PX0675

8/9/2019 PX0675

1/55

PX0675PX0675

8/9/2019 PX0675

2/55

Edud G. Bw J., Aey GeeaCalifornia Department of Justice

Division of California Justice Information ServicesBureau of Criminal Information and Analysis

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATISTICS CENTER

HAtE

CrimE

in

CAliforniA

2007

8/9/2019 PX0675

3/55

Hate Crime

Printed Annually by the

California Department of JusticeDivision of California Justice Information Services

Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATISTICS CENTER

Released July 2008

An electronic version of this report and other reports are available on theCalifornia Attorney Generals website: http://ag.ca.gov

inCAliforniA

2007

8/9/2019 PX0675

4/55

ii HATE CRIME IN CALIFORNIA, 2007

CAliforniA DEPArtmEnt of JUStiCEEdmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General

DiViSion of CAliforniA JUStiCE informAtion SErViCESGary Cooper, Director

BUrEAU of CriminAl informAtion AnD AnAlYSiSJulie Basco, Bureau ChiefMarilyn Yankee, Assistant Bureau Chief

HAtE CrimE in CAliforniA, 2007Kevin Grassel, Principal Analyst

The role of the Criminal Justice Statistics Center is to:

Collect, analyze, and report statistical data which provide valid measures

of crime and the criminal justice process.

Examine these data on an ongoing basis to better describe crime and the

criminal justice system.

Promote the responsible presentation and use of crime statistics.

HATE CRIME IN CALI FORNIA , 2007

8/9/2019 PX0675

5/55

CONTENTS ii

Introduction .............................................................. 1

Methodology ............................................................ 2

Selected Findings .................................................... 3

Crime Data, 2007

Overview ............................................................. 4

Bias Motivation .................................................... 6

Race/Ethnicity/National Origin ............................ 6

Religion ............................................................... 7

Sexual Orientation ............................................... 7

Type of Crime ...................................................... 8

Violent Crime ....................................................... 8

Property Crime .................................................... 9

Location ............................................................... 9Type of Victim ...................................................... 10

Prosecutorial Data, 2007

Hate Crime Prosecution Dispositions .................. 11

Total Cases Referred .......................................... 12

Total Cases Filed for Prosecution ....................... 12

Total Dispositions ................................................ 13

Hate Crime Convictions ...................................... 13

Trend Data, 19982007

Events, Offenses, Victims, and KnownSuspects ........................................................ 14

Bias Motivation Categories ................................ 16

Race/Ethnicity/National Origin

Hate Crime Offenses ..................................... 17

Religion Hate Crime Offenses ............................ 18

Sexual Orientation Hate Crime Offenses ............ 19

Type of Crime ..................................................... 20

Violent Crime ...................................................... 21

Property Crime ................................................... 22

Location of Crime ............................................... 23

DAtA tABlES

Hate Crime, 2007

Table 1 Events, Offenses, Victims, andKnown Suspects by Bias Motivation .. 26

Table 2 Offenses by Type of Crime ................. 27Table 3 Events, Offenses, Victims, and

Known Suspects by Location.............. 28

Table 4 Victim Type by Bias Motivation ........... 29

Table 5 Victim Type by Location ...................... 30

Table 6 Events, Offenses, Victims, and

Known Suspects by County andJurisdiction ........................................... 31

Table 7A Summary of Cases Referred by LawEnforcement Agencies and Type ofFilings ................................................... 37

Table 7B Summary of Hate Crime Dispositions 37

Table 8 Cases Referred by Law EnforcementAgencies and Type of Filings ............. 38

Table 9 Hate Crime Case Dispositions ............ 40

Hate Crime, 19982007

Table 10 Hate Crime Case Complaints Filedand Total Convictions .......................... 41

Table 11 Events by Bias Motivation................... 42Table 12 Offenses by Bias Motivation ............... 43

Table 13 Offenses by Type of Crime ................. 44

Table 14 Offenses by Location ......................... 45

Appendices1 Data Characteristics and Known

Limitations ...................................................... 48

2 Criminal Justice Glossary ................................. 50

CONTENTS

8/9/2019 PX0675

6/55

INTRODUCTION

In 1986, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) rst

recognized the importance of hate crime statistics in

California in a report submitted to the Legislature, inresponse to Senate Bill 2080 (Watson), which providedrecommendations for preliminary steps to establish a

statewide hate crime database (Appendix 1). Theseefforts lead to the enactment of California Penal Code

section 13023, requiring the Attorney General to submitan annual report to the Legislature regarding crimes

motivated by the victims race, ethnicity, religion, gender,sexual orientation, national origin, or physical or mentaldisability as reported by law enforcement agencies.

The Attorney Generals Hate Crime Reporting Program

was implemented in September 1994 and data collection

began in the fall of 1994. Law enforcement agencies wererequested to identify and submit all reports of hate crimesoccurring on or after July 1, 1994 through December31, 1994. In 1995, California District Attorneys began

reporting hate crime prosecutorial information to the DOJ,including total cases referred, hate crime case lings,

criminal case lings, hate crime convictions and other

convictions. In 1995, the DOJ published its rst report.

A hate crime, as dened by California Penal section422.55, is a criminal act committed, in whole or in

part, because of one or more of the following actual or

perceived characteristics of the victim: 1) disability, 2)gender, 3) nationality, 4) race or ethnicity, 5) religion,

6) sexual orientation, 7) association with a person orgroup with one or more of these actual or perceivedcharacteristics. Law enforcement agency crime reports

and a web-enabled data collection system are used tosubmit hate crime data to the DOJ. Each crime report

includes information about bias motivation, type of crime,location of crime, number of victims, and the number of

known suspects.

Hate crimes are not separate distinct crimes but rather

traditional offenses motivated by the offenders bias. Ahate crime event may include the occurrence of one or

more criminal offenses, committed against one or more

victims, by one or more suspects/perpetrators. Also, vic-tims can have more than one offense committed againstthem. In 2007 there were 1,426 total hate crime events,which included 1,931 offenses, 1,764 victims, and 1,627

known suspects.

All police agencies and district attorney offices inCalifornia, in cooperation with the DOJ, have developed

local data collection programs and submitted the hatecrime statistics for this 2007 edition of Hate Crime inCalifornia.

INTRODUCTION 1

8/9/2019 PX0675

7/55

2 HATE CRIME IN CALIFORNIA, 2007

To ensure quality and consistency, the DOJ requests thateach agency establish a two-tier review process for bias

motivated crimes before they are reported to the DOJ ashate crimes.

Hard copy reports of hate crimes received by the DOJare reviewed by at least two staff members of the Hate

Crime Unit before the data are included in the aggregatereports. All hard copy crime reports that meet the bias

motivated criteria stated in Penal Code section 422.55are coded in a standard format by DOJ staff. Whenagencies begin to enter data electronically, they are still

required to submit a hard copy crime report. The DOJstaff compares electronic data to hard copy reports until

it has been determined the agency is qualied to enter

data electronically. When an agency has been qualied,a hard copy crime report is no longer required.

If a report is either incomplete, does not contain

sufcient information to determine whether there was

a bias motivation, or appears not to be a hate crime,

the reporting agency is notied. The agency can either

provide additional information or agree with the DOJ

that the event in question does not meet the denitionof a hate crime. Those crimes meeting the denition of

a hate crime are entered into the Hate Crime Statistical

System. The data reected in this report are gathered

from this system.

The primary unit of count for hate crimes is the event or

incident. Other units of count include offenses, victims,known suspects, and violent and property crime types.In each hate crime event, the DOJ counts the total

number of victims, the total number of known suspects,and the total number of criminal offenses involved in the

event. These totals are also categorized and counted

by type of bias motivation (anti-black, anti-Hispanic,anti-male homosexual (gay), anti-Jewish, etc.), type ofcrime (murder, aggravated assault, burglary, destruction/vandalism, etc.), the crime location (residence, street,

synagogue, school, etc.), and the type of victim (individualor property).

METHODOLOGY

8/9/2019 PX0675

8/55

tYPE of CrimE

SELECTED FIN DINGS

Hae ce eves increased 9.2 percent from1,306 in 2006 to 1,426 in 2007.

Hae ce eses increased 13.5 percent

from 1,702 in 2006 to 1,931 in 2007.

the ube vcs of reported hate crimesincreased 9.5 percent from 1,611 in 2006 to

1,764 in 2007.

the ube kw suspecs of reportedhate crimes increased 0.9 percent from 1,612 in

2006 to 1,627 in 2007.

A a 443 hae ce cases wee eeed psecus: Of the 387 cases led

by District Attorney and City Attorney ofces for

prosecution, 330 were led as hate crimes

and 57 were led as non-bias motivated

crimes. Of the 241 cases with a disposition

available for this report, 110 were hate crimeconvictions, 103 were other convictions, and 28were not convicted.

CrimE DAtA

A-hsexua hate crime events

increased 77.2 percent from 57 in 2006 to 101in 2007.

A-whe hate crime events increased 14.1

percent from 64 in 2006 to 73 in 2007.

A-back hate crime events increased 15.3percent from 432 in 2006 to 498 in 2007.

A-Jewsh hate crime events increased 3.9percent from 129 in 2006 to 134 in 2007.

race/ehcy/aa g hate crime

offenses have consistently been the largestbias motivation category of hate crimes

reported since 1998, accounting for at least60 percent of all hate crime offenses. Within thiscategory, anti-blackhate crimes continue to be

the largest bias motivation accounting for at least26 percent of all hate crime offenses annually

since 1998.

Sexua ea hate crime offenseshave consistently been the second largest

bias motivation category of hate crimes since1998, accounting for at least 18 percent ofall hate crime offenses. Within this category,

anti-male homosexual (gay) hate crimescontinue to be the largest bias motivation

category, accounting for at least 8 percent of allhate crime offenses every year since 1998.

reg hate crime offenses have consistently

been the third largest bias motivation categoryof hate crimes since 1998, accounting for atleast 12 percent of all hate crime offenses.

Within this category, anti-Jewish hate crimescontinue to be the largest bias motivation

category, accounting for at least 7 percent of allhate crime offenses every year since 1998.

BiAS motiVAtion

ProSECUtoriAl DAtA

trEnD DAtA

Ve ce offenses increased 19.9 percentfrom 1,044 in 2006 to 1,252 in 2007.

Ppey ce offenses increased 3.2percent from 658 in 2006 to 679 in 2007.

SELECTED FINDINGS 3

8/9/2019 PX0675

9/55

Source: Tables 1, 8, 9, and 10.Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

HAtE CrimE in CAliforniA, 2007ovevew

fgue 1

HAtE CrimEEVEntS

1,426100.0%

A-race/Ehcy/naa og

93265.4%

A-

reg203

14.2%

A-Sexua

oea

26318.4%

A-Dsaby

30.2%

A-Gede

251.8%



8/9/2019 PX0675

10/55

8/9/2019 PX0675

11/55



Figure 3

HATE CRIME EVENTS, 2007Race/Ethnicity/National Origin

Source: Table 1.

Source: Table 1.

*Anti-other ethnicity/national origin includes Arab or Middle Easternbias motivated hate crimes.

race/ehcy/aa g hate crimes increased10.4 percent from 844 in 2006 to 932 in 2007. Sexua

ea hate crimes increased 6.9 percent from 246

in 2006 to 263 in 2007.

A-back hate crimes increased 15.3 percent from 432 in2006 to 498 in 2007. A-whe hate crimes increased 14.1


Figure 2

HATE CRIME EVENTS, 2007Bias Motivation

BiAS motiVAtion

rACE/EtHniCitY/nAtionAl oriGin

RACE/

ETHNICITY/

NATIONAL ORIGIN

65.4%

SEXUAL

ORIENTATION

18.4%

RELIGION

14.2%

OTHER

2.0%

ANTI-

BLACK

53.4%

ANTI-

HISPANIC

17.2%

ANTI-WHITE

7.8%

ALLOTHER

5.6%

ANTI-

OTHER ETHNICITY/

NATIONAL ORIGIN*

10.3%

ANTI-ASIAN/

PACIFIC

ISLANDER

5.7%

Peceage

65.4

18.4

14.2

1.8

0.2

nube

932

263

203

25

3

i 2007, 1,426 hate crime events were reported. The

subtotals are as follows:

type

Race/ethnicity/

national origin

Sexual orientation

Religion

Gender

Disability

i 2007, 932 race/ethnicity/national origin hate crimeevents were reported. The subtotals are as follows:

type

Anti-black

Anti-Hispanic

Anti-other ethnicity/

national origin*

Anti-white

Anti-Asian/Pacic Islander

Anti-multiple races, group

Anti-American Indian/

Alaskan Native

Peceage

53.4

17.2

10.3

7.8

5.7

5.5

0.1

nube

498

160

96

73

53

51

1

8/9/2019 PX0675

12/55

CRIME DATA

CRIME DATA 7

Source: Table 1.Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

Figure 4

HATE CRIME EVENTS, 2007Religion

ANTI-JEWISH

66.0%

ANTI-ISLAMIC

6.4%

OTHER

17.2%

ANTI-PROTESTANT

5.4%

ANTI-CATHOLIC

4.9%

ANTI-MALE

HOMOSEXUAL

50.2%

ANTI-

HOMOSEXUAL

38.4%

ANTI-BISEXUAL

0.8%ANTI-FEMALE

HOMOSEXUAL

9.9%

ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL

0.8%

Figure 5HATE CRIME EVENTS, 2007

Sexual Orientation

Source: Table 1.Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

A-Jewsh hate crimes increased 3.9 percent from 129

in 2006 to 134 in 2007. A-upe egus guphate crimes decreased 35.7 percent from 14 in 2006 to 9

in 2007.

rEliGion

Peceage

66.0

11.8

6.4

5.4

4.9

4.4

1.0

nube

134

24

13

11

10

9

2

i 2007, 203 religion hate crime events were reported.

The subtotals are as follows:

type

Anti-Jewish

Anti-other religion

Anti-Islamic (Muslim)

Anti-Protestant

Anti-Catholic

Anti-multiple religious,group

Anti-atheism/agnosticism,etc.

i 2007, 263 sexual orientation hate crime events werereported. The subtotals are as follows:

SEXUAl oriEntAtion

Peceage

50.2

38.4

9.9

0.8

0.8

nube

132

101

26

2

2

type

Anti-male homosexual

Anti-homosexual

Anti-female homosexual

Anti-bisexual

Anti-heterosexual

A-hsexua hate crimes increased 77.2 percent from

57 in 2006 to 101 in 2007. A-ae hsexua hatecrimes decreased 19.0 percent from 163 in 2006 to 132 in

2007.

8/9/2019 PX0675

13/55



i 2007, 1,931 hate crime offenses were reported. The

subtotals are as follows:

Figure 6

HATE CRIME OFFENSES, 2007Type of Crime

Source: Table 2.

Ve ce eses increased 19.9 percent from1,044 in 2006 to 1,252 in 2007. Ppey ce eses

increased 3.2 percent from 658 in 2006 to 679 in 2007.

i 2007, 1,252 violent crime offenses were reported.The subtotals are as follows:

rbbey hate crimes increased 87.2 percent from 39 in2006 to 73 in 2007. ida hate crimes increased

48.6 percent from 317 in 2006 to 471 in 2007.

Figure 7HATE CRIME OFFENSES, 2007

Violent Crime

Source: Table 2.

tYPE of CrimE

ViolEnt CrimE

VIOLENT

CRIMES

64.8%

PROPERTY

CRIMES

35.2%

AGGRAVATED

ASSAULT

30.8%

SIMPLE

ASSAULT

25.6%

MURDER

0.2%ROBBERY

5.8%

INTIMIDATION

37.6%

Peceage

64.8

35.2

nube

1,252

679

type

Violent crimes

Property crimes

Peceage

37.6

30.8

25.6

5.8

0.2

nube

471

386

320

73

2

type

Intimidation

Aggravated assault

Simple assault

Robbery

Murder

8/9/2019 PX0675

14/55

CRIME DATA

Figure 8

HATE CRIME OFFENSES, 2007Property Crime i 2007, 679 property crime offenses were reported.

The subtotals are as follows:

Source: Table 2.

Bugay hate crimes increased 95.8 percent from 24 in

2006 to 47 in 2007.

ProPErtY CrimE

CRIME DATA 9

DESTRUCTION/

VANDALISM90.6%

OTHER1.6%

ARSON

0.9%

BURGLARY

6.9%

HIGHWAY/ROAD/

STREET/ALLEY

28.4%

RESIDENCE

28.5%

PARKING LOT

6.8%

ALL

OTHER

LOCATIONS

21.0%

SCHOOL

10.5%

CHURCH/

SYNAGOGUE

4.8%

Peceage

90.6

6.9

1.0

0.9

0.6

nube

615

47

7

6

4

type

Destruction/vandalism

Burglary

Motor vehicle theft

Arson

Larceny-theft

i 2007, 1,426 hate crime events were reported. Theyoccurred in the following locations:

Figure 9HATE CRIME EVENTS, 2007

Location

Source: Table 3.

resdece/he/dveway hate crimes increased

16.0 percent from 350 in 2006 to 406 in 2007. Chuch/syaggue/epe hate crimes decreased 13.8 percent

from 80 in 2006 to 69 in 2007.

loCAtion

Peceage

28.5

28.4

10.5

6.8

4.8

21.0

nube

406

405

150

97

69

299

type

Residence/home/driveway

Highway/road/alley/street

School/college

Parking lot/garage

Church/synagogue/temple

All other locations

8/9/2019 PX0675

15/55

i 2007, there were 1,764 victims in all reported hate crime

events. Victims can be either individuals or institutions.The subtotals are as follows:

regus gazas hate crimes decreased 45.1percent from 82 in 2006 to 45 in 2007. Hate crimes reported

for dvduas increased 13.1 percent from 1,401 in 2006

to 1,584 in 2007 (See Appendix 1, Data Characteristics andKnown Limitations, Item #8).

Figure 10

HATE CRIME EVENTS, 2007Type of Victim

Source: Table 4.

tYPE of ViCtim


INDIVIDUALS

89.8%

OTHER

0.7%GOVERNMENT

PROPERTY

4.4%

RELIGIOUS

ORGANIZATIONS

2.6%

BUSINESS/

FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS

2.5%Peceage

89.8

4.4

2.6

2.5

0.7

nube

1,584

78

45

44

13

type

Individuals

Government property

Religious organizations

Business/nancial

institutions

Other


8/9/2019 PX0675

16/55

fgue 11HAtE CrimE ProSECUtion DiSPoSitionS, 2007

Source: Tables 1, 7A, and 7B.Note: The number of hate crime lings with dispositions includes cases referred in 2007 and prior years.

In March 1995, the Attorney General requested all districtattorneys and city attorneys to submit summary dataof complaints led and convictions secured. The 2007

District Attorneys and City Attorneys Report File of HateCrime Cases contains summary data on cases referred

to each district attorney or city attorney, as well as lings

and convictions that occurred between January 1, 2007

and December 31, 2007.

At the request of district attorneys, collection procedureswere modied to ensure the collection of all juvenile case

data. Therefore, the overview below contains all juvenileand adult prosecution data submitted for 2007.

The reader is cautioned to keep in mind when reviewingprosecutorial data that the number of crimes reported are

not always consistent with the number of prosecutionsbecause crimes are often reported and prosecuted in

different years. Also, the number of crimes reportedby law enforcement is much higher than the number

of crimes that are actually prosecuted.

PROSECUTORIAL DATA

PROSECUTORIAL DATA 11

Ca Casefgs

38787.4%

Casesrejeced

5612.6%

Hae CeCases Wh

Dsps

24173.0%

nCvced

2811.6%

Hae CeCvcs

11045.6%

oheCvcs

10342.7%

Hae CeEves

reeed Psecus

443100.0%

Hae CeCase fgs

33085.3%

Cases nfed as

Hae Ces

57

14.7%

Hae CeCases Pedg

Dsps

8927.0%

intErPrEtinG ProSECUtoriAl DAtA

8/9/2019 PX0675

17/55


totAl CASES filEDfor ProSECUtion

i 2007, of 387 cases led by District Attorney and CityAttorney ofces for prosecution:

Figure 13HATE CRIMES, 2007

Total Cases Filed for Prosecution

Source: Table 7A.

totAl CASES rEfErrED

i 2007, of 443 cases that were referred by law

enforcement agencies for prosecution:

Figure 12

HATE CRIMES, 2007Total Cases Referred

Source: Table 7A.


CASES

FILED

87.4%

CASES

REJECTED

12.6%

HATE CRIMES

FILINGS

85.3%

NON-BIASMOTIVATED

CRIME FILINGS

14.7%

Peceage

87.4

12.6

nube

387

56

type

Cases led

Cases rejected

The number of cases fled increased 15.9 percent

from 334 in 2006 to 387 in 2007. The number of casesejeced increased 93.1 percent from 29 in 2006 to 56 in

2007.

Peceage

85.3

14.7

nube

330

57

type

Hate crime lings

Non-bias motivated

crimes lings

Hate crime flings increased 21.3 percent from 272 in2006 to 330 in 2007. Non-bias motivated crimes flings

decreased 8.1 percent from 62 in 2006 to 57 in 2007.

8/9/2019 PX0675

18/55

PROSECUTORIAL DATA

PROSECUTORIAL DATA 13

HAtE CrimE ConViCtionS

i 2007, of the 110 hate crime convictions:

Figure 15HATE CRIMES, 2007

Hate Crime Convictions

Source: Table 7B.

totAl DiSPoSitionS

i 2007, of 241 cases with a disposition:

Figure 14

HATE CRIMES, 2007Total Dispositions

Source: Table 7B.Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

HATE CRIME

CONVICTIONS

45.6%OTHER

CONVICTIONS

42.7%

NOT

CONVICTED

11.6%

GUILTY PLEA

OR NOLO

CONTENDERE

77.3%

TRIAL

VERDICTS

22.7%

Peceage

77.3

22.7

nube

85

25

type

Guilty plea or nolocontendere

Trial verdicts

Hate crime convictions as a result of a guy pea apea cedee decreased 16.7 percent from

102 in 2006 to 85 in 2007. Hate crime convictions as aresult of a vedcs decreased 34.2 percent from 38 in

2006 to 25 in 2007.

Peceage

45.6

42.7

11.6

nube

110

103

28

type

Hate crime convictions

Other convictions

Not convicted

Hae ce cvcs decreased 21.4 percent from 140in 2006 to 110 in 2007. ohe cvcs increased 32.1


8/9/2019 PX0675

19/55


EVEntS

From 1998 to 2001, reported hate events increased

29.2 percent. Hate crime events then began a ve-

year downward trend, dropping 42.2 percent from

2001 to 2006. This trend was broken in 2007 whenhate crime events increased 9.2 percent from the

previous year.

offEnSES

From 1998 to 2001, reported hate crime offensesincreased 25.8 percent. Hate crime offenses

decreased 25.3 percent from 2001 to 2005 beforeleveling in 2006. Hate crime offenses then increasedin 2007 by 13.5 percent.

ViCtimS

From 1998 to 2001, the reported number of hate

crime victims increased 31.6 percent. This wasfollowed by a 42.7 percent decline in hate crime

victims from 2001-2006. The number of hate crimevictims then increased 9.5 percent in 2007 from the

previous year.

KnoWn SUSPECtS

From 1998 to 2001, the reported number of knownsuspects increased 24.9 percent. The number of

known suspects then declined 39.7 percent from2001 to 2004. This was followed by an 8.8 percentincrease in known suspects from 2004 to 2007.

The trends in hate crime events, offenses, victims, and known suspects followed similar patterns between 1998 and2007. Hate crimes increased from 1998 to their peak in 2001. A steady decrease in hate crimes occurred from 2001

to 2006. However, there was an increase in hate crime events, offenses, and victims in 2007.

HAtE CrimE EVEntS, offEnSES, ViCtimS, AnD KnoWn SUSPECtS

19982007


8/9/2019 PX0675

20/55

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2007200620052004200320022001200019991998

YEAR

NUMBER

VICTIMS

SUSPECTS

EVENTS

OFFENSES

0

TREND DATA 15

Figure 16

HAtE CrimES, 19982007Events, Offenses, Victims, and Known Suspects

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Events ................... 1,750 1,962 1,957 2,261 1,659 1,491 1,409 1,397 1,306 1,426

Offenses ................ 1,801 2,001 2,002 2,265 2,009 1,815 1,770 1,691 1,702 1,931

Victims ................... 2,136 2,436 2,352 2,812 2,007 1,815 1,741 1,640 1,611 1,764

Known Suspects .... 1,985 2,021 2,107 2,479 1,963 1,629 1,495 1,589 1,612 1,627

Table N-1EVEntS, offEnSES, ViCtimS, AnD KnoWn SUSPECtS

19982007

TREND DATA

8/9/2019 PX0675

21/55


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2007200620052004200320022001200019991998

YEAR

NUMBER

RELIGION

SEXUAL

ORIENTATION

RACE/ETHNICITY/

NATIONAL ORIGIN

Table N-2

HAtE CrimES

offEnSES BY BiAS motiVAtion

1998-2007

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Race/Ethnicity/National Origin 1,172 1,200 1,266 1,529 1,272 1,150 1,172 1,137 1,145 1,299

Sexual Orientation. 399 446 413 421 446 399 327 306 317 349

Religion 227 339 306 296 270 243 250 226 227 246


Figure 17

BIA S MOTIVATIONReport ed Hat e Cr ime Offense Cate gor ies, 19982007

8/9/2019 PX0675

22/55

TREND DATA

0

200

400

600

800

2007200620052004200320022001200019991998

YEAR

NUMBER

BLACK

WHITE

OTHER RACE/ETHNIC GROUP

HISPANIC

Figure 18

BIA S MOTIVATIONRace/Ethnic i t y /Nat ional Or ig in Hate Cr ime Offenses, 19982007

TREND DATA 17

Table N-3

rACE/EtHniCitY/nAtionAl oriGin HAtE CrimES

oeses by Bas mva

1998-2007

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Anti-White.................................... 153 135 152 128 106 104 69 92 82 103

Anti-Black.................................... 525 612 620 598 580 586 613 607 588 680

Anti-Hispanic............................... 129 164 204 207 203 142 196 188 218 234

Anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin 77 84 96 428 240 193 126 103 118 136

8/9/2019 PX0675

23/55


0

100

200

300

2007200620052004200320022001200019991998

YEAR

NUMBER

JEWISH

ISLAMIC

Figure 19

BIA S MOTIVATIONReligi on Hate Crim e Offen se Cat egor ies, 19982007


Table N-4

rEliGion HAtE CrimES

oeses by Bas mva

1998-2007

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Anti-Jewish........................... 177 281 240 176 194 174 176 157 146 171

Anti-Islamic.......................... 4 5 3 73 19 19 37 13 14 14

8/9/2019 PX0675

24/55

TREND DATA

0

100

200

300

400

2007200620052004200320022001200019991998

YEAR

NUMBER

ANTI-MALE HOMOSEXUAL

ANTI-FEMALE HOMOSEXUAL

ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL

Figure 20

BIA S MOTIVATIONSexual Or ient at ion Hate Cr im e Offenses, 19982007

TREND DATA19

Table N-5

SEXUAl oriEntAtion HAtE CrimES

oeses by Bas mva

1998-2007

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

.Anti-Male Homosexual....................... 317 349 333 345 320 256 231 192 206 159

.Anti-Female Homosexual................... 60 67 45 55 53 58 48 52 29 42

.Anti-Homosexual................................ 21 30 28 19 70 84 46 54 79 143

8/9/2019 PX0675

25/55



Figure 21

TYPE OF CRIM EReport ed Hat e Cr ime Offenses, 19982007

Note: From 1995 to 2001, a hierarchy rule was used to identify the most serious crime type. For a further explanation, see Appendix 1, DataCharacteristics and Known Limitations.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2007200620052004200320022001200019991998

YEAR

NUMBER

PROPERTY OFFENSES

VIOLENT OFFENSES

TOTAL OFFENSES

Table N-6

HAtE CrimES

oeses by type Ce

1998-2007

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

.Total Offenses.................................... 1801 2,001 2,002 2,265 2,009 1,815 1,770 1,691 1,702 1,931

.Violent Offenses................................. 1232 1,353 1,312 1,662 1,517 1,252 1,135 1,096 1,044 1,252

Property Offenses............................... 569 648 690 603 492 563 635 595 658 679

8/9/2019 PX0675

26/55

TREND DATA

0

300

600

900

2007200620052004200320022001200019991998

YEAR

NUMBER

INTIMIDATION

ROBBERY

SIMPLE ASSAULT

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT

TREND DATA21


Figure 22

VIOLENT CRIMESelec ted Report ed Hat e Cr ime Offenses, 19982007

Table N-7

ViolEnt HAtE CrimES

oeses by type Ce

1998-2007

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Intimidation.................................... 557 613 556 822 687 529 469 443 317 471

Simple Assault.................................... 385 427 374 524 478 477 360 298 310 320

.Aggravated Assault............................ 246 238 321 250 272 179 246 317 376 386

Robbery............................... 41 71 55 63 75 61 60 36 39 73

8/9/2019 PX0675

27/55


Figure 23

PROPERTY CRIMESelec ted Report ed Hat e Cr ime Offenses, 19982007



0

200

400

600

800

2007200620052004200320022001200019991998

YEAR

NUMBER

DESTRUCTION/VANDALISM

BURGLARYARSON

Table N-8

ProPErtY HAtE CrimES

oeses by type Ce

1998-2007

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Destruction/Vandalism........................ 535 610 631 548 451 530 593 553 613 615

Burglary.................................... 15 16 34 38 33 25 27 27 24 47

Arson............................... 10 11 10 10 4 5 11 7 12 6

8/9/2019 PX0675

28/55

TREND DATA

0

200

400

600

800

2007200620052004200320022001200019991998

YEAR

NUMBER

SCHOOLPARKING LOT

CHURCH

RESIDENCE

HIGHWAY

Figure 24

LOCATI ON OF CRIMESelec ted Report ed Hat e Cr ime Offenses, 19982007

TREND DATA23

Table N-9

HAtE CrimES

oeses by lca

1998-2007

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Residence 569 614 733 711 583 570 551 511 504 571

Highway 458 533 484 600 654 543 536 456 545 569

School. 148 184 206 189 175 150 155 176 152 182

Church 77 94 82 92 75 66 74 84 84 72

Parking Lot. 110 121 101 131 79 107 86 138 135 117

8/9/2019 PX0675

29/55

DATA

TABLES

HAtECrimE

8/9/2019 PX0675

30/55



Table 1HAtE CrimES, 2007

Events, Offenses, Victims, and Known Suspects by Bias Motivation

Bias motivationEvents Offenses Victims Known suspects

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

ta......................................................... 1,426 100.0 1,931 100.0 1,764 100.0 1,627 100.0

race/ehcy/aa g 932 65.4 1,299 67.3 1,188 67.3 1,120 68.8

Anti-white........................................... 73 5.1 103 5.3 96 5.4 99 6.1

Anti-black........................................... 498 34.9 680 35.2 616 34.9 593 36.4

Anti-Hispanic......................... 160 11.2 234 12.1 215 12.2 246 15.1


Alaskan native.................................. 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1

Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander................. 53 3.7 74 3.8 65 3.7 64 3.9

Anti-multiple races, group..... 51 3.6 71 3.7 69 3.9 31 1.9


national origin 96 6.7 136 7.0 126 7.1 86 5.3

reg................................... 203 14.2 246 12.7 229 13.0 72 4.4Anti-Jewish......................................... 134 9.4 171 8.9 156 8.8 47 2.9

Anti-Catholic....................................... 10 0.7 11 0.6 10 0.6 5 0.3

Anti-Protestant................................... 11 0.8 12 0.6 12 0.7 2 0.1

Anti-Islamic (Muslim)............. 13 0.9 14 0.7 13 0.7 9 0.6

Anti-other religion............................... 24 1.7 25 1.3 25 1.4 8 0.5

Anti-multiple religious, group. 9 0.6 9 0.5 9 0.5 1 0.1

Anti-atheism/agnosticism/etc............. 2 0.1 4 0.2 4 0.2 0 0.0

Sexua ea.................. 263 18.4 349 18.1 314 17.8 385 23.7

Anti-male homosexual (gay). 132 9.3 159 8.2 147 8.3 203 12.5

Anti-female homosexual..... 26 1.8 42 2.2 34 1.9 33 2.0

Anti-homosexual............................. 101 7.1 143 7.4 128 7.3 140 8.6

Anti-heterosexual.. 2 0.1 3 0.2 3 0.2 3 0.2

Anti-bisexual..................................... 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 6 0.4

Physca/ea dsaby...... 3 0.2 3 0.2 3 0.2 4 0.2

Anti-physical disability.......... 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.2

Anti-mental disability............. 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1

Gede 25 1.8 34 1.8 30 1.7 46 2.8

Anti-male 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-female 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1

Anti-transgender 23 1.6 32 1.7 28 1.6 45 2.8

Notes: Percentages may not add to subtotals or 100.0 because of rounding.

An event indicates the occurrence of one or more criminal offenses committed against one or more victims by one or more suspects/perpetrators.

A victim can have more than one offense committed against them.

The term 'known suspect' does not imply that the identity of the suspect is known.

For a more complete definition of each criminal justice term, please refer to the glossary.

8/9/2019 PX0675

31/55

DATA TABLES

DATA TABLES 27


Offenses by Type of Crime

OffensesType of crime

Number Percentta 1,931 100.0

ta Ve ces 1,252 64.8

Murder 2 0.1

Forcible rape 0 0.0

Robbery 73 3.8

Aggravated assault 386 20.0

Simple assault 320 16.6

Intimidation 471 24.4

ta Ppey ces 679 35.2

Burglary 47 2.4

Larceny-theft 4 0.2

Motor vehicle theft 7 0.4

Arson 6 0.3

Destruction/vandalism 615 31.8

Notes: One suspect can commit more than one crime.

One victim can have more than one offense committed against him/her.

An event indicates the occurrence of one or more offenses.

8/9/2019 PX0675

32/55




Events, Offenses, Victims, and Known Suspects by Location

LocationEvents Offenses Victims Known suspects

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percentta.......................................... 1,426 100.0 1,931 100.0 1,764 100.0 1,627 100.0

Air/bus/train terminal............ 15 1.1 16 0.8 15 0.9 24 1.5

Bank/savings and loan................... 2 0.1 3 0.2 2 0.1 2 0.1

Bar/night club....................... 23 1.6 41 2.1 35 2.0 38 2.3

Church/synagogue/temple.... 69 4.8 72 3.7 69 3.9 20 1.2

Commercial/office building.... 35 2.5 38 2.0 36 2.0 18 1.1

Construction site.................. 3 0.2 3 0.2 3 0.2 2 0.1

Convenience store............... 5 0.4 7 0.4 6 0.3 11 0.7

Department/discount store... 9 0.6 10 0.5 9 0.5 11 0.7

Drug store/Dr.'s office/hospital 4 0.3 5 0.3 5 0.3 2 0.1

Field/woods/park.................. 46 3.2 83 4.3 79 4.5 83 5.1

Government/public building............ 28 2.0 29 1.5 28 1.6 10 0.6

Grocery/supermarket........... 14 1.0 18 0.9 17 1.0 14 0.9Highway/road/alley/street..... 405 28.4 569 29.5 532 30.2 699 43.0

Hotel/motel/etc..................... 9 0.6 10 0.5 9 0.5 20 1.2

Jail/prison............................. 17 1.2 33 1.7 28 1.6 56 3.4

Lake/waterway/beach.......... 9 0.6 11 0.6 11 0.6 14 0.9

Liquor store.................................... 8 0.6 11 0.6 10 0.6 13 0.8

Parking lot/garage................ 97 6.8 117 6.1 110 6.2 114 7.0

Rental storage facility........... 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Residence/home/driveway... 406 28.5 571 29.6 508 28.8 279 17.1

Restaurant........................... 31 2.2 48 2.5 40 2.3 37 2.3

School/college..................... 150 10.5 182 9.4 165 9.4 122 7.5

Service/gas station.............. 12 0.8 13 0.7 13 0.7 14 0.9

Specialty store (TV, fur, etc.) 9 0.6 13 0.7 10 0.6 7 0.4

Other/unknown...................... 20 1.4 28 1.5 24 1.4 17 1.0

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

An event indicates the occurrence of one or more criminal offenses committed against one or more victims by one or more suspects/perpetrators.

A victim can have more than one offense committed against them.

The term "known suspect" does not imply that the identity of the suspect is known.

For a more complete definition of each criminal justice term, please refer to the glossary.

8/9/2019 PX0675

33/55

DATA TABLES

DATA TABLES 29


Victim Type by Bias Motivation

Bias motivation Total1 Individual

Business/

financial

institution2 Government2Religious

organization2 Other2

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

ta....................................... 1,764 100.0 1,584 100.0 44 100.0 78 100.0 45 100.0 13 100.0

race/ehcy/aa g 1,188 67.3 1,085 68.5 28 63.6 63 80.8 8 17.8 4 30.8

Anti-white......................... 96 5.4 91 5.7 3 6.8 2 2.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-black........................ 616 34.9 558 35.2 9 20.5 42 53.8 6 13.3 1 7.7

Anti-Hispanic.............................. 215 12.2 208 13.1 6 13.6 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0


Alaskan native................ 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander 65 3.7 60 3.8 1 2.3 2 2.6 2 4.4 0 0.0

Anti-multiple races, group.. 69 3.9 50 3.2 5 11.4 11 14.1 0 0.0 3 23.1


national origin.... 126 7.1 117 7.4 4 9.1 5 6.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

reg............................... 229 13.0 161 10.2 11 25.0 12 15.4 37 82.2 8 61.5

Anti-Jewish................................ 156 8.8 125 7.9 9 20.5 11 14.1 6 13.3 5 38.5

Anti-Catholic.............................. 10 0.6 4 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 11.1 1 7.7

Anti-Protestant........................... 12 0.7 4 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 17.8 0 0.0

Anti-Islamic (Muslim)....... 13 0.7 12 0.8 1 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-other religion............. 25 1.4 11 0.7 1 2.3 0 0.0 12 26.7 1 7.7

Anti-multiple religious, group. 9 0.5 2 0.1 0 0.0 1 1.3 5 11.1 1 7.7

Anti-atheism/agnosticism/etc 4 0.2 3 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.2 0 0.0

Sexua ea............. 314 17.8 306 19.3 5 11.4 3 3.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-male homosexual (gay). 147 8.3 144 9.1 3 6.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-female homosexual... 34 1.9 33 2.1 0 0.0 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-homosexual................ 128 7.3 124 7.8 2 4.5 2 2.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-heterosexual.......... 3 0.2 3 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-bisexual................. 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Physca/ea dsaby.... 3 0.2 3 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-physical disability....... 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-mental disability........... 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Gede 30 1.7 29 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 7.7

Anti-male.......... 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-female........... 2 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 7.7

Anti-transgender.......... 28 1.6 28 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Note: Percentages may not add to subtotals or 100.0 because of rounding.

Numbers represent total number of victims (i.e., entities and individuals), not the number of hate crime events.2Numbers represent acts directed at entities other than individuals.

8/9/2019 PX0675

34/55




Victim Type by Location

Location Total1 Individual

Business/

financial

institution2 Government2Religious

organization2 Other2

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

ta.................................... 1,764 100.0 1,584 100.0 44 100.0 78 100.0 45 100.0 13 100.0

Air/bus/train terminal......... 15 0.9 15 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Bank/savings and loan................ 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Bar/night club.................... 35 2.0 33 2.1 2 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Church/synagogue/temple 69 3.9 23 1.5 3 6.8 0 0.0 40 88.9 3 23.1

Commercial/office building 36 2.0 27 1.7 9 20.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Construction site............... 3 0.2 2 0.1 1 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Convenience store............ 6 0.3 6 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Department/discount store 9 0.5 7 0.4 2 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Drug store/Dr.'s office/hospital 5 0.3 3 0.2 2 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Field/woods/park......................... 79 4.5 74 4.7 0 0.0 4 5.1 0 0.0 1 7.7

Government/public building 28 1.6 14 0.9 1 2.3 13 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0Grocery/supermarket.................. 17 1.0 15 0.9 2 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Highway/road/alley/street.. 532 30.2 528 33.3 0 0.0 3 3.8 0 0.0 1 7.7

Hotel/motel/etc.................. 9 0.5 8 0.5 1 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Jail/prison.......................... 28 1.6 28 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Lake/waterway/beach....... 11 0.6 11 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Liquor store....................... 10 0.6 10 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Parking lot/garage............. 110 6.2 107 6.8 2 4.5 0 0.0 1 2.2 0 0.0

Rental storage facility........ 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Residence/home/driveway 508 28.8 500 31.6 5 11.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 23.1

Restaurant........................ 40 2.3 38 2.4 2 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

School/college.................. 165 9.4 96 6.1 4 9.1 58 74.4 4 8.9 3 23.1

Service/gas station........... 13 0.7 12 0.8 1 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Specialty store (TV, fur, etc.) 10 0.6 8 0.5 2 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Other/unknown................... 24 1.4 17 1.1 5 11.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 15.4

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.1Numbers represent total number of victims (i.e., entities and individuals), not the number of hate crime events.

Numbers represent acts directed at entities other than individuals.

8/9/2019 PX0675

35/55

DATA TABLES

DATA TABLES 31

Table 6

HAtE CrimES, 2007

Events, Offenses, Victims, and Known Suspects by County and Jurisdiction

County

and

jurisdiction* Events Offenses Victims

Known

suspectsta 1,426 1,931 1,764 1,627

Aaeda Cuy 43 55 53 30

Alameda 1 1 1 0

Berkeley 3 3 3 2

Dublin. 1 1 1 0

Fremont...... 4 8 8 2

Livermore 2 3 2 0

Oakland...................... 15 18 18 11

Pleasanton................. 1 2 2 0

San Leandro.... 6 7 7 5

Union City.... 7 8 7 10

UC Berkeley.... 3 4 4 0

Ape Cuy..... 0 0 0 0

Aad Cuy............... 4 8 8 6

Sheriff's Dept.... 4 8 8 6

Bue Cuy 6 14 14 12

Chico... 5 13 13 9

Paradise... 1 1 1 3

Caaveas Cuy. 3 5 5 3

Sheriff's Dept... 1 3 3 3

Angels Camp... 2 2 2 0

Cusa Cuy... 1 1 1 3


Ca Csa Cuy. 36 66 54 21

Sheriff's Dept. 1 1 1 5

Antioch. 3 6 6 6

Brentwood. 2 13 7 0

Clayton 1 1 1 0

Concord 7 9 9 3

Danville. 1 1 1 0

Hercules 1 1 1 0

Lafayette 1 1 1 0Oakley. 2 2 2 0

Pinole.. 2 3 3 0

Pleasant Hill 2 2 2 1

Richmond 5 15 9 3

San Pablo 1 1 1 0

Walnut Creek 4 7 7 2

San Ramon 2 2 2 0

East Bay Regional Park 1 1 1 1

De ne Cuy. 0 0 0 0

E Dad Cuy.... 4 5 4 8

Placerville.. 3 4 3 6

South Lake Tahoe.... 1 1 1 2

fes Cuy. 19 35 27 19

Clovis.. 7 8 7 10

Fresno....... 9 24 17 7

Parlier 1 1 1 0CSU Fresno 1 1 1 1

Fresno Community College 1 1 1 1

Ge Cuy.... 2 3 3 2


Hubd Cuy.. 4 9 6 8

Arcata 1 6 3 1

Eureka 1 1 1 3

CSU Humboldt 2 2 2 4

ipea Cuy.... 2 2 2 5


Calexico 1 1 1 4

(continued)

8/9/2019 PX0675

36/55



Table 6 - continued

HAtE CrimES, 2007


County

and


Known

suspectsiy Cuy.... 2 2 2 2

Sheriff's Dept 1 1 1 1

Bishop 1 1 1 1

Ke Cuy. 14 20 16 18


Bakersfield................. 4 5 5 4

Ridgecrest.. 1 2 1 0

Taft.. 1 1 1 1

CSU Bakersfield.. 1 1 1 0

Kgs Cuy..... 1 2 2 2

Lemoore.. 1 2 2 2

lake Cuy... 7 8 7 9


Clearlake. 3 3 3 2

lasse Cuy 1 3 1 2


ls Agees Cuy. 564 700 682 703

Sheriff's Dept1 152 183 178 184

Unincorporated2...... 58 73 72 92

Agoura Hills3.... 3 3 3 0

Carson3.... 1 1 1 0

Calabasas3.......... 2 2 2 2

Cerritos3...... 1 1 1 0

Compton3..... 8 11 11 10

Diamond Bar3...... 4 4 4 1

Duarte3..... 4 4 4 1

Hawaiian Gardens3 3 4 3 5

La Canada Flintridge3. 4 4 4 0

La Mirada3..... 2 4 2 5

La Puente3. 1 1 1 1

Lakewood3... 4 4 4 2

Lancaster3.... 14 17 17 23Lomita3... 1 2 2 3

Lynwood3..... 1 1 1 0

Mailbu3..... 1 1 1 0

Norwalk3... 6 6 6 4

Palmdale3......... 11 12 12 8

Paramount3.... 1 1 1 2

Pico Rivera3.... 1 1 1 0

Rolling Hills Estates3.. 1 1 1 0

Rosemead3............. 3 5 5 2

San Dimas3............. 3 3 3 1

Santa Clarita3.......... 1 1 1 0

Temple City3.... 1 1 1 2

Walnut3..... 1 1 1 2

West Hollywood3. 11 14 13 18

Azusa 1 1 1 1

Beverly Hills 5 9 9 1

Burbank 8 17 17 9

Claremont 2 4 4 0

Covina 2 2 2 2

Downey. 4 4 4 1

El Monte.. 11 13 13 31

El Segundo 1 2 1 1

Gardena 1 3 2 4

Glendale 8 8 8 5

Glendora... 1 1 1 2

Hawthorne... 3 3 3 4

Huntington Park. 2 2 2 2

Inglewood... 1 2 2 2

La Verne... 1 1 1 1

(continued)

8/9/2019 PX0675

37/55

DATA TABLES

DATA TABLES 33

Table 6 - continued

HAtE CrimES, 2007


County

and


Known

suspectsLong Beach. 13 18 17 23

Los Angeles.. 286 344 339 345

Manhattan Beach 4 4 4 3

Monterey Park.. 1 1 1 0

Pasadena.. 17 25 24 23

Pomona.................. 5 8 8 6

Redondo Beach...... 5 6 6 5

San Gabriel............ 2 2 2 4

Santa Fe Springs4.. 1 3 3 3

Santa Monica......... 1 4 2 3

Signal Hill..... 2 2 2 6

South Gate..... 2 2 2 5

Torrance..... 3 4 4 1

West Covina.... 5 8 6 3

Whittier..... 3 3 3 5

CSU Dominguez Hills... 1 1 1 3

CSU Northridge... 3 3 3 2LA Transit Service... 6 6 6 9

UC Los Angeles... 1 1 1 4

madea Cuy..... 0 0 0 0

ma Cuy..... 7 13 8 2


Novato..... 4 5 4 1

San Rafael.. 1 6 2 0

mapsa Cuy.... 0 0 0 0

medc Cuy.... 15 17 15 1

Sheriff's Dept.. 1 3 1 1

Fort Bragg 14 14 14 0

meced Cuy.... 3 4 4 3


Atwater.... 2 3 3 3

mdc Cuy... 0 0 0 0

m Cuy.... 0 0 0 0

meey Cuy... 11 13 12 12

Gonzales 1 1 1 2

Monterey 1 1 1 1

Salinas 2 3 2 2

Seaside 1 2 2 4

Soledad 2 2 2 1

Marina 3 3 3 2

CSU Monterey Bay 1 1 1 0

napa Cuy... 2 2 2 0

Napa. 2 2 2 0

nevada Cuy... 1 1 1 2

Grass Valley 1 1 1 2

oage Cuy 70 98 82 78


Aliso Viejo5. 1 1 1 0

Anaheim.. 4 6 5 7

Brea 1 1 1 1

Buena Park... 1 2 1 2

Cypress. 2 4 4 4

Dana Point5 1 1 1 1

Fountain Valley. 2 2 2 0

Fullerton... 2 2 2 2

Garden Grove. 9 14 10 9

Huntington Beach. 9 10 10 8

Irvine. 2 2 2 0

La Habra... 3 4 4 5

Laguna Hills5 1 1 1 0

(continued)

8/9/2019 PX0675

38/55



Table 6 - continued

HAtE CrimES, 2007


County

and


Known

suspectsLos Alamitos 5 7 6 6

Newport Beach 7 7 7 9

Orange 4 4 4 1

Rancho Santa Margarita5 1 1 1 1

San Clemente5 2 2 2 1

San Juan Capistrano5 2 4 2 0

Stanton5 3 4 3 4

Tustin 1 2 2 2

Yorba Linda 1 1 1 0

CSU Fullerton 1 1 1 2

Pace Cuy.. 2 2 2 6

Rocklin.. 1 1 1 1

Roseville.. 1 1 1 5

Puas Cuy.... 0 0 0 0

rvesde Cuy.... 87 150 114 109


Corona.. 1 1 1 3

Desert Hot Springs 2 5 5 24

Hemet 8 11 11 8

La Quinta6. 2 5 3 1

Lake Elsinore6. 3 6 4 2

Moreno Valley6. 5 8 5 1

Murrieta. 1 1 1 2

Palm Dessert6 4 9 6 4

Palm Springs.. 11 13 13 16

Perris6... 2 7 4 3

Rancho Mirage6.. 1 4 2 0

Riverside 20 30 25 24

San Jacinto6... 3 5 3 6

Temecula6 6 9 7 2

UC Riverside 2 2 2 0

Sacae Cuy............ 52 73 68 48

Sheriff's Dept. 18 24 24 19Citrus Heights 3 6 4 0

Elk Grove.... 3 4 3 4

Folsom.... 1 1 1 0

Galt.. 4 13 11 9

Sacramento.. 20 22 22 14

CSU Sacramento.. 2 2 2 1

Gold Fields Parks and Rec. 1 1 1 1

Sa Be Cuy.. 0 0 0 0

Sa Bead Cuy 21 26 23 18

Chino. 4 4 4 4

Hesperia7 2 5 3 1

Montclair.... 1 1 1 0

Ontario 2 3 3 1

Redlands 1 1 1 0

Rialto 2 2 2 6

San Bernardino 4 5 4 3

Upland.. 3 3 3 1

CSU San Bernardino 1 1 1 1

San Bernardino CHP 1 1 1 1

Sa Deg Cuy... 119 167 149 173


Encinitas8 1 2 1 0

Del Mar8. 1 1 1 1

Lemon Grove8. 1 2 2 1

Poway8 2 2 2 3

San Marcos8 2 4 4 0

Santee8 3 7 5 3

Solana Beach8 1 2 1 3

Vista8. 3 7 5 5

(continued)

8/9/2019 PX0675

39/55

DATA TABLES

DATA TABLES 35

Table 6 - continued

HAtE CrimES, 2007


County

and


Known

suspectsChula Vista 2 4 2 2

Coronado 1 1 1 0

El Cajon 1 1 1 1

Escondido 2 2 2 2

La Mesa 1 1 1 1

National City 2 2 2 3

Oceanside.. 20 21 21 19

San Diego.. 53 65 65 90

Sa facsc Cuy 80 101 98 87

San Francisco 75 96 93 84

CSU San Francisco 5 5 5 3

Sa Jaqu Cuy 14 17 16 4

Lodi 2 3 3 3

Manteca 2 2 2 1

Stockton. 10 12 11 0

Sa lus obsp Cuy 14 17 16 11

Sheriff's Dept. 1 1 1 0Atascadero 1 1 1 0

Paso Robles 2 2 2 2

San Luis Obispo. 10 13 12 9

Sa mae Cuy. 23 37 31 23

Belmont 3 5 4 1

Daly City 2 2 2 3

Menlo Park 2 2 2 4

Millbrae 1 2 1 2

Pacifica 6 12 8 6

Redwood City 2 3 3 2

San Bruno 2 3 3 2

San Mateo 4 7 7 2

South San Francisco 1 1 1 1

Saa Babaa Cuy. 1 1 1 2

Santa Barbara 1 1 1 2

Saa Caa Cuy. 47 63 59 44


Campbell.. 1 1 1 0

Gilroy 1 3 1 0

Los Gatos 2 2 2 0

Milpitas 2 3 3 3

Mountain View 1 1 1 1

Palo Alto 3 3 3 0

San Jose 34 45 43 38

Sunnyvale. 1 1 1 0

Saa Cuz Cuy. 28 33 28 23


Santa Cruz. 11 15 11 16

Scotts Valley.... 3 4 3 3

Watsonville.... 1 1 1 2

UC Santa Cruz.... 9 9 9 0

Shasa Cuy.. 18 25 25 29

Sheriff's Dept.. 1 1 1 1Redding.. 17 24 24 28

Sea Cuy.. 0 0 0 0

Sskyu Cuy... 0 0 0 0

Sa Cuy.... 8 9 9 5

Benicia.. 1 1 1 2

Vacaville.. 5 6 6 3

Solano Community College. 2 2 2 0

Sa Cuy. 14 30 26 13


Petaluma 3 18 14 3

Rohnert Park.. 2 2 2 0

Santa Rosa. 5 6 6 5

(continued)

8/9/2019 PX0675

40/55



Table 6 - continued

HAtE CrimES, 2007


County

and


Known

suspects

Sebastopol 1 1 1 4

Sonoma Community College 1 1 1 0

Sasaus Cuy....... 18 21 20 18


Ceres 2 2 2 3

Modesto.. 10 12 12 0

Oakdale 1 1 1 2

Turlock. 2 3 2 3

Sue Cuy... 8 14 10 12

Yuba City.. 8 14 10 12

tehaa Cuy.. 1 1 1 3

Red Bluff. 1 1 1 3

ty Cuy.. 0 0 0 0

tuae Cuy.. 2 3 3 4

Visalia.......... 2 3 3 4

tuue Cuy........ 2 2 2 3


Sonora.. 1 1 1 0

Veua Cuy.... 21 23 22 15


Camarillo9........ 3 4 4 3

Fillmore9. 2 2 2 1

Moorpark9........ 2 3 2 1

Oxnard. 3 3 3 3

Thousand Oaks9.. 6 6 6 3

Ventura... 3 3 3 4

Y Cuy.. 20 26 26 21

Davis.... 11 16 16 11

West Sacramento...... 2 2 2 1

Woodland.. 3 4 4 5

UC Davis.. 4 4 4 4

Yuba Cuy. 4 4 4 5


Marysville 1 1 1 1

*Only those jurisdictions which reported a hate crime are listed in this table.1Includes unincorporated and contracts.2"Unincorporated" patrolled by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

3Contracts with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.4Contracts with Whittier Police Department.

5Contracts with Orange County Sheriff's Department.6Contracts with Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

7Contracts with San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.8Contracts with San Diego County Sheriff's Department.9Contracts with Ventura County Sheriff's Department.

8/9/2019 PX0675

41/55

DATA TABLES

DATA TABLES 37

Table 7A

SUmmArY of CASES rEfErrED

BY lAW EnforCEmEnt AGEnCiES AnD tYPE of filinGS

For the Period January 1 Through December 31, 2007

Total Total Cases Total Cases

Agency Hate Crime Filed as Filed as Non-Bias

Cases Referred Hate Crimes Motivated Crimes

ta................................ 443 330 57

County District Attorneys 396 304 53

City Attorneys 47 26 4

Note: Please see Data Table 8 for details.

Table 7BSUmmArY of HAtE CrimE CASE DiSPoSitionS


AgencyTotal

dispositions

Not

convicted

Convictions

Total

convictions

Hate crime convictions

All other

convictionsTotal

Guilty plea/

Nolo contendere

Trial

verdict

ta.............................................. 241 28 213 110 85 25 103

County District Attorneys. 219 27 192 106 81 25 86

City Attorneys. 22 1 21 4 4 0 17

Note: Please see Data Table 9 for details.

8/9/2019 PX0675

42/55



Table 8CASES rEfErrED BY lAW EnforCEmEnt AGEnCiES

AnD tYPE of filinGSAS rEPortED BY

CoUntY DiStriCt AttornEYS AnD CitY AttornEYSFor the Period January 1 Through December 31, 2007

AgencyTotal hate crime

cases referred

Total cases filed

as hate crimes

Total cases filed as

non-bias motivated

crimes

ta.............................................. 443 330 57

Cuy Dsc Aeys 396 304 53

Alameda1,2,4.................................. 4 4 0

Alpine....................................... 0 0 0

Amador........................................ 1 1 0

Butte............................................. 4 0 2

Calaveras.......... 2 2 0

Colusa................. 0 0 0

Contra Costa......................... 1 0 0

Del Norte............................... 2 2 2El Dorado.............................. 2 2 0

Fresno...................................... 3 5 1

Glenn.................................... 1 1 0

Humboldt...................... 2 1 0

Imperial........................ 0 0 0

Inyo.............................. 0 0 0

Kern1,2,4............................ 0 7 0

Kings..................................... 2 0 1

Lake...................................... 0 0 0

Lassen..................... 1 0 0

Los Angeles3,4.............. 179 148 21

Madera................... 2 2 0

Marin..................................... 1 0 1

Mariposa.................... 0 0 0

Mendocino............................ 4 4 0

Merced.................................. 0 0 0

Modoc.......................... 0 0 0

Mono............................ 1 0 0

Monterey...................... 5 5 0

Napa..................................... 1 1 0

Nevada..................................... 1 0 0

Orange..................................... 22 17 2

Placer........................... 1 0 0

Plumas........................ 0 0 0

Riverside..................... 33 10 13

Sacramento............. 9 7 0

San Benito................................ 0 0 0

(continued)

8/9/2019 PX0675

43/55

DATA TABLES

DATA TABLES 39

Table 8 - continuedCASES rEfErrED BY lAW EnforCEmEnt AGEnCiES

AnD tYPE of filinGSAS rEPortED BY

CoUntY DiStriCt AttornEYS AnD CitY AttornEYSFor the Period January 1 Through December 31, 2007

AgencyTotal hate crime

cases referred

Total cases filed

as hate crimes

Total cases filed as

non-bias motivated

crimesSan Bernardino..................... 10 10 0

San Diego................... 15 14 0

San Francisco............. 7 7 2

San Joaquin............................. 4 4 0

San Luis Obispo........... 7 5 1

San Mateo................... 5 4 0

Santa Barbara....................... 2 1 0

Santa Clara........................... 20 9 2

Santa Cruz............................... 7 3 1

Shasta.......................... 8 5 1

Sierra....................... 0 0 0

Siskiyou............................. 0 0 0

Solano....................... 0 0 0

Sonoma........................ 2 0 0

Stanislaus.................. 1 3 0

Sutter 2 2 0

Tehama 0 0 0

Trinity 0 0 0

Tulare 1 1 0

Tuolumne 0 0 0

Ventura 14 11 2

Yolo. 5 5 0

Yuba 2 1 1

Cy Aeys 47 26 4

Anaheim 2 1 1

Burbank 0 0 0

Inglewood 0 0 0

Long Beach 2 2 0

Los Angeles... 32 16 3

Pasadena 0 0 0

San Diego 9 5 0

Torrance 2 2 0

Notes: Zero indicates that no case information was reported in this reporting category.

The number of complaints filed by county district attorneys and city attorneys or the number of cases

that resulted in hate crime convictions cannot be linked to the number of hate crimes reported by law

enforcement agencies.1Does not track hate crime cases referred to their offices.2Tracks only total number of hate crimes filed by their office.3Does not track cases referred to their branch offices; tracks total number of hate crimes filed by the Hate

Crime Unit and branch offices.4The counts for these agencies in the "cases referred" category are determined by adding the total number

of cases filed by each agency plus the number of cases rejected by each agency. These counts

represent the miminum cases that would have had to be received in each agency in order to file or reject

the number of cases reported in these two reporting categories.

8/9/2019 PX0675

44/55



a e 9HAtE CrimE CASE DiSPoSitionS

AS rEPortED BYCoUntY DiStriCt AttornEYS AnD CitY AttornEYS


AgencyTotal

dispositions

Not

convicted

Convictions

Total

convictions

Hate crime convictionsAll other

convictionsTotalGuilty plea/

nolo contendere

Trial

verdict

ta.............................................. 241 28 213 110 85 25 103

Cuy Dsc Aeys 219 27 192 106 81 25 86

Alameda..................................... 6 3 3 0 0 0 3

Alpine......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Amador...................................... 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

Butte.......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Calaveras................................... 2 0 2 0 0 0 2

Colusa........................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Contra Costa.............................. 2 0 2 1 1 0 1

Del Norte.................................... 3 0 3 1 1 0 2

El Dorado................................... 3 1 2 1 1 0 1Fresno........................................ 3 0 3 0 0 0 3

Glenn......................................... 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

Humboldt................................... 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

Imperial...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inyo............................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kern........................................... 5 1 4 0 0 0 4

Kings.............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lake........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lassen....................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Los Angeles............................... 87 16 71 48 23 25 23

Madera....................................... 2 0 2 1 1 0 1

Marin.......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mariposa.................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mendocino................................. 2 0 2 1 1 0 1

Merced....................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Modoc........................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mono.......................................... 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

Monterey.................................... 2 0 2 0 0 0 2

Napa.......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nevada...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Orange....................................... 17 1 16 12 12 0 4

Placer......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plumas....................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Riverside.................................... 8 0 8 1 1 0 7

Sacramento............................... 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

San Benito................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

San Bernardino.......................... 9 0 9 2 2 0 7

San Diego.................................. 14 0 14 8 8 0 6

San Francisco............................ 7 1 6 3 3 0 3

San Joaquin............................... 2 0 2 1 1 0 1San Luis Obispo........................ 3 2 1 1 1 0 0

San Mateo................................. 4 1 3 1 1 0 2

Santa Barbara............................ 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

Santa Clara................................ 7 0 7 6 6 0 1

Santa Cruz................................. 4 0 4 0 0 0 4

Shasta........................................ 7 0 7 6 6 0 1

Sierra......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Siskiyou.................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Solano........................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sonoma..................................... 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

Stanislaus.................................. 3 1 2 0 0 0 2

(continued)

8/9/2019 PX0675

45/55

DATA TABLES

DATA TABLES 41

Table 9 - continuedHAtE CrimE CASE DiSPoSition

AS rEPortED BYCoUntY DiStriCt AttornEYS AnD CitY AttornEYS


AgencyTotal

dispositions

Not

convicted

Convictions

Total

convictions

Hate crime convictionsAll other

convictionsTotalGuilty plea/

nolo contendere

Trial

verdict

Sutter........................................... 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

Tehama....................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trinity.......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tulare.......................................... 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

Tuolumne.................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ventura........................................ 6 0 6 6 6 0 0

Yolo............................................. 2 0 2 1 1 0 1

Yuba............................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cy Aeys. 22 1 21 4 4 0 17

Anaheim...................................... 2 0 2 0 0 0 2

Burbank......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inglewood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Long Beach................................. 2 0 2 0 0 0 2

Los Angeles................................ 13 1 12 3 3 0 9

Pasadena. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

San Diego................................... 3 0 3 1 1 0 2

Torrance...................................... 2 0 2 0 0 0 2

Notes: Zero indicates that no case information was reported in this reporting categoryThe number of complaints filed by county district attorneys and city attorneys or the number of cases thatresulted in hate crime convictions cannot be linked to the number of hate crimes reported by law enforcement agencies.See Criminal Justice Glossary for definition of terms.

Table 10HAtE CrimE CASES, 1998-2007

ComPlAintS filED AnD totAl ConViCtionS AS rEPortED BY

CoUntY DiStriCt AttornEYSAnD CitY AttornEYS

Type of 1998 1999 2000 2001prosecuting Complaints Total Complaints Total Complaints Total Complaints Total

attorney filed convictions filed convictions filed convictions filed convictions

ta.......................... 244 174 372 229 360 275 314 207

County District Attorneys 226 158 341 206 341 262 290 187

City Attorneys 18 16 31 23 19 13 24 20

Type of 2002 2003 2004 2005

prosecuting Complaints Total Complaints Total Complaints Total Complaints Total

attorney filed convictions filed convictions filed convictions filed convictions

ta.......................... 351 253 304 197 277 242 330 238

County District Attorneys 333 236 293 188 263 229 315 227

City Attorneys 18 17 11 9 14 13 15 11

Type of 2006 2007

prosecuting Complaints Total Complaints Total

attorney filed convictions filed convictions

ta.......................... 272 218 330 213

County District Attorneys 262 214 304 192

City Attorneys 10 4 26 21

Notes: The number of complaints filed by county district attorneys and city attorneys or the number of cases that

resulted in hate crime convictions cannot be linked to the number of hate crimes reported by law enforcement agencies.

See Criminal Justice Glossary for definition of terms.

In 2006, adjustments were made to the 2005 conviction data; therefore, counts do not match previously published data.

8/9/2019 PX0675

46/55

8/9/2019 PX0675

47/55

8/9/2019 PX0675

48/55

44

Table 13

HAtE CrimES, 1998-2007Offenses by Type of Crime

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Type of crime

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Perce

ta............................ 1,801 100.0 2,001 100.0 2,002 100.0 2,265 100.0 2,009 100.0 1,815 100.0 1,770 100.0 1,691 100.

Ve ces

Murder........................

Forcible rape...............

Robbery......................

Aggravated assault.....

Simple assault............

Intimidation.................

1,232

2

1

41

246

385

557

68.4 1,353

0.1 3

0.1 1

2.3 71

13.7 238

21.4 427

30.9 613

67.6 1,312

0.1 5

0.0 1

3.5 55

11.9 321

21.3 374

30.6 556

65.5 1,662

0.2 2

0.0 1

2.7 63

16.0 250

18.7 524

27.8 822

73.4 1,517

0.1 4

0.0 1

2.8 75

11.0 272

23.1 478

36.3 687

75.5 1,252

0.2 4

0.0 2

3.7 61

13.5 179

23.8 477

34.2 529

69.0 1,135

0.2 0

0.1 0

3.4 60

9.9 246

26.3 360

29.1 469

64.1 1,096

0.0 1

0.0 1

3.4 36

13.9 317

20.3 298

26.5 443

64.

0.

0.

2.

18.

17.

26.

Ppey ces

.Burglary...............................

Larceny-theft........................

.Motor vehicle theft...............

.Arson...................................

Destruction/vandalism..........

Notes: Percentages may not add to su

Dash indicates that percent chFrom 1998 to 2001, a "hierarch

569

15

9

0

10

535

btotals or

anges arey rule" wa

31.6 648

0.8 16

0.5 9

0.0 2

0.6 11

29.7 610

100.0 because of ro

not calculated whens used to count the v

32.4 690

0.8 34

0.4 14

0.1 1

0.5 10

30.5 631

unding.

the base number (19arious types of crime

34.5 603

1.7 38

0.7 7

0.0 0

0.5 10

31.5 548

98) is less than 50, o. For a further expla

26.6 492

1.7 33

0.3 4

0.0 0

0.4 4

24.2 451

nation, see the Data

24.5 563

1.6 25

0.2 3

0.0 0

0.2 5

22.4 530

r than no data were reported.Characteristics and K

31.0 635

1.4 27

0.2 4

0.0 0

0.3 11

29.2 593

nown Limitations Sec

35.9 595

1.5 27

0.2 5

0.0 3

0.6 7

33.5 553

tion in Appendix 1.

35.

1.

0.

0.

0.

32.

8/9/2019 PX0675

49/55

8/9/2019 PX0675

50/55

APPENDICES

HAtECrimE

8/9/2019 PX0675

51/55


CrimE DAtA

Local law enforcement agencies are required to submit monthly copies of hate crime reports to the Department ofJustice (DOJ) in compliance with Section 13023 of the California Penal Code. Section 422.55 of the California PenalCode denes a hate crime as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the followingactual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5)Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceivedcharacteristics.

The following information and limitations should be considered when using hate crime data:

1) A hate crime event contains the occurrence of one or more criminal offenses, committed against one or morevictims, by one or more suspects/perpetrators. Also, victims can have more than one offense committed against

them.

2) Hate crimes reported by law enforcement agencies are counted in a very specic way. In each hate crime event,the DOJ counts the total number of victims, the total number of known suspects, and the total number of criminaloffenses in one event. These totals are then classied and counted by type of bias motivation (anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jewish, anti-gay, etc.), type of crime (murder, aggravated assault, burglary, destruction/vandalism,etc.), the location where the crime took place (residence, street, synagogue, school, etc.), and the type of victim(individual or property).

3) The hate crime reporting system was implemented by the DOJ in September 1994. Law enforcement agenciessubmit copies of initial crime reports to the DOJ. Crime reports that were submitted as hate crimes, but laterdetermined to be unfounded, were not included.

4) The DOJ requested that each law enforcement agency establish procedures incorporating a two-tier review(decision-making) process. The rst level is done by the initial ofcer who responds to the suspected hate crimeincident. At the second level, each report is reviewed by at least one other ofcer to conrm that the event was, in

fact, a hate crime.

5) Caution should be used when making jurisdictional comparisons. The following factors should be considered: culturaldiversity and population density; size of law enforcement agencies; and the training received in the identicationof hate crimes by law enforcement ofcers in each jurisdiction.

6) The following factors may inuence the volume of hate crimes reported to the DOJ:

Cultural practices of individuals and their likeliness to report hate crimes to law enforcementagencies.

Strength and investigative emphasis of law enforcement agencies. Policies of law enforcement agencies. Community policing policies.

APPENDIX 1 DATA CHARACTERISTICS AND KN OWN LIMITATIONS

8/9/2019 PX0675

52/55

APPENDICES49

7) From 1995 to 2001, a hierarchy rule was used to count the various types of hate crimes (e.g., murder, intimidation,vandalism, etc.). This counting method counted the most serious offense in a hate crime event and counted all

additional offenses in multiple-offense events under the most serious crime count. For example, a crime event thathad two offenses a simple assault and an aggravated assault would be counted as two aggravated assaults.Trend analysis for these years can be done, since the unit of count is consistent.

Starting in 2002, the Department of Justice began counting eachoffense in eachhate crime event, whether they

had one offense (a majority of events) or multiple offenses (a minority of events). This change in counting was

undertaken to more accurately count each type of criminal offense. Using this new standard of count, comparisons

and trend analysis should be limited to 2002 and forward.

8) A signicant reason for the large disparity between individual victims and victims that are an entity is due to the

Criminal Justice Statistics Centers use of the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program standards. A property crime

(e.g., a business, religious organization, government institution, etc.) can only be counted as one victim, whereasa crime committed against an individual can have more than one victim per crime event.

CoUntY DiStriCt AttornEY AnD CitY AttornEYProSECUtoriAl DAtA

The following information and limitations should be considered when interpreting hate crime cases:

1) To show the criminal justice systems response to hate crimes, in March 1995, the Attorney General requested all

district attorneys and city attorneys to submit summary data of complaints led and convictions secured.

2) The 2007 District Attorneys and City Attorneys Report File of Hate Crime Cases contains summary data based oncases referred to each district attorney or city attorney, and lings and convictions which occurred between January

1 through December 31, 2007.

3) When viewing prosecutorial data, the reader is advised that relating the number of hate crimes reported by lawenforcement agencies to the number of hate crimes prosecuted by district attorneys and city attorneys is notpossible. First, crimes often occur in different reporting years than their subsequent prosecutions. Second, the

number of crimes reported by law enforcement is much higher than those calling for prosecutorial action, since thelatter requires an arrested defendant who can be prosecuted in a court of law.

4) All prosecutorial data includes hate crimes committed by bothjuvenile and adult defendants.

5) For prosecutorial agencies that do not track/count the number of cases referred in their ofces for various reasons

(e.g., information system limitations, internal organizational structure, geographical organizations capabilities, etc.),the counts for agencies in the cases referred category are determined by adding the total number of cases led

by each agency plus the number of cases rejected for prosecution by each agency. These counts represent the

minimum cases that would have had to be received in each agency in order to le or reject the number of cases

reported in these two reporting categories.

8/9/2019 PX0675

53/55

AGGrAVAtED ASSAUlt An unlawful attack by one personupon another for the purposes of inicting severe or aggravatedbodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the

use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or greatbodily harm (FBIs Uniform Crime Reporting [UCR] denition).

BiAS A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a groupof persons based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion,gender, sexual orientation and/or physical/mental disability.

CASE A case is a set of facts about a crime that is referred to adistrict attorney for ling with a court. The case may charge oneor more persons with the commission of one or more offenses.For this report, the case must contain some element of bias.

ComPlAintS filED Any veried written accusation, led bya district attorney with a criminal court, that charges one or morepersons with the commission of one or more offenses. For thisreport, the case must contain some element of bias.

ConViCtion A judgment based on the verdict of a jury ora judicial ofcer or on a guilty plea or a nolo contendere pleaof the defendant.

DiSPoSition In criminal procedure, the sentencing or othernal settlement of a criminal case.

EtHniC BiAS A preformed negative opinion or attitude towarda group of persons of the same race or national origin who sharecommon or similar traits in language, custom, and tradition, suchas Arabs or Hispanics.

EVEnt An event is an occurrence where a hate crime isinvolved. (In this report, the information about the event is acrime report or source document that meets the criteria for ahate crime.) There may be one or more suspects involved, one

or more victims targeted, and one or more offenses involvedfor each event.

GUiltY PlEA A defendants formal answer in open courtstating that the charge is true and that he or she is guilty of thecrime with which he or she is charged.

KnoWn SUSPECt(S) A suspect can be any person alleged tohave committed a criminal act(s) or attempted criminal act(s) tocause physical injury, emotional suffering, or property damage.The known suspect category contains the number of suspectsthat have been identied and/or alleged to have committed hatecrimes as stated in the crime report. For example, witnessesobserve three suspects eeing the scene of a crime. The wordknown does not necessarily refer to specic identities.

loCAtion The place where the hate crime event occurred.

The location categories follow UCR location specicationsdeveloped by the FBI. Examples are residence, hotel, bar,church, etc.

mUlti-rACiAl A hate crime that involves more than onevictim or suspect, and where the victims or suspects are fromtwo or more different race groups; e.g., African American andwhite or Hispanic and Asian.

nolo ContEnDErE A plea or answer in a criminal action inwhich the accused does not admit guilt but agrees to be subjectto the same punishment as if he or she were guilty.

offEnSES Criminal acts that are recorded as follows: murder,forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, simple assault, intimidation, anddestruction/vandalism as dened in the UCR and the nationalHate Crimes Statistics Report.

PHYSiCAl/mEntAl DiSABilitY BiAS A preformed negativeopinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on physicalor mental impediments/challenges, whether such disabilities arecongenital or acquired by heredity, accident, injury, advancedage, or illness.

ProPErtY CrimES Burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicletheft, arson, and destruction/vandalism are reported as propertycrimes.

rACiAl BiAS A preformed negative opinion or attitude towarda group of persons such as Asians, blacks, or whites, based onphysical characteristics.

rElAtionSHiP BEtWEEn ComPlAintS filED AnDConViCtionS The annual prosecutorial report collectsdata on the total number of hate crime cases led and the totalnumber of hate crime convictions. There is no direct relationshipbetween complaints led and convictions, since a case maybe led in one year and the outcome (trial or pleading) mayoccur in another.

rEliGioUS BiAS A preformed negative opinion or attitudetoward a group of persons based on religious beliefs regardingthe origin and purpose of the universe and the existence ornonexistence of a supreme being. Examples are Catholics,

Jews, Protestants, or Atheists.

SEXUAl-oriEntAtion BiAS A preformed negativeopinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on sexualpreferences and/or attractions toward and responsiveness tomembers of their own or opposite sexes.

SimPlE ASSAUlt An unlawful attack by one person uponanother, which does not involve the use of a rearm, knife,cutting instrument, or other dangerous weapon and in whichthere were not serious or aggravated injuries to the victim (FBIsUCR denition).

triAl VErDiCt The nding or answer of a jury or judgeconcerning a matter submitted to them for their judgment.

ViCtim A victim may be an individual, a business or nancial

institution, a religious organization, government, or other.For example, if a church or synagogue is vandalized and/ordesecrated, the victim would be a religious organization.

ViolEnt CrimES Murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravatedassault, simple assault and intimidation are considered violentcrimes in this report. (Robbery is included in crimes againstproperty in the FBI Hate Crimes Statistics Report.)


APPENDIX 2 CRIMI NA L J UST ICE GLOSSARY

8/9/2019 PX0675

54/55

**Available on the Internet.

AnnUAl PUBliCAtionSAnti-Reproductive-Rights Crimes in California**Concealable Firearms Charges in California**Crime in California**Crime in California, Advance Release**Criminal Justice Prole - A Supplement to

Crime in California (statewide and individual

counties)**Hate Crime in California**Homicide in California**Juvenile Justice in California**Preliminary Report, Crime (January

through June, January through September,and January through December)**

foCi AnD forUmSThe California Experience in American

Juvenile Justice: Some HistoricalPerspectives (December 1988)

Controlling Plea Bargaining in California(September 1985)

Coordinating Justice in California: Thereought to be a law about it (December

1988)Crime Control and the Criminal Career

(December 1992)The Development of California Drunk

Driving Legislation (December 1988)Employment and Crime (February 1989)The Impact of Californias Prior Felony

Conviction Law (September 1987)The Origins and Development of Penalties

for Drunk Drivers in California (August1988)

A Policy Role for Focus Groups:Community Corrections (September1991)

The Prevalence and Incidence of ArrestsAmong Adult Males in California (August

1988)The Social Structure of Street Drug

Dealing (December 1988)

oUtlooKSAdult Felony Arrest Dispositions in

California (1982-1984,1986-1989)Crime in Urban and Rural California

(November 1984 and December 1997)**Death in Custody, California (

Date post:	29-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	legalmatters
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

PX0675

Documents