Listen to this. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that black men who flee the police should not be considered suspicious for evading, as they may have legitimate reason to do so.
Well, what do you know. The same thing we have been saying since the dawn of time “may” be based in legitimacy. According to WBUR in Boston, using Boston police data and a Massachusetts ACLU report that found blacks were disproportionately stopped by the city’s police, the state’s highest court threw out the gun conviction of Jimmy Warren.
Warren was stopped by police in 2011 while they were searching for suspects in a robbery break-in. Using only the information that the suspects were three black men wearing hoodies and dark clothing, police approached Warren and a friend, who ran. Warren was arrested, and a police search uncovered no evidence he was connected to the break-in, but they found an unlicensed .22 rifle, and Warren was arrested and charged.
The judicial court’s ruling focused on two key findings. One, the justices said police didn’t have the right to stop Warren at all. Second, the fact that he ran away shouldn’t be used against him.
On the point of the police officers stopping Warren the justices said the description of the break-in suspects’ clothing was “vague,” making it impossible for police to “reasonably and rationally” target Warren or any other black man wearing dark clothing as a suspect. According to the justices the “ubiquitous” clothing description and the officer’s “hunch” wasn’t enough to justify the stop.
Lacking any information about facial features, hairstyles, skin tone, height, weight, or other physical characteristics, the victim’s description ‘contribute[d] nothing to the officers’ ability to distinguish the defendant from any other black male’ wearing dark clothes and a ‘hoodie’ in Roxbury.
The statement by the court on the first finding is critical. Besides being black, what other identifying markers did the police have to go on? Therein lies the problem that has been discussed intently on this site and across the country. Why does being black automatically brand you a criminal or suspect?
On the second point, the justices cite state law that gives an individual the right to not speak to police and even walk away if they aren’t charged with anything. Interesting that this is a law. Do people in Massachusetts know this? More importantly, do black people in Mass know this? Does it matter? I wonder what would happen the next time a person of color is unfairly stopped in Mass and decides not to speak to police and walk away?
According to the justices when an individual does flee, the action doesn’t necessarily equate to guilt. Specifically, when it comes to black men, the BPD and ACLU reports “documenting a pattern of racial profiling of black males in the city of Boston” must be taken into consideration.
We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect’s state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report’s findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus.
So, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled that blacks are unfairly and disproportionately targeted and they have the right to flee police or walk away if not charged and stopped unfairly. Who wants to be the first Mass. resident to try it out and say it’s the law?
I applaud the Mass. justices for their ruling but this is a measured response taking into account data, circumstances, context and processing it in a rational manner. Police officers that murder unarmed black men in the streets are not measured, rational and don’t take circumstances or context into account. To borrow a sports cliche, they read and react. Problem is, their frame of reference for reading is way off and wrongly rooted in ill conceived prejudices and hatred of racial “others.”
Again, excellent ruling by the court. But all this means is more black men will be shot and killed in the back.