This report was conducted through the California Policy Lab’s research partnership with the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code.
Introduction
Traffic stops are one tool police use to prevent and respond to traffic violations and other crimes. However, excessive civilian contact with police during stops can be harmful, carry risks that routine interactions escalate, and may diminish trust in law enforcement among some communities. Concerned with racially disparate patterns of police stops, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 953, or the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) in 2015 to mitigate racial and identity profiling by law enforcement. Among other provisions, RIPA requires state and local law enforcement agencies to report annual data on all vehicle and pedestrian stops. Each year, the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board publishes the underlying data and a summary report pertaining to the most recent year of data
This report builds on the Advisory Board’s release covering the 4.7 million stops conducted by 539 law enforcement agencies in 2023 and focuses on racial and ethnic disparities in searches. Specifically, we describe the chain of events that unfold following a police stop, including the rate at which people are searched, whether the search uncovers anything unlawful, and whether the search results in an arrest. All findings in this brief are based on officer-reported perceptions of race and ethnicity, which may not align with how individuals self-identify.
Key Findings
- Three-quarters of police stops resulted in no further action. In the 23% of stops that involved further action, the most common action was a search of the person and/or their property (55%).
- The share of police stops that are of Black people is nearly 2.3 times the share of the state population that is Black. Despite making up only 5% of California’s population, Black people accounted for 12% of all law enforcement stops in 2023.
- Native American people had the highest search rates, followed by Black and Hispanic people. More than one in five stops of Native American people resulted in a search, the highest of any group. Searches occurred in 19% of stops of Black people, and 14% of stops of Hispanic people.
- Fewer than one in three searches resulted in the discovery of contraband or evidence. The discovery rate for searches was 27%, meaning in 73% of searches, no contraband or evidence was found. Discovery rates were highest for White individuals (30%), and lowest for Middle Eastern/South Asian (23%) and Hispanic (25%) individuals.
- Following a search, Native American individuals were arrested at the highest rate, while Black individuals were arrested at the lowest rate. Excluding searches that were the result of an initial arrest, 17% of all searches led to a custodial arrest. For Native American people, 25% of searches led to a custodial arrest. In contrast, 15% of searches of Black individuals resulted in a custodial arrest.
This analysis provides facts about how Californians across the state experience traffic stops and searches, and how those experiences vary by race and ethnicity.
Vehicle and Pedestrian Stops
Stops of Black people occurred at a rate 2.3 times their share of California’s population.1 While making up only 5% of California’s population, Black people made up 12% of all law enforcement stops in 2023 (Table 1). Similarly, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern/South Asian, and Hispanic people were stopped 70%, 22%, and 9% more often than their population shares, respectively. In contrast, White, Asian, Native American, and Multiracial people were stopped less often than their population share (see Appendix Figure A1 for graphical representation).
Officers did not take further action in 77% of stops. There are 26 possible actions that can be reported during a stop, including ordering an individual to get out of their vehicle, detention of an individual in the squad car, or no action at all. “No action taken” rates were lowest among Native American people (66%) and highest for Middle Eastern/South Asian people (91%) (Table 2). The most common action was a search of person, occurring in 12% of all stops and 50% of stops involving an action (see Appendix Table A1 for racial/ethnic distribution of most common actions during stops).
Search Rates
Hispanic people accounted for almost half of all searches. Hispanic individuals accounted for 47% of all stops involving a search, White people accounted for 29%, and Black individuals accounted for 19% of all searches (Table 3).
Native American individuals experienced the highest search rate, with over one in five stops resulting in a search. Officers reported searching a person and/or property in 13% of all stops, but the rate at which different racial/ ethnic groups were searched varied. Native American people experienced the highest search rates (22%), followed by Black individuals (19%), and Hispanic individuals (14%), who also experienced search rates higher than the overall rate. Middle Eastern/South Asian individuals (4%) and Asian individuals (5%) experienced the lowest search rates.
Across California’s largest law enforcement agencies, disparities in search rates were common, regardless of how frequently a department conducts searches overall. Among the agencies with the greatest number of stops, search rates ranged from a high of 33% for the Sacramento Police Department to a low of 3% for the California Highway Patrol. In the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) more than 350,000 stops, for example, Black (38%) and Hispanic (31%) people were searched at higher rates than any other racial group (Table 4). Of the ten departments with the most stops, only Riverside County Sheriff’s Office searched Black people at a rate lower than the overall search rate.
Reasons for Conducting Searches
Searches that are conducted for officer safety, and where the officer indicates that consent was given, account for the majority of search types. Officers can indicate up to 13 reasons, or “bases,” for a search, and a search warrant was the least common. The most frequently cited reasons were search incident to an arrest (47%), which occurs as part of a lawful arrest; to ensure officer safety or safety of others (26%); consent given (26%), meaning the person voluntarily gave permission to be searched; and because a person’s parole or probation status authorizes searches (16%).
The primary basis often varied with the type of search. For instance, consent was the most common basis for property-only searches (36%), while an arrest was the most common basis for person-only searches (57%), or when both a person and their property (40%) were searched. However, within racial/ethnic groups, the search reasons varied (Table 5).
Black and Hispanic people were the least likely to be searched due to an arrest. During searches of Black, Hispanic, and Multiracial people, officer safety/ safety of others was a documented basis for search more often than it was for other groups (Figure 1). Parole/probation was a more common basis for search among Native American people compared to other groups.
The basis for a search varied by the racial/ethnic group of the individual being stopped. While Black individuals comprised 19% of all people searched, they made up 40% of those searched due to the odor of contraband (Table 6). Comparatively, White people made up 29% of all people searched, but only 11% of those searched due to the odor of contraband. Hispanic people made up 47% of all stops with searches but 55% of searches with “vehicle inventory” listed as a basis for search and 52% of searches due to a “suspected weapon.” Searches based on parole or probation status, however, disproportionately involved White individuals who made up 33% of this search reason, compared to their 29% share of searches overall.
While officers could indicate up to thirteen reasons for search, 69% of stops with searches had only one reason for search indicated. Differences in the racial/ethnicity distribution by reason for search can also be observed in searches with a single search reason (Appendix Table A2).
Contraband Discovery
Twenty-seven percent of all searches resulted in discovery of contraband or evidence.2 The most common contraband or evidence discovered was drugs and/or drug paraphernalia, which together accounted for 17% of all stops with searches (Table 7). Firearms, ammunition, and/or other weapons were discovered in 5% of stops with searches.
Among all bases for search that accounted for at least 1% of stops with searches, the contraband discovery rate was highest for visible contraband (78%), with drugs/drug paraphernalia discovered in 60% of stops with this basis for search. The contraband discovery rate was lowest for officer safety (25%), though drugs and drug paraphernalia were still the most common contraband types discovered during searches justified by officer safety (13%). Searches justified by a suspected weapon were the only searches in which drugs/drug paraphernalia were not the most common contraband type discovered. The contraband discovery rate during stops with only one basis for search was lower (22%) than all stops with search (27%) (Appendix Table A3).
Discovery rates varied by race, but drugs and drug paraphernalia were the most common contraband discovered across all groups. Contraband or evidence discovery rates were the highest among stops and searches of White people (30%) and lowest among stops and searches of Middle Eastern/South Asian people (23%) (Figure 2).
Drugs/drug paraphernalia was the most common type of contraband discovered for all groups, found in 13% to 22% of searches. This is also true when disaggregated by basis for search, except in the case of suspected weapon as a basis for search (Appendix Table A4).
Discovery rates also differed by agency. The 10 agencies with the most searches in 2023 had discovery rates ranging from 10% to 31% (Table 8). With the exception of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Oakland Police Department, agencies’ discovery rates for Hispanic people were lower than their overall discovery rates. With the exception of the Oakland Police Department, the discovery rates for Middle Eastern/South Asian people were lower than the overall discovery rates.
Results of Stops
Sixty percent of all stops resulted in some form of punitive action. Among all stops, 50% resulted in a citation, while 9% ended in a custodial arrest (Table 9). Among stops in which a search was conducted, the custodial arrest rate was over five times higher than the rate in all stops, at 51%. Excluding all stops in which the officer conducted a search in the course of an arrest, the custodial arrest rate was 17%.
Following a search, Native American individuals had the highest arrest rate (25%), while Black people had the lowest (15%). In the 319,019 stops with searches that did not occur as a result of an arrest, 41% resulted in at least one punitive outcome (Figure 3). Overall, 17% of these searches resulted in a custodial arrest, while 19% led to a citation. The majority of these stops (59%) concluded with no punitive action at all. When looking at all punitive outcomes combined, rates were lowest for Black people (34%) and highest for Asian and Native American people (51%).
Conclusion
In 2023, 539 California law enforcement agencies reported a total of 4.7 million stops. While officers took no action in three-quarters of stops, a search was the most common action taken when one did occur. The RIPA data show disparities in who is stopped, who is searched, the justifications provided for those searches, and the ultimate outcomes. From the initial stop, where Black individuals were stopped at a disproportionately high rate, to the final outcome, where Native American individuals faced the highest arrest rates post-search, these findings document racial/ethnic differences throughout these encounters.
Notes
- Demographic information in RIPA data is based on officer perception, not self-identification. ↩︎
- Officers conduct searches during every arrest. However, the data do not indicate whether contraband was discovered because of the search conducted during the arrest or if another basis for search led to the discovery of contraband, justifying an arrest. Therefore, discovery rate calculation using all instances of discovery among all searches may overestimate the discovery rate for searches conducted prior to arrest. ↩︎
About this research
California’s Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, in partnership with researchers from the California Policy Lab, aims to make evidence-based recommendations for statutory reforms. This includes recommendations to simplify and rationalize the substance of criminal law and criminal procedures, establish alternatives to incarceration, and improve the state’s probation and parole systems.
Support for this research was generously provided by the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code. We also thank other supporters of the California Policy Lab, including, The James Irvine Foundation, and the Woven Foundation for their generous support. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders. All errors should be attributed to the authors.
The California Policy Lab generates research insights for government impact. We are an independent,
nonpartisan research institute at the University of California with sites in Berkeley, Los Angeles, and
Sacramento.
This research publication reflects the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of our funders, our staff, our advisory boards, the California Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code, the State of California Department of Justice, or the Regents of the University of California.
Suggested citation: Riesch, N., Raphael, S., (2026). Racial Disparities in Searches During Police Stops: Analysis of 2023 Racial Identity and Profiling Act Data. California Policy Lab, University of California. https://capolicylab.org/racial-disparities-in-searches-during-police-stops-analysis-of-2023-racial-identity-and-profiling-act-data/