In there lies the problem. Just as a note... I never was stopped by the police as a kid looking for a bike registration; nor did I know any other kid who was. Once a year -- the police held public safety ("Safety Town") sessions for kids in the community. The police would urge kids to bring their bikes, take they through safety instruction (by riding through cones in a parking lot with instructions for using your hands for left/right turns), inspect the bikes & fix broken brake/chains/etc., register them for free (if not already), and serve food/drinks for families -- all held in the corner parking lot of the local park.
A major tool racist in authority use is called Selective Enforcement. Here's a deep dive for anyone interested: POLICE DISCRETION AND DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cg...ke.edu/&httpsredir=1&article=2345&context=dlj "A numbers-runner is arrested for violation of a gambling statute while a high-stakes poker game at an upper-class gentlemen's club goes on unmolested. A man with one marijuana cigarette in his possession is arrested, not because he more than others should be imprisoned, but simply as an exemplary warning and deterrent to 30,000 other marijuana smokers in the city, and as a token law-and-order gesture for the rest of the population. A state trooper recognizes a drunk driver as the son of the president of the local bank and decides not to arrest him. A corps of building inspectors pore over a print shop where the local underground newspaper is produced and detect a violation of an obscure code provision that previously has seldom, if ever, been enforced. A policeman stops a long-haired youth who is playing a harmonica in the park and asks him for identification; when the youth appears arrogant, the policeman arrests him for disorderly conduct. These examples depict the reality of law enforcement under our "government of laws, not men." The reality in the street is one of discriminatory and selective enforcement. The reality in the courtroom is not much better. Although the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly and unequivocally that discriminatory enforcement violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, many state and lower federal courts blandly withhold constitutional protection of any sort. Indeed, Supreme Court doctrine itself imposes so heavy a burden of proof that the victim of discriminatory enforcement rarely finds vindication of his claim in the judicial forum. The purpose of this article is not to condemn policemen. If it seeks to condemn anything, its target is the law enforcement system itself, and ultimately, of course, the society in general. ..."