Race,Space,and Being Policed

Conflict Perspectives on Race and Policing

Within criminology, it is critical criminology, which most consistently addresses issue of race and policing. Critical scholars assert that policing maintains the social and economic dominance of some groups at the expense of others, likely resulting in more negative views of police among neglected groups (Alpert & Dunham, 1992; Cashmore & McLaughlin, 1991; Turk, 1969). This model posits that dominant groups use state apparatuses to control subordinate groups that threaten their political and/or economic interests (Blalock, 1967; Turk, 1969). Although majority group members historically received the service they desire, for those with little or no access to political or economic power, police–citizen interaction has been characterized by underprotection and underenforcement in some ways (Barlow & Barlow, 2002; Kennedy 1997; Reiss & Bordua, 1967) and overpolicing in others (Bass, 2001a, 2001b; Blauner, 2001; Websdale, 2001).

Scholars in this area recognize the establishment of slave patrols during the late 17th century as the precursor to modern police forces (Bass 2001a; Rousey, 1996; Taylor Greene, 2000; Websdale, 2001; Williams & Murphy, 1990; Wood, 1984). Klockars (1985) submits that the patrol function and concept of police was first adopted and accepted by southern slave patrols. Hadden’s (2001) seminal work Slave Patrols documents how the system of law enforcement birthed in the new colonies expanded the traditions of the posse comitatus and hue and cry systems of early England along racial lines. According to this view, the institution of slavery necessitated the first system of White policing of Black populations within the United States (Hawkins & Thomas, 1991).

To ensure optimal efficiency of the slave system and to quell fears of slave insurrections, slave codes were policed and enforced by all segments of the White community. For example, legislation from South Carolina in 1690 illuminates early attempts to establish a police system by requiring “all persons, under penalty of forty shillings, to arrest and chastise any slave away from his home plantation without proper ticket” (Patterson, 1992, pp. 38–42, as cited in Websdale, 2001, p. 20). Lower populations of bondsmen and their geographic dispersion within the Virginia territory delayed the formal introduction of slave patrols, relying instead on independent slave catchers and constables to capture runaways. However, by 1680, the Virginia legislature required slaves to carry passes when away from the plantation, with a comprehensive slave code passed in 1705 modeled after earlier statues in Barbados and South Carolina (Hadden, 2001).

However, caution should be exercised when connecting historical patterns of racialized policing with contemporary police practices. As slave patrols served the function of private policing within certain contexts and led to the emergence of White supremacist organizations like the Klu Klux Klan, some scholars suggest our present system of law enforcement is more accurately based on police reforms within large northeastern cities (Miller, 1977; see also Hadden, 2001). Others contend that the first major reform of the traditional colonial system began in much earlier periods with the establishment of military-style police forces in cities in the deep south with large slave populations (Rousey, 1996; see also Alfers, 1976; Hindus, 1980; Marchiafava, 1977).

Through combined foot and mounted patrol, patrollers enforced codes that prevented enslaved Blacks from engaging in a variety of activities including congregating in public, leaving masters’ property without a pass, commerce, literacy, engaging in inappropriate conduct in the presence of a White female, making loud noises, weapon possession, defending oneself from assault, and to repress any perceived or real attacks upon the status quo (Hawkins & Thomas, 1991; Kennedy, 1997; Russell, 1998; Williams & Murphy, 1990). Despite informal beginnings, there is evidence that slave patrols evolved into an organized system with a hierarchical command structure (Grant & Terry, 2008; Wood, 1984). Designed to restrict every part of life including movement, leisure, and contract, the enforcement of slave codes via aggressive, racialized policing cemented an association between blackness and criminality (Jones-Brown, 2007; Kennedy, 1997; Websdale, 2001). Together slave codes created a system of deference that reinforced dichotomized notions a “purity and pollution” (Websdale, 2001, p. 20), ensuring legal and social distinctions between races for generations to come.

Legally sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), police officers were required to enforce Jim Crow laws and thus were naturally viewed by most African Americans as agents of a repressive social order (Brown & Benedict, 2002; Cashmore & McLaughlin, 1991; Decker, 1985; Hawkins & Thomas, 1991; Muhammad, 2010; Williams & Murphy, 1990). As described by Hawkins and Thomas (1991), for many Whites “white police in black communities provided the first line of defense against ‘the black hordes’ [while] to the black community, white policemen represented nothing less than a hostile occupation army” (p. 65). The authors contend that the perception of unpoliced Blacks, particularly in the South, has become an obsessive fear for many Whites dating back centuries. Hawkins and Thomas (1991) posit that this fear reinforces a policing syndrome, in which many Whites find it necessary to regulate the actions of others via personal policing or by eagerly requesting formal intervention. As evidenced by the literature, southern police structures having emerged from a tradition of slave patrols took on a distinctively aggressive and discriminatory character toward the policing of Black populations. These differential tactics are especially important to understand, as a new continuum of public and private space has surfaced in recent decades as characteristics such as level of access, land use, and interest served have brought fluidity and range to previously concrete concepts (Button, 2003; White & Sutton, 1995).

Race and Space

As differences in control over and use of space are important, the police have a key role to play in the regulation of public spaces. Critical criminologists argue that the character of a city is constructed and shaped by those who exert economic and political power, which in effect has major implications on the types of services and accommodations accessible to various segments of the population (Ferrell, 2001). Ferrell (2001) suggests “new strategies and techniques of regulation and control emerge in and around these spaces-techniques that involve the policing of public perception as much as the policing of populations” (p. 166). He outlines this process by suggesting conflicts over cultural space reinforce patterns of power and privilege in the promotion of spatial and cultural cleansing, whereby undesirable groups are removed from particular locations and situations. Ferrell (1997a) highlights how this agenda has been advanced across America’s cities citing city efforts to remove homeless populations from public sight in Phoenix, Arizona, and Atlanta’s efforts to “push the poor from the city center as a way to get conventioneers, tourists, and suburban white people to come downtown and spend their money” (p. 30).

Highlighting the nature of power and class in America, Brockett (2000) suggests African Americans as a whole do not comprise the class that the police would have an interest in protecting. Similarly, Blauner (1972) submits police are critical to maintaining the colonized status of African Americans. As “key agents in the power equation,” he states that police enforce “the culturally repressive aspects of [White Anglo-Saxon] middle-class American values against the distinctive ethnic orientations of Afro-Americans and other minority subcultures” (Blauner, 1972, pp. 98–99). Feagin (1991) in a study of discrimination in public places among middle-class African Americans found that the probability of discrimination increases, as Blacks move from intimate settings to the workplace to public streets. He posits that while middle-class status and organizational resources provide some protection from discrimination in many workplaces, this weakens as African Americans move to public accommodations such as large stores and city restaurants where contacts are mainly with strangers. He concludes that public streets afford Blacks the greatest public exposure to White strangers and the least protection against overt discriminatory behavior, including physical threats and harassment by police officers.

Feagin’s (1991) findings about differences in discrimination across type of space are important to keep in mind as we think about race, space, and policing. In addition to private spaces and public, the emergence of semi- or quasi-public spaces is noteworthy. Although legally privately owned, semipublic spaces such as shopping malls, industrial parks, residential communities, recreational domains, and the like are “common places in which daily life is carried out in public view” (von Hirsch & Shearing, 2000, p. 80). The rules that outline appropriate modes of conduct in semipublic spaces are often constrained by the ambiguity of these new collective zones leading to questions about the moral and legal status of such spaces. von Hirsch and Shearing (2000) note that in these newly created areas, “property owners under existing law have broad entitlements to exclude undesired entrants, with the authority of the state…making them also common to many but not all” (p. 80). As the streets of mainstream America provide the backdrop where inequalities of race, age, class, and power are publicly enforced (Bass, 2001a; Ferrell, 1997a), they are the sites to constant processes of social inclusion and exclusion. Similarly, Haywood (2012) highlights how increased urbanity “requires new scattered zones of safety and control, where otherness, irrationality and dissent are banished beyond boundaries of exclusion and distinction” (p.14).

Research on Race, Place, and Policing

Previous studies of race and experience with police have centered on the nature of police–citizen encounters. Routinely discussed within the context of citizen perceptions of or satisfaction with police, research generally assesses the impact of direct or indirect contact (Brunson, 2007; Feagin & Sikes, 1994; Jones-Brown, 2000b; Murty, Roebuck, & Smith, 1990; Rosenbaum et al., 2005; Scaglion & Condon, 1980; Weitzer & Tuch, 2002) and whether encounters are police or citizen initiated (i.e., voluntary or involuntary; see Brunson, 2007; Hawdon, Ryan, & Griffin, 2003; Jesilow, Meyer, & Namazzi, 1995; Walker, Richardson, Williams, McGaughry & Denyer, 1972; Weitzer, 2002). Although the causal order of citizen contact and opinions about police is not clear (Leiber, Nalla, & Farnworth, 1998), studies indicate contact perceived as positive improves perceptions of police while negative contact has the opposite effect be it direct or indirect (Browning et al., 1994; Feagin, 1991; Feagin & Sikes, 1994; Jones-Brown, 2000; Kaminski & Jefferis, 1998). Other studies suggest police-initiated contacts result in more negative attitudes about police than citizen-initiated encounters (Jesilow et al., 1995; Smith & Hawkins, 1973).

There is reason to think that type of policing varies by context. Given the proactive, aggressive policing tactics applied most often in high-crime, low-income distressed communities of color, residents in these environments are much more likely to experience police-initiated direct and indirect contact (Anderson, 1990; Brunson, 2007; Sampson & Jeglum-Bartusch, 1998). A preponderance of studies have documented disproportionate stop and frisk tactics used by police against minority males (Browning et al., 1994; Brunson & Miller, 2006; Gelman, Fagan, & Kiss, 2007; Fagan & Davies, 2000; Harris, 2002; Hurst et al., 2000; Kane, 2002; Kennedy, 1997; Moore, Lesser, & Smith, 2008; Rennison, 2001; Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993; Weitzer, 1999) with legal justification for these tactics provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in State v. Dean and People v. De Bour. Rennison (2001) reported Blacks and other racial minorities not only experience higher rates of victimization than Whites but that African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be searched, handcuffed, and arrested during traffic stops. Additional data released from the Department of Justice suggest African Americans and Hispanics are more often subject to the threat and actual use of force during police–citizen encounters.

Smith (1986), using observational data from 5,688 police–citizen contacts within 60 neighborhoods, across three metropolitan areas, found that police often behave differently in different neighborhood contexts. Offering support for the notion of ecological contamination and Blalock’s racial threat hypothesis, Smith found that police were more likely to use coercive authority in minority and racially mixed communities, which he suggests may reflect officer’s beliefs regarding the “kinds of people” who live in a particular environment (p. 338). However, his data also indicate that this was not attributable to the race of the individuals confronted by police but rather the racial composition of the area. He suggests all persons regardless of race or ethnicity were treated as suspects when encountered in bad areas. Still, one of the most identifiable correlates of bad areas has been denoted in the racial composition. Examining the effects of neighborhood racial composition on the perceptions of racially biased policing among 763 African American adolescents selected from 71 neighborhoods, Stewart, Baumer, Brunson, and Simons (2009) found that discrimination against Black youth by police most often occurred in predominantly White neighborhoods. Using multilevel data from two waves of the Family and Community Health Study (FACHS) from Georgia and Iowa, the authors concluded that higher levels of perceived racial discrimination by police were even more pronounced in White areas that experience recent growth in the size of their Black population and in neighborhoods with higher levels of affluence and higher rates of violence.

In effort to explain research findings that link police behavior to the racial composition of an area but not an individuals’ race or ethnicity, Alpert, MacDonald, and Dunham (2005) suggest an individual’s minority status may be heightened when that individual travels through a largely segregated or White community. Other studies have also found higher incidence of racially biased police practices in predominantly White neighborhoods (Fagan & Davies, 2000; Gelman et al., 2007; Stolzenberg, D’Alessio, & Eitle, 2004). The legacy of racial residential segregation has led to the high proportion of Black and Latino residents living in disadvantaged communities, making deciphering the effects of race/ethnicity and residence in low-income, high-crime areas and experience with police more challenging. Noting the lingering effects, Bass (2001a) states “residential segregation has created cognitive boundaries that defined those places that were regulated to racial minorities and those that were not” (p. 163). She suggests African Americans and other minorities who venture outside of their neighborhoods are subject to frequent police harassment for being “out of their place” (Bass, 2001a, p. 163). Russell (1998) adds the “out-of-place” doctrine “encourages police to view black men as de facto guilty, without reference to legal indicators of criminal activity” (p.38).

Taken together, numerous studies establish a decidedly discriminatory and at times brutal nature has accompanied the policing of African Americans in both public and private domains through much of the 20th century (Alpert, Dunham, & Smith, 2007; Barlow & Barlow, 2002; Bass, 2001b; Brunson, 2007; Cole, 1999; Fagan & Davies, 2000; Harris, 2002; Kane, 2002, Muhammad, 2010; Russell, 1998; Websdale, 2001). Previous research attributes much of African American dissatisfaction with police to the experiences of African Americans in urban disadvantaged communities (Anderson, 1990; Brunson, 2007; Brunson & Miller, 2006; Carr, Napolitano, & Keating, 2007; Fagan & Davies, 2000), where the use of aggressive, directed policing tactics are more common. Fewer studies have examined these processes across ethnically diverse public and semipublic commercial space within a middle-class environment. Particularly as it relates to African Americans, this trajectory could offer greater insight into understanding the processes of attitude formation relative to citizens’ experiences with police. To address this void, this study utilizes qualitative data alongside survey research to assess the influence of race and racial composition of place on citizens’ experiences with southern patrols across low-crime, ethnically diverse public and semipublic spaces within a resort city. The author contends that this approach can improve our understanding of how race both individually and via group composition impacts how citizens experience police in this environment.

Previous studies have shown then how the behavior of police differs and that differences in attitudes by race and ethnicity are related to perceptions of differential policing. What we do not see is how all this affects the behavior of individuals. In addition, much of the past research is based on quantitative analyses. This type of analysis, while particularly important for generalizability, has two limitations that more qualitative analysis could balance. First, previous studies although having large sample sizes provide limited information on the encounters with the police. Questions are limited to items such as have you had contact with the police, what type of contact, and how satisfied were you with that contact. Second past studies are ahistorical and without context. Context is important to understanding perceptions of the police and the attitudes that develop toward them (see Brunson, 2007; Brunson & Miller, 2006; Brunson & Weitzer, 2009; Weitzer, 1999, 2000, for review of qualitative studies in this area). Important contextual items include past experiences with the police as well as experiences of others. The purpose of the current study is to use data from four focus groups to explore perceptions of policing tactics, attitudes toward the police, and how those attitudes shape behavior by race for a particular semipublic area.

Data

Data for this study came from a larger project examining police strategies and behavior across public commercial space and its impact of various publics. Data for the larger study included 202 surveys, four focus groups that included a total of 37 individuals, content analysis of police records and community meetings, and structured observations within the study site. The current project is based on data from focus groups, which took place from January 2009 through August 2009. Focus groups were utilized to more accurately assess the multilayered, cumulative, and nuanced matter in which individual’s experiences with police shape their attitudes and behavior as well as group dynamics rather than one-time assessments common in survey research.

Participants for the focus groups were drawn from the 202 individuals who completed the survey. Survey participants were purposively selected through snowball and convenience sampling and recruited through several local organizations, a local university, on-site, and from contacts made in the field. During survey interviews, individuals were asked to leave contact information if they were willing to take part in a group interview. Those who agreed were encouraged to bring their friends or associates who also frequent the resort area. All focus group participants were residents within the broader metropolitan region comprising several cities. Participation in the study was voluntary and respondents were assured confidentiality. Participants were not compensated for their participation.

The number of focus group interviewees per group ranged from 6 to 13 participants. Interviews were conducted by a single principal investigator in various residences throughout the city as directed by the principal point of contact. Interviews ranged from 56 min to 104 min with a mean time of 1 hr and 10 min. Focus groups were taped and later transcribed and serve as the primary data of analysis in this article. The survey questionnaire contained background information and items assessing citizens’ experiences, perceptions, and evaluations of police derived from the work of Alpert and Dunham (1988) and Brunson (2007). Grounded theory methods were employed to identify central points marked by codes, which were analyzed to form congruent categories leading to a workable theory on how experiences with police influence group behavior (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Special attention was given to ensure concepts and observations were those most commonly articulated and experienced by interviewees. Group interviews shed light into how diverse groups conceptualize and experience police services along with the adjustments they make to engage in activities they find pleasurable. Reliability was strengthened through triangulation of structured observations, survey data, responses across group interviews, and detailed recall from interviewees. Expressions that were not heavily identified with or common to the majority of participants were explicated (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Research Setting

The setting for this study is a southern metropolis home to more than 400,000 residents. Centrally located near several other major cities, the area boasts of its top-ranked resort beaches and lively urban cultural center. The city functions as a racially diverse middle-class suburb and respected resort area, which is home to hundreds of hotels, motels, nightclubs, specialty shops, bars, and restaurants expanding over 40 blocks. The principal site of investigation includes a 10-block radius that contains the most populated section of the commercial strip and acts as the primary hangout for a racially diverse group of patrons primarily aged 35 and under. Youthful strip goers have claimed the most popular portions of the commercial strip in and around the bar district as prime staging ground for exposure and leisure. This section of the strip is often described as “the place to see and be seen.” ²

Relative to its size, the city maintains a remarkably low crime rate. Ranked as one of the safest cities with resident populations between 350,000 and 900,000, the metropolis sustains the lowest crime rate in the region at approximately two times lower than the national average. The city is best known for the tourism it brings to the area with millions of annual visitors contributing significantly to the city’s budget. The median family income in the city approximates US$65, 000 with the majority of city inhabitants (roughly 70%) owning their own residence. City residents are young with a median age of 39, and nearly 75% of city dwellers are between the ages of 18 and 54 years with a near even spilt with respect to gender. The majority (58%) of adults living in the city are married and approximately 60% have attended some college or report earning bachelor’s or postgraduate degrees. Although the city exhibits significantly more racial diversity than found in national statistics, it is the least diverse city within the region. The setting’s relative racial homogeneity, low-crime ranking, and middle-class status define a type of area that is underinvestigated while assessing race and experiences with police. Table 1 offers a cross-regional comparison by city using census data from 2010.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Select City Characteristics Within the Region, 2010.

	Target City	City A	City B	City C	City D
% African American	19	43	30	53	43
% Poverty	7	19	7	16	13
% Female headed	12	19	14	11	17
Household
Median family income	US$64,618	US$36,891	US$56,302	US$36,742	US$47,342

Note. Adapted from U.S. Census (2010).

In addition, the setting offers a history that helps to contextual individuals’ perceptions of police. Prior to the mid-1960s, Jim Crow laws restricted African Americans’ access to oceanfront beaches, with entry into resort area allotted only to those workers hired to clean segregated hotels. Beginning in the 1980s, the city experienced its share of racial tension including charges of excessive and discriminatory policing of Black partygoers and local and commercial concerns regarding the quality of the crowd choosing resort areas as places of leisure. These tensions, largely contained to Blacks and Whites, erupted in the largest civil disturbance in the city’s history requiring the intervention of the National Guard and gaining national media attention. A vital lifeline to the city, the resort area experienced a decline in tourism during the subsequent years, which prompted elected and appointed officials to resolve to alter the atmosphere of the beachfront by advancing the goals of a family-oriented environment. This evolving image was promoted through a series of new code enforcements directed at eliminating certain behaviors at the strip, such as no cruising laws, car music ordinances, cursing restrictions, the closing of city parking lots, and activation of bright light technology after designated times. Today, African Americans comprise less than 6% of resort area residents; however, they often account for the majority of patrons on weekend evenings during the summer months. Recently, numerous Black partygoers celebrating Black College Weekend at the oceanfront were arrested and charged with violent and nonviolent crimes furthering public perception of the rowdiness of Black youth and calls for tighter enforcement.

Focus Groups

Of the 202 survey respondents, 18% or 37 individuals also agreed to take part in focus group interviews. In an effort to ease discussions of the influence of race on perceptions/experiences with local police, focus group interviews were organized by the race/ethnicity of interviewees. African Americans comprised the majority of sample at 59% or 22 respondents with Whites and persons of mixed ethnicities, each representing 14% of focus group participants with 5 interviewees each. Hispanics and Asian Americans were less than 1% of the sample at 2 and 3 interviewees, respectively. The makeup of each focus group is found in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Demographics of Focus Group Participants.

	Focus Group 1 (N = 6)	Focus Group 2 (N = 12)	Focus Group 3 (N = 13)	Focus Group 4 (N = 6)
Gender
% Male	83	50	69	50
Race
%AA	16	92	77	0
Mean age	20	33	28	24
% AA and under 25	33% (2)	0%	31% (4)	0%
Mean income	0-US$24,000	US$24,001-US$48,000	US$24,001-US$48,000	US$24,001-US$48,000
Education level	13.5	14	14.5	15

Note. AA = African American.

In addition to basic demographic information regarding the groups’ makeup are a number other important factors that make each group distinctive. The first focus group, which took place on January 7, 2009, was the most diverse in regard to race and ethnicity, but members of this group of participants looked very similar in physical appearance and would likely be perceived as belonging to the same racial group. The physical attributes of these interviewees were highlighted in other group interviews as less threatening to Whites and police. ³ That is, all the participants in this group had fair to light brown skin complexions, little to no facial hair, and a similar hair texture and style (i.e., most of the males had low-cut hairstyles). Although these participants made use of cultural slang, their style of dress, which can be characterized as casual conservative, and their ability to switch in and out of mannerism often associated with “Hip Hop, black, or perceived gang culture” appeared to yield them greater protection against arbitrary policing tactics (see Brunson & Weizter, 2009). ⁴ The second focus group, which took place April 25, 2009, was very diverse with respect to skin tone, hair texture and styles, and style of dress from business causal to more relaxed or street casual attire. As a whole, this group was older with no participants between the ages of 18 and 25, appeared more phenotypically Black, and had features and mannerisms more likely to be perceived by others as threatening and/or more in line with popular “Hip Hop, black, or perceived gang culture,” ⁵ such as style of dress, musical preferences, regular use of cultural slang, expressive hand motions, and a louder pitch and tone.

The third focus group, which took place on May 2, 2009, was also very diverse with several individuals sharing what are likely perceived as more Afrocentric features such as darker complexions and/or cultural hairstyles including locks, braids, and afros along with mixed race individuals, lighter and medium complexion Blacks, and a Filipino American with fairly dark skin. There was a mixture of younger participants more likely to be perceived by others as belonging to the Hip Hop generation largely due to their style of dress, musical preferences, and the use of cultural slang as well as somewhat older, professional African Americans in business casual attire and participants in their late 20s to earlier 30s in more relaxed, casual attire. All of the participants in the final focus group, which took place on August 25, 2009, had fair complexions, used little to no cultural slang, and dressed in relaxed, casual attire. The characteristics highlighted, such as skin tone, clothing, vernacular, hairstyles, and musical preferences, were referenced in each of the focus groups and emerged as dominant themes within the process of grounded theory development. These characteristics have also been noted in other literature as elements involved in the reconstruction and expression of black culture (Anderson, 1999; Kubrin, 2005; Thompkins, 2001).

Race, Place, and Policing

Findings clearly illustrate that race influences perceptions of policing even across public spaces where serious crime is not a factor. That is, similar provisions of police services, police allocation, patrol methods, and proactive assistance and investigation invoked different sentiments from participants by race. With respect to police allocation, participants described seeing police in large numbers and responded in unison in the first three focus groups, comprised of African Americans and other racialized minorities, with a resounding always when asked to rank how often they see uniform city officers patrolling the oceanfront strip. In the last focus group comprising of predominantly White young adults, the responses were not as definitive but generally suggested uniform police were often seen during summer months, on weekends, and during the evening hours.

Although the majority of respondents across ethnic categories identified a strong police presence, African Americans were the most cohesive in their response toward the use of expanded patrol suggesting an omnipresence of police power along the commercial strip. The pattern observed within the first three focus groups comprised of racial minorities was to initially suggest police allocation was consistently high in volume, and then to acknowledge factors that might lead to divergence from this model. Still, very few respondents indicated they had encounters of proactive investigation or assistance with patrolling officers.

Group interviewees identified every patrol method except boat to include motor, horse, bike, motorcycle, and foot patrol and characterized police action as proactive suggesting officers “make their presence known” and “make sure you follow the rules.” ⁶ African Americans were more likely than White participants to identify horse patrol as a principal method utilized along the strip and voiced greater concern within group interviews regarding the appropriateness of their use. Most comments were directed to either the size of the horses or the way they were used by patrolling officers. Group interviewees posited that during the daytime hours, the demeanor of mounted officers was friendlier even allowing passersby to pat the horses. However, during times of high-pedestrian traffic, mounted units were used as a primary source of crowd control. Three of the six participants in the fourth group stated they had on occasion petted the horses of mounted units, while no African American interviewee suggested the same. It appears that at least in this part of Virginia, African American respondents’ experiences with horses are limited. In fact, for the majority of African American focus group participants seeing mounted units along the commercial strip served as their first encounter with horses and many likened their presence to the use of canine units during 1960s civil rights’ struggle. Negative experiences with mounted units were particularly documented during the second and third group interviews.

For instance, the excerpts given subsequently were exacted from third focus group and offer a good summary of the manner in which many African American participants described police use of saturation and mounted patrol. Jordan, a 30-year-old Virginia Beach resident suggested, “They ride up on a horse making you move out of the way…instead of just asking.” Another respondent suggested, “they got to watch how they carry them horses. The horses are huge and kind of scary,” to which a 24-year old Latina female chimed in, “What are you going to trample me with a horse?” Although discussants in the fourth focus group acknowledge high levels of police distribution and the use of a variety of patrol methods, they often described the presence of police as necessary, given the nature of the crowd at the oceanfront. Three female participants interviewed during this focus group recalled occasions where patrolling officers offered to escort them to their vehicles or call for a cab when they were too intoxicated to drive. Participants in this focus group suggested that when the police do stop and question pedestrians they are either “genuinely concerned” or they sense something is “fishy.”

Race and Space: Being Policed and the Creation of “A Police State”

Police practices appear to effect resort area patrons in different ways with African Americans more likely to view police allocation as intrusive and/or unnecessarily aggressive. Numerous focus group participants described the distribution of police services along the oceanfront strip as inciting to violence and conflict and frequently used the terms “police state,” “waiting for something to happen” and “trying to provoke” as characterizations of police action. ⁷ The belief that some police officers along the oceanfront strip seek conflict as a reprieve from the usually mundane task of policing quieter parts of the city was referenced repeatedly throughout the first three focus group interviews. Gender and age were far less significant than race in producing such views of police. Individuals in the second focus group were the most vocal about their dissatisfaction and distrust of police services in the resort area, followed by participants in the third and first focus groups, with participants in the fourth focus group being the most verbally supportive of police distribution and actions along the commercial strip.

Using other cities within and outside the region comparatively, several participants referenced lower levels of crime in the city as cause for police eagerness for action. *Adam a participant in the first focus group who attends a university outside the region offered this assessment:

In *Leesville, the officers don’t really mess with you unless you are overly belligerent. I feel like in the beach, you take one wrong step and you stumble you get a drunk in public instead of them making sure you are not drinking in driving like give them a ride home…At school it’s more a slap on the wrist, it happens but at the beach they are more uptight…I feel like beach police wait for things to happen like they want things to happen.

Conversely, participants in the fourth focus group did not report feelings of intimidation and instead described police actions as justifiable based on enforcing the law. ⁸ More aligned with a benevolent view of police, this perspective is summed up in the following comment offered by a 25-year-old White male who stated, “They are only there for a presence like when something happens they feel like they are tasked to handle it.” Others in the group echoed these sentiments and suggested the police are there as a deterrent to potential troublemakers. Although many individuals in this group indicated high levels of police distribution along select portions of the strip, they often hung out in areas less populated by “urban” youth and thus were under less direct supervision than some of the other interviewees.

Differential Enforcement

Focus group participants in groups that were predominantly Black discussed openly their beliefs that the harshest police scrutiny and actions were reserved for Black males along the strip. African American focus group participants repeatedly referenced intoxicated White pedestrians and their treatment by police as an indication of disparate policing practices. In fact, this specific demographic was noted in all of the focus groups comprised of racial minorities (Focus groups 1–3) as receiving less police attention than others. Specifically, respondents suggested White females who are openly intoxicated along the strip are often overlooked by police and avoid sanction though the same officers are likely to pester minority youth for noncriminal behaviors like cursing and loitering.

When respondents were asked directly whether they think patrolling officers treat most groups at the beach similarly or certain groups different from others, the majority of respondents indicated they believed groups were treated differently based on race primarily but also age. African American youth and other racial minorities were repeatedly identified as most targeted groups throughout interviews. Directly associated with this belief was the lack of enforcement against White violators. An African American male from the second focus groups notes, “they see a white dude stumble out the bar and don’t do nothing. You already been known he’s drunk, cursing and everything and then they get off the horse and want to arrest you.” This was immediately followed by a 27-year-old black female who added, “but you see Caucasians, white people get all loud, drunk yelling I pay your taxes…”

As outlined earlier, respondents in this group suggested Whites along the strip were more likely to be belligerent toward authorities with little consequence. These sentiments also surfaced during the first and third group interviews. As discussions of preferential treatment toward White strip goers under the influence emerged in the third group interview, *Tim, a Black male of mixed ancestry in his late 30s, highlights the perceived belligerence of Whites by asking, “how many black people [do] you know that’s really going to be talking a whole lot of junk to a cop because he knows what the cop [is] going to do.” Participants in this group readily agreed.

Interposing gender, Adam from the first focus group suggests “I feel like girls don’t get hemed up—Caucasian girls usually don’t get as um…They show more courtesy toward a woman. They [women] don’t seem to get handcuff[ed] say as [much as] a rowdy minority.” Other group members suggested African American girls get treated more similarly to non-Black minority males than their White female counterparts. Although participants in the first focus group were generally reluctant to discuss race, when asked directly whether they felt most groups of people were treated the same by police along the strip, a pattern different than the one observed during the second and third group interviews emerged. First, participants suggested all youth were generally treated similarly and then they noted an exception for young White females. Next, they suggested that minorities are treated differently than Whites and eventually concluded that Black males receive the greatest scrutiny and are victim to more aggressive police tactics.

Physical appearance and clothing were also discussed as factors that could explain differential policing practices. J.T. from the first focus group offers this example:

You could like take clothes for example, like you could have two groups of five, 20-year-old males. One groups dressed in polos and skinny jeans and sneakers and the other ones have fitted caps and baggy jeans and stuff like that, they are going to be treated differently.

A similar discussion occurred during the third group interview in which young males of African descent explained how skin tone, hairstyle, and clothing overlap to produce a prototype of gang involvement or perceived increased propensity for criminal behavior among patrolling officers. In response to the same question outlined earlier, *Tony a dark skin 20-year-old male with shoulder length locks suggested southern patrols use stereotypes of Black dangerousness to signal of which groups to patrol aggressively. He suggested “It depends on who they are with…that’s what I’m saying if you have dreads and you are posted up it’s a problem.” He continues:

Yeah, the cops will stand right next to us, and follow and watch us the whole time we’re down there. They will not move because we all are standing there posted up. Now, you got a group of White boys, they all in collared shirts, in their little fitted hats or whatever and their vans [shoe brand] or little plaid shorts. They might look at them real quick but then they are going to keep it moving but if they ask for let’s say, they ask for directions, its like “Yeah, sure man, I’ll be happy to take you there” [mocking the officer] and all that. But if we are all standing there with dreads and all that and ask for directions, they look at us like we’re crazy. You know what I’m saying.

Interestingly, while African American participants under the age of 25 suggested they frequent the “Black club” at the strip more often than other establishments, they suggested club owners often charged patrons more based on their attire or gender. Several respondents within this demographic indicated they often charged Black males US$25.00 or more for mere entrance. On the other hand, respondents suggested most “White bars/clubs” at the beach do not require a cover charge or rarely charge patrons more than US$10.

Other group members exchanged similar stories regarding their experiences at the beach from a bouncer asking one Black male to alter the direction of the hat he was wearing in order to gain entry into a club to young males suggesting they had to split their group of friends into two smaller groups as not to draw unwanted police attention. Linking the manner in which police at the oceanfront patrol to broader social control issues within the city, an older participant explained how he was denied entry into a popular club in the city but outside the resort area while with a group of coworkers because of his locks. The establishment he referenced later faced a civil lawsuit and was forced to reverse its policy. White respondents in the fourth group did not directly identify any select race as subject to differential treatment and instead was consistent in their view that most youth and individuals who are rowdy face harsher police treatment. One male from this group explained, “People are pretty much treated fair, it is more so how you carry yourself like if you are being rowdy and loud.”

Social Exclusion

In assessing the overall impact of police practices on various publics, there is evidence of social exclusion with age and race being significant factors in respondents’ decision to avoid the oceanfront strip. Although it is likely that older regional residents in general may no longer see the oceanfront strip as inviting, a large percentage of focus group participants who were of African descent and 28 years of age or older suggested they no longer view this location as a viable place for entertainment. Many participants reported spending more time at the oceanfront during their younger years, citing the presence of police as the main reason why they ceased choosing the strip as a recreational outlet. Among this group, individuals were more likely to suggest the nature of policing along the strip was aimed at limiting the number of Blacks visiting the resort area at night. Although they suggested police distribution might also affect other demographics in a similar fashion, evidenced by the comments of other non-Black minority participants, most believed the impetus for harsher regulations was directly driven by the increased presence of Black youth.

African American respondents under 30 years of age were more likely to indicate limited exclusion, suggesting the presence of police along the strip deters them from choosing the oceanfront as often as they would like or akin to older respondents visiting only during daytime hours. For example, *Tamika from the third focus group suggests “Yeah, you feel like if they don’t want us there then I don’t want to be there. I don’t want to give them my dollars if they don’t want us there in the first place…You can’t enjoy yourself.” Although the sentiments expressed earlier were the most common among minority respondents, there were some exceptions. In particular, older males who were gainfully employed with certain physical characteristics were more likely to offer fairly positive views of police actions. Akin to respondents in the fourth group interview, instead of viewing police as the problem, these males connected current policies to the rowdiness of Black youth and their overall demeanor. Tim from the third group interview falls into this camp and presents a different perspective than other members outlined subsequently:

Ah yeah, it’s funny, cause I have a totally different perspective probably from the majority of everybody here…I think cause…see in high school I used to hang with white people too. And I think a lot of what’s going on today is from our actions in the eighties…The way we carried/handled ourselves down the beach.