“It was always my expectation that if we document what actually happens there would be demonstrative evidence of disparities,” said state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, who authored a 2000 law that required police record the data and submit it to researchers.

The evidence of profiling appears plain to officials, activists and lawyers who have been pushing for action to address the issue.

The question, say activists, is what will be done to correct the disparities?

Wilkerson’s law mandates that police departments that appear to have engaged in racial or gender profiling document all traffic stops by race for one year, including stops that don’t result in a ticket or a warning.

Secretary of Public Safety Edward Flynn has not yet defined what level of disparity will require further data collection.

It is unclear what will happen once all the data is in. Wilkerson said she and other lawmakers will take legislative action to determine consequences for police departments.

She accused Flynn and Attorney General Thomas Reilly of dragging their feet, saying they have been privy to the data as it was collected beginning in April 2001, but have done little to prod police departments to stop profiling.

“The legislation requires they raise a red flag with police departments and tell them they may want to do something, so at the end of the process we would see an improvement,” said Wilkerson. “If they had done that, we would be two years ahead of the process by now.”

Neither the attorney general’s office nor the office of the secretary of public safety could be reached for comment on this story.

Flynn has scheduled meetings in five cities to gather input from police and residents on what they think is causing the racial disparities.

“There will be law enforcement people at the meetings and they’re going to put their two cents worth in,” said Barbara Dougan, an attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and a member of the task force that will conduct the meetings. “My concern is that if people feel it is a done deal, they won’t feel they need to speak up.”

Police strongly opposed the law in 2000, and are expected to be resistant to efforts to force them to change their procedures.

Following the task force meetings, Northeastern will release a second report on March 31 with data on disparities in traffic warnings.

But profiling often occurs without record, say activists. Experts on profiling say that police often stop drivers of color and simply questioning them without issuing tickets or even warnings.

“Most people who are stopped on the basis of race or ethnicity are glad to get on their way,” said Boston University Law Professor Law Tracey MacLin. “They don’t want to deal with the government or can’t find a lawyer.”

MacLin noted that it is very difficult to prosecute police departments for profiling.

“You can’t make a Fourth Amendment [illegal search and seizure] claim,” he said. “You have to sue under the equal protection clause. Police tend to be judgement-proof. You have to show that it is an actual policy to stop people on the basis of race. You have to show that in your specific case there were white people who could have been stopped. So that’s why you don’t see a lot of cases.”

The Boston task force meeting is Thursday, February 5 from 6 to 8:30 p.m. at the New Boston Pilot Middle School, 270 Columbia Rd., Dorchester.