“Driving While Black”: How Racial Bias Shapes Traffic Stops in America

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The phrase “Driving While Black,” or DWB, is a sardonic play on the criminal offense of “Driving While Intoxicated.” It captures a specific and painful American experience: being pulled over by law enforcement not for a legitimate traffic violation, but because of racial bias.

The open road is a powerful symbol of American liberty and mobility, but for millions of Black Americans, it can be a space of heightened scrutiny, anxiety, and danger.

In This Article

The term “Driving While Black” refers to the experience of Black Americans being stopped by police not for clear safety reasons but due to racial bias. The article traces how pretextual traffic stops grew from a 1996 Supreme Court ruling (Whren v. United States) that allows officers to justify stops based on any observable violation, even if bias motivates the stop.

Data from national sources shows consistent racial disparities: Black drivers are stopped, searched, and arrested at higher rates than white drivers, and searches of Black and Hispanic drivers often require lower levels of suspicion yet yield contraband less often. These disparities reflect systemic patterns, not isolated incidents.

Beyond statistics, biased stops inflict psychological trauma, erosion of trust in law enforcement, and broader public-health and community harms. The article also highlights policy reforms in some cities and states that limit stops for minor infractions to reduce bias and improve policing outcomes.

So What?

Traffic enforcement that is not race-neutral undermines fairness, community trust, and effective policing. Recognizing these patterns helps drivers understand their rights, informs policy debates on reducing disparities, and supports reforms focused on genuine safety rather than pretextual stops.

A History of Unequal Travel

The struggle for Black Americans to move freely and safely across the country is not a new development born of the automotive age. The anxieties associated with “Driving While Black” are a direct successor to older, more explicit forms of racial control over mobility that have existed for centuries.

The fear of being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a constant thread in American history, and the evolution from sundown towns to pretextual traffic stops reveals a shift in tactics, not intent.

The Perilous Road and the “Sundown Town”

Long before the phrase DWB entered the lexicon, the danger of travel for Black Americans was codified in the geography of fear created by “sundown towns.” These were all-white communities, primarily in the Midwest and West, that systematically excluded Black people and other minorities after dark through a combination of discriminatory laws, harassment, and violence.

Between 1890 and 1960, historians estimate there were as many as 10,000 such towns across the United States.

The name originated from the explicit warnings—sometimes posted on signs at the city limits—that non-white individuals were required to leave by sunset. A sign in Alix, Arkansas, in the 1930s bluntly read, “N—-r, Don’t Let the Sun Go Down On You In Alix.” Others simply stated, “Whites Only After Dark.”

Enforcement of these racial restrictions was brutal and multifaceted. In some towns, discriminatory housing covenants made it impossible for Black families to purchase or rent property. In others, local law enforcement would harass any Black person found within city limits after dark, while white residents formed vigilante groups to enforce the unwritten rules.

The threat of violence was ever-present and often realized. Black individuals who lingered too long faced beatings, their property was destroyed, and in the most extreme cases, they were lynched. The 1930 lynching of two Black teenagers in Marion, Indiana, for example, led the town’s entire Black population of 200 residents to flee, never to return.

This landscape of terror made long-distance travel exceptionally perilous. In the 1930s, 44 of the 89 counties along the iconic Route 66 between Chicago and Los Angeles were effectively sundown towns, prohibiting Black travelers from entering after dark and offering no accommodations.

Even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, some of these towns continued their exclusionary practices for years, forcing Black travelers to navigate a dangerous and humiliating patchwork of safe and unsafe territories. The legacy of these towns persists; many remain overwhelmingly white, and the historical culture of exclusion can manifest today in the form of discriminatory policing and a continued sense of unwelcomeness for Black visitors and residents.

A Tool for Survival: The Negro Motorist Green Book

The rise of the automobile in the early 20th century promised a new era of personal freedom and mobility. For Black Americans, it offered a potential escape from the indignities of segregated public transportation, where they were relegated to separate and unequal “Jim Crow cars.”

As writer George Schuyler noted in 1930, “all Negroes who can do so purchase an automobile as soon as possible in order to be free of discomfort, discrimination, segregation and insult.”

However, this new technology quickly collided with the old systems of racial control. The car, a symbol of freedom, became a vessel of vulnerability when passing through hostile territories. Black motorists were routinely denied service at white-owned hotels, restaurants, and gas stations. The constant threat of sundown towns meant that a wrong turn or a car breakdown could have life-threatening consequences.

In response to this reality, a New York City postal worker named Victor Hugo Green developed a revolutionary tool for survival. Inspired by similar guides published for Jewish travelers, Green created The Negro Motorist Green Book in 1936.

The guide’s purpose was simple but profound: “to give the Negro traveler information that will keep him from running into difficulties, embarrassments and to make his trip more enjoyable.”

The Green Book became an indispensable resource, often called “the bible of black travel during Jim Crow.” It listed businesses—hotels, tourist homes, restaurants, barber shops, service stations—that were known to be safe and welcoming to Black patrons.

The first edition focused on the New York area, but by gathering information from fellow postal carriers and its own readers, the guide quickly expanded to cover the entire country and eventually parts of Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Its motto, printed on the cover, served as both advice and a stark reminder of the dangers of the road: “Carry your Green Book with you—You may need it.”

The Green Book was more than just a travel guide; it was a manifestation of a parallel Black economy and a network of resistance built on shared information and mutual support. It empowered Black Americans to travel with a greater degree of safety and dignity, and it supported the growth of Black-owned businesses that formed safe havens along the nation’s highways.

The guide ceased publication in 1966, two years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed the widespread public discrimination that had made it so necessary. Its existence stands as a powerful testament to the fact that the fight against unequal mobility has always required proactive, community-based solutions.

How a Court Case Opened the Door for Pretextual Stops

The modern phenomenon of “Driving While Black” is not merely the result of individual officers’ biases; it is enabled and protected by a specific legal framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Constitution offers protection against arbitrary government intrusion, a key court decision in the 1990s created a loophole that has allowed racially motivated traffic stops to flourish under the guise of routine law enforcement.

The Fourth Amendment and the Traffic Stop

The foundation of this issue lies in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The Supreme Court has made it clear that when a police officer pulls over a vehicle and detains its occupants, even for a brief period, it constitutes a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.

For such a seizure to be constitutionally “reasonable,” an officer must generally have a justification. The legal standards are “reasonable suspicion” or the higher standard of “probable cause” to believe that a traffic violation or some other criminal activity has occurred.

This legal requirement is meant to balance the government’s interest in public safety against an individual’s fundamental right to be free from unwarranted police interference. However, a landmark Supreme Court case dramatically altered this balance, making it far easier for officers to justify stops based on the thinnest of reasons.

Whren v. United States: The Pretext Stop Becomes Law

The legal landscape of traffic stops was fundamentally reshaped by the 1996 Supreme Court case Whren v. United States. The case began when plainclothes vice squad officers patrolling a “high drug area” in Washington, D.C., noticed a truck with two young Black men, Michael Whren and James Brown, stopped at an intersection for what they deemed an “unusually long time.”

The officers watched as the truck then turned without signaling and sped away at an “unreasonable speed.” The officers pulled the vehicle over, citing the traffic violations. As they approached the truck, one officer observed plastic bags of what appeared to be crack cocaine in Whren’s hands. The men were arrested and subsequently convicted on federal drug charges.

At trial, the defendants’ lawyers argued that the stop was unconstitutional. They contended that the minor traffic infractions were merely a pretext for the officers’ true motive: to investigate a hunch about drug dealing that was based on the men’s race and their presence in a particular neighborhood.

The defense argued that the Fourth Amendment test should be whether a reasonable officer would have made the stop for the minor traffic violation alone, absent any other motive.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, firmly rejected this argument. The Court ruled that as long as police have an objective basis for a stop—in this case, probable cause to believe a traffic law was violated—the stop is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.

The subjective intentions or motivations of the officer are legally irrelevant. In other words, it did not matter what the officers were thinking or why they truly decided to make the stop, as long as they could point to an actual, observable traffic infraction, however minor.

The impact of the Whren decision was immediate and profound. It effectively gave a constitutional green light to “pretextual stops.” Because state and local traffic codes are incredibly vast and detailed, almost every driver commits a minor, technical violation at some point.

The Whren ruling provides police with enormous discretion to stop nearly any vehicle they wish, using a trivial infraction like a broken license plate light or a failure to signal a lane change perfectly as the legal justification for a stop that may be motivated by a hunch, a stereotype, or outright racial bias.

This created a critical legal paradox. The Court acknowledged in its opinion that selective enforcement of the law based on race would violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. However, by making an officer’s motive irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis of the stop itself, the ruling made it nearly impossible for a defendant to challenge a single stop on the grounds of racial bias.

To prove an Equal Protection violation, a defendant would need to demonstrate a department-wide pattern of discrimination, an extraordinarily high bar for an individual fighting a traffic ticket or a subsequent criminal charge.

Whren thus created a system where racial profiling is unconstitutional in theory but is effectively shielded from legal challenge in the very context where it most often occurs, allowing the practice to persist with the full backing of a Supreme Court precedent.

The Data Doesn’t Lie

While anecdotal accounts of “Driving While Black” have been shared for generations, a massive and growing body of statistical evidence now confirms that racial disparities in traffic enforcement are a systemic, nationwide problem.

On a typical day in the United States, police conduct more than 50,000 traffic stops, making it one of the most common ways Americans interact with law enforcement. Analysis of millions of these stops reveals clear and persistent patterns of unequal treatment.

The National Picture

Data from the federal government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) provides a high-level view of these disparities. The BJS’s Police-Public Contact Survey, a recurring national survey, consistently shows that Black and Hispanic drivers face different outcomes than their white counterparts.

According to the most recent available data from 2022, Black drivers are stopped at disproportionately high rates. After being stopped, the disparities become even more stark. In 2022, 9% of Black drivers who were pulled over were subsequently searched or arrested.

This rate was more than double the rate for white drivers (3%) and Hispanic drivers (4%). This disparity in search and arrest rates for Black drivers actually worsened from 2020, when the rate was 6%.

Data from 2020 also highlights differences in how officers use their discretion. In that year, white drivers were significantly more likely to be let go with only a warning (47%) compared to Black (34%) and Hispanic (36%) drivers. This suggests that when discretion is exercised, it tends to benefit white drivers more often.

A particularly telling statistic from the 2020 data is the outcome of “no enforcement action.” Black drivers were the group most likely to be stopped and then let go with no ticket, no warning, and no arrest (15% of stops).

While this may seem like a positive outcome, it serves as powerful evidence of pretextual stops. A stop for a legitimate traffic safety issue would typically result in at least a warning to correct the behavior. A stop that results in no enforcement action at all strongly suggests its purpose was not traffic enforcement but a “fishing expedition,” an attempt to investigate the driver for other potential crimes.

When that investigation turns up nothing, the driver is released, but the intrusion, the questioning, and the potential for escalation have already occurred. This data point is the statistical fingerprint of the pretextual stop in action.

Traffic Stop Outcomes by Race (2022)

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Police-Public Contact Survey, 2022

The Stanford Open Policing Project

To move beyond national averages, the Stanford Open Policing Project has conducted the largest-ever analysis of traffic stop data, collecting and standardizing over 200 million records from dozens of state and local police departments across the country. Their research has produced some of the most compelling evidence of bias in policing.

One of the project’s most innovative analyses is the “veil of darkness” test. Researchers hypothesized that if racial bias influences an officer’s decision to make a stop, then this bias should be less of a factor when it is harder to see the driver’s race.

By analyzing stop data by time of day, they found exactly that: the racial disparity in traffic stops, particularly for Black drivers, is significantly lower after sunset when the “veil of darkness” masks the driver’s race. This finding strongly suggests that when race is less visible, discretionary stops of Black drivers decrease.

The Stanford team also developed a sophisticated method called the “threshold test” to determine if officers apply a double standard when deciding to search a vehicle. A common defense of higher search rates for minority drivers is that these groups are more likely to be carrying contraband. However, data consistently refute this.

Studies in Maryland, Los Angeles, and Illinois have shown that searches of Black and Hispanic drivers are less likely to turn up contraband than searches of white drivers.

The threshold test goes a step further by inferring the level of suspicion an officer requires before conducting a search. Across nearly every jurisdiction studied, the results were clear: police require a lower standard of evidence to justify searching Black and Hispanic drivers than they do to search white drivers.

This is direct statistical evidence of discrimination—a double standard applied at the roadside that cannot be explained by differences in driver behavior.

Search Disparities vs. Contraband “Hit Rates”

The data presents an undeniable picture. Racial disparities are not isolated incidents but a systemic feature of traffic enforcement in the United States. The evidence shows that drivers of color are not only stopped more frequently but are subjected to a lower standard of suspicion for intrusive actions like searches, all without a corresponding increase in the discovery of crime.

The Human Toll

The consequences of “Driving While Black” extend far beyond statistics and legal arguments. The practice inflicts deep and lasting harm on individuals, families, and entire communities, creating a cycle of trauma and distrust that damages the very fabric of society. It is a public health crisis that carries profound psychological, social, and physical costs.

Psychological and Emotional Harm

For those who experience it, being targeted by racial profiling is not a mere inconvenience; it is a deeply humiliating and traumatic event. Victims describe feelings of fear, powerlessness, and degradation that can linger for years.

The American Psychological Association has noted that the effects of racial profiling can include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and other stress-related conditions.

The impact on children and youth is particularly devastating. When a child witnesses a parent being stopped and questioned in what feels like a hostile manner, or when they are profiled themselves, it can shatter their sense of safety and self-worth.

One mother told the Ontario Human Rights Commission, “My children have been deeply affected, their morale has been tampered with and their emotional well-being has been destroyed.” This early exposure to perceived injustice can crush aspirations and shape a child’s worldview.

Another parent recounted how their son, who had dreamed of being a police officer since he was four, declared he would never be one after his experiences with profiling. These encounters teach a painful lesson: that no matter your character or achievements, your skin color can make you a suspect.

Eroding Trust and Undermining Public Safety

Racial profiling has a “corrosive effect on the legitimacy of the entire justice system.” When a community feels that law enforcement is a source of harassment rather than protection, the fundamental bond of trust is broken. This is not an abstract problem; it has severe practical consequences that make everyone less safe.

Communities that distrust the police are less likely to cooperate with them. People become hesitant to report crimes, come forward as witnesses, or provide information crucial to solving cases. This breakdown in communication cripples effective policing, which relies heavily on community engagement and partnership.

This dynamic creates a destructive feedback loop. When police lose the trust and cooperation of a community, they may resort to more aggressive, proactive tactics—like pretextual stops—to “find” crime instead of relying on community-based intelligence.

These tactics, in turn, generate more negative encounters, further deepening the community’s distrust and reinforcing the cycle. In this way, racial profiling not only fails as a law enforcement strategy but actively undermines the conditions necessary for better, more effective policing to succeed.

The issue was addressed by F.B.I. Director James Comey in a 2020 statement that said, “We simply must find a way to see each other more clearly … But we must double the efforts to fight prejudice.”

Comey also acknowledged that law-enforcement officers operate in environments where racial bias and cynicism creep in, and that “unconscious racial bias” is something that all of us, including law-enforcement, must confront.

A Public Health Crisis

The impact of racial profiling must also be understood as a public health issue. The chronic stress of living with the constant threat of discrimination and unfair treatment is linked to a host of negative physical health outcomes, including hypertension and other long-term illnesses.

The most tragic cost, however, is the risk of physical violence and death. A routine traffic stop is a situation of immense power imbalance that can escalate in moments. For Black Americans, who are disproportionately subjected to these stops, the risk is magnified.

Data shows that Black Americans are killed by police at a much higher rate than white Americans, and many of these fatal encounters begin as traffic stops. The deaths of Sandra Bland and Philando Castile, both of whom died after being pulled over while driving, brought national attention to the life-or-death stakes of “Driving While Black.”

These are not benign interactions; according to the U.S. Department of Justice, officer-initiated traffic stops are the most common proactive policing activity that precedes a civilian fatality.

Ultimately, racial profiling functions as a form of civic disenfranchisement. It alienates citizens from a core government institution and erodes their sense of belonging and equal protection under the law. This damage extends beyond the individual to the health of the entire community and the nation’s democratic principles.

The Road to Reform

In response to the overwhelming evidence of racial disparities and the profound harm caused by pretextual stops, a growing reform movement is gaining momentum across the country. Led by community advocates, policy experts, and some law enforcement leaders, this movement is not aimed at hindering police work but at making it more effective, equitable, and focused on genuine public safety threats.

The Core Idea: Focusing on Safety, Not Pretext

The central strategy of this reform movement is to end or severely limit the ability of police to conduct traffic stops for minor, non-safety-related infractions. These are the types of violations—such as a single broken taillight, an air freshener hanging from a rearview mirror, or a registration sticker that is expired by a few days, that pose no immediate danger to public safety but are frequently used as a pretext to stop a vehicle and investigate the driver for other reasons.

Organizations like the Vera Institute of Justice and the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) have been at the forefront of this effort. They argue that these pretextual stops are not only a primary driver of racial disparities but are also an inefficient and ineffective use of police resources.

CPE, for example, uses data analysis to show police departments that focusing on serious moving violations is a better strategy for improving traffic safety and that pretextual stops rarely lead to the discovery of serious crime.

By eliminating these “fishing expeditions,” police can dedicate their time and resources to addressing actual threats, thereby improving both safety and community relations. This reframes the debate from a simple “pro-police versus anti-police” conflict to a data-driven discussion about effective versus ineffective policing strategies.

Reform in Action

A number of cities and states have already implemented these reforms, providing real-world evidence of their impact.

Fayetteville, North Carolina: In what is considered a pioneering experiment, Fayetteville’s police chief from 2013 to 2016 directed his officers to de-prioritize stops for minor infractions and focus instead on dangerous driving behaviors like speeding, reckless driving, and DUIs.

The results were remarkable: racial disparities in traffic stops decreased, traffic fatalities and crashes went down, and citizen complaints against officers fell, all with no corresponding increase in other types of crime.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: In 2021, Philadelphia enacted the “Driving Equality Law,” which explicitly prohibits police from making stops based solely on a list of low-level vehicle code violations. In the year after the law took effect, stops for these minor infractions plummeted.

While police made 70% fewer stops overall, they actually recovered more guns from the stops they did make, suggesting that their enforcement became more targeted and effective. Furthermore, stops of the type banned by the ordinance involving Black drivers fell by 54%.

Other Jurisdictions: Following these examples, a wave of reform has spread across the country. The states of Virginia and Oregon have passed statewide laws limiting pretextual stops. Cities including Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Ann Arbor have implemented similar policies through local ordinances or changes in department procedure.

This reform can also be driven by other actors in the justice system; some prosecutors have announced they will no longer pursue cases that originate from non-safety-related stops, and state courts in Massachusetts and Washington have made it easier for defendants to challenge stops on the basis of racial bias.

Banned Pretextual Stops in Philadelphia, PA

Under the city’s Driving Equality Law, Philadelphia police officers may no longer use the following minor vehicle code violations as the sole reason for a traffic stop:

These reforms demonstrate a viable path forward. By focusing law enforcement on what matters most for public safety and removing the legal justification for biased pretextual stops, jurisdictions can reduce racial disparities, build community trust, and make policing more effective for everyone.

Know Your Rights: A Practical Guide for Drivers

Knowing your constitutional rights during a traffic stop is essential, but understanding how to assert them safely is just as critical. The interaction between a citizen and a police officer is one of profound power imbalance, and for individuals who are more likely to be profiled, the primary goal is often to de-escalate the situation and survive the encounter without harm.

The following guidance, based on recommendations from the American Civil Liberties Union, is designed to help drivers navigate this complex situation.

During the Stop: What You Should DO

Stay Calm and Visible: As soon as you see police lights, pull over to a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the interior light (if it’s dark), and keep your hands on the steering wheel where the officer can see them.

Provide Your Documents: When the officer asks for your license, registration, and proof of insurance, you must provide them. To avoid sudden movements, it is wise to announce what you are doing, for example: “My registration is in the glove box. I am going to reach for it now.”

Ask if You Can Leave: You can and should ask the officer, “Am I free to go?” If the officer says yes, you should leave calmly and quietly. If the officer says no, you have a right to ask why you are being detained.

Sign the Ticket: If the officer issues you a ticket, you should sign it. Signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt; it is simply an acknowledgment that you received it. Refusing to sign can lead to your arrest in many jurisdictions.

Asserting Your Rights: What to Say

The Right to Remain Silent: The Fifth Amendment gives you the right to remain silent. You can invoke this right at any time by stating clearly and respectfully, “Officer, I want to remain silent.” You cannot be arrested or punished for refusing to answer questions about where you are going, where you are coming from, or what you are doing.

The Right to Refuse Searches: The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches. You do not have to consent to a search of your person or your car. If an officer asks to search, you should state clearly, “I do not consent to a search.”

The officer may still conduct a search if they claim to have probable cause, but it is crucial that you verbally state that you do not consent. This can be important for any legal challenges later. Do not physically resist the search, as this can lead to your arrest or worse.

Important Things to AVOID

DON’T Argue or Resist: Do not argue with the officer, raise your voice, or make any sudden movements. Do not physically resist a pat-down or search, even if you believe it is illegal. State your objection verbally but remain calm. The ACLU warns that while you have a constitutional right to disrespect an officer, doing so can easily lead to your arrest.

DON’T Lie: Do not lie or provide false documents to the police. It is better to remain silent than to lie.

DON’T Be Deceived: Remember that police officers are legally allowed to lie to you. They may claim they have evidence they don’t, or that a friend has already confessed, in order to get you to waive your rights or admit to something.

If You Are Arrested

Invoke Your Rights Immediately: The moment you are arrested, you should clearly state two things: “I want to remain silent” and “I want to talk to a lawyer.” Once you have asked for a lawyer, police should stop questioning you.

Say Nothing More: Do not give any explanations, tell your side of the story, or make any decisions about your case without your lawyer present. Assume that anything you say or do is being recorded.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.