Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability discussed traffic stop reform at its April 24 meeting. (Photo by Igor Studenkov/for Chronicle Media)

As the Chicago Police Department unveiled the first draft of the new traffic stop policy, the majority of the Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability agreed that some of those changes don’t go far enough.

But they were divided, sometimes sharply, on exactly what kind of changes they would like to see.

As part of Chicago’s 2021 police oversight reform, both CPD and the recently formed CCPSA can propose police policy changes, and they must both agree on any changes that ultimately get approved. Over the past few months, CCPSA commissioners Sandra Wortham and Remel Terry held six listening sessions in different parts of the city to get a sense of what changes, if any, Chicagoans wanted. This came as several advocacy organizations urged the city to put more limits on traffic stops and ban pretextual traffic stops, where officers use a relatively minor violation, such as a taillight being out, as a pretext to stop a car to investigate a more serious crime.

CCPSA released both the CPD policy and its own comments on the afternoon of April 24, ahead of its regularly scheduled meeting held at Chinatown’s Pui Tak Center. The commission most notably split on whether to ban pretextual stops, and Wortham opposed most of the changes the rest of the commissioners either supported or were neutral on.

With the first draft released, CCPSA will organize focus groups, consult with “subject matter experts,” teach out to stakeholders and hold at least one event to get more feedback. Residents can also leave comments on the traffic stop reform page at the CCPSA website. The commission currently doesn’t have a timeline for when the final version of the policy might be voted on.

CPD proposal

The proposed policy acknowledged that “pretextual traffic stops can be perceived by some members of the community as negative, biased, or unlawful,” which is why any stop “must strike a balance between identifying those engaged in criminal conduct and the community’s sense of fairness.” It also mentioned that traffic stops in general “must strike a balance between promoting public safety and building and maintaining community trust.”

In order to make a traffic stop, officers must have a probable cause or a “reasonable articulable suspicion” — a less strict legal standard that requires an officer to “possess specific and articulable facts that, combined with rational inferences from those facts, create a suspicion that the person is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense.”

The policy notably mentions that the officers would be judged based on what they knew at the time, without the benefit of hindsight.

The policy prohibits officers from searching cars without the driver’s consent, unless they have “specific articulable information regarding a suspected criminal activity” separate from the reason for stopping the car in the first place. Any traffic stops must be recorded on body cameras, and officers wouldn’t be allowed to keep bystanders from recording the traffic stops.

Officers wouldn’t be able to pull drivers or passengers out of the car against their will, or ask them to get out of the car, unless there is a probable cause for arrest, or the officers have “specific, articulable observations” that made them believe those individuals are impaired by drugs or alcohol, or that the they were “a threat or safety concern to the department members or others.”

Finally, the police department would be required to not only collect data on every traffic stop, but to share the data online (with personal information stripped out). CPD would also be required to review the data every year and see if it needs to make any changes to the policy. The department would need to reach out to the community when developing revisions and ask residents to weigh in on traffic stops related training.

CCPSA comments

The CCPSA memo broke down which commissioners made which suggestions. Notably, five out of seven commissioners wanted to forbid officers from stopping drivers for violations such as the outdated vehicle registration stickers, “missing or improperly displayed” front license plate, lights not working during daytime hours, and the car having a loud sound system. The memo states Wortham opposed the restrictions, while Terry “nether supports nor opposes” them.

All commissioners except Wortham and Terry wanted to ban police officers from searching a car even if the driver allowed it. All commissioners except Wortham wanted to create a stricter standard for when officers can search cars, but they couldn’t agree on just how strict the standard would be.

The majority supported requiring officers to tell the drivers the “public safety purpose” for the stop. Wortham opposed that addition, while commissioner Abierre Minor wanted the officers to say what “class A misdemeanor or felony” they were stopping the driver for.

When it comes to reporting data, all commissioners except Wortham supported creating a public safety dashboard, and they felt that CCPSA should have more of a role in reviewing reports, though they didn’t get into specifics.

But the biggest fault line emerged over traffic stops. Minor and commissioners Aaron Gottlieb, Minor, and Gina Piemonte wanted to forbid them “unless the officer has Reasonable Articulable Suspicion” that the driver committed a felony or a Class A misdemeanor — a category that includes crimes such as assault and driving more than 35 mph over the speed limit.

During the April meeting, Gottlieb argued that the CPD proposal “addresses some triadic stop issues but it doesn’t do enough, in my view, to curb pretextual stops,” and that the current language was ripe for misuse. Minor echoed those comments, saying that an officer, for example, could argue that a loud sound system “can pose a public safety risk because of noise pollution.”

CCPSA president Anthony Driver dismissed their position as “smoke signals” and posturing, saying that police officers can already pull drivers suspected of Class A misdemeanors over under a separate policy governing investigative stops. Minor pushed back on that, saying that she simply was doing what she was appointed to do — craft what she believed was the best policy for Chicagoans.

Commissioner Angel Rubi Navarijo said that he favored a “balanced approach,” saying that, while the officers should have tools to deal with crimes, he wants to reduce traffic stops because they have a potential to escalate, endangering officers and drivers alike, and because they pull officers away from responding to urgent calls.

“What I hear at a lot of district council meetings I go to — police doesn’t respond to our calls,” he said.

Wortham reiterated the position she voiced before — while she believed that making sure drivers are treated fairly was important, she worried that putting in restrictions would hinder officers.

“I do not see this work, our job, as taking the tool away from law enforcement that they can use, with professional experience, to do their jobs,” she said.

Wortham also complained that CCPSA meetings’ public comments are dominated by reform proponents, which overshadow other viewpoints.

“I’ve talked to community members that actually don’t want to take away a tool that is lawful,” she said. “So, what I hope, as we continue our engagement, is that we hear more diverse voices.”

Chronicle Media attended three hearings and found a variety of opinions. A Feb. 20 hearing in Garfield Ridge was overwhelmingly anti-reform, while the March 19 hearing in Canaryville was almost evenly split between supporters and opponents of the reform, and the April 16 hearing in Uptown had all but one speaker supporting reforms.

During the April 24 meeting, most of the speakers who commented on traffic stops urged reform. Amy Thompson, a staff counsel at Impact for Equity organization, was among several who argued that CCPSA’s recommendations didn’t go far enough.

“The policy that tinkers around the edges rather than confronting the issue head on risks allowing CPD strategy to continue, just with the new code of paint,” she said.