I 
108TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 3847 
To prohibit racial profiling. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
FEBRUARY 26, 2004 
Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. NADLER, Mr. SCOTT of Vir-
ginia, Mr. WATT, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. WATERS, Mr. 
DELAHUNT, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. WEINER, Ms. LINDA T. SA´NCHEZ of 
California, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA´, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. 
BALLANCE, Mr. BELL, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BISHOP of New 
York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, 
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mrs. CAPPS, Ms. 
CARSON of Indiana, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. 
CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. DAVIS of 
Florida, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. FARR, Mr. 
FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FORD, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. 
FROST, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. 
GONZALEZ, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. 
HINOJOSA, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. JACKSON of Illi-
nois, Mr. JEFFERSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. KIL-
DEE, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. 
LANTOS, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, 
Ms. MAJETTE, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. MATSUI, Ms. 
MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. MCCOLLUM, 
Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MEEKS of New 
York, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. GEORGE MIL-
LER of California, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OLVER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PASTOR, 
Mr. PAYNE, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. 
RODRIGUEZ, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. RUSH, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. LO-
RETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SANDLIN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. 
SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. 
SOLIS, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. STARK, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. THOMPSON of 
Mississippi, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. TOWNS, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. WALSH, 
Ms. WATSON, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WU, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL 
To prohibit racial profiling. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 
‘‘End Racial Profiling Act of 2004’’. 
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of 
this Act is as follows: 
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes. 
TITLE I—PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING 
Sec. 101. Prohibition. 
Sec. 102. Enforcement. 
TITLE II—PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY 
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 
Sec. 201. Policies to eliminate racial profiling. 
TITLE III—PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY 
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 
Sec. 301. Policies required for grants. 
Sec. 302. Best practices development grants. 
TITLE IV—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORTS ON RACIAL 
PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES 
Sec. 401. Attorney General to issue reports on racial profiling in the United 
States. 
Sec. 402. Limitation on use of data. 
TITLE V—DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 
Sec. 501. Definitions. 
Sec. 502. Severability. 
Sec. 503. Savings clause. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:
(1) Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
agents play a vital role in protecting the public from 
crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The 
vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide 
discharge their duties professionally and without 
bias. 
(2) The use by police officers of race, ethnicity, 
religion, or national origin in deciding which persons 
should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, 
questioning, searches, and seizures is improper. 
(3) In his address to a Joint Session of Con-
gress on February 27, 2001, President George W. 
Bush declared that ‘‘racial profiling is wrong and we 
will end it in America.’’ He directed the Attorney 
General to implement this policy. 
(4) In June 2003, the Department of Justice 
issued a Policy Guidance regarding racial profiling 
by Federal law enforcement agencies which stated: 
‘‘Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely 
wrong, but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions 
in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereo-
types that are harmful to our rich and diverse de-
mocracy, and materially impair our efforts to main-
tain a fair and just society.’’
(5) The Department of Justice Guidance is a 
useful first step, but does not achieve the President’s 
stated goal of ending racial profiling in America: it 
does not apply to State and local law enforcement 
agencies, does not contain a meaningful enforcement 
mechanism, does not require data collection, and 
contains an overbroad exception for immigration and 
national security matters. 
(6) Current efforts by State and local govern-
ments to eradicate racial profiling and redress the 
harms it causes, while also laudable, have been lim-
ited in scope and insufficient to address this national 
problem. Therefore, Federal legislation is needed. 
(7) Statistical evidence from across the country 
demonstrates that racial profiling is a real and 
measurable phenomenon. 
(8) As of November 15, 2000, the Department 
of Justice had 14 publicly noticed, ongoing, pattern 
or practice investigations involving allegations of ra-
cial profiling, and had filed 5 pattern and practice 
lawsuits involving allegations of racial profiling, with 
4 of those cases resolved through consent decrees. 
(9) A large majority of individuals subjected to 
stops and other enforcement activities based on race, 
ethnicity, religion, or national origin are found to be
law abiding and therefore racial profiling is not an 
effective means to uncover criminal activity. 
(10) A 2001 Department of Justice report on 
citizen-police contacts in 1999 found that, although 
African-Americans and Hispanics were more likely 
to be stopped and searched, they were less likely to 
be in possession of contraband. On average, searches 
and seizures of African-American drivers yielded evi-
dence only 8 percent of the time, searches and sei-
zures of Hispanic drivers yielded evidence only 10 
percent of the time, and searches and seizures of 
white drivers yielded evidence 17 percent of the 
time. 
(11) A 2000 General Accounting Office report 
on the activities of the United States Customs Serv-
ice during fiscal year 1998 found that— 
(A) black women who were United States 
citizens were 9 times more likely than white 
women who were United States citizens to be x- 
rayed after being frisked or patted down; 
(B) black women who were United States 
citizens were less than half as likely as white 
women who were United States citizens to be 
found carrying contraband; and
(C) in general, the patterns used to select 
passengers for more intrusive searches resulted 
in women and minorities being selected at rates 
that were not consistent with the rates of find-
ing contraband. 
(12) In some jurisdictions, local law enforce-
ment practices such as ticket and arrest quotas, and 
similar management practices, may have the unin-
tended effect of encouraging law enforcement agents 
to engage in racial profiling. 
(13) Racial profiling harms individuals sub-
jected to it because they experience fear, anxiety, hu-
miliation, anger, resentment, and cynicism when 
they are unjustifiably treated as criminal suspects. 
By discouraging individuals from traveling freely, ra-
cial profiling impairs both interstate and intrastate 
commerce. 
(14) Racial profiling damages law enforcement 
and the criminal justice system as a whole by under-
mining public confidence and trust in the police, the 
courts, and the criminal law. 
(15) In the wake of the September 11, 2001, 
terrorist attacks, many Arabs, Muslims, Central and 
South Asians, and Sikhs, as well as other immi-
grants and Americans of foreign descent, were treat-
ed with generalized suspicion and subjected to 
searches and seizures based upon religion and na-
tional origin, without trustworthy information link-
ing specific individuals to criminal conduct. Such 
profiling has failed to produce tangible benefits, yet 
has created a fear and mistrust of law enforcement 
agencies in these communities. 
(16) Racial profiling violates the equal protec-
tion clause of the Constitution. Using race, ethnicity, 
religion, or national origin as a proxy for criminal 
suspicion violates the constitutional requirement that 
police and other government officials accord to all 
citizens the equal protection of the law. Arlington 
Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Cor-
poration, 429 U.S. 252 (1977). 
(17) Racial profiling is not adequately ad-
dressed through suppression motions in criminal 
cases for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court 
held, in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 
(1996), that the racially discriminatory motive of a 
police officer in making an otherwise valid traffic 
stop does not warrant the suppression of evidence. 
Second, since most stops do not result in the dis-
covery of contraband, there is no criminal prosecu-
tion and no evidence to suppress.
(18) A comprehensive national solution is need-
ed to address racial profiling at the Federal, State, 
and local levels. Federal support is needed to combat 
racial profiling through specialized training of law 
enforcement agents, improved management systems, 
and the acquisition of technology such as in-car 
video cameras. 
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are— 
(1) to enforce the constitutional right to equal 
protection of the laws, pursuant to the Fifth Amend-
ment and section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States; 
(2) to enforce the constitutional right to protec-
tion against unreasonable searches and seizures, 
pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitu-
tion of the United States; 
(3) to enforce the constitutional right to inter-
state travel, pursuant to section 2 of article IV of 
the Constitution of the United States; and 
(4) to regulate interstate commerce, pursuant 
to clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitu-
tion of the United States.
TITLE I—PROHIBITION OF 
RACIAL PROFILING 
SEC. 101. PROHIBITION. 
No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency 
shall engage in racial profiling. 
SEC. 102. ENFORCEMENT. 
(a) REMEDY.—The United States, or an individual 
injured by racial profiling, may enforce this title in a civil 
action for declaratory or injunctive relief, filed either in 
a State court of general jurisdiction or in a district court 
of the United States. 
(b) PARTIES.—In any action brought pursuant to 
this title, relief may be obtained against— 
(1) any governmental unit that employed any 
law enforcement agent who engaged in racial 
profiling; 
(2) any agent of such unit who engaged in ra-
cial profiling; and 
(3) any person with supervisory authority over 
such agent. 
(c) NATURE OF PROOF.—Proof that the routine or 
spontaneous investigatory activities of law enforcement 
agents in a jurisdiction have had a disparate impact on 
racial, ethnic, or religious minorities shall constitute prima 
facie evidence of a violation of this title.
(d) ATTORNEY’S FEES.—In any action or proceeding 
to enforce this title against any governmental unit, the 
court may allow a prevailing plaintiff, other than the 
United States, reasonable attorney’s fees as part of the 
costs, and may include expert fees as part of the attorney’s 
fee. 
TITLE II—PROGRAMS TO ELIMI-
NATE RACIAL PROFILING BY 
FEDERAL 
LAW 
ENFORCE-
MENT AGENCIES 
SEC. 201. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Federal law enforcement agencies 
shall— 
(1) maintain adequate policies and procedures 
designed to eliminate racial profiling; and 
(2) cease existing practices that encourage ra-
cial profiling. 
(b) POLICIES.—The policies and procedures de-
scribed in subsection (a)(1) shall include— 
(1) a prohibition on racial profiling; 
(2) the collection of data on routine investiga-
tory activities sufficient to determine if law enforce-
ment agents are engaged in racial profiling and sub-
mission of that data to the Attorney General;