CCW Minutes and Attachments 1-4

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on September 26, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Mr. Sudler (left at 7:58 p.m.). Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Iriowen, and Mr. Pugh (Utility), Mr. Shevock (via WebEx), Ms. Smith (via WebEx) (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Sudler moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Customer Advance Agreement for Supply of Natural Gas Services at Garrison Oak Business Park (David S. Hugg III, City Manager) Mr. David S. Hugg III, City Manager reviewed the background and analysis of the Customer Advance Agreement for Supply of Natural Gas services at Garrison Oak Business Park. Staff recommended authorizing the City Manager to complete negotiations and execute the Customer Advance Agreement to facilitate the timely installation of gas services throughout the park. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that the wholesale market for natural gas has stabilized, and the numbers presented are based on Chesapeake’s current costs. The project is estimated to be done in ninety days. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg stated that by the end of the year, only two lots should be available. Responding to Mr. Iriowen, Mr. Hugg stated that the city owned ten lots in the Garrison Oak Business Park. Three of the lots were sold, and settled and the city has received the funds for them. They are a bakery, a cold storage facility, and a recycling facility. The other lots, except four and nine, are still open for sale. With the proposed agreement, Chesapeake will build the natural gas system rather than wait for the lots to be developed, and as customers hook up to the system the city will get a refund based on their usage.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 PAGE 2 Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of the staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, hearing no objections the meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Disposal of Fifteen Excess Properties (David S. Hugg III, City Manager) Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Disposal of Fifteen Excess Properties. Staff recommended approval of the disposition of the properties as outlined. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Hugg stated that all of the properties have gone through the various departments to make sure that there are no easements, or that the city has not acquired the property for some special reason. Mr. Hugg stated that he would confirm any restrictions before bringing the final packet back to council. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Hugg stated that his recommendation would be to put the properties out at fair market value and council set a minimum price. Ms. Arndt stated that for a property that could be developed, she would recommend that it be offered at fair market value for a better return for the city. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that many of the properties were obtained through a monition sale or sheriff’s sale, which transfers a fee simple deed, and the city does not go back and do a deed search. Also, the city is certifying that they can deliver a fee simple title, but the burden is on the buyer to satisfy a deed search if they wish to. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that he has spoken with a few folks associated with Code Purple and other organizations, and anyone who has an interest in any of the properties can contact him for more information. Mr. Hugg explained city council has the authority to gift the properties since they are city assets and if council made a motion, he could honor that, otherwise, they can bid in the open market. Responding to Mr. Shevock, Mr. Hugg stated that the only person who could gain access to the landlocked properties would be the person who acquired the property. Mr. Hugg also stated that

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 PAGE 3 the property on College Road is surplus that was acquired as part of a utility easement and there is no right of way. Ceci Hoffman, 101 S. New Street, Dover, stated that she was doing research for the Pastor of Holy Trinity Church, and they would like to obtain property behind and on the side of the church. Ms. Hoffman stated that they could use the property to build a fence because they had the utilities on the side of the building destroyed. Pastor Sheila Lomax, 101 S. New Street, Dover, stated that she is a new Pastor at Holy Trinity Church and the church used to own the property beside them but somehow, they lost it. Pastor Lomax asked since they are a nonprofit if there was a way that the city could help them obtain that property. Pastor Lomax also stated that they would like to do an outreach program for the homeless and the kids in the area. Mr. Boggerty stated that he had reached out to a pastor from the church several months earlier and was never able to get in contact with them. Mr. Boggerty stated that he wants to help but that no action has been taken by the church, and it continues to be a blighted area of the city. Mr. Boggerty stated that he would like to see the church address the present issues and explained that there are funding opportunities as a nonprofit that are available to help them. Mr. Boggerty stated he is willing to help them in any way that they see fit. Pastor Leroy Bradshaw, 101 S. New Street, Dover, stated that they are trying to build a relationship with the people and build up the community. Pastor Bradshaw asked that council reconsider their decision as they are trying to help people physically and spiritually. Mr. Sudler expressed his support for the Holy Trinity Church representatives and stated that he is available to assist them in any way he can. Mr. Sudler also stated that they must put forth the necessary steps to do their part so that he can advocate for them. Michael Pugh, 31 Ann Avenue, Dover, stated that he would like the opportunity to bid on some of the properties and he believes that the community should be allowed to bid on them as well. Sue Harris, 241 Pine Street, Dover, stated that Code Purple is interested in the properties and will be reaching out to see if any of them fit their mission. Ms. Harris also stated that as the director of The People’s Community Center at People’s Church, they need other facilities to help the homeless. Ms. Harris stated that they are the only church that provides hot meals, a clothing closet, and a food pantry. Ms. Harris also stated that they need facilities to provide housing solutions so that the cycle can be broken. Mr. Hugg stated that he would like to recommend that council invite nonprofits to officially request any properties they might be interested in. Mr. Neil moved to refer the Disposal of Fifteen Excess Properties back to staff to include that staff recommendations include inviting nonprofits to express interest in any properties that are going to be disposed of. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 PAGE 4 FY23 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program – Joint Grant with Smyrna Police Department and Kent County (Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Chief) Mr. Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Chief, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the FY23 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. Staff recommended approval of the grant application. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of the staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Discussion and Next Steps of Delaware House Bill 2 – Delaware Marijuana Control Act (David S. Hugg III, City Manager, and Mary Ellen Gray, Planning and Community Development Director) Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, Planning and Community Development Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Delaware House Bill 2 – Delaware Marijuana Control Act. Committee Action Not Required. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Gray stated that there is only one medical dispensary, and that is Best Buds on Jefferic Boulevard. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Gray stated that the medical marijuana facilities are regulated under a separate act and regulations that went into effect in 2001. She stated that it is her understanding that the bill states that a medical marijuana facility can apply for a retail license however, they would then have to comply with both sets of regulations. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Gray stated that in her conversations with other municipalities, there is a general consensus that they are going out of the state to conduct research on what other municipalities have done in regard to the Marijuana Control Act. The Marijuana Control Act has a fifteen percent tax that goes straight to the state, and the city has the ability to add an additional tax. The city can add an additional tax, much like the lodging tax, which would be her recommendation. Ms. Gray also stated that the only restrictions that she has seen so far are similar to those of adult entertainment. No facilities can be within a certain number of feet of schools or churches, and the Control Act prohibits hours during certain holidays. Responding to Mr. Neil, Chief Johnson stated that typical things that law enforcement has seen as a consequence of the industry is an uptick in traffic injuries and fatalities related to intoxication. Any DUI association can show research about how alcohol and marijuana, when used at the same time, can act like an accelerant for one another and it is showing up in crash statistics after legalization. Chief Johnson stated that the second thing seen is burglaries of the marijuana businesses by the illegal trade to get the same product offered for sale legally. Chief Johnson also stated that groups that import marijuana to an area will adjust their prices to be competitive against the lawful market.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 PAGE 5 Ms. Smith stated that she feels the city must be responsible and make marijuana less accessible as it may lead to addiction and mental health problems. Ms. Smith stated that she agrees with Councilman Sudler and that there is a need for some statistical data to support the pros and cons of regulations. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Gray stated that the state has not come up with their regulations and there may be some security measures that they will require, however, the city could require additional security measures as a condition. Mr. Sudler stated that he is in support of the retail dispensary because it would limit the use of marijuana, which then runs the risk of it being laced with fentanyl. Ms. Arndt asked Ms. Gray to please provide council with background information on what zones in the zoning code might be appropriate for the four types; growing, processing, testing, and selling, as well as a list of what conditions council may want to consider imposing on those uses. Dina Vendetti, CDCC President, 435 North Dupont Highway, read a letter of support for the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments (Attachment #1). Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Vendetti stated that she agrees with him and that the decisions need to be data-driven, and things are very much in line with what the chief mentioned. Ms. Vendetti also stated that there are more conversations that need to happen, and there is research that needs to be done. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Vendetti stated that their prohibition is not for the use of recreational marijuana, it is for the manufacturing and sale. Ms. Vendetti also stated that the beach towns recognized that there was a potential for revenue, however, they asked themselves at what cost. Zoe Patchell, 218 N. State Street, Dover, stated that she is in attendance as a Dover resident, and would like council to oppose the ban on legal cannabis businesses within city limits. Ms. Patchell asked that council enact responsible and reasonable zoning ordinances as education and regulation is the best approach to the issue of regulating cannabis. Ms. Patchell explained that allowing cannabis business in Dover will help keep Dover competitive and create economic development for the city. Ms. Patchell stated that allowing the businesses will create well-paying employment opportunities, decrease the unemployment rate, which is higher in Dover than the rest of the state, and promote public safety. Ms. Patchell explained that research does show the areas surrounding cannabis businesses are safer on average due to the businesses employing a higher degree of security and surveillance. Ms. Patchell stated that a Rutgers University study shows that there is an average of 1.6% home price increase in municipalities that have allowed cannabis-related businesses. Nicole Chick, Puffster, 115 W. Loockerman Street, Dover, expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Ms. Chick stated that marijuana is an all- natural medicine and plant that should be available to everyone. Ms. Chick expressed that small businesses like Puffster would benefit from becoming retail marijuana stores.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 PAGE 6 Lizzie Golob, 20476 Asheville Drive, Millsboro, expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Ms. Golob stated that she was prescribed multiple opiate medications for chronic pain after a car accident, and because of the cannabis plant, she has now been opiate-free for seven years. Ms. Golob stated that cannabis has helped her with things such as fibromyalgia, PTSD, and anxiety. Ms. Golob expressed that the human body has an endocannabinoid system, and when cannabis is consumed it helps regulate several functions of the body. Amber Ember, Puffster, 115 W. Loockerman Street, Dover, expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Ms. Ember stated that Delaware House Bill 2 allows only thirty licenses to be awarded statewide, and approximately ten per county. Ms. Ember stated that the application process is very strict, requires a down payment, and that there can only be one recreational store allowed within one mile of each other. Ms. Ember stated that they will be using a competitive scoring process ranking applicants’ safety, security, expertise, and work environment, and revoking any licenses from stores that are not meeting the standards. Ms. Ember stated that Puffsters is a clean store with friendly associates who support local artists in Dover. Ms. Ember also stated that Puffsters pays to test their hemp products to ensure customers are receiving a safe and quality product and that they would like the opportunity to become a recreational dispensary. Vonderlear Smack, ACLU Campaign Manager, 1001 Whiteoak Road, Dover, read a letter of opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments (Attachment #2). Ms. Smack also briefed council on the ACLU’s 2018 research report entitled “The Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform” (Attachment #3). Jared Stalnaker, Wyoming, expressed his opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Mr. Stalnaker stated that a large scope of Dover’s economic business comes from the Dover NASCAR races and Firefly Festival, and they do not bring in the revenue that they used to. Mr. Stalnaker stated that the Dover economy should not be dependent on outside businesses, and Dover needs economic independence and that this would be a step forward in that direction. Benita Rufus Gassi, 208 E. Sewell Street, Felton, expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Ms. Gassi stated that cannabis helps people like herself handle adversity and anxiety and she hopes council votes to allow the establishments. Tom Donovan, 337 N. Bradford Street, Dover, expressed his opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Mr. Donovan stated that he is a Delaware attorney as well as a founding member of DelawareCAN. Mr. Donovan stated that it is important that Dover has the conversation to consider good regulations and a good plan moving forward. Mr. Donovan expressed how important it is that adults are allowed to make responsible decisions. Mr. Donovan also stated that council needs to provide the regulations that provide business to the community and move forward and show everyone else how to do it.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 PAGE 7 Heather Campbell expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Ms. Campbell stated that fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is similar to morphine, but much stronger and more potent. Fentanyl is approved for medical use as a painkiller but is also obtained illegally and sold as a street drug. Ms. Campbell stated that fentanyl-laced marijuana is a growing danger as it is untraceable. Ms. Campbell expressed that the number of fentanyl overdoses will continue to climb without recreational marijuana stores. Jene Duffy, 126 Starlight Drive, Milton, expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Ms. Duffy stated that she is a cannabis nurse and consultant and that she educates clients on the benefits, use, and storage of cannabis. Ms. Duffy stated that many of her clients have expressed the benefits of cannabis usage, however, it is very expensive. Ms. Duffy stated that they should be able to obtain safe cannabis legally and the more available it is, the price will be driven down, and more jobs can be created. Adam Windett, 218 N. State Street, Dover, expressed his opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Mr. Windett stated he has extensive knowledge of illicit drug markets due to his role as a criminal defense attorney. Mr. Windett expressed that without a doubt cannabis cultivation, production, and sales will occur in every town in Delaware when the markets open next November. Mr. Windett stated that localities that choose to regulate the marketplace will allow the transactions to take place in a safe market, and products will be tested to ensure that they are safe for consumption and free from contaminants. Laws will prevent sales to minors, market disputes will be decided in courts of law, and business owners will create good- paying jobs and contribute to local and state taxes. Mr. Windett stated that localities that choose to ban the industry will still have the transactions occur as they are today, in neighborhoods, on street corners, with no safeguards to protect consumers, no ID checks to prevent sales to minors, with untested and unregulated products, with the proceeds of sales flowing into some gangs and criminal organizations. Mr. Windett stated that Denver is a good example of an industry that has flourished from dispensaries. Zach Hosm expressed his opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Mr. Hosm stated that alcohol is a far more addictive drug than marijuana and has greatly affected his family. Mr. Hosm stated that no matter how much marijuana someone smokes there have been no reports of a fatal overdose, unlike alcohol. Adam Rinaldi, 128 Carnation Drive, Magnolia, expressed his opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Mr. Rinaldi stated that the ban will not solve the issues that people believe it will. Ruth Bertrand, 99 Central Church Road, Dover, expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Crystal Hamilton, Felton, expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Ms. Hamilton stated that she is a veteran who has sustained multiple head injuries and suffers from PTSD. Ms. Hamilton expressed how the use of marijuana has greatly impacted her life. Ms. Hamilton stated that many of the migraine medications prescribed by

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 PAGE 8 Veteran Affairs make you physically sick, you lose interest in eating, and can even suffer from suicidal ideation. Layla Fogerty expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Ms. Fogerty stated that she suffers from chronic gastritis and anxiety. Ms. Fogerty stated that her chronic gastritis does not meet the requirements for a medical marijuana card, and it is very expensive to keep the medical cards up to date. Ms. Fogerty asked council to keep her and chronic pain sufferers in mind when making their decisions as she does not want to purchase unsafe cannabis. Caryn Rodriguez expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Assistant City Clerk Rivera read Attachment #4 – Ellen Richardson – Email of Opposition. Makayla expressed her opposition to the ban of all recreational marijuana establishments within the city. Makayla stated that banning these establishments would cause a loss of revenue. Makayla stated that Dover should not consider the ban on these establishments but rather show support so that other cities will follow the lead and not consider senseless bans themselves. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objections the meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. William F. Hare Council President Attachments Attachment #1 - Dina Vendetti, CDCC President - Letter of Support Attachment #2 - Vonderlear Smack, ACLU Campaign Manager - Letter of Opposition Attachment #3 - ACLU’s 2018 Research Report “The Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform” Attachment #4 - Ellen Richardson - Email of Opposition

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 09/26/2023 tCdCCJ Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce Tuesday, September 26, 2023 Chair Dana F. Wattay First Vice Chair City Hall Konrad LaPrade 15 Loockerman Plaza Vice Chair Dover, DE 19901 Economic Development Javier Santana Vice Chair Attn.: Mayor Robin R. Christiansen and Members ofthe City Council Organizational Development Jesse C. Keleher Dear Mayor Christiansen and Members of the City Council, Vice Chair Community Affairs Dr. Cornelia Johnson I am writing to you today on behalf of the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce to share Vice Chair Legislative Affairs C. Scott Kidner with you our grave concerns regarding the potential retail sale, distribution, manufacturing, Vice Chair Military Affairs and/or wholesale of marijuana within the city limits of Dover. Evans Armantrading, Jr. Treasurer We believe that it is a great privilege to be afforded the opportunity to live, work, and play here Richard A. Mohnk in the Capital City of America's First State. We are proud of our heritage, and we are excited Vice Chair Smyrna/Clayton about our future here in Central Delaware. Lincoln D. Willis Past Chair Brian J. Stetina The CDCC has been honored to partner with you, the Downtown Dover Partnership, and other entities to bring revitalization to our beloved Downtown. As you well know, this has been a Directors Kim I. Adams tremendous effort, but well worth it, knowing that small businesses and new residents will H. Scott Connell Denee J. Crumrine fr~'$fe, -:p'l-opeser and our Downtown will thrive in the wake of the plans and projects that are just Travis Frey beginning. Our Governor and members of his staff have also seen - and caught - the vision of Laura A. Garotoli Dean E. Holden what our Downtown can look like - and they have promised to provide significant support for a Timothy R. Horne re-imagined Capital City. Kevin D. Mills Nicholas J. Polcino, Jr. Charmaine A. Whyte We are working toward a walkable, safe, and exciting place for business, all supported by new Honorary Board Members Colonel William C. McDonald housing opportunities for young people and new families. Without people living and working in Hon. George Jody Sweeney our center core, the dynamism we are so aggressively seeking will not work. We are already beginning to see the negative effect that the legalization of marijuana has had on some of our President Dina C. Vendetti, Ed.D. Downtown businesses as the smell has prevented customers from coming and has actually invaded and affected merchandise inside some of the shops. We firmly believe that the sale of Staff Cleo D. Bell a recreational drug, coupled with the consumption of said drug will be as great a deterrent to Cristal R Brenneman, 10M Cindy A. Friese "walking" Downtown as our current homelessness and perceived parking issues. Martha L. Lehman Jenniter L. Sutter Our Chamber is well known as an avid supporter of all businesses, and we strive to create a regulatory and legal environment that benefits our members regardless of their line of work or profession. We work diligently to provide opportunities for competition and a dynamic business environment for our members and all citizens of Central Delaware. It is frankly unusual for us to speak against the opening of a business. But when we weigh the negative effect that a recreational marijuana business can have on the other businesses in the area and the overall culture of what we are trying to build, it is too heavy a burden to bear. "The (DCC - 7'1{L essf'l1/io/ reSOl/rce ./0 r / Ii e cIf' \. e /0 pili ell/ of bllsinesses ill C el1/rat De/wl'{lre" 435 N. Dupont Highway, Dover, Delaware 19901 302.734.7513 info@cdcc.net

Given the significant, and in our opinion, damaging impact that recreational marijuana has had on other urban centers of various sizes, we ask you to ban any businesses that operate within the recreational marijuana business space. The future for the Capital City of America's First State is very bright. We have worked together to change our direction in a way that makes us more inviting, livable, and safe. It is our job to eliminate the potential for Dover to experience what so many other cities have seen when they've opened their streets to the sale of recreational drugs. We implore you to follow the example of Rehoboth, Dewey, and Bethany and ban all recreational marijuana establishments. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for making decisions that result in a cleaner, safer, more vibrant city. Dr. Dina Carol Vendetti President

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 09/26/2023 Good evening Council and Members of the committee. My name is Vonda Smack, Campaign Manager at the ACLU of Delaware. Banning legal cannabis businesses makes communities less safe. Data shows that bans of legal sales do not stop people from buying or using cannabis; it only moves sales from the carefully regulated, legal cannabis market into a less-safe illicit market. If Dover is concerned about the safety and well-being of its residents, it should embrace the economic opportunity offered by the state's new legal and safe cannabis industry. History shows - prohibition doesn't work. History also demonstrates the harm that cannabis laws inflicted upon Black and Brown people. These laws have unjustly criminalized our communities, wasted taxpayer money, and fueled the mass incarceration crisis. Today, Black people are still more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than white people in every state, including those that have legalized marijuana. Did you know that Delaware was ranked 15th in the nation for largest racial disparities in arrests for cannabis possession? This issue is even greater in the Dover-area. ACLU's 2018 report entitled "The Tales of Two Countries" Racially Targeted Arrest in the Era of Marijuana Reform found thatKent County has the largest racial disparities in the state, with Black people 5.38x times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than their white neighbors. A ban on cannabis businesses will only exacerbate these disparities, moving us further away from racial justice instead of towards it. Now let's look at this from another angle: "Dover Strong" is the motto for this city, right? Legal cannabis businesses create a variety of well-paying employment opportunities in a host of fields, especially for local residents within city limits. These new jobs stimulate the local economy; more jobs in the city of Dover means more money being spent in Dover and fewer adverse collateral consequences associated with high unemployment. "Dover Strong" Lastly, cities that permit legal cannabis businesses will generate business licensing fees and property taxes for local municipalities and directly, financially benefit from these legal businesses. Towns that prohibit legal businesses send that revenue stream out of town or back to the illicit market. Let's not pass up on this opportunity to make Dover even stronger in both equity and economy. Thank you for your time.

ATTACHMENT #3 Council Committe of the Whole Meeting of 09/26/2023

ACLU RESEARCH REPORT A Tale of Two Countries Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform © 2020 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Acknowledgem nts The report has been a project of the American Civil r commendations, and Lucia Tian, Chief Analytics Liberties Union (ACLU). The report was developed Orcer, for her edits and strategic guidance on data by Ezekiel Edwards, Director, Criminal Law Reform a alysis and methods. We are also very grateful to Project; content was led by Brooke Madubuonwu, Jeff Robinson, Director, Trone Center for Justice and Director of Legal Analytics and Quantitative E uality; ReNika Moore, Director, Racial Justice Research; and the report was overseen and managed P oject; and Carl Takei, Senior Staff Attorney, Trone by Emily Greytak, Director of Research. Data enter for Justice and Equality, for their edits and collection, analysis, and visualization was conducted £ edback. by ACLU Analytics. T~e authors also thank Brandon Cox, The primary authors are Ezekiel Edwards, Director, dommunications Strategist, for his assistance. We Criminal Law Reform Project; Emily Greytak, a e grateful for the support from ACLU colleagues Director of Research; Brooke Madubuonwu, Director S ndra Goldschein, Deputy Director and Director of of Legal Analytics and Quantitative Research; ogram and Strategy of the Affiliate Support and Thania Sanchez, Senior Social Scientist; Sophie ationwide Initiatives Department; Danielle Silber, Beiers, Data Journalist; Charlotte Resing, Policy irector of Strategic Partnerships; and Leila Rafei, Analyst, National Political Advocacy Department; ontent Strategist. Paige Fernandez, Policing Policy Advisor, National he authors also thank ACLU affiliates for their Political Advocacy Department; and Sagiv Galai, invaluable feedback on the development of the Paralegal, Criminal Law Reform Project. r port. We extend specific thanks to Michael Perloff The authors thank Rebecca McCray, Editor, for ahd Scott Michelman at the ACLU of the District of her editorial assistance; Kadiesha Weise, Legal olumbia for their efforts to obtain data from the Administrative Assistant, for her assistance .C. Metropolitan Police Department; Daniel Tilley reviewing research; Alex Yurcaba, Data Analyst, for the ACLU of Florida for his efforts to obtain data his assistance analyzing data; interns Sarah Sakha, f om the Florida Department of Law Enforcement; Catherine Peng, Priya Pai, and Lindsey Feingold for d Michelle Shames at the New York Civil Liberties their assistance in research and analysis; and Neil nion for her help obtaining data from the New York Shovelin, Creative Director, for his guidance with I ity Police Department. visual design. Graphic design for this report was provided by I We appreciate Udi Ofer, Director, Justice Division, .atrick Moroney. for his edits and strategic guidance on content and

Contents Executive Summary.. . . . 4 Key Findings 7 Introduction 10 Methodology and Limitations . . 15 Marijuana Arrests .. .... 21 The National Landscape .21 State and County Landscape 22 States That Legalized or Decriminalized Marijuana Possession 23 Racial Disparities in Marijuana Arrests 28 The National Landscape ............................................................... 29 State and County Landscape............ . .. 30 States That Legalized or Decriminalized Marijuana Possession . . 34 Conclusion . . 37 Recommendations . . 39 Federal, State, and Local Governments 40 Law Enforcement Agencies .......................................................................................... 43 State Profiles ................48 Appendices . ......98 Endnotes 102

Executive Sum ary In 2013, the ACLU published an INDING#1 unprecedented national report on marijuana he War on Marijuana Rages on: possession arrests, The War on Marijuana arijuana Arrests Still Widespread cross the U.S. in Black and White, 1 analyzing data from an 50 states (and the District of Columbia) between 2001 and 2010. Over that time INDING#2 period, law enforcement made millions of xtreme Racial Disparities in marijuana arrests, the vast majority of which arijuana Possession Arrests were for possession, and Black people2 were ~ersist Throughout the Country, nd Have Not Improved Since 2010 much more likely to be arrested than white people for marijuana possession despite comparable usage rates. This report updates INDING#3 our previous findings through an analysis of arijuana Arrests Decreased after marijuana possession arrests and attendant egalization or Decriminalization racial disparities from 2010 to 2018, and provides specific analysis on states that have INDING#4 approved legalization and decriminalization acial Disparities in Arrests Persist laws. The report relies on the Federal Bureau ven in States That Legalized or of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting ecriminalized Marijuana Program (UCR), supplementary data from jurisdictions not included in UCR, and the United States Census' annual county INDING#5 population estimates to document arrest ata Collection Failures Block a uller Understanding of Racial rates per 100,000 for marijuana possession, isparities in Marijuana Arrests by race, at the state and county level. 3 4 ACLU Research Report

Disturbingly, too much has remained unchanged legalized and went down modestly in states that had in the past decade despite several states having decriminalized. Consistent with our previous report, reformed marijuana policy. While marijuana the majority of marijuana arrests - nine out of every arrests were down by 18%overall since 2010, law 10- were for possession. enforcement still made more than 6.1 million such Equally as troubling, this report finds that stark arrests over the past eight years. In 2018, there were racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests almost 700,000 marijuana arrests, which accounted for more than 43%of all drug arrests. In fact, in have remained unchanged nationwide. On average, a 2018, police made more marijuana arrests than Black person is 3.64 times more likely to be arrested for all violent crimes combined, according to the for marijuana possession than a white person, even FBI. Further, it is not clear that marijuana arrests though Black and white people use marijuana at are trending down-they have actually risen in the similar rates. Just as before, such racial disparities past few years, with almost 100,000 more arrests in marijuana possession arrests exist across the in 2018 than 2015. This rise in marijuana arrests country, in every state, in counties large and small, has been driven by states in which marijuana is still urban and rural, wealthy and poor, and with large illegal, whereas between 2010 and 2018, marijuana and small Black populations. Indeed, in every arrests were significantly lower in states that had state and in over 95%of counties with more than Recommendations at a Glance For Federal, State, and Local For Law Enforcement Agencies Governments • End the enforcement of marijuana · Legalize marijuana use and possession possession and distribution • Do not replace marijuana prohibition • End racial profiling by police with a system of fines, fees, and arrests · Eliminate consent searches • Grant clemency to or resentence anyone incarcerated on a marijuana conviction • End the practice of using raw numbers of and expunge all marijuana convictions stops, citations, summons, and arrests as a metric to measure productivity and efficacy • Eliminate collateral consequences that result from marijuana arrests or · Develop systems for the routine collection of convictions accurate data on a range of police practices • Ensure new legal markets benefit and are • Invest in nonpunitive programs and accessible to communities most harmed community-based services and divest from by the War on Drugs law enforcement Ensure marijuana possession and · Develop, secure, and implement strong, other low-level offense arrests are not independent, and effective oversight included in performance measures for mechanisms for local law enforcement federal funding A Tale of Two Countries: RaCially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 5

30,000 people in which at least 1%of the residents im.migration status. This report provides a detailed are Black, Black people are arrested at higher r lad map for ending the War on Marijuana and rates than white people for marijuana possession. e suring legalization efforts center racial justice as Although, on average, states that legalized marijuana tJey address the widespread collateral damage. through taxation and regulation had lower rates of racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests T}e ACLU reaffirms its recommendation that fe eral and state governments legalize marijuana (1. 7x) than states where marijuana has not been fo persons 21 or older through a system of taxation, legalized (3.2x), a distressing pattern continues- racial disparities persist in every state that has rolled liienSing, and regulation, and urges that legalization r pair the harms that prohibition has wreaked on back marijuana prohibition - and in some cases, c mmunities of color. disparities have worsened.4 This report should be the final nail in the coffin for the inane War on Marijuana, and sound yet another abolition knell for this country's 45-year drug prohibition charade. The question no longer is whether the U.S. should legalize marijuana - it should - or whether marijuana legalization is about racial equity - it is. It is also no longer about whether all levels of government should redirect resources away from prosecution of marijuana and toward public health investments and community collaborations - they should. Rather, the question is: When states legalize, how can they do so through a racial justice lens to address the panoply of harms that have been selectively aimed at Black and Latinx communities for decades? These harms include not only arrests, incarceration, and lifelong criminal convictions, but also the loss of jobs, housing, financial aid eligibility, child custody, and I n every state, Black people are arrested at higher rates than white people for marijuana . possession. 6 ACLU Research Report

Key Findings FINDING#1 Rates of Black and White Marijuana Possession Arrests per 100k People The War on Marijuana Rages on: Marijuana Arrests Still Widespread 600 Across the U.S. 400 • Although marijuana arrests have decreased by 18%since 2010, that trend slowed to a halt in the 200 White--- arrest .••• rate middle ofthe decade. There were more marijuana arrests in 2018 than in 2015, despite the fact that eight states legalized marijuana for recreational 0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 use or decriminalized marijuana possession in that timeframe. Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Report,ng Program Dlta Note: FlOrida ;..jnc!Washington, D.C. dId 110tprovld~ d·ita. • In general, states that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana possession have seen FINDING#2 a decline in marijuana possession arrests, but in many other states, arrest rates have increased or Extreme Racial Disparities in remain unchanged. Marijuana Possession Arrests Persist Throughout the Country and Have • Marijuana arrests made up 43% of all drug arrests Not Improved Since 2010. in 2018, more than any other drug category. While that percentage has dropped from just over 50% • Black people are 3.64 times more likely than in 2010, this is due in part to a steady increase in white people to be arrested for marijuana arrests in other drug categories. possession, notwithstanding comparable usage rates. The increasing number of states legalizing • The overwhelming majority of marijuana arrests- or decriminalizing marijuana has not reduced 89.6% - are for possession only. national trends in racial disparities, which remain unchanged since 2010. • While national arrest rates for marijuana possession were lower in 2018 than in 2010 for both Black and white individuals, racial disparities in those arrests have not improved, and in some jurisdictions, they have worsened. A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 7

• In every single state, Black people were more likely arrest rates also dropped in decriminalized states, to be arrested for marijuana possession, and in though to a lesser degree (33.6%). some states, Black people were up to six, eight, or almost 10 times more likely to be arrested. In 31 states, racial disparities were actually larger in FI DING#4 2018 than they were in 2010. R cial Disparities in Arrests Persist • Montana, Kentucky, Illinois, West Virginia, E en in States That Legalized or and Iowa were the states with the highest racial D criminalized Marijuana. disparities in marijuana possession arrest rates • . though the total number of people arrested (9.62,9.36,7.51,7.31, and 7.26 respectively). lor marijuana possession, and rates of arrests, ave decreased in all legalized states and most ecriminalized states for both Black and white FINDING #3 people, the racial disparities in arrest rates in Marijuana Arrests Decreased After hese states remain. Specifically, in every state Legalization or Decriminalization, hat has legalized or decriminalized marijuana But There Was Significant Eossession, Black people are still more likely to be Variability Across States That Only rrrested for possession than white people. Decriminalized. • n some legalized states, such as Maine and • Arrests for marijuana possession decreased I assachusetts, the racial disparities in marijuana over time (from 2010-2018) in all states that ossession arrests were larger in 2018 than in legalized recreational marijuana possession. 010. In other legalized states, such as California In some states, these decreases clearly began and Nevada, the disparities narrowed, although after legalization (Colorado, Maine, Nevada). In lack people were still more likely to be arrested other legalized states, decreases continued on a or marijuana possession than white people. downward trend that had begun pre-legalization • On average, states that have legalized marijuana (Alaska, Oregon, Washington). In two states possession had lower racial disparities in (California, Massachusetts), though there was possession arrests in 2018 compared both to a decline in arrests from 2010-2018, there was states that have only decriminalized and states little change after legalization. In these states, the where marijuana remains illegal. However, it is not decrease in arrests occurred prior to legalization clear that this difference is a result of legalization and remained low, perhaps due to earlier these states also had lower racial disparities in decriminalization. 2010, before any states had legalized. • Overall, arrests for marijuana possession also fell slightly between 2010-2018 in states that had decriminalized but not legalized recreational F NDING#5 marijuana. However, there is significant D ta Collection Failures Block a variability across states. Marijuana possession Flier Understanding of Racial arrest rates were approximately eight times higher isparities in Marijuana Arrests. in decriminalized states than in legalized states, although lower than in states where marijuana • Although a great body of evidence establishes that possession remained illegal. Latinx individuals face racial bias in policing and discrimination in the criminal legal system writ • In legalized states, arrests for marijuana sales also large, we were not able to compare marijuana decreased greatly from 2010 to 2018 (81.3%). Sales arrest rates for Latinx individuals in this report. B ACLU Research Report

• The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting arrest data is the most up-to-date and comprehensive data on arrests nationally, by state, and by county. However, similar to many federal data collection efforts, UCR data fails to disaggregate between Latinx individuals of different races, making it impossible to distinguish between Latinx and non-Latinx individuals in the Black and white populations. Because UCR data does not identify Latinx populations as a distinct racial group, potential disparities in arrest rates for Latinx populations cannot be examined. Arrests of Latinx individuals coded as white in the data likely artificially inflate the number of white arrests, leading to an underestimate of the disparity between Black and white arrest rates. 5 • In addition to their impact on Black and Latinx populations, other racial or ethnic groups may be affected by bias in policing and marijuana enforcement. Future research using UCR data is warranted to examine disparities for Native and Indigenous populations, and Asian and Pacific Islander populations, particularly in jurisdictions with large enough samples of these populations. However, disparities for bi- or multiracial people cannot be examined with UCR data because the UCR Program employs a "check one" approach to race, and does not allow for an individual to be coded as more than one race. Furthermore, disparities for Arab and Middle Eastern people cannot be examined with UCR data as they are not identified by the UCR Program at all. • The variation in reporting quality across years, agencies, and geographies also leaves some gaps in some constituents' ability to quantify racial disparities at the local level. A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 9

Introduction The criminalization of marijuana and the "War on I rugs" more broadly has been a misinformed and racist government campaign tha continues to result in the criminalization of millions of Americans. 6 Pursued under the guise of public safety and reducing marijuana consumption, this decades-long debacle has been a abject failure - it has harmed I communities, needlessly derailed lives, and waste1_taxpayers' valuable dollars. Both public opinion and sage public policy have called for an enf. to marijuana prohibition_ In response, several states have legalized or decriminalized majijuana use in recent years. As of March 2020, 11 states and Washington, D.C. , have legali ed the recreational consumption of 7 marijuana, and in 2019, Hawai'i became the 15th st· te to reduce the criminal consequences of marijuana-related offenses.8 A growing body of research has sought to explore the T e War on Marijuana impact of these reforms, finding that these reforms led to a reduction in marijuana-related arrests and In ur 2013 report The War on Marijuana in Black the myriad harmful consequences associated with an White, we documented the national scope of our a criminal conviction. 9 However, research suggests co ntry's decades-long, multibillion-dollar, racist war that racial disparities in marijuana arrests persist ag inst people who use marijuana. We found that, in in several of those states, remaining as sharp a 20 0, despite the fact that Black and white peoplel3 thorn in the nation's side as they were a decade ago.IO us marijuana at similar rates, Black people were Moreover, according to the FBI, after an overall dip in ar ested at over three times the rate of white people, the number of marijuana arrests between 2010-2014, aIljdup to eight times as often in some states. Further, such arrests began to increase again, and there were suth racial disparities increased between 2001 and roughly 100,000 more marijuana arrests in 2018 than 20 0, as did marijuana possession arrests overall. in 2015Y This report seeks to build on this existing S ch wasteful and race-driven enforcement of research - as well as our 2013 report The War on m rijuana laws did not occur overnight. Since Marijuana in Black and Whitel2-to document the th early decades of the 20th century, the national, state, and local landscape; to assess our crlminalization of marijuana has been a pretext progress; and to examine the potential promise of fo I the criminalization of Black and Brown people. 14 reforms. As this report will demonstrate, much of this T king advantage of several decades of Reefel' country has yet to start on the road toward equitable, M dness propaganda, in 1970, President Richard smart, reparative marijuana policy, and for those N on signed the Controlled Substances Act and that have, the journey is not complete. 10 ACLU Research Report

classified marijuana under Schedule I - reserved for the most dangerous class of drugs with the highest potential for abuse and little to no Much of this medical value, a designation shared by drugs like heroin, methamphetamines, and PCP. But such cou ntry has yet to classification -like the drug war generally - had start on the road nothing to do with marijuana or science, and everything to do with criminalizing and controlling toward equitable, certain communities. As John Ehrlichman, counsel to Nixon and assistant to the president for domestic smart, reparative affairs, said over two decades later: marijuana policy. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be against the war (Vietnam) or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with Making matters worse, the Trump administration marijuana and the Blacks with heroin, and has sought to abandon the Obama administration's then criminalizing both heavily, we could more sensible approach to marijuana policy disrupt those communities. We could arrest by resurrecting the saber-rattling of bygone their leaders, raid their homes, break up their anti-marijuana crusaders. Under the Obama meetings, and vilify them night after night on administration, local jurisdictions enjoyed the evening news. Did we know we were lying substantial deference with regard to setting about the drugs? Of course we did. "15 marijuana policy. In 2013, Deputy Attorney This war on people who use drugs has since been General James Cole issued a guideline ("The declared a failure by countless public health Cole Memorandum") significantly limiting the officials and advocacy organizations, the World enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that Health Organization, and the United Nations.I6 In had legalized.I9 Such deference to states that were response, certain countries have pursued nationwide experimenting with legalization was crucial for the legalization of marijuana, while many jurisdictions vitality of the newly legalized markets. Consumers across the U.S. have decriminalized or legalized needed to feel safe participating in marijuana marijuana for both recreational and medicinal use.I? activities, and entrepreneurs needed to know that Despite the often bipartisan groundswell to legalize the federal government was not about to shut down marijuana use, and the fact that two in every three their ventures or prosecute them for engaging in Americans support legalizing marijuana,I8 marijuana business that was legal in their state. The Obama remains illegal in a majority of states. administration's approach reassured states that the federal government would not interfere with states' legalization efforts as long as those efforts did not implicate federal enforcement priorities, such as Inconsistency at the interstate drug trafficking and drug cartels. 20 Federal Level Rather than respecting the will of the voters in states At the federal level, marijuana remains a Schedule I that legalized marijuana, the Trump administration substance, subjecting people involved in marijuana and its first attorney general, Jeff Sessions (who, activities to harsh penalties and preventing a range when he was a U.S. Senator, famously proclaimed, of scientific research that could upend decades of "Good people don't smoke marijuana"), promptly propagandized misinformation driven by racism rescinded this policy. The same week that California and fear. began selling and taxing marijuana for recreational A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 11

use21 and Vermont's legislature called for a formal pe pIe of color from participating in, leading, and I vote on its own legalization bill,22the Department bu'l ding wealth from the marijuana industry, and the of Justice announced that the Cole Memorandum fa' ure to repair the harms done to communities of was no longer in effect. Instead, Attorney General Sessions, echoing discredited alarmists of yesterday, asserted that "marijuana is a dangerous drug and that marijuana activity is a serious crime"23 and ntering Racial Justice instructed federal prosecutors "to use previously established prosecutorial principles that provide M rijuana legalization has always been a racial them all the necessary tools to disrupt criminal jus, ice issue. 27 Whereas marijuana use by white organizations, tackle the growing drug crisis, and pe pIe has been de facto legal in much of the country, I thwart violent crime across our country." in :f3lackand Brown communities, police have roJ.tinely stopped people, particularly youth - at Notwithstanding Sessions' peddling of prohibitionist, th~ park, on the street, in the train, on the bus, at time-worn rhetoric, most Americans support sc,ool, near school, by the community center, on the legalizing marijuana. Furthermore, state-level porch, or while driving - searching (usually in vain) efforts to get smart on marijuana continue, and fo something illegal, and, if they found marijuana, federal marijuana prosecutions are declining.24 ar esting and hauling people to jail.28 Such police Even Sessions' replacement, Attorney General harassment not only criminalizes people of color for William Barr, recently communicated to members engaging in an activity that white people participate of Congress that he would support a carve-out in kth relative impunity, it is a means of surveillance exemption that would protect states from federal ar¥ social controF9 counterproductive to public prosecution ifthey legalized recreational marijuana safety and community health. Indeed, repeated police consumption.25 enbounters prove traumatic and dehumanizing for th se who endure them. 30 In spite ofthis ongoing sea change, law enforcement in the U.S. continues to make hundreds of thousands Sirply put, marijuana is used at similar rates by of marijuana arrests every year, and Black people Bl ck and white people across America,31 yet Black continue to bear the disproportionate brunt of those a d Brown people are disproportionately targeted arrests. Marijuana legalization should be - and fo and harmed by its criminalization, subjected to indeed is - a racial justice issue. But thus far, racial st ps, frisks, arrests, and convictions of marijuana- justice has largely been a peripheral or incidental re ated offenses because of their race. This is true goal oflegalization, resulting in continued racist fo drug enforcement generally (see crack versus enforcement of marijuana laws, the exclusion of caine enforcement and sentencing) but perhaps o more starkly than when it comes to marijuana inforcement.32 Thus far, racial While some states that have legalized marijuana uilt expungement, resentencing, and justice has largely ~classification mechanisms into their reforms been a peripheral tb ensure that people previously convicted of *arijUana violations benefit retroactively from or incidental goal of rarijuana's legal status, their effectiveness in educing the disparate harm on people of color legalization. Jemains unclear. Furthermore, other states ave not centered racial equity in their reforms, 12 ACLU Research Report

and much more can be done to guarantee that Of course, progressive policies toward marijuana drug reform laws repair the harms suffered by enforcement can only be effective if they are part communities of color as a result of racially biased of a broader effort by prosecutors and police to end enforcement and criminalization. Precisely because selective enforcement of all criminal laws against of this history, racial justice remains a critical Black and Brown people. After all, marijuana prism through which drug reform policies should be prohibition is simply one tool in governments' evaluated.33 criminal law arsenal- albeit a very effective and ubiquitous one - to marginalize and dis empower people of color. Reforms Beyond Legislation: Criminal consequences is not the only harm The Role of Prosecutors and of marijuana prohibition. There is a range of Police potentially debilitating collateral consequences as well, many of which persist even after marijuana is To be sure, while legalization is the most powerful decriminalized or even legalized. These can further step toward reducing the damage of marijuana erode people's civil rights by impacting housing criminalization, there are other steps that can rights, parental rights, the administration of public be taken in the meantime. For example, local benefits, access to education, and immigration prosecutors have the power to end prosecution for status. For example, families who live in federally marijuana violations. Cyrus Vance, the district subsidized public housing face eviction or family attorney for Manhattan, instituted a Decline-to- separation if someone is accused of using marijuana Prosecute policy on marijuana possession and on their premises. Parents may lose their children consumption cases, reportedly resulting in a in family court proceedings if accused of using substantial reduction of such cases in the first 90 days marijuana. Disabled and poor recipients of public of the policy taking effect.34District Attorney Larry benefits still face the threat oflosing their benefits Krasner of Philadelphia, State's Attorney Marilyn for marijuana use. Immigrants can face deportation Mosby of Baltimore, Fairfax County Commonwealth for marijuana use. Because of the race-driven way in Attorney Steve Descano of Virginia, Cook County which marijuana criminal laws have been enforced, State's Attorney Kim Foxx of Illinois, and a growing each of these potentially life-altering consequences of list of prosecutors have launched similar efforts in criminalization has been borne disproportionately by order to discontinue the harmful approaches of their communities of color. predecessors on marijuana policy. While they ameliorate the harm of criminal prosecutions, such approaches cannot be successful Conclusion in reducing the harm caused to individuals subject to marijuana arrests if police departments are not In 2020, we enter a decade marked by confusion partners in the prosecutors' efforts. For example, and contradictions when it comes to marijuana after the Austin, Texas, City Council passed a policies. Today, marijuana is still categorized by resolution to reduce arrests for low-level marijuana the federal government among the most dangerous violations, the local police chief quickly rebuffed drugs with no medicinal value, and yet 37 states legislators and vowed to continue to enforce the police have rolled back prohibitionist laws (11 states and department's policy of arresting or issuing citations the District of Columbia have legalized recreational for marijuana violations. 35 Conversely, in Seattle, the use, 15 other states have decriminalized use, and police department played a critical role in minimizing 11 additional states have legalized it for medical the harms of marijuana criminalization.36 use only).37People in neighboring states, such as A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 13

Illinois and Wisconsin, enjoy markedly different rights given the conflicting legal status of marijuana across their borders.38 Traveling from Illinois to This report Wisconsin, someone who uses marijuana goes from being a casual consumer protected by local law to provides a new, a potential target of criminal laws subject to life- unprecedented altering prosecution. And the injustice of the past is a harbinger for today' s marijuana market. While examination of the corporations, entrepreneurs, and governments in some jurisdictions are making millions of dollars state of marijuana in profits and revenues in the legal marijuana enforcement in industry, poor people in other jurisdictions are stuck in handcuffs or jail cells, or with lifelong criminal the U.S. records for possessing or selling miniscule fractions of what these powerful companies move daily. In some states, there are even people serving sentences de riminalization policies have had on such arrests oflife without parole for marijuana convictions. 39 anf racial disparities. Clearly, there iB a long way to go to end the harms of marijuana prohibition and ensure that racial Infeed, while there is some existing research equity guides the implementation oflegalization and examining the potential fiscal and public safety decriminalization efforts. imtacts of marijuana law reforms in select states or urisdictions, there is considerably less empirical As we begin a new decade, it is time to assess the re earch on the impact of these reforms on people progress and failures of this country's marijuana of olor. The scope of this report not only allows policies at the state and county level with regard fo an examination ofthe national, state, and to racial justice. This report provides a new, 10 allandscapes, it will provide new information unprecedented examination of the state of marijuana o the success - or failure - ofthese current laws enforcement in the U.S. and the ramifications of to ddress the racial inequities perpetuated by decriminalization and legalization efforts - on overall m rijuana prohibitions. As such, these findings offer arrests, and specifically on the racial inequities ditection for policymakers, criminal justice leaders, perpetuated by this war. Using data on marijuana a d advocates who seek not only to end the war on arrests that local police departments provide the m rijuana, but to ensure that we do so in reparative FBI under the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, w ys that allow us to confront the racial injustice alongside supplemented data obtained directly from of he past by building a path forward with and for unreported jurisdictions, this report examines th people and communities most deeply harmed by nationwide and state trends in both arrests and m rijuana prohibition. Black/white racial disparities. Keenly aware of the consequential policy decisions made at local levels, this report also examines how different counties behave with respect to marijuana arrests and racial disparities in such arrests. And as the number of states implementing reforms in marijuana laws has increased since our last report, we are able to examine the potential impact legalization or 14 ACLU Research Report

Methodology and Limitations To document the incidence of marijuana and other drug arrests, this report uses data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, supplemented by data obtained directly from states, when necessary (i.e., Illinois, New York). The data is used descriptively to better understand marijuana arrest patterns over time. In this section we describe our data sources, usage, and limitations. Data • Uniform Crime Reporting Data [United States]: Summarized Agency Data, 2017- 2018. These data sets are publicly available Sources through the FBI's Crime Data API. The marijuana possession arrest data presented In addition, population estimates for each county for in this report was obtained from the FBI's Uniform each year were obtained from: Crime Reporting Program (VCR) Program. For the • U.S. Census Bureau, "Annual County years 2010-2016, the data was obtained through the Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD). Race, and Hispanic Origin," April 1, 2010, We downloaded tables of data that included monthly to July 1, 2018. This data was released in counts of each offense type for each agency that June 2019 by the population division of the U.S. reports to the UCR Program, for each racial group. Census Bureau. Raw data is available in CSV For the years 2017 and 2018, data was not available format here, and a data dictionary describing the . through NACJD at the time of analysis. For these variable definitions is available here. This dataset years, we used the FBI's Automated Programming estimates the population of each racial group of Interface (API) to retrieve the data. Data for each county on July 1 of the corresponding year. years 2017 and 2018 was last retrieved via API on While most states report to the UCR Program, some November 22,2019. do not, and thus data for Illinois and New York City • Uniform Crime Reporting Data [United were obtained separately. We obtained arrest data for States]: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race New York City from "NYPD Arrests Data" (Historic), [Alternative Title: ASR], 2011-2016. These published by the New York Police Department online datasets are publicly available through the NACJD at NYC OpenData. This data was last updated on and stored at the Inter-university Consortium for May 16, 2019. Data for Illinois was obtained through Political and Social Research at the University of a Freedom ofInformation Act, 5 ILCS 140 ("FOIA") Michigan. request submitted to the Illinois Department of A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 15

State Police, which acts as the central repository and Th arrest for marijuana possession would not be custodian for crime statistics from every policing rep rted in this situation. Additionally, if a person is body in Illinois. arr sted for multiple Part II offenses, the reporting ag~ncy determines which offense is the most serious We also submitted FOIA requests to Washington, and. scores only that arrest. Thus, any marijuana D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), poJsession arrest recorded in the VCR data is an as well as to the Florida Department of Law arrl st in which marijuana possession is the highest Enforcement, in November 2019. In December 2019, Ch;ge for which that individual was arrested during Washington, D.C.'s Mayor's Office of Legal Counsel th police interaction. Any racial disparity observed ruled in favor of a legal appeal submitted by the ACLV in arijuana arrests recorded in VCR data is thus not and ordered MPD to begin producing responsive a PrOduct of differential arrest rates for Part I crimes records within five business days. Nevertheless, or rimes that agencies deem more serious than I the District of Columbia did not provide data in an m ijuana possession. According to the FBI, more appropriate, timely manner for analysis in this report, thI 85% of all arrests are for a single offense. and Florida refused to provide any data at all. It s ould be noted that for data obtained from New Yo k City, the New York Police Department publishes Counting and Classifying Marijuana Arrests a d ta footnote that states, "Only valid arrests are inQ~udedin this release. Arrests that were voided The data used in this report (both VCR data and wfn further investigation reveals person did not supplementary state data) count one arrest for each cOjmit offense or it is determined no offense has separate instance in which a person is arrested, bef~ committed are excluded from the data set." As cited, or summoned for an offense. Because a person sueh, NYC data may not be directly comparable to may be arrested more than once in a year, the arrest ot er agencies that include arrests that were not numbers used in this report do not reflect the actual ex luded from the dataset. Individual nuances in the number of individuals who have been arrested; rather, WBi police departments categorize arrests, due to the arrest data shows the total number of times di erences in state law, enforcement priorities, and that persons have been arrested, as reported by law re~orting capacity, are inherent in any interpretation enforcement agencies to the VCR Program. of PCR data, and will be discussed more in the When someone is arrested for multiple crimes arising Ii itations section below. from a single police interaction, the VCR Program calls it a "multiple-offense situation." As a general rule, a multiple-offense situation requires classifying each of the offenses committed into "Part I" and "non-Part I" offenses. Part I offenses are the following: e VCR Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race dataset and Murder, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, th Summarized Agency Data from the VCR API Burglary, Larceny (theft), Motor Vehicle Theft, and in lude variables that indicate the population covered Arson (fire). Marijuana possession is defined as a non- b a particular agency. The FBI also provides an Part I offense, as are all drug offenses. The Hierarchy "A enc Crosswalk file" which shows which agencies Rule, as described in the FBI/VCR Handbook, co respond to each county. To find each county total, requires that in a multiple-offense situation involving w~summarized the total number of arrests and both Part I (e.g., Robbery - Other Dangerous th total population within each county. We then Weapon) and non-Part I offenses (e.g., Marijuana- c pared the population of all the agencies reporting Possession), only the Part I offense, Robbery - Other d ta in a particular county to the total population of Dangerous Weapon, is classified and reported. th t county to identify a coverage indicator. 16 ACLU Research Report

The coverage indicator is a measure of how reporting 12 full months is submitted as-is. Second, completely the agencies within a given county have data for an agency reporting three to 11 months is reported their arrests to the VCR Program. For multiplied by a weight of [l21months reported]. For each agency, we multiply the population covered by example, if an agency reports 50 arrests over six that agency by the number of months reported, and months of data, 50 is multiplied by 12/6 (or 2) to divide by 12. For example, if an agency that covered estimate that 100 arrests would have occurred over 50,000 people reported data for 12 out of 12 months, a similar 12-month period. For agencies reporting the "reported population" of that agency is 50,000 .• zero to two months, data is too sparse to be reliable. 12/12, or 50,000. However, ifthat same agency only These are first set to zero, and then data is estimated reported data for 10 out of 12 months of the year, its using rates calculated from fully reporting agencies reported population is 50,000 .•10/ 12, or 41,667. located in the missing agency's state and geographic stratum. More about defining the geographic strata Participation in the VCR Program varies widely. is described by the NACJD, but, briefly, if an agency Many counties have full participation, with all covering a population of 15,000 fails to report data local enforcement agencies in the county reporting to the VCR, then the arrest total for that agency is to the VCR Program, but some agencies within imputed using the average number of arrests among some counties do not report data, or do not report similarly sized agencies in the same state and year. every month, due at times to budget and capacity constraints. If an agency reports data for fewer than Finally, that agency-level data is aggregated to 12 months, we used the FBI's methodology, described the county level using the crosswalk file. The total below, to impute the missing arrest counts. county-level reported population is aggregated and divided by the county-level total population, including We impute data at the agency level, and summarize nonreporting agencies, to arrive at the county-level coverage at the county level to get a coverage coverage indicator. Throughout this analysis, when indicator, or a measure of the countywide data highlighting individual counties, we exclude counties quality. While many counties have a coverage with a coverage of less than 50% - that is, counties indicator of 100%, some counties have missing where arrests were imputed for more than 50% of data, and the more data a county is missing, the less the population covered in that county. For example, confidence we can have in our estimates. If a county is in 2018, 12.6% (381) of counties had less than 50% less than 50% covered, meaning that more than half coverage and were thus excluded from these analyses. of its data is imputed, we do not report its individual arrest counts or arrest rate estimates. Though analysis of raw data undercounts the total arrest counts because of agencies that do not report, the results on the impacts of racial disparities do not substantially vary from the results using Imputation the methodology from our 2013 report. Thus, The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data for consistency with NACJD, we use the VCR's (NACJD), part of the Inter-university Consortium imputation methodology for this report. for Political and Social Research, imputes data for missing agencies to aggregate to the county leveL We use the same procedure but also aggregate by Calculating Rate Ratios race to be able to examine racial disparities. Their imputation procedure is described in full here, but Racial disparities in policing and enforcement of in brief, the following steps are used to estimate the marijuana possession laws can be quantified by number of arrests for agencies with various types comparing arrest rates in the Black population to of reporting procedures. First, data for any agency arrest rates in the white population. By dividing the A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 17

rate in the Black population by the rate in the white Ealh state profile includes a county-level map. population, we can estimate if Black people are more On hat map, counties for which we received no likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana da la(roughly 50 counties across all 49 states) are possession, and, if so, how much more likely. Below is in~cated by stripes. In addition, there were five the formula used to calculate the rate ratio: co nties that arrested multiple Black people for mar ijuana possession and zero white people. The RR=Ba/Bp/Wa/Wp me sure of racial disparities in these counties is Where RR is the Black-to-white rate ratio of arrests mathematically infinite, so while we do not report for marijuana possession; Ba/Bp is the rate of arrest nuteriC rate ratios for these counties, they are in the Black population, and Wa/Wp is the rate of col red in red in the county-level maps, indicating arrest in the white population. ra .al disparities above the national average. Sil.ilarly, the counties that reported zero Black and whIte possession arrests (roughly 125 counties) are coli red in grey, indicating racial disparities below the State Profi les na ional average. We used the following additional methods for the 49 state profile sheets included at the end ofthis report. Limitations and Considerations When identifying the top counties with the largest racial disparities per state, we generally only included Thts report, which analyzes data from 2010-2018, counties with: a population of at least 30,000, a Black in jombination with our previous report assessing population of at least 1%,a data coverage ratio of da a from 2000-2010, offers an unprecedented at least 50%, and at least 25 arrests for marijuana lot at the national, state, and county landscape possession. We applied this inclusion criteria to offarijUana enforcement over the past nearly two avoid highlighting counties with outlier rates due de ades. However, as with all research, there are to very small populations and numbers of arrests. so e limitations to the data. Here we present those I Because states vary widely in their demographics, it limitations, along with a few key areas to consider was imperative to modify the inclusion criteria in w n interpreting the findings of this report. select cases, which are also noted in each state profile sheet. For states with less than a 1%Black population overall, we included counties for the ranking if they L~.liI1itationsof Missing Data met all criteria outside of the Black population T ambition ofthe FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting criterion. We extended this rule to Hawai'i, where Pr gram in attempting to harmonize arrest data we only obtained data for two counties. In Vermont, from more than 18,000 agencies across the country very few counties made more than 25 marijuana mhes it the most comprehensive data source for possession arrests in 2018, so we lowered that cutoff u erstanding arrests in the U. S., but gaps remain. to 10 marijuana possession arrests. Additionally, is section describes our attempts to deal with because Alaska is less densely populated, we th se gaps, their comparability to UCR data, and the broadened the population criteria to include counties ex ensibility of this analysis to previous work. in Alaska with a population of at least 20,000 and at least 10 marijuana possession arrests. Those As mentioned previously, not every agency reports counties were excluded from consideration when da,a for each month. The imputation method identifying the top counties per state with largest de cribed previously is used by the FBI to fill in racial disparities, but were included in other aspects ga s in county-level crime data, but these methods of analyses for the state profiles and the entire report. ar simple and do not account for fundamental 18 ACLU Research Report

differences between reporting agencies and different values than in our previous report. For the nonreporting agencies. Though a majority of the purposes of examining trends between 2000 and 2018, FBI's agencies and an even larger majority of the these two reports can go hand-in-hand, but it is not a agencies covering large populations like cities goal for our 2010 estimates of racial disparities in this had 100%coverage in the years we analyzed, we report to perfectly match those used with a different were unable to determine whether systematic imputation methodology. Rather, the consistent biases existed between reporting agencies and overall findings between the two reports, despite nonreporting agencies with regard to population the slight variations in methodology, are a signal demographics. The lowest unit of measurement at that these findings are robust to multiple different which demographic data by race was available was imputation methods. the county level, not the agency level. It is conceivable Despite our repeated attempts (as detailed that the demographics of agencies with full UCR previously) to obtain data from every jurisdiction for reporting are different from those with little or no this report, including those that do not report to the UCR reporting. If arrest rates in populations in FBI's UCR program, we were unable to do so. The these nonreporting agencies differ systematically District of Columbia refused to provide data in an from arrest rates in reporting agencies, it is likely appropriate, timely manner for analysis in this report, that our estimates are imprecise. Systematic and Florida refused to provide any data at all. Thus, differences could bias the results of our analysis in findings from this report are limited to 49 of the 50 either direction. However, given the consistency U.S. states. of the racial disparities in every state and nearly every county in the nation, we feel that despite this Race and Ethnicity Data Limitations variation in agency reporting, additional data is unlikely to change the direction of the findings - that Although nationwide the criminalization of is, to remove the measured effect of racial disparities. marijuana has been largely targeted at Black and Nevertheless, we do not report estimates for counties Latinx individuals, UCR data only allows for an in which less than 50% of the population is covered by exploration of disparities between Black and white a reporting agency. people, and not between Latinx and white people. Similar to many federal data collection efforts, We use a different imputation methodology in this UCR data does not identify Latinx individuals as a report than was used in our previous report, which distinct racial group, but as an ethnicity. "Ethnicity" was published in 2013. Our imputation procedure variables are available in UCR data codebooks, follows the FBI's procedure exactly, while the ostensibly to distinguish between Hispanic and non- previous study used a weighting procedure at the Hispanic individuals of each race, but these variables county level rather than imputation at the agency are missing so frequently that we were unable level to account for missing data. The outcomes do to employ them in this analysis. As such, Latinx not change substantially whether one uses county- individuals of all races are likely miscoded in various level weighting or agency-level imputation, so we ways. While Afro-Latinx people are likely to be coded selected the better-known procedure for this report as Black in policing data and treated as Black by to ensure our methodology is more transparent and police, non-Black Latinx people may often be counted replicable. For the same reasons, we provide access as white by reporting agencies. This miscoding to the data and code with this updated report. This likely leads to an underestimation of the true rate report's methodology differs only in minor ways from of racial disparities experienced by people of color those of the earlier report, but we present 2010 data at the hands of police. Arrests of Latinx individuals here for comparison in the states and counties where coded as white in the data likely artificially the methodology implemented here results in slightly inflate the number of white arrests, leading to an A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 19

underestimation of the disparity between Black and arr st rates. Further research, both quantitative and white arrest rates. qu litative, is warranted to more clearly understand document the effects of marijuana reforms, and We are mindful that in addition to Black and Latinx be best done at the individual state and/or groups, racial bias in policing and drug enforcement ty level. may negatively affect other racial or ethnic groups, such as Native and Indigenous populations, Arab and Middle Eastern populations, Asian populations, siderations about Timeframe Pacific Islander populations, and those with multiple report examines arrest rates from 2010 racial/ethnic identities (e.g., biracial), among others. thr ugh 2018. Although 2018 was the most recent The VCR data classifies individuals' race as "Black" yea in which data was available, it still did not "white," "Asian," "American Indian or Alaska Nati~e " all w for an examination ofthe present state of "Native Hawaiian," or "unknown." As such, future ' marijUana enforcement. Inevitably, data analyses research using VCR data could examine racial an reporting must always lag somewhat behind, disparities beyond just Black and white populations, pre enting any research from being as current as and such analysis might be particularly warranted de ired; as such, the findings provided in this report in jurisdictions with significantly large populations ca only reflect practices as of 2018. In 2018 and of those who have experienced racially biased 20 9, three states (Vermont, Michigan, and IllinoiB) policing - for example, examination of disparities in legfliZ~,~ marijuana possession, a~d three others arrest rates between Native Americans and whites (H wall, New York, and New MeXICO)decriminalized in Montana. Disparities for bi- or multiracial people po session. As data is made available for 2019 and cannot be examined with VCR data, however. The su sequent years, future analysis is warranted to VCR Program employs a "check one" approach ex lore the potential effects of the more recent laws to race, and does not allow for an individual to be as ell as the longer-term impacts ofpre-2018 laws. coded as more than one race. Furthermore ,Arab and Middle Eastern people are not identified by the VCR Program. Thus, researchers must turn to other data sources in order to examine arrest rates for multiracial and Arab or Middle Eastern individuals. Considerations about Causality This report presents descriptive statistics, providing information about numbers of arrests, rates of arrests, and racial disparities in those rates. Though we provide this information for states that have legalized and decriminalized marijuana - both before and after these reforms were enacted - we have not performed the requisite statistical controls that would be required to establish a causal link between these laws and the subsequent changes in arrest rates and racial disparities. Indeed, in many states and counties, arrest rates dropped between 2010 and 2018 despite the fact that marijuana possession remained illegal in these localities, demonstrating that many other factors besides legalization drive 20 ACLU Research Report

Marijuana Arrests Despite an increasing number of states legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana, law enforcement made well over half a million marijuana arrests in 2018, more than for any other drug, and more than for all violent crimes combined as reported by the FBI.40 As expected, states that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana possession have seen a decline in marijuana possession arrests. However, as of 2018, the national downward trend appears to have leveled off, even as the number of states that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana has increased. FIGURE 1 The National Landscape National Arrests for Marijuana and All Other Ehugs (2010-2018) As indicated in Figure 1, between 2010 and 2018, marijuana arrests in the U.S. trended weakly downward, with rebounds in 2013, 2016, and 800,000 2017. By 2018, arrest rates were higher than in 2015, despite additional states having legalized and decriminalized during that timeframe. In 700,000 no year did they drop below 500,000. In 2018 alone, there were an estimated 692,965 marijuana arrests - the vast majority of which (89.6%) were 600,000 for possession (see Figure 2). As shown in Figure Source: FBI/Uniform Cnmp Reporting Progr::trn Data 3, marijuana possession arrest rates have dropped Note: Flnnrl"1 anrl W~.~hlnJfon D.C cirri not prl)vu'i~ rlata by approximately 15%from 2010 to 2018, resulting FIGURE 2 in a decrease in the national arrest possession National Arrests for Marijuana Possession and rate, from 250.52 per 100,000 in 2010 to 203.88 per Sales (2010-2018) 100,000 people in 2018. 600,000 As shown in Figure 4, marijuana arrests still account for more drug arrests in the U.S. than 400,000 any other drug class. 41 Marijuana arrests also accounts for more arrests than for all violent crime 200,000 combined.42 In 2018, 43.2% of all drug arrests were Marijuana sales for marijuana offenses (see Table 1). 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Source: FBI Jndorm Cr fI1e Reportll ., Program Oat;) Note: Flom..!", )r)d W)~l1lr~ton DC ctd not prov de iota A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 21

FIGURE 3 S ate and County Landscape Marijuana Possession Arrest Rate per 100k People (2010-2018) Si ce most drug law enforcement occurs at the state 400 an~ local level, it is crucial that an examination of mdrijuana possession arrests focus on state and 300 COilnty data. 200 St tes 100 Noitsurprisingly, arrest rates vary greatly between o st tes. Here, we provide a comparative assessment; 2012 2014 2016 2018 2010 cific profile sheets for every state are available in Source: FBI, Uniform Crtme RelJort'f'lg Pro~ram Data and U S. Censu3 Data Note: I=IOtida ()nd \Nasrlngtul D.: d ,1rot nr Jvde data th State Profiles section ofthis reportY T~E national marijuana possession arrest rate in FIGURE 4 Number of Arrests by Drug Type (2000-2016) 20i8 was 203.88 per 100,000. State arrest rates 1.000.000 rayged from 707.34 arrests per 100,000, in South D~ota, to 4.52 arrests per 100,000 people, in 750.000 Massachusetts (see Appendix, Table A for data for all st tes). Not only did South Dakota have the highest 500.000 ar est rate in 2018 (see Figure 5), it also had the grjatest growth, with a 176%increase in marijuana 250.000 Synthetic Narcotics porsession arrests from 2010. Although nationally o there was a decline in marijuana possession arrests, 2000 2005 2010 2015 artest rates actually increased in 17 states (see Table Source: FBI/UnllOtin Crllnt! Rt.!pol tlng PfOgf rl1 Datuj 2). Note: Thl, grdph e"cludes d,]ld from tJt~WYOlk Cit .lIlInot<; Florld.1. ;Ind W1~hl1l5ton DC. ,uhleh Ncrt! not 3vildable .1t tlmt..: )1 thh dl Jh I:; In iterms of total raw numbers of arrests, Texas had th highest total number of marijuana possession TABLE 1 ar ests, with an estimated 70,017 arrests in the year National Arrests for Marijuana and All Drugs 20f8 alone (see Appendix, Table B). In 12 states, % All Drug m .rijuana arrests accounted for more than half Total Arrests That of 11drug arrests in 2018, with Wyoming having Marijuana All Drug Were for th highest percent of all drug arrests that were Year Arrests Arrests Marijuana for marijuana possession, at 58.6% (see Appendix, 2010 831,849 1,556,916 53.4% T llbleB for total number of all drug arrests and total 2011 768,390 1,488,628 51.6% n mber of marijuana possession arrests by state). 2012 734,019 1,469,273 50.0% 2013 856,263 1,702,249 50.3% Counties 2014 679,188 1,453,543 46.7% Ndt only do states vary widely in marijuana 2015 595,127 1,369,543 43.5% e orcement, but even within states there remains 2016 611,026 1,445,215 42.3% a ange in how marijuana offenses are treated at 2017 702,778 1,613,926 43.5% th county level. Individual district attorneys and 2018 692,965 1,603,316 43.2% po ice departments have a substantial amount of Source: FBIIU',lfullll C. In R 'P')ltr \~ PIO~;rJfT Da[,J di cretion in deciding who gets arrested, charged, 22 ACLU Research Report

FIGURE 5 States With Highest Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates per 100k (2018) South Dakota South Carolina Wyoming West Virginia Georgia Louisiana Nebraska New Jersey Tennessee Utah Missouri North Dakota Idaho Wisconsin Arkansas o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 and convicted for drug possession. In some cases, TABLE 2 municipalities have passed their own ordinances States With Increases in Marijuana Possession related to marijuana use and enforcement. Arrest Rates (2010-2018) Table 3 lists the 20 counties with the highest % Change marijuana possession arrest rates in 2018. Four Total Arrest Total Arrest in Total of the top five counties are in South Carolina, the State Rate (2010) Rate (2018) Arrest Rate state with the second highest arrest rates for 256.17 707.34 176.1% South Dakota marijuana possession. Less predictably, three Utah 150.64 343.37 127.9% Maryland counties are represented in the top 10, North Dakota 180.64 332.52 84.1% even though Maryland decriminalized certain Wyoming 384.56 592.89 54.2% amounts of possession in 2014. Although these counties had the highest arrest rates in 2018, South Carolina 440.57 673.26 52.8% other counties have had greater increases in Arkansas 215.85 322.12 49.2% their rates over time, such as Prince George and West Virginia 299.85 447.32 49.2% Charlottesville City in Virginia and Franklin, Idaho 225.02 332.16 47.6% North Carolina. See Table 4 for a list of the 20 New Jersey 253.75 369.54 45.6% counties with the greatest increases since 2010. Ohio 184.03 248.68 35.1% New Mexico 168.15 225.71 34.2% Virginia 236.12 314.33 33.1% States That Legalized or Pennsylvania 180.45 226.52 25.5% Decriminalized Marijuana Tennessee 283.50 343.94 21.3% Possession Georgia 361.87 428.81 18.5% Louisiana 349.32 412.48 18.1% Since our last report in 2013, several states have Wisconsin 289.37 324.37 12.1% legalized or decriminalized marijuana offenses. Source: FBI Ur)rfOHn Crime RepoltlllC PrOer •.HT, DiJtJ Jlld IJ S Cen U'~ Ddt •..• Although these laws vary in their specific elements and implementation, we examine if - and how A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 23

- these laws have affected arrest rates and, in a leg 1status of marijuana possession for all states and subsequent section, racial disparities in arrests. D. . as of March 2020 in the Appendix (Table C). As of March 2020, 11 states and Washington, D.C. had legalized marijuana possession and an Leralized States additional 15 states had decriminalized marijuana In r018, on average, legalized states had the lowest possession (see Appendix, Table C). At the time of this report, however, the most current data arEst rates for marijuana possession compared available was from 2018, and thus, for the following to ther states.45 Although legalized states also analyses, we considered only states that legalized or ha' lower rates of possession arrests even before decriminalized before 2018. See Table 5 for the listing leg ization, the over-time trends make it clear that of such states.44 We also provide a full listing of the leg1lization has made a difference overall. Figure TABLE3 Top 20 Counties for Marijuana Possession -r: p 20 Counties for Largest Increases in Arrest Rates per 100k people (2018) M rijuana Possession Arrest Rates per 100k p ople (2010-2018) Possession 2010 2018 % County County Rate Rate Increase Arrest Rates Chester, South Carolina 2,000.72 Pr nce George, Virginia 61.72 1090.14 1666.3% Columbia, New York 1,794.25 Charlottesville City, Virginia 41.41 371.13 796.2% Newberry, South Carolina 1,610.30 Fr, nklin, North Carolina 37.27 241.05 546.8% Worcester, Maryland 1,391.27 Bo'$sier,Louisiana 51.18 316.86 519.1% Darlington, South Carolina 1,370.12 A~gusta, Virginia 8.15 46.38 469.1% Greene, New York 1,315.23 Isle of Wight, Virginia 50.97 286.85 462.8% Marion, South Carolina 1,258.89 Somerset, Pennsylvania 97.51 530.36 444.0% Dorchester, Maryland 1,203.20 Fr ~nklin, Virginia 92.55 489.37 428.8% Calvert, Maryland 1,144.53 Ar gelina, Texas 77.75 408.73 425.7% Dodge, Nebraska 1,138.31 H; ywood, North Carolina 62.78 314.15 400.4% Prince George, Virginia 1,090.14 Pi ke, Pennsylvania 137.56 669.40 386.6% Spalding, Georgia 1,084.48 VE rmilion, Louisiana 65.41 308.47 371.6% Laurens, South Carolina 1,083.89 C. Ipeper, Virginia 219.90 1035.79 371.0% Kershaw, South Carolina 1,075.21 Jerferson, Ohio 144.08 663.78 360.7% Culpeper, Virginia 1,035.79 Nassau, New York 60.50 275.49 355.4% Washington, New York 1,000.11 M ushall, Tennessee 61.92 277.70 348.5% Colleton, South Carolina 973.88 H4mderson, Kentucky 43.23 193.02 346.5% St. Mary, Louisiana 966.93 Rcbertson, Tennessee 94.98 409.14 330.8% Erie, Ohio 963.47 Chester, South Carolina 478.57 2000.72 318.1% Perry, Pennsylvania 956.17 Athens, Ohio 135.64 554.44 308.8% Source: FBI Unltorrn C nl,: Rl.por t lb Pf'J5r 1m O-:}t,J j"U US CI,..f1 J Dl'_il So ~rce: FBI/Uniform Come Reporting Progralll DJta ~nd J S. Cens(I'; Dala Note: Include •• tQunt, ••. '11th· 30(JI)U pOpJlll'Or. > 1 81J(':1( poprd.JtlOll If lev:,t 2') No e: Includes coulllle~ ,'Vlth..•30.000 population. 1. BlaCK populatIon. alleast 25 m(:lrlJU,lll,) po" es:;ron lrrt!~r md 60 UCP overd~L Ino IJuana possession arrests In 2018 :1nd > 50'l,l., UCR coveraGe 24 ACLUResearch Report

6 illustrates the changes from 2010 to 2018 in TABLE 5 marijuana possession arrest rates for states that had States That Legalized or Decriminalized Marijuana Possession (Before 2018) legalized before 2018, states that had decriminalized before 2018, and states where marijuana possession Eight States and District of Columbia Legalized remained fully illegal in 2018.46 The rates fall Colorado (2012) precipitously in legalized states, indicating that, Washington (2012) as expected, legalization of marijuana possession Alaska (2014) reduces overall arrest rates for marijuana possession. District of Columbia (2014) Overall, arrests for marijuana possession decreased Oregon (2014) over time in all states that had legalized. However, California (2016) when dis aggregating legalized states, we see some Maine (2016) interesting differences (see Figure 7; note that Massachusetts (2016) the red line on the state graphs indicates when Nevada (2016) legalization occurred). In some states, the decreases Five States Decriminalized Before 2010 in arrests clearly began after legalization (Colorado, Ohio (1975) Maine, and Nevada). In other legalized states, Minnesota (1976) decreases continued on a downward trend that had already begun pre-legalization (Alaska, Oregon, North Carolina (1977) and Washington). In Massachusetts and California, Mississippi (1978) perhaps due to earlier decriminalization, the Nebraska (1979) decline in arrest rates occurred several years before Eight States Decriminalized Between 2010-2017 legalization, and remained relatively flat in the years Connecticut (2011) just before legalization and through 2018 (see also Rhode Island (2012) Figure 7). Vermont (2013) Marijuana sales make up a small proportion of Maryland (2014) marijuana arrests - only 10.4% of all marijuana Missouri (2014) arrests in 2018. Decreases in arrest rates for Delaware (2015) marijuana sale were far greater in legalized states Illinois (2016) than in other states, dropping from 36.1 arrests per New Hampshire (2017) 100,000 in 2010 to 6.27 arrests per 100,000 in 2018, an 82.7% decrease in the arrest rate. In comparison, FIGURE 6 over the same time period, sales arrest rates Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates Per 100k decreased by 35.1% in states that had decriminalized People by Legal Status (2010-2018) and 13.2% in states where marijuana remained fully illegal. Fully 111••• 1 Before 2018 Decrlmlnollud Be,.". 2018 Locol Bel •••• 2018 While marijuana possession and sales arrests consistently fell following legalization, the impact of marijuana legalization on other drug arrests is less clear. As shown in Figure 7, in some states, such as - Alaska, other drug arrest trends appear unassociated 24.5 with marijuana. In others, such as Colorado, other drug arrests climb following legalization. This is not 2010 2018 2010 2018 2010 2018 necessarily the result of marijuana legalization, and Source: FBI Undnrm ('rlmp Rpportrng PIOE;ram Datrl.lnr1 U.S, census Dat-) A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 25

FIGURE 7 Drug Arrests in States With Legalized Marijuana (Befo e 2018) ••• All Other Drugs ••• Marijuana Possession Alaska California Colorado 1,600 200,000 12,000 1,200 150,000 10,000 100,000 8,000 800 50,000 6,000 400 o Maine Massachuse s Nevada 3,000 25,000 2,500 9,000 20,000 2,000 6,000 15,000 1,500 10,000 3,000 1,000 5,000 0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Oregon Washington 16,000 12,500 10,000 12,000 7,500 8,000 5,000 4,000 2,500 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2010 2012 2014 20 6 2018 Source: FBI/I)r IOlln (•.'IIN.; R{;portl! b ProgrJIT D-:ttJ additional research is warranted to understand how, ev· enced sharp declines immediately following if at all, marijuana legalization impacts enforcement deriminalization, a number of other states of other drugs. co~tinued a downward trend in arrests that began prf,decriminalization (Connecticut, Delaware, Ill· ois, New Hampshire, and Vermont). Decriminalized States M rijuana sales arrests also dropped in Decriminalization also appears to be associated with decriminalized states from 2010 to 2018, although a reduction in the rate of marijuana arrests, though it is less dramatically related than legalization (see . to much lesser extent than in legalized states. In st tes that decriminalized marijuana between the Figure 6). Overall, arrests for possession fell slightly ye rs of 2010 and 2018, sales arrest rates went from between 2010-2018 in states that had decriminalized 378 per 100,000 people down to 24.5 per 100,000 by marijuana possession, but possession arrest 2~8 - a 35.1%drop. For comparison, even in states rates remain approximately eight times higher in were marijuana remained fully illegal, there was on decriminalized states than in legalized states. av rage a 13.2%decrease in marijuana sales arrests As illustrated in Figure 8, there was also significant fr m 2010 to 2018. Similar to legalized states, arrest variability across decriminalized states (the red line ra es of all other drugs appear generally unassociated on state graphs indicates when decriminalization wi h the decriminalization of marijuana possession occurred).47Whereas Maryland and Rhode Island (s e also Figure 8). 26 ACLU Research Report

FIGURE 8 Drug Arrests in All States that Decriminalized Marijuana (between 2010-2017) •• All Other Drugs •• Marijuana Possession Connecticut Delaware Illinois 8,000 3,000 25,000 2,500 20,000 6,000 2,000 15,000 4,000 1,500 10,000 2,000 1,000 5,000 Maryland Missouri New Hampshire 24,000 22,000 24,000 4,000 20,000 21,000 3,000 18,000 18,000 2,000 16,000 14,000 15,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Rhode Island Vermont 1,200 2,000 900 1,500 600 1,000 300 500 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting ProgrulTl D.lll Across the country, considering both possession and sale offenses, states that legalized marijuana have seen larger average decreases in marijuana arrest rates than states that only decriminalized marijuana, A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 27

Racial Dispariti s in Marijuana Arre ts As legalization efforts take hold in states across t~e nation, it is critical to continue examining the extent of racial bias in the enforcefent of marijuana laws, specifically against Black and Latinx populations. 48In order '0 ground legalization efforts in racial justice, we must understand the impact of r forms on racial inequities in drug enforcement. Thus, in this report, we examine racial disparities not only at the national, state, and county level, as we did in our 2013 repoi t,49but also specifically among states that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana. Because the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (VCR) FI URE 9 Program data, like many federal data collection Usage of Marijuana For Ages 12+ (2018) efforts, treats Latinx as an ethnicity rather than Ufetlmeu •• Pasty •• ru •• Past month u•• a distinct racial group, Latinx individuals are incorporated into both white and Black arrest rates. Thus, because the UCR data used for this report does not identify Latinx populations as a distinct racial group, potential disparities in arrest rates for Latinx • • . populations cannot be examined (see Methodology and Limitations section for more information). Black White Black White We are mindful that in addition to Latinxgroups, racial bias in policing and drug enforcement may negatively affect other racial or ethnic groups, such as Native and Indigenous populations, Arab and ex licitly on Black-white disparities in marijuana Middle Eastern populations, Asian populations, Pacific Islander populations, and those with multiple Fo this report, racial disparities in policing and racial! ethnic identities (e.g., biracial populations), elorcement of marijuana possession laws were among others. Improved data collection tools and q ntified by comparing arrest rates in the Black more in-depth research into the specific experiences po ulation to arrest rates in the white population. of these groups as related to drug enforcement is B I dividing the arrest rate in the Black population clearly necessary. However, given the focus of this by the arrest rate in the white population, we can report and the limitations of the most current and es imate how much more likely Black people are than comprehensive available data (VCR), we provide data 28 ACLU Research Report

white people to be arrested for marijuana possession, FIGURE 10 known as the "rate ratio" (see the Methodology and Rates of Black and White Marijuana Possession Arrests per 100k people Limitations section for more details on how the rate ratio was calculated). A rate ratio of one indicates 600 that Black individuals and white individuals are arrested at the same rate. A rate ratio greater than one indicates how much more likely Black populations are 400 than white populations to be arrested for marijuana 200 .••• White ---- arrest rate••• possession - for example, a rate ratio of three indicates that Black people are three times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana 0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 possession. A rate ratio ofless than one indicates that white people are more likely than Black people in Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Progr.1nl Dnta and U,S. Cen'iuc;. D.lt.:l Note: Flollda i;lnd Wac,hington, D,C did not provid~ d:Ha a given state or county to be arrested for marijuana possession. annual surveys of marijuana use over respondents' Despite the pronounced disparities in arrest rates lifetime, over the past year, and over the past month. 50 for marijuana possession between Black and SAMSHA survey data consistently finds that rates white people demonstrated in this report, rates of ever use and recent use by race do not significantly of marijuana use are roughly equal between Black differ between Black and white populations (see and white people. The Substance Abuse and Mental Figure 9 for 2018 usage rates). Therefore, the wide Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), a racial disparities in marijuana possession arrest federal branch of the U.S. Department of Health and rates cannot be explained by differences in marijuana Human Services, conducts nationally representative usage rates between Black and white people. TABLE 6 Black and White Marijuana Possession Rates (2010-2018) The National Landscape Arrest Rates per 100k Enormous disparities exist nationwide between arrest rates of Blacks and whites for marijuana Black/ Marijuana Black White White possession. Despite using marijuana at similar rates Possession Arrest Arrest Rate (see Figure 9), Black people are 3.64 times more Year Arrest Rate Rate Rate Ratio likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana 2010 250.52 659.06 199.19 3.31 possession. In 2018, 567 Black people per 100,000 2011 229.69 624.43 178.43 3.50 were arrested for marijuana possession, compared to 156 white people per 100,000 (see Figure 10). While 2012 217.79 601.68 168.75 3.57 national arrest rates for marijuana possession have 2013 253.51 625.68 212.55 2.94 fallen for both Black and white individuals since 2010, 2014 199.40 552.13 155.80 3.54 the rate ratio has not improved at all. As detailed in 2015 174.06 459.89 138.90 3.31 Table 6, in 2010, Black people were 3.31 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than 2016 179.99 477.64 143.42 3.33 whites, and in 2018, they were 3.64 times more likely- 2017 207.44 560.08 160.60 3.49 the greatest disparity ofthe past nine years. 2018 203.88 567.51 156.06 3.64 Source: FBI/Uniform Crime RepOrlll'o Program Daln 'lnrl U.S Censu, Drltd A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 29

State and County Landscape two~poPulations, for each state. States are ordered by the r rate ratio. In 2018, Montana was the state with the ighest rate of racial disparities between Black States anlwhite people, with a rate ratio of9.62, indicating Although overall arrest rates and the extent of tha Black people in that state were 9.62 times more racial disparities in arrests varied across states, in lik ly to he arrested for marijuana possession than every single state, Black people were more likely to who epeople. be arrested for marijuana possession than white Alt, ough Montana had the greatest racial disparities, people. Figure 11 displays a map of racial disparities WYFming had the highest arrest rate for Black people in marijuana possession arrests by state - darker specifically (see Figure 12 for the 20 states with red states have higher arrest rate ratios between thelhighest Black arrest rates). In 2018, Wyoming Black and white individuals than lighter red states. arrested 2,677 Black people out of every 100,000. The darkest red states (Montana, Kentucky, Illinois, West Virginia, and Iowa) had the highest racial Ge rgia was the state with the highest overall number I disparities in marijuana possession arrest rates in of ~lack arrests for marijuana possession, with 2018 (9.62,9.36, 7.51, 7.31, and 7.26, respectively). 27:t81 arrests in the year 2018 alone (see Appendix, Ta Ie B for total number of Black marijuana Table 7 provides the overall marijuana possession po session arrests, by state). arrest rate, the arrest rates for the Black and white populations, and the rate ratios between Black and Alt ough racial disparities have decreased in some white arrests, a measure of the disparity between the sta es since 2010, they have actually worsened in a FIGURE 11 Black-to-White Rate Ratios for Marijuana Possession rrests by State (2018) Darker red states have higher rate ratios of arrest betwee Black and white individuals than lighter red states WA OR CA AK HI Source: FBlfUnlft m Cl m(' Rtportl'lg Program D:'lt) )nri U S Cf'1"I \I Din Ox 2x 4x 6x 8x 10x Note: Flo/ld1 ~rlrl Va"lilngloi1 D_C :'lId nOl rlOvldp rlat~ 30 ACLU Research Report

majority of states. In 31 states, racial disparities racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests were larger in 2018 than in 2010; in 18 states, racial increased by 25% or more (see Figure 13). As shown disparities were narrower than in 2010.51 In 20 states, in Figure 13, the states with the greatest growth FIGURE 12 States With Highest Black Arrest Rates for Marijuana Possession (2018) Per 100k Black people Wyoming West Virginia South Dakota Utah North Dakota South Carolina Nebraska Wisconsin Montana Idaho New Jersey New Mexico Tennessee Georgia New Hampshire Louisiana Kentucky Missouri Iowa Virginia Source: FBI/Uniform Grune Renortlllg Program D~la ,lnn U.S Censu<: Dma FIGURE 13 States With Largest Increases in Racial Disparities (Since 2010) Montana iiiiiiiiiii::~:-•••• New Mexico Maine Illinois Hawai'i New Hampshire Wyoming ••••••••• WestKentucky Virginia :::::::::::. Vermont Oklahoma Delaware Idaho Arizona Rhode Island Utah North Dakota South Carolina New Jersey Virginia 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 31

TABLE 7 Arrest Rates per 100k Black and White Marijuana Possession Marijuana Black Arrest White Arrest Black/White Arrests Rates and State Possessitln Rate Rate Rate Ratio Disparities by State Arrest R~lte (2018) Montana 127.62 1064.23 110.60 9.62 Kentucky 141.72 788.34 84.19 9.36 Illinois 43.01 137.84 18.36 7.51 West Virginia 447.32 2516.95 344.26 7.31 Iowa 133.82 776.28 106.90 7.26 Vermont 21.54 126.26 20.83 6.06 North Dakota 332.52 1437.25 260.99 5.51 Minnesota 126.71 536.94 100.02 5.37 Wyoming 592.89 2677.27 515.27 5.20 South Dakota 707.34 2151.53 426.79 5.04 Utah 343.37 1526.97 310.43 4.92 Kansas 80.56 323.84 66.94 4.84 Oklahoma 199.25 719.47 169.62 4.24 Wisconsin 324.37 1125.85 265.58 4.24 Delaware 89.33 222.45 53.57 4.15 Alabama 55.82 128.03 31.01 4.13 New Hampshire 202.10 803.40 195.28 4.11 Massachusetts 4.52 14.76 3.65 4.04 Connecticut 49.85 152.57 37.91 4.02 Maine 54.99 214.84 53.89 3.99 New Mexico 225.71 837.21 210.54 3.98 Idaho 332.16 1026.94 263.83 3.89 Michigan 140.95 373.80 104.06 3.59 Indiana 247.61 712.06 204.01 3.49 New Jersey 369.54 1007.96 292.49 3.45 South Carolina 673.26 1420.68 412.27 3.45 Virginia 314.33 768.01 223.37 3.44 Ohio 248.68 526.73 153.48 3.43 Louisiana 412.48 795.52 237.31 3.35 Rhode Island 37.80 110.17 33.17 3.32 North Carolina 234.85 528.27 162.03 3.26 Tennessee 343.94 820.16 255.09 3.22 Nebraska 409.42 1163.94 379.73 3.07 Arizona 208.75 580.65 190.90 3.04 Nevada 76.65 212.26 69.72 3.04 Pennsylvania 226.52 577.96 190.40 3.04 Georgia 428.81 804.32 271.82 2.96 Mississippi 294.78 478.88 176.39 2.71 Missouri 340.28 780.94 296.38 2.63 New York 287.76 597.59 227.53 2.63 Texas 244.12 561.60 213.99 2.62 Arkansas 322.12 648.46 271.21 2.39 Washington 25.90 52.18 24.44 2.14 Maryland 279.40 470.16 220.74 2.13 Oregon 69.54 130.90 71.74 1.82 California 9.14 18.12 10.00 1.81 Source: FBI. UllltorlTl Cnnle PeIJOrtll1,E! Hawai'i 55.78 130.90 73.42 1.78 Program Dat~ .:Ind U S Cen.:.;;s Data 45.40 1.56 Alaska 53.35 70.82 Note: Florida Jnd W<t •.•...,ni~ton D ( d,,; ot provide d ::Ita Colorado 82.20 130.51 84.90 1.54 32 ACLU Research Report

in racial disparities - Montana, New Mexico, and In 2018,96.1 %of these counties (1,081 counties total) Illinois - each had an increase in Black-white arrest had a rate ratio greater than one, indicating a higher disparities of more than 100%(increases of 175.6%, likelihood of arrest for Black people than white 118.7%, and 118.3%, respectively). people. Put another way, in less than 5% of these counties was the rate ratio equal to or lower than one - These findings, combined with findings on changes i.e., white people were as likely as or more likely than in arrest rates from 2010-2018, demonstrate that Black people to be arrested for marijuana possession. falling arrest rates do not automatically lead to a Figure 14 displays the range of disparities by county- reduction in racial disparities - in fact, in some in almost all counties (96.1%), Black people were more states, racial disparities rose even as arrest rates likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana fell (see Appendix, Table A for changes in racial possession. In a sizable proportion of these counties, disparities and arrest rates, over time by state). Black people were between two and 10 times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana. They were up to 20 times more likely to be arrested in a Counties small number of other counties (see also Figure 14). The racial disparities found at the state level exist Table 8 lists the 20 counties with the highest racial at the county level, as well. In the overwhelming disparities, or rate ratios, between Black and white majority of counties across the U.S., Black people arrests for marijuana possession. The highest racial were more likely to be arrested for marijuana disparities can be found in Pickens County, Georgia, possession than white people. When ranking county- where Black people were almost 100 times more level racial disparities, we considered counties with likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than populations greater than 30,000, greater than 1% white people (rate ratio of 97.22). Carter County, Black population, and more than 50% data coverage, 52 Tennessee had the sharpest increase in disparities which contain 81% of the U.S. population. from 2010-2018 - 976.7% (see Table 9). In terms of FIGURE 14 Distribution of County-Level Black-to-White Rates of Racial Disparities (2018) Most counties arrested Black people for marijuana possession at 3 to 5 times the rate of white people 200 counties 150 100 50 o 111111•..... _-- ------- 1x 10x 20x 30x Soutce: FBL Uniform Cnm~ ReJJorf,ng Prus'i:S11l Oat.) dnu US Len' IS D,Jtrt Note: Includes counties wltl, _> :lU,UU!] populdtlon. _"> I t Blal.:K pupulatlon md :> 5(J~ UCR CU\ltH'::I~e. An adliltlonal e l.Ulll"\tle~ _11thrat", r Jt u ,:"UO/t ;lIlA \'.ert' rt'mo.~d A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 33

TABLE 8 Top 20 Counties for Racial Disparities in Marijuana Po session Arrests (2018) Pickens Georgia 31,243.16 321.38 97.22 DeKalb Alabama 1,159.80 25.57 45.35 Tazewell Illinois 682.21 15.76 43.30 Ozaukee Wisconsin 5,548.04 158.98 34.90 Manitowoc Wisconsin 7,862.33 263.44 29.85 Perry Pennsylvania 21,158.65 746.03 28.36 Washington Wisconsin 6,164.84 227.70 27.07 Washington Ohio 4,477.05 166.34 26.91 Clarion Pennsylvania 4,651.16 181.54 25.62 Medina Ohio 3,166.91 125.82 25.17 Preston West Virginia 11,558.56 463.02 24.96 Putnam West Virginia 5,284.23 213.36 24.77 Peoria Illinois 326.50 13.52 24.16 Waukesha Wisconsin 3,314.30 138.78 23.88 Douglas Nevada 4,969.82 226.80 21.91 Walker Georgia 4,675.58 216.82 21.56 Clinton Michigan 2,867.60 133.26 21.52 Hanover Virginia 5,808.88 280.07 20.74 Wayne Ohio 3,730.71 184.02 20.27 Geauga Ohio 1,519.42 76.55 19.85 Source: FBI/Uniform Cnme Reporlmg Program Data and US. Censu,; Data Note: Includes countleo:; wilh 30.000 pOptil;Hlon, > 1 BIJ('~ population. 11 IJ;!:-'Ist 21j m;'lrIJuana pI "seSSion alfo'?c,t :md > 50Q.l"., UCR covfC!ra~e highest overall rate of Black people arrested in 2018, de reased for both Black and white populations, yet Pickens County, Georgia, leads the counties with th racial disparities in arrest rates persist. In every a rate of 31,243.16 per 100,000, followed by Perry st te that has legalized or decriminalized marijuana County, Pennsylvania, with 21,158.65 per 100,000. po I session, Black people are still more likely to be Lastly, a full one-fourth (5) of the top 20 counties for ar ested for possession than white people. racial disparities in 2018 were located in Illinois (see As shown in Figure 15, on average, states that also Table 8). le1~lized marijuana possession had lower racial di parities in possession arrests in 2018 than st tes where marijuana remained fully illegal, as States That Legalized or we as states that decriminalized. However, it is Decriminalized Marijuana no! clear that these lower racial disparities are a re ult oflegalization, given the fact that the states Possession th .t legalized also had lower racial disparities in As reported in the previous section, the total number th I years prior to legalization. It is worth noting of people arrested for marijuana possession, and th t, on average, racial disparities in states that rates of arrests, have decreased in all legalized decriminalized were relatively similar to disparities states and most decriminalized states. These rates in I tates that were fully illegal (see also Figure 15). 34 ACLU Research Report

TABLE 9 20 Counties With Largest Increases in Racial Disparities in Marijuana Possession Arrests (2010-2018) County State 2010 2018 Percent Increase Carter Tennessee 1.29 13.89 976.7% Washington Virginia 1.34 12.22 811.9% Isabella Michigan 2.36 14.90 531.4% Ozaukee Wisconsin 6.20 34.90 462.9% Santa Fe New Mexico 2.51 13.65 443.8% Hanover Virginia 3.92 20.74 429.1% Rogers Oklahoma 1.75 9.13 421.7% Catoosa Georgia 2.56 13.25 417.6% Granville North Carolina 2.31 11.69 406.1% Frederick Virginia 1.37 6.92 405.1% Schoharie New York 2.44 11.99 391.4% DeKalb Alabama 9.23 45.35 391.3% Fannin Texas 1.45 6.95 379.3% Burnet Texas 1.70 7.88 363.5% Washington Ohio 6.26 26.91 329.9% Habersham Georgia 3.60 15.38 327.2% Delaware New York 3.19 13.48 322.6% Columbia Wisconsin 2.68 10.98 309.7% Walworth Wisconsin 3.64 14.83 307.4% Fauquier Virginia 1.56 6.28 302.6% Source: FBI/Unlfol m Crim~ Reporting Progrdm Oatcl and U S. Censu~ DatJ Note: Include";; L.ountlt:!~ 'Jlth ,30.000 POjJuliltion. > 1 BI<lrk POpuldtltJn at least 25 martjudnfJ po.,session Clrresh. In 2U18 cmd :> 50~ UCR cov~raee. The absolute difference between Black and white FIGURE 15 arrest rates was narrower in legalized states at Times More Likely Black People Arrested for Marijuana Possession by Legal Status (2010-2018) the end of the decade than at the beginning, but racial disparities remain in every legalized state Fully Illegal Before 2018 Decrlml ••• 11zed Before 2018 "",1 Befo •• 2018 and every decriminalized state (see Figures 16 and 17;the red line on state graphs indicates when legalization or decriminalization occurred). In some legalized states, the disparities actually got worse. For example, Maine went from a disparity of 2.1 in 2010 to 4.0 in 2018. In other legalized states, the disparities did improve, dropping from 4.0 to 3.0 in Nevada and from 2.2 to 1.8 in California, 2010 2018 2010 2018 2010 2018 for example. These results clearly indicate that Source: FBI Ur1lfOlm Crllne RF:'POlt'r1,:> Prol!,ram Ddta and US Cen'l.; D1 iJ T neither decriminalization nor legalization of marijuana possession alone eliminates the research is warranted to better understand why disproportionate criminalization of Black people these disparities narrowed in some states and in marijuana regulation and enforcement. Further widened in others. A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 35

lJoda~ 4:JJeaSa~ m::)'V 9S cqea sf"I"ua:) S r vue ep')(1 UJel~OJd SlOi: 9l0i: PlOl i:lOi: OLOi: SlOi: 9l0l PlOi: lLOl OlOl ... upaded aWIJ!) UJJOJllInIl8:j :a:unos xp xg°i: X~rz; xg X£ XS XZ;o£ XOl XVoS SlOi: 9l0i: PlOi: i:lOi: OLOi: x~n; Xz; x£ xg°Z; xgo£ X£ xp e..l!'1SdW8H MeN puel.(Aew xgo£ Xv XLo£ xg XsoS xg x6°£ Xv XL xp Xlov S!OU!III e..leMelea ~n:)!~euuo:> f!.I8W paZ!leU!W!.I:»aa ~8~.lsa~e~s U! Sa!~!.IedS!a18!:»eH Ll3~n81::1 ell:'!O sn£u98 'S n pUB 121ea l.ueJ~OJd vlOi: llOl mOi: SlOi: 9l0i: PlOi: 1:l0i: alai: i l'lJodad aWIJJ WJOjlUn '18:j :a:unos xglol xz; xgol xz;oz; xgLol xv°Z; xl uoJe..lO SlOi: 9l0i: PlOi: lLOi: mOi: X£ Xl xgo£ xgol Xv x£ xgov xgT xg Xv Xv epeAeN eU!8W xgol x~n xgLol xl Xi: xgol x£ xgi:°i: xgo£ ope..lolO:> 811s81V (8~OC;aJO~a8 eUenf!.I8W paZ!le~a, ~~!Msa~e~s U! sa!~!.I8ds!ale!:»eH gl3~n81::1

Conclusion Findings detailed in this report reveal an uncomfortable truth: While there has been some progress in scaling back the war on people who use marijuana, it is still wreaking havoc in much of the U.S. Despite decades of failure, prohibition and punitiveness generally remain the centerpiece of governments' approach to drug use. Law enforcement continues to make hundreds of thousands of marijuana possession arrests every year, accounting for almost half of all drug arrests nationwide. Furthermore, although marijuana possession arrest rates were lower nationally in 2018 than in 2010, the initial decline of the first part of the decade appears to have stagnated, or even reversed. As disturbingly, this report also finds that marijuana enforcement remains as racialized as ever, notwithstanding similar underlying usage rates. In 2018 - unchanged from 2010 - Black people were still nearly 4 times more likely than white people to get arrested for marijuana possession, despite similar usage rates. Our findings indicate that states that legalized or decriminalized marijuana have enjoyed a reduction of marijuana possession arrests between 2010 and States that legalized 2018, and a significantly greater reduction than in states where marijuana remains illegal. Arrests for or decriminalized marijuana sales also decreased greatly from 2010 to marijuana have 2018 in states that legalized marijuana. However, it is also clear from the findings that most jurisdictions have enjoyed that have enacted progressive marijuana policy have failed to do so from a foundation of racial justice. As a reduction such, though legalization and decriminalization of marijuana appear to reduce the overall number of marijuana possession arrests for Black and white people alike, possession arrests. such laws have not substantially reduced, let alone eliminated, the significantly larger arrest rates of Black people. A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 37

This report also finds that there is wide variation in marijuana enforcement not only between states, but also within states, as measured by both the number of arrests and the attendant racial disparities. Progress reducing such arrests and disparities over the past decade also varies significantly. The one common finding across every state and the vast majority of counties is that Black people are more likely to be arrested for possessing marijuana than white people, regardless of whether possession is illegal, legal, or decriminalized in their state. The U.S. has waged a failed, devastating, decades- long war on drugs, including marijuana, in specific communities. Rounding up hundreds of thousands of people every year - millions every decade - for marijuana offenses, this racist campaign has caused profound and far-reaching harm on the people arrested, convicted, and/or incarcerated for marijuana offenses. It has been a colossal waste of money and law enforcement resources that has only deepened the divide between communities and their governments and increased public hurt rather than safety. Such harm cannot be undone, but as a country we can acknowledge, repair, and rebuild so that our future looks nothing like our prohibitionist past. It is long past due for the U.S. to end marijuana prohibition, and to do so in a way that confronts head-on the stark racial inequities in marijuana enforcement and grounds legalization in racial justice. 38 ACLU Research Report

Recommendations As the ACLU recommended in our original report in 2013, the most effective way to eliminate arrests for marijuana use and possession, and the racial disparities that plague such arrests, is through marijuana legalization. 53 Iflegalization is not yet achievable, states should, at a minimum, decriminalize marijuana offenses. Based on the findings from this report, racial equity should be centered in every aspect of the legalization and decriminalization process. States must also improve their data collection practices and policies with regard to arrests by race. We cannot undo the harms perpetuated by marijuana prohibition, but we can chart a smarter, fairer future that uplifts and repairs the people and communities most harmed by criminalization. Recommendations at a Glance For Federal, State, and Local For Law Enforcement Agencies Governments • End the enforcement of marijuana • Legalize marijuana use and possession possession and distribution • Do not replace marijuana prohibition • End racial profiling by police with a system of fines, fees, and arrests · Eliminate consent searches • Grant clemency to or resentence anyone · End the practice of using raw numbers of incarcerated on a marijuana conviction stops, citations, summons, and arrests as a and expunge all marijuana convictions metric to measure productivity and efficacy • Eliminate collateral consequences • Develop systems for the routine collection that result from marijuana arrests or of accurate data on a range of police convictions practices • Ensure new legal markets benefit and • Invest in nonpunitive programs and are accessible to communities most community-based services and divest from harmed by the War on Drugs law enforcement • Ensure marijuana possession and • Develop, secure, and implement strong, other low-level offense arrests are not independent, and effective oversight included in performance measures for mechanisms for local law enforcement federal funding A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 39

Federal, State, and Local Governments It is critical that states' legalization 1. Legalize marijuana use and possession. schemes must The federal government should remove marijuana be equitable and from the Controlled Substances Act; until it does, it grounded in racial should not enforce marijuana offenses. justice. States should legalize marijuana through a system of taxation, licensing, and regulation under which private businesses licensed and regulated by the hel ensure that racial disparities do not continue state can sell marijuana. This mode oflegalization offers numerous benefits; it would largely address the arrests epidemic and - if centered in racial Further, some states have seen a rise in youth arrests equity - its attendant racial disparities by removing fotarijuana.6G It is vital that when states legalize marijuana possession and use from the criminal for adults, they do not continue to criminalize justice system. Further, it would save cash-strapped yo tho They should also decriminalize marijuana- state and local governments millions of dollars in reI. ted activities for youth. Instead of the continued decreased police, jail, and court costs that could be cri~inalization of young people, jurisdictions that redirected toward repairing the harms of the War on legEze, decriminalize, or depenalize youth offenses Drugs. sh uld provide alternatives to criminal intervention su h as drug education programs or community As a society, we permit the controlled use of alcohol serl .ceoIf drug education programs are provided as and tobacco, substances that can be dangerous to an~ternative, they should be scientifically accurate health and, at times, public safety. We educate society ab ut the harms of drugs and sympathetic toward the about those dangers and have constructed a system yo ng people in the program who may have used and/ oflaws that allow for the use and possession of these or old drugs. substances while seeking to protect the public from their dangers. Particularly given the findings of this report, states that have not legalized should create 2. Do not replace marijuana similar systems for legalizing marijuana use and p hibition with a system of fines, possession. 54 fe s, and arrests. In addition, while legalization and decriminalization We should not replace a criminal system with fines significantly lower the overall numbers of marijuana an fees that create a modern-day debtors' prison. It arrests, some states have seen an even steeper rise is i portant to recognize that replacing marijuana in the proportion of Black people whose lives are ar 'fsts with fees, fines, or tickets is not an ideal impacted by a marijuana arrest. 55 This indicates solhtion for a number of reasons. First, the same that it is critical that states' legalization schemes rac~[. al disparities that exist nationwide in arrests for must be equitable and grounded in racial justice. ma ijuana possession would likely be replicated in The recommendations in this report are vital to cit tions for civil offenses for marijuana possession. instill equity into the legalization process and to Se ond, the monetary fines that accompany civil 40 ACLU Research Report

offenses can place a substantial burden on those fined, nonpayment, penalties should be limited and under particularly the young, poor, and people of color - all no circumstances should they result in incarceration, of whom are disproportionately targeted by police. suspension or revocation of driver's licenses, Third, individuals who are unable to make payments disenfranchisement, extension or revocation of in a timely fashion, or at all, or who do not appear probation, parole or any other form of supervision, or in court to answer to the civil charge, are subject to additional monetary penalties. 59 Finally, because of arrest - often by a warrant squad - which results the discriminatory impact of fines and fees and their in individuals being brought to court and in some massive impact, outstanding debt for marijuana fines cases jailed for failing to pay the fines or to appear. In and fees should be forgiven with legalization. addition to placing significant personal and financial burdens on the individual, this imposes significant costs on the state, possibly exceeding the original 3. Include clemency, resentencing, fine imposed. All fees, taxes, and surcharges that are and expungement processes in imposed for the purpose of recouping operating costs legalization efforts. should be repealed. While progress in reforming our nation's drug laws is While fees should never be implemented, if fines vital, we must remember that if we legalize marijuana must be, they should be proportionate, both in terms without righting the wrongs of past enforcement, of individual income and severity of the offense, we risk reinforcing the decades of disproportionate and they should impose an equitable burden on harm communities of color have endured. That is why people regardless of income level. In the case of legalization must come with processes for clemency, nonpayment, there should be limited penalties for resentencing, and expungement to reflect the change failure to pay. At a bare minimum, "ability to pay" in law. No one should be incarcerated on a marijuana hearings should be required before the imposition offense. And having a marijuana conviction on your of any fines or fees, and any preexisting laws that record can make it difficult to secure and maintain tie the hands of judges who wish to reduce or waive employment, housing, or secure government fines should be repealed. For those who cannot pay, 57 assistance for the rest of your life. 60 If we believe that there should be mechanisms in place for proactively marijuana is not worthy of criminal intervention, requesting a reduction or waiver based on financial then it is only right we stop the suffering inflicted on circumstances prior to default. 58 In the case of people by marijuana prosecution, especially since we know it disproportionately falls on the shoulders oflow-income communities and communities of color. Clemency, resentencing, and expungement Legalization must processes should be speedy, automatic, and provided at no cost to the person who is being granted come with processes clemency or resentencing or whose record is being for clemency, expunged. resentencing, and Illinois, California, and others have instituted expungement and resentencing processes expungement to concurrently with or following legalization, giving us a model of successful tactics as well as roadblocks to reflect the change clearing people's records. The categories of offenses eligible for automatic clemency, resentencing, in law. or expungement should be wide, and include as many people and types of offense as possible. This A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 41

means ensuring that the burden is placed on the • oss of driver's licenses government, not the people, to begin the process of • eportation expunging marijuana records and granting clemency and resentencing to people incarcerated or being oss offederal financial aid punished for marijuana offenses. This process should be as quick as possible. Every day, week, month, • ans on participation in the marijuana industry or year that people spend incarcerated or being or those with drug arrests punished for marijuana offenses or that marijuana • elony disenfranchisement records are maintained is a day, week, month, or year that large numbers of people will struggle to gain employment, housing, education loans, and 5. Implement new legal markets to others. An expedient process is burdensome but also b nefit communities most harmed tremendously beneficial. Some localities have found b the War on Drugs. creative ways to ensure that people are resentenced or have their records expunged in a timely manner. Th benefits reaped from emerging legal Cook County, for example, is using Code for America m ketplaces for marijuana should be shared with to assist in analyzing conviction data to autopopulate the communities most harmed by the War on Drugs. forms for expungement. g, For all those who are not We have 5een multiple 5tate5 that prevent those with automatically expunged, the process should be as dr g convictions on their record from participating quick and cheap as possible. in 1jhelegal marijuana marketplace, therefore pri~enting those most harmed by marijuana legrization from the profits and employment 4. Eliminate collateral th t these new markets bring.62 Iflegislatures consequences that result from or esidents determine that we should no longer marijuana arrests or convictions. crijinalize marijuana because it is ineffective and disr~oportionatelY impacts people of color, then those No person should be denied public benefits or mo t harmed by criminalization should be able to suffer other collateral consequences due to access the industry. marijuana use, arrest, or conviction. Collateral consequences can significantly derail many In ddition, legalization should include licensing for aspects of a person's life post arrest, conviction, or sumption spaces that are open to the public in incarceration. As enforcement of marijuana offenses or er to provide space for legal consumption for those disproportionately falls on communities of color, so wh live in public housing or rental units that do not too does the brunt of collateral consequences and all w consumption or smoking. This is important, discrimination on the basis of marijuana use, arrests, beoause iflegalization occurs without providing co sumption spaces (such as cafes) open to the public, and conviction. pejPle who live in rental or public housing have no The following collateral consequences and pIa e to consume marijuana without risking eviction discriminatory measures should be eliminated with or riminalization for public consumption. legalization: Gi n the history of the War on Drugs and the • Denial of public benefits based on use, arrests, or de astating harm it has caused communities of convictions for marijuana col r, it is only just that the tax revenue raised by the new legal market be put toward repairing these • Drug tests for benefit eligibility ha s. Revenue can be invested in communities • Separation of families in the child welfare system mo t harmed by the drug war through programming 42 ACLU Research Report

on people who commit low-level offenses, including low-level drug users, possessors, and distributors. The benefits reaped By including marijuana possession arrests and from emerging legal other low-level offense arrests in performance assessments of a state's use of federal funds, the marketplaces should federal government is relying upon an unreliable measure of law enforcement's ability to increase be shared with the public safety and reduce the exploitative trafficking communities most of drugs. Indeed, such arrests reduce neither the use nor availability of marijuana. harmed by the War on Drugs. Law Enforcement Agencies that helps to end the collateral harms of marijuana 1. End the enforcement of laws prohibition, including barriers to employment, and criminalizing marijuana possession supports small businesses owned and/or run by and distribution. communities directly impacted by the War on Drugs. Aggressive enforcement of low-level offenses such Finally, it is important to create fair licensing as marijuana possession unnecessarily funnels structures in which the cost of obtaining a license is hundreds ofthousands of people into the criminal reasonable and accessible to small business owners legal system - primarily young people of color and to the communities most impacted by the War and particularly Black people. Therefore, police on Drugs. It should not take an exorbitant amount of departments and municipal government entities money to be able to profit from the new legal market, should end police enforcement of marijuana and the communities most impacted by the failed possession and marijuana distribution, as well as War on Drugs should be able to participate in and a range of other low-level offenses, such as traffic profit from the emerging industry. infractions and "quality oflife" offenses, and work to address these issues through measures that do not employ the criminal legal system. If this is not 6. Ensure marijuana possession possible, police departments and local government and other low-level offense arrests entities should make these offenses a low priority for are not included in performance enforcement. measures of law enforcement Over the past decade, certain cities, including Seattle agencies for federal funding. and San Francisco (prior to legalization), made Federal government grants, including the Byrne marijuana possession their lowest enforcement Justice Assistance Grants (or Byrne JAG), should priority.63 Such a policy provides local governments not include arrest numbers in their performance with additional resources to fund public health, measures. As long as arrest statistics - which include economic, and education initiatives that address the any arrest, including any drug arrest - are included social challenges at the root of most criminal offenses. in law enforcement's performance measures, police departments are likely encouraged to increase their arrest numbers by targeting their resources 2. End racial profiling. A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 43

Racial profiling refers to the act of selecting or targeting a person(s) for law enforcement contact (including stop, frisk, search, and arrest) based on Racial profiling the individual's actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin rather than a reasonable suspicion or can lead to the that the individual has or is engaged in criminal aggressive activity. Racial profiling includes policies or practices (such as broken windows policing) that enforcement of have a disparate impact on certain communities- minor offenses specifically those of color. in communities Police interactions with people should be directed only toward investigating actual threats to public of color. safety. However, too often, police stop and search people of color without substantial evidence of wrongdoing, based on explicit and implicit biases. Such racial profiling can lead to the aggressive Fu ther, police departments as well as local and state go rnments should ban pretextual stops, where enforcement of minor offenses in communities of pol ce stop someone - often because of the person's color, disproportionately and needlessly entangling race or ethnicity - for a minor infraction, such as people - particularly young people - in the criminal a trl ffic offense, as a pretext to investigate other legal system for offenses that are rarely, if ever, poslsible crimes. Indeed, marijuana possession is enforced in more affluent, predominantly white oft n used as such a pretext. communities. Police departments should adopt model racial profiling policies that define racial Poltce departments should investigate all complaints profiling, prohibit law enforcement from engaging in 1 in thorough and timely manner using their it, and make clear that it is unconstitutional under the exi1ting resources, if they are not already being Fomth Amendment.64 handled by a more effective independent oversight body (more discussion in the later sections), and A further step that courts and state legislatures imJlement appropriate and proportionate discipline should take is to raise the level of suspicion required for oncompliance with such policies (including to stop and briefly detain a person against their will dis issal). for investigative purposes. The current constitutional baseline requires a relatively low bar - reasonable suspicion of criminal activity - for such stopS.65 3. nd the use of consent searches. Raising this standard to the same standard as a Co sent searches are defined as searches made regular arrest- probable cause to believe the person by 1 w enforcement based on the consent of the is engaged in criminal activity - would significantly ind vidual whose person or property is being reduce the number of innocent people detained sea ched. Because the legality of the search depends and reduce the risks of racial profiling. For similar on -fuefact of consent rather than any particular reasons, courts and state legislatures should consider ev~. entiary showing by the police, police officers use raising the standard for "frisk" searches during co ent searches to circumvent legal standards that investigative stops by requiring more than mere req ire most searches to be based on probable cause. "reasonable belief' that someone is armed to carry out Ho ever, the environment in which they seek consent a search of their person. IS 1 erently coercive, and most policies do not even 44 ACLU Research Report

require officers to notify the person that it is possible and harassment of police; justified frustration and to refuse consent. They are used overwhelmingly anger toward our criminal legal system, particularly against people of color, in circumstances where it policing practices; a de-emphasis on true justice and is doubtful that the officers would have been able to healing, including restorative justice and trauma- justify the search without the legal fiction of consent. informed responses to harms in communities; and As such, local governments should ban the use of the funneling of people of color into our criminal legal consent searches through policies and legislation. system at immense personal cost to individuals and their families as well as pecuniary cost to taxpayers. 4. End the practice of using raw To move away from evaluating public safety and police efficacy through arrest numbers, police numbers of stops, citations, departments should reduce the reliance on stops, summons, and arrests as a metric citations, summons, and arrests and broaden to measure productivity and their benchmarks of success, relying instead on effectiveness. measurements such as community satisfaction with Evaluating law enforcement agencies and individual law enforcement; number of complaints filed against officers based on the numbers of stops, citations, law enforcement; rate of racial disparities in arrests; summons, and arrests does not properly measure and number of serious crimes solved. public safety and health; it also exerts additional pressure on police officers and departments to aggressively enforce criminal laws for low- 5. Develop systems for the level offenses. Including arrests as a measure of routine collection of accurate effectiveness and productivity, through COMPSTAT data regarding a range of police and similar programs, creates an incentive for practices. police to selectively target and harass poor and marginalized communities for enforcement oflow- Police should prioritize accountability and level offenses, as such offenses are committed more transparency by collecting stop, frisk, search, frequently than serious, harmful crimes. citation, and arrest data; making the aggregate data publicly available and easily accessible; creating When officers are subject to arrest goals or quotas, evaluation systems to analyze such data to identify making arrests for low-level offenses is the easiest and address racially biased and harmful practices way to meet these requirements because they are low- and policies; and developing strategies and tactics resource and less time-intensive than investigating that eliminate any form of racial disparities in serious crimes. By relying heavily on numbers enforcement practices. of stops, citations, summons, and arrests, police departments squander their resources on low-level Whether or not a citation is issued or an arrest is offenses. This increases arrest statistics and can made, the police officer must document the following make departments appear productive and highly information (in addition to providing the data, time, active, while discouraging police from reporting and and location of the stop as a "receipt" to anyone they solving more serious crimes. Further, the pressure stop or search): on police officers to "make their numbers" results in • The demographic information of the individual aggressive stops and searches that often fail to meet stopped (including race, national origin, ethnicity, constitutional requirements and lead to arrests for age, disability, and gender) and the date, time, and minor offenses, including marijuana possession. The location of the stop end results are that overpoliced communities are not made safer but rather harmed by the routine presence • The duration and reason for the stop A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 45

• Whether a search was conducted and for what ho sing, schools, jobs, public health, and violence reason pr vention programs) that help build stable, safe co munities rather than furthering harm by • Whether and what type of contraband was reI ing on punitive interventions. State and local recovered g01ernments spend over $100 billion a year on their • The outcome of the encounter (summons ,citation , la,,[ enforcement agencies. The federal government warning, arrest, no action) su~plements funding costs by giving out billions of do~ars' worth of grants to law enforcement agencies • The identification of the officers involved thr ugh DOJ programs such as Byrne JAG. 66 Police To guarantee statewide uniform arrest and citation sh uld not be given unfettered discretion to redirect documentation, state legislatures should require the money saved from halting the enforcement of all police departments (municipal and state) to low:level offenses toward other types of enforcement; electronically record information regarding stops, ins ead, DOJ should mandate that local governments frisks, searches, citations, and arrests by locality, an~dthe ~olice put such resources toward nonpunitive race, national origin, ethnicity, age, and gender, an pubhc health programs that benefit public share the information with a central state agency, sa£ ty through measures unrelated to the criminal and publish the data in quarterly reports (on their leg 1system. As such, local, state, and federal website and in print so it is accessible to everyone in go ernments should work with community member:;; the community). Personally identifiable information to 1 mit the role of police in communities of color and about the individual stopped should not be recorded, .rect these funds to other services so jurisdictions so as not to violate the individual's right to privacy. ca appropriately and adequately address economic, The reports should be easily searchable. Such he th, and social problems at their root in ways transparency will provide the public - community tha strengthen rather than sabotage impacted members, activists, local and state policymakers, co munities. criminologists, lawyers, academics, the media, etc. - with a meaningful empirical basis for determining whether any demographics have been targeted and to raise concerns and propose policy solutions. This would provide more objective and understandable information for assessing public safety; inform Local, state, discussions about the nature and appropriateness of police practices and police resources; promote and federal community safety, trust, and autonomy; and better ensure accountability of police departments and governments individual officers. should work with community 6. Invest in nonpunitive programs and community-based services members to limit rather than the criminal legal the role of police system. in communities Since the 1980s, the amount of money spent on the criminal legal system has dramatically outpaced of color. expenditures on community services (such as 46 ACLU Research Report

7. Implement strong, independent, and effective oversight mechanisms for local law enforcement. A range of government entities on the municipal, state, and federal levels should work to develop external oversight agencies that conduct regular audits and review of police departments and practices, including marijuana enforcement and racial disparities in such enforcement and enforcement more broadly. 67 These agencies could take the form of independent prosecutors, inspectors general, independent and strong community oversight boards, or some combination of the three. That said, community oversight is especially important, because it ensures the community has autonomy to oversee and hold law enforcement accountable, as is appropriate in a democratic society where public servants serve the people. Any external oversight agency should regularly analyze data regarding a police department's stops, frisks, searches, citations, and arrests to assess whether there are any racial disparities in enforcement practices and policies. Their analyses and findings should be made available to the public. They should also be given the power to review and implement policies that are not subject to a unilateral veto by the mayor, police commissioner, or police chief. A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 47

ALABAMA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Alabama ranks Arrests for the possession of marijuana made up 16th in the nation for largest racial .1x more likely than white 20% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests· compared todmi¥iWiU"for Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ot er Clrugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 4.13x 2010 3.54x 200 100 o 100 200 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties with.ttgrnr:@.f!U!mabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1. DeKalb 1.160 45.35x 126 .55 12.84x 2. Lee 4 3. Baldwin 8.55x 135 181 4. Marshall 7.03x he 5. Tuscaloosa 6.93x .75 Arrests per 100k

ALASKA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black pee Alaska ranks Arrests for the possession of 1. marijuana made up 48th 34% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be · rrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession + Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME -,.".,.""S,..t=S compared to@mi¥ih@§for S atewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people t all otlier ilrug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely I legalized to be arrested I 2018 71 1.56x 2010 510 2.11x 600 300 o 300 600 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE BOROUGH All boroughs withh;t4E1IHt1ebnOmabove the B roughs with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) B, roughs with a pop. of >20,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage o >50% and at least 10 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1.Juneau City & Borough • 73 2. Anchorage 2.03x unicipality 1.39x Arrests per 100k Boroughs with missing data are striped.

ARIZONA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Arizona ra n ks Arrests for the possession of 3x marijuana made up 34th 43% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of .•• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black arrests compared totMffii¥lhM§for Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all otl1er dru arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 581 3.04x 2.29x 2010 705 500 o 500 Arrests per lOOk BY THE COUNTY All counties withltt4E1IHMo$lmmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _White Rate _ Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested _______ 4.14x ""'1,~7~lI.I3 1. Mohave 2. Navajo 4.1 Ox Ell 508 3. Maricopa 3.89x .131 518 4. Pinal 3.63x .143 5. Yuma 3.56x Arrests per 100k

ARKANSAS ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Arkansas ranks Arrests for the possession of 2. x marijuana made up 42nd 49% in the nation for largest racial of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for the state t marijuana possession Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack ar ests compared tor;!]5UilhMfflfor S tewideGi!UJ.m.i.ti1¥MMbarrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all other drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 3 2018 648 2.39x 2 2010 517 3.09x 400 o 400 O~ _ Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withltil4t1'1r:@o§Imttlabovethe C unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) C ,unties with a pop. of >30,000. a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1.375 .,5, 9.11x 1.624 2. Pope •• 5.32x -- 1.475 3. Craighead 4.88x II!!D 2,067 4. Washington 4.73x 791 •• .,68 5, Lonoke 4.72x Arrests per 100k Counties with missing data are striped.

CALIFORNIA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were California ranks Arrests for the possession of 1.8x marijuana made up 46th 2% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession + Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared toltffiiiWMfflfor mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people u arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x I times more likely 600 I Legalized to be arrested I 480 2018 18 1.B1x 360 2010 2.17x 240 '" 120 400 200 o 200 400 I Arrests per lOOk 0 • • I • • • 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY Counties with the largest racial disparities Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested ________ 45••• 3 8.03x 1. Siskiyou 2. Shasta •• 6.42x 3. Contra Costa .32 I6 5.42x 4. Humboldt 5.05x 5. Alameda .30 h 4.09x Arrests per lOOk

COLORADO ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Colorado ranks Arrests for the possession of 1. marijuana made up 49th 25% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be rrested the state-+ marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession-+ Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black arrests compared tolt;!l5i'¥lhMfflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all other drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x I times more likely I Legalized to be arrested I 2018 1.54x 2010 407 1.84x 500 250 o 250 500 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withltl4E1I'i@·Smtmabovethe C unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) C unties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 335 -.m 1. efferson 3.75x 265 - 2. 3.74x 149 3. 2.49x 4. 2.24x 5. 2.03x ~ Arrests per 100k

CONNECTICUT 2018 SUMMARY * Black people were Connecticut ranks Arrests for the possession of 4x marijuana made up 19th 21% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for the state .•. people to be arrested marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black arrests compared tot!Mffii¥ihMfflfor StatewideGillbl!!iid.I.M14l4tM1arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier (lrug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 300 : Decriminalized to be arrested 240 2018 4.02x 180 3.75x 120 2010 701 60 500 o 500 o Arrests per 100k ~----~------------------------------------ 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withUitMnrHM.fImmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested -- '67 1. New London 9.06x III 229 2. Tolland 8.78x '45 3. Litchfield 6.32x '23 4. Middlesex 4.45x •• '52 5. Fairfield 4.12x Arrests per 100k

DELAWARE. ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Delaware ranks Arrests for the possession of 15th in the nation for largest racial 4. more likely than white marijuana made up 23% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be a rested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared tot!:!]5h¥lhMfflfor Statewide marijuana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to IIother rug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x 1 times more likely I Decriminalized to be arrested 1 2018 4.15x 3.00x 2010 615 400 o 400 Arrests per 100k 2012 2014 2016 2018 2010 BY THE COUNTY Allcounties withlf14rnr:@¥Untt1above the C unties with the largest racial disparities Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage national average (3.64x) of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate _ Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 360 "'•• '=""' ••••-------------- 5.38x 305 4.42x 3. New Castle II 3.92x Arrests per 100k

GEORGIA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Georgia ra nks Arrests for the possession of 3x marijuana made up 37th 52% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of ....•indicates increase or decrease since 20'0. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of ac arrest compared toHl5h¥ihMfflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier Cirugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 804 2.96x 2.92x 2010 500 o 500 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties with.tt4E1r;@·eWlmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 31.243 1. Pickens 97.22x I 321 4.66 2. Walker 21.56x 217 2.941 3. Jackson 16.96x 173 4.456 4. Habersham 15.38x 1290 .1,455 5. Catoosa 13.25x 110 Arrests per lOOk Counties with missing data are striped.

HAWAI'I ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Hawai'i ranks Arrests for the possession of 1.8x marijuana made up 47th 34% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for the state •. people to be a rested marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black arrests compared toe5ii¥ihMfflfor St tewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to II other Clrugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 200 to be arrested 160 2018 1.78x 120 2010 O.98x 200 100 a 100 200 Arrests per 100k 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties with.iit4E1IH!01.mmmabove the C~unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a data coverage of >50% and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 708 ----------' 4.05x 104 2.29x Counties with missing data are striped. Arrests per lOOk ...i'vt Hawai'i decriminalized marijuana possession in 2019. More recent data is ~ needed to analyze trends since the enactment of the recent law.

IDAHO ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Idaho ranks Arrests for the possession of .9x marijuana made up 22nd 49% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for the state-+ people to be arrested marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared toeffiijW4Uifor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier Clru .arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 400 to be arrested 320 2018 1,027 3.89x 2010 2.85x 240 160 = : : : 80 1,000 500 o 500 1,000 0 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties with'fIM1r;@o6IHtmabovethe Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a data coverage of >50% and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2.721 1. Madison 13.21x 2. Bonner 7.41x 3. Kootenai 6.19x 725 4. Bingham 5.73x .127 •• '!!!!!!!"",... '.500 5. Nez Perce 4.50x Arrests per 100k

ILLINOIS 2018 SUMMARY * ACLU Black peop e were Illinois ranks Arrests for the possession of 7.5x marijuana made up 3rd 16% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be ~rrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of ....•indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME ==~,....,.re="",scompared toI!:!]5U¥WM§for tewide marijuana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people II other drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 20 to be arrested 7.51 x 2018 12 3.44x 2010 448 4 500 250 o 250 500 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withIfWnr:@·EWfmabove the C ' unties with the largest racial disparities Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage national average (3.64x) of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 682 1. lTazewell 43.30x 116 2. 24.16x 114 700 3. hiteside 19.56x .36 4. 5. 121 Counties with missing data are striped . Arrests per 100k .•...6...• Illinois legalized marijuana possession in 2019. More recent data is ...••• needed to analyze trends since the enactment of the recent law.

INDIANA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Indiana ranks Arrests for the possession of 3.5x marijuana made up 24th 45% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession + Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared tol!ilffii¥W41fflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all otlier Cirugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 3.49x 2010 3.73x 500 o 500 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withl6lM'!1IHtioflmmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2.309 1. Boone 17.96x .129 2,303 2. Shelby 12.48x .185 l,4CM 3. Hamilton 11.48x .122 4. Hancock 11.10x 5. Delaware 8.44x .111 Arrests per 100k

9v~ • XS9'S UU!l·g W~ X&&'U 6£V'~ •• S9 I OpJOE)OJJa ·v X&n;l llOO .£ '~8 9~~ • XZ;Z;'&l O£S·~ xSS'Ll 'l8·~ palSalJe aq Ol ~la>j!1aJOW SaW!l x aldoad >joelS ale~ >l0eIS ale~ all4M 'papnIOU! aJe SlSaJJe uo!ssassod euenflJew 9(; lseal le pue '%09 ~o ajleJafloo elep e '%~< ~o 'dod >joelS e '000'08< ~o 'dod e 4l!M Sa!lUn 0:) (X179'&) eBeJeAe,euO!leU l samJuds!p IU!:»UJ~saBJUIa1n 4~!M sa!~unGO aLIl eAoqeQiJmm·@ilLiJElilI4l!M senuno:» 1I'd A.LNnOO 3H.L AS mOl; OOO'~ o OOO'~ 9 8gv'~ mOl; xgtr'S palSalJe aq Ol Of: Ala>l!1aJOW SaW!l x aldoad >joelS e,doed >10m Jed 'SelUJ lSeJJUjnJp. Je4~0 II a,doed >10m Jed 'uolssessod uuenrlJUW paJudwo:» salUJ lSaJJUuo!ssasso uuun.!JUW ap!MalelS JOJq"' .•• W•••. '¥-.)••.W•••@-olpaJudwo:>slSeJJe>l:>e' , ,•••• JOsalu~ 311\11.1 H3AO S.1S3HH~ 'OWl aou!s asealoap JO aseaJOU! SaleO!pU! •....~o UO!pal!O t uo!ssass<l>d euenfpew .I0! UO!SS8SS0d euenfpew t 8lelS 84l pa~sa.l.l aq o~ aldoad JO} SlS8JJe U! S8!Weds!P U! SlS8JJe l3nJP lie }O a~!IIM u 4+l\la>l!1 a.low le!oeJ lS8l3Jel JO} UO!leU 84l U! %99 dn 8pew euenfpew }O uo!ssassod 84l JO} SlS8JJ\if a..laM a doad lI:>elB AHVll\lll\lnS 8~O~ YMOI

KANSAS ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Kansas ranks Arrests for the possession of 4.8x marijuana made up 12th 52% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state t marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of ...• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrest compared tomffi;SWMfflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier Clru arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 324 4.84x 2010 500 4.32x 500 250 o 250 500 Arrests per 100k BY THE COUNTY All counties withItiI4mr:@.fi!Umabovethe Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested - 1. Lyon 1,129 15.38x .73 1,055 2. Cowley 9.14x 735 3. Reno 8.66x II - 4. Harvey 7.84x I!!I 925 5. Ford 7.58x Arrests per lOOk Counties with missing data are striped.

KENTUCKY ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Kentucky ranks Arrests for the possession of marijuana made up 2nd 20% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state +- marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession tI Direction of .•• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Blac a ests compared toMffii¥ihMfflfor tewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people II other drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 788 9.36x 5.85x 500 o 500 Arrests per 100k 2014 2016 2018 2012 BY THE COUNTY All counties withlfl4rt1r*1·ennrnabove the C unties with the largest racial disparities Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage national average (3.64x) of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1.905 l4.36x .,33 9.44x 3. lDaviess 8.l7x l 4. oPkins 8.l0x 7.80x Arrests per 100k

LOUISIANA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Louisiana ranks Arrests for the possession of 3.4x marijuana made up 29th 51% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for the statet people to be arrested marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Blac a est compared tollMffii¥lh41mfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier Clrugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 400 2018 796 3.35x 300 2010 673 3.29x 200 100 500 o 500 o Arrests per lOOk BY THE PARISH Parishes with the largest racial disparities Parishes with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested ,._ 1. East Bato n •• 1,135 7.01x Rouge 2. Acadia •.., 6.08x .89 3. St. Bernard '8' 5.96x I 30 - _____ '"..29••' 5.94x 4. Natchitoches ~ ~ 5. Beauregard 5.82x Arrests per lOOk Parishes with missing data are striped.

MAINE ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Maine ranks Arrests for the possession of 4 marijuana made up 20th 20% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be a rested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of ack ar s compared tor;!]m(¥lhMtuor tewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to IIother drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x I times more likely I Legalized to be arrested I I 2018 3.99x 2010 500 250 o Arrests per lOOk 250 500 2.09x 2010 2012 2014 \: 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withlti4F!1"@·eWtmabove the C unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a data coverage of >50% and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested l'jrk .69 _~ .::.::83~5 12.19x 2. omerset 6.28x 3. ennebec 4.77x 4'lenobscot 5. Oumberland •• .48 142 3.52x 2.95x Arrests per lOOk

MARYLAND. ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Maryland ranks Arrests for the possession of 2.1x marijuana made up 44th 50% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for the state,J. people to be arrested marijuana possession for marijuana possession ,J. Direction of ...• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of a rests compared toM5j(¥lhMijfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 500 : Decriminalized to be arrested 400 2018 470 2.13x 300 2010 782 2.B1x 200 100 500 o 500 Arrests per 100k 0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY Counties with the largest racial disparities Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1. Queen ________ ....;5""19=8 8.75x Anne's 1m - 732 2. Carroll 6.91x 1106 ~_--,,4.080 3. Cecil 6.82x 4. Frederick 6.01x .272 5. Allegany 5.62x .294 Arrests per 100k

MASSACHUSETT ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Massachusetts ranks Arrests for the possession of 4 marijuana made up 18th 3% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of --. indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Blac arrests compared toMmi¥ih4U'for tewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people II other Cirugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x o times more likely 20 Legalized to be arrested 2018 4.04x 2010 3.41x 100 50 a 50 100 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withlti!4mr:@·@tmabovethe C unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) CoJmties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of r50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested -- 15 6.46x - 22 6.27x 3.61x - 23 •••• --------....:;.;:." 3.29x 6 2.01x Arrests per 100k

MICHIGAN ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Michigan ranks Arrests for the possession of 3.6x marijuana made up 23rd 47% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state +- marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of ck arrest compared tol!\!]mi¥1h4Uifor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all otlier drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 200 to be arrested 160 2018 3.59x 120 2010 3.27x 80 500 250 o 250 500 40 Arrests per lOOk o ~----------------------------------------- 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY Counties with the largest racial disparities Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate '•r~• Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2,868 1. Clinton 21.S2x .133 J •• If • •• • 2. Bay 162 17.40x •••r. 3. Allegan 2,759 14.91x ..... " .185 .•.••• ~ '-:. ••• -== I II •••-.!!I.,!!!I .• ••• r "..a..•. Michigan legalized marijuana possession in 2018. More recent data 4. Isabella 5. St. Clair 198 181 1,456 1,183 Arrests per lOOk 14.90x 14.63x ~ is needed to analyze trends since the enactment of the recent law.

MINNESOTA. ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Minnesota ranks Arrests for the possession of marijuana made up 8th in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white 35% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p(])ssession + Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared tolt'lffii¥ihMijfor St tewide mari'uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to II other ilrug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 300 to be arrested 240 2018 537 100 S.37x 180 2010 828 104 7.94x 120 : 60 500 o 500 0 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withl{lgrnr:@ofi\mmabovethe C unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Co~nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage 0if J50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1. oodhue • 2,362 11,19x 8.47x 3. ~t. Louis 8.26x 377 4. Jamsey 7.13x 153 7.07x Arrests per 100k .•.(\d Minnesota eliminated the punishment of imprisonment for a first offense of possession 0 certain amounts of marijuana in 1976. ~ However, it continued to classify marijuana possession as a crime, and in some cases mai tained harsher criminal penalties.

MISSISSIPPI. ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Mississippi ranks Arrests for the possession of 2.7x marijuana made up 38th 44% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession + Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black arrest compared toC5h¥IhMfflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all otlier drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 479 2.71x 2010 547 3.09x 600 300 o 300 600 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withlf14E1IHMo§!mmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested - 2.207 10A9x 1. Hancock 2. Madison 5.21x .119 315 3. DeSoto 4.58x 169 4. Rankin 4.51x 1,'187 5. Harrison 4.44x Arrests per lOOk "A, Mississippi eliminated the punishment of imprisonment for a first offense of possession of certain amounts of marijuana in 1978. ~ However. for larger amounts and multiple offenses. it continued to classify marijuana possession as a crime. and in some cases maintained criminal penalties. including imprisonment.

MISSOURI 2018 SUMMARY * ACLU Black peop e were Missouri ranks Arrests for the possession of 39th in the nation for largest racial 2. x more likely th n white marijuana made up 50% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state +- marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared to(!\!jffii¥WMfflfor tewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to II other Clrugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely I Decriminalized I to be arrested I 2018 781 2.63x 2010 786 2.52x 500 o 500 Arrests per lOOk 2018 2012 2014 2016 BY THE COUNTY C unties with the largest racial disparities . ~' .• Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included . _ Black Rate Black people x times more likely • • .- to be arrested .•• I.lr ., ··..,~Ir 1. J ,hnson 1261 10.73x 10.43x •••••••• 2. Uincoln 1181 7,237 •.,. •_- 3. fayette 10.33x _ ... _700 ••• JlI iiI.\ 8.00x 6.90x .503 Arrests per 100k Missouri eliminated the punishment of imprisonment for a first offense of possession of marijuana, however it continues to classify marijuana possession as a crime, and in some cases maintain criminal pe lalties.

MONTANA ACiU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Montana ranks Arrests for the possession of 9.6x marijuana made up 1st 45% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state '" marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of .•• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared tol!:!]5hOOlhM§for mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 111 9.62x 2010 131 3.49x 1,000 500 o 500 1,000 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withlt14Fi1r:@.eWtmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a data coverage of >50% and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2,174 I .,20 1. Gallatin 18.15x 1.995 2. Yellowstone .,43 13.99x • 867 3. Missoula 11.52x 175 Counties with missing data are striped. • 4. Flathead 5. Ravalli .,22 In Arrests per lOOk S.17x 7.34x

NEBRASKA. ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Nebraska ranks Arrests for the possession of marijuana made up 33rd 48% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p I ssession + Direction of ....• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared tol!:!]Mi¥WMfflfor St tewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to) II other CIug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 1,164 3.07x 4.40x 2010 1,711 1,000 o 1,000 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withIM4MI'i@.eWtmabove the C unties with the largest racial disparities Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage national average (3.64x) of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 542 1. Buffalo 8.93x 161 2,040 2. dams 8.51x .240 3353 - 3. 6.84x EmI 2360 4. 6.43x 2.036 5. n.incoln 6.21x _328 Arrests per 100k ~ 1 Nebraska decriminalized first offenses of possession of certain amounts of marijuana in 19 9. However,for larger amounts and multiple offenses, it continued to classify marijuana poss ssion as a crime, and in some cases maintained criminal penalties, including imprisonment.

NEVADA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Nevada ranks Arrests for the possession of 3x marijuana made up 35th 20% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession + Direction of .•• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared to@mi¥IhMflUor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottler drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 900 Logollzed to be arrested 720 2018 212 3.04x 540 4.00x 360 2010 1,408 180 1,000 o 1,000 o Arrests per 100k ~------------------------------~----------- 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties with.tii4F11r:@·$Wfmabovethe Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 4,970 21.91x 1. Douglas .227 2. Lyon 13.19x .147 2,148 3. Elko 11.31x .190 416 4. Washoe 4.76x 1s7 .188 5. Clark 3.50x I 54 Arrests per 100k

NEW HAMPSHIR I ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were New Hampshire ranks Arrests for the possession of 4.1x marijuana made up 17th 43% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be ~rrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared tor;!]ffi;¥h2Mfflfor tewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people II ottier Clrugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely IOecrlm. to be arrested 2018 803 4.11x 24 2.49x 2010 500 o 500 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withlfi4Mrt@.@rfmabove the C unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a data coverage of >50% and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2.058 13.15x .157 6.70x _______ ---'2"".9"""18 6.04x 346 5.95x I58 5.28x Arrests per 100k

NEW JERSEY ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were New Jersey ra nks Arrests for the possession of 3.5x marijuana made up 25th 55% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the statet marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of ....• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrest compared toi]miilhMfflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier dru arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 1,008 3.4Sx 2010 2.81x 1,000 500 o 500 1,000 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withUI4E1I'i@.§WU11abovethe Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1. Hunterdon 9,218 13.71x .672 1.861 2. Ocean 9.34x I 199 2,493 3. Morris 7.74x 1322 4. Warren 7.57x .341 5. Cape May 6.45x .726 Arrests per lOOk

NEW MEXICO ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were New Mexico ranks Arrests for the possession of 4 marijuana made up 21st 54% more likely th n white in the nation for largest racial disparities in arrests for 1 people to be ~rrested of all drug arrests in the state t marijuana possession for marijuana p0ssession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared tot'lm(¥W;U"or mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people g arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 837 3.98x 2010 1.82x 500 o 500 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY C unties with the largest racial disparities Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested ________ --"7""18"-12 13.65x .526 5.84x 3.96x 3. LI a 4'iona Ana 2.44x 643 5. tero 2.42x .266 ~ New Mexico decriminalized marijuana possession in 2019. More recent data is Arrests per 100k ~ needed to analyze trends since the enactment of the recent law.

NEW YORK ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were New York ranks Arrests for the possession of 2.6x marijuana made up 40th 54% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state"l. marijuana possession for marijuana possession "l. Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack rrests compared tol!M5h¥IhMfflfor StatewideGi!hmEilil.i.ti14!4fffl1arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier Clrugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 600 2018 228 2.63x 480 360 4.73x 2010 240 1,000 500 o 500 1,000 120 Arrests per 100k O~ _ 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties with.tit4E1IHt1·mmmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 4.499 1. Steuben 19.07x .236 354 2. Richmond 18.63x 19 5.328 3. Tioga 18.48x .288 182 4. Bronx 17.47x 10 276 5. New York 16.83x 16 Arrests per lOOk ~ New York decriminalized marijuana possession in 2019. More recent data ~ is needed to analyze trends since the enactment of the recent law.

NORTH CAROLIN ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were North Carolina ranks Arrests for the possession of x marijuana made up 31st in the nation for largest racial • more likely th n white 53% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession + Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black s compared toeffii¥ihMfflfor tewide marijuana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people II other drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 40 to be arrested 2018 528 3.26x 24 2010 533 3.34x 600 300 o 300 600 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withltii4E1r:@·mmmabovethe C unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Co~nties with a pop, of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate _ Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested •""",.....3-44----~----""'4,""05""'3 11.79x 512 ranville 11.69x 144 _______ ..",,;;c3,135 11.26x • 278 11.23x 1,892 dkin 9.57x .198 Counties with missing data are striped. Arrests per lOOk ...f'L" North Carolina eliminated the punishment of imprisonment for possession of certain amou~ts of marijuana in 1977. -<i;? However, it continued to classify marijuana possession as a crime, and in some cases main ained criminal penalties.

NORTH DAKOTA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were North Dakota ranks Arrests for the possession of 5.5x marijuana made up 7th in the nation for largest racial more likely than white 47% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of ...• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black arrests compared tot:!]rni¥lhMtJfor Statewide mari'uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all otlier ilrug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 1,437 5.51x 4.40x 2010 1,000 o 1,000 Arrests per lOOk 2010 BY THt;· COUNTY All counties with. fl4Mr: IM.fIUmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1. Morton 9.57x .215 -- 2. Cass 6.58x .174 3. Burleigh 3,69 5.40x 4. Grand Forks 4.91x .245 655 5. Ward 3.97x .165 Arrests per 100k ~ North Dakota decriminalized marijuana possession in 2019. More recent ~ data is needed to analyze trends since the enactment of the recent law.

OHIO. ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Ohio ranks Arrests for the possession of marijuana made up 28th 50% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state t marijuana possession for marijuana p I ssession + Direction of _. indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared tolt5h¥WMfflfor tewide marijuana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people II other Clrugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 50 to be arrested 400 2018 527 3.43x 300 2010 538 3.85x 200 600 300 a 300 600 100 Arrests per 100k OL_ _ 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withlii!§S1rHM.mmmabove the Cqunties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) co,l nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 4.477 shington 26.91x 1166 3.167 'I'M 25.17x 1126 3.731 3. ayne 20.27x 1184 4.G auga 19.85x 1 • 0 5. L wrence 18.65x 1121 Arrests per lOOk ",A", In 1975Ohio classified certain amounts of marijuana possession as a misdemeanor, but did not impose imprisonment nor -s;? a criminal record. However,for larger amounts, it maintained harsher criminal penalties, in luding imprisonment.

OKLAHOMA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Oklahoma ranks Arrests for the possession of 4.2x marijuana made up 13th 42% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of ...• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black arrests compared tor;t]mi¥lh4Ui'hor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier Clrugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 300 to be arrested 2018 719 4.24x 240 180 ~ :-~~ 2.98x 120 2010 810 60 500 o 500 0 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withUlMt1IHMobImmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x • times more likely t...II·I to be arrested ~-I•• ."'4-rr ...= ,••9.,.,. ._w. ~·41•. 5,090 1. Pontotoc 13.94x .365 6,544 2. Ottawa 13.48x .485 936 3. Rogers 9.13x 1103 ••• ·111 •.. 4. Cherokee 904 '103 8.76x 977 5. Stephens 8.68x 1113 Arrests per lOOk

OREGON ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Oregon ranks Arrests for the possession of 45th in the nation for largest racial 1. more likely th n white marijuana made up 18% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for the state .•. people to be rrested marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of ....• indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black arrest compared tommiOOWMfflfor mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 50 : Legalized to be arrested 40 2018 131 1.82x 1.77x 20 2010 731 10 500 o 500 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties with.ttgtl1'Ht-HUnmabove the C unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage 50%'and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. J White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested -.- 1. Clackamas 123 7.87x 752 5.32x 545 4.85x 4.33x 412 5. Ik •• 4.25x Arrests per lOOk

PENNSYLVANIA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black pea pie we re Pennsylvania ranks Arrests for the possession of x marijuana made up 36th 42% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for the state t people to be arrested marijuana possession for marijuana possession + Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrest compared tom5i;iIhMfflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier dru arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 578 3.04x 4.80x 2010 624 400 o 400 Arrests per lOOk 2010 BY THE COUNTY Allcounties withlti14tt1r:@·mmmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1. Perry 21,159 28.36x 1746 4,651 2. Clarion 25.62x 1182 3. Indiana 16.68x 3,746 4. Clinton 16.62x 1225 2,499 5, Westmoreland 12.66x 1197 Arrests per lOOk

RHODE ISLAND ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Rhode Island ranks Arrests for the possession of x marijuana made up 30th • 18% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for the state .• people to be rrested marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of -. indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack ar ests compared toltffit¥WMfflfor tewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people II other ilrug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x I times more likely I Decriminalized to be arrested I 24 2018 110 3.32x 2010 523 2.59x 600 300 o 300 600 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withltt3Ft11'i@.Ehl1tt3above the C unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested """' ••••• •••6_1 8.99x =- 619 8.57x 6.10x 3.56x Arrests per 100k

SOUTH CAROLINA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were South Carolina ranks Arrests for the possession of 3.5x marijuana made up 26th 48% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME ~~~ compared to@5h¥ih@fflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ot er drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 1,421 3.45x 2.76x 2010 1,000 o 1,000 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY Allcounties with'ifii4E1Il@·6nQmabovethe Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested ________ 8.36x ...:..::3.956 1. Pickens •• - 2.151 2. Oconee 8.31x .259 2.931 3. Horry 6.80x 4. Lexington 5.80x .208 5. Greenville 5.25x .300 Arrests per lOOk

SOUTH DAKOTA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were South Dakota ranks Arrests for the possession of 5 marijuana made up 10th 55% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state'+ marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared toeffii¥W@§for mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 5.04x 2010 5.03x 2,000 1,000 o 1,000 2,000 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY C unties with the largest racial disparities Co nties with a pop, of >30,000, a Black pop, of >1%, a data coverage of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate _ Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested nnington S.SOx 2. rOOkingS '"'••••,Fl•••,i_--------..,;3;:,:,16~1 7.53x 3'iincOln 6.S7x 4. rown 5.07x 1,766 5. innehaha 4.47x Arrests per lOOk

TENNESSEE ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Tennessee ranks Arrests for the possession of .2x marijuana made up 32nd 42% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession + Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black arrests compared toMffii¥WtUJtor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all other drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 820 3.22x 2010 771 4.04x 500 o 500 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 BY THE COUNTY All counties with.tI4Ft1w:@·eWtmabovethe Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2,437 1. Claiborne 15.36x .159 2. Carter 13.89x .129 2,945 3. Williamson 10.73x 4. Lawrence 10.24x 2,377 5. Sevier 8.36x .284 Arrests per 100k

TEXAS ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Texas ranks Arrests for the possession of 41st in the nation for largest racial 2. x more likely th n white marijuana made up 44% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be rrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession tI Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack ar ests compared to(!;!jffii¥WMt'1tor marijuana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 40 to be arrested 32 2018 2.62x : 2.33x 16 2010 627 400 o 400 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY C unties with the largest racial disparities Co~nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 806 n Zandt l3.63x I S9 10.62x 9.82x 9.69x _______ ...,;;:,4,l::l69,l:.18 8.l6x Arrests per 100k Counties with missing data are striped.

UTAH ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Utah ranks Arrests for the possession of .9x marijuana made up 11th 40% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state t marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack rests' compared toMmiiWMfflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all otlier ilrug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 500 to be arrested __ -_._._'l -. - 400 2018 1,527 4.92x 300 2010 1,000 o 1,000 3.86x 200 100 -- • ...---- 0 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withlfl4Mr:lMobimmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a data coverage of >50% and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1,862 1. Washington 9.17x .203 2,030 2. Iron 6.99x .291 - 4.46 3. Wasatch 6.91x Ell 3,138 4. Sanpete 6.36x 5. Utah 6.31x .336 Arrests per lOOk Counties with missing data are striped.

VERMONT. ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black peop e were Vermont ranks Arrests for the possession of 6.1 marijuana made up 6th 12% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state .• marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession t Direction of __. indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Blac est compared tolt;TlHh¥ihMfflfor St tewide marijuana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to II other drug arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 200 : Decriminalized to be arrested 160 2018 126 21 6.06x 120 2010 508 4.14x 80 600 300 o 300 600 40 Arrests per 100k 0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY Counties with the largest racial disparities co~nties with a pop. of >30,000, a data coverage of >50% and at least 10 rarijUana possession arrests are included. White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested ] 1 shington. 16 13.72x 243 11.79x m ________ ---"2""-'70 9.76x 1m ___ 163 8.53x 111 4.24x Arrests per lOOk .•.ai Vermont legalized marijuana possession in 2018. More recent data ...•. is needed to analyze trends since the enactment of the recent law.

VIRGINIA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Virginia ranks Arrests for the possession of 27th in the nation for largest racial 3. x more likely than white marijuana made up 52% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for the state .•. people to be arrested marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME -.:;....."........,ests compared tolTilm(¥WMfflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier Clru arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 768 3.44x 2010 518 2.82x ----~.--~.-------~ 500 o 500 Arrests per lOOk 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withlti!4E1r:@·eWtmabove the Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _White Rate _ Black Rate Black people x times more likely ~A to be arrested II." -~. 1. Hanover .280 5.809 20.74x "'~ 5.200 2. Smyth 16.14x • 322 -"'. ~C.,,- \.•. i~ ~.~it· t~ 3. Washington 4. Augusta ,'69 .320 33 12.22x 9.7Bx :.- •• ai-\ 5. Arlington 1,,0 1.071 9.70x Arrests per lOOk

WASHINGTON ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Washington ranks Arrests for the possession of 2.1 marijuana made up 43rd 14% in the nation for largest racial more likely th n white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession + Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared tolt'l5UOOWMfflfor Statewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to II ottier Cirugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x I times more likely 200 I Legallted to be arrested 160 2018 2.14x 120 2010 462 2.53x 80 250 a 250 500 40 500 Arrests per 100k O~ ~ _ 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties withltit4mr:I~1ofmtmabove the C unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Co nties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of :>50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate _ Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 9.19x 8.82x _______ ..:3~26~6.77x 25 6.76x 4.69x Arrests per 100k

WEST VIRGINIA ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were West Virginia ranks Arrests for the possession of 7.3x marijuana made up 4th in the nation for largest racial more likely than white 47% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state t marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of lack arrests compared toM5h¥IWi#1tor Statewide mari'uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all otlier Clru.arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 2,517 344 7.31x 2010 271 4,67x 2,000 1,000 o 1,000 2,000 Arrests per 100k 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY Counties with the largest racial disparities Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of >50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 1. Preston 11,559 24.96x .463 2. Putnam 24.77x 1213 3. Harrison 17.39x 1.823 4. Wood 12,41x 1147 5. Logan 11.42x .469 Arrests per 100k

WISCONSIN ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Wisconsin ranks Arrests for the possession of marijuana made up 14th 57% in the nation for largest racial more likely than white of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be ~rrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana p ssession + Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black rests compared tol!:!]m(¥lhMfflfor St tewide mari"uana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all other Clrugarrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely 40 to be arrested 32 2018 1,126 4.24x 24 2010 1,297 5.82x 16 8 1,000 500 o 500 1,000 Arrests per lOOk 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 BY THE COUNTY All counties with.flaFi'1I!@·mmmabove the C~unties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Copnties with a pop. of >30,000, a Black pop. of >1%, a data coverage of 50%, and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. White Rate _ Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 5.548 34.90x I159 ________ ...;.7,""86~2 29.85x 6,165 27.07x 1228 23.88x "".-53-, ~ __ ..•.7:o:.:.872:.1 14.83x Arrests per lOOk

WYOMING ACLU 2018 SUMMARY Black people were Wyoming ranks Arrests for the possession of 5.2x marijuana made up 9th in the nation for largest racial more likely than white 59% of all drug arrests in disparities in arrests for people to be arrested the state + marijuana possession for marijuana possession t Direction of -+ indicates increase or decrease since 2010. ARRESTS OVER TIME Rates of Black arr.ests compared toM5h¥IhMfflfor Statewide marijuana ossession arrest rates compared marijuana possession, per 100k people to all ottier dru arrest rates, per 100k people Black people x times more likely to be arrested 2018 5.20x 2010 3.19x 2,000 1,000 o 1,000 2,000 Arrests per lOOk 2010 BY THE COUNTY All counties withUaaE1r:@.f!U!mabovethe Counties with the largest racial disparities national average (3.64x) Counties with a pop. of >30,000, a data coverage of >50% and at least 25 marijuana possession arrests are included. _ White Rate _ Black Rate Black people x times more likely to be arrested 3,661 1. Fremont 13.12x 1279 '!!!!!!! ".03x ...::8"",633"" 2. Campbell .783 3. Sweetwater 7.48x .381 4,308 4. Albany 4.56x 1m 5. Laramie 3.50x Arrests per lOOk

APPENDIX TABLE A Arrest Rates and Racial Disparities per State (2018) Marijuana Black White Marijuana Possession Possession Possession Racial Possession State Arrest Rate Arrest Rate Arrest Rate Arrest Rate Rate Ratio Disparities Rate Alabama 63.06 55.82 128.03 31.01 4.13 16.7% -51.7% Alaska 57.72 53.35 70.82 45.40 1.56 -26.1% -45.0% Arizona 220.01 208.75 580.65 190.90 3.04 32.8% -24.4% Arkansas 358.79 322.12 648.46 271.21 2.39 -22.7% 4.3% California 13.79 9.14 18.12 10.00 1.81 -16.6% -92.5% Colorado 91.00 82.20 130.51 84.90 1.54 -16.3% -59.8% Connecticut 64.77 49.85 152.57 37.91 4.02 7.2% -56.4% Delaware 118.90 89.33 222.45 53.57 4.15 38.3% -50.3% Geor~ia 499.68 428.81 804.32 271.82 2.96 1.4% -8.1% Hawai'i 59.18 55.78 130.90 73.42 1.78 81.6% -33.7% Idaho 351.37 332.16 1026.94 263.83 3.89 36.5% -13.1% Illinois 76.17 43.01 137.84 18.36 7.51 118.3% -67.0% Indiana 286.73 247.61 712.06 204.01 3.49 -6.4% -11.0% Iowa 147.80 133.82 776.28 106.90 7.26 -14.1% -16.0% Kansas 99.80 80.56 323.84 66.94 4.84 12.0% 26.2% Kentucky 170.07 141.72 788.34 84.19 9.36 60.0% -38.7% Louisiana 459.82 412.48 795.52 237.31 3.35 1.8% 2.9% Maine 61.64 54.99 214.84 53.89 3.99 90.9% -58.6% Maryland 317.86 279.40 470.16 220.74 2.13 -24.2% 0.0% Massachusetts 13.13 4.52 14.76 3.65 4.04 18.5% -72.4% Michigan 156.98 140.95 373.80 104.06 3.59 9.8% -10.5% Minnesota 158.83 126.71 536.94 100.02 5.37 -32.4% -18.9% Mississippi 348.68 294.78 478.88 176.39 2.71 -12.3% -12.9% Missouri 359.93 340.28 780.94 296.38 2.63 4.4% -11.6% Montana 135.19 127.62 1064.23 110.60 9.62 175.6% -38.2% Nebraska 453.58 409.42 1163.94 379.73 3.07 -30.2% -31.2% Nevada 95.60 76.65 212.26 69.72 3.04 -24.0% -62.4% New Hampshire 219.20 202.10 803.40 195.28 4.11 65.1% -30.9% New Jersey 404.67 369.54 1007.96 292.49 3.45 22.8% 23.3% New Mexico 249.93 225.71 837.21 210.54 3.98 118.7% 53.4% New York 300.26 287.76 597.59 227.53 2.63 -44.4% -5.8% North Carolina 256.40 234.85 528.27 162.03 3.26 -2.4% -3.0% North Dakota 354.04 332.52 1437.25 260.99 5.51 25.2% -18.2% Ohio 272.79 248.68 526.73 153.48 3.43 -10.9% 0.9% Oklahoma 229.69 199.25 719.47 169.62 4.24 42.3% -20.9% Oregon 77.00 69.54 130.90 71.74 1.82 2.8% -67.0% Pennsylvania 264.87 226.52 577.96 190.40 3.04 -36.7% 9.9% Rhode Island 49.93 37.80 110.17 33.17 3.32 28.2% -70.3% South Carolina 753.11 673.26 1420.68 412.27 3.45 25.0% -9.6% South Dakota 746.68 695.86 2147.03 426.35 5.04 0.2% -18.1% Tennessee 387.44 343.94 820.16 255.09 3.22 -20.3% -2.9% Texas 259.08 244.12 561.60 213.99 2.62 12.4% -19.0% Utah 372.71 343.37 1526.97 310.43 4.92 27.5% 6.8% Vermont 33.56 21.54 126.26 20.83 6.06 46.4% -78.0% Virginia 344.02 314.33 768.01 223.37 3.44 22.0% -6.5% Washington 30.94 25.90 52.18 24.44 2.14 -15.4% -71.2% West Virginia 496.32 447.32 2516.95 344.26 7.31 56.5% 9.9% Wisconsin 360.59 324.37 1125.85 265.58 4.24 -27.1% -10.0% Wyoming 655.00 592.89 2677.27 515.27 5.20 63.0% -13.3% Source: FBI, Ur, forn Crimi' Rt'portrng Pfo~nrn O'lt.=1.::lnrl U.S. C n u U3t-3 Note: Flortd<'l ~nd :N01shmgl ")n. 0 C. did not nro rdp. c::l~t'" A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 99

APPENDIX TABLE B Drug Arrests and Populations per State (2018) _.111 Alabama 13,598 3,082 2,729 l:'-_·I' 1,678 •. .. 1,048 - ~. 1,310,802 3,379,955 4,887,871 Alaska 1,112 410 378 20 214 27,534 470,249 709,419 Arizona 34,447 15,778 14,971 2,115 11,335 364,280 5,937,806 7,171,646 Arkansas 19,762 10,692 9,599 3,038 6,391 468,475 2,356,410 2,980,124 California 212,967 5,454 3,614 463 2,853 2,556,000 28,531,740 39,557,045 Colorado 18,601 5,183 4,682 339 4,210 259,711 4,959,310 5,695,564 Connecticut 8,348 2,314 1,781 655 1,084 429,298 2,859,280 3,572,665 Delaware 3,705 1,150 864 494 360 222,070 672,019 967,171 Georgia 86,508 52,471 45,029 27,381 17,259 3,404,212 6,349,613 10,501,080 Hawai'i 1,873 679 640 38 199 29,030 271,056 1,147,287 Idaho 11,980 6,164 5,827 162 4,306 15,775 1,632,188 1,754,208 Illinois 34,938 9,694 5,474 2,564 1,795 1,860,101 9,777,446 12,726,363 Indiana 37,129 19,187 16,570 4,691 11,617 658,729 5,694,468 6,691,878 Iowa 6,994 4,236 3,835 937 2,766 120,754 2,587,507 2,866,103 Kansas 4,481 2,896 2,338 578 1,678 178,520 2,506,434 2,902,183 Kentucky 32,001 7,600 6,333 2,964 3,295 375,972 3,913,936 4,468,402 Louisiana 37,271 21,331 19,135 12,095 6,919 1,520,428 2,915,478 4,638,940 Maine 3,698 825 736 47 682 21,877 1,265,648 1,338,404 Maryland 33,974 19,208 16,883 8,781 7,842 1,867,592 3,552,355 6,042,718 Massachusetts 10,489 906 312 91 204 617,097 5,577,194 6,902,149 Michigan 30,255 15,691 14,089 5,265 8,246 1,408,392 7,923,927 9,995,915 Minnesota 20,609 8,912 7,110 2,043 4,719 380,414 4,718,176 5,611,179 Mississippi 20,018 10,413 8,804 5,406 3,116 1,128,912 1,766,301 2,986,530 Missouri 41,987 22,038 20,835 5,658 15,053 724,513 5,079,051 6,122,811 Montana 3,001 1,431 1,351 66 1,041 6,233 941,588 1,058,637 Nebraska 16,289 8,751 7,899 1,149 6,469 98,757 1,703,446 1,929,268 Nevada 11,851 2,901 2,326 649 1,571 305,848 2,253,711 3,034,392 New Hampshire 6,357 2,973 2,741 187 2,469 23,293 1,264,217 1,356,458 New Jersey 60,138 36,050 32,921 13,484 18,767 1,337,754 6,416,347 8,908,520 New Mexico 8,727 5,237 4,730 449 3,619 53,576 1,718,901 2,095,428 New York 104,911 58,678 56,234 20,603 30,989 3,447,729 13,619,931 19,542,209 North Carolina 45,491 26,565 24,333 12,148 11,860 2,299,469 7,319,785 10,360,922 North Dakota 5,420 2,691 2,527 368 1,727 25,620 661,549 760,077 Ohio 58,008 31,887 29,069 7,996 14,690 1,517,999 9,571,522 11,689,442 Oklahoma 18,917 9,057 7,857 2,208 4,960 306,890 2,924,365 3,943,079 Oregon 15,979 3,227 2,914 122 2,609 92,958 3,635,926 4,190,713 Pennsylvania 69,838 33,922 29,010 8,851 19,947 1,531,457 10,476,085 12,807,060 Rhode Island 2,234 528 400 97 294 88,411 887,259 1,057,315 South Carolina 71,336 38,289 34,229 19,607 14,361 1,380,145 3,483,455 5,084,127 South Dakota 11,073 6,587 6,139 451 3,175 20,956 743,971 867,926 Tennessee 55,644 26,230 23,285 9,478 13,559 1,155,631 5,315,272 6,770,010 Texas 160,681 74,307 70,017 20,628 48,373 3,673,157 22,605,330 28,681,023 Utah 26,938 11,782 10,854 698 8,896 45,700 2,865,634 3,161,105 Vermont 1,121 210 135 11 123 8,753 589,986 626,299 Virginia 51,963 29,303 26,774 12,989 13,221 1,691,267 5,918,670 8,517,685 Washington 14,089 2,331 1,952 168 1,453 322,826 5,944,924 7,535,591 West Virginia 17,349 8,963 8,078 1,642 5,811 65,231 1,687,993 1,805,832 Wisconsin 33,373 20,963 18,857 4,380 13,448 389,047 5,063,526 5,813,568 Wyoming 5,841 3,784 3,425 202 2,756 7,557 534,943 577,737 Soutce: FBI/Unltorm CriMe R€~ortl/1"" Pru~ranl L);HJ Jnu U.S Cen liS Ddta Note: FlonU.1 ;:tnd Ja:;hlnt',ton 0 C did nut pruvlJe data 100 ACLU Research Report

3U!WO~M U!suo:)S!M L~O(; SOI8!U!p.l!1\~saM 8sm l~O(; 1>01 uo~l:Iul4s8M 8!U!j.l!1\ 1700(; £~O(; 8~Ol &m~uow.lal\ 8~0(; l:m48~n S8xa~ aassauua~ 8~0>l8a4~nos 8U!IO.l80 4~nos 900(; l~O(; 10lpu81S1apo4H 9Wc; 0018!U8AIASuuad 8SS~ v~Ol ssuopa.lO SW(; 8s8W0481>10 9W(; 9LS~ lsOl40 9W(; S~O(; 968~0>l8a4~.I0N LLS~ ss8UII0.l80 4~.I0N vW(; S~O(; t>6>1.10A MaN LOO(; S~O(; &s0:)!xallll MaN O~Ol uAaS.lar MaN £~Ol L~Ol Isa.ll4Sdw8H MaN 000(;/8SS~ 9Wl 068p8AaN SL6~ ss8>1S8.1qaN 9~Ol/vOO(; 888U8~UOIIII 8W(; v~Ol 18!.InOSSIIIII 8LS~ 981uuISSISSIIIII V~O(; 9LS~ S88~osauuIIIII 800(; 8~Ol t>1IU8p14:)11III lW(; 800(; 9Wl &8Snasn4:)8ss81111 VW(; v~Ol l:8PU8IA.l81111 SOOl/S66~ 9~Ol 18aUI81111 8~Ol/9~Ol 088u81sInol ~>I:)n~ua)l S8SU8)1 8MOI 8U81pul £~Ol 9~Ol SWl 6lSIOUIIII o48PI 000(; 6~Ol 8l1.18M8H S~Ol u8ll:1.10a~ 9~Ol 9l8P1.lOI:t mOl/8S6~ v~Ol Sl8!qwnloO :J0~:)I.I~sla ~Wl mOl I>la.l8M81aa l~Ol ~~Ol &l~n:)!~:)auuoo OOOl l~O(; uOP8.1°100 966~ mOl 9~Ol 1l8!U.l0:J!l8O 9~0(; OLS8SU8>1.1V mOl 698UOZ!.IV 866~ V~O(; 898>1S81V 8W8q81V le:>!pal/ll paZ!lejal paZ!leU!W!.I:>aa paz!le~al a~e~s 0(';0('; 4:)·n~Wlose 'pa~:)eu3 s.leaA "0·0 pue sa~e~s ·s·n lie .101SMe, euenrl.lew :::> 3l8V'1 XION3ddV'

recreational consumption (see Appendix, Table C for full list and Endnotes dates). 9 Mike Males and Lizzie Buchen, Reforming Marijuana Laws: Which Approach Best Reduces the Harms of Criminalization? A Five-State 1 American Civil Liberties Union, The War on Marijuana Analysis (San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in Black and White (New York: ACLU, June 2013), September 2014), http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/ cjcj/documents/~jcj_ https:llwww.aclu.org/reportlreport-war-marijuana- marijuana_reform_comparison.pdf. See also Drug Policy Alliance, black-and-white?redirect=criminal-law-reforml Marijuana Decriminalization and Legalization (New York: DPA, war-marijuana-black-and-white. February 2018), http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/defaultlfiles/ marijuanalegalizationanddecriminalization_factsheet_feb2018_O. 2 Throughout this report we capitalize "Black" when referring to pdf. Black people, whereas we do not capitalize "white" when referring to white people. Capitalizing "Black" allows for Black populations 10 Drug Policy Alliance, From Prohibition to Progress: A Status to be written about in the same manner as other ethnic groups, such Report on Marijuana Legalization (New York: DPA, January 2018), as Latinx, Asian, or British. However, "white" remains lowercase http://www.drugpolicy .orgl sitesl default/filesl dpa_marijuana_ as it is not a similar ethnic signifier. The capitalization of "Black" legalization_report_febI4_2018_0.pdf.30. also raises the visibility and prominence of a population who has often been erased, marginalized, and stripped of its importance. In 11 "FBI: Marijuana Arrests Rise for Third Year in a Row, Outpace adopting this style, we follow other organizations that have officially Arrests for All Violent Crimes," National Organization for the adapted their editorial style in this manner, such as the Brookings Reform of Marijuana Laws, October 3, 2019, https:llnorml.org/ Institute, Conscious Company, and Diversitylnc, among others. news/2019/10/03/fbi-marijuana-arrests-rise-for-third-year-in-a-row- outpace-arrests-for-all-violent-crimes. 3 This report includes data from 49 of the 50 U.S. states. Florida and Washington, D.C., do not report data to the FBI's Uniform 12 ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White. Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, and, thus, we submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to Washington, D.C:s 13 Throughout this report we capitalize "Black" when referring to Metropolitan Police Department (MPDl and the Florida Department Black people, whereas we do not capitalize "white" when referring of Law Enforcement. Despite the D.C. Mayor's Office of Legal to white people. Capitalizing "Black" allows for Black populations Counsel ruling ordering MPD to produce responsive records within to be written about in the same manner as other ethnic groups, such five business days, D.C. did not provide data in an appropriate, timely as Latinx, Asian, or British. However, "white" remains lowercase manner for analysis in this report. Florida refused to provide any as it is not a similar ethnic signifier. The capitalization of "Black" data in response to the FOIA request. also raises the visibility and prominence of a population who has often been erased, marginalized, and stripped of its importance. In 4 The reason that possession arrest rates do not drop to zero even adopting this style, we follow other organizations that have officially when possession of marijuana is legalized or decriminalized is that adapted their editorial style in this manner, such as the Brookings there remain certain circumstances where individuals still can be Institute, Conscious Company, and DiversityInc, among others. arrested for marijuana possession. The specific reasons for these possible arrests somewhat differ by state, but common examples 14 Craig Reinarman, "Social Construction of Drug Scares," include possession arrests for juveniles to whom legalization does in Constructions of Deviance: Social Power, Context, and Interaction, not apply, or violations of specific elements of the law, such as eds. Patricia A. Adler and Peter Adler (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth exceeding the legal amount permitted to possess or using marijuana Publishing Co., 1994),92 -105; Matthew D. Lassiter, "Impossible in a prohibited location. Criminals: The Suburban Imperatives of America's War on Drugs: Journal of American History 102, no. 1 (June 2015): 126-40, 5 Pew Research Center, Race in America 2019 (Washington, D.C.: https:lldoi.org/l0.1093/jahistljav243;LauraSmith, "How a Racist Pew Research Center, April 2019), https:llwww.pewsocialtrends. Hate-Monger MastermindedAmerica's War on Drugs" Timeline org/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019/. This report finds that February 28,2018, https:/ Itimeline.com/harry-anslU:ger-racist-~ar- Latinx people are more likely to be identified as white than Black on-drugs-prison-industrial-complex-fb5cbc281189?gi=cbf7ef9a2741; and that Latinx people perceived as nonwhite are more likely to ' David McDonald, "The Racist Roots of Marijuana report experiencing discrimination or being treated unfairly because Prohibition: Foundation for Economic Education, April 11, 2017, oftheir race than those perceived as white. https:/ Ifee.org/articles/the-racist-roots-of-marijuana-prohibition. 6 Joseph E. Kennedy, Isaac Unah, and Kasi Wahlers, "Sharks and 15 Dan Baum, "Legalize It All: Harper's Magazine, April 2016, https:11 Minnows in the War on Drugs: A Study of Quantity, Race and Drug harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all. Type in Drug Arrests," UC Davis Law Review 52, no. 2 (December 2018): 743, https:lllawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/52/2/ 16 Suchitra Rajagopalan, "United Nations and World Health Articles/52-2_Kennedy. pdf. Organization Call for Drug Decriminalization: Drug Policy Alliance, June 29, 2017, http://www.drugpolicy.orglblog/united-nations- 7 Washington (2012), Colorado (2012), Oregon (2014), Alaska (2014), and-world-health-organization-call-drug-decriminalization. In 2016, Washington, D.C. (2014), California (2016), Massachusetts (2016), the ACLU and Human Rights Watch (HRW) released the report Maine (2016), Nevada (2016), Vermont (2018), Michigan (2018), and Every 25 Seconds, calling for federal and state governments to end Illinois (2019). the criminalization of the personal use of drugs and the possession of drugs for personal use. HRW and ACLU, Every 25 Seconds: The 8 Before legalizing marijuana for recreational use, many of the Human Toll of Criminalizing Drug Use in the United States (New states mentioned passed decriminalization measures. To date, 15 states have decriminalized marijuana but have not legalized it for 102 ACLU Research Report

York: Human Rights Watch, October 2016), https:llwww.hrw.org/ has always been a vehicle for policing and surveillance and social sites/defaultifiles/report_pdf/usdrug1016_web_0.pdf. control of certain communities. If we want to get to the heart of the problem, we need to address these issues. Our clients have long 17 Lucas Laursen, "Canada Today Becomes the Second Country to been targeted by the NYPD for marijuana enforcement based on Legalize Weed. Here's What It Can Learn From the First," Fortune their race and socioeconomic status. The legalization effort must Magazine, October 17,2018, https://fortune.coml2018/10/17/ take this into account and make them whole. Anything short of this canada-marijuana-weed-legalization-uruguay/. is unacceptable." Eli Northrup, written testimony, "Hearing re: Marijuana Legalization: Equity and Justice for NYC" (February 18 Justin McCarthy, "Two in Three Americans Now Support Legalizing 27,2019), https:llwww.bronxdefenders.org/wp-eontentl Marijuana," Gallup, October 22,2018, https:llnews.gallup.com/ uploads/2019/03/City-Council-Testimony-Marijuana.pdf. po1ll243908/two-three-americans-supportriegalizing-marijuana. aspx. 30 Amanda Geller, Jeffrey Fagan, Tom Tyler, and Bruce G. Link, "Aggressive Policing and the Mental Health of Young Urban 19 James Cole, memorandum for all United States attorneys, "Guidance Men," American Journal of Public Health 104, no. 12 (December Regarding Marijuana Enforcement," August 29,2013, https:llwww. 2014): 2321-2327, https:lldoi.org/l0.2105/AJPH.2014.302046. justice.govliso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf. 31 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, 20 Ashley Southall and Jack Healy, "U.S. Won't Sue to Reverse States' Results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Legalization of Marijuana, " New York Times, August 29, 2013, Detailed Tables (Washington, D.C.: SAMHSA, August 2019), https:llwww.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/us-says-it-wont- https:llwww.samhsa.gov/datalsites/default/files/cbhsg-reports/ sue-to-undo-state-marijuana-laws.html. NSDUHDetailedTabs2018R2INSDUHDetailedTabs2018.pdf. See Table 1.26B, which finds that in 2018, reported marijuana use during 21 Thomas Fuller, "Recreational Pot Is Officially Legal in the prior year among individuals age 18 and older was 16.8% for white California," New York Times, January 1, 2018, https:llwww.nytimes. people and 18.2% for Black people. com/2018/01/01/us/legal-pot-california.html. 32 "Overall, marijuana dominates all other types of drugs in terms of 22 German Lopez, "January Was the Biggest Month yet arrests. Black and Hispanic people are arrested disproportionately in for Marijuana Legalization, Despite Trump's New terms of their share of the overall population." Kennedy, "Sharks and War on Pot," Vox, January 31,2018, https:llwww. Minnows," 746-747. vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/31/169247261 marijuana-legalization-ealifornia-vermont-january-2018. 33 Sagiv Galai, "Equity Must Be at the Heart of Marijuana Legalization," ACLU, June 26, 2019, https:llwww. 23 Jefferson Sessions, memorandum for all United States attorneys, aclu.orglblogl criminal-Iaw-reforml drug-Iaw-reform/ "Marijuana Enforcement," January 4,2018, https:llwww.justice.gov/ equity-must-be-heart-marijuana-Iegalization. opal press-releasel filel 10221961 download. 34 Manhattan DistrictAttorney's Office, "DA Vance: Marijuana 24 John G. Roberts Jr., 2019 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary Prosecutions Down 94% in First Quarter of New Policy," press (Washington, D.C.: Public Information Office of the United States release, November 1,2018, https:llwww.manhattanda.org/da-vance- Supreme Court, December 2019), https:llwww.supremecourt.gov/ marijuana-prosecutions-down-94-in-first-quarter-of-new-policy/. publicinfo/year-end/2019year-endreport.pdf. 35 Jolie McCullough, "Austin Police Chief: We Will Still 25 Sara Brittany Somerset, "Attorney General Barr Favors a More Ticket, Arrest for Marijuana," Texas ,]hbune, January Lenient Approach to Cannabis Prohibition," Forbes, April 15, 2019, 24,2020, https:llwww.texastribune.org/2020/01l24/ https:llwww.forbes.com/sites/sarabrittanysomersetl2019/04/151 austin-texas-police-ehief-marijuana-arrests-will-eontinue/. attorney-general-barr-favors-a-more-lenient-approach-to-eannabis- legalization! #7 ca35a2ec4c8. 36 In 2003, Seattle voters approved a measure that set marijuana policing as low law enforcement priority. At least 15 other cities 26 Benjamin Goggin, "Black People Face Big Barriers Entering the have followed Seattle's footsteps. "Seattle Voters Approve Initiative Legal Weed Industry," Vice, September 20, 2018, https:llwww.vice. Making Marijuana Enforcement City's 'Lowest Priority,'" National com/en_us/article/yw4pkw/weed-industry-equity-Black-business. Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, September 18, 2003, https:llnorml.org/news/2003/09/18/seattle-voters-approve- 27 "Marijuana Justice Coalition Asserts Statement of Principles on initiative-making-marijuana-enforcement-city-s-lowest-priority. Federal Marijuana Reform," Human Rights Watch, July 9, 2019, https:llwww.hrw.org/news/2019/07/09/marijuana-justice- 37 States are categorized based on their most liberal law to date. For coalition-asserts-statement-principles-federal-marijuana-reform#. example, a state that legalized marijuana for medical use and later legalized recreational use is counted among "legalized." See 28 Harry G. Levine and Deborah Peterson Small, Marijuana Arrest Appendix, Table C forfulliist of marijuana laws by state. Crusade (New York: New York Civil Liberties Union, April 2008), http://marijuana-arrests.com/docs/MARIJUANA-ARREST- 38 "Any changes to Wisconsin's current marijuana policy appear CRUSADE.pdf. unlikely, with state lawmakers recently saying they won't consider a proposal to allow medical use. But that isn't stopping state 29 In February 2019, the Bronx Public Defenders addressed this matter residents from going to Illinois to buy legal weed." Corrinne during their testimony before the New York City Council on the Hess, "Wisconsin Residents Head to Illinois to Buy Legal subject of marijuana legalization and policing in their city. "The Weed," Wisconsin Public Radio, January 2,2020, https:/lwww.wpr. truth is that marijuana enforcement is rarely about marijuana. It org/wisconsin-residents-head-illinois-buy-Iegal-weed. A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 103

39 "These Nonviolent Inmates Serving Life without Parole for decriminalization laws states have enacted. For that reason, and Marijuana Need Clemency from President Trump," Life for Pot, because this report is focused on marijuana arrests between 2010- accessed March 3, 2020, https:llwww.lifeforpot.com/inmates- 2018, which is also the extent of the marijuana arrest data we sought, over-62.html. we have only analyzed arrest data pre-and post-decriminalization individually by state for states that have enacted such laws since 2010 40 Using UCR data, the FBI reported that in 2018, law enforcement (shown in Figure 8). officials across the country had made more than 10 million arrests. Of these, 521,103 were for "violent crime." As noted in our report, 48 David Brand, "Nearly Every Single Person Arrested for Weed in NYC that is less than the total marijuana arrests made that year. See This Year Was Black or Latinx," Queens Daily Eagle, August 21,2019, Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, Crime in the United States, 2018 https:llqueenseagle.com/ alii nearlY-ilvery-single-person-arrested- (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2019), https:llucr. for-weed-in-nyc-this-year-was-black-or-latinx. fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pagesl persons-arrested. pdf. 49 ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White. 41 The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data produced the arrest 50 SAMSHA, Results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and data by age, sex, and race for all years up until 2016. Since the FBI Health. See Table 1.26B. moved to an incident bases system, they have yet to publish results for 2017 -2018. We used the FBI's APIfor their new system to acquire 51 For a total of 49 states, as Florida and Washington, D.C., did not marijuana arrest data for 2017 - 2018 (as detailed in the Methodology provide data for this report (see Methodology and Limitations section and Limitations section), but the data is currently not available for for further details). other drug types. 52 Counties have >50% coverage when more than 50% of their population 42 Violent crimes, according to the FBI's definition, include murder and is covered by an agency that reports 12 months of data to the non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. UCR Program. More information on coverage is available in the Methodology and Limitations section of this report. 43 We provide profiles for 49 states. There are no profiles for Florida and Washington, D.C. because they failed to provide us data for this 53 ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White, 110-112. report (see Methodology and Limitations section for more detailed information). 54 ld. 44 The states that passed laws in the 1970s were often quite limited 55 Drug Policy Alliance, From Prohibition to Progress, 7. in terms of the scope of activity decriminalized or contained loopholes that police departments could exploit, and thus were 56 Ben Markus, "As Adults Legally Smoke Pot in Colorado, More less comprehensive than the more recent decriminalization laws Minority Kids Arrested For It," National Public Radio, June 29, 2016, that have been enacted. For that reason, and because this report is https:llwww.npr.org/2016/06/29/483954157 1as-adults-legally- focused on marijuana arrests between 2010-2018, which is also the smoke-pot-in-eolorado-more-minority-kids-arrested-for-it. extent of the marijuana arrest data we sought, we have only analyzed arrest data pre-and post-decriminalization individually by state for 57 ACLU of North Carolina, At All Costs: The Consequences of Rising states that have enacted such laws since 2010 (shown in Figure 8). Court Fines and Fees in North Carolina (Raleigh, NC: ACLU, April However, the states that decriminalized in the 1970s are included 2019): 38-9, https:llwww.aeluofnorthcarolina.org/sites/defaultl in the aggregate analysis of all decriminalized states (as shown in filesl field_documentsl aelu_nc _20 19_fines _and_fees_report_17 _ Figure 6). singles_final.pdf. 45 As discussed in greater detail in Endnote 4, possession arrest rates 58 do not drop to zero even when possession of marijuana is legalized or decriminalized because there remain certain circumstances in which 59 In jurisdictions where nonpayment can still result in incarceration, individuals can still be arrested for marijuana possession. individuals must be provided with an attorney. 46 The national rate ratio of racial disparities in 2018 (3.64) is higher 60 ee ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project, Collateral Consequences of than the 2018 rate ratios for all three of the subgroups in Figure 6 the War on Drugs (New Haven, CT: ACLU, January 2003), https:11 (Fully Illegal, Decriminalized, Legal) because white people are more www.aelu.org/sites/defaultlfiles/field_document/final%20brochure. likely than Black people to live in a state that has legalized marijuana. pdf. Baseline rates of arrests for both racial groups are much lower in states that have legalized, but only 10.6% of the Black people in this 61 Mariah Woelfel, "How Is Marijuana Expungement Working analysis live in a legalized state, compared to 22.6% of white people. in Illinois?: National Public Radio, October 17, 2019, For background information, see Agresti, Alan. Categorical data https:llwww.npr.orgllocall309/2019/10/17/770701388/ analysis. Wiley-Interscience, 1990 or Good, I. J., and Y. Mittal. "The how-is-marijuana-ilxpungement-working-in-illinois. amalgamation and geometry of two-by-two contingency tables." The Annals of Statistics (1987): 694-711. 62 See Allie Howell, Criminal Conviction Restrictions for Marijuana icensing (Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, September 2018), 47 While a handful of states passed laws in the 1970s removing criminal 7 -11, https:llreason.org/wp-<!ontent/uploads/criminal-eonviction- penalties for certain marijuana offenses (see Table 5), such laws were restrictions-for-marijuana-licensing.pdf. often quite limited in terms of the scope of activity decriminalized or contained loopholes that police departments could take advantage 63 ee "Lowest Law Enforcement Priority Jurisdictions," Marijuana of, and thus were less comprehensive than the more recent Policy Project, https:llwww.mpp.orglissues/criminal-justice/ 104 ACLU Research Report

lowest-Ia w-€nforcement-priority-jurisdictions/. 76 Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Florida Ballot See also San Francisco, Cal., Admin. Code § 96B, Policy Making Amendment 2 (approved by voters November 2016). Marijuana Offenses the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority. 77 Georgia's Hope Act, H.B. 324, 2019 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2019). 64 See End Racial Profiling Act of2015, H.R. 1933, 114th Congo (2015). See also The Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, A.B. 953, 2015 78 Medical Use of Marijuana, S.B. 862, 20th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Hi. 2000); Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ca. 2015); "10 Best Practices for Writing Policies A Bill for an Act Relating to Marijuana, H.B. 1383, 30th Leg. Reg. Against Racial Profiling," Southern Poverty Law Center, October Sess. (Hi. 2019). 23,2018, https:llwww.splcenter.org/20181023/10-best-practices- writing-policies-against-racial-profiling. 79 The Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, H.B. 1, 98th Leg., Reg. Sess. (II. 2013); An Act Concerning Criminal 65 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Law, S.B. 2228, 99th Leg., Reg. Sess. (II. 2016) (amending the Cannabis Control Act at 720 Ill. Compo Stat. Ann. 550); The Cannabis 66 United States Office of Management and Budget, A Budget for Regulation and Tax Act, H.B. 1438, 101st Leg., Reg. Sess. (II. 2019). America's Future: Analytical Perspectives (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2020), https:llwww.whitehouse.gov/ 80 Louisiana Therapeutic Marijuana Act, S.B. 271, 2016 Leg., Reg. Sess. wp-content/uploads/2020102/spec_fy21.pdf. (La. 2016). 67 See Daniel Ross, "Newark's New Disciplinary Board Could Flex Rare 81 Maine Medical Marijuana for Specific Illnesses, Maine Ballot Muscle over Police," Yes Magazine, September 11, 2015, https:llwww. Question 2 (approved by voters November 1999), amended by Maine yesmagazine. orgl social-justice/2015/091 111newarks-new-civilian- Medical Marijuana Initiative, Maine Ballot Question 5 (approved by board-could-wield-rarlHiisciplinary-muscle-over-police/; "Community voters November 2009); Marijuana Legalization Act, Maine Ballot Oversight: Campaign Zero, accessed March 10, 2020, https:llwww. Question 1 (approved by voters November 2016). joincampaignzero.org/oversight. 82 An Act Concerning Medical Marijuana - Natalie M. LaPrade Medical 68 Alaska Medical Marijuana Act, Alaska Ballot Measure 8 (approved by Marijuana Commission, H.B. 881, 434th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2014). voters November 1998); An Act to Tax and Regulate the Production, An Act Concerning Criminal Law - Possession of Marijuana - Civil Sale, and Use of Marijuana, Alaska Ballot Measure 2 (approved by Offense, S.B. 364, 434th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2014). voters November 2014). 83 An Act Establishing a Sensible State Marihuana Policy, H.B. 4468, 69 Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, Arizona Ballot Proposition 203 185th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ma. 2008); An Initiative Petition for a Law for (approved by voters November 2010). the Humanitarian Medical Use of Marijuana, Massachusetts Ballot Question 3 (approved by voters November 2012); The Regulation and 70 Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment, Arkansas Ballot Issue 6 Taxation of Marijuana Act, H.B. 3932, 189th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ma. (approved by voters November 2016). 2016). 71 Medical Use of Marijuana Initiative, California Ballot Proposition 84 Medical Marijuana Initiative, Michigan Proposal 1 (approved by 215 (approved by voters November 1996); An Act to Amend Section voters November 2008); Michigan Regulation and Taxation of 11357 of the Health and Safety Code, and to Amend Section 23222 of Marihuana Act, Proposal 1 (approved by voters November 2018). the Vehicle Code, Relating to Controlled Substances, S.B. 1449,2010 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ca. 2010); Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of 85 In 1976, Minnesota amended its possession and sale laws as related Marijuana Act, California Ballot Proposition 64 (approved by voters to petty marijuana offenses, codified at Minn. Stat. § 152.027(a). November 2016). Minnesota Medical Cannabis Therapeutic Research Act, S.F. 2470, 88th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mn. 2014). Specifically, Minnesota 72 Colorado Medical Use of Marijuana Initiative, Colorado Ballot eliminated the punishment of imprisonment for a first offense of Amendment 20 (approved by voters November 2000); Use and possession of certain amounts of marijuana. However, it continued Regulation of Marijuana Initiative, Colorado Ballot Amendment 64 to classify marijuana possession as a crime, and in some cases (approved by voters November 2012). maintained harsher criminal penalties. There is some disagreement about whether these types oflaws qualify as decriminalization. 73 An Act Concerning the Penalty for Certain Nonviolent Drug Offenses, However, for this report, we adopted a similar criteria as some S.B. 1014,2011 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ct. 2011); An Act Concerning the other organizations, such as Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Palliative Use of Marijuana, H.B. 5389, 2012 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ct. Project, and NORML, classifying a state which does not impose 2012). imprisonment for first offense as a type of decriminalized state. 74 An Act to Amend Title 16 of the Delaware Code Creating the 86 In 1978, Mississippi amended its marijuana possession laws, codified Delaware Medical Marijuana Act, S.B. 17, 146th Leg., Reg. Sess. (De. atMiss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(c)(2). Specifically, Mississippi 2011); An Act to Amend Title 16 of the Delaware Code Relating to eliminated the punishment of imprisonment for a first offense of Marijuana, H.B. 39, 148th Leg., Reg. Sess. (De. 2015). possession of certain amounts of marijuana. However, for larger amounts and multiple offenses, it continued to classify marijuana 75 Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment possession as a crime, and in some cases maintained criminal Act of 2010, Council Act 18-429, 18th Leg., Reg. Sess. (D.C. 2010); penalties, including imprisonment. There is some disagreement Legalization of Possession of Minimal Amounts of Marijuana about whether these types oflaws qualify as decriminalization. for Personal Use Initiative Act of2014, Washington, D.C., Ballot However, for this report, we adopted a similar criteria as some Initiative Measure 71 (approved by voters November 2014). other organizations, such as Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform 105

Project, and NORML, classifying a state which does not impose or possession of certain amounts of marijuana, it continued imprisonment for first offense as a type of decriminalized state. ito classify marijuana possession as a crime, and in some cases aintained criminal penalties. 87 An Act Modifying Provisions Relating to Criminal Law, S.B. 491, 97th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2014); Medical Marijuana and 96 orth Dakota Compassionate Care Act, North Dakota Initiated Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative, Missouri Amendment tatutory Measure 5 (approved by voters November 2016); An Act to 2 (approved by voters November 2018). Specifically, Missouri end and Reenact North Dakota Marijuana Laws, H.B. 1050, 66th eliminated the punishment of imprisonment for a first offense of eg., Reg. Sess. (Nd. 2019). Though North Carolina eliminated the possession of marijuana, however it continues to classify marijuana unishment of imprisonment for possession of certain amounts of possession as a crime, and in some cases maintain criminal arijuana, it continued to classify marijuana possession as a crime, penalties. There is some disagreement about whether these types nd in some cases maintained criminal penalties. of laws qualify as decriminalization. However, for this report, we adopted a similar criteria as some other organizations, such as Drug 97 n 1975, Ohio amended its marijuana possession laws, classifying Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, and NORML, classifying ow-level possession as a minor misdemeanor, codified at ORC a state which does not impose imprisonment for first offense as a (\nn. 2925.11(C)(3). Medical Marijuana Control Program Act, H.B. type of decriminalized state. r23, 131st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Oh. 2016). Ohio referred to marijuana ossession as a misdemeanor, but it did not impose imprisonment nor 88 Montana Medical Marijuana Allowance Initiative, Montana Ballot criminal record for certain amounts. However, for larger amounts, Initiative 148 (approved by voters November 2004); reformed by An .t maintained harsher criminal penalties, including imprisonment. Act Establishing Montana Marijuana Act and Revising Laws Relating to the Use of Marijuana, S.B. 423, 62nd Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mt. 2011); 98 edical Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Oklahoma State Question amended by Montana Medical Marijuana Act, Ballot Initiative 182 88 (approved by voters June 2018); amended by Oklahoma Medical (approved by voters November 2016). arijuana and Patient Protection Act, H.B. 2612, 2019 Leg., Reg. ess. (Ok. 2019). 89 In 1979, Nebraska amended its marijuana possession laws, codified at R.R.S. Neb. § 28416(13). Specifically. Nebraska decriminalized 99 regon Medical Marijuana Act, Oregon Ballot Measure 67 (approved first offenses of possession of certain amounts of marijuana. y voters November 1998); Control, Regulation, and Taxation of However, for larger amounts and multiple offenses, it continued arijuana and Industrial Hemp Act, Oregon Ballot Measure 91 to classify marijuana possession as a crime, and in some cases approved by voters November 2014). maintained criminal penalties, including imprisonment. There is some disagreement about whether these types of laws qualify as 100 edical Marijuana Act, S.B. 3, 2015 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2016). decriminalization. However, for this report, we adopted a similar criteria as some other organizations, such as Drug Policy Alliance, 101 he Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Marijuana Policy Project, and NORML, classifying a state which does ct, S.B. 0710, 2005 Leg., Jan. Sess. (Ri. 2005) (enacted by overriding not impose imprisonment for first offense as a type of decriminalized overnor's veto in January 2006); Uniform Controlled Substance Act, state. S.B. 2253, 2012 Leg., Jan. Sess. (Ri. 2012). 90 Nevada Medical Marijuana Act: Initiative Relating to the Use of a 102 tah Medical Cannabis Act, Utah Proposition 2 (approved by voters Plant of the Genus Cannabis for Medical Purposes, Nevada Ballot ovember 2018); amended by Medical Cannabis Amendments, S.B. Question 9 (approved by voters November 1998); Nevada Medical 002,2019 Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Ut. 2019). Marijuana Act, Nevada Ballot Question 9 (approved by voters November 2000); Nevada Marijuana Legalization Act: Initiative to 103 Act Relating to the Medical Use of Marijuana, S.B. 76,2004 Regulate and Tax Marijuana, Nevada Ballot Question 2 (approved by eg., Reg. Sess. (Vt. 2004); An Act Relating to Civil Penalties for voters November 2016). ossession of Marijuana, H. 200, 2013 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Vt. 2013); n Act Relating to Eliminating Penalties for Possession of Limited 91 An Act Relative to the Use of Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes, H.B. ounts of Marijuana by Adults 21 Years of Age or Older, H. 511, 573,2013 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Nh. 2013); An Act Relative to the Penalties 018 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Vt. 2018). for Possession of Marijuana, H.B. 640, 2017 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Nh. 2017). 104 ashington Medical Marijuana Initiative, Washington Initiative 692 (approved by voters November 1998); Washington Marijuana 92 New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, S.B. 119, Legalization and Regulation, Washington Initiative 502 (approved by 213th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Nj. 2010). oters November 2012). 93 The Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act, S.B. 523, 48th Leg., 1st 105 est Virginia Medical Cannabis Act, S.B. 386, 2017 Leg., Reg. Sess. Sess. (Nm. 2007); Decreasing Penalties for Possession of Marijuana (Wv.2017). and of Drug Paraphernalia, S.B. 323, 54th Leg., 1st Sess. (Nm 2019). 94 Medical Use of Marijuana, S.B. 7923, 2014 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ny. 2014); An Act to Amend the Penal Law and the Criminal Procedure Law, S.B. 6579, 2019 Leg., RegSess. (Ny. 2019). 95 In 1977, North Carolina amended its marijuana possession laws to classify low-level possession as a Class C misdemeanor and remove the threat of imprisonment, codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(d). Though North Carolina eliminated the punishment of imprisonment 106 ACLU Research Report

ATTACHMENT #4 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 09/26/2023 Rivera, Arielle M From: Ellen Richardson <ellenr711@aol.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 3:24 PM To: City Clerks Office Subject: EXTERNAL:Input on legalization of use of Marijuana in Dover WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. "There are a couple of hot button issues on the agenda. There is a public hearing tonight on the old post office property and tomorrow we willhave a discussion about the future of legal marijuana in the city. Your input is solicited in person or email cityclerk@dover.de.us .. My personal input - I suspect here is enough substance abuse in Dover without adding this magnet to attract out of towners to Dover. Ellen Richardson 1