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.
We'll have to see how that pans out down the road if this case ever gets to court.
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.
“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.
In case you’re not feeling up to doing any research. The below section defines what a “switchblade” is. It IS LEGAL TO OWN such knifes but it IS ILLEGAL TO SELL OR CARRY such knifes. Maryland case law effectively has expanded the definition of illegal knife to include such things as “gravity” knifes.
Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 4-105 (2012)
§ 4-105. Transfer of switchblade or shooting knife
(a) Prohibited. — A person may not sell, barter, display, or offer to sell or barter:
(1) a knife or a penknife having a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife, commonly called a switchblade knife or a switchblade penknife; or
(2) a device that is designed to propel a knife from a metal sheath by means of a high-compression ejector spring, commonly called a shooting knife.
(b) Penalty. — A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine of not less than $ 50 and not exceeding $ 500 or both.
The requirement for police to make an arrest is probable not definite. Even if the knife in question is ultimately found to be legal by Baltimore statute, it doesn't mean the arrest was improper.