Los Angeles City Council passed a motion unanimously restricting LAPD pretextual traffic stops for minor violations including:

-expired registration tags

-non-functioning tail lights

-cracked windshields

-broken mirrors

-illegal tint

-loud exhaust

-missing plates

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-05-06/lapd-police-pretext-stops-la-city-council

City Council votes to limit LAPD ‘pretextual’ stops blamed for racial discrimination

LAPD officers giving a man a ticket for an expired registration in 2019

LAPD officers ticket a man for having an expired registration in South Los Angeles. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

LIBOR JANY.

By Libor Jany

Staff Writer

Follow

Published May 6, 2026 Updated May 7, 2026 8:31 AM PT

10

5 min

Click here to listen to this article

The L.A. City Council voted to limit ‘pretextual’ stops that been blamed for racial disparities in traffic enforcement.

The measure will not change the LAPD’s policy but requires the Police Commission to take up the matter.

The LAPD chief and others have defended the stops as an essential law enforcement tool against guns, gangs and drugs.

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday voted in favor of new restrictions on so-called “pretextual” traffic stops, signaling a growing impatience with the Police Commission’s failure to rein in a controversial LAPD tactic that critics say enables racial discrimination.

The vote requests that the department’s all-civilian watchdog adopt new guidelines similar to San Francisco, which bars police officers from pulling people over for broken taillights and other minor equipment violations unless there is a safety threat.

“Board of Police Commissioners: Get this done; we’re watching, no excuses,” said Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who shared stories of her late father being stopped by police with no explanation. “This is what this generation wants.”

Advertisement

If the new policy were adopted, LAPD officers would be prohibited from stopping motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians for minor violations “except in cases where the violation poses a significant and imminent safety risk.”

The unanimous vote followed sometimes emotional testimony at a City Council meeting from Angelenos about how their lives had been shaken by discriminatory traffic stops and searches.

Several speakers pointed to a growing body of research showing that minor stops disproportionately affect Black and brown motorists and do little to combat violent crime while eroding public trust. In recent years, there have been several high-profile traffic stops that resulted in officers or drivers being killed.

Advertisement

The current LAPD policy, in place since 2022, requires officers to record themselves on their body-worn cameras stating the reasons for suspecting a more serious crime had occurred when making a stop for a minor infraction.

The measure passed Wednesday stops short of a categorical ban that some have sought, but was still met with cautious optimism by traffic safety reformers.

“It helps place the city of Los Angeles on a path of ending racial profiling by LAPD,” said Chauncee Smith of Catalyst California, a group that advocates for racial justice.

Smith’s group recently released a report that said such stops have continued to disproportionately affect Black and Latino drivers.

Smith said the new policy advanced by the City Council represents “a more formal, explicit prohibition,” adding that he hopes the Police Commission will ultimately give officers even less discretion in deciding when to make stops.

In a brief statement after the vote, Mayor Karen Bass thanked Marqueece Harris-Dawson, president of L.A. City Council, for his “leadership and dedication in moving this updated policy forward.”

“I will work closely with the Police Commission and Chief [Jim] McDonnell to implement it and to provide officers with appropriate training,” Bass said.

Any changes to the policy will probably draw strong challenges from within the LAPD and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the powerful union that represents the city’s rank-and-file officers.

McDonnell has publicly defended the stops as an essential law enforcement tool in the department’s fight against guns, gangs and drugs. He and some transportation safety advocates have argued that persistent traffic deaths — road fatalities have in recent years outpaced the number of homicides — indicate the city needs to crack down harder on reckless driving.

The proposed change comes against the backdrop of a broader effort by city leaders to wrest greater oversight of the LAPD from the Police Commission. A spokesperson for the civilian body said it would evaluate how to proceed.

“The Board intends to place this item on a forthcoming agenda to enable a full and transparent discussion of the Department’s pretextual stop policy, which will include the recommendations from the City Council,” the statement said.

In a statement, the LAPD chief said, “I look forward to working with City leaders to strengthen our traffic enforcement strategies and improve public safety across Los Angeles.”

“I respect the City Council’s interest on the issue of pretext stops and welcome the ongoing conversation. The United States Supreme Court has upheld these stops as constitutional, and they remain an important investigative tool in supporting our public safety efforts,” McDonnell said, adding that he would “fully engage” with the Police Commission on the issue moving forward.

The vote was the latest move in a broader push to remove police officers from traffic enforcement. Some advocates have argued that more punitive approaches that prioritize arrests and traffic citations do little to keep city streets safe; instead, they argue the city should invest in unarmed civilian workers and speed bumps, roundabouts and other street modifications that could help curb unsafe driving.

Adrienna Wong, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Wednesday’s vote showed city leaders taking action on an issue that was personal to them.

“I think what you saw today in council was the council members have lived experiences and are hearing from their constituents and are voting to represent their constituents in a way that the Police Commission has not,” she said.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864703&forum_id=2/#49872831)

but a few things have recently made me wonder if a long overdue backlash is brewing. CA, NY, and IL are flat out losing citizens and they know it. Mamdani is driving away the wealthy. if Nithya Raman is elected i expect LA to suffer immediately.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864703&forum_id=2/#49872879)

It wouldn't be so bad if their idiot citizens could understand why they're fleeing. But they don't. So the contagion spreads

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864703&forum_id=2/#49872931)

minor stops disproportionately affect Black and brown motorists

minor stops disproportionately affect Black and brown motorists

minor stops disproportionately affect Black and brown motorists

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864703&forum_id=2/#49872874)

-----

"Several speakers pointed to a growing body of research showing that minor stops disproportionately affect Black and brown motorists and do little to combat violent crime while eroding public trust."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864703&forum_id=2/#49872917)

Another way to look at it is: it's a feature not a bug if traffic violators are disproportionately pulled over for violating traffic laws, regardless of race

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864703&forum_id=2/#49872961)

They were chill though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864703&forum_id=2/#49872877)

this is just the city council codifying what's already going on and the police commission probably supports it 100% while they pillage city coffers with their overtime and pensions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864703&forum_id=2/#49872909)

her husband made good bank writing for sitcoms.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864703&forum_id=2/#49873144)

Some stops have resulted in OFFICERS being killed.

How does that support the idea that we shouldn't do these stops? Doesn't this mean that sometimes these minor stops could help capture VIOLENT people?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864703&forum_id=2/#49873711)