Amardeep Singh, Program Director, Sikh Coalition 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 40 

Mr. David A. Harris, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of 

Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54 

Ms. Farhana Khera, President and Executive Director, Muslim Advocates 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 62 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 64 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties ............. 3 

Page

IV 

Information submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, Member, Committee on the Judiciary, 

and Member Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 

Liberties ................................................................................................................ 82 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 89 

(1) 

RACIAL PROFILING AND THE USE OF SUSPECT CLASSIFICATIONS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY 

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:21 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerrold Nadler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Nadler, Conyers, Scott, Johnson, 

Cohen, Jackson Lee, and Chu. 

Also present: Representative Ellison. 

Staff present: (Majority) David Lachmann, Subcommittee Chief 

of Staff; Keenan Keller, Counsel; and (Minority) Paul Taylor, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. NADLER. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will come to order. 

I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

Today’s hearing examines racial profiling and the use of suspect 

classifications in law enforcement policy. Racial profiling is a problem, not simply because it unfairly targets people for different 

treatment by law enforcement based on the immutable characteristics such as race, nationality or religion, but because it is bad policing policy. Looking for people of a certain race in the hope that this 

will make it easier to find criminals is simply not an effective way 

to identify and apprehend the bad guys and make us all safer. 

It would be nice if all criminals and terrorists walked around 

with the mark of Cain on their foreheads, but the real world is not 

like that. Focusing on people who fit the profile of what some believe a criminal would or should look like distracts and diverts the 

attention of law enforcement in ways that can prove disastrous to 

public safety. So, in addition to being unfair, profiling does not deliver on its alleged benefits. 

What makes the problem of racial profiling more complex and requires policymakers to think about it in a more careful and sophisticated manner, is that racial profiling cannot simply be attributed 

to a few races abusing their power. They, of course, are still with 

us. But just as it would be easier if every crook carried around a 

sign saying, ‘‘I am a bad guy,’’ so, too, it would make our jobs a 

2 

lot easier if every law enforcement agent or officer who engaged in 

the practice looked like Bull Connor. But that also is not the case. 

We need to deal with the fact that profiling is not always, and 

not necessarily, a result of racial or religious bigotry. It can be the 

result of poor training, flawed policing methods, or simply conventional wisdom, which may not be true, but which is commonly 

held—which is, of course, the definition of conventional wisdom. 

This is not to say that bigots have not tried, sometimes successfully, to use the public’s justifiable fear of crime and terrorism to 

malign entire groups or faiths. Racist demagoguery is still with us, 

and we have an obligation to confront it forcefully and effectively. 

The facts, however, clearly belie the assertion that profiling is 

good or effective law enforcement. The view that it is appropriate 

law enforcement to go after certain groups is thankfully a marginal 

one in this day and age. 

Today’s hearing will look at all the dimensions of racial profiling 

and examine what actions Congress can take to protect individuals 

from being singled out by law enforcement for reasons based on 

characteristics having nothing to do with whether or not they are 

fairly suspected of committing some kind of wrongdoing. 

The solution lies not just in enforcement of rules against 

profiling, but in education and training for our law enforcement 

personnel. Our law enforcement officers deserve our support and 

the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. 

I want to thank the Chairman of the full Committee for his efforts over the years and for his continued leadership on this very 

important issue. The effort to eliminate racial profiling has never 

been a partisan one, and I hope that as we move forward we can 

consider solutions to this problem in a business-like manner. I look 

forward to working with the Chairman as the Committee moves 

forward with this very important effort. 

I welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

At this point, I would normally say the Chair now recognizes the 

distinguished Ranking Member for an opening statement, but he is 

not feeling well. And so, without objection, we will admit his written statement into the record. 

So, the Ranking Member’s statement, without objection, will be 

admitted into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:] 

3 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES


FJS-1.eps
4 


FJS-2.eps
5 

Mr. NADLER. And we will now recognize the Chairman of the full 

Committee for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of Constitution. 

Let me yield first to Bobby Scott, the Chairman of the current— 

of the Crime Subcommittee, with whom we have been working on 

this issue across the years. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the Subcommittee Chairman for calling the hearing. 

This is an important hearing. 


FJS-3.eps
6 

And the focus really needs to be on this issue of profiling, as to 

what impact it has on law-abiding citizens and the harassment 

that they get by undeserved attention, and how this practice diverts attention and resources of law enforcement from those who 

are, in fact, truly dangerous to society, so we have people who are 

being focused on without any reason, and you have law enforcement resources being diverted at the same time. 

So, I look forward to the witnesses in addressing those two 

issues, and yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks, Bobby Scott. 

I would like to just acknowledge Steve Cohen of Memphis, Tennessee, who is going to be very important in this. He was a state 

senator for many years in his state prior to coming to Congress, as 

well as an attorney for all these years, as well. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important 

hearing, and I am pleased to participate. 

We filed two bills on this subject: the Justice Integrity Act, which 

calls for a study of racial profiling, groups to come together and 

study the issues and try to come up with recommendations on racial profiling; and also a bill that deals with Byrne grants, and requiring recipients of Byrne grants to do statistical analysis and report back to us. So, there are important subjects we need to look 

into. 

We passed a law like this in Tennessee to have the state highway patrol make such reports. And while I think it is important 

to get the reports, I think there is no question that the data is already in that there is racial profiling done by law enforcement. 

I know that the professor from Texas State—and I was in San 

Marcos this weekend—is not necessarily a proponent of this. But 

the fact is, if you are Hispanic, if you are African American, or 

even if you are a hippie, it is likely you are going to get picked up. 

And those are not the right things, and they do not normally find— 

even find anything. 

So, the statistics show it is a waste of law enforcement time, 

when they could be getting out and getting some real people that 

they ought to be getting and spend their time on the real criminals. 

So, I thank the Chairman for recognizing me, the Chairman of 

the Subcommittee for the hearing, and all of our panelists, too. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Chairman Nadler and I were working on the traffic stops act in 

1997—that is driving while Black. And it passed the House; it did 

not pass the Senate. And we have had two things that have put 

emphasis on the nature of the discussion that we have before us 

with these seven distinguished witnesses. 

One was Henry Louis Gates, the professor that was arrested for 

I do not know what, suspicion of what the actual facts were there. 

But it highlighted the issue that we are examining today. 

The other, of course, was the Arizona law that has really made 

us think about this issue along the lines of the introductory remarks of Chairman Nadler. 

We are trying to limit profiling. And it makes an interesting 

case. We have law enforcement people here. And it is one thing to 

7 

have a suspicion. It is another thing to be racially profiling, because you look like an Arab, you look like an African American. 

And I think that distinction is going to come out of this discussion. So, I think we are on the verge of moving past what we did 

in 1997, 1998. 

And I welcome the fact that you have called this hearing today. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

In the interest of proceeding to our witnesses, and mindful of our 

busy schedules, I ask that other Members submit their opening 

statements for the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit opening statements for inclusion in the record. Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare a recess of the hearing, which hopefully will not be necessary. 

We will now turn to our panel of witnesses. And our first witness 

is—I will introduce them—Hilary Shelton is the vice president for 

advocacy and director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau. He previously worked as the Federal liaison and assistant director for the 

Government Affairs Department for the United Negro College 

Fund. Mr. Shelton received his B.A. from Howard University and 

M.A. degree from the University of Missouri in St. Louis. 

Christopher Burbank is the chief of police of the Salt Lake City 

Police Department and has worked for the department since 1991. 

During the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games, Chief Burbank also served as the liaison with U.S. Secret Service. He is a 

graduate of the University of Utah and the FBI’s National Executive Institute. 

Brian Withrow is an associate professor of criminal justice at 

Texas State University San Marcos. He served one term as mayor 

of Bel Aire, Kansas, and worked for the Texas Department of Public Safety. Professor Withrow earned his B.A. from Stephen Austin 

State University, his M.P.A. from Southwest Texas State University, and his Ph.D. from Sam Houston State University. 

Deborah Ramirez is a professor of law at Northeastern University Law School. She is the founder of the Partnering for Prevention and Community Safety Initiative and has been a consultant to 

the Department of Justice on racial profiling issues. Professor Ramirez received her B.A. from Northwestern University and her J.D. 

from Harvard Law School. 

Amardeep Singh is the co-founder and program director of the 

Sikh Coalition, the Nation’s largest Sikh American civil rights organization. In that role, Mr. Singh has represented dozens of Sikh 

victims of airport profiling, employment discrimination and hate 

crimes, and has helped shape guidelines governing the searches of 

Sikh passengers in U.S. airports. 

David Harris is the distinguished faculty scholar at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. He served as a member of the 

Civil Liberties Advisory Board to the White House Commission on 

Aviation Safety and Security. Professor Harris received a B.A. from 

Northwestern University and a J.D. from Yale Law School. 

Farhana Khera is the president and executive director of Muslim 

Advocates. Ms. Khera was counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary 

Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, where she advised 

8 

Senator Russ Feingold on civil rights and civil liberties. Ms. Khera 

received her B.A. from Wellesley College and her J.D. from Cornell 

Law School. 

I am pleased to welcome all of you. Your written statements will 

be made part of the record in its entirety. I would ask each of you 

to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To help you stay within 

that time, there is a timing light at your table. When 1 minute remains, the light will switch from green to yellow, and then red 

when the 5 minutes are up. 

Before we begin, it is customary for the Committee to swear in 

its witnesses. 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated, all of you. 

And our first witness is Mr. Shelton. And I recognize Mr. Shelton 

for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF HILARY O. SHELTON, DIRECTOR, 

NAACP WASHINGTON BUREAU 

Mr. SHELTON. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chairman Nadler, 

Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, Congressmen Scott, Johnson, 

Cohen and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you so much for 

calling this important hearing and for asking me here today to 

share with you the NAACP’s position on this crucial matter. 

Let me also offer a special word of thanks to Chairman Conyers 

for his leadership on this issue over the years. 

The NAACP currently has a membership unit in every state in 

the country, and I would wager that every NAACP unit has received numerous complaints of racial profiling. 

For the record and to avoid confusion, the operational definition 

of the term ‘‘racial profiling’’ means the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying to any degree on race, ethnicity, national origin or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to 

routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon 

the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following the 

initial investigatory procedure. 

Sadly, racial profiling is being used, even today, at all levels of 

law enforcement. Local, state and Federal agents have been shown 

to use racial profiling, a misdirected tool for policing. The fact that 

racial profiling is still a common tactic among so many law enforcement agents is, frankly, startling, given that this has been proven 

to be an inefficient, ineffective, offensive and counter-productive 

tool. 

It also, sadly, undercuts our community’s trust and faith in the 

integrity of the American judicial system. When one cannot drive 

down an interstate, walk down the street or even enter into our 

own homes without being detained for questioning by law enforcement agents merely because of physical characteristics such as the 

color of one’s skin, there is indeed a big problem. 

As a result of profiling practices, it becomes much harder for law 

enforcement—even those who do not engage in racial profiling—to 

do their jobs to prevent, investigate, prosecute or solve crimes. 

Evidence to support the prevalence of racial profiling by law enforcement officials is as voluminous as it is varied. According to a 

2004 report by Amnesty International USA, approximately 32 milVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:33 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\061710\56956.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
9 

lion Americans—a number equivalent to the population of Canada—report that they have already been victims of racial profiling. 

And according to the Northeastern University Racial Profiling Data 

Collection Resource Center, there is an ongoing litigation involved 

in racial profiling in 33 out of 50 states. And we will hear more 

about that when Professor Ramirez speaks. 

Furthermore, people speaking out against racial profiling from 

both political parties include former President Bill Clinton, who 

called racial profiling a ‘‘morally indefensible, deeply corrosive 

practice,’’ and further stated that ‘‘racial profiling is in fact the opposite of good police work, where actions are based on hard facts, 

not stereotypes. It is wrong, it is destructive, and it must stop.’’ 

And George W. Bush, who on February 27, 2001, said that racial 

profiling is ‘‘wrong, and we will end it in America. In so doing, we 

will not hinder the work of our Nation’s brave police officers. They 

protect us every day—often at great risk. But by stopping the 

abuses of a few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve.’’ 

Since coming to the NAACP almost 14 years ago, I have had the 

honor of working with coalition partners, Members of Congress, 

varied Administration officials from both political parties, and folks 

on the street, to try to develop an effective approach to end racial 

profiling. There are a few steps that need to be taken at the Federal level to end racial profiling once and for all. 

First, we need a clear definition of racial profiling, an unequivocal ban on its use by all law enforcement officials. 

Secondly, we need data collection to truly assess the extent of the 

problem. In simple terms, our mantra must be, ‘‘in order to fix this 

problem, we must first measure it.’’ 

The only way to move the discussion about racial profiling from 

rhetoric and accusation to a more rational dialogue and appropriate 

enforcement strategies is to collect the data that will either allay 

community concerns about the activities of the police or help communities address the scope and magnitude of this problem. Furthermore, implementing a data collection system sends a clear message to law enforcement, as well as the larger communities they 

serve, that racial profiling is inconsistent with effective policing 

and equal protection. 

Data collection also informs the third element of an effective racial profiling agenda, which is effective training. Law enforcement 

officials at all levels—from the cop on the beat, to the state police, 

to the Federal agent—should all be required to not only identify racial profiling, but also to put an end to it while increasing their effectiveness in serving and protecting our communities and our Nation. 

Fourth, and last, is, an effective and aggressive anti-racial 

profiling agenda must enable citizens and the government alike to 

hold law enforcement agencies that continue to use racial profiling 

accountable—not to be applied in a ‘‘gotcha’’ dynamic, but in informed law enforcement administrators as a tool to improve their 

effectiveness. In order for anti-racial profiling actions to be effective 

and to rebuild the trust between law enforcement and the communities that they are charged with protecting, people must know 

that we are serious about eliminating this scourge. 

10 

Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of law enforcement officers are 

hard-working, courageous men and women whose concern for the 

safety of those that they have been charged with protecting is paramount—even when their own safety is, quite frankly, put on the 

line. In many cases, law enforcement officials are racial and ethnic 

minorities themselves, concerned about what happens when they, 

too, are out of uniform while traveling our Nation’s highways, byways and walkways. 

All will acknowledge that law enforcement agents should not endorse or act upon stereotypes, attitudes or beliefs that a person’s 

race, ethnicity, appearance or national origin increases that person’s general propensity to act unlawfully. The concept that we 

must somehow choose between public safety and the protection of 

our civil rights and civil liberties is misguided, at best, and woefully unconstitutional. Ending this deplorable practice of racial 

profiling is an effective and principled way forward. 

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to be with you 

today, and I look forward to our questions and conversation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shelton follows:] 

11 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HILARY O. SHELTON


HOS-1.eps
12 


HOS-2.eps
13 


HOS-3.eps
14 

Mr. NADLER. I thank you. 

We will now recognize Chief Burbank for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER BURBANK, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Chief BURBANK. Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here. 

The essential duty of modern law enforcement is to protect the 

civil rights of individuals, while providing for the safety of all members of the communities we serve—equally, without bias. Anti-imVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:33 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\061710\56956.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

HOS-4.eps
15 

migration fervor, manifesting itself in the form of controversial 

laws in states throughout the Nation, jeopardizes this fundamental 

tenet and the principles upon which we base our profession. 

Requiring local police agencies to enforce Federal immigration 

laws is contrary to our mission, marginalizes significant segments 

of the population, and ultimately harms effective community policing. We function best when we are a part of, not apart from, the 

community. 

Police officers should enforce and uphold the law regardless of 

race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation. The ideal 

that all people are created equal with certain unalienable rights is 

the basis upon which the United States of America was founded. 

However, we have labored with this notion from its inception over 

230 years ago. 

Unfortunately, law enforcement has been an effective tool of oppression throughout the history of our Nation. Biased laws and 

practices have forced officers to engage in institutional racism. It 

was barely a generation ago that law enforcement was charged 

with keeping water fountains separate and high schools racially 

segregated. We are still struggling to repair the mistrust and resentment that many communities continue to feel. 

By increasing our civil immigration role, law enforcement is 

placed in the untenable position of potentially engaging in unconstitutional racial profiling, while attempting to maintain the trust 

within the communities we protect. Officers are forced to detain 

and question individuals for looking or speaking differently from 

the majority, not for their criminal behavior. 

In Salt Lake City, approximately one-third of the population is 

Latino and subject to inappropriate police scrutiny. Often unrecognized in the immigration debate is the efficacy of enforcement and 

the adverse impact upon all individuals of color. How is a police officer to determine status without detaining and questioning anyone 

who speaks, looks or acts as if they might be from another nation? 

The process moves us frighteningly close to regulations restricting free movement inside the country and mandating identification 

or citizenship papers for all people. Can you imagine a procedure 

similar to that of boarding an airplane to cross the borders of 

states within the union? 

The strongest proponents of immigration enforcement are on 

record as saying Hispanics commit crime at a higher rate than 

other racial groups. There is no statistical support for this racist 

rhetoric. In fact, cities throughout the Nation have experienced 

dramatic reductions in crime across all categories, especially violent crime. 

Salt Lake City had a record low four homicides in 2009. This is 

incongruent with the proponents’ claims that illegal immigrants 

are flooding to Utah and that they are responsible for committing 

the majority of violent crime. 

Recently, a Utah state representative publicly stated that a lack 

of proficiency with the English language amounted to reasonable 

suspicion to stop and detain an individual. Limited language skills 

are not indicative of criminal behavior. We are proud of the large 

number of immigrants living in the City of Salt Lake, many of 

16 

which are of Hispanic origin and speak Spanish as their primary 

language. 

We also have immigrant residents from numerous other nations 

of the world. All are vital members of our community. We strive 

to provide those with limited English proficiency the same professional, quality police service as those who speak perfect English. 

Requiring law enforcement agencies to engage in civil immigration activities diverts critical resources away from our central responsibilities during a time of budget cuts and staffing shortages. 

Currently, the Salt Lake County adult detention facility releases, 

on average, 900 criminal violators monthly due to overcrowding. 

Detainees held for reasons of civil immigration status alone will necessitate the release of an even larger number of criminals into our 

neighborhoods. 

I firmly believe that we, as administrators and stewards of public 

trust, must have our voices heard. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 

taught of social responsibility, ‘‘History will have to record that the 

greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the vitriolic and the violent agents of the bad people, but the appalling silence and indifference of the good. Our generation will have to repent not only for the words and actions of the children of darkness, 

but also for the fears and apathy of the children of light.’’ 

In conclusion, I recently attended the funeral services for Sergeant Franco Aguilar of the Sevier County, Utah, sheriff’s office— 

the son of an immigrant family who lost his life in the performance 

of his duty. He was an individual, representative of so many that 

we employ, willing to sacrifice his personal safety and the wellbeing of his family to serve each of us. 

I shudder to think that the children of this hero of the state of 

Utah might one day be inappropriately detained and questioned because of their ethnicity or the color of their skin. While all of us 

are entitled to freedom from persecution, I believe this family has 

earned it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Burbank follows:] 

17 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER BURBANK


CB-1.eps
18 


CB-2.eps
19 


CB-3.eps
20 


CB-4.eps
21 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

We will now hear from—I will now recognize Professor Withrow 

for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF BRIAN L. WITHROW, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. WITHROW. Thank you, Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner and Members of the Subcommittee. I am honored to be here today. 

During the past 15 years, I have been involved in the racial 

profiling controversy in a number of ways. As a scholar, I conduct 

a great deal of research into this area and publish books and articles like many of the men and women that are here with us today. 

And also as a consultant, I work with police departments who are 

struggling with this issue all over the country. I work with departments very large, and some very small, and even a few from overseas. 

During this time, I have seen this controversy grow from an accusation following a routine traffic stop to an allegation in an airport, and now to a prediction on what might happen in a state that 

is somewhat committed to unilaterally enforcing Federal immigration laws. 

I am a participant in this controversy, but I am not a pundit. I 

am interested in this issue and recognize it as its importance to 

American policing, but I am not at all ideological about it. 

It is an important issue. It faces the policing community in a severe manner. 

But despite my experience in a previous life as a police officer, 

I approached the controversy and the research without a preconceived notion or assumption. The results are what they are. And 

it is an important part that we ask questions. 

One of the questions that we have today, as I understand, is to 

what extent should race or ethnicity influence decisions made by 

criminal justice actors? The answer lies on a continuum. At one extreme, race is an identifier; at the other, race is an indicator. 

As an identifier, race and ethnicity are indispensible. Along with 

other physical, behavioral and demographic features, information 

about an individual’s race or ethnicity—or, as it often is viewed, 

skin color—is often essential for accurate identification—for good 

reason. Racial and ethnic information are often included in published descriptions of criminal suspects, missing persons and potential witnesses. Such information about known or suspected individuals enables police officers to be more efficient and to be more accurate. 

On the other side of that continuum is race as an indicator. Race 

and ethnicity as indicator are, at best, a distraction. There is no 

evidence at all—none at all—in the literature that race and ethnicity play any role in criminal propensity. The use of race and ethnicity in suspect classifications and profiles is far more than counterproductive; it is insidious. 

Spectators of the racial profiling controversy point to arrests, 

convictions, incarceration rates as evidence that racial and ethnic 

minorities are more likely to be involved in serious criminal activity. And while these statistics are generally true, that racial and 

22 

ethnic minorities are over-represented in arrests, convictions and 

incarcerations, there is scant evidence—none at all, actually—that 

they are necessarily more likely to be involved in criminal behavior. 

So, as an identifier, race and ethnicity are helpful. As an indicator, they are illegal. 

Let me finish by saying that in the history of American policing, 

we have dealt—the industry of policing has dealt with some very 

serious issues. High-speed vehicular chases, civil rights issues—a 

lot of challenges have faced the profession over the last 100 years 

or so. And there are three things that we always turn back to that 

make a difference in whether or not the problem was solved. 

The first thing is we measure it. We find out where it is, what 

is happening, what are the dynamics of it, where it is located and 

who is doing it. 

The second thing we do is attention. High-speed chase is an example. In many communities in this country, if a police officer engaged in a high-speed chase, they must have permission before 

they begin that process, and they must regularly engage in a review of that high-speed chase while it is going on in order to make 

sure that it is valid. 

So, we measure, we are attentive to it, and we train it. 

It is important that we understand as police officers how our behavior is perceived by others, and that makes a difference in the 

outcome of things. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and, certainly, at the appropriate time will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Withrow follows:] 

23 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN L. WITHROW


BLW-1.eps
24 


BLW-2.eps
25 


BLW-3.eps
26 


BLW-4.eps
27 


BLW-5.eps
28 


BLW-6.eps
29 


BLW-7.eps
30 

ATTACHMENT 


BLW-8.eps
31 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I will now recognize Professor Ramirez for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH RAMIREZ, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 

Ms. RAMIREZ. Thank you, Chairman Nadler, Representative Conyers and esteemed Members of this Subcommittee, for giving me 

this opportunity this afternoon to testify. 

I would like to share with you some of the lessons that I have 

learned over the past 10 years in working on racial profiling issues. 


BLW-9.eps
32 

And I am going to speak first about racial profiling in the context 

of national security. 

The first and most important lesson that I have learned is this. 

Racial profiling is not an effective component of a counter-terrorism 

strategy. It is a sloppy and lazy substitute for the kind of strategic 

and intelligent law enforcement that we need to keep our homeland 

safe. And while it may be tempting to target Arabs and Muslims, 

using race, religion or ethnicity as a proxy for involvement in crime 

is both too broad and too narrow. 

It is too broad, because the vast majority of Arabs in this world 

are non-violent, law-abiding people, not dangerous terrorists. 

And it is too narrow, because there is no such thing as a ‘‘Middle 

Eastern look.’’ Arabs come in all colors and sizes, and numerous 

Americans who trace their heritage to Mexico, Spain, Greece, India, 

Italy all share a ‘‘Middle Eastern look.’’ 

Moreover, most of the accused terrorists are not Arab. They are 

John Walker Lind, a White American; Zacarias Moussaouri, an African with a French passport; Richard Reid, a half-West Indian, 

half-Englishman with a British passport; Jose Padilla, Latino; 

David Hicks, Australian; and Colleen LaRose, also known by most 

of us as Jihad Jane, a blond, middle-aged, White American; and 

Daniel Patrick Boyd, a middle-aged, White American male from 

North Carolina. 

All of these people accused of terrorism do share one characteristic. They are Muslim. But Muslims are 20 percent of the 

world’s population and can be of any nationality or origin, including African and Asian. Moreover, adding Muslims would now 

broaden the profile to the point of uselessness, because it creates 

an array of characteristics too widely shared to be meaningful. 

Second, I have learned that whenever we profile terrorists or 

criminals, they are going to respond by modifying their behavior 

and recruitment practices. If we target Middle Eastern-looking 

males, they will respond with someone like Jihad Jane. 

The second lesson I have learned is this, and I learned this from 

counter-terrorism agents. They tell me the key to effective counterterrorism is information. And much of the information they need 

to thwart terrorism, especially home-grown terrorism and 

radicalization, resides within the Arab, Muslim and Sikh communities. When law enforcement officers partner with these communities, the communities are more likely to share information with 

them about suspicious behavior or newcomers. 

We know that potential terrorists often try to evade law enforcement by exploiting the cultural and linguistic characteristics they 

share with these communities. By working with law enforcement to 

make their communities immune from terrorism, they can become 

a critical component of a national deterrence strategy. This approach not only produces stronger community relationships, it also 

results in more effective counter-terrorism. 

The third, very important lesson I have learned is this. We cannot indiscriminately target, arrest, profile, detain, fingerprint and 

harass this community in the morning and then ask them to partner with us to thwart terrorism in the afternoon. If we need community tips to thwart terrorism—and we do—particularly homeVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:33 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\061710\56956.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
33 

grown terrorism, then we cannot continue to engage in racial 

profiling, a practice which alienates and angers the communities. 

The fourth lesson I have learned is that truly smart policing involves the strategic and intelligent use of information to target individuals based on their behavior. Successful behavioral assessment systems have been developed and used in a variety of settings. 

The fifth lesson I have learned is this. To prevent profiling, you 

need to collect data on the race and ethnicity of those stopped and 

searched. I urge this Committee to support Federal legislation that 

would require law enforcement agencies to collect data on the stops 

and the seizures they conduct. This would allow agencies and officials to monitor their own conduct and evaluate whether a department, or officers within it, are engaged in profiling. Why? Because 

we cannot possibly manage what we do not measure. 

And the final lesson I have learned is that effective communityoriented policing and data collection efforts need to have a proper 

infrastructure to succeed. Thus, we need congressional funding for 

an academic center to guide and implement these ideas that will 

improve the quality of policing in this country. 

Thank you. I welcome your comments. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ramirez follows:] 

34 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH RAMIREZ


DR-1.eps
35 


DR-2.eps
36 


DR-3.eps
37 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I will now recognize Mr. Singh for 5 minutes. 


DR-4.eps
38 

TESTIMONY OF AMARDEEP SINGH, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, 

SIKH COALITION 

Mr. SINGH. I would like to wholeheartedly thank the leadership 

of this Committee, Chairman Conyers and Chairman Nadler, and 

the Members of this Committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

The topic we discuss today has vital implications for the safety 

of all Americans and our freedom as Americans. To be direct, my 

humble submission today is that the use by law enforcement of 

classifications based on race, national origin, religion or ethnicity 

has severely undermined both our liberty and our safety. As the experience of the Sikh American community makes clear, profiling is 

invariably inaccurate, inevitably misused and ultimately detrimental to the important work of our men and women in uniform. 

In short, we profile, we lose. 

By way of background, I am the co-founder and director of programs at the Sikh Coalition. The Sikh Coalition was founded on 9/ 

11 in the wake of the ugly torrent of hate crimes and misguided 

discrimination against our community. I say Sikh Americans have 

endured misguided discrimination, because our community has had 

no association whatsoever with the people and the organization 

that attacked our country on 9/11. 

Yet, since 9/11, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Sikhs 

have endured enhanced screening at airports across America. 

These screenings occur after a Sikh has already successfully passed 

through a metal detector. They are conducted in full public view, 

usually in a segregated glass box. It involves a public pat-down of 

a Sikh’s turban, and at times even its removal. 

One Sikh who was affected by this enhanced screening is 

Narinder Singh, a member of the Sikh Coalition’s board of directors. Narinder was born and raised in Cincinnati, Ohio. He is a 

Wharton School of Business MBA who co-founded a technology 

company in the Silicon Valley which employs hundreds of Americans. His wife is a doctoral student at Harvard. He is also a frequent air traveler. He has flown this year over 30 times alone for 

business. 

By his estimate, he has been pulled aside for enhanced screening 

more than 27 times. Amazingly, the TSA expends time and effort 

on these screenings of Sikhs, even though there are no Sikhs who 

are considered a threat to the security of the United States. Rather 

than better focus our efforts, the Sikh Coalition has found that at 

some airports, Sikhs are pulled aside for extra screening 100 percent of the time. 

Yet, experience tells us that there is no reliable profile of a terrorist who would do our country harm. Consider the picture that 

I have put up there for your consideration and in my testimony. 

With the exception of the Sikh gentleman who is pictured, all four 

of the other people have either completed or have been accused of 

engaging in terrorism against the United States in the past 2 

months. 

The Sikh picture here is an enlisted officer in the United States 

Army. Sadly, none of this matters to the TSA officers who have 

subjected this Sikh Army officer and patriot to multiple enhanced 

screenings across the country. Perhaps this is why NYPD Police 

39 

Commissioner Ray Kelly; former Department of Homeland Security 

secretary, Michael Chertoff; former director of the CIA, General Michael Hayden; and the chief of security for Ben Gurion Airport in 

Tel Aviv, Israel, have all declared profiling to be ineffective and 

even dangerous to the security of our country. 

Yet despite these declarations, profiling occurs rampantly, as the 

Sikh experience demonstrates. Unfortunately, like many law enforcement officers, TSA officers have extremely wide discretion to 

pull aside whoever they choose, with little to no oversight and accountability. Should it surprise us then that from February 2003 

to September 2003, Nathaniel Heatwole, a White college student, 

was able to smuggle box cutters, matches, bleach and razor blades 

onto planes in the United States. 

This is what happens when we lose our focus on behaviors and 

instead focus on external appearances. We profile, we lose. We are 

tired of hearing from law enforcement that profiling is ineffective, 

while their officers often engage in profiling every day. This doublespeak needs to end. 

What is necessary to combat profiling is an effective law that allows for two simple yet powerful means of addressing profiling directly: one, a system of data collection that provides the public with 

insight into who is being stopped and whether the stop yields an 

arrest; and two, an individual right of action in a court of law to 

bring claims of profiling. Without these protections we end up with 

what is effectively collective punishment for minority communities 

in the United States. 

What do I mean by collective punishment? Consider the picture 

to my left. This is a picture of my 18-month-old son, Azaad. His 

name means ‘‘freedom.’’ He is a third generation of Americans in 

our family. 

This past April, my family and I were coming back to the United 

States from a family vacation. At Fort Lauderdale Airport, not only 

was I subjected to extra screening, but so was my son. I was sadly 

forced to take my son Azaad into the infamous glass box so that 

he could be patted down. He cried while I held him. 

He did not know who that stranger was who patted him down. 

His bag was also thoroughly searched. His Elmo book number one 

was searched. His Elmo book number two was searched. His minimail truck that he loves was searched. 

The time spent waiting for me to grab him as he ran through the 

glass box was wasted time. The time going through his baby books 

was wasted time. 

I am not sure what I am going to tell him when he is old enough 

and asks why his father and his grandfather and soon him—Americans all three—are constantly stopped by the TSA 100 percent of 

the time at some airports. 

It is not fair. It is not safe. It is not American. There is something wrong with a system that will allow a Sikh baby and his bag 

to be searched for 15 minutes, but allows Nathaniel Heatwole to 

pass through security six separate times with box cutters and dangerous liquids. 

This Subcommittee and this Congress has the power to stop this 

Groundhog’s Day dynamic of profiling by enacting landmark legisVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:33 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\061710\56956.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
40 

lation to address this. In the process, we will make America not 

only safer, but better. 

I thank you for your time and consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Singh follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMARDEEP SINGH


Singh-1.eps
41 


Singh-2.eps
42 


Singh-3.eps
43 


Singh-4.eps
44 


Singh-5.eps
45 


Singh-6.eps
46 


Singh-7.eps
47 


Singh-8.eps
48 


Singh-9.eps
49 


Singh-10.eps
50 


Singh-11.eps
51 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

And I now recognize Professor Harris. 


Singh-12.eps
52 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID A. HARRIS, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. HARRIS. Good afternoon, Chairman Nadler, Chairman Conyers, Members of the Subcommittee. It is a great honor for me to 

be here to speak with you today. 

We have to end racial profiling in this country, because doing so 

will help us create a sustained public safety gain and at the same 

time protect the civil rights of all the people in this country. 

Now, some people will tell you that those two things do not go 

together, that one must trade civil rights for safety. That is wrong. 

That is not the American way. And it is not correct on any dimension. 

We talk about racial profiling. We have had a number of definitions today. Mine is this: Racial profiling is the use of race or ethnic appearance as one factor among others—not the only factor, but 

one factor among others—in deciding who to stop, search, frisk or 

question. 

Now, the reason that some proponents of this practice think this 

is a good idea, they think it will give police a boost. They think it 

will give them an edge. They think that it will target the ‘‘right’’ 

people, because, after all, we know who the criminals are. We know 

who the terrorists are, what they look like, what demographic 

groups they come from. And therefore, it gives them a way to target the right people. 

Therefore, that will make our police and our national security efforts much more effective. We will hit more often. We will find 

more drugs and more guns. 

But the data across the country—different departments, different 

studies—the data is quite clear; that is incorrect. 

When race or ethnic appearance are used as one factor among 

others in deciding who to stop, frisk, search, or whatever, when 

that is done, the rate of hits, the rate of success for police goes 

down. It does not go up. It does not even stay the same. It goes 

down. It drops off, and measurably so. 

Why is this? It goes back to one of the comments from another 

member of the panel. 

If you want to find people who are busy committing, or might 

commit serious crime or terrorism, you want to know who is in the 

car with the drug load, or who has got the weapon in the airport, 

the only thing that predicts that is behavior. Behavior is what the 

police and the security services must focus on like a laser beam. 

Anything that takes their attention off of that is a net loss. 

Now, they may still look at behavior as they pay attention to 

race, but race is, as Professor Withrow said, a distracter. You want 

to describe a person who has been seen by a witness, great. Race 

is a good way to describe somebody. It does not predict anything 

worthwhile. 

Now, what are the public safety implications of this? Number 

one, if we can move our police departments away from profiling 

race and ethnicity and toward things like behavior profiling, like 

using intelligence and information in a smart way, like community 

policing, we will increase public safety. 

So, this is not simply a matter of being nice to people. This is 

about everybody’s public safety from crime and terrorism. 

53 

Number two, return to the idea of community policing—words 

that get said in every city and town around the country—central 

principle of community policing. The central principle is that communities and police work together as partners, as Professor Ramirez said. That is it. That is ground zero for that tactic, and it has 

been incredibly successful across the country. 

Now, if you want to have a partnership, you have to trust each 

other. And if you trust each other, you exchange information. The 

community can give police information, can give anti-terrorism 

forces information. This is exactly what happened in Lackawanna, 

New York. That is the way that case was broken. 

If, on the other hand, you put the focus on the community by 

using profiling, if everybody is a suspect, what will happen is that 

trust will be replaced by fear. And fear cuts off communication. No 

communication, no information, less successful law enforcement, 

less public safety. 

Now, what is the part of civil rights enforcement in this whole 

scheme of things? There is no reason that we should have to give 

up or be told that we need to give up our civil rights in order to 

have public safety. 

National legislation is needed on this to increase public safety, 

and because not all states or all police departments have come to 

grips with this, frankly. And plenty of Americans are living in 

towns and in states that do not have effective anti-profiling laws 

or anti-profiling policies. 

On top of that, the United States Supreme Court has behind it 

two decades of decisions which vastly increased the discretion of 

police as far as drivers of vehicles, passengers in vehicles, pedestrians—police have vast discretion in situations like this. 

Now, there is nothing wrong with our police officers having discretion. They have to have it. We want them to have it, but we 

want them to use it fairly. 

And the lesson of the last 20 years is, when discretion is wide 

open, as the Supreme Court has charted the course for, you get 

profiling—not in every police department and not every police officer, but some places you get profiling. So, national legislation is 

necessary on this. 

Its time has come, and it is a great honor to talk to you about 

it today. I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 

54 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID A. HARRIS


DAH-1.eps
55 


DAH-2.eps
56 


DAH-3.eps
57 


DAH-4.eps
58 


DAH-5.eps
59 


DAH-6.eps
60 


DAH-7.eps
61 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

And finally, I recognize Ms. Khera for 5 minutes. 


DAH-8.eps
62 

TESTIMONY OF FARHANA KHERA, PRESIDENT AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MUSLIM ADVOCATES 

Ms. KHERA. Thank you. Mr. Nadler and Members of the Committee, good afternoon. 

I appreciate this opportunity to testify on a very important topic 

of racial and religious profiling. I will focus my comments on FBI 

and Customs and Border Protection activities that target American 

Muslims. 

As we heard Chief Burbank testify, law enforcement has a solemn duty to not only protect the American people, but to do so consistent with the rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or religion, and 

Congress must ensure that they do so. 

American Muslims today, however, face less than equal treatment by Federal law enforcement in our everyday lives when we 

travel, log on to the Internet or enter a mosque to pray. We worry 

that we will be monitored, interrogated—or worse, arrested and detained—by government agents for no reason at all. 

Let me be clear. I am not referring to legitimate investigations 

of criminal activity. I am referring to sweeping questioning, 

searches and other investigative activities that target innocent 

Americans in groups. 

Our Nation has not seen such widespread abuse since J. Edgar 

Hoover era. It is wrong, it is counterproductive, and it must end. 

So, how did we get here? In 2001, after the horrific attacks on 

our Nation, Congress was understandably eager to help law enforcement do its job. The USA PATRIOT Act was enacted, but it 

went too far. It granted new, overly broad powers to the FBI to not 

only investigate criminal activity, but to snoop on innocent Americans. 

That same year, the FBI launched the first in a series of socalled voluntary interview programs targeting Muslim and Arab 

Americans for questioning. Director Mueller also instructed each of 

the FBI’s 56 field offices to count the number of mosques and Muslim charities in their area and create a demographic profile. 

The word was out. From here on, agents would not be promoted 

based on their investigations of drug trafficking, mortgage fraud or 

other criminal cases. No. Whether you were an agent in Iowa or 

New York, the paramount focus would be counter-terrorism, and 

you would sink or swim in the bureau based on cultivating forces 

and informants, opening investigations and developing cases targeting the Muslim community. 

In December 2008, the FBI memorialized this new way of doing 

business in a revised set of investigative guidelines. 

Where did this lead us? By the end of 2005, Michael Rolince, the 

former head of the Washington office of the FBI, said that the FBI 

had conducted nearly 500,000 interviews of Arab and Muslim 

Americans, and not a single one of these interviews yielded information that would have led the FBI to get in front of the 9/11 attacks. 

Undeterred, the FBI was well on its way to aggressively developing informants and infiltrating mosques and community organizations. 

Today, the FBI also monitors Facebook and the Internet. 

63 

Can you imagine attending your church or synagogue and wondering whether the FBI is peering over your shoulder while you 

pray? Can you imagine thinking twice before posting a news article 

on your Facebook, because it just might prompt an FBI visit to 

your home or workplace? That is the reality for many Muslims 

today. 

Muslim Advocates hears from American Muslims on a regular 

basis who are seeking guidance, because they have received a surprise visit at their home or workplace by the FBI with questions 

about their religious practice, political views or involvement in 

community organizations. 

These actions, which create fear, stigmatize individuals in 

groups, chill First Amendment protected activities and sometimes 

even jeopardize jobs, have been taking place, not based on any evidence of wrongdoing, but based on race, religious and ethnic discrimination, plain and simple. 

But the FBI is not the only problem. If you have the misfortune 

of being Muslim at the border, there is a good chance you will be 

stopped by a Customs and Border Protection agent before returning 

home and asked questions that have nothing to do with the purpose of your international travel—such as, what mosque do you attend, how often do you pray? 

Can you imagine being asked what church or synagogue you attend, or how often you pray, by a Federal agent? You are probably 

thinking, that is none of the government’s business—and it is protected by the First Amendment. In the America I grew up in, that 

certainly would have been the case. 

But for me and countless other Muslim Americans today, it is not 

as simple as telling an agent it is none of their business. The consequences of being Muslim at the border are frightening and 

fraught with peril. 

Take, for example, the case of one prominent community leader 

returning home from Canada at a land crossing near Detroit. He 

and his wife were dragged from their car, handcuffed and detained 

in front of their young daughters, who were 1 and 3 years old at 

the time. To this day, his eldest daughter recoils in fear when she 

sees someone in uniform, afraid that he or she will do harm to her 

family. 

Is this the kind of relationship we want law enforcement developing with Muslim Americans young and old, one based on fear 

and mistrust? More importantly, is this the country we aspire to 

be? I certainly hope not. 

Members of the Committee, racial and religious profiling is not 

only contrary to our Nation’s guarantee of equal justice under the 

law, it also yields negative results. Discriminatory policing diverts 

valuable resources from legitimate investigations. It erodes trust 

between the community and law enforcement, jeopardizing the 

vital relationship needed to counter actual criminal activity. 

Simply put, racial and religious profiling is bad policing. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of Muslim 

Advocates. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Khera follows:] 

64 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FARHANA KHERA


Khera-1.eps
65 


Khera-2.eps
66 


Khera-3.eps
67 


Khera-4.eps
68 


Khera-5.eps
69 


Khera-6.eps
70 


Khera-7.eps
71 


Khera-8.eps
72 

Mr. NADLER. I thank you very much. And I will recognize Members for 5 minutes of questioning apiece in the order in which they 

are here. 

I will begin with myself for 5 minutes. 

First of all, Mr. Shelton, New York City faced a class action lawsuit alleging racial profiling during Terry stops conducted in the 5- 

year period from 2004 to 2009. Among the nearly three million 

Terry stops during that period, about one-and-a-half million were 

of African Americans, nearly 900,000 were Hispanics and under 

300,000 were of non-Hispanic Whites. 

Do you believe that that statistical disparity alone is indicative 

of the presence of racial profiling? Or do you need some more evidence to say that there is racial profiling? 

Mr. SHELTON. Well, you certainly need more evidence than that. 

One of the issues you would want to look at is the hit rate; that 

is, how often those stops resulted in some kind of a paraphernalia 

or other illegal substance being found on people. 

What we find is that, when you have this kind of massive approach to stops, that you see that the number of hits actually declined. That is, look at the number of stops versus the number of 

hits. You find that it is even more discriminatory. 

The issue that we need to look at a little closer, and actually, we 

need to have legislation to actually collect data on how often those 

stops result in the actual commission of a crime. In this case, I 

think you will find in the case of New York City, it was abysmal. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Chief Burbank, is there any way for an officer to differentiate a 

documented immigrant from an undocumented one without checking their papers? 

Chief BURBANK. Absolutely not. And that is the question behind 

this whole thing. There is no way that I can perceive, and especially teaching a new recruit, this is an individual that is documented, and this is one that is not, and—— 

Mr. NADLER. Without looking at the papers. 

Chief BURBANK [continuing]. Absence of asking for documents—— 

Mr. NADLER. So, you believe that there is a danger that any immigrant could be singled out under these new laws, since there is 

no way to determine short of checking papers who is documented 

or undocumented? 

Chief BURBANK. Not only any immigrant, but any U.S. citizen 

who is of a different race or ethnicity will be questioned. There is 

no way that a law enforcement official, especially as we talk about 

fairness, can conduct that business without. 

Mr. NADLER. So, in the Southwest, Hispanic immigrants will be 

disproportionately affected, for example. 

Chief BURBANK. Absolutely. 

Mr. NADLER. And obviously, you believe, since you testified to it, 

that cooperation between the police and the community is very important. 

Chief BURBANK. There are stories across the country. The impact 

on my community alone, just from the thought of immigration laws 

going into effect that officers would enforce, have diminished the 

73 

relationship that exists between the Salt Lake City P.D. and the 

communities that we serve—— 

Mr. NADLER. And obviously, it breaks down the trust between a 

community and the law enforcement personnel when a law instructs the police essentially to single out a group because they are 

slightly more likely to be in the country without documentation? 

Chief BURBANK. Absolutely. 

Mr. NADLER. Now, given the study co-authored by Professor Goff 

and yourself on attitudes toward SB81 in Utah, is there reason to 

believe that co-deputizing police to act as immigration officials will 

negatively affect community cooperation with police, both inside 

and outside the immigrant community? 

Chief BURBANK. Yes. And in fact, the research conducted by Dr. 

Goff indicates that not only would Latino individuals be less likely 

to report crimes and participate with the police, but also, our White 

residents are less likely to report crimes, especially involving drug 

crimes, if they perceive that the police are biased or interjecting 

bias into their operations. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Now, as I mentioned a moment ago, New York City has recently 

come under fire for the volume of Terry stop and frisk that they 

have carried out in recent years, and particularly for the overwhelming percentage of these stops that are devoted to African 

American and Hispanic people. 

Some have argued that judicious use of police resources necessitate the higher law enforcement presence in high crime neighborhoods, which often happen to be lower income and primarily minority areas, and, therefore, that the higher percentage of African 

American and Hispanic stops does not indicate racial profiling, but 

simply that the police are putting their resources where the crimes 

are. 

Do you think this—what would you observe of this observation? 

Chief BURBANK. I agree with Mr. Shelton on this. More research 

needs to be conducted. 

And that is really what our aim was with Dr. Goff and the 

CPLE, was, in fact, to get to the underlying fact. We need to move 

from racial profiling to biased policemen, because it is not just a 

matter of do we stop people at an unequal rate or inappropriate 

rate, but what are the actions that we take afterwards as far as 

arrests, citations, search, seizure—all those things that are involved. It takes much more than population benchmarking to determine the action, whether appropriate or not of police officers. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Now, Professor Ramirez, you have advocated for a requirement 

that police departments catalogue their stops of citizens. New York 

City, as I mentioned, has done so. And over the last 5 years, they 

have disproportionately stopped African American and Hispanic 

people, and they have documented that they have done that. 

Is this, by definition, enough to cause—is this by definition cause 

to accuse the NYPD of racial profiling, or is simply to indicate the 

necessity of more research? 

Ms. RAMIREZ. By itself, disproportionate stopping does not indicate racial profiling. But as others have said, you want to look at 

74 

the hit rate. You want to look at what happened after the stop. 

Was there a search? Was there arrest? Were there seizures? 

And also, you want to know what the demographics were of the 

underlying population. If they are Terry stops on the street, you 

want to know what was the street population like. What percentage of people who were on the street were Latino, White, Black and 

Hispanic? 

And if you are doing these studies with the police, as opposed to 

doing them as historical documenting of activity that occurred in 

the past, you can disaggregate for particular initiatives that the 

community wants. 

For example, if you are doing a data collection system with the 

community, and the community says, look. We have a problem with 

Sunday mornings. There are races among Latino youth drag racing 

in a particular part of town, and we want you to be stopping those 

people. Or there is an African American bar that gets out at midnight, and we want you to stop drunk drivers at the White bars 

that get out at midnight, as well as the African American bars. 

You can disaggregate that and come up with a meaningful measure of whether it is profiling, by looking at what was the purpose 

of the law enforcement initiative, what were the racial demographics. 

When we have done this, even disaggregating for those instances 

where there was a need in high crime areas, or in predominantly 

Latino or Black areas, for special enforcement efforts, we still 

found evidence of racial profiling. And what I have been advocating 

for is a national center focused on how do you train statisticians 

to do appropriate statistical analysis. 

How do you get the research done to get appropriate benchmarks 

for the data, whether it is disproportionate stopping or not? And 

how do we create best practices and promising practices for the research that needs to be done in this area? 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. My time has expired. 

I will now recognize the distinguished Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Nadler. 

We have in the audience Professor Richard Winchester from the 

Thomas Jefferson Law School in San Diego. And we are pleased 

that he is with us for this important hearing. 

And we also have our former Judiciary Member, Keith Ellison of 

Minnesota, with us. And with your permission, I would like to yield 

him my time. 

Mr. NADLER. Without objection. 

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It is certainly a pleasure to be back at the Judiciary Committee. 

And Chairman Nadler, I thank you, as well as the Ranking 

Member. 

I will just take just a few questions—not take, ask—a few questions. 

What do you think some of the essential features of proposed legislation would include? What do you think needs to be in there to 

address this issue of profiling? 

I ask anyone on the Committee. 

75 

Mr. HARRIS. My thoughts, congressman, would be data collection, 

provisions for best practices in policing. We know a lot that we did 

not know 15 years ago about what works in policing. And we want 

to give incentives for those things to be done, requirements that 

there be a policy in each department, that there be training centers 

for that training, funds for that training. I think those would be 

good starting points. 

I want to make clear that what we are looking for is a national 

set of standards and practices. We are past the point, I think, when 

the debate is about whether this ever happens. Now, it is about 

what we do and how we go forward. And I think all those things 

could contribute. 

Mr. SHELTON. If I might add, in addition, certainly, the reporting 

mechanism needs to be one that is independent of the police departments themselves. We have run into problems that people 

wanted to report the misbehavior of police officers and actually 

being punished in that process, as well. 

So, I certainly strongly agree with Professor Harris and would 

offer it for your additional—— 

Ms. RAMIREZ. If I could also just add to that, I totally agree with 

my colleagues. And I would just also add, a meaningful redress 

mechanism in terms of a right of action, I think is absolutely required, as well, in terms of seeking injunctive relief so that people 

who are aggrieved can go to the courts, do have a way to go to the 

courts eventually, if need be, to actually seek redress. 

And if I might add, in addition to legislation, the End Racial 

Profiling Act, I think Congress can also play an important job in 

helping to hold law enforcement, especially at the Federal level, accountable, too. And there is certainly a need for greater transparency in terms of the authority Federal law enforcement is using, 

whether it is by the FBI or Customs and Border Protection. 

What is happening with the information that is being collected? 

How is it being stored? How is it being shared? And there are a 

lot of questions and not enough disclosure. 

Mr. ELLISON. There sometimes is a problem between what police 

leadership, or any leader might agree to and want to see, and how 

it is actually carried out on the ground. If we were to pass legislation regarding racial profiling, we may well get leaders of law enforcement throughout the country to agree with everybody on the 

panel. 

How do we make sure that it gets really—it really gets to the officer who is going to be facing that motorist or that passenger? 

Mr. HARRIS. Training—the mantra in police work. If you want 

things to change, it will come down to training. But it is not only 

training. You have to have a policy that reflects what the department is really about. There has to be supervision on the job of what 

people are actually doing on the street. People must be trained in 

the policy and know what is expected of them. And then there has 

to be accountability. 

You put those four elements together, and the leadership makes 

clear that it means it, they are going to hold people accountable, 

I would not say you can change all the hearts and minds, but I will 

take their behavior. That would be enough. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Singh? 

76 

Mr. SINGH. I would just add that, in terms of getting this to the 

front-line officers, it is critical that we, as Farhana had said, have 

a private right of action. 

I think the beauty of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that it actually took the enforcement mechanism straight to the people. The 

people had an ability to bring a suit in court and say that I have 

been discriminated against in the workplace, I have been discriminated against at a place of public accommodation. That we have 

that private right of action, I think it creates a very strong incentive for police departments to comply, because the people actually 

are able to enforce the promise of an End Racial Profiling Act. 

Mr. ELLISON. I like the idea of a private right of action tool. But 

I also am curious about whether or not—how we can get officers 

on the line to really embrace this, because again, it does enhance 

public safety. 

How do we—I mean, a private right of action is, I think, necessary, but it is adversarial. What about the other way around, to 

get officers on the line saying, ‘‘You know what? It is better for me 

to just deal with behavior, rather than just ethnic and religious factors, because it makes me a better cop.’’ 

Ms. Ramirez? Professor Ramirez, excuse me. 

Ms. RAMIREZ. I think the training piece has to be focused exactly 

on the issue that you are presenting, not just educating officers, 

but showing them, based on the research, why it is in their interest 

to do this. And that means you have to expand the training to include community policing. 

What do they get out of this? How can they be more effective officers? How can it improve their safety, in traffic stops, particularly, 

something they are interested? 

And the demographics and the research that we have been talking about at this table have not been widely disseminated to officers on the street. They need to see the statistics. 

And when you actually work with the police department and 

show them what they are doing, in what ways it is counterproductive and how they can improve, and then you continue to collect data to show them what happens when they switch, for example, from a race-based profile to behavioral profiling, that is when 

I think you get them engaged in the process. 

But the kind of profiling study that is going to get police engaged 

is not a ‘‘gotcha’’ historical study, but a study that they are engaged with from the beginning. You sit down with them and together you collaboratively decide what data you are going to collect, 

how you are going to collect it, how you are going to analyze it, and 

have a conversation around that. And that conversation has to be 

a non-public conversation. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very 

important hearing. 

Yesterday I was reading about a multi-count Federal indictment 

against some White guys who ride around on motorcycles and they 

wear leather vests. Probably most of them have beards and probably shaggy hair. And based on that Federal indictment, multiVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:33 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\061710\56956.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
77 

state, I hope, I sincerely hope that we do not have a period where 

every White guy riding around on a motorcycle wearing a leather 

vest is stopped to find out whether or not he is a legal citizen or 

whether or not he is guilty of some kind of criminal offense. 

But unfortunately now in this country, we have a situation that 

has arisen under Federal law. The Immigration and Nationality 

Act, section 287(g), authorizes the Federal Government to enter 

into agreements with state and local enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement 

functions. 

So in short, they are, since it is against the law to be in the country illegally, if a law enforcement officer operating under 287(g) has 

a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant, then 

that officer has a constitutional right to stop that person, because 

they are violating the law. 

Now, you stop them whether or not they are in a car or walking 

down a public street, or behind a house barbequing, or even if the 

law enforcement officer is legally at a location where he can peer 

into a window, say, at the local barbershop, and you see someone 

who looks like they could be an illegal immigrant. Then you can 

go and pull the person out of the barbershop and say, ‘‘Look, show 

me proof that you are a legal immigrant.’’ Now, that is kind of 

scary under 287(g). 

And it is exacerbated by the Arizona law that has been signed 

into effect, which requires people to walk around—or again at the 

barbershop—have proof of citizenship. So, police in Arizona, if they 

think that you are—if they feel that they have a—if they have a 

reasonable suspicion that you may be an illegal immigrant, they 

can stop you and ask you for your papers. 

And, you know, this is where we have come as a society. Because 

if it can happen to the Latino, to a person such as you, Professor 

Ramirez, who—you look like you could have some Indian blood. 

You look like you could be Honduran. You look like you could perhaps be from Mexico or Colombia, you know, someplace—you know, 

I feel like you speak Spanish. 

So, I think that you would be a prime target to be jacked up, just 

like you have been, Mr. Singh, but not just at the airport, but on 

the street doing your own business, taking care of your business, 

walking the dog. 

And so, this is where we are as a society. And so, that is what 

makes this hearing so very important, because we are used to freedom. We are used to non-discrimination. 

And so, when you can single out someone based on a characteristic, a visible characteristic—well, that person is obviously 

Black right there, or that person is obviously a White boy riding 

on a motorcycle wearing a vest, or this person is obviously a Muslim, or this person is obviously Hispanic—when we start doing 

these things, it hurts us all, because the White boys riding a motorcycle do not think it is going to happen to them. But if we allow 

it to happen to one segment, then it certainly can mushroom into 

something that hurts us all. 

And so, I guess my question would be, chief, what kind of impact 

does the 287(g) program have on the ability of law enforcement officers to protect citizens in areas populated by Latinos? 

78 

Chief BURBANK. Well, sir, the points that you made go to my reason for not being cross-deputized as a civil immigration enforcement. And that is the important thing here. 

Immigration law at the Federal level is a civil penalty. You can 

detain and deport. Nowhere else in law does local law enforcement 

get involved in civil enforcement. So, one, that is the first problem 

that exists. 

The other is the fact, this notion that reasonable suspicion to 

stop somebody—I do not know how you get reasonable suspicion 

without action. That is what we base our profession on. And when 

you talk about status, immigration status, about the only thing 

that comes to mind that I can think of rises to reasonable suspicion 

is to stand on the border and watch somebody run from the border. 

That gives you reasonable suspicion, based on their actions. 

Absent race or ethnicity, you cannot get to reasonable suspicion 

that somebody is undocumented in this country. And that is where 

police officers should not move. And it is very problematic for us 

to engage in that sort of behavior, because we lose sight of criminal 

action, we lose sight of actions that generates probable cause to 

make good criminal cases, when we rely on race and ethnicity as 

the basis for our stop. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

If there is a rapist and a child molester running amongst and 

running amok in a Latino neighborhood, would a program such as 

287(g) have a chilling effect on a resident reporting criminal activity such as that? 

Chief BURBANK. Absolutely. And we have seen that time and 

time again across the country. 

There are examples of individuals that failed to report criminal 

activity, or failed to report that they are the victim of criminal activity, for fear of deportation, or fear of deportation for family members. And so, it does have a chilling effect. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, and—— 

Mr. NADLER. Before the gentleman yields back, would he yield to 

me for a moment? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Chief Burbank, you said that aside from standing at the border 

and seeing someone run away from it, there would be nothing that 

you could think of that would yield reasonable suspicion that someone is an undocumented immigrant. If someone was stopped for legitimate—if someone driving a car was stopped for legitimate reasons, whatever—and have no documents whatever on him or her, 

this would also not be grounds for reasonable suspicion. 

Chief BURBANK. Well, if someone is stopped, the privilege to 

drive requires a driver’s license. 

Mr. NADLER. And let us assume he did not have the driver’s license or anything else. 

Chief BURBANK. Well, okay. But then you have suspicion to believe that that individual has committed a crime of driving without 

a driver’s license, and that warrants further investigation. 

And so, potentially, and in the state of Utah currently, if someone is booked into the jail, they check the status of individuals. But 

the officer should not rely on the color of their skin unless we are 

79 

moving—and again, this is what is scary—if we are moving to the 

point that every single person in society is going to carry a card 

that said, I am this, right, then we do not have the basis to do that. 

Mr. NADLER. We do not want to see the thing we see in the 

movie, ‘‘papers, please.’’ 

Chief BURBANK. Absolutely not. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

And I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman, thank you very much. 

It is only in a place as hallowed as this Judiciary Committee that 

a Chairman such as yourself will be willing to hold a hearing on 

what mostly is an unpopular topic. And some would argue that we 

finished that work and we need to move on. And I believe it is evident that we cannot move on. 

Some of us will be celebrating Juneteenth. And in some remarks 

about the history of that particular time, I commented that the 

work continues. And if in the instance of 1865, General Granger 

had ceased to be persistent and determined, a whole body of people 

would still be, some might imagine, not free. 

So, I think it is important for this Committee to continue, as 

Chairman Nadler and Chairman Conyers has granted us the privilege of doing. And certainly, I note my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle have a definitive interest in their absence. I am sure 

they are very committed. And we look forward to providing the 

leadership for them to follow on what may necessarily be changes. 

If I might quickly ask questions. And thank you, Mr. Shelton, for 

the NAACP’s continued persistence in going all over the country, 

a personal appreciation to President Jealous for accepting the call 

to Texas, that was proclaimed free in 1865, but the board of education for the state determined we were not by recharacterizing our 

history books. 

Personally, I hope that we will be in a posture to file suit. But 

convey again to Mr. Jealous of my appreciation. 

Can you quickly reconcile the tension between the ability of an 

officer to take advantage of a complicated traffic law to create an 

escalating encounter with a driver and develop probable cause, 

which did not exist at the time of the stop, and the protections extended by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and 

seizure? It is a complicated question, but if you can be as quick as 

possible. And it somewhat refers to the Arizona law that is abominable. 

Mr. SHELTON. Absolutely. If there is a display of misbehavior, 

that indeed the law has been infracted, then indeed there is a probable cause to pull one over. And certainly, part of that process is 

asking for a driver’s license. Most if not every state in our country 

requires a driver’s license in your possession at the time you are 

operating a motor vehicle. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And that is existing law—— 

Mr. SHELTON. Exactly. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Without the Arizona law. 

Mr. SHELTON. That is exactly right. 

80 

So, if you are going to the issue of the Arizona law, the Arizona 

law is not only not helpful at all, as a matter of fact, it is even 

more problematic. Indeed, if we talk about the Arizona law, what 

the NAACP has learned over our years is that, in order for law enforcement to be effective, they must first have the trust and a perception of integrity by those they serve. I think Chief Burbank did 

an excellent job of outlining much of that. 

Whether I have talked to Attorney General Janet Reno under the 

Clinton administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft under the 

Bush administration, or Attorney General Eric Holder under the 

Obama administration, they all agree on one central fact. And that 

is, in order for law enforcement to be effective in preventing crime 

or solving crime after it has been committed, then indeed they 

must have the trust of the communities they serve. 

If you will not talk to them before a crime is committed, then you 

cannot prevent it from happening. If people in the communities do 

not trust you, after a crime has been committed you cannot gather 

the evidence necessary to prosecute. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And there may be the potential of unreasonable search and seizure inasmuch as you can stop a person not for 

the basic law that we have, you have a traffic infraction, but because of the color of your skin or the car you are driving, or maybe 

the music that is on your radio. And so, the probable cause is questionable. 

Mr. SHELTON. Yes, indeed. Yes, it would be. As a matter of fact, 

it is an amazing thing—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I am not going to cut you off, but I have 

other questions, so if you want to finish your final sentence. 

Mr. SHELTON. No, I will let you go on. I will take all of your time 

if you let me. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you for that basic answer. 

This is going to go to Professor Ramirez and Mr. Singh and Ms. 

Khera. 

Ms. Ramirez, I think—I am on Homeland Security. And one of 

the things that we have talked about is the whole question of behavioral versus the racial profiling. If you can quickly answer the 

value of that, because I begin to look at Mr. Singh, and I look at 

Ms.—I am trying to get it right here, my paper is away—Khera. 

And I would imagine there would be Muslim prayers, his attire, 

and I hope he will speak to that, not because I have asked. 

And so, the question is, is behavior the right way? I think behavior is good for the terrorist design, meaning that behavior connected to terrorists overseas, what is on your computer, et cetera, 

there are no other problems with that. But the question is, how do 

you work with that tension, so that behavior also is not profiling? 

Ms. RAMIREZ. I know that at Logan Airport they have been experimenting with a series of behavioral profiles and assessments, 

very successfully. And they have used it in tandem with a random 

number generator. And the random number generator just generates random numbers, and if your number comes up, you are 

searched. 

No criminal or terrorist organization can beat a random number 

generator, because it is random. So, that is part of what their success is. And the other part is focusing on behavior. 

81 

Behavior can be abnormal travel plans, an abnormal travel agenda. It can be the way the person is conducting themselves. But it 

is not focused on race, ethnicity or religion. They are really moving 

away from that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can I get the last two witnesses, just quickly, 

to answer the thought of behavior and the whole issue of racial 

profiling? Is that an option? 

Mr. Singh? 

Mr. SINGH. Sorry, congresswoman—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is behavior an option, behavioral—— 

Mr. SINGH. Profiling—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Their behavior? Or does that incorporate actions of people who are attired differently, or doing 

their prayers, public prayers? Is that also a dangerous prospect? 

Mr. SINGH. If the behavior that is focused on is simply my religious practice, wearing a turban or praying, then I would find that 

very problematic. The behaviors that have to be the focus of law 

enforcement scrutiny is criminal behavior, actions that actually 

would indicate that you are about to do something, or in the planning stages of doing something that is terrible. 

But merely wearing religious dress, or merely praying, in and of 

itself is not a crime. In fact, it is protected by the First Amendment 

of our Constitution. And I would hope that by behavior profiling we 

do not mean behavior being Muslim or being Sikh. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Ms. Khera? 

Ms. KHERA. Thank you for that question, congresswoman. 

We support a behavior focus. But I think the devil is in the detail, so, which I think gets to the point of your question. And I 

would say, where it is really important is in training and having 

an audit mechanism. So, ensuring that those officers are understanding, so that they are not singling people out based on religious practice, prayer, speaking Arabic, et cetera. 

And also what is really important is the audit mechanism. And 

that is where the data collection piece is absolutely critical, so that 

the higher-ups, the supervisors, the heads of agencies can determine whether the policies they have enacted to actually focus on 

behavior is actually being played out on the ground. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So, as I yield back, racial profiling is active 

and alive, and it needs a frontal attack that is balanced and responsive to extinguishing it as it discriminates against people, simply because they exist. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

And finally, I recognize the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. 

First, before I begin, I would like to submit the testimony of 

United Sikhs for the record, which is another Sikh advocacy organization that I work with closely on the racial profiling issue. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

82 


M-1.eps
83 


M-2.eps
84 


M-3.eps
85 


M-4.eps
86 

Ms. CHU. Well, I am—thank you—I am from California. I have 

talked to so many Sikhs who have had experiences similar to you, 

Mr. Singh. And I thank you for talking about the situation so eloquently. Racial profiling is a significant problem in connection to 

airport security and border crossings, because of the mistaken impression that Sikhs are connected to terrorism because of the turban. 

Do you know of any documented case of terrorism from the Sikh 

community? 

Mr. SINGH. Not against the United States, Representative Chu. 

Ms. CHU. And can you tell me what are the officials policies of 

TSA regarding Sikhs and inspection of the turban, versus what the 

actual experience is? 

Mr. SINGH. In theory, the TSA has an anti-profiling policy. I 

would note—and this is where I think legislation is so important— 

the TSA’s anti-profiling policy is based on the Department of Justice’s 2003 racial guidance on profiling. The Justice Department in 

2003 guidance on racial profiling first is merely a guidance. It does 

not have the force of law. 

But second, it has a gaping national security loophole that is 

vague and undefined. So, for reasons of national security, the antiprofiling protections can literally be thrown away, and in fact, they 

are. At many airports around the country, Sikhs are literally 

screened 100 percent of the time. 

And again, as you have noted in your questions, given that our 

community has literally no—has not been—had any accusation of 

wanting to engage in terrorism against the United States, it shows 

you how foolish racial profiling is, that officers have so much discretion that they can just pull aside anyone who they want to pull 

aside, based simply on their appearance, with no oversight and no 

accountability. 

Ms. CHU. In fact, there are supposed to be three options. For instance, one, it is supposed to be a private area, but that is not followed. Is that correct? 

Mr. SINGH. That is right. Most air traveler passengers do not 

know that they have—Sikh air travel passengers—have a private 

option if they want to be screened in private. 

But to be honest, it is silly that they need to have to even ask 

for a private screening. They should not be secondarily screened in 

the first place. 

Ms. CHU. Do you know how many cases of discrimination or complaints have been filed with TSA regarding handling of Sikh passengers? 

Mr. SINGH. You know, our organization has filed more than 50 

individual complaints with the TSA. We have also sent them an 

Excel spreadsheet where more than 200 members of our community have complained of being profiled at the airports in the United 

States. 

Sadly, the TSA mechanism for reviewing these complaints is 

shoddy, at best. Usually, it takes more than a year to receive an 

acknowledgement that you even filed a complaint. And the disposition of the complaint usually comes 2 years later with a finding of 

no profiling in that individual case. 

87 

We are disturbed that the TSA does not look at the complaints 

we have filed as part of a larger pattern or practice, but just keeps 

adjudicating each single case on its own. 

So, again, the mechanisms in place to hold the TSA accountable 

are literally nonexistent. They are written on paper and do not 

mean much on the ground. And that is why, again, I think legislation is so critical to address this issue in a way that is meaningful. 

Ms. CHU. Has TSA ever acknowledged that there has been any 

racial profiling with regard to Sikhs? 

Mr. SINGH. The TSA’s constant position—and it is extremely 

frustrating for our community—is that we do not profile, and 

profiling is against the policy of the TSA. I am so glad the TSA 

says that profiling is against their policy. But we would like to actually see that implemented on the ground. 

Ms. CHU. So, what recommendations would you have for improving TSA policies regarding Sikhs? 

Mr. SINGH. I think the recommendation has to be actually a recommendation from this Congress. We need an End Racial Profiling 

Act that has a private right of action and has meaningful data collection. 

The public should actually have the information available to it to 

actually see who is being stopped and whether those stops are actually resulting in an arrest, or some indication of criminal activity. 

And then that way, the public can actually weigh the costs and 

benefits in an enlightened way of whether the actions our government is taking are actually keeping our country safe and how they 

square with our rights as Americans. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned with the way TSA 

has handled complaints and requests from the Sikh community regarding racial profiling. Not only is it discriminatory, but it has the 

potential to make the Sikh community even more skeptical and 

less trusting of our law enforcement officials. And we need the full 

trust of all passengers in order to maintain the safety and security 

of our airports and planes. 

So, I would like to send a letter to TSA asking for an audit and 

additional data on the racial profiling of Sikhs by TSA employees. 

Actually, I would like to in fact get overall information—a racial 

breakdown, basically—of the complaints that have been filed with 

regard to the inspections by TSA employees, and urge them to review their policies and improve their training to limit this kind of 

discrimination. 

And Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I hope 

you can join me in that effort. 

Mr. NADLER. We will be happy to work with—the staff will work 

with your staff on that. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Mr. NADLER. Would you yield to me for a second? 

Ms. CHU. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I want to ask Mr. Singh, as terrible as racial profiling is, I think 

we understand the mistaken psychology of some people who engage 

in it. 

From your knowledge of the TSA, since there is no history of 

Sikhs engaging in terrorism or attacks on the United States, or 

88 

anything else, why does the TSA racially profile the Sikh community? 

Mr. SINGH. I believe because their officers are given so much discretion, that there are no proper controls for the officers to actually 

review whether they are engaged in profiling and how that affects 

their law enforcement functions. There really is no great system—— 

Mr. NADLER. No, no. I understand all that. 

Mr. SINGH. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. But why the Sikh community? 

Mr. SINGH. Why the Sikh community? You know, Chairman Nadler, I really do not know, given what you have just said, given that 

Sikhs have not had any sort of terrorist accusation against the—— 

Mr. NADLER. You would have to say just ignorance, then. 

Mr. SINGH. Yes, I believe it is ignorance. I believe it is ignorance. 

And it goes a lot to what my distinguished panelists have said with 

regard to police training and education. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I yield back to the gentlelady, who was 

going to yield back. 

Ms. CHU. Yes, I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank you. 

We have no further Members to ask questions. 

So, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, 

which we will forward, and ask the witnesses to respond as 

promptly as they can, so that their answers may be made part of 

the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

I want to thank the members of the panel. I want to thank the 

Members generally. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

89 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


B-1.eps
90 


B-2.eps
91 

f 


B-3.eps
92 


A-1.eps
93 


A-2.eps
94 

f 


A-3.eps
95 


C-1.eps
96 

f 


C-2.eps
97 


D-1.eps
98 


D-2.eps
99 

f 


D-3.eps
100 


E-1.eps
101 


E-2.eps
102 


E-3.eps
103 

f 


E-4.eps
104 


F-1.eps
105 

f 


F-2.eps
106 


G1-1.eps
107 


G1-2.eps
108 


G1-3.eps
109 

ATTACHMENT 


G2-1.eps
110 


G2-2.eps
111 

f 


G2-3.eps
112 


H-1.eps
113 


H-2.eps
114 


H-3.eps
115 


H-4.eps
116 

f 


H-5.eps
117 


I-1.eps
118 


I-2.eps
119 


I-3.eps
120 


I-4.eps
121 


I-5.eps
122 


I-6.eps
123 


I-7.eps
124 


I-8.eps
125 


I-9.eps
126 


I-10.eps
127 


I-11.eps
128 

f 


I-12.eps
129 


J-1.eps
130 


J-2.eps
131 


J-3.eps
132 


J-4.eps
133 


J-5.eps
134 


J-6.eps
135 


J-7.eps
136 


J-8.eps
137 


J-9.eps
138 


J-10.eps
139 


J-11.eps
140 


J-12.eps
141 


J-13.eps
142 


J-14.eps
143 


J-15.eps
144 


J-16.eps
145 


J-17.eps
146 


J-18.eps
147 

f 


J-19.eps
148 


K-1.eps
149 


K-2.eps
150 

f 


K-3.eps
151 


L-1.eps
152 


L-2.eps
153 


L-3.eps
154 


L-4.eps
155 


L-5.eps
156 


L-6.eps
157 

Æ 


L-7.eps