The Talk:’Black Codes’ –No Probable Cause Freddie Gray’s flight and FALSE IMPRISONMENT; Mississippi whites began passing laws to take away the former slaves’ new found freedom.’Stop and Frisk’

“The Talk” Probable Cause Unlawful Detainment/arrest

            The disparate treatment in the American criminal justice system begins at the very first stage of that system:

Equal Protection Clause

giving rise to the necessity of :

THE TALK

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
— George Orwell

Statutory limitations on individual freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are examined for substantive authority and content as well as for definiteness or certainty of expression. The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Vague Terms like acting Irate, resisting, gang are undefinable as a human action. successful as

PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES: For the takeaway is so often base,

a reflection more of people’s fears and insecurities than of our hopes and dreams.

our constitutional right to freedom of movement.^{[Note 1][Note 2]]}

Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 500 (1983) (plurality opinion). I am not persuaded that the mere fact that someone standing on a sidewalk looked in the direction of a passing car before starting to run is sufficient to justify a forcible stop and frisk.

Chapter I Race and the Police

            The disparate treatment in the American criminal justice system begins at the very first stage of that system: Equal Protection Clause

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two of the most important concepts in deciding the when it is appropriate for police to make an arrest, search for evidence and stop a person for questioning.

The investigation of suspected criminal activity by law enforcement agents.

Police departments disproportionately politically economically target, skewing at the outset the racial composition of the population ultimately charged, convicted and incarcerated. And too often the police employ tactics against minorities that simply shock the conscience.

The Court hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement.^{[Note 1][Note 2]]}

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to ‘ALL PEOPLE’ within its jurisdiction.

Black Codes like Stop and Frisk Laws, iaw SCOTUS,Court Most Supreme:

gives excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause to arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone.^[3]

The Fourth Amendment REQUIRES that COPS have a reasonable suspicion

that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed BEFORE stopping a suspect.

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to ‘ALL PEOPLE’ within its jurisdiction.

The Constitution does not offer a definition probable cause.-Making Probable Cause a “Black Code” Reason

“weighs testimony, whilst the latter, conscious perhaps of its inability to do so or careless of the consequences of error, at times rejects whole portions en masse , and at others converts pieces of evidence into rules of law by investing with conclusive effect some whose probative force has been found to be in general considerable. . . .” SCOTUS

SCOTUS–How

do

Cops

Lie? By Generalities Terms

The Court hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement.^{[Note 1][Note 2]]}

Black Codes

African Americans arrested and convicted under the Black Codes could be, and usually were, forced to work on plantations. Since most African-Americans had until recently been unpaid slaves, few possessed money to pay the fines assessed for their “crimes.”

Louisiana is the world’s prison capital http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/05/louisiana_is_the_worlds_prison.html

The first private prison in the U.S. was an immigration detention center. In 1983, CCA won the first federal contract to build a facility in Houston, Texas. Before the facility was even finished, CCA began detaining immigrants in rented motel rooms.

Both the Houston Processing Center and the Wackenhut-operated (a division of GEO Group) Aurora Processing Center opened in 1984. http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/node/2393

Prison Industry Revenues and stock prices are skyrocketing for private prison companies that build immigration prisons, like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group, Inc.

John D Ferguson Missouri Prison Industry/Slaver

These companies have an incentive to urge the government to build more jails, and in fact, regularly lobby in Washington, DC for more detention, even if it is not the most effective use of taxpayer dollars.

Corrections Corporation of America “We’ve never seen the wind at our back like it is today.” -CCA President and CEO John D. Ferguson, May 2006

#santabarbara refugio state beach in california ‏@californianewsn Big Oil Spill Along Refugio Coast … #oilspill #oilspill @SFGate #CA Governor Oh, #sboilspill #SantaBarbaraOilSpill

Invoice Prison Industry

Prison Industry Jury nulification

Prison Industry

Prison Industry Military Industry

Prison Industry Free Prison Labor makes your world go around

Leter from China Prison

Land Grab Probable Cause

Land Grab Baltimore Detroit Chicago New York

Hemp will clean it up

Global Prison Industry

weighs testimony, conscious of its inability to do so, careless of the consequences of error

Gentrification is any facet of urban renewal that inevitably leads to displacement of the occupying demographic. This is a common and widespread controversial topic and term in urban planning.[1]

Bobby JinDal The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect.

Eric Garner, body search New York Patrick Lynch

Donta Allen shared Freddie Gray’s last ride inside a paddy-wagon arrested for weed which is not an arrestable offense in Baltimore

Body Search Propable Cause Baltimore FOP Anthony Batts

Orphan “Black Code” Harrison County Juvenile Detention Center in Biloxi, Mississippi is operated by Mississippi Security Services

Corp Prison Industry Ferguson, John D. Missouri CCA

Darren wilson’s testimony that Mike Brown had his hands up.

In the United States, the “ORPHAN/Black Codes”

Children are tortured in police custody. They are held in prisons in inhuman and degrading conditions. They are denied the due process which should guarantee them fair trials. They are held for years without charge. They are forgotten by the world that walks past the bars of their existence.

These laws passed by Southern states in 1865 and 1866, after the Civil War. These laws had the intent and the effect of restricting African Americans’ freedom, and of compelling them to work in a labor economy based on low wages or debt.

Ronald Brockmeyer, the municipal judge in Ferguson, has resigned less than a week after a scathing federal report called his court little more than an ATM for the city. And the Missouri Supreme Court has ordered all Ferguson municipal court cases transferred to Judge Roy L. Richter of the Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Ferguson collected $2.6 million in court fines and fees.  Ferguson officials “have built a municipal scheme designed to brutalize, to punish, and to profit.”

Plus 2. Blue  fed Tax dollars also pay the tab for the same in-mate care.

Fed Blue Tax Dollars paid to governors Red and Blue

GEO Group, Inc.

GEO Group is one of the largest security firms in the world and the nation’s second largest for-profit prison operator. GEO operates 50 facilities in 16 states and one in Guantanamo Bay.

In 2008, GEO Group earned $1.14 billion in U.S. revenue with a net income of $59.8 million.

CCA has been able to charge up to $200/day per bed in the Don T. Hutto family Immigration detention facility in Texas.

Plus 3. Private prisons profit on the Free-prison Labor .

Plus 4. Forfeitures are available to arresting officers.

Being paid for the same fees by all cycles of the prison industry lends to motive, lack of probable cause and enforcement of Black Codes.

Last year, NPR’s investigative series Guilty and Charged revealed that all 50 states add long lists of fines and fees for court services, including the cost of a public defender, and room and board for jail stays. The investigation also found that when the poor struggle to pay those fees — often with penalties that push costs to hundreds or thousands of dollars — they are sent to jail for not paying the fines, even though debtors prisons were outlawed before the Civil War.

Definitions Of Probable Cause Vs. Reasonable Suspicion

Written by J. Hirby | Fact checked by The Law Dictionary staff |

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two of the most important concepts in deciding the when it is appropriate for police to make an arrest, search for evidence and stop a person for questioning. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion have evolved through state and federal court decisions, but they began in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“A person, however conscious of innocence, might not have courage to stand a trial, but might, although innocent, think it necessary to consult his safety by flight. It may be,”

added the learned judge,

“a conscious anticipation of punishment for guilt, as the guilty will always anticipate the

Page 160 U. S. 419

consequences; but at the same time it may possibly be, according to the frame of mind, merely an inclination to consult his safety by flight, rather than stand his trial on a charge so heinous and scandalous as this.”

Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

 

Probable Cause to Arrest

The Fourth Amendment

to the United States Constitution states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It goes on to specify that a search warrant cannot be issued unless there is probable cause for doing so.

The Constitution does not offer a definition probable cause.-Making probable Cause a “Black Code”

Providing a definition was left to the justices of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment use of the word “seizure” to mean both the seizure of evidence and, as in an arrest, the seizure of a person. The Court also applied probable cause to searches, seizures and arrests conducted without a warrant.

According to the Supreme Court, probable cause to make an arrest exists when an officer has knowledge of such facts as would lead a reasonable person to believe that a particularindividual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a criminal act. The officer must be able to articulate the facts and circumstances forming the basis for probable cause.

 

Black Codes

Also found in: Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

Black Codes and Stop and Frisk:  A body of laws, statutes, and rules enacted by southern states immediately after the Civil War to regain control over the freed slaves, maintain white supremacy, and ensure the continued supply of cheap labor.

The Union’s victory over the South in the Civil War signaled the end for the institution of Slavery in the United States. Ratified in 1865, theThirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution formalized this result in U.S. law, abolishing slavery throughout the country and every territory subject to its jurisdiction.

Scheme: For the next several months, southern states sought a way to restore for the white majority what the Civil War and the Thirteenth Amendment had tried to deny them, supremacy, control, and economic power over the fate of African Americans.

Under slavery, whites had disciplined the blacks largely outside the law, through extralegal whippings administered by slavers and their overseers.

Process: After the slaves were emancipated, panicky whites feared that blacks would seek revenge against them for their harsh and inhumane treatment on the southern plantations. Former slave owners feared for themselves, their families, and their property.

While some white southerners thought that African-Americans were best controlled through Vigilantism, Mississippi whites began passing laws to take away the former slaves’ new found freedom.

Juvenile Justice

• The first such law was enacted on November 22, 1865. It directed civil officers to hire orphaned African Americans and forbade the orphans to leave their place of employment for any reason.
  

  Orphan “Black Code” Harrison County Juvenile Detention Center in Biloxi, Mississippi is operated by Mississippi Security Services

Orphans were typically compensated with a free place to live, free meals, and some type of nominal wage. Other white employers were prohibited from offering any enticement to blacks “employed” by someone else.

Probable Cause Case law

[See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S.352 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of laws that allow police to demand that “loiterers” and “wanderers” provide identification.

Using the construction of the California appellate court in Solomon, the Court held that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause to arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone.^[3] The Court hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement.^{[Note 1][Note 2]]}

Stop and Frisk–

The Mississippi legislature next passed a Vagrancylaw, defining vagrants as workers who “neglected their calling or employment or misspent what they earned.”

Another Mississippi law required African Americans to:

• carry with them written evidence of their present employment at all times, a practice that was hauntingly reminiscent of the old pass system under slavery.

The final piece to the puzzle came when Mississippi established a system of special county courts to punish blacks charged with violating one of the new state employment laws. The law imposed draconian punishments, including “corporal chastisement” for blacks who refused to work or otherwise tried to [frustrate] the system.African Americans who committed real crimes, such as stealing, could be hung by their thumbs.

Probable Cause Case Law

[The shooting unfolded Saturday night after Officer Benjamin Deen, 34, stopped a vehicle for a speeding violation, then called for backup after he found probable cause to search the car,

Prison Industry  Widely considered to be the first set of Black Codes passed in the south after the Civil War, these Mississippi laws represented a concerted effort by white lawmakers to restore the master-slave relationship under a new name. Within a few months after Mississippi passed its first such law,Alabama,Georgia, Louisiana,Florida, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina followed suit by enacting similar laws of their own.

Congress quickly responded to the Black Codes by passing the civil rights act of 1866,which made it illegal to discriminate against blacks by assigning them an inferior legal and economic status. Two years later the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed “equal protection of the laws” to the residents of every state.

But the southern states were not deterred. They soon passed a new set of laws that permitted local officials to informally discriminate against blacks, without specific statutory authority. The thrust-and-parry exchanges between Congress and the southern states continued throughout the period Reconstruction (1865-77) and through the first half of the twentieth century.

Black Codes = Stop and Frisk: Freddy Gray, Eric Garner, Walter Scott

John D Ferguson Missouri Prison Industry/Slaver

John D Ferguson Missouri Prison Industry/Slaver

Prison Industry Revenues and stock prices are skyrocketing for private prison companies that build immigration prisons, like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group, Inc.

Both the Houston Processing Center and the Wackenhut-operated (a division of GEO Group) Aurora Processing Center opened in 1984. http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/node/2393

The first private prison in the U.S. was an immigration detention center. In 1983, CCA won the first federal contract to build a facility in Houston, Texas. Before the facility was even finished, CCA began detaining immigrants in rented motel rooms.

Stop and frisk

A brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspect.  The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect.  If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing.   See Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1967).

Terry v. Ohio Even assuming we know that a person runs because he sees the police, the inference to be drawn may still vary from case to case. Flight to escape police detection, we have said, may have an entirely innocent motivation: “[I]t is a matter of common knowledge that men who are entirely innocent do sometimes fly from the scene of a crime through fear of being apprehended as the guilty parties, or from an unwillingness to appear as witnesses.

Nor is it true as an accepted axiom of criminal law that `the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.‘

Innocent men sometimes hesitate to confront a jury–not necessarily because they fear that the jury will not protect them, but because they do not wish their names to appear in connection with criminal acts, are humiliated at being obliged to incur the popular odium of an arrest and trial, or because they do not wish to be put to the annoyance or expense of defending themselves.” Alberty v. United States, 162 U. S. 499, 511 (1896).

The probative force of the inferences

to be drawn from flight

Running while black as probable cause?

Running While Black

Hickory v. United States , 160 U. S. 408, 419-420 896) 

is a function of the varied circumstances in which it occurs. Sometimes those inferences are entirely consistent with the presumption of innocence, sometimes they justify further investigation, and sometimes they justify an immediate stop and search for weapons.

Freddie Gray Police Report and why cops lie: Lack of Probable Cause as described by Law

These considerations have led us to avoid categorical rules concerning a person’s flight and the presumptions to be drawn therefrom:

“Few things distinguish an enlightened system of judicature from a rude and barbarous one more than the manner in which they deal with evidence. The former weighs testimony, whilst the latter, conscious perhaps of its inability to do so or careless of the consequences of error, at times rejects whole portions en masse , and at others converts pieces of evidence into rules of law by investing with conclusive effect some whose probative force has been found to be in general considerable. . . .

Our ancestors, observing that guilty persons usually fled from justice, adopted the hasty conclusion that it was only the guilty who did so . . . so that under the old law, a man who fled to avoid being tried for felony forfeited all his goods even though he were acquitted … .

In modern times more correct views have prevailed, and the evasion of or flight from justice seems now nearly reduced to its true place in the administration of the criminal law, namely, that of a circumstance—

a fact which it is always of importance to take into consideration, and combined with others may afford strong evidence of guilt, but which, like any other piece of presumptive evidence,

it is equally absurd and dangerous to invest with infallibility.” Hickory v. United States , 160 U. S. 408, 419-420 (1896) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Unprovoked flight,”

in short, describes a category of activity too broad and varied to permit a per se reasonable inference regarding the motivation for the activity. While the innocent explanations surely do not establish that the Fourth Amendment is always violated whenever someone is stopped solely on the basis of an unprovoked flight,

neither do the suspicious motivations establish that the Fourth Amendment is never violated when a Terry stop is predicated on that fact alone. For these reasons, the Court is surely correct in refusing to embrace either per se rule advocated by the parties. The totality of the circumstances, as always, must dictate the result. ¹³  

II

     Guided by that totality-of-the-circumstances test, the Court concludes that Officer Nolan had reasonable suspicion to stop respondent. Ante , at 5. In this respect, my view differs from the Court’s. The entire justification for the stop is articulated in the brief testimony of Officer Nolan. Some facts are perfectly clear; others are not. This factual insufficiency leads me to conclude that the Court’s judgment is mistaken.

Respondent Wardlow was arrested a few minutes after noon on September 9, 1995. 183 Ill. 2d 306, 308, n. 1, 701 N. E. 2d 484, 485, n. 1 (1998). ¹⁴   Nolan was part of an eight-officer, four-car caravan patrol team. The officers were headed for “one of the areas in the 11th District [of Chicago] that’s high [in] narcotics traffic.” App. 8. ¹⁵   The reason why four cars were in the caravan was that “[n]ormally in these different areas there’s an enormous amount of people, sometimes lookouts, customers.” Ibid. Officer Nolan testified that he was in uniform on that day, but he did not recall whether he was driving a marked or an unmarked car. Id., at 4.

Officer Nolan and his partner were in the last of the four patrol cars that “were all caravaning eastbound down Van Buren.” Id., at 8. Nolan first observed respondent “in front of 4035 West Van Buren.” Id., at 7. Wardlow “looked in our direction and began fleeing.” Id., at 9. Nolan then “began driving southbound down the street observing [respondent] running through the gangway and the alley southbound,” and observed that Wardlow was carrying a white, opaque bag under his arm. Id., at 6, 9. After the car turned south and intercepted respondent as he “ran right towards us,” Officer Nolan stopped him and conducted a “protective search,” which revealed that the bag under respondent’s arm contained a loaded handgun. Id., at 9-11.

This terse testimony is most noticeable for what it fails to reveal. Though asked whether he was in a marked or unmarked car, Officer Nolan could not recall the answer. Id., at 4. He was not asked whether any of the other three cars in the caravan were marked, or whether any of the other seven officers were in uniform. Though he explained that the size of the caravan was because “[n]ormally in these different areas there’s an enormous amount of people, sometimes lookouts, customers,” Officer Nolan did not testify as to whether anyone besides Wardlow was nearby 4035 West Van Buren. Nor is it clear that that address was the intended destination of the caravan. As the Appellate Court of Illinois interpreted the record, “it appears that the officers were simply driving by, on their way to some unidentified location, when they noticed defendant standing at 4035 West Van Buren.” 287 Ill. App. 3d 367, 370-371, 678 N. E. 2d 65, 67 (1997). ¹⁶   Officer Nolan’s testimony also does not reveal how fast the officers were driving. It does not indicate whether he saw respondent notice the other patrol cars. And it does not say whether the caravan, or any part of it, had already passed Wardlow by before he began to run.

Indeed, the Appellate Court thought the record was even “too vague to support the inference that … defendant’s flight was related to his expectation of police focus on him.” Id., at 371, 678 N. E. 2d, at 67. Presumably, respondent did not react to the first three cars, and we cannot even be sure that he recognized the occupants of the fourth as police officers. The adverse inference is based entirely on the officer’s statement: “He looked in our direction and began fleeing.” App. 9. ¹⁷  

No other factors sufficiently support a finding of reasonable suspicion. Though respondent was carrying a white, opaque bag under his arm, there is nothing at all suspicious about that. Certainly the time of day–shortly after noon–does not support Illinois’ argument. Nor were the officers “responding to any call or report of suspicious activity in the area.” 183 Ill. 2d, at 315, 701 N. E. 2d, at 488. Officer Nolan did testify that he expected to find “an enormous amount of people,” including drug customers or lookouts, App. 8, and the Court points out that “[i]t was in this context that Officer Nolan decided to investigate Wardlow after observing him flee.” Ante, at 4. This observation, in my view, lends insufficient weight to the reasonable suspicion analysis; indeed, in light of the absence of testimony that anyone else was nearby when respondent began to run, this observation points in the opposite direction.

The State, along with the majority of the Court, relies as well on the assumption that this flight occurred in a high crime area. Even if that assumption is accurate, it is insufficient because even in a high crime neighborhood unprovoked flight does not invariably lead to reasonable suspicion. On the contrary, because many factors providing innocent motivations for unprovoked flight are concentrated in high crime areas, the character of the neighborhood arguably makes an inference of guilt less appropriate, rather than more so. Like unprovoked flight itself, presence in a high crime neighborhood is a fact too generic and susceptible to innocent explanation to satisfy the reasonable suspicion inquiry. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52 (1979); see also n. 15, supra .

It is the State’s burden to articulate facts sufficient to support reasonable suspicion. Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52 (1979); see also Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 500 (1983) (plurality opinion). In my judgment, Illinois has failed to discharge that burden. I am not persuaded that the mere fact that someone standing on a sidewalk looked in the direction of a passing car before starting to run is sufficient to justify a forcible stop and frisk.

I therefore respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment to reverse the court below.

 

Black Codes

Throughout the Democratic-dominated South, state governments enacted laws designed specifically to put African-Americans back to work.

Though the South had lost the war, President Andrew Johnson, who took office after the assassination of Lincoln in April 1865, allowed former Confederate leaders back into the government with relative ease.

These “Black Codes” applied to African-Americans living in southern states.

African-Americans wandering without proof of employment faced charges of vagrancy, for example.

African Americans arrested and convicted under the Black Codes could be, and usually were, forced to work on plantations. Since most African-Americans had until recently been unpaid slaves, few possessed money to pay the fines assessed for their “crimes.”

Fourteenth Amendment

In direct response to the Black Codes, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868, to guarantee citizenship and civil rights to African-Americans.

For the first time in the nation’s history, the government felt a need to define citizenship. All persons born or naturalized within the borders of the United States were automatically citizens both of the nation and the state in which they resided. African-Americans, who’d had a presence in America since 1619, generally fell into this category.

Furthermore, the amendment prevented state governments from creating laws that apply only to specific groups. This provision theoretically made the Black Codes unconstitutional.

Describing the tool that supposedly justified Gray’s arrest as “a short-bladed folding knife similar to ones worn everyday by millions of law-abiding Americans,” Jonsson notes that knife control (like gun control)

has racist roots and remains a pretext for hassling young black men. “Too often we see an officer who may or may not understand the law arrest somebody for having an illegal knife that isn’t illegal,” Ritter tells him. “We too often see that kind of either blatant ignorance of the law or willful ignorance of the law, in an effort to abuse citizens’ rights to carry this tool.”

Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announces charges are filed against the six city police officers suspended in the Freddie Gray case.

 GOOD MORNING.,

I NEED TO EXPRESS PROBABLY MY DEEPEST SYMPATHIES FOR THE FAMILY OF THE LOVE ONES OF MR. FREDDIE GRAY. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH HIS FAMILY TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE CASE AND THE PROCEDURAL STEPS GOING FORWARD. I ASSURED HIS FAMILY THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND THAT I WOULD PURSUE JUSTICE ON THEIR BEHALF.

TO: THE THOUSANDS OF CITY RESIDENTS AND COMMITTEE ORGANIZERS AND FAITH LEADERS THAT CHOSE TO MARCH PEACEFULLY THROUGHOUT BALTIMORE, I COMMEND YOUR COURAGE TO STAND FOR JUSTICE. I COMMEND THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN BOTH IN UNIFORM AND OUT WHO HAVE STEPPED UP MONDAY NIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR COMMUNITIES FROM THOSE WHO WISH TO DESTROY IT. I HAVE BEEN SWORN TO UPHOLD JUSTICE AND TREAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL EQUALLY AND FAIRLY UNDER THE LAW. I TAKE THIS OATH SERIOUSLY. I WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT MY ADMINISTRATION IS COMMITTED TO CREATING A FAIR AND EQUITABLE

JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR ALL.

IT IS MY JOB TO ANALYZE EACH CASE. THIS IS A TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITY. THIS IS ONE THAT I ACCEPTED WHEN THE CITIZENS OF BALTIMORE CITY ELECTED ME. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT I DID IN THE CASE OF FREDDIE GRAY. ONCE ALERTED ABOUT THIS INCIDENT, INVESTIGATORS FROM MY POLICE INTEGRITY UNIT WERE DEPLOYED TO INVESTIGATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES. OVER THE COURSE OF OUR INVESTIGATION, MY TEAM WORKED AROUND THE CLOCK, 12 AND 14 HOUR DAYS TO CANVAS AND INTERVIEW DOZENS OF WITNESSES.

THEY REVIEWED AND LISTEN TO HOURS OF POLICE VIDEOTAPED STATEMENTS. THEY REVIEWED MEDICAL RECORDS AND LEVERAGE THE INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE TO US BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE COMMUNITY, AND THE FAMILY OF MR. GRAY. THE FINDINGS OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE AND APPENDED INVESTIGATION COUPLED WITH THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S DETERMINATION THAT MR. GRAY’S DEATH WAS A HOMICIDE WHICH WE RECEIVED TODAY HAS LED US TO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES. ON APRIL 12, NEAR NORTH AVENUE , THE TENANT BRIAN RICE WHILE ON BIKE PATROL MADE EYE CONTACT WITH MR. FREDDIE CARLOS GRAY JUNIOR.

HAVING MADE EYE CONTACT, MR. GRAY SUBSEQUENTLY RAN FROM THE TENANT RICE. THE TENANT RICE DID DISPATCHED THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN A FOOT PURSUIT. BY PATROL OFFICERS AND OFFICERS BEGAN PURSUING MR. GRAY. HAVING COME IN CONTACT WITH THE PURSUING OFFICERS, MR. GRAY SURRENDERED TO OFFICERS IN THE VICINITY OF PRESS. STREET. THEY HANDCUFFED HIM AND MOVED

HIM TO A LOCATION A FEW FEET AWAY FROM HIS SURRENDERING LOCATION. HE WAS PLACED IN A PRONE POSITION WITH HIS ARMS HANDCUFFED BEHIND HIS BACK. HE INDICATED THAT HE COULD NOT BREATHE AND REQUESTED AN INHALER TO NO AVAIL.

THE OFFICERS PLACED HIM IN A SEATED POSITION AND FOUND A KNIFE IN HIS PANTS POCKET. THE BLADE OF THE KNIFE WAS FOLDED INTO THE HANDLE. THE KNIFE WAS NOT A SWITCHBLADE AND IS LAWFUL UNDER MARYLAND LAW. THEY REMOVED THE KNIFE AND PLACED IT ON THE SIDEWALK. HE WAS THEN PLACED BACK DOWN ON HIS STOMACH AT WHICH TIME HE BEGAN TO FLAIL HIS LEGS AND SCREAM AND HE WAS PLACED IN A RESTRAINING TECHNIQUE.

A WAGON ARRIVED TO TRANSPORT MR. GRAY.

LIEUTENANT RICE AND THE OTHERS FAILED TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE FOR HIS ARREST AS NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED.

THE OFFICERS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED MR. GRAY. UPON ARRIVAL OF THE TRANSPORT WAGON, LIEUTENANT RICE AND THE OTHERS LOADED HIM INTO THE WAGON AND AT NO POINT WAS HE SECURED BY A SEAT ELSE WHILE IN THE WAGON CONTRARY TO ORDER.

THEY STOPPED AT BAKER STREET. AT BAKER STREET, THEY REMOVED MR. GRAY FROM THE WAGON AND PLACED FLEX CUFFS ON HIS WRIST AND LEG SHACKLES ON HIS ANKLES AND COMPLETED REQUIRED PAPERWORK.

THEY THEN LOADED HIM BACK INTO THE WAGON. THEY PLACED HIM ON HIS STOMACH HEADFIRST ONTO THE FLOOR OF THE WAGON. HE WAS NOT SECURED BY A SEATBELT IN THE WAGON. THIS IS CONTRARY TO A GENERAL ORDER.

THEY TRANSPORTED HIM TO THE CENTRAL BOOKING. FROM BAKER STREET, THEY PROCEEDED TO MOSIER STREET AND FREMONT AVENUE. THEY WENT TO THE BACK OF THE WAGON. DESPITE STOPPING FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHECKING ON MR. GRAY, AT NO POINT DID HE RENDER ANY MEDICAL ASSISTANCE FOR MR. GRAY.

OFFICER GOODSON RETURNED TO THE DRIVER’S SEAT AND PROCEEDED TO THE CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY WITH MR. GRAY STILL UNSECURED BY HIS SEATBELT, CONTRARY TO GENERAL ORDER. SEVERAL BUCKS LATER ,

HE CALLED DISPATCH THAT HE NEEDED TO CHECK ON THE STATUS OF HIS PRISONER AND REQUESTED ADDITIONAL UNITS. BOTH OFFICERS PROCEEDED TO THE BACK OF THE WAGON TO CHECK OF THE STATUS OF MR. GRAY’S CONDITION.

MR. GRAY REQUESTED HELP AND INDICATED THAT HE COULD NOT BREATHE. OFFICER PORTER ASKED IF HE NEEDED A MEDIC. HE INDICATED AT LEAST TWICE THAT HE WAS IN NEED OF A MEDIC. OFFICER PORTER ASSISTED HIM FROM THE FLOOR TO THE VAN TO THE BENCH. DESPITE HIS APPEAL FOR A MEDIC,

BOTH ASSESSED HIS CONDITION AND

AT NO POINT DID THEY RESTRAIN HIM PER GENERAL ORDER NOR DID THEY RENDER A REQUEST. OFFICER PORTER LEFT THE VICINITY AND WENT TO ASSIST  THE ARREST OF ANOTHER PRISONER AT NORTH AVENUE. (Donta Allen shared Freddie Gray’s last ride inside a paddy-wagon arrested for weed which is not an arrestable )

Donta Allen shared Freddie Gray’s last ride inside a paddy-wagon arrested for weed which is not an arrestable offense in Baltimore

DESPITE MR. GRAY’S NEED FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, OFFICER GOODSON CHOSE TO RESPOND TO THE 1600 BLOCK OF NORTH AVENUE WITH MR. GRAY STILL UNSECURED IN THE WAGON AND WITHOUT RENDERING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

OFFICER GOODSON ARRIVED AT NORTH AVENUE. HE WAS AGAIN MET BY OFFICER NERO, MILLER, LIEUTENANT RICE. ONCE THE WAGON ARRIVED, OFFICER GOODSON OPENED THE DOOR TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS OF MR. GRAY. SERGEANT ALICIA WHITE AND OFFICER PORTER OBSERVED MR. GRAY UNRESPONSIVE ON THE FLOOR OF THE WAGON.

SERGEANT WHITE WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING TO CITIZENS COMPLAINTS

SPOKE TO THE BACK OF MR. GRAY’S HEAD. SHE DID NOTHING FURTHER DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE ADVISED THAT HE NEEDED A MEDIC.

SHE DID NOT DETERMINE HIS CONDITION.

NO MEDICAL ASSISTANCE WAS RENDERED OR SUMMONED FOR MR. GRAY AT THAT TIME BY ANY OFFICER.

AFTER COMPLETING THE NORTH AVENUE ARREST AND LOADING THE ADDITIONAL PRISONER INTO THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WAGON, OFFICER GOODSON PROCEEDED TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT POLICE STATION

CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL ORDER.

HE DID NOT RESTRAIN MR. GRAY IN THE WAGON FOR AT LEAST THE FIFTH TIME. THAT IT —

DEFENDANT WAS UNLOADED AND ESCORTED AND SECURED INSIDE THE POLICE STATION PRIOR TO ATTENDING TO

MR. GRAY. BY THE TIME OFFICER NOVAK AND SERGEANT WHITE AND ANOTHER OFFICER ATTEMPTED TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE WAGON,

HE WAS NO LONGER BREATHING AT ALL. A MEDIC WAS FINALLY CALLED TO THE SCENE.

MR. GRAY WAS NOW IN CARDIAC ARREST AND WAS CRITICALLY AND SEVERELY INJURED. MR. GRAY WAS RUSHED TO THE SHOT, WHERE HE UNDERWENT SURGERY. MR. GRAY SUCCUMBED TO HIS INJURIES AND WAS PRONOUNCED DEAD. THE MANNER OF DEATH IS DEEMED A HOMICIDE BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER.

THIS IS THE RESULT OF AN INJURY THAT OCCURRED WHILE HE WAS UNRESTRAINED BY A SEATBELT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAGON.

WHILE EACH OF THESE OFFICERS ARE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY,

WE HAVE BROUGHT THE FOLLOWING CHARGES.

OFFICER GOODSON IS BEING CHARGED WITH SECOND-DEGREE MURDER. INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER , SECOND DEGREE NEGLIGENT ASSAULT, MANSLAUGHTER BY HIS VEHICLE, MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE AND FAILURE TO SECURE PRISONER AND FAILURE TO RENDER AID.

OFFICER PORTER IS CHARGED WITH INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE, MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE. LIEUTENANT RICE IS CHARGED WITH INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE, ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE, MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE, FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

OFFICER NERO IS CHARGED WITH ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE, INTENTIONAL. MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE, FALSE IMPRISONMENT. OFFICER MILLER IS CHARGED WITH INTENTIONAL ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE. ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE NEGLIGENT, MISCONDUCT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

SERGEANT WHITE IS CHARGED WITH INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, SECOND-DEGREE ASSAULT, MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.

I AM COMMITTED TO TRANSPARENCY. WHAT I HAVE REVEALED TODAY IS NOW A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE COLLECTED AND CONTINUE TO COLLECT CANNOT ETHICALLY BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC.

I CONDEMN ANYONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH ACCESS TO TRIAL EVIDENCE THAT HIS LEAKED INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE. YOU ARE DAMAGING OUR ABILITY TO CONDUCT A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL PROCESS.

I HOPE THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CASE, EVERYONE WILL RESPECT DUE PROCESS AND REFRAIN FROM DOING ANYTHING THAT WILL JEOPARDIZE JUSTICE. TO THE PEOPLE OF BALTIMORE AND THE DEMONSTRATORS ACROSS AMERICA, I HEARD YOUR CALL FOR JUSTICE.

YOUR PIECE IS SINCERELY NEEDED. FOR THOSE THAT ARE ANGRY, HURT, OR HAVE THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES OF INJUSTICE AT THE HANDS OF POLICE OFFICERS, CHANNEL THE ENERGY PEACEFULLY AS WE PROSECUTE THIS CASE.

I HAVE HEARD YOUR CALLS, YOUR PEACE IS NEEDED.

TO THE OFFICERS OF THE BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THESE ACCUSATIONS ARE NOT AN INDICTMENT OF THE ENTIRE FORCE.

MY FATHER WAS AN OFFICER AND MY MOTHER WAS AN OFFICER. MY GRANDFATHER WAS ONE OF THE FOUNDING MEMBERS OF THE FIRST BACK — BLACK POLICE FORCE. THE ACTIONS OF THESE OFFICERS WILL NOT AND SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY DAMAGE THE IMPORTANT WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLICE AND PROSECUTORS AS WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT TOGETHER TO REDUCE CRIME IN BALTIMORE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE, COMMITMENT, AND SACRIFICE.

I WANT TO THANK MY TEAM FOR WORKING AROUND-THE-CLOCK SINCE THE DAY WE LEARNED OF THIS TRAGIC INCIDENT. WE HAVE CONDUCTED AND IN DEPENDENT AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE. IT WAS LED BY MY DEPUTY STATES ATTORNEY. I LIKE TO THANK THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PARTICULARLY MAJOR BRANFORD OF THE HOMICIDE DEPARTMENT FOR PROVIDING US WITH A HARD COPY OF THEIR INVESTIGATIVE MATERIALS YESTERDAY.

LASTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IN ASSISTING US WITH THIS INVESTIGATION AS AN INDEPENDENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WITH POLICE POWER. TO THE GOVERNOR OF THIS STATE, THANK YOU FOR EXPEDITING THE AUTOPSY REPORT WHICH ENABLED US TO DO OUR JOBS.

TO THE YOUTH OF THIS CITY, I WILL SEEK JUSTICE ON YOUR BEHALF. THIS IS A MOMENT. LET’S ENSURE THAT WE HAVE PEACEFUL AND PRODUCTIVE RALLIES THAT WILL DEVELOP YOU ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF THIS CAUSE. OUR TIME IS NOW.

I’M GOING TO TAKE A FEW QUESTIONS. [INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SINCE DAY ONE. I ALSO SENT MY OWN INVESTIGATORS TO THE SCENE. WE HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON WHAT’S GOING ON WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WHAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT YESTERDAY WE ALREADY HAD IT. WE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED EVERYTHING THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

IT IS A CULMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT WE CONDUCTED. HOW MANY OFFICERS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED? AWARD HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THEIR ARREST. I KNOW THAT A WAR HAS BEEN ISSUED. WE FILED CHARGES AT ABOUT 10:00 THIS MORNING. [INAUDIBLE] WE KNEW THIS WAS A SERIOUS CASE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING INDEPENDENTLY. WE PUT ALL OF OUR RESOURCES INTO MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE PURSUING AND LEADING WHERE THE FACTS TOOK US IN THIS CASE.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE PEOPLE BALTIMORE CITY ELECTED ME AND THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY WITH A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.

WE INDEPENDENTLY INVESTIGATED. WE DID NOT RELY ON WHAT WE WERE GIVEN FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE YOU THINK THAT RACISM WAS A FACTOR?

I CAN’T GIVE YOU MY OPINION.

STATE’S ATTORNEY MOSBY: I DON’T SEE AN APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. MY HUSBAND IS A PUBLIC SERVANT. HE WORKS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE SIDE I AM A PROSECUTOR. I AM ALSO A PUBLIC SERVANT. I UPHOLD THE LAW. HE MAKES THE LAW. AND I WILL PROSECUTE ANY CASE WITHIN MY JURISDICTION. I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. REPORTER: [INAUDIBLE QUESTION]

STATE’S ATTORNEY MOSBY: I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS AS TO WHAT TOOK PLACE AND TRANSPIRED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. WE ARE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. REPORTER: [INAUDIBLE QUESTION]

STATE’S ATTORNEY MOSBY: HAVEN’T. YOU’RE GETTING IT TODAY.

— ACCOUNTABILITY. YOU’RE GETTING IT TODAY. I CAN TELL YOU AS I STATED, WE HAD A NUMBER OF INVESTIGATORS. YOU CAN SEE IT’S BEEN AN ALL HANDS ON APPROACH FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

SO I SENT MY INVESTIGATORS OUT TO THE SCENE. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THEM WHO ARE RIGHT HERE. WE ARE A WORKING COLLABORATION AND WORKING WITH THE BALTIMORE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT WHO HAVE POLICE POWERS. AND AGAIN,

INDEPENDENT FROM THE BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT.

SO YES, WE HAVE LEVERAGE THE POLICE INVESTIGATION, BUT AT NO POINT DID WE COMPROMISE OUR OWN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THIS CASE.

REPORTER: WE’RE TAKING A FEW MORE QUESTIONS AND THAT’S IT. [INAUDIBLE QUESTION] SOMETHING THE COMMUNITY HAS WROTE UP?

STATE’S ATTORNEY MOSBY: I CAN’T GIVE YOU MY OPINION ON THAT. YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE COMMISSIONER. I’VE SPOKEN WITH THE COMMISSIONER THE MAYOR AND THE GOVERNOR, YES.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK HIM. I CAN’T DO THAT. WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL THAT THIS IS STILL, AN ONGOING

 

RELATED

• If Freddie Gray’s Knife Was Legal, Does That Mean His Arrest Wasn’t?

• How Martin O’Malley Helped Create the Baltimore Riots: LEAP’s Neill Franklin

• Freddie Gray
• Police Abuse
• Baltimore
• Criminal Justice

 Notes

• US Supreme Court upheld circuit court holdings:
  • A person can not be required to furnish identification if not reasonably suspected of any criminal conduct.
  • A reasonable suspicion of criminal activity alone is insufficient to justify a patdown search
  • The person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.
  • Vagrancy ordinances cannot turn otherwise innocent conduct into a crime.
  • Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under U.S. Constitution and laws, consists of the right of locomotion, to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one’s business or pleasure, only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. One may travel along the public highways or in public places; and while conducting themselves in a decent and orderly manner, disturbing no other, and interfering with the rights of no other citizens, there, they will be protected under the law, not only their persons, but in their safe conduct. Any law that would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all the rights, which the Constitution guarantees.
  • An innocent person cannot generally know when a police officer has reasonable cause to believe that his behavior warrants further investigation for criminal activity, and therefore cannot know when refusal to identify himself will be a crime.
  • No one may be required under peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes.
  • Police knowledge of the identity of an individual they have deemed “suspicious” grants the police unfettered discretion to initiate or continue investigation of the person long after the detention has ended. Information concerning the stop, the arrest and the individual’s identity may become part of a large scale data bank. The serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification may provide a link leading to arrest.^[4]

US Supreme Court’s own holdings:

• While police have the right to request citizens to answer voluntarily questions concerning unsolved crimes they have no right to compel them to answer.
• Fourth Amendment concerns are implicated where a state statute permits investigative detentions in situations where the police officers lack a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on objective facts.
• The concern with curbing criminal activity cannot justify legislation that would otherwise fail to meet constitutional standards for definiteness and clarity.
• A state criminal statute that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a credible and reliable identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer under circumstances that would justify a valid stop is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a credible and reliable identification.
• Statutory limitations on individual freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are examined for substantive authority and content as well as for definiteness or certainty of expression. The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
• In providing that a detention under a state statute may occur only where there is the level of suspicion sufficient to justify a constitutional stop, a state insures the existence of neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers.^[5]

---