Are Police Racial Profiling Black Bike-Share Users in an Effort to Recover Stolen Divvies?

Last Saturday's arrest. Photo: Eboni Senai Hawkins
Last Saturday's arrest. Photo: Eboni Senai Hawkins

The Chicago Police Department recently acknowledged that exponentially higher rates of bike ticketing in some Black and Latino communities are due to officers using “broken widows”-style bike enforcement as a strategy to conduct searches for contraband.

Now the recent arrest of a Divvy rider near the Magnificent Mile raises the question of whether officers are singling out men of color on bike-share for similar zero-tolerance enforcement in other parts of town, possibly in response to a rash of Divvy thefts this summer.

It’s common to see Divvy riders of various races riding on sidewalks downtown or on the Near North Side. That’s understandable, since many streets in the area are dangerous places to bike, with heavy and/or high-speed motor vehicle traffic. Sidewalk riding is generally illegal for people 12 or older in Chicago, and it makes sense for officers to stop and possibly ticket people doing so in a reckless manner that endangers pedestrians. However, I’ve never heard of police pulling over, let alone handcuffing and searching, a Divvy rider for sidewalk riding until now.

Eboni Senai Hawkins, a research analyst who formerly led Chicago’s chapter of the African-American bike group Red Bike and Green, said she witnessed such an incident last Saturday night at about 11:10 p.m. near Chicago Avenue and Rush Street. “Steps from the Mag Mile, 2 then 4 police officers stop this young Black man for ‘riding a bicycle on the sidewalk,’” she posted on Instagram. “They put him in handcuffs immediately, take his phone, search his pockets, demand identification… They ask him how he rented the @divvybikes he was riding. They inspect the bike and make calls about the bike’s serial number. They eventually take him away in a police car.” She advised other Black men to avoid renting Divvy bikes, and to be sure to follow the letter of the law if they do use them, so as to avoid being harassed by the police.

The CPD confirmed the arrest. “A 22-year-old male was arrested after officers observed him riding a bicycle on the sidewalk [eastbound] on Chicago Ave from State St., in violation of MCC 9-52-020,” wrote officer Patrick McGinnis from Police News Affairs. (According to that ordinance, riding a bike on the sidewalk is legal when done to access a bike-share station.) “Further investigation revealed the Divvy bike he was riding had been removed without payment from the dock at Roosevelt and Indiana earlier that afternoon. The offender was charged with one misdemeanor count of Theft of Lost/Mislaid property.” The man has a court date on September 18 at 9 a.m. at Branch 29 of the Cook Country Circuit Court, 2452 West Belmont.

A Divvy representative I contacted on July 12 acknowledged that the system has recently had theft problems and said the company is on top of the issue. “In response to a recent series of thefts of bikes from stations, we’re… retrofitting all of our docks with stronger, more tamper-proof lock mechanisms.” According to a July 30 post on the blog CWB Chicago, which tracks local crime, officers arrested and charged 40 people with possession of stolen Divvies that month alone. (Update 8/20/18, 10:30 PM: According to a post today on CWB Chicago, there have over 120 adults were arrested and charged for possession of a stolen Divvy since July 1.)

While I have recently seen a person riding a Divvy with the logos painted over, and witnessed what seemed to be an attempted theft from a station, the high number of arrests was puzzling. Were that many people really spotted riding doctored cycles, or caught in the act of yanking a bike out of a dock? If not, how did the police know that all those people were riding or holding stolen bikes?

Eboni Senai Hawkins.
Eboni Senai Hawkins. Photo: Stephen Flemister

Saturday’s incident suggests a possible answer. It may be the case that police are stopping Divvy riders for infractions like non-reckless sidewalk riding that they’d otherwise ignore, as a strategy to find stolen Divvies. The fact that police wrote 397 bike tickets in North Lawndale last year, according to a Chicago Tribune report, while only writing five in Lincoln Park, lends credence to Senai Hawkins’ claim that last Saturday police pulled over, cuffed, and searched the cyclist, and checked to see if his cycle was stolen, due to his skin color.

“There are people riding Divvies on the sidewalk all the time in this area, so they stopped this person because of how he looked: a young Black man with his hair in [dread]locks,” she told me, adding that the cyclist was wearing a t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. Senai Hawkins said shortly after the arrest she saw four other people in similar outfits illegally riding Divvies across the nearby plaza by the Old Water Tower, including two white people and two Black men. She warned the African Americans to be careful not to break bike rules to avoid being stopped.

Senai Hawkins said she’s confident that a young white man riding a Divvy in the same manner as the man who was arrested would have gotten off with just a warning. She argued that police targeting Black men on bike-share cycles is an unacceptable response to the system’s theft problem. “In no way is it OK for the Chicago police to be deployed to enforce [a crackdown in response to] the fact that Divvy has a technology issue.”

Divvy and the Chicago Department of Transportation, which sets bike-share policy, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“Active Trans strongly condemns any use of traffic enforcement to target specific members of our communities,” said the advocacy group’s advocacy director Jim Merrell in response to the news of the arrest.

Meanwhile, residents are questioning whether Divvy is moving quickly enough to retrofit its docks with more secure locking mechanisms, which would help eliminate the need for police to recover stolen bikes. Earlier this month Streetsblog reader Kevin Monahan recounted a recent conversation he had with a Divvy worker who was servicing a station. “The employee nicely explained that, unfortunately, the reality is that there is no such upgrade as far as they are aware of,” Monahan said. “They said that they were surprised by what they read in the press about such an anti-theft upgrade because, as far as they know, there’s been no internal messaging about this among staff.”

When I asked Divvy spokeswoman Lindsay Silk Kremenak about that story on August 8, she replied, “Sorry for any confusion, but that employee wouldn’t be privy to information regarding updates on the retrofit. We’re still continuing to move through docks with the retrofit as fast as we can.” She said she couldn’t provide an ETA for the completion of the security upgrades.’

Update 8/29/18: In the wake of a CWB Chicago post critiquing our coverage of the Divvy enforcement issue, we’ve been getting an influx of trolling comments from fans of the anonymous crime blog. To simplifying comment moderation, I’ve closed the comment sections for our earlier articles on the subject (CWB doesn’t have comment sections.) Feel free to weigh in on our article responding to the CWB post, but please do so in a reasonably civil manner.

Banner for our fundraising campaign that says Donate and help us win a $50,000 grant from The Chicago Community Trust to hire a new reporter

  • CIAC

    I’m really not a big fan of people always assuming the worst when they observe something and have limited information about what is going on. Just because Hawkins saw the police stop someone for biking on the sidewalk doesn’t mean that this is the only information they had that caused them to do so. She knows nothing about what else the police saw that caused them to stop this rider. We see here that the bike in fact was stolen. I highly doubt that the police just decided to take a wild guess, based on no available evidence, that this was the case and simply decided to go on a fishing expedition and wound up becoming lucky. It’s much more probable that there was something else that caused them to be suspicious, such as something they saw on the bike or maybe something about the cyclist (perhaps he matched a description of someone they were looking for). Sometimes when we observe something we have limited information. It’s important we not always decide we have the ability to draw a conclusion (much less start posting these conclusions on social media) when that isn’t the case.

  • planetshwoop

    Your point is reasonable, except totally wrong in this case. In bike vs auto collisions, this is reasonable.

    I highly doubt that the police just decided to take a wild guess, based on no available evidence, that this was the case and simply decided to go on a fishing expedition and wound up becoming lucky. It’s much more probable that there was something else that caused them to be suspicious, such as something they saw

    They saw he was black. That’s what they saw.

    The fact that there is oodles of tickets in black neighborhoods, and none in others, means that it is HIGHLY LIKELY the police targeted him based on skin color.

    There is a lot of evidence here that we don’t have to give the police the benefit of the doubt.

    Stealing Divvy’s is not cool, and shouldn’t be done. But it’s totally fair to complain about seriously improper police treatment and demand change.

  • CIAC

    “The fact that there is oodles of tickets in black neighborhoods, and none in others, means that it is HIGHLY LIKELY the police targeted him based on skin color.”

    Why? I don’t understand the logic you are using at all. It’s not even the same police officers who work in River North who work in the south or west sides. Police officers are assigned to particular districts. So I don’t see how there could begin to be a connection like that at all. This was a successful arrest that found someone who committed (or at least using property that resulted from) an actual crime. It’s difficult to believe the police just lucked out. There was almost certainly some type of information they had that caused them to suspect that this was a theft.

  • Kevin M

    In this case, I want to believe CAIC, but that means I need to see the CPD share its evidence of suspicion (was the stolen bike ID’d by its GPS chip? was their camera footage of the act?).

  • johnaustingreenfield

    It turns out that, nowadays at least, unlike dockless cycles, Divvy bikes don’t have onboard GPS chips that allow the bikes to be tracked when they’re not in docks.

  • Carter O’Brien

    Agreed. Otherwise this falls in the same category of a warrantless search that turns up stolen goods. This guy may be a thief, but law enforcement doesn’t get to selectively ignore the constitution. While they apparently got lucky, proper process is more meaningful than this kind of one-off.

  • kastigar

    CIAC is right. Hawkins only saw what occurred from a distance. What did the police see or uncover between the time of the stop and the time of the arrest. If we knew more maybe we would come to a different conclusion.

    To see a black man stopped and then rant about it on social media is in itself a form of discrimination against the police doing their job..

  • Jake J. Phineas

    So they stopped a guy and he ended up getting arrested. He happened to be riding a bike. Where is the problem here? Are Divvy’s some kind of get out of jail card?

  • zerohaters

    I recall reading that Divvy bike lights don’t switch on if the bike wasn’t unlocked properly, could the police have just been warned to look out for such a thing?

  • johnaustingreenfield

    As stated in the article, the police wrote about 80 times more bike tickets in a Black neighborhood as a white one last year, and the CPD has stated that this was due to police using bike enforcement as a strategy to conduct searches in communities of color. In light of this, you’re arguing that it’s unreasonable for a witness to question the motives of CPD officers stopping, cuffing, and searching a Black man on a bike?

  • RonMGA

    I’m just glad another bike thief got caught. Not that anything is going to happen to him so he is deterred from doing this again. And so what if they profiled him, it’s not like a lot of bikes are stolen by the students and alumni of North Shore Country Day school…

  • CIAC

    I don’t really see the connection you are trying to make. This was not a “community of color”(personally, I don’t like to define neighborhoods this way, but oh well) and there would be no reason to expect that the police would be aggressively ticketing bicyclists who ride on sidewalks in River North in order to deter crime in neighborhoods with majority black populations. These aren’t even the same police officers who conduct enforcement on the south and west sides. If they were on the lookout for Divvy users who there was evidence had committed a crime (which, it’s worth noting in this case they were CORRECT about) there’s nothing at all to indicate that this would be related to the aggressive ticketing that occurs on the south and west sides. It’s two separate things. The police have said that the aggressive ticketing of bike users on sidewalks in high crime neighborhoods are done to find evidence of other crimes unrelated to the bikes. As I’ve said before, I don’t think that’s a good police strategy because I think using minor law violations as pretexts for stops are usually counterproductive because there would likely be a legitimate backlash. But the police activity in River North, assuming it was organized in some manner, seems to be specifically related to crimes involving Divvy bikes.

  • johnaustingreenfield

    “Divvy bike lights don’t switch on if the bike wasn’t unlocked properly.”

    Not true, according to a Divvy spokesperson. Maybe you’re thinking of one of the dockless bike-share brands?

  • Rex Rocket

    “contraband”. lol. Call Interpol!

  • Dannielle jackson

    Not cool? So stealing a bike is not cool ? Yes you are correct, perhaps maybe even go farther and say IT IS A CRIME. But actually it must be divvys fault because their locks aren’t strong enough . We need a lawsuit against DIVVY for entrapment .

  • Jeff019

    This article got pwned pretty badly by one of the very sources Greenfield reached out to, CWB Chicago. Appling is a known problem in this area with a long rapsheet.

  • Jeff019

    Which is another failure of the contract that was awarded to Divvy’s then-owner, Alta bike share, after a city intern who was later hired by Alta bragged that he wrote the RFP for the competition that Alta later won.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG