Statewide — California’s Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board reviewed draft recommendations for its 2027 report Oct. 20, highlighting racial disparities in police stops, searches and force while debating the cost and reach of proposed reforms.

The board did not vote. Members asked Department of Justice staff to revise the draft before a Dec. 9 meeting, when they are scheduled to vote on the recommendations and report. The report is set for publication Jan. 29, 2027, according to the agenda and closing discussion.

The report, themed “The Past, Present and Future of RIPA,” examines 2025 stop data and trends over several years. DOJ research supervisor Eric Van Holm told the board that Black, Hispanic or Latiné, Middle Eastern, South Asian and Pacific Islander residents were stopped at rates above their share of California’s population.

Black residents accounted for 12.1% of reported stops in 2025 and 5.21% of the state population, based on 2024 census estimates, he said.

Pastor Wade Forde asked whether Black Californians were stopped at nearly triple their population share. Van Holm confirmed that interpretation.

He said the racial composition of stops has been “fairly stable year to year,” while the average number of actions per stop and the share ending in arrest have declined since 2022.

The board also heard about searches tied to consent and parole inquiries. DOJ’s preliminary analysis found consent-only searches were most common among Hispanic or Latiné and multiracial people.

Multiracial people were most likely to be asked about parole status during a search, at 16.31%, followed by Black people at 14.43%.

For Hispanic or Latiné people, 3.62% of searches involved both a parole-status inquiry and a consent-only search, the highest rate among groups.

Board member Lily Kahdjavi reported that Black people accounted for 41% of public-transit stops in 2025 data, compared with about 12% of statewide stops.

Fare evasion was a common reason for transit stops, and related searches were less likely to produce contraband or evidence than other searches, she said.

About 35,280 transit-related stops were identified; 94% were reported by the Los Angeles Police Department and Bay Area Rapid Transit police.

The stop-data subcommittee proposed that transit agencies evaluate ways to reduce or cease reliance on armed officers for fare enforcement, including reduced-fare, fare-free or other alternatives.

A second draft recommendation would have transit and law enforcement agencies limit discretionary searches during fare-enforcement stops.

Chief Rich Randolph questioned whether fare policy fell within the board’s role.

Board member Chauncee Smith said it was linked to documented racial disparities. Smith cited a Los Angeles Metro analysis showing fare-enforcement stops and citations cost more than the revenue they generated.

Member Ameena Mirza Qazi proposed adding “cease” to the recommendation on armed enforcement.

Members said local agencies should consider fiscal impacts and alternatives beyond fare reductions.

The board reviewed police training recommendations. Randolph, reporting for the POST subcommittee, said members want stronger guidance for field-training officers on cultural competency, procedural justice, implicit bias and racial identity profiling; more consistent evaluation tools; and clearer links between academy instruction and field training.

Members also discussed using body-camera footage to help trainees assess officer-community interactions.

Co-chair Angela Sierra asked staff to explain “evaluator calibration tools” in the report.

Accountability recommendations would have agencies audit internal affairs investigations of racial-profiling complaints, researchers develop an internal-audit framework and agencies pair internal audits with independent external oversight where such structures exist.

Randolph asked whether the proposal meant all 540 California law enforcement agencies should establish external oversight, citing cost and staffing.

DOJ said oversight varies by jurisdiction and suggested clarifying the language. Members also asked DOJ to add research on Senate Bill (SB) 2 complaint data in a future report.

The policy chapter prompted debate about technology and cost. Draft proposals include public comment before agencies expand automated license plate reader systems, audits of body-camera footage for language-related interactions, at least one year of footage retention with public and researcher access safeguards, and limits on using technology-assisted footage review to surveil civilians.

The draft exempts footage tied to criminal investigations and other legally required retention periods.

Members raised storage costs and potential overbreadth. They discussed narrowing footage audits to strategic or random samples and recasting a proposed retention mandate as a request for the Legislature to study feasibility and funding.

Members also supported tabling a proposal for real-time local RIPA analytics tools until they can assess DOJ’s planned public dashboard. Sierra said the dashboard could affect what additional tools agencies need.

A Pasadena resident urged the board to address surveillance technology. She said stationary license plate readers in Pasadena were concentrated in predominantly Black and Latino districts and called for stronger oversight.

“I’m not a believer that there is adequate regulation that can solve the underlying problems of ALPR,” she said, describing it as warrantless mass surveillance.

Members stressed that the draft does not endorse license plate reader use.

DOJ staff previewed a dashboard that will let users filter stop data by agency, year and perceived identity.

The available data spans 2018 through 2024, and staff said the dashboard could go live in 2026, depending on feedback.

Board members praised the tool and suggested downloadable charts or fact sheets.

In closing, members asked the report introduction to acknowledge progress and continuing disparities, and to address how emerging technologies and artificial intelligence may reshape profiling.

The board is expected to review revised chapters before its December vote.