Stop the Stops: Ending Racially Biased and Ineffective LAPD Traffic Stops
In partnership with:
All Angelenos deserve safe communities where they can commute to work, school, and other places without fear of being stopped, searched, and harassed by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). For many Black and Latine residents, this vision is far from a reality.
This data brief shows that the LAPD continues to profile Black and Latine people through pretextual traffic stops after the LAPD adopted a weak policy to limit these stops in March 2022. A pretextual stop typically occurs when an officer uses a minor traffic violation as the reason to stop a person (i.e., pretext) when the officer’s underlying intention is to investigate for evidence of a more serious offense. Pretextual stops are often based on racially biased and inaccurate assumptions about the propensity of people of color to engage in criminal activity.
Pretextual stops inflict mental and emotional trauma, extract wealth through ticket fees and fines, and all too often result in physical harm through uses of force. These stops also have little to no bearing on traffic safety outcomes. In light of these problems, states and localities throughout the nation are banning pretextual stops.
This new research analyzes the LAPD’s officer-initiated traffic stops from the first quarter (Q1) of 2019 through the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2025, based on data collected and publicly reported pursuant to the Racial & Identity Profiling Act of 2015 (RIPA). A particular focus is placed on stops for minor traffic violations—specifically, stops for vehicle equipment violations, and administrative (or non-moving) violations—because officers often use them as the stated reason for pretextual stops. Data show that, despite the LAPD’s policy, pretextual stops persist at significant rates and remain a racially biased and ineffective safety strategy. To address this problem, the City of Los Angeles should ban pretextual stops.
Key Findings
1. The LAPD’s Continued Use of Pretextual Stops is Racially Biased
- Stops: Since the LAPD adopted its pretextual stop policy, Black people have continued to be significantly overrepresented in stops for minor traffic violations. For example, Black people accounted for 31% of stops for minor violations in 2025 while only comprising 8% of the city’s population. Latine people were also overrepresented—making up 58% of minor violation stops while accounting for 47% of the city’s population. White people were significantly underrepresented, accounting for only 8% of minor traffic stops in 2025 while comprising 28% of the city’s population.
- Searches: Since the LAPD adopted its policy, Latine people have been 1.2-4.4 times more likely than white people to be subjected to searches conducted based on the highest level of officer discretion (i.e., “consent” searches) during stops for minor violations. The rate for Black people has been 1-3.3 times greater than for white people.
2. The LAPD’s Use of Pretextual Stops is Ineffective
- Highest Discretion Searches: A key measure of efficacy for pretextual stops is how often evidence of a crime is discovered when a search occurs. During stops for minor traffic violations, consent searches are extremely ineffective—having a 91-97% failure rate since 2022. In addition, data show that Black and Latine people are often less likely than white people to be found in possession of contraband during these searches.
- Low Discretion Searches: Searches of people on probation or parole during stops for minor violations are similarly ineffective, with a failure rate of 91-96%.
Context
Since 2019, a broad cross-sector coalition, PUSH LA, has organized and advocated for Los Angeles to ban the Los Angeles Police Department’s use of pretextual stops, and for greater investments in equity and care-based traffic safety solutions. In June 2020, following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer and nationwide protests for police reform, Councilmembers Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Mike Bonin, Curren Price and Herb Wesson introduced a motion requiring the city to explore ending pretextual stops and shifting toward non-law enforcement alternatives to traffic safety.
From 2019 through early 2022, there was a considerable decrease across all officer-initiated stops by the LAPD that was likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s lockdown restrictions and the movement for police reform in the wake of George Floyd.
Based on PUSH LA’s efforts, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) created a task force to evaluate traffic safety alternatives from 2022 to 2023. This culminated in recommendations submitted to the city council in November 2023.1 The recommendations included, among other things:
- banning all stops for equipment and non-moving/administrative violations,
- implementing equity-based alternatives to traffic ticket fees and fines,
- improving street infrastructure to prevent traffic safety risks, and
- expanding unarmed care-based response.
In June 2024, the council directed several agencies—including the Chief Legislative Analyst’s office, the LADOT, and the LAPD—to assess the feasibility of implementing the task force’s recommendations and report back in 90 days. The feasibility study has been excessively delayed and, as of February 2026, remains only partially complete.
Amid those developments, on March 1, 2022, the LAPD adopted a policy titled Limitation on Use of Pretextual Stops. It provides that “officers should make stops for minor equipment violations or other infractions only when the officer believes that such a violation or infraction significantly interferes with public safety.” In addition, the policy allows pretextual stops to occur if an officer is “acting upon articulable information in addition to the traffic violation [used as the basis for the stop], which may or may not amount to reasonable suspicion regarding a serious crime . . . .”
Analysis
The analysis below is broken down into two main parts. First, data is evaluated to show that the LAPD continues to use pretextual stops even though it adopted a policy to limit them in 2022, and the LAPD’s use of pretextual stops is racially biased. Second, data is analyzed to show how the LAPD's use of pretextual stops is not only biased, but also ineffective.
The LAPD's continued use of pretextual stops is racially biased
Officer-initiated traffic stops generally fit within three categories: (1) stops for minor traffic violations (i.e., equipment and administrative issues like a broken taillight and outdated registration), (2) stops for moving traffic violations (e.g., speeding), and (3) stops based on other reasons (e.g., reasonable suspicion of a crime, or a warrant to arrest a person). The analysis below focuses on the first category—stops for minor traffic violations—because it is typically used for pretextual stops and is a focal point of LAPD’s policy.
The LAPD continues to use pretextual stops
The share of people stopped for minor traffic violations out of all officer-initiated stops has remained relatively constant since 2019 except for a momentary decrease immediately after the pretextual stop policy was adopted, from 20% in Q1 of 2022 to 13% in Q2 of 2022. Figures rebounded to 20% shortly thereafter.2 According to the LAPD, the temporary decrease was due to officers learning the new policy and other implementation factors. Since Q4 of 2022, the share of people stopped for minor traffic violations has hovered around 20%. In 2025, this equated to 53,986 people stopped for minor traffic violations.
Pretextual stops are extremely racially biased
Black and Latine people are overrepresented in stops for minor traffic violations annually. Between 2019-2025, Black people typically accounted for 27-32% of stops for minor traffic violations—a rate more than 3-4 times greater than their share of the city’s population, 8%. Latine people accounted for 49-59% of stops for minor traffic violations while comprising 47% of the population. In comparison, white people are significantly underrepresented, accounting for 8-13% of minor traffic stops while making up 28% of the population. The LAPD’s pretextual stop policy did not change racial disparities in these stops. Black and Latine people remain disproportionately impacted, and the LAPD has stopped a higher rate of Latine people for minor traffic violations since 2019.
From 2019 to 2025, parts of LA with higher concentrations of Black and Latine residents—including South LA, the San Fernando Valley, and Mid-City/West Adams—had higher rates (often 20% or more) of officer-initiated stops for minor traffic violations compared to other areas. Council District 9 consistently had the highest rate of stops for minor traffic violations. Conversely, District 11 had lower rates than most other districts since 2019.
In addition, Black and Latine Angelenos are far more likely to be searched than white people during stops for minor traffic violations. Since 2022, Black people have been 1.9-2.7 times more likely to be searched than white people during minor traffic stops. Latine people have been 1.4-2.2 times more likely to be searched than white people. While disparities narrowed in 2024, they never closed and have risen since.
The graph below shows how often Black and Latine people were searched during stops for minor traffic violations compared to the search rate of white people. In other words, compared to the search rate of white people in a particular year or quarter, how much more likely were Black or Latine people to be searched?
The LAPD’s reliance on pretextual stops is ineffective
A key measure of the effectiveness of pretextual stops is how often evidence of a crime is discovered when a search occurs, also known as the “discovery rate.” For example, a discovery rate of 20% means officers find evidence in two out of every 10 searches, and that eight out of 10 searches do not result in finding evidence. Different types of searches yield different discovery rates. In general, searches can be categorized into four types based on the level of discretion an officer has in determining whether to conduct a search3:
- Highest discretion: Searches conducted solely based on consent
- High discretion: Searches based on some combination of consent, officer safety, and/or suspected presence of weapons, but not falling into any other discretion category
- Low discretion: Searches done only based on the parole or probation status of the person stopped
- Lowest discretion: Searches done based on an arrest, vehicle inventory, and/or search warrant alone or in combination with other search bases
Searches based on the highest level of officer discretion (i.e., consent searches) are notoriously problematic because people subjected to them often do not truly consent to being searched. More specifically, it is not uncommon for officers to make misrepresentations about obtaining consent. For example, a 2020 review of consent searches by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to the LAPD Commission concluded as follows:
“[T]he OIG noted instances where consent from the subject of the search could not be heard, or where the consent was provided after at least one search had already been conducted by the officers. Additionally, a small number of these cases involved a search reported as being consensual where officers’ language may have been interpreted to mean that the search was not, in fact, voluntary.”
Furthermore, research shows that “in the context of a traffic stop, the power differential between an officer and the person being stopped is enormous ...,” such that “the line between ‘request’ and ‘command’ is often unclear, and most people feel compelled to comply. Factors like language barriers and disability may heighten the coercive nature of these encounters.”
Data show that during stops for minor traffic violations, searches conducted based on the highest level of officer discretion are extremely ineffective. Specifically, since 2022, the discovery rate for these searches has ranged between 3-9%. Stated differently, consent searches during stops for minor traffic violations had a 91-97% failure rate (i.e., no evidence of a crime was found). Beyond the context of law enforcement, a failure rate of more than nine out of 10 in nearly any government practice that purportedly aims to improve communities (e.g., public health, housing, or education) would lead to ending that practice or, at minimum, a substantial change.
Searches based on low officer discretion—i.e., searches of people on probation or parole—were the second least effective category. Since 2022, they have yielded a discovery rate of just 4-9% (i.e., a 91-96% failure rate). In addition to being ineffective, searches of people on probation or parole are extremely problematic. They often occur based on severe power imbalances, such as a person being forced to waive their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches as a condition of release from incarceration or as part of a plea bargain, which essentially creates a form of second-class citizenship.
The third least successful category was searches based on high officer discretion, which had a discovery rate of 8-22% (in other words, a 78-92% failure rate). Searches based on the lowest level of officer discretion had higher discovery rates of 41-55% since 2022. This was likely because they occurred in situations when there was a higher likelihood of a significant violation, beyond mere pretext. As noted above, these searches occurred because an arrest was being made, a car was being impounded, and/or there was a search warrant.
Lastly, the least effective search category—highest discretion or consent searches—was not only extremely ineffective but also racially biased. Specifically, Black and Latine people are often no more, and usually less, likely than white people to be found in possession of contraband during these searches, yet officers are far more likely to subject Black and Latine people to searches during stops for minor traffic violations.4 Since the pretextual stop policy, racial disparities in the occurrence of consent searches during minor traffic violations have persisted and these searches remain ineffective.
Recommendation
The City of Los Angeles Should Ban Pretextual Stops
In conclusion, data show that despite the LAPD’s adoption of a pretextual stop policy in 2022, the department continues to rely on minor traffic violations to disproportionately stop and search Black and Latine Angelenos. This practice is both racially biased and extremely ineffective because it occurs based on vehicle equipment and administrative issues that pose little to no risk to traffic safety and rarely result in the discovery of criminal evidence.
The City of Los Angeles should ban stops for all equipment and administrative (i.e., non-moving) violations. To the extent these stops occur, officers should not be allowed to conduct consent searches, nor searches based solely on a person’s probation or parole status.
For more comprehensive recommendations, please see the PUSH LA policy brief.
Footnotes
1 See Traffic Enforcement Alternatives Project Report, council file 20-0875, Nov. 30, 2023, p. 4.
2 Looking broadly at all officer-initiated stops also shows that stops have generally decreased since 2019 across all stop categories.
3 Variations of these four categories were used in prior reports by the Racial & Identity Profiling Act Advisory Board, and LAPD Police Commission Office of Inspector General. We do not include searches that were conducted based on a combination of highest, high, and low discretion reasons. This is similar to methods in prior reports.
4 See also OIG report.
Methodology
This analysis focuses on people stopped for minor traffic violations, given that officers often use these violations as the initial reason to start a pretextual stop. Stops for minor traffic violations are defined as officer-initiated stops originally made for an equipment or non-moving traffic violation. This analysis uses stops for minor traffic violations, and searches done during these stops, as a proxy for analyzing the pretextual stop policy’s effect. The policy advises that officers should make stops for minor equipment violations or other infractions only when the officer believes that the violation “significantly interferes with public safety." As such, one would expect a decline in minor equipment or non-moving violation stops and unnecessary searches during these stops following the policy. This approach differs from recently released reports from the chief legislative analyst and chief of police that also attempt to estimate the policy’s impact.
In April 2022, the LAPD began asking officers to identify whether a stop was pretextual. In report-backs to the Los Angeles City Council and the Board of Police Commissioners, the chief legislative analyst and the chief of police use this “pretext” stop field to assess the policy’s effect. The LAPD’s data documentation defines this field as “officers use reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a minor traffic or code violation to investigate another, more serious crime that is unrelated to that violation." The field is based on officer self-report of whether they made a stop for pretextual reasons. Given uncertainty in the accuracy of the data reported by officers and the lack of historical data before 2022, this analysis does not use the pretext stop field. Analyses estimating the policy’s effect should examine other stop characteristics and trends beyond those captured in the field to have a broader picture of the policy’s impact.
Acknowledgments
This report was produced in partnership with the PUSH LA coalition. Staff from Catalyst California also contributed as follows:
Research and Data Analysis
Elycia Mulholland Graves, Director, Research & Data Analysis
Jennifer Zhang, Manager of Research & Data Analysis
Leila Forouzan, Senior Manager of Research & Data Analysis
Alicia Vo, Research & Data Analyst
Hillary Khan, Data Architect Manager
Writing and Editing
Elycia Mulholland Graves, Director, Research & Data Analysis
Chauncee Smith, Associate Director, Reimagine Justice & Safety
Jennifer Zhang, Manager of Research & Data Analysis
Communications
Tessie Borden, Senior Communications Manager