Racial Profiling Report

SUMMARY REPORT –SUMMARY
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
BACKGROUND
In November 2008, former McHenry County Sheriff’s deputy, A, filed a civil law suit
against the McHenry County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”), claiming that he had been
terminated in retaliation for complaining that racial profiling was occurring in the MCSO
patrol division. As part of the discovery process in that lawsuit, Mr. A’s attorney
requested to view all of the traffic citations written by Deputies B, C, D, and E in 2007
and 2008. In August 2010, MCSO Records Division made those citations available to Mr.
A, and in the course of reviewing them, he flagged certain citations to be copied. As the
records division copied the citations, an issue was identified regarding the completion of
the racial profiling portion of the traffic citations. Many citations had been issued to
individuals with Hispanic surnames, but the corresponding racial profiling data classified
those individuals as Caucasian. In mid-October 2010, Lt. Duane Cedergren and Sgt.
Daniel Patenaude were tasked with conducting an internal review of this issue.
PRELIMINARY INTERVIEWS
The review began with Deputies B, C, D, and E, whose citations A requested. At the
onset of this review, it appeared that E and D had a high number of what appeared to
be “mismarked” tickets, in other words, marking individuals with Hispanic surnames as
Caucasian on the racial profiling section of the traffic stop data forms.
Sgt. Patenaude informally interviewed Deputy E on October 20, 2010. Sgt. Patenaude
explained that it appeared E had indicated drivers with Hispanic surnames were
Caucasian. E advised that he was instructed to complete the racial profiling section in
this manner because deputies cannot ask the driver his/her race, and he cannot be
certain of the driver’s actual ethnic background. E further advised he thought he was
properly documenting Hispanic drivers because when he conducted a license status
check or warrant check over the radio, he could not call a Hispanic person “Hispanic.”
Additionally, he pointed out that there is no “Hispanic” option in the programs used to
conduct those searches. He further stated if the driver showed documentation that
they were Hispanic or specifically stated that they were Hispanic, he would mark them
accordingly. Otherwise he would mark them as Caucasian. Sgt. Patenaude advised E
that he appeared to have been accurately filling out the racial profiling section through
approximately the middle of June 2007, at which time he appeared to change the way
that he completed the racial profiling section. E was asked why he changed. E advised
that it must have been around that time (near the middle of June 2007) that he was
taught or instructed to complete the racial profiling section in the manner which he
described above. At the conclusion of the interview, Sgt. Patenaude informed E that the
proper way to complete the racial profiling section was to use his best perception of the
driver’s race. Sgt. Patenaude instructed E to begin providing copies of his traffic
Page 1 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
citations to his supervisor at the end of each shift to ensure accuracy. On November 8,
2010, Sgt. Patenaude again spoke with Deputy E. Sgt. Patenaude asked E who had
taught him to fill out the racial profiling section in the manner described. E advised that
he did not remember.
After reviewing the data, it was apparent that neither Deputy B nor Deputy C had a high
number of mismarked citations. As a result, they were not initially interviewed.
Former Deputy D was not initially interviewed because she no longer worked for MCSO.
She resigned her position on September 11, 2010 and went to work for the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”).
A thorough review of all traffic stop data was conducted for the entire Patrol Bureau to
determine whether other deputies were marking Hispanic drivers as Caucasian.
As a result of that review, on November 5, 2010, Sgt. Patenaude conducted an interview

with Dep. F. During this interview, Sgt. Patenaude asked F why it appeared that near
the middle of June 2007, she seemed to start marking more drivers with Hispanic
surnames as Caucasian. She advised that she did not know why it would appear that
she changed the way that she completed the data. When Sgt. Patenaude reviewed the
data with her, she agreed that it looked questionable, but insisted that she did not
change the way she was completing the data. Her explanation was that the individuals
with Hispanic surnames most likely appeared Caucasian. For example, she suggested
that when a Caucasian person marries someone with a Hispanic surname, she still
appears Caucasian even if her last name suggests otherwise.1
The investigation indicated that Deputy G also had a high number of citations issued to
individuals with Hispanic surnames that were marked Caucasian. Sgt. Patenaude
interviewed G on November 10, 2010. Sgt. Patenaude asked G why the review showed
he had marked a high number of drivers with Hispanic surnames as Caucasian on the
racial profiling data in 2008 and 2009. G advised that he based his determination of a
driver’s race on the person’s skin color and topic of conversation during the stop. He
advised that if the driver had light colored skin, he would mark them as Caucasian,
unless through conversation with the driver, the person’s ethnic background was
disclosed. G further advised that although deputies are taught to fill out the traffic stop
data, there has never been any formal training targeting how to determine an
individual’s race.
(See Informal Interviews, attached hereto as Appendix A(1), A(2), A(3), and A(4).2)
1
Based on Dep. F’s statistics, she was not later flagged for questioning. (See P. 9, infra.)
2
Due to individual privacy concerns, identifying information for individual deputies throughout this report and the
attached appendices has been redacted.
Page 2 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
DEVELOPING A PLAN
Initially, we determined that a review of all MCSO deputies’ citations, written warnings,
and stop cards (referred to collectively as “traffic tickets”) for 2007 and 2008 would be
conducted. As the review progressed, 2009 was added for an updated analysis. The
MCSO Records Division provided a computer print out of every traffic ticket written by
each deputy from 2007-2009. After reviewing the data, we determined that 16 deputies
were failing to consistently complete the racial profiling portion of the traffic tickets.
As a result, the review process focused on the three following areas:
 determine which deputies had a substantially elevated percentage of citations

issued to identified Hispanic drivers and whether there was evidence that any
such deputies appeared to be engaged in racial profiling
 determine which deputies appeared to be frequently mismarking Hispanics as
Caucasians and why they were doing so
 determine which deputies were not completing the racial profiling portion of
the traffic tickets and why they were not doing so
In order to accomplish these three initiatives, we set out to analyze the traffic statistics
for the department as a whole. We recorded and reviewed each traffic ticket
individually to determine each deputy’s percentage of stops to different races, the
number of apparent “mismarks,” and to identify any deputies that were systematically
failing to complete the racial profiling information.
The term “racial profiling” during this investigation and in this report means: the
decision to stop a vehicle, issue a ticket, or take any other action during a traffic stop,
which was influenced by the driver’s race. *See General Order 1.5.04 Prohibition Against
Discriminatory Enforcement Practices, attached hereto as Appendix B.]
STATISTICAL GATHERING AND REVIEW
Since 2004, the MCSO Records Division has submitted an annual report to the Illinois
Department of Transportation (“IDOT”) of each traffic stop made by MCSO deputies
(with some exceptions3) in order to comply with 625 ILCS 5/11-212, Traffic Stop
Statistical Study. This report contained the following information for each traffic stop:
3
Vehicle stops for reasons other than traffic violations are excluded. See 625 ILCS 5/11/2-2(a).
Page 3 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
 Whether a citation or a written warning was issued, or if a stop card was

completed;
 The name, address, gender, and the officer’s subjective determination
of the race of the person stopped;
 The alleged traffic violation that led to the stop of the motorist;
 The date and time of the stop, beginning when the vehicle was stopped
and ending when the driver was free to leave or taken into physical
custody;
 The location of the stop;
 Whether or not a consent search was requested of the vehicle, driver,
or passenger(s);
 Whether or not a search was conducted of the vehicle, driver, or
passenger(s);
 Whether or not contraband was located; and
 The name and badge number of the issuing officer (deputy).
(See Traffic Stop Statistical Study, 625 ILCS 5/11-212, attached hereto as
Appendix C.)
The MCSO Records Division is required to include the above information in its report for
officer-initiated traffic stops. The Records Division does not report any tickets stemming
from a traffic accident. Additionally, in cases when more than one traffic ticket is issued
to a driver, the Records Division is only required to submit one record of that traffic
stop. Therefore, they submit the information from the “probable cause” ticket, which is
the ticket that was derived from the reason for the traffic stop.
To gather the statistical data necessary to complete this review, the Records Division
provided an electronic file of every citation, written warning, and stop card that was
written by every deputy from 2007 – 2009. We created a spreadsheet to document
each deputy’s statistics, which consisted of four essential components.
First, we totaled the number of traffic stops, the number of tickets issued, the type of
ticket issued, and the race of the driver as documented by the deputy. We then
calculated the percentage of citations, written warnings, and stop cards that were
issued to drivers of each race listed in 625 ILCS 5/11-212(a)(1): Caucasian, Hispanic,
African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American/Alaska Native. In cases
where multiple tickets were issued during one traffic stop, we used the race indicated
on the “probable cause” ticket and entered the race on all other citations, written
warnings, and stop cards for that traffic stop.
Second, the spreadsheet included a column that reflected the number of tickets for
which each deputy failed to complete the racial profiling data.
Page 4 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
A third column was included for the number of tickets where each deputy had marked a
driver with a Hispanic surname as Caucasian. We reviewed each individual ticket and
subjectively determined whether a driver’s surname appeared Hispanic.
Finally, a column was included for the number of consent searches conducted. IDOT
studied the consent to search data to determine if there is a disparity between the
frequency of searches performed on minority drivers as opposed to non-minority
drivers. (625 ILCS 5/11-212 (e)(5)). Similarly, we added a column to examine the
number of requests for consent searches to determine if a disparity existed.
From this spreadsheet, we created a separate spreadsheet for all MCSO deputies’
citations, warnings, and stop cards, respectively. These three spreadsheets are referred
to as the “Citation Spread Sheet,” the “Warnings Spread Sheet,” and the “Stop Card
Spread Sheet.” A final page was added that captured the data combined from the
citations, warnings, and stop cards. This spreadsheet was titled “Total Issued” (See
Spreadsheets, attached hereto as Appendix D.)
Each spreadsheet contained the following information:

 Deputy’s Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) identification number;
 Deputy’s name;
 Total number of traffic stops made during each year;
 Total number of citations, written warnings, or stop cards, issued each year;
 Average number of tickets written per traffic stop;
 Total amount of citations, written warnings, or stop cards issued to each race;
 Percentage of citations, written warnings, or stops cards issued to each race;
 Total amount of citations, written warnings, or stop cards where the racial
profiling portion of the data sheet was not completed;
 Percentage of citations, written warnings, or stop cards where the racial
profiling portion of the data sheet was not completed;
 Total amount of citations, written warnings, or stop cards on which a driver with
a Hispanic surname was marked as Caucasian;
 Percentage of citations, written warnings, or stop cards on which a driver with a
Hispanic surname was marked as Caucasian;
 Total number of consent searches conducted; and
 Shift that the deputy worked during each year.
Using this information, we created a bar graph to reflect the department totals. (See
Bar Graph, attached hereto as Appendix D-1.)
Finally, we created a spreadsheet to examine a hypothetical scenario. Specifically, we

examined statistics for the four deputies (E, D, H, and G) with the highest percentage of
traffic tickets issued to people with Hispanic surnames who were marked as Caucasian.
Page 5 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
We added the total number of apparent “mismarked” tickets and “no race marked”
tickets to the total number of Hispanic identified traffic tickets to determine if there was
an indication that any of these deputies were attempting to disguise racial profiling.
(See Hypothetical Scenario Spreadsheet, attached hereto as Appendix D-2.)
By evaluating the number of consent searches completed, we discovered that many

deputies were not conducting consent searches. It appeared some deputies were filling
out the traffic stop study data as if they had asked for and obtained consent to search,
when they had actually conducted a search incident to an arrest. However, there was
no indication that any deputy was conducting consent searches upon any particular race
at a disproportionate rate.
To evaluate if any deputy was engaged in racial profiling, our first step was to compare
each deputy’s statistics to the overall department benchmarks, which were taken from
the IDOT Traffic Stop Study. (See IDOT Traffic Stop Study, attached hereto as Appendix
E.) We compared each deputy’s percentages of citations, written warnings, and stop
cards issued to department averages. We conducted a search for any deputy who
issued citations to a particular race at a higher rate than the departmental average to
determine whether the deputy should be reviewed to assess whether these disparities
could be reflective of racial profiling. We also searched for any deputy who issued more
written warnings or stop cards to a particular race, which could be an indication that the
deputy was giving breaks to drivers of a certain race more often than others.
With the guidance of legal counsel, we established internal benchmarks to determine

which deputies to follow up with. The first benchmark was for deputies who marked
drivers with Hispanic surnames as Caucasian. We established a benchmark of 5%. This
meant if 5% or more of a deputy’s total tickets appeared to be “mismarked,” they would
be provided written questionnaires. The second benchmark was for deputies who failed
to complete the racial profiling portion of the traffic tickets. We established a
benchmark of 20%. This meant if a deputy failed to complete the racial profiling data on
20% or more of their traffic tickets, the deputy was to be questioned.
The third and final benchmark was for any deputy that had a higher average of traffic
tickets issued to one particular race. If a deputy was over the department average by
more than 5% for any particular race other than Caucasian, they would be questioned.
Each of these benchmarks applied to deputies who had issued at least 45 tickets in a
given year. The department average was based on the IDOT Traffic Stop Study Reports
for each respective year. (See Appendix E.)
The third category of benchmarks was set as follows:
2007
Page 6 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
Citations (%) Warnings (%) Stops Cards (%)

Caucasian 91.9 94.7 91.0
Hispanic 15.6 11.9 16.0
African American 6.4 7.2 7.1
Asian 6.0 6.1 5.8
Native American 5.1 5.1 5.0
2008
Caucasian 92.8 95.7 93.4
Hispanic 15.0 11.4 14.0
Asian 5.7 5.7 6.0
2009
Caucasian 93.6 96.1 92.8
Hispanic 13.8 11.5 13.8
Asian 5.8 5.7 5.9
NOTE: The additional 5% to each benchmark is included in the above percentages. As a

result, the total percentages for each category add up to 125%.
All three benchmarks were used to compile one list of deputies that were provided
questionnaires. A total of 52 deputies were identified for questioning.4 We determined
that 45 of those interviews would be done in person and the remaining 6 would be
conducted solely through a questionnaire. The 6 deputies were chosen because the
only disparity noted in their tickets was a failure to complete the traffic stop study data.
Supervisors delivered a questionnaire to each deputy. (See Interview List, attached
hereto as Appendix F. NOTE: This appendix includes the reason why each deputy was
called in for an interview and a copy of the questionnaire.)
4
Former Deputy D was identified for an interview, but she no longer worked for MCSO. As such, Sgt. Patenaude
called her on February 4, 2011 to conduct the first interview and filled out the questionnaire based on her
answers.
Page 7 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
IMMEDIATE TRAINING REMEDIES
Lt. I, the supervisor of MCSO Training Division, was asked to provide past lesson plans
related to the Illinois Racial Profiling law. He provided a lesson plan dated December
2003 entitled “Understanding Illinois Racial Profiling Law.” The training was originally
completed in a roll call setting. The majority of the deputies were trained between
December 10, 2003 and April 26, 2004. There was a pamphlet presented in roll call,
along with the racial profiling data stickers that were placed on the back of all probable
cause traffic tickets. (See Lesson Plan, attached hereto as Appendix G.)
Due to information initially obtained, we determined immediate training for the

completion of racial profiling data needed to be addressed. Sgt. Patenaude revised the
December 2003 roll call training lesson plan. The revised training was titled “Reviewing
the Illinois Racial Profiling Law” and included information to correct the deficiencies that
were discovered during this review. (See Lesson Plan and Roster, attached hereto as
Appendix H.) The training was conducted through the Power DMS system and required
a test at the conclusion. Every deputy and supervisor completed the training between
November 10, 2010 and January 5, 2011.
Lt. I contacted the North East Multi-Regional Training (“NEMRT”) office and scheduled a
racial profiling class for MCSO supervisory staff. A NEMRT authorized instructor
conducted the training on December 15, 2010 in the MCSO Training Room. The class
was mandatory for all MCSO supervisors. The training was specific to racial profiling and
supervisors’ responsibilities. (See List of Attendees and Lesson Plan, attached hereto as
Appendix I.)
Additionally, Commander Cedergren and Sgt. Patenaude created a training lesson plan
for MCSO supervisory staff that directly related to the issues observed during the initial
stages of this investigation. This included a Power Point presentation and visual
examples of the front and back of tickets and booking photos. The training educated
supervisors on how to identify problems as they reviewed the traffic tickets.
Commander Cedergren presented this training at a command meeting on January 18,
2011. (See Lesson Plan and Roster, attached hereto as Appendix J.)
QUESTIONNAIRES (FIRST ROUND)
We created a list of predetermined questions for each deputy. (See Interview

Questions, attached hereto as Appendix K.) Prior to the first session, and after
negotiations between MCSO administration and representatives of the Fraternal Order
of Police (“FOP”), we agreed that the 45 interviews would be conducted in an informal
setting with the deputies completing a questionnaire. Prior to the session, each deputy
Page 8 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
was provided a copy of the questions. During the session, the questions were read out
loud. After each question was read, the deputy would verbally answer each question
and write his/her answer down on the questionnaire in his/her own handwriting. The
only questions asked during the interview were those listed on the questionnaire. No
follow up questions were asked at that time. These interviews were conducted
between January 24, 2011 and February 4, 2011. Present during these interviews were
Sgt. Daniel Patenaude, Commander Duane Cedergren, an MCSO FOP Representative,
and the deputy being questioned. The Illinois FOP Representative was present during
some of these interviews. There were no notes taken during these interviews because
each deputy provided answers in writing. Sgt. Patenaude conducted a telephone
interview of former Deputy D on February 4, 2011 at 1555 hours, and her answers are
included in the summary below.
The following is a summary of the answers provided by each of the 52 deputies5

questioned during the first round of questioning:
 Q: How long have you been with the department?

 8.9 years =Average seniority
 1.5 years =Least seniority
 27 years =Most seniority
5
Since 2007, several of the deputies have changed assignment or been promoted. To avoid confusion, everyone
questioned is referred to as “deputy” below.
Page 9 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
Q: Who were your field training officers?

16
14 15
12
12
10
8 9 9
6 7 7 7
6 6 6
4 5 5
4 4
2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0
C
J
Y
U
K
CC
BB
R
S
AA
M
DD
FF
O
L
P
Q
Z
H
N
EE
Q: Who were your field training officers ? (Cont'd)
18
16
14 16
12
10
8
6
4
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.3
0
(Average #)
GGG
(Highest #)
(Lowest #)
JJ
GG
TT
UU
KK
RR
SS
VV
XX
II
MM
OO
LL
PP
QQ
WW
HH
NN
(NOTE: Each deputy generally has multiple field training officers.)
Page 10 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
(NOTE: Some deputies provided multiple answers.)
Page 11 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
 Q: Describe the training you received from any of these sources in completing the
racial profiling portion of the traffic tickets.
 Each deputy explained what they remembered from the training they received.
The answers ranged from “fill out the back of the ticket” to specific details of
what to fill out for each box.
Page 12 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
Q: If yes, who was it?

6
5
5
4
3
3 3
2
0
Previous Department FTO or Commander Other in-house/computer
training
 Q: Describe your understanding of how to correctly fill out the racial profiling
portion of the traffic ticket.
 Each deputy would explain what their understanding was on how to fill out the
racial profiling section of the tickets. Again the answers ranged from “turn over
the ticket and check the boxes” to specific details.
Page 13 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
 Q: If yes, how was it different?

 Dep. S advised that he originally thought he did not need to fill out the back of
the tickets if he made a custodial arrest.
 Dep. E advised that if the person had a light colored skin tone, he believed he
should mark them Caucasian. He said if the individual was black, he would mark
them accordingly. E further explained that if, while speaking with the driver, he
found or thought them to be Hispanic, he would mark the ticket accordingly.
 Q: If yes, why did you have that understanding?

 Dep. S advised that he thought that was the way to fill out the racial profiling
part of the ticket.
 Dep. E advised that, at one time, he felt he did not have the right to choose a
person’s race.
 Q: If yes, why did your understanding change?
 Dep. S advised that the Records Division and his supervisors corrected him.
 Dep. E advised that Sgt. Patenaude also corrected him after he was told that he
was marking them incorrectly.
Page 14 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
NOTE: Dep. D stated “No,” but added that she overheard people saying to do this in roll call one
day. She did not remember who that was.
 Q: If yes, why did you have that understanding?

 Dep. E was the only deputy to answer YES. He stated that if the driver had lighter
color skin tone, he would mark them Caucasian. He said that if the drivers were
black, he would mark them accordingly. Finally, he said that if during his encounters
he found them to be Hispanic, he would mark them as such.
Page 15 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
NOTES:
 Dep. E is the only deputy that answered YES. He stated that he does not recall
who it was that had instructed him to do so.
 Dep. D stated NO to this question, but stated that she has heard deputies
talking about doing this in roll call. Dep. D does not remember who it was that
made these statements.
(NOTE: 16 deputies were questioned on this topic. Some deputies provided multiple answers.)
Page 16 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
Page 17 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
 Q: Define what it means to engage in racial profiling during traffic stops.

 Each deputy explained what their interpretation of racial profiling is. Each
deputy stated a variation of: it is illegal to either pull over or write a ticket to
someone based on that person’s race.
 Several added additional features, such as gender or ethnic background.
 Each deputy’s answer was in part correct; however, nobody was able to provide
a consistent explanation of racial profiling.
Page 18 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
 HHH answered YES. He explained that on July 17, 2008, he received a citizen complaint
against former Dep. A for giving two tickets to a Caucasian passenger as the driver. The
undocumented driver was not cited or arrested for no valid driver’s license. While
taking the citizen complaint, the victim advised HHH that A told the undocumented
driver in Spanish that he is sympathetic to him because his (A’s) wife is Hispanic. HHH
documented that information, which led to an internal investigation of A.
Page 19 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
Due to the volume of forms, the completed questionnaires are not attached to this
report. The completed questionnaires are maintained in the secured Internal Affairs
files.
INTERVIEWS (SECOND ROUND)
After evaluating the answers to the questionnaire, and with the guidance of legal
counsel, we developed a list of deputies to be further interviewed.
 INFORMAL INTERVIEWS
Interviews were conducted with the deputies who were above the internal benchmark
average for Hispanic drivers ticketed. The benchmark was set at 16.8% for each year
(2007, 2008, and 2009), which was based on the highest department average for the
total number of citations, warnings, and stop cards issued to identified Hispanic drivers
for those three years.6 The highest department average was in 2007 at 11.8% Hispanic
drivers ticketed. We established a benchmark of 5% above that, making it 16.8%. Any
deputy who was above that benchmark in 2007, 2008, or 2009 based on the total
number of citations, warnings, and stops cards written to Hispanic drivers was flagged.
(See Second Round Interview List, attached hereto as Appendix L.) As a result, 17
6
This benchmark utilized here is slightly different from those established in the first round of interviews, which
were based on IDOT reports that did not include multiple tickets issued to one driver. (See pg. 7.) The benchmark
for the second round was taken from the MCSO spreadsheets referenced above, which included multiple tickets
issued to one individual.
Page 20 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
deputies were required to complete a second round of interviews based on elevated

percentages of tickets written to Hispanic drivers. One deputy was required to
complete a second round interview based on his failure to complete the racial profiling
data. Each deputy was notified by departmental correspondence of their interview date
and time. Supervisors provided each deputy with a copy of their letters. A supervisor
signed a confirmation letter and gave it to Sgt. Patenaude and Commander Cedergren
after each deputy had been served.
We created questions for the second round of interviews, which were designed to
follow up on answers provided during the first round. (See Second Interview Questions
(Informal) and (Formal), attached hereto as Appendix M.) Unlike the first round of
questioning, the deputies were not provided copies of the questions before round two.
Sgt. Patenaude and Commander Cedergren took detailed notes of the answers provided
during the interviews. Based on those notes, Sgt. Patenaude prepared a report of each
interview. Present during each interview were Sgt. Daniel Patenaude, Commander
Duane Cedergren, an MCSO FOP Representative, and the deputy in question. An Illinois
FOP Representative was present during Deputy U’s and Deputy YY’s interviews, at their
request. These interviews were conducted between February 28, 2011 and March 3,
2011. Listed below are the questions asked of each deputy during the interview and a
summary of the answers provided.
Page 21 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
Page 22 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
NOTE: Dep. YY advised that he may see different style commercial vehicles depending on which
side of the county he is working. He advised that he tends to see more gravel and dump style
trucks in the west areas of the county and more box trucks and enclosed tractor trailer
combinations in the east part of the county.
Page 23 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
Page 24 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
 Q: You were over the department average by more than 5% for stopping
Hispanics. Why?
 17 of 18 deputies were asked this question.
 The deputies interviewed were unable to explain why they were more
than 5% above the department average.
 The deputies interviewed were adamant that they did not stop vehicles
or base the outcome of the stop due to the driver’s race.
 Several of the deputies advised that they made more traffic stops than
their fellow deputies causing their overall numbers to be higher than
average.
 Most of the deputies advised that they work primarily during the hours
of darkness and could not see into vehicles to observe the race of the
driver. It was not until they made contact with the driver that they
were able to make a judgment of the driver’s race.
 A majority of the deputies did not realize that they even had an issue of
being over the department average.
 Based on the percentages identified, and as a result of the first interviews,

Deputy U was the only one interviewed a second time for not completing
the racial profiling data.
 In U’s first interview, he stated he could not answer because he needed
to know the dates that he was off work for a duty related injury.
Page 25 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
 During the second interview, U was provided a copy of the Injured On

Duty paperwork, which specified the dates when he was off.
 U was asked the following question: “You failed to complete the racial
profiling section of your traffic tickets for 163 (or 66.0%) of your tickets
for 2007, 105 (or 95.5%) of your tickets for 2008, and 33 (or 26.6%) of
your tickets for 2009, Why?”
 U stated the only thing he could think of was, if he made an arrest or
had taken someone to the jail he may have gotten “derailed.” Or, if he
was in a hurry, he may have forgotten to complete the racial profiling
data.
The completed interview questionnaires are maintained on file with the questionnaires
from the previous interviews in the secured Internal Affairs files.
 FORMAL INTERVIEWS
Formal interviews were conducted with three deputies who had the highest percentage
of tickets written to drivers with Hispanic surnames marked as Caucasian. Below are the
percentages of each of the deputies in question.
E 2007 2008 2009

Citations 6.6% 20.4% 9.9%
Warnings 2.3% 12.4% 7.55%
Stop Cards 0 8.6% 6.5%
H 2007 2008 20097

Citations 5.5% 10.8% N/A
Warnings 0 0 N/A
Stop Cards 0 0 N/A
G 20078 2008 2009

Citations N/A 3.9% 7.5%
Warnings N/A 50% 0
Stop Cards N/A 4.4% 11.0%
7
H was assigned to the Investigations Bureau during all of 2009.
8
G was hired in 2008.
Page 26 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
A. Deputy H
Dep. H was interviewed on March 9, 2011. Present were H, Dep. ZZ
(Department FOP Representative), AAA (State FOP Representative), Sgt.
Patenaude, and Commander Cedergren. H was read his Administrative Rights
verbatim from the form, which he signed and was provided a copy. The
interview was recorded and later transcribed to report form. The following is a
summary of the interview:
H stated that he conducted traffic enforcement in any area he was assigned, but
focused on county and township roads whether he was moving or stationary. H
further stated that he focused on speed and lane IVC violations. Because those
violations tend to lead to more accidents, he considered them “more serious.”
H denied looking for particular types of vehicles to stop, but he acknowledged
that he did not stop many commercial vehicles. He said the area to which he
was assigned had no effect on the vehicles he stopped.
H stated that he tended to focus on writing citations, as opposed to warnings.

He said his determination of the outcome of a stop depended on the totality of
the circumstances. He explained for more serious violations, like driving 15 mph
over the speed limit, he typically issued a citation. However, if he stopped a
person for something minor, he would generally give the driver a written
warning. He further explained that if he pulled over a driver for speeding and
learned that the person did not have a valid license, he would give the driver
two tickets.
With respect to consent searches, H said that he only asked for consent to
search when he had reasonable suspicion to ask. He explained that if he
smelled or saw drugs in the car, he would have reasonable suspicion to ask for
consent to search. H stated that he never made up his mind whether to ask for
consent to search before his initial contact with the driver. He denied using the
driver’s race as a factor for seeking consent.
H informed us that former Deputy Q was his field training officer (“FTO”) at the
end of 2004 or beginning of 2005. H stated that when he was in training, H
asked Q the following question: “If Hispanic is not a race per se, how can I mark
them Hispanic on the ticket?” H said that Q told him that “if you feel that you
can’t mark Hispanic as a race because you don’t feel it’s a race, then go with
what the State of Illinois deems as a race as far as when you run somebody in
LEADS or if you run somebody for a Warrant check.” H said that he never
questioned Q’s advice. In fact, he said that if he pulled over someone from
Page 27 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
Mexico, he always marked them as Caucasian because he believed that person’s

race was Caucasian.9 H denied knowing that the Illinois Racial Profiling law
specifically listed “Hispanic” as a race.
H also informed the interviewers that his other FTO, Deputy S, taught him that if
he made a traffic arrest and brought the subject to jail, he did not need to fill
out the racial profiling data on the traffic ticket.10
H was confronted with the answers he provided during the informal interview
on January 26, 2011. Specifically, H was asked whether he would change his
prior answer denying an understanding to mark individuals who appear Hispanic
as Caucasian. H explained that when he was asked that question in January, he
thought it meant was he marking a Hispanic driver as Caucasian in order to
cover up wrongdoing. He further explained he was not, but rather, he truly
believed that Hispanic was not a race. He admitted that he consistently
documented Hispanic drivers as Caucasian on the racial profiling data.
(See Transcript of Interview, attached hereto as Appendix N-1.)
B. Deputy G
Dep. G was interviewed on March 9, 2011. Present during the interview were G,
Dep. ZZ (Department FOP Representative), AAA (State FOP Representative), Sgt.
Patenaude, and Commander Cedergren. G was read his Administrative Rights
verbatim from the form, which he then signed and was provided a copy. The
G said he would patrol all parts of his assigned area and did not have a
preference location. He also did not focus on any particular IVC violation. G
usually stopped passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles, but did not typically
stop commercial vehicles. He advised that his area assignment did not have any
effect on the type of vehicles he stopped.
G said that he considered many different factors to determine the outcome of a

stop. He viewed the totality of the circumstances from his first observation of a
violation to the completion of the stop. For example, he would consider the
driver’s attitude, the driver’s prior history, and the seriousness of the offense.
G said that a DUI situation was one example when he would issue more than
9
Out of the total 221 citations, warnings, and stop cards that H wrote in 2007 and 2008, there was not a single
Hispanic indicated in the racial profiling section.
10
Deputy S stated during his interview that he had the same belief.
Page 28 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
one ticket. G denied considering the driver’s race when he issued more than
one ticket.
G said he began his decision-making process of whether to seek consent to

search a vehicle as soon as he observed the initial violation. He explained
examples of behavior that would cause him to ask for consent to search: if he
observed some furtive movements, if the driver did not stop right away, if the
driver threw something out the window, if the driver seemed overly nervous, or
if he suspected there was something illegal in the vehicle. G stated the driver’s
race did not have anything to do with his decision to ask for consent to search.
G confirmed that the only way he was instructed to fill out the racial profiling
data was to do so to the best of his ability. G denied purposely marking a driver
who appeared to be Hispanic as Caucasian in the racial profiling portion of
traffic tickets. G insisted that at the time he stopped individuals, he believed he
was filling out the tickets to the best of his ability. G admitted that he may have
made mistakes in documenting a person’s race, depending on the time of day,
weather conditions, or comments made during a traffic stop. He denied
attempting to obscure his data to hide any wrongdoing.
(See Transcript of Interview, attached hereto as Appendix N-2)
C. Deputy E
Dep. E was interviewed on March 9, 2011. Present during the interview were E,
Dep. ZZ (Department FOP Representative), AAA (State FOP Representative), Sgt.
Patenaude, and Commander Cedergren. E was read his Administrative Rights
verbatim from the form, which he then signed and was provided a copy. The
E stated that different locations of the county were busier than others. He liked
to focus his traffic enforcement efforts on state routes and county highways,
and on occasion would patrol residential areas. He stated that he would go
through unincorporated areas when traffic was busy and would move to
incorporated areas when the traffic was slower. E also said he preferred to
conduct traffic enforcement while he was moving.
E said he conducted traffic stops on both moving and equipment IVC violations,
but it depended on the area he was working. For example, he said that on the
West side of the county he preferred to run radar. The East side of the county is
more congested and, therefore, more difficult to run radar, so he would look for
more equipment violations. He explained that he looked for IVC violations of
Page 29 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
speeding, seatbelt violations, registration violations, and lighting violations. E

emphasized that speeding and seatbelts are safety concerns for everyone on
the road, so those tend to be his primary concerns. E said that he does not
know a lot about semi-trucks, so he would not usually focus on those violations
unless the driver was speeding or driving recklessly. He insisted that he looked
for IVC violations, no matter where he was or what type of vehicle he comes
across.
E stated that the outcome of the traffic stop depended on the severity of the
offense. He explained when he pulled someone over for driving 15 mph over
the speed limit, he would give the person a citation. He also said he would give
a person a citation if he discovered the person had received multiple tickets for
the same offense in the past. However, in situations for minor equipment or
registration offenses, he would issue a written warning or stop card.
Additionally, if it was a busy night, he was more likely to let people off with a
warning or stop card. E denied considering the driver’s race as a factor for
whether to issue a citation, warning, or stop card.
In cases where he issued more than one ticket to a driver, E provided several
examples. He said that if a driver did not have insurance and was not wearing
their seatbelt, he would give them tickets for both. If he stopped a driver
because they did not have a front license plate and he discovered they did not
have insurance, he would give a warning ticket for the plate violation and a
citation for the insurance violation. If he arrested a driver, he would issue a
ticket for each violation, including the probable cause and arrest tickets. E
denied considering the driver’s race when he issued more than one ticket.
E stated that his decision to obtain consent to search a vehicle during a traffic
stop depended on what happened during his initial approach to the vehicle. He
said if he observed something suspicious as he approached the vehicle, he
would engage the driver in conversation, asking where he/she is going to or
coming from, watching for nervousness, bloodshot eyes, or inconsistencies in
his/her story. E denied making the decision to ask for consent to search before
he exited his squad car for the first time on a stop. The driver’s appearance has
an effect on his decision to ask for consent to search only to the extent that he
observed bloodshot or watery eyes or if he could smell alcohol or drugs.
With respect to the manner in which E was completing the racial profiling data
on traffic tickets, he said that before his conversation with Sgt. Patenaude in
October 2010, he marked anyone with light skin as Caucasian and anyone with
dark skin as African-American. However, he said that if during the course of
conversation with the driver, he learned the person was Hispanic, he would
Page 30 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
indicate the driver accordingly. E said that he was not aware of completing this
information incorrectly until Sgt. Patenaude brought it to his attention.
E said that he was either told or heard from a fellow deputy that since officers
may not ask a driver his/her race, he was to mark everyone with light skin as
Caucasian and everyone with dark skin as African-American. E insisted that he
could not recall who gave him those instructions. However, he said he probably
heard it during roll call or in the patrol room when he worked a regular shift
(either afternoons or power shift). E insisted he was not trying to cover up for
anyone; he just could not remember who he heard that advice from. E further
stated that he never considered his method to be wrong. Additionally, he said
this method made sense to him because the State of Illinois LEADS system and
warrant searches classified individuals with Hispanic surnames as “white.”
E said that after his conversation with Sgt. Patenaude, he changed his method of
documenting race. He said that since then, after each shift, he brings ticket
copies to Sgt. Patenaude for review.
 FOLLOW-UP ON FORMAL INTERVIEWS
A. Deputy E
On March 10, 2011, Sgt. Patenaude conducted a follow up interview with E.
Based upon the information we received during the formal interviews, we
decided that specific names should be presented to E in an attempt to jog his
memory of who may have instructed him to complete the racial profiling section
of the traffic tickets. Present during this interview were E, Dep. ZZ (Department
FOP Representative), and Sgt. Patenaude. The interview was recorded and later
transcribed into report form. E was not read his Administrative Rights because
he stated that he was aware of his rights from the first formal interview, and
elected to not have them read again. The following is a summary of the
interview:
E did not recall if H advised him to mark everyone with light skin as Caucasian
and everyone with dark skin as African-American. He indicated that former Sgt.
Q was his supervisor at one time, but could not recall if Q advised him in the
manner H related. E added that he had forgotten Q had been his supervisor. E
said former Dep. D was in Detectives when he was in field training, so it
probably was not her.
E said that since October 2010, he had been trying to remember as much as he
could about this. He said that as far as he could remember, the direction he
Page 31 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
received was not during a one-on-one conversation, but rather it occurred

during roll call or in the patrol room when everyone was sitting around talking.
(See Transcript of Interview, attached hereto as Appendix N-3.)
B. Former Sergeant Q
On March 16, 2011, Sgt. Patenaude contacted retired Sergeant Q via telephone.
Patenaude advised Q that his name was brought up in the course of this internal
investigation. Patenaude explained that during a formal interview, he learned
that Q reportedly trained Deputy H to follow the Illinois State Police guidelines
for LEADS and mark Hispanics as Caucasian. Patenaude asked Q if he had
advised Deputy H in this manner. Q advised that he may have said something
like that to H. Q stated that he did not remember the exact conversation, but
that he may have directed H to complete the forms in that manner. Q further
advised that he had never noticed H to be partial to any race during the time
that he worked with and trained him.
Patenaude asked Q if he remembered training or advising Dep. E to follow the

same guidelines. Q advised that he did not train E and from what he can
remember, he did not instruct E on how to complete the racial profiling data.
After speaking with Q and reviewing the deputies’ answers to the questionnaire
listing their FTO’s, we discovered a connection between Q and the four deputies
with the most elevated percentages of apparent “mismarked” tickets (H, E, G,
and former deputy D). Q was H’s field training officer. H was G’s field training
officer. H worked on the afternoon shift with E and D in 2007 and early 2008.
Though E and D did not remember Q or H being the person(s) that talked openly
about marking the traffic stop data, this may have contributed to the spread of
bad practices throughout that time period.
D H E
A check of Q’s statistics for that time revealed he wrote 2 citations in 2007, 1
marked Caucasian and 1 marked Hispanic. He wrote no written warnings and 8
stop cards, all marked Caucasian. In 2008, he wrote no citations or warnings
and only 1 stop card, marked Caucasian. After reviewing his traffic tickets, it did
not appear that Q had mismarked any of his traffic stop data during this time
frame.
Page 32 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
C. Former Deputy D
We determined that based on the information learned during the interviews,
former Deputy D would be contacted again to answer the following questions:
1) Had she remembered who the person(s) was that was talking in roll call
about marking everybody Caucasian in the racial profiling section?
2) Did Deputy E teach or instruct her to mark individuals who appear to be
Hispanic as Caucasian?
3) Did she teach or instruct Deputy E to mark individuals who appear to be
Hispanic as Caucasian?
Sgt. Patenaude attempted to reach her via telephone between 03/10/11 and
03/14/11. He left voice messages that were not returned. On April 5, 2011 at
approximately 1110 hours, Sgt. Patenaude conducted a telephone interview
with D. The following is a summary:
D informed Patenaude that since her first interview on February 4, 2011, the
Chicago Tribune and other reporters had been harassing her and her family in
Illinois. She explained that this was the reason she did not return his phone calls
sooner. She insisted that she had nothing to hide.
Since her first interview with Patenaude, D was not able to remember the name
of the person who was talking in roll call about marking people who appear to
be Hispanic as Caucasian. D stated she remembered that it was during a casual
conversation in the patrol room, either before or after roll call. When presented
with the names H, E, and Q, D stated she thought H was already in Detectives by
the time she came back to the Patrol Division from narcotics.11 She insisted that
she had nothing to hide and had no interest in protecting any deputies. She
stated she could not remember who she heard talking about the issue. D
denied telling E to mark Hispanic drivers as Caucasian. It was noted that E
trained her briefly when she returned from her Narcotics assignment. She
reportedly received no formal training on the ticket writing process. It was
more of a ride along program to familiarize her with patrol duties.
D denied ever purposely labeling Hispanic drivers as Caucasian in an attempt to

cover up any wrongdoing. She insisted that she has never stopped a driver on
the basis of race or targeted any racial group. D said she believed that
“mismarking” was a training issue. She said that the only training she received
11
H transferred from Patrol to the Investigations Bureau on September 14, 2008. D transferred from the Narcotics
Division back to Patrol about one month earlier on August 16, 2008.
Page 33 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
was, “Here are the new tickets, start filling out the backs.” She said no one ever
went through the requirements and explained how to determine a driver’s race.
CATEGORIZING HISPANIC AS A RACE
To better understand the confusion being reported over using Hispanic as a race, we
gathered and analyzed information on the racial categories used throughout the law
enforcement community.
On March 10, 2011, Sgt. Patenaude contacted BBB of the MCSO Communications
Division to discuss the race categories used in the State of Illinois LEADS system, which is
the mainframe through which all traffic stops and personal inquiries are verified. This
system stores information on drivers’ licenses, vehicle registration, vehicle identification
numbers, wanted persons, missing persons, criminal histories, and stolen items. “Race”
is only used for missing and wanted subjects, with the following options: A (Asian or
Pacific Islander), B (Black), I (American Indian of Alaskan Native), U (Unknown), and W
(White). (See LEADS information, attached hereto as Appendix O.) This system does not
have an option for Hispanic and does not recognize Hispanic as a race. Deputies use this
system every time they run a license plate, driver’s license inquiry, warrant inquiry,
missing persons inquiry, and stolen vehicle (or other items) inquiry. Deputies routinely
use this system, and it is a part of their job function.
On March 14, 2011, Sgt. Patenaude contacted Sgt. CCC of the MCSO Correctional
Bureau. Sgt. CCC provided information and literature, as well as examples of the
options for race in the booking process of the MCSO Correctional Facility. (See
Corrections Materials, attached hereto as Appendix P.) Specifically, CCC provided a copy
of the Custodial Fingerprint Card/Status Change Form Instructions, which includes a field
labeled “Race.” Within the Race field, the following are listed as options: “W” for White,
“B” for Black, “A” for Asian/Pacific Islander, “I” for Indian/Alaskan Native, and “U” for
Unknown. This system does not have an option for Hispanic and does not recognize
Hispanic as a race.
CCC also provided the Illinois State Police Division of Administration Bureau of
Identification Finger Print Card, which listed a category for “Race.” Within the “Race”
category, the available options are: White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islands, American
Indian/Alaskan, and Unknown. This system does not have an option for Hispanic and
does not recognize Hispanic as a race.
CCC explained that during the booking process, inmates are fingerprinted using the
LiveScan system, which runs through the VisionJail software. CCC advised that VisionJail
and LiveScan do not recognize “Hispanic” as a race and that the system does not allow
Page 34 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
this field to be overridden or changed. In the category of “Race” through the VisionJail
and LiveScan system, the following options are available: American Indian or Alaskan
Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, Unknown, and White. These systems have a
secondary field of “Ethnicity,” under which the options are “Hispanic – White” or
“Hispanic – Black.”
On March 16, 2011, Sgt. Patenaude contacted the FBI field office in Rockford. Sgt.
Patenaude asked a Special Agent about any form of documentation that the FBI might
have on their classifications of race through the FBI systems. The Special Agent
informed Patenaude that the FBI maintains the National Crime Information Center
(“N.C.I.C.”). This is one of the systems that MCSO utilizes when checking for wanted or
missing persons. A Special Agent referred Patenaude to the United States Department
of Justice website and advised him to contact the FBI Headquarters in Quantico.
Sgt. Patenaude contacted the FBI. He was directed to the FBI Hate Crimes Unit in
Quantico, VA. He left several messages with the Hate Crimes Unit, but no one returned
any calls for assistance.
Patenaude found no information on training involved in determining the race of an

individual on the U.S. Department of Justice website. The only web-based information
he located was an application for employment with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives. The application listed Hispanic or Latino as a racial or national
origin category. The definition for Hispanic or Latino was “A person of Cuban, Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of
race.” (See Application, attached hereto as Appendix Q.)
We reviewed a publication from U.S. Department of Justice, entitled the “Uniform Crime
Reporting (UCR) Program (revised 2004)” published by the FBI. The FBI collects the data
from law enforcement agencies across the country and then compiles and distributes
the data to participating agencies through the UCR Program. The handbook specified
“Race Designations” as: White, Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Asian or
Pacific Islander. (See Publication, attached hereto as Appendix R, p. 97.)
The U.S. Census Bureau’s website provided information about The Congressional
Research Service Report for Congress, entitled “The Changing Demographic Profile of
the United States” (05/05/06); and the U.S. Census Bureau report entitled “Overview of
Race and Hispanic Origin 2010” (03/11). Both reports cite the Office of Management
and Budget’s direction as follows:
“U.S. federal government agencies must adhere to standards issued by

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in October 1997, which
specify that race and Hispanic origin (also known as ethnicity) are two
Page 35 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
separate and distinct concepts. These standards generally reflect a

social definition of race and ethnicity recognized in this country and
they do not conform to any biological, anthropological, or genetic
criteria. The standards include five minimum categories for data on
race: "American Indian or Alaska Native," "Asian," "Black or African
American," "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander," and "White."
There are two minimum categories for data on ethnicity: "Hispanic or
Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino." The concept of race reflects self-
identification by people according to the race or races with which
they most closely identify. Persons who report themselves as Hispanic
can be of any race and are identified as such in our data tables.”
(See Report, attached hereto as Appendix S.)
The U.S. Census Bureau report entitled “Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010”
states, “The U.S. Census Bureau collects race and Hispanic origin information following
the guidance of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 1997 Revisions to
the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. These federal
standards mandate that race and Hispanic origin (ethnicity) are separate and distinct
concepts and that when collecting these data via self-identification, two different
questions must be used.” The same report states under the title Hispanic Origin, “Origin
can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the
person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States.
People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.” (See
Report, attached hereto as Appendix T.)
The research revealed that at the federal and local level, “Hispanic” is not considered a
race, but rather an ethnicity. The Illinois Traffic Stop Statistical Study is inconsistent and
lists Hispanic as a race category. Illinois law states the “officer must make a subjective
determination of the subject’s race.” While it is obvious that an officer should look at a
person’s skin tone, accent, and surname in making that determination, their perception
may be affected by the federal and local data systems that by their own definition do
not classify Hispanic as a race.
APPROPRIATE BENCHMARKS
To assist in our assessment of the date, we reviewed the IDOT Traffic Stop Statistics
Study for 2004-2009. This study lists a “ratio” for every law enforcement agency in
Illinois. The ratio is calculated by taking the percentage of tickets issued to minority
drivers and dividing it by the estimated minority driving population in that area. IDOT
set the estimated minority driving population for McHenry County at 8.94% for 2004-
2009, which was based on the 2000 United States Census Bureau estimates for the
Page 36 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
percentage of minorities of driving age residing in McHenry County as of 2000. (See

Spreadsheet with Ratios, attached hereto as Appendix U.)
We reviewed every traffic ticket issued in 2004-2009 by MCSO deputies to determine

the number of apparently “mismarked” tickets. Using a subjective determination of
Hispanic surnames, we calculated the total of apparent “mismarks” for each year and
added those to the total number of identified minority stops and subtracted them from
the Caucasian stops in each given year. We then calculated an adjusted ratio with the
new percentages to eliminate any skewing effect created by the “mismarks.” The
attached spreadsheet reflects both the original and adjusted ratios and compares them
to the ratios reported for seven surrounding counties and 23 law enforcement agencies
in McHenry County.12 (See Spreadsheet and Reports on local agencies, attached hereto
as Appendix V.)
One important caveat is that the estimated minority driving population described above
is likely an inaccurate reflection of the number of minorities that both reside in and
drive through McHenry County. First, relying on census information is problematic
because IDOT uses information from 2000. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2000
report, 260,077 people resided in McHenry County. Of those, 19,602 (7.5%) were
categorized as Hispanic. The Bureau’s 2010 report has a total county population of
308,760, and 35,249 (11.4%) were categorized as Hispanic. That is a dramatic increase
of 55.6% in ten years. (See U.S. Census Bureau information, attached hereto as
Appendix W.)
Another problem with using a resident-based estimated minority driver benchmark is

that it does not accurately measure the actual driving population, in other words, the
people using McHenry County roads. A more effective way to measure the estimated
minority driving population in the County is to review the traffic tickets issued as a result
of traffic accidents. These are non-officer initiated events, so we can assume that given
the number of accidents occurring throughout the County, minority drivers are likely
given citations in traffic accidents in rough proportion to their overall usage of County
roads. Determining the racial make-up of people ticketed as a result of non-officer
initiated activities provides a better benchmark because there is no argument that the
deputy is making traffic enforcement decisions based on race.
12
This analysis is unavoidably flawed, however, because it incorrectly assumes that the other law enforcement
agencies do not have any “mismarks,” which we can safely assume is not the case.
Page 37 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
ADDITIONAL REVIEW
 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
As indicated above, we also reviewed traffic citations issued as a result of traffic
accidents. Since accidents are not a self-initiated law enforcement activity, officers
are not required to complete traffic stop data on those citations. Therefore, the
MCSO Records Division does not submit records of those citations to IDOT. The
Records Division provided us with all citations issued as a result of traffic accidents
between 2007 and 2009. However, without reviewing each accident report, we
could not determine whether the driver cited was at-fault or not-at-fault. All
citations were separated by surname, and we subjectively determined what
surnames appeared to be Hispanic. The results are as follows:
 In 2007, a total of 1,064 people were issued accident related citations,

of which 150 (or 14%) had Hispanic surnames.
o NOTE: The departmental average for Hispanics being issued
traffic citations from traffic stops for 2007 was 10.6%
 In 2008, a total of 1,058 people were issued accident related citations,

of which 176 (or 16.6%) had Hispanic surnames.
 In 2009, a total of 877 people were issued accident related citations, of

which 110 (or 12.5%) had Hispanic surnames.
This review indicates that there are more Hispanic drivers cited as a result of non-officer
initiated traffic accidents than the department percentage of traffic citations issued to
Hispanic drivers in a given year.
The review further analyzed the number of multiple citations issued during traffic
accidents.
 In 2007, out of the 1701 total accident related citations issued, 146 (or
48.9%) of the Hispanic drivers were issued follow up or multiple
citations. There were 504 (or 35.9%) follow up or multiple citations
issued to Non-Hispanic motorists.
49.1%) of the Hispanic drivers were issued as follow up or multiple
Page 38 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
citations. There were 422 (or 32.3%) follow up or multiple citations

issued to Non-Hispanic motorists.
46.8%) of the Hispanic drivers were issued as follow up or multiple
citations. There were 414 (or 35%) follow up or multiple citations issued
to Non-Hispanic motorists.
We conducted further investigation into the violations upon which the multiple citations
were issued. The five most common citations that were issued, other than the cause of
the accident citation, were No Valid Driver’s License, No Insurance, Hit and Run/Leaving
the Scene of an Accident, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, and Driving While
License Suspended/Revoked. These multiple citations were calculated for each year.
 2007
 No Valid Driver’s License – 52 (or 35.6%)
 No Insurance – 37 (or 25.3%)
 Hit and Run / Leaving the Scene – 14 (or 9.6%)
 DUI – 6 (or 4.1%)
 Suspended / Revoked License – 7 (or 4.8%)
 2008
 DUI – 16 (or 9.9%)
 2009
 DUI – 8 (or 8.4%)
Over 60% of the Hispanic motorists that were issued multiple citations did not have
a valid driver’s license and/or did not have vehicle insurance.
 INTERNAL/PERSONNEL FILES
A deputy’s statistics sometimes raise flags, but they are not necessarily indicative of
racial profiling. Rather, they are one factor to be analyzed. Another factor is the
answers provided during the interviews, which are outlined above. Still another
factor to analyze are citizen and/or other complaints to determine if deputies have
been accused of racial bias, making racial slurs, engaging in inappropriate conduct
Page 39 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
towards minority citizens or minority coworkers, etc. As such, we reviewed all of

the personnel files of all current MCSO deputies and commanders. No such
complaints were found. A review of the internal investigation reports revealed
three complaints of racial profiling. All three complaints were made by former Dep.
A, and all three complaints were previously determined to be unfounded.
TECHNOLOGICAL COMPLICATIONS
The Circuit Clerk’s office provided all police departments in McHenry County with an
automated printer system (“APS”). This system uses Report Beam software to print out
the tickets for the violator and electronically transmits the information to the Circuit
Clerk’s Office and then to the departments’ records division. On March 23, 2011, Dep.
YY and Records Clerk DDD discovered there were problems with the Traffic Stop Study
(“TSS”) page. We also determined that the Circuit Clerk’s office was receiving the
information correctly, but the Record’s Division was not. The Clerk’s Office’s
investigation revealed the program was incorrectly and automatically populating the
reason for the stop and the result of the stop. The Circuit Clerk’s office determined a
software update installed on November 16, 2010 was the cause. On April 4, 2011, the
Clerk’s office successfully corrected the software, but the data from November 6, 2010
through April 4, 2011 contained errors in the TSS page. This is true for all the
departments in McHenry County and for all the departments in the other five Illinois
counties that use the report beam software. Although this software issue had no
impact on the years being reviewed, it demonstrated another way the data reviewed by
IDOT can be incorrect.
FINDINGS
As a result of the internal investigation, we determined the following:

(1) Four deputies were found to have routinely “mismarked” drivers with
Hispanic surnames as Caucasian.
(2) Sixteen deputies were found to have failed to consistently complete the
racial profiling data.
(3) There is a general lack of knowledge among deputies regarding consent
searches and lack of ambition to conduct them.
(4) Deputies generally lack uniform guidelines on how to determine a driver’s
race for purposes of completing racial profiling data.
(5) There is no evidence to suggest that any MCSO deputies were stopping,
citing, or arresting drivers because of their race.
The investigation concentrated on data and other available information with the express
purpose of locating evidence of racial profiling. We reviewed all the traffic stops
Page 40 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
conducted by this department during 2007-2009. The stops were reviewed by type,
outcome, number of tickets written to each violator, and by the number of consent
searches conducted. There was no evidence that deputies treated any race differently;
however, elevated percentages in certain categories provided a basis to further explore
data with various deputies.
None of the deputy interviews indicated that deputies treated any racial or ethnic group
differently. The reactions from the deputies interviewed ranged from indignation to
concern that their methods may be misconstrued. The deputies were adamant that
they conducted their traffic stops based on observed violations of the Illinois Vehicle
Code and not the perceived race of the driver. Most of the deputies stated they were
unable to identify the race or gender of the driver at the time of initiating a stop. The
deputies stated the seriousness of the offense, and to some degree the attitude of the
driver, dictated the outcome of the stop. The race or ethnic origin of the occupants of
the vehicle played no part in the decision-making process, according to all of the
deputies interviewed. Notably, other than A’s unfounded accusations against a few
deputies, no current MCSO deputy has been the subject of a citizen’s or other complaint
alleging racial bias or the use of racial slurs, etc.
The most serious problem we identified was the systematic “mismarking” of drivers
with Hispanic surnames as Caucasian by Deputies E, H, and G, and former deputy D.
Illinois law mandates that deputies make a determination of a driver’s race and that law
enforcement agencies report that information to the State to help determine whether
racial profiling exists. What is most disconcerting about this problem is that these
deputies have skewed the information upon which the State relies. Although this is a
serious problem, the follow up investigation established these deputies were not
“mismarking” drivers to cover up any wrongdoing. Specifically, when we added the
total number of apparent mismarks to each deputy’s identified Hispanic stops, their
total percentages of Hispanic stops were still in line with departmental averages and
appropriate benchmarks. (See Spreadsheet, attached hereto as Appendix D-2.) Finally,
we confirmed that those deputies’ habitual mismarking of citations issued to Hispanic
drivers also occurred on their warnings and stop cards, which is further evidence that
the deputies were not mismarking documents as a means of covering up racial profiling.
Though we did not find evidence of racial profiling, several problems relative to the
completion of racial profiling data on traffic stops were discovered. These items,
summarized below, must be addressed.
 Confusion regarding Illinois Racial Profiling Laws: The definitions of racial profiling
provided by many of the deputies in the interviews consisted of variations of
“making a traffic stop based solely on a person’s race.” Race, of course, cannot be
any part of the reason for a traffic stop or any factor in determining the outcome of
Page 41 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
the stop. This misinterpretation is indicative of not thoroughly addressing Illinois’

racial profiling laws in the Department’s initial and previous training.
 Incomplete Information: The probable cause ticket for a self-initiated traffic stop
must have the traffic stop data completed on the back of the ticket. The interviews
revealed three common reasons for this data not being completed.
 The first reason was that the traffic citation resulted in an arrest.
Deputies either thought that the information was completed as part of
the booking process or it was forgotten. Some deputies filled out the
back of the citation at the end of their shift instead of at the completion
of the stop. By providing the citations to the booking officer, the
deputies did not have them at the end of the shift to complete the
racial profiling data.
 The second reason was failure to follow-through. This can be attributed

to lack of attention to detail.
 The third reason was confusion over what was a self-initiated stop.
Some deputies believed that seat belt check and traffic grant details
were not self-initiated while others said they were. Conversely, some
believed that coming across a traffic crash or a stranded motorist prior
to being dispatched constituted a self initiated stop.
 Lack of Consent Searches: The third issue is a lack of understanding concerning

consent searches. Few tickets indicated that the deputy conducted a consent
search. Most of those searched were incident to arrest and not based on consent.
Most of the deputies incorrectly stated that in order to conduct a consent search,
they had to see illegal items in plain view or be able to articulate why the driver’s
actions lead them to believe illegal items were in the vehicle.
 Improper Completion (“Mismarkings”): A significant problem was the improper

completion of the traffic stop data. Purposefully indicating a driver’s race as
Caucasian when they appear Hispanic violates 625 ILCS 5/11-212, Illinois Traffic Stop
Statistical Study. By marking Hispanic appearing drivers as Caucasian, a few
deputies have caused inaccurate data to be created. The Illinois Department of
Transportation requires accurate data to make determinations about the presence
of racial profiling within Illinois communities. The explanations provided for
habitual mismarking are insufficient to justify the practice.
Page 42 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
 Granted, it is well documented that most federal and state

agencies do not accept “Hispanic” as a race. This includes the
information systems MCSO deputies use on a daily basis.
However, Illinois law 625 ILCS 5/11-212 plainly lists “Hispanic”
as a race. Therefore, the deputies must recognize that Hispanic
is a valid choice and must mark the data appropriately if they
believe the driver is Hispanic.
 While the deputies correctly pointed out that the law does not
allow them to ask the driver his/her race, sheriff’s deputies are
trained to use their powers of observation in every facet of their
work. In fact, a traffic stop cannot be initiated without the
deputy observing an infraction of the vehicle code. The law
expects them to use their observation skills to accurately
complete the traffic stop data. Thus, while difficulties inherent
in making racial identifications certainly support a limited
number of apparent “mismarkings,” it does not justify the
systematic mismarkings reflected in the practices of a few
deputies.
 The assertion that unidentified person(s) in the patrol division

instructed deputies to mark everyone as Caucasian or African-
American unless they definitely know them to be something
else was neither proved nor disproved. There is anecdotal
evidence that discussions in the patrol room or roll call room
may have occurred. The fact that one former field training
officer vaguely remembers saying something similar lends
credence to this claim. The claim is further bolstered by the
connections from the field training officer to the deputies who
habitually mismarked tickets.
 In the end, it was apparent that virtually all MCSO deputies,

with the exception of a very small group, have been able to
correctly identify most Hispanic drivers, despite the
impediments to those identifications described through out this
report. Deputies must use all of their observation skills to
attempt to choose a driver’s race. They should observe the
color of the driver’s skin, accent, surname, or some combination
of all three to form an opinion.
Page 43 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
The problems the internal investigation uncovered, from confusion about the law to
improperly documenting the driver’s race, could have been avoided through better
supervision of this program. We recognize that not every ticket could have been
individually reviewed. One reason could be that some go to Booking and others go
directly to the drop box if a cash bond is attached. Another reason is the sheer bulk of
tickets, reports, and activity sheets supervisors review every day, in addition to their
responsibility to run their shift, limit their ability to closely monitor every ticket issued.
Nevertheless, periodic review of the citations, warnings, and stop cards turned in to the
supervisors would have identified the problems noted throughout this report. Once
these problems were identified, training and continued supervision could have reduced
or eliminated the problems we have uncovered.
One contributing factor to this failure was an absence of communication of errors

detected by the Records Division. At the onset of this review, while copying tickets,
Cmdr. Cedergren asked records Division Supervisor EEE why the records clerks never
noticed that some deputies frequently marked drivers with Hispanic surnames as
Caucasian. Sup. EEE stated that, due to the volume of tickets processed, the clerk would
concentrate on accurate entry and not consciously connect the name entered in the
first section of the records management program with the racial profiling blocks
checked when they moved to the second section of the program. This was well
intentioned and expedited the vast flow of paperwork. However, this practice
eliminated the last chance to identify a problem.
There was no systematic or other method to disguise racial profiling occurring in the
patrol division, nor is there evidence that racial profiling has occurred. Rather, there
was a failure of policy. This situation can be rectified by remedying the confusion
concerning the law through training, ensuring the deputies take the time to complete
the form completely and accurately, and actively engaging supervisors and ensuring
continuous review of traffic stop data.
RECENT ALLEGATIONS
In early April 2011, Chicago television station WGN, the Chicago Tribune newspaper, and
the Daily Herald newspaper published stories that suggested MCSO deputies might be
intentionally disguising racial profiling by deliberately reporting Hispanic drivers as
Caucasian. 13 On the heels of these reports, the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and
13
When WGN and the Tribune contacted MCSO representatives about the story, MCSO representatives explained
that an internal investigation was being conducted to explore these issues, but since it was ongoing, it was
confidential until its completion. They also suggested to the reporters that in the interest of providing the public
with a complete view of the relevant information, the reporters should wait to publish their stories until the report
was complete. At their discretion, WGN and the Tribune went forward without all of the relevant information.
Page 44 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
Refugee Rights (“ICIRR”) held a press conference, during which the director of ICIRR
alleged that MCSO had a financial incentive to arrest illegal immigrants and convert
them to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detainees. The ICIRR
further alleged that the Sheriff and deputies “hunted Mexicans” by sitting outside an
apartment complex in the town of Woodstock and conducted traffic stops on Hispanic
drivers as they left that area.
ANALYSIS OF RECENT ALLEGATIONS
Corrections Lieutenant FFF provided the following description of how a county arrestee
becomes an ICE detainee. MCSO General Order 3.4.107 states a booking officer is
required to run an inquiry through the Illinois LEADS program on any inmate that is
identified as having a birthplace other than within the 50 states or U.S. Territories. If
that inquiry reveals that the inmate is not a legal U.S. citizen, the booking officer
contacts an ICE Agent. This agent conducts a telephone interview of the inmate and
determines if an ICE detainer is placed on the subject. If an ICE detainer is placed on the
subject, the booking sheet is stamped with the hold. The arresting deputy is not
informed of this and would not normally know the status of the inmate. When the
inmate clears all local and state charges, they are transported to the ICE Chicago District
Field Office in downtown Chicago and turned over to an ICE agent. ICE determines if the
subject shall be released or remain an ICE detainee. If they are detained, ICE
determines at which facility the detainee will be housed.
The ICE Chicago Field Office covers six (6) states (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri,
Kentucky, and Kansas). MSCO is one of 27 facilities the ICE Chicago Field Office uses to
house detainees. MCSO has an Inter Governmental Service Agreement with the U.S.
Marshal’s office to house federal prisoners and detainees for the rate of $85.00 per
person per day.
Corrections Sgt. CCC provided the following information. Between January 01, 2010 and
April 04, 2011, MCSO deputies arrested a total of 3,789 adults. 280 of the arrestees
were converted to ICE detainees, or 7.39% of the arrests made.
The most common arrest made for an illegal immigrant driver during a traffic stop was
for no valid driver’s license. A records check revealed in January 2011 that of the 1,240
tickets MCSO deputies wrote, 23 (or 1.85%) were for no valid license. In February of
2011, 15 (or 1.73%) of the 863 citations written were for no valid license.
In response to the suggestion that deputies sat outside of Hispanic businesses or a

specific apartment complex in Woodstock, we reviewed all traffic stops near the
location WGN identified in their report, from 2009 to date. The area reviewed was a
Page 45 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
half mile radius from the entrance to the complex. Located within that radius is the
intersection of U.S. Route 14 and Illinois Route 47.
We also reviewed the traffic stops in this area that resulted in an arrest. The arrests
listed are for no valid driver’s license and for driving on a suspended/revoked driver’s
license.
2009 55 Stops 4 Arrests
2010 68 Stops 4 Arrests
2011 (Jan – Mar) 9 Stops 0 Arrests
Records Division Supervisor EEE advised that beginning in 2009 the location of traffic
stops were recorded in the VisionAir reporting system. We then reviewed the location
of all 2009-2010 traffic tickets within the county. There was no concentration found of
traffic arrests in any specific location.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
TRAINING
It is recommended that the Department immediately implement:
 In-depth training to be conducted at roll call for all sworn deputies. The
training needs to explain the Illinois Racial Profiling statute and go over
the racial profiling data form in detail. This program should also include
training on the status of recent case law concerning the proper handling
of traffic stops.
 New employee training needs to be re-written to place special emphasis

on the laws against racial profiling and on procedures required in the
Illinois Racial Profiling statute. This needs to be a documented block of
instruction in the in-house academy.
 The Field Training Manual needs a block of instruction specifically for

racial profiling, compliance with the Illinois Racial Profiling statute, and
the rules concerning consent searches.
 The Sergeant Training Manual must be re-written to include a block of

instruction on racial profiling, compliance with the state statute, and the
rules concerning consent searches. The manual should emphasize that
it is vital to pay particular attention to the tickets as they are turned in
to ensure accuracy and to identify any problematic trends.
Page 46 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
 Clerks assigned to the Records Division must be trained to reject any

ticket that is incomplete or incorrectly filled out. They should be
instructed to return any such tickets to the patrol supervisor, who will
work with the deputy to correct any problems.
TICKET REVIEW
The Department should create an ongoing, periodic review of each patrol shift’s traffic
tickets. The Operations Bureau Commander and the Records Supervisor have been
tasked with formatting a report for the shift lieutenants. This report must be analyzed
to identify problems at the earliest stage.
 It is recommended this review become a permanent part of the

lieutenants’ duties.
 This report format must include the tickets that are submitted
electronically and not seen by the patrol supervisors.
 Each shift should also explore internal means of reviewing self initiated
traffic stops.
 The Operations Bureau must continue to give special attention to the

review of completed tickets before they are submitted to Records.
However, this will only address traditional tickets and not the electronic version. As the
software and printers provided to MCSO change, the program must be continually
monitored to ensure complete and accurate reporting of the traffic stop data. As
demonstrated with the problem in the Report Beam software update, even a closely
monitored program can encounter problems.
Regardless of the mechanism for issuing traffic tickets, written warnings, and stop
cards, this Department must commit to an ongoing, permanent review to ensure tickets
are properly and fully completed from this point forward.
Further Review
Although this investigation has revealed a failure due to ongoing, widespread
misunderstanding of the program and supervisory oversight, discipline should still be
considered. Our agency currently uses the Infraction Assessment program developed by
Van Meter and Associates to obtain Penalty Assessment recommendations. Consistent
with department policy, we will use the Infraction Assessment program. However, due
to the complexity of this particular investigation, MCSO command staff will also consult
Page 47 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
directly with Dr. D.J. Van Meter, who specializes in the examination of discipline issues
for police officers.
Community Outreach
Recent media reports raised concerns that some Hispanic residents and/or business
owners in McHenry County believed they had experienced unfair law enforcement
contacts. According to the media reports, the residents were either fearful of reporting
their concerns or were not aware of the citizen complaint process. In addition to the
MCSO’s long standing community outreach programs, which include participation in a
number of Hispanic or Latino programs, the department should consider forums to
discuss these issues with community members and acquaint them with MCSO’s citizens’
complaints forms and processes.
OUTSIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
This investigation revealed a fundamental inconsistency within the Illinois Racial

Profiling statute. The statute specifically recognizes “Hispanic” as a race, while all other
information systems used by law enforcement agencies do not. We propose a revision
to the statute. Despite the obvious good intentions of this statute to monitor law
enforcement and ensure it is applying the law equally to all persons, there is a degree of
confusion when it is left to “the officer’s perception” to determine a person’s race. The
Illinois Traffic Stop Statistical Study (ITSSS) 2005 Annual Report reads (on page 10) that
part of the challenge “was how narrowly or broadly to define “Hispanic” for which the
Census Bureau designates an ethnicity, rather than a race.” Their solution was any
person who claimed Hispanic heritage on the Census data should be considered as
“Hispanic.” (See Annual Report, attached hereto as Appendix X.) How can we expect an
officer to perceive what race a driver is claiming on the Census data, especially since it is
well documented that Hispanic is not a race, but rather an ethnicity? The U.S.
Department of Justice and Census Bureau have stated, through the Office of
Management and Budget, that the vast majority of the motoring public who would
typically be characterized as Hispanic, would not even consider themselves to be
Hispanic. (Note: Our search found no other government program that listed Hispanic as
a race.)
 We recommend all Illinois law enforcement agencies conduct their own internal
audits to determine if they too have inaccurate recording and collecting of the
Illinois racial profiling data.
 All Circuit Clerks that rely on automated systems need to continually monitor
their programs to ensure accurate transmission.
Page 48 of 49
INTERNAL 2010
REPORTREVIEW
– IR 10-028 10-028
 We recommend that IDOT review the outdated and inaccurate census data, and
rely on better benchmarks like traffic accident data in order to arrive at
estimated minority driving populations.
 Finally, an updated methodology of calculating the race of stopped drivers

needs to be created by the State of Illinois. Specifically, if race must be
documented on a ticket the drivers should be required to declare their own race
on their driver’s licenses.
Submitted: May 19, 2011
Sheriff Keith Nygren
Undersheriff Andrew Zinke
Commander Duane Cedergren
Sergeant Daniel Patenaude
Page 49 of 49

Racial Profiling Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Racial Profiling Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SUMMARY REPORT –SUMMARY

As a result of that review, on November 5, 2010, Sgt. Patenaude conducted an interview

As a result, the review process focused on the three following areas:

 determine which deputies had a substantially elevated percentage of citations

STATISTICAL GATHERING AND REVIEW

 Whether a citation or a written warning was issued, or if a stop card was

Each spreadsheet contained the following information:

Finally, we created a spreadsheet to examine a hypothetical scenario. Specifically, we

By evaluating the number of consent searches completed, we discovered that many

With the guidance of legal counsel, we established internal benchmarks to determine

The third category of benchmarks was set as follows:

Citations (%) Warnings (%) Stops Cards (%)

NOTE: The additional 5% to each benchmark is included in the above percentages. As a

IMMEDIATE TRAINING REMEDIES

Due to information initially obtained, we determined immediate training for the

QUESTIONNAIRES (FIRST ROUND)

We created a list of predetermined questions for each deputy. (See Interview

The following is a summary of the answers provided by each of the 52 deputies5

 Q: How long have you been with the department?

Q: Who were your field training officers?

(NOTE: Each deputy generally has multiple field training officers.)

(NOTE: Some deputies provided multiple answers.)

(NOTE: Some deputies provided multiple answers.)

Q: If yes, who was it?

 Q: If yes, how was it different?

 Q: If yes, why did you have that understanding?

 Q: If yes, why did you have that understanding?

 Q: Define what it means to engage in racial profiling during traffic stops.

INTERVIEWS (SECOND ROUND)

deputies were required to complete a second round of interviews based on elevated

(NOTE: Some deputies provided multiple answers.)

(NOTE: Some deputies provided multiple answers.)

(NOTE: Some deputies provided multiple answers.)

(NOTE: Some deputies provided multiple answers.)

(NOTE: Some deputies provided multiple answers.)

 Based on the percentages identified, and as a result of the first interviews,

 During the second interview, U was provided a copy of the Injured On

E 2007 2008 2009

H 2007 2008 20097

G 20078 2008 2009

H stated that he tended to focus on writing citations, as opposed to warnings.

Mexico, he always marked them as Caucasian because he believed that person’s

(See Transcript of Interview, attached hereto as Appendix N-1.)

G said that he considered many different factors to determine the outcome of a

G said he began his decision-making process of whether to seek consent to

(See Transcript of Interview, attached hereto as Appendix N-2)

speeding, seatbelt violations, registration violations, and lighting violations. E

 FOLLOW-UP ON FORMAL INTERVIEWS

received was not during a one-on-one conversation, but rather it occurred

(See Transcript of Interview, attached hereto as Appendix N-3.)

Patenaude asked Q if he remembered training or advising Dep. E to follow the

D denied ever purposely labeling Hispanic drivers as Caucasian in an attempt to

CATEGORIZING HISPANIC AS A RACE

Patenaude found no information on training involved in determining the race of an

“U.S. federal government agencies must adhere to standards issued by

separate and distinct concepts. These standards generally reflect a

(See Report, attached hereto as Appendix S.)

percentage of minorities of driving age residing in McHenry County as of 2000. (See

We reviewed every traffic ticket issued in 2004-2009 by MCSO deputies to determine

Another problem with using a resident-based estimated minority driver benchmark is

 In 2007, a total of 1,064 people were issued accident related citations,

 In 2008, a total of 1,058 people were issued accident related citations,

 In 2009, a total of 877 people were issued accident related citations, of

citations. There were 422 (or 32.3%) follow up or multiple citations