Jersey City
New Brunswick

Elizabeth

Millville

December 2015

Selective Policing
Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey
A Report by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Acknowledgements
This report was written and researched by Lynda Garcia, Soros Justice Fellow at the Criminal
Law Reform Project of the ACLU and ACLU of New Jersey. This publication was supported in
part by a grant from the Soros Justice Fellowships of the Open Society Foundations.
Will Bunting, the ACLU’s Fiscal Policy Analyst and Economist, conducted the data analyses
and provided critical assistance in the research design and process. Allison Frankel,
paralegal for the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project, provided invaluable research, editorial,
and data management assistance. Marshall Thomas, paralegal for the ACLU Criminal Law
Reform Project, provided invaluable research and data management assistance, and helped
conduct the geo-analyses.
The report was reviewed and edited by Ezekiel Edwards, Director of the ACLU Criminal
Law Reform Project, Udi Ofer, Executive Director of the ACLU-NJ, Deborah Howlett,
Communications Director for the ACLU-NJ, Allison Peltzman, Senior Communications
Strategist for the ACLU-NJ, Ari Rosmarin, Public Policy Director of the ACLU-NJ, Alexander
Shalom, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU-NJ, and Katie Wang, former Communications
Director for the ACLU-NJ.
ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project legal interns, Lauren Conner, Jon Erwin-Frank, and
Caitlin Naidoff provided critical research and court-watching assistance; Antoine Morris
provided data management assistance. ACLU-NJ interns Mariel Hooper, Prameela Nagaraj,
and TyAnna Wiggins provided data management assistance. ACLU Center for Justice intern,
Makeba Rutahindurwa, helped with the data management.
The ACLU-NJ thanks Peter Liguori, Deputy Public Defender for Union County, and Joseph J.
Russo, Deputy Public Defender for Hudson County, for their support and insights.
The author thanks Professor Harry G. Levine at Queens College, for his incredible
mentorship throughout the fellowship and writing of this report, and Professor Mona Lynch
at the University of California, Irvine, for her guidance and support.
Special thanks to Tormel Pittman for sharing his experiences with the ACLU-NJ.
Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey
Copyright © 2015 by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.
All rights reserved.
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
P.O. Box 32159
Newark, NJ 07102-0559
973-642-2084
info@aclu-nj.org
www.aclu-nj.org
	

|2|

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 4
I. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 8
		 A. W
 hy Arrests for Low-Level Offenses Matter:
The Human and Fiscal Costs....................................................................................... 9
		B. W
 hy Police Departments’ Data Collection Practices Matter:
Transparency and Accountability Depend on Accurate and Reliable Data.......................10
II. Findings..............................................................................................................................12
		A. E
 xtreme Racial Disparities Exist Between Black and White Arrests
in the Four Cities Studied...........................................................................................12
		B. Individuals Charged with Low-Level Offenses Are Generally
Not Involved in Serious Crimes..................................................................................12
		C. P
 olice Departments Fail to Keep Arrest Records for
Low-Level Offenses in Accessible, Reliable Formats..................................................13
		 D. S
 ome Cities Fail to Track Hispanic/Latino Arrest Data Consistently, If at All..................13
		E. D
 ata Provided by Police Departments Varied from the Data
They Reported to the Federal Government.................................................................14
III. Data Sources and Methodology........................................................................................15
		A. D
 efinitions.................................................................................................................15
		B. D
 ata Sources..............................................................................................................16
		C. M
 ethodology............................................................................................................. 17
IV. Case Studies: Analyses of Police Arrest Data in Four Cities..............................................18
		A. Jersey City..................................................................................................................18
		B. E
 lizabeth................................................................................................................... 37
		C. N
 ew Brunswick...........................................................................................................51
		D. M
 illville..................................................................................................................... 62
V. Recommendations............................................................................................................. 76
Appendices............................................................................................................................. 83
Endnotes................................................................................................................................. 99

	

|3|	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Executive Summary
Police departments across the country increasingly have come to rely on the aggressive
enforcement of low-level offenses to maintain social order and deter more serious crimes.
Such a strategy involves the exercise of unfettered discretion by individual police officers.
They decide whether and when to make arrests for minor misbehaviors that pose little or
no harm to the community. This can lead to the uneven enforcement of low-level offenses,
which falls disproportionately on Black and Latino communities.
The origins of this report stem from a 2013 American Civil Liberties Union national study
of racial disparities in the context of marijuana possession arrests. That report found that
Blacks in New Jersey were nearly three times more likely to be arrested than Whites. The
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey decided to further examine those findings by
taking a closer look at the arrests for numerous low-level offenses, specifically disorderly
conduct; defiant trespass; loitering; and marijuana possession. We examined the most
recent data available from police departments in four cities. The cities were chosen to
reflect New Jersey’s diversity in population density, demographics, and geographic location.
The four cities are Jersey City, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, and Millville.
The results of the study demonstrate a pattern of racially disparate enforcement practices
in all four cities. In each case, the study identified extreme racial disparities in the number
of arrests of Black and White people for low-level offenses. We were unable to gauge the
full extent of the disparities because of serious flaws in the data collection practices of each
police department.
Key findings from the report:
• Racial disparities between Black and White arrests exist in every city studied. For the
most recent years available, the data show Blacks in Jersey City are 9.6 times more
likely to be arrested than Whites for the low-level offenses studied. In Millville, it’s 6.3
times more likely; in Elizabeth, it’s 3.4 times more likely; and in New Brunswick, 2.6
times more likely.
• Racial disparities between Hispanic/Latino and White arrests are present where
data are available. Arrest data for Hispanics/Latinos are not kept in a consistent
manner from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Where data were available, however, the study
found disparities. For example, for the most recent years available, in Jersey City,
Hispanics/Latinos were 2.9 times more likely to be arrested than Whites for the offenses
studied. In Millville, Hispanics/Latinos were 6.3 times more likely to be arrested for
marijuana possession.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

|4|

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Some law enforcement agencies do not track Hispanic/Latino data. For example, the
Elizabeth Police Department does not track Hispanic/Latino arrests, despite serving a
population that is 60% Hispanic/Latino.
• Police departments are not keeping records in accessible, reliable formats. Some
departments were simply missing arrest data for several years. Haphazard record
keeping was evident in all four police departments. Jersey City, for example, conducted
a hand count of its arrest records for 2011 and discovered significantly more marijuana
possession arrests than were found by a computer search. The lack of accurate, reliable
records makes evaluating the departments’ practices difficult (sometimes impossible),
hindering transparency and accountability.
• Individuals charged with low-level offenses are generally not involved in serious crimes.
For example, 95% of the low-level arrests in Jersey City did not involve any other offense
classified as “serious” by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Because the study focused on
low-level offenses, arrests that included charges for more serious offenses were excluded
from the analyses.
The study data revealed a clear pattern of Black and Hispanic/Latino communities
disproportionately bearing the brunt of policing practices that focus on a strict enforcement
of low-level offenses. The human cost of these arrests and convictions can include having to
pay court costs and fines; criminal records that follow individuals for the rest of their lives;
and the loss of income, housing, child custody, or immigration status. In extreme cases, a
confrontation with police over a low-level offense can escalate into an episode of violence.
Almost as troubling as the revelations about the disparity in the number of arrests, is the
routine lack of diligence in record keeping and the haphazard collection of enforcement data.
Without full, careful, and transparent reporting of the arrests made by a city’s police
department, the public cannot be adequately informed about the work of the department;
the community cannot hold officials accountable for the actions being taken; and the police
departments cannot determine the effectiveness of its policing strategies.
Despite incomplete data from the police departments due to breakdowns in their reporting
practices, a clear picture emerged. The effort to fight crime with an aggressive strategy of
arresting people for low-level offenses served mainly to create unacceptable disparities in
the number of Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos arrested.
The racial disparities uncovered by this study are deeply troubling and call for immediate
action to identify their causes. Only then can law enforcement agencies begin to

	

|5|	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

understand the impact such arrests have on communities of color, and implement the
appropriate changes.
Key recommendations from the report:
Local Reforms
• Municipal officials, police chiefs, and prosecutors should formally place enforcement of
offenses that have a minimal impact on public safety among their lowest enforcement
priorities.
• Municipalities should pass robust anti-racial profiling laws. One such law recently passed
in New York City provides a private cause of action for injunctive relief for disparate
impact claims and expands the categories of protected classes.
• Police departments should stop using arrests as a measure for evaluating officer
performance. This practice can induce officers to make unnecessary low-level arrests that
do nothing to strengthen the public safety.
• Municipalities should institute strong, independent oversight of police departments, such
as Civilian Complaint Review Boards. They must have the authority to independently
investigate police officers and ensure that discipline sticks when wrongdoing is found to
have occurred. CCRBs should also include an office of the Inspector General to monitor
police practices and policies. The recently-created police civilian review board in Newark
should serve as a model for the rest of the state.
•P
 olice departments should adopt tools that lead to greater accountability, such as
dashboard and/or body cameras, with appropriate privacy and First Amendment protections.

State Reforms
• The Attorney General of New Jersey should formally investigate the existence of racial
disparities in low-level arrests in New Jersey.
• The Attorney General of New Jersey should improve data collection by requiring law
enforcement agencies to track and report data on summonses, arrests, and stops, and
by issuing a directive for police departments to record Hispanic/Latino arrests according
to specific guidelines. This would create uniformity, which is currently lacking, across
municipalities in their reporting of Hispanic/Latino arrest data.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

|6|

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• State lawmakers should recognize that some laws for minor offenses should be repealed,
especially marijuana possession. This report finds racial disparities for the offense in
all four cities, despite evidence that Blacks and Whites use marijuana at similar rates.
Legalizing marijuana use would end its disparate enforcement, and properly treat it as a
public health issue.

Data Reforms
• Police departments should improve the collection and management of arrest data, and
systematically analyze the data collected. The principles of good policing demand that
departments take stock of how resources are allocated and how enforcement decisions
impact New Jersey communities.
• Police departments should report arrest data for low-level offenses to the public by
posting the information online on a regular basis.
• Reporting should include data on both pedestrian and vehicular searches and “Terry”
stops (also known as “stop-and-frisk”), where police may temporarily detain someone
if they have a reasonable suspicion that person is involved in a crime, and search the
person if police believe the person is armed.
By taking these steps, New Jersey can move toward ending the unfair enforcement of lowlevel offenses in all of our communities, relieving people of the damaging consequences
they face for behaviors that pose little to no public safety threat.
The study shows that disparities exist in large and small New Jersey communities when
it comes to the police enforcement of low-level offenses. A shift in those policies and
priorities would not only end the disparate treatment of Black and Hispanic/Latino
community members, it would allow police departments to redirect their scarce resources
and valuable time toward addressing serious crimes that represent a real threat to the
communities they serve.

	

|7|	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

I. Introduction
A 2013 ACLU study found that Black New Jerseyans are 2.8 times more likely to be arrested
for marijuana possession than their White neighbors,1 despite federal government data
that show Blacks and Whites use marijuana at similar rates.2 The marijuana arrest data
suggest that the disparity is the result of policing decisions that focus on the aggressive
enforcement of marijuana possession in communities of color, while seemingly turning a
blind eye to the same behavior among Whites.
While marijuana possession arrests have become a staple of police activity in departments
across the county, they also often indicate a larger pattern of aggressive and racially disparate
enforcement of low-level offenses. Such offenses are often enforced according to a “broken
windows” theory of policing, which posits that arrests for minor violations prevent more serious
crime.3 In practice, though, broken windows policing often leads to the criminalization of
behavior, sometimes including legal behavior, in neighborhoods disproportionately inhabited
by low-income Black and Latino residents.4 In extreme cases, the over-aggressive enforcement
of minor offenses can lead to police brutality, as epitomized by Eric Garner’s death in Staten
Island, New York on July 17, 2014.5 Mr. Garner was killed after he was placed in a chokehold
by a New York City police officer in violation of departmental rules banning such chokeholds.
The interaction began when police officers tried to arrest Mr. Garner for allegedly selling loose,
untaxed cigarettes.
Department-level analyses of arrests provide insights as to how arrests are made at the
neighborhood level, and offer detailed information about the age, gender, and race/ethnicity of
the targets of police enforcement.
This report examines disparities in police enforcement of four low-level offenses in New Jersey.6
The four offenses, chosen after speaking with civil rights advocates and defense attorneys,
observing municipal court hearings, and studying publicly available federal government data,
are: marijuana possession (possession of 50 grams or less, the lowest possession offense),7
disorderly conduct (public behavior thought to disrupt the public peace or cause annoyance),8
defiant trespass (being on property without permission, often a business, store, or neighbor’s
property),9 and loitering (wandering or remaining in public with the “purpose” of obtaining a
controlled substance).10 Previous studies have documented the differential treatment of Blacks
and Whites by police in the context of low-level arrests in other jurisdictions,11 and this report
documents the problem in New Jersey through the study of four cities chosen to reflect the
State’s diversity in demographics, population size, and geographic location.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

|8|

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

A. Why Arrests for Low-Level Offenses Matter: The Human and Fiscal Costs
Every aspect of policing involves a measure of choice and decision-making: which offenses
to prioritize; where to patrol; whether to investigate, stop, detain, question, caution,
arrest, or charge.12 Officers often exercise the greatest degree of discretion in the context
of low-level offenses. Unlike serious crime, where there is often a victim or some form
of property damage, low-level offenses are violations that rest primarily on the officer’s
observations and subjective decision to enforce. The nature of these encounters creates
ample opportunity for arbitrary and unfair enforcement of low-level offenses, often based
on an officer’s implicit bias. Enforcement often involves a one-on-one interaction between
an officer and an individual, and the application of oftentimes vague or overbroad statutes.13
The outcome of the interaction depends on the officer’s perception of innocuous behavior
that can be construed as a violation of the law.
The human costs of a low-level arrest are often significant. Low-level arrests carry a host
of collateral consequences that can deeply entangle individuals in the criminal justice
system. While low-level offenses are technically not considered crimes under the New
Jersey Constitution or New Jersey criminal code, a conviction carries with it the possibility
of jail time or probation, and the imposition of hefty fines. These burdens mire individuals
with a criminal record and stigmatize people for engaging in nonviolent conduct that poses
little to no public safety threat. Someone arrested can lose income, if not employment,
and face childcare hardships because of required court appearances. Nonappearance for a
court date can result in the issuance of a warrant—a crime in the fourth degree.14 An arrest
can also affect a person’s immigration status,15 limit employment opportunities,16 lead to
eviction,17 mandate the loss of licensing in certain professions,18 and result in a drivers
license suspension.19 These hardships are compounded in communities of color, which bear
the brunt of heavy-handed enforcement policies.
The fiscal costs of low-level arrests further necessitate scrutiny of aggressive enforcement.
Particularly in times of budget constraints, police departments must make difficult
decisions about the allocation of scarce resources. Arrests cost taxpayers money and
consume officers’ time, which could be better spent focusing on serious and violent crimes
that do pose serious public safety threats. Working to strengthen community relations and
finding alternatives to arrest, instead of focusing on the enforcement of minor offenses,
could pay dividends for community safety and police departments’ budgets in the long run.
Understanding who is being arrested for low-level offenses, in comparison to who is not
being arrested, is critical to evaluating the fairness, effectiveness, and perceived legitimacy
of law enforcement practices.

	

|9|	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

B. W
 hy Police Departments’ Data Collection Practices Matter:
Transparency and Accountability Depend on Accurate and Reliable Data
Data analysis is a primary mechanism by which law enforcement agencies can evaluate
their practices and address concerns and allegations of discriminatory or unfair policing
practices. By collecting data on “the nature, character, and demographics of police
enforcement practices,” as recommended by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ),
police departments can assess the appropriate application of the authority and broad
discretion entrusted to them.20 In the spring of 2014, former Attorney General Eric Holder
announced that the DOJ would begin collecting data about stops, searches, and arrests to
address racial disparities in the criminal justice system, recognizing that “to be successful
in reducing both the experience and the perception of bias, we must have verifiable data
about the problem.”21 
Racial disparities are a red flag that a particular community may be the target of unfair
enforcement. This can foster resentment in the community,22 and reduce community
cooperation with police.23 Law enforcement training and policies that take such disparities
into account can reduce those disparities, encouraging police-community collaboration and
increasing confidence in police work.
This study relied on analyses of arrest records from New Jersey police departments. What
the ACLU-NJ found, however, was that all of the departments from which records were
requested had difficulty producing complete or accurate data. This raises significant
transparency and accountability concerns, since communities, oversight bodies, and even
police departments themselves can only hold police accountable if they know what the
police are doing: how many arrests they are making, who is being arrested, and for what.
By collecting arrest and other criminal justice data, both the public and police departments
can accurately assess the appropriate application of the authority and broad discretion
entrusted to law enforcement.24 Access to accurate criminal justice data is critical to
preventing miscarriages of justice and to ascertaining the scope of potential problems, and
police departments bear responsibility for collecting and maintaining these data. The data
problems encountered in New Jersey are discussed in detail in the methodology and case
studies sections that follow.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 10 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Example of Bad Data Management: Asbury Park Police Department
The ACLU-NJ originally selected five cities for this study. However, the Asbury
Park Police Department (APPD) was unable to produce records that could be
properly analyzed and was dropped from the study.
The APPD first provided the ACLU-NJ with printed records because the department
lacks the technological capacity to provide records in an electronic file format.
The records, however, also lacked necessary information: race, gender, location,
and the other offenses a person was charged with. The ACLU-NJ and the APPD
had several discussions over the course of seven months to determine how the
agency could retrieve the records sought. Despite the existence of an APPD data
management system and electronic database, the APPD was unable to access the
necessary data, which prevented us from including the department in the study.
The practices of the APPD are a glaring example of poor data management by
a police department. Using an electronic record management system is only
the first step in adequate data collection practices. Departments must take
additional steps to ensure that their systems’ structures make basic policing
data easily accessible, and they must train personnel to manage and retrieve
the data.

	

| 11 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

II. Findings
A. E
 xtreme Racial Disparities Exist Between Black and White Arrests in the Four
Cities Studied
The data revealed racial disparities in arrests in all four cities, with Blacks on average
between 3.2 to 5.7 times more likely to be arrested than Whites for the study offenses.25
For the four low-level study offenses, Blacks in Jersey City were on average nearly 5 times
more likely to be arrested than Whites from 2005 to 2013, with the disparity peaking in
2013, when they were 9.6 times more likely to be arrested.26 In Elizabeth, Blacks were 3.6
times more likely than Whites to be arrested, and in New Brunswick they were 3.3 times
more likely to be arrested. Blacks in Millville fared even worse: they were 5.8 times more
likely than Whites to be arrested for the study offenses.
Similar racial disparities in Hispanic/Latino arrests are present in certain offense categories.
In 2013, Hispanics/Latinos in Jersey City were 2.9 times more likely to be arrested than
Whites for all study offenses. Hispanics/Latinos in Millville were 6.3 times more likely
than Whites to be arrested for marijuana possession in 2013, and 2.1 times more likely to
be arrested for disorderly conduct. The New Brunswick Hispanic/Latino data indicate low
disparities, and in some instances no disparity. Data for Hispanics/Latinos in Elizabeth
is not collected, making it impossible to assess the extent of any disparities. Specific
problems with Hispanic/Latino arrest data are discussed in each case study.

B. I ndividuals Charged with Low-Level Offenses Are Generally Not Involved in
Serious Crimes
A common refrain from law enforcement agencies is that cracking down on petty offenses
leads to catching individuals involved in more serious crimes.27 The data received from
police departments for this report, however, indicate that this is not the case for the
majority of low-level arrests. In Jersey City, 95% of the arrests did not involve serious crimes
as classified by the FBI, 84% of the total arrests involved low-level charges exclusively (i.e.,
there were no charges for an indictable offense), and 56% of these arrests were for a standalone charge for one of the four low-level offenses studied only.28 More than 93% of the
total arrests in Elizabeth did not include a charge that the federal government classifies as
serious offenses.29 In New Brunswick, 97% of the total arrests did not include a charge for a
serious crime and 74% of the arrests had low-level offense charges only (i.e., no indictable
offense was charged). Finally, 95% of the total arrests in Millville did not involve charges for
a serious crime, and nearly 70% did not involve an indictable offense.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 12 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

C. P
 olice Departments Fail to Keep Arrest Records for Low-Level Offenses in Accessible,
Reliable Formats
All four of the police departments in this report use some form of electronic record
management system. However, each one encountered varying degrees of difficulty in
producing the records requested. At first, Jersey City could not provide information about
the other offenses charged for each arrest, and then estimated the cost of retrieving the
records at more than $10,000.30 Elizabeth changed its process for coding arrests in 2010,
which affected the accurate cataloging of arrests. New Brunswick could not isolate the
study offenses from all other arrests, and could only provide records in printed format. Data
for 2010 and 2011 in Millville are missing after being lost in a data transfer.31
The central purpose of modern electronic record keeping is to improve the collection and
management of records, and to facilitate easier access and use. In the context of arrest
records, every department fell short of these objectives.

D. Some Cities Fail to Track Hispanic/Latino Arrest Data Consistently, If at All
The departments studied do not appear to have
Elizabeth does not record
uniform systems for recording ethnicity data
Hispanic/Latino arrests despite
in arrest records, specifically for Hispanics/
having a 60%Hispanic/Latino
Latinos, which also causes discrepancies in
the racial data from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
population.
Elizabeth, for example, does not record
Hispanic/Latino arrests at all—despite having
a 60% Hispanic/Latino population. Millville tracked race and ethnicity for Hispanics/Latinos
(e.g., Hispanic-Black or Hispanic-White) until 2010, and then stopped. Where Hispanic/
Latino arrest data are not recorded, those arrests are most likely recorded as White
arrests,32 skewing arrest rates and disparities for other racial groups. Given New Jersey’s
large Hispanic/Latino population, it is critical that police departments systemize their
record keeping practices for Hispanic/Latino data so that they can accurately track arrest
patterns and disparities.

E. D
 ata Provided by Police Departments Varied from the Data They Reported to the
Federal Government
The ACLU-NJ found discrepancies between the data provided for this report and the data
the departments reported to the FBI/UCR Program.33 The FBI/UCR Program collects and

	

| 13 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

publishes crime and arrest data, including arrest data for two of the study offenses:
marijuana possession and disorderly conduct. In many instances the ACLU-NJ received
records that reflected far fewer arrests than reported to the FBI/UCR.34
As of the writing of this report, the departments with whom we attempted to resolve
the inconsistent data issues have not been able to explain what accounts for the
discrepancies. For example, after months of guess work, the JCPD conducted a manual
review of all arrest records to provide an accurate count of its marijuana possession
and disorderly conduct arrests for 2011. The results were shocking: the manual count
produced many more marijuana possession arrests, and significantly more disorderly
conduct arrests than the computer searches had counted. Thus, the JCPD’s current data
management system obscures the breadth of the over-enforcement of low-level offenses
and its racially disparate effects.
None of the departments were able to explain the discrepancies between the data reported
to the FBI/UCR Program and the data given to the ACLU-NJ. The data discrepancies are
presented in Appendix B.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 14 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

III. Data Sources and Methodology
A. Definitions
The following list contains definitions of important terms in this report:
• Low-level offense: All non-indictable offenses under the New Jersey criminal code
including disorderly persons and petty disorderly persons offenses;
• Low-level arrest: An arrest that only includes charges for disorderly persons and petty
disorderly persons offenses;
• Study offense: One of the four low-level offenses analyzed in this report (marijuana
possession, disorderly conduct, defiant trespass, and loitering);
• FBI/UCR Part I Offenses: Serious offenses under the FBI/UCR Program for which crime data
is collected;35
• FBI/UCR Part II Offenses: Less serious offenses under the FBI/UCR Program for which
arrest data is collected;36
• Indictable offense: A “crime” under the New Jersey Constitution punishable by a sentence
of more than 6 months;37
• Disorderly person/Petty disorderly persons offense (“DP”/“PDP”): Non-indictable offenses
that are not considered crimes under the New Jersey Constitution or criminal code; DPs
carry a maximum penalty of six months in prison, up to a $1,000 fine, and potential
community service or probation; PDPs carry a possible jail sentence of 30 days, up to a
$500 fine, and potential community service or probation.38 Both DPs and PDPs carry some
additional mandatory fees;39
• Arrest: The custodial arrest or issuance of a summons to an individual. Arrest data were
collected from the four police departments analyzed.

	

| 15 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

B. Data Sources
The ACLU-NJ submitted public records requests under New Jersey’s Open Public Records
Act (“OPRA”) to the Asbury Park, Elizabeth, Jersey City, Millville, and New Brunswick police
departments in August 2013.40 The OPRA requests sought records in electronic file format for
the four study offenses during a 10-year period (2003-2012) and the following information
commonly recorded in arrest reports: name, address, race, ethnicity, age, gender, location of
arrest, offense, other offenses charged, date and time of arrest, and arresting officer’s name.41
The ACLU-NJ requested this information to analyze arrest rates among different demographic
groups, track increases or decreases in arrests, identify patterns in increases or decreases of
arrest rates and racial disparities, and to map where arrests occur.

Some departments had lost records, not transferred records to
electronic format, changed their record keeping procedures from
one year to another or had their records maintained by vendors
quoting thousands of dollars to retrieve data.
The ACLU-NJ encountered significant difficulties in obtaining complete data from the police
departments. Some departments had lost records for spans of years,42 some had not
transferred records for some years to electronic format,43 some had changed their record
keeping procedures from one year to another,44 and some had their records maintained and
managed by vendors that quoted charges of thousands of dollars to retrieve the information
requested.45 Additionally, the ACLU-NJ’s analysis of the available arrest data revealed
discrepancies with arrest data the departments had reported to the FBI/UCR Program,46
suggesting that the records provided under the OPRA requests most likely did not include
records for all the arrests made.47 These problems are discussed in detail in each of the
case studies, and the numerical discrepancies are presented in Appendix B.
Despite the challenges and delays in obtaining data from the police departments, the ACLUNJ was able to collect enough data for reliable statistical analyses of arrest rates by race in
each municipality, with the exception of Asbury Park. This report relies on the arrest data
received from the police departments and the United States Census’s annual city population
estimates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity to document arrest rates per 100,000 for the four
low-level study offenses by race.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 16 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

C. Methodology
To calculate the arrest rates by race for a low-level offense in a given jurisdiction, the
number of White, Black, and Hispanic/Latino arrests for the offense is divided by the White,
Black, and Hispanic/Latino population, respectively, in that jurisdiction. The corresponding
ratio is then multiplied by 100,000 to obtain the arrest rate per 100,000 persons. The
measure of racial disparity for each offense is calculated as the ratio of the Black or
Hispanic/Latino arrest rate to the White arrest rate. For example, a racial disparity measure
(or ratio) of three implies that the rate at which Blacks or Hispanics/Latinos are arrested for
the given offense is three times the rate at which Whites are arrested for that offense.
Because the purpose of this inquiry is to examine disparities in nonviolent, low-level arrests,
where possible, arrests that have more serious offenses charged as part of the arrest are not
included in the analyses. Specifically, arrests that include an indictable offense charge are
dropped. Thus, the analyses include only arrests where the study offense is the stand-alone
(sole) charge, or there are other disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offenses
charged.48 Instances where this method is not applied are noted.

	

| 17 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

IV. Analyses of Police Arrest Data in Four Cities
The following section analyzes the arrest patterns in each municipality, presented as four
separate case studies. Because the data for each jurisdiction has flaws specific to that
department, we do not contrast the results among jurisdictions, as this would result in
an apples-to-oranges comparison. Rather, we present the data for each municipality to
demonstrate the arrest and racial disparity patterns and trends within that city. The case
studies are presented in order of population size, from largest to smallest.

A. CASE STUDY: JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Jersey City Data Problems
Obtaining data from the Jersey City Police Department (JCPD) was a difficult process. For
example, records predating 2005 are unavailable because “the computer system crashed
in early 2005.”49 The city also provided printed records (i.e., in non-electronic format) for
2005 to 2012 that could not be used because they failed to include information about
“other offenses charged.”50 And after months of repeatedly contacting the city to obtain the
records requested, in late 2013 the ACLU-NJ received a letter quoting a cost of more than
$10,000 for the arrests records.51
After the ACLU-NJ raised concerns about the difficulties in accessing data from the JCPD
with Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop and Director of Public Safety James Shea, they
intervened to facilitate the production of the records sought. With their help, the ACLU-NJ
eventually received what appeared to be a complete set of arrest records with all of the
information requested.52 However, the arrest numbers in the JCPD records were low for
Jersey City’s population size and compared to the data the JCPD reported to the FBI/UCR
Program (specifically, for the offenses of marijuana possession and disorderly conduct).53
When the ACLU-NJ raised these concerns, the JCPD agreed to conduct a manual review
of arrest records for one year, 2011, in order to compare the total number of arrests for
marijuana possession and disorderly conduct with the totals the JCPD reported to the
FBI/UCR.54 The results of the hand count confirmed that there had been significantly more
marijuana possession and disorderly conduct arrests than the JCPD’s computer search
produced.55
Because the JCPD was only able to do a hand count for one year, this report analyzes
both the original data set (referred to as “OPRA data” or “computer search data”) and
the hand count data for 2011. While the OPRA data does not include the full universe

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 18 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

of arrests for the offenses requested, it serves as a sample from which general arrest
and disparity patterns for the period from 2005 to 2013 can be drawn. The numbers do
not provide a complete picture of arrests in Jersey City, but do offer a snapshot of the
disparity patterns in arrests. Total arrests and arrest rates are likely much higher. The
hand count data for marijuana possession and disorderly conduct for 2011 are presented
because they are more accurate representations of the true number of arrests, and
confirm that Jersey City’s communities of color bear the brunt of the enforcement of lowlevel offenses.
The data problems in Jersey City are particularly surprising given the city’s stated
commitment to the collection and analysis of crime data to help curb violence.56 The
mayor’s office has reported that it tracks crime down to an hourly basis so it can identify
crime problems and better allocate resources.57 Hopefully the city will be able to improve
its arrest data management as it endeavors to use data to strengthen the efficiency and
efficacy of its law enforcement activities.

High Racial Disparities in Jersey City: Blacks are Nearly Five Times More Likely and
Hispanics/Latinos are Twice as Likely as Whites to be Arrested for the Study Offenses

POPULATION

ARRESTS

2%
24%

25%

28%

58%
29%

Black

White

22%

Latino

12%

Asian

Black

White

Latino

Asian

Source:

	

| 19 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

500
450

433

433

420

400

352

350

332

312

332

308

300
250
180

200
139

150
100
50
0

116
79

58 47

2005

179

2006

2007

174
94

2008

180
96

2009

120
81

2010

139
62

2011

110
81

136
45

2012

2013

Source:

For the period from 2005 to 2013, Blacks were 4.8 times more likely to be arrested for the
study offenses than Whites in Jersey City. Hispanics/Latinos were nearly twice as likely as
Whites to be arrested (1.9) for the study offenses during this time. In 2013, Blacks were
9.6 times more likely, and Hispanics/Latinos were three times more likely than Whites to
be arrested for the study offenses in Jersey City—some of the highest disparities of all the
jurisdictions studied by the ACLU-NJ.
The arrest rate for the study offenses for Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos increased over the
sample period from 2005 to 2013, while the White arrest rate in 2013 actually decreased
from its 2005 level. See Figure 2. For example, the Black arrest rate increased 212% (from
139 arrests per 100,000 to 433 arrests per 100,000) and the Hispanic/Latino arrest rate
increased 189% (from 47 arrests per 100,000 to 136 per 100,000), reaching a high point
in 2006 and 2009 (180 arrests per 100,000). The White arrest rate, on the other hand,
decreased 22% between 2005 and 2013 (from 58 arrests per 100,000 to 45 arrests per
100,000). This resulted in a 300% increase in the Black-White disparity from 2005 to 2013,
and a 275% increase in the Hispanic/Latino-White disparity.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 20 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Marijuana Possession Arrest Disparities

160

142

140

122

115

120

97

100

86

80

64

60

0

60

54

46

40
20

81

30

30
6

12

2005

4

10

2006

18

19

8

2007

2008

28
17

2009

37

35
23
13

2010

2011

11

2012

17

2013

Source:

During the sample period (2005-2013) in Jersey City, Blacks were 6.8 times more likely,
and Hispanics/Latinos were 2.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession
than Whites. The data show that racial disparities in enforcement of the offense grew over
these years. See Figure 3. In 2005, Blacks were 5.4 times, and Hispanics 2.1 times, more
likely than Whites to be arrested for marijuana possession. By 2013, Blacks in Jersey City
were 8.4 times more likely than Whites to be arrested. This is even more troubling when
compared to the average New Jersey disparity: Blacks statewide are 2.8 times more likely to
be arrested.58 Hispanics/Latinos were 3.2 times more likely to be arrested than Whites for
marijuana possession in 2013.
The Jersey City arrest rates for marijuana possession presented here are most likely an
underestimate. The computer data the ACLU-NJ received reflected far fewer arrests than the
data the JCPD had reported to the FBI/UCR Program; and the hand count data confirmed that
there had been more than five times as many arrests than the data indicated.59 However, the
data received from the JCPD represent a sample indicative of the racial disparities present
in marijuana possession arrests, and they raise serious concerns of policing bias, given the
evidence showing similar marijuana usage rates among Blacks and Whites.60

	

| 21 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

• Disorderly Conduct Arrest Disparities

208

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

195
159

156
129

122

59

6 4

2005

32
15

2006

23

2007

110

79

73
39

120

44
23

21

2008

69

49

2009

2010

50
34

30 34
11

2011

2012

2013

Source:

On average, Blacks were 7.4 times more likely, and Hispanics/Latinos 2.4 times more likely to
be arrested for disorderly conduct in Jersey City for the sample period (2005-2013). See Figure
4. The disparities were the worst in 2013: Blacks
in Jersey City were over 14 times more likely to
In 2013, Blacks in Jersey City
be arrested for disorderly conduct than Whites,
were over 14 times more likely
and Hispanics were 4.4 times more likely to
be arrested for the offense that year. These
to be arrested for disorderly
disparities reflect an increase in the arrest rate
conduct than Whites.
for both groups since 2005.
Disorderly conduct arrests increased for all races between 2005 and 2013: the Black arrest
rate grew by 308% (from 39 arrests per 100,000 to 159 arrests per 100,000); the Hispanic/
Latino arrest rate increased by 1,150% (from four arrests per 100,000 to 50 per 100,000); and
the White arrest rate increased 83% (from six arrests per 100,000 to 11 per 100,000).61 See
Figure 4.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 22 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Trespass Arrest Disparities

70

64

60
50

46

40

37

32

36

30

30

25

20

15
10

10
0

44

41

0 1

2005

9

8 7

2

2006

2007

2008

11
6

12
7

3

2009

2010

6

2011

10
4 4

2012

6

2013

Source:

The racial disparity for trespass arrests by the JCPD was especially high for Blacks during
the time period examined (2005-2013):62 on average, they were 7.7 times more likely to
be arrested than Whites. See Figure 5. The disparity for Hispanics/Latinos during this
time was much lower (1.7). The racial disparity between Black-White arrests for trespass
remained high at the end of the sample period: in 2013 Blacks were over 11 times more
likely than Whites to be arrested for trespass. The Black arrest rate also increased
exponentially—540%—between 2005 and 2013.
There were relatively few trespass arrests in Jersey City over the sample period (20052013). See Appendix A, Table A3. It is possible that the data received may not include
information for all trespass arrests given the documented discrepancies in data for
marijuana possession and disorderly conduct arrests. Based on the data received,
however, the arrest rate increased from 2005 to 2013 for all races, but most dramatically
for Blacks. See Figure 5.

	

| 23 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

• Loitering Arrest Disparities

140

135

129

120

112
96

100

88

83

80
60
40

71

63

59
47

47 44

38

34

29

24

20
0

35

34

36 35
22

19

11

9

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

68

59

58

2011

2012

2013

Source:

Blacks were 3.4 times more likely, and Hispanics/Latinos were 1.7 times more likely, than
Whites to be arrested for loitering in Jersey City for the sample period (2005-2013). See
Figure 6. However, the disparities increased in recent years: Blacks in Jersey City were six
times more likely than Whites to be arrested for loitering in 2013; Hispanics were almost
twice as likely as Whites to be arrested that year.
The loitering arrest rate fluctuated for all races throughout the sample period: the White
arrest rate was at its lowest in 2013 (11 arrests per 100,000), and was at its highest in 2006
(96 arrests per 100,000); the Black arrest rate was at its lowest in 2011 (58 per 100,000) and
its highest in 2007 (135 per 100,000); Hispanics/Latinos saw the lowest rate in 2013 (22 per
100,000) and highest rate in 2006 (129 per 100,000).

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 24 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Blacks Make Up 59% of Arrests for the Study Offenses Although They Are Only 25%
of the Population in Jersey City
TABLE 1: Annual Arrests for All Study Offenses by Race in Jersey City (2005-2013)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2005

31

82

132

145

2006

62

184

123

369

2007

42

248

122

412

2008

50

256

119

425

2009

51

208

123

382

2010

43

196

82

321

2011

33

182

95

310

2012

43

196

75

314

2013

24

256

93

373

Total

379 (12%)

1,808 (59%)

864 (28%)

3051 (100%)

* A small number of Asian and American Indian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are
based on the sum of White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: Jersey City Police Department

Blacks represent a
disproportionate number of
arrests for all offenses: 61%
of marijuana possession
arrests, 64% of disorderly
conduct arrests, 70.5% of
trespass arrests, and 48%
of loitering arrests.

	

With a population of nearly a quarter million
people during the sample period, Jersey
City has a relatively even demographic
distribution: Whites (22%), Blacks (25%),
Hispanics/Latinos (29%), and Asians (24%).63
Still, Blacks represent a disproportionate
number of arrests for all offenses: 61%
of marijuana possession arrests, 64% of
disorderly conduct arrests, 70.5% of trespass
arrests, and 48% of loitering arrests.64
Hispanic/Latino arrests for all offenses were
also much higher than total White arrests.
See Table 1.

| 25 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

The Vast Majority of Arrests in Jersey City for the Study Offenses Do Not Involve a Serious
UCR Part I Crime, Indictable Offense, or Multiple Charges

5%

16%

84%

95%

Source:

The ACLU-NJ received data for 3,727 arrests of the study offenses from the JCPD in response
to our OPRA request. Of these arrests, only 191 arrests included a charge for a UCR Part
I crime. In other words, in only 5% of the arrest instances was there an allegation of a
serious Part I offense, and only 16% (604) of the arrests involved an indictable offense
charge. See Figure 7.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 26 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

(2005-2013)

6%
25%

69%

Source:

When limiting the data set to those arrests that did not include an indictable offense
charge, we are left with a total of 3,123 purely low-level arrests in Jersey City. Ninety-four
percent of these arrests involved a charge for only one study offense, or a study offense in
combination with a second low-level offense. See Figure 8. The average number of offenses
charged per arrest was 1.66.

	

| 27 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Black Males Account for 12% of the Jersey City Population But Make up Over 47% of
Arrests for Study Offenses

1,600

1,509

1,200

759

800

400

299

298
81

0

Male
White

Latino

105

Female
Black

Source:

NOTE: Total arrests are higher than the sum of the White, Black, and Latino arrests because Asian and American Indian
arrests are not presented in the figure.

While males represent the majority of arrests in Jersey City (84%), Black males in particular
are overrepresented: they account for 47% of the arrests, while they make up only 12.3%
of the population.65 See Figure 9. Overall, females are a small percentage of the total
arrests (16%). However, within the female gender category, Black females make up a
disproportionate percentage of the arrests: 60%.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 28 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Young People Aged 18-24 Represent a Disproportionate Number of Arrests in Jersey City

TABLE 2: Breakdown of Arrests for Study Offenses by Age and Race in Jersey City (2005-2013)*
TOTAL

AGE

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

(% of total arrests by age)

Juvenile

15 (3%)

329 (69%)

123 (26%)

478 (15%)

18 to 24

89 (10%)

565 (61%)

247 (27%)

922 (29%)

25 to 34

42 (10%)

231 (56%)

127 (31%)

412 (13%)

35 to 44

143 (16%)

443 (51%)

268 (31%)

877 (28%)

45+

90 (21%)

240 (55%)

99 (23%)

438 (14%)

Total

379 (12%)

1,808 (58%)

864 (28%)

3,127 (100%)

(% of total arrests by race)

*Total arrests per age category are higher than the sum of the White, Black, and Latino arrests because Asian
and American Indian arrests are not presented in the table.
Source: Jersey City Police Department

Black juveniles in Jersey
City made up the majority
of juvenile arrests for
all offenses.

	

Blacks comprise 25% of the population in
Jersey City,66 yet they represent the majority of
arrests for every age category analyzed. See
Table 2. For the sample period analyzed, Blacks
accounted for anywhere between 51% (35 to
44) to 69% (juvenile) of the arrests within the
different age categories.

| 29 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Young people aged 18 to 24 represent 7.4%
of the population in Jersey City,67 yet they
make up 29% of all arrests for the study
offenses. See Table 2. When looking at the
race data for 18 to 24 year olds in Jersey
City, Black youth (18 to 24) represent a
disproportionate number of those arrested
for the study offenses: they are only 3.3%
of the population,68 yet they account for
18% of all arrests for the study offenses.

Black youth aged 18 to 24
are only 3.3% of the
population in Jersey City
but represent 18% of arrests
for the study offenses.

People aged 35 to 44 are 14.5% of the population in Jersey City.69 Surprisingly, this group
accounts for nearly as many arrests in Jersey City as people aged 18 to 24: 28%. Within this
age category, Blacks and Latinos represent 82% of the arrests.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 30 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Who and Where: Individuals Arrested in Jersey City Are Arrested in Close Proximity
to Home

FIGURE 10

Arrests for Study Offenses by
Race in Jersey City (2005-2013)

!
!

!

!
!

!
!

!

!!

!

!

!
!

!!

!
!

!!!

!
!

!

!!

!! !
!
!
!!! ! ! !! !!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! !
! !! !
!
!!
!
! !!
!! !
!!! ! ! !!
!
!
! !!
!!! ! ! ! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!! !
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !
!
!
! !
!! ! !
!
! !!
! !
!! !
! ! !
!!!! !
!
!
!
! ! !!! !
!
!!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
!! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!!! !!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!! ! ! !!!!!
!! !
!!
!!
!! !
! ! !
!
! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !! !
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
!
!! !!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! !! ! ! !
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !! !!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!! ! !
!!
! !
!
! !!!!
!
!!!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
! ! ! !!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !! !
!!!
!
! !!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!! !
!!
!! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!! !!
!!! !!!! !!!!
!
!
!!
! !
! !
!
!! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
! !
! !!!!
! !
!!
! !! !
!
!
!! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
! ! !!
!! !
!
!!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!! !! ! !! !!! !!
!! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! !!
!!! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!! ! !
! ! !
!!!!!!! ! !! !! !
!
! !! !
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!! !
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!! !
! ! !! !!!!!!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!!! !!!!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! ! !
! !!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!!! ! ! ! !
!!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!! !
! ! !
!
!!! !! !
!
!
!
!!
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
!!!!
!
!
! !!!!
!
!
!!!! !! ! ! !!
!
!
! !
! !!
!
! !!!!
!
!!
!! ! !
!
!! !!!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! !
!
!
!! !!!
!
!!
!
! ! ! ! !!!!! !
!
!!! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
! !! ! ! !
!!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !!!
!
!
!! !
! ! ! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!! !
!
!!!! !
! !
! !!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!!
! !
!!
!! !!! ! !!!!!
!
!
!! ! !
!! ! !! ! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
! !!!!
!
!!
! !
!
! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!! ! ! !!!
!
!! ! !
!! ! !
!
!!
!! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
! !!!!!! ! !
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
! !!! !
!
!!!!!!!! !!! !
!!
! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
! !!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !!!!!
!
!!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !!
!!! !!
!!
!
! !
!
!!! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!

!

!
!!

!

!!

! !!!
!
!

!
!!! !
!!
!

! !! !
!! !! ! !
!
! !!
!
!!

!
!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!
!

!

!

!

!!
!
!

!

!

!

!

!

!!
!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

Race
!

!!!
!!! !

!!

!

Asian

!

Black

!

Hispanic

!

Indian

!

White

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! !!! !!!!!!
! !
!!!! !!! !!
!! !

!

! !
!! !!
!! !!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!

!
!!

Percent Black
0% - 3.7%

!

!

!

!

!

!
!!
!!

!

!!
!
!

!!

! !

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!
!
!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!!
!
!!

!
!
!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

3.7% - 8.5%

!
!

!

!
!!
!

!

!

!
! !
!

!

!
!
!
!
!

!

!
!!
!
!
!!

!

!

!
!!

!

!!
! !!
!
!!

!

! !
! !
!
!!

!

!

! !

!
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!! !
!
!!
!! !!
! ! !
!!! ! ! ! !
!
!
!!
! ! ! !!
!! !
!!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!!

!

!

!!

!

!
!

!!

!

!!

!
!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!
!

8.5% - 14.6%

!

!

!

14.6% - 25.3%

!

25.3% - 39.3%

!
!

39.3% - 64.1%
!

64.1% - 100%

0

0.75

1.5

SOURCE: Jersey City Police Department
and U.S. Census Data

3

The JCPD data show that most arrests are of residents in their own communities. The vast
majority of arrests—84%—were of Jersey City residents. Most arrests occurred in close
proximity to the individual’s home: 42% (1,580) within a half mile from home; and 60%
(2,285) within one mile from home.70 In sum, individuals tended to be arrested in their own
communities and close to home.
Black arrests were concentrated in the southern part of the city, in predominantly Black
neighborhoods, while Latino arrests were concentrated to the North, in predominantly
Hispanic/Latino areas. See Figure 10. The few White arrests that do appear in the data are
evenly distributed throughout the city.

	

| 31 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Manual Review of JCPD Arrest Records Revealed Many More Racially
Disproportionate Low-Level Arrests
The ACLU-NJ repeatedly questioned the accuracy of the JCPD’s arrest data because
the numbers were drastically lower than those the department had reported to the
FBI/UCR Program. Despite numerous computer searches, the department could not
reconcile the arrest data it had produced in response to the ACLU-NJ’s OPRA request
with the data it had reported to the FBI/UCR Program. In an effort to determine what
accounted for the discrepancies, the JCPD agreed to conduct a manual review of all its
arrests records for 2011. This would provide the most accurate and reliable accounting
of the JCPD’s marijuana possession and disorderly conduct arrests for that year.
Indeed, the manual review produced significantly more arrest records than the JCPD
provided via its computer searches. The manual review exposed the JCPD’s poor data
management practice: the department is unable to produce accurate arrest data under
its current system. The data management system it now uses obscures the extent to
which low-level arrests disproportionately affect Jersey City’s communities of color.
The JCPD Made Nearly 400 Marijuana Possession Arrests and Nearly 200 Disorderly
Conduct Arrests in 2011 Alone

(2011)
500
390

400
300

191

200
133
100

82

0

Source:
NOTE: The totals for the hand-count data reflect our estimation of marijuana possession and disorderly conduct
arrests that did not include an indictable offense. Similarly the OPRA data do not include an arrest with an
indictable offense.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 32 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

When the JCPD manually reviewed all of its arrest records for 2011, one by one, it
produced 390 marijuana possession arrests, while the OPRA results had reported
only 82 marijuana possession arrests.71 See Figure S1. In other words, the JCPD
failed to recover 79% of the relevant arrests when it conducted computer searches
for the data. The same problem was present in the disorderly conduct data: the
OPRA data reported 133 disorderly conduct arrests, while the hand count later
produced 191 disorderly conduct arrests—30% more arrests.72 See Figure S1.

POPULATION

2%
24%

3%

21%

25%

30%
6%
29%

57%
71%

22%

10%

Black

White

Black

White

Black

White

Latino

Asian

Latino

Asian

Latino

Asian

Source:

Blacks were overrepresented in both marijuana possession and disorderly arrests.
While they comprised a quarter of Jersey City’s population, they accounted for 71%
of the marijuana possession and 57% of the disorderly conduct arrests in 2011.
Whites, on the other hand, were underrepresented, while Hispanic/Latino arrests
were more proportionate to the percentage of the Hispanic/Latino population. See
Figure S2.

	

| 33 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Racial Disparities in 2011 Arrests Were Worse Than the Computer Records Showed

500

470

400
300
183

200
121
100

83

45

35

0

Source:

Not only did the JCPD’s hand count confirm that there had been many more arrests
than the department had initially reported, it also revealed that the racial disparities
in arrests were worse than the OPRA data indicated. In fact, Blacks were 10.4 times
more likely than Whites to be arrested for marijuana possession in 2011—one of the
highest disparities for the offense in the study; Hispanics/Latinos were 2.7 times
more likely to be arrested. See Figure S3. Blacks were 5.2 times more likely, and
Hispanics/Latinos 2.4 times more likely, than Whites to be arrested for disorderly
conduct. See Figure S3.
These results suggest that the racial disparities for the remaining years (2005-2010
& 2012-2013), and for the other offenses (loitering and trespass), likely are more
pronounced than the OPRA data in the preceding section suggest.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 34 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

25%
41%

42%
50%

34%

8%

Source:

Of 511 total arrests for marijuana possession, less than one percent had a serious
Part I UCR crime associated with them. Fifty percent of the arrests had marijuana
possession as the only charge. See Figure S6. Two-hundred-and-thirty-three (88%)
of the 262 total arrests for disorderly conduct arrests did not have a Part I crime
associated, and 41% were for the sole charge of disorderly conduct. See Figure S6.

	

| 35 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

B. CASE STUDY: ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Elizabeth Data Problems
In September 2013, the Elizabeth Police Department (EPD) provided an initial set of records in
response to the ACLU-NJ’s request, but the department’s response missed substantial amounts
of data.73 The EPD eventually produced a dataset but the initial analysis of these records revealed
serious discrepancies with the data the EPD had submitted to the FBI/UCR Program; data for some
years appeared to be missing, too.74 The ACLU-NJ sent Police Chief Patrick Shannon and Elizabeth
Mayor Chris Bollwage letters addressing the data issues and asking them to find out what
accounted for the discrepancies. In April 2014, the city informed the ACLU-NJ that it is was unable
to provide an explanation for the gaps and inaccuracies in the data.75
Analyzing the EPD’s Inconsistent Data Tracking
The EPD used two different recording systems to categorize arrests between 2003 and 2013.
Until 2010, the department categorized arrest records using a federal UCR/LEIRS code.76
Beginning in 2011, the EPD began to record its arrests according to statute number. The
analysis of the data from 2003 to 2012 therefore excludes arrests that have a Part I offense
charged. The analysis for arrests for 2011 and 2012 is further limited to arrests that do not
have an indictable offense charge, i.e., those arrests that involved exclusively low-level
offenses.77 While the EPD data is imperfect, it is enough to illustrate racial disparity patterns
and geographic trends of low-level arrests in Elizabeth for the purposes of this study.
74,000 Latinos Unaccounted for in the Data
The EPD data presented an additional complication because of the way the department
tracks race and ethnicity in arrests. Elizabeth’s 74,000 Hispanic/Latino residents account
for nearly 60% of its total population, making it the city with the largest Hispanic/Latino
population of the four cities studied. 78 The EPD records, however, do not indicate which
arrests were of Hispanic/Latinos.79 The ACLU-NJ observed municipal court sessions and
spoke with defense attorneys who confirmed anecdotally that a majority of the people
charged with low-level offenses in Elizabeth are Hispanic/Latino.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 36 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

The lack of Hispanic/Latino data in Elizabeth
creates a serious problem in analyzing racial
disparities in arrests. First, it is impossible to
examine potential arrest disparities between
Whites and Hispanics/Latinos.80 Second, the
lack of such data likely deflates the actual
disparities between White and Black arrests:
because the EPD likely categorizes Hispanic/
Latino arrests in Elizabeth as White arrests, the
number of White arrests is likely inflated, thus
reducing the Black-White arrest disparity.

Because the EPD likely
categorizes Hispanic/Latino
arrests in Elizabeth as
White arrests, the number
of White arrests is likely
inflated, reducing the
Black-White arrest
disparity.

Although all law enforcement agencies in Union County are required to record certain
information concerning vehicular stops and investigatory detentions, including the race and
ethnicity of the individual “if known,” the policy does not provide instructions for determining
race or ethnicity, and it does not require the recording of race in the arrest context.81

Significant Racial Disparities in Elizabeth: Blacks are Three to Four Times More Likely
Than Whites to be Arrested for the Study Offenses

POPULATION

ARRESTS

3%
27%
45%
55%
70%

Black

White

Asian

Black

White

Source:

	

| 37 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

1400
1200

1,226

1,146

1,131

1,067

1,116

1,055

1000
793

800

759
543

600
400

356

284

310

253

272

334

253

291

200
0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

509

2010

123

151

2011

2012

Source:

The data show that Blacks were 3.6 times more likely than Whites to be arrested in the years
for which the ACLU-NJ received data (2003-2012), for all study offenses. Blacks were 4.4 times
more likely than Whites to be arrested for loitering, 4 times more likely to be arrested for
trespass, 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession, and 3 times more
likely to be arrested for disorderly conduct. These disparities are potentially even higher
because the EPD is most likely coding Hispanic/Latino arrests as White arrests, thus inflating
the White arrest rate, and in turn reducing the disparity between Blacks and Whites.
The overall arrest rate declined between 2003 and 2012, but this is most likely attributable
to the EPD’s change in its data recording method in 2011.82 See Figure 12.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 38 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Marijuana Possession Arrest Disparities

1000
847

800

679

649

664
550

600
437

437

395

400
236

200
0

2003

206

2004

285

251
170

2005

126

2006

144

2007

136

2008

145

2009

127

2010

47

76

2011

2012

Source:

While Blacks in New Jersey are 2.8 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for
marijuana possession,83 in Elizabeth they were 3.7 times more likely than Whites to be
arrested for the offense during the sample period (2003-2012). See Figure 13. In fact, the
racial disparity remained consistent during this time, even while the arrest rate decreased.
Additionally, while the racial disparity in marijuana possession arrests decreased between
2011 and 2012 (from 5.4 to 3.7), the most recent years for which we have data, it remains at
higher levels than ten years earlier (3.6).
The data show a 66% decrease in the Black arrest rate (from 847 arrests per 100,000 in
2003 to 285 arrests per 100,000 in 2012) and a 68% decrease in the White arrest rate (from
236 arrests per 100,000 in 2003 to 76 arrests per 100,000 in 2012). The decline in marijuana
possession arrests is a welcome development, however, because the decline was even
across racial groups, the racial disparity in arrests persisted.

	

| 39 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

• Disorderly Conduct Arrest Disparities

330
300
270
240
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
0

304

110

23

26

2003

2004

133
104

95

76
50

167

163

148

40

53

42

64
1

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

4

2011

3

0

2012

Source:

Providing an overall rate of the racial disparity between Black and White arrests for
disorderly conduct in Elizabeth for the sample period is not possible because the data do
not provide reliable numbers for the last two years examined (2011 and 2012). See Figure
14. The total number of disorderly conduct arrests in Elizabeth in 2010 was 88; in 2011, that
number fell to 2 (a 98% decrease).84 The ACLU-NJ suspects that this is a result of the EPD’s
change in procedure for recording arrest information in 2011, although the department was
unable to confirm whether this is the case.
Disparities for disorderly conduct arrests for earlier years were present, however: in 2003
Blacks were 4.7 times more likely, and in 2010 Blacks were 2.6 more likely, to be arrested
than Whites. See Figure 14.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 40 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Trespass Arrest Disparities

410

400

345
315

300

251

247

307

224

200
100
0

163
89

88

86

86

94
50

48

75
0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

8

2011

6

0

2012

Source:

The data for trespass arrests for 2011 and 2012 suffer from the same problem as the
disorderly conduct arrest data: there appear to be data missing based on the drastic drop
in White arrests in 2011 (from 75 arrests per 100,000 in 2010, to zero in 2011) and Black
arrests in 2011 (from 307 arrests per 100,000 in 2010, to 8 in 2011).85 See Figure 15. Again,
the EPD was not able to provide an explanation for the apparently missing data; based on
the data that the ACLU-NJ did receive, however, there were racial disparities in arrests every
calendar year and they do not appear to be waning. In 2010, the last year for which more
reliable data are available, Blacks in Elizabeth were 4.1 times more likely than Whites to be
arrested for trespass.

	

| 41 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

• Loitering Arrest Disparities

300

281

250

224

200
150
91

100
50
0

9

23

2003

38
3 11

1

11

2004

2005

1

4

2006

0

0

2007

0

0

2008

6

2009

75

66

2011

2012

25

2010

Source:

While the data for disorderly conduct and trespass appear to be missing for 2011, the
data received for loitering arrests pose the opposite problem. From 2003 to 2010, the EPD
reported anywhere between zero arrests (2007 and 2008) to 41 arrests (2010).86 There was
then a sudden jump to 125 loitering arrests in 2011 and 104 in 2012. See Figure 16. Again,
this indicates a potential problem with how the records were coded in the system and a
subsequent problem with the retrieval of records. The ACLU-NJ was unable to determine
which UCR offense category the EPD applied to loitering arrests during this time period
(2003-2010)—making their identification impossible and resulting in an incomplete data
set. The EPD was not able to answer the question definitively.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 42 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Blacks Make Up 58% of Arrests for the Study Offenses Although They Are Only 21% of
the Population in Elizabeth
TABLE 3: Annual Arrests for Study Offenses by Race in Elizabeth (2003-2012)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

TOTAL

2003

243

323

566

2004

194

302

496

2005

212

298

510

2006

173

281

454

2007

186

209

395

2008

228

278

506

2009

173

200

373

2010

199

294

493

2011

84

143

227

2012

103

134

237

Total

1,795 (42%)

2,462 (58%)

4,257 (100%)

* A small number of Asian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are based on the sum of
White and Black arrests only.
Source: Elizabeth Police Department

The EPD made 4,257 arrests (an average 426 arrests per year) of Blacks and Whites for the
study offenses between 2003 and 2012.87 See Table 3. Marijuana possession accounts for
2,333 arrests during this time, followed by defiant trespass (1,023), disorderly conduct (594),
and loitering (307). See Appendix A, Tables A5-A8. Arrests for defiant trespass and disorderly
conduct were likely even higher as the data for 2011 and 2012 only reflect between 2 and 4
arrests each year for these offenses. If these data are correct, it would mean that there had
been an unprecedented 98% and 99% decrease in both disorderly conduct and trespass
arrests between 2010 and 2011, respectively. As previously noted, because the EPD changed
its procedure for recording arrests in 2011, the discrepancy is likely due to the change in its
records management rather than a precipitous drop in arrests. The total arrests for loitering
are also likely higher than this data set reflects, for the same reason.

	

| 43 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

The Vast Majority of Arrests for the Study Offenses in Elizabeth Do Not Involve Serious
FBI/UCR Part I Crimes

(2003-2012)

6.5%

93.5%

Source:

The data received indicate that the majority of people arrested in Elizabeth for the study
offenses were in fact only engaged in minor offenses. Of 4,875 arrests for which the ACLUNJ received data, only 316, or 6.5%, involved a charge for a serious FBI/UCR Part I offense.
See Figure 17. In other words, 93.5% (4,559) of the arrests for the study offenses did not
involve a charge for a serious Part I crime.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 44 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

(2003-2012)

20%
45%

35%

Source:

Of the Elizabeth arrest data (4,198 arrests),88 45% (1,894) of the arrests were stand-alone
(the offense examined was the sole charge and basis for the arrest). See Figure 18.
The next 35% of arrests (1,475) had a second non-Part I offense charged, meaning that
80% of the arrests involved two or fewer charges. The percentage of arrests in Elizabeth
involving indictable offenses for the sample period (2003-2012) cannot be calculated
because the EPD only categorized arrests by UCR code, rather than by statute number,
from 2003 to 2010.

	

| 45 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Black Males Account for 10% of the Elizabeth Population Yet Make-up Over 51% of Arrests
for Study Offenses

2,500
2,157

2,000
1,572

1,500
1,000
500

304

220

0

Male
White

Female

Black

Source:

Males account for 88% of arrests in Elizabeth for the four offenses. Black males, however,
represent the majority of these arrests: with a total population in Elizabeth of 126,458,
Black males are only 10% of the population,89 yet they represent 51% (2,157) of the lowlevel arrests studied. See Figure 19.

 ith a total population of 126,458, Black males are
W
only 10% (12,545) of the population, yet they represent
51% (2,157) of the low-level arrests studied.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 46 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Blacks Age 18-24 Make Up A Disproportionate Number of Arrests in Elizabeth
TABLE 4: Breakdown of Arrests for Study Offenses by Age and Race in Elizabeth (2003-2012)*

TOTAL

AGE

WHITE

BLACK

(% of total arrests by age)

Juvenile

151 (43%)

197 (56%)

349 (8%)

18 to 24

743 (41%)

1,071 (59%)

1,814 (43%)

25 to 34

498 (42%)

689 (58%)

1,191 (28%)

35 to 44

231 (40%)

341 (60%)

572 (13%)

45+

172 (51%)

164 (49%)

336 (8%)

Total

1,795 (42%)

2,462 (58%)

4,262 (100%)

(% of total arrests by race)

	
* Total arrests per age category are higher than the sum of the White and Black arrests because Asian arrests
are not presented in the table.
Source: Elizabeth Police Department

Blacks represent 21% of the Elizabeth population,90 yet they make up the majority of arrests
in every age category except one (45 and over). See Table 4.
Young people aged 18 to 24 are arrested most frequently in Elizabeth for all four study
offenses, comprising 43% of all arrests. See Table 4. When looking at the racial data,
however, it is clear that Blacks age 18 to 24 are significantly overrepresented in arrests.
While this group is only 3.1% of the population in Elizabeth,91 they account for 25% of all
the low-level arrests.

	

| 47 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Who and Where: Arrests in Elizabeth Occur in Close Proximity to Home

FIGURE 20

Arrests for Study Offenses by Race in Elizabeth (2005-2013)
!!

!

!

!
!
!

!

!
!!
!
!! ! ! ! !
!
!
!!

!
!

!
! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!

!
!
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!
!!

!
!

!

Race
!

Asian

!

Black
White

!

!

Percent Black
0% - 3.3%

!

!

!!

!!

!

!
!

!

!!

!

!
!
!

!

!

!
!
!

!

!
!

!

!

!!!

!!
!
!
!

! !

!! !

!!
!!
!
!

!

!

!

!
!

!
!! !
! !
!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!
! !
!!!

!

!!

!

!

! !
!
!!
!!

!
!!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!
!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!
!
!
!
! !
!

!!
!!!
!

!!

!
! !

!

!

3.3% - 8.4%

!

!

!

!

8.4% - 15.2%

!!

!
!

!
!

!

!

! !

!

!

o

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!
!
!
!

!

!

!!

!
!
!!
!!!! !! !
! !
!
!
! !!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!! !
! !!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!!!!
!!
!! !
!! !!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!! ! !!!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
! !
! !! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
! !!
!
!
!
! !!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !!!!!! !!
!!!!
!
! !!!!!!! !!!!! ! !!! !!! !!
!! !!! !! ! !
!!!
!
!
!
!! ! ! !! !!
!
!
!
! ! !!! !!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!! !
!! !!
!
! ! !! !! ! !!!
!!
!
!
!!! !
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !!!
! !!!!
!
!
!
! !!!! !
!!!!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!!!! !!
! !!!!!!!
!
! !!
!
!! !! !!
! !!
! !!!! ! !
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!! !
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!! !!! !!
!!
!! !!
!!! ! !
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! ! !
!!!
!! !
! !!
!
!!! !!
!
! !
!!
!
!
! !
!! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !!
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! !! !!!!
! !
!
!! ! ! !
!
!! !! ! !
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!! !!!
! !! !
!!!!!
!!! !
!
!
!!!!
!!! ! !!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!!! !!
!
!
!!!!! !!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!! !
!!
! ! ! !! !
!
!!!
! !! !
! !! !!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!! ! !! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!! !
!! ! !
!!
!!
! !!!
!
!! ! !! !!
!
! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !!
!! !!! !
!!
! !
! ! ! !!
!
!
! ! !
!!!
!
! !!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! ! !!
!!! !!
!
!!!!!!!! !!! ! !
! !! !
!
! !
!
! !
! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!!! !
!
! !
!!!
!
!
!!! !!
! !!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !!
!
!! !!!
!!
!! !
!!!
! !
!!!!
!!
!
! !
!
!! !!
!! !
!
!!!
!!
!!
! ! !
!
!!
!!
! ! !
! !! !!!!!
!! !
!
!!
! !
! !
!
!! ! !! ! !
! !
!
! !! !! !
! !
!
!! ! !
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!! ! !!!! ! !! ! !!!
! !
! !!!
!
!!
!!!
! !
! ! !!! !
!
!!
!! !
!
! !
! !
!
!!!
! !! !!!
!! !!
!
!!
!
! !
!! ! !
!
! !
! !!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!
!
! !
!
! !!
! !! !!!!!!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!!
!!
!! ! ! !
!
!
!! !!
!!
!
!! !!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!! ! ! !!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !! ! !! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!! !
! !!! !! !!
!
! !
!!
!!!! !!!!!!!!!
! !
! !
!! !
!!
! !
! !!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!! ! !! !!!
! ! ! !!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
! !! !
!!
! !
! !! !
!!
! !
!
! !!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!!
!
!!
!
! ! !!!
!
! !!
! !
! !
! ! !
!!
!!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!!!!! !
!
! !
! !
! !! !!!!!
!!
!
! !! ! !
!
!!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
! !!!
!!
!
!! ! !
!
!
! !! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!!
!!
! ! ! !! ! ! !
!! !! !
!
!
!
!!! !!
!!!!! !! ! !
!! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!!!
! !!!!!
!
! !
! !
! ! !!
!
!
!! !
!! !
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
!!
! !! !! !! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!!
!!!
!

!
!

!

!

!
! !

!

! !

! !!
!

15.2% - 21.1%

!

21.1% - 28.1%
28.1% - 43%
42.8% - 89.0%

0

0.75

1.5

3 Miles

SOURCE: Elizabeth Police Department
and U.S. Census Data

Seventy percent of those arrested for the study offenses were Elizabeth residents.
Additionally, most arrests occurred in close proximity to home: 33% of arrests happened
within a half mile from home, and 50% within one mile from home.
Arrests were spread out across Elizabeth, but clustered in areas with high Black
populations, including two public housing projects (Mravlag Manors and Oakwood Plaza
Apartments). See Figure 20.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 48 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

The map in Figure 20 is somewhat misleading in the number of the “White” arrests that
it shows. As previously discussed, many of the White arrests are most likely arrests of
Elizabeth’s Hispanic/Latino population. To illustrate what the map might look like
if Hispanic/Latino arrests were tracked by the EPD, we have altered the map of Jersey
City’s low-level arrests to show what it would look like if Jersey City’s Hispanic/Latino
arrests were reported as White arrests—keeping in mind that Jersey City has a Hispanic/
Latino population of only 28% as compared to Elizabeth’s Hispanic/Latino population of
60%.92 Figure 10 below is the map of Jersey City’s actual arrests for the study offenses.
Figure 21 has been altered to show what it would look like if Jersey City’s Hispanic/Latino
arrests were categorized as White arrests.

FIGURE 10

Arrests for Study Offenses by
Race in Jersey City (2005-2013)

!
!

!

!
!

!
!

!

!

!

!
!!! !
!!
!

!!

!

! !! !
!! !! ! !
!
! !!
!
!!

!
!

!

!

!

!
!
!!!
! ! !!!!
! !!!
!
!
!
! !!
!! ! ! !! !!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! !
! !! !
!
!!
!! !!
! !!
!! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!!! ! ! ! !
!
! !!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !
!
!
! !
!! ! !
!
! !!
! !
!! !
! ! !
!!!! !
!
!
!
! ! !!! !
!
!!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!! !!! !
! !
!
!!
!
!!! !!
!!
!
!!! !! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !!!!
! !
!!
!!
!! !
! ! !
!
! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !! !
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
!
!! !!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! ! !! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !! !!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!! ! !
!!
! !
!
! !!!!
!
!!!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !! !
!!!
!
! !!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!! !
!!
!! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!! !!
!!! !!!! !!!!
!
!
!!
! !
! !
!
!! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
! !
! !!!!
! !
!!
! !! !
!
!
!! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
! ! !!
!! !
!
!!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!! ! !
!! !
!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!!! ! ! !! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! ! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!! ! !
! ! !
!!!!!!! ! !! !! !
!
! !! !
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!! !
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!! !
! ! !! !!!!!!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!!! !!!!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! ! !
! !!
!
!
!! ! !
!
! !! ! !
!!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !! ! ! !!!
!!!!
!
!
! !!!!
!
!
!!!! !! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! !!
!
! !!!!
!
!!
!! ! !
!
!! !!!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!! !!
!
!
!
!!
!!! !
!
!
!! !!!
!
!!
!
! ! ! ! !!!!! !
!
!!! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
! !! ! ! !
!!!!! !
! !! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !!!
!
!
!! !
! ! ! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!! !
!
!!!! !
! !
! !!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!!
! !
!!
!! !!! ! !!!!!
!
!
!! ! !
!! ! !! ! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
! !!!!
!
!!
! !
!
! !!!
!
!
! !! !
!!
!! !
!
!
!!!
!! ! ! !!
!
!! ! !
!! ! !
!
!!
!! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
! !!!!!! ! !
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
! !!! !
!
!!!!!!!! !!! !
!!
! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
! !!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !!!!!
!
!!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !!
!!! !!
!!
!
! !
!
!!! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! !! !
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!
!
!
!

!

!

!!
!
!

!

!

!

!

!!
!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

Race
!

!!!
!!! !

!!

!

Asian

!

Black

!

Hispanic

!

Indian

!

White

!
!

!

!
!

!

!

!

!

!!! !!! !!!!!!
! !
!!!! !! !!
!

!

!
! !!
!! !!!
!
!
!! !
!

!!!!!!

!!

!
!!

Percent Black
0% - 3.7%

!

!

!

!

!
! !
!

!

!
!

!

!!
!
!

!

! !

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!
!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!!

!!
!
!!

!
!
!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

3.7% - 8.5%

!
!

!

!
!!
!

!
!
!

!

!

!
!!

!

!!
! !!
!
!!

! !
!
! !
!
!
! !!!
!
!
!
!
!

! !
! !
!
!!

!
!!
!
!
!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!
!
!!! !
!
!!!!!
!
! !! !!
! ! !
!!! ! ! ! !
!
!!
! ! ! !!!
!! !
!!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!!

!

!!

!

!!

!
!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!
!

8.5% - 14.6%

!

!

!

14.6% - 25.3%

!

25.3% - 39.3%

!
!

39.3% - 64.1%
!

64.1% - 100%

0

	

0.75

1.5

SOURCE: Jersey City Police Department
and U.S. Census Data

3

| 49 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

FIGURE 21

Arrests for Study Offenses by
Race in Jersey City with Latinos
Classified as White (2005-2013)

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!!! !
!
!!
!
!
! !! ! !
!
!!
! !
! !!
! !
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!! ! ! !! !!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!! ! !
! !!
!! !
!
!! ! !
!
!
!!! ! ! ! !
!
! !!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!!
! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !
!
!
! !
!! ! !
!
! !!
! !
!!!
! ! !
!!!! !
!
!
!
! ! !!! !
!
!!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!
! !
!! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!!! !
!!
!
!
!!! !! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!!
!
! ! !!! !!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!
!! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !! !
!
! ! !!
!
! ! !!!!
!
! !
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
! !!
!
!!!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !! !
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!! !
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !! !!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!! ! !
! !
!!
!
! !!!!
!!!!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!!
! !! !!
!
!
!!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
!!!! !
!! ! !!
!
! !!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
! ! ! !!
!
!!!
!
!
! !
!!
! !! !
!!!
! !!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!! !
!! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!! !
!
!!
!! !!
!!! !!!! !!!!
!
!!
! !
! !
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!! !
!
!!
! !!!
!
! ! !!!
! !
!!!!!
! !
!!
! !! !
!
! !
!! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
! ! !!
!
!!
!
! ! ! ! !!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!! ! !
!! !
!!
!
!
! !!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!
! !! ! !
!!! ! ! !! ! !
!
!!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
! ! !!!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!! ! ! !!!
!
!
!!
!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! ! ! !! !! !
!
!
!
! ! !!
!! ! !
! !
! ! !! !
!!
!!
! !!!
!
!! !
!
!!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !! !!!!!!!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!! ! ! !
!!!
!
! !! !
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!
! !!! !
!!! ! ! !!!
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
! !
! !!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !! ! ! !!!
!!!
!
! !
! !!!
!
!
!!!! !! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! !!
!
! !!!!
!
!!
!! ! !
!
!! !!!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
! !!! !!
!
!
!
!
!!! !
!
! !
!
!! !!
!
! !
!! !
! !!
!
!
!
! !!!
! !!!!! ! !!!!!!
!!
!!
!
! !! ! ! !
!! !!!
! !! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
! !!
!
!
!
! ! ! !!!
!
!
!! !
!! ! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
! !!!
!! !
!
!!!! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! !!
! !
!! !!!!! !!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! ! !
!! ! !! ! !
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!!!
!!
!
! !!
!!
! !!!
!
!
! !! !
!!
!! !
!
!
!!!
!! ! ! !!
!
!! ! !
!! ! !
!
!!
!! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !!
!
! !! !! !
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
! !!! !
!!!!!!!! !!! !
!!
! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!!
! !
!
!!
!
! ! !!!!
!
!
! !!
!!! !!
!!
! !! !
! !
!
! ! !!! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!

!

!

!

!

!!
!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!
!
!
!

!

!

!!
!
!

!

!

!!
!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!
!!! !

!!

Race

!

!

Asian

!

Black

!

Indian

!

White

!
!

! !
!!

!
!
!
!
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
! !!
!! !!!
!
!!
!! !

!!!!!!

!!

!
!!

Percent Black
0% - 3.7%

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!!

!

!
! !
!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!

!

!!
!
!

!

! !

!!!

!

!

!!
! !!
!
!!

!

!

!
!
!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!!

!!
!
!!

!
!
!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

3.7% - 8.5%

!
!

!

!
!!
!

!
!
!

!

! !
!
! !
!
!
! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!

!

!!! !!! !!!!!!
! !
!!!! !! !!
!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!
!
!
!!! !
!
!!!!!
!
! !! !!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !!!
!
!
!!
! ! ! !!!
!! !
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
! !
!
!!
!

!

!!

!

!!

!
!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!
!

8.5% - 14.6%

!

!

!

14.6% - 25.3%

!

25.3% - 39.3%

!
!

39.3% - 64.1%
!

64.1% - 100%

0

0.75

1.5

SOURCE: Jersey City Police Department
and U.S. Census Data

3

C. CASE STUDY: NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE DEPARTMENT
New Brunswick Data Problems
The New Brunswick Police Department (NBPD) was not able to provide records in an
electronic file format, and it was not able to provide records for the specific study offenses
as requested. Instead, the NBPD could provide only printed records of all arrests.93 This
revealed problems with the current system used by NBPD to maintain its arrest records.
First, the NBPD stated that it does not have the ability to run search queries for specific
offenses with additional data, such as the data sought for this report (e.g., race, age, and
arrest location). Secondly, the NBPD cannot save search results in an electronic file format,

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 50 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

further hindering any attempts to evaluate and analyze arrest data. This poses serious
limitations on the use of the information by researchers, advocates, oversight bodies,
the public, and the department itself. While the NBPD appears to store its arrest data
electronically, the public will be well-served if the department optimizes its systems for
easier access to the information, thus increasing transparency.

Blacks Are 3.18 Times More Likely than Whites to be Arrested in New Brunswick for the
Study Offenses94

POPULATION

8%

ARRESTS

3%

14%

35%
41%
27%
51%
21%

Black

White

Latino

Asian

Black

White

Latino

Asian

Source:

	

| 51 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

1750

1,614

1,601

1500

1,421
1,188

1250
1000

904

750
500

427 396

393 428

515

573

566
440

346

250
0

2008

2009

2010

2011

276

2012

Source:

Blacks in New Brunswick were 3.2 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for a study
offense in the years analyzed (2008-2012). See Figure 23. The Black-White arrest disparity
for all offenses remained relatively consistent between 2008 and 2012, with a high of 3.8
and low of 2.6. Hispanics/Latinos were arrested at a rate similar to Whites most years
(between 1.3 to 0.8).

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 52 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Marijuana Possession Arrest Disparities

(2008-2012)
600
517

500
400

349

336

323

300
200
100
0

245

122
44

2008

68

58

2009

61

94

76
34

2010

2011

95

73

2012

Source:

Blacks in New Brunswick were 6.5 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for
marijuana possession over the sample period (2008-2012). See Figure 24. Notably,
marijuana possession arrest rates for Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos spiked in 2011, while
the White arrest rate dropped, resulting in an extreme racial disparity that year: Blacks were
over 15 times more likely to be arrested, and Hispanics were more than 2 times more likely
to be arrested than Whites. The disparity fell the following year: Blacks were 3.4 times more
likely to be arrested in 2012 than Whites—still above the state average of 2.8. While the
actual number of marijuana possession arrests was low,95 indicating a decline in
enforcement of the offense, the disparity between Black-White arrests suggests that the
offense continues to be disproportionately enforced in the Black community.

	

| 53 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

• Disorderly Conduct Arrest Disparities

(2008-2012)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

969
801

775
607

287
217

278

327

393

450

428

349

318
115

2008

2009

2010

2011

171

2012

Source:

Blacks were also disproportionately represented in disorderly conduct arrests in New
Brunswick—on average, they were 2.7 times more likely to be arrested than Whites for
the offense during the sample period (2008-2012). See Figure 25. The racial disparity was
slightly higher in 2012, the last year for which the ACLU-NJ received data: Blacks were three
times more likely than Whites to be arrested for disorderly conduct. Hispanics/Latinos on
the other hand, saw negligible disparities with Whites.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 54 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Trespass Arrest Disparities

103

100

90

90
80
70

65

60

54
47

50
40

47

33
26

30
20

52

14

14

15

25

25
14

10
0

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Source:

Blacks were 3.9 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for trespass during the sample
period (2008-2012). See Figure 26. However, the Black-White arrest disparity for trespass
arrests was highest in 2008 (7.6), and has decreased in the years since (e.g., 1.4 in 2012).
Disparities for Hispanic/Latino arrests were negligible for disorderly conduct.

	

| 55 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

• Loitering Arrest Disparities

349

350

310

300
250

220

200

168

150
100
50
0

77

75
33

2008

34

29

2009

47
18

2010

88

34
0

7

2011

2012

Source:

The data from the sample period for New Brunswick (2008-2012) revealed that Blacks were
4.6 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for loitering, although the disparity
decreased in the most recent years (2011 and 2012). See Figure 27. The Black arrest rate for
loitering decreased by 75% from 2010 to 2011 (from 310 arrests per 100,000 to 77 arrests
per 100,000), resulting in a drop in the Black-White arrest disparity from 6.5 to 2.3. It is
unclear what caused the Black arrest rate to decrease that year, especially given its 118%
increase the following year.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 56 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Blacks Make Up 36% of Arrests for the Study Offenses Although They Are Only 16% of
the Population in New Brunswick

TABLE 5: Annual Arrests for Study Offenses by Race in New Brunswick (2008-2012)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2008

63

124

109

296

2009

58

92

118

268

2010

76

125

156

357

2011

65

110

158

333

2012

51

70

76

197

Total

313 (21.5%)

521 (36%)

617 (42.5%)

1451 (100%)

* A number of Asian and American Indian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are based on
the sum of White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: New Brunswick Police Department

Despite the fact that Blacks represent only 16% of the population in New Brunswick,96
arrests of Blacks outnumbered arrests of Whites in every year analyzed (2008-2012),
representing 36% of the total arrests for the sample period. See Table 5.

	

| 57 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

The Majority of Arrests for a Low-Level Offense Did Not Involve a Serious Crime

(2008-2012)

3%
26%

74%
97%

Source:

The NBPD data included 2,031 arrests, of which only 3% (55) involved a charge for a serious
Part I offense; 74% (1,498) did not include a charge for an indictable offense. See Figure 28.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 58 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

6%
24%

70%

Source:

Of the arrests in New Brunswick that did not include an indictable charge, i.e., purely lowlevel arrests, 70% did not include additional charges. In other words, a study offense was
the stand-alone charge in 70% of the arrests. See Figure 29. Twenty-four percent included
one additional low-level charge, meaning that 94% of the low-level arrests involved a
study offense only or a study offense in combination with another low-level charge. The
average number of charges per arrests was 1.63. Disorderly conduct was the offense most
frequently charged by itself: 45% of the total arrests for the study offenses were for the
stand-alone charge of disorderly conduct.

	

| 59 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

A Closer Look at Marijuana Possession Offenses: The Vast Majority of NBPD’s Marijuana
Arrests Are for Small Amounts

2010

2011

16%

84%

2012

3%

97%

9%

91%

Source:

Because NBPD provided data for all of its arrests, we were able to discern that the vast
majority of marijuana possession arrests were for the low-level, disorderly persons offense
examined in this report involving possession under 50 grams, as opposed to the more
serious, indictable offense of marijuana possession of over 50 grams.97 See Figure 30.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 60 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Black and Latino Males Account for 33% of the New Brunswick Population But Make up
Over 65% of Arrests for Study Offenses

(2008-2012)
700
600

565

500

423

400
300

257

200
100

57

0

Male
White

Latino

99
52

Female
Black

Source:

Males make up 86% of the arrests analyzed in New Brunswick, but Black and Hispanic/
Latino males make up a disproportionate number of the arrests. See Figure 31. Black males
are 6% of the population in New Brunswick, 98 yet account for 29% of the arrests for the
study offenses. Hispanic/Latino males make up 39% of the arrests, but they represent only
27% of the population.99

D. CASE STUDY: MILLVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Millville Data Problems
The Millville Police Department (MPD) responded to the ACLU-NJ’s OPRA request in a
cooperative and timely manner, yet we encountered significant difficulties in compiling
records in compiling records to analyze. Arrest records from 2003 to 2009 were not stored
in an electronic database and are only available in printed form.100 Arrest records for 2010

	

| 61 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

and 2011 were lost in a 2011 data migration when the MPD changed its record management
system, rendering those data unavailable.101
The ACLU-NJ also discovered discrepancies between the MPD data and the FBI/UCR data
for marijuana possession and disorderly conduct arrests, albeit smaller than in the other
jurisdictions.102 Therefore, this analysis is an estimation of arrest totals and overall patterns
based on the sample set provided by the MPD.
The MPD data for 2013 includes data for the first three quarters of the year only. Therefore,
arrest rates and disparities have been weighted to provide an estimation of the statistics for
the full year.103

Racial Disparities in Arrests for Study Offenses in Millville Increased in 2012 and 2013 for
Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos

1%

15%

10%

19%

33%

57%

64%

Black

White

Latino

Asian

Black

Source:

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 62 |

White

Latino

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

3500

3,194

3000

2,735

2500
1,989

2000

1,741
1,428

1500
1000
500
0

508

598 590
283

2007

2008

684
339 401

2009

535
226

214

2012

2013

Source:

For the sample period examined in Millville (2007-2009 & 2012-2013), Blacks were 6.2 times
more likely than Whites to be arrested for the study offenses. See Figure 34. The average
Hispanic/Latino-White racial disparity was low—an average of 1.3 for the time period—but
with increases in recent years (3.2 in 2012, and 2.2 in 2013).
While the number of arrests for certain offenses (marijuana possession and disorderly
conduct) in Millville decreased in 2012 and 2013, the Black-White arrest disparity remained
constant or increased. In some cases the disparity increased exponentially: the Hispanic/
Latino-White arrest disparity for marijuana possession increased from 0.6 in 2007 to 6.3 by
2013. For Blacks it increased from 3.8 in 2007 to 8.5 in 2013. Both the arrest rate and arrest
disparity increased for trespass: in 2007 Blacks were 2.2 times more likely than Whites to
be arrested, and by 2012 they were 7.8 times more likely to be arrested.104 Loitering was
the only offense for which there was not a significant racial disparity in arrests, with the
exception of 2009, when both Blacks (3.4) and Hispanics/Latinos (4.2) were arrested at
higher rates.

	

| 63 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

• Marijuana Possession Arrest Disparities

1,205

1200
1000
800
593

600

363

400
200
0

158

226

259

94

2007

118

90

2008

94
11

2009

2012

115
15

94

128

2013

Source:

Extreme disparities in Black-White marijuana possession arrests exist in Millville for every
year for which data were available, with a high of 10.2 in 2012. See Figure 35. Disparities in
Hispanic/Latino-White marijuana possession arrests exist for every year except 2007.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 64 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Disorderly Conduct Arrest Disparities

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

1,970
1,626
1,320

1,250

1,243

566
231

165

2007

260 283

2008

346
175 189

2009

166

107

2012

2013

Source:

Blacks in Millville were 8.3 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for disorderly
conduct during the sample period (2007-2009 & 2012-2013). See Figure 36. Hispanics/
Latinos were 2.1 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for the offense during this
time period.
The Black-White racial disparity for disorderly conduct arrests spiked in 2012 (11.6) and
remained at a high level in 2013 (7.5).

	

| 65 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

• Trespass Arrest Disparities

350
306

287

287

300
250
200

172

150
100
50
0

79

79
47

71

68

40

24

24
0

2007

2008

2009

2012

0

19

2013

Source:

Blacks were four times more likely than Whites to be arrested for trespass during the
sample period (2007-2009 & 2012-2013). See Figure 37. There was no racial disparity in
Hispanic/Latino-White arrests for the offense during this time.
The trespass arrest data that the ACLU-NJ received from the MPD for 2013 was incomplete
and did not reflect any trespass arrests for Whites or Hispanics/Latinos in 2013. The
disparity rates are therefore incalculable for that year. However, the Black-White disparity
rate the preceding year was extremely high: Blacks were 7.7 times more likely than Whites
to be arrested.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 66 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Loitering Arrest Disparities

100

94
77

77

80

40

40

34
24

20
0

60

56

60

0

2007

0

0

2008

6

26
19

0

2009

2012

2013

Source:

Loitering had the lowest arrest disparity: Blacks were 1.6 times more likely than Whites to
be arrested for the offense; Hispanics/Latinos were arrested at a nearly even rate to Whites.
See Figure 38. Overall, the relatively low loitering arrest rates for all groups indicate that
the MPD is not making many arrests for the offense. The absence of any arrests for several
years (e.g., Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos in 2007, Hispanics/Latinos in 2008 and 2012),
however, raises a red flag that the MPD may not have retrieved complete loitering records
for the sample period.

	

| 67 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Blacks Make Up 57% of Arrests for the Study Offenses Although They Are Only 20% of
the Population in Millville
TABLE 7: Annual Arrests for Study Offenses by Race in Millville (2007-09 & 2012-13)*†
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2007

90

143

12

245

2008

106

167

25

298

2009

60

104

17

181

2012

38

91

29

158

2013

32

56

17

105

Total

326 (33%)

561 (57%)

100 (10%)

987 (100%)

* Total arrests for 2013 are based on the first three quarters of the year only, and reflect the sum of marijuana
possession, disorderly conduct, and loitering arrests only because the police department did not provide
trespass arrest records for 2013.
† A small number of Asian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are based on the sum of
White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: Millville Police Department

Blacks are 20% of the population in Millville,105 yet they account for 57% of the arrests
for the study offenses in the sample period (2007-2009 & 2012-2013). See Table 7. Blacks
made up the majority of arrests for every year analyzed.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 68 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

The Majority of Arrests for the Study Offenses in Millville Did Not Involve a Serious Crime

5%
31%

69%
95%

Source:

The MPD data included 1,438 arrests, of which only 5% (78) involved a charge for a serious
Part I crime. See Figure 39. Indictable offense charges are present in only 31% (443) of the
arrest data. In other words, 69% (995) of arrests involved a study offense only, or a study
offense in combination with other low-level charges.

	

| 69 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

18%

53%
30%

Source:

Looking at the number of charges for each arrest in the low-level arrest data set (995),106
53% are for a stand-alone charge of a study offense. See Figure 40. The next 30% of arrests
have a second low-level offense charged (bringing the cumulative total to 82%). In sum, the
majority of arrests for the study offenses are for a single charge, or two low-level charges—
they do not involve numerous charges or serious crimes. Disorderly conduct was the
offense that was most often charged alone: 36% (359) of the arrests were for a stand-alone
charge of disorderly conduct.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 70 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Black Males in Millville Are The Most Overrepresented Group in Low-Level Arrests

400

368

300
223

209

200
110

100

73
29

0

Male
White

Latino

Female
Black

Source:

The MPD’s enforcement of low-level arrests falls disproportionately on Blacks as a group:
the data show that Black males (36%) and Black females (21%) together make up 57%
of the arrests analyzed.107 See Figure 41. As a group, they represent only 20% of the
population in Millville.108
When looking across gender lines, Black males are disproportionately represented in
arrests: they are only 9% of the population but make up 36% of the arrests. Black females
are also overrepresented: they are 10% of the population and account for 21% of the
arrests.109

	

| 71 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Black Youth Make Up the Majority of the MPD’s Low-Level Arrests
TABLE 8: Breakdown of Arrests for Study Offenses by Age and Race in Millville (2007-09 & 2012-13)*

TOTAL

AGE

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

(% of total arrests by age)

Juvenile

68 (28%)

151 (63%)

20 (8%)

239 (23.5%)

18 to 24

106 (32%)

189 (56%)

40 (12%)

336 (33%)

25 to 34

43 (38%)

52 (46%)

19 (17%)

114 (11%)

35 to 44

71 (34%)

119 (57%)

19 (9%)

210 (21%)

45+

47 (40%)

66 (56%)

4 (3%)

117 (11.5%)

Total

335 (33%)

577 (57%)

102 (10%)

1,016 (100%)

(% of total arrests by race)

* Total arrests per age category are higher than the sum of the White, Black, and Latino arrests because Asian
and American Indian arrests are not presented in the table.
Source: Millville Police Department

The data revealed that Blacks in Millville account for the most arrests across all age groups.
See Table 8. Blacks aged 18 to 24 make up the largest proportion of arrests of the total
study offenses—19%—yet they were only 3% of the population.110 Within their age group,
Blacks represent 31% of 18 to 24 year-olds but make up 56% of the arrests.111

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 72 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Who and Where: The Majority of Arrests Occurred in Millville’s Downtown Area, and
Individuals Arrested Were In Close Proximity to Home

FIGURE 42

Arrests for Study Offenses by Race in Millville (2007-09 & 2012-13)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!
!

!
#
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Race

!!
!

!

!! !
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Asian

!

Black

!

Hispanic

!

White

!

!

! !!
! ! !! !
! !!!! !!!!
!! ! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!!
! !! !
!
!
!!
!
! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!
!!!!! !
! !
!
!

!

!!

!!!!!!

!
#!
!!!!!
!
!!

!

!!
! !
!

!
!!
!!

!!

!

!!
!

!!
!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!
!
!

!
!

!

!
!

!

#!

!

!

!
!!!
! !
! !

!
!
!

p

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!
!

!
!
!

!!
!
!
!
!
! !!
! !! !
!
! !!
!! !
!
!! !!!
! ! !
!
! !! ! !
! !
!
! !
!!!!!!!
! !
!! !!!!!
!
!
!
! !! ! ! !!
! !
! ! !
!!
!!!!!! !
!!!
! ! !!
!
!
!! !
!
!! !
!!!
!! !!!!!!!! !
!! ! !!!!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
!!!!!!!
! !!
! ! ! !!
!
! !!
!! !
! !!! ! !! !
!
!!!!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!! !
! ! !! !!! !!
!
!! !!!!!!! !! !!!! !!! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! !!! !
!! !!
!!!!!
!
!! ! ! ! !
! !! !
!
!
!!
! !
! !! !
! !
! !!! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !!!! !!
!!
!!!
!!!!!
! !!
!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!

!

!!

!

!!
!
!!
!
!
!!

!
!

!

!

!

!
!

!

!!
!

Percent Black

!

!

!

0%
0% - 9.2%

!

9.2% - 18.6%
18.6% - 25.0%
!

!
!

25.0% - 32.9%
32.9% - 35.3%
35.3% - 51.1%

#

	

Schools

0

1

2

4 Miles

| 73 | 	

SOURCE: Millville Police Department
and U.S. Census Data

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Eighteen percent of the arrests in Millville occurred at the individual’s home address. In
keeping with this pattern, 45% of arrests occurred within a half mile from home, and 58%
occurred within a mile from home.112 When comparing those numbers to the location of
arrests, it becomes clear that the majority of arrests are of Millville residents who live in the
predominantly Black areas of downtown Millville, including the Third Ward.
The arrests that occurred at locations outside of the downtown areas were at Millville
Senior High School, and at the Delsea Garden Apartments, which is a Section 8 housing
complex. See Figures 42 and 43.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 74 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

V. Recommendations
The data findings in this report raise serious concerns about the current enforcement policies and practices of the four police departments examined. Specifically, the data signal
that enforcement of low-level offenses has a disparate impact on people of color. The data
collection process also revealed significant flaws in the haphazard and incomplete manner
in which police departments collect, store, retrieve, and provide arrest data. The ACLU-NJ
makes the following recommendations seeking to address these issues. These recommendations are not limited to the jurisdictions in this report, but rather constitute better data
collection and policing practices that should be implemented by cities and law enforcement
officials across New Jersey, as well as at the state level.

Policing and Enforcement Policy
Local Reforms
• Local officials, police chiefs, and prosecutors should agree to make enforcing low-level
offenses that do not harm public safety among their lowest priorities. Because lowlevel offenses such as the ones studied here pose little to no public safety harms, police
should shift their priorities and devote their resources to serious crimes. Key players in
the criminal justice system should exercise their authorized discretion and adopt formal
policies making these offenses their lowest enforcement priorities.
The City of Seattle, for example, made marijuana a lowest-enforcement priority in 2003,
and by 2010, over a four month period, only six out of 6,500 incident reports cited
marijuana as the reason for the police contact.113
On the prosecutorial side, in 2010, the Harris County (Texas) District Attorney’s Office
implemented a policy to stop prosecuting drug paraphernalia possession cases as
felonies.114 Under the old practice, officers would arrest people found with paraphernalia
for felony drug possession if there was any drug residue. The change in policy resulted in
a drop of 7,800 felony drug possession cases between 2008 and 2011.115
Two district attorneys’ offices in New York City adopted stop-prosecution policies for
certain low-level offenses. In 2012, Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson announced that
his office would no longer prosecute people arrested for trespassing in public housing
projects—people who often were either residents themselves or guests of residents—
unless the prosecutor first interviewed the arresting officer to ensure that the arrest was
proper.116 In 2014, Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson adopted a policy to stop

	

| 75 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

prosecuting people arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana in a push to
explore alternatives to court for low-level offenders.117
Coupled with the periodic evaluation of arrest data, the shift in enforcement priorities
will allow police to make better resource allocation decisions and to pursue policies and
practices that will reduce racial disparities in arrests. Furthermore, making these offenses
low-enforcement priorities will reduce the severe consequences individuals often face
when arrested, including being saddled with a criminal record.
• Pass strong and enforceable anti-racial profiling laws like New York City’s. Local
officials should pass strong anti-racial profiling laws like New York City’s, which
expanded the protected categories of persons (age, gender, gender identity or
expression, sexual orientation, immigration status, disability, and housing status), gave
more power to residents to challenge racial profiling incidents. New Jersey municipalities
should also mandate police training for conscious and unconscious bias, which can
influence officers’ decision-making when dealing with the public.118 While the data
analyses in this report do not provide an answer as to a single cause of the disparities,
racial profiling is a potential contributing factor that leads to the disproportionate arrest
of people of color.
• Police departments should stop using low-level arrests as a performance measure for
evaluating officers. Measuring police effectiveness by the number of arrests officers
make incentivizes officers to make low-level arrests, which are generally easier to
execute than arrests for serious crimes. This can lead to unconstitutional arrests if
officers are pressured to generate arrest numbers.119 For this reason, police departments
should stop using low-level arrests as a performance measure.
• Institute strong, independent oversight of police departments, such as a Civilian
Complaint Review Board (CCRB) to review allegations of individual officers’ misconduct
and Inspector General (IG) offices to monitor police policies and practices. Effective
civilian oversight of the police department is integral to ensuring a system of democratic
and accountable policing. Municipalities in New Jersey should establish independent
CCRBs to investigate individual acts of police misconduct and discipline officers when
necessary. A strong CCRB with the authority to independently investigate and to
discipline officers also can help change institutional practices that contribute to arrest
disparities. Establishing IG offices to review police policies and practices at the agencywide level will allow municipalities to identify and reform those practices that have a
disparate impact on communities of color. An example of a civilian review board with
strong investigatory, disciplinary, and audit authorities is the one recently created
in Newark.120

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 76 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Municipalities should expand use of police dashboard and body cameras with
appropriate rules. The use of body-worn cameras is increasingly considered a best
practice among law enforcement as it encourages police departments to reduce the
number of incidents involving use of force and protects officers from baseless allegations
of abuse.121 The use of cameras can help address issues of racial disparities in arrests by
encouraging police accountability and discouraging improper or unconstitutional stops.
However, policies must ensure that cameras are on during civilian-police encounters and
New Jerseyans have a right to access camera footage of their interactions with officers.
Additionally, cameras would allow police departments to evaluate arrest incidents and
create a safety net for officers improperly accused of racial profiling or misconduct.
Departments that explore the use of cameras in day-to-day policing should also ensure
privacy protections of both the public and police officers.

State Reforms
• New Jersey should adopt a system of taxing and regulating marijuana.
The failed war on drugs has been fueled in part by the hyper-enforcement of low-level
marijuana laws, which have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. The
disproportionate number of Black arrests for marijuana possession, despite similar usage
rates between Whites and Blacks, illustrates the fundamental unfairness of these laws
in practice.
By legalizing marijuana for adults, New Jersey would remove marijuana use from the
criminal justice sphere and properly treat it as a public health issue. By treating marijuana
like alcohol and cigarettes, its sale and consumption could be carefully regulated. Money
generated through sales taxes could be re-invested in communities for drug treatment
and prevention, and other community needs, and money saved by departments could be
redirected toward serious crime.
• The New Jersey Attorney General should investigate racial disparities in low-level
offenses in municipalities throughout the state. This study serves as a glimpse into
the racial disparities in low-level arrests for only four law-enforcement agencies in New
Jersey. The findings are stark, however, and indicate that Black and Latino communities
bear the disproportionate impact of enforcement. The AG should investigate whether
such disparities exist in other municipalities and the causes of the disparities, intervening
where necessary to eliminate disparities. Moreover, the AG should investigate the
disparities highlighted in this report and intervene accordingly.

	

| 77 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Data Collection & Management
Local Reforms
• Police departments must improve data collection and management, and they should
systematically analyze the data. This report highlights the obstacles posed by poor data
collection practices. Departments should ensure that their data management systems
allow for easy access and retrieval of all arrest, summonses, stop-and-frisk, and policesearch information for analysis, for the benefit of both the police department and the
public. All data associated with such records should be readily available, and personnel
should be trained to retrieve and aggregate it as needed. If departments do not yet store
these types of data electronically, they should begin the process of switching to such
systems. Effective data collection and retention practices will assist police departments in
determining resource allocation priorities, identifying public safety needs, and building a
comprehensive picture of department-wide policing practices. Furthermore, by improving
data collection and management practices, police departments and oversight bodies can
identify patterns of unequal enforcement and implement policies to curb such practices.
An example of the benefits of effective data evaluation is the Durham Human Rights
Commission’s (DHRC) recent review of Durham, North Carolina, traffic stop data. After
reviewing data collected and published by the Durham Police Department,122 the DHRC
made a finding of racial bias and profiling and issued 34 recommendations to reduce
racial bias in enforcement to the Durham City Council.123
• Regularly report arrest data to the public by posting information for low-level offenses
online on a regular basis. All arrest and crime information should be publicly available,
but as a first step, police departments should engage in the systematic analysis of lowlevel arrests and post the results publicly online. The majority of arrests that police
make are for low-level offenses, and they should be carefully scrutinized. Not only will
publicly available information increase transparency and encourage accountability, it
will also provide police departments with opportunities to evaluate and assess the ways
their enforcement decisions may manifest themselves in a racially disparate manner.
Furthermore, regular reporting would promote police accountability, fostering greater
confidence in police work.
Arrest data should not be in PDF format, but rather, the raw data should be made
available in a format that is easy to download, search, and analyze. Providing data in
a user-friendly, accessible format increases police transparency and encourages public
participation and engagement in government.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 78 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

• Police departments should collect data on searches, Terry stops (pedestrian and
vehicular), and frisks by requiring officers to fill out reports and publish the results
online on a periodic, preferably monthly, basis. Every police department should require
officers to fill out reports for all investigatory stops and searches conducted. While a stop,
encounter, or subsequent frisk or full search may not result in an arrest or charge of a
low-level offense, often it is the point of contact that leads to an arrest. Understanding
the scope and implementation of these practices will allow police, civil rights advocates,
oversight bodies, and the community at large to ascertain whether the practices are
being misused or leading to constitutional violations. Stop-and-frisk abuses can have
damaging effects on communities, as illustrated by recent experiences in New York City
and Philadelphia. By implementing reporting requirements, departments can ensure that
officers understand the law and take corrective action when officers conduct stops and
searches improperly.
Terry stop forms should collect the following data:
(1) Date, time, and location of encounter;
(2) Duration of encounter;
(3) Perceived race, ethnicity, gender, and age of persons stopped; ethnicity
information should include Hispanic/Latino data;
(4) The initial reason for the stop;
(5) Whether the officer conducted a frisk (pat-down) of the individual, and if so,
the legal basis for the frisk;
(6) Whether the officer conducted a search beyond the frisk, the specific scope of
the search (including the areas and items searched), and the legal basis for
the search;
(7) Whether any contraband was seized during the frisk or broader search, where
it was seized from, and the type of contraband seized;
(8) D
 isposition of the stop, including whether the person was let go without any
sanctions imposed; whether the officer issued a summons, and the list the
charges, if so; or, whether the officer arrested the person, and the list the
charges, if so;

	

| 79 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

(9) Whether any force or threat of force was used at any point during the
encounter, and type of force used or threatened; and
(10) Name and badge numbers of all officers present or involved in the encounter.
This information, with the exception of police officers’ names, should be made
available to the public online, in a user-friendly, downloadable format.

State Reforms
• The New Jersey Attorney General should formally require law enforcement agencies to
track and report data on summonses, arrests, and stops. The AG needs to set strong
transparency standards for law enforcement agencies in New Jersey by formally requiring
that all agencies document their summons, arrest, and stop activities. The AG should
set uniform guidelines for tracking the data, and require that it be publicly reported on a
periodic basis.
• The New Jersey Attorney General should issue a directive to police departments to
properly record Hispanic/Latino arrest data. The lack of reliable Hispanic/Latino data
makes assessing the impact of enforcement practices on New Jersey’s sizeable Hispanic/
Latino community impossible to assess. Because arrest information is central to
identifying potential civil rights violations or disparate policing practices, it is critical that
police departments accurately and uniformly track Hispanic/Latino arrests.
Beginning in January 2013, the FBI/UCR expanded its ethnicity categories to include
“Hispanic or Latino” and “Not Hispanic or Latino”.124 Collection of ethnicity data is
not mandated, however, and the FBI itself anticipates that law enforcement agencies’
implementation of these changes to their data collection could take a considerable
amount of time.125 The New Jersey AG’s office can expedite and facilitate the process of
collecting Hispanic/Latino data by issuing guidelines for law enforcement agencies to
follow, as the AG’s guidelines have a binding effect on police departments. The guidelines
should include a clear methodology for police departments to follow in recording the data
to ensure uniformity across agencies, as well as training procedures for officers.
• The New Jersey Attorney General should issue clear guidelines to law enforcement
agencies for reporting Part II arrests to the FBI/UCR Program. Law enforcement agencies
in New Jersey do not have a true uniform system for reporting Part II offense arrest data.
Under the current system, agencies make subjective determinations about how to rank the
seriousness of charges and thus which charge to report as the arrest incident (since only

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 80 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

the most serious charge is reported to the UCR). This means that reported arrests can vary
from municipality to municipality, and we lack a clear picture of exactly what individuals are
arrested for. The AG should endeavor to create a uniform system of reporting that provides
police departments with clear guidelines for reporting Part II arrests.

	

| 81 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Appendix A—Total Annual Arrests by Offense for Each Municipality
TABLE A1: Annual Marijuana Possession Arrests by Race in Jersey City (2005-2013)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2005

3

18

8

29

2006

2

27

7

36

2007

4

18

12

34

2008

10

68

44

122

2009

9

72

41

122

2010

15

51

24

90

2011

7

57

16

80

2012

6

48

25

79

2013

9

84

37

130

Total

65 (9%)

443 (61%)

214 (30%)

722 (100%)

* A small number of Asian and American Indian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are
based on the sum of White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: Jersey City Police Department

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 82 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

TABLE A2: Annual Disorderly Conduct Arrests by Race in Jersey City (2005-2013)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2005

3

23

3

29

2006

8

72

22

102

2007

12

123

50

185

2008

11

115

40

166

2009

26

76

54

156

2010

12

71

30

113

2011

18

65

47

130

2012

16

92

23

131

2013

6

94

34

134

Total

112 (10%)

731 (64%)

303 (26%)

1146 (100%)

* A small number of Asian and American Indian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are
based on the sum of White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: Jersey City Police Department

	

| 83 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

TABLE A3: Annual Trespass Arrests by Race in Jersey City (2005-2013)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2005

0

6

1

7

2006

1

19

6

26

2007

8

27

17

52

2008

4

24

5

33

2009

3

18

2

23

2010

6

22

5

33

2011

3

26

8

37

2012

2

21

3

26

2013

3

38

7

48

Total

30 (10.5%)

201 (70.5%)

54 (19%)

285 (100%)

* A small number of Asian and American Indian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are
based on the sum of White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: Jersey City Police Department

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 84 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

TABLE A4: Annual Loitering Arrests by Race in Jersey City (2005-2013)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2005

25

35

20

80

2006

51

66

88

205

2007

18

80

43

141

2008

25

49

30

104

2009

13

42

26

81

2010

10

52

23

85

2011

5

34

24

63

2012

19

35

24

78

2013

6

40

15

61

Total

172 (19%)

433 (48%)

293 (33%)

898 (100%)

* A small number of Asian and American Indian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are
based on the sum of White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: Jersey City Police Department

	

| 85 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

TABLE A5: Annual Arrests for Marijuana Possession by Race in Elizabeth (2003-2012)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

TOTAL

2003

161

223

384

2004

141

171

312

2005

116

179

295

2006

86

175

261

2007

98

115

213

2008

93

115

208

2009

99

104

203

2010

87

145

232

2011

32

66

98

2012

52

75

127

Total

965 (41%)

1,368 (59%)

2,333 (100%)

* A small number of Asian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are based on the sum of
White and Black arrests only.
Source: Elizabeth Police Department

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 86 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

TABLE A6: Annual Arrests for Disorderly Conduct by Race in Elizabeth (2003-2012)
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

TOTAL

2003

16

29

45

2004

18

20

38

2005

34

25

59

2006

27

39

66

2007

29

35

64

2008

71

80

151

2009

36

43

79

2010

44

44

88

2011

1

1

2

2012

2

0

2

Total

278 (47%)

316 (53%)

594 (100%)

Source: Elizabeth Police Department

	

| 87 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

TABLE A7: Annual Arrests for Trespass by Race in Elizabeth (2003-2012)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

TOTAL

2003

60

65

125

2004

33

108

141

2005

61

91

152

2006

59

66

125

2007

59

59

118

2008

64

83

147

2009

34

43

77

2010

51

81

132

2011

0

2

2

2012

4

0

4

Total

425 (41.5%)

598 (58.5%)

1023 (100%)

* A small number of Asian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are based on the sum of
White and Black arrests only.
Source: Elizabeth Police Department

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 88 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

TABLE A8: Annual Arrests for Loitering by Race in Elizabeth (2003-2012)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

TOTAL

2003

6

6

12

2004

2

3

5

2005

1

3

4

2006

1

1

2

2007

0

0

0

2008

0

0

0

2009

4

10

14

2010

17

24

41

2011

51

74

125

2012

45

59

104

Total

127 (41%)

180 (59%)

307 (100%)

Source: Elizabeth Police Department

	

| 89 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

TABLE A9: Annual Arrests for Marijuana Possession by Race in New Brunswick (2008-2012)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2008

18

27

12

57

2009

10

26

16

52

2010

9

19

26

54

2011

5

40

21

66

2012

14

25

20

59

Total

56 (19%)

137 (48%)

95 (33%)

288 (100%)

* A small number of Asian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are based on the sum of
White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: New Brunswick Police Department

TABLE A10: Annual Arrests for Disorderly Conduct by Race in New Brunswick (2008-2012)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2008

32

62

79

173

2009

41

47

90

178

2010

58

75

118

251

2011

47

60

124

231

2012

17

27

47

91

Total

195 (21%)

271 (29%)

458 (50%)

924 (100%)

* A number of Asian and American Indian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are based on
the sum of White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: New Brunswick Police Department

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 90 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

TABLE A11: Annual Arrests for Trespass by Race in New Brunswick (2008-2012)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2008

2

8

9

19

2009

2

2

4

8

2010

2

7

7

16

2011

8

4

13

25

2012

7

5

7

19

Total

21 (24%)

26 (30%)

40 (46%)

87 (100%)

* A small number of Asian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are based on the sum of
White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: New Brunswick Police Department

TABLE A12: Annual Arrests for Loitering by Race in New Brunswick (2008-2012)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2008

11

27

9

47

2009

5

17

8

30

2010

7

24

5

36

2011

5

6

0

11

2012

13

13

2

28

Total

41 (27%)

87 (57%)

24 (16%)

152 (100%)

Source: New Brunswick Police Department

	

| 91 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

TABLE A13: Annual Arrests for Marijuana Possession by Race in Millville (2007-09 & 2012-13)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2007

28

31

4

63

2008

40

63

11

114

2009

16

19

5

40

2012

2

6

4

12

2013

2

5

3

10

Total

88 (37%)

124 (52%)

27 (11%)

239 (100%)

* Total arrests for 2013 are based on the first three quarters of the year only.
Source: Millville Police Department

TABLE A14: Annual Arrests for Disorderly Conduct by Race in Millville (2007-09 & 2012-13)*†
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2007

41

103

7

151

2008

46

85

12

143

2009

31

69

8

108

2012

19

65

24

108

2013

22

49

11

82

Total

159 (27%)

371 (63%)

62 (10%)

592 (100%)

* Total arrests for 2013 are based on the first three quarters of the year only.
† A small number of American Indian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are based on the
sum of White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: Millville Police Department

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 92 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

TABLE A15: Annual Arrests for Trespass by Race in Millville (2007-09 & 2012-13)*
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2007

14

9

1

24

2008

14

15

2

31

2009

12

15

3

30

2012

7

16

1

24

2013

0

1

0

1

Total

47 (43%)

56 (51%)

7 (6%)

110 (100%)

* Total arrests for 2013 are based on the first three quarters of the year only.
Source: Millville Police Department

TABLE A16: Annual Arrests for Loitering by Race in Millville (2007-09 & 2012-13)*†
YEAR

WHITE

BLACK

LATINO

TOTAL

2007

7

0

0

7

2008

6

4

0

10

2009

1

1

1

3

2012

10

4

0

14

2013

8

1

3

12

Total

32 (69%)

10 (22%)

4 (9%)

46 (100%)

* Total arrests for 2013 are based on the first three quarters of the year only.
† A small number of Asian arrests in the data are not included. Percentages of total are based on the sum of
White, Black, and Latino arrests only.
Source: Millville Police Department

	

| 93 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Appendix B—Discrepancies Between Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
and Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Data
TABLE B1: Marijuana Possession, Jersey City
YEAR

FBI/UCR DATA

OPRA REQUEST DATA*

2005

286

58

2006

151

45

2007

48

50

2008

305

151

2009

250

160

2010

292

118

2011

259

98

2012

-

110

2013

-

181

TABLE B2: Disorderly Conduct, Jersey City
YEAR

FBI/UCR DATA

OPRA REQUEST DATA*

2005

641

47

2006

576

114

2007

626

212

2008

533

199

2009

528

174

2010

459

139

2011

445

142

2012

-

150

2013

-

144

* OPRA data do not include arrests with Part I offenses involved.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 94 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

TABLE B3: Marijuana Possession, Elizabeth
YEAR

FBI/UCR DATA

OPRA REQUEST DATA*

2003

291

394

2004

252

322

2005

265

312

2006

214

270

2007

181

218

2008

164

210

2009

138

206

2010

134

235

2011

189

227

2012

-

267

TABLE B4: Disorderly Conduct, Elizabeth
YEAR

FBI/UCR DATA

OPRA REQUEST DATA*

2003

231

47

2004

236

38

2005

257

60

2006

257

68

2007

271

64

2008

225

152

2009

244

79

2010

225

88

2011

147

3

2012

-

2

* OPRA data do not include arrests with Part I offenses involved.

	

| 95 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

TABLE B5: Marijuana Possession, New Brunswick
YEAR

FBI/UCR DATA

OPRA REQUEST DATA*

2008

104

139

2009

86

109

2010

99

138

2011

98

135

2012

-

100

TABLE B6: Disorderly Conduct, New Brunswick
YEAR

FBI/UCR DATA

OPRA REQUEST DATA*

2008

180

201

2009

170

207

2010

231

306

2011

220

280

2012

-

98

* OPRA data do not include arrests with Part I offenses involved.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 96 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

TABLE B7: Marijuana Possession, Millville
YEAR

FBI/UCR DATA

OPRA REQUEST DATA*

2007

131

155

2008

121

151

2009

105

97

2010

108

-

2011

66

-

2012

-

16

2013

-

17

YEAR

FBI/UCR DATA

OPRA REQUEST DATA*

2007

163

180

2008

148

170

2009

140

122

2010

145

-

2011

142

18

2012

-

125

2013

-

98

TABLE B8: Disorderly Conduct, Millville

* OPRA data do not include arrests with Part I offenses involved.

	

| 97 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

Endnotes
1	 	ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White 165 (2013), available at https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/1114413-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf.
2	 	 Id. at 66-67 (according to federal government data, 14% of Blacks and 11.6% of Whites reported using marijuana in the past year in 2010;
among 18-to-25-year-olds, 33.4% of Whites and 27.6% of Blacks reported using marijuana in the past year in 2010).
3	 	See George L. Kelling & James Q. Wilson, Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety, The Atlantic Monthly, Mar. 1982, available at
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/. The broken windows theory of policing was first tested
as a foot-patrol experiment in Newark, NJ in the mid-1970s. See id. The study found that while the presence of more officers increased public
confidence (people believed crime had been reduced), it did not actually reduce crime. See id.; William J. Bratton, Chief, L.A. Police Dep’t,
Speech at Milken Institute Conference, This Works: Crime Prevention and the Future of Broken Windows Policing, (Dec. 4, 2003), available at
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cb_36.htm. Broken windows theory provided the framework for order maintenance and zero-tolerance
policing strategies across the country. See ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 1, at 92 n.101 Forming the core of broken
windows policing is the subjective perception about who is undesirable and what behaviors constitute disorder, engendering a high degree of
police officer discretion and the potential for disparate enforcement. Kelling and Wilson addressed this concern in their essay:
We might agree that certain behavior makes one person more undesirable than another but how do we ensure that age or skin color
or national origin or harmless mannerisms will not also become the basis for distinguishing the undesirable from the desirable? How
do we ensure, in short, that the police do not become the agents of neighborhood bigotry? We can offer no wholly satisfactory answer
to this important question. We are not confident that there is a satisfactory answer except to hope that by their selection, training,
and supervision, the police will be inculcated with a clear sense of the outer limit of their discretionary authority. That limit, roughly, is
this—the police exist to help regulate behavior, not to maintain the racial or ethnic purity of a neighborhood.
Kelling & Wilson, Broken Windows, Mar. 1982. Broken windows policing has since been widely criticized. See, e.g., Benjamin Bowling,
The Rise and Fall of New York Murder: Zero Tolerance or Crack’s Decline?, 39 Brit. J. Criminology 531 (1999) (attributing the decrease in
homicide rates in the 1990s to the decrease of the crack cocaine epidemic, which had begun before the implementation of broken
windows policing); Bernard Harcourt, Reflecting on the Subject: A Critique of the Social Influence Conception of Deterrence, the Broken
Windows Theory, and Order-Maintenance Policing New York Style, 97 Mich. L. Rev. 291 (1998) (disputing the claim that reducing public
disorder deters serious crimes); Bernard Harcourt, Policing Disorder: Can We Reduce Serious Crime by Punishing Petty Offenses?, Boston
Rev., April–May 2002 (criticizing the lack of an adequate definition of disorder, suggesting that what proponents of broken windows
policing might call disorder may be perceived entirely differently by another segment of the population, and may actually mean strong
community bonds [graffiti is one example], and presenting alternative theories for the decline in crime in New York City by providing
examples of declining crime rates in other cities that did not implement broken windows policing). Most recently, the broken windows
theory of policing has come under attack in New York City after an NYPD officer killed Eric Garner when placing him in a chokehold during
an arrest for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes. See, e.g., Editorial, Broken Windows, Broken Lives, N.Y. Times, July 25, 2014, available
at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/opinion/broken-windows-broken-lives.html.
4	 	For example, in New York City, public housing residents and their authorized guests were subjected to a trespass policy in their own buildings
that led to countless illegal stops and arrests by the New York City Police Department. See Editorial, Stop-and-Frisk in Public Housing, N.Y. Times,
Sept. 5, 2013, at A22, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/opinion/stop-and-frisk-in-public-housing.html?_r=0.
5	 	Joseph Goldstein & Marc Santora, Staten Island Man Died from Chokehold During Arrest, Autopsy Finds, N.Y. Times, Aug. 1, 2014, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/nyregion/staten-island-man-died-from-officers-chokehold-autopsy-finds.html.
6	 	“Low-level offense” in this report refers to disorderly persons and petty disorderly persons offenses under the New Jersey Constitution and criminal
code. They are not considered crimes within the meaning of the Constitution, although an individual convicted of such an offense still faces jailtime, fines, and will receive a criminal record. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:1-4. They are analogous to misdemeanors and violations in other states.
7	 	Specifically, the study looks at marijuana possession of 50 grams or less, which is the lowest possession charge possible, and a disorderly
persons offense under New Jersey law:
 . It is unlawful for any person, knowingly or purposely, to obtain, or to possess, actually or constructively, a controlled dangerous
a
substance or controlled substance analog, unless the substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order form
from a practitioner, ... Any person who violates this section with respect to: (4) Possession of 50 grams or less of marijuana, including
any adulterants or dilutants, or five grams or less of hashish is a disorderly person.
		N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-10a(4).
8	 	Disorderly conduct can be broadly applied to a range of behavior that police have discretion to construe as disorderly, annoying, or potentially
dangerous. It is a petty disorderly persons offense, the lowest level of offense in New Jersey:
a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance
or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he: (1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or
(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. b. Offensive
language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities
of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive
language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present.
		N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:33-2. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:33-2b, which was enacted to punish profane speech, has been “held unconstitutional for
overbreadth on the ground that one cannot be prosecuted for public use of coarse or abusive language that does not go beyond offending the
sensibilities of a listener.” State v. Duncan, 376 N.J. Super. 253, 261 n.3 (App. Div. 2005) (citing State in the Interest of H.D., 206 N.J. Super. 58,
61 (App. Div.1985)).

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 98 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

9	 	Defiant trespass is a disorderly persons offenses charged when police determine that the person knew or should have known they were not
entitled to be on the property:
 person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in
A
any place as to which notice against trespass is given by: (1) Actual communication to the actor; or (2) Posting in a manner prescribed by
law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or (3) Fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders.
		N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:18-3b.
10	 	Loitering with the intent to obtain or distribute a controlled substance, also a disorderly persons offense, has the potential to be enforced
arbitrarily by police because the offense rests on the officer’s interpretation of a person’s behavior or presence in a particular place as evidence
of the intent to purchase drugs:
1 . a. ...”Public place” means any place to which the public has access, including but not limited to a public street, road, thoroughfare,
sidewalk, bridge, alley, plaza, park, recreation or shopping area, public transportation facility, vehicle used for public transportation,
parking lot, public library or any other public building, structure or area.  b. A person, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, commits a
disorderly persons offense if (1) he wanders, remains or prowls in a public place with the purpose of unlawfully obtaining or distributing
a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog; and (2) engages in conduct that, under the circumstances, manifests a
purpose to obtain or distribute a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog.  c. Conduct that may, where warranted
under the circumstances, be deemed adequate to manifest a purpose to obtain or distribute a controlled dangerous substance or controlled
substance analog includes, but is not limited to, conduct such as the following:  (1) Repeatedly beckoning to or stopping pedestrians or
motorists in a public place;  (2) Repeatedly passing objects to or receiving objects from pedestrians or motorists in a public place;  (3)
Repeatedly circling in a public place in a motor vehicle and on one or more occasions passing any object to or receiving any object from a
person in a public place. 
		N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:33-2.1.
11	 	See, e.g., ACLU of Maryland, The Maryland War on Marijuana in Black and White (2013), available at
	

	http://www.aclumd.org/uploaded_files/0000/0470/aclu_marijuana_in_md_report_Whitecover.pdf (analyzing racial disparities in low-level
marijuana possession arrests in Maryland); Washington Lawyers’ Committee, Racial Disparities in Arrests in the District of Columbia, 2009-2011 (2013),
available at http://www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_report_racial_disparities.pdf (finding that the majority of arrests in the District of Columbia are
for nonviolent offenses and disproportionately of African-Americans); Council on Crime and Justice, Low Level Offenses in Minneapolis: An Analysis
of Arrests and Their Outcomes (2004), available at http://www.crimeandjustice.org/researchReports/Low%20Level%20Offenses%20in%20
Minneapolis-%20An%20Analysis%20of%20Arrests%20and%20their%20Outcomes.pdf (documenting arrest and conviction disparities between
Blacks and Whites in Minneapolis for seven low-level offenses).

12	 	See Simon Bronitt & Philip Stenning, Understanding discretion in modern policing, 35 Crim. L.J. 319, 320 (2011).
13	 	For example, “tumultuous behavior” constitutes disorderly conduct under many statutes (including in New Jersey) and can be widely interpreted
and abusively applied. A famous example of the zealous overuse of disorderly conduct statutes is the arrest of Harvard University Professor
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who was arrested at his own home after police interrogated him under suspicion that he was a burglar, and he allegedly
exhibited a “tumultuous manner.” See Christy E. Lopez, American Constitution Soc’y, Disorderly (mis)Conduct: The Problem with “Contempt of Cop”
Arrests 1-2, (2010). The colloquial term for this type of abusive disorderly conduct arrest is “contempt of cop”—when a person is arrested for
challenging or questioning an officer’s actions. See id. at 4.
		In July 2014, the Justice Department concluded a three-year investigation of the Newark Police Department’s (NPD) policing practices after
allegations of excessive force, unconstitutional stops and arrests, and discriminatory police actions. See U.S. Dep’t of Just., C.R. Division,
Investigation of the Newark Police Dep’t 1 (2014), available at www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/pdffiles/2014/NPD%20Findings%20Report.
pdf. The Justice Department found that 75% of NPD pedestrian stops lacked a sufficient legal basis; Blacks were stopped disproportionately to
Whites; police officers retaliated against individuals who questioned the police’s actions; excessive force in more than 20% of NPD use of force
incidents; and evidence of theft of individuals’ property by police officers. See id. at 2-3. Regarding “contempt of cop” arrests, the DOJ found
that “NPD officers engaged in a pattern of violating constitutional rights by detaining and arresting individuals who lawfully object to police
actions or behave in a way that officers perceive as disrespectful.” See id. at 12-13. The arrests were often charged as obstruction of justice,
resisting arrest, or similar offenses. See id. at 13.
14	 	See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:29-9 (“A person is guilty of [contempt] … if he purposely or knowingly disobeys a judicial order ….”).
15	 	Minor disorderly persons offenses could result in deportation. For example, a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) becomes deportable for one
conviction for “a crime involving moral turpitude” (which includes disorderly persons offenses such as shoplifting, fraudulent conduct, and
destruction of property) if that offense was committed within five years after the individual was admitted into the U.S. and if the individual
was sentenced to confinement for one year or more. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). See also John E. Hogan & Amy B. Herbold, Collateral
Consequences: The Potential for Deportation and Exclusion as a Result of a Municipal Court Shoplifting Conviction, N.J. Lawyer Magazine, Dec.
2010, at 19-22. Generally, a LPR can be deported for two convictions of crimes of moral turpitude, regardless of when the offenses were
committed and irrespective of the length of sentence imposed on each. Id.; 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii).
		A LPR convicted of two marijuana offenses can be subject to removal. See 8 U.S.C. §1227 (a)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). In 2010, the Supreme Court held
that two minor drug offenses do not constitute an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), which would render a LPR ineligible for
cancellation of removal in subsequent deportation proceedings; however, he or she can still be subject to deportation if convicted, but is not
precluded from applying for cancellation of removal. See Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577, 2580 (2010).
16	 	See, e.g., N.J. Admin. Code § 8:43I-4.3 (disqualifying individuals convicted of certain disorderly persons offenses from obtaining certification as
an assisted living administrator); N.J. Admin. Code § 8:43I-3.3 (disqualifying individuals convicted of certain disorderly persons offenses from
obtaining certification as a personal care assistant); N.J. Admin. Code § 8:43I-2.3 (disqualifying individuals convicted of certain disorderly persons
offenses from obtaining certification as a nurse aid); N.J. Admin. Code § 13:61-2.4 (allowing for denial of approval to become an approved boat
safety instructor for individuals convicted of certain disorderly persons offenses).

	

| 99 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

17	 	N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:18-61.1 (allowing for the removal of tenants convicted under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-1 et al. and other statutes).
18	 	See, e.g., N.J. Admin. Code § 13:21-21.15 (Chief Administrator may refuse to issue a license or suspend or revoke an existing license of an auto
body repair facility if an individual was convicted of certain disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offenses); N.J. Admin. Code § 8:40-2.2
(Persons convicted of disorderly persons offenses and certain petty disorderly persons offenses may be denied licenses to operate ambulance
services).
19	 	See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-16 (“[A] person convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for a violation of [certain drug offenses] shall forthwith forfeit
his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State ….”).
20	 	Deborah Ramirez, Jack McDevitt & Amy Farrell, U.S. Dep’t of Just., A Resource Guide on Racial Profiling Data Collection Systems iii (2000), available at
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/184768.pdf.
21	 	Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Att’y Gen. Holder: Justice Dept. to Collect Data on Stops, Arrests as Part of Effort to Curb Racial Bias in
Criminal Justice System (Apr. 28, 2014), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/April/14-ag-445.html.
22	 	See e.g., John MacDonald & Robert J. Stokes, Race, Social Capital, and Trust in the Police, 41 Urb. Affairs Rev. 358, 361 (2006) (“Aggressive arrest
policies tied to the zero-tolerance public-order maintenance tactics currently in vogue, as well as efforts to control drug distribution, also fuel
a growing resentment of the police in minority communities.”)(citations omitted). See also Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 21
(“Racial disparities contribute to tension in our nation generally and within communities of color specifically, and tend to breed resentment
towards law enforcement that is counterproductive to the goal of reducing crime[.]”) (quoting Att’y Gen. Holder).
23	 	Studies have found that communities are less likely to cooperate with police in a variety of ways when members hold negative perceptions of
the police and how they are treated by police. See U.S. Dep’t of Just., Cmty. Oriented Policing Serv., Discourteous Cops and Unruly Citizens: Mediation Can
Help, 2 Cmty. Policing Dispatch 3 (2009), available at http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/March_2009/mediation.htm; see also Lopez, supra note
13, at 13 (“Community members who trust police are more likely to report corner drug dealing, the sighting of a dangerous suspect, and even
knowledge about a crime being planned.”).
24	 	See Ramirez et al., supra note 20, at iii.
25	 	An average disparity for all four cities would not be an accurate assessment of the overall disparity because it could not take into account the
differences in each department’s data recording methods, as well as the different time periods examined in each case.
26	 	All arrest rates and disparities presented are specifically for the four study offenses in this report unless otherwise noted.
27	 	See Kelling & Wilson, supra note 3; see also Bratton, Speech at Milken Institute Conference, supra note 3 (describing how fare evaders arrested
in the New York City subway system were sometimes wanted on warrant).
28	 	“Total arrests” here refers to all the arrests for which the JCPD provided records, including those arrests with FBI/UCR Part I and indictable
offenses involved.
29	 	See infra note 35 for an explanation of the FBI’s classification of serious Part I offenses.
30	 	Letter from Robert Byrne, City Clerk for Jersey City (Dec. 3, 2013) (on file with the ACLU-NJ).
31	 	Email from Susan Robostello, City Clerk for Millville (Oct. 22, 2014) (on file with the ACLU-NJ).
32	 	In Elizabeth, for example, an ACLU-NJ review of the arrestees for 2012 with a discernable Hispanic/Latino surname showed that for 94% of those
arrests the individual’s race was recorded as White, and recorded as Black in 6% of the arrests. Surname analysis is a technique that has long
been used by demographers to identify members of particular racial and ethnic groups in the population. See, e.g., Allan Abrahamse, Peter A.
Morrison & Nancy Minter Bolton, RAND Corp., Surname Analysis for Estimating Local Concentration of Hispanics and Asians (1993), available at
http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7844.html.
33	 	The government data referred to are crime and arrests statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR).
34	 	See infra note 46 for a description of the FBI/UCR method for counting Part II offenses such as marijuana possession and disorderly conduct.
		Because the FBI/UCR’s reporting method for Part II arrests requires that law enforcement agencies only report the most serious offense charged
for each arrest, this results in the loss of certain data—specifically, the less serious offenses involved in the arrests that go unreported. Even
when taking this into account, the OPRA data should have included more arrests, not less. This is because the records should have included
every arrest incident where a study offense was charged, regardless of whether or not it was the most serious charge for the particular arrest.
35	 	The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (“UCR”) Program compiles national crime and arrest data, and offenses are categorized as Part I or Part II
offenses. Part I offenses were chosen by the FBI because they are serious crimes that occur with regularity across the country, and are likely
to be reported to the police. See U.S. Dep’t of Just., FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 505 (2004), available at https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/
cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf. Part I Crimes include: Criminal Homicide, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary (breaking or
entering), Larceny-theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, and Arson. Id.
36	 	The FBI/UCR only collects arrest data for Part II offenses, as opposed to crime data for Part I offenses. Id. Part II offenses are simple assault
(i.e., does not result in serious injury); forgery and counterfeiting, fraud; embezzlement; buying, receiving, possessing stolen property;
vandalism; carrying or possessing a weapon; prostitution; sex offenses; drug abuse violations; gambling; offenses against the family and
children; driving under the influence; liquor laws; drunkenness; disorderly conduct; vagrancy; suspicion; curfew and loitering; runaways under
18; and all other offenses not identified as Part I or Part II (i.e., any offense that does not have its own Part I or Part II category is counted
here). See id.
37	 	See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:1-4(a):
 n offense defined by this code or by any other statute of this State, for which a sentence of imprisonment in excess of 6 months is
A
authorized, constitutes a crime within the meaning of the Constitution of this State. Crimes are designated in this code as being of the
first, second, third or fourth degree.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 100 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

38	 	See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:1-4(b):
An offense is a disorderly persons offense if it is so designated in this code or in a statute other than this code. An offense is a petty
disorderly persons offense if it is so designated in this code or in a statute other than this code. Disorderly persons offenses and petty
disorderly persons offenses are petty offenses and are not crimes within the meaning of the Constitution of this State. There shall be no
right to indictment by a grand jury nor any right to trial by jury on such offenses. Conviction of such offenses shall not give rise to any
disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a crime.
See also N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-8:
A person who has been convicted of a disorderly persons offense or a petty disorderly persons offense may be sentenced to imprisonment
for a definite term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 6 months in the case of a disorderly persons offense or 30 days
in the case of a petty disorderly persons offense.
39	 	See, e.g., N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-3.1 (“[A]ny person convicted of any disorderly persons offense, any petty disorderly persons offense, or
any crime not resulting in the injury or death of any other person shall be assessed $50.00 for each such offense or crime for which he was
convicted” to be deposited in the Victims of Crime Compensation Board.); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-3.2 (“In addition to any other fine, fee or
assessment imposed, any person convicted of a crime, disorderly or petty disorderly persons offense or violation of R.S. 39:4-50 shall be
assessed $75 for each conviction” to be deposited in the Safe Neighborhood Services Fund.); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-3.5 (“In addition to any
term or condition that may be included in an agreement for supervisory treatment pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-13 or imposed as a term or condition
of conditional discharge pursuant to N.J.S.2C:36A-1 for a violation of any offense defined in chapter 35 or 36 of Title 2C of the New Jersey
Statutes, each participant shall be assessed a penalty of $50 for each adjudication or conviction” to be deposited in the Drug Abuse Education
Fund.).
40	 	The requests were submitted to five agencies, but one, the Asbury Park Police Department, was not able to produce adequate records and could
not be included in this report. See text box on page twelve for a description of Asbury Park’s response to the ACLU-NJ’s Open Public Records Act
request.
41	 	The OPRA requests also sought data for two other low-level offenses: obstructing highways and other public passageways, N.J. Stat. Ann. §
2C:33-7, and smoking in public, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:33-13. Because the records received showed none or very few arrests for these offenses,
they were not included in the analyses.
		The ACLU-NJ requested the records specifically in electronic file format, which are required under the public records law, if available, because
electronic records are searchable and analyzable, facilitating studies such as this one.
42	 	Jersey City did not have records pre-2005 according to department officials because of a “computer crash.” Email from Irene McNulty, Office of
the City Clerk of Jersey City (Oct. 21, 2013) (on file with the ACLU-NJ). Millville had a similar “crash” that lost all of its arrest records for 2010 and
2011. Voicemail message from Captain Matteo Rabbai, Millville Police Dep’t. (Nov. 25, 2013).
43	 	The ACLU-NJ was told that Asbury Park’s arrest records pre-2008 “were sent to a private off-site storage facility some time ago” in boxes
comingled with reams of other law enforcement documents. Letter from Frederick C. Raffetto, City Attorney for Asbury Park (Nov. 15, 2013) (on
file with the ACLU-NJ).
44	 	The Elizabeth Police Department used the UCR code to track arrests until 2010, and then switched to recording arrests according to the New
Jersey Criminal Code starting in 2011.
45	 	Jersey City first quoted a price of $10,240 for the records requested. Asbury Park quoted $2,950 for its vendor to retrieve information for a
three-year period.
46	 	The FBI/UCR Program instructs police departments to count only the most serious offense when dealing with arrests where the person was
charged with several Part II offenses. See U.S. Dep’t of Just., FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Summary
Reporting System User Manual 140 (2013), available at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/summary-reporting-system-srs-user-manual.
For example, if an arrest had a charge for weapons possession and for marijuana possession, the police department would most likely count
the weapons possession, and the marijuana possession arrest would not be recorded in the UCR data. However, there are no set guidelines for
which offenses to count as more serious and thus such determinations are left to the individual police departments’ discretion. See id. Based
on this method of recording UCR data, we would expect that the records provided in response to the OPRA request would contain more arrests
for the study offenses, since they should include every instance when one of the study offenses was charged as part of an arrest, as opposed to
only those arrests where the study offense was the most serious charge.
47	 	Of the four study offenses, the FBI/UCR Program only collects and reports data for two: marijuana possession and disorderly conduct. Thus, we
could only compare the data received for these two offenses to the publicly available FBI/UCR data.
48	 	Where arrest totals and rates are provided for the four study offenses combined, a small percentage of the arrests appear in the data more
than once. Because the analyses focused on the four offense categories, the ACLU-NJ should have received a record for every arrest incident
where one of the study offenses was charged. It is possible that one of the other study offenses was charged as part of an arrest incident. For
example, if there was an arrest where the individual was charged with both marijuana possession and disorderly conduct, this arrest would
appear in the data sets for both offenses. When providing the sum total of arrests (i.e., all marijuana possession, disorderly conduct, trespass,
and loitering arrests) for the particular jurisdiction, the arrest would thus appear twice. Of 3,209 total arrest incidents in Jersey City, 3% involved
an additional study offense. In Elizabeth, 3.7% of the 2,117 arrests involved an additional study offense. In New Brunswick there were 1,499
total arrests and 1.73% involved an additional study offense, and in Millville 2% of the 1,003 arrests in the data set involved additional study
offenses.
49	 	Email from Irene McNulty, supra note 42.
50	 	Data for 2005 begins March 18, 2005. Telephone conversation with Tim McGinnis, General Dynamics (Mar. 4, 2014).
51	 	Letter from Robert Byrne, supra note 30.

	

| 101 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

52	 	The ACLU-NJ would like to thank Mayor Fulop and Director Shea for their ongoing efforts to assist in the procurement of the records and their
cooperation with this project.
53	 	For example, in 2011, the latest year for which FBI/UCR arrest data is currently available, the JCPD reported 445 disorderly conduct arrests.
Meanwhile, the data the ACLU-NJ received from the JCPD reflected only 142 disorderly conduct arrests. FBI/UCR Program Data and Jersey City
Police Department. Similar discrepancies existed for marijuana possession: the JCPD reported 259 such arrests in 2011 to the FBI/UCR Program,
but the data the ACLU-NJ received only contained data for 98 arrests that year. Id. The FBI/UCR does not have trespass or loitering arrest
categories, thus there are no public statistics for these offenses.
54	 	The ACLU-NJ requested that arrests for 2011 be reviewed because it was the most recent year for which FBI/UCR data was available at the time.
55	 	See pages 33-34 for the hand count data.
56	 	See Terrence T. McDonald, Jersey City Says Data Collection on Crime Helping City “Turn a Corner”, NJ.com (Feb. 10, 2014), 
http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2014/02/jersey_city_officials_address.html.
57	 	See id.
58	 	See ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 1, at 165.
59	 	See Appendix B, Tables B1 and B2 for a comparison of the number of arrests reported to the FBI/UCR and the number of arrests in the data
received. For every year available for Jersey City (2005-2011), the data received reflect fewer arrests than reported to the FBI/UCR. Because of
the way in which Part II arrests are calculated in the FBI/UCR, we would expect the data received to have more, not fewer arrests. See supra
note 46 (explaining the FBI/UCR Program’s counting method for Part II offenses).
60	 	See ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 1, at 66-67.
61	 	The large percentage increases are partially attributable to the low number of arrests reported for disorderly conduct. A slight uptick in arrests
any given year can result in an exponential percentage increase.
62	 	The arrest disparity for 2005 is incalculable based on the data provided because they reflect zero White arrests, making the disparity infinite.
63	 	U.S. Census (2010).
64	 	See Appendix A for arrest totals by offense category.
65	 	Jersey City Police Dep’t Arrest Data; U.S. Census Bureau, Jersey City 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 1-Year Estimates Table DP05. (ACS Demographic &
Hous. Estimates) (2012), available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_
DP05&prodType=table; U.S. Census Bureau, Jersey City 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 1-Year Estimates Table B01001B (Sex by Age (Black or African
American Alone)) (2012), available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_
B01001B&prodType=table.
66	 	U.S. Census (2010).
67	 	The population percentage is based on the number of White, Black, and Hispanics/Latinos aged 18 to 24 in Jersey City. Jersey City 2012 Am.
Cmty. Survey 1-Year Estimates, supra note 65, at Tables DP05 & B01001B.; U.S. Census Bureau, Jersey City 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 1-Year Estimates
tbl.B01001I (Sex by Age (Hispanic or Latino)) (2012), available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.
xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_B01001I&prodType=table; U.S. Census Bureau, Jersey City 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 1-Year Estimates Table B01001I (Sex by
Age (White alone, not Hispanic or Latino)) (2012), available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.
xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_B01001H&prodType=table.
68	 	Jersey City Police Dep’t Arrest Data; Jersey City 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 1-Year Estimates, supra note 65, at Tables DP05 & B01001B.
69	 	Jersey City 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 1-Year Estimates, supra note 65, at Table DP05.
70	 	The arrest distance from home was calculated using arrest location and home address data.
71	 	The hand count data analysis is based on arrests that did not have a Part-I offense charged. Because the records do not indicate the statute
number for the offense or offenses charged for each arrest, we estimated the number of marijuana possession and disorderly conduct arrests
that did not involve an indictable offense. We did so by reducing the number of arrests by the percentage of arrests we received from the
OPRA response that did not include an indictable offense. The hand-count produced 511 marijuana possessions arrests, 507 of which were not
accompanied by a UCR/FBI Part I offense. We reduced that number by 23 percent to produce 390 arrests that did not include an indictable
offense. The hand-count produced 262 disorderly conduct arrests, 233 of which were not accompanied by an arrest for a UCR/FBI Part I offense.
We reduced that total by 18 percent to produce 191 arrests that did not include an indictable offense.
72	 	Notably, the hand count produced about twice as many marijuana possession arrests than the department had reported to the FBI/UCR, and
about half of the disorderly conduct arrests it had reported. In sum, the JCPD was still unable to reconcile the total arrests with the number of
arrests it had reported to the FBI/UCR, even after the manual review of all its arrest records.
73	 	For example, there were no records for any disorderly conduct or loitering arrests from 2003 to 2010, and none of the records included
information about “other offenses charged.” Additionally, the records had been sent in a non-searchable PDF file format.
74	 	For example, the arrest data for loitering showed zero arrests in 2007 and 2008, which then increased to 167 arrests by 2011. The EPD
data received by the ACLU-NJ showed 227 marijuana possession arrests in 2011, while the FBI/UCR data reported 189 arrests for marijuana
possession that year. Records for disorderly conduct included only 3 such arrests in 2011, while the FBI/UCR data reported 147. See Appendix B,
Tables B3 & B4.
75	 	Email from Rocco Dipaola, Second Assistant City Att’y for Elizabeth (Apr. 29, 2014) (on file with the ACLU-NJ).
76	 	These records, therefore, do not indicate the state statute number for the offense or offenses charged for each arrest. It is therefore impossible
to determine whether the additional offenses charged as part of each arrest were indictable offenses.
77	 	The Elizabeth data analyses therefore combine two methods: arrests with Part I offenses involved are excluded in analyses for 2003 to 2012;
arrests with indictable offenses involved are excluded in analyses for 2011 and 2012.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 102 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

78	 	U.S. Census (2010).
79	 	The arrest records received did not include any Hispanic/Latino data, and representatives from the EPD confirmed that the department does not
record Hispanic/Latino race/ethnicity information in arrest records.
80	 	Therefore, to calculate arrests rates in Elizabeth we use the U.S. Census statistic of 54.6% “White alone” for our calculations, rather than the
18.2% “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino” statistic. See U.S. Census, Quick Facts for Elizabeth, New Jersey. In the other case studies for which
Hispanic/Latino data is available, we use “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino” and “Hispanic or Latino” census statistics to calculate the arrest
rates.
81	 	See Union County Law Enforcement Traffic Stops and Investigatory Detention Pol’y, Union County Police Chiefs Ass’n, et al. 6 (July 2001).
82	 	Until 2010, the EPD coded arrest offenses according to their corresponding FBI/UCR category. Beginning in 2011, the department began coding
arrest offenses according to their statutory offense code. This caused an irregularity in how the total numbers were compiled and counted.
83	 	See ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 1, at 165.
84	 	See Appendix A, Table A6 for disorderly conduct arrest totals by year in Elizabeth.
85	 	See Appendix A, Table A7 for total trespass arrests by year in Elizabeth.
86	 	See Appendix A, Table A8 for loitering arrest totals in Elizabeth.
87	 	The actual number of arrests for the study offenses was 4,342 (2,393 marijuana possession arrests, 1,041 trespass arrests, 600 disorderly
conduct arrests, and 308 loitering arrests). Because race data was missing for some arrests they could not be included in the analysis, thus the
lower total of 4,257.
88	 	Study offense data in Elizabeth are arrests that did not include a Part I offense for 2003-2010 or an indictable offense for 2011-2012.
89	 	U.S. Census Bureau, Elizabeth 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 1-Year Estimates Table DP05 (ACS Demographics & Hous. Estimates) (2012), available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_DP05&prodType=table; U.S. Census Bureau,
Elizabeth 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B01001B (Sex by Age (Black or African American Alone)) (2012), available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_B01001B&prodType=table.
90	 	U.S. Census (2010).
91	 	Elizabeth 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 1-Year Estimates, supra note 89, at Tables DP05 & B01001B.
92	 	U.S. Census (2010).
93	 	This rendered the data entry process extremely labor intensive. Because it required the manual review of all of New Brunswick’s arrests for each
year, and manual entry of records into an electronic file format, the ACLU-NJ limited its request and analysis to a five-year period (2008-2012).
94	 	Like the other jurisdictions studied here, the ACLU-NJ relied on 2010 U.S. Census data to determine the baseline demographic population
information for New Brunswick. The ACLU-NJ recognizes that Rutgers—New Brunswick has a large and diverse student population that may
impact the analysis of this data in New Brunswick. The ACLU-NJ was unable to account for any demographic changes in New Brunswick that may
be caused by any daytime or temporary influx of students or others. We encourage the City of New Brunswick to conduct further analysis to
determine the impact of the Rutgers population on low-level offense arrest data.
95	 	See Appendix A, Table A9 for annual marijuana possession arrests by race for New Brunswick.
96	 	U.S. Census (2010).
97	 	See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-10a(3). Fifty grams is the equivalent of slightly more than three packs of cigarette.
98	 	U.S. Census Bureau, New Brunswick 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 3-Year Estimates Table DP05 (ACS Demographic & Hous. Estimates) (2012), available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_3YR_DP05&prodType=table; U.S. Census Bureau,
New Brunswick 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 3-Year Estimates Table B01001B (Sex by Age (Black or African American Alone)) (2012), available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_3YR_B01001B&prodType=table.
99	 	New Brunswick 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 3-Year Estimates, supra note 92, at Table DP05; U.S. Census Bureau, New Brunswick 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 3-Year
Estimates Table B01001I (Sex by Age (Hispanic or Latino)) (2012), available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_3YR_B01001I&prodType=table.
100		This rendered the data entry process extremely labor intensive. Because it required the manual review of Millville’s arrests for each of these
years, and manual entry of the records into an electronic file format, the ACLU-NJ limited the analyses of the printed records to 2007-2009.
101		Email from Susan Robostello, supra note 31; Phone Message from Captain Matteo Rabbai, supra note 42.
102		For example, the MPD data reported a total of 158 (2007), 156 (2008), and 97 (2009) arrests for marijuana possession, while the FBI/UCR totals
were 131 (2007), 121 (2008), and 105 (2009). Millville Police Dep’t Arrest Records & U.S. Census (2010). Similar discrepancies were present in
the disorderly conduct data: 190 (2007), 176 (2008), and 128 (2009) arrests, whereas the FBI/UCR data reported 163 (2007), 148 (2008) and
140 (2009) arrests. Id. Because the UCR prescribes a method of counting only the most serious offense for arrests where there were several
Part II offenses charged, we might expect to see more arrests in the MPD data, but not fewer, as there were in 2009. See supra note 46 for an
explanation of the FBI/UCR Program’s counting method for Part II offenses.
103		Total arrests for Millville presented in the tables in Appendix A are not weighted and represent the arrests for the first three quarters of the year
only for 2013.
104		The ACLU-NJ did not receive data for trespass arrests in Millville for 2013.
105		U.S. Census (2010).
106		The low-level arrest data set only includes those arrests that do not involve charges for FBI/UCR Part I or indictable offenses.
107		See U.S. Census Bureau, Millville 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 3-Year Estimates Table B01001B (Sex by Age (Black or African American Alone)) (2012),
available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_3YR_B01001B&prodType=table.

	

| 103 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

Selective Policing: Racially Disparate Enforcement of Low-Level Offenses in New Jersey

108		U.S. Census (2010).
109		U.S. Census Bureau, Millville 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 3-Year Estimates Table DP05 (ACS Demographic & Hous. Estimates) (2012),
available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_3YR_DP05&prodType=table;
Millville 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 3-Year Estimates, supra note 106, at Table B01001B.
110		Id.
111	 	Id.; U.S. Census Bureau, Millville 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 3-Year Estimates Table B01001I (Sex by Age (Hispanic or Latino)) (2012), available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_3YR_B01001I&prodType=table; U.S. Census Bureau,
Millville 2012 Am. Cmty. Survey 3-Year Estimates Table B01001H (Sex by Age (White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino)) (2012), available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_3YR_B01001H&prodType=table.
112		The MPD did not provide zip code information for two-thirds of the arrestees’ addresses. Therefore, the ACLU-NJ was unable analyze what
percentage of all the arrests were of Millville residents. The sample set of addresses that did have a zip code allowed us to analyze the
proximity to home of those specific arrests.
113		See Mayor Mike McGinn, An FAQ on Marijuana Enforcement in Seattle, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2010, 12:56 P.M.), http://mayormcginn.seattle.gov/
an-faq-on-marijuana-enforcement-in-seattle/ (noting that marijuana was the primary reason for contact in only .09% of cases).
114		See Brian Rogers, Crack Policy puts Harris County DA at Odds with Police, Houston Chronicle, Dec. 5, 2011, available at
http://www.chron.com/default/article/Crack-policy-puts-Harris-County-DA-at-odds-with-2346724.php.
115		Rebecca Bernhardt, Tex. Crim. Just. Coal., Harris County Communities: A Call For True Collaboration, Restoring Community Trust And Improving Public Safety 8
(2013), available at http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Harris%20County%20Communities%20A%20Call%20for%20True%20
Collaboration.pdf. The new Harris County District Attorney, Mike Anderson, reinstituted the policy of prosecuting trace cases as felonies in 2013.
Emily DePrang, Houston’s New DA Brings Back “Trace” Felonies, the Eighties, The Texas Observer, Feb. 15, 2013, available at
http://www.texasobserver.org/houstons-new-da-brings-back-trace-felonies-the-eighties/.
116		Joseph Goldstein, Prosecutor Deals Blow to Stop-and-Frisk Tactic, N.Y. Times, Sept. 25, 2012, at A1, available at http://www.nytimes.
com/2012/09/26/nyregion/in-the-bronx-resistance-to-prosecuting-stop-and-frisk-arrests.html?pagewanted=all&_ r=0.
117	 	Stephanie Clifford, Proposal to Limit Prosecutions of Marijuana Cases in Brooklyn, N.Y. Times, Apr. 23, 2014, at A22, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/nyregion/in-brooklyn-proposing-to-end-prosecutions-for-low-level-marijuana-offenses.html?_r=0.
118		See Tracey G. Gove, Implicit Bias and Law Enforcement, Police Chief Mag., Oct. 2011, available at http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/
index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2499&issue_id=102011(discussing the role of implicit bias in the criminal justice system and
approaches for interventions for law enforcement); R. Richard Banks, Jennifer L. Eberhardt & Lee Ross, Symposium on Behavioral Realism:
Discrimination and Implicit Bias in a Racially Unequal Society, 94 Calif. L. Rev. 1169, 1171-78 (2006) (discussing the role of bias in the criminal
justice system in the context of racial profiling, officer shooting behavior, and sentencing decisions).
119		See, e.g., Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 668, 680-681 (discussing the pressure created by NYPD commanders for officers to increase
stops without an accompanying attention to the constitutionality of the stops).
120		See Heather Haddon, Newark Unveils Civilian Police Review Board, The Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2015, available at http://www.wsj.com/
articles/newark-unveils-new-civilian-police-review-board-1430421423. All New Jersey police departments are subject to the New Jersey Attorney
General’s Law Enforcement Directive No. 2005-1, issued on June 28, 2005. See Press Release, Peter C. Harvey, N.J. Att’y Gen., New Jersey
Attorney General Harvey Implements “First-in-Nation” Directive to Prohibit Racial Profiling: Statewide Policy Mandates Training for All Police
(Jun. 28, 2005), available at http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/releases/2005/racial-profiling-062805.htm. The directive mandates a video training
program for all law enforcement officers. Id. However, it does not provide any mechanisms for addressing officers that are found to racially
profile. See N.J. Att’y Gen. Law Enforcement Directive No. 2005-1 (2005), available at http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/directives/racialprofiling/pdfs/law-enforce-dir-2005-1.pdf.
121		ACLU, Washington Legislative Office, Strengthening CBP with the Use of Body-Worn Cameras (Oct. 24, 2013), available at https://www.aclu.org/sites/
default/files/assets/13_10_25_aclu_one_pager_re_body-worn_cameras_for_cbp_final.pdf; see also Jay Stanley, ACLU, Police Body-Mounted
Cameras: With the Right Policies in Place, a Win For All (Oct. 2013), available at https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/police_body-mounted_cameras.
pdf (providing policy recommendations for the use of body-cameras to ensure privacy protections).
122		All police departments in North Carolina have been required to publish monthly traffic stop data since 2000 pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 114-10.01.
123 See City of Durham Human Rights Comm’n, Recommendations Submitted to the City of Durham City Council (Apr. 23, 2014), available at
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2014/05/01/13611408/HRCDPDreport.pdf.
124		FBI, Countdown Begins for New UCR Data Collections and InitiativesComing January 1 (Dec. 1, 2012), http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/cjis-link/
december-2012/Countdown%20Begins%20for%20New%20UCR%20Data%20Collections%20and%20Initiatives%20Coming%20January%201.
125		See id.

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 5	

| 104 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

	

| 105 | 	

D ece m be r 2015

A Report by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

P.O. Box 32159
Newark, NJ 07102-0559
973-642-2084
www.aclu-nj.org