First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Massachusetts Supreme Court Says It’s Perfectly Legitimate for Black Men to Flee Police
709 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Kansas, USA
Offline
Posted 9/24/16

staphen wrote:

Basically, the court doesn't consider the suspect's flight in and of itself sufficient to support reasonable suspicion.


That's what's off-putting. One would think that the court would discriminate between someone who acknowledges the stop but refuses to be detained without cause and someone who refuses to be stopped at all (i.e.: responding to the officer's call versus seeing the officer and then running.) It's like the phrase: If you are not guilty of anything, then why run? I find it backwards that fleeing without cause doesn't constitute suspicious behavior. It would be one thing if he hadn't noticed (or had pretended not to notice) the police at all, but he "makes eye contact" and flees specifically because it's the police.

Ahh, well. Just my two cents.
83 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M
Offline
Posted 9/24/16
Any police dept. that has a record of stupid mistakes should have their sidearm replaced with tasers. These stupid shootings are a result of poor training and low qualification scores. Where do we NOT see these shootings happening? Large cities with well trained and funded police forces.
61159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/24/16

PandAndy wrote:


staphen wrote:

Basically, the court doesn't consider the suspect's flight in and of itself sufficient to support reasonable suspicion.


That's what's off-putting. One would think that the court would discriminate between someone who acknowledges the stop but refuses to be detained without cause and someone who refuses to be stopped at all (i.e.: responding to the officer's call versus seeing the officer and then running.) It's like the phrase: If you are not guilty of anything, then why run? I find it backwards that fleeing without cause doesn't constitute suspicious behavior. It would be one thing if he hadn't noticed (or had pretended not to notice) the police at all, but he "makes eye contact" and flees specifically because it's the police.

Ahh, well. Just my two cents.


It should be noted that Carr never heard from Anjos that Warren made eye contact and fled. In fact, I think it's important to pay careful attention to exactly what information Anjos provided over the radio.


After the two men jogged away, Anjos remained in the police
cruiser and radioed dispatch that three men fitting the
descriptions provided by the victim were traveling through the
park toward Dale Street
. Boston police Officers Christopher R.
Carr and David Santosuosso, who had heard the original broadcast
of the breaking and entering, were very near Dale Street and
headed in that direction. Arriving quickly, Carr and
Santosuosso observed two males matching Anjos's description
walking out of the park toward Dale Street. Carr parked the
cruiser on Dale Street and both officers approached the
defendant and his companion as they left the park. The
defendant and his companion walked with their hands out of their
pockets. Carr saw no bulges in their clothing suggesting the
presence of weapons or contraband.

--- Footnote ---
During cross-examination, Officer Anjos admitted that he
observed only two males.


And also of great importance, the ruling was based on whether the police had reasonable suspicion to link Warren to the original investigation, and not so much that they had reasonable suspicion to link him to criminal activity in general.


Standard of review. "In reviewing a ruling on a motion
to suppress evidence, we accept the judge's subsidiary findings
of fact absent clear error and leave to the judge the
responsibility of determining the weight and credibility to be
given oral testimony presented at the motion hearing" (citation
omitted). Commonwealth v. Wilson, 441 Mass. 390, 393 (2004).
However, "[w]e review independently the application of
constitutional principles to the facts found." Id. We apply
these principles in deciding whether the seizure was justified
by reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed the
breaking and entering on Hutchings Street
. Commonwealth v.
Scott, 440 Mass. 642, 646 (2004).


So the fact that Warren made eye contact with Anjos doesn't matter because Anjos never had enough information to link him to the robbery. Carr only received the information Anjos sent to dispatch which suggested that Warren was in a group of three that matched the descriptions provided by the victims of the robbery. This suggests that both Anjos and Carr approached Warren based on a hunch that he matched the vague descriptions provided by the victims of the robbery despite the fact that Warren was walking with only one other person and that neither of them had a red hoodie.

The court did consider the fact that Warren fled from Anjos, but they ruled it as insignificant for the following reason.


Where a suspect is under no
obligation to respond to a police officer's inquiry, we are of
the view that flight to avoid that contact should be given
little, if any, weight as a factor probative of reasonable
suspicion. Otherwise, our long-standing jurisprudence
establishing the boundary between consensual and obligatory
police encounters will be seriously undermined. Thus, in the
circumstances of this case, the flight from Anjos during the
initial encounter added nothing to the reasonable suspicion
calculus.


Eye contact only proves that Warren was confirming that the person attempting to talk to him was someone he didn't want to be involved with--in other words, it only proves that he deliberately avoided contact. Flight is simply the method by which Warren decided to avoid that contact. If the police had had any other evidence to concretely link Warren to criminal activity, then the fact that he deliberately fled might have held more significance. Otherwise, any form of police avoidance would establish reasonable suspicion for seizure.
995 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/24/16 , edited 9/24/16

Punk_Mela wrote:

This is where political correctness ties hands, a cop attempts to talk to someone who then clutches there pocket and runs. Can you think of a situation where it would not be suspicious for a person to see you and grab their pocket and run? Scared of police is BS excuse as well, the amount of people stupid enough to think running from police is going to enhance their treatment of you is a dwindling pool largely composed of family members of Darwin Award winners.

The guy acted suspiciously and it turns out he committed a crime, that's not exactly a coincidence.


hindsight is 20/20. there's no way the cop knew he did anything when the guy ran, and you know it. Not wanting to talk to the cops isn't illegal either. FYI, the SCotUS ruled something similar well over 120 years ago. Was it PC back then too when Jim Crow laws were a thing?

5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/24/16

ran76 wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

This is where political correctness ties hands, a cop attempts to talk to someone who then clutches there pocket and runs. Can you think of a situation where it would not be suspicious for a person to see you and grab their pocket and run? Scared of police is BS excuse as well, the amount of people stupid enough to think running from police is going to enhance their treatment of you is a dwindling pool largely composed of family members of Darwin Award winners.

The guy acted suspiciously and it turns out he committed a crime, that's not exactly a coincidence.


hindsight is 20/20. there's no way the cop knew he did anything when the guy ran, and you know it. Not wanting to talk to the cops isn't illegal either. FYI, the SCotUS ruled something similar well over 120 years ago. Was it PC back then too when Jim Crow laws were a thing?



We already decided your reading comprehension is too poor to carry on a discussion in that other thread, Judging by the way you missed my point in your response I would say it hasn't improved. When you finish middle school we can try again, until then please stop quoting me.
995 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/24/16

Punk_Mela wrote:


ran76 wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

This is where political correctness ties hands, a cop attempts to talk to someone who then clutches there pocket and runs. Can you think of a situation where it would not be suspicious for a person to see you and grab their pocket and run? Scared of police is BS excuse as well, the amount of people stupid enough to think running from police is going to enhance their treatment of you is a dwindling pool largely composed of family members of Darwin Award winners.

The guy acted suspiciously and it turns out he committed a crime, that's not exactly a coincidence.


hindsight is 20/20. there's no way the cop knew he did anything when the guy ran, and you know it. Not wanting to talk to the cops isn't illegal either. FYI, the SCotUS ruled something similar well over 120 years ago. Was it PC back then too when Jim Crow laws were a thing?



We already decided your reading comprehension is too poor to carry on a discussion in that other thread, Judging by the way you missed my point in your response I would say it hasn't improved. When you finish middle school we can try again, until then please stop quoting me.


I'll stop quoting you when you actually type out something intelligent. And I'm still waiting for an answer from the other thread. Just because something doesn't go your way, doesn't mean it's PC, you could simply be wrong.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.