RACE AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF DRUG DELIVERY LAWS IN ...

In sum, the evidence shows that racial disproportionality in downtown, Capitol
Hill, and University District drug delivery arrests remains even after levels of
involvement in drug delivery are taken into account. Statistical analysis indicates
that the over-representation of blacks among downtown arrestees, downtown
and Capitol Hill arrestees combined, and the University District is highly
statistically significant. Thus, although levels of black involvement in drug
delivery are greater than what would be expected on the basis of general
population statistics, blacks are very significantly over-represented among drug
arrestees relative to those who deliver serious drugs. The following discussion
explores other factors that may explain the over-representation of blacks among
drug delivery arrestees. These include the focus on outdoor (as opposed to
indoor) drug activity, the focus on the downtown area and the focus on those
who deliver crack cocaine.
HYPOTHESIS 2: THE SPD FOCUS ON OUTDOOR DRUG MARKETS EXPLAINS RACIAL
DISPROPORTIONALITY IN DRUG ARRESTS
It is conceivable that racial disparity in Seattle drug arrests stems principally
from the SPD focus on outdoor drug venues. Some analysts have suggested that
access to private space is differentially distributed across socio-economic (and
hence racial and ethnic) groups; those who engage in illicit conduct in public
places are more visible to the police and therefore more likely to be arrested
(Blumstein 1993; Duster 1997; Goode 2002; Johnson et al. 1977; Sterling 1997;
Tonry 1995). This argument often rests on the assumption that law enforcement’s
proclivity to focus on outdoor drug venues is a (racially neutral) organizational
necessity (but see Duster 1997). Whether law enforcement’s focus on outdoor
drug venues is best understood as a race-neutral state practice is debatable. 114 As
114
Chambliss and Seidman 1971; Goode 2002. In these discussions, law enforcement’s tendency
to focus on outdoor venues is sometimes treated as a racially neutral organizational and/or
legal necessity. This assumption appears to be unwarranted. Although the need to obtain a
search warrant is often cited as an obstacle to indoor narcotics operations, warrants are not
required for entry to commercial establishments. Furthermore, it is not clear that obtaining a
search warrant should be considered an insurmountable barrier, especially in light of the
tremendous effort and resources expended to conduct outdoor narcotics operations—
particularly buy-bust operations—that yield relatively small amounts of drugs. Previously
analyzed evidence from Seattle indicates that each buy-bust arrest yielded an average of .1
grams of drugs and 30 cents (in funds recovered) per officer hour spent on the operation. By
contrast, search warrant arrests yielded an average of 29 grams of drugs and $289 per officer
hour invested (see Beckett 2004; Beckett et al. 2005; Beckett et al. 2006). In short, the police
focus on outdoor venues may be better understood as an organizational and policy choice than
an institutional or legal necessity—one that potentially has important racial consequences.
73