Posted on 05/06/2015 2:35:08 PM PDT by Kaslin
When the cops chasing Freddie Gray caught up with him, they had a problem: He had not done anything illegal. They solved that problem the way cops often do: They plucked a charge out of thin air.
The cops probably would not have gotten into trouble for making an illegal arrest if Gray had not died due to a spinal injury he suffered in the back of a police van. Gray's death has shined a light on the way police officers abuse their arrest powers to impose arbitrary punishment, a practice that helps explain the anger on display in Baltimore last week.
Of the various criminal charges that Marilyn Mosby, the state's attorney for Baltimore, announced on Friday in connection with Gray's death, the most unusual and revealing was false imprisonment. Mosby said Lt. Brian Rice, together with Officers Edward Nero and Garrett Miller, "failed to establish probable cause for Mr. Gray's arrest as no crime had been committed."
Rice, Nero and Miller arrested Gray for carrying a switchblade, which Maryland defines as a knife with "a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife." Since Gray's perfectly legal folding knife did not fit that description, he plainly was not guilty of the crime that was the pretext for hauling him away in handcuffs.
Baltimore has a history of such trumped-up charges. A 2006 class-action lawsuit backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) cited "a pattern and practice" of bogus arrests for minor, often vaguely defined offenses such as loitering, trespassing, impeding pedestrian traffic, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace and failure to obey a police command.
Of the 76,497 people arrested by Baltimore police without warrants in 2005, the lawsuit noted, prosecutors declined to charge 25,293 -- nearly one out of three. According to the state's attorney, those cases were "legally insufficient."
The arrests nevertheless had real consequences for people who were publicly kidnapped by armed agents of the state, strip-searched and placed in "small, filthy and overcrowded cells" for hours or days. In addition to the humiliation, degradation and loss of liberty inflicted by this process, the ACLU and NAACP noted, victims of illegal arrests "may lose their jobs or be denied job opportunities in the future as a result of the permanent stigma of having a criminal charge on their record."
The named plaintiffs in the case included Tyrone Braxton and Evan Howard, two friends who spent 36 and 54 hours behind bars, respectively, after police accused them of loitering and impeding traffic; Donald Wilson, who was strip-searched and held for five hours, although he was never told what crime he had supposedly committed; and Aaron Stoner and Robert Lowery, two visitors from Pennsylvania who were arrested for failure to obey an order to stop loitering, strip-searched and locked up for 17 hours. "For innocent victims of these arrest practices," the lawsuit observed, "being unlawfully arrested can be a life-changing event."
Under a settlement reached in 2010, the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) agreed to change performance evaluation policies that encouraged false arrests and introduce safeguards aimed at ensuring that cops have probable cause when they take people into custody. Two years later, the ACLU complained that the BPD was "failing to comply" with the agreement. It noted that "BPD officers did not or could not justify arrests for quality of life offenses in at least 35 percent of the cases examined" by an independent auditor.
As demonstrated by Austin cops who arrest activists for recording police encounters and New York cops who arrest pot smokers for publicly displaying marijuana after tricking them into revealing it, this problem is not limited to Baltimore. But given the city's history of hassling young black men for imaginary offenses, it is not hard to understand why Freddie Gray ran when he saw the cops.
The officer never claimed it was a switchblade. Somebody will eventually have to clear up the issue of whether this knife was illegal according to the City of Baltimore's laws, and not the State's definition. Frankly, I'd trust the officers who are on the street every day to know what is, or what isn't considered an illegal knife within the City limits, not some politician elected to a State position four months ago. Besides, we have no idea if Freddie Gray was under any previous court orders regarding carrying knives or any other weapon. Since he was an ex-con, I'm assuming he was, especially if he was still on parole. He also had been arrested on 3/13 and 3/30 for which we have no known disposition rendered. There's still a lot to come out in this case on both sides.
Thanks. I hadn’t been able to find those.
The claim that medical help was requested “immediately” is at minimum open to question.
Unfortunately you are wrong on this. You go by the totality of the circumstances. Freddie was in an area known for drug trafficking, he had a history of selling drugs and was known to a couple of the officers. He was observed in a hand-to-hand transfer of “something” with another male.
When Freddie saw the cops, he took off running as did the other subject. This is what the Supreme Court has ruled to be “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal act has taken place. The police have every right to pursue Freddie and initiate an investigation. As a result, they found the knife during the pat down. (Terry V Ohio) The knife, which they believed to be illegal under Baltimore City Code was the “probable cause” to arrest Mr. Grey.
There are multiple things going on here and a chronology of events. You do not need “probable cause” to initiate an investigation if the totality of the circumstances would cause a reasonable person to believe a crime had been committed.
By definition it is forensic evidence. It has to be interpreted by those trained to do so, but the medical examiner said it was consistent with his wound. I wish aomeone had ordered an independent autopsy, but of course, nobody knew this prosecutor was going to make a charge of murder until it was too late for that.
Maybe he was going fishing and uses it to cut bait, or maybe he uses it to cut kindling for his campfire. Or, maybe he uses it to mug little old ladies.
The charging documents linked in 58 say that he “did unlawfully carry, possess and sell a knife commonly known as a switchblade knife.”
The problem was that the knife he had is simply not the “knife commonly known as a switchblade.” That it had some features in common with switchblades does not make it one.
The ordinance bans switchblades and then make a clumsy attempt to dfine them. But the ban is on switchblades, and this wasn’t.
Not true. The police officer is the complainant. He is the one who signs and files the affidavit. The prosecutor only handles the prosecution of the case.
The cop may confer with the prosecutor prior to filing the charges (usually regarding felonies), but the cop is the one who signs the complaint. Just as you would if you had a beef with a neighbor.
We'll have to see how that pans out down the road if this case ever gets to court.
Maybe - probably. But not complying with police commands is.
“They didn’t find the knife until after they decided to arrest him.”
************************************************************************************************
Really? Really? And you “know” this how?
Why anyone would want to be a cop in the cesspool that is Baltimore is a mystery.
Cuz he was a career drug dealer, had some inventory on him, and thought he could get away. Duh....
I hate to keep correcting you, and please don’t take this as a personal affront. It is obvious you are not involved in the legal system.
The affidavit has to contain the statutory language that the person is charged under. What you are seeing is a redacted form of the charging document, the “affidavit”.
Normally the information is presented in this form with the verbiage from the code as the first portion of the complaint. Then, usually, you will find something like this...”To wit: Mr Grey was observed standing on the corner of blank and blank with another male. This officer observed Mr Grey conduct a hand-to-hand transaction with the other male. When Mr. Grey observed this officer, he ran in a ___ direction. When this officer caught Mr. Grey, he found a red, spring-assisted knife in Mr. Grey’s right front pocket. This in violation of Section..blah...blah...blah.
Again, please do not take this personally. As a retired LEO, I’ve filled out MANY affidavits and what you are seeing is NOT everything that is put on it.
I don’t know what happened and I am not defending nor accusing those involved. I just know from experience that there is usually a lot more that will come out that will either convict or exonerate those charged. We are just at the beginning of this case. God help Baltimore when this case is over, regardless of outcome. The riots that occurred earlier will look like a walk in the park later this summer.
Do you know what an “open assist” knife is? Do you own one? Have you ever handled one?
I think the idea that some drug transaction was witnessed is still just a rumor, no? Is there any actual police officer or official who has stated that on the record?
The only official cause I have seen cited is that he ran from them in a high crime area. That might have given them reason to chase him and detain him for questioning, but it still wouldn’t give them any cause to arrest him.
“The knife, which they believed to be illegal...”
Yeah, “which they believed” are the key words there. I’m sure they knew it wasn’t illegal, because cops are not ignorant of such a common law that they have to make judgements on nearly every time they search someone. However, they also know that they can claim they thought the knife was illegal, and that covers their behinds against false arrest charges. So this seems like a classic fishing expedition by the cops, and they found just enough that they could take the guy for a ride, even if the charges would never stick in court.
“The charging documents linked in 58 say that he “did unlawfully carry, possess and sell a knife commonly known as a switchblade knife.”
The problem was that the knife he had is simply not the “knife commonly known as a switchblade.” That it had some features in common with switchblades does not make it one.
The ordinance bans switchblades and then make a clumsy attempt to dfine them. But the ban is on switchblades, and this wasn’t.”
*****************************************************************************************************
You need to research this more...you’re wrong. “Switchblades” are ONLY one category of knife that are illegal to carry in Baltimore/Maryland. There are other categories of “assisted opening” knives that are prohibited.
Broken spinal cords are consistent with a heroin overdose?
I’ll buy that. I don’t claim to be an expert. But I do know that if you prohibit what is commonly known as a switchblade, you have tied yourself to the common definition.
Unless your law then says, “and all other spring-assisted knives.”
“A dealer who had just been observed making a hand to hand transaction.”
Says who?
Feel free to post the relevant ordinances. I’m always willing to learn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.