2017 TRAFFIC STOPS IN NEBRASKAA REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE

ON DATA SUBMITTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

MARCH 30, 2018

DARRELL FISHER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEBRASKA CRIME COMMISSION PO BOX 94946 LINCOLN, NE 68509 402-471-2194

MIKE FARGENCHIEF, INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION

VALERIE MORRISBUSINESS/RESEARCH ANALYST

KEVIN DAHLMANSTATISTICAL ANALYST

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. INTRODUCTION

3. HISTORY

4. RACIAL PROFILING COMMITTEE

5. DATA COLLECTION

6. DATA PROPORTIONALITY

7. DATA REPORTING CONSIDERATIONS

8. POPULATION COMPARISON

9. DISPARITY INDEX

A) STATEWIDE DISPARITY INDEX B) NSP VERSUS NON-NSP DISPARITY INDEX COMPARISON C) OMAHA PD & LINCOLN PD DISPARITY INDEX

10. TRAFFIC STOP DATA

A) TRAFFIC STOP DATA TREND B) REASON FOR TRAFFIC STOP C) DISPOSITIONS D) SEARCHES

11. ALLEGATIONS OF RACIAL PROFILING

12. COUNTY SPECIFIC DATA

A) DOUGLAS COUNTY B) LANCASTER COUNTY C) SARPY COUNTY D) HALL COUNTY E) BUFFALO COUNTY

3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-13

14

15

16

17-19

171819

20-23

20212223

24

25-40

26-2829-3132-3435-3738-40

The initial production of this report was partially funded by a grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (#2013-BJ-CX-K009) for operation of the StatisticalAnalysis Center (SAC) and the Nebraska Department of Transportation Highway Safety Office Racial Profiling mini-grant.The views expressed in this report are those of the authors only and do not represent the Department of Justice nor the Nebraska Department ofTransportation Highway Safety Office.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice would like to providereasonable accommodations with respect to persons with disabilities. If you need a reasonable accommodation please contact the Nebraska Commissionon Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Upon request, this publication may be available in other formats.

There were 476,709 traffic stops reported to the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice(NCC) for 2017 from 199 law enforcement agencies. Of the total traffic stops reported, 67.4% were from theNebraska State Patrol (NSP) or agencies in Douglas, Lancaster and Sarpy Counties. Overall, 39.4% of the totalstatewide stops were made by NSP. Omaha Police Department (OPD) made 10.1% of statewide traffic stops andLincoln Police Department (LPD) made 10.1% as well.

While both population and stops were concentrated in the largest counties, the largest metropolitan agenciesaccounted for the most stops. The OPD, LPD and the NSP accounted for 59.7% of stops. Census figures are usedto examine details of the communities in question. The general or census population only provides one aspect of thepotential group that would be stopped by law enforcement, particularly in areas with a lot of commuters or Interstatetraffic. Nonetheless, the local population provides one view of the area and is often used for these comparisons.

For 2017 the NCC received a total of eleven reports from five agencies of the public making allegations of racialprofiling. All agencies involved conducted internal investigations. In ten of the eleven instances, the officer wasexonerated, while one instance had insufficient evidence.

The reported data do not provide enough information to determine motivation or cause for any apparentdisproportionality. Although this level of data does not allow definite conclusions in those areas, it does serve as abasis for constructive discussion between police and citizens regarding ways to reduce racial bias and/or perceptionsof racial bias.

Interested parties want to know if the data can determine whether the driver’s race and/or ethnicity had an impact onthe decision by law enforcement to make the stop. Unfortunately, it is not an easy question to answer.

The Traffic Stop Data section of this report includes several basic comparisons of data that are commonly used orasked about. It also includes an overview of stop processing.

The earliest versions of this report included traffic stop activity reported by the NSP’s Carrier Enforcement Division.The NSP Carrier Enforcement Division involves stops at Weigh Stations, commercial stops (for documentation orweighing) and similar activity.

Detailed numbers by agency, as well as county-wide statistics, are available athttps://ncc.nebraska.gov/traffic-stops-nebraska

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3 of 40

The Information Services Division of the NCC is responsible for reporting annually to the Legislature and theGovernor on the issues related to traffic stops made by law enforcement agencies. We are charged with collectingboth traffic stop summary data, along with allegations of racial profiling -- and analyze trends, and racial disparitythroughout the traffic stop process.

The purpose of this report is to provide Nebraska's history on the topic, examine important factors of the datacollection process, and to evaluate trends and disparity throughout the traffic stop interaction.

The criminal justice system is predicated on the notion of equality. The issues of fairness and any perception ofunequal treatment are often at the forefront of our society but particularly as they relate to justice. Great attention isdrawn to issues and reports of possible inequality in the criminal justice system. These issues can be very difficult toidentify, as well as verify, and are critical for the public as well as for law enforcement. Traffic stops are one of themost common types of contact for the public. Perceptions derived from these contacts and the need for openness onthe reasons for stops are paramount.

Potential profiling relating to traffic stops made by law enforcement has received broad attention in most states andlocalities. The Nebraska Legislature passed LB593 in 2001 to respond to possible issues relating to the way thattraffic stops are made. The act specifically prohibited racial profiling and required law enforcement to implementpolicies prohibiting discriminatory practices as well as requiring the collection of prescribed data; further details will beexamined in the 'history' section of this report.

The Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center (NLETC) is one component used to address concerns. NLETCeducates, trains, and evaluates law enforcement officers, as well as regulates statewide training academies andmandated programs to ensure all meet state certification requirements established by the NCC. Issues regardingracial profiling have been incorporated into the basic training all law enforcement officers attend for certification.Since the law took effect in 2001, and even prior to this law, students at the NLETC are taught that all traffic stopsmust be based on a legal justification and cannot be based solely upon the person’s (or driver's) race or ethnicmakeup. Any stop based solely upon the person's race or ethnicity would be unconstitutional. NLETC studentscompile racial profiling report forms with each simulated traffic stop conducted while in the training academy.

Proactive use of these data can assist in an agency's monitoring and adherence to legislation. They can provideopportunities for outreach with the community as well as examine processes and procedures. We stronglyencourage agencies to examine their data and look at what is happening within their jurisdiction.

Since data are only collected and reported in summary format, there is no way to track individual instances orproduce a detailed analysis. Therefore, disparities outlined in this report cannot prove bias or instances of racialprofiling, but can help identify agencies or locations that could possibly benefit from more advanced analysis. Adetailed review of officers, locations, populations or other criteria are essential when trying to understand a localizedsituation. Despite this limitation of summary data, the information presented in this report does provide a goodsnapshot of traffic stops.

INTRODUCTION

4 of 40

The breakdown of types of stops and related data by race has stayed relatively consistent throughout the reportedyears, with certain variations showing in searches and the dispositions of stops. The statewide breakdown of trafficstops by race parallels the census adult population breakdown as well as the general known licensed drivingpopulation. In and of itself this does not mean that there is no racial profiling. It can be said that, on the statewideaggregate, there are not apparent disproportionalities. However, this does not mean that there are not disparities.There are other variances that show up when looking at particular local populations or jurisdictions. Since minoritypopulations vary greatly across Nebraska it significantly affects the contact law enforcement would have with them.

This report presents a summary of data reported to the NCC.

INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)

5 of 40

In 2001, the Nebraska Legislature passed LB593 to respond to possible issues relating to the way that traffic stopsare made. The act specifically prohibited racial profiling and required law enforcement agencies to implement policiesprohibiting discriminatory practices as well as requiring the collection of prescribed data. Additionally, it required lawenforcement agencies to report to the NCC all allegations of racial profiling received and the disposition of suchallegations. Below are additional initiatives implemented:

1) Acknowledged the danger and impropriety of any practice that involves disparate treatment based on a person'sskin color, apparent nationality or ethnicity.

2) Defined racial profiling as the detaining of an individual or conducting a motor vehicle stop based upon disparatetreatment of an individual.

3) Required the collection of certain information relative to traffic stops, in that law enforcement agencies arerequired to collect, record, maintain and report the information below to the NCC.

A) The number of motor vehicle stops. B) The race or ethnicity of the people stopped. C) The nature of an alleged law violation that resulted in the motor vehicle stop. D) Whether warnings or citations were issued, arrests made, or searches conducted as a result of the stops.

Additionally the bill required all law enforcement agencies to provide to the commission a copy of each allegation ofracial profiling received and written notification of the review and disposition of such allegations. The bill prohibitedrevealing the identity of either the officer or the complainant. Any allegations of racial profiling are handled throughstandard policies with the law enforcement agency. To collect the data required in a consistent and cost effective manner the NCC convened a workgroup involvingNebraska State Patrol (NSP), Nebraska Sheriffs Association, Police Officers Association of Nebraska, Police ChiefsAssociation of Nebraska, and numerous local agencies including the Lincoln Police Department (PD) and the OmahaPD. This group reviewed possible data reporting formats to try to guarantee the most feasible, cost effective, andachievable method of reporting while meeting the mandates outlined above.

Data collection of this magnitude can be problematic in many ways. Law enforcement agencies have taken variousapproaches to provide complete and useful data to the NCC. Even for agencies that are automated the task ofadditional data collection by officers adds a level of complexity and additional workload that is significant. For thoselaw enforcement agencies that are not automated it means an increase in the paperwork for officers. Some lawenforcement agencies have attempted to extract the data from their records systems but modifications were typicallyneeded and often some manual work was still required. Since data have to be reported even if no action is taken,most automated systems were not equipped to report all of the required data. Even though law enforcementagencies were required to report only limited summary information, doing so increased costs and workloads.

HISTORY

6 of 40

In 2004, LB1162 amended the definition of a motor vehicle stop to exclude the stop of a motor truck, tractor-trailers orsemitrailer at the state weighing stations. This amendment allowed for the exclusion of the NSP's CarrierEnforcement Division. LB1162 also created the Racial Profiling Advisory Committee (RPAC). The RPAC is chairedby the Executive Director of the NCC and includes representatives of the Fraternal Order of Police, the NebraskaCounty Sheriffs Association, the Police Officers Association of Nebraska, the American Civil Liberties Union, theNSP, the AFL-CIO, and the Police Chiefs Association of Nebraska.

In April of 2006, LB 1113 amended the required reporting to be extended until 01/01/2010. Since the amendmentwas passed several months into 2006, it must be noted that several law enforcement agencies did not collect trafficstop data for first quarter of 2006. Additionally, some law enforcement agencies may not have been collecting datafor a short period in April.

HISTORY (CONTINUED)

7 of 40

The purpose of the Racial Profiling Advisory Committee (RPAC) is to advise the Executive Director of the NCCrelative to the reporting legislation. Shortly after the passage of LB1162 the RPAC met several times, and currentlymeets semi-annually.

In addition to the initial meetings, several members participated in a conference conducted by the Police ExecutiveResearch Forum in conjunction with the US Department of Justice. This conference brought together nationalresearchers as well as state, local and federal practitioners and experts to discuss the collection and analysis oftraffic stop data. The RPAC spent considerable time and effort discussing Nebraska’s approach to this effort as wellas the findings included in the conference and related publications.

The RPAC was contacted in 2006 to review and offer suggestions to discussion points and earlier reports. Thefollowing bullet points were identified as being relevant to Nebraska at the state and local levels of organization inaddressing issues related to racial profiling.

1) Racial profiling is a serious allegation and issue that must be dealt with at an agency and individual level.Professional law enforcement is concerned about the issue and interaction with the public. Individuals may raciallyprofile (as opposed to an agency) and they need to be dealt with in a professional matter that meets agency policyand responsibility as well as public expectations and rights.

2) The collection of mandated summary data does not allow for the detailed analysis necessary to establish bias.The aggregate analysis and observations included in the report point to areas that would necessitate closerexamination at the agency level. Such detailed examination is outside the scope of the NCC's mandate andresources.

3) For a complete analysis within Nebraska there would need to be much more detailed and mandated methods ofdata collection, as well as additional resources available to conduct such an in-depth analysis. Detailed stop-leveldata, as opposed to summary data, are necessary to provide a baseline for examining traffic stops. The costsassociated with such detailed methods of data collection , as well as its operational impact on law enforcementagencies, are quite significant. There would also be a substantial impact on the NCC to collect, store, and analyzemore detailed data.

4) Detailed analysis at the agency level is best to determine bias. The onus and responsibility for this type ofanalysis should rest with the law enforcement agency. A law enforcement agency and community must cooperate inthe examination of data and potential bias.

5) A law enforcement agency examination of disparity to determine potential bias or racial profiling should includefactors such as local demographics, agency policy, and individual officer behavior.

6) There is no absolute guideline that defines profiling or bias, and in particular, it is not merely a statistical ornumerical observation. There are many factors that must be included.

The RPAC met again in early 2007 and reviewed reporting and the data that are collected. It reviewed the volume ofreporting, analyses, and potential for increasing the automated collection of this data. The followingrecommendations were made.

1) The type and detail of reporting should stay consistent with what has been in place since the passage of thelegislation. This will allow for a consistent data set over time, making it easier for law enforcement agencies tomaintain.

RACIAL PROFILING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

8 of 40

2) There should be an effort to retrain law enforcement agencies on the reporting requirement to attempt to increasereporting. This may be useful in law enforcement agencies that have a significant turnover or have made changes intheir procedures or automation.

3) Reporting requirements should be incorporated into the NLETC curriculum, as appropriate for newly electedSheriffs, Basic students and for those officers attending mandated supervisory and management courses.

The RPAC discussion topics from 2008 and 2009 mirrored much of the earlier discussions as well as suggestions ondata and how it should be presented.

1) There are many populations that are or can be used in the discussion of enforcement and its proportionality.These include not just general census types of numbers but also things such as high risk populations, licenseddrivers and criminal justice populations (jail admissions, warrants, arrestees).

2) Populations need to be compared locally. Law enforcement agency activity is best looked at in the context of thelocal or subpopulation demographics.

3) Standard comparisons can assist law enforcement agencies as well as the public and decision makers in lookingat traffic stop data.

4) Training and clarification of meaning for data collection should continue to be done with law enforcement agenciesto target the best data available.

In 2010 and 2011 the RPAC continued discussions on the presentation of the data and how to assist lawenforcement agencies and the public to understand the context and data collected. Discussion topics included:

1) Looking at local populations can help agencies understand the potential basis for drivers who may be stopped.

2) Comparisons to other criminal justice related populations can provide context for those involved with lawenforcement.

3) Law enforcement agencies and their administrators can often provide information on activities or factors whichhave affected enforcement, including traffic stops.

In 2012 the RPAC continued to examine reporting by law enforcement agencies. This included how to best engagelaw enforcement agencies as well as guarantee completeness. Discussion topics included:

1) Emphasis for law enforcement agencies to make use of the data. It is incumbent upon law enforcement agenciesto combine the reported data along with any initial analysis the NCC provides -- and explore the details of theircommunities, stops, and procedures.

2) Law enforcement agencies need to be sure they report and understand search criteria. This will continue to beaddressed with training opportunities and highlight examples such as probable-cause searches and searchesincident to arrest.

3) While law enforcement agencies and the NCC are limited by race definitions from National Crime InformationCenter, the RPAC foresees questions and concerns for other ethnicities such as 'Arab'.

RACIAL PROFILING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CONTINUED)

9 of 40

4) Costs to the agencies for collection and reporting of data are a concern of the committee. Technology solutionsare not cheap and not very feasible for all agencies.

In 2013 the RPAC discussed how to approach data collection as well as how to best analyze and convey toagency-specific issues. The discussion topics included:

1) Utilizing rates as opposed to percentages as a reporting metric. This was included in the 2013 report.

2) Implementation of online data entry for law enforcement agencies, which makes it easier to conduct datavalidation processes. The requirement for online submission of data collection methodology was implemented in2013.

3) Automation of online data collection for racial profiling allegations was made available in 2013. The NCC can nowmonitor the instances of racial profiling allegations throughout the year, instead of receiving the data annually.

4) The production of a model policy regarding racial profiling, per statutory changes, was reviewed by the RPAC.There were concerns expressed over the ability for clear language that mirrors statute and could be used by lawenforcement agencies.

In 2014 the RPAC discussed how to approach data collection. The discussion topics included:

1) The utilization of DMV demographics. The discussion continued regarding the differences between censusfigures and DMV numbers and if county figures can be used.

2) Non-compliance with Racial Profiling Policy Submissions. The discussion continued regarding how to get thevarious agencies into compliance. A model policy was developed and approved to be used as an example.

In 2015 the NCC implemented new reporting methods for reporting purposes, which were shared with the RPAC.Other discussion topics included:

1) The difference between personal bias and racial prejudice. The discussion continued regarding problems lawenforcement encounter such as poverty and the cost of recruitment and selection of future officers.

2) Partnering with University of Nebraska-Omaha to gather raw data from select law enforcement agencies foradditional analysis.

In 2016 the RPAC discussed anonymous complaints. However, due to concerns regarding the sharing of personalinformation, investigating such complaints would prove difficult. Other discussion topics included:

1) Chairperson Fisher indicated that implicit bias training has been made available for all law enforcement agencies.

In 2017 the RPAC requested receipt of the Traffic Stops Report prior to its annual publication date, which has beenfulfilled by the NCC.

RACIAL PROFILING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CONTINUED)

10 of 40

Standardized forms are provided to all law enforcement agencies in Nebraska. Summary data are reported to theNCC quarterly. Data fields include race of all drivers stopped, reason for stops, disposition of stops, and whethersearches were conducted.

Since agencies began submitting data, the NCC's Statistical Analysis Center has been working with law enforcementagencies to improve reporting and address data inconsistencies. Such a significant effort requires review ofprocesses and workflow once it begins. In general, law enforcement agencies have made a concerted effort to fulfillthe requirements. Some agencies have gone a step further and undertaken their own studies. These studies aretypically more comprehensive, allowing for more detailed analyses of racial profiling specific to their agency. Suchinternal efforts examine the law enforcement agency's data to better understand and detect the nature of disparities.

Neb. Rev. Stat. 20-504 (3)(b) states the characteristics being reported shall be based on the observation andperception of the law enforcement officer responsible for reporting the motor vehicle stop. The FBI maintains datastandards for most law enforcement data collection. To be consistent with these standards and other reportingprograms, race categories for this project were based on FBI-defined categories: White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander,American Indian/Alaskan Native, and other. However, to address ethnicity concerns outlined in the originatinglegislation, a category for Hispanic was included. While Hispanic is not a race as described by the U.S. CensusBureau, it is included this way for ease of reporting. There are many other categories that could potentially be ofinterest regarding ethnicity or national origin but the current system does not address those.

In 2017 there were 197 law enforcement agencies that fully participated in the data collection process. There were 2law enforcement agencies (1 County Sheriff and 1 Police Department) that participated but did not submit all fourquarters with of data. There were 12 Police Departments that did not submit any data and 2 County Sheriff's Offices.

The next page is a map of Nebraska outlining the counties reporting status. For a county to be designated as'REPORTING COMPLETE', the county must collectively have all law enforcement agencies report all four quarters ofdata for 2017. Blaine and Loup counties did not have any agencies report 2017 data, designated as 'NOTHINGREPORTED'. Thurston County had inconsistencies in their reported data, which were not validated at the time of thiswriting, and as such is designated as 'NON-VALIDATED REPORTING'. 'INCOMPLETE REPORTING' indicates thecounty has not reported all four quarters of data for 2017 to the NCC. 'INCOMPLETE LOCAL REPORTING' meansthe active agencies within the county have not reported all four quarters of data for 2017 to the NCC.

The 9.2% of active agencies that did not report all four quarters in 2017 represent sparsely populated areas inNebraska. Specifically, 99.3% of the statewide population was covered by the 90.8% of agencies with completereporting, compared to 98.6% of the population and 86.4% of active agencies in 2016. Below are the following law ..

4) Blaine CO SO covering less than 500 inhabitants, didnot submit any data.

5) Edgar PD covering less than 500 inhabitants, did notsubmit any data.

6) Ewing PD covering less than 400 inhabitants, did notsubmit any data.

1) Atkinson PD covering less than 1,300 inhabitants, didnot submit any data.

2) Bancroft PD covering less than 500 inhabitants, didnot submit any data.

3) Beemer PD covering less than 700 inhabitants, didnot submit any data.

DATA COLLECTION

11 of 40

12 of 40

DATA COLLECTION COVERAGEFrom 2010 to 2017, statewide data collectionefforts have improved, both in terms of populationcoverage and agency participation.

Population coverage reflects the percentage ofNebraska's statewide population covered by thoseagencies that submitted their traffic stops dataacross all four quarters. Population values forthese calculations were obtained from the USCensus Bureau website(https://factfinder.census.gov).

Agency participation reflects the percentage ofagencies that submitted all four quarters of trafficstops data, based on the number of agencies activeduring that year.

For example in 2010, 73.4% of Nebraska's activelaw enforcement agencies reported all four quatersof traffic stops data to the NCC, which represented86.9% of the statewide population. In 2017, thesefigures increased to 90.8% of active agencies,representing 99.3% of the statewide population.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

73.4%86.9%

70.7%92.6%

74.4%94.3%

67.9%91.8%

84.3%98.6%

70.4%92.4%

86.4%98.6%

90.8%99.3%

Agency Participation & Population Coverage

Population Coverage Agency Participation

13 of 40

DATA PROPORTIONALITY

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of Total Statewide Traffic Stops

41.9 43.5 43.4 41.5 41.739.2 39.4

28.227.9 28.0 31.3 31.3

33.4 32.6

10.1

11.3

10.310.6

10.1

9.79.0 9.5

9.2 9.0 7.4 8.8 9.5

7.8

2.2 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.1 1.22.3 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.36.3 5.8 5.3 4.9 4.3 4.1 4.2

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

10

20

30

40

% of Total Statewide Traffic Stops

All Other Agencies

Sarpy County Agencies

Lancaster County (excludes LPD)

Lincoln PD

Douglas County (excludes OPD)

Omaha PD

Nebraska State Patrol

Traffic Stops Distribution by Agency

Since 2002 the total number of stops has beenapproximately a half-million each year. NSP accounts forthe largest portion of the traffic stops made by a singleagency in the State of Nebraska. Collectively, NSP incombination three county agencies (Douglas, Lancaster,and Sarpy) accounted for roughly 70% of all traffic stopseach year.

Compared to the previous reporting year, OPD and LPDhave had small increases in their percentage of stops. Alarge majority of the traffic stops were made by threeagencies: NSP, OPD and LPD.

By understanding the proportion of stops by agency, onemust realize the complex nature of identifying areas ofconcern. A majority of the NSP traffic stops occur on theInterstate system, for which no population metric isavailable that can effectively estimate the demographicmake-up of individuals traveling on the Interstate system.Without a clear quantitative method to identify thispopulation, it would be illogical to make conclusionsregarding any disparity of this specific population.

Nebraska State Patrol

All Other Agencies

Lincoln PD

Omaha PD

Lancaster County (excludes LPD)

Douglas County (excludes OPD)

Sarpy County Agencies

14 of 40

This report reflects summary data submitted to the NCC from 2011 through 2017 (seven years). The NCC haspublished data for 2002-2010, but in years prior to 2005, NSP weigh station stops were included in the analysis. Forcomparative purposes, the data for 2002-2010 have been removed from this report. Data tables throughout thisreport include several basic data comparisons regarding the race of the driver, the reason for the stop, the primarydisposition or outcome of the stop, and whether or not searches were conducted.

The data provided in this report have inherent limitations. The data collected are in summary format, anddue to this limitation, there are no feasible processes to either identify individual cases or provide advancedanalysis. For instance, while we can report how many searches were conducted regarding Hispanic drivers,we cannot report how many of these stops started with a traffic violation as the reason for the stop nor canwe determine what the outcome of the stop actually was.

There is not a standardized process for analyzing traffic stop data. Many state and national studies have beenconducted that attempt to discern instances of racial profiling. This is problematic in two basic ways: (a) the nature ofdata collection and (b) the need to conclude motivation, conscious or unconscious, of law enforcement officers. Thebasic premise in any analysis is the attempt to discover instances that display disproportional activity across races.Analysis of traffic stop data can look at whether or not the drivers stopped reflect the general racial breakdown in asociety or analysis can focus on how different races or groups were handled once the stop is made. Both areimportant to society and the management of a law enforcement agency.

To assess the effect race and/or ethnicity may have on decision-making, any study must exclude or control forfactors other than race and/or ethnicity that might legitimately explain the stopping decision. For example, mostjurisdictions disproportionally stop males. Does this indicate gender bias? Most would not jump to that conclusionbecause they can think of several factors other than bias that could explain the disproportionate stopping of maledrivers. One possibility is that men drive more than women (a quantity factor). Another possibility is men violatetraffic laws more often than women (a quality factor). A third possibility is that more males drive in areas wherepolice stopping activity tends to occur (the location factor). We do not know if these possibilities are true, but wemust consider these other alternative explanations as causal.

Unfortunately, we do not have the detailed traffic stop data that would allow a comprehensive research design thatwould rule out such other possibilities and therefore prohibits us from drawing definitive conclusions. We cannot saydefinitively whether there is or is not racial bias in traffic stops, we can only point to seeming disproportionality. Inother words, it is not difficult to measure whether there is disparity between racial/ethnic groups in stops made bypolice; the difficulty comes in identifying the causes for the disparity and whether or not it is racial biased.

The initial search data has never been seen, on the statewide aggregate, as having extreme disproportionality.There are variances in the proportionality of races once the stop has been made and action is taken. This is donewithin the limitations of the data itself. Observations are included with the data tables pointing out instances wherethere appears to be some instance of disproportionality within a category. The reason for this difference probablyhas many causes but the available data cannot adequately identify or explain those causes.

It must be noted that disparities within this report are just that, disparities. Disparities alone do not prove bias orinstances of racial profiling. By identifying disparity law enforcement agencies can and should make reasonableefforts to better understand the disparities within their data. It is recommended that law enforcement agencies andother interested parties examine disparity at the agency and local level to better understand possible reasons for thedisproportionality. Agency specific results are available at the NCC website (http://www.ncc.ne.gov).

DATA REPORTING CONSIDERATIONS

15 of 40

POPULATION COMPARISONStudies focusing on traffic stop reporting often compare data to racial distributions within a particular community orstate. Some studies compare traffic stop data to the racial breakdown of the general population, of licensed drivers,of at risk drivers or even to the racial breakdown of drivers actually observed on an area's roads by people stationedin the field. Each of these demographic comparisons has strengths and weaknesses, but there is no universallyaccepted method for analyzing an at-risk populations compared to a reference group. Some studies drawconclusions that theoretically cannot be made given deficiencies in the available data.

When comparing traffic stop data to any population, several factors should be condsidered. People often look at thegeneral population compared to traffic stop percentages, and use this comparison as the sole indicator of racialprofiling, which may result in spurious findings. However, initial results from basic comparisons may identify otherfactors needing to be controlled and analyzed, thereby enhancing the validity of the initial findings.

All population data are obtained from the US Census Bureau. Since the adult population more closely parallels thedriving population than the overall population, primary tables and counts will be Nebraska's adult estimatedpopulation when available. Race categories and classifications are not consistent across data sets. Somecombining of areas along compatible definitions was done to parallel traffic stop categories. When reviewingpopulation figures at the city level, counts will be utilizing the city population because adult demographics are notalways available.

The line graphs below compare traffic stop percentages to the statewide population and the statewide adultpopulation.

2011 2013 2015 2017

1.0

2.0

Population Percentage

NE Adult Population

Traffic Stops

NE Population

Asian/Pacific Islander

2011 2013 2015 2017

4

6

8

Population Percentage

Traffic Stops

NE Population

NE Adult Population

Black

2011 2013 2015 2017

6

8

10

12Population Percentage

Traffic Stops

NE Population

NE Adult Population

Hispanic

2011 2013 2015 2017

0.6

0.8

Population Percentage

Traffic Stops

NE Population

NE Adult Population

American Indian/Alaskan Native

2011 2013 2015 2017

1

2

Population Percentage

Traffic Stops

NE Population

NE Adult Population

Other

2011 2013 2015 2017

80

85

90

Population Percentage

NE Population

NE Adult Population

Traffic Stops

White

NE Population Traffic Stops NE Adult Population

16 of 40

DISPARITY INDEXOver the past six years our state’s population has changed in size and in specific demographics. The NebraskaAdult Population figures obtained via the US Census Bureau help provide a more accurate comparison to analyzeour traffic stop data. When available, we use annual census estimates.

By comparing the Nebraska Adult Population percentages with our Traffic Stop percentages outlined in the previouspage we are able to produce a disparity index, seen below. To interpret the disparity index, a value greater than oneindicates over-representation, a value of one indicates no disparity, and a value less than one indicates underrepresentation. The disparity index is calculated by dividing the proportion of stops by the proportion of population.As outlined in the Data Reporting Considerations of this report, there is no single explanation for the disparitiesprovided in this report.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

Disparity Index

0.96

1.06

1.08

0.98

1.69

2.41

1.07

1.63

1.491.48

1.80

2.12

1.78

0.76

1.041.03

0.69

1.43

0.690.69 0.69

0.99

1.07

0.68

0.97

1.40

0.97

1.08

0.98

0.68

0.96 0.96 0.98 0.96

American Indian/Alaskan NativeAsian/Pacific Islander

BlackHispanic

OtherWhite

17 of 40

DISPARITY INDEX (NSP VERSUS NON-NSP)The following line graphs comparedisparies for all NSP traffic stops andNon-NSP traffic stops. The 'Other'race has been removed from thesevisualizations to better illustrate thedisparity index comparison.

The disparity index is calculatedusing the Nebraska Adult Populationpercentages reported on the twoprevious pages. The index iscalculated by dividing the proportionof stops by the proportion ofpopulation.

When interpreting the disparity index,values greater than one indicateover-representation, one representsno disparity, and values less thanone indicate under-representation.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

NSP Disparity Index

1.031.01 1.06

0.83

1.171.24

1.62

0.97

1.38

1.39

0.950.99

1.151.13

0.92

0.70

0.92

0.710.69

0.68

0.82

0.67

0.92

0.61

0.910.87

1.02 1.02 1.011.03

1.00

NSP Disparity Index

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

Non-NSP Disparity Index

0.93

1.12 1.12

0.97

2.09

1.90

0.89

2.24

0.910.75

1.87

2.22

1.10

0.67

1.85

0.971.03

0.67 0.70 0.71

0.73

1.83

0.68 0.67

0.93

1.13

0.68

0.97

0.93

0.72

0.94

1.00

0.94 0.94

0.95

Non-NSP Disparity IndexAmerican Indian/Alaskan NativeAsian/Pacific IslanderBlackHispanicWhite

18 of 40

DISPARITY INDEX (OMAHA PD & LINCOLN PD)The following line graphs comparethe disparity index for the OPD andLPD traffic stops.

To interpret the disparity index; avalue greater than one indicates anover-representation, a value of onerepresents no disparity, a value lessthan one indicates an underrepresentation. The disparity index iscalculated by dividing the proportionof stops by the proportion ofpopulation.

These two Police Departmentscollectively account for roughlytwenty percent of the traffic stopsreported each year. The city specificdisparity index population numbersare utilizing the city wide population,not the adult population figures.These population numbers are 2016estimates obtained from the USCensus Bureau. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Disparity Index

0.87 0.88

1.75

2.57

2.242.18

2.86

0.41

0.64

2.57

2.39

2.42

0.68

1.67

0.58

0.51

0.83 0.83

0.70 0.700.78

0.51

0.80

0.61

0.82

1.72

0.79

1.71

Omaha PD Disparity Index

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Disparity Index

0.94

0.80 0.800.80 0.86

0.65

0.70 0.80 0.85

1.22

2.15

2.50

2.54

1.33

2.41 2.56

1.16

2.58

0.90

0.960.950.99 0.95

0.660.66

0.88

2.64

0.70 0.710.70 0.66

0.97

Lincoln PD Disparity Index

American Indian/Alaskan NativeAsian/Pacific IslanderBlackHispanicWhite

19 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP DATAThe following table and area chart provide some perspective regarding the amount of traffic stops reported to theNCC over the previous 12 years. Whites make up the majority of traffic stops, decreasing across this 12-year spanfrom a high of 85.9% in 2007 to a low of 79.1% during the current reporting year. Conversely, minor growth hasbeen observed for traffic stop percentages (population growth simulates traffic stop growth) for Asian/PacificIslander, Black, and Hispanic populations across the State.

American Indian &Alaskan Native

Count Percent

Asian & PacificIslander

Count Percent

Black

Count Percent

Hispanic

Count Percent

Other

Count Percent

White

Count Percent

Grand Total

Count Percent

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017 0.73%

0.77%

0.75%

0.76%

0.74%

0.70%

0.76%

0.70%

0.81%

0.72%

0.64%

0.85%

3,489

3,832

3,731

3,886

3,663

3,525

3,908

3,768

3,930

3,634

2,609

3,918

1.68%

1.61%

1.49%

1.54%

1.33%

1.29%

1.24%

1.00%

1.00%

0.90%

0.88%

1.04%

8,025

7,996

7,420

7,891

6,522

6,512

6,407

5,378

4,815

4,509

3,570

4,801

7.86%

7.75%

7.05%

6.30%

5.82%

5.90%

6.03%

4.99%

5.53%

5.13%

5.18%

5.11%

37,483

38,525

35,095

32,249

28,629

29,819

31,096

26,877

26,724

25,762

21,100

23,671

9.40%

9.14%

8.61%

8.03%

7.37%

7.17%

7.15%

6.64%

6.82%

6.93%

6.50%

6.96%

44,794

45,424

42,846

41,142

36,271

36,223

36,888

35,734

32,942

34,806

26,484

32,253

1.24%

1.15%

1.06%

1.02%

1.54%

1.87%

2.04%

1.68%

0.85%

0.62%

0.95%

0.92%

5,917

5,706

5,302

5,241

7,584

9,430

10,545

9,068

4,096

3,099

3,860

4,273

79.08%

79.58%

81.04%

82.35%

83.20%

83.08%

82.78%

84.99%

85.00%

85.70%

85.86%

85.12%

377,001

395,404

403,472

421,800

409,465

419,972

427,237

457,472

410,761

430,317

349,809

394,215

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

476,709

496,887

497,866

512,209

492,134

505,481

516,081

538,297

483,268

502,127

407,432

463,131

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20170K

100K

200K

300K

400K

500K

600K

Traffic Stops Reported

American Indian & Alaskan NativeAsian & Pacific Islander

BlackHispanic

OtherWhite

20 of 40

REASON FOR TRAFFIC STOPThe table to the right displays percentagesof statewide traffic stops made for eithertraffic code violations, criminal codeviolations, or other/unkown reasons. Thefigures below further breakdownreason-for-stop percentages in terms ofrace.

Reason for the Stop indicates the primaryreason that the traffic stop was initiated bythe officer. A traffic stop may include morethan one reason.

Traffic Code Violations are the typicallythought of traffic violations such asspeeding.

Traffic CodeViolations

Count %

Criminal CodeViolations

Count %

Other/Unknown

Count %

Grand Total

Count %

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017 90.5%

89.6%

88.8%

88.9%

89.1%

89.4%

96.1%

90.9%

94.5%

94.7%

94.3%

94.9%

431,406

445,264

441,944

455,502

438,647

451,853

496,177

489,234

456,618

475,436

384,390

439,665

6.9%

7.3%

8.3%

8.1%

7.8%

7.9%

0.9%

1.1%

1.1%

1.2%

1.6%

1.5%

33,010

36,400

41,151

41,626

38,622

40,087

4,850

6,093

5,522

5,941

6,640

7,163

2.6%

3.1%

3.0%

2.9%

3.0%

2.7%

2.9%

8.0%

4.4%

4.1%

4.0%

3.5%

12,293

15,223

14,771

15,081

14,865

13,541

15,054

42,970

21,128

20,750

16,402

16,303

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

476,709

496,887

497,866

512,209

492,134

505,481

516,081

538,297

483,268

502,127

407,432

463,131

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0%

50%

100%

97.1%

97.2%

97.5%

96.8%

95.7%

97.5%

91.4%

91.3%

90.9%

90.5%

91.4%

92.4%

Asian/Pacific Islander

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0%

50%

100%

94.2%

94.7%

94.8%

94.9%

89.7%

94.8%

89.8%

90.3%

90.3%

91.0%

92.0%

92.2%

Black

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0%

50%

100%

91.8%

93.0%

92.3%

90.1%

90.2%

94.2%

88.2%

88.6%

88.8%

89.4%

89.7%

90.2%

Hispanic

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0%

50%

100%

84.0%

85.4%

88.0%

82.5%

86.6%

90.5%

78.2%

75.9%

79.0%

82.2%

84.6%

86.0%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0%

50%

100%

92.5%

95.2%

95.7%

94.8%

90.9%

93.5%

93.7%

94.1%

94.5%

95.7%

95.1%

93.5%

Other

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0%

50%

100%

95.3%

94.5%

94.9%

94.9%

91.0%

96.5%

89.4%

89.1%

88.8%

88.5%

89.3%

90.3%

White

Traffic Code Violations Criminal Code Violations Other/Unknown

21 of 40

DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC STOPThe Disposition of the Traffic Stop reports the primaryoutcome of the stop. A traffic stop may result in avariety of outcomes. A custodial arrest is not donewhen only a traffic violation is involved. Therefore, thestop could involve things such as a DUI arrest, a lackof identification, an outstanding warrant (discovered ina general license check) or some other criminal activityin the car or even by the occupants. However, the dataare not detailed enough to know what specific violationcaused a custodial arrest.

In 2017, 17.4% of Blacks stopped were taken intocustodial arrest, compared to 4.2% of the generalpopulation.

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

4.2%

All Races Combined Arrest Rate

200720092011201320152017

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2.6%

Asian/Pacific Islander

200720092011201320152017

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

17.4%

Black

200720092011201320152017

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

5.9%

Hispanic

200720092011201320152017

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

13.5%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

200720092011201320152017

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

7.9%

Other

200720092011201320152017

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2.5%

White

22 of 40

SEARCH PERCENTAGEBroken down by race over the past 12 years, thefollowing figures show the percentage of traffic stops inwhich a search was conducted. For example in 2017,8.7% of all statewide traffic stops involving Black driversincluded a search.

Search counts do not include inventory arrests or thosedone incident to arrest. Instead they reflect searchesdone as part of the officer's processing of the traffic stop.The following trend lines allow the reader to compareeach race to each other, the overall (top-right), and overtime.

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

3.5%

All Races Combined Search Rate

200720092011201320152017

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

2.5%

Asian/Pacific Islander

200720092011201320152017

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10% 8.6%

Black

200720092011201320152017

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

5.3%

Hispanic

200720092011201320152017

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10% 9.4%American Indian/Alaskan Native

200720092011201320152017

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

3.8%

Other

200720092011201320152017

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

2.8%

White

23 of 40

ALLEGATIONS OF RACIAL PROFILINGAn allegation of racial profiling can originate in variousways. Sometimes a driver will make an accusation at thescene of the stop. Other times the driver, or even apassenger or related party, might contact the agencysometime after the stop to make a complaint. An allegationcan also originate from a non-traffic stop.

These allegations are handled formally within each agencyand then standardized data are submitted to the NCC incompliance with LB593. For 2017, eleven allegations werereceived from five agencies, two of which involvedsearches. Of the 210 total allegations during 2002-2017,only 17.1% involved reported searches.

All involved agencies conducted internal investigations andcontacted the drivers and persons involved when possible.During 2002-2017, no agency reported an allegation ofracial profiling to be valid; agencies stated officers followedpolicy or that there were circumstances which made thestops appropriate.

There have been cases reported in which the agencystated that they were unable to disseminate specificinformation concerning the disposition of allegationsbecause of policy and the current Labor Agreement.

20032005200720092011201320152017

0

10

20

30

Number of Allegations 31

13 14 1111

11

16

17

9

18

334

22

6

21

Allegations

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0

10

20

30

Number of Allegations

112024

11 1112

13

6

244

22

224

432

9 6 3

2

6 4 4 3

8 5 5 3 3 6

Allegations by Search Conducted

Conducted Not Conducted Unknown

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0

10

20

30

Number of Allegations

29

16 11 17

13

2

2

2

2

95

5 35

9

6 829

5 2

4

2 3 23

42 4 2

Allegations by Race

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0

10

20

30

Number of Allegations

1119 25

11 11

171411 10

5

77

4

27

3 3

3

9

3

94 3 3 3

Allegations by Disposition

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Black

Hispanic

Unknown/Other

White

Insufficient Evidence

Complaint not Pursued

Officer Exonerated

Unknown / NA

24 of 40

Previous pages of this report focused on statewide data, whereas the following pages focus on the five mostpopulous counties and each one's most populous city, broken down by race. County-level data reflect reported stopsby all law enforcement agencies within the county. City-level data reflect reports only from the local city policedepartment.

As stated previously, census figures only estimate the resident population and do not account for commuters orInterstate traffic. Nonetheless, local populations provide one measure often used to facilitate discussions regardingthe possibility of racial profiling, despite considerable variation throughout the state.

There are great differences in minority populations by city and county throughout the state. These differencesobviously affect daily occurrences for any racial groups in all kinds of activities, including traffic stops. The varyingdistributions of minority populations across Nebraska significantly affect the contact law enforcement has with thesegroups. In 2017 for instance, the Black population varied significantly across three levels of analysis within the Stateof Nebraska: 12.5% in Omaha, 11.0% in Douglas County, and 4.4% across the statewide adult population.

There are obvious differences in the stops made in different counties relative to race. There are considerations otherthan the resident population, particularly given travelers and Interstate traffic, in addition to possible officer activity.

Once a traffic stop has been made, there can be a variety of actions taken. Research often looks at the handling anddisposition of the stop for disparity. This can reflect differences in processing by race but it must be noted that avariety of factors exist.

Each breakout page includes the traffic stop counts by race so one can compare to the population table -- along withsearch counts and percentages. Bar charts include percentages referring to proportions for an activity. For instance,one can see what percentage of stops involve a search to give the viewer perspective. Population sizes of minoritygroups change across years and localities, which have direct effects on disparity calculations, particularly at thecounty or city level of analysis.

COUNTY SPECIFIC DETAILS

25 of 40

The following two pages reflect traffic stop data only from law enforcement agencies within Douglas County, inaddition to the county’s largest city, Omaha. The total number of 2017 traffic stops in Douglas County increased2.4% compared to 2016.

Collectively, 2017 traffic stops data for Douglas County were submitted from the following nine agencies (listed indecreasing order based on their percentage of total stops in the county): Omaha PD (81.4%), Douglas County Sheriff(12.8%), Ralston PD (4.0%), Valley PD (0.9%), Bennington PD (0.6%), Waterloo PD (0.1%), Boys Town PD (0.1%),University of Nebraska–Omaha Campus Security PD (< 0.1%), Metro Community College PD (< 0.1%), and OmahaAirport Authority (0%).

Across all Douglas County agencies, two racial groups had 2017 traffic stop percentages (first value) thatoverrepresented their population percentages (second value): American Indian/Alaskan Native drivers (0.9% and0.4%) and Black drivers (27.0% and 11.0%).

On average (across all races), searches were conducted in 6.3% of all 2017 traffic stops from Douglas Countyagencies. With respect to race, search percentages were higher than average for American Indian/Alaskan Native(13.2%) and Black drivers (12.0%).

DOUGLAS COUNTY TRAFFIC STOPS

26 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (DOUGLAS CO)

2012 2014 2016

20K

40K

60K

All Races

0500

1000

1500

Asian/Pacifi..

5K

10K

15K

Black

0K2K

4K

6K

Hispanic

0

200

400

American

Indian/Alas..

2K

4K

6K

Other

0K

20K

40K

White

70,116100% 56,897

100%56,202100%

54,836100%

48,875100%

58,713100%

59,176100%

1,2022.1%

1,4132.4%

1,4572.5%

9411.3%

8521.5%

8721.6%

9922.0%

13,53919.3%

14,74625.9%

16,73028.5%

11,12819.8%

11,59421.1%

11,76024.1%

16,00427.0%

4,9507.1% 3,698

6.6%3,9267.2%

4,2928.8%

4,9118.6%

5,4319.3%

5,93710.0%

1200.2% 335

0.7%

4570.8%

5470.9%

5460.9%130

0.2%

1820.3%

7,22510.3% 4,654

8.3%

4,2017.7%

1,4192.9%

1,5502.7%

1,6072.7%

1,6102.7%

43,33161.8% 35,688

63.5%34,12362.2%

30,07761.5%

34,03159.8%

32,98556.2%

33,62256.8%

TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

5K

10K

15K

All Races

0

100

200

Asian/Pacific

Islander

2K4K6K8K

Black

0K

1K

2K

Hispanic

100

200

300

American

Indian/Alas..

1K

2K

3K

Other

2K

4K

6K

White

11,64016.6%

11,44219.5%

11,77019.9%8,279

14.7%7,28613.3%

7,98616.3%

9,24216.2%

616.5%

495.8%

445.0%

717.2%

736.1%

1208.5%

1379.4%

3,81528.2% 2,910

26.2%2,82924.4%

3,77332.1%

4,52330.7%

5,70834.1%

5,80736.3%

1,02020.6% 681

18.4%64816.5%

90821.2%

94519.2%

1,17321.6%

1,28521.6%

3728.5%

4424.2%

3730.8%

12437.0%

16937.0%

19435.5%

22040.3%

2,36232.7% 1,575

33.8% 1,11326.5% 254

17.9%31920.6%

39824.8%

41625.8%

4,34510.0%

3,84911.7%

3,90511.6%3,020

8.5%2,6157.7%

2,8569.5%

3,2139.4%

TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0K2K

4K

6K

All Races

0

50

100

Asian/Pacific

Islander

0K1K

2K

3K

Black

0200

400

600

Hispanic

0

50

100American

Indian/Alas..

0100

200

300

Other

500

1000

1500

White

1,2831.8%

1,8013.7%

2,1833.8%

3,5226.0%

3,7436.3%

8941.6%

9191.7%

293.1% 14

1.6%111.3%

101.0%

171.4%

594.2%

694.7%

1,84311.0%

1,91712.0%1,095

7.4%3102.3%

1891.7%

3182.7%

8086.9%

1132.3%

882.4%

792.0%

1994.6%

2294.7%

3396.2%

3746.3%

7213.2%

64.6%

63.3%

43.3%

309.0%

286.1%

509.1%

2002.8%

972.1%

741.8% 34

2.4%

644.1%

875.4%

966.0%

1,1443.5%

1,2153.6%625

1.4%5001.4%

4331.3%

7202.4%

7502.2%

TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE

2013 Q1

2013 Q2

2013 Q3

2013 Q4

2014 Q1

2014 Q2

2014 Q3

2014 Q4

2015 Q1

2015 Q2

2015 Q3

2015 Q4

2016 Q1

2016 Q2

2016 Q3

2016 Q4

2017 Q1

2017 Q2

2017 Q3

2017 Q4

DOUGLAS CO SO OMAHAOMAHA PDRALSTON PDVALLEY PDBOYS TOWN PDBENNINGTON PDWATERLOO PDUNIV OF NEBRASKA CAMPU..OMAHA AIRPORTMCCGrand Total

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101010109999999999999999

Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

American Indian/Al..

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other

White 70.6%

2.7%

12.0%

11.0%

3.3%

0.4%

71.0%

2.5%

11.8%

11.1%

3.2%

0.4%

71.4%

2.6%

11.6%

11.1%

2.9%

0.4%

71.7%

2.5%

11.3%

11.2%

2.8%

0.4%

72.1%

2.5%

11.1%

11.2%

2.7%

0.5%

72.5%

2.7%

10.8%

11.1%

2.5%

0.4%

COUNTY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION

COUNT

27 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (OMAHA PD)

2012 2014 2016

0K20K

40K

60K

All Races

0

500

1000

Asian/Pacifi..

0K5K

10K

15K

Black

0K

2K

4K

Hispanic

0

200

400

American

Indian/Alas..

2K

4K

6K

Other

10K

20K

30K

White

58,322100% 46,251

100%44,377100%

47,051100%

46,688100%

48,159100%37,648

100%

9512.1%733

1.9%

1,2102.5%

6981.2% 1,178

2.5%

6901.5%

6321.4%

12,62221.6%

13,44330.3%

15,31132.5%

14,57530.3%10,847

23.5%10,24521.9%

10,62328.2%

4,0707.0%

3,9949.0%

5,00110.4%

3,4309.1%

2,9796.4%

4,4889.5%3,212

6.9%

1010.2%

3070.8%

4321.0%

5211.1%

5171.1%127

0.3%1180.2%

7,03212.1% 4,039

8.7%

1,1603.1%

4,4969.6%

1,4082.9%

1,3832.9%

1,3032.9%

33,78257.9% 27,362

59.2%25,44452.8%

28,20960.4% 24,254

54.7%24,17451.4%

21,39556.8%

TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

5K

10K

15K

All Races

0

100

200

Asian/Pacific

Islander

2K4K6K8K

Black

500

1000

1500

Hispanic

100

200

300

American

Indian/Alas..

1K

2K

3K

Other

0K2K

4K

6K

White

11,20919.2%

10,87523.1%

11,25423.4%7,940

17.0%6,95715.0%

7,40719.7%

8,64919.5%

13010.7%

598.5%

447.0%

395.7%

618.3%

677.0%

1159.8%

3,76629.8% 2,868

28.0%2,77125.5%

3,67334.6%

4,40532.8%

5,59736.6%

5,66738.9%

97323.9% 645

21.7%61919.3%

83924.5%

86721.7%

1,09024.3%

1,22424.5%

3731.4%

4132.3%

3736.6%

11938.8%

16638.4%

19036.8%

21942.0%

2,36133.6% 1,573

35.0% 1,11027.5% 248

21.4%30623.5%

39328.4%

41229.3%

4,01311.9% 2,467

11.5%

2,83811.7%

3,49014.4%

3,60214.2%2,769

9.8%2,3818.7%

TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0K

2K

4K

All Races

10

20

30

Asian/Pacific

Islander

0K1K

2K

Black

0

200

400

Hispanic

0

50

100American

Indian/Alas..

0100

200

300

Other

0500

1000

1500

White

1,3393.6%

1,6863.8%

2,9886.4%

3,1986.6%

7221.2%

4761.0%

5521.2%

30.4%

30.5%

10.1%

60.8%

80.8%

201.7%

242.0%

1,73311.3%

1,78912.3%

2472.0%

1461.4%

2582.4%

7306.9%

9997.4%

401.0%

240.8%

341.1%

1404.1%

1624.1%

2665.9%

3206.4%

7113.6%

54.2%

10.8%

22.0%

289.1%

286.5%

468.9%

1962.8%

932.1%

721.8% 31

2.7%

584.5%

815.9%

926.5%

2310.7%

2090.7%

1850.7%

4041.9%

4311.8%

8423.5%

9023.5%

TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE

2013 Q1

2013 Q2

2013 Q3

2013 Q4

2014 Q1

2014 Q2

2014 Q3

2014 Q4

2015 Q1

2015 Q2

2015 Q3

2015 Q4

2016 Q1

2016 Q2

2016 Q3

2016 Q4

2017 Q1

2017 Q2

2017 Q3

2017 Q4

OMAHA PD

Grand Total

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

American Indian/Al..

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other

White 67.2%

2.8%

13.8%

12.5%

3.2%

0.4%

67.6%

2.6%

13.7%

12.7%

3.1%

0.4%

68.2%

2.7%

13.3%

12.7%

2.8%

0.4%

68.2%

2.7%

13.1%

12.9%

2.6%

0.5%

68.4%

2.7%

12.9%

13.0%

2.4%

0.5%

69.1%

2.8%

12.6%

12.9%

2.2%

0.4%

CITY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION

COUNT

28 of 40

The following two pages reflect traffic stop data only from law enforcement agencies within Lancaster County, inaddition to the county’s largest city, Lincoln. The total number of 2017 traffic stops in Lancaster County decreased5.6% compared to 2016.

Collectively, 2017 traffic stops data for Lancaster County were submitted from the following four agencies (listed indecreasing order based on their percentage of total stops in the county): Lincoln PD (89.4%), Lancaster County SO(6.6%), University of Nebraska–Lincoln Campus PD (4.0%), and Lincoln Airport PD (< 0.1%).

Across all Lancaster County agencies, three racial groups had 2017 traffic stop percentages (first value) thatoverrepresented their population percentages (second value): Black (10.4% and 3.8%), American Indian/AlaskanNative (0.5% and 0.4%), and Other (3.1% and 2.5%) drivers.

On average (across all races), searches were conducted in 3.8% of all 2017 traffic stops from Lancaster Countyagencies. With respect to race, search percentages were observed to be higher than average for AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native (9.7%), Black (8.5%), and Hispanic (5.9%) drivers.

LANCASTER COUNTY TRAFFIC STOPS

29 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (LANCASTER CO)

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

20K

40K

60K

All Races

500

1000

1500

Asian/Pacific

Islander

0K2K

4K

6K

Black

1K

2K

3K

Hispanic

100

200

300

American

Indian/Alas..

500

1000

1500

Other

20K

40K

60K

White

43,702100%

45,803100%

51,456100%

59,246100%

61,835100%

65,350100%56,626

100%57,299100%

54,063100%

9712.2%

1,2062.6%

1,3482.6% 1,600

2.7%

1,7952.9%

1,8962.9% 1,679

3.0%

1,8693.3%

1,6903.1%

3,5597.8%

4,9308.3% 5,595

9.0%

6,1379.4% 5,485

9.7%

6,01310.5%5,612

10.4%

3,6828.4%

3,7197.2%

2,0164.6%

2,0704.5%

2,2984.5%

2,7774.7%

3,2445.2%

3,4475.3% 3,010

5.3%

3,4035.9%

3,4816.4%

2310.4% 300

0.5%3180.6%

2670.5%

1690.4%

1800.4% 303

0.5%1820.4%

3040.5%

8131.9%

9052.0%

8691.7%

1,2042.0%

1,3032.1%

1,3572.4%

1,5492.7%

1,6793.1%1,328

2.0%

36,04082.5%

37,89482.7%

43,04083.6%

48,50481.9%

49,59880.2%

52,23979.9%

44,79179.1%44,14777.0%

41,33476.5%

TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

500

1000

1500

All Races

010

20

30

Asian/Pacific

Islander

0

200

400

Black

50

100

150

Hispanic

0

20

40

American

Indian/Alas..

0

10

20

Other

0

500

1000

White

1,0511.6%

1,0871.9%

1,0731.9%

1,0381.9%734

1.4%7501.3%

8411.4%

70.5%

100.6%

150.8%

191.0%

100.6%

130.7% 10

0.6%

1564.2%

1873.8%

2073.7%

2824.6% 219

4.0%

2634.4%

2614.7%

562.4%

742.7%

963.0%

902.6%

943.1%

842.5%

1113.2%

1910.4% 9

3.9%

134.3%

206.6%

289.2%

299.1% 20

7.5%

30.3%

70.6%

80.6% 6

0.5%

100.7%

120.8% 9

0.5%

4931.1%

4631.0%

5021.0%

6341.2%

7261.6%

6721.5%

6271.5%

TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1K

2K

3K

All Races

050

100

150

Asian/Pacific

Islander

200

400

600

Black

100

200

300

Hispanic

10203040American

Indian/Alas..

0

50

100

Other

0K

1K

2K

White

1,0622.1%

1,2042.0%

1,5042.4%

1,9343.0%

1,6552.9%

2,0203.5%

2,0763.8%

70.5%

140.9%

251.4%

422.2%

402.4%

1025.5%

281.7%

1433.8%

2414.9%

2674.8%

4106.7%

3476.3%

3996.6%

4798.5%

883.8%

943.4%

1253.9%

1604.6%

1464.9%

2407.1%

2045.9%

168.8%

156.5%

155.0%

237.6%

227.2%

268.2%

269.7%

172.0%

181.5%

272.1%

211.6%

241.8%

825.3%

432.6%

1,0452.1%

1,2782.4%

1,0762.4%

1,1712.7%

1,2963.1%791

1.8%8221.7%

TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE

2013 Q1

2013 Q2

2013 Q3

2013 Q4

2014 Q1

2014 Q2

2014 Q3

2014 Q4

2015 Q1

2015 Q2

2015 Q3

2015 Q4

2016 Q1

2016 Q2

2016 Q3

2016 Q4

2017 Q1

2017 Q2

2017 Q3

2017 Q4

LANCASTER CO SO LINCOLN

LINCOLN PD

LINCOLN AIRPORT POLICE

UNL

Grand Total

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

44444444444444444444

Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

American Indian/Al..

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other

White 82.7%

2.5%

6.5%

3.8%

4.1%

0.4%

83.1%

2.2%

6.4%

3.8%

4.1%

0.4%

83.6%

2.1%

6.2%

3.7%

4.0%

0.4%

84.0%

2.0%

6.0%

3.6%

3.8%

0.5%

84.4%

2.0%

5.9%

3.5%

3.7%

0.5%

84.8%

2.0%

5.7%

3.4%

3.6%

0.5%

COUNTY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION

COUNT

30 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (LINCOLN PD)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0K

20K

40K

All Races

0500

1000

1500

Asian/Pacifi..

0K

2K

4K

Black

0K1K

2K

3K

Hispanic

0

100

200

American

Indian/Alas..

0500

1000

1500

Other

0K

20K

40K

White

40,131100%

49,155100%

50,527100%

54,404100%

48,326100%

47,028100%

45,204100%

1,2922.6%

1,4352.8%

1,5552.9%

1,0172.5%

1,2792.8%

1,4423.0%

1,4623.1%

3,0887.7%

4,2858.7%

4,8669.6%

5,52510.2%

5,13710.9%4,555

10.1%

5,13710.6%

1,8594.6%

2,3444.8%

2,7455.4%

2,9625.4%

2,7915.9%

2,4175.3%

3,0846.4%

1970.4%

2390.5%

2690.5%

1550.4%

2470.5%

2600.6%

2670.6%

1,0082.1%

1,1262.2%

1,1212.5%

1,2082.2%

6971.7%

1,5243.2%1,323

2.8%

40,02981.4%

40,11679.4%

42,88578.8%

36,89276.3%

36,04876.7%

33,31583.0%

35,57278.7%

TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0500

1000

1500

All Races

0

10

20

Asian/Pacific

Islander

100

200

300

Black

050

100

150

Hispanic

1020

3040

American

Indian/Alas..

05

10

15

Other

200400600800

White

4621.2%

6051.2%

6671.3%

8431.5%

7611.7%

8521.8%

9021.9%

70.7%

70.5%

130.9%

151.0% 8

0.6%70.5%

90.6%

1264.1%

1603.7%

1633.3%

2444.4% 169

3.7%

2234.3%

2394.7%

392.1%

612.6%

833.0%

812.7%

733.0%

662.4%

933.0%

159.7% 8

4.1%93.8%

155.6%

238.8%

259.4% 18

7.3%

10.1%

70.7% 5

0.4%

60.5%

60.5%

100.8% 8

0.5%

2740.8%

3620.9%

3941.0%

4821.1%

4821.4%

5211.4%

5351.5%

TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0K

1K

2K

All Races

10

20

3040

Asian/Pacific

Islander

200

400

600

Black

0

100

200

Hispanic

10203040American

Indian/Alas..

0

20

40

Other

500

1000

1500

White

1,3452.5%

1,1602.6%

1,3072.8%

1,7493.6%

5651.4%

8371.7%

9661.9%

60.6%

110.9%

171.2%

251.6%

231.8% 13

0.9%

201.4%

1073.5%

2004.7%

2084.3%

3616.5% 269

5.9%

3276.4%

4328.4%

512.7%

703.0%

782.8%

1093.7%

994.1%

1093.9%

1595.2%

2610.5%

117.1%

115.6%

125.0%

197.1%

207.7%

207.5%

121.7%

131.3%

201.8%

161.3%

181.6%

312.3%

342.2%

1,0782.9%

3781.1%

5321.3%

6311.6%

8151.9%

7312.1%

8072.2%

TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE

2013 Q1

2013 Q2

2013 Q3

2013 Q4

2014 Q1

2014 Q2

2014 Q3

2014 Q4

2015 Q1

2015 Q2

2015 Q3

2015 Q4

2016 Q1

2016 Q2

2016 Q3

2016 Q4

2017 Q1

2017 Q2

2017 Q3

2017 Q4

LINCOLN PD

Grand Total

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

American Indian/Al..

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other

White 81.2%

2.7%

7.1%

4.1%

4.5%

0.4%

81.7%

2.4%

6.9%

4.1%

4.4%

0.5%

82.3%

2.2%

6.7%

4.0%

4.3%

0.4%

82.8%

2.1%

6.4%

3.9%

4.1%

0.6%

83.3%

2.1%

6.2%

3.8%

4.0%

0.6%

83.8%

2.1%

6.0%

3.6%

4.0%

0.6%

CITY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION

COUNT

31 of 40

The following two pages reflect traffic stop data only from law enforcement agencies within Sarpy County, in additionto the county’s largest city, Bellevue. The total number of 2017 traffic stops in Sarpy County decreased less than 1%compared to 2016.

Collectively, 2017 traffic stops data for Sarpy County were submitted from four agencies (listed in decreasing orderbased on their percentage of total stops in the county): Bellevue PD (50.6%), Sarpy County SO (19.8%), Papillion PD(15.4%), and La Vista PD (14.1%).

Across all Sarpy County agencies, two racial groups had 2017 traffic stop percentages (first value) thatoverrepresented their population percentages (second value): Black (10.0% and 3.7%) and Hispanic (11.4% and8.4%) drivers.

On average (across all races), searches were conducted in 6.1% of all 2017 traffic stops from Sarpy Countyagencies. With respect to race, search percentages were higher than average for American Indian/Alaskan Native(26.9%), Black (12.8%), and Hispanic (12.8%).

SARPY COUNTY TRAFFIC STOPS

32 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (SARPY CO)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

10K

20K

30K

All Races

0

200

400

Asian/Pacifi..

0K

1K

2K

Black

0K

1K

2K

Hispanic

10

20

30

American

Indian/Alas..

200

400600800

Other

0K

10K

20K

White

29,395100% 24,894

100%21,832100%

20,230100%

20,186100%32,687

100% 27,548100%

3501.7%

3561.4% 291

1.3%

3441.7%

4451.5%

4771.7%

4741.5%

2,2819.2%

2,3578.6%

2,7678.5% 2,067

10.2%

2,5138.5% 2,025

10.0%2,0099.2%

2,2319.0%

2,2376.8%

2,19310.8%

2,4138.8% 2,047

9.4%

2,1817.4%

2,30411.4%

310.1%

320.2% 26

0.1%

330.1%27

0.1%

340.1%

350.1%

4241.9%

1991.0%

6182.5%

1430.7%

7232.6%

7442.5%

8132.5%

26,36980.7% 19,374

77.8%17,03078.0%

15,38976.1%

15,34476.0%21,543

78.2%

23,47979.9%

TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

500

1000

All Races

0

10

20

Asian/Pacific

Islander

050

100

150

Black

050

100

150

Hispanic

0

5

10

American

Indian/Alas..

0

10

20

Other

200400600800

White

7732.4%

7382.5%

6542.4%

6602.7%

5662.6% 438

2.2%4862.4%

81.7%

153.4%

51.0%

92.5%

72.4%

51.4%

72.0%

923.3%

843.3%

984.2%

873.8%

844.2%

723.5%

904.4%

853.8%

934.3% 71

2.9%

914.1%

1004.9%

884.0%

823.6%

617.6% 3

11.5%13.7%

26.1%

38.6% 1

3.2%

39.4%

131.6% 8

1.1%81.1%

91.5% 4

0.9% 10.5%

10.7%

5742.2%

5362.3%

4692.2%

4582.4%

3702.2% 269

1.7%3032.0%

TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

500

100015002000

All Races

0

10

20

Asian/Pacific

Islander

100200300400

Black

0

200

400

Hispanic

0

5

10American

Indian/Alas..

0

20

40

Other

0

500

1000

White

1,2463.8%

1,2154.1%

1,1764.3%

1,2335.0%

1,0784.9%

1,2306.1%979

4.8%

81.7%

153.4%

71.5%

113.1% 7

2.4% 30.9%

92.6%

25912.8%159

5.7%1626.4%

1787.6%

2008.8%

1688.4%

1979.5%

24510.2%

25811.6%

26613.0%

24911.4%

29612.8%204

9.1%2029.3%

412.1%

411.4%

617.6%

825.8% 5

15.6%

726.9%

27.4%

222.7%

314.2% 24

3.3%223.6% 14

3.3% 42.0%

21.4%

8513.2%

8013.4%

7183.3%

7363.8%

6153.6%

5213.4%

6574.3%

TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE

2013 Q1

2013 Q2

2013 Q3

2013 Q4

2014 Q1

2014 Q2

2014 Q3

2014 Q4

2015 Q1

2015 Q2

2015 Q3

2015 Q4

2016 Q1

2016 Q2

2016 Q3

2016 Q4

2017 Q1

2017 Q2

2017 Q3

2017 Q4

SARPY CO SO PAPILLION

BELLEVUE PD

PAPILLION PD

LA VISTA PD OMAHA

Grand Total

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

44444444444444444444

Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

American Indian/Al..

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other

White 82.3%

2.9%

8.4%

3.7%

2.4%

0.3%

82.6%

2.7%

8.1%

3.9%

2.2%

0.4%

83.0%

2.8%

7.9%

4.0%

2.0%

0.3%

83.4%

2.8%

7.6%

3.9%

2.0%

0.3%

83.8%

2.6%

7.3%

3.9%

2.1%

0.3%

84.1%

2.6%

7.0%

4.0%

2.1%

0.3%

COUNTY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION

COUNT

33 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (BELLEVUE PD)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0K5K

10K

15K

All Races

0

100

200

Asian/Pacifi..

0500

1000

1500

Black

500

1000

1500

Hispanic

0

10

20

American

Indian/Alas..

0200

400

600

Other

0K

5K

10K

White

14,200100%

12,793100%

12,106100%

10,677100%

10,217100%

10,138100%

9,449100%

1781.4% 151

1.5%1531.5%97

1.0%

1781.5%

2001.4%

1271.2%

1,34713.3%

1,35211.2%

1,56711.0% 1,284

12.0%1,13012.0%

1,41111.0% 1,244

12.2%

1,55912.9%

1,60415.8%

1,41715.0%

1,63716.0%1,402

13.1%1,39310.9%

1,3729.7%

220.2%

230.2%17

0.2%

200.2%16

0.2%140.1%

150.1%

3253.4%

1081.1%

460.5%

5244.9%

6225.1%

6355.0%

6434.5%

10,40473.3% 9,154

71.6%8,38069.2%

7,32368.6%

7,11769.7%

6,90568.1%

6,46468.4%

TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

100200300400

All Races

2468

Asian/Pacific

Islander

2040

6080

Black

0

50

100

Hispanic

02

46

American

Indian/Alas..

05

10

15

Other

0

100

200

White

2721.9%

2522.0%

2351.9%

2482.3%

2492.6%

2392.4%

2082.0%

42.0%

52.8%

10.6%

21.6% 0

0.0%00.0%

21.3%

422.7%

352.5%

443.3%

403.1%

363.2%

443.3%

504.0%

483.5%

423.0%

362.3%

493.5%

704.9%

714.4% 43

2.6%

213.3%

211.8%

315.0%

00.0%

14.5% 0

0.0%

28.7%

91.4% 7

1.1% 50.8%

71.3%

20.6%

10.9%

00.0%

1691.6%

1621.8%

1471.8%

1482.0%

1412.2%

1211.8%

1101.5%

TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0500

1000

All Races

5

10

15

Asian/Pacific

Islander

0100

200

300

Black

100200

300400

Hispanic

0

5

10American

Indian/Alas..

0

20

40

Other

200

400

600

White

6104.3%

7135.6%

7045.8%

7777.3%

7457.9%

7877.8%

8968.8%

52.5%

116.2%

21.1%

43.1% 2

2.1%21.3%

63.9%

14211.1%

12411.0%

16612.3%

19015.3%98

6.3%1097.7%

1218.9%

14110.3%

15010.8%

19412.4%

19914.2%

23116.3%

23114.4%

26216.0%

426.7% 2

11.8%

637.5%

521.7%

735.0%

17.1%

29.1%

162.5%

304.7% 20

3.2%193.6% 12

3.7% 32.8%

12.2%

3493.4%

4114.5%

3634.3%

4115.6%

3705.7%

3805.5%

4306.0%

TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE

2013 Q1

2013 Q2

2013 Q3

2013 Q4

2014 Q1

2014 Q2

2014 Q3

2014 Q4

2015 Q1

2015 Q2

2015 Q3

2015 Q4

2016 Q1

2016 Q2

2016 Q3

2016 Q4

2017 Q1

2017 Q2

2017 Q3

2017 Q4

BELLEVUE PD

Grand Total

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

American Indian/Al..

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other

White 72.6%

3.2%

14.6%

6.3%

2.9%

0.5%

73.2%

2.9%

14.1%

6.4%

2.7%

0.6%

74.1%

3.0%

13.4%

6.5%

2.4%

0.6%

74.3%

3.1%

13.7%

6.3%

2.0%

0.6%

74.2%

3.0%

13.5%

6.3%

2.3%

0.6%

74.9%

2.9%

12.7%

6.8%

2.4%

0.4%

CITY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION

COUNT

34 of 40

The following two pages reflect traffic stop data only from law enforcement agencies within Hall County, in addition tothe county’s largest city, Grand Island. The total number of 2017 traffic stops in Hall County decreased 20.7%compared to 2016.

Collectively, 2017 traffic stops data for Hall County were submitted from two agencies (listed in decreasing orderbased on their percentage of total stops in the county): Grand Island PD (60.8%) and Hall County SO (39.2%).

Combining both Hall County agencies, two racial groups had 2017 traffic stop percentages (first value) thatoverrepresented their population percentages (second value): Black (4.3% and 2.1%) and Hispanic (27.5% and26.1%) drivers.

On average (across all races), searches were conducted in 5.3% of all 2017 traffic stops from Hall County agencies.With respect to race, search percentages were higher than average for American Indian/Alaskan Native (9.1%),Hispanic (7.4%), and Black (7.3%) drivers.

HALL COUNTY TRAFFIC STOPS

35 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (HALL CO)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0K5K

10K

15K

All Races

50

100

150

Asian/Pacifi..

200

400

600

Black

1K2K

3K4K

Hispanic

0

10

20

American

Indian/Alas..

10

20

30

Other

0K

5K

10K

White

13,726100%

14,893100% 12,908

100%10,295100%

10,242100%

9,728100%

9,245100%

1571.1%

1701.3%137

0.9%1141.1%

1131.2%

1031.0%

991.1%

4274.1%

6134.5%

6384.3%

5744.4% 441

4.3%4414.5%343

3.7%

1,91220.7%

2,64225.7%

2,56426.4%

3,69826.9%

3,96326.6%

3,62728.1% 2,812

27.5%

210.2% 17

0.1%170.2%

150.1% 11

0.1%

180.2% 13

0.1%

230.2%

100.1% 22

0.2%

350.3%24

0.3%250.2% 19

0.2%

9,22167.2%

10,11767.9% 8,485

65.7%7,07168.7%

6,85666.9%

6,85074.1%

6,57967.6%

TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

500

1000

All Races

0

10

20

Asian/Pacifi..

0

20

40

Black

0

200

400

Hispanic

2468

American

Indian/Alas..

2

4

6

Other

0

200

400

White

1681.8%

1871.8%

1621.7%

5754.2%

6034.0%

5073.9%

4154.1%

00.0%

21.8%

32.7%

127.6%

21.5%

21.2%

32.9%

133.8% 5

1.2%40.9%

335.4% 23

3.6%

295.1%

327.3%

904.7%

893.4%

732.8%

2456.6%

2716.8%

2386.6% 171

6.1%

422.2%

523.8%

213.3%

215.4%

211.8%1

5.9%19.1%

416.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

12.9% 0

0.0%

640.9%

871.2%

771.2%

2833.1%

3013.0% 235

2.8%2083.0%

TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

500

1000

All Races

0

10

20

Asian/Pacific

Islander

020

40

60

Black

0

200

400

Hispanic

02

46American

Indian/Alas..

2468

Other

200

400

600

White

2492.7%

3433.3%

3303.4%

7655.6%

6904.6%

7145.5% 540

5.3%

22.0%

21.8%

00.0%

138.3%

64.4%

42.4% 2

1.9%

144.1%

163.7%

122.7%

315.1%

325.0%

366.3%

327.3%

814.2%

1335.0%

1054.1%

2817.6%

2797.0%

2978.2% 207

7.4%

317.6%

314.3% 2

13.3%2

15.4%

317.6%

00.0%

19.1%

110.0%

514.3%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

14.0% 0

0.0%

1492.2%

1922.7%

2093.2%

4384.8%

3703.7%

3694.3% 298

4.3%

TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE

2013 Q1

2013 Q2

2013 Q3

2013 Q4

2014 Q1

2014 Q2

2014 Q3

2014 Q4

2015 Q1

2015 Q2

2015 Q3

2015 Q4

2016 Q1

2016 Q2

2016 Q3

2016 Q4

2017 Q1

2017 Q2

2017 Q3

2017 Q4

HALL CO SO GRAND ISLAND

GRAND ISLAND PD

Grand Total

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

22222222222222222222

Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

American Indian/Al..

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other

White 68.9%

1.4%

26.1%

2.1%

1.2%

0.3%

69.8%

1.2%

25.5%

2.1%

1.0%

0.4%

70.5%

0.9%

24.9%

2.1%

1.1%

0.4%

71.5%

0.9%

24.2%

1.9%

1.1%

0.4%

72.7%

0.8%

23.2%

1.9%

1.0%

0.5%

73.8%

0.8%

22.1%

2.0%

0.9%

0.4%

COUNTY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION

COUNT

36 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (GRAND ISLAND PD)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0K

5K

10K

All Races

0

50

100

Asian/Pacifi..

0

200

400

Black

1K

2K

3K

Hispanic

5

10

15

American

Indian/Alas..

0

10

20

Other

2K

4K

6K

White

6,886100%

10,416100%

10,616100% 8,150

100%6,750100%4,701

100%

6,231100%

891.3%

1381.3% 107

1.0%1071.3%

911.3%66

1.4%691.1%

3334.8%

5485.3%

5415.1% 463

5.7%3725.5%

3385.4%251

5.3%

1,37529.2%

2,13531.0%

2,09631.1%

3,24531.2%

3,39632.0% 2,890

35.5% 2,19035.1%

120.1%

130.3%

170.2%

100.2%

100.1%

160.2%

90.1%

110.2%

80.1%

160.2%

210.2%

200.2%

90.1%

40.1%

4,30162.5%

6,45762.0%

6,54161.6%

4,66157.2%

4,16761.7%2,992

63.6%

3,61558.0%

TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

200400600800

All Races

0

10

20

Asian/Pacifi..

0

20

40

Black

100

200300400

Hispanic

2

4

6

American

Indian/Alas..

2

4

6

Other

100200

300400

White

1032.2%

1091.6%

1131.7%

5435.2%

5465.1%

4655.7% 367

5.9%

00.0%

11.1%

33.3%

128.7%

21.9%

21.9%

34.3%

93.6% 4

1.2%20.5%

325.8% 22

4.1%

296.3%

329.5%

634.6%

633.0%

643.1%

2397.4%

2587.6%

2257.8% 162

7.4%

423.5%

425.0%

216.7%

220.0%

222.2% 1

10.0%17.7%

419.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

15.0% 0

0.0%

301.0%

370.9%

401.0%

2584.0%

2583.9% 206

4.4%1694.7%

TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

500

1000

All Races

0

10

20

Asian/Pacific

Islander

0

20

40

Black

0

200

400

Hispanic

02

46American

Indian/Alas..

2

4

6

Other

0200

400

600

White

1573.3%

2503.6%

2593.8%

7226.9%

6396.0%

6297.7% 484

7.8%

11.5%

11.1%

00.0%

128.7%

54.7%

43.7% 2

2.9%

124.8%

82.4%

92.4%

315.7%

295.4%

316.7%

298.6%

624.5%

1075.0%

904.3%

2738.4%

2697.9%

2669.2% 194

8.9%

215.4%

318.8% 2

16.7% 110.0%

333.3%

110.0%0

0.0%

112.5%

420.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

802.7%

1343.1%

1563.7%

4046.3%

3355.1%

3216.9%

2587.1%

TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE

2013 Q1

2013 Q2

2013 Q3

2013 Q4

2014 Q1

2014 Q2

2014 Q3

2014 Q4

2015 Q1

2015 Q2

2015 Q3

2015 Q4

2016 Q1

2016 Q2

2016 Q3

2016 Q4

2017 Q1

2017 Q2

2017 Q3

2017 Q4

GRAND ISLAND PD

Grand Total

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

American Indian/Al..

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other

White 64.8%

1.5%

29.6%

2.5%

1.4%

0.3%

65.8%

1.2%

29.0%

2.4%

1.2%

0.4%

66.9%

1.0%

28.0%

2.4%

1.3%

0.5%

67.9%

0.9%

27.4%

2.2%

1.2%

0.4%

69.2%

0.9%

26.2%

2.1%

1.1%

0.6%

70.5%

0.8%

25.1%

2.2%

1.0%

0.4%

CITY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION

COUNT

37 of 40

The following two pages reflect traffic stop data only from law enforcement agencies within Buffalo County, inaddition to the county’s largest city, Kearney. The total number of 2017 traffic stops in Buffalo County decreased2.8% compared to 2016.

Collectively, 2017 traffic stops data for Buffalo County were submitted from five agencies (listed in decreasing orderbased on their percentage of total stops in the county): Kearney PD (62.1%), Buffalo County SO (32.2%), RavennaPD (2.3%), University of Nebraska–Kearney Campus PD (2.2%), and Shelton PD (1.1%).

Across all Buffalo County agencies, two racial groups had 2017 traffic stop percentages (first value) thatoverrepresented their population percentages (second value): Black (2.2% and 0.8%) and Hispanic (9.8% and 8.4%)drivers.

On average (across all races), searches were conducted in 1.5% of all 2017 traffic stops from Buffalo Countyagencies. With respect to race, search percentages were higher than average for Black (3.5%), Hispanic (2.4%),and Other (8.3%) drivers.

BUFFALO COUNTY TRAFFIC STOPS

38 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (BUFFALO CO)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0K

5K

10K

All Races

0

50

100

Asian/Pacifi..

0100

200

Black

0

500

1000

Hispanic

0

10

20

American

Indian/Alas..

0

20

40

Other

0K

5K

10K

White

12,650100% 10,206

100%

10,254100%

10,538100%

10,000100%

9,407100%

8,930100%

1000.8% 81

0.8%

1021.0%

1261.2%

1291.3%

660.7%

760.8%

2271.8%

2612.6%

2772.6% 228

2.2%1941.9%163

1.7%1691.9%

8396.6%

99510.0%832

8.2%

9288.8%703

7.5%7077.9%

1,0009.8%

200.2% 9

0.1%120.1%

110.1%

230.2%

180.2%6

0.0%

540.4% 42

0.5%390.4%

450.5% 36

0.4%350.3%

350.3%

11,42490.3% 9,052

88.7%

9,15486.9%

8,83886.2%

8,59485.9%

8,40989.4%

7,92688.8%

TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

200

400

All Races

1

2

3

Asian/Pacific

Islander

010

20

30

Black

20

40

60

Hispanic

1

2

3

American

Indian/Alas..

1

2

3

Other

0

200

400

White

3152.5% 247

2.6%2432.4%

2723.0%

2742.7% 205

1.9%1881.8%

11.0%

22.6% 1

1.2%11.5%

11.0% 0

0.0%00.0%

41.8%

53.1%

94.6%

95.3%

197.3%

93.2%

114.8%

192.3%

385.4% 29

3.5%

365.1%

494.9%

444.7% 34

3.4%

218.2%

216.7%

210.0%

222.2%

00.0%

15.6%

14.3%

00.0%

24.4%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

25.6%

2912.5% 198

2.4%2022.2%

2242.8%

2032.4% 151

1.6%1401.6%

TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

200

400

All Races

0

5

10

Asian/Pacifi..

020

40

60

Black

10

20

30

Hispanic

0

1

2American

Indian/Alas..

05

10

15

Other

0

200

400

White

3382.7% 204

2.2%

2372.3% 146

1.6%1701.7%

1381.3%

1511.5%

00.0%

00.0%

11.2%

00.0%

65.9%

10.8%

10.8%

3618.6%

10.4%

42.5%

84.7%

62.3%

82.9%

83.5%

172.0%

202.8% 15

1.8% 111.6%

212.1%

181.9%

242.4%

00.0%

00.0%

18.3%

15.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

1023.8%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

12.9%

38.3%

3202.8% 180

2.1%1842.0% 116

1.5%1371.6%

1101.2%

1151.3%

TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE

2013 Q1

2013 Q2

2013 Q3

2013 Q4

2014 Q1

2014 Q2

2014 Q3

2014 Q4

2015 Q1

2015 Q2

2015 Q3

2015 Q4

2016 Q1

2016 Q2

2016 Q3

2016 Q4

2017 Q1

2017 Q2

2017 Q3

2017 Q4

BUFFALO CO SO KEARNEY

KEARNEY PD

RAVENNA PD

SHELTON PD

UNK

Grand Total

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

1111111111111111

55555555555555554444

Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

American Indian/Al..

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other

White 87.7%

1.5%

8.4%

0.8%

1.3%

0.2%

87.9%

1.3%

8.3%

1.1%

1.2%

0.2%

88.2%

1.5%

8.0%

0.9%

1.2%

0.1%

88.7%

1.5%

7.8%

0.8%

1.1%

0.1%

89.2%

1.5%

7.4%

0.7%

1.1%

0.2%

89.6%

1.3%

7.1%

0.8%

1.0%

0.1%

COUNTY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION

COUNT

39 of 40

TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (KEARNEY PD)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0K

5K

10K

All Races

0

50

100

Asian/Pacifi..

50100

150200

Black

0200

400

600

Hispanic

5

10

15

American

Indian/Alas..

0

20

40

Other

2K4K6K8K

White

10,101100% 6,989

100%

7,510100%

7,706100% 6,473

100%6,369100%

5,452100%

721.1%

820.8% 71

0.9% 521.0%

671.0%

981.3%

971.5%

1972.0% 166

2.6%

1942.6% 150

2.4%1461.9% 108

2.0%

1341.9%

6296.2% 504

6.5%4726.8%

5188.0%

4947.8%342

6.3%

5657.5%

60.1%

150.2%

100.2%

100.1% 16

0.3%

80.1%

70.1%

520.5%

300.5%

250.4%

280.4%

260.5%

250.3%

420.5%

9,13590.4% 6,933

90.0%6,28089.9%

5,68087.7%

6,61388.1%

5,58787.7%

4,91490.1%

TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

100

200

300

All Races

1

2

3

Asian/Pacific

Islander

5

10

15

Black

0

20

40

Hispanic

1

2

3

American

Indian/Alas..

1

2

3

Other

100

200

300

White

2372.3%

2072.7% 149

2.1%1262.3%

1251.9%

1141.5%

1151.8%

00.0%

22.8%

00.0%

00.0%

11.4% 0

0.0%00.0%

31.5%

32.1%

43.0%

65.6%

116.6% 6

3.1%

85.3%

91.4%

336.5%

122.5%

144.1%

163.1%

203.5%

204.0%

220.0%

225.0% 1

10.0%1

14.3%00.0%

16.7% 0

0.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

28.0%

2252.5% 167

2.4% 1312.1%

1052.1%

961.7%

871.3%

851.5%

TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

200

400

All Races

2468

Asian/Pacific

Islander

020

40

60

Black

010

20

30

Hispanic

0

1

2American

Indian/Alas..

05

10

15

Other

100200300400

White

2842.8% 183

2.4%

2193.1% 110

2.0%1211.9%

1231.6%

1272.0%

00.0%

00.0%

11.5% 0

0.0%

56.9%

00.0%

11.0%

3626.9%

10.5%

42.7%

54.6%

63.6%

63.1%

74.7%

121.9%

204.0% 13

2.8% 92.6%

142.7%

132.3%

204.0%

112.5%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

1038.5%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

14.0%

28.0%

2713.0% 159

2.3%1682.7% 86

1.8%961.7%

1031.6%

971.7%

TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE

2013 Q1

2013 Q2

2013 Q3

2013 Q4

2014 Q1

2014 Q2

2014 Q3

2014 Q4

2015 Q1

2015 Q2

2015 Q3

2015 Q4

2016 Q1

2016 Q2

2016 Q3

2016 Q4

2017 Q1

2017 Q2

2017 Q3

2017 Q4

KEARNEY PD

Grand Total

11111111111111111111

11111111111111111111

Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

American Indian/Al..

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other

White 87.3%

1.6%

7.8%

1.2%

1.9%

0.3%

87.1%

1.4%

8.2%

1.4%

1.7%

0.2%

87.1%

1.9%

8.1%

1.1%

1.7%

0.1%

87.7%

1.9%

7.8%

1.0%

1.5%

0.1%

87.6%

1.7%

8.2%

0.8%

1.5%

0.2%

88.0%

1.5%

8.1%

0.9%

1.4%

0.1%

CITY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION

COUNT

40 of 40