Bay Area
Report Reveals California Cops Explicit Bias against African Americans
While the data show that most people consent to a search when asked by an officer, research from the report reflects that this “consent” is not necessarily voluntary because of the inherent power inequality between a law enforcement officer and a member of the public.

By Stacy M. Brown | NNPA Newswire
A new report has revealed that California law enforcement officers searched, detained on the curb or in a patrol car, handcuffed, and removed from vehicles more individuals perceived as Black than individuals perceived as white, even though they stopped more than double the number of individuals perceived as white than individuals perceived as Black.
California’s Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board’s report gathered information from 18 law enforcement agencies.
The data revealed that officers stopped 2.9 million individuals in 2020. Most were African Americans and members of the LGBTQ community.
The agency said that the data included what officers “perceived” to be the race, ethnicity, gender, and disability status of people they stopped, even if the perception was different from how the person identified.
According to the data, authorities search African Americans 2.4 times more than whites and disproportionately more than other racial and ethnic groups.
It also found that individuals officers perceived as transgender women were 2.5 times more likely to be searched than women who appeared cisgender.
Data for the report came from the state’s most important law enforcement agencies, like the California Highway Patrol.
However, the highway patrol didn’t include data analyzing stops based on gender identity.
All agencies must report the data in 2023.
“The data in this report will be used by our profession to evaluate our practices as we continue to strive for police services that are aligned with our communities’ expectations of service,” Chief David Swing, co-chair of the Board and past president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said in a statement.
The report further showed that Black and Hispanic individuals were more likely to have force used against them compared to white individuals, while Asian and other individuals were less likely.
Specifically, the odds of having force used during a stop were 1.32 times and 1.16 times as high for Black and Hispanic individuals, respectively.
Asian and other individuals whom officers stopped had lower odds of having force used against them (0.80 and 0.82, respectively) relative to the odds for those perceived as white.
Search discovery rate analyses showed that, when officers searched individuals, all races, or ethnic groups of color, except for Asian and Middle Eastern/South Asian individuals, had higher search rates despite having lower rates of discovering contraband than individuals perceived as white.
Furthermore, a search and discovery rate analysis show that officers searched people perceived to have a mental health disability 4.8 times more often and people perceived to have other types of disabilities 2.7 times more often than people perceived to have no disability.
Still, they discovered contraband or evidence at a lower rate during stops and searches of people with disabilities.
Officers used force against individuals perceived to have mental health disabilities at 5.2 times the rate at which they used force against individuals they perceived to have no disabilities.
The data show that Black and Hispanic/Latinx individuals are asked for consent to search at higher rates than white individuals.
Officers searched Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and multiracial individuals at higher rates for consent-only searches than all other racial/ethnic groups.
These consent-only searches resulted in lower rates of discovery of contraband (8.5%, 11.3%, and 13.0%, respectively) than searches of all other racial and ethnic groups.
The reason for the stop was a traffic violation in more than half of the stops where officers conducted a consent-only search (consent being the only reason for the search) of Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and Middle Eastern/South Asian individuals.
On the other hand, less than 30% of the consent-only searches of white people happened during traffic stops.
The people who wrote the report said that searches based on consent alone lead to fewer discoveries than searches based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
With consent-only searches, the rate of finding something was 9.2 percentage points lower for Black people than for white people.
“Given the disparities in the data on consent searches, the board questions whether consent searches are truly voluntary,” the authors wrote.
While the data show that most people consent to a search when asked by an officer, research from the report reflects that this “consent” is not necessarily voluntary because of the inherent power inequality between a law enforcement officer and a member of the public.
The research shows that this natural power imbalance is evident in vulnerable groups, such as people with mental health problems or young people, who may be more likely to give in to authority.
“Indeed,” the authors wrote, “RIPA data reflects that for both people with mental health disabilities and youth, a larger proportion of their stops that began as consensual encounters resulted in searches, as compared to people without mental health disabilities or adults.”
Board members said they carefully looked at the data about people who were stopped and searched because of their status as people under supervision.
The Board’s analyses reveal significant disparities that warrant further examination of law enforcement practices.
For example, officers performed supervision-only searches – where supervision status is the only basis for the search – of individuals perceived as Black at 2.8 times the rate at which they performed supervision-only searches of individuals they perceived as white.
Similarly, officers also performed supervision plus searches – where the officer had some other basis to search the person – of Black individuals at 3.3 times the rate they performed supervision plus searches of white individuals.
The rates of discovering contraband for supervision-only searches were lower for all racial/ethnic groups than white individuals; Black individuals had the most considerable difference in their discovery rate (-11.4 percentage points) compared to whites.
Officers also reported a higher proportion of supervision-only searches during stops for traffic violations (46.9%) than during reasonable suspicion stops (24.6%).
“These were just a few of the many disparities discussed in the report,” board members noted.
“Given the large disparities observed, the Board reviewed efforts by various law enforcement agencies to limit inquiries into supervision status as well as stops and searches on the basis of supervision status.
“The RIPA data further indicates that the practice of conducting supervision-only searches shows racial disparities that result in low yield rates of contraband or evidence.”
Activism
Juneteenth: Celebrating Our History, Honoring Our Shared Spaces
It’s been empowering to watch Juneteenth blossom into a widely celebrated holiday, filled with vibrant outdoor events like cookouts, festivals, parades, and more. It’s inspiring to see the community embrace our history—showing up in droves to celebrate freedom, a freedom delayed for some enslaved Americans more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed.

By Wayne Wilson, Public Affairs Campaign Manager, Caltrans
Juneteenth marks an important moment in our shared history—a time to reflect on the legacy of our ancestors who, even in the face of injustice, chose freedom, unity, and community over fear, anger, and hopelessness. We honor their resilience and the paths they paved so future generations can continue to walk with pride.
It’s been empowering to watch Juneteenth blossom into a widely celebrated holiday, filled with vibrant outdoor events like cookouts, festivals, parades, and more. It’s inspiring to see the community embrace our history—showing up in droves to celebrate freedom, a freedom delayed for some enslaved Americans more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed.
As we head into the weekend full of festivities and summer celebrations, I want to offer a friendly reminder about who is not invited to the cookout: litter.
At Clean California, we believe the places where we gather—parks, parade routes, street corners, and church lots—should reflect the pride and beauty of the people who fill them. Our mission is to restore and beautify public spaces, transforming areas impacted by trash and neglect into spaces that reflect the strength and spirit of the communities who use them.
Too often, after the music fades and the grills cool, our public spaces are left littered with trash. Just as our ancestors took pride in their communities, we honor their legacy when we clean up after ourselves, teach our children to do the same, and care for our shared spaces.
Small acts can inspire big change. Since 2021, Clean California and its partners have collected and removed over 2.9 million cubic yards of litter. We did this by partnering with local nonprofits and community organizations to organize grassroots cleanup events and beautification projects across California.
Now, we invite all California communities to continue the incredible momentum and take the pledge toward building a cleaner community through our Clean California Community Designation Program. This recognizes cities and neighborhoods committed to long-term cleanliness and civic pride.
This Juneteenth, let’s not only celebrate our history—but also contribute to its legacy. By picking up after ourselves and by leaving no litter behind after celebrations, we have an opportunity to honor our past and shape a cleaner, safer, more vibrant future.
Visit CleanCA.com to learn more about Clean California.
Activism
OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook
As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.
Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.
Our community is hurting. Things have to change.
The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.
Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.
I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.
SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.
For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.
This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.
This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.
Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.
Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.
About the Author
Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.
Activism
The Case Against Probate: False Ruling Invalidates Black Professor’s Estate Plan, Ignoring 28-Year Relationship
Zakiya Folami Jendayi, beneficiary of Head’s estate, states that “The errors, ranging from misstatements of fact, omissions of critical evidence, and reliance on false arguments and testimony, formed the basis of Judge Sandra K. Bean’s ruling against me, Dr. Head’s previous student, mentee, sorority sister and long-time friend,and despite the fact that I was her chosen, power of attorney, Advanced Healthcare Directive agent, trustee, executor and sole beneficiary.”

By Tanya Dennis
Part 5
In a shocking miscarriage of justice, a California probate judge issued a Statement of Decision on March 28 riddled with numerous documented errors that invalidated the estate plan of esteemed Black Studies professor Dr. Laura Dean Head.
The ruling from the Alameda County Superior Court’s probate division in Berkeley has sparked outrage from advocates for probate reform, community members and civil rights activists, who say the decision reflects deep flaws in the probate system, blatant disregard for due process, and the wishes of the ancestors. Judge Sandra Bean’s ruling reflects a repeated outcome seen in Black and Brown communities.
Zakiya Folami Jendayi, beneficiary of Head’s estate, states that “The errors, ranging from misstatements of fact, omissions of critical evidence, and reliance on false arguments and testimony, formed the basis of Judge Sandra K. Bean’s ruling against me, Dr. Head’s previous student, mentee, sorority sister and long-time friend,and despite the fact that I was her chosen, power of attorney, Advanced Healthcare Directive agent, trustee, executor and sole beneficiary.”
Reading court transcripts, the most egregious violations according to Jendayi reveal a pivotal point in the ruling that rested on a letter from Dr. Stephan Sarafian of Kaiser Permanente, who misidentified Dr. Head as male, misstated the day, month, and year, and asserted Head lacked capacity.
Under cross-examination, he reversed his opinion and admitted under oath that he never conducted a mental evaluation, did not diagnose Dr. Head with incapacity, did not write the letter, and stated he merely signed it “in case it was needed in the future.”
Despite Sarafian’s perjury, on Oct. 17, 2024, the California Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision that relied on Sarafian’s discredited letter to invalidate Dr. Head’s estate plan, ignored Jendayi’s requests to impeach his testimony and dismiss Sarafian’s testimony and letter that both the Kaiser Grievance Department and the Medical Board of California denounced.
In her ruling, Judge Bean agreed with the false argument by attorney Leahy, which alleged that Jendayi provided the names of the beneficiaries to Head’s estate attorney, Elaine Lee. Bean made this decision despite Lee’s sworn testimony that Dr. Head had met with her alone, behind closed doors, and made the independent decision to leave her estate to Jendayi.
According to court records, Judge Bean reversed the burden of proof in the undue influence claim before any of Jendayi’s witnesses testified, forcing Jendayi to disprove allegations that were never substantiated by witnesses or records.
Bean ruled: “Respondent took Dr. Head to her apartment where she assumed complete control of Dr. Head’s day-to-day care, medical care, and all aspects of her life.” Jendayi proved that statement was false.
Bean also ruled that Respondent controlled Dr. Head’s necessities of life, food, and hospice care, despite zero testimony or documentation supporting any of those claims.
The court reduced Jendayi’s role to “a friend who, at best, cared for Dr. Head during the final two months,” totally ignoring 28 years of friendship, testimony, evidence, letters of recommendation, emails, and medical records.
Exhibits confirming Dr. Head’s intent and capacity, including the discredited medical letter, Exhibit 90, were omitted or misrepresented in the judge’s final decision.
Jendayi says, “The injustice within the probate justice system is devastating, traumatizing and financially depleting. It’s nothing short of legalized crime!”
Jendayi is now appealing to the Supreme Court of the U.S. with a petition citing denial of due process, judicial misconduct, and systemic bias in probate courts.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress2 weeks ago
It Just Got Even Better 2026 Toyota RAV4 AWD GR Sport Walkaround
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 28 – June 30, 2025
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Remembering George Floyd
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Hate and Chaos Rise in Trump’s America
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
House GOP Passes Budget Bill That Prompts Largest Cuts to Health Care in History
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
WATCH: Five Years After George Floyd: Full Panel Discussion | Tracey’s Keepin’ It Real | Live Podcast Event
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
OP-ED: Oregon Bill Threatens the Future of Black Owned Newspapers and Community Journalism