Posted on 06/11/2022 6:29:34 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Washington state Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person’s race, and law enforcement’s long history of discrimination against people of color, should be taken into account when determining the legality of police seizures.
The court also clarified state law to say that police has seized a person if an objective observer — who is aware that discrimination and biases “have resulted in disproportionate police contacts, investigative seizures, and uses of force against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color” — would conclude that the person was not free to leave or refuse a request.
“Today, we formally recognize what has always been true: In interactions with law enforcement, race and ethnicity matter,” Justice Mary Yu wrote for the unanimous court. “Therefore, courts must consider the race and ethnicity of the allegedly seized person as part of the totality of the circumstances when deciding whether there was a seizure.”
The case concerns Palla Sum, a person of color, who was sleeping in his car in Tacoma, when police came upon him. An officer ran his plates and determined the car had not been reported stolen.
The officer knocked on the window, asked Sum questions and asked him for identification.
Sum gave a false name and the officer went back to his cruiser to check records. Sum then drove off, crashed into a front lawn and was caught as he attempted to run away.
He was subsequently charged with making a false statement, attempting to flee police and unlawful possession of a firearm, after a gun was found in his car.
But Sum argued his statements to police should be inadmissible, because he was “unlawfully seized” by police after the officer asked for his identification and said that had been car thefts in the area.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
And the spike in murders since #BLM caused much reduced policing has largely killed black people. There’s an argument to be made that #BLM helped kill over 2000 black men both in 2020 and 2021, with 2022 likely to be similar. The KKK (what there is of it) wishes they were able to do something like that.
This is exactly what the American Revolution was fought against—special treatment for those with “royal blood”.
No more of that old liberal “living together in peace and harmony” business. It’s all about group revenge, while the ruling class stands above aloof.
Don’t think I agree with this by what I’m about to do I am actually just explaining from a person who was a police officer in Washington State up until a month ago.
A police officer can only demand a person’s identification under certain circumstances. Those are when they are lawfully seized as in their S probable cause for an arrest or when they’re issuing a traffic citation.
This officer did not have the right to seize the person because he didn’t have probable causeAnd he did not articulate his reasonable suspicion which would have allowed him to temporarily detain the person here.
It may seem like a fine point but what a person is temporarily detained for a suspicious or Terry stop as I call it you can investigate the initial crime or or any subsequent contract crime I’m that you reasonably believe may have been occurring had just occurred or as about to occur.
But you cannot demand their identification on reasonable suspicion only on on probable cause.
The court is ruling in this particular case their case that the officer did not have Problem will cause which would allow the requirement that the person provide their true name and date of birth date of birth and his reasonable suspicion was gone when he determined the car was not listed in the database is stolen.
That’s not to say that if he had articulated that he thought the car was stolen but not yet reported due to his training experience and what he was seeing at that moment..... Which would allow him to continue to detain the person and for further investigation but would not have allowed him to demand identification.
The officer in his report did not articulate any facts that would have allowed him to continue the detention pension yet he demanded identification and so the court said it was an unlawful seizure.
Up to this point I understand the ruling and agree with it based upon Washington State case law history.
This is where they bring racing to it and I’ll explain that a little more in depth.
There’s well established case law in Washington State that says that says that an officer’s behavior manner the positioning of the positioning of the detained person person and how many cops et cetera can et cetera can make a person believe they are under arrest even if the police didn’t think so.
For instance if there’s a person stoperson standing against a wall and there’s 5 cops surrounding them and they have their blue lights turned on on their vehicles the reasonable person standard would say that human being would believe they’re not free to leave AKA arrested or seized.
When the person reasonably believes they are arrested or seizedThat changes everything that occurs after that point perfor that point. Meaning it brings in to play the rights to Miranda search et cetera.
The court in this case extended This legal standard to include minority racial category people who think just because the police are there they’re not free to leave because they might just get killed for no reason by the police if they don’t listen to them.
As an example they believe that a white person and And a black person come under the exact same circumstances, could have a different view of whether they are free to leave or not.
They say the black person having some femoral beliefs that they’re gonna get smoked by the police officer if they don’t obey if they don’t obey, Can claim a reasonable belief that they are not free to go AKA arrested dead or detained lawfully under much different circumstances.
A black person in the state of Washington can now argue in court that when an officer walks up to them on the sidewalk and starts talking to them that they’re so afraid of the police because of because of decades or centuries of police violence against minorities that they are under arrest.
There’s a state I have no need to visit.
The last politician of either party worth a flip in Washington state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixy_Lee_Ray
Apparently, blacks need all the free passes their criminality requires.
I foresee no adverse effects to this ruling at all. Nope.
The problem with this argument is that blacks’ belief that they are threatened by police may be based on myth and propaganda.
Washington State is not the Jim Crow south.
However, Washington State does have leftist media that pushes myths of “white racism” and “police brutality”.
If you watch some episodes of “Cops” and watch how police treat suspects it becomes clear that is behavior that gets the attention of police.
When folks are pulled over for going through a stop sign, for example, everything is fine when the driver and passengers are calm and polite and make no sudden movements.
If the driver and passenger are hostile or jumpy or appear to making movements to hide something then the cops suspect something is not right.
It is true that a car full of black young men is more likely to be viewed as suspicious—not because they are black young men but because they exhibit the behavior I described.
The only solution to Critical Race Theory involves a rope.
“..law enforcement’s long history of discrimination against people of color,..”
Maybe, but that is subjective. The facts are that “people of color” do commit much more crime, especially when considering their percentage of the population - much more - and that’s a fact.
Actually the bigger problem is it creates a dual track standard of Justice where any time a black person or any other my own or group is interacting with the police in any manner they’re going to be able to argue that they were detained or detained or arrested because of their “fear” And everything that occurs after that with a law enforcement purpose will be judged on whether the detention or arrest was lawful or not.
It literally means if a cop starts talking to a person in Washington State he has to ask himself is this a minority group And if so by just talking to them have I arrested them under the law off because they have a An unknown fear of me and therefore they are unlawfully seized in their own mind.
More reasons to separate. They want their own separate judicial. I say let’s give them their own legislature and executivs as well. In other words their own country.
It’s time to end this dysfunctional abusive marriage. It never worked and it never will. Let each side go their own way and control their own destinies.
Maybe cops should be more of a social service organization. If they find a Shoplifter, make sure they get a ride home with all the loot. An unarmed minority, give them their gun... with extra magazines. This is what a true social justice program would look like. No more half way measures!
I’m not sure muni bond investors have the same opinion of the late lesbian dimocRAT. https://www.historylink.org/file/5482
The left wants their favored minority to be exempt from all laws, and to be able to do anything it wants without any consequences.
This at a time when you can be fired and blackballed for using a normal English language pronoun in a normal way in a normal sentence.
Shall we apply this same principle to gender? Men are targeted as potential crime arrests more than women. Men are imprisoned more than women. Pure discrimination.
democrats are such racists and have been for a long time.
So much for equal treatment under the law.
New directive for Washington police: Only arrest Whites - and a few Asians. Let the rest go no matter how heinous the crime.
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.