Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Racial disparities seen in 'pretextual stops'
    A police officer stands outside the window of a white van on the side of a road with his motorcycle parked behind the vehicle.
    A 2022 LAPD policy in part instructs officers to minimize stops for minor equipment violations.
    Newly released data from the city show that Los Angeles police officers use minor traffic stops as a way to investigate Black and Latino people on suspicion of committing a more serious crime at a higher rate than their share of the citywide population.

    Pretextual stops: Police sometimes use violations of the vehicle code to stop drivers and investigate them for a more serious crime unrelated to the traffic stop, such as possessing drugs or firearms. These are known as pretextual stops.

    LAPD’s policy: In 2022, the LAPD adopted a policy that officers should only conduct pretextual stops when they are “acting upon articulable information” that the person is close to a serious crime that’s worth investigating.

    Several reports: In the last month, two city departments released analyses of pretextual stops since the police adopted its policy. A nonprofit called Catalyst California did a broader analysis of minor traffic stops, too.

    Read on … to see what the analyses found.

    Newly released data from the city show that Los Angeles police officers use minor traffic stops as a way to investigate Black and Latino people on suspicion of committing a more serious crime at a higher rate than their share of the citywide population.

    The LAPD adopted a policy about so-called pretextual stops and began tracking the practice in 2022.

    In a report released at the end of January, the city’s chief legislative analyst found that Black people were involved in nearly 31% of pretextual stops conducted by LAPD officers between spring 2022 and fall 2025. According to 2023 Census estimates, Black people make up 8% of the city’s population.

    According to the report, "Hispanic/Latino" people, who make up just less than half the city’s population, were the subjects of 56% of pretextual stops.

    That analysis, along with a separate report by LAPD, found that of the more than 760,000 people involved in traffic stops between spring of 2022 and fall of 2025, 9% to 10% of them were stopped pretextually.

    Chauncee Smith, an associate director of the racial justice-focused nonprofit Catalyst California, said LAPD’s data is “under inclusive” since it relies on officers subjectively deciding when a stop is pretextual.

    He said an analysis of data from Catalyst California, published in February, demonstrates that pretextual stops don’t result in evidence discovery enough to make up for the negative impacts of the practice.

    “It's affecting the lives of many Black and Latinx Angelenos on an everyday basis,” Smith said, adding that pretextual stops often result in harassment, dehumanization and excessive ticketing or fining of communities of color.

    Pretextual stops 

    Police sometimes use violations of the vehicle code to stop drivers and investigate them for a more serious crime unrelated to the traffic stop, such as possessing drugs or firearms, according to Deepak Premkumar, a research fellow for the Public Policy Institute of California.

     ”Law enforcement officers see tons of violations, and we give them a lot of discretion to determine who they should stop and when,” Premkumar told LAist.

    A plausible example of what a pretextual stop could look like is if police see a car matching the description of one that was involved in a crime in the area, then pull that car over for a broken taillight, Premkumar said.

    The policy the LAPD adopted in 2022 outlines that officers:

    • Can only conduct pretextual stops as long as they are “acting upon articulable information” that the person is close to a serious crime that’s worth investigating. 
    • Should minimize stops for minor equipment violations, such as broken taillights, unless the violation “interferes with public safety.”
    • State the reason for the stop, whether pretextual or not, while their body-worn cameras are filming.

    Despite the adoption of the policy, Catalyst California’s analysis found that the proportion of all officer-initiated stops that are for minor traffic violations has “remained relatively constant since 2019.”

    What to know about the recent analyses of pretextual stops

    After the police adopted its policy in 2022, officers began indicating whether a stop was pretextual or not. The Chief Legislative Analyst and police department rely on this officer discretion in their analyses, which can be found in this council file. As a result, they say they don’t have a point of comparison for before the policy was adopted. 

    In its analysis, Catalyst California looked at all stops for minor traffic violations, which are the kind of traffic violations that are often used to start a pretextual stop. By combining that data with search data, Catalyst California endeavors to approximate a before-and-after look at the LAPD’s policy.

    Racial disparities

    The analysis from the city’s chief legislative analyst included a comparison of pretextual stop rates for different ethnic and racial groups in L.A. compared to their share of the citywide population.

    The analysis found that "Hispanic/Latino" and Black people were overrepresented in data on pretextual stops compared to their share of the population.

    L.A. Police Capt. Shannon White drafted the department’s report of the same data, which did not include an ethnic or racial breakdown of those involved in pretextual stops.

    At a Los Angeles Police Commission Meeting in February, when she presented the department’s analysis, White said Census estimates for the city don’t necessarily align with “the actual breakdown of our suspects of crime,” who, theoretically, are the subjects of pretextual stops.

    “When you look at the actual breakdown of our suspects of crime…what you will find is that they skew towards communities of color for various societal reasons,” White said.

    According to the LAPD’s analysis, people in Central and South L.A. were subjects of pretextual at higher rates than in the Valley and West L.A.

    Some commissioners at the meeting questioned that disparity.

    “Something just doesn't add up,” Commission President Teresa Sánchez-Gordon said. “Is it racial profiling? Is that bias? Implicit, explicit bias that's in the report?”

    Discovery rates

    The police’s analysis found that searches during pretextual stops yielded contraband, such as firearms and other weapons or drugs, in about every 3 in 10 cases. “Narco-related” evidence is what’s most commonly found in the searches.

    Catalyst California’s report looked more specifically at different kinds of searches and how likely they are to lead to evidence discovery.

    The nonprofit found that since 2022, when officers used consent-only searches during stops for minor traffic violations, they discovered evidence 3% to 10% of the time. The rate was similarly low when the person stopped was on parole or probation.

    How to reach me

    If you have a tip, you can reach me on Signal. My username is kharjai.61.

    According to Catalyst California’s analysis, the type of search most likely to lead to discovery of evidence is when there’s an existing search or arrest warrant for the person stopped.

    “This was likely because they occurred in situations when there was a higher likelihood of a significant violation, beyond mere pretext,” the nonprofit's researchers wrote.

  • Only qualified candidates count
    People lean over tables, separated by privacy dividers reading "Vote" and bearing images of the American flag.
    A man casts his ballot during early voting

    Topline:

    Write-in candidates in Southern California are no joke. Election officials require them to qualify. While many are already in, Tuesday is the deadline to be considered. The full list will be released to the public Friday.

    The rules: The city of L.A. requires write-in candidates to file a form and pay $300 or submit 500 valid signatures, while other cities may not require anything except paperwork. Qualified candidate names are sent to county election officials and will post the information Friday for voters.

    Some write-in candidates: As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, the L.A. County Registrar of Voters listed 20 write-in candidates who filed in California for a wide range of races, from state Assembly and state Senate to governor. Of the 20, 11 filed as write-ins for the governor’s race.

    Why it matters: Most write-in campaigns are a long shot but some have won: Lisa Murkowski won an Alaska U.S. Senate seat in 2010; Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams was reelected in 2002.

    Who gets counted: Only votes for qualified write-in candidates are counted and certified. Sorry, Mickey Mouse and George Washington.

    What's next: Here’s the current list of qualified write-in candidates in L.A. County. Checking the box that says Show only Write In Records will show you write-in candidates. Orange County election officials say they have no write-in candidates.

    Go deeper: Your LAist voter guide for the 2026 June elections.

  • Sponsored message
  • Here's a roundup of the fires in SoCal
    Several buildings are seen next to a cove on a rugged island.
    A fire on Santa Rosa Island has been burning since May 15, 2015. The island is seen here in 1997.

    Topline:

    Several fires are burning across Southern California, with some destroying structures, threatening homes and charring pristine landscapes.

    Where are the fires? A large fire is burning on Santa Rosa Island in Channel Islands National Park. A fire in Simi Valley has destroyed one home and led to multiple evacuation alerts. Two fires are in Riverside County, and a small fire is in the San Gabriel Mountains.

    The forecast: Warm weather and Santa Ana wind conditions have hampered firefighting efforts and are expected to continue through Wednesday this week.

    Read on ... for details about the Sandy Fire, Santa Rosa Island Fire and others.

    Several fires are burning across Southern California, with some destroying structures, threatening homes and charring pristine landscapes.

    Warm weather and Santa Ana wind conditions have hampered firefighting efforts and are expected to continue through Wednesday this week. The National Weather Service forecasts cooler weather and "May gray" through the weekend.

    Here's a roundup of some of the fires burning now.

    (All dates refer to today, Tuesday, May 19, unless otherwise noted)

    Santa Rosa Island Fire (Santa Barbara County)

    The fire is burning in Channel Island National Park territory. Firefighters traveled by boat with their equipment to get to the island, according to news reports. The island is home to rare and endangered plants and animals.

    Sandy Fire (Ventura County)

    CalFire reported about 2:40 p.m. Tuesday that lessening winds allowed "firefighters to take full advantage of improved weather to strengthen containment lines and continue aggressive suppression efforts. Crews remain actively engaged both on the ground and in the air to gain additional containment and keep the fire within its current perimeter."

    The fire started Monday in the southern part of Simi Valley. It eventually spread eastward toward L.A. County communities in the San Fernando Valley, but overnight conditions were favorable to firefighters, CalFire said. Several communities were under evacuation orders and warnings, and schools in the area were closed.

    Bain Fire (Riverside County)

    The fire was first reported around noon Tuesday, according to CalFire, near Jurupa Valley (east of the 15 Freeway and south of the 60). CBS News Los Angeles reported that four people have been injured.

    Verona Fire (Riverside County)

    Burro Fire (Angeles National Forest)

    The fire started Monday in a mountainous area north of the San Gabriel Reservoir.

    Listen to our Big Burn podcast

    Listen 39:42
    Get ready now. Listen to our The Big Burn podcast
    Jacob Margolis, LAist's science reporter, examines the new normal of big fires in California.

    Fire resources and tips

    Check out LAist's wildfire recovery guide.

    Prepare for the next disaster:

    If you have to evacuate:

    Navigating fire conditions:

    How to help yourself and others:

    How to start the recovery process:

    What to do for your kids:

  • Ethics Commission to serve as corruption watchdog
    A woman with reddish hair, glasses and light-tone skin speaks on screen as her name (Lindsey P. Horvath) and agenda item appears in the lower thirds.
    Supervisor Lindsey Horvath sponsored the motion to create an L.A. County Ethics Commission.

    Topline:

    Citing a desire to prevent corruption within county government, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday established Los Angeles County’s first ethics commission.

    The backstory: In 2024, voters approved Measure G, which called for the creation of an Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance. The measure came amid a series of corruption cases at L.A. City Hall but calls for reform spilled over into the county government.

    The details: The motion by Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and approved by the board Tuesday directs county departments to begin establishing the operational, staffing and legal infrastructure necessary to launch the commission in this year. It also directs staff to prepare a charter amendment for voter consideration on the November ballot to enshrine the commission in the charter.

    Composition: Supervisors voted for a plan that calls for a seven-member commission. Initially, the chair of the Board of Supervisors, the county assessor and the Governance Reform Task Force would each appoint a commissioner, filling three spots. Those appointees would then select the remaining four members from a pool of applicants.

    Opposition: Supervisor Janice Hahn supported the overall motion but opposed the composition of the commission, saying too many members were to be appointed by elected officials — the same people the panel would be charged with watchdogging.

    History: The county has had its own campaign, lobbying and ethics laws on the books for years, but they were enforced by ethics officers in various departments. The latest proposal calls for a 54-member ethics office to enforce those laws and for the commission to impose fines if they are violated.

  • CA community colleges crack down on fake students
    Students walk down a cement path passing signage that reads "Financial aid office. Cloud hall, room 324."
    Students walk past a sign for a campus financial aid office Dec. 8, 2017.

    Topline:

    After a spike in fraudulent applications to California’s community colleges, school officials say they are getting better at detecting and preventing fraud, though it still happens.

    Why it matters: Between January and March 2025, scammers stole nearly $5.6 million in federal student aid and over $900,000 in state aid. By comparison, this spring colleges have reported losing just under $1.5 million in federal student aid and about $330,000 in state aid to fraudsters. Last spring was “really the peak,” Hadsell said. He said he anticipates the end-of-year total in 2026 to be “significantly lower” than last year.

    The backstory: Last spring, CalMatters reported that colleges were seeing unprecedented reports of fraud, with scammers stealing millions more dollars of student aid than in any previous period, according to reports submitted by colleges to California’s Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.

    Read on... for more on how community colleges in the state are cracking down on financial aid fraud.

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    California’s community colleges have been battling fraudulent students for years, trying to prevent scammers from stealing financial aid money.

    Recent data shows the colleges’ efforts finally may be working.

    Last spring, CalMatters reported that colleges were seeing unprecedented reports of fraud, with scammers stealing millions more dollars of student aid than in any previous period, according to reports submitted by colleges to California’s Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.

    Now fewer scammers are bypassing colleges’ vetting systems, according to monthly reports, and school administrators say they’re better, though still not perfect, at detecting and preventing fraud.

    After CalMatters reported on the rise in fraud last year, Republican U.S. Congress members called for a federal investigation, a Democratic state legislator launched a state audit and later, California’s Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office approved a new ID verification policy for students. Colleges now are more vigilant about policing fraud, said Jory Hadsell, an executive in technology initiatives for the chancellor’s office, who pointed to better filtering practices and new software to detect fraud.

    Between January and March 2025, scammers stole nearly $5.6 million in federal student aid and over $900,000 in state aid. By comparison, this spring colleges have reported losing just under $1.5 million in federal student aid and about $330,000 in state aid to fraudsters.

    Last spring was “really the peak,” Hadsell said. He said he anticipates the end-of-year total in 2026 to be “significantly lower” than last year.

    Even in the worst months, such as last spring, the money distributed to scammers is less than 1% of the total financial aid distributed to community college students in California. Students use the money to help pay for tuition, books and the cost of daily living expenses, such as rent, transportation and food.

    But any fraud, however small, is unacceptable, said Chris Ferguson, executive vice chancellor of finance and strategic initiatives. “The ultimate goal for our system is zero.”

    Some anti-fraud policies have been slow to take effect. The California Community Colleges Board of Governors voted nearly a year ago to require ID verification for all students, but only about 50% of college students are doing it as of this month. Hadsell said the delays arose in part because of complications verifying information of students under 18 years old, who represent a growing demographic for the community colleges. He said ID verification, which is currently optional, will become mandatory on July 1.

    The board also voted to “explore” the option of charging students an application fee of no more than $10, but with the rates of fraud declining and other solutions that seem to work, the chancellor’s office is no longer pursuing that option, Ferguson said.

    After blaming California officials, the U.S. Department of Education, which shares responsibility for administering federal aid and detecting fraud, said it would implement a “screening process” for applicants. It was supposed to take effect last fall but didn’t launch until last month, according to press releases from the department and statements from the California Student Aid Commission. CalMatters reached out to the U.S. Education Department five times over the last 12 months, seeking clarification, but the department has refused to respond to questions about delays with the screening process.

    When more than a third of college applicants are fake

    After classes suddenly moved online during the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office saw an increase in financial aid fraud on their application portal, CCCApply, which is used by nearly every student as the first step in applying to community college.

    In 2021, the chancellor’s office suspected roughly 20% of applicants were fraudulent.

    The estimate was higher in January 2024, around 25%. Last spring, it was 34%, though some schools saw much higher rates.

    After they apply through CCCApply, students get filtered locally at their college of choice. In the Los Rios Community College District, which represents Sacramento, college officials suspected 64% of local applications from January to March 2025 were fraudulent. And that was after the state already vetted them through its portal, said Gabe Ross, a spokesperson for the district. The San Diego and Los Angeles community college districts also reported spikes in the number of fraudulent applications around the same time.

    CalMatters reached out to the five largest community college districts for an interview. The Rancho Santiago Community College District, which includes parts of Orange County, did not provide sufficient data to draw conclusions about trends in fraud. The State Center Community College District, which represents schools in Fresno and Madera counties, did not respond to CalMatters’ questions.

    Monthly data reports to the chancellor’s office show that once detected, most scammers who applied to community colleges were then caught and kicked out before they could apply for financial aid, but some succeeded.

    This year, both Sacramento and San Diego community colleges say they’re seeing fewer attempts at fraud and are getting better at stopping those who try. The San Diego Community College District is now manually screening for fraudulent applications twice a week and is finalizing a contract with a company to help improve its detection software.

    CCCApply has improved its filtering process, which helped reduce fraud attempts at Sacramento area colleges, said Ross. “When we talked about such a complex dynamic challenge, it's always hard to identify what's the one thing that sort of moved the needle. The truth is that we needed support from the feds, we needed support from the (chancellor’s) office, and we needed to invest in tools locally.”

    This spring, he said the district flagged about 12% of college applications as suspect.

    Using AI to detect AI 

    Measuring fraud is, by definition, imprecise. If a scammer is truly successful, colleges have no way to identify that fraud.

    For a long time, administrators assumed bots enrolling in online classes were responsible for most fraudulent attempts. Yet teachers, students and financial aid administrators say some of the scams are more sophisticated now and are coming from real people impersonating students. Many fraudulent applications to Los Angeles’ community colleges have real names, dates of birth, and addresses that are likely “leaked or stolen,” said Nicole Albo-Lopez, the deputy chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District.

    In San Diego, Victor DeVore, dean of student services, said the college district only requires ID verification for students flagged as fraudulent. At that point they must prove their identity, either in person or through Zoom. Once, a potentially fraudulent student appeared on Zoom and presented a valid-looking ID that matched their face, but DeVore’s team noticed that the student’s IP address was odd. “One minute they’re logging in from Nairobi, the next minute they'll be logging in from Virginia,” he said, adding that the use of AI, virtual private networks (VPNs) or other technology has made fraud harder to detect.

    Students’ personal data is supposed to be private, but school districts and education technology companies are frequently hacked. Last week, Canvas — one of the go-to learning platforms for California’s community colleges, University of California and California State University campuses — went offline temporarily due to a major hack. Its parent company, Instructure, said last week that it reached an agreement with the hackers to relinquish students’ data.

    The state has turned to AI to fight fraud. Last summer, the state chancellor’s office negotiated a multimillion dollar contract with N2N Services Inc., enabling any college in the state to access the company’s software at a discounted rate. The software uses AI to detect potentially fraudulent applicants. Colleges are not required to use it, and so far, only about two-thirds do. Some districts, such as the Los Angeles Community College District, use a different fraud detection software, known as Socure.

    Colleges and the state chancellor’s office continue to face political pressure and scrutiny of their approach to fraud. Last month, the U.S. Education Department said it had prevented more than $171 million in fraud in California after implementing a new policy regarding ID verification. Hadsell, with the state chancellor’s office, said the federal policy had no impact on California’s colleges. “They issued some interim guidance last year that basically said you should at least have a Zoom call with students and have them show an ID when you're approving their aid. And those were things that were already happening. It was not, you know, some new thing at least for most of our colleges.”

    Kiran Kodithala, the CEO of N2N, which collects its own data on fraud at community colleges, said the education department’s claim makes no sense.

    “I don’t see how $171 million in fraud in California can occur,” he said. “There’s no basis for those numbers. We’re not seeing anything remotely close.” Kodithala estimates that N2N has prevented over $34 million in fraud since last summer, though his platform is not yet in use by all of California's 116 community colleges.

    Collecting more precise data may take months or years. U.S. Representative Young Kim, who represents parts of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, launched the effort for a federal investigation last spring, but her office could not provide any updates or confirm that an investigation was in fact underway. At the state level, the Legislature last year approved conducting an audit of how California’s community colleges handled fraud but the findings won’t be released until this summer.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.