Subsequent to my letter I received a letter from head of the police authority.  The letter thanked me for my communication and advised me that my letter was being forwarded to the appropriate officials for an Internal Affairs Unit investigation.

The next set of actions from the police authority consisted of contacting me through telephone calls and then letters.  The purpose of these contacts was not to provide answers to the questions I raised in my letter to the head of the police authority.  But rather the purpose of the contacts was to engage me in providing additional information to assist with an "internal" investigation.  In fact, I was asked to come to the police authority facilities for an interview regarding the incident.

Having experience in resolving issues of discrimination, I was not surprised that requests were being made of me for additional information.  I realized that with my initial letter to the head of the police authority I was placing on the police authority the burden of providing information to me regarding the actions of their police officers.  This burden on the police authority was given additional weight in that I had sent copies of my initial letter to my U.S. Congressional Representative and my state government representative.  

Therefore, I anticipated that there would be an attempt to shift the burden of providing information away from the police authority back to me as my burden.  I did not respond to these communications thereby not accepting this burden to provide information.  I had already provided a detailed account of the incident in my initial letter to the head of the police authority.  I provided an amount of information sufficient for the police authority to begin its "internal" investigation to collect information for answering my questions.

Furthermore, my question was, given the detailed account of the incident that I provided, and given that the police authority was engaging in an "internal" investigation through its Internal Affairs Unit, why was information being requested from me?  It seemed that the most significant information for the police authority internal investigation resided within the authority's police officers who were present at the incident.  Additionally, I felt that my daughter and I were subjected to an inappropriate, time consuming, stressful interrogation while stopped on the highway on the way to my sister's funeral.  My question was, why would I go to the police authority facility and subject myself to an unjustified, second interrogation at my time and expense?

I have yet to receive answers to my questions from the police authority.  The burden and indeed the obligation to provide information that answers my questions remain with the police authority.  Until the police authority provides information that answers my questions there is substantial justification for the conclusion that my daughter and I were the subject of "racial profiling."  By presenting my questions I have given the police authority an opportunity to explain the action of their police officers as justifiable police practice and that my daughter and I were not subjected to "racial profiling."  It may well be that the actions of the police officers were well within their legal authority.  However, the police authority has yet to take advantage of that opportunity.

At this time the case remains open.  It will remain open until the point at which answers to the initial questions that I have asked are provided through the exercise of legal or other options.

My approach to dealing with "racial profiling" is based on my work with overall issues of racism and unfair treatment in our country.  In my practice and research as a social scientist I have identified a critical relationship between levels of measurable human effectiveness on the one hand and issues or problems of race and other background factors, on the other hand.  In any set of circumstances where the responsible people involved are at higher levels of effectiveness there is less of a likelihood of problems or issues related to background differences.  Conversely, in any set of circumstances where the responsible people involved are at lower levels of effectiveness there is a greater likelihood of problems or issues related to background differences.

For me this principle means that when there are issues or problems such as "racial profiling" or other forms of racism present in any situation, the point of attack for dealing with these issues is not really that of leveling charges of unfair treatment.  What is far more important and likely to be more successful than making open charges of racism, is to directly confront the underlying human ineffectiveness of those responsible, which sets off the unfair treatment in the first place.  Therefore, where my daughter and I were subjected to "racial profiling" I have not launched a tirade claiming "racial profiling" or racism.  Instead, I am confronting the underlying ineffectiveness of law enforcement policy and practice that gives life to "racial profiling."  Each question I presented in my initial letter to the police authority regarding the stoppage of my vehicle was directed at the ineffectiveness of police policy and practice.  My continued pursuit in this case will focus on ineffectiveness and its role in the "racial profiling" that my daughter and I experienced.

Note:
Dr. George Banks is the author of the book The Issue of Race: A Resolution for the 21st Century.  Seaburn Publishing Group, web link:  http://www.seaburn.com/The_Issue_of_Race.htm

Dr. Banks featured The Issue of Race as he talked at the U.S. Department of Education about African American Emergence.  For the video of this presentation visit the following web link: 
http://www.todaysdrum.com/4933/banking-on-african-american-emergence/