9% searches without an outstanding warrant for blacks is quite clearly wrong, because 12% of blacks that are stopped are searched, and 8% (2/3 of those searched) of blacks that are stopped are arrested for pre-existing outstanding warrants. Arrests inherently entail searches and the numbers show that about 70% of searches of blacks occur as a result of an already in-process arrest (mostly for warrants). That only leaves about 1/3 of searches being due to factors other than an outstanding warrant.
You have to subtract the number of those with warrants from the number searched, for each race. For blacks, that means 562 - 369 = 193. And for Whites, 47 - 14 = 33. Then you divide these by the total number of stops for each group (also subtracting the warrants from the number of stops). For blacks that means 193 / (4632 - 369) = .045 or 4.5%. For whites that means 33 / (686 -14) = .049 or 4.9%. This gives you the % of stops that lead to searches, where the was no warrant. I had done them in my head with rounding but my earlier 4% versus 5% is pretty close to 4.5% versus 4.9%. Either way, whites are searched in a higher % of stops without warrants. Also, among drivers without warrants, the arrest rate is higher for whites (3.3%) than blacks (2.7%).
(snip)
The bottom line is that among the people in Ferguson without warrants for prior crimes that essentially guarantee a search and arrest,
blacks are LESS likely than whites to be either searched or arrested when pulled over.
That fact is incompatible with what is clearly predicted by any theory that the cops are so racist that they hunt for any excuse to hassle and arrest blacks, especially since people pulled over for a traffic or equipment violation would be easy targets for this.
The greater "stop" disparity is compatible with such a theory, but the overall disparity in stops is in line with the size predicted by the greater % of outstanding warrants among blacks, even if checking for warrants was by running a plate was done in proportion to population size. That said there is some unaccounted for disparities that might be due to racist hassling, such as the disparity in being pulled over for a moving violation. But again, the theory that this results from "invented" rather than real differences in violations by racist cops cannot predict a difference in invented stops without also predicting a difference in invented reasons for search and arrests, and yet the data refute such a prediction with searches and arrests.
Nice analysis. However, couldn't the higher search rate among whites compared to blacks without outstanding warrants indicate that blacks might be getting stopped more often, even when there is no reason to search? Whereas whites only get pulled over when there is more grounds for doing so, thus resulting in higher search ratio.
Neither blacks nor whites are being stopped
for the purpose of searching them. Unless there is a warrant that basically requires arrest and search (in that order), then less than 5% of non-warrant drivers of all racesget searched when pulled over. The vast majority of pull overs are for moving violations or improper licence plate with the latter being the reason with the greatest race discrepancy. That discrepancy is the one tied to paying registration fees, so it makes sense that poorer people would be most likely to have such a violation and blacks in Ferguson are disproportionately poor. OF the listed reasons for stop, arguably "moving violation" should be the one least likely to trigger a search since there is nothing suspicious about the vehicle itself and its not part of an "investigation" into a crime in the area. Yet, whites are stopped for a moving violation 68% of the time, while for blacks its only 48% of the time. So, it anything, the listed reasons for pull overs predict fewer searches of whites, even after removing the warrant-related searches. Are whites the victim of racism? If the numbers were flipped, we know that many here would claim evidence of anti-black racism, but I wouldn't infer anti-white racism from these numbers because there are too many unknowns. Whites have a 50% higher drug contraband hit rate, so maybe thats part of it. OTOH, blacks have
It would be interesting to compare also the contraband ratio for searches without warrant: lower ratio means the bar for searching someone is probably lower which could have racial motivation. If the blacks who are searched still have lower contraband ratio than whites, then it would indicate that despite being searched less often, it could still be racist.
The key would being "could", just as it "could" be 100 other things from age, time of day, number of people in the car, family vs group of young adults, etc.. Contrary to the strawman theory of AA and laughing dog, this doesn't mean that alternatives are given preference over racism, just basic rational consideration that so many are opposed to, and which makes the probability of any factor including racism, 1 / # of factors = very low without additional and more direct evidence supporting it over the others.
Also, if the ratio came out the other direction (as it does with ratio of unwarranted searches per stop) then those who oppose considering other factors would assume it was one of these factors and not even consider the possibility of anti-white racism. Maybe cops are arresting and searching blacks so often because they are so likely to have warrants, that when it comes to more subjective reasons for search, they have a bias against whites to try and even it out? This "could" be the case and would be as consistent with the data and anything in the data that appears consistent with an anti-black bias. But one would not rationally go beyond "could" in either case because their are just too many other variables that impacts all these outcomes, some of which likely covary with race.
As to contraband, we don't have contraband hit rates specifically for non-warrant searches, but if we assume that contraband is spread evenly over warrant and non-drivers of both races, then white non-warrant drivers would have higher hit rates for drug contraband, but blacks would have higher hit rates for the far more serious crimes of possessing weapons or stolen property. While drugs are more likely, weapons and stolen property are far worse in most peoples minds (and that includes cops). So, what does that mean? It means that we cannot infer anything meaningful from such numbers. Also, contraband hitrates are posterior probabilities and thus are consequences of and not causes of search. You cannot infer that because something was found there was more reason to search for it. What matters is a priori probabilities in the cops heads. That is where racism is predicted to have its impact. Despite whites actually having more drugs revealed by searches, racist cops would assume a priori that blacks have more drugs or just want to search them for the fun of it. Thus, the racism hypothesis predicts a greater search rate of blacks, regardless of of contraband hit rates. Yet, this prediction fails, since whites are searched more based upon cops subjective suspicions (i.e., reasons other than existing warrant).
The bottom line is that the racism hypothesis makes several predictions, and some are consistent with the data, while some are contradicted by the data, and all the data has many unmeasured and uncontrolled factors that confound the results and make many alternatives equally consistent with the data. Any reasonable person would look at that data and say that it looks a lot like the kind of inconsistent and unreliable relationships predicted by the null hypothesis of no racism influence, and provides as much reason to doubt as to support the racist hypothesis. About the only hypothesis that can be ruled out by the data is the one that anti-black racism is strong enough to exert an consistent influence and override the influence of other factors, because that would yield consistent anti-black disparities, regardless of warrants, contraband hit-rates, etc..
