
Danville Police Chief Yates asserts Black residents only 2x more likely to be pulled over
In light of concerns raised by the ACLU over racial disparity in traffic stops in Danville — with a third local ACLU meeting planned for tonight at 6 p.m. at Laura Lee Fellowship House — Danville Police Chief Christopher Yates addressed what he said is a false data analysis at Tuesday's City Council meeting.
Based on 2023 IDOT data auto-collected by Danville police and later analyzed by The Mountain-Whisper-Light Statistics and Data Science group, Black residents are five times more likely to be pulled over in Danville for pretextual traffic stops — a point former Alderman Lloyd Randle and the ACLU of Illinois have been talking with residents about for more than a year.
Such pretextual stops occur when an officer on patrol pulls a car over for expired registration stickers or broken tail lights, for example, with an intention or pretext to investigate drivers for more serious crimes, like drunk driving or drug possession, according to the New York University School of Law.
In 2023, Yates said, the data analysis team used the American Community Survey to learn about demographics in Danville, a survey based on the 2020 census, which Yates said are estimates with a large margin of error.
'One of the biggest problems when you change, whether it be benchmark or comparables, is that you get different results,' he said.
Yates gave an example using the 2023 Mountain-Whisper-Light study, which estimated that Danville had a population of 35,999 people, though Yates said the number is closer to 27,000, according to the most recent ACS data.
'But the biggest difference is that the demographic they listed for the city of Danville was 72% white and 20.5% Black,' Yates said. 'The actual demographic is closer to 54.4% white and 33.4% Black, which changes things exponentially.'
Yates said the purpose of the report is for police to see how their numbers change year over year, but he said, 'that's not possible when you have three different methodologies used in a study over a period of four to five years, because it changes things.'
In defense of his police force, Yates argued other local forces had much higher disparities.
'We put in the proper numbers as well as the most recent demographic numbers and it lowered it quite a bit. It brought it down to two-to-one,' Yates said. 'We're still lower than other communities within this region. Well, I looked at their numbers and they should be probably saying, 'Hey, what's going on here, too?' I don't know. That's their business.'
Yates defended his force, as well, alluding to the 'accountability and transparency' they've operated with in the five and a half years he has been chief.
Public image and trust in police
He also spoke about the importance of maintaining a positive image in the eyes of the public.
'We have to maintain that high standard. If not, there is a loss of trust. And then our ability to fulfill our mission, which is improving the quality of life for every one of our citizens, doesn't come to fruition, and we move away from that mission,' Yates said.
'We worked really hard to build a relationship with all the citizens within the City of Danville,' Yates said, before addressing Alderman Ed Butler.
'Mr. Butler, we've come a long way since Antioch Baptist Church in the meeting we had after I don't know how many funerals, and different things that we went on in 2018, but we came ...' Yates said, choking back tears, 'we came a long way, and that's ruining relationships. It's difficult when we have disparity on that.'
It's not about race, but crime
Yates' primary argument was that his department is not biased, but simply doing their jobs where they are told to do so — jobs which, if done well, yield results.
'We pull over for violations. We also use data and intelligence-driven policing for our resource allocations,' he said, later saying he is 'satisfied with where we're at' and 'unapologetic for the decrease in crime rate, in the violence.' Yates did recognize there was an 'uptick in property crime and non-detainable offenses.'
In an interview with the Commercial-News Tuesday, Yates doubled down on his assertion that the traffic stop disparity in Danville happens not because of bias but because 'police go where crime happens.'
'You have twice as many police officers in high crime areas,' he said, before offering a hypothetical scenario.
'Say you've got four zones in the city, A, B, C and D. A has the lowest amount of crime; B has the second least amount of crime; C has third; D has the most crime,' Yates said. 'Where do you put the most officers? When you have more officers you observe more offenses.'
When asked about where police resources are most often allocated in Danville, Yates said 'on the east side and there's some pockets on the west side' — two areas which have historically been majority Black, according to a Census map from 2020.
'If you're white, you're white. If you're Black, you're Black. That's not why you got pulled over. You got pulled over because you either were involved in a crime or there was a violation of Illinois vehicle code,' Yates said.
In response to a question about whether the crimes he said his force were successfully preventing were somehow connected to pretext traffic stops for victimless offenses like an expired registration sticker, Mayor Rickey Williams, Jr. interrupted Chief Yates with his own answer.
'If a person doesn't have an updated registration, they're less likely to have insurance. Then when they hit you or me and then we have to pay our insurance, or we have to pay out of pocket to fix our car because they don't, then people would be angry,' Williams said.
'Black people, or poor people of all kinds on the East End and Black people in particular, asked for additional help. When there are more police officers, then there are going to be more police stops. That's just common sense,' Williams said.
Williams said he doesn't believe in what he says is a 'false narrative' being spread by Lloyd Randle and the ACLU.
'Lloyd Randle has an agenda to make himself relevant. And this is where he finds it. If he didn't have that agenda, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation,' Williams said.
What's next?
Vice Mayor Tricia Teague joined Alderman Jon Cooper in calling for an external, third-party analysis of the data to clear the air.
'Somebody's right, somebody's wrong,' Cooper said. 'If there's a study ... get it over with. Just put this thing to bed. I don't like it being brought up all the time.'
'I do agree that there should be an analysis of the data from an independent third-party so that we don't have to keep having this conversation, because this conversation is going for at least a year or two,' Teague said.
Yates asserted that his primary concern is to have a discussion on 'how we can improve quality life through crime prevention and people feel safe. And that's what everybody wants.'
Randle told the Commercial-News that he agrees with Cooper and Teague as far as what needs to happen next.
'We know that there is a disparity in traffic stops, based on race. Without a formal, independent review of the data, we are never going to get the answers that the community deserves,' Randle said.
As for accusations that he and the ACLU are creating problems where there are none, Randle asserts that the issue isn't going away.
'We're not going anywhere,' Randle said. 'This is a situation that is plaguing African Americans throughout this entire nation, and [Williams] has a responsibility as the mayor to answer the question: based on their percentage of the driving population, are African Americans being stopped, ticketed, fined, harassed, and interrogated more often by law enforcement?'
'The mayor used the race card to, in part, oust the college president, but yet he won't use that part of his ethnicity to get to the bottom line of a basic, fundamental question that's being asked by the African American community,' Randle said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court to consider Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act
On Monday, a federal appeals court in New Orleans will consider those questions, as well, in what is likely to be the decisive legal battle over Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The hearing, before the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, will almost certainly reprise legal arguments that the Trump administration and lawyers for the Venezuelan men have made repeatedly in lower courts. But the 5th Circuit's case is likely to be the first to reach the Supreme Court, where it will get a full hearing on the substantive question of whether Trump has used the act unlawfully. Advertisement Passed in 1798 as the nascent United States was threatened by war with France, the Alien Enemies Act gives the president expansive powers to detain and expel members of a hostile foreign nation. But the act grants those powers only in times of declared war or during what it describes as an invasion or a 'predatory incursion.' Advertisement From the start, the administration has sought to use the law in an unusual way, turning it against scores of Venezuelan men accused of belonging to the street gang Tren de Aragua, which Trump has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The president and his aides have repeatedly maintained that the men were not mere criminals but were working hand in glove with the Venezuelan government. Moreover, they have argued that their presence on US soil was tantamount to an invasion by a hostile foreign country. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been representing the men, has scoffed at those claims in case after case, saying that they have no connection to reality. Lawyers for the ACLU have pointed out that mass migration, regardless of its scale, is not the same as an invasion. They have also argued that there is no conclusive evidence that their clients, many of whom have no criminal record, are working for anyone, let alone for the Venezuelan government. So far, a majority of federal courts have agreed with the ACLU, deciding that Trump invoked the act unlawfully and that his vision of the Venezuelans posing a military threat to the United States did not line up with the facts. Two courts, however, have sided with the administration, essentially arguing that the White House should be granted wide latitude in conducting foreign affairs, especially when they concern a gang that has been deemed a terrorist organization. The ACLU could face an uphill battle in its effort to win over the 5th Circuit, which has a reputation as one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. But no matter who prevails in the oral arguments set for Monday, the case is likely to move on to the Supreme Court. Advertisement The case took an unusual path in reaching the 5th Circuit. In mid-April, the ACLU filed an emergency lawsuit in US District Court in Abilene, Texas, after suddenly getting news that the Trump administration was preparing to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport a group of Venezuelans being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in nearby Anson. The move to expel the men, the ACLU maintained, appeared to be an opportunistic effort to bypass orders barring similar removals from courts in New York, Colorado, and another part of Texas, which covered only those local jurisdictions. After the district court judge in Abilene failed to act quickly, the ACLU filed a flurry of follow-up petitions, asking the 5th Circuit and then the Supreme Court to help the men at Bluebonnet. The lawyers argued that the men were in imminent danger of being shipped off to El Salvador, where an earlier group of Venezuelan immigrants were sent in March and remain today. In an unusual ruling issued well after midnight, the Supreme Court ultimately put the deportations from Bluebonnet temporarily on hold. The justices declined to weigh in on the larger question of whether Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful, saying only that the government had skirted due process by failing to give the Venezuelan men enough time and opportunity to contest their removal. Last month, the Supreme Court issued another decision in the case, maintaining the freeze on the deportations and sending the matter back to the 5th Circuit, with marching orders on how to proceed in the upcoming hearing. Advertisement The appellate judges were instructed to consider two issues: the substantive question of whether Trump's use of the act was legal in the first place and a narrower one about how much — and what sort — of warning immigrants should be given before being expelled under the law. This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
El Salvador president threatens to send imprisoned gangsters to Paris Fashion Week
El Salvador's president said he would send inmates of the country's notorious mega-prison to France in the wake of a Paris Fashion Week show critiquing the government's treatment of the prisoners. Nayib Bukele criticised a collection debuted by Willy Chavarria, a Mexican-American designer, featuring models wearing outfits resembling inmate uniforms at El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center (Cecot). The maximum-security prison was opened in 2023 on the orders of Mr Bukele as part of his war against organised crime, but human rights groups have raised concerns about poor conditions and a lack of due process. Responding to a message online saying Mr Chavarria's show was a tribute to Cecot prisoners, the El Salvador president wrote: 'We're ready to ship them all to Paris whenever we get the green light from the French government.' Mr Bukele's press team said the president's response showed his 'firm stance against the attempt to glorify criminality'. Mr Chavarria's Paris Fashion Week show opened with 35 men walking down the runway wearing white T-shirts and shorts that had been made in partnership with the American Civil Liberties Union. The models then dropped into kneeling positions with their heads bowed, recalling images which emerged from El Salvador in the months after the government adopted a harsher approach to gangs. Others wore T-shirts emblazoned with the word 'America' upside-down, which fashion critics speculated was a commentary on Mr Chavarria's belief the country is moving backwards. The designer also sent invitations for his Spring 2026 show in the form of replica immigration summons, with the documents certifying readers' 'right to exist', before asking them to attend for a 'presentation of humanity'. Tens of thousands of suspected gang members have been rounded up and incarcerated in El Salvador since a state of emergency was declared in March 2022 following a spike in murders and violent crimes. Hailing the success of the crackdown, the country's government reported that the homicide rate fell by nearly 70 per cent in 2023. However, concerns have been raised about conditions inside Cecot, as well as the possibility that some of those imprisoned may be innocent of gang involvement. Human Rights Watch claimed inmates were denied communication with relatives or lawyers, with reports claiming prisoners only leave their cells for 30 minutes a day. Alongside roughly 15,000 domestic prisoners, Cecot also holds more than 200 Venezuelans deported from the United States, accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang. The Trump administration paid Mr Bukele's government millions of dollars to lock up the migrants, claiming they were criminals and gang members. Donald Trump invoked little-used wartime legislation in March to fly the migrants to El Salvador without court hearings. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.


New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
How Eric Adams can ask NYC for a second chance — and fend off Zohran Mamdani
After laying low during primary-campaign season, Mayor Eric Adams is once again the most important man in New York City. He may have also been the second-happiest person to see Tuesday's shock primary-election results. Faced with the very real possibility of avowed socialist Zohran Mamdani taking the reins of the nation's biggest city, Adams knows that a broad swath of voters will give him a second look — and maybe, after a bumpy term in office, a second chance. For all of Mamdani's impressive success, he collected 432,305 of the primary's first-rank choices (with 93% of the vote counted). But the city has 5.1 million registered voters — and 1.78 million of them couldn't vote in Tuesday's Democratic contest at all. Winning under 10% of the total electorate doesn't necessarily translate to a ringing mandate, or a general-election landslide. In launching his re-election bid, Adams is making the case that he's accomplished more than he's gotten credit for in a distracted media environment. He has a point. Thanks to the vigilance and competence of his police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, the city's murders are down about 27% so far in 2025. If the trend holds up, this year will break records for the fewest homicides in New York's recorded history. Subway murders, too, have dropped to just one so far this year, with total major transit felonies down nearly 4% through May. Adams can also point to some bad hands he was dealt early on, situations that are now mostly gone. He took office amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and just a few months into his administration, busloads of migrants began arriving from the Southern border. New York City's right-to-shelter law — grounded in a 44-year-old consent decree — meant Adams had to find beds for all of them, ultimately costing the city over $7 billion. He couldn't just wave that law away. Modifying it would have required lengthy negotiations and court approval. Should he have done more to challenge the decree in court, given the unprecedented circumstances? Sure. Did he rely too much on questionable emergency contracts? Yes. But the law's the law. Finding shelter beds for thousands of people a week would prove challenging and expensive for even the most able administrator. Adams also managed to secure a key concession: limiting single adult migrants to a 30-day stay, which helped bring down the shelter population from its peak of over 69,000 to about 37,000 today. On housing, the mayor's City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan, passed by the City Council in December, was the biggest change to the city's land-use rules since 1961. It opens opportunities for the private market to build new housing across the city, which will gradually result in 82,000 new units over 15 years. So Adams has a shot in November's general election. After all, he's won before — and he still has the mayor's bully pulpit. But he's going to need to form a new coalition that builds on his success in 2021, when he brought outer-borough black and Hispanic workers together with union workers and moderates worried about crime. Despite Mamdani's emphasis on affordability, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo won the low-income vote Tuesday. Most of those voters will likely migrate to Adams. The mayor will also need to ring up huge numbers in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods — which supported Cuomo by margins as high as 80% — whose residents are alarmed by the prospect of a Mamdani mayoralty. Adams can point to his new Mayor's Office to Combat Antisemitism as proof he's standing up to protect the city's Jews, using a power only a sitting mayor has. And he'd have to whip up enthusiasm among Asian voters threatened by Mamdani's support for eliminating the SHSAT, the screening exam for the city's specialized high schools. Adams, by contrast, has protected those elite schools and other opportunities for accelerated learning. Yet hurdles remain. Even voters concerned about Mamdani's inexperience and antisemitism may find it hard to forget Adams' federal indictment and the corruption scandals that engulfed his top aides. And the most likely path to victory for Adams relies on other candidates exiting the field so as not to split the moderate vote — which so far is not happening. That means Cuomo would have to refrain from running on his independent ballot line — and Republican Curtis Sliwa, whose prospects are slim despite his personal likability and crime-fighting integrity, would also have to give up his campaign. How? They could move out of the city and declare a new domicile, theoretically disqualifying them under the election law's residency requirement. Gov. Kathy Hochul might also offer Cuomo an interim judicial appointment to clear him from the race. Then it will be up to New Yorkers to decide: Does Eric Adams deserve a second term — or is the city truly ready for socialism? John Ketcham is director of cities and a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute. All views expressed are those of the author and not the Manhattan Institute.