Law enforcement officers stopped Black, Latino, and American Indian drivers at greater rates than White drivers, searched Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at greater rates than White drivers, and found contraband as a result of searches of Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at lower rates than in searches of White drivers. . . . (2001 Report, p. 1)
The report includes the conclusion that the patterns of disparate treatment “. . . suggest a strong likelihood that racial/ethnic bias plays a role in traffic stop policies and practices in Minnesota."
Minnesota does not currently have a statewide law requiring law enforcement officers to collect data and prepare reports on the race of persons who are stopped or searched in a traffic stop. However, Minnesota does have a law that defines “racial profiling" and requires the chief law enforcement officer of every state and local law enforcement agency to enforce a written anti-racial profiling policy governing the conduct of officers engaged in stops of citizens. Minn. Stat. §
626.8471.
Iowa:
Iowa does not currently have a law requiring the police to collect traffic stop data that includes the race or ethnicity of vehicle operators or passengers. Between October 1, 2000 and March 3, 2002, the Iowa State Patrol collected traffic stop data from over 260,000 traffic stops. A report was prepared in April 2003, by the Iowa state Patrol and the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning.
The 2003 Report, available at http://publications. iowa.gov/7228/1/Stop_Data.pdf, concluded, among other things, that,
Can we say whether or not ISP troopers are stopping, ticketing, searching or arresting people differently because of their race? The data in this report do not conclusively answer this question. They do give us an indication that Iowans are not more or less likely to be stopped by ISP troopers because of their race. . . .
The data in this report also do not definitively answer the question of whether or not the ISP troopers are influenced by a person's race or ethnicity when deciding whether to conduct a search or issue a warning vs. a formal sanction. The data do seem to indicate that race or ethnicity may have sometimes influenced decisions in these areas. However, such observations are only indications because a substantial number of cases had missing data and because the impact of numerous other variables that should affect such decisions is unknown (e.g. existence of outstanding warrants, severity of alleged traffic violations, visible contraband, incriminating driver or passenger behavior). (2003 Report p. 8)
Illinois:
Illinois began collecting traffic stop data and issuing annual reports on January 1, 2004. The Illinois law was substantially amended in 2008. A Racial Profiling Prevention and Data Oversight Board (Board) was created to oversee plans and strategies to eliminate racial profiling in Illinois.
The recent 2008 Illinois report based on data reported from 2,518,825 traffic stops, sought to answer two questions.
•
To what extent, if any, does race influence an officer's decision to stop a vehicle?
•
To what extent, if any, does race influence the disposition of the stop? Was a citation issued? Was the vehicle subject to a consent search?
The ratio of minority drivers stopped to the minority driving population has improved each year. That is, the percentage of minority divers stopped by the police is getting closer to the estimated driving population.
Law enforcement agencies continue to pay careful attention to this issue and many have introduced policies and procedures to correct deficiencies.
Our newest measures of post-stop performance — duration of stop — suggests that traffic stops of minority drivers consume about the same time as those for Caucasian drivers.
The number of consent searches in Illinois continues to decline, but minority drivers are still more likely to be consent searched than Caucasian drivers. Differential refusal rates do not appear to contribute to this difference.
Police officers conducting consent searches are far more likely to find contraband in a vehicle driven by a Caucasian driver than by a minority driver. While there has been a significant amount of attention devoted to this issue, there is little evidence at this point of substantial improvement. (2008 Report, p. 13)
The Illinois Act sunsets on July 1, 2010. The Illinois Board must recommend whether to continue the Illinois racial profiling study beyond July 1, 2010.
Michigan:
Michigan does not have a statewide law currently in effect requiring traffic stop data collection and analysis, although some local studies have been conducted in Michigan.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
OJA utilized an advisory committee and public listening sessions in developing proposed ch.
OJA 1.
OJA appointed a 17-member Traffic Stop Data collection Advisory Committee to advise the agency with respect to this rulemaking. The committee included representatives of law enforcement (police chiefs, county sheriff, the state patrol) a police association, legislators, community representatives, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Natural Resources, the Office of the Public Defender and a civil liberties organization. The advisory committee met on September 28, 2009, October 14, 2009, November 18, 2009, December 17, 2009 and January 14, 2010. Presentations made to the committee include:
•
The Illinois Traffic Stop Study: Alexander Weiss, Ph.D. University of Illinois at Chicago Center for Research in Law and Justice.
•
Data Elements — Jerry Jansen, Criminal Justice Consultant, OJA.
•
Technology — Erin Egan, Citations & Withdrawals Section, Badger TraCS Program Manager, DOT, Division of Motor Vehicles.
•
Funding – Kathy Cushman, Citations and Withdrawals Section, DOT Division of Motor Vehicles.
•
Milwaukee Police Department Traffic Enforcement Policy and Data Analysis — Milwaukee Chief of Police Ed. Flynn.
•
Fundamental Questions and Benchmarks and a Draft Data Analysis Report Outline — Kristi Waits, Program Director, OJA Strategic Analysis Center.
•
Monitoring Stops for Biased Policing in Washington State — John R. Batiste, Chief of the Washington State Patrol.
•
Data Collection and Community Partnerships — Noble Wray, Chief of Police, Madison Police Department.
•
Local Law Enforcement Data Assessment (LLEDA), UW Report to BOTS — Joni Graves, Program Director, UW-Madison Transportation Information Center.
•
Analysis Software for Local Analysis — Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D. Director, RAND Corporation.
•
Benchmarks — Lorie Fridell, Ph.D., University of South Florida, Department of Criminology.
Listening Sessions were held by the Advisory Committee and OJA from 4 and 7 PM on November 11, 2009 (La Crosse), November 12, 2009 (Green Bay), November 18 (Milwaukee), December 1, 2009 (Rice Lake, Superior, Crandon and Keshena), and December 12, 2009 (Kenosha/Racine). At the sessions the committee and OJA heard from citizens who commented about the issue of racial profiling and traffic stops and about the traffic stop data collection project mandated by
2009 Wisconsin Act 28.
Small Business Impact
This rule does not have a significant effect on small business.
Fiscal Estimate
State fiscal effect
Increase costs, program revenue.
Local government fiscal effect
No fiscal effect.
Private sector fiscal effect
No fiscal effect.
A copy of the full fiscal estimate may be obtained from the agency contact person listed below, upon request.
Agency Contact Person
Dennis Schuh, Program Director
Office of Justice Assistance
1 S. Pinckney Street, Suite 615
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 266-7682
Notice of Hearings
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — Hazardous Waste Management, Chs.
NR 600—
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
227.11 (2) (a),
227.24 (1)(a),
289.67 (2) (de) and
291.07 (2), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on proposed Natural Resources Board Order No. WA-30-09,
CR 10-036, and on Natural Resources Board Emergency Order No. WA-31-09(E),
EmR1007, revising s.
NR 660.10, pertaining to the definitions of hazardous waste “large quantity generator" and “small quantity generator." The emergency order was published and took effect on March 17, 2010.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held live in Madison and via the Internet by “Live Meeting" or conference telephone in Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Eau Claire on:
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 9:00 am
Room G-09, Natural Resources State Office Building
101 S. Webster Street, Madison, Wisconsin
Lake Michigan Rm., DNR Northeast Region Headquarters
2984 Shawano Ave., Green Bay, Wisconsin
Room 139, DNR Southeast Region Headquarters
2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Room 162, DNR West Central Region Headquarters
1300 W. Clairemont, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Patricia Chabot at (608) 264-6015 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Copies of Rules and Submission of Written Comments
The emergency order, proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin. gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Ms. Pat Chabot, Bureau of Waste and Materials Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921 or by email to
Patricia.Chabot@Wisconsin.gov. Comments may be submitted until
April 30, 2010. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the rules and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Ms. Chabot.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Summary of proposed rule
The 2009-2011 biennial budget (
2009 Wisconsin Act 28, s.
2659) amended s.
289.67 (2) (b) 1., Stats., to increase the annual base fee for large quantity and small quantity generators of hazardous waste. Section 2662 of Act 28 also created s.
289.67 (2) (de), Stats., which requires the DNR to promulgate a rule that defines “large quantity generator" and “small quantity generator" for purposes of the fees. Under current hazardous waste rules, generator status is functionally described in text but there are no specific, comprehensive definitions.
Section 9137 (2), a non-statutory provision in Act 28, allows the DNR to promulgate the required definitions through the emergency rule making procedures without having to provide a finding of emergency. The emergency order took effect March 17, 2010 and will remain in effect until July 1, 2011, or until a corresponding permanent rule takes effect if it is adopted sooner.
The emergency order added a definition of “large quantity generator" and revised the definition of “small quantity generator" in ch.
NR 660, Wis. Adm. Code. Under prior hazardous waste rules, standards are set for large quantity and small quantity hazardous waste generators, so their status is functionally described, but there were no specific, comprehensive definitions of these terms. This proposed permanent rule is identical to the emergency rule. The definitions are consistent with and based upon the functional descriptions or standards that currently identify large quantity and small quantity generators.
Comparison with federal regulations
There is no specific definition of “large quantity generator" in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's hazardous waste regulations in
40 CFR § 260.10, upon which s.
NR 660.10 is based. Large quantity generator status is functionally described in text in
40 CFR Part 262,
Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste.
40 CFR § 260.10, includes a definition of “small quantity generator" but the definition is incomplete. Small quantity generator status is functionally described in text in
40 CFR Part 262. The department proposes to add explicit, complete definitions of large and small quantity generators to s.
NR 660.10 based on the state and federal functional definitions.
Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states
Minnesota:
Minnesota's hazardous waste rules in s. 7045.026 define large and small quantity generators. These definitions are similar to the definitions in the proposed rule.
Iowa:
Iowa does not have a federally authorized hazardous waste program. The program is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 office in Kansas City, Mo., and the federal regulations are in effect in the state.
Illinois:
Illinois' hazardous waste rules have a definition for small quantity generator that is equivalent to the definition in the federal regulations. There is no definition of large quantity generator; however, a note after 35 Ill. Adm. Code 7220.127 states that the “[Illinois Pollution Control] Board interprets the term large quantity generator to mean a hazardous waste generator that is not a small quantity generator."
Michigan:
Under Michigan's rules in R 299.9107 (v), the definition of small quantity generator is equivalent to the federal definition. Large quantity generator is not defined in a rule.
