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.
Thanks. As I do t know the local law there I’ll quiet down. That sounds cogent however, if somewhat necessarily speculative at this early stage. One more issue may be whether the local city ordinance can legally be more restrictive then the state law. Perhaps what’s most interesting of all is the apparent incompetence of the state prosecutor. We will see how many millions of taxpayer dineros are spent trying to prosecute a dead man for a questionable and minor knife charge when the key public policy issue remains his cause of death while in supposedly safe police custody ( that question hangs over everything notwithstanding how he got nabbed or whether they was a lawful arrest or not). Thanks super for the very informative note. Best.
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.
Worth repeating...the arresting officers did not need to have 'proof' the knife was illegal in order to have probable cause to make the arrest.
I think chain of custody is going to be huge in the case when it comes to trial. No matter which side feels harmed by the existence or otherwise of the knife, the c-o-c will be challenged, and the knife produced in court may be called a plant dropped at the scene. Since the prosecution wants a Saint Freddie Gray, they will not dispute accounts of a planted knife, this, to torpedo their own police officers, whom they wish to see sent to the pen for long stretches. The knife will be like O.J.s gloves, a big focal point.
We also might get a lesson in adjudicating the intricacies of MD and muni legal vs. illegal knife codes. When is it a switchblade, when is it a gravity knife, etc. And the manufacturer of the knife will get a huge boost in publicity. I wonder what they would make of my very limber Cold Steel Vaquero Grande?