1
City of Los Angeles
Alternatives to Traffic Enforcement
Study and Community Task Force
Recommendations
September 2023
Prepared for the Los Angeles Department of Transportation
ITEM 4A
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary | 3
I. Context and Framing | 12
II. Project Overview | 17
III. Research Findings | 20
IV. Recommendations | 77
V. Appendices | 86
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report explores options for the City of Los Angeles to pursue “alternative models and
methods that do not rely on armed law enforcement to achieve transportation policy
objectives.”
1
The study is the final deliverable in response to Council Motion CF-20-0875, which
directed the Department of Transportation (LADOT) to manage the production of this document.
This report represents the culmination of over a year’s worth of work undertaken at the behest
of Council and in coordination with the City Working Group, Consultant Team, and Advisory
Task Force. This report provides recommendations for the City Council to consider as it studies
the feasibility of proposed policy changes.. The executive summary includes context and
background for the study, provides an overview of research findings, and summarizes taskforce-
led recommendations.
A. Study Context and Background
This study was initiated in 2020 in the wake of national protests following the murder of
George Floyd. In response to communities’ persistent calls for public safety approaches
that limit the role of police, the Los Angeles City Council passed a motion in October 2020.
The Council Motion (CF-20-0875) directed the Los Angeles Department of Transportation
(LADOT) to oversee this study that evaluates opportunities for unarmed traffic enforcement
in the city.
B. Study Participants
This study included participants from three groups: (1) the City Working Group, (2) the
Consultant Team, and (3) the Traffic Enforcement Alternatives Advisory Task Force. The
role of each is summarized below.
1. City Working Group
The City Working Group includes representatives from City of Los Angeles
departments named in the Council Motion, including the Department of
Transportation (LADOT), Police Department (LAPD), City Administrative Officer
(CAO), City Attorney, and Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA). This working group
informed the project’s parameters, supported LADOT in selecting Advisory Task
Force members, and reviewed deliverables.
2. Consultant Team
The City Working Group selected the consultant team for this study. The team
included the following firms: Estolano Advisors, Equitable Cities, Nelson\Nygaard,
and the Law Office of Julian Gross. The consultant team developed the study in
collaboration with the City’s Traffic Enforcement Alternatives Advisory Task Force.
3. Traffic Enforcement Alternatives Advisory Task Force
City Council tasked LADOT with selecting and seating an advisory task force to co-
develop recommendations with the consultant team. The advisory body included 13
members with personal and professional experience related to traffic safety, public
health, mental health, racial equity, academia, and criminal justice. A full list of task
force members is included in Appendix B.
1
Los Angeles City Council (2021). Council File: 20-0875 – Transportation Policy Objectives/Alternative Models and
Methods/Unarmed Law Enforcement. Council Adopted Item. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-0875
4
C. Quantitative Research Findings
The quantitative analysis focused on a descriptive analysis of California Racial and
Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data. RIPA was enacted in 2015 to create a standard
set of data that police departments in California must report publicly. LAPD and
LADOT provided additional data for the quantitative analysis, including information
related to traffic-related collisions, injuries, and deaths. The consultant team
analyzed the last three years of available RIPA data (2019 – 2021) and did a sub-
analysis of data from April – September of 2022 to highlight changes linked to
LAPD’s revised pretextual stop policy. Please see Section IV.B for a detailed
methodology. The key findings are summarized below:
1. LAPD is making fewer stops overall, but traffic stops are
concentrated in certain neighborhoods.
The total number of traffic stops have dropped since 2019. Stops are
concentrated in neighborhoods in and around Hollywood, South Los Angeles,
and Downtown. Most stops are related to traffic violations, with speeding
being the most common infraction. However, stops for speeding only
represent 16% of all traffic violation stops, with slightly more than half of
speeding stops resulting in a driver being issued a citation.
2. Data show disproportionate stops by race.
Considering their share of the city’s population, Black drivers are stopped
more frequently than other racial/ethnic groups. Black travelers are also
subject to more actions (e.g., a police officer drawing a weapon or using force
against an individual) during stops. While police use of force is uncommon
during traffic stops, when these actions do occur, they are used
disproportionately against Black drivers.
3. The revised pretextual stop policy shifted traffic stop
patterns, but disparities persist.
LAPD’s revised pretextual stop policy of March 2022
2
requires officers to
state the reason for initiating a stop. In the six months since the policy change
went into effect, a higher percentage of stops were made for moving
violations compared to the same six-month period in the prior year. The
proportion of Black drivers who were stopped after the policy change declined
from the previous year, but Black drivers continue to be pulled over at higher
rates.
D. Qualitative Research Findings
The qualitative analysis focused on a series of community and practitioner
stakeholder focus groups. These focus groups were augmented by expert
interviews with academics and legal scholars. Please refer to Sections IV.D and
2
Los Angeles Police Department (2022). “Policy – Limitation on Use of Pretextual Stops – Established.” Office of the
Chief of Police. Retrieved from:
<https://lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/lapdonlinemedia/2022/03/3_9_22_SO_No._3_Policy_Limitati
on_on_Use_of_Pretextual_Stops_Established.pdf>
5
IV.E for a more detailed methodology and Appendices H-L for interview protocols
and summary presentations.
1. Focus Group Takeaways
While this study was specifically focused on traffic enforcement, many focus
group participants shared their perception of safety to be about more than
just traffic and traffic violence. For example, some expressed a desire for less
enforcement and more human services when discussing traffic safety issues.
Below is a summary of focus group feedback.
a. Traffic stops involve heightened emotions and power
imbalances.
Participants acknowledged that both drivers and police officers have
heightened emotions during stops. Yet, several participants felt that each
stop is rife with power imbalances with officers holding all the power.
b. Speeding and driver aggressiveness is a major concern.
Many participants defined speeding as the top traffic problem in Los
Angeles. Most participants expressed the sentiment that speeding got
worse during the pandemic.
c. Infrastructure improvements are needed.
This project was initially scoped to only speak to traffic enforcement-
related issues. However, in every focus group, the consultant team heard
from participants that they wanted to see the streets engineered
differently and more infrastructure built to combat the issues they were
identifying. Participants identified more protective infrastructure for non-
drivers as a key need.
d. We should bolster active transportation to increase safety.
Many participants opined that they felt unsafe in the city when they were
not in a car. To improve safety, participants suggested more investments
in modes of transportation other than private, single-occupancy vehicles.
e. There are terminology concerns re: “enforcement
alternatives.”
Not all participants are sure what “enforcement alternatives” mean. In
each focus group, participants asked facilitators to offer more explanation
about the term’s definition. After the facilitators offered more context,
many participants expressed a desire for the City to be clearer messaging
on this topic.
2. Expert Interview Takeaways
In addition to the focus groups, the consultant team conducted a series of
interviews with traffic safety experts. Interviewees had experience working
with jurisdictions attempting to reduce the use of armed police officers
performing traffic enforcement. The key takeaways are summarized below:
6
a. Adopt a comprehensive approach to traffic safety.
Interviewees suggested that traffic safety and Vision Zero frameworks
should consider a holistic understanding of traffic violence. In addition to
promoting physical safety, this approach would also account for the role
that racial discrimination plays in enforcement. It would acknowledge the
stress that people experience related to biased enforcement (e.g., an
individual’s fear of being stopped by police).
b. Shift the focus from enforcement to prevention.
Interviewees emphasized shifting focus from enforcement to prevention.
Prevention could include improving infrastructure or expanding social
programs, and these measures should be treated as an important
component of traffic safety. Rather than rely on increased enforcement,
police can defer to the department of transportation to solve street design
problems and ultimately increase traffic safety.
c. Training has its limits.
Interviewees shared that training alone is an insufficient reform
mechanism for addressing the disparities in traffic enforcement. They
note that years of training reforms have not had the effect of significantly
reducing disparities or meaningfully building community trust. These
trainings fail to critically interrogate the history of traffic stops; instead,
they focus on improving enforcement agencies’ work within the existing
context.
d. Bring employee unions into the conversation early.
Bring unions into conversations about shifting staff responsibilities early in
the process to mitigate potential conflict and promote successful
implementation. Jurisdictions should consider strategies to engage all
affected unions to define how (or if) roles will change, surface key labor
concerns, and work with union leadership to address issues.
3. Legal Considerations
City Council requested that this study include a review of relevant state and
local laws, and interviews with legal experts to assist the consultant team and
the Task Force in developing recommendations. The legal team reviewed the
Los Angeles Municipal Code, the California Vehicle Code, the California
Penal Code and other relevant traffic laws (for a more detailed methodology,
please see Section IV.F). Please note that references to specific code
sections are included in the report’s footnotes. The legal backdrop informs
the scope of recommendations. The legal team focused on the following: (a)
Options to shift enforcement from police, (b) Collective bargaining
considerations, (c) Options to reduce fines, and (d) Laws related to automatic
enforcement.
7
a. Options to Shift Traffic Enforcement Authority Away from
Police Officers
The legal team considered mechanisms that the City of Los Angeles may
consider if it chooses to move to an alternative traffic enforcement model.
Below, is a description of each option:
i. Utilize local employees who are not “peace officers” – for traffic
enforcement generally, or for enforcement of “infractions.”
The City may consider full “civilianization” of traffic enforcement –
i.e., utilizing workers who do not constitute “peace officers” under
state law. Whether the City has discretion to do this broadly under
the Vehicle Code is an open question of state law.
ii. Employ “peace officers” outside of LAPD.
Another option is to utilize employees outside of LAPD, but with
peace officer status to enforce traffic violations. However, only the
employees listed in the penal code as peace officers can have peace
officer status.
iii. Establish a new unarmed unit of LAPD officers.
Third, LAPD could establish a new unit of police officers that
enforces traffic laws but does not carry firearms. State law does not
require any police officers to carry firearms, but rather permits local
agencies to decide if and to what extent they will allow their officers
to carry firearms.
3
b. Public Sector Collective Bargaining
Legal experts and legal research indicated that lengthy, contested
collective bargaining procedures often delay or sideline efforts to revise or
reform law enforcement practices. This issue has affected police reform
efforts to the degree that multiple national advocacy organizations have
established dedicated public websites and databases to track the effects
of police union contracts on reform efforts.
4
Like every public entity in
California, the City of Los Angeles, including both its Department of
Transportation and its Police Department, is subject to state law
regarding collective bargaining negotiations with employees.
5
c. City’s Authority to Reduce Fines for Various Traffic Violations
Some recommendations in this report include consideration of reducing
fines, or creating progressive or means-based fine structures, for various
low-level traffic violations. Within parameters set by the State, local
jurisdictions have discretion over the amount of fines and can set fines to
amounts below the State-allowed maximums for most infractions. As
such, the City may lower fines and/or create a progressive or means-
based fine structure as long as the new fine amounts comply with the
limitations set forth in the Vehicle Code.
3
See e.g., id. at §§ 830.33(c), 830.3(c)-(k), 830.38.
4
See, e.g., NAACP Legal Defense Fund Toolkit, August 2020 (summary); Police Union Contracts & Police Bill of
Rights Analysis, Campaign Zero, 2016 (summary).
5
See Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”) (Gov. Code § 3500 et seq.).
8
d. State Law Regarding Automated Traffic Enforcement
Although not reflected in the final recommendations, the task force
considered a recommendation related to automation of traffic
enforcement. State law permits automated systems at traffic light
intersections, commonly known as “red light cameras,”
6
however it
prohibits the use of automated systems to enforce speeding violations.
7
At this time, the City could only use automated enforcement for red light
violations, but not for speeding, unless there is a change in state law
E. Recommendations
Below is a summary of the recommendations developed by the community
advisory task force and consultant team (see Section V for a more detailed
summary of how the recommendations were developed). In framing the
recommendations, task force members acknowledged that robust community
engagement should be a guiding principle underpinning each action. Additional
research and analysis will also be needed before implementation. If the City
Council chooses to move forward with any of the recommendations listed below,
the City should engage in broad, authentic, and robust community engagement
before, during, and after implementation to ensure sustained community support.
These recommendations inform a set potential pilots described in Section V.C.
1. Prioritize Self-Enforcing Infrastructure
Increase and prioritize self-enforcing infrastructure investments (without
increasing surveillance) in high-injury network corridors, low-income
communities, and communities of color. This recommendation calls for
increased investment in “self-enforcing infrastructure,” which refers to road
features that naturally slow traffic and discourage drivers from breaking traffic
rules. These improvements increase safety and reduce the need for active
enforcement (See Appendix E for a Task Force-led literature review on this
topic).
2. Eliminate Police Enforcement of Non-Moving and
Equipment-Related Traffic Violations
LAPD’s 2022 Pretextual Stop Policy limits traffic enforcement to violations that
have a nexus to public safety. We recommend eliminating enforcement of all
non-moving and equipment-related traffic violations by police. Ultimately, the
goal of this recommendation is to limit interactions between police and
motorists by eliminating police enforcement of non-moving and equipment-
related violations. This recommendation expands on LAPD’s March 2022 policy
change,
8
which limits pretextual stops. It is also informed by policies enacted in
other cities like Philadelphia, where they limited the ability of police to stop
motorists for specific minor violations.
6
Vehicle Code § 21455.5(a).
7
Id. at § 40801.
8
Los Angeles Police Department (2022). “Policy – Limitation on Use of Pretextual Stops – Established.” Office of the
Chief of Police. Retrieved from:
<https://lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/lapdonlinemedia/2022/03/3_9_22_SO_No._3_Policy_Limitati
on_on_Use_of_Pretextual_Stops_Established.pdf>
9
3. Implement Alternative Traffic Fine and Fee Models
Consider alternative fine and fee models (e.g., means-based) that advance
traffic safety objectives and do not perpetuate enforcement disparities. This
recommendation aims to ensure that enforcement promotes traffic safety
objectives and does not reinforce disproportionate burdens for low-income
communities and communities of color. Alternatives to traffic fines can help
shift enforcement away from punitive fines and toward prevention. Where
possible, Council may consider a system where local fines for safety-related
infractions are tied to incomes, a practice that is used in other jurisdictions
globally.
4. Improve Local Officer Accountability Mechanisms
Identify local obstacles that limit officer accountability and reduce the ability of
the Chief of Police to discipline officers for misconduct (e.g., excessive use of
force, racial profiling, and other violations); identify strategies to overcome
these obstacles. This recommendation emphasizes the importance of enforcing
penalties for officer misconduct and the removal of local obstacles that limit
officer accountability and discipline.
10
5. Deploy Unarmed Civilians and Care-Centered Teams to
Address Traffic Safety Issues
Use unarmed civilians, who are focused exclusively on road safety, to enforce
safety-related traffic violations (e.g., speeding). Create care-based teams
responsible for responding to traffic-related calls for service. The main goal of
this recommendation is to transfer traffic enforcement responsibilities to
unarmed teams as a means of eliminating lethal and less-lethal weapons from
traffic enforcement. This recommendation also calls for unarmed teams of care-
centered, behavioral health specialists to respond to traffic-related calls for
service when a clear behavioral health issue is present. The proposed
recommendation builds on efforts in several cities reviewed for this study— (1)
Berkeley, California; (2) Oakland, California; and (3) Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania—that are working to transfer specific traffic enforcement
responsibilities to unarmed civilians.
11
I. CONTEXT AND FRAMING
A. Los Angeles City Council Motion and Impetus for
This Study
In 2020, the murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by a Minneapolis police
officer led to protests across the country, including in Los Angeles.
9
As a result of
local protests and persistent calls for non-law enforcement alternatives, the Los
Angeles City Council passed a motion in October 2020. The Council Motion (CF-
20-0875) directed the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) to
conduct a study that evaluates opportunities for unarmed traffic enforcement in
the city.
Since the launch of this study in February 2022, several developments have
influenced the study’s findings and approach. In March 2022, the Los Angeles
Police Commission approved a policy limiting pretextual stops to safety-related
incidents and setting requirements for officers that pursue these types of stops.
10
11
Further, in October 2022, City Council approved a motion to explore an Office
of Unarmed Response and Safety for the city.
12
13
More recently, LAPD’s largest employee union noted that they are “looking to
have officers stop responding to more than two dozen types of calls, transferring
those duties to other city agencies while focusing on more serious crimes.”
14
9
City of Minneapolis. (2023). 38th and Chicago. 38th and Chicago - City of Minneapolis. Retrieved March 7, 2023,
from https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/programs-initiatives/38th-chicago/
10
Rector, K. (2022, March 2). New limits on 'pretextual stops' by LAPD officers approved, riling police union. Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-01/new-limits-on-
pretextual-stops-by-lapd-to-take-effect-this-summer-after-training
11
Los Angeles Police Department (2022). “Policy – Limitation on Use of Pretextual Stops – Established.” Office of the
Chief of Police. Retrieved from:
<https://lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/lapdonlinemedia/2022/03/3_9_22_SO_No._3_Policy_Limitati
on_on_Use_of_Pretextual_Stops_Established.pdf>
12
Los Angeles City Council (2021). Council File: 20-0875 – Transportation Policy Objectives/Alternative Models and
Methods/Unarmed Law Enforcement. Council Adopted Item. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-0875
13
KCAL-News Staff. (2022, October 8). La City Council to consider 'office of unarmed response'. CBS News.
Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/la-city-council-to-consider-office-of-
unarmed-response/
14
Zahnisher, D. (2023, March 1). LAPD should stop handling many non-emergency calls,the police union says. Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved March 20, 2023 from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-01/lapd-officers-
want-to-stop-responding-to-nonviolent-calls
12
B. History and Origins of Traffic Enforcement
This report explores options for the City of Los Angeles to pursue “alternative
models and methods that do not rely on armed law enforcement to achieve
transportation policy objectives.”
15
In a motion presented to the Ad Hoc
Committee on Police Reform, councilmembers noted that the impetus for this
study is a legacy of racialized policing in the City of Los Angeles and nationwide,
where police officers “have long used minor traffic infractions as a pretext for
harassing vulnerable road users and profiling people of color.”
16
In keeping with
Council’s stated intent, this section offers an abridged overview of the history of
policing, beginning in the 20
th
Century with the advent of the automobile. This
history is not exhaustive; it is intended to ground readers in the larger historic and
social contexts that inform this report’s analysis and the accompanying
recommendations. Additional information can be found in Appendix R: History
and Origins of Traffic Enforcement.
1. How Cars Transformed Policing
The twentieth century saw the rise of the automobile as a primary mode of
travel; with it, came a transformation in how the public interacted with police
officers. In many respects, the ubiquity of the automobile – and the reliance on
armed law enforcement to address traffic safety concerns – meant that traffic
stops “became one of the most common settings for individual encounters with
the police.”
17
Driving presented new hazards in public spaces, leading local governments to
pass a raft of laws to regulate space, assign rights of way, and govern the use
of vehicles.
18
The language in these new laws was often vague. For example,
California’s Motor Vehicle Act of 1915 “prohibited driving ‘at a rate of speed . .
. greater than is reasonable and proper.’”
19
Determining what was considered
“reasonable” or “proper” necessarily relied on the discretion of the enforcing
body. But police enforcement of these norms was not a foregone conclusion,
with some police departments actively resisting the task of enforcing traffic
laws.
20
In some cases, “police chiefs complained that traffic control was ‘a
separate and distinct type of service’ – i.e., it was not their job.”
21
While
15
Los Angeles City Council (2021). Council File: 20-0875 – Transportation Policy Objectives/Alternative Models and
Methods/Unarmed Law Enforcement. Council Adopted Item. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-0875
16
Los Angeles City Council (2020). Council File: 20-0875 – Transportation Policy Objectives/Alternative Models and
Methods/Unarmed Law Enforcement. Motion Document(s) Referred to the Ad Hoc Committee on Police Reform.
Retrieved March 30, 2023, from
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-0875
17
Seo, S. (2016). The New Public. Yale Law Journal. Retrieved on April 3, 2023 from
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3825&context=faculty_scholarship: p. 1625
18
Seo, S. (2016). The New Public. Yale Law Journal. Retrieved on April 3, 2023 from
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3825&context=faculty_scholarship: p. 1635
19
Seo, S. (2016). The New Public. Yale Law Journal. Retrieved on April 3, 2023 from
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3825&context=faculty_scholarship: p. 1636
20
Seo, S. (2016). The New Public. Yale Law Journal. Retrieved on April 3, 2023 from
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3825&context=faculty_scholarship: p. 1637
21
Seo, S. (2016). The New Public. Yale Law Journal. Retrieved on April 3, 2023 from
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3825&context=faculty_scholarship: p. 1637
13
separate bureaucracies had been created to enforce certain types of laws
(e.g., postal inspectors and secret service agents), “a lack in political will to
foot the bill for yet another bureaucratic entity" meant that traffic regulation
would fall on the police.
22
This represented an expansion of police powers over the traveling public. It
embedded a system where traffic safety issues are first and foremost handled
by police, and it established the broad discretionary powers that police
departments use when enforcing voluminous and complex traffic safety laws.
Indeed, it represented a transformation in how police and policing showed up
in the daily lives of all Americans.
23
Given the history of law enforcement in the
U.S., the implications for marginalized groups (e.g., Black communities,
Indigenous populations, Latino communities, migrants, low-income
communities) were particularly dire.
C. Los Angeles’ Context
In Los Angeles, police brutality against Black residents during traffic stops has
been tied to multiple uprisings, leading to local, state, and national calls for police
reform. In the 1960s, the Watts Rebellion made headlines as part of the larger,
nationwide movement against police brutality. The arrest of a 21-year-old Black
man, Marquette Frye, for drunk driving close to the Watts neighborhood, and the
ensuing struggle, sparked six days of unrest. The uprising resulted in 34 deaths,
over 1,000 injuries, nearly 4,000 arrests, and the destruction of property valued
at $40 million.
24
As a result of the rebellions, Governor Jerry Brown appointed a
commission to study the underlying factors and identify recommendations in
various policy areas, including police reform. In its report, the Commission cited
the lack of job and education opportunities and the resentment of the police as
key contributors to the uprisings, which were ignited by the brutal actions taken
against Frye during the traffic stop.
25
The report also recommended a
strengthened Board of Police Commissioners to oversee the police department.
Likewise, the report supported recruiting more Black and Latino police officers as
a means of improving the community-police relationship.
26
Despite the lessons gleaned from the Watts Rebellion, the 1990s saw another
uprising in response to police brutality during a traffic stop. In 1992, Rodney King,
a 25-year-old Black man, was brutally beaten and arrested by four police officers
22
Seo, S. (2016). The New Public. Yale Law Journal. Retrieved on April 3, 2023 from
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3825&context=faculty_scholarship: p. 1637-8
23
Seo, S. (2016). The New Public. Yale Law Journal. Retrieved on April 3, 2023 from
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3825&context=faculty_scholarship: p. 1638
24
Stanford University. (2018, June 5). Watts Rebellion (Los Angeles). The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and
Education Institute. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/watts-rebellion-los-
angeles
25
California. Governor's Commission on the Los Angeles Riots. (1965). Violence in the city: An end or a beginning?:
A report. HathiTrust. The Commission. Retrieved 2023, from
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433081793618&amp;view=1up&amp;seq=12.
26
California. Governor's Commission on the Los Angeles Riots. (1965). Violence in the city: An end or a beginning?:
A report. HathiTrust. The Commission. Retrieved 2023, from
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433081793618&amp;view=1up&amp;seq=12.
14
and later charged with driving under influence.
27
The four officers were charged
with excessive use of force, but were all acquitted one year later. The widely
circulated video of King’s beating and the news about the officers’ acquittal
ignited days of violent unrest in the city, especially in the Historic South Central
neighborhood. The city employed a curfew and the National Guard to respond to
the uprising. While the 1992 unrest shared parallels with the Watts uprisings, “the
conflagration that took hold after the King trial wasn’t constrained to that
neighborhood and was not restricted to Black Angelenos.”
28
Instead, the ensuing
unrest “constituted the first multiethnic class riot in American history, an eruption
of fury at the socioeconomic structures that excluded and exploited so many in
Southern California.”
29
In 2000 the City of Los Angeles entered a consent decree with the federal
government. Instead of fighting a federal civil rights lawsuit “alleging a ‘pattern-
and-practice’ of police misconduct, the Mayor, City Council, Police Commission,
and Police Department signed a ‘consent decree’ with the U.S. Department of
Justice, giving the Federal District Court jurisdiction to oversee the LAPD’s
adoption of a series of specific management, supervisory, and enforcement
practices.”
30
In an evaluation of the effectiveness of the decree, researchers
found that the strong police leadership and oversight brought by the consent
decree have made policing in Los Angeles more respectful and effective,
although there is still more to be done.
31
In 2009, 83 percent of residents
reported that LAPD was “doing a good or excellent job,” up from 71 percent two
years prior. In 2005, 44 percent of surveyed residents reported that the police
“treat members of all racial and ethnic groups fairly ‘almost all of the time’ or
‘most of the time.’”
32
By 2009, that figure increased to 51 percent. The underlying
reforms driving these changes included the following:
▪ Implementing new data systems to track officers’ performance and
proactively alert supervisors if there are indicators that officers are violating
protocol.
▪ Updating policies, rules, definitions, and management strategies to govern
the use of force by officers.
▪ Tracking stops “of motor vehicles and pedestrians, breaking down the
patterns by race and ethnicity, by the reasons for the stops, and by the
27
Krbechek, A. S., and Bates, K. G. (2017, April 26). When La erupted in anger: A look back at the Rodney King
Riots. NPR. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://www.npr.org/2017/04/26/524744989/when-la-erupted-in-anger-a-
look-back-at-the-rodney-king-riots
28
Muhammad, I. (2022). What Were the L.A. Riots? The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/28/magazine/la-riot-timeline-photos.html
29
Muhammad, I. (2022). What Were the L.A. Riots? The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/28/magazine/la-riot-timeline-photos.html
30
Stone, C., Foglesong, T., and Cole, C. M. (2009). (rep.). Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree: The
Dynamics of Change at the LAPD. Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved 2023, from
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/policing-los-angeles-under-consent-decree-dynamics-change-lapd: 2.
31
Stone, C., Foglesong, T., and Cole, C. M. (2009). (rep.). Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree: The
Dynamics of Change at the LAPD. Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved 2023, from
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/policing-los-angeles-under-consent-decree-dynamics-change-lapd.
32
Stone, C., Foglesong, T., and Cole, C. M. (2009). (rep.). Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree: The
Dynamics of Change at the LAPD. Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved 2023, from
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/policing-los-angeles-under-consent-decree-dynamics-change-lapd: 1.
15
results of the stops in terms of crime detected” (like the data analyzed for this
study).
▪ Implementing new policies and management systems for the anti-gang unit
and other special divisions
33
With these updated systems in place, the LAPD reported reductions in use of
force incidents, while also seeing reductions in overall crime levels. While the
study notes significant improvements, the authors also provide caveats, noting
that there are “many LA residents, police officers, and arrestees who remain
deeply unhappy with the performance of the police department and who want to
see more improvement.” They also note that administrative data indicated some
uneven results; “for example, the use of force is down overall, but not in every
division.”
34
Still, the independent evaluation finds that the overall trend is positive,
with growing community trust and reduced use of force incidents overall.
33
Stone, C., Foglesong, T., and Cole, C. M. (2009). (rep.). Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree: The
Dynamics of Change at the LAPD. Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved 2023, from
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/policing-los-angeles-under-consent-decree-dynamics-change-lapd: 5.
34
Stone, C., Foglesong, T., and Cole, C. M. (2009). (rep.). Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree: The
Dynamics of Change at the LAPD. Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved 2023, from
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/policing-los-angeles-under-consent-decree-dynamics-change-lapd: 2.
16
II. PROJECT OVERVIEW
A. City Working Group
The City Working Group includes representatives from City of Los Angeles
departments named in the Council Motion (CF-20-0875) and directed by Council
to perform the work (See Appendix A for full Council Motion). Participating City
departments include Department of Transportation (LADOT), Police Department
(LAPD), City Administrative Officer (CAO), City Attorney, and Chief Legislative
Analyst (CLA). The City Working Group informed the development of the
Request for Proposals, supported LADOT in soliciting and selecting members of
the Traffic Enforcement Alternatives Advisory Task Force, and reviewed draft
project deliverables. LAPD, LADOT, and City Attorney’s Office consistently
attended Task Force meetings, made presentations to the Task Force on various
topics related to traffic enforcement, and provided data sources to the consultant
team to inform the quantitative and qualitative analyses. The City Attorney’s
Office attended Task Force meetings, provided legal guidance on an ongoing
basis, and guided LADOT on how to approach issues related to the Task Force
and the Brown Act. The working group were given the opportunity to review and
provide feedback at various stages of the study and project deliverables.
B. Consultant Team
The City Working Group selected the consultant team for this study. The team
consisted of the following firms with the associated scopes of work:
▪ Estolano Advisors: Consultant team project manager and responsible for
providing Task Force meeting facilitation support.
▪ Equitable Cities: Research team responsible for conducting a case study
literature review, quantitative analysis, and qualitative analysis.
▪ Nelson\Nygaard: Research team support responsible for leading the expert
interviews, supporting Equitable Cities with the focus groups, and identifying
next steps for outreach.
▪ Law Office of Julian Gross: Legal team responsible for conducting
interviews and research on legal questions arising from the study’s proposed
recommendations.
The consultant team developed the study and executed the scope of work
described above in collaboration with the City’s Traffic Enforcement Alternatives
Advisory Task Force (See Section III.C).
C. Traffic Enforcement Alternatives Advisory Task
Force
1. Background and Task Force Selection
The City Council motion directed LADOT to develop an advisory task force to
provide recommendations on traffic safety alternatives. The resulting Traffic
Enforcement Alternatives Advisory Task Force provided guidance and
feedback on the consultant team’s deliverables and co-developed study
17
recommendations with the consultant team. The Task Force met eleven (11)
times from June 2022 through August 2023.
The Task Force consisted of thirteen (13) members with personal and
professional experience in traffic safety, public health, mental health, racial
equity, academia, and criminal justice (See Appendix B for a full Task Force
roster). Members were selected through a two-step process, which began
with a Google Form application, followed by interviews with representatives
from the City Working Group (LADOT and LAPD) and the consultant team
(See Appendix C for the application form). To recruit participants, LADOT
conducted outreach via its existing listserv. The City received 76 applications
and interviewed 11 applicants to learn more information. The City Working
Group ultimately selected 13 applicants to serve as Task Force members.
Eight applicants were selected on the strength of their initial application; four
members went through an interview process conducted by the City Working
Group; and one member was appointed from the Community Police Advisory
Board (C-PAB). A minimum of three (3) slots were made available for
members of the C-PAB, but only one member expressed interest and
responded to the call to participate in the Task Force. The applicants were
selected based on selection criteria and score (See Appendix C for selection
criteria).
2. Public Task Force Meetings
The Task Force served as a public body, which required the City and
members to comply with requirements outlined in California’s Ralph M. Brown
Act. These requirements included ensuring that the City posted meeting
materials at least 72 hours prior to each meeting and providing time during
each meeting for public comment. Task Force members also needed to
identify a President and Vice President, whom they elected during the
September 2022 meeting (See Appendix B for elected members). Task Force
President and Vice President were responsible for facilitating meetings,
including calling for the start of each meeting, calling for votes, monitoring
timing for general public comment, and calling for meeting adjournment. The
consultant team facilitator was also available to facilitate specific agenda
items, dependent on the content.
To comply with the AB 361 requirements for teleconferencing for Brown Act
bodies, Task Force meetings took place on a roughly monthly basis and
lasted between 90 minutes and two hours. To kick start this project, the
research team and Task Force held preparatory meetings starting in June
2022. Meetings covered a range of topics related to the study, including the
following (See Appendix D for Task Force meeting summary):
▪ Task Force responsibilities and administrative requirements
▪ Problem statement discussion
▪ Review of and feedback on consultant team deliverables
▪ LAPD’s existing and new policies, including the March 2022 pretextual
stops policy
▪ Task Force-led self-enforcing streets literature review
▪ Review of draft study findings and recommendations
18
3. Task Force Research Subcommittee
To increase coordination with the consultant team and provide a dedicated
space for the Task Force to share input on consultant team deliverables,
members voted to create a Research Subcommittee during the November
2022 meeting. The committee, which consisted of five members, met five
times between December 2022 and March 2023. Meeting topics were closely
aligned with previous or upcoming Task Force meeting topics and were
designed to preview consultant team deliverables for feedback from this
smaller group prior to presentations to the full Task Force.
4. Self-enforcing Infrastructure Literature Review
During the October 2022 Task Force meeting, several members called for the
study to include discussion and recommendations related to self-enforcing
street design as a method of alternative traffic enforcement. The City’s initial
Task Order did not include an analysis of infrastructure-related policies as a
component of the study. Members emphasized that street design treatments
– including narrower streets, wider sidewalks, enhancements for pedestrian
crossings, protected bike lanes, landscaping, etc. – can compel individuals to
abide by traffic laws by using design interventions to slow traffic.
In response, the Task Force voted in November 2022 to produce a Task
Force-led literature review for the final study. One member led the
development of this study, with feedback from the Task Force and Research
Subcommittee at several touch points. The Task Force approved the final
literature review during the February 16, 2023 meeting (See Appendix E)
19
III. RESEARCH FINDINGS
The consultant team worked with the Traffic Enforcement Alternatives Advisory Task
Force, LADOT staff, and City stakeholders, to develop a research approach focused on
providing comprehensive and effective solutions to traffic enforcement disparities that
are responsive to Los Angeles’ unique context. As part of the study approach, the
consultant team worked with the Task Force to define and confirm the research problem
statement. The team utilized the problem statement to build out three main research
questions:
▪ What are other cities, counties, police departments, and governmental bodies doing
about traffic enforcement nationwide?
▪ What does the reported LAPD policing data show about near-recent (2019-2021)
traffic stops?
▪ How do Angelenos respond to the potential of removing traffic enforcement
responsibilities to an unarmed, civilian government unit?
The consultant team explored the research questions through a three-pronged approach
which included identifying case studies, analyzing quantitative data (e.g., data on traffic
stops, demographics, and outcomes), and examining qualitative data (i.e., community
stakeholder focus groups, expert interviews). The following section outlines the research
process, methodology, and findings.
The consultant team also conducted research and analysis regarding the legal
implications of the recommendations in this report. These findings are described at the
end of this section.
A. Case Study Review Findings
1. Purpose
The consultant team conducted a nationwide scan of publicly available
literature and sources that focused on innovative and emerging international,
U.S. state, and local policies, programs, and initiatives aimed at eliminating
discriminatory and biased traffic safety and enforcement. The case study
review sought to answer the research question: “What are other cities,
counties, police departments, and governmental bodies doing about traffic
enforcement nationwide?”
The purpose of this scan was to compile a set of example cities where city
agencies had or were exploring various approaches to transitioning, reducing,
or limiting traffic enforcement. Upon review by LADOT, LAPD, and the Task
Force, a few cities were identified for further exploration through expert
interviews. The expert interview findings are detailed in Section IV.D. of this
report.
2. Methodology
The case studies focused specifically on preventative measures to limit
interactions between residents and police under the premise of traffic or
20
vehicle-related stops. The consultant team categorized the identified case
studies into the following tiers:
▪ Tier 1: Government at-large has transitioned powers of police enforcement
to a Department of Transportation (DOT) or another municipal unit.
▪ Tier 2: Government at-large is in the process of transitioning powers of
police enforcement to DOT or another municipal unit.
▪ Tier 3: Government entities have made policy or protocol changes to
reduce traffic safety enforcement via other means such as banning minor
traffic enforcement, non-police alternatives, or decriminalizing minor traffic
violations.
▪ Tier 4: Government entities are exploring either of the tiers above but have
not implemented anything to date.
▪ Tier 5: Non-governmental entities have examined how to decriminalize
mobility through guidelines, reports, podcasts, etc.
The tiers are organized based on the status of actions taken to mitigate traffic
enforcement. Tiers 1 and 2 include case studies where the city, state, or
county has or is actively transitioning police powers of traffic enforcement to a
non-police alternative. Tiers 3 and 4 outline case studies where a
governmental entity, such as the police department, has or is actively reducing
or limiting the extent of traffic enforcement within their jurisdiction. Altogether,
Tiers 1 through 4 can be considered as examples of top-down efforts to
ameliorate harm in traffic enforcement. Tier 5 includes case studies of non-
governmental organizations that are calling for changes in traffic enforcement
through guides, reports, tools, etc. These case studies can be considered as
examples of formal, organized community efforts to advocate for changes in
traffic enforcement practices. It should be noted that the search included traffic
enforcement of all individual transportation mode types, including people using
mobility devices, public transit, bicycling, walking, and driving.
3. Findings
The case studies were organized into tiers based on the degree to which the
city, state, county, or other governmental agency has made efforts to reduce,
limit, or transition traffic enforcement to non-police alternatives. Where
available, this report includes any concrete outcomes or independent analyses
of a program or policy’s effectiveness. Many of the case studies are in-
progress or newly-implemented, so outcomes are not fully documented.
Case studies in New Zealand (Tier 1) and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Tier 2)
represent the most advanced examples of harm reduction through shifts in
power for traffic enforcement. Both governmental bodies decided to use non-
police alternatives to enforce certain types of traffic laws. In New Zealand,
non-moving violations and minor moving violations were enforced by the
Traffic Safety Service, a civilian governmental unit, for 30 years. While the unit
has since merged with the New Zealand Police, the case study shows that
specific traffic enforcement duties can be conducted successfully by unarmed,
civilian units.
21
In Philadelphia, city leadership and residents voted to move towards an
adaptation of the New Zealand example where minor traffic violations are
enforced by unarmed public safety “officers” housed within the Department of
Transportation. Philadelphia restructured traffic violations into “primary” and
“secondary” classifications and prohibited police from making traffic stops for
“secondary” traffic violations.
35
Table 1: Tiers 1 and 2 Case Studies
Location
Key Findings, Policy, Program or Funding Considerations
New Zealand
Nationwide, New Zealand used a non-police governmental
agency to enforce traffic laws between 1936 and 1992. The
agency was tasked with traffic enforcement of non-moving
violations and minor moving violations. The non-police
governmental agency dissolved due to the personnel costs, not
traffic safety concerns, associated with maintaining the agency.
It is important to note that the financial constraints were a result of
staffing the non-police governmental agency with transferred
police officers and not hired civilians. Traffic enforcement remains
a responsibility of the New Zealand Police, though it should be
noted that New Zealand Police “do not normally carry guns” on
their person.
Philadelphia, PA
Under the Driving Equality Act, police are permitted to make traffic
stops for “primary” violations that compromise public safety but
stops will no longer be used for “secondary” violations, like a
damaged bumper or expired registration tags.
There are several examples of cities, states, counties, or other governmental
units that have decided (Tier 3) or are considering (Tier 4) limits, reductions, or
restrictions in traffic enforcement. A bulk of Tier 3 case studies in the U.S.
have altered enforcement practices or policies to reduce the number of
potential traffic stops. In several examples, this looks like prohibiting police
from making traffic stops solely for non-moving violations – such as a broken
taillight – or decriminalizing driving with a suspended license if the reason for
suspension was solely for late or non-payment of fines. In addition, other Tier
3 case studies include governmental entities that have repealed or amended
laws to decriminalize specific types of traffic violations. By doing so, the
potential for pretextual stops by police is decreased overall. The case studies
in Tier 4 represent governmental entities that have reviewed police reform
recommendations or city-appointed task forces that have provided formal
35
The City of Philadelphia Code §12-1702 defines ”primary“ violations as any violation within the Pennsylvania
Vehicle Code that is not defined as a “secondary“ violation. “Secondary“ violations, defined within the City of
Philadelphia Code §12-1702, reference specific provisions of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, including Title 75 Pa.
C.S. § 1301, Registration of Vehicles; § 1310.1(c), Temporary Registration Permits; § 1332(a), Display of
Registration Plate; § 4302, Periods For Requiring Lighted Lamps; § 4524(c), Other Obstruction; § 4536, Bumpers; §
4703, Operation of Vehicle Without Official Certificate of Inspection; and, § 4706(c)(5), Unlawful Operation Without
Evidence of Emission Inspection. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/philadelphia/latest/philadelphia_pa/0-0-0-
285759
22
recommendations for police reforms. These examples explicitly outline
recommendations to limit, reduce, or transition traffic enforcement from police
to non-police alternatives.
Table 2: Tiers 3 and 4 Case Studies
Location
Key Findings, Policy, Program or Funding Considerations
Berkeley, CA
The City of Berkeley passed a package of reforms in February
2021 that included prohibiting police from making traffic stops for
minor traffic infractions. The reforms include requiring written
consent for searches, precluding police from asking about parole
or probation status in most circumstances, looking into the legality
of reviewing officers’ social media postings to fire officers who
post racist content, and implementing an “Early Intervention
System” to get biased officers off the street.
Oakland, CA
Oakland City Council passed the 2021-2023 Fiscal Year budget in
May 2021 with several items for investing in policing alternatives.
The list included shifting some traffic enforcement responsibilities
to the Oakland Department of Transportation (OakDOT). The
OakDOT is reorganizing its parking division and is now
responsible for identifying and towing abandoned cars, as of April
2022. In addition, the approved budget also dedicates funds for
an audit of the Oakland Police Department (OPD), including a
goal to assess the feasibility of transitioning minor traffic
enforcement duties to civilian traffic officers. It should be noted
that OPD significantly reduced traffic stops related to minor traffic
violations by changing internal policy in 2016, which resulted in
traffic stops of Black drivers decreasing from 61% to 55% in three
years.
Pittsburgh, PA
The Pittsburgh City Council voted in December 2021 to prohibit
traffic stops for “secondary traffic violations,” such as broken
taillights or outdated registrations under a 60-day grace period--
meaning that a driver won't be pulled over for expired registration
unless the registration is more than 60 days out of date.
Seattle, WA
The Seattle Police Department updated traffic enforcement
practices based on recommendations from an equity-focused
working group. As of January 2022, Seattle Police are not allowed
to conduct traffic stops solely for minor, non-moving traffic
violations. The list of infractions that officers won't actively ticket
include:
● Vehicles with expired license tabs.
● Riders who are not wearing a bike helmet.
● Vehicles with a cracked windshield.
● Items hanging from a vehicle's rear-view mirror.
23
Portland, OR
The City of Portland, OR no longer allows police to conduct traffic
stops for non-moving violations that do not present an immediate
public safety threat, as of June 2021. Police are still allowed to
make stops for moving violations and stops related to ongoing
investigations.
King County, WA
Residents and visitors in the City of Seattle are no longer required
to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. The King County Board of
Health voted in February 2022 to repeal its mandatory helmet
laws to reduce the potential for traffic stops related to the law.
Minneapolis, MN
The Minneapolis City Council passed a directive to city staff to
form an unarmed Traffic Safety Division housed outside of the
Police Department. Minneapolis began operating with new
policies on traffic enforcement in August 2021. Police Chief
Arradando is instructing officers not to stop drivers for minor traffic
violations. The Minneapolis City Attorney’s Office will no longer
prosecute people for driving with a suspended license, so long as
the sole reason for the suspension is failure to pay fines and fees.
Lansing, MI
The City of Lansing enacted new traffic stop guidelines in July
2020 to restrict officers from stopping drivers solely for secondary,
or non-moving, traffic violations. Police would still be able to
conduct a traffic stop if it is associated with a primary traffic
violation and a public safety risk.
Colorado
The state of Colorado passed a law in March 2022 that allows
bicyclists to conduct an “Idaho Stop” at intersections unless
otherwise stated. An “Idaho Stop” is generally a practice where
bicyclists can treat stop-signed intersections as stop-as-yield.
Nevada
The state of Nevada passed bills in 2021 that end license
suspensions solely for failure to pay fines and fees, and convert
minor traffic violations, such as broken taillights, from criminal
offenses into civil offenses. The change in license suspension
rules went into effect in October 2021, and the decriminalization of
minor traffic offenses will go into effect in 2023.
Idaho
The state of Idaho amended state law in 2018 to shift first or
second-time driver’s license violations from criminal infractions to
civil infractions, punishable by fines. In addition, violations for
driving with a suspended license are considered civil violations for
specific minor offenses, such as the failure to pay fines.
Virginia
The state of Virginia amended its laws to end debt-based license
suspensions in 2020. To address pretextual stops, Virginia
passed HB 5058 and SB 5029, which prohibit law-enforcement
officers from using common traffic and pedestrian violations as a
primary offense for stopping people for things such as jaywalking
or entering a highway where the pedestrian cannot be seen, as
24
well as vehicles with defective equipment, dangling lights, or dark
window tint. The laws took effect on March 1, 2021.
Brooklyn Center,
MN
The Brooklyn Center City Council voted in May 2022 to approve a
police reform package, which includes restricting police from
making minor traffic stops for non-moving violations, unless
required by law.
Kansas City, MO
The Kansas City City Council repealed municipal codes in May
2021 that allowed residents to be stopped by police for jaywalking
(Sec. 70-783), not having a clean bike wheel or tires “which carry
onto or deposit in any street, highway, alley or other public place,
mud, dirt, sticky substances, litter or foreign matter of any kind”
(Sec 70-268), or for a bicycle inspection “upon reasonable cause
to believe that a bicycle is unsafe or not equipped as required by
law, or that its equipment is not in proper adjustment or repair”
(Sec. 70-706).
Location
Key Findings, Policy, Program or Funding Considerations
Washington, DC
The Police Reform Commission of Washington, DC
recommended several alternative policing methods for traffic
enforcement in DC. The recommendations included prohibiting
traffic stops and repealing or revising traffic laws for violations that
are not an immediate threat to public safety; restricting police to
approved pretextual stops for violent crimes; prohibiting safety
compliance checkpoints; and transferring police power for
enforcing non-threatening traffic violations to non-police municipal
units.
Denver, CO
A police reform task force in Denver provided many
recommendations to minimize unnecessary police interactions
with residents, including several that specifically address traffic
enforcement. Recommendations include decriminalizing minor
traffic violations that are often used for pretextual stops,
prohibiting searches during vehicle stops for minor offenses or
traffic violations, and shifting police power in traffic enforcement to
non-police alternatives. The following recommendations call for a
fundamental shift in the way traffic stops are handled:
● Decriminalize traffic offenses often used for pretextual
stops.
● Prohibit Denver Police from conducting searches in
relation to petty offenses or traffic violations.
● Remove police officers from routine traffic stops and crash
reporting and explore non-police alternatives that
incentivize behavior change to eliminate traffic fatalities.
● Eliminate the need for traffic enforcement by auditing and
investing in the built environment to promote safe travel
behavior.
25
● Invest in a community-based, community-led violence
prevention strategic plan that includes, but is not limited to,
traffic stop violence and government sanctioned violence.
Austin, TX
The Reimagining Public Safety Task Force in Austin, TX released
a report with several recommendations, including shifting traffic
violations to non-police trained professionals, decriminalizing
traffic offenses, and disarming traffic control officers.
Cambridge City
The Cambridge City Council is considering alternatives to traffic
enforcement. A proposal reviewed by the City Council would shift
traffic stop duties from police to unarmed, trained city staff.
New York City
In March 2021, The New York City Council approved a bill (File
No. Int 2224-2021) that would move the responsibility of traffic
crash investigations to the New York Department of
Transportation. The intent is to allow officers to “focus on more
serious crimes” and shift some responsibilities from the police to
civilian municipal units. A separate bill (File No. Int 1671-2019)
within the same reform package was also approved in March
2021. It requires a quarterly report on all vehicle stops, including
disaggregated demographic data, from NYPD.
Connecticut
The State of Connecticut passed a Police Accountability Bill in
2020 that prohibits police from asking for consent to search the
vehicle when conducting traffic stops. However, this does not
prevent a vehicle search altogether if the driver gives unsolicited
consent or the police acts upon probable cause. Additionally, the
bill directed the Police Transparency and Accountability Task
Force to consider whether traffic violations should be reclassified
into a primary-secondary system.
Los Angeles
County, CA
A motion by supervisors Hilda L. Solis and Janice Hahn requested
that the Board of Supervisors direct the Director of Public Health
to collaborate with Public Works, Sheriff’s Department, County
Counsel, California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles County
Development Authority, and the Los Angeles County Superior
Court to begin implementing the Vision Zero Action Plan
recommendations. A Vision Zero Action Plan was adopted by the
Los Angeles County Board of Directors to reduce the number of
unincorporated roadways and traffic fatalities by 2025. Some
recommendations include:
● Immediately implement the following recommendations
included in the County’s Vision Zero Action Plan in
partnership with community stakeholders:
o B-2: Identify process and partners for establishing
a diversion program for persons cited for infractions
related to walking and bicycling.
26
o B-3: Identify process and partners to consider
revising the Los Angeles County Municipal Code to
allow the operation of bicycles on sidewalks.
● Identify any other recommendations included in the Vision
Zero Action Plan that should be implemented in
partnership with community stakeholders to further
decriminalize and enable the use of non-vehicular and
alternative modes of transportation in unincorporated
communities.
● Instruct the Director of Public Health, in consultation with
the Chief Executive Office and relevant County
departments, to develop cost estimates and identify
funding needs and potential opportunities to support the
implementation of these Vision Zero recommendations.
San Francisco
The San Francisco Police Commission passed a policy to ban
police from making nine different types of pretextual stops. The
first draft of the policy had proposed 18 types of stops, but the
final policy removed five of them and edited seven for additional
specificity. It should be noted that this policy would still allow
police to make stops for the nine enumerated reasons, but in
limited circumstances.
Los Angeles, CA
The Los Angeles Police Department approved a pretextual stop
policy in February 2022 which prevents officers from initiating a
stop solely for a minor traffic violation. LAPD officers are still
allowed to make pretextual stops but must do so without basing it
“on a mere hunch or on generalized characteristics such as a
person’s race, gender, age, homeless circumstance, or presence
in a high-crime location.” (LAPD Departmental Manual, Policy
240.06)
Fayetteville, NC
In 2013, Police Chief Medlock of Fayetteville shifted traffic
enforcement in the department away from non-moving violations
and encouraged officers to focus on moving violations of
immediate concern to public safety. The number of investigative
stops for non-moving violations decreased dramatically for the
next four years, as did the number of Black drivers stopped and
searched. Peer-reviewed research using data from the
Fayetteville, NC case study shows that such changes in traffic
enforcement practices reduced traffic fatalities overall because
police were focused on moving traffic violations of immediate
danger to public safety, such as speeding (Fliss et al, 2020).
Finally, examples of non-governmental organizations (Tier 5) that have
produced reports directly related to reducing, limiting, or transitioning powers
of traffic enforcement from police to non-police alternatives represent calls
for action across the U.S. Tier 5 examples use case studies and evidence-
based practices to support their recommendations. The audience for these
reports range from formal governing bodies to community members. While
27
these reports do not formally or immediately impact traffic enforcement
practices, they include deeper and, in some cases, localized
recommendations. They can have a direct impact on local needs by
presenting supporting data and the lived experiences of people who are
affected by inequitable traffic enforcement.
Table 3: Tier 5 Case Studies
Location
Key Findings, Policy, Program or Funding Considerations
Promoting Unity,
Safety & Health in
Los Angeles (Los
Angeles)
Promoting Unity, Safety & Health in Los Angeles (PUSH LA),
works to end the LAPD’s use of pretextual stops to racially profile
low-income communities of color and immediate removal of the
LAPD’s Metro Division from South Los Angeles. Their
recommendations include ending the use of pretextual stops,
removing LAPD’s Metro Division from South LA, improving traffic
safety through urban design, equitably addressing the root causes
of traffic safety issues, holding officers accountable for
misconduct, and banning vehicle consent searches.
Alliance for
Community
Transit (Los
Angeles)
Various policy research, advocacy, and community organizing
efforts were undertaken by the Alliance for Community Transit -
Los Angeles (ACT-LA) member organizations, partners, and allies
to develop an informed report, Metro As A Sanctuary. This
includes a community and healthy framework presented for Metro
to shift away from policing and create a more equitable and safe
transportation system centering on communities of color and
those with disabilities. This presents alternative crime prevention
measures and methods that do not center police enforcement.
Also, recommendations are split into multiple categories: care-
centered special tactics, stewardship, programming, support
services, public education, and job creation potential.
TransitCenter
(San Francisco,
Portland,
Philadelphia)
The report Safety For All by TransitCenter portrays how agencies
like BART in San Francisco, TriMet in Portland, and SEPTA in
Philadelphia are addressing safety concerns by hiring unarmed
personnel, developing high profile anti-harassment campaigns,
and better connecting riders to housing and mental health
services.
Kansas City, MO
BikeWalkKC in collaboration with the National Safe Routes
Partnership, co-authored the Taking on Traffic Laws: A How-To
Guide for Decriminalizing Mobility as a starting point for advocates
and communities interested in decriminalizing traffic violations
related to walking and biking. It draws upon the lessons learned
from BikeWalkKC’s experience successfully advocating for
legislation to decriminalize walking and biking in Kansas City. The
guide covers three key areas:
● The need to repeal laws leading to racialized traffic
enforcement
28
● How BikeWalkKC successfully advocated legislation to
decriminalize mobility in Kansas City.
● A Call to Action lays out steps advocates can take in their
own communities.
The Justice
Collaboratory-
Yale Law School
(New Haven, CT)
The report Principles of Procedurally Just Policing by Yale Law
School’s Justice Collaboratory explores the inequities surrounding
investigatory stops. The Supreme Court ruling in the Terry case,
which sought to promote crime prevention, approved police stops
on less than probable cause. Despite the ruling’s intent,
investigatory stops have continued to cause public distrust of
police due to a lack of transparency concerning policies and
policymaking processes.
Active
Transportation
Alliance (Chicago,
IL)
Active Transportation Alliance’s Fair Fares Chicagoland:
Recommendations for a More Equitable Transit System report
explores decriminalizing fare evasion arrests. Additionally, it
proposes ways to create a more equitable fare structure, including
a reduced transit fare program for low-income residents, fare
capping, and integrating transfers from the Chicago Transit
Authority (CTA), Pace Suburban Bus (Pace), and Metra
Commuter Rail (Metra).
Community
Service Society
(New York City)
Community Service Society’s report The Crime of Being Short
$2.75: Policing Communities of Color at the Turnstile explores
arrests of low-income New York City residents who are unable to
pay the fare for public transit. The report focuses on the arrests as
an example of broken windows policing. The report proposes
decriminalizing fare evasion, using city resources to help low-
income riders instead of arrests, and deinstitutionalized broken
windows and enforcement quotas.
The Ferguson
Commission (St.
Louis, MO)
Addressing racial disparities in municipal warrants The Ferguson
Commission’s Report entails calls to action related to municipal
warrants including those that would decrease the negative
consequences of receiving a municipal warrant. These calls to
action include creating a municipal court “Bill of Rights,”
communicating rights to defendants in person, providing
defendants clear written notice of court hearing details, opening
municipal court sessions, eliminating incarceration for minor
offenses, canceling failure to appear warrants, developing new
processes to review and cancel outstanding warrants, scheduling
regular warrant reviews, and providing municipal court support
services.
Center for Policing
Equity- Yale
University (New
Haven, CT)
The Redesigning Public Safety: Traffic Safety report outlines five
overarching themes of recommendations to ameliorate and
address harm caused by traffic violence. These include ending
pretextual stops, investing in public health approaches to road
safety, limiting use of fines and fees, piloting alternatives to armed
29
enforcement, and improving data collection and transparency. The
report utilizes peer-reviewed journal articles and local examples to
support or describe each recommendation. The recommendations
are primarily focused on the issue of traffic safety, and the “harms
caused by unjust and burdensome enforcement, including the
preventable debt, justice system entanglement, and trauma that
too often flow from a single routine traffic stop.” The Center for
Policing Equity’s white paper on traffic safety is one of several
publications in the Redesigning Public Safety series of papers.
The Vera Institute
of Justice
(Brooklyn, NY)
The Vera Institute of Justice’s report on The Social Costs of
Policing aims to describe police interactions, both at an individual
level and a community level. The report utilizes peer-reviewed
articles to support and detail the social costs of policing within four
main facets: (1) health, (2) education, (3) economic well-being,
and (4) civic and social engagement. By describing the social cost
of policing, the report underlines evidence for policymakers to
include when considering public safety investments or the costs
and benefits of police reform.
America Walks
(nationwide)
America Walk’s webinar How to Take on Harmful Jaywalking
Laws - Decriminalizing Walking for Mobility Justice includes expert
panel members working at the state and local level to
decriminalize jaywalking. Kansas City, Virginia, and California
recently decriminalized jaywalking. The authors explore data and
lived experiences, showing that police disproportionately enforce
these laws in Black, Indigenous, and people of color communities,
causing more harm than purported safety interests.
● Practical lessons, knowledge, and tools to advocate for
and organize around removing jaywalking laws and
enforcement in your community.
● Intimate and timely strategies straight from the
leaders/advocates who have recently worked to repeal
jaywalking laws in their region and those who are in the
thick of it.
● The nuances of considering place, authentic community
engagement and how to gather and use convincing data
for your case.
The Center for
Popular
Democracy, Law
for Black Lives,
and Black Youth
Project 100
(nationwide)
The report Freedom to Thrive: Reimagining Safety & Security in
Our Communities examines racial disparities, policing, and
budgets in twelve jurisdictions across the country, comparing the
city and county spending priorities with those of community
organizations and their members. Research and proven best
practices show that increased spending on police does not make
them safer. However, many cities and counties rely on policing
and incarceration. Also, cities and counties continue to under-
resource more fair and effective safety initiatives.
30
Community
Resource Hub for
Safety and
Accountability
(nationwide)
Research Memo: Alternatives to Policing Community Resource
Hub for Safety and Accountability by Community Resource Hub
assesses work surrounding police abolition and alternatives to
policing, focusing on police abolitionist frameworks. This memo
provides recommendations for advocates, activists, and
organizers working on alternatives to policing as well as a list of
resources.
4. Limitations
As noted in the “Key Takeaways” section, the full scope and extent of
transitioning traffic enforcement functions to non-law enforcement entities is
not fully known in many cases. These efforts are nascent in the United States
and many of the studies, initiatives, and policies highlighted here have not
been independently evaluated for efficacy. Based on the consultant team’s
landscape scan, it is unclear which, if any, jurisdictions in the U.S. have fully
made a shift to an alternative traffic enforcement model.
5. Next Steps
Many jurisdictions contemplating a shift in traffic enforcement practices and
policies vary in size, demographics, and physical geographic area. The
consultant team sought to identify case studies and expert interviews as a
starting point for contemplating future changes in traffic enforcement,
specifically for the City of Los Angeles. To deepen the case for the City of Los
Angeles, the consultant team conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses
of traffic enforcement using data from LAPD and with Angelenos.
The consultant team also worked with LADOT and LAPD to identify relevant
case studies for further research through expert interviews. Some case study
locations were identified based on the degree or extent of the changes in
traffic enforcement, while others were identified based on likeness or proximity
to the City of Los Angeles. Three case study locations were initially selected
as case studies (See Appendix F) for further exploration, including New
Zealand; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Ultimately, a few other cities were included in the expert interviews, including
Berkeley, California and Oakland, California.
Additional details about the expert interviews are described in Section IV.D.
6. Key Takeaways
Racially biased traffic enforcement is pervasive: In sum, racially biased
traffic enforcement is widely prevalent in cities, states, and counties across the
U.S.
Many initiatives are nascent: There are very few case studies that provide
examples of transitioning powers of traffic enforcement to non-police
agencies. However, numerous government entities, ranging from individual
31
police departments to entire states, are moving forward with changes to
existing traffic regulations or traffic enforcement practices.
Promising indicators from limited interventions: These adjustments in how
police act upon minor traffic offenses, though limited in scale, have been
shown to create a larger impact in decreasing the number of traffic stops
overall (i.e., Fayetteville, NC). Altogether, cities, states, counties, and non-
governmental entities are finding ways and making progress towards more
equitable traffic enforcement practices.
B. Quantitative Data Findings
The quantitative analysis focused on a descriptive analysis of California Racial
and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data. LAPD and LADOT provided additional data
for the quantitative analysis. These data are largely similar to public information
from the RIPA data portal but also include location information.
1. Purpose
Racial differences in policing and traffic stops is a well-documented national
trend.
36,37,38,39
The Traffic Enforcement Study problem statement describes
how police traffic enforcement disproportionately affects people of color and
the need to address disparities in traffic safety. Documenting trends in Los
Angeles was a critical grounding for this study, even with this background of
empirical evidence from national trends. Therefore, the consultant team
analyzed the recent trends, spatial patterns, and racial/ethnic dimensions of
LAPD traffic stops as a critical component of the Traffic Enforcement Study.
This analysis answers the following questions from the data:
▪ Who: demographic patterns of stops, focusing primarily on racial and
ethnic composition;
▪ Why: reasons for stops;
▪ What: actions occurring during the stops and stop results, focusing mainly
on citation rates; and
▪ Where: geographic spatial patterns.
In addition, the problem statement details how low-income communities of
color are disproportionately affected by traffic violence. The City of Los
Angeles is working to address traffic violence through the work of LADOT’s
36
Pierson, E., Simoiu, C., Overgoor, J., Corbett-Davies, S., Jenson, D., Shoemaker, A., Ramachandran, V.,
Barghouty, P., Phillips, C., Shroff, R., & Goel, S. (2020). A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops
across the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0858-1
37
Roach, K., Baumgartner, F. R., Christiani, L., Epp, D. A., & Shoub, K. (2022). At the intersection: Race, gender,
and discretion in police traffic stop outcomes. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 7(2), 239–261.
https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2020.35
38
Cai, W., Gaebler, J., Kaashoek, J., Pinals, L., Madden, S., & Goel, S. (2022). Measuring racial and ethnic
disparities in traffic enforcement with large-scale telematics data. PNAS Nexus, 1(4), pgac144.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac144
39
Knowles, J., Persico, N., & Todd, P. (2001). Racial Bias in Motor Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence. Journal
of Political Economy, 109(1), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1086/318603
32
Vision Zero Initiative to end traffic fatalities. This citywide effort to eliminate
traffic deaths brings together partners at LADOT, LAPD and others to work
towards creating safer streets and understanding that travel speeds are a
fundamental predictor of collision risk. The actions to achieve Vision Zero
include engineering and planning safer streets and enforcing traffic safety laws
in areas with high collision rates. LADOT established the “high-injury network”
representing the 6% of city streets that account for most traffic deaths and
severe injuries as the geographic representation of areas with higher collision
rates. Given this work on Vision Zero, we analyzed the relationship between
traffic stops for speeding and high-injury areas using the High-Injury Network
(HIN).
Overall, this analysis complements and bridges findings from the qualitative
data collection described in the following section of this report and proposes
recommendations that connect experiences shared in the focus groups with
empirical data about LAPD police stops.
2. Methodology
This analysis relies primarily on stop data collected and maintained by LAPD
according to the California Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). RIPA was
enacted in 2015 to create a standard set of data that police departments in
California must record and regularly provide to the Department of Justice.
LAPD was included in the first wave of police departments required to submit
data and therefore began collecting and reporting standardized data in mid-
2018.
The consultant team made an initial data request to LAPD in mid-2022 for the
last three years of RIPA data (2019 – 2021) (See Appendix G for data fields
and descriptions). Nearly all this analysis covers that period. The team also
requested and included the number of stops for 2022 to document the total
number of stops that year. Additionally, we analyzed data from April -
September 2022 to capture changes for the six months after LAPD’s recent
policy change around pretextual stops, which went into effect on April 1, 2022.
This analysis includes specific components from similar studies of police stops
by LAPD and other police departments. Relevant reference studies include:
▪ "An Analysis of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department's Traffic Stop
Practices" (2018) Alex Chohlas-Wood, Sharad Goel, Amy Shoemaker,
Ravi Shroff. Stanford Computational Policy Lab
▪ "Annual Report 2022" (2022) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board
RIPA
▪ "Racial Disparities in Traffic Stops" (2022) Magnus Lofstrom, Joseph
Hayes, Brandon Martin, and Deepak Premjumar. Public Policy Institute of
California
▪ "Reimagining Traffic Safety and Bold Political Leadership in Los Angeles"
(2021) PUSH LA
▪ "Review of stops conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department in
2019" (2019) Office of the Inspector General, Los Angeles Police
Commission
33
a. Data Comparisons
The consultant team compared the trends within these RIPA data to
demographics within the city of Los Angeles using data from the 5-year
American Community Survey (ACS) (2017 - 2021). However, these
datasets differ in the racial/ethnic and gender categories they use. Further,
the racial/ethnic data from the RIPA dataset is based on officer perception
(who can record more than one racial identity), while the ACS data uses
self-reported racial/ethnic information. The following table outlines these
differences and the transformations required to appropriately match the
data between the two datasets.
Table 4: Comparison race/ethnicity datasets
RIPA Data
ACS Data
Report approach
Asian
Asian
Asian
Black/African American
Black/African American
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Hispanic/Latino collected as
question on ethnicity,
separate from race
Anyone who reports being of
Hispanic/Latino ethnicity,
regardless of race, is
included as Hispanic/Latino
Middle Eastern or South
Asian
Not included
Middle Eastern and South
Asian included in Other
Native American
Native American
Pacific Islander
Pacific Islander
White
White
White
Not included
Other
Grouped within other
Two or more races
Grouped within other
The consultant team used the LAPD reporting district boundary for the
spatial analysis. While the RIPA dataset includes a more specific
geographic location, the data often needed to be completed with street
suffix (e.g., avenue, street, boulevard etc.) or direction. This would require
a great deal of manual cleaning to ensure correct spatial placement.
Therefore, the team used the reporting district where the stop took place
as an alternative. LAPD reporting districts are small areas (1135 total)
40
with an average size of 0.5 square miles. The team aggregated these
reporting districts to the neighborhood level using the neighborhood
boundaries established in the “Mapping L.A.” project from the Los Angeles
Times. In cases where the reporting district and neighborhood boundaries
did not align exactly, the number of stops were proportionately allocated to
the neighborhood boundaries.
b. Task Force Member Input
The consultant team regularly presented this analysis to the Task Force
and Research Subcommittee to allow members and other project
stakeholders (e.g., LAPD) to provide feedback. The team added these
40
For reference, there are approximately 1324 census tracts in the City of Los Angeles.
34
following specific components to this analysis at Task Force members’
requests:
▪ Analysis of recent LAPD policy change: In 2022, LAPD instituted a
directive to change enforcement of pretextual stops. The consultant
team conducted a sub-analysis comparing a six-month timeframe in
2021 to the same six-month timeframe in 2022 to analyze the effect of
this change on stops both in terms of the categories of traffic violation
stops (% change in moving vs. equipment vs. non-moving) and related
patterns by race/ethnicity.
▪ Stops by intersectional identity: Stops examined by multiple
dimensions of identity, specifically looking at race/ethnicity, age, and
gender.
▪ Geographic analysis using reporting districts: Using the police
reporting districts for spatial analysis because specific address location
data was not available in an easy-to-use format.
3. Findings
a. All Traffic Stops (2019-2021)
Traffic stops have declined year-over-year since 2019, from nearly
713,000 annually in 2019 to 331,000 in 2022 (Table 5 & Table 6). Most
stops (74%) are for traffic violations (Table 7). The amount of stops for
traffic violation purposes remained fairly consistent between 2019 – 2021
and declined slightly in 2022. Black drivers are disproportionately stopped
(27% of all traffic stops, 26% of traffic violation stops, 8% of city
population) (Table 8).
Table 5: Number of police stops per year (2019 – 2021)
Number of stops per
year
2019
712,806
2020
521,487
2021
429,326
Table 6: Distribution of stops by race/ethnicity by year (2019 – 2021)
2019
(%)
2020
(%)
2021
(%)
Asian
3.7
3.2
2.9
Black/African American
27.3
26.9
26.3
Hispanic/Latino
46
48.5
49.9
Middle Eastern or South
Asian
3.6
3.8
4
Native American
0.1
0.1
0.1
Pacific Islander
0.2
0.2
0.2
White
18.6
16.9
16
Two or more races
0.5
0.5
0.6
35
Table 7: Stops by race/ethnicity per capita (2019 -2021)
Stops per 100,000
population
Percent of
all stops
Percent of city
population
Asian
12,491
3.3%
11.5%
Black/African
American
148,465
26.9%
7.8%
Hispanic/Latino
42,951
47.8%
48.1%
Native American
17,424
0.1%
0.2%
Other
44,783
4.3%
4.1%
Pacific Islander
59,067
0.2%
0.2%
White
26,783
17.4%
28.1%
Citywide
43,219
Table 8: Frequency and percent of stops by reason stopped (2019 – 2021)
Frequency
Percent
Traffic violation
1,222,949
73.5
Reasonable suspicion that person was engaged in criminal
activity
391,434
23.5
Known to be on parole/probation, PRCS, mandatory
supervision
24,851
1.5
Knowledge of outstanding arrest warrant/wanted person
15,722
0.9
Investigation to determine if person is truant
945
0.1
Consensual encounter resulting in search
7,705
0.5
Possible conduct warranting disciple under Education Code
13
0.0
Total
1,663,619
100.0
Table 9: Percent of stops for traffic-violation reasons by year (2019 – 2022)
Year
Number of stops for traffic
purposes
% of all stops for traffic
purposes
2019
520,872
73.1%
2020
328,204
73.3%
2021
319,873
74.5%
2022
223,646
67.6%
The rate of stops per 100,000 people differs by neighborhood (Figure 1).
More stops per capita occur in Greater South Los Angeles and
neighborhoods south of Hollywood (Figure 2). Each map displays the data
by quantile, displaying the same number of neighborhoods (approximately
20) within each data range demonstrating which neighborhoods
experience below average to above average numbers of traffic stops per
capita.
36
Figure 1: Maps of stops by neighborhood by capita
37
Figure 2: Map of stops by LAPD reporting district
b. Stops for Traffic Violations Only
We specifically examined stops for traffic violations as that is the focus of
this study. Most traffic violation stops happen for moving violations (45%),
with equipment violations next most common (31%), and non-moving the
least common (24%) (Table 10 & Table 11). Black drivers are stopped at
three times the city average in traffic-violation-related stops, a similar rate
to police stops overall (Table 12 & Table 13).
38
Table 10: Percent of traffic violation stops by category (2019 – 2021)
Frequency
Percent
Moving
430,085
45.3
Equipment
292,323
30.8
Non-Moving
226,016
23.8
Total
948,424
100
Table 11: Top 20 reasons for traffic-violation stops (2019-2021)
Description and mvCJIS
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Speeding (54106)
195,021
15.9
15.9
No registration (54657)
144,172
11.8
27.7
Display license plate wrong (54644)
129,717
10.6
38.3
Window obstruction (54571)
71,100
5.8
44.2
Failure to stop for crosswalk (54167)
65,805
5.4
49.5
Hand held device violation (54655)
41
63,830
5.2
54.8
Light equipment violation (Vehicle) (54109)
43,346
3.5
58.3
Failure to obey turn signs (54185)
40,520
3.3
61.6
Hand held device violation (54566)
41
35,182
2.9
64.5
Failure to stop at stop line at red light (54098)
29,403
2.4
66.9
Bike headlight violation (54141)
18,677
1.5
68.4
No registration (54099)
17,484
1.4
69.9
Seat belt violation (54011)
15,786
1.3
71.1
Unsafe lane change (54178)
13,758
1.1
72.3
Driving without lights at night (Vehicle) (54191)
13,697
1.1
73.4
Illegal u-turn (54186)
12,017
1
74.4
Driving without a license (54107)
11,475
0.9
75.3
Unsafe turn or no signal used (54115)
9,731
0.8
76.1
Double parking (54537)
9,340
0.8
76.9
Expired tags/failed to display (54168)
8,363
0.7
77.6
41
These are distinct vehicle code violations for similar violations.
39
Table 12: Traffic violation stops by race/ethnicity per capita (2019-2021)
Stops per 100,000
population
Percent of
stops
Percent of city
population
Asian
10,618
3.9%
11.5%
Black/African
American
104,217
25.7%
7.8%
Hispanic/Latino
31,550
47.8%
48.1%
Native American
9,070
0.0%
0.2%
Other
38,443
5.0%
4.1%
Pacific Islander
45,204
0.2%
0.2%
White
19,712
17.4%
28.1%
Citywide
31,770
Table 13: Percent of stops for traffic violations and non-traffic violations by race/ethnicity (2019-
2021)
Traffic stops
(%)
Non-traffic stops
(%)
Asian
3.9
1.9
Black/African American
25.7
30.3
Hispanic/Latino
47.8
47.9
Middle Eastern or South Asian
4.4
1.8
Native American
0
0.1
Pacific Islander
0.2
0.2
White
17.4
17.3
Two or more races
0.5
0.5
c. Policy Change Sub-Analysis
The early results from the recent LAPD policy update show a change in
the percent of stops by traffic violation categories. The updated policy
directs officers to “make stops for minor equipment violations or other
infractions only when the officer believes that such a violation or infraction
significantly interferes with public safety.”
42
In the six-months post-change
in 2022, the percentage of stops for moving violations rose from 52%
(2021) to 71% (2022) (Table 14 & Table 15). The percentage of equipment
stops dropped from 29% (2021) to 20% (2022), and non-moving violation-
related stops dropped from 20% (2021) to 9% (2022). The percentage of
traffic violation stops for speeding increased from 18-21% (2021 vs. 2022).
This policy change has resulted in lower percentages of Black drivers
being stopped dropping from 26% of stops to 21% of stops (Table 16).
Table 14: Traffic violations by category - 2021 vs. 2022 policy change analysis
2021
2022
42
Los Angeles Police Department (2022). “Policy – Limitation on Use of Pretextual Stops – Established.” Office of the
Chief of Police. Retrieved from:
<https://lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/lapdonlinemedia/2022/03/3_9_22_SO_No._3_Policy_Limitati
on_on_Use_of_Pretextual_Stops_Established.pdf>
40
Category
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Moving
69,832
52%
61,881
71%
Equipment
38,718
29%
16,980
20%
Non-
moving
26,329
20%
7,961
9%
Totals
134,879
100%
86,822
100%
Table 15: Traffic violations by type - 2021 vs. 2022 policy change analysis
2021 (%)
2022 (%)
Speeding
18.1
21
No registration
12.3
5.4
License plate display violation
9.0
4.7
Window obstruction (tint)
8.1
4.2
Failure to stop at crosswalk
6.1
10.7
No hands free device
43
5.6
7.2
Failure to obey turn restrictions
2.9
2.8
Light equipment violation
2.8
2.4
Failure to stop before making turn at light
2.8
4
No hands free device
2
2.1
2.4
Table 16: Stops by race/ethnicity - 2021 vs. 2022 policy change analysis
2021
2022
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Asian
5,440
3.2
4,189
3.8
Black/African American
43,727
26.1
24,449
21.9
Hispanic/Latino
83,381
49.7
58,279
52.2
Middle Eastern or South
Asian
8,033
4.8
5,478
4.9
Native American
74
0
53
0
Pacific Islander
363
0.2
230
0.2
White
26,695
15.9
18,953
17
Total
167,713
100
111,631
100
d. Actions, Results, Use of Force
During most traffic violation stops, no actions (searching, use of force,
detention, removal from the vehicle, etc.) are taken (73%) (Table 17).
Black drivers are more likely to be subject to more actions (13% one
action, 23% two to five actions), including the use of force (Table 18). Use
of force only occurs in a small percentage of traffic violation stops (0.4%),
with Black drivers receiving a disproportionate use of force (30% of the use
43
These are distinct (but related) vehicle code violations 23123.5 VC NO HND HLD DEVICE W/DRIVE
and 23123(A) VC USE CELLPH W/DRIV W/O HFD
41
of force stops and 33% firearm pointed at a person, with Black residents
making up 8% of the city’s population) (Table 19 & Table 20).
Most stops end in no result (citation, warning, etc.), and the percentage of
stops ending in no result is relatively consistent across racial/ethnic groups
(Table 21 & Table 22). Further, a minority of traffic violations result in a
citation (31%). Moving violations are more likely to result in a citation (46%
of stops); 14% of equipment violations and 23% of non-moving violations
result in a citation (Table 23).
Table 17: Number of actions occurring during traffic violation stops (2019-2021)
Number of
actions
Frequency
Percent
0
88,9986
72.8
1
135,396
11.1
2
62,934
5.1
3
55,809
4.6
4
42,676
3.5
5
22,798
1.9
6
9,078
0.7
7
3,399
0.3
8
673
0.1
9
163
0.0
10
33
0.0
Table 18: Number of actions during traffic violation stops by race/ethnicity (2019 – 2021)
0
actions
1
action
2-5
actions
6-11
actions
Asian
90.0%
7.8%
2.0%
0.2%
Black/African American
62.4%
12.6%
23.3%
1.7%
Hispanic/Latino
70.7%
11.7%
16.5%
1.2%
Middle Eastern or South
Asian
87.9%
8.0%
3.8%
0.3%
Native American
77.6%
11.2%
10.6%
0.6%
Pacific Islander
81.3%
10.5%
7.2%
1.0%
White
86.1%
8.7%
4.8%
0.4%
Two or more races
71.9%
10.9%
16.3%
0.8%
Total
72.8%
11.1%
15.1%
1.1%
42
Table 19: Traffic violation stops where use of force occurred by race/ethnicity (2019-2021)
Traffic violation stops
where the use of force
occurred
All traffic stops
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Asian
72
1.6
47,182
3.9
Black/African American
1,338
30.1
314,089
25.7
Hispanic/Latino
2,371
53.3
584,329
47.8
Middle Eastern or South Asian
108
2.4
54,396
4.4
Native American
0
0.0
545
0
Pacific Islander
17
0.4
2,889
0.2
White
491
11.0
213,039
17.4
Two or more races
51
1.1
6,480
0.5
Total
4448
100.0
1,222,949
100
43
Table 20: Traffic violation stops where firearms are pointed at driver by race/ethnicity (2019 –
2021)
Firearms pointed
All traffic stops
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Asian
19
0.7
47,182
3.9
Black/African American
876
33.0
314,089
25.7
Hispanic/Latino
1517
57.1
584,329
47.8
Middle Eastern or South Asian
37
1.4
54,396
4.4
Native American
0
0.0
545
0
Pacific Islander
11
0.4
2,889
0.2
White
185
7.0
213,039
17.4
Two or more races
12
0.5
6,480
0.5
Total
2657
100.0
1,222,949
100
Table 21: Number of results from traffic violation stops (2019 – 2021)
Number of results
Frequency
Percent
0
620,883
50.8
1
587,064
48.0
2
14,334
1.2
3
651
0.1
4
16
0.0
5
1
0.0
Table 22: Number of results from traffic violation stops by race/ethnicity (2019 – 2021)
0 results
1 result
2+ results
Asian
50.2%
49.5%
0.3%
Black/African American
55.6%
43.2%
1.2%
Hispanic/Latino
49.3%
49.2%
1.5%
Middle Eastern or South Asian
44.0%
55.4%
0.6%
Native American
45.5%
52.8%
1.7%
Pacific Islander
50.8%
47.8%
1.3%
White
49.7%
49.5%
0.8%
Two or more races
46.6%
51.2%
2.3%
Total
50.8%
48.0%
1.2%
Table 23: Percent of traffic violation stops by category resulting in a citation (2019 – 2021)
Type
%
Moving
45.6%
Equipment
14.4%
Non-moving
22.7%
Percent of stops resulting in citations (top 20 reasons)
30.5%
Percent of all traffic violation stops resulting in citations
28%
44
e. Speed Violations and Relationship to Vision Zero High-Injury
Network
The consultant team’s analysis for speeding and Vision Zero found that
Black drivers are stopped less for speeding than all traffic stops but still
higher than the Black population (Table 24 & Table 25). Most stops for
speeding do not result in a citation (58%) or a warning (11%) (Table 26).
The racial trends in speeding stops that result in a citation are closer to
racial parity than other components (Table 27).
Table 24: Percent of stops for speeding by race/ethnicity (2019-2021)
Speeding related stops
All traffic stops
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Asian
8417
4.3
47,182
3.9
Black/African American
35,629
18.3
314,089
25.7
Hispanic/Latino
88,217
45.2
584,329
47.8
Middle Eastern or South Asian
14,980
7.7
54,396
4.4
Native American
88
0
545
0
Pacific Islander
622
0.3
2,889
0.2
White
46,337
23.8
213,039
17.4
Two or more races
731
0.4
6480
0.5
Total
195,021
100
1,222,949
100
Table 25: Speeding stops per capita by race/ethnicity (2019 – 2021)
Speeding stops
per 100,000
population
Percent of
Speeding stops
Percent of
city
population
Asian
1,894
4.3%
11.5%
Black/African American
11,822
18.3%
7.8%
Hispanic/Latino
4,763
45.2%
48.1%
Native American
1,464
0.0%
0.2%
Other
9,922
8.1%
4.1%
Pacific Islander
9,732
0.3%
0.2%
White
4,287
23.8%
28.1%
Citywide
5,066
Table 26: Results of speeding stops by frequency (2019-2021)
Frequency
Percent
44
Citation
112774
57.7%
No action
59990
30.7%
Warning
20551
10.5%
Field interview card
1123
0.6%
Arrest without warrant
823
0.4%
Arrest pursuant to warrant
180
0.1%
44
Multiple results could happen during a stop, so the total number of results is more than the total
number of stops for speeding and the total percent equals more than 100.
45
In-field cite and release
85
0.0%
Psychiatric hold
20
0.0%
Contacted parent/guardian
7
0.0%
Non-criminal or caretaking escort
4
0.0%
Contacted Homeland Security
1
0.0%
Table 27: Citations and stops for speeding per capita by race/ethnicity (2019-2021)
Citations for
per 100,000
population
Percent
Speeding
stops per
100,000
population
Percent of
Speeding
stops
Population
Asian
1,134
4.5%
1,894
4.30%
11.5%
Black/African
American
5,696
15.2%
11,822
18.30%
7.8%
Hispanic/Latino
2,796
45.9%
4,763
45.20%
48.1%
Native American
1,048
0.1%
1,464
0.00%
0.2%
Other
6,631
9.3%
9,922
8.10%
4.1%
Pacific Islander
6,102
0.3%
9,732
0.30%
0.2%
White
2,575
24.7%
4,287
23.80%
28.1%
Citywide
2,930
5,066
Speeding stops are more likely to occur in neighborhoods in the San
Fernando Valley (Porter Ranch, Northridge, Lake Balboa, Sun Valley, and
others), in Downtown Los Angeles, Pacific Palisades, and Leimert Park
(Figure 3, Figure 4, & Figure 5). We analyzed the relationship between the
number of speeding stops and miles of high injury network per
neighborhood (n=114) and per reporting district. We found only evidence
of a weak relationship (r=.19) between the miles of streets on the high-
injury network and the number of stops for speeding by neighborhood. The
relationship is near eliminated (r=.0012) when stops for speeding are
normalized by neighborhood population. For a more refined analysis, we
also tested this analysis at the reporting district (n=1135) and found a
similarly weak relationship (r=.006) between stops for speeding and miles
of high-injury network streets. This analysis demonstrates room for
improvement in the connection between enforcing speeding and areas
with high collision rates.
46
Figure 4: Stops for speeding per capita by neighborhood
47
Figure 5: Stops for speeding per capita by neighborhood with high-injury network overlay
48
Figure 3: Stops for speeding by LAPD reporting district
49
4. Limitations
This analysis is not without limitations, including:
▪ Police stop data are based on perceived race/ethnicity versus self-reported
and slightly different racial/ethnic categories within the census data. This
may limit the findings relative to smaller racial/ethnic categories (e.g.,
other, Native American, Pacific Islander).
▪ The consultant team normalized the number of stops by the population of
those racial groups, but this assumes that similar percentages of
racial/ethnic groups do drive.
45
▪ The spatial analysis assumes that the population across neighborhoods
mirrors traffic volumes in those places. For the spatial analysis, the ideal
comparison to stop volumes would be traffic volumes by race/ethnicity.
While LADOT collects traffic volumes, they are done at a small percent of
intersections throughout the city. This sample does not allow us to
generalize volumes to the neighborhood scale.
▪ Police activity is not equally distributed throughout the city. Police deploy
officers using a 7/40 model where the goal is to respond to emergencies
within 7 minutes and spend 40% of free time on patrol. With this approach,
officers spend more time in areas with high volumes of calls and
emergencies, which contributes to differences in stops by neighborhood
(See Appendix T: “Los Angeles Police Department’s 7-40 Model
Summary” for more detail).
▪ The number of actions that occurred during stops may be undercounted,
as a 2019 Office of Inspector General audit found that 18% of audited
traffic stop records did not record a post-stop action, most often searches.
Taken together, these limitations demonstrate that the reasons for the racial
disparities in stops is not easily understood, in part because using the
racial/ethnic city population is an imperfect benchmark. These limitations are
similarly highlighted in the 2019 Office of Inspector General Review of Stops
by LAPD.
5. Key Takeaways
Fewer Stops: The number of stops has declined annually since 2019. Stops
are concentrated in neighborhoods in and around Hollywood, South Los
Angeles, and Downtown. Most stops are for traffic violation purposes. While
speeding is the most common traffic violation type, stops for speeding only
represent 16% of all traffic violation stops, with slightly more than half of
speeding stops resulting in a driver being issued a citation.
45
Stops were normalized using the City of Los Angeles census tract populations from the most recent American
Community Survey 5-year data (2017-2021). Census tract population was proportionally allocated by area to the
neighborhood and police reporting district boundaries. For the number of stops per 100,000 population, we took the
number of stops within police reporting districts or neighborhoods, divided by the population of that census tract or
neighborhood, and multiplied this total by 100,000.
50
Disproportionate Stops by Race: Relative to the city population, Black
drivers are disproportionately stopped and subject to more actions during the
stop than other racial/ethnic groups. While police use of force and brandishing
their weapon is uncommon in most traffic violation stops, these actions occur
disproportionately to Black drivers when they do occur.
Pretextual Stop Policy Update Nets Some Changes: LAPD’s recent policy
update wherein officers must articulate the reason for initiating a pretextual
stop demonstrates shifts in traffic stop patterns. In the six months since the
policy change went into effect, a higher percentage of stops were made for
moving violations compared to the same six-month period in the prior year.
The proportion of Black drivers who were stopped after the policy change
declined from the previous year but remained disproportionate to the
population of Black residents.
C. Review of Training Materials
As part of this study, the consultant team was tasked with reviewing relevant
training materials to inform recommendations. Because the training materials for
LAPD and LADOT are voluminous, the consultant team was asked to focus on the
following:
▪ Incorporate an analysis of how changes to officer training related to the City’s
revised pretextual stop policy affects outcomes (see “Quantitative Data
Findings”)
▪ Inquire about training best practices, limitations, and considerations as part of
the expert interviews (see “Expert Interview Findings”)
While this study was unable to incorporate a comprehensive review of all training
materials and relevant policies at LAPD and other relevant City Departments,
Council may consider an additional study that focuses solely on training reforms
and best practices.
D. Focus Group Findings
The qualitative analysis focused on a series of community and practitioner
stakeholder focus groups. These focus groups were augmented by expert
interviews with academics and legal scholars, as described in Sections IV.D and
IV.E.
1. Purpose
The consultant team conducted focus groups to foster a participatory research
model based on shared learning. The team’s goal using focus groups was to
center the perspectives of marginalized groups and those disproportionately
affected by encounters with law enforcement; the groups were meant to focus
on implications that go beyond traffic enforcement to speak to the potential
harm communities face under the traditional enforcement model. The team
also sought to gather information from participants on the effects of fines,
arrest, and imprisonment, as well as surface the different dimensions of
discrimination across various groups (e.g., gender and gender identity, age,
race, sexuality, religion, income, immigration status, English proficiency, etc.).
51
2. Methodology
The consultant team conducted four (4) virtual focus groups in two phases
during November 2022 and January 2023. The consultant team developed an
adapted focus group protocol in response to changes in budget and project
timeline, and focus group recruitment continued despite the political
conversation at the time. The protocol allowed the consultant team to conduct
outreach and facilitate focus groups in a consistent, strategic manner to
answer the research question, “How do Angelenos respond to the potential of
removing traffic enforcement responsibilities to an unarmed, civilian
government unit?” (See Appendix H for the Focus Group Protocol).
a. Focus Group Recruitment
The consultant team worked with LADOT to compose an email and social
media materials for focus group recruitment. Approximately 70 emails
were distributed to specific populations, targeted geographies, or identified
community-based organizations (CBOs) who could assist in identifying
participants and conducting outreach. The initial outreach email included a
Google RSVP form that collected over 600 initial responses. Several
respondents indicated that they learned about the focus group opportunity
through social media.
After reviewing the initial responses, the consultant team suspected that
the responses were not all human generated. To ensure respondents
could be better verified, the research team administered a follow-up
participant intake form via SurveyMonkey asking specific questions about
each respondent’s location in Los Angeles and desire to participate in the
focus groups. This survey garnered over 150 responses. To determine
whether responses were from qualified participants residing in Los
Angeles, the consultant team manually checked each respondent’s IP
address. Of these, only 23 were humans living in the city of Los Angeles. A
follow-up email was then sent to confirm times with the 23 human
respondents with IP addresses in Los Angeles. Of the respondents, 15 of
23 indicated a preference to meet virtually, with no one preferring to meet
in person. All focus groups were conducted virtually based on
respondents’ preferences.
b. Format
All four (4) focus group sessions were 90 minutes and conducted via
Zoom. The focus group facilitators started each session with a round of
introductions and a brief overview of the study. During introductions,
facilitators requested participants to turn on their cameras to confirm their
identities. During the focus group discussion, participants were guided
through eight (8) questions (See Appendix H for the focus group
questions). These discussion questions were developed by the consultant
team and confirmed by LADOT prior to recruitment. For focus groups with
more than five (5) people, participants were split into two breakout rooms
to allow for more discussion time. All participants were able to respond to
the questions using the chat feature or by unmuting themselves. Notes
were recorded live using Google Jamboard. The Jamboard was shared on
52
screen during discussions to allow participants to follow along in the
discussion.
After each focus group, notetakers and facilitators reviewed the transcripts
and live notes. They then coded responses and highlighted the major
themes for each question. Before developing recommendations, the
consultant team presented their initial findings and themes to the Task
Force Research Subcommittee and received their initial feedback and
thoughts on how these themes could be translated to recommendations
(See Appendix I for the full focus group presentation).
c. Participation
Eight (8) people participated in the first round of focus group sessions in
November 2022. Six (6) people participated in the second round of focus
groups in late January 2023. Each round consisted of two focus groups.
To avoid an overwhelming number of invalid responses for the second
round of outreach, email communication and word of mouth was used to
recruit potential participants. The consultant team reached out directly to
Task Force members and asked them to share the outreach email with
organizations and individuals who they felt would be interested in
participating in a focus group. Approximately 20 outreach emails were sent
through the team’s networks, including a request to distribute the focus
group recruitment email to each Los Angeles Community Police Advisory
Board (CPAB) member through LAPD. The Google RSVP form received
over 200 responses. The consultant team manually checked IP addresses
and made follow-up calls to 15 respondents. Through the calls, the team
was able to confirm that only two (2) of the respondents were residents of
Los Angeles. The team then sent 10 emails to no-show respondents from
the first round of focus groups and opened participation up to Task Force
members.
53
In total, fourteen (14) individual participants participated in a total of four
(4) focus group sessions in November 2022 or January 2023. The
participants were residents of five (5) different neighborhoods in Los
Angeles and represented six (6) organizations.
3. Key Takeaways
The consultant team analyzed the focus group discussions by identifying
shared sentiments and common themes across the focus groups to develop
five (5) key takeaways. These focus group takeaways were compared with
key takeaways in the quantitative data analysis to identify overlapping themes
between the two research approaches.
Recommendations to the City of Los Angeles in this section reflect the overlap
between the focus groups and quantitative data analysis conducted by the
consultant team.
While this study was specifically focused on traffic enforcement, overall, many
participants shared their perception of safety to be about more than just traffic
and traffic violence. For example, some expressed a desire for less
enforcement and more human services when discussing traffic safety issues.
Several participants noted “quality of life” as an important component of
improving traffic violence, and others noted concerns about, and for,
unhoused neighbors. Participants stated that they hoped to see less
enforcement for quality-of-life issues and more services, particularly mental
health services.
a. Heightened Emotions
Participants acknowledged that both drivers and police officers have
heightened emotions during stops. Regardless of a participant’s view on
54
police officers generally, many expressed that stops can be emotionally
challenging for both drivers and officers. Yet, several participants felt that
each stop is rife with power imbalances with officers having all the power
in these interactions.
b. Speeding and Driver Aggressiveness
Many participants defined speeding as the top traffic problem in Los
Angeles. In fact, most participants expressed the sentiment that speeding
has gotten worse over the course of the pandemic. From actions such as
running stop signs to more aggressive street takeovers and races,
participants stated that aggressiveness of drivers towards non-drivers,
including the unhoused, is a growing problem in Los Angeles.
c. Infrastructure
This project was initially scoped to only speak to traffic enforcement-
related issues. However, in every focus group, the consultant team heard
from participants that they wanted to see the streets engineered differently
and more infrastructure built to combat the issues they were identifying.
Participants identified more protective infrastructure for non-drivers; driver
education; more thoughtful, intentional, and consistent community
engagement; and community policing as ways to improve traffic safety.
d. Bolstering Active Transportation
Many participants opined that they felt unsafe in the city when they were
not in a car. To improve safety, participants suggested more investments
in modes of transportation outside of private vehicles. Participants
emphasized the importance of fare-free transit, non-armed first
responders, and investments in community services as traffic enforcement
alternatives. Additionally, participants asked for more connectivity between
different modes and more investment in biking and walking infrastructure.
Participants believe that by investing in active transportation, traveling via
other modes will be more realistic, reliable, and safe.
e. Terminology Concerns
Not all participants are sure what “enforcement alternatives” mean. In each
focus group, some participants asked facilitators to offer more explanation
about what the term means. After explanation and additional explanations,
many participants expressed a desire for the City to be clear about what
this phrase means and how it might message any changes made because
of this work. Many people asked whether “enforcement alternatives” is the
same as “defund the police.” Whether people were in support or opposition
of that phrase, there was a desire for the City to be direct, clear, and
transparent in all of its communications going forward about the topic.
4. Limitations
a. Project Resources
A specified project timeline and limited resources constrained the
consultant team’s ability to get a sample of participants that holistically
represented the demographics in Los Angeles, as well as the many
55
different, nuanced opinions on traffic enforcement. The neighborhoods
represented by the qualitative sample did not adequately represent low-
income communities of color with high numbers of police interactions.
Focus groups were only hosted with English speakers who were available
to participate in a virtual remote setting. This did not allow us to talk to
Angelenos who speak other languages or are not as comfortable speaking
in English. This also reduced the team’s ability to engage in targeted
recruitment to certain geographic areas and organizations that fully
highlight the diversity of this city and the range of viewpoints on traffic
enforcement.
With more resources and time, the consultant team could have hosted
focus group sessions primarily in non-English languages. The team could
also host in-person focus groups with food during weekend and evening
hours. Likewise, the team could have offered other provisions that would
facilitate easier participation (e.g., transit passes, childcare, etc.). Finally,
with more resources and time, the consultant team could dedicate
recruitment efforts with specific attention to communities of color,
particularly communities with high Black and Brown populations, and
improve outreach methods to better target focus group participants who
are Los Angeles residents.
b. Timing of Recruitment
Due to the project timeline, the recruitment of focus group participants ran
up to the winter holiday season. Some participants expressed an interest
in participating, but noted other priorities in preparation for the end of the
year or holiday travel.
The consultant team also ended up conducting important parts of this
project during a political transition. Several council members rotated off the
City Council, and there is now a new mayor. These transitions resulted in
the reshuffling of council assignments and new staff involved in city
operations.
5. Next Steps
Below, we outline three potential next steps the City can take to gather more
qualitative data on traffic enforcement alternatives. Each centers the
community and would require an additional investment in time and resources.
a. Conduct More Focus Groups with Increased Funding and
Resources
The consultant team recommends conducting additional outreach to
gather critical qualitative input. That should not stop the City of Los
Angeles from acting on some of this report’s initial recommendations.
However, with more resources and a longer timeline, the City should
ensure that residents from all parts of the City have a chance to participate
in the reshaping of traffic enforcement. In particular, the City should
prioritize specific focus groups for non-English speakers, and host in-
person focus groups across the city. These focus groups should provide
56
food and childcare to increase the number of people able to attend. They
should also be transit accessible or have plenty of parking. Finally, the City
should consider paying focus groups participants to demonstrate respect
for the expertise community members bring to these conversations. Below
is a proposed framework for the City to determine how many additional
focus groups to host. The consultant team recommends at least 20
additional focus groups, with additional groups targeted to City-defined
priority populations:
▪ Host one group per Council District [15 convenings]
▪ Host monolingual convenings for the five most spoken languages
citywide (not including English) [5 convenings]
▪ Host focus groups with priority populations (e.g., vulnerable road
users, populations that see disproportionate police interactions based
on RIPA data, City employees and staff that have a role in traffic safety
and enforcement, etc.) [total number dependent on City-defined
priorities]
b. Work with Community-Based Organizations
Additionally, the consultant team believes that a mechanism to formally
partner with community-based organizations should be implemented for a
more impactful outreach effort. Community organizations could be the
main hosts of each focus group or town hall. They would be paid for this
work and be charged with outreach, organizing, and all logistics for the
events. The role of consultants or City staff would be reduced to provide
community groups with support as needed. Consultants or City staff could
utilize a train-the-trainer model and conduct training sessions where
organizations are trained on the project, the decision-making processes at
the City, and how to facilitate the focus groups. The goal would be to have
at least one community-based partner in each council district. This group
could be chosen in consultation with the council office. Communities where
police interactions are higher should receive more resources and conduct
more focus groups.
c. Create a Town Hall Series
Focus groups are a valuable qualitative research tool, but they are often
limited in size. As a way to supplement the feedback received from focus
groups, the City should conduct town hall meetings The City may consider
hosting a town hall in each Council District (15 total), with outreach efforts
focused on recruiting participants from City-defined priority populations
and non-English speakers. To be as impactful as possible, these meetings
should include representatives from councilmembers’ staff and City of Los
Angeles Departments that are focused on street safety and enforcement.
These meetings would allow those outside of focus groups or the Task
Force to hear directly from City officials on their vision, challenges, and
processes to create alternatives to traffic enforcement. Community
members would also be able to directly share their experiences and
concerns about traffic enforcement and any proposed changes to the
current system.
57
E. Expert Interview Findings
1. Purpose
This section synthesizes findings from a series of interviews with traffic safety
experts. Interviewees had experience working with jurisdictions taking actions
to reduce the use of armed police officers performing traffic enforcement.
These interviews allowed the consultant team to expand on questions that
LADOT, LAPD, and the Task Force raised regarding implementing traffic
enforcement alternatives. Following the literature review, which identified cities
that are discussing or implementing traffic enforcement alternatives, the
consultant team followed up with experts in these jurisdictions who could
speak to these shifts. The findings from these interviews are meant to inform
this report’s recommendations by providing a more in-depth understanding of
how these changes were operationalized, surfacing any barriers to
implementation, and proposing potential solutions for addressing said barriers.
2. Methodology
The consultant team conducted a scan of national and international examples
of jurisdictions implementing or considering traffic enforcement reforms and
alternatives (See Section IV. A). This includes jurisdictions in which police
departments have or are engaging in specific reforms and attempts to
reconfigure their departments, training, and associated outcomes.
Upon completion of this case study review, LADOT, LAPD, and the Task
Force read the draft and suggested a series of expert interview candidates
based on the findings. LADOT and LAPD identified police departments and
departments of transportation in Fayetteville, North Carolina; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; and New Zealand as top priorities for the expert interviews. The
consultant team also suggested interviewing a representative from the City of
Berkeley, due to a similar effort recently undertaken in that jurisdiction. The
Task Force further suggested several transportation practitioners, academics,
and community leaders to expand the list of interview candidates, noting that
the focus on police departments and departments of transportation was too
narrow (See Appendix J for the full list of suggested interviewees).
Ultimately, the consultant team scheduled interviews with experts in three of
the recommended locations; none of the individuals interviewed represented
police departments. Specifically, the consultant team spoke with:
▪ University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC)
▪ City of Berkeley
▪ Oakland Department of Transportation (OakDOT)
The consultant team drafted the interview questions and protocol based on
findings from the case studies. LADOT, LAPD, and the Task Force reviewed
and provided edits to the interview protocol (See Appendix J for the complete
protocol).
58
a. Background on Expert Interview Locations
This section summarizes recent or in-progress traffic enforcement reforms
in each of the interview locations:
▪ In 2013, the Police Chief in Fayetteville, NC encouraged officers to
focus on moving violations of immediate concern to public safety, such
as speeding. This shift away from enforcement of non-moving
violations overall resulted in a decrease in the number of investigative
stops and the number of Black drivers stopped and searched.
46
▪ Berkeley, CA announced in 2020 that it would create a Department of
Transportation (BerkDOT) which would house an unarmed civilian
traffic enforcement unit. Since then, the creation of this new
department has stalled, and the City’s attempts at implementing civilian
traffic enforcement have been blocked by legal hurdles regarding non-
peace officers performing traffic stops (See Section IV.E for more
information on this legal issue). Relatedly, a working group of
Berkeley’s Police Accountability Board is working to prioritize traffic
stops based on safety and “not just low-level offenses.”
47
In January
2022, the working group established an approach to traffic
enforcement that focused on primary collision factors, or the main
causes of collisions. Some community members have expressed
concern that this approach was drafted by a working group made up
primarily of police officers (who comprised 10 of the 11 members) and
that some primary collision factors (such as seatbelt violations) may
still result in racial profiling.
48
▪ In 2020, Oakland, CA, shifted some traffic enforcement responsibilities
– like towing of abandoned vehicles and crossing guards – from the
Oakland Police Department (OPD) to the comparatively new Oakland
Department of Transportation (OakDOT). Parking enforcement, which
was formerly under OPD, has been managed under OakDOT since the
department’s inception in 2017.
49
3. Findings and Themes
This section describes key interview findings, organized into the following
themes: (1) definition of traffic safety, (2) community engagement, (3) legal
and legislative challenges, 4) limits of training, (5) department reorganization,
(6) impact on crime and traffic fatalities, and (7) data tracking and monitoring
(See Appendix K for a summary of findings from each interview).
46
Fliss, M.D. et al. (2020). Re-Prioritizing Traffic Stops to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes and Racial
Disparities. Injury Epidemiology. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338692139_Re-
prioritizing_traffic_stops_to_reduce_motor_vehicle_crash_outcomes_and_racial_disparities
47
Robinson, R. (2023). Personal communication, February 7, 2023.
48
Robinson, R. (2023). Personal communication, February 7, 2023.
49
Fermoso, J. (2023). Oakland Transportation Department Takes Over Abandoned Auto Removals. The
Oaklandside. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from https://oaklandside.org/2023/03/16/oakland-transportation-department-
takes-over-abandoned-auto-removals/
59
a. Expanding the Definition of Traffic Safety
Interviewees emphasized the importance of a more holistic definition of
traffic safety that includes the infrastructure components of programs like
Vision Zero and broadens the concept. This expanded definition would
encapsulate a road user’s physical safety during traffic stops and account
for mental health stressors associated with discrimination and traffic
violence.
While interviewees generally referenced Vision Zero programs, UNC
researchers pointed out several shortcomings in the current Vision Zero
framework. For example, Vision Zero does not consider use of force by
law enforcement in its definition of traffic safety, nor does it account for
other harms such as mental trauma, distrust, or cumulative burdens
related to racial profiling in traffic stops. Further, it does not consider fines,
impounding cars, Automated License Plate Readers, or the overall policing
of poverty. One interviewee noted that data from the Violent Death
Reporting System indicates that many police-involved deaths occur after a
traffic stop; however, these fatalities are not accounted for in the Vision
Zero framework. While they consider zero crashes to be an important goal,
interviewees stressed that this metric should not be the only marker of a
safe traffic system.
Interviewees from OakDOT and UNC added that traffic safety must also
incorporate a more holistic understanding of the impact of traffic violence.
This means accounting for the stress that drivers, pedestrians, and
community members experience related to speeding; it should encompass
the risks to children biking or playing in neighborhood streets, as well as
stress related to racial discrimination and an individual’s fear of being
stopped by police.
Interviewees from the City of Berkeley and UNC also emphasized the
need to think about traffic enforcement from a safety paradigm – that is,
the goal of traffic enforcement should be to keep people safe, rather than
to catch violators. Traffic stops should focus on moving violations (e.g.,
speeding or running red lights) rather than violations that do not impact
public safety (e.g., expired registration tags). A UNC interviewee noted that
stops for expired registration tags often function as informal criminal
investigations and that police may use them as opportunities to search a
car for contraband. Interviewees emphasized that shifting focus from
enforcement to prevention, through safe infrastructure and social
programs, is an important component of traffic safety.
b. Responding to Community and Building Trust
Based on several examples from North Carolina, the interviewee from
UNC noted that the effectiveness of reforms within police departments
depends on the reform’s impetus. In Fayetteville, road safety outcomes
and community sentiment improved when the police chief directed officers
to deemphasize enforcement of offenses like broken taillights and expired
tags, and instead focus on violations like speeding and drunk driving at
60
major intersections.
50
For successful reform, interviewees noted that
strong internal and external leadership should be combined with
institutionalization (e.g., through formal policy changes or directives that go
beyond a police chief, mayoral, or council tenure) and community
collaboration.
Interviewees reported that some cities in North Carolina created
Citizen/Police Advisory Committees (CPACs), or advisory boards made up
of police officers and appointed members of the public, to make
recommendations to improve police policy and procedure. CPACs, though,
are hindered by North Carolina state law which treats police records as
personnel records – meaning that only direct supervisors – not outside
regulatory bodies – can access police files to investigate complaints.
51
Community activists, including Black Lives Matter organizers, have
supported changing this law, but efforts have been unsuccessful.
In Berkeley, the interviewee noted that reforms were largely driven by
advocates like Walk Bike Berkeley. Some community advocates also
expressed that the focus should be on abolition and not reform. The City’s
community engagement efforts focused on soliciting responses to a
survey, which overwhelmingly supported reimagining traffic enforcement,
but follow-up actions were hampered due to staff capacity shortages.
The Oakland interviewee shared that OakDOT focused on an equitable
engagement approach, primarily reaching out to neighborhoods with
legacies of disinvestment and residents with the greatest distrust of
government. The department worked to create structured partnerships with
these communities rather than imposing solutions on them. OakDOT
continues to have ongoing conversations to hear frustrations and build
trust with members of these focus communities.
c. Addressing Legal and Legislative Challenges
Interviewees raised legal and legislative challenges that jurisdictions faced;
namely, whether non-peace officers can conduct traffic enforcement and
the implications of state legislation related to automated enforcement.
The Berkeley interviewee explained that the City’s attempts to create
unarmed traffic enforcement teams was blocked by an interpretation of
California state law governing enforcement. The interviewee noted that
some interpretations of state code limit traffic enforcement to sworn police
officers. There is some debate on the interpretation of this code, but
attempts to clarify or update the legislation have been difficult. Considering
this uncertainty, City leaders are looking to advocate for policy change
50
Fliss, M.D. et al. (2020). Re-Prioritizing Traffic Stops to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes and Racial
Disparities. Injury Epidemiology. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338692139_Re-
prioritizing_traffic_stops_to_reduce_motor_vehicle_crash_outcomes_and_racial_disparities
51
Martin, K. (2020). Police Accountability: Accessing Law Enforcement Records in NC. Carolina Public Press.
Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from https://carolinapublicpress.org/30644/police-accountability-accessing-law-
enforcement-records-in-nc/
61
within the state legislature (See Section IV.E for more discussion regarding
this legal issue).
Interviewees also noted that legislative changes are needed to allow for
automated enforcement, but that these require support from diverse
groups. Interviewees shared that traffic enforcement cameras, such as
California’s former red-light program, are often unpopular. The state’s now
defunct program had significant design flaws that disproportionately
burdened low-income and communities of color, including high fees and
privacy issues related to personally identifiable information. However, if
implementing agencies address privacy and equity concerns, camera
systems can be effective tools for speed enforcement. In 2021, the
California State Legislature proposed an automated camera-ticketing
enforcement program.
52
This bill had support from police unions, but
lacked support from transportation advocacy groups, labor unions, and
police reform advocates who expressed concerns around surveillance,
fines, and fees. The bill ultimately died in assembly.
Further, the Oakland interviewee shared that the Oakland City Council
wanted to participate as a pilot city in proposed state legislation for
automated speed enforcement. The program would have allowed the city
to implement speed cameras that would capture photos of only rear
license plates of speeding cars, and not of windshields or drivers’ faces. It
would also administer fines with the opportunity for drivers to reduce fines
if unable to pay or perform community service in lieu of a fine.
53
d. Limits of Training
Interviewees shared that training alone is an insufficient reform mechanism
for addressing the disparities in traffic enforcement. This is borne out from
the results of recent efforts; years of training reforms have not created the
anticipated changes. UNC noted that some enforcement agencies have
implemented racial equity training, but stated that such training was limited
in their ability to substantively transform policy. They reported that these
trainings largely fail to critically interrogate the history of traffic stops,
instead focusing squarely on improving enforcement agencies’ work within
the existing context of police enforcement. That is, the training may
introduce some basic equity concepts, including reviewing disparities in
traffic stop data, but do not work to fundamentally shift enforcement.
e. Lessons Learned Related to Department Reorganization
As responsibilities between police departments and administrative
branches of municipal government shift, coordination across departments
and with employee unions is essential. The Oakland interviewee noted the
importance of cross-departmental coordination, sharing that the receiving
52
Chiu, D., Friedman, L. (2021). AB 550 Vehicles: Speed Safety System Pilot Program. Retrieved on April 4, 2023
from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB550
53
Cano, R. (2022). Bay Area Cities Want to Use Cameras to Reduce Excessive Speeding. A New Bill Would Allow It.
San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-
cities-want-to-use-cameras-to-enforce-16975885.php
62
agency, the department of transportation, needed to coordinate with the
police department to gain access to police department-controlled
databases with information on a vehicle’s status. Specifically, to tow
abandoned vehicles, DOT employees needed access to police department
data that lists whether that vehicle is stolen, abandoned, or serving as
shelter. This interviewee also noted that transitioning enforcement
responsibilities involves administrative challenges. For example, city
agencies should be prepared to address staffing realities, including the
creation of new civil service classifications, how a new classification
differentiates from current classifications, and determinations for how non-
sworn personnel will be supervised. For comparison and to set a
foundation, a list of non-sworn classes that perform enforcement activities
is provided in Appendix S: “List of Civilian Enforcement Classes.” Such
classes include Park Ranger, Animal Control Officer, Senior Property
Inspector, among others.
Union responses to reorganization of police departments and enforcement
responsibilities were mixed across Fayetteville, Berkeley, and Oakland.
Each interviewee identified police and labor unions as key stakeholders in
the process to define how workers’ roles would change, if at all. In
Fayetteville, for example, the police union raised concerns about proposed
changes to officers’ enforcement responsibilities. In Oakland, on the other
hand, reorganization of non-sworn employees did not trigger a response
from the police union since changes did not impact sworn officers’
responsibilities.
A key takeaway from interviewees was that bringing unions in early in the
process can mitigate potential conflict and promote successful
implementation. In Oakland, Service Employees International Union or
SEIU (which represents civilian, non-sworn employees of OPD) was given
the opportunity to surface concerns with OakDOT management – an
intentional approach to facilitate a smooth transition and increase
coordination. Other jurisdictions should consider similar strategies to
engage all affected unions to define how (or if) roles will change, surface
key labor concerns, and work with union leadership to address issues.
f. Impacts on Crime, Collisions, and Traffic Violence
UNC reported that police departments believe that traffic stops reduce
crime, but this is not necessarily supported by evidence or actively tracked
or measured. They shared that other social factors are more effective at
lowering crime rates, including policies that help people meet their basic
needs (e.g., housing and income support). However, police departments
can be resistant to change and skeptical that these kinds of programs or
other alternative enforcement approaches would work to reduce crime.
UNC noted the example of Fayetteville, in which crime did not increase
following the implementation of changes to their traffic stop program. This
63
suggests that while police departments may believe certain traffic
enforcement activities are deterring crime, they may not actually do so.
54
Relatedly, UNC interviewees stated that crash rates and fatalities in
Fayetteville decreased after the city implemented reforms to police stops.
(Annual average of crashes dropped from 5,298 to 5,160 and annual traffic
fatalities decreased from 62.3 to 48.8.)
55
They suggested that while
changing police practices has reduced crashes in Fayetteville, other policy
levers, including public health interventions, are also viable solutions
worthy of policymakers’ consideration.
56
They gave the anecdotal example
of a city that stopped offering or renewing liquor licenses for three years in
a specific neighborhood, which translated to a reduction in crashes. Like
their argument that social policies can be more effective than police at
reducing crime rates, they maintain that public health and other structural
solutions, not just incremental reforms implemented within police
departments, can effectively reduce crash rates and traffic-related
fatalities.
Additionally, a UNC interviewee described how traffic stops are not worth
their financial cost for the police department because the success rate for
uncovering any serious crimes is very small: less than 1% of traffic stops in
North Carolina result in the confiscation of contraband and few result in
high-value arrests (such as arms or narcotics).
57
However, there is not
currently any hard data calculating the percentage and cost to innocent
people that traffic stops affect.
In Oakland, the interviewee described that engineering solutions and safer
street design led to lower crash rates in the city. They described the Safe
Oakland Streets (SOS) initiative, whose goal is to “prevent serious and
fatal traffic crashes and eliminate crash inequities on Oakland’s streets,”
58
as a key effort to build partnership between OakDOT and OPD. SOS has
encouraged police leadership to understand how OPD can work with
OakDOT to address unsafe street conditions and corridors. Rather than
54
Fliss, M.D. et al. (2020). Re-Prioritizing Traffic Stops to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes and Racial
Disparities. Injury Epidemiology. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338692139_Re-
prioritizing_traffic_stops_to_reduce_motor_vehicle_crash_outcomes_and_racial_disparities
55
Fliss, M.D. et al. (2020). Re-Prioritizing Traffic Stops to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes and Racial
Disparities. Injury Epidemiology. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338692139_Re-
prioritizing_traffic_stops_to_reduce_motor_vehicle_crash_outcomes_and_racial_disparities
56
Fliss, M.D. et al. (2020). Re-Prioritizing Traffic Stops to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes and Racial
Disparities. Injury Epidemiology. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338692139_Re-
prioritizing_traffic_stops_to_reduce_motor_vehicle_crash_outcomes_and_racial_disparities
57
McCann, S. (2023). Low-Level Traffic Stops are Ineffective—And Sometimes Deadly. Why Are They Still
Happening? Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from https://www.vera.org/news/low-level-traffic-stops-are-ineffective-and-
sometimes-deadly-why-are-they-still-happening
58
City of Oakland (n.d.). Safe Oakland Streets. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/safe-oakland-streets
64
rely on increased enforcement, police defer to OakDOT to solve street
design problems and ultimately increase traffic safety.
59
g. Data Tracking and Monitoring
Also of note, the interviewee from Berkeley stated that the City needs
better data to track changes in traffic stops and fatalities. Data collection
may be an important consideration for jurisdictions designing and
implementing changes to traffic enforcement.
4. Limitations
As noted earlier in this document, the consultant team conducted these
interviews with constraints. These included limited time to identify and contact
potential participants and conduct interviews, limited budget for continued
coordination and research based on findings, and limited contact information
for recommended interviewees. Due to these limitations, the consultant team
was only able to conduct three interviews. As the City considers the
recommendations put forth in this report, agency staff should follow-up with all
contacts listed on the target interview list and reference the consultant team’s
interview protocol (See Appendix J) to receive more input from police
departments, city officials, advocates, academics, and community members in
locations where changes have been discussed and implemented.
5. Key Takeaways
Adopt a comprehensive approach to traffic safety: Interviewees suggest
traffic safety and Vision Zero frameworks should consider a holistic
understanding of traffic violence to account for stress that community
members experience related to racial discrimination and an individual’s fear of
being stopped by police.
59
Russo, R. (2021). Informational Report on Safe Oakland Streets Initiative. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from
https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/View-Report-2_2021-03-23-000616.pdf
65
Shift focus from enforcement to prevention: Interviewees emphasized that
shifting focus from enforcement to prevention, through safe infrastructure and
social programs, is an important component of traffic safety. Rather than rely
on increased enforcement, police can defer to the department of
transportation to solve street design problems and ultimately increase traffic
safety.
Training has its limits: Interviewees shared that training alone is an
insufficient reform mechanism for addressing the disparities in traffic
enforcement since years of training reforms have not created the anticipated
changes. These trainings fail to critically interrogate the history of traffic stops,
instead focusing squarely on improving enforcement agencies’ work within the
existing context of police enforcement.
Bring employee unions into the conversation early: Bring unions into
conversations about shifting staff responsibilities early in the process to
mitigate potential conflict and promote successful implementation.
Jurisdictions should consider strategies to engage all affected unions to define
how (or if) roles will change, surface key labor concerns, and work with union
leadership to address issues.
F. Legal Research and Interview Findings
City Council requested that this study include a review of relevant state and local
laws, and interviews with legal experts, to assist the consultant team and the Task
Force in developing recommendations. The legal backdrop will inform the scope
of recommendations that can be implemented with and without the need for
changes in state or local law, and may assist the City and the public in
implementing recommendations.
Note that legal consultants retained for this report are not providing formal legal
representation and advice to the City, LADOT, or the Task Force. The Office of
the City Attorney will be tasked with providing confidential legal assessment and
advice during the implementation stage of Task Force recommendations. This
report is a public document and cannot contain nuanced legal assessment or
complete analysis of uncertain issues. However, this section aims to identify and
explain outstanding issues and provide helpful guidance of basic legal parameters
relevant to the Task Force’s consideration and the City’s eventual implementation.
1. Methodology
a. Review of Relevant State and Local Codes
The legal team reviewed the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the California
Vehicle Code, the California Penal Code and other relevant traffic laws.
This review included, but was not limited to, review and internal analysis of
the following statutory provisions. References to specific code sections are
included in the report’s footnotes.
i. Definition and Powers of “Peace Officers”
The legal team reviewed the California Penal Code to identify the
state definition of “peace officers” and the scope of their authorities,
66
including Penal Code sections 830–832.18. This includes review of
provisions identifying certain public officials that do not qualify as
peace officers, as well as provisions regarding the permissible
scopes of their duties.
The legal team also reviewed the Penal Code for provisions on
peace officer powers. For example, Penal Code section 830.3 lists
several types of peace officers and the laws over which they have
enforcement power, and Penal Code Section 836 describes the
arrest authority of peace officers. In addition, we reviewed various
sections that describe peace officers’ (and other types of officers’)
power to issue citations. E.g., Penal Code section 978.5(a)(4)
mentions “peace officer[s] or other person[s] authorized to
issue citations” when describing the circumstances in which bench
warrants of arrest may be issued against criminal defendants.
ii. Review of Traffic Enforcement Roles under California Vehicle
and Penal Codes
The legal team reviewed the California Vehicle and Penal Codes in
detail, regarding powers and limitations of local government entities
relating to traffic enforcement. As part of this review, we evaluated
the Vehicle Code sections that mention peace officers only; those
that mention additional types of enforcing officers; as well as the
many provisions that do not reference any type of enforcing officer.
iii. Review of local laws related to enforcement of traffic laws.
The legal team reviewed the Los Angeles Municipal Code provisions
related to enforcement of traffic and transportation laws, including
current provisions regarding designation of “peace officers” and
“public officers” inside and outside of the LAPD, who have varying
enforcement responsibilities. See, e.g. designation of Taxicab
Administrator and Senior Transportation Engineer as “public officers”
with the authority to make arrests for misdemeanors and infractions
related to “public transportation,” “parking control,” and some other
violations (non-vehicle related, like obstructions to sidewalks/streets,
storm drains/sewers, solicitation, excavating/dumping, etc.).
60
The
legal team also reviewed Chapter VIII of the Los Angeles Municipal
Code, which sets forth the City’s traffic laws. The enforcement
sections of the chapter are primarily in Division A, “Obedience to
Traffic Regulations” and Division O, “Penalties and Effect of
Chapter.” The team also reviewed state and local laws related to
collective bargaining.
b. Interviews
The legal team conducted interviews with several legal experts presenting
a range of perspectives. Interviews focused on the following legal topics:
▪ State laws related to discretion of local government over approaches
to traffic enforcement;
60
Los Angeles Municipal Code (hereafter “LA Municipal Code”) § 71.07.1(a).
67
▪ State and local laws related to public sector collective bargaining,
which may be implicated by certain recommendations; and
▪ Laws concerning the City’s authority to modify fines and fees
assessed for minor traffic violations.
Based on these interviews, the consultant team focused their research and
analysis on issues raised by the experts and identified additional legal
experts to consult. This section summarizes the legal expert interviews,
describes LADOT’s legal structure and authority, and shares the findings
from the interviews and research as they relate to the recommendations in
this report.
61
2. Legal Expert Interview Summaries
The consultant team conducted five interviews with attorneys with a range of
experience and perspectives related to traffic enforcement alternatives. This
section identifies these experts and provides an overview of interview topics.
In January 2023, the consultant team interviewed an attorney with extensive
expertise representing local public entities in collective bargaining, labor law,
and civil service rules in California. We discussed the potential collective
bargaining and labor implications of shifting traffic enforcement. With advice
from this interview, the consultant team reviewed the current memorandum of
understanding between the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police
Protective League (“the MOU”), as described further in Section 5 below.
The consultant team also interviewed three attorneys from a nonprofit law firm,
who had authored a memo about the potential state law implications of shifting
traffic enforcement away from peace officers. They shared their thoughts on
the current arguments on both sides of the issue. The consultant team
consulted this memo and this interview when developing its findings on state
law implications in Section 3 below.
In addition, the consultant team interviewed an attorney who had previously
overseen prominent local government police reform and “reimagining” efforts,
and who was familiar with statewide and national initiatives to civilianize
certain police functions. In this interview, this attorney shared his
understanding of the legal implications of some of the recommendations in this
report, including shifting traffic enforcement duties and automated
enforcement.
In February 2023, the consultant team interviewed two additional attorneys.
One had been involved in state legislative efforts related to traffic
management; and one had represented clients in litigation related to fines and
61
Note that legal consultants retained for this report are not providing formal legal representation and advice to the
City, LADOT, or the Task Force. The Office of the City Attorney will be tasked with providing confidential legal
assessment and advice during the implementation stage of Task Force recommendations. This report is a public
document and cannot contain nuanced legal assessment or complete analysis of uncertain issues. However, we
hope to identify and explain outstanding issues and provide helpful guidance of basic legal parameters relevant to the
Task Force’s consideration and the City’s eventual implementation.
68
fees in Los Angeles. These attorneys addressed several policy and legal
aspects of enforcement of traffic laws and alternative approaches.
3. LADOT’s Legal Structure and Responsibilities
As noted earlier in this report, other cities in the U.S. have shifted at least
some traffic enforcement from their police departments to their departments of
transportation. Although LADOT already has some traffic enforcement
responsibilities, as described further below, this study examines the roles
LADOT could play in the City’s efforts to civilianize traffic enforcement based
on LADOT’s legal structure and authorities.
The City of Los Angeles established LADOT by ordinance in 1979.
62
LADOT is
the City’s “focal point for the proper planning, coordination, direction,
management and operation of the City’s various ground transportation and
ground transportation related activities.”
63
LADOT’s overall purposes are to (1)
plan transportation, traffic regulation, and related uses of the City’s streets and
highways; (2) decide on the location, installation, and maintenance of traffic
control devices; (3) plan, acquire, and manage City-owned off-street parking
facilities; (4) regulate and administer certain railroad franchises; and (5) direct
traffic and enforce parking restrictions and remove abandoned vehicles from
highways.
64
LADOT is a City department under the control of the Mayor and City Council,
with the City’s general manager serving as its Chief Administrative Officer.
65
LADOT’s Transportation Commission is comprised of seven mayoral
appointees (subject to Council’s approval) and it advises the general
manager.
66
The Commission also approves and proposes certain ordinances
before the City Council adopts them.
67
With regard to enforcement of traffic laws, the Los Angeles Administrative
Code differentiates the responsibilities of LADOT and LAPD as follows:
LADOT “shall be responsible for vehicular and pedestrian traffic direction and
parking restriction enforcement,” while LAPD “shall be responsible for
planning, directing and controlling all matters concerning criminal conduct and
crowd control. Additionally, LAPD has overall responsibility for operational
control at the scene of a special event or emergency situation.”
68
Notably, this
provision is silent on which department has responsibility over civil violations
of traffic laws, such as infractions.
62
Los Angeles Administrative Code (hereafter “LA Admin Code”) § 22.480.
63
Id. at § 22.481.
64
Id.
65
See id. (Ch. 20 of Division 22. Departments, Bureaus and Agencies Under the Control of the Mayor and City
Council); id. at § 22.482.
66
Id. at § 22.484(a), (b), (c), (g)(1).
67
Id. at (g)(2)A.
68
Id. at § 22.486(b).
69
4. State Law Regarding Use of Police Officers for Traffic
Enforcement
Some recommendations (i.e., Recommendations #2 and #5 in Section V) in
this report consider shifting traffic enforcement responsibility for minor
violations away from armed police officers to other local employees. However,
the California Vehicle Code (Vehicle Code) envisions police officers (i.e.,
“peace officers,” generally employed within local police departments and
defined below) as the enforcers of traffic laws in most circumstances. As
discussed below, whether these provisions of the Vehicle Code prohibit local
government from utilizing other types of employees to enforce traffic laws is an
open question of law. There are plausible legal arguments that the Vehicle
Code does not limit the City’s discretion in this area. More generally, any
policy reform efforts involve some legal risk or uncertainty.
Therefore, there is at least some degree of risk that a court would prohibit
utilizing employees other than police officers to enforce most traffic laws. The
City has some options, each with varying degrees of risk. These options
include:
▪ Enforcing traffic violations with employees who are not “peace officers”
(i.e. “civilianizing” traffic enforcement);
▪ Employing “peace officers” outside of LAPD; or
▪ Establishing new units of police officers within LAPD, who enforce traffic
laws but do not carry firearms.
We therefore encourage the City and the Office of the City Attorney to explore
all options thoroughly, with an eye towards maximizing the City’s ability to set
policy regarding City employment structures in this important area of public
policy.
a. State Law on Peace Officers and their Authority
i. Definition of peace officer
State law defines “peace officers” to include officers of many different
positions and roles.
69
They include sheriffs and police officers,
70
as
well as other government officials and employees, ranging from
certain employees of various state government agencies
71
to
community college and school district police.
72
Anyone who qualifies
as a peace officer must complete peace officer training (also known
as “POST training”).
Peace officers have the authority to issue citations,
73
serve
69
Penal Code §§ 830-832.18.
70
Id. at § 830.1.
71
Id. at § 830.3 (listing certain employees of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Financial Protection, and more).
72
Id. at § §830.32.
73
See id. at §§ 818, 831.4(b), 978.5(a)(4).
70
warrants,
74
and make arrests.
75
State law does not require them to
carry firearms; rather, a peace officer’s employing agency can decide
whether and to what extent the officer can do so.
76
ii. Peace officers’ roles under the California Vehicle Code (Vehicle
Code)
Many expert attorneys believe that the Vehicle Code prohibits local
government entities from using any employees other than peace
officers to enforce traffic laws, except in narrowly described
circumstances. This legal argument is based on (i) the many
references in the Vehicle Code to enforcement by peace officers; (ii)
some provisions that explicitly indicate the enforcement ability for
employees other than peace officers; and (iii) a general provision
indicating that some aspects of the Vehicle Code override conflicting
provisions of local law. At least one expert we interviewed stated
that, in a Northern California city considering alternative traffic
enforcement approaches, a confidential city attorney opinion raised
this argument, leading to abandonment of the city’s effort to
civilianize enforcement.
There are plausible counterarguments to the above position, and in
our view this should be treated as an open question of law. The
Vehicle Code does not explicitly say that peace officers must be the
only enforcers of traffic violations. No state law explicitly limits traffic
enforcement to peace officers, and no court decision has found an
implicit limitation. The Vehicle Code does prohibit cities from
adopting ordinances “that establish regulations or procedures for”
Vehicle Code violations “unless expressly authorized by this code,”
77
but whether this provision encompasses the choice of which local
employees enforce the Vehicle Code is unresolved.
In addition, there are strong “home rule” arguments in favor of local
discretion here. Generally, the Vehicle Code seeks to establish a
uniform set of regulations, procedures, and penalties for traffic
violations.
78
The California Constitution’s “home rule” doctrine allows
charter cities, like the City of Los Angeles, “to govern themselves,
free of state legislative intrusion, as to the matters deemed municipal
affairs.”
79
The California Constitution lists some examples of
municipal affairs, including “the constitution, regulation, and
government of the city police force” as well as “the terms for which”
municipal employees are hired.
80
These provisions support an
argument that the Vehicle Code should not be interpreted to limit
discretion over using local employees.
74
Id. at § 816.
75
Id. at § 836.
76
See e.g., id. at §§ 830.33(c), 830.3(c)-(k), 830.38.
77
Vehicle Code § 21(a).
78
Id. at § 21(a).
79
City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 458, 465 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).
80
Cal. Constitution, Art XI, §5(b).
71
In addition, the Vehicle Code contains inconsistent provisions on this
point. Some Vehicle Code provisions mention peace officers or other
types of employees as the primary enforcers of those respective
provisions, but others are silent on who enforces the provisions in
question.
81
As such, a local ordinance shifting traffic enforcement
authority would not necessarily conflict with state law because one
could argue that it is simply authorizing an additional type of
employee to carry out state law, and in an area in which the
California Constitution has emphasized the strength of home rule
authority.
Nonetheless, there is a reasonable argument that the state
legislature, through the Vehicle Code, has preempted any local
discretion to enforce traffic laws through employees who are not
peace officers. The Vehicle Code’s repeated references to peace
officers and the carefully delineated exceptions support this
argument. However, strength of this claim would depend both on the
statutory interpretation question, and on the argument that this is a
matter of statewide interest, sufficient to overrule the home rule
authority of charter cities.
b. Options to Shift Traffic Enforcement Authority Away from
Police Officers
i. Utilize local employees who are not “peace officers” – for traffic
enforcement generally, or for enforcement of “infractions”
As noted, the City may consider full “civilianization” of traffic
enforcement – i.e., utilizing workers who do not constitute “peace
officers” under state law. As noted above, whether the City has
discretion to do this broadly under the Vehicle Code is an open
question of state law. This course would therefore involve at least
some degree of legal risk for the City. The Office of the City Attorney
can assess the degree of this risk confidentially for consideration by
the City’s decisionmakers.
The argument for legal viability of civilianization is strongest if it
focuses on low-level traffic violations, or infractions. State law gives
police officers and sheriffs the authority to enforce “public offenses,”
82
but most Vehicle Code violations are “infractions,” rather than “public
offenses,” unless otherwise stated.
83
Thus, the City may have greater
discretion to utilize employees who are not peace officers to have
enforcement authority over infractions, than it does for traffic
enforcement as a whole.
81
Some Vehicle Code sections that mention peace officers as the enforcers include sections 14607.6(c)(1) and
24004. Others that are silent on the enforcer include Division 12, Chapter 2 of the Vehicle Code on vehicle lighting
equipment. In addition, some provisions (such as Division 17 on “Offenses and Prosecution”) mention other persons,
in addition to peace officers, who might enforce some of Vehicle Code violations.
82
Penal Code § 830.1.
83
Vehicle Code §§ 40000.1, .3.
72
LADOT has already designated “traffic officers” as civilian employees
who direct traffic and enforce parking restrictions.
84
They are not
peace officers, but they have the authority to issue parking citations
and to “perform other related duties” as LADOT may require.
85
They
may also arrest individuals without a warrant for a limited but varying
list of civil violations related to taxis and ride-shares and other
violations related to streets and sidewalks such as causing
obstructions or dumping of prohibited substances.
86
They do not
currently have authority to enforce local or state traffic laws outside of
the parking context and the other listed civil violations.
ii. Employ “peace officers” outside of LAPD
Another option is to utilize employees outside of LAPD, but with
peace officer status to enforce traffic violations. However, only the
employees listed in the penal code as peace officers can have peace
officer status. One of those roles is a “transit peace officer” whose
primary duty is to enforce laws at properties owned or administered
by their employing agency.
87
This type of officer could focus on
enforcing traffic violations on City’s streets and highways, which are
“administered” by LADOT. As such, LADOT could employ and utilize
these officers instead of officers employed by the LAPD for this
limited role. We have not identified any legal issues that threaten the
viability of this approach.
iii. Establish a New Unit of LAPD Officers – Possibly Unarmed
Third, LAPD could establish a new unit of police officers that
enforces traffic laws but does not carry firearms. State law does not
require any police officers to carry firearms, but rather permits local
agencies to decide if and to what extent they will allow their officers
to carry firearms.
88
For example, some local agencies have unarmed
“reserve officers” within their police departments and they “carry out
limited support duties” for addressing traffic law violations “that are
not likely to result in physical arrests.”
89
We have not identified any legal issues that threaten the viability of
this approach, but public sector collective bargaining requirements
may be implicated during implementation. As described below, any
restructuring of an existing department, even adding a new unit, may
84
L.A. Municipal Code § 80.00(g); see LADOT Parking Enforcement webpage.
85
Vehicle Code § 830.7(g) (“Persons regularly employed as investigators by the Department of Transportation for the
City of Los Angeles and designated by local ordinance as public officers, to the extent necessary to enforce laws
related to public transportation, and authorized by a memorandum of understanding with the chief of police,
permitting the exercise of that authority…Transportation investigators authorized by this section shall not be deemed
“peace officers”…); L.A. Municipal Code § 80.06.
86
L.A. Municipal Code § 80.01.1.
87
Penal Code § 830.33(c).
88
See e.g., id. at §§ 830.33(c), 830.3(c)-(k), 830.38.
89
Id. at § 832.6(a)(3); Reserve Peace Officer Program, California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training, at FAQ no. 16 (allowing local agencies to decide whether their reserve officers can carry firearms and noting
that some have decided that they cannot).
73
require “effects bargaining” with current employees, pertaining to
effects of the proposed change on their scheduling, supervision, and
other aspects of employment. However, this type of transition is a
“fundamental managerial decision” that is always within the
discretion of the public employer.
5. Public Sector Collective Bargaining
Legal experts and legal research indicated that lengthy, contested collective
bargaining procedures often delay or sideline efforts to revise or reform law
enforcement practices. This issue has affected police reform efforts to the
degree that multiple national advocacy organizations have established
dedicated public websites and databases to track the effects of police union
contracts on reform or defund efforts,
90
and there are numerous law review
articles and policy analyses on the issue.
91
Like every public entity in California, the City of Los Angeles, including both its
Department of Transportation and its Police Department, is subject to state
law regarding collective bargaining negotiations with employees.
92
Public
sector labor agreements cover terms beyond compensation, and affect
numerous aspects of employee duties, work rules, scope of responsibility, and
so forth. State law imposes responsibilities on the City of Los Angeles with
regard to actions it takes as an employer within the scope of representation.
This is defined as any action that may “have a significant adverse impact on
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.”
93
Labor negotiations are relevant to almost any effort to revise policing practices
in California. Almost any change that a public employer makes that affects
employees, even tangentially, may be subject to collective bargaining duties.
Even fundamental managerial decisions that are explicitly exempted from
collective bargaining may be subject to what is known as “effects bargaining”:
negotiation over the effects that a major decision may have on employees. For
example, while the decision to lay off workers and reduce the number of sworn
officers in a department is a fundamental managerial decision and therefore
not subject to bargaining, the seniority rules for order of layoffs and the nature
of revised duties of remaining officers would be subject to “effects bargaining.”
For these reasons, implementation of many of the report’s recommendations
would require the City to engage in some degree of collective bargaining.
Even in the unlikely situation where a proposed change would conflict with
terms of an existing labor agreement, the City could initiate the meet-and-
confer process during the term of the existing agreement and implement it
after that process and the expiration of the agreement. Within the parameters
of state law, City officials ultimately have discretion over City programs.
90
See, e.g., NAACP Legal Defense Fund Toolkit, August 2020 (summary); Police Union Contracts & Police Bill of
Rights Analysis, Campaign Zero, 2016 (summary).
91
See, e.g., Stephen Rushin, Police Union Contracts, 66 Duke L.J. 1191 (2017) (summary); Police Reformers' Next
Step: a Hard Look at Union Contracts, Governing Magazine & Manhattan Institute (2021).
92
See Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”) (Gov. Code § 3500 et seq.).
93
MMBA, Gov. Code § 3504.
74
The consultant team reviewed the current labor agreement covering City of
Los Angeles police officers that have a rank of lieutenant or below. Few, if
any, provisions in this agreement seem to conflict with recommendations put
forward in this report. Regardless, the agreement expires in 2024, and any
needed revisions can be made during that process. Revisions to duties of
employees of another City department would be addressed in the MOU
process for the proper bargaining sector for that department. A complete
assessment of the precise scope of collective bargaining and meet-and-confer
obligations is outside the scope of this report; it is complex and within the
scope of authority of the Office of the City Attorney. Report recommendations
that the City chooses to implement will be subject to standard legal review
processes, with City decisionmakers assessing their degree of risk tolerance,
while fulfilling their collective bargaining requirements under state law. We
wish to emphasize that collective bargaining is valid and an important part of
public policymaking, but need not function as a barrier to policy reforms or
restructuring of employment arrangements desired by the City.
6. City’s Authority to Reduce Fines for Various Traffic
Violations
Some recommendations in this report include consideration of reducing fines,
or creating progressive or means-based fine structures, for various low-level
traffic violations. The Vehicle Code sets forth the following maximum limits on
fines for traffic infractions, unless otherwise stated in the Code
94
:
▪ $100 for the first infraction;
▪ $200 for the second infraction occurring within one year of a prior infraction
conviction; and
▪ $250 for the third or subsequent infraction occurring within one year of at
least two prior infraction convictions.
95
The Vehicle Code also sets minimum dollar amounts for a few violations
96
and
sets the exact dollar amount for a small number of other violations.
97
The
Vehicle Code requires local jurisdictions to comply with these limitations.
98
Within these parameters, local jurisdictions have discretion over the amount of
fines and can set fines to amounts below the maximums for most infractions.
As such, the City may lower fines and/or create a progressive or means-based
fine structure as long as the new fine amounts comply with the limitations set
forth in the Vehicle Code.
94
Penal Code § 19.6 (defining infraction as “not punishable by imprisonment”); Vehicle Code § 40000.1 (noting that
most violations of the Vehicle Code are infractions, unless otherwise stated).
95
Vehicle Code § 42001(a).
96
Id. at §§ 42001.5 (setting the minimum fine for violating sections on bus passenger loading areas or handicap
space/sidewalk access areas at $250), 42001.8 (limiting the fine for driving an unregistered vehicle to not less than
$50 but not more than $250).
97
Id. at § 42001.15 (setting the fine for violating sections related to red lights, lane use control signals, and flashing
red traffic signals at $100).
98
Vehicle Code §§ 21100(o)(1), 42000 et seq.
75
7. State Law Regarding Automated Traffic Enforcement
Some recommendations in this report concern automation of traffic
enforcement. State law permits automated systems at traffic light
intersections, commonly known as “red light cameras,”
99
however it prohibits
the use of automated systems to enforce speeding violations.
100
As such, the
City could only use automated enforcement for red light violations, but not for
speeding, unless there is a change in state law
99
Vehicle Code § 21455.5(a).
100
Id. at § 40801.
76
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Overview
The consultant team and the Task Force co-developed the following
recommendations based on the consultant team’s research findings (See Section
IV). To allow for robust discussion with the Task Force, while also complying with
Brown Act requirements, the consultant team worked with the Task Force to
develop recommendations through the following phases:
1. Preliminary Recommendations Brainstorm and
Confirmation of Evaluation Criteria:
During the January 26, 2023 Task Force meeting, members participated in an
initial brainstorm of recommendations for the study. The Task Force also
discussed a proposed set of criteria for prioritizing the report’s
recommendations. The Research Subcommittee, in consultation with the
consultant team, developed this proposed set of criteria prior to the meeting.
Ultimately, the group refined and approved the following criteria (See
Appendix M for more detailed criteria descriptions): (1) Impact, (2)
Fit/Feasibility, (3) Movement Alignment, and (4) Racial Equity.
2. Task Force Working Sessions:
To allow for more robust discussion, each member participated in one of
three, below-quorum Task Force working sessions, which took place in early
February 2023. During these meetings, the consultant team presented
preliminary research findings and report recommendations, and the Task
Force provided feedback. Task Force members then had time to review the
initial recommendations generated on January 26, 2023 and the consultant
team recommendations to identify any gaps (See Appendix N for the full set
of Task Force recommendations from these sessions). Each group prioritized
their own list of recommendations during these sessions.
3. Recommendations Criteria Survey:
Following the working sessions, members individually responded to a survey
to consider proposed recommendations from each working session through
the group’s agreed upon prioritization criteria. Findings from this survey
helped the consultant team determine which recommendations adhere to the
evaluation criteria agreed-upon by the Task Force. The group discussed the
findings during the February 16, 2023 meeting.
4. Recommendations Discussion:
During the February 16, 2023 Task Force meeting, the consultant team
shared updated study findings and recommendations with members (See
Appendix O for initial and revised consultant team recommendations). These
updated recommendations reflected Task Force member feedback from the
working sessions. Members then discussed the alignment of each updated
recommendation with the agreed-upon criteria. The group concluded the
77
meeting by asking the Research Subcommittee to continue refining the set of
recommendations with the consultant team.
5. Research Subcommittee Recommendations Meeting:
Following the charge set during the February 16, 2023 meeting, the Research
Subcommittee met to further discuss the recommendations. Given limited
time, members also completed a follow-up survey to help the consultant team
finalize the set of recommendations.
6. Draft Recommendations Presentation:
During the April 2023 Task Force meeting, the consultant team presented the
draft recommendations to the Task Force for final review and comments.
B. Recommendations
Guiding Principle: Provide more opportunities for broad,
authentic, and robust community engagement to ensure that
there is community buy-in for this report's recommendations.
This report calls for the City to ground-truth this study’s findings by engaging with
local communities, especially those most impacted by policing (See Appendix P
for more detailed suggestions on future outreach). Robust, authentic, and
meaningful community engagement should be a guiding principle that undergirds
each of the following recommendations; this engagement should be ongoing and
inform planning, implementation, and evaluation efforts. To ensure that there is
broad community support for this study’s recommendations, there should be an
emphasis on engagement with the general public, such as through public
surveys. The City should also work with community-based organizations who
have organized around these issues to engage their constituents. The City can
further continue to host small-group listening sessions and focus groups to
collect targeted input and feedback. Finally, the City should ensure that there is a
place at the table for LAPD and law enforcement to share their perspectives.
In addition, the City of Los Angeles Traffic Enforcement Alternatives Advisory
Task Force should continue to meet to direct the implementation of this study’s
recommendations.
For all of this outreach, there should be a focus on engaging communities most
impacted by policing, specifically low-income communities of color. The City and
its consultants should also utilize best practices for community engagement.
78
1. Increase and prioritize self-enforcing infrastructure
investments (without increasing surveillance) in high-
injury network corridors, low-income communities, and
communities of color.
This recommendation calls for increased investment in “self-enforcing
infrastructure,” which refers to road features that naturally slow traffic and
discourage drivers from breaking traffic rules. These improvements increase
safety and reduce the need for active enforcement (See Appendix E for a
Task Force-led literature review on this topic). Self-enforcing infrastructure,
similar to programs such as Vision Zero or “complete streets,” may include
narrower streets, protected bicycle lanes, or leading pedestrian intervals.
101
However, this recommendation goes beyond Vision Zero by emphasizing
that these infrastructure investments should not result in increased
surveillance or biased enforcement to produce intended safety outcomes.
Though LADOT’s Vision Zero program is a potential fit for these
investments, City Council should consider several critical improvements to
ensure that the funds expeditiously reach the communities most affected by
policing and traffic violence. The City might consider adapting the existing
Vision Zero program to incorporate a “safer road system” approach as it
relates to law enforcement. For example, the City may consider forming
“cross-disciplinary teams to investigate every serious crash.”
102
These teams
will document trends and develop infrastructural and/or policy interventions
to address safety issues. In addition, LADOT should reassess its
methodology for allocating Vision Zero investments to systematically
prioritize high-need communities throughout Los Angeles. Faced with rising
traffic deaths, the City Council authorized an audit of the Vision Zero
program in 2022. Council should consider implementing evidence-based,
safety-enhancing recommendations that arise from the audit.
103
Likewise,
Council may also consider refining the City’s existing Vision Zero framework
by adopting a Capital Infrastructure Plan that encompasses the mobility plan
and prioritizes projects based on equity and race.
104
101
LivableStreets Alliance. (2022). Dismantling Law Enforcement’s Role in Traffic Safety: A Roadmap for
Massachusetts. https://www.livablestreets.info/dismantling_law_enforcements_role_in_traffic_safety
102
Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety (n.d.) Top 10 Safe System Implementation Pitfalls, and
Suggestions for How to Avoid Them. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/home/prof-dev-
focus-area/top10sspitfalls/
103
Fonseca, R. (2022). After Years of Rising Traffic Violence, LA Will Audit Its Vision Zero Program. Retrieved on
April 4, 2023 from https://laist.com/news/transportation/traffic-violence-la-vision-zero-audit
104
Kevitt, D., Favor, S., and Koohian, A. (2023). Dying on the Streets of Los Angeles: 2022 Traffic Fatalities, Why &
What Needs to Change. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from https://www.streetsareforeveryone.org/blog/dying-on-the-
streets-of-los-angeles
79
2. Expand on LAPD’s 2022 pretextual stop policy to
eliminate enforcement of non-moving and equipment-
related traffic violations by police; remove police
enforcement of moving violations that do not
demonstrably increase safety based on evidence-based
best practices.
LAPD’s 2022 Pretextual Stop Policy limits traffic enforcement to violations
that have a nexus to public safety. We recommend eliminating enforcement
of all non-moving and equipment-related traffic violations by police.
Ultimately, the goal of this recommendation is to limit interactions between
police and motorists by eliminating police enforcement of non-moving and
equipment-related violations. This recommendation expands on LAPD’s
March 2022 policy change, which limits pretextual stops. This LAPD policy
still allows for stops for these violations, but only in cases when the “officer
believes that such a violation or infraction significantly interferes with public
safety.”
105
Therefore, this recommendation would remove officer discretion
by eliminating this type of enforcement from the department’s
responsibilities. Further, this recommendation seems to align with the spirit
of a recent LAPD police union statement that expresses a preference for
officers to “focus on violent crime.”
106
While the Los Angeles Police
Protective League noted that “it intends to retain traffic enforcement
assignments overall,” they also signaled a willingness to have other
agencies respond to “non-injury traffic accidents.”
107
105
Office of the Chief of Police. (2022, March 9). Policy - Limitation on Use of Pretextual Stops - Established.
https://ens.lacity.org/ladot/enforce_reports/ladotenforce_reports3669168680_01302023.pdf
106
Zahniser, D. (2023). LAPD Should Stop Handling Many Non-Emergency Calls, Police Union Says. The Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-01/lapd-officers-
want-to-stop-responding-to-nonviolent-calls
107
Zahniser, D. (2023). LAPD Should Stop Handling Many Non-Emergency Calls, Police Union Says. The Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-01/lapd-officers-
want-to-stop-responding-to-nonviolent-calls
80
This recommendation mirrors the City Council actions taken in Philadelphia,
PA in March 2022. However, the recommendation expands on the
Philadelphia case study by calling for an end to enforcement of all
equipment and non-moving violations, rather than for a list of specific
violations. In Philadelphia (see Section IV.A), the City Council distinguished
between “primary” traffic violations (e.g., reckless driving) and “secondary”
violations (e.g., expired registration tags) and barred police from making
traffic stops for secondary violations. This recommendation also expands on
the Philadelphia example by calling for an end to enforcement of moving
violations that do not improve traffic safety (e.g., recently expired vehicle
registrations, improperly displaying registration permits, unfastened
registration plates, a single broken brake or headlight, rearview mirror
obstructions, minor bumper damage, unlawful operation without an emission
inspection).
108
3. Consider alternative fine and fee models (e.g., means-
based) that advance traffic safety objectives and do not
perpetuate enforcement disparities.
This recommendation aims to ensure that enforcement promotes traffic
safety objectives and does not reinforce disproportionate burdens for low-
income communities and communities of color. Alternatives to traffic fines
can help shift enforcement away from punitive fines and toward prevention.
Examples of alternative models include means-based fine structures,
vouchers to address equipment issues, and vehicle repair events to support
safety-related auto improvements (See Appendix I for related focus group
findings).
Safety issues that present themselves in traffic enforcement (e.g., broken
tail-lights) are often reflective of broader societal issues, such as income
inequality, and systemic disinvestment in low-income communities of color.
Therefore, Council should consider fine alternatives that support broader
traffic safety goals, while also working in parallel with other efforts to support
residents with meeting their basic needs. Where possible, Council may
consider a system where local fines for safety-related infractions are tied to
incomes, a practice that is used in other jurisdictions globally.
109
Council may
consider rethinking how fees are applied and identify options to reduce the
overall cost of traffic tickets. In addition to fines, burdensome fees can
disproportionately affect low-income communities.
110
108
Krzaczek, K. (2022). “8 Common Traffic Violations No Longer Warrant a Police Stop in Philly.” The Philadelphia
Inquirer. Retrieved from https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/philadelphia-police-wont-stop-drivers-minor-
offenses-20220303.html
109
Pinsker, J. (2015). Finland, Home of the $103,000 Speeding Ticket. The Atlantic. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/
110
Kuang, J. (2022). “California May Chop Late Fees that Add Hundreds of Dollars to Traffic Tickets.” Cal Matters.
Retrieved on May 17, 2023 from https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2022/05/california-traffic-late-fees/
81
4. Identify local obstacles that limit officer accountability
and reduce the ability of the Chief of Police to discipline
officers for misconduct (e.g., excessive use of force,
racial profiling, and other violations); identify strategies
to overcome these obstacles.
This recommendation emphasizes the importance of enforcing penalties for
officer misconduct and the removal of local obstacles that limit officer
accountability and discipline. It is in response to observations surfaced
during focus groups. Participants noted that police interactions inherently
have power imbalances, with “officers having all the power in these
interactions” (see Section IV.C.3.a.(1)). That feeling of powerlessness can
be exacerbated when officers found to have committed misconduct are not
held to account. Clear, transparent, and civilian-controlled accountability
mechanisms for police officers shifts power to residents. It also instills
confidence that the people tasked with enforcement are consistently
disciplined when they are found to violate policies, procedures, or the law.
111
However, civilian-controlled boards must be independent, representative,
transparent, and adequately resourced to be effective.
112
Los Angeles’
Board of Rights is an example of how an all-civilian disciplinary panel may
undermine officer accountability.
The Chief of Police and some City Council Members have recently called for
a re-assessment of the Board of Rights. A 2022 Los Angeles Police
Department (LAPD) evaluation of City Council Ordinance No. 186100, which
allows LAPD officers facing disciplinary procedures to request an all-civilian
Board of Rights, found that the all-civilian panels produced more lenient
outcomes than those recommended by the Chief of Police.
113
Because there
is “secrecy surrounding the Board of Rights process,”
114
it is unclear why this
civilian-controlled mechanism is meting out more lenient penalties than
those recommended by Chief Michel Moore.
115
City Council may consider
implementing reforms to the civilian board that align with best practices,
including the following: (1) barring past or present police employees from
staffing civilian boards; (2) adequately funding civilian boards so they can
“perform the full range of oversight necessary” and to ensure that members
111
McHarris, P.V. (n.d.) Research Memo: Alternatives to Policing: Community Resource Hub for Safety and
Accountability. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from https://communityresourcehub.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/CRH_Alternative_Memo_Final.pdf
112
McConney Moore, K. (2020). For Civilian Review Boards to Work, They Must Avoid Past Mistakes. ACLU
Connecticut. Retrieved on April 5, 203 from https://www.acluct.org/en/news/civilian-review-boards-work-they-must-
avoid-past-mistakes
113
Los Angeles Police Commission. (2022, December 15). Evaluating the Effectiveness of All-Civilian Board of
Rights, Ordinance No. 186100. chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2022/22-1590_misc_12-15-22.pdf
114
Jany, L. (2023). Members of LAPD Disciplinary Panels Say They’re Excluded Because of Policing Views. The Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved on April 5, 2023 from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-17/members-of-
lapd-disciplinary-panels-feel-excluded
115
Zahniser, D. (2023, February 17). L.A. council members want to give the police chief more power to fire officers for
misconduct. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-02-17/city-council-members-call-for-
overhaul-of-police-discipline-process
82
have the requisite background and expertise; and (3) giving civilian boards
“necessary investigatory powers, such as subpoena power.”
116
5. Use unarmed civilians, who are focused exclusively on
road safety, to enforce safety-related traffic violations
(e.g., speeding). Create care-based teams responsible
for responding to traffic-related calls for service.
The main goal of this recommendation is to transfer traffic enforcement
responsibilities to unarmed teams as a means of eliminating lethal and less-
lethal weapons from traffic enforcement. This recommendation is informed
by the quantitative analysis of LAPD data showing that when force is
employed during a traffic stop, it is disproportionately used against Black
road users (see Section IV.B.3). Removing lethal and less-lethal weapons
from safety-related enforcement may reduce the risk that use of force
incidents result in death or serious injury. Unarmed civilian teams would also
have the option of calling LAPD for backup when necessary. The proposed
recommendation builds on efforts in several cities reviewed for this study—
(1) Berkeley, California; (2) Oakland, California; and (3) Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania—that are working to transfer specific traffic enforcement
responsibilities to unarmed civilians (See Section IV.A and Section IV.D).
This recommendation also calls for unarmed teams of care-centered,
behavioral health specialists to respond to traffic-related calls for service
when a clear behavioral health issue is present. These social service- and
mental health-oriented teams are intended to help address the underlying
behavioral health issues that can escalate traffic stops. City Council may
consider some existing local models to structure this program, including
Metro’s Transit Ambassador program
117
and the Therapeutic Transportation
program,
118
which is a collaboration between the City and County. These
care-centered teams would live outside of LAPD, but they may work in
coordination with law enforcement where needed. Likewise, these teams
should operate in a manner that acknowledges that many of the conflicts
arising within communities “are not only examples of interpersonal trauma
but also the trauma of racism.”
119
Their interventions should incorporate
approaches that acknowledge “intergenerational trauma, racist-incident-
116
McConney Moore, K. (2020). For Civilian Review Boards to Work, They Must Avoid Past Mistakes. ACLU
Connecticut. Retrieved on April 5, 203 from https://www.acluct.org/en/news/civilian-review-boards-work-they-must-
avoid-past-mistakes
117
Sotero, D. (2023). L.A. Metro Celebrates Official Launch of New Ambassador Pilot Program. Retrieved on April 4,
2023 from https://www.metro.net/about/l-a-metro-celebrates-official-launch-of-new-ambassador-pilot-program/
118
Vives, R. (2022). L.A. City, County Roll out Pilot Program that Sends Mental Health Workers to 911 Calls. The Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved on April 4, 2023 from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-04/los-angeles-
mental-health-response-team-pilot-program
119
Braynt-Dvais, T., Adams, T. , Alejandre, A. & Gray, A. (2017). “The Trauma Lens of Police Violence against Racial
and Ethnic Minorities.” Journal of Social Issues (73)(4). Retrieved from https://www.riprc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/06/josi.12251_Trauma-Lens-of-Police-Violence-against-Racial-Ethnic-Minorities-2017.pdf: 852
83
based trauma, and complex trauma.”
120
Council may consider housing this
team in the newly established Office of Community Safety.
121
120
Braynt-Dvais, T., Adamns, T. , Alejandre, A. & Gray, A. (2017). “The Trauma Lens of Police Violence against
Racial and Ethnic Minorities.” Journal of Social Issues (73)(4). Retrieved from https://www.riprc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/06/josi.12251_Trauma-Lens-of-Police-Violence-against-Racial-Ethnic-Minorities-2017.pdf: 852
121
Smith, E.D. (2023). “If Not Cops or Guns, What Will It Take to Make Us Feel Safe? L.A. Has a New Answer.” Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-01/public-safety-polarization-crime-
violence-guns-policing
84
C. Potential Pilots
Based on the recommendations highlighted above, the quantitative findings,
qualitative analysis, expert interviews, and legal analysis, this report
recommends the following pilot initiatives for City Council’s consideration. Please
note that this study cannot conclusively claim that potential pilots will have the
desired public safety outcomes of reducing disparities, increasing traffic safety,
and building community trust. Many of the pilots, policies, and recommendations
that inform the recommendations have not been independently evaluated for
efficacy, and most have been implemented in contexts with substantially different
legal, political, and policy frameworks. That said, these pilots have shown some
promise and may be applicable in Los Angeles’ context.
1. Self-Enforcing Infrastructure
Reprioritize Investments and Complete Quick Builds in High Need Areas:
City Council may consider piloting a system that fast-tracks safety
improvements in high-injury network corridors. These quick-build
improvements should prioritize infrastructure investments in low-income
communities of color with demonstrated need.
Launch Interdisciplinary Crash Investigation Teams: City Council may
consider piloting deployment of cross-disciplinary teams (e.g., law
enforcement, LADOT, StreetsLA, Bureau of Engineering, etc.) to investigate
serious crashes.
2. Alternative Fine and Fee Models
Reduced Fines and Fees: City Council may consider piloting a reduced fee
and fine structure for individuals with limited means.
Community Partnerships to Address Equipment Repairs: City Council
may consider pilots that partner with community-based organizations to offer
vouchers so that drivers can address equipment violations and free or low-
cost vehicle repair events.
3. Unarmed Civilian Enforcement & Care-Based Teams
Transferring Safety-Related Functions to Unarmed Civilians: City Council
may consider piloting a transfer of safety-related traffic enforcement duties to
an unarmed civilian department. This pilot would need to account for the legal
and legislative considerations articulated in earlier sections of this study.
Establishing Care-Based Teams: City Council may consider piloting care-
based teams in the context of traffic enforcement. These teams may
incorporate facets of the Metro’s Transit Ambassador and/or the Therapeutic
Transportation program.
85
V. APPENDICES
A. City Council Motion CF-20-0875
B. Task Force Roster
C. Task Force Application Form
D. Task Force Meeting List
E. Self-Enforcing Streets Literature Review
F. LAPD Memo on Case Study Review
G. Data Fields and Treatment
H. Focus Group Protocol
I. Focus Group Summary Presentation
J. Expert Interview Protocol
K. Expert Interview Summary Presentation
L. Legal Interview Protocol
M. Task Force Recommendations Criteria
N. Task Force Recommendations Summary
O. Consultant Team Recommendations Summary
P. Summary of Outreach Next Steps
Q. Task Force Resource Library
R. History and Context Section
S. List of Civilian Enforcement Classes
T. Los Angeles Police Department’s 7-40 Model Summary