SCPD Traffic Stop Data Analysis Timeline of Implementation

• July 2006 – As reported by Wikipedia: “In a controversial move, Police Commissioner Richard Dormer in July 2006 announced that highway patrol and certain other units would undertake a pilot program whereby officers would record the race and/or ethnicity of drivers stopped for traffic violations. The purpose of the program, according to the commissioner, is to demonstrate that the department does not engage in "racial profiling." The program has continued and is being expanded. While Dormer denies any racial profiling has taken place, he has refused to disclose the results.”

• September 2011 - In its Technical Assistance Letter to Suffolk County, DOJ recommends that SCPD review research conducted by RAND Corp. as part of the Collaborative Agreement with the City of Cincinnati, OH – particularly “Police-Community Relations in Cincinnati” by [Greg] Ridgeway, et. al. Chapter Four Analysis of Vehicle Stops of that report sets forth relevant guidance as regards traffic stop data collection, analysis and reporting.

• January 2014 – the parties executed the DOJ Settlement Agreement [Effective Date September 13, 2014], which obligated SCPD, in relevant part, to: 

• implement a revised Chapter 13, Section 9, “Traffic Stop Data Collection,” as previously approved by DOJ,

• one year after the Effective Date (January 13, 2015), analyze the collected traffic stop data annually and explain what measures, if any, SCPD would take as a result of the analysis, and

• make all non-confidential reports and audits related to the Agreement publicly available on its website and ensure the accuracy of its website within 90 days of the Effective Date and then annually thereafter.

• June 26, 2015 [17 months after the Effective Date] DOJ’s 1st compliance assessment:

  • Partial compliance re Ch. 13, Section 9 “Traffic Stop Data Collection” – SCPD did not begin actual collection of traffic stop data until October 2014 and had yet to analyze the data. Data collection process modifications needed. SCPD unable to implement the program as of yet.

  • SCPD in non-compliance as regards data analysis and report regarding any actions to be taken on the basis of traffic stop data analysis.

• December 14, 2015 [23 months after the Effective Date] DOJ’s 2nd compliance assessment:

  • SCPD identified flaws in its procedures for collecting traffic stop data that rendered the collected data unreliable since at least January 2015. Several factors contributed to this outcome: 1) a glitch in SCPD’s data collection software, and 2) failures in SCPD’s measures for reviewing data entries for accuracy and completeness. Historically, incomplete stop data entries were tracked and referred to supervisors for follow-up. The problems noted above caused incomplete entries to go unnoticed by patrol officers and supervisors for nine months. SCPD lacks data to reliably measure its performance.

  • A Sergeant in the Chief of Patrol’s office was taking steps to correct the issues and review the backlog of incomplete data entries in September 2015.

  • SCPD must take steps to ensure accurate data collection. SCPD should identify and apply a suitable benchmark for analyzing the traffic stop data.

  • Implementation of its bias-free policing policies will require SCPD to integrate analysis of the traffic stop data into SCPD’s accountability mechanisms.

  • SCPD still needs to implement a reliable traffic stop data collection program. When operational and integrated into SCPD’s accountability systems, it will provide one backstop against unlawful profiling.

  • It is critical that SCPD take immediate steps to bring this program into compliance.

  • Supervisory personnel form sergeants to precinct Commanding Officers, and the Chief of Patrol’s office, review traffic stop entries and data for erratic trends and potential biased policing.

  • Now that SCPD has a means for identifying incomplete traffic stop entries, SCPD should be conducting this review. Supervisors at all levels should review traffic stop data to identify concerning enforcement patterns. This process also depends upon reliable traffic stop data. Random audits could also provide SCPD with helpful information.

  • SCPD implemented the pre-approved “Traffic Stop Data Collection” policy. Subsequently, SCPD revised this policy to supplement existing supervisory reviews of traffic stop data with the following requirement:
    The Office of the Chief of Patrol will conduct monthly audits of T-Stop data. Incomplete or atypical traffic stops and/or enforcement activity identified will be referred to a precinct or bureau commanding officer for investigation. Evidence of racial profiling or bias based policing will be referred directly to the Internal Affairs Bureau for investigation.

  • SCPD has not satisfactorily implemented the “Traffic Stop Data Collection” policy as required. As noted above, a computer glitch prevented users of the traffic stop data software program from identifying incomplete entries. The patrol officers who entered the incomplete data, the Patrol Sergeants and Lieutenants charged with monitoring traffic stop data for incomplete entries, and the Chief of Patrol charged with auditing traffic stop data failed to identify and remedy this problem in a timely manner. As a result, SCPD had approximately 7,748 incomplete traffic stop data entries during the months of January – August 2015. The traffic stop data SCPD has collected since at least the outset of 2015 – and possibly before then – is likely unreliable in identifying problematic trends in traffic stops.

  • At the time of DOJ’s on-site visit in late September, SCPD was taking steps to ensure that incomplete traffic stop data entries would be identified and addressed in the manner required by policy. Specifically, the Chief of Patrol’s office was drafting a memorandum to distribute Department-wide outlining the specific software function(s) that patrol supervisors could reliably use to identify patrol officers’ incomplete entries.

  • Personnel accustomed to searching for incomplete traffic stop entries via one method may require brief trainings and/or supervision to ensure that a new method is adopted wholesale. SCPD should monitor the situation carefully and deploy any necessary resources to ensure that the entries are being completed going forward. Many of the supervisory reviews required by R&P 13.9 would benefit from this type of monitoring.

  • R&P 13.9 requires that SCPD apply appropriate benchmarks to the data. DOJ will work with SCPD to identify appropriate benchmarks and begin to integrate them into SCPD’s traffic stop data collection program going forward.

  • Given the scale of SCPD’s problems implementing the traffic stop data collection program under the Agreement, semiannual updates are insufficient to ensure compliance. We recommend that SCPD’s Chief of Patrol Office regularly send DOJ brief summaries of each precinct’s (a) complete traffic stop entries, (b) incomplete traffic stop entries, (c) remedial measures required to implement the policy, and (d) any anticipated remedial measures. We request monthly summaries fro December 2015 through March 206, and quarterly thereafter.

  • SCPD submitted a report pursuant to the annual traffic stop analysis reporting requirement in its August 2015 Self-Report. However, the report was based upon the aforementioned unreliable data set. Accordingly, the report does not reliably reflect SCPD’s traffic stop activity. SCPD also needs to modify its benchmarking methods to accurately assess its enforcement patterns.

  • The traffic stop report, albeit based on flawed data, reached troubling conclusions about SCPD traffic stop practices. Should future reports indicate the same trends, we will expect SCPD to produce an exacting plan about how to correct these problems. SCPD should immediately begin to address this issue, should it be substantiated in the next report.

  • V. SCPD will maintain protocols to analyze and address trends in complaints relating to discriminatory policing, including demographic data, lodged against SCPD officers. Compliance with this provision requires implementation of the traffic stop data analysis measures, and implementation of the two measures may complement one another. The traffic stop data may identify precincts where drivers of one demographic category are being stopped in disproportionate numbers. SCPD would be in a position to focus its attention on these precincts, to identify reasons for these outcomes.

• April 18, 2016 [27 months after the Effective Date] DOJ’s 3rd compliance assessment:

  • A key requirement of the Settlement Agreement is the collection of meaningful and accurate traffic stop data. Meeting this requirement is critical, as ensuring that policing services are delivered in a manner free from bias requires the collection and analysis of accurate information regarding SCPD’s practices. Significant steps remain necessary to ensure the collection and analysis of this data.

  • The data that is collected by SCPD continues to be inadequate to allow for the needed assessments of SCPD’s enforcement practices. Most significantly, the data collected by SCPD omits critical variables that are necessary for meaningful analysis. For Example, SCPD does not collect any meaningful data regarding why a traffic stop was initiated. Without detailed data regarding the reason for a stop – e.g., speeding violation, equipment violation, etc. – it is impossible to determine whether the outcomes of traffic stops are based upon the severity of the violation, or are instead impermissibly influenced by bias.

  • As another example, while SCPD collects data regarding whether an officer conducts a search during a traffic stop, critical data regarding conducted searches is omitted. As an example, SCPD does not track whether a search was conducted of the driver alone or instead the passenger or the entire vehicle; SCPD does not track the duration of the search; and, most significantly, SCPD does not consistently track whether a search yielded a finding of contraband such as weapons or controlled substances. Without this data, SCPD is unable to meaningfully assess whether there are disparities in search practices that suggest those practices are influenced by unlawful bias.

  • In a June 22, 2015 letter to SCPD’s counsel . . . we noted these and other shortcomings in the range of data collected by SCPD . . . Additionally, during our on-site meetings with SCPD officials between March 10 and March 15, 2016, we discussed in detail the need for enhanced data collection. Implementing these recommendations and expanding SCPD’s data collection practices should be of the highest priority for the Department over the next several months.

  • SCPD must take meaningful steps to ensure that collected data is analyzed and that appropriate measures are taken with this analysis reveals problematic conduct. The Settlement Agreement requires that, at least annually, SCPD provide DOJ with a report containing this analysis and a summary of the remedial measures taken, if any.

  • Given the shortcomings within the data collected by SCPD, including the technical errors that resulted in unreliable data prior to July 2015, SCPD has not yet been able to comply with this provision of the Agreement. SCPD’s immediate priority must be to ensure that appropriate data is collected and accurately recorded during each traffic stop. To that end, SCPD must work to develop appropriate benchmarks that are required for certain types of analysis.

  • Finally, SCPD supervisors must incorporate a substantive review of traffic stop data into their regular supervisory activities. Many supervisors do not regularly review traffic stop data collected by their officers likely stems, at least in part, from the fact that supervisors have not received appropriate training regarding how to best make use of this data. Indeed, SCPD fails to provide any specific, recurring supervisory training; instead, supervisors are trained regarding how to perform supervisory functions only when they are promoted to the rank of sergeant. SCPD should strongly consider developing and implementing specific, recurring training for supervisors that includes instruction on how to use collected data to ensure officers are performing effectively and lawfully.

  • Reporting Misconduct. We further note that this type of data analysis may be complemented by the implementation of the traffic stop data analysis measures discussed in connection with the bias-free policing provisions of the Settlement Agreement, and recommend that SCPD look for and consider ways in which these procedures may support one another.

• January 19, 2017 [36 months after the Effective Date] DOJ’s 4th compliance assessment:

  • We expect significant progress to be made in the coming months, particularly with respect to traffic stop data collection and bias-free training.

  • As set forth in detail in our last Report, the data collected by SCPD omits critical variables that are necessary for meaningful analysis of bias-free policing. For example, SCPD does not collect any meaningful data regarding why a traffic stop was initiated.

  • As another example, while SCPD collects data regarding whether an officer conducts a search during a traffic stop, critical data regarding conducted searches is omitted, including whether a particular search revealed contraband, or not. Without this data, SCPD is unable to assess whether there are disparities in search practices that suggest those practices are influenced by unlawful bias.

  • During this rating period, we met with representatives from SCPD’s patrol division and information technology department to determine how these enhanced data points can be collected. The substantive recommendations that we made regarding data collection are consistent with the recommendations we made in a June 2015 letter to SCPD’s counsel and within our last assessment report. During this meeting, SCPD also committed to a plan and timeline for developing appropriate data collection methods consistent with our recommendations. That plan involves transitioning form a computerized data terminal system developed by an outside vendor to a system developed within SCPD, which all allow SCPD to control the substantive fields included. Next, SCPD will ensure that those substantive fields capture data agreed upon by the parties, and will solicit input from officers regarding ways to make the data collection process more efficient and usable for officers. This plan will allow SCPD to begin collecting appropriate data early in 2017.

  • Once SCPD successfully implements enhanced data collection practices, SCPD must take meaningful steps to ensure that collected data is analyzed and that the appropriate measures are taken when this analysis reveals problematic conduct. The Settlement Agreement requires that, at least annually, SCPD provide DOJ with a report containing this analysis and a summary of remedial measures taken, if any.

  • Finally, we renew our recommendation that SCPD supervisors incorporate a substantive review of traffic stop data into their regular supervisory activities. In our last report, we recommended that SCPD provide updated training for supervisors, many of whom have not received supervisor-specific training since attaining the rank of sergeant.

  • With respect to data collection, in the immediate months we will review SCPD’s proposed traffic stop data collection system to ensure that appropriate fields are included. We will also assess whether the revised system, once approved, is appropriately deployed, including whether officers are appropriately trained in how to use that system and whether supervisors are ensuring data is being collected consistently and accurately.

  • Once accurate data is being collected, we will begin working with SCPD to ensure that it is appropriately analyzed.

• June 23, 2017 [41 months after the Effective Date] DOJ’s 5th compliance assessment:

  • To ensure bias-free policing, SCPD must collect accurate traffic stop data and analyze it for indications of bias. Our last two assessment reports detailed the various shortcomings with SCPD’s data collection practices.

  • During our site visit in September of 2016, SCPD had committed to a plan and timeline for developing appropriate data collection methods consistent with the substantive recommendations we had made about enhancing the data collected. This plan involved transitioning from a computerized data terminal system designed by an outside company to one that is developed and maintained by SCPD’s information technology department. We supported this approach since it would give SCPD greater control over the data collection and improve the Department’s ability to analyze up-to-date data.

  • At the time, the Department projected that the new system was unable to meet this estimation, and the system was not operational at the time of our April 2017 visit. For this reason, the Department continues to be in partial compliance with the traffic stop provisions of the Agreement.

  • Several weeks after our visit, the Department provided further information regarding the new interface, in particular the drop-down values that officers will see as they input information into this system. Once the parties have agreed to the data fields and their drop-down values, the Department will finalize the interface design and implement the system. The Department estimated that it would be able to rollout the system within a month of finalizing the substantive fields.

  • We recommended linking the traffic-stop reports to use-of-force reports where a traffic stop led to a force incident. This is an important function that the Department should develop; by linking the two data sources, supervisors and command staff will be able to conduct thorough analyses of traffic stop and use of force incidents, and to determine whether any force incidents unnecessarily resulted from an illegal stop.

  • There are technical difficulties to linking the two databases, however, since each uses its own unique identifier to track incidents. The Department suggested that it could issue a directive requiring that officers provide the traffic stop identifier (“CC number”) in the “details” field of use of force reports when a traffic stop results in a force incident. This requirement will facilitate a more thorough and efficient review process for supervisors and command staff. By easily accessing related traffic stop reports, reviewers will be able to analyze the entire encounter to make determinations of the propriety of the traffic stop and force incident.

  • The Department will also code the traffic stop data so that any stop report with a related use of force incident will automatically require supervisor review and approval of the traffic stop. Relatedly, we renew our recommendation that SCPD supervisors develop specific protocols for the substantive review of traffic stop data as part of supervisors’ regular supervisory activities and that SCPD provide updated training for supervisors, many of whom have not received supervisor-specific training since attaining the rank of sergeant.

• March 13, 2018 [50 months after the Effective Date]

  • The Department has not made significant progress in the area of traffic-stop data collection over the last six-month period, and it continues to work toward providing adequate bias-free policing training to its members. Thus, the Department’s compliance ratings for the bias-free requirements of the Agreement since the last assessment period remain unchanged.

  • Our past assessment reports have detailed the various shortcomings with SCPD’s data collection practices. While SCPD has taken steps towards developing appropriate data collection and analysis systems, SCPD had yet to successfully implement such a system at the end of this agreement period in December 2017.

  • The Department planned to transition form a computerized data terminal system designed by an outside vendor to one developed and maintained by SCPD’s information technology department, which would give SCPD greater control over the data collection and improve the Department’s ability to analyze up-to-date data.

  • The Department’s IT Unit began designing the data collection module last winter, and worked with the DOJ to ensure that all necessary data fields were included.

  • After months of preparation, the Department launched the system on August 28, 2017. SCPD told us that within the first few hours of launching the system, officers taking between 5 to 10 minutes to complete a stop report. The Department had expected an increase in completion time from 30-45 seconds to two minutes, and attributes part of the problem to the fact that officers must obtain a central complaint number (CC#) from one system (MDC) before they can complete the stop report in another system (ORS). Additionally, SCPD reported that officers found the design of the new system difficult to navigate because the fields were not linear or easy to scroll through SCPD discontinued using the system the very day it launched it due to these issues. To correct these issues, the Department plans to build an entirely separate database for the stop reports. The Department is also redesigning the fields to that they are easy to scroll through and include gateway questions (e.g., an answer of “no” to the question of whether there was a search would drop all the attendant questions).

  • We again renew our recommendation that the Department link the traffic-stop reports to use-of-force reports where a traffic stop led to a force incident so that supervisors and command staff will be able to conduct thorough analyses of traffic stop and use of force incidents, and to determine whether any force incidents unnecessarily resulted from an illegal stop.

  • We also renew our recommendation that SCPD supervisors develop specific protocols for the substantive review of traffic-stop data as part of supervisors’ regular supervisory activities and that SCPD provide updated training for supervisors, many of whom have not received supervisor-specific training since attaining the rank of sergeant.

  • During our last assessment tour, we had recommended that the Department collect basic demographic data for its checkpoint stops (e.g., DWI, safety checkpoints). The DOJ provided the Department a sample form for collecting such data that would not impede its checkpoint operations, and after recent discussions, the Department adopted the checklist and was reportedly amending its policy on checkpoints in February 2018.

  • While we are hopeful that SCPD will take the necessary steps to achieve substantial compliance with the traffic stop provisions of the Agreement, it remains in partial compliance for the current assessment period due to the continued failure to implement an adequate data collections system.

• October 11, 2018 [57 months after the Effective Date] DOJ’s 7th compliance assessment:

  • During this rating period, however, SCPD finalized and implemented a robust data collection system that is consistent with the objectives of the Agreement.

  • A number of steps were necessary to bring this project to completion. First the Department transitioned form a computerized data terminal system designed by an outside vendor to one developed and maintained by SCPD’s information technology (IT) unit, which gave SPC greater control over the data collection fields and will ultimately improve the Department’s ability to analyze up-d-date data. In order to complete this transition the Departments’ IT unit began designing the data collection module last winter, and worked with DOJ to ensure that all necessary data fields were included. This new system was initially launched on August 28, 2017, but within the first few hours of the system going into operation, officers reported that the slowness of the system unnecessarily increased the time to complete a stop report. Additionally, SCPD reported that officers found the design of the new system difficult to navigate because the fields were not liner or easy to scroll through. To correct these issues, the Department built an entirely separate database for stop reports. The Department also redesigned the fields to that they are easy to scroll through and include gateway questions to streamline the process (e.g., an answer of “no” to the question of whether there was a search would drop all the attendant questions).

  • Prior to launching the revamped system, the Department also conducted beta-testing with a select group of patrol officers. This process helped identify shortcomings and allowed them to be corrected before the system was reintroduced throughout the Department.

  • During our tour in April 2018, we observed the new system that had been launched throughout the Department. The system contains the full range of required data points so that officers can collect – and the Department can analyze – all factors relevant to ensuring bias-free policing practices. The revamped system also address[sic] the shortcomings that existed in the previous iteration of this program.

  • This is a considerable step forward for the Department. In order to achieve substantial compliance, however, several steps must be taken. First, it is critical that the Department ensure that officers are fully using this system and collecting accurate and comprehensive data for each traffic stop. We will evaluate this during the next assessment period. To that end, we renew our recommendation that SCPD supervisors develop specific protocols for the substantive review of traffic-stop data as part of supervisor’s regular supervisory activities and that SCPD provide updated training for supervisors, many of whom have not received supervisor-specific training since attaining the rank of sergeant.

  • Additionally, it is important that the Department develop a robust pan for the analysis of this data. The Department has committed to the fact that, once a year’s worth of data is collected, it will begin the analysis process and make its analysis available to the public. We encourage the Department to begin working on protocols for data analysis as soon as possible to ensure that this necessary measure can be implemented effectively.

  • Finally, in our last Assessment Report, we recommended that the Department collect basic demographic data for its checkpoint stops (e.g., DWI, safety checkpoints). We provided the Department a sample form for collecting such data that would not impede its checkpoint operations and the Department has begun using this form. We commend SCPD for its proactive work in this area.

• December 18, 2019 [72 months after the Effective Date] DOJ’s 8th compliance assessment:

  • To bring these provision to fruition, the Department must develop and implement a robust system of training, supervision, data collection, and accountability mechanisms that ensure its law enforcement duties are being performed free of impermissible bias.

  • The Department continues to be in partial compliance with this provision, but remains on track to achieve substantial compliance once it is able to deliver bias-free policing training to all SCPD officers and once it is able to appropriately analyze the data it has recently begun collecting.

  • We previously rated SCPD in substantial compliance with the policies and procedures provisions of the Agreement (Sixth Assessment Report).

  • As we have noted before ensuring that SCPD members adhere to these policies in practice will require additional work specifically through appropriate data collection and analysis, which continues to be a work in progress for the Department.

  • During the last rating period, it came to our attention that the traffic stop data being publicized on SCPD’s website under the new system was not as robust as the data published under the old system. Specifically, the data lacked any geographical data regarding where traffic stops had occurred – which used to be provided under the old system. We raise this concern with SCPD, as the development of the new system was enacted to increase, not diminish, transparency. To its credit, SCPD – specifically its recently hired data analyst – promptly addresses this concern. We appreciate this problem solving.

  • Going forward, it remains critical that SCPD manage the data it is collecting and review it on a regular basis to ensure it is reliable. Specifically, we renew our recommendation that SCPD precinct supervisors develop specific protocols for the substantive review of traffic-stop data as part of supervisors’ regular supervisory activities and that SCPD provide updated training for supervisors.

  • We understand that SCPD now has a plan to implement that recommendation by amending its traffic stop data policy to specifically require such supervisory review, which would represent a significant step forward. It is also important that the Department develop a robust plan for the analysis of the data. As a positive step forward, the Department has successfully procured funding for an outside consultant, which engagement will be finalized in the next several months. We encourage the Department to begin working on protocols for data analysis as soon as possible to ensure that this necessary measure can be implemented effectively.

• In spite of DOJ’s recommendation that Suffolk engage a local university to analyze the traffic stop data, SCPD engaged the John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety (Finn) sometime in 2019 for a fee that is considered well below prevailing market value for the service and that, coincidentally, falls below the threshold that would trigger comprehensive procurement protocols. The Department has reportedly not released relevant contract materials such as the scope of work and competitive proposals. Performance of the analysis and production of the report were ostensibly delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

• October 20, 2020, SCPD released the Finn report, which is dated ‘September, 2020’. As U.S. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom of the District Court of the Eastern District of New York noted in her March 12, 2021 Report and Recommendation regarding the application for class certification in the matter of 21 anonymous Latino plaintiffs who allege discriminatory policing by SCPD:

The Court notes that this report was completed in late September 2020, on the eve of defendant’s summary judgment motion deadline, nearly seven years after defendants entered the DOJ Agreement, and nine years after the SCPD was formally put on notice regarding its insufficient data collection in the Technical Assistance Letter 

• March 11, 2021 Suffolk County Police Reform & Reinvention Task Force Draft Report included the following incredible claims that attempt to sell the public the same horse that SCPD spent the last seven years selling to DOJ:

Task Force Reinvention Plan 

4. Traffic & Pedestrian Stops 

The Task Force reviewed data on outcomes from current Department Traffic and Pedestrian policy that showed significant inequities in enforcement in communities of color. To address these inequities, the Task Force proposes the following reforms: 

• Create a public Traffic Stop Dashboard 


• Internal Traffic Stop Data Review Dashboard 


• Annual Independent Review of Traffic Stop Data 


• Implementation of Early Warning Protocol through Dashboards 


• Development of a Safety First Campaign 


• Creation of a Pedestrian Stop Dashboard 


• Implementation of a Right To Know policy that shifts pedestrian stops to a community
engagement model 


 Community Concern: Current traffic and pedestrian enforcement policy creates unequal outcomes for communities of color 

One of the most common interactions that a member of our community has with police officers is through a traffic stop -- being pulled over for an equipment infraction, driving over the speed limit, failing to stop at a red light, etc. 

During our Public Listening Sessions and in Task Force meetings, community members expressed their concerns about the historically disproportionate frequency of traffic and pedestrian stops people of color receive in Suffolk County. Additionally, numerous community members criticized the practice of pretextual stops, which they believe is a driver of traffic stops inequities and the resultant excess of car searches of people of color and their pedestrians. 

Review of Traffic Stop Data Collection 

In compliance with a Department of Justice Settlement Agreement, Suffolk County has been collecting traffic stop data since 2014. The initial processes for data collection was incredibly challenging for the Department, as it required overhauling an antiquated technology system to collect the level of data that was called for by the Department of Justice. In addition, internal data analytics platforms needed to be developed in order to synthesize and review traffic stop records. 

In 2019, the County procured the services of the John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety, Inc. (FINN) to analyze the Department's traffic stop records collected between March 5, 2018 and March 4, 2019. Out of 146,320 traffic stop records collected between March 2018 and 2019, 86 collected were incomplete, all occurring in March 2018, the first month of collection. This accounted for .0005% of all records collected and speaks to the integrity of the data that was used for this study. 

The Study Brought to Light the Following: 

Overall, the FINN analysis confirmed that Black and Hispanic drivers are overrepresented in police traffic stops relative to their share of the Suffolk County population, while White drivers are underrepresented. (See Table 1 & 7 below). The recorded reasons for stops vary across racial and ethnic demographics. However, Black and Hispanic drivers represent a higher percentage of individuals who receive tickets for equipment violations. (Table 7)

The FINN analysis also found disparity in poststop outcomes8. In summary, Black drivers were: 

• More than twice as likely to be subjected to a vehicle search; 


• 84 percent more likely to be restrained; 


• More than three times as likely to be subjected to physical force; 


• 59 percent more likely to be arrested; and To be detained for a longer period of me (28 percent more likely to be detained for more than 15 minutes). 
In addition, Hispanic drivers were: 


  • 16 percent more likely to be subjected to a search of their person; 


  • 16 percent more likely to be arrested; 


  • 25 percent less likely to receive a warning; and to be detained for a longer period of 
 me (16 percent more likely to be detained for more than 15 minutes). 


Additionally, in October 2020, Newsday published an independent report looking at similar data. Titled “NEWSDAY ANALYSIS: SUFFOLK POLICE STOPPED, SEARCHED MINORITY DRIVERS AT HIGHER RATES,” the report exhibited similar findings. 


Task Force Reinvention Plan 


1) Create a Public Traffic Stop Data Dashboard 
The Department will address disparities in traffic stop data by leveraging an online data dashboard to internally overhaul policing oversight and externally provide data to the 
In order to address the disparity in traffic stop data; or, “atypical” traffic stops, the Department utilized the findings of the FINN Report to launch its reenvisioning of traffic stop practices: 


In response to the FINN analysis, the SCPD established a working group dedicated to analyzing and developing new policing strategies as they relate to traffic stops in Suffolk County. This team consisted of PD command staff, researchers, and the SCPD Information Technology team. 

The working group concluded that in order to properly address community concerns, and to grant SCPD command staff the ability to proactively address disparity in traffic stops, an entirely new toolkit would be needed. From there, the working group developed a first-of-its-kind on Long Island, an online traffic stop data dashboard with two distinct facets: an outward-facing arm for public transparency, and an inward-facing arm for Department oversight, analysis, and correctional response. [emphases added]

The working group presented this traffic stop data dashboard to Task Force members, where additional input led to the final version. The dashboard aims to serve three main functions: 

1.     Provide the public with transparent and easily-accessible data about traffic stops; and 


2.     Utilize a proactive, Business Intelligence tool to produce the best service for the people of Suffolk County. 


3.     Create oversight of traffic stop data to ensure that disparities seen in the FINN report are 
addressed and eliminated. 


The public dashboard will function as an online data hub where the public can easily review SCPD’s data and understand the functions of the Department. The dashboard will be updated automatically. This up-to-date analysis will go above and beyond the current method and give the public the ability to review traffic stops, on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis. 

The public dashboard analyzes the following and other post-stop data: 

• Race/Ethnicity

• Gender

• Geographic Overlay by Hamlet

• Dispositions

• Precinct Comparisons

• Zone Comparisons

• Sector Comparisons

• Stops

• Searches

 The Task Force and SCPD believe that this data can better inform the general public as to the service of their police Department. The data transparency afforded by the dashboard will give a full picture of law enforcement activity regarding traffic stops, so the public can review the performance of the SCPD on a real-time basis and SCPD’s progress at meeting the goals as outlined within the Reform and Reinvention document. Earning the trust and confidence of the public through transparent data is one of the core beliefs of this process. 

2) Internal Traffic Stop Data Review Dashboard 

The working group created an interfacing dashboard to monitor Department statistics, creating the opportunity for leadership to recognize atypical traffic stops, and accordingly provide individual officers with retraining and open dialogue to address the concern.
The internal dashboard will allow for multiple supervisory levels of review on traffic stop data. 

Currently, the FINN analysis gave us a picture of traffic stops for the entire police Department for 2018 to 2019. The next step in the deeper dive is giving command staff the ability to see and act upon substantial statistical differences in traffic stops by having tools to monitor Precincts, Squads, Zones and individual officers, in real-time. 

The goal of these new data driven oversight tools is to identify disparities and correct them. This tool is specifically designed to highlight disparities so that they can be immediately addressed. The precinct command staff will be tasked with reviewing the data on a consistent basis to ensure the disparities seen in the FINN report are eliminated [emphases added].

The internal dashboard focuses on the following and other Post-Stop Outcomes: 

• Department 

• Precinct Comparisons

• Squad Comparisons

• Zones Comparisons

• Sector Comparisons

• Individual Officers

• Geographic Overlay by Hamlet

• Stops

• Searches

• Dispositions

• Demographic information on the member of the public stopped 

3) Annual Review of Traffic Stop Data by an Independent Third Party 

The Department will engage in a procurement with an independent third party to review the Department’s traffic stop data annually. The report will work in concert with the public-facing dashboards to provide a comprehensive yearly analysis of traffic stop data in Suffolk County. 

4) Early Warning Procedure 

SCPD Commanding Officers will identify and amend atypical patterns of traffic stops and/or enforcement activity by reviewing summary analyses generated by the internal traffic stop data portal. The goal is to address substantial statistical disparities highlighted in the FINN report. 

This review process will take the shape of an Early Warning Intervention System (EIS), which will generate reviews of traffic stop and enforcement activity patterns to identify substantial statistical differences and ensure data integrity. By granting supervisors the ability to access these data reports on a daily basis, the Department will take advantage of robust and transparent data to sustainably monitor, amend, and ensure excellence in individual and broader patterns of policing for the general public. 

The SCPD will prohibit the practice of “consent” vehicle searches during routine traffic stops absent documented exigent circumstances. The policy and procedure will be included into the Academy training curriculum. 

In 2019, the County procured the services of the John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety, Inc. (FINN) to analyze the Department's traffic stop records collected between March 5, 2018 and March 4, 2019. Out of 146,320 traffic stop records collected between March 2018 and 2019, 86 collected were incomplete, all occurring in March 2018, the first month of collection. This accounted for .0005% of all records collected and speaks to the integrity of the data that was used for this study. 

The Study Brought to Light the Following: 

Overall, the FINN analysis confirmed that Black and Hispanic drivers are overrepresented in police traffic stops relative to their share of the Suffolk County population, while White drivers are underrepresented. (See Table 1 & 7 below). The recorded reasons for stops vary across racial and ethnic demographics. However, Black and Hispanic drivers represent a higher percentage of individuals who receive tickets for equipment violations. (Table 7) 

6) Create a pedestrian stops data dashboard

The Department will document officer interactions with pedestrian members of the public who they detain, in an effort to ensure transparency and to earn trust from the community. Review and analysis of Traffic Stops yielded an opportunity to apply its principles of reinvention to pedestrian stops, which are relatively invasive and call for intentional review to ensure bias-free pedestrian detainment discretion. 

Using the same Business Intelligence Tool leveraged for Traffic Stop review and response, the Department is in the process of developing a Pedestrian Stop Data Collection system and applicable procedure for officers to input required data when they stop and detain a pedestrian.

The Department will collect and analyze categories in a similar manner to the Traffic Stop Data Collection process including but not limited to the following: 

• Detention stops program:

• Is stop related to a cc, if yes cc#

• Reason for stop

• Duration

• Force used

• Show up

• Intel debrief

• Disposition

• Approximate age of person

• Gender of person

• Restrained

• Search conducted

• Reason for search

• Outcome of search

• Apparent race/ethnicity of person

7) The Pedestrian's Right to Know Police Interaction Policy 

Police officers will introduce themselves and offer business cards to pedestrian members of the public whom they engage with. The trust between the public and the institutions tasked with protecting them is sacred; and earning that trust and maintaining it requires hard work, dedication, and taking concrete steps towards transparency and open dialogue. In a myriad of conversations about police officer accountability, traffic stops, and civilian complaint procedures, the Task Force and SCPD command came to the following conclusion to put vital information directly into the hands of our residents: 

The Pedestrian’s Right to Know Police Interaction Policy aims to bolster the community’s trust in their police Department through a simple yet straightforward initiative: personal introductions and presentation of business cards with key information, by police officers, when engaging with members of the public. 

During pedestrian stops where an individual is detained upon reasonable suspicion, the officer must identify themselves and give an explanation for the stop. By the end of the interaction, officers will also provide the individual with their personal business card, which will contain the following information to empower the individual to engage with their police department as needed: 

A.    The officer’s professional contact information 
Name, precinct, badge number, office phone, email 

B.    SCPD civilian complaint procedure information 
To ensure that it is easy and accessible for Suffolk County residents to voice their concerns and complaints when officers conduct themselves in any mode of unprofessional manner 


Traffic Stop Data Collection  “The Traffic Stop Data Collection Program will collect data on all self-initiated traffic stops. That data will be analyzed to ensure that all traffic enforcement operations are conducted in an efficient and bias-free manner”. 

*SCPD Chapter 13, Section 9*
 Before exiting the vehicle, or as soon as possible thereafter, officers will draw a T-Stop with the license plate and location. 

*SCPD Chapter 13, Section 9* Upon completion of the stop, the officer will open the SCPD Portal and access the T-Stop Data Collection program from the “My CAD Calls” tab and click “Begin T-Stop”. 

*SCPD Chapter 13, Section 9* Overview of traffic stop activity for the department, broken down by precinct 


§ Breakdown of traffic stop dispositions for department and precinct. 


§ Summary of ticket activity for that precinct, shows the officers with the highest amounts of tickets issued and the number of associated stops. 


§ Summary of incomplete traffic stops by officer 


§ Vehicle Searches, displaying the % of stops, the 
reasons for searches, and the outcomes of searches. 


§ Driver Searches, displaying the % of stops, the reasons for searches, and the outcomes of searches. 


Patrol Division Special Order

• Issued to enhance the Department’s continued commitment to bias free policing 

• Enhances the Command Level Review & Accountability 

Quarterly Precinct Traffic Stop Report 

• Identifies officers with substantial statistical inconsistencies related to traffic stops and tickets issued 

• Requires issues to be addressed at the Command Level 

• Supplemental report confirming the review and actions taken is sent to the Chief of Patrol Quarterly 

SCPD launched a Transparency Dashboard in Q1 2022 that contains a Traffic Stops Dashboard