Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: 4th amendment question on Freddie Gray

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    4th amendment question on Freddie Gray

    My question for lawyers / LEOs (I am not either one) referring to the stop and arrest only…

    4th Amendment / Terry Stop: What was the police’s reasonable articulate suspicion (RAS) for the stop in the first place? What crime did they suspect that Mr. Gray had / was / was about to commit?

    From what I have read, Mr. Gray made eye contact with a police officer and then ran off. While somewhat suspicious, IMO not suspicious by itself for a stop / detain in that there is no law being broken at that time.

    Now, after the (illegal?) stop and detain, a safety outer pat-down / frisk for weapons is allowed via Terry. While the knife may or may not have been legal by itself (is it or is it not a switchblade), that would be argued in court so the arrest would be legal. Then, with Mr. Gray being a felon, even if the knife was legal (i.e. not a mechanically assisted switchblade), the possession of the weapon by a felon may be illegal (depending on his probation rules), so the arrest would be legal.

    But, my point is: prior to the stop and frisk the police did not have RAS to chase down and stop / detain Mr. Gray in the first place, so if this had gotten to a court the switchblade (or not) evidence would have / should have been thrown out.

    Thoughts on this?
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post
    My question for lawyers / LEOs (I am not either one) referring to the stop and arrest only…

    4th Amendment / Terry Stop: What was the police’s reasonable articulate suspicion (RAS) for the stop in the first place? What crime did they suspect that Mr. Gray had / was / was about to commit?

    From what I have read, Mr. Gray made eye contact with a police officer and then ran off. While somewhat suspicious, IMO not suspicious by itself for a stop / detain in that there is no law being broken at that time.

    Now, after the (illegal?) stop and detain, a safety outer pat-down / frisk for weapons is allowed via Terry. While the knife may or may not have been legal by itself (is it or is it not a switchblade), that would be argued in court so the arrest would be legal. Then, with Mr. Gray being a felon, even if the knife was legal (i.e. not a mechanically assisted switchblade), the possession of the weapon by a felon may be illegal (depending on his probation rules), so the arrest would be legal.

    But, my point is: prior to the stop and frisk the police did not have RAS to chase down and stop / detain Mr. Gray in the first place, so if this had gotten to a court the switchblade (or not) evidence would have / should have been thrown out.

    Thoughts on this?
    My main overall thought is that the legality/illegality of the detention will only slightly affect the homicide issue. If the detention was legal, no effect. If the detention was illegal, more animosity from the citizens, little effect on the case unless the exact cop(s) who started the detention were part of the homicide. The family might get more money out of the federal lawsuit, I might guess.

    As to making eye contact and then running, I agree that cannot possibly be justification for detaining him. However, the law may see it differently. Seems to me that running after seeing cops while in a so-called high-crime area might be enough for the courts. Or, doing it in a known drug area.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    Ok, someone on a different blog site pointed to Illinois v. Wardlow LINK

    "The US Supreme Court reversed both the Appellate and Illinois Supreme Court decisions, with the Supreme Court stating that fleeing in a high crime area at the sight of police is enough to create reasonable suspicion. Indicating that reasonable suspicion rest heavily on normal human behavior, stating that flight at the mere sight of police is a sign that there exists reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot."

    I personally disagree with SCOTUS on this one where the RAS is being applied in a general non-specific way.

    Lots of people work, live, and travel through areas that are "high crime area" that are not committing any crime.
    IMO RAS has to be fairly specific as to what law is thought to have been broken, not just general criminal activity that might be happening.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  4. #4
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    My main overall thought is that the legality/illegality of the detention will only slightly affect the homicide issue. If the detention was legal, no effect. If the detention was illegal, more animosity from the citizens, little effect on the case unless the exact cop(s) who started the detention were part of the homicide. The family might get more money out of the federal lawsuit, I might guess.

    As to making eye contact and then running, I agree that cannot possibly be justification for detaining him. However, the law may see it differently. Seems to me that running after seeing cops while in a so-called high-crime area might be enough for the courts. Or, doing it in a known drug area.
    Every time I go to the store I make eye contact with people, I also believe there was a Washington state detention, and arrest because the person was looking at the ground(not making eye contact). Here it is in a nutshell, breathing will be claimed as RAS, some cops make it up as they go. You can't win on the street, the police have to broad of authority, and the courts only fix it if you live.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 05-04-2015 at 02:49 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post
    Ok, someone on a different blog site pointed to Illinois v. Wardlow LINK

    "The US Supreme Court reversed both the Appellate and Illinois Supreme Court decisions, with the Supreme Court stating that fleeing in a high crime area at the sight of police is enough to create reasonable suspicion. Indicating that reasonable suspicion rest heavily on normal human behavior, stating that flight at the mere sight of police is a sign that there exists reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot."

    I personally disagree with SCOTUS on this one where the RAS is being applied in a general non-specific way.

    Lots of people work, live, and travel through areas that are "high crime area" that are not committing any crime.
    IMO RAS has to be fairly specific as to what law is thought to have been broken, not just general criminal activity that might be happening.
    I'll have to read the decision; but, for the moment, the decision as presented in the wiki article is just absurd.

    In Terry v Ohio, Detective McFadden had extensive observations of Terry casing a (jewelry store?) for a robbery before seizing him. Now, if the rabbit bolts, give chase and lets see if we can find something.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-04-2015 at 03:26 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Every time I go to the store I make eye contact with people, I also believe there was a Washington state detention, and arrest because the person was looking at the ground(not making eye contact). Here it is in a nutshell, breathing will be claimed as RAS, some cops make it up as they go. You can't win on the street, the police have to broad of authority, and the courts only fix it if you live.
    I can't remember the case but there was a decision similar to this "stop". The courts ruled if I remember correctly that walking/running away when you see police does not create RS/PC.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    i can't remember the case but there was a decision similar to this "stop". The courts ruled if i remember correctly that walking/running away when you see police does not create rs/pc.

    4th circuit v black...

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...state+V.+black

    http://www.ncgunblog.com/2013/03/19/...on-open-carry/
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 05-05-2015 at 03:12 AM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post
    My question for lawyers / LEOs (I am not either one) referring to the stop and arrest only…

    4th Amendment / Terry Stop: What was the police’s reasonable articulate suspicion (RAS) for the stop in the first place? What crime did they suspect that Mr. Gray had / was / was about to commit?

    From what I have read, Mr. Gray made eye contact with a police officer and then ran off. While somewhat suspicious, IMO not suspicious by itself for a stop / detain in that there is no law being broken at that time.

    Now, after the (illegal?) stop and detain, a safety outer pat-down / frisk for weapons is allowed via Terry. While the knife may or may not have been legal by itself (is it or is it not a switchblade), that would be argued in court so the arrest would be legal. Then, with Mr. Gray being a felon, even if the knife was legal (i.e. not a mechanically assisted switchblade), the possession of the weapon by a felon may be illegal (depending on his probation rules), so the arrest would be legal.

    But, my point is: prior to the stop and frisk the police did not have RAS to chase down and stop / detain Mr. Gray in the first place, so if this had gotten to a court the switchblade (or not) evidence would have / should have been thrown out.

    Thoughts on this?
    You wabbit, cops dog...dog sees wabbit run, dog chases wabbit...this is how nature works.

    Also, to some folks, the mere sight of a cop, activates their flight response...survival instinct?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Oh yes that is a good one!

    There was a Washington state one too.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •