going up. you have the cost of litigation, because people are now seeking some type of redress through the court system, and you have low morale eschew herb issues incre sick leave and comp time. and most importantly, you have a community that is denied some basic rights. so as you know, as a county executive, you cannot serve the community effectively if they don't trust you. there's historic trust. there's always going to be some challenges and strains but to the extent that there's a legitimate outreach to the extent in which we're trying to, i agree with captain gale, listen, and respond, and respect, i think we have a better chance of being successful. so the issue of racial profiling, although we're talking about race from a chief's perspective, from an executive perspective, is very, it's poor managerial practices. loss of revenues, support.

causes internal strife. is not an effective strategy. >> thank you. would you agree, bad policing? does it have consequences internally? >> absolutely. the consequences of bad management in any agency result in, you know, these perceptions in the community that the police are not responsive, and that they're victimizing citizens and that they're somehow or another a rogue force. that's where it all drives from. it all drives from the management philosophy of the organization. and the chief is right. it does result in low morale. but it also results in low morale not jut because of people in the thags would disagree with the practice or the fact that there's no appropriate accountability for officers who are clearly operating outside professional conduct. it has low morale when the community that we serve then becomes, you know, complaining about us being unprofessional. or about the reputation of the

agency being, you know, that of a victimizer as opposed to a protector. so -- and the chief is absolutely right. it starts with the management. it starts with the very top person and the top level people allowing these things to occur in individuals that they won't hold accountable. as a captain in my agency, i believe it's my charge to hold people accountable when they conduct themselves unprofessionally, and i do so. you know. i think some people have said here that you know, well, there seems to be some kind of great thing going on in denver or what have you. i'm just going to tell you, and i love my city and it is a great city. please, feel free to visit any time, but i'm just going to tell you, we hold people accountable in my agency. we hold them at accountable and that's expected for, you know, we don't have to have specific rules that say, you can't do this. because we all know what bad behavior is when we see it, and

if you challenge people and you hold them accountable, then there won't about problem. the end result is that officers will just shut down and not conduct any type of police work, and then the city doesn't get protected. >> senator, if i may add one point. there's a phrase we have especially for chiefs that it calls for a moment of pause. and what happens is when an agency does not have the type of trust and confidence that we're alluding to and discussing, many cases you have racial powder kegs sitting there. look at our history, usually some type of incident. quite often it may be a legal incident, it may be something that really by itself would not make sense to call such a response, but it reflects years of abuse and neglect. it reflects the kind of, i think, one of the congresspersons said earlier, enough is enough. so when agencies are blind to this or systematically engaging in it, they're sitting on these powder kegs that an incident

like a trayvon martin or an oscar grant in oakland can ignite and then that's when we see large demonstrations and you start having race riots. because it's not the incident by itself as much as it is the buildup to that incident. the lack of acknowledgement of where we were at. >> before and, chief, if i've heard all the members of the panel right, who have said that racial profiling is bad policy, it's not just those powder keg moments. it's also the simmering distrust, the disconnect from the community you seek to protect and to serve that can also have a negative impact on your effectiveness? on your ability to effective effectively -- something we've heard across the whole panel. i wanted to move, if i could, professor harris to a question about standards. if you look at reasonable suspicion of standard that controls the ability of law enforcement to stop and question an individual, as opposed to probable cause, which covers arrest. profiles appears to be a much larger problem potentially in the area of reasonable suspicion. how you have seen that play out?

what is important in fighting that standard and then i want to move to this bill, and why it might be necessary. professor? >> thank you. thank you for the question, senator. you're absolutely right. put your finger on something important. the reason the case that allows police officers to use stop and frisk when there is reasonable fact-based suspicion. the problem is, and where this can intertwine with profiling is that reasonable suspicion is a very low league standard. it is lower than probable cause. when i'm in class, i like to say, probable cause is somewhere near my waist. reasonable suspicion is below my knees. and you have a standard where you can use very little evidence to take significant police action. and where we see this showing up in the context of profiling to give you one example is in the stop and frisk activity in new york city over many years and

it's a good example, because there is very significant amount of data on this. we often find that even though the standard is reasonable suspicion, there is hardly anything recorded. and sometimes nothing at all recorded. reflecting reasonable suspicion or the idea is simply thought of as boiler plate. so with that low of standard, profiling and other ineffective approaches to law enforcement run rmp rampant and we have the statistics mr. romero state add moment ago. >> this can be a violation of civil rights as i believe it is under a whole line of case, martinez, case i'm not familiar with personally but the line of analysis i think by the supreme court that laid this out. why do we not see more enforcement actions for racial profiles by the department of justice and if you would follow-up on professor harris'

comment, how do we in the gap between the formal policies create police entities that, as captain gale describes it, are accountable, are professional and where at all levels are engaged in moving us forward towards a more just and effective policing community? >> when you look -- thank you for the question, senator kuntz -- when you look at our, the testimony we submitted, you see we detail a number of the seminole racial profiling cases. in fact, some of them brought by david harris. one might be instructed for why this piece of legislation is essential is to track when the incident occurred and when the case was decided. because you'll note that many, in many instances and the one i'm looking at now, you're looking at a span of several years of time between when you get pulled over by a police officer on a highway and the

case of robert wilkins, and ultimately when that case was decided by a court. and for many minority group members especially those in our communities and families who lack resources to hire private attorneys, it is not simple or economic to retain private counsel, even when you've been wronged. we turn away many, many cases and individuals who write to us every day simply because we lack the resources to take on every single case. we take on cases where we think we have a -- an ability to have a high impact, which means systemically at the highest levels. the number of heartbreaking letters i sends back saying i understand you were profiled by the police, but we have them under a consent decree and will throw your fax nair yo consent decree doesn't bring the individual, often egrieved, even if willing to step forward, much comfort. that's really what's at stake here. i think the burden on hundreds

of thousands of new yorkers, let's say the 400,000-plus i cited have been wrongfully stopped by the police, the idea you would ask 400,000 new yorkers who were innocent and yet stopped by the police to file all individual lawsuits, i can't believe that any member of this chamber to believe that would be an efficient use of our resources. this is one of the times when by the senate taking action and putting in place a legal regime and being able to stop the type of rush to the courthouse steps would do both the economy and our civil liberties a service. >> senator, if i may, the one area, going to the question you had about the lawsuits, or why people can't file the complaint is, in many cases, i think the bigger challenge is that it may actually follow a legal stop. this is why the legislation is critical. why data collection is critical. i think when we think of profiling people, people sometimes unfortunately think

that the stop itself may not have legal cause. so we have a phrase in policing, give plea a car two minutes and a vehicle code and i'll find a reason to stop you. so the stop maying justified. cracked windshield, bald tires. you know, you'll see those low discretionary stops used quite often to get to, as the decision, talk about pretext to other things. where it makes it hard on an individual basis is a person's complaining about being stopped but, in fact, they did have a cracked taillight, and it makes it hard for that individual case, what you need to do track holistically to see that that's the 10,000th cracked windshield, 90% may be all of one -- >> i see that and am well past my time and i appreciate the concerns that have been raised by this conversation, this hearing today, about the definition of racial pry profiles, the importance of being narrowly targeted in a legislative response and am grateful, chairman durbin, for your crafting a bill that insists on training on data collection and on narrowly crafted response to a

significant problem. thank you very much. >> thanks, senator kuntz. following up on your question, i think one of the obstacles, mr. romero can probably back this up, deal wig the question of whether or not race or ethnicity or profiles was the sole cause for the stop. you run into a real obstacle. our staff did a little research. turns out this isn't the first time that congress has talked about this. arguing the discrimination should only be prohibited if based solely on race and ethnicity has a an unfortunate congressional lineage. attempted to gut the civil rights act of 1964 offering an amendment based solely on race. senator clifford case of new jersey argued in opposition saying this amendment would place upon persons attempting to prove a violation of a section no matter how cloer the violation was an obstacle so great to make the title completely worthless and senator warren of washington said limiting the civil rights act on discrimination based solely on

race would "negate the entire purpose of what we're trying to do." so the courts have set a standard which makes it extremely difficult, and chief davis, your examples, there might be a cracked taillight, as the reason they're being pulled over. what we found in illinois, incidentally, to go to my home state, consent searches by the ill it state police between 2004 and 2010, hispanic motorists in my state were two to four times more likely to be searched. african-american two to three time morse likely subject to consent searches than white motorists. however, white motorists were 89% more likely than hispanic motorists and 26% more likely than african-american motorists to have contraband in their vehicles. so it made no sense from a law enforcement viewtoint to do this, yet it is done. i thank you for this hearing, and i'm sorry it took ten years to get back together and i'm

sorry we need to get back together. to put it in historic perspective, back to our nation's very beginning, our founding fathers started wrestling with issues of race, gender and religion, and this year the presidential campaign wrestles with issues of race, ish and gender and religion, an ongoing debate in this nation. there are moments of great leadership and there have been moments of ig no minnous contact. as far as account about the is concerned, yes, this holds law enforcement accountable but i hope we hold every member accountable including members of congress. let me concede i came to this job saying, remembering what bill clinton once said when he was being interviewed before he became president. is there any issue you will not compromise on? we said i will never compromise on race. he said that as a man who grew up in arkansas and saw segregation. i thought that is a good standard, durbin. you saw it, too, in your hometown. hold to that standard, and i

looked back and remember in my time in the house of representatives of voting for a measure that turned out to have a dramatically negative racial impact. the establishment of the crack cocaine standard and sentencing of 100 to 1. years later given an opportunity in this committee to try to make that right, and bring it back to 1 to 1. i couldn't get the job done. because of the nature of compromise, it's been reduced to 18 to 1. still a terrible disparity but a dramatic improvement. what happened as result of that bad vote? by black and white congressmen? we lost trust in the african-american community. many people serving on juries said i'm not going to do this. i am just not going to send that woman, that person away for ten or 20 years because of a crack cocaine violation. we lost their trust, officer gale. and i can see it when the judges came and talked to us about it. we moved back to try to establish some trust in that community by doing the right thing, but we need to be held accountable. this senator and all of us.

whether we're in elected or appointed office in our government, we serve. we serve the public. and that accountability has to be part of that service. this is not going to resolve the issue. i think it is, i mentioned earlier, more complicated today, because of concealed carry and some of the standards being established in states. more complicated today, as mr. clegg has said, because the war on terror raises legitimate concerns about the safety of our nation and how far will we go to respect our national security, without violating our basic values under the constitution. i thank you all for your testimony. it's been very positive part of this conversation, which we freed tone gauneed to engage in further. there's a lot of interest in today's hearings bp 225 organizations submitted testimony. thank goodness they didn't come leer to speak, but we're glad to have their testimony and will put it in the record without objection. that's good. it will include the episcopal

church, coalition for immigrant refugee rights, japanese-american citizens league, leadership conference on human rights, muslim advocates, naacp. national immigration forum. rights working group sic coalition and poverty law center and these statements will be made part of the record kept open for a week for additional statements. it's possible someone will send you a written question. it doesn't happen often but if they do, i hope you'll respond in a timely way. without further comment i thank all of my witnesses for patience and for attending this hearing and look forward to working with all of you.

we are going to come brack to t bark to the hearing room. we understand there's going to be a news conference with senator karnd, possibly senator durbin and others on racial pro failles. be back in about ten minutes or so, we understand. in the meantime we're going to bring you the space shuttle "discovery" landing from this morning. the "discovery" flying from atop a 747 from florida's kennedy space center this morning. made several passes around the washington area before finally landing late this morning at dulles airport. in northern virginia. and right next to its new home, the national air and space museum annex. the museum out near dulles. here's a look at the landing from this morning.

>> tower, inbound, one right. >> one right, third land, 350 at one free and just like before, there are several helicopters holding use of the airport. >> okay. could land on one right. be advised shour wing man would like expeditious landing because of fuel. >> if he'd like to talk to me on 2298. >> one right may not be the best rahn w runway. full length out. >> we can work pretty much anything out with lihim to get m a landing. we'll keep him in pattern and get in him as fast as possible mts repeat that, sir. >> wind is 34014. >> thank you.

i may be moving you midfield right away after the 747 lands to get the t-38 in on runway 30 to get him down, because he's fuel critical. okay? >> we'll be ready. >> all right.

the t 38 that's escorting will be making a right turn, and we're going to try to get him on the ground any runway possible. so you might be passing just barely below you on an east down wind. so i need you to stay at 2,000. okay? >> holding at 2,000. >> when you break off main tony out of below 1,500 and right down runway one center. we'll have you clear to land on one center. as soon as you tell me you can break out. >> just wanted to let you know. all right.

>> copy that. >> go ahead and cross right now if you would, and to the tower, please and hold right in front to the north of it. >> to the tower, holding north. >> turn base here.

heavy, turn left. at the end, contact ground. >> okay. at ground point 9. 015. >> include 098, clear to land runway. at 14. >> runway 1 center and out. >> use that line -- >> straight up -- all right. >> right about there. >> all right. >> running across -- >> all right.

>> say, hi, scotty. >> say what? >> all right, scotty. i know you hear me at home. >> climb up there where you need. if you wanted to head back to the east, that's good with us. >> i'd like to get close to the aircraft. take some pictures and then on our way back to nasa. >> okay. >> where's echo tango? >> yeah. just crossing up there. very low altitude. >> okay. keep our eyes open. >> you good before the other -- helicopters flying right now? >> yeah. we're aware of what we have -- to the southwest. >> yeah. he's the only one. the other one's holding out

east, has a wide load. a wide lens camera. >> thank you. we're just going to get on out. >> okay. thanks. you copy that? just going to shadow the subject aircraft the rest of his taxi. >> yes, sir. we have that aircraft in sight and would like to do the same thing. give them a nice wide burst. >> okay. go ahead and proceed as requested. >> okay. >> all right, then. 2098, right exit, contact ground 132.45. >> 32.45. wilco.

>> he went for the -- >> go ahead and move up, sir. call 12345. okay. turn on alpha, sir and hold. put your calls on.

>> -- right now. ready -- >> going through that 536 approaching to the right side. >> 536, tower, clear to land. 13013.