The Baltimore / Freddie Gray situation

[chezuki]

I'm too lazy to go looking for all of the facts. Do we actually know why the prisoner died?

Yep. He had a spinal cord injury.

 

[HoughMade]

I think Occam's Razor cuts both ways on this one. (Pun TOTALLY INTENDED!)

Once inside the van, the driver had considerable opportunity and ability to mess with him.

I've recovered a decent chunk of change on a jail suicide, so I can tell you- self-harm doesn't necessarily cut off liability.

it was a short lived, but illustrious plaintiff career.

 

[Alpo]

Gray was in possession of an illicit weapon. The charges against him were legitimate.

Well, the knife type that Freddie had wasn't in existence when the Baltimore ordinance was issued, according to the NY Post. It has not been adjudicated, so I wouldn't say that the knife was illicit or illegal.

 

[HoughMade]

Well, the knife type that Freddie had wasn't in existence when the Baltimore ordinance was issued, according to the NY Post. It has not been adjudicated, so I wouldn't say that the knife was illicit or illegal.

The question is whether the police were under a reasonable, good faith belief it was illegal when they arrested him, not whether it would ultimately be found to be illegal.

 

[searpinski]

Yep. He had a spinal cord injury.

Thank you sir. I remember that now . I'd love to hear an LEO's opinion on all of this. I (as a private citizen) who's never been arrested or anything am so far removed from what takes place during an arrest and transport that it's difficult to pass judgement. I do, however, think it's completely ridiculous to say that race was involved in any capacity here.

edit: I also refuse to believe what I read in the media about this.

 

[Alpo]

The question is whether the police were under a reasonable, good faith belief it was illegal when they arrested him, not whether it would ultimately be found to be illegal.

The legality of the knife is still a question. I thought Chip arrived at a conclusion that wasn't warranted. You disagree?

 

[chipbennett]

Well, the knife type that Freddie had wasn't in existence when the Baltimore ordinance was issued, according to the NY Post. It has not been adjudicated, so I wouldn't say that the knife was illicit or illegal.

Was the knife in question spring-assisted? (Yes) Therefore, it was per se illicit under city statute.

Further, did the arresting officers reasonably have probable cause that the knife in question was spring-assisted, and therefore illicit under city statute? (Yes)

 

[chipbennett]

I think Occam's Razor cuts both ways on this one. (Pun TOTALLY INTENDED!)

Once inside the van, the driver had considerable opportunity and ability to mess with him.

And there is evidence to support the allegation that the driver "messed with" Gray?

 

[T.Lex]

Was the knife in question spring-assisted? (Yes) Therefore, it was per se illicit under city statute.

I don't think we are certain of this yet. Of course, I'm open to correction on this, but all I've found in very limited googling is various people saying that the knife is/isn't spring assisted as contemplated under the ordinance. (I don't think cities in Maryland can do "statutes.") If there is a resource that identifies the specific knife, and whether the spring mechanism was actually functioning, that'd be great.

And there is evidence to support the allegation that the driver "messed with" Gray?

A man handcuffed inside the back of a van has a spinal cord injury. Is it easier to believe that he somehow threw himself down with enough force to injure himself or that the van was handled in such a way as to cause the injury.

But, my understanding is that today's verdict was not the driver. So, we'll have to wait and see on that one, I guess.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

See, its a bad idea to ask a lawyer, because the answer is: which do you want it to be?

IMHO something that gives police discretion to decide whether to arrest someone based on THEIR personal views is unconstitutional. The key is whether there's objective parameters to clearly determine whether something is illegal. If there is a question - even one where reasonable people can disagree - then it probably isn't clear, eh?

So, to be clear you are simultaneously pointing out that a lawyer will argue it either way depending on who hires them but if a cop has to decide the meaning of an unclear law it's unconstitutional?

Officer discretion is now unconstitutional? So which is it, am I supposed to be a robot who enforces the law mechanically or am I supposed to be part of the checks and balances of the executive branch and have leeway based on the circumstances?

 

[T.Lex]

So, to be clear you are simultaneously pointing out that a lawyer will argue it either way depending on who hires them but if a cop has to decide the meaning of an unclear law it's unconstitutional?

Yes.

Cops are not, and should not be, lawyers. Trust me, requiring clear guidance on what is and isn't legal is as much for your benefit as my (former) clients.

Officer discretion is now unconstitutional?

hahaha

No, and that's another reason cops shouldn't be lawyers. Officer discretion is when you KNOW something illegal has happened, but choose not to take action. (Getting passed on 465 is an easy example, and roughly the same level of "crime" as having a spring-assisted knife would be in Baltimore.)

Officer discretion is NOT having the authority to decide what is or is not illegal.

So which is it, am I supposed to be a robot who enforces the law mechanically or am I supposed to be part of the checks and balances of the executive branch and have leeway based on the circumstances?

Yes.

Deciding what is legal/illegal is not a power you should possess under the constitution. Deciding which illegal acts you will pursue is part of your power.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yes.

Cops are not, and should not be, lawyers. Trust me, requiring clear guidance on what is and isn't legal is as much for your benefit as my (former) clients.



hahaha

No, and that's another reason cops shouldn't be lawyers. Officer discretion is when you KNOW something illegal has happened, but choose not to take action. (Getting passed on 465 is an easy example, and roughly the same level of "crime" as having a spring-assisted knife would be in Baltimore.)

Officer discretion is NOT having the authority to decide what is or is not illegal.


Yes.

Deciding what is legal/illegal is not a power you should possess under the constitution. Deciding which illegal acts you will pursue is part of your power.

So in this instance, does PC exist for an arrest under city law and is it within the officer's discretion that the knife probably falls within the definition set forth in the law? Not an ideal law in a hypothetical, this real scenario.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The question is whether the police were under a reasonable, good faith belief it was illegal when they arrested him, not whether it would ultimately be found to be illegal.

This exactly. Freddy Gray fled after seeing officers. The officers, at that time, had no knowledge that a crime was committed by Gray. They caught him "without force," detained him, and found the "illegal" knife, clipped inside his pocket. So, essentially in order to determine that the knife was illegal, they had to initially violate his rights in the first place.
Nevermind the fact that the officer that decided to detain based on a "illegal" knife, is probably full of ****. One would have to be a simpleton to honestly believe that officers don't see those types of knives and/or sue them themselves every day.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This exactly. Freddy Gray fled after seeing officers. The officers, at that time, had no knowledge that a crime was committed by Gray. They caught him "without force," detained him, and found the "illegal" knife, clipped inside his pocket. So, essentially in order to determine that the knife was illegal, they had to initially violate his rights in the first place.
Nevermind the fact that the officer that decided to detain based on a "illegal" knife, is probably full of ****. One would have to be a simpleton to honestly believe that officers don't see those types of knives and/or sue them themselves every day.

Has Illinois V Wardlow been overturned?

 

[T.Lex]

So in this instance, does PC exist for an arrest under city law and is it within the officer's discretion that the knife probably falls within the definition set forth in the law? Not an ideal law in a hypothetical, this real scenario.

As I recall explaining to a couple MCSD training classes, it depends.

First, I think you're misusing "officer discretion." You can't use officer discretion to support PC. You can only use officer discretion to not arrest someone when PC exists (or conduct a stop when RAS exists).

Second, in a technical sense we don't know if there is PC in any given case until a judge rules on it. That's a gamble every time you guys act. (Of course, in the vast majority of cases, your actions are based on dozens, if not hundreds, of prior instances of a defendant doing the exact same thing.) To my knowledge, no court has opined yet on whether there was PC based on the knife.

Third, in a literal sense, I do not have enough information about the knife to have an informed opinion. Like I said upthread, some people say it was spring-loaded, others do not. Also, by the way the ordinance was written, the spring loaded mechanism actually has to function. There does not appear to be a "designed to" part of the definition.

Finally, that is not a very well-written ordinance, although it was probably high class when it was adopted. Again, street officers (or even detectives) shouldn't have to worry about this. IMHO, it is up to the prosecutors telling the brass to tell the working officers how things should be enforced. (Yes, a boy can dream.) If the officer doesn't follow that, then it is on the officer. If the prosecutor doesn't communicate their interpretation, then that's on them.

If the prosecutor doesn't know the officers are enforcing things differently for different people, then that's a whole different issue, and probably at the root of Baltimore's problem.

It isn't REALLY about PC/RAS/officer discretion. It is about justifying how Baltimore police act differently in various situations.

 

[T.Lex]

Has Illinois V Wardlow been overturned?

Where are the facts that support a finding similar to Wardlow? Was this a high crime area, at a time of day where crimes occurred? Did he flee upon seeing officers, or did he try to flee after started to take him into custody?

Part of this is coming back to me - didn't they only find the knife after they arrested him? I might have that wrong.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Has Illinois V Wardlow been overturned?

Is that the case where, depending on where one resides their protections under the Constitution may be compromised? Maybe it's just me, but I think people in poor neighborhoods are entitled to the same protections as those that live in rich ones.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Is that the case where, depending on where one resides their protections under the Constitution may be compromised? Maybe it's just me, but I think people in poor neighborhoods are entitled to the same protections as those that live in rich ones.

Look it up.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I took fighting rifle with some firefighters from Baltimore. It was not long after the last round of looting and burning died down. They told me that while they were fighting car and building fires, people were cutting their hoses and shooting at them. One of them, a young lady, said that she was born and raised in Baltimore and that it was her city, but it was obvious that she was having a difficult time trying to convince herself to stay there and fight the good fight in the face of that kind of opposition.

However you feel about the arrest or the verdict, remember to say a prayer for the good guys if you get a chance.

 

[T.Lex]

Is that the case where, depending on where one resides their protections under the Constitution may be compromised? Maybe it's just me, but I think people in poor neighborhoods are entitled to the same protections as those that live in rich ones.

Look it up.

Actually, if memory serves, it does basically say that. "High crime area" is a data point that can be included in whether a stop is "reasonable" for purposes of RAS. Jogging away from police at o'dark thirty in the Meadows wearing baggy jeans and a Tupac shirt is different than jogging away from police at lunch time in the Village of West Clay in spandex running shorts and a sports bra.

By the way, it is important to note that (I think) Wardlow did not address PC. Only RAS. The two are different. Different like Tupac shirt and sports bra.