The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2012)

Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest). The practice is controversial and is illegal in some nations.

Definition[link]

The concept of racial profiling has been defined in many ways, including:

• "Any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity." _{-Deborah Ramirez, Jack McDevitt, Amy Farrell for US DoJ}^[1]

• "Racially-biased policing occurs when law enforcement inappropriately considers race or ethnicity in deciding with whom and how to intervene in an enforcement capacity."_{-Lorie Fridell, Robert Lunney, Drew Diamond and Bruce Kubu}^[2]

• "Using race as a key factor in deciding whether to make a traffic stop." _{-General Accounting Office}^[3]

• "In the literature to date, there appear to be at least two clearly distinguishable definitions of the term 'racial profiling': a narrow definition and a broad definition... Under the narrow definition, racial profiling occurs when a police officer stops, questions, arrests, and/or searches someone solely on the basis of the person's race or ethnicity... Under the broader definition, racial profiling occurs whenever police routinely use race as a factor that, along with an accumulation of other factors, causes an officer to react with suspicion and take action."_{-Jim Cleary}^[4]

• "Use by law enforcement personnel of an individual’s race or ethnicity as a factor in articulating reasonable suspicion to stop, question or arrest an individual, unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying description of a specific suspect for a specific crime." _{-Office of the Arizona Attorney General}^[5]

In the United States[link]

Legality[link]

At a Federal level, racial profiling is challenged by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause and the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.

In his February 27, 2001, address to a Joint Session of Congress, President George W. Bush declared, "Racial profiling is wrong, and we will end it in America. In so doing, we will not hinder the work of our nation's brave police officers. They protect us every day -- often at great risk. But by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve."^[6]

In June 2001, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice, awarded the Northeastern research team a grant to create this web-based Racial Profiling Data Collection Resource Center. It now maintains a website designed to be a central clearinghouse for police agencies, legislators, community leaders, social scientists, legal researchers, and journalists to access information about current data collection efforts, legislation and model policies, police-community initiatives, and methodological tools that can be used to collect and analyze racial profiling data. The website contains information on the background of data collection, jurisdictions currently collecting data, community groups, legislation that is pending and enacted in states across the country, and has information on planning and implementing data collection procedures, training officers in to implement these systems, and analyzing and reporting the data and results.^[7]

On February 28, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft said "This administration... has been opposed to racial profiling and has done more to indicate its opposition than ever in history. The President said it’s wrong and we’ll end it in America, and I subscribe to that. Using race… as a proxy for potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforcement undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement."^[6]

In June 2003, the Department of Justice issued its Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies forbidding racial profiling by federal law enforcement officials.^[8]

Several U.S. states now have reporting requirements. Texas, for example requires all agencies to provide annual reports to its Law Enforcement Commission. The requirement began on September 1, 2001, when the State of Texas passed a law to require all law enforcement agencies in the State to begin collecting certain data in connection to traffic or pedestrian stops beginning on January 1, 2002. Based on that data, the law mandated law enforcement agencies to submit a report to the law enforcement agencies' governing body beginning March 1, 2003 and each year thereafter no later than March 1. The law is found in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure beginning with Article 2.131.^[9] Additionally, on January 1, 2011, all law enforcement agencies began submitting annual reports to the Texas State Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education Commission. The submitted reports can be accessed on the Commission's website for public review.^[10]

History of Policies[link]

Threatened homeland security has been a constant reason to enact policies that permit racial profiling over the years. The history of racial profiling has roots established as early as the beginning of Japanese Interment and in many Supreme Court Cases such as the Terry v. Ohio in 1968. This case gave police officers the agency to stop suspects without probable cause to conduct searches and seizures without violating the Fourth Amendment. The connection of immigrant communities becoming racially profiled as a result of such policies have more recently developed in the passage of policies like the Patriot Act in 2001 and SB1070 in 2010.

Post 9/11, the racial profiling of the Muslim community has occurred under the guise of the Patriot Act passed in order to ensure homeland security.^[11] Border security issues gave rise to the passage of propositions 187 in 1994 and proposition 227 in 1998 (Department of Sociology at the University of California, Riverside). After the passage of SB1070, Mexican immigrant communities in Arizona have been targeted through the practice of racial profiling.^[12] Thinking of the notions homeland security and what it means to be an illegal alien creates a dialogue towards understanding why policies have been enacted to target immigrant communities of color for many years in the United States.

SB 1070[link]

In April 2010, Arizona enacted a law that would require law-enforcement officers to verify the citizenship of individuals they stop if they have reasonable suspicion. SB1070 was a way to help maintain control of immigration problems facing the United States. The law specifically states that “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released”. United States federal law requires that all aliens who remain in the United States for more than 30 days are to register with the U.S. government and to have all registration documents with them at all time. Arizona made it a misdemeanor crime for an alien 14 years of age and older to be found without carrying these documents at all times. Critics of this policy have questioned “what will the statute's effect on those who are legal residents of the United States?” A concern from this is that law-enforcement officials may not consider “race, color, or national origin” in the enforcement of the law, except under the circumstances allowed under the United States and Arizona constitutions.^[13] The Arizona Senate Bill 1070 has effect the Latino and Arab or Middle Eastern communities are the most affected due to certain preconceptions, beliefs and stereotypes.

Support[link]

Naiz Khan, target of an FBI terror investigation alleges racial profiling -- and lost his job as a result. In this image he is speaking at a press conference in Flushing, Queens.

Many in the law enforcement community argue that although unfortunate, the use of ethnic and racial profiling is both effective and necessary. The argument is made that due to socio-economic and demographic factors as unfortunate and undesirable as it might be, crime is simply higher in some communities that have a large minority population and that to ignore that fact due to a sense of moral integrity would be both morally and professionally wrong. As an example, an airport interdiction task force at Los Angeles International Airport compiled a report of those arrested based solely on officer observations, and when that report was compared to one of those arrested based on alerts driven by the airline passenger alert computer system the percentages were almost identical. Examples such as these support the conclusion that although factors such as race may be taken into account, it does not necessarily indicate that a prejudicial bias is present.

If the success of law enforcement is defined as identifying and taking action against violators, then racial profiling would allow officers to be more effective.^[14]

A majority of Americans support profiling as necessary "in today's society".^[15]

Criticism[link]

Critics of racial profiling argue that the individual rights of a suspect are violated if race is used as a factor in that suspicion. Notably, civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have stated that racial profiling is a form of discrimination, stating, "Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled."^[16]

Critics argue that individuals should not be more or less likely to encounter law enforcement officers or other government agents based on racial or ethnic traits.

Responding to such criticisms are local community groups who seek to collect data, analyze trends and how they might correspond to public perceptions of profiling, and solicit ideas aimed at diminishing cultural and racial biases.^[17]

In practice[link]

• Despite promises to the contrary before the September 11 attacks in 2001, racial profiling surged during the presidency of George W. Bush, coinciding with the initiation of the War on Terror. Claims of profiling have been particularly focused on Naturalization, Customs, and Border Patrol agents accused of making Muslims' entry or re-entry into the United States more difficult and pressure-laden than that of their peers. According to a 2011 report from Brown University, this sort of profiling has been encouraged in public discourse by political TV personalities like Bill O'Reilly.^{[citation needed]}

• The airline ticketing agent who checked in Mohamed Atta, the leader of the September 11 attacks, and a companion, would afterwards say that looking at the pair his first reaction was to think, "If this doesn't look like two Arab terrorists, I've never seen two Arab terrorists." But he immediately felt guilty, and had no legal grounds to search on the basis of their suspicious appearance had he wished to.^[18]

• In December 2001, an American citizen of Middle Eastern descent named Assem Bayaa cleared all the security checks at Los Angeles airport and attempted to board a flight to New York. Upon boarding, he was told that he made the passengers uncomfortable by being on board the plane and was asked to leave. Once off the plane, he wasn't searched or questioned any further and the only consolation he was given was a boarding pass for the next flight. He filed a lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against United Airlines. United Airlines filed a counter motion which was dismissed by a district judge on October 11, 2002. In June 2005, the ACLU announced a settlement between Bayaa and United Airlines who still disputed Bayaa's allegations, but noted that the settlement "was in the best interest of all".^[19]

• In the case of racial profiling drivers, also known as "Driving While Black", the police officers’ judgments suggest biased policing on colored drivers.^[20] The term "Driving While Black" arose as a play on the U.S Crime "Driving While Intoxicated". It refers to the Criminalization of black drivers. Black drivers felt that they were being pulled over by law enforcement officers simply because of their skin color. Police officers observe many traffic violations throughout the day but they do not pull over every violator they see. So what triggers officers to decide whom to pull over? “Fear of crime itself,” explains a police officer whom stops African Americans or other colored races.^[20] A good example is the one of Québécois Joel Debellefeuille. Joel was pulled over by a police officer. The police report stated that the Québécois name "didn't match his skin tone."^[21] However, some argue the “veil of darkness” hypothesis, which states that police are less likely to know the race of a driver before they make a stop at nighttime as opposed to in the daytime. Referring the veil of darkness hypothesis, it is suggested that if the race distribution of drivers stopped during the day differs from that of drivers stopped at night, officers are engaging in racial profiling. For example, in one study done by Jeffrey Grogger and Greg Ridgeway, the veil of darkness hypothesis was used to determine whether or not racial profiling in traffic stops occurs in Oakland, California. If they know the racial variation in traffic patterns, driving behavior, and police intervention, then they can determine whether or not racial profiling occurs in the traffic stops made during the daytime and after dark. The conductors found that there was little evidence of racial profiling in traffic stops made in this particular city.^[22] Legislation has been proposed with the intent of ending racial profiling in traffic stops. There have been many states that have begun collecting data on the details of the traffic stops in order to monitor racial profiling. Profiling is on an individual basis and it is difficult to pinpoint the cause of arrests or stops since the studies allow officers to change their behavior accordingly. For example, in the court case of City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, Adolf Lyons was stopped by police officers because of a faulty taillight; police officers choked him until he was unconscious.^[23] Plaintiffs in the case promoted equality yet it was ultimately dependent on appearance and race. “Driving While Black” can be significantly defeated when the public comes together to take a stance against the racial profiling the African American and Latino population face. When the public voices their opinions on this issue and begins to stir up controversy, the media will become involved. This media coverage can make or break the police departments and government officials behind the “driving while black” scandal. In a recent journal comparing the 1990s to the present, studies have proven that when the community criticized police for targeting the black community during traffic stops it received more media coverage and toned down racial profiling. However, whenever there was a significant lack of media coverage or concern with racial profiling, the amount of arrests and traffic stops for the African-American community would significantly rise again.^[24]

Urban Communities[link]

Inner city residents of Latino communities are subjected to racial profiling because of theories such as the “gang suppression model”. The “gang suppression model” is often the basis for increased policing because the theory is based on the idea that Latinos are violent and out of control and therefore “in need of suppression”.^[25] Based on research, the criminalization of a people can lead to abuses of power on behalf of law enforcement.^[25]

On some occasions immigration authorities are known to target the residents of barrios with the use of violent and discriminatory policing based on racial profiling practices. There has been research done through random sampling in the South Tucson, Arizona area where this is the case.^[25] Immigration raids are often carried out at places of gathering and cultural expression such as grocery stores based on the fluency of language of a person (e.g. being bilingual especially in Spanish) and skin color of a person.^[26] Often the immigration raids are done with a disregard to due-process. These raids lead people from these communities to distrust law enforcement and not see them as a source of security and justice.^[26]

Islamophobia[link]

Legality[link]

It is clear that the U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination based on race, but the racial profiling of the Islamic community continues and has grown since 9/11. As Samuel Gross and Debra Livingston argue, since September 11, the meaning of racial profiling changed and “is more likely to mean security checks or federal investigations that target Muslim men from Middle Eastern countries, in order to try to catch terrorist.” They also claim that there has been an increase in support for racial profiling. Before the attacks, more than 80% of Americans were against racial profiling and now more than 60% are in favor.^[27] This means more support for the USA Patriot Act of 2001 which “has undermined many of the fundamental constitutional rights of Arab and South Asian Americans."^[28] The Patriot Act used terrorism and national security as an excuse to make it legal to target Muslim communities.

Since the attacks of 9/11, the word terrorist has been associated with Muslim, and the Patriot Act was made to stop “terrorists” from harming the US. Because of the Patriot Act, “Arabs, Arab Americans and Muslims were disproportionately subjected to a myriad of abuses including secret evidence, denial of due process, indefinite detentions, airline profiling, illegal wiretapping and surveillance."^[29] The FBI and INS have arrested more than a thousand noncitizens which mostly happened to be Arab and/or Muslim even though they had no reason to arrest them.

In Practice[link]

The attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11 has led to targeting of Muslims in the United States as potential terrorists. Muslims and other Middle Easterners are profiled as potential terrorist and are targeted by the national government through preventive measures similar to those practiced by local law enforcement.^[30] The national government has passed laws, such as the Patriot Act of 2001, to increase surveillance of potential threats to national threat as a result of the events that occurred during 9/11.^[31] It is argued that the passage of these laws and provisions by the national government leads to justification of preventative methods, such as racial profiling, that has been controversial for racial profiling and leads to further minority distrust in the national government.^[32] One of the techniques used by the FBI to target Muslims was monitoring 100 mosques and business in Washington DC and threatened to deport Muslims who did not agree to serve as informers.^[33] The FBI denied to be taking part of blanket profiling and argued that they were trying to build trust within the Muslim community.^[34]

The events of 9/11 also led to restrictions on immigration laws.^[35] The government imposed stricter immigration quotas to maintain national security at their national borders. In 2002, men over sixteen years old who entered the country from twenty-five Middle Eastern countries and North Korea were required to be photographed, fingerprinted, interviewed and have their financial information copied, and had to register again before leaving the country.^[36]

Criminal Profiling[link]

When confronted with accusations of racial profiling the police don’t believe that they participate in it. They believe that they use numerous factors (such as race, interactions, and dress) to determine if a person is involved in criminal activity. They conclude that the job of policing is far more imperative then to continuously worry about minorities or interest groups crying foul or complaining about being victims of unfair targeting.^[37]

Law Enforcement[link]

Racial profiling not only occurs on the streets how also in many Institutions. Much like the book "Famous all over Town" where the author Danny Santiago mentions this type of Racism throughout the novel. Racial Profiling is huge in Law Enforcement, where this type of behavior can risk the lives of innocent people. In a trusted source it says here "It is argued that, given the assumption that criminals are currently being punished too severely in Western countries, the apprehension of more criminals may not constitute a reason in favor of racial profiling at all."(Ryberg) It has been stated in a scholarly journal that for over 30 years the use of racial and/or demographic profiling by local authorities and higher level law enforcement's continue to proceed. NYPD Street cops use racial profiling more often, due to the widespread patterns. They first frisk them to check whether they have enough evidence to be even arrested for the relevant crime. "As a practical matter, the stops display a measurable racial disparity: black and Hispanic people generally represent more than 85 percent of those stopped by the police, though their combined populations make up a small share of the city’s racial composition."(Baker)

Some general examples of racial profiling by police[link]

A few examples of racial profiling by police include: • An African American man standing on a corner waiting for a bus is stopped and questioned regarding why he is standing there and where he is going. • A Hispanic driver is stopped in a “white” neighbourhood because he “doesn’t belong there” or “looks out of place.” • A group of black teenagers are pulled over because of the kind of car they are driving. • Any person of color stopped for minor traffic violations and then questioned about where there are going, or if they have illegal drugs or weapons in their possession. Racial profiling is also used as a basis of discrimination for employment, services, housing, etc., or to give preferential treatment to an individual or group of people because of their race or ethnicity.^[37]

Racial profiling in practice[link]

On September 14, 2001, an Indian American motorist and three family members were pulled over and ticketed by a Maryland state trooper because their car had broken taillights. The trooper interrogated the family, questioned them about their nationality, and asked for proof of citizenship. When the motorist said that their passports were at home, the officer allegedly stated, "You are lying. You are Arabs involved in terrorism." He ordered them out of the car, had them put their hands on the hood, and searched the car. When he discovered a knife in a toolbox, the officer handcuffed the driver and later reported that the driver "wore and carried a butcher knife, a dangerous deadly weapon, concealed upon and about his person." The driver was detained for several hours but eventually released.^[38]

Empirical evidence[link]

Statistical data demonstrates, that although policing practices and policies vary widely across the United States, a large disparity between racial groups in regards to traffic stops and searches. However, whether this is disparity is due to racial profiling or the fact that different races are involved in crime in different rates, is still highly debated. Based on academic search, various studies have been conducted regarding the existence of racial profiling in traffic and pedestrian stops.For motor vehicle searches academic research showed that the probability of a successful search is very similar across races. This suggests that police officers are not motivated by racial preferences but by the desire to maximize the probability of a successful search. Similar evidence has been found for pedestrian stops, with identical ratios of stops to arrests for different races.^[14][39] Because of the controversial nature if this topic various studies yielded different results. The studies have been published in various Academic Journals aimed towards Academic professionals as well practitioners such as law enforcers. Some of these journals include, Police Quarterly and the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, so that both sides of the argument are present and evaluated. Of those gathered the most noted study refuting racial profiling was the conducted using the veil of darkness hypothesis stating that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for officers to discern race in the twilight hours. The results of this study concluded that the ratio of different races stopped by New York cops is about the same for all races tested.^[40] Some of the most referenced organizations, who offer evidence on the existence of racial profiling, noted are The American Civil Liberties Union, which has conducted studies various major U.S. cities, and RAND. In a study conducted in have Cincinnati, Ohio it was concluded that “Blacks were between three and five times more likely to (a) be asked if they were carrying drugs or weapons, (b) be asked to leave the vehicle, (c) be searched, (d) have a passenger searched, and (e) have the vehicle physically searched in a study conducted. This conclusion was based on the analysis of 313, randomly selected, traffic stop police tapes gathered from 2003 to 2004.^[41]

Public Opinion[link]

Perceptions of Race and Safety[link]

In a particular study, Higgins, Gabbidon, and Vito studied the relationship between public opinion on racial profiling in conjunction with their viewpoint of race relations and their perceived awareness of safety. It was found that race relations had a statistical correlation with the legitimacy of racial profiling. Specifically, results showed that those who believed that racial profiling was widespread and that racial tension would never be fixed were more likely to be opposed to racial profiling than those who did not believe racial profiling was as widespread or that racial tensions would be fixed eventually. On the other hand, in reference to perception of safety, the research concluded that one’s perception of safety had no influence on public opinion of racial profiling. Higgins, Gabbidon, and Vito acknowledge that this may not have been the case immediately after 9/11, but state that any support of racial profiling based on safety was “short-lived”.^[42]

Influence of Religious Affiliation[link]

One particular study focused on individuals who self-identified as religiously affiliated and their relationship with racial profiling. By using national survey data from October 2001, researcher Phillip H. Kim studied which individuals were more likely to support racial profiling. The research concludes that individuals that identified themselves as either Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant showed higher statistical numbers that illustrated support for racial profiling in comparison to individuals who identified themselves as non-religious.^[43]

The Context of Terrorism and Crime[link]

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, according to Johnson, a new debate concerning the appropriateness of racial profiling in the context of terrorism took place. According to Johnson, prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks the debate on racial profiling within the public targeted primarily African-Americans and Latino Americans with enforced policing on crime and drugs. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the focus of the racial profiling debate from street crime and “driving while Black” to terrorism and “flying while Arab.” According to a June 4–5, 2002 FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 54% of Americans approved of using “racial profiling to screen Arab male airline passengers.” A 2002 survey by Public Agenda tracked the attitudes toward the racial profiling of Blacks and people of Middle Eastern descent. In this survey, 52% of Americans said there was “no excuse” for law enforcement to look at African Americans with greater suspicion and scrutiny because they believe they are more likely to commit crimes, but only 21% said there was “no excuse” for extra scrutiny of Middle Eastern people.^[44]

However, using data from an internet survey based experiment performed in 2006 on a random sample of 574 adult university students, a study was conducted that examined public approval for the use of racial profiling to prevent crime and terrorism. It was found that approximately one third of students approved the use of racial profiling in general. Furthermore, it was found that students were equally likely to approve of the use of racial profiling to prevent crime as to prevent terrorism-33% and 35.8% respectively. The survey also asked respondents whether they would approve of racial profiling across different investigative contexts. It was found that 23.8% of people approved of law enforcement using racial profiling as a means to stop and question someone in a terrorism context while 29.9% of people approved of racial profiling in a crime context for the same situation. It was found that 25.3% of people approved of law enforcement using racial profiling as a means to search someone’s bags or packages in a terrorism context while 33.5% of people approved of racial profiling in a crime context for the same situation. It was also found that 16.3% of people approved of law enforcement wire tapping a person’s phone based upon racial profiling in the context of terrorism while 21.4% of people approved of racial profiling in a crime context for the same situation. It was also found that 14.6% of people approved of law enforcement searching someone’s home based upon racial profiling in a terrorism context while 18.2% of people approved of racial profiling in a crime context for the same situation.^[44]

The study also found that white students were more likely to approve of racial profiling to prevent terrorism than nonwhite students. However, it was found that white students and nonwhite students held the same views about racial profiling in the context of crime. It was also found that foreign born students were less likely to approve of racial profiling to prevent terrorism than non-foreign born students while both groups shared similar views on racial profiling in the context of crime.^[44]

In other countries[link]

Canada[link]

Accusations of racial profiling of visible minorities who accuse police of targeting them due to their ethnic background is a growing concern in Canada. In 2005, the Kingston Police released the first study ever in Canada which pertains to racial profiling. The study focused on in the city of Kingston, a small city where most of the inhabitants are white. The study showed that black skinned people were 3.7 times more likely to be pulled over by police than white skinned people, while Asian people were less likely to be pulled over than whites or blacks.^[45] Several police organizations condemned this study and suggested more studies like this would make them hesitant to pull over visible minorities.

Canadian Aboriginals are more likely to be charged with crimes, particularly on reserves. The Canadian crime victimization survey does not collect data on the ethnic origin of perpetrators, so comparisons between incidence of victimizations and incidence of charging are impossible.^[46] Although aboriginal persons make up 3.6% of Canada's population, they account for 20% of Canada's prison population. This may show how racial profiling increases effectiveness of police, or be a result of racial profiling, as they are watched more intensely than others.^[47]

In February 2010, an investigation of the Toronto Star daily newspaper found that black people across Toronto were three times more likely to be stopped and documented by police than white people. To a lesser extent, the same seemed true for people described by police as having "brown" skin. This was the result of an analysis of 1.7 million contact cards filled out by Toronto Police officers in the period 2003 - 2008.^[48]

The Ontario Human Rights Commission states that "police services have acknowledged that racial profiling does occur and have taken [and are taking] measures to address [the issue], including upgrading training for officers, identifying officers at risk of engaging in racial profiling, and improving community relations"^[49](Griffiths, 2008, p. 311). Ottawa Police addressed this issue and planned on implementing a new policy regarding officer racially profiling persons, "the policy explicitly forbids officers from investigating or detaining anyone based on their race and will force officers to go through training on racial profiling"^[50](CTV News, 2011). This policy was implemented after the 2008 incident where an African-Canadian woman was strip searched by members of the Ottawa police. There is a video showing the strip search where one witnesses the black woman being held to the ground and the having her bra and shirt cut ripped/cut off by a member of the Ottawa Police Force which was released to the viewing of the public in 2010^[51](CTV News, 2011).

See also[link]

• Affirmative action
• Contempt of cop
• De-policing
• Driving While Black
• Police misconduct
• Race and crime in the United States
• Arrest of Henry Louis Gates
• Edward C. Lawson

References[link]

Resources[link]

Jeff Shantz. 2010. Racial Profiling and Borders: International, Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Lake Mary: Vandeplas).

Ronald Weitzer and Steven Tuch. 2006. Race and Policing in America: Conflict and Reform (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Ryberg, Jesper. "Racial Profiling And Criminal Justice." Journal Of Ethics 15.1/2 (2011): 79-88. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.

Ruiz, James, Jason W. Julseth, and Kathleen H. Winters. "Profiling, Cajun Style: The FBI Investigation?." International Journal Of Police Science & Management 12.3 (2010): 401-425. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.

Baker, Al. "Judge Declines to Dismiss Case Alleging Racial Profiling by City Police in Street Stops." The New York Times. Nytimes.com, 31 Aug. 2011. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <www.nytimes.com>.

Resources[link]

Jeff Shantz. 2010. Racial Profiling and Borders: International, Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Lake Mary: Vandeplas).

External links[link]

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (February 2008)

• An Investigation by the Joint Legislative Task Force on Government Oversight into Racial Profiling Practices by the California Highway Patrol as part of a program known as Operation Pipeline
• Bureau of Justice Criminal Offender Statistics
• Rational Profiling in America's Airports (Law Review Article)
• CBC backgrounder on racial profiling in Canada.
• "Ethnic Profiling: A Rational and Moral Framework", by Robert A. Levy (Cato Institute, October 2, 2001)
• "Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism", By Peter Siggins (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, March 12, 2002)

Joe Arpaio
Arpaio speaking in Phoenix on February 26, 2011
Maricopa County Sheriff
Incumbent
Assumed office January 1, 1993
Preceded by	Tom Agnos
Personal details
Born	Joseph M. Arpaio (1932-06-14) June 14, 1932 (age 80) Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Ava Arpaio
Occupation	Sheriff

Joseph M. "Joe" Arpaio (born June 14, 1932) is the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County in the U.S. state of Arizona. First voted into office in 1992, Arpaio is responsible for law enforcement in Maricopa County. This includes management of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, county jail, courtroom security, prisoner transport, service of warrants, and service of process. Arpaio styles himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff."^[1][2] He is well known for his outspoken stance against illegal immigration.^[3] Arpaio has become a flashpoint for controversy surrounding Arizona's SB1070 anti-illegal immigration act.^[4] He is also known for his investigation of President Barack Obama's citizenship.^[5][6][7]

Arpaio was once widely popular among voters in Arizona.^[8] His popularity has waned since 2007, notably by independent and Republican voters but still has a 57% positive job rating among Republicans; he has been re-elected five times.^[9][10]

History and law enforcement background[link]

Arpaio was born Joseph M. Arpaio in Springfield, Massachusetts on June 14, 1932, to Italian parents both from Lacedonia, Italy.^[11] Arpaio's mother died while giving birth to him, and Arpaio was raised by his father, a grocery store owner. Arpaio completed high school and worked in his father's business until age 18 when he enlisted in the United States Army.^[12]

Arpaio served in the Army from 1950 to 1954 in the Medical Detachment Division and was stationed in France for part of the time as a military policeman.^[13]

Following his discharge in 1954, Arpaio moved to Washington, D.C. and became a police officer, moving in 1957 to Las Vegas, Nevada. He served as a police officer in Las Vegas for six months before being appointed as a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which later became part of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).^[14] During his 25-year tenure with the DEA, he was stationed in Argentina, Turkey and Mexico, and advanced through the ranks to the position of head of the DEA's Arizona branch.^[15]

In 1992, Arpaio successfully campaigned for the office of Maricopa County Sheriff. The voters of Maricopa County re-elected him in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008.^[16]

Arpaio married his wife Ava in 1958. Together, they have two children and four grandchildren.^[17] They currently reside in Fountain Hills, Arizona.^[18]

Actions as Maricopa County Sheriff[link]

Arpaio at the 2011 Veterans Day parade in Phoenix, Arizona, along with his wife Ava

Television[link]

In late 2008 and early 2009, Arpaio came out in Smile...You're Under Arrest!, a three-episode Fox Reality Channel series in which persons with outstanding warrants were tricked into presenting themselves for arrest.^[19]

On June 9, 2011, Arpaio was interviewed on Fox News on KSAZ-TV about a song on iTunes called "F#@K Sheriff Joe" by Contraband, describing him on his deathbed battling his own mortality.^[20]

Jails[link]

Arpaio's practices include serving inmates surplus food^[21] and limiting meals to twice daily.^[22] He has also banned inmates from possessing "sexually explicit material" including Playboy magazine after female officers complained that inmates openly masturbated while viewing them or harassed the officers by comparing their anatomy to that of the nude models in the publications. The ban was challenged on First Amendment grounds but upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.^[23]

In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station he calls KJOE.^[24] Arpaio's radio station broadcasts classical music, opera, Frank Sinatra hits, patriotic music and educational programming. It operates from the basement of the county jail for five days a week, four hours each day.

In an ongoing case, federal judge Neil V. Wake ruled in 2008 and 2010 that the Maricopa County jails violated the constitutional rights of inmates in medical and other care related issues.^[25][26]

Tent City[link]

Arpaio set up a "Tent City" as an extension of the Maricopa County Jail.^[27] Arpaio has described Tent City as a concentration camp.^[28] Tent City is located in a yard next to a more permanent structure containing toilets, showers, and an area for meals.^[29] It has become notable particularly because of Phoenix's extreme temperatures.

On July 2, 2011, when the temperature in Phoenix hit 118 °F (48 °C), Arpaio measured the temperature inside Tent City at 145 °F (63 °C). Some inmates complained that fans near their beds were not working, and that their shoes were melting from the heat.^[30] During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceeded 110 °F (43 °C), Arpaio said to complaining inmates, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents, have to wear full body armor, and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."^[31] In 1997, Amnesty International published a report on Arpaio's jails which found that Tent City is not an "adequate or humane alternative to housing inmates in suitable ... jail facilities."^[32] Tent City is criticized by groups contending that there are violations of human and constitutional rights.^[33] Those critical of Arpaio also point out that the vast majority of inmates within Tent City have not been convicted; rather, they are merely awaiting trial.^[34]

Volunteer chain gangs[link]

In 1995, Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs. In 1996, he expanded the chain gang concept by instituting female volunteer chain gangs.^[35] Female inmates work seven hours a day (7 a.m. to 2 p.m.), six days a week. He has also instituted the world's first all-juvenile volunteer chain gang; volunteers earn high school credit toward a diploma.^[36]

Pink underwear[link]

One of his most visible public-relations actions was the introduction of pink underwear, which the Maricopa County Sheriff's website cites as being, "world-famous."^{[citation needed]} Arpaio subsequently started to sell customized pink boxers (with the Maricopa County Sheriff's logo and "Go Joe") as a fund-raiser for Sheriff's Posse Association. Despite allegations of misuse of funds received from these sales, Arpaio declined to provide an accounting for the money.^[37]

Arpaio's success in gaining press coverage with the pink underwear resulted in his extending the use of the color. He introduced pink handcuffs, using the event to promote his book, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America's Toughest Sheriff.^[38]

Selective Service registration and organ donors[link]

In 2001, he was the first sheriff to require all inmates aged 18 and over to register for the Selective Service System. (Registration is required by federal law for all U.S. males between 18 and 26 years of age, as well as for resident aliens of the same age, regardless of their immigration status.) Since 2001, a total of 28,000 inmates (including 9,000 aliens) have registered for Selective Service.^[39][40]

Arpaio also started the "Have a Heart" program in which inmates may volunteer to be organ donors.^[40]

Sheriff's posse[link]

Building upon Maricopa County's 50-year-old program, Arpaio expanded the all-volunteer citizen posse through heavy recruiting. The volunteers perform many duties for the sheriff's office:

• Search and rescue
• Emergency communications
• Prisoner transport
• Traffic control
• Backup for sworn deputies
• Office administrative duties
• Holiday Mall Patrol (which provides motorist assistance and security for shoppers during the holiday shopping season)
• Deadbeat parent details targeting men and women with outstanding arrest warrants for failure to pay child support
• Assisting in immigration sweeps
• Current investigation of President Barack Obama's birth certificate

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. standing in the blue suit behind Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce

In November 2010, Arpaio created an armed illegal immigration operations posse, to help his deputies enforce immigration law. Members of this posse include celebrity actors Steven Seagal, Lou Ferrigno, and Peter Lupus.^[41]

Controversies[link]

Arpaio has been a controversial sheriff. His practices have been criticized by government agencies such as the United States Department of Justice, United States District Courts, and organizations such as Amnesty International,^[42] the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Arizona Ecumenical Council, the American Jewish Committee,^[43] and the Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League.^[44] The editorial board of The New York Times called Arpaio "America's Worst Sheriff".^[45] Controversial issues surrounding Arpaio have included allegations of racial profiling, in which the ACLU has sued the sheriff.^[46][47]

Unconstitutional jail conditions[link]

Federal Judge Neil V. Wake ruled in 2008, and again in 2010, that the Maricopa County jails violated the constitutional rights of inmates in medical and other care related issues.^[25][26] This ruling was a result of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, which alleged that "Arpaio routinely abused pre-trial detainees at Maricopa County Jail by feeding them moldy bread, rotten fruit and other contaminated food, housing them in cells so hot as to endanger their health, denying them care for serious medical and mental health needs and keeping them packed as tightly as sardines in holding cells for days at a time during intake."^[48]

In a ruling issued in October 2010, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Arpaio to follow Judge Wake's 2008 ruling, which required Arpaio to end severe overcrowding and ensure all detainees receive necessary medical and mental health care, be given uninterrupted access to all medications prescribed by correctional medical staff, be given access to exercise and to sinks, toilets, toilet paper and soap and be served food that meets or exceeds the U.S. Department of Agriculture's dietary guidelines.^{[49][50][51][52]}

Lack of cooperation with Department of Justice[link]

In June 2008,^[53] the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division began an investigation of Arpaio amid accusations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures. The investigation was conducted under the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination related to programs that receive federal funds. On July 7, 2009, Arpaio held a press conference, and announced that he would not cooperate with the investigation, either by providing documents, or permitting interviews with personnel. On September 2, 2010, the Department of Justice filed suit against Arpaio,^[54] to compel his cooperation with the investigation. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department stated that it was unprecedented for an agency to refuse to cooperate with a Title VI investigation, and that this is the first time the Justice Department has sued to compel access to documents and facilities.^[55][56][57] The suit was settled in June 2011, after Arpaio allowed federal officials to interview Sheriff's office employees, and review hundreds of thousands of documents for the investigation.^{[58] [59]}

Racial profiling[link]

On December 15, 2011, the Justice Department released their findings after a 3-year investigation of Arpaio's office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency's top level. The report stated that under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has "a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos" that "reaches the highest levels of the agency."^[60]

The Justice Department accused Arpaio of engaging in "unconstitutional policing" by unfairly targeting Latinos for detention and arrest, and retaliating against critics.^[61] In the report, a Justice Department expert concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history.^[62]

Loss of authority to identify illegal immigrants[link]

Based on the Justice Department report on discriminatory policing practices within the MCSO, on December 15, 2011, the United States Department of Homeland Security revoked the MCSO's federal authority to identify and detain illegal immigrants.^[63]

In a separate action on December 23, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow enjoined Arpaio and the MCSO from "detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States," halting anti-illegal immigration enforcement by MCSO in its current form.^[64]

Federal grand jury inquiry[link]

As of December 2011, a federal grand jury had been investigating Arpaio's office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009 and was specifically examining the investigative work of the sheriff's anti-public corruption squad.^[65]

Abuse of power[link]

In February 2010, Judge John Leonardo found that Arpaio "misused the power of his office to target members of the (Board of Supervisors) for criminal investigation".^[66]

In 2008, a federal grand jury began an inquiry of Arpaio for abuse of power, in connection with an FBI investigation.^[67][68] Arpaio is being investigated for politically motivated and "bogus" prosecutions, which a former US Attorney called "utterly unacceptable".^[67][68] Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has called Arpaio's "long list" of questionable prosecutions "a reign of terror".^[68]

The targets of Arpaio's alleged abuse of power have included:

• Phil Gordon, Phoenix Mayor^[67]
• Dan Saban, Arpaio's 2004 and 2008 opponent for the office of Sheriff of Maricopa County^[67]
• Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General^[67]
• David Smith, Maricopa County Manager^[67]
• The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors^[67]
• Barbara Mundell, Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge^[67]
• Anna Baca, former Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge^[69]
• Gary Donahoe, Maricopa Superior Court Criminal Presiding Judge^[67]
• Daniel Pochoda, ACLU attorney^[67]
• Sandra Dowling, former Maricopa County School Superintendent^[68]
• Mike Lacy, Editor, Phoenix New Times^[68]

As of July 2010, only Sandra Dowling has been successfully prosecuted.^[68] Indicted on 25 felony counts, Dowling eventually pled guilty to patronage for giving a summer job to her daughter, a single class-2 misdemeanor which was not among the original counts, although as part of the plea bargain she also agreed to recuse herself from the Maricopa County Regional School District. Dowling has since filed suit, alleging negligence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and several constitutional violations.^[70]

Feud with Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa Superior Court[link]

Over the two years prior to September 2010, feuding between Arpaio and former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas on one side, and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on the other side cost at least $5.6 million, most of which was paid to private attorneys. Arpaio and Thomas filed several lawsuits against the Board of Supervisors, including a federal civil-racketeering suit against the supervisors, four judges and attorneys who work with the county. Arpaio and Thomas lost every case, either by ruling of the courts, or by dropping the case.^[71]

In early 2010, Arpaio and Thomas sought to have a grand jury indict a number of Maricopa County Judges, Maricopa County Supervisors, and employees of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The grand jury, in an unusual rebuke, ordered the investigation ended. This action has been described as meaning that "...the case is so bad, there's no further evidence that could be brought [to substantiate it]". Legal experts agree this is a rare move.^[72] Thomas and a subordinate attorney on his County Attorney staff faced a hearing later in 2011 before the Ethics Committee of the Arizona Bar, the result of which was a number of possible sanctions up to permanent loss of their law licenses.

In November and December 2010, lawsuits naming Arpaio were filed by Judge Gary Donahoe, retired Maricopa County Superior Court judges Barbara Mundell, Anna Baca, and Kenneth Fields, County Supervisor Don Stapley, Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson, and Susan Schuerman, executive assistant to Supervisor Don Stapley.^{[73][74][75][76][77][78]} Conley Wolfswinkel (a business associate of Stapley) filed suit in January, 2011.^[79][80] Other targets of Arpaio's investigations, including Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox,^[69] and Maricopa Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson^[72] have filed notices of claims (the precursor to filing suit) totalling about $56 million dollars.^[72]

Election law violation[link]

During the month of July 2010, a committee established by Arpaio, the Campaign to Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012, funded advertisements critical of Rick Romley, a candidate in the Republican Primary for Maricopa County Attorney and Arizona Attorney General candidate Tom Horne, despite the fact that Arpaio is not currently running for re-election (his term does not expire until the end of 2012).^[81]

An order issued on the behalf of the Maricopa Elections Department on August 24, 2010, found that one of the advertisements, a direct mailer, advocated the defeat of Romley, and was an in-kind contribution to Bill Montgomery (Romley's primary election opponent), in violation of Arizona election law. The order stated that the Campaign to Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012 will be fined three times the amount of money that was spent on the mailer.^[82] In September, 2010, Arpaio's campaign was fined $153,978 in this matter.^[83] Montgomery ultimately defeated Romley in the primary election, with Romley stating Arpaio's ads "hurt" his results.^[84]

Misuse of funds[link]

An analysis by the Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget, completed in April 2011, found Arpaio had misspent almost $100 million over the previous 5 years.^[85][86][87]

The analysis showed that money from a restricted detention fund which could only legally be used to pay for jail items, such as food, detention officers' salaries and equipment, was used to pay employees to patrol Maricopa County.^[85] The analysis also showed that many Sheriff's Office employees, whose salaries were paid from the restricted detention fund, were working job assignments different from those recorded in their personnel records. Arpaio's office kept a separate set of personnel books detailing actual work assignments, different from information kept on the county's official human-resources records.^[86]

Arpaio used the detention fund to pay for investigations of political rivals, and activities involving his human-smuggling unit.^[85][86]

The analysis also showed a number of inappropriate spending items, including a trip to Alaska where deputies stayed at a fishing resort, and trips to Disneyland.^[86][88]

Separate investigations by The Arizona Republic uncovered widespread abuse of public funds and county policies by Arpaio's office, including high-ranking employees routinely charging expensive meals and stays at luxury hotels on their county credit cards.^[89]

The Republic also found that a restricted jail enhancement fund was improperly used to pay for out-of-state training, a staff party at a local amusement park, and a $456,000 bus, which was purchased by Arpaio in violation of county procurement rules.^[85][90]

Munnell memo[link]

In September 2010, a 63 page internal memo, written by Maricopa Deputy Chief Frank Munnell, was made public. The memo alleged years of misconduct and mismanagement by Arpaio's second in command and other top MCSO officers, including the use of a public-corruption task force to conduct politically motivated probes into political opponents. The memo alleged that top officials in the MCSO "willfully and intentionally committed criminal acts by attempting to obstruct justice, tamper with witnesses, and destroy evidence."^[91] Arpaio forwarded the memo to the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, requesting they conduct an administrative investigation. Former top MCSO staffers claimed that Arpaio knew of the acts alleged in the Munnell memo, but took no action to stop them.^[92] Arpaio has not commented publicly on the allegations.

In October 2010, the US Attorney for Arizona confirmed that the FBI and Department of Justice had received copies of the Munnell memo, and were conducting criminal investigations into its allegations.^[93]

Adam Cox[link]

Adam Eugene Cox was arrested in Knoxville, Tennessee in January 2012 for making death threats against Arpaio. In October 2011, Cox posted the Internet message "I plan to kill Arpaio first. He will be filled with a thousand bullet holes before the year is out. He won't (expletive removed) with Obama." On March 14, 2012, he was convicted^[94] of harassment and sentenced to a "bootcamp" probation^[95] and ordered to pay court costs. He was also ordered to attend anger management counseling and maintain no contact with the sheriff.

Investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate[link]

On March 1, 2012, Arpaio and members of his Cold Case Posse held a news conference announcing their belief that President Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate, released by the White House on April 27, 2011,^[96] is a computer-generated forgery. Additionally, the Posse’s six-month-long investigation included an examination of President Obama’s Selective Service card and contended that it, also, is a forgery. Much of the evidence supporting their claims was presented at that press conference and at a second press conference held on March 31, 2012.^{[citation needed]}

Department of Justice Racial Profiling Lawsuit[link]

On May 10, 2012, the United States Department of Justice filed suit against Arpaio, the MCSO, and Maricopa County, alleging that "The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio have engaged and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of unlawful discriminatory police conduct directed at Latinos in Maricopa County and jail practices that unlawfully discriminate against Latino prisoners with limited English language skills."^[97] A DOJ representative said that the agency was left with no choice but to file suit after Arpaio's attorneys balked at a demand for a court-appointed monitor to ensure the Sheriff's Office complies with any settlement terms. Arpaio has rejected the notion of a court-appointed monitor, and denied that the MCSO engages in racial profiling.^[98][99]

Election results[link]

2000 election results[link]

2004 election results[link]

2007 failed recall petition[link]

In November 2007, a group calling itself Arizonans for the U.S. Constitution and Recall of Joe Arpaio filed the paperwork to begin an effort to recall Arpaio and County Prosecutor Thomas from office for allegedly disobeying and violating the United States Constitution and abuse of power.^[101] Their petition to get a recall question for the two officials onto the next general election ballot failed when the group was unable to collect the more than 200,000 registered voter signatures required.^[102] In a survey taken by the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, while the petition was in circulation, nearly three out of four respondents opposed the recall, and 65 percent of the respondents held a positive opinion of Arpaio.^[103]

2008 election results[link]

Books[link]

• Joe Arpaio and Len Sherman, America's Toughest Sheriff: How We Can Win the War Against Crime, (1996). Summit Publishing Group, ISBN 1-56530-202-8
• Joe Arpaio and Len Sherman, Joe's Law: America's Toughest Sheriff Takes on Illegal Immigration, Drugs, and Everything Else that Threatens America, (2008). AMACOM, ISBN 0-8144-0199-6

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Joe Arpaio

	Arizona portal
	Biography portal
	Law enforcement/Law enforcement topics portal

• Official Bio
• Official Election Website
• Local News Coverage of Arpaio from KPHO.com and CBS 5 News (KPHO-TV)
• Local News Coverage of Arpaio from azfamily.com and KTVK-3TV

Shahrukh Khan
Shahrukh Khan at TAG Heuer Press Conference.
Born	(1965-11-02) 2 November 1965 (age 46) New Delhi, India
Residence	Mumbai, Maharashtra, India[1]
Other names	King Khan, SRK, King of Bollywood, The Baadshah of Bollywood[2]
Occupation	Actor, producer, television presenter
Years active	1988—present
Spouse	Gauri Khan (1991—present)
Children	2

Shahrukh Khan (pronounced [‘ʃaːɦrəx ˈxaːn]; born 2 November 1965), often credited as Shah Rukh Khan and informally referred to as SRK, is an Indian film actor. Known as "The King of Bollywood", Khan has acted in over 70 Hindi films.^[3][4][5] He has won fourteen Filmfare Awards from thirty nominations for his work in Indian films and shares the record for the highest number of Best Actor awards with Dilip Kumar, eight wins. In 2005, the Government of India honoured him with the Padma Shri for his contributions towards Indian cinema.

After graduating with a Bachelor's degree in economics, he started his career appearing in theatre and several television serials in the late 1980s and later made his Hindi film debut in 1992 with Deewana. Early in his career he was recognised for his unconventional choice of negative roles in films such as Darr (1993), Baazigar (1993) and Anjaam (1994). Since then he has played leading roles in a wide variety of film genres, including romantic films, comedies, thrillers, action films, sport films, and historical dramas among others.

Eleven of the films he has acted in have accumulated gross earnings of over 1 billion (US$19.95 million).^[6] Khan's films such as Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (1995), Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (1998), Devdas (2002), Chak De! India (2007), Om Shanti Om (2007), Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (2008), and Ra.One (2011) remain some of Bollywood's biggest hits, while films like Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham... (2001), Kal Ho Naa Ho (2003), Veer-Zaara (2004), Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (2006), My Name Is Khan (2010), and Don 2 (2011) have been top-grossing Indian productions in the overseas markets thus making him one of the most successful leading actors of Hindi cinema.^[7]

In addition to movie acting, Khan is a television presenter, a regular stage performer, and a social activist. He is the founder/owner of two production companies: Dreamz Unlimited and Red Chillies Entertainment and, along with actress Juhi Chawla and her husband Jay Mehta, the owner of the Indian Premier League cricket team Kolkata Knight Riders. Khan is considered to be one of the biggest movie stars in history, with a fan following claimed to number in the billions.^[3][8] He has an estimated net worth of over 25 billion (US$540 million).^[9][10] In 2008, Newsweek named Khan one of the 50 most powerful people in the world.^[3]

Early life and background[link]

Khan was born on 2 November 1965 to Muslim parents of Pathan descent in New Delhi, India.^[11][12] His father, Taj Mohammed Khan, was an Indian independence activist from Peshawar, British India. According to Khan, his paternal grandfather was originally from Afghanistan.^[13] His mother, Lateef Fatima, was the adopted daughter of Major General Shah Nawaz Khan of the Janjua Rajput clan, who served in the Indian National Army.^[14] Khan's father came to New Delhi from Qissa Khawani Bazaar in Peshawar before the partition of India,^[15] Ethnically, he describes himself as being half-Pathan through his father and half-Hyderabadi through his mother, with his paternal grandmother being Kashmiri.^[16] His father died from cancer when Khan was 15 years old, and his mother died in 1990 after prolonged illness.^[17][18] Khan was very attached to his parents as a child and describes their early deaths as a turning point in his life and as his biggest motivation for hard work. Khan explained his ideology in life was "... to make movies so damn bloody big...that my parents somewhere sit down on a star and from there also can look at their son and say 'I can see his movies from here better than I can see the Wall of China or anything. We see his movies covering the face of this earth'."^[19] Khan has an elder sister named Shehnaz.^[20]

Growing up in Rajendra Nagar neighbourhood of Delhi,^[21] Khan attended St. Columba's School where he was accomplished in sports, drama, and academics. He won the Sword of Honour, an annual award given to the student who best represents the spirit of the school. Khan later attended the Hansraj College (1985–1988) and earned his Bachelors degree in Economics. When Hansraj College celebrated its 50th anniversary, it gave away 17 shields to its alumni who had excelled in their lives and professions. Khan was one of them. Though he pursued a Masters Degree in Mass Communications at Jamia Millia Islamia, he later opted out to pursue a career in Bollywood.^[22] He also attended the National School of Drama in Delhi.^[23]

After the death of his mother, Khan moved to Mumbai in 1991.^[24] He married Gauri Chibber, a Hindu, in a traditional Hindu wedding ceremony on 25 October 1991.^[17] They have two children, son Aryan (b. 1997) and daughter Suhana (b. 2000). According to Khan, while he strongly believes in Allah, he also values his wife's religion. At home, his children follow both religions, with the Qur'an being situated next to the Hindu deities.^[25]

Khan studied acting under celebrated theatre director Barry John at Delhi's "Theatre Action Group" (TAG). In 2007, John commented on his former pupil, "The credit for the phenomenally successful development and management of Shahrukh's career goes to the superstar himself."^[26] Khan started shooting for Lekh Tandon's television series Dil Dariya, but its delay meant that he made his acting debut with the 1988 television series, Fauji, playing the leading role of Commando Abhimanyu Rai.^[24][27] He went on to appear in other television serials, such as Aziz Mirza's Circus in 1989, which depicted the life of circus performers.^[28] The same year, Khan also had a minor role in the made-for-television English-language film, In Which Annie Gives it Those Ones, which was based on life at Delhi University, written by Arundhati Roy. When he appeared in those teleserials, people found in him some resemblance with actor Dilip Kumar and also compared his acting style with the latter's.^[29]

Acting career[link]

1990s[link]

Khan received his first break upon moving from New Delhi to Mumbai when Hema Malini offered him a role in her directorial debut Dil Aashna Hai.^[24] However, the delay in the release of the film meant that his first release was Deewana opposite Rishi Kapoor and Divya Bharti.^[23][30] The movie became a box office hit, and launched his career in Bollywood.^[31] His performance won him a Filmfare Best Male Debut Award. In a 2001 interview with Rediff, Khan recalled: "Actually, June 26 marks exactly 11 years since I faced the cameras for my first shot for Dil Aashna Hai, in 1990. I knew it would be a tough field, a very demanding profession."^[23] He went on to star in Maya Memsaab, which generated some controversy because of his appearance in an "explicit" sex scene in the movie.^[32]

In 1993, Khan won acclaim for his performances in villainous roles as an obsessive lover and a murderer, respectively, in the box office hits, Darr and Baazigar.^[33] In Khan's entry in Encyclopædia Britannica's "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema" it was stated that "he defied the image of the conventional hero in both these films and created his own version of the revisionist hero."^[34] Darr marked his first collaboration with renowned film-maker Yash Chopra and his banner Yash Raj Films, the largest production company in Bollywood. Khan's scene in the film, in which he makes obsessive phone calls to Chawla's character stammering "i love you, kkkiran," attained great popularity.^[35] Baazigar, which saw Khan portraying an ambiguous avenger who murders his girlfriend, shocked its Indian audience with an unexpected violation of the standard Bollywood formula.^[36] His performance won him his first Filmfare Best Actor Award. In that same year, Khan played the role of a young musician in Kundan Shah's Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa, a performance that earned him a Filmfare Critics Award for Best Performance. In a 2004 retrospective review by Rediff, Sukanya Verma called it Khan's best performance and added:"He was spontaneous, vulnerable, boyish, mischievous and acting straight from the heart."^[37] Khan maintains that this is his all-time favourite among the movies he has acted in.^[38] In 1994, Khan once again played an obsessive lover/psycho's role in Anjaam, co-starring alongside Madhuri Dixit. Though the movie was not a box office success, Khan's performance earned him the Filmfare Best Villain Award.^[39]

In 1995, Khan starred in the two biggest hits of the year in India. His first release was Rakesh Roshan's Karan Arjun, Khan was part of an ensemble cast including Salman Khan, Kajol, Mamta Kulkarni, Raakhee and Amrish Puri. The film, which dealt with reincarnation, became the second-highest grossing film of the year in India.^[40] He followed it with Aditya Chopra's directorial debut, the romance Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. A major critical and commercial success, the movie became the year's top-grossing production in India and abroad.^[41] The film was declared an all time blockbuster and it remains the longest-running film in the history of Indian cinema. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge grossed over 1.2 billion. The film won ten Filmfare Awards, and Khan's performance as a young NRI who falls for Kajol's character while on a college vacation won him much critical acclaim and his second Best Actor Award. In 2005, Indiatimes Movies ranked the movie amongst the 25 Must See Bollywood Films, citing it as a "trendsetter of sorts".^[42] In that same year's retrospective review by Rediff, Raja Sen stated, "Khan gives a fabulous performance, redefining the Lover for the 1990s with great panache. He's cool and flippant, but sincere enough to appeal to the junta. The performance itself is, like the best in the business, played well enough to come across as effortless, as non-acting."^[43]

1996 proved a disappointing year for Khan, he appeared in two films—English Babu Desi Mem and Mahesh Bhatt' Chaahat both of which proved critically and commercially unsuccessful in India.^[44] This was, however, followed by a comeback in 1997. He saw success with Subhash Ghai's social drama Pardes opposite newcomer Mahima Chaudhry. The film brought to light the culture shock and difficulties that may be involved in the cases of young Indian women immigrating to foreign countries after their marriage to Non Resident Indian men. It was one of the biggest hits of the year and earned him a nomination for the Best Actor Award at the Filmfare ceremony. He then appeared in Aziz Mirza's comedy Yes Boss which paired him with Juhi Chawla for the fourth time. The film was a moderately successful feature.^[45] His second project with Yash Chopra as a director, Dil to Pagal Hai became that year's second highest-grossing movie, and he won his third Filmfare Best Actor Award for his role as a stage director who falls in love with one of his new actresses.^[45]

In 1998, Khan starred in Karan Johar's directorial debut, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, which paired him with Kajol and Rani Mukerji. The movie was declared an all time blockbuster, with a worldwide gross of over 1.03 billion.^[46] Khan played the role of Rahul Khanna, a young college student who falls in love with his best friend after the death of his wife, years after breaking contact with her. His performance won him the Best Actor award at the Filmfare Awards for the second consecutive year. He won critical praise for his performance in Mani Ratnam's critically acclaimed Dil Se.., in which he played the part of Amar Varma, an All India Radio correspondent who falls deeply in love with a mysterious woman terrorist, played by Manisha Koirala.^[47] Rediff wrote: "Khan delivers a compelling performance. He plays the part with taut restraint, and expresses exasperation superbly."^[48] The movie failed financially in India, however, it was a commercial success overseas.^[49] becoming the first Indian film to enter the top 10 in the United Kingdom box office charts.^[50][51] Khan's only release in 1999, Baadshah opposite Twinkle Khanna, was an average grosser, for which he earned a Filmfare Award nomination for Best Performance in a Comic Role.^[52]

2000s[link]

Khan's success continued with Aditya Chopra's 2000 film, Mohabbatein, co-starring Amitabh Bachchan. The film was a major financial success, and Khan's performance as a college teacher was acclaimed by critics; Taran Adarsh of Bollywood Hungama wrote that he "is outstanding as Raj Aryan." He was awarded his second Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actor for the role. He also starred in Mansoor Khan's action film Josh. The film starred Khan as the tough leader of a Christian gang in Goa and Aishwarya Rai as his twin sister, and was also a box office success.^[53] In a positive review, Vinayak Chakravorty of Hindustan Times wrote that Khan "basks in his tailormade role, donning with panache the garb of a streetsmart tough."^[54] He further played the role of an archaeologist Muslim beaten to death by Hindu fanatics during the unrest following the partition of India in Hey Ram. Directed by and co-starring Kamal Hassan, the film was critically acclaimed and was selected as India's entry for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars that year.^[55] Khan also dubbed his own voice in Tamil for the film.^[56] In that same year, Khan set up his own production house, Dreamz Unlimited with Juhi Chawla and director Aziz Mirza (see below). The three collaborated on the first film of their production house, Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani.^[53]

In 2001, His collaboration with Karan Johar continued with the family drama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham in which he featured as part of an ensemble cast that included Amitabh Bachchan, Jaya Bachchan, Kareena Kapoor, Kajol and Hrithik Roshan. the movie was a major financial success and became India's second highest-grossing film of the year and one of the biggest Bollywood success of all time in the overseas market, earning over 1,000 million (US$19.95 million) worldwide.^[57] Khan's portrayal of Rahul Raichand, an adopted young man who's disowned by his rich and powerful father, played by Bachchan, for marrying a middle-class girl Anjali, played by Kajol was well received by critics. Taran Adarsh commented, "Khan sparkles yet again", noting that he performed the part "with amazing poise, class, honesty and maturity".^[58] It garnered him a nomination for the Filmfare Best Actor Award. This was his last collaboration with Kajol until they would be cast again by Johar as a lead pair in early 2010.

The same year, Khan essayed the role of Emperor Asoka in Santosh Sivan's historical epic, Asoka, a partly fictionalised account of the life of Ashoka the Great.^[59] It was widely screened across the United Kingdom and North America, and was also selected for screening at the Venice Film Festival and the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival, where it got positive response.^[60] While promoting the film in New York City, Khan along with the film director, Sivan were stuck in the city due to the 11 September terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.^[60] The film received generally positive reviews and Khan received favourable reactions for his performance, Rediff concluded that "He puts in a strong performance, in this well defined role."^[61]

Khan during the filming of Swades (2004), his performance in the film is considered one of his best to date and earned him another Filmfare Best Actor Award.

In 2002, Khan played the title role in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's award-winning period romance, Devdas which was the most expensive Bollywood film ever made at the time.^[62] This was the third Hindi movie adaptation of Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyay's well-known novel of the same name. Featured opposite Aishwarya Rai and Madhuri Dixit, Khan's performance as a rebellious alcoholic is often considered one of his best performances, and won him a Filmfare Best Actor Award. The film surfaced as the highest-grossing film of the year in India and overseas, earning a revenue of 39 million (US$778,050) domestically.^[63][64] Devdas won numerous awards, including 10 Filmfare Awards and received a special screening at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival.^[65][66] It received a BAFTA nomination for Best Foreign Language Film as well and was India's entry for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars. After the release of the film, Khan took a six months break from acting, he explained that during that period he "Just enjoyed the feeling of being sad". In an interview with Rediff, Khan commented: "For an entire year, that is what I did. I was sad. " and added, "We stars live in this bubble where everyone is smiling at you, where everyone loves you. Somehow, you lose touch with real, deep down sadness. Working on this film put us in touch with that emotion."^[23] Khan also starred opposite Madhuri Dixit and Salman Khan in the family-drama Hum Tumhare Hain Sanam. The film took six years to make, with huge sabbaticals in between shoots due to unending production problems,^[67] and was an average grosser at the box office.^[63]

In 2003, Khan starred in Aziz Mirza's romantic drama, Chalte Chalte opposite Rani Mukerji. The film was moderately successful in India but fared much better in the overseas.^[68][69] Khan played the role of Raj Mathur, a middle class man who falls in love and marries Priya Chopra, a successful fashion designer whose family is quite wealthy. But after the marriage, differences arise between the couple, leading to an irreversible separation. Manish Gajjar of BBC mentioned that he is "a sheer natural which explains why he is a great asset to Bollywood." Several critics were not as positive, including Vivek Fernandes from Rediff, who noted: "Shah Rukh hams and haws his way through the film – biting his lip, crinkling his eyebrows – it is oh-so-familiar. He is over the top, especially as the inebriated Raj who confronts the estranged wife."^[70]

That same year, he starred in Kal Ho Naa Ho a drama set in New York City, written by Karan Johar and directed by Nikhil Advani co-starring Jaya Bachchan, Preity Zinta and Saif Ali Khan. Khan's performance as a man with a fatal heart disease was met with positive response from critics. The Hindu noted, "His enthusiasm unbounded, his energy unbridled, Shah Rukh is in form here. And as a guy with a few days to live and a life to spend in a moment, he looks for your sympathy. He reduces many to tears. And with each tear he rises a rank higher in the echelons of actors".^[71] while rediff concluded, "Shah Rukh excels as the supercool Aman (...) He steals the show with a designer-made role."^[72] The film was a critical and commercial success, becoming the second top-grossing movie domestically and the top-grossing Bollywood film in the overseas market that year.^[68] When adjusted for inflation its total gross worldwide is 1.3 billion.^[73] The film earned him another Filmfare Best Actor Award nomination.

2004 was a particularly good year for Khan, both commercially and critically. He produced and starred in Farah Khan's directorial debut, the action comedy Main Hoon Na. The movie did well at the box office. He then played the role of an Indian officer, Veer Pratap Singh in Yash Chopra's love saga Veer-Zaara, which was the biggest hit of 2004 in both India and overseas, with a worldwide gross of over 960 million.^[57][74] It was also screened at the Berlin Film Festival.^[75] The film relates the love story of Veer and a Pakistani woman Zaara Haayat Khan, played by Preity Zinta. Khan's performance in the film was praised by critics and won him awards at several award ceremonies. Rama Sharma from The Tribune wrote:"Shah Rukh Khan here scales the heights of sensitivity, rising above the mundane. His expressions are mature and reach out to touch the heart of the common man. As a prisoner lodged in a Pakistani jail, he breathes life into the story. His trauma becomes a saga and speaks about the untold sufferings of innocent prisoners."^[76]

In that same year, he received critical acclaim for his performance in Ashutosh Gowariker's drama Swades which most of the critics deemed as one of his best performance till date.^[77] Jitesh Pillai said of his role, "Ultimately your heart leaps out to the magical Shah Rukh Khan, who unarguably gives his career's finest performance. Shorn of any artifice or nervous energy, his anguish is tangible. He inhabits Mohan Bharghava with consummate ease, you can feel the earnestness of his intentions, the wetness of his tears".^[78] His performance was later included in the 2010 issue of the "Top 80 Iconic Performances" by Filmfare.^[79] He was nominated for the Filmfare Best Actor Award for all three of his releases in 2004, winning it for Swades.^[74] The film itself was featured on Rediff's list of the 10 Best Bollywood Movies of the Decade.^[80]

His only release in 2005, Paheli opposite Rani Mukerji, was screened at the Sundance Film Festival and was chosen as India’s official entry to the Oscars for the 79th Academy Awards.^[81] The film was critically acclaimed, as was Khan's performance, which Raja Sen called " A top-notch performance, [That] justifies his supremacy in the film world".^[82] In 2006, Khan collaborated with Karan Johar for the third time with the melodrama Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna, with an ensemble cast including Amitabh Bachchan, Preity Zinta, Abhishek Bachchan, Rani Mukerji and Kirron Kher. The film told the story of two unhappily married couples in New York, which later results in an extramarital affair. Khan played the role of Dev Saran, a bitter and cynical former football player who is jealous of his wife Rhea's successful career as a fashion magazine editor, played by Zinta. The film opened to mixed reviews but emerged as a major commercial success; becoming the biggest Bollywood hit in the overseas market of all-time. It grossed over 1.13 billion worldwide^[57][83]

His second release that year saw him playing the title role in the action film Don, a remake of the 1978 hit film of the same name. He played the character of Don, a role which was played by Amitabh Bachchan in the original movie. While the film was generally well received, Khan's performance received mixed critical reactions. His performance was extensively compared to that of Bachchan. Taran Adarsh noted that Khan "carries a massive responsibility on his shoulders since direct comparisons with Bachchan are foreseeable" adding that "He does very well as Don. He enacts the evil character with flourish. But he fails to carry off the other role [Vijay] with conviction. It looks made up, it doesn't come natural to him at all."^[84] While Derek Elley of Variety argued that "it's hard to accept him (Khan) as the title character" and that "Khan is far more convincing as Vijay, playing up to his rom-com fanbase with plenty of boyish humor."^[85] The film became the fifth-highest grossing film of the year in India.^[83] and the highest grossing film of the year in the overseas market. It grossed a total of 1.04 billion worldwide.^[57] Both the films earned him Filmfare Best Actor Award nominations while his role as Don earned him a nomination for the Asian Film Awards.

Khan's success continued with a few more highly popular films. One of his most successful works was the multiple award-winning 2007 film, Chak De! India, about the Indian women's national hockey team. The film was a major critical and commercial success in India and abroad.^[86] Earning over 1.03 billion worldwide.^[57] Chak De! India became the third-highest grossing movie of 2007 in India and won yet another Filmfare Award for Best Actor for Khan. Rajeev Masand from CNN-IBN wrote about his performance, "For the first time since Swades, Shah Rukh plays a role without any of his typical trappings, without any of his trademark quirks. He sinks his teeth into the part of the determined coach and comes up with such a terrific performance. He's hopeful at times and despondent at others, he's humorous at times, and stern at others. He plays Kabir Khan like a real flesh-and-blood human being."^[87] Filmfare also included his performance in the 2010 issue of the "Top 80 Iconic Performances" and commented:

In the same year Khan also starred in Farah Khan's 2007 film, Om Shanti Om. A re-incarnation melodrama. Khan essayed the role of Om Prakash Makhija, a junior artiste from the 70s who is reborn thirty years later as a superstar named Om Kapoor, he then attempts to discover the mystery of his demise and avenge the death of his lost love. His performance was generally well received by critics; Khalid Mohammed from Hindustan Times wrote, "Above all the enterprise belongs to Shah Rukh Khan, who tackles comedy, high drama and action with his signature style – spontaneous and intuitively intelligent."^[89] The film emerged as the year's highest grossing film in India and the overseas market, and became India's highest grossing production ever up to that point with a worldwide gross of over 1.48 billion.^[90] It earned him another nomination for Best Actor at the Filmfare ceremony.

In 2008, Khan collaborated with Aditya Chopra for the third time with the romantic drama Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi opposite newcomer Anushka Sharma where he played a double role, one of Surinder Sahni, a shy self-described geek who works for Punjab Power in Amritsar whose love for beautiful, vivacious Taani, played by Sharma, causes him to transform himself into the loud and fun-loving Raj to win her love. The film received positive reviews and was declared a blockbuster, and had been concluded as the second-highest grossing film of all-time to that point by the end of the year.^[91] His performance was appreciated by critics. Rachel Saltz of New York Times stated: "The Surinder/Raj dual role seems tailor-made (probably was) for Mr. Khan, who gets to show off his twin talents: he suffers nobly and entertains with panache."^[92] It earned him yet again another nomination for Best Actor at the Filmfare ceremony.

In December of the same year, Khan suffered a serious shoulder injury while filming a special appearance in Mudassar Aziz's Dulha Mil Gaya. He went through extensive physiotherapy sessions while shooting for My Name Is Khan at the time, but due to immense pain that left him almost immobile, he had to undergo an arthroscopic surgery in February 2009 after the shooting schedule for the film in the United States was over.^[93][94]

2010s[link]

Khan's next film was My Name Is Khan, his fourth collaboration with director Karan Johar and the sixth movie in which he is paired with Kajol. Filming commenced in December 2008 in Los Angeles and ended in October 2009. While in Los Angeles, along with his wife Gauri and director Karan Johar, he took a break from filming to attend the 66th Golden Globe Awards, held in Los Angeles, on 11 January 2009,^[95][96] where he was introduced as the King of Bollywood.^[97] Khan introduced Slumdog Millionaire, a movie he had previously turned down, along with a star from the film, Freida Pinto.