The “veil-of-darkness” method is an innovative and low-cost approach that circumvents many of the benchmarking issues that arise in testing for racial profiling. Changes in natural lighting are used to establish a presumptively more race-neutral benchmark on the assumption that after dark, police suffer an impaired ability to detect motorists’ race. Applying the veil-of-darkness method to vehicle stops by the Syracuse (NY) police between 2006 and 2009 and examining differences among officers assigned to specialized traffic units and crime-suppression units, we found that African Americans were no more likely to be stopped during daylight than during darkness, indicating no racial bias.
BushwayS. D.SweetenG. (2006). Size matters: Standard errors in the application of null hypothesis significance testing in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 1-22.
2.
Council on Crime and Justice and Institute on Race and Poverty. (2003, September). Minnesota statewide racial profiling report: Minneapolis Police Department(Report to the Minnesota legislature). Minneapolis, MN: Author.
3.
EngelR. S.CalnonJ. M. (2004). Comparing benchmark methodologies for police–citizen contacts: Traffic stop data collection for the Pennsylvania State Police. Police Quarterly, 7, 97-125.
4.
EngelR. S.CalnonJ. M.BernardT. J. (2002). Theory and racial profiling: Shortcomings and future directions in research. Justice Quarterly, 19, 249-273.
FaganJ. (2010). Report of Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D., David Floyd, et al., plaintiffs, against City of New York, et al., defendants. New York, NY: Center for Constitutional Rights. Retrieved from http://www.ccrjustice.org/floyd
7.
FarrellA.RummingerJ.McDevittJ. (2004). New challenges in confronting racial profiling in the 21st century: Lessons from research and practice. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
9.
FridellL. (2004). By the numbers: A guide for analyzing race data from vehicle stops. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
10.
FyfeJ. J. (1988). Police use of deadly force: Research and reform. Justice Quarterly, 5, 165-205.
11.
GreenwaldH. P. (2001). Final report: Police vehicle stops in Sacramento, California. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
12.
GroggerJ.RidgewayG. (2006). Testing for racial profiling in traffic stops from behind a veil of darkness. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 878-887.
13.
HoenigJ. M.HeiseyD. M. (2001). The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. American Statistician, 55, 19-24.
14.
LamberthJ. C. (2003). Racial profiling data analysis study: Final report for the San Antonio Police Department. Chadds Ford, PA: Lamberth.
15.
LangeJ. E.JohnsonM. B.VoasR. B. (2005). Testing the racial profiling hypothesis for seemingly disparate traffic stops on the New Jersey turnpike. Justice Quarterly, 22, 193-223.
16.
National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence(Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices, W. G. Skogan, & K. Frydll, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
17.
Oakland Police Department. (2004). Promoting cooperative strategies to reduce racial profiling: A technical guide. Oakland, CA: Author.
18.
RamirezD.McDevittJ.FarrellA. (2000). A resource guide on racial profiling data collection systems: Promising practices and lessons learned. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
19.
RidgewayG. (2007). Analysis of racial disparities in the New York Police Department’s stop, question, and frisk practices. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
20.
RidgewayG. (2009). Cincinnati Police Department traffic stops: Applying RAND’s framework to analyze racial disparities. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
21.
RitterJ. A.BaelD. (2009, Spring/Summer). Detecting racial profiling in Minneapolis traffic stops: A new approach. CURA Reporter, pp. 11-17.
22.
SchneiderA. L.DarcyR. (1984). Policy implications of using significance tests in evaluation research. Evaluation Review, 8, 573-582.
23.
SmithD. A.VisherC. A.DavidsonL. A. (1984). Equity and discretionary justice: The influence of race on police arrest decisions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 234-249.
24.
SmithW. R.Tomaskovic-DeveyD.ZingraffM. T.MasonH. M.WarrenP. Y.WrightC. P. (2003). The North Carolina highway traffic study(Report to the National Institute of Justice). Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
25.
StroshineM.AlpertG.DunhamR. (2008). The influence of “working rules” on police suspicion and discretionary decision-making. Police Quarterly, 11, 315-337.
26.
TillyerR.EngelR. S.CherkauskasJ. C. (2010). Best practices in vehicle stop data collection and analysis. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33, 69-92.
27.
TillyerR.EngelR. S.WooldredgeJ. (2008). The intersection of racial profiling and the Law. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 138-53.
28.
WalkerS. (2001). Searching for the denominator: Problems with police traffic stop data and an early warning system solution. Justice Research and Policy, 3, 63-95.
29.
WeisburdD.LumC. M.YangS. (2003). When can we conclude that treatments or programs “don’t work”?Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 31-48.
30.
WordenR. E. (1995). The “causes” of police brutality: Theory and evidence on police use of force. In GellerW. A.TochH. (Eds.), And justice for all: Understanding and controlling police abuse of force (pp. 31-60). Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
