In 2017, I did an analysis of Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department traffic stop data. These data are available at Data Montgomery, Montgomery County's open data portal. The data set contained information on traffic stops including location, reason for stop, race of driver, whether a search was conducted and if so whether contraband was found.
The analysis of 2017 clearly showed that Blacks and Latinos (what the data categorized as Hispanics) were disproportionately stopped and searched, without finding additional contraband.
The Montgomery County Office of Legislative Oversight released a report in 2022, Analysis of dataMontgomery Traffic Violations Dataset, covering the same ground for the years 2018 - 2022. That report also found disproportionate stops and citations for Blacks and Latinos. The report did not examine searches.
However, these analyses are based on benchmark tests (simply counting stops and/or searches by race) and outcomes (whether contraband was found during a search). It is not certain that the disproportionate impact was due to bias or some other factor. Researchers with the Stanford Open Policing Project at Stanford University performed a nationwide analysis (which did not include Montgomery County Maryland or Washington, DC) of traffic stop data and also found evidence of bias in A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States. That study applies not just a benchmark and outcome analysis, but also a threshold test which incorporates both the rate at which searches occur, as well as the success rate of those searches, to infer the standard of evidence (the threshold) applied when determining whom to search (more precisely, the inferred probability of a crime is occuring used by officers when deciding whether to initiate a search). Significant differences in the threshold used across races is a strong indicator of bias.
I revisited my earlier analysis by updating to recent data (2023) and applied the threshold test as developed by the Stanford researchers Camelia Simoiu, Sam Corbett-Davies and Sharad Goel in their paper The Problem of Infra-marginality in Outcome Tests for Discrimination, and implemented in Python and R and available in the Stanford Policy Lab Open Policing Project Github repository stanford-policylab/opp.
I implemented benchmark and outcomes tests in R, and called into the Stanford researchers' R function to implement the threshold test. My code may be found in the R markdown filed: MoCo_Traffic_Stop_Threshold.rmd. Here I report my results.
In summary, there is still clear disproportionate stops and searches by race, as well as strong evidence of bias in traffic stops and searches in 2023, but in some surprisingly different ways and the evidence is not always very strong, at least looking at the threshold test. The main points:
Blacks and Hispanics (Latinos) are still stopped and searched disproportionately in 2023.
Despite being searched at a higher rate than Whites, contraband is found at the same or lower rate for Blacks and Hispanics. This suggests (although doesn't prove) bias. It certainly suggests that police may be able to make better use of their time, while doing less harm.
The threshold test provides weak evidence of bias in search decisions against Blacks, while providing stronger evidence of bias in search decisions against Hispanics (Latinos).
After the statistical tests, I generated a random forest model to the 2023 data to predict whether a search was conducted. Ranking the most important predictor variables, race was significant but tenth. Location variables were even more predictive. GIven that, I then looked at the ssearches done in each police district, which raises some interesting questions (see below).
Detailed statistical results:
I performed a benchmark test (were stops disproportionate by race?), an outcome test (were Blacks or Latinos searched more often than Whites without finding more contraband?) and a threshold test.
Benchmark Test
The data show that in 2023 Blacks were still stopped 1.5x as often as their share of the general population would indicate, while Hispanics (Latinos) were stopped 1.26x as often.
Outcome Test
The data show that in 2023 Blacks were still stopped 1.5x as often as their share of the general population would indicate, while Hispanics (Latinos) were stopped 1.26x as often.
Outcome Test
Items to notice here are that Blacks and Hispanics are searched ,when stopped, about 3x as often as Whites (6% and 7% vs 2%), yet contraband is not found more often when searching Blacks and Hispanics (the hitrate for Blacks and Whites is about the same, while the hitrate for Hispanics is actually lower).
Threshold Test
Items to notice here are that Blacks and Hispanics are searched ,when stopped, about 3x as often as Whites (6% and 7% vs 2%), yet contraband is not found more often when searching Blacks and Hispanics (the hitrate for Blacks and Whites is about the same, while the hitrate for Hispanics is actually lower).
Threshold Test
This test takes some explanation. The average threshold figures indicate that while an officer decides to search a White driver if he or she believes there is a 43.33% chance of finding contraband, they need only a 40.77% chance before searching a Black driver. This suggests that police are "quicker" to search Blacks. But the thresholds are close, and the threshold confidence intervals show a large overlap between Blacks and Whites, suggesting that the threshold test does not indicate, at least with high confidence, bias against Blacks in search decisions. However, for Hispanics, the threshold is much lower at 36%, with little overlap in confidence interval. The threshold test does suggest a strong likelihood of bias against Hispanics in search decisions.
Limitations
There are many limitations in these kinds of analyses, including data quality, missing data that could explain the disproportionate stop and search rates other than bias, and limitations in the threshold test, which is an inference based on certain statistical assumptions.
Random Forest Model and its Consequences
I fit a random forest model to the data to predict whether a search was conducted, in order to see which predictor variables the model would consider most important. The model had a predictive accuracy of over 97%. The code for the model can be found in MoCoTrafficSearchRF.rmd.
The top ten important predictor variables were as follows:
Accuracy: 0.9710396
No Yes MeanDecreaseAccuracy MeanDecreaseGini
Time.Of.Stop 0.006948418 0.2980195 0.019667276 366.78871
Violation.Type 0.003925750 0.2638124 0.015288994 124.53951
Longitude 0.011921277 0.1828931 0.019398104 255.26528
Geolocation 0.032538078 0.1403309 0.037251121 263.17211
Latitude 0.031980453 0.1360651 0.036533896 262.21105
Location 0.004584250 0.1224058 0.009734600 255.47231
Arrest.Type 0.001741790 0.1193220 0.006886409 81.62156
SubAgency 0.004681766 0.1174461 0.009610867 106.18332
Date.Of.Stop 0.003904850 0.1141753 0.008724385 234.58751
Race 0.002246621 0.1054858 0.006764351 74.41948
Race was top 10 importance, but many of the location variables were more important (the violation type is either warning, citation or arrest, while the arrest type indicates that if an arrest is made).
Because of the predictive value of location, I then looked at the number of searches by police district:
Note that 3rd district (Silver Spring area) and the HQ/Special Operations "district" have almost half of all searches in the county, with the 4th district (Wheaton area) not far behind. It is worth asking why so many searches are done in Silver Spring and to a lesser extent in Wheation. Is there a bias against those areas, drivers (more likely to be of color) in those districts, or are there other good reasons to undertake more searches there? This question is even more stark when looking at the next chart, showing that there are about the same number of stops in all districts - thus the rate of searches is much higher in the 3rd and 4th districts. Why?
Another question is why are there so many stops and searches done by HQ/Special Operations?
