Chicago Police Oversight Panel Member Criticizes Proposed Limits on Traffic Stops
As the civilian body overseeing the Chicago Police Department prepares to consider major limits to when and why the city’s cops can stop drivers, one member of the group is speaking out against the effort — and she’s not mincing words.
“I believe the entire argument for restrictions is built on a faulty premise,” said Sandra Wortham, one of seven members of the Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability (CCPSA).
The panel recently concluded a public comment period on traffic stop policy. But the group has already said that a majority of its members favor banning stops for a host of violations, including expired plates, broken lights, and loud sound systems. Wortham is squarely not in the majority.
So-called “pretextual stops” — when officers pull over a vehicle for a valid traffic violation while hoping to uncover evidence of other crimes, such as illegal gun possession — are legal under a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Supporters of limiting the practice point to data showing that Black and Latino drivers are disproportionately stopped by Chicago police.
But Wortham, an attorney and former CPD civilian director, who is also the daughter of a retired CPD sergeant and the sister of a slain Chicago police officer, is pushing back.
A Black woman who has lived in Black communities most of her life, Wortham says she wants policing to be fair and unbiased. But she criticizes proponents of the restrictions for focusing narrowly on racial disparities in traffic stops while remaining largely silent on racial disparities in violent crime — including the fact that Black Chicagoans make up the overwhelming majority of murder victims year after year.
Ultimately, Wortham says the solution to disparities is not to eliminate enforcement in communities that need it, but to ensure fair, consistent policing everywhere. She believes Chicago police should retain all legal tools available to keep residents safe.
Here is what she told us in her email:
To begin, I oppose restrictions on pretextual traffic stops because I believe the entire argument for restrictions is built on a faulty premise. The current Chicago Police Department draft traffic stop policy defines a Pretextual Traffic Stop as: a Traffic Stop where an officer uses Reasonable Articulable Suspicion or Probable Cause for a Traffic Stop to conduct the stop with the explicit intention to investigate another crime that is unrelated to the traffic law violation (including parking violation) or vehicle equipment or license compliance violation.
As such, to define a stop as pretextual with certainty, one must know the state of mind of the Officer conducting said stop. To that end, no one in this discussion can truthfully identify how many pretextual traffic stops the Chicago Police Department has conducted. That is because there is no current method of documentation to identify a CPD Officer’s state of mind when conducting a traffic stop. Despite the absence of this information, proponents for restrictions make the assumption that Officers conducting certain stops which the proponents deem to be “low level” must have made said stops in an effort to investigate for other crimes. That is a conclusion with insufficient supporting facts.
I do not support any restrictions on legal traffic stops. I believe traffic stops are one of many important tools necessary for Chicago Police Department members to perform their duties.
In addition, from a procedural perspective, I believe it is inappropriate for the CCPSA to interfere with the work properly in the province of the state legislature. If proponents for traffic stop restrictions believe certain stops are inappropriate or unnecessary, the proper approach would be to seek change before the appropriate legislative body. CCPSA is a non-elected, administrative body. I interpret our ordinance to charge us with ensuring CPD operates to its maximum professional capacity to ensure the safety of Chicagoans. I do not believe it is consistent with our ordinance to direct CPD not to enforce current law.
If CPD is subject to restrictions on traffic stops, it would place the Department on an operational island in that regard. I am unaware of any surrounding municipalities pursuing similar restrictions. So, in theory, if the proposed restrictions are enacted, a driver with one inoperable taillight couldn’t be stopped on the east side of 95th and Western in Chicago but could be stopped on the west side of the street in Evergreen Park. The absurdity of that scenario could be replicated in countless ways with our bordering municipalities and would lead to confusion and unnecessary conflict for drivers and law enforcement alike.
Further, while they are not the most public voices, I believe there are many Chicagoans who oppose restrictions to CPD’s ability to enforce current law. Those residents are entitled to the full service of their Police Department. They should not be deprived of said police service because a select constituency persuades a non-elected administrative body to do so.
Finally, I am unpersuaded by the argument highlighting racial disparities in traffic stops as a justification for restrictions. To this point, here I will note that I am a Black woman who has lived in Black communities in Chicago for my entire life with the exception of my time in college and law school. I certainly want policing to be implemented fairly and without bias. However, it is peculiar that proponents of traffic stop restrictions express alarm about disparities in traffic stops but seem silent on other racial disparities impacting Black Chicagoans.
Year after year Black Chicagoans over-index as victims of murder. (Per Chicago Police Department Annual Reports, 2021: 81%, 2022: 77%, 2023: 77%, 2024:74% )This is a disparity worth alarm. Yet, this crisis continues with apparent silence from the individuals/entities who cite their purported support of the Black community as the basis of their advocacy for traffic stop restrictions.
Even assuming the worst case cause for the racial disparities in traffic stops (and I am NOT assuming the worst case here), the solution to disparities in law enforcement is not to eliminate enforcement in communities that need it. Rather, the solution would be to create conditions that require fair enforcement in all communities.
If advocates truly care about the well being of Black Chicagoans, a thorough examination of all public safety issues would go a lot further than selectively eliminating lawful police actions.
I realize this is a complex, often emotionally charged issue. My focus is always on ensuring the safety of Chicagoans. Nothing matters if we are not safe. To ensure our safety, I believe we must provide the Chicago Police Department with the full complement of tools to serve our communities.
Original reporting you’ll see nowhere else, paid for by our readers. Click here to support our work.
