Earlier this year, the San Francisco Police Commission passed a policy prohibiting officers from making traffic stops for nine types of traffic infractions, described in Table 1 below.
The policy bans police officers from conducting certain kinds of pretext stops, a tactic in which an officer pulls over a driver for a minor traffic violation with the goal of investigating more serious criminal activity. These stops present an equity issue, as they are often used to disproportionately question and search Black and Latino drivers.
Along with banning stops for certain infractions, the policy also limits the kinds of questions that police can ask after any traffic stop, a component that should have a noticeable impact, says San Francisco Police Commissioner Max Carter-Oberstone, who introduced the initial policy proposal.
“The second piece of the policy tries to remove the incentive for making a pretext stop”—the incentive being the ability to investigate whether a driver has committed a more serious crime, he asserts.
What inspired San Francisco to pursue this policy now?
Since the murder of George Floyd in 2020, communities across the country have debated how to reduce or eliminate racial bias and excessive violence faced by people of color in policing encounters. These debates have led to several types of attempted reform strategies.
More recently, several cities—including San Francisco—adopted reforms to their pretext stop policies with the aim of transforming how police interact with drivers.
What is the source of this controversy? Why have so many police departments adopted these reforms? Can we reduce disproportionate harm to Black and Latino drivers that occurs after minor traffic stops by reducing the frequency of these stops?
How do pretext stops work?
To begin to answer these questions and to understand why pretext stops are championed as well as criticized, let’s illustrate how they work.
Imagine, two District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department officers in an unmarked car, patrolling what they believe to be a high drug area in the nation’s capital. They spot an SUV waiting at a stop sign for what they later describe as an unusually long time, and then observe the car turn at an “unreasonable” speed and without signaling. The officers decide to stop the vehicle, later saying they wanted to warn the driver of traffic violations; and when they approach the car, they say they see bags of crack cocaine in the passenger’s hands while looking through the driver’s window. The officers search the vehicle, find several types of drugs, and arrest both the passenger and driver who are ultimately indicted on federal drug charges, including possession with the intent to distribute.
These were the circumstances in the important 1996 Supreme Court case Whren v. United States.
The drivers, Michael Whren and James Brown, argued that the discovery of the drugs should be kept out of their criminal case, as the officers had no reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause, to believe that Whren or Brown were involved in drug dealing. Because the stop for traffic code infractions seemingly was used as a “pretext” to investigate drug dealing, they argued, the evidence should be inadmissible and was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
But the Court disagreed, ruling in favor of the police and the government.
The Court explained that so long as a police officer has reasonable cause to believe that a motorist committed a traffic violation, they may stop a vehicle, even if the officer would not have stopped the vehicle if they did not have an “additional law enforcement objective.”
What were the implications of this decision? As policing scholar David Harris put it, the Supreme Court decision essentially gave police officers the unlimited power to detain greater numbers of Black and Latino drivers.
He explained that the expansive scope of traffic laws combined with racially biased policing meant that the case represented “a clear step…toward authoritarianism, toward racist policing, and toward a view of minorities as criminals, rather than citizens.”
And in the nearly 30 years since this case, we can see how Harris’ prediction rings true.
Our colleagues at the Stanford Open Policing Project have shown how, across the country, Black drivers are more likely to be pulled over than white drivers. In a 2020 study, they found that racial disparities in traffic stops decrease at night when officers are less likely to be able to discern the race of the driver. Here in California, Black and Latino drivers are also more likely to be searched when stopped.
This unequal form of policing is especially harmful when we consider the fact that traffic stops make up the most common form of police-civilian interaction.
That’s why in 2021, our Center developed a report with the Stanford Criminal Justice Center to call for cities to end or heavily restrict the practice, a recommendation echoed nationally by legislators and advocates.
Because Black and Latino Americans interact with police more often, they experience the impact of police traffic enforcement more intensely. A 2006 study showed that African American and Latino male drivers were more likely to report that the police behaved improperly and seemed to have an illegitimate reason to stop them than white male drivers. There is also a negative psychological impact caused by increased traffic surveillance and policing of Black communities.
With this evidence against pretext stops, why have police continued to utilize them?
Police officers argue that pretext stops allow police to better do their jobs; with this tool, police can reduce injury and death, catch criminals, and regularly confiscate contraband like drugs and weapons. Without pretext stops, our streets would be much less safe, officers argue.
However, a growing body of research contradicts this justification. An analysis of North Carolina traffic stops from 2002 to 2020 found that drugs were seized in only 0.53 percent of all traffic stops, while weapons were seized in only 0.11 percent. In California, firearms were confiscated in only 905 traffic stops out of the 3.4 million made in 2019. And these stops are costly to society, both in terms of punitively expensive citations for drivers and the use of taxpayer-funded police that could be addressing other public safety needs.
Following mass protests in 2020, police departments around the country were forced to justify several of their policing practices, including pretext stops. And, in a sharp reversal of the decades-long trend to expand police investigatory authority, many jurisdictions started banning or limiting low-level traffic violations, stripping police of a once-valued law enforcement tool. San Francisco’s attempt to rein in pretext stops offers an important window into the promise and challenges of these policy reforms.
Pretext Stop Reform in San Francisco
Often called one of the most liberal cities in the U.S., San Francisco’s attempts to pass this policy led to a lengthy, complicated fight.
The reform policy was first introduced to the public in May 2022. In the original version, the Police Commission sought to limit 18 types of traffic stops. However, months later, the Police Commission pared down the list to nine types of stops and tabled a vote on the decision.
|Table 1: Banned Traffic Stops, pursuant to San Francisco Police Department General Order 9.07
|1. Failure to display or properly mount license plates when the rear plate is still visible and legible
|2. Failure to display registration tags or driving with an expired registration of more than one year
|3. Failure to illuminate rear license plate
|4. Driving without functioning or illuminated rear taillights
|5. Driving without functioning or illuminated rear brake lights
|6. Driving with objects affixed to windows or hanging from rearview mirror, unless it creates a condition that substantially increases the likelihood of a crash
|7. Failure to activate a turn signal continuously for 100 feet before turning
|8. Sleeping in a vehicle
|9. Any stop of a pedestrian for an infraction in violation of the California Vehicle Code or San Francisco Transportation Code, unless there is an immediate danger the pedestrian will crash
For many, a question lingered; what led to this change?
Two factors influenced the revision. First, the Police Commission received new data.
Essentially, when drafting the original list of 18, the Police Commission wanted to ensure that the infractions that were deprioritized had no impact on public safety. And initial data supported the fact that enforcing these 18 infractions did not actually lead to safer streets. However, Carter-Oberstone tells us that further data found that some of these infractions were leading to some crashes, stops where contraband was discovered, and arrests. Others were not leading to stops at all.
For the Police Commission, it was important to have a list that both officers could easily commit to memory and still have the impact they wanted to see.
Another important point to emphasize: The idea that the pretext stop policy was edited to respond to San Francisco’s particular public safety challenges. Pretext stop reforms have sprouted up all around the country, but the policies that stand to have the most impact are the ones that are tailored to the safety, policing, and racial justice issues facing their communities.
Last year, Los Angeles adopted its own pretext policy reform. LAPD officers have been instructed to only make stops that significantly impact public safety, a policy which excludes most non-moving violations and has been seen as a “middle ground” approach. Additionally, officers can only escalate an investigation during a traffic stop if they have observed suspicious behavior related to another crime occurring during the stop.
The result? LAPD officers stopped far fewer drivers and were also more likely to find contraband. During these stops, officers were also less likely to request and obtain a driver’s consent to search the car—a tactic known as a “consent search” and used by police when they cannot otherwise legally initiate a search.
On the East Coast, cities like Fayetteville, North Carolina have pursued significant pretext stop reforms. Between 2013 and 2016, Fayetteville Police Chief Harold Medlock told his officers to prioritize four types of traffic safety stops; speeding, stop sign/light violations, DWIs, and reckless driving.
The result was a decrease in vehicle searches from traffic stops, especially for Black drivers. According to Medlock, complaints against officers also went down. A 2020 analysis found that safety stops rose while traffic fatalities decreased.
Back in San Francisco, after receiving feedback and concerns through public dialogues, surveys, and closed door police officer-only sessions, the Police Commission took this input and used it to influence the pretext stop policy.
Much of the pushback against the policy was rooted in a victim-centered framework; that with this policy in place, police would be inhibited from catching law-breaking motorists and thus, less able to serve potential victims of traffic crimes. San Francisco, like many other major cities around the country, has been seized by “tough-on-crime” rhetoric, a major factor in former District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s notable defeat in a 2022 recall election.
In response to criticism that the policy will harm public safety, Carter-Oberstone says that this fear is not based in reality. “What we know for sure is that pretext stops are one of the most inefficient and ineffective ways to stop and prevent crime” he says, citing their low yield rates for contraband and arrests. To support this claim, he pointed to independent research and the San Francisco-specific data that shaped the city’s policy.
However, while the reform opposition was unsuccessful in its attempts to prevent this policy from being approved, its legislative and lobbying efforts may stand in the way of further police reform, both in San Francisco and beyond.
What’s Next for San Francisco and Pretext Reform Efforts
Although San Francisco’s policy has the Police Commission’s approval, it still has a long way to go before taking effect. The San Francisco Police Officers Association, the city’s largest police union, now has the opportunity to negotiate with the city about whether the policy affects its collective bargaining agreement. After the negotiations conclude, the Commission will then vote again on the agreement; if the policy is approved, the police department will likely have 30 to 60 days to train officers before the policy goes into effect. This whole process will be occurring during the same time California Senate Bill 50, aimed at ending pretext stops statewide, is being debated in Sacramento.
The impact of San Francisco’s reforms will only be fully understood once they have been implemented. But, already, the journey to get to this point raises interesting questions.
While communities that pressured police departments to change their practices have welcomed pretext stop reform policies as a partial step in a larger discussion, are these important, but modest reforms being touted by law enforcement meant to end the discussion entirely?
It is important to recognize the immense value of pretext stop reforms, both in harm mitigated for Black and Latinx communities but also money saved by putting police to better use protecting their communities. It is equally important to understand how these policies fit into a grand scheme of envisioning new, creative ways to promote public safety.
One of these ways involves taking the responsibility of traffic enforcement entirely out of the hands of police. How? We’ll tackle this question and more in our upcoming research on civilian led traffic enforcement.
Polisi wa San Francisco wamepitisha sheria ya kuzuia maafisa wa polisi kufanya vituo vya barabarani kwa aina tisa za makosa ya barabarani. Sheria hiyo inakataza maafisa wa polisi kufanya aina fulani za kukomesha kwa sababu ya udanganyifu, mbinu ambayo afisa huondoa dereva kwa kosa dogo la barabarani kwa lengo la kuchunguza shughuli mbaya zaidi za uhalifu. Vituo hivi vinawasilisha suala la usawa, kwani mara nyingi hutumiwa kuuliza na kutafuta madereva weusi na wa Latino. "Kama vile kuzuia kusimamishwa kwa makosa fulani, sera hiyo pia inapunguza aina ya maswali ambayo polisi wanaweza kuuliza baada ya kusimamishwa kwa trafiki, kipengele ambacho kinapaswa kuwa na athari inayoonekana, ""alisema Kamishna wa Polisi wa San Francisco Max Carter-Oberstone, ambaye alianzisha pendekezo la awali la sera." "Kipande cha pili cha sera hiyo kinajaribu kuondoa kichocheo cha kufanya udanganyifu wa kuacha, kichocheo hicho ni uwezo wa kuchunguza kama dereva amefanya uhalifu mkubwa zaidi", anasema. Ni nini kilichomchochea San Francisco kufuata sera hii sasa? Tangu mauaji ya George Floyd mwaka 2020, jamii nchini kote zimezungumzia jinsi ya kupunguza au kuondoa upendeleo wa rangi na vurugu za kupita kiasi zinazokabiliwa na watu wa rangi katika kukutana na polisi. Mazungumzo haya yameongoza kwa aina kadhaa za jaribio la mikakati ya mageuzi. Hivi karibuni, miji kadhaa - ikiwa ni pamoja na San Francisco - ilipitisha mageuzi ya sera zao za kusimamisha kwa udanganyifu kwa lengo la kubadilisha jinsi polisi wanavyoingiliana na madereva. Ni nini chanzo cha ubishi huo? Kwa nini idara nyingi za polisi zimepitisha marekebisho hayo? Je, tunaweza kupunguza madhara ya kuathiri kwa madereva weusi na Latinos ambayo hutokea baada ya kusimamishwa kwa trafiki ndogo kwa kupunguza mzunguko wa kusimamishwa? Kusimamishwa kwa sababu ya udanganyifu hufanya kazije? Kuanza kujibu maswali haya na kuelewa kwa nini kusimamishwa kwa udhuru ni championed pamoja na kukosolewa, hebu kuonyesha jinsi wanavyofanya kazi. Wacha tufikirie, maafisa wawili wa Idara ya Polisi ya Metropolitan ya Wilaya ya Columbia katika gari lisilo na alama, wakipita katika eneo wanayoamini ni eneo la dawa za kulevya katika mji mkuu wa taifa. Wao kuona SUV kusubiri katika ishara ya kuacha kwa kile baadaye kuelezea kama muda mrefu ajabu, na kisha kuchunguza gari kugeuka kwa kasi <unk>unreasonable<unk> na bila ishara. Polisi waliamua kuacha gari, baadaye wakisema walitaka kumwonya dereva juu ya ukiukaji wa barabarani; na walipokaribia gari, walisema waliona mifuko ya crack cocaine mikononi mwa abiria wakati wakitazama kupitia dirisha la dereva. Polisi wanatafuta gari, wanapata dawa za kulevya na kuwakamata abiria na dereva, ambao wanashtakiwa kwa madawa ya kulevya, pamoja na kuwa na madawa ya kulevya. Hayo ndiyo yaliyotokea katika kesi muhimu ya Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani ya Whelan v. Marekani. Madereva hao Michael Whren na James Brown walisema kwamba kugundua dawa hizo za kulevya haikupaswa kuingiliwa katika kesi yao ya jinai, kwani maafisa hao hawakuwa na shaka yoyote ya kuamini kwamba Whren au Brown walikuwa na uhusiano wa kibiashara na dawa za kulevya. Kwa sababu ya kusimamishwa kwa makosa ya sheria za barabarani, inaonekana ilitumiwa kama <unk> pretext <unk> kuchunguza biashara ya dawa za kulevya, walidai, ushahidi unapaswa kutokubaliwa na ulipatikana kwa ukiukaji wa Urekebishaji wa Nne dhidi ya utafutaji na uvamizi usio na sababu. Lakini Mahakama haikukubaliana na uamuzi huo, ikitoa uamuzi kwa niaba ya polisi na serikali. Mahakama hiyo ilieleza kwamba kama afisa wa polisi ana sababu ya kutosha kuamini kwamba dereva amefanya ukiukaji wa barabarani, anaweza kusimamisha gari, hata kama afisa huyo hangesimamisha gari hilo kama hakuwa na "lengo la ziada la utekelezaji wa sheria". "Mwanasheria wa polisi David Harris alisema: ""Hukumu ya Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani ilitoa mamlaka ya polisi ya kuwashikilia madereva wengi zaidi wa rangi nyeusi na wa asili ya Latino." "Hawa ni watu wa jamii ya watu, na kwa sababu ya sheria za barabarani na polisi wenye ubaguzi wa rangi, kesi hiyo inawakilisha ""hatua ya wazi kuelekea utawala wa kimabavu, kuelekea polisi wa ubaguzi wa rangi, na kuelekea mtazamo wa wachache kama wahalifu, badala ya raia.""" "Mashirika ya Stanford Open Policing Project yamethibitisha kuwa ""waendeshaji weusi wana uwezekano mkubwa wa kukamatwa kuliko wazungu.""" Utafiti wa mwaka 2020 uligundua kuwa tofauti za rangi katika kusimamishwa kwa magari hupungua usiku wakati maafisa wana uwezekano mdogo wa kutambua jamii ya dereva. Hapa California, madereva weusi na wa Kilatino pia ni uwezekano mkubwa wa kuchunguzwa wanaposimamishwa. "Utaratibu huu wa polisi usio wa usawa ni hatari hasa tunapozingatia ukweli kwamba ""kusimamisha trafiki"" ni aina ya kawaida ya mwingiliano kati ya polisi na raia." "Kwa hivyo, mnamo 2021, Kituo chetu kiliunda ripoti na Kituo cha Sheria ya Uhalifu cha Stanford ili kuitisha miji kumaliza au kuzuia sana mazoezi hayo, pendekezo lililorudiwa kitaifa na wabunge na watetezi. """ Kwa sababu Wamarekani weusi na Watalintino huingiliana na polisi mara nyingi zaidi, wanakabiliwa na athari za utekelezaji wa sheria za barabarani za polisi kwa nguvu zaidi. Utafiti wa mwaka 2006 ulionyesha kuwa wanariadha wa kiume wa Kiafrika na Wamarekani wa asili ya Latino walikuwa na uwezekano mkubwa wa kuripoti kwamba polisi walifanya vibaya na walionekana kuwa na sababu isiyo halali ya kuwazuia kuliko wanariadha wa kiume weupe. Pia kuna athari mbaya ya kisaikolojia inayosababishwa na ongezeko la ufuatiliaji wa trafiki na polisi wa jamii za Weusi. Kwa sababu ya uthibitisho huu dhidi ya kukomesha kwa sababu, kwa nini polisi wameendelea kuzitumia? Polisi wanasema kuwa kusimamishwa kwa sababu ya udanganyifu kunaruhusu polisi kufanya kazi zao vizuri; kwa chombo hiki, polisi wanaweza kupunguza majeraha na vifo, kukamata wahalifu, na mara kwa mara kukamata bidhaa za magendo kama vile dawa za kulevya na silaha. Bila kusimamishwa kwa sababu za uwongo, barabara zetu hazingekuwa salama sana, maafisa husema. Hata hivyo, utafiti unaozidi kuongezeka unapinga hoja hiyo. Uchunguzi wa usimamizi wa trafiki wa North Carolina kutoka 2002 hadi 2020 uligundua kuwa dawa za kulevya zilikamatwa katika asilimia 0.53 tu ya usimamizi wote wa trafiki, wakati silaha zilikamatwa katika asilimia 0.11 tu. California ilichukua silaha za moto katika vituo 905 tu vya kuzuia trafiki kati ya milioni 3.4 zilizochukuliwa mnamo 2019. "Hizi ni gharama kubwa kwa jamii, kwa suala la citations punitive gharama kubwa kwa madereva na matumizi ya polisi taxpayer kufadhiliwa ambayo inaweza kuwa kushughulikia mahitaji mengine ya usalama wa umma. """ Baada ya maandamano ya watu wengi mwaka 2020, idara za polisi nchini kote zililazimika kuhalalisha mazoea yao kadhaa ya polisi, ikiwa ni pamoja na kusimamishwa kwa sababu. Na, katika kubadilisha kwa kasi mwenendo wa miongo kadhaa wa kupanua mamlaka ya uchunguzi wa polisi, mamlaka nyingi zilianza kupiga marufuku au kupunguza ukiukaji wa kiwango cha chini cha trafiki, na kuondoa polisi wa chombo cha kutekeleza sheria kilichokuwa na thamani. Jaribio la San Francisco la kudhibiti kusimamishwa kwa udanganyifu hutoa dirisha muhimu kwenye ahadi na changamoto za mageuzi haya ya sera. "Mapendekezo ya ""Kuzuia Marekebisho"" katika San Francisco Mara nyingi huitwa moja ya miji ya uhuru zaidi nchini Marekani, majaribio ya San Francisco kupitisha sera hii yalisababisha mapambano marefu, magumu." Sera hiyo ya marekebisho ilianzishwa kwa umma mnamo Mei 2022. Katika toleo la awali, Tume ya Polisi ilitafuta kupunguza aina 18 za kusimamishwa kwa trafiki. Hata hivyo, miezi kadhaa baadaye, Tume ya Polisi ilipunguza orodha hiyo hadi aina tisa za vituo na kuweka kura juu ya uamuzi huo. "Mfano wa ""Ukaguzi wa Usalama wa Trafiki"" ni sheria ya San Francisco ya mwaka wa 2007 na sheria ya San Francisco ya mwaka wa 2010." Kushindwa kuonyesha au kuweka vizuri sahani za leseni wakati sahani ya nyuma bado inaonekana na inaeleweka |2. Kutokuwa na vitambulisho vya usajili au kuendesha gari na usajili uliomalizika kwa zaidi ya mwaka mmoja. Kushindwa kuangaza nyuma ya plate ya leseni |4. Kuendesha gari bila kazi au taa za nyuma zilizoangazwa |5. Kuendesha gari bila kazi au taa za nyuma za breki zilizoangazwa |6. Kuendesha gari na vitu vilivyowekwa kwenye madirisha au vilivyotegemea kioo cha nyuma, isipokuwa kama inazalisha hali ambayo huongeza uwezekano wa ajali. Kutokuwa na mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo wa mwelekeo. Kulala ndani ya gari. "Kama mtu anajaribu kukomesha mwendo wa miguu kwa sababu ya kukiuka sheria ya magari ya California au sheria ya usafiri ya San Francisco, isipokuwa kuna hatari ya haraka ya mwendo wa miguu, ""Alisema." Mambo mawili yaliathiri marekebisho hayo. Kwanza, Tume ya Polisi ilipokea habari mpya. "Kwanza, wakati wa kuandaa orodha ya awali ya 18, Tume ya Polisi ilitaka kuhakikisha kwamba makosa ambayo hayakuwa na kipaumbele hayakuwa na athari kwa usalama wa umma. """ Kwa mujibu wa ripoti hiyo, hatua ya kuondoa makosa hayo 18 haikufanya barabara ziwe salama. Hata hivyo, Carter-Oberstone anatuambia kwamba data zaidi iligundua kwamba baadhi ya makosa haya yalikuwa yakisababisha baadhi ya ajali, kusimamishwa ambapo bidhaa za magendo ziligunduliwa, na kukamatwa. Nyingine hazikuwa zikisababisha kusimamishwa kabisa. Kwa Tume ya Polisi, ilikuwa muhimu kuwa na orodha ambayo maafisa wote wawili wangeweza kuifahamu kwa urahisi na bado wawe na athari waliyotaka kuona. Jambo jingine muhimu la kusisitiza: Wazo kwamba sera ya kuacha udanganyifu ilihaririwa ili kujibu changamoto maalum za usalama wa umma wa San Francisco. "Mabadiliko ya ""kusimamisha udanganyifu"" yameibuka kote nchini, lakini sera ambazo zina athari kubwa ni zile ambazo zimeboreshwa kwa masuala ya usalama, polisi, na haki ya kikabila yanayokabili jamii zao." Mwaka jana, Los Angeles ilipitisha marekebisho yake mwenyewe ya sera ya udanganyifu. Maofisa wa LAPD wameagizwa kufanya tu kuacha ambayo kwa kiasi kikubwa kuathiri usalama wa umma, sera ambayo inazuia zaidi ya makosa yasiyo ya kusonga na imekuwa kuonekana kama mbinu ya " ardhi ya kati. " Kwa kuongezea, maafisa wanaweza tu kuongeza uchunguzi wakati wa kusimamishwa kwa trafiki ikiwa wameona tabia ya kutilika shaka inayohusiana na uhalifu mwingine unaotokea wakati wa kusimamishwa. Matokeo yakawa nini? Maofisa wa LAPD walisimamisha madereva wachache sana na pia walikuwa na uwezekano mkubwa wa kupata bidhaa za magendo. Wakati wa kusimamishwa, maafisa pia walikuwa na uwezekano mdogo wa kuomba na kupata idhini ya dereva kuchunguza gari - mbinu inayojulikana kama "uchunguzi wa idhini" na kutumika na polisi wakati hawawezi kisheria kuanzisha utafutaji. Katika pwani ya Mashariki, miji kama Fayetteville, North Carolina imefuatilia marekebisho makubwa ya kuzuia udanganyifu. "Miongoni mwa maafisa wa polisi wa Fayetteville, Harold Medlock aliwaambia maafisa wake kuwa ""kuweka kipaumbele aina nne za kusimamishwa kwa usalama wa trafiki: kuendesha kwa kasi, kuvunja ishara za kuacha, kuendesha gari bila kujali.""" Matokeo yalikuwa kupungua kwa utafutaji wa magari kutoka kwa vituo vya trafiki, haswa kwa madereva weusi. Kulingana na Medlock, malalamiko dhidi ya maofisa pia yalipungua. Uchunguzi wa mwaka 2020 uligundua kuwa kusimamishwa kwa usalama kuliongezeka wakati vifo vya barabarani vilipungua. Baada ya kupokea maoni na wasiwasi kupitia mazungumzo ya umma, tafiti, na vikao vya kufungwa kwa maafisa wa polisi, Tume ya Polisi ilichukua maoni haya na kuitumia kuathiri sera ya kuacha udanganyifu. Mengi ya mapinduzi dhidi ya sera hiyo yalikuwa na mizizi katika mfumo wa msingi wa waathirika; kwamba na sera hii mahali, polisi ingekuwa kuzuia kutoka kukamata wanariadha wa kuvunja sheria na hivyo, chini ya uwezo wa kuhudumia waathirika wa uhalifu wa trafiki. San Francisco, kama miji mingine mingi mikubwa nchini, imechukuliwa na hotuba ngumu juu ya uhalifu, sababu kuu katika kushindwa kwa Mwanasheria wa Wilaya wa zamani Chesa Boudin katika uchaguzi wa kukumbusha wa 2022. Kwa kujibu ukosoaji kwamba sera hiyo itaumiza usalama wa umma, Carter-Oberstone anasema kwamba hofu hii haitegemei ukweli. "Kile tunachojua kwa hakika ni kwamba kusimamishwa kwa udanganyifu ni moja ya njia zisizo na ufanisi na zisizo na ufanisi za kuzuia na kuzuia uhalifu", anasema, akitaja viwango vyao vya chini vya uzalishaji wa bidhaa haramu na kukamatwa. Ili kuunga mkono madai haya, alitaja utafiti wa kujitegemea na data maalum ya San Francisco ambayo iliunda sera ya jiji. Hata hivyo, wakati upinzani wa mageuzi haukufanikiwa katika majaribio yake ya kuzuia sera hii iidhinishwe, juhudi zake za kisheria na za kushawishi zinaweza kusimama katika njia ya mageuzi zaidi ya polisi, katika San Francisco na zaidi. Nini cha pili kwa San Francisco na juhudi za Marekebisho ya Pretext Ingawa sera ya San Francisco ina idhini ya Tume ya Polisi, bado ina njia ndefu ya kwenda kabla ya kuanza kutumika. Shirika la maafisa wa polisi la San Francisco, ambalo ni shirika kubwa la polisi mjini, limetoa wito kwa serikali ya mji huo kuamua iwapo sheria hiyo itaathiri makubaliano ya kazi ya pamoja. Baada ya mazungumzo kumalizika, Tume itafanya kura tena juu ya makubaliano hayo; ikiwa sera hiyo itakubaliwa, idara ya polisi itakuwa na siku 30 hadi 60 za kuwazoeza maafisa kabla ya sera hiyo kuanza kutumika. Mkataba huo wa mwaka huu unajumuisha sheria ya Seneti ya California ya 50 (B.L. 50) ambayo inakusudia kukomesha kusimamishwa kwa magari kwa sababu ya udanganyifu katika jimbo lote la California. Athari za mageuzi ya San Francisco zitaeleweka kikamilifu tu baada ya kutekelezwa. Lakini, tayari, safari ya kufika kwenye hatua hii inaibua maswali yenye kupendeza. Ingawa jamii zilizowasukuma idara za polisi kubadilisha mazoea yao zimekaribisha sera za marekebisho ya kusimamisha udanganyifu kama hatua ya sehemu katika mjadala mkubwa, je, marekebisho haya muhimu, lakini ya kiasi yanayotangazwa na utekelezaji wa sheria yanamaanisha kumaliza mjadala kabisa? Ni muhimu kutambua thamani kubwa ya marekebisho ya kuzuia udanganyifu, kwa madhara yaliyopunguzwa kwa jamii za Weusi na Latinos, lakini pia pesa zilizookolewa kwa kuweka polisi kutumia vizuri kulinda jamii zao. Ni muhimu pia kuelewa jinsi sera hizi zinavyofaa katika mpango mkubwa wa kufikiria njia mpya, za ubunifu za kukuza usalama wa umma. Njia moja ni kuondoa kabisa jukumu la polisi la kudhibiti barabarani. Kwa njia gani? Tutashughulikia swali hili na zaidi katika utafiti wetu ujao juu ya kutekeleza trafiki inayoongozwa na raia.