there is some law to support the prosition that he should not run from the police but he still would have the right to walk calmly away. Therefore, that part may just boil down to (a debate about the allowable infrinces of running in that jurisdiction) and the basic fact whether he really was running or just walking fast, etc.
Not the srongest of charge factors, to be sure.
Whatever a ‘hand to hand to hand transaction’ may be is anyone’s guess. And just how illegal that may be? Or suspicious even? Are people required to keep their hands in their pockets while they walk the public way, or perhaps are they required to keep their hands open and in plain view while ambulating about town, or?
Again, I can see that it may be possible to raise enough inference to stop the man, but again a right to stop is not a right to arrest and a stopped person still has the right to walk freely away if s/he wishes (to upset the officer).
I have no way of assessing these things and I am unfamiliar with the local law there, too. So I will quiet down. I only say that the case for arrest does NOT appear proven yet (from the obviously poor media reporting I’ve seen thus far).
The biggest issue will be his death in custody, of course, and not nearly as much the question of false arrest, anyway.
We will see.
I am fully aware that there are some very bad police officers.
These definitely need to be cleaned out...completely..for the public to continue to respect and support the rest of the cops who are honest and civil and worthy of our respect and support.
IMHO.
There is a mixing of terms here that need clarification. First, according to some reports, Freddie was observed by police in an area known for drug trafficking engaged in a hand to hand transfer of some item. (think money for drugs. Freddie was a known drug dealer and was known to several of the officers who observed the transfer. When Freddie made eye contact with the Lt., he broke and ran.
This is not “probable cause” to stop.
The Supreme Court has ruled that when police see what could be criminal activity (again, totality of the circumstances) the act rises to “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal act has occurred. This gives the police the right to conduct an investigation. Stop, pat down, question. When Freddie ran, the police had every right to pursue him to determine if a crime had indeed occurred.
Upon catching Freddie, during the pat down, the knife was discovered. According to the charge statement, Freddie was charged under the Municipal Code, which is more restrictive than the State Code. The discovery of the knife was the needed “probable cause” to charge Freddie with the supposed illegal knife.
When the States Attorney (ie District Attorney) said at the press conference that the knife was “legal” UNDER MARYLAND LAW, she was parsing words. She knew, or should have known that Freddied was charged under the Muni Code, and the knife, under that statute, was illegal.
As for the “chain of custody” the knife should have been, marked, tagged, and booked into the property section. When the prosecutor wants to examine the knife she would have to either have an officer sign it out of the property section, she could examine it and then he (the original officer) would have to return the knife to the property section. If she cannot show a clear chain of custody, the knife cannot be admitted as evidence. The case would be kicked on appeal.
The attorney’s who filed the motion today are going to argue that the knife does violate the Baltimore City Code, so any charge that deals with “unlawful arrest” would get dismissed.
As I understand it, the States Attorney was in private practice with an insurance company and has no experience in criminal law. She was trotted out as a candidate against the incumbent and pulled heavy minority support because she ran on “cleaning up the police department’.
There was a copy of the charge slip on FR over the weekend and it clearly showed he was charged under the Muni Code, so it appears she didn’t understand the nuances between the two.
One more thing...it was said (not confirmed) that Freddie was NOT a drug user, yet supposedly the preliminary toxicology report supposedly showed heroin and marijuana in his system. It is very common for dealers to “eat” the evidence in order to not get caught with it. With Freddie’s record, another “possession with intent to distribute” charge could have meant some serious hard time for him.
Is it possible that the effect of the heroin may have contributed to his thrashing about in the back of the wagon?
I guess we’ll have to see how this plays out.