"Im Gonna Pat You Down:" White NC Cop's Stop of Teen Inside Store was Based Solely on Unreasonable, Inarticulable Hunches but It Didn’t Matter b/c the 4th Amendment Doesn't Protect Blacks from Cops

The 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and searches and right “to be secure" or to move freely without apprehension of oppression as you come and go is essentially a myth and propaganda with regard to its application Black people in this Free Range Prison.

Prominent defense attorney Leonard Stamm explains the following about the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures:

“POLICE MAY FORCIBLY STOP AND BRIEFLY DETAIN A PERSON FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION IF THE OFFICER HAS FACTS GIVING RISE TO A REASONABLE, ARTICULABLE SUSPICION THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED, IS COMMITTING, OR IS ABOUT TO COMMIT A CRIME.” 

Police may not act on on the basis of an inchoate or unclear and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion. Reasonable articulable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances. Nervous, evasive behavior, flight from police, may give rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to justify a stop. But, a law enforcement officer cannot simply assert that innocent conduct was suspicious to him/her, but rather must explain how that conduct was indicative of criminal activity. 

AUTHORITY: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 519, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000); United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) Goode v. State, 41 Md.App. 623, 398 A.2d 801, cert. den., 285 Md. 730 (1979); Lawson v. State, 120 Md.App. 610, 707 A.2d 947 (1998); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 753 A.2d 519 (2000); Sullivan v. State, 132 Md.App. 682, 753 A.2d 601(2000); Wise v. State, 132 Md.App. 127, 751 A.2d 24 (2000); Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 424, 769 A.2d 879 (2001)(edge line crossing - stop held bad); Edwards v. State, 143 Md.App. 155, 792 A.2d 1197 (2002)(center line crossing - stop held good); Dowdy v. State, 144 Md.App. 325, 798 A.2d 1 (2002)(excessive lane changing and drifting -stop held good); Stokes v. State, 362 Md. 407, 765 A.2d 612 (2001)(black man in a black tee shirt is too vague); Muse v. State, 146 Md.App. 395, 807 A.2d 113 (2002)(approving stop for cracked windshield); Collins v. State, 376 Md. 359, 829 A.2d 992 (2003)(approving stop where defendant was spotted on foot, within about fifteen minutes after the robbery, about 200 yards away, and met the description with reference to height, weight, type of clothing and method of escape); Ransome v. State, 373 Md. 99, 816 A.2d 901 (2003)(Terry stop not justified by bulge in pocket, and defendant staring at police officer in high crime area); Craig v. State, 148 Md.App. 670, 814 A.2d 41 (2002)(police had articulable reasonable suspicion); State v. Blasi, 167 Md.App. 483, 893 A.2d 1152 (2006)(conducting field sobriety tests constitutes a search for 4th Amendment purposes, but pursuant to Terry, such a search only requires articulable reasonable suspicion); Sykes v. State, 166 Md.App. 206, 887 A.2d 1095 (2005)(officer’s grabbing, crumbling, and rolling techniques used in search were proper under Terry); Matoumba v. State, 162 Md.App. 39, 873 A.2d 386 (2005)(conduct of passenger of vehicle provided sufficient articulable reasonable suspicion for officer to frisk him following a stop); Madison-Shepard v. State, 177 Md.App. 165, 934 A.2d 1046 (2007)(officer did not have sufficient articulable reasonable suspicion to assume that the Appellant was the suspect described in the radio alert, because he was black, had corn row hair, did not have an ID, and acted nervous upon being approached by the police); State v. Williams, 401 Md. 676, 934 A.2d 38 (2007)(rear window was darker than “normal” did not provide sufficient articulable reasonable suspicion for the stop); State v. Dick, 181 Md. App. 693, 957 A.2d 150 (2008)(officer had reasonable articulable suspicion where suspect in high drug crime area riding bike in gas station for 15 minutes, go up the street, and engage in a hand-to-hand transaction); Crosby v. State, 408 Md. 490, 970 A.2d 894 (2009)(a law enforcement officer cannot simply assert that innocent conduct was suspicious to him/her, but rather must explain how that conduct was indicative of criminal activity); Hicks v. State, 189 Md. App. 112, 984 A.2d 246 (2009); In re Jeremy P., 197 Md. App. 1, 11 A.3d 830 (2011)(“Mere conclusory statements by the officer that what he saw made him believe the defendant had a weapon are not enough to satisfy the State’s burden of articulating reasonable suspicion that the suspect was involved in criminal activity.” The officer lacked reasonable suspicion based solely on adjustments in the waistband vicinity in an area known for criminal activity where the officer cannot recount additional specific facts that suggest that the suspect is concealing a weapon. The fact that the incident occurred in a “high risk area” also did not tilt the reasonable suspicion scale.).” [MORE]

With regard to police also touching you to search you Stamm explains:

“IN ADDITION TO THE REASONABLE, ARTICULABLE, SUSPICION REQUIRED FOR THE STOP, IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE, ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON IS ARMED OR OTHERWISE A DANGER, THE OFFICER MAY FRISK OR PATDOWN THE SUSPECT FOR WEAPONS ONLY. 

For crimes which are inherently violent a frisk is appropriate based on the suspicion for the stop. The frisk or pat-down is only to search for weapons. Unless the pat-down search reveals the presence of a weapon, the officer may not reach in a pocket and remove an item which does not pose a threat to the officer's safety unless Minnesota v. Dickerson is satisfied. The officer may not pull the defendant's shirt out if the frisk is unsuccessful.” 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the police must have independent reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous before they may touch you or put their hands on you (a cursory patdown for weapons). Police may not act on on the basis of an inchoate or unclear and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific, actual & articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion.

AUTHORITIES: Terry; Alfred v. State, 61 Md.App. 647, 487 A.2d 1228 (1985); Simpler v. State, 318 Md. 311, 568 A.2d 22 (1990); Quince v. State, 319 Md. 430, 572 A.2d 1086 (1990); Weedon v. State, 82 Md.App.692, 573 A.2d 92 (1990); Aguilar v. State, 88 Md.App. 276, 594 A.2d 1167 (1991); State v. Smith, 345 Md. 460, 693 A.2d 749(1997); Partee v. State, 121 Md.App. 237, 708 A.2d 1113 (1998)(passenger illegally detained when he was shot); In Re: David S., 367 Md. 523, 789 A.2d 607 (2002)(search exceeded scope of Terry frisk); Russell v. State, 138 Md. App. 638, 773 A.2d 564(nervousness of driver and taking items out of pocket and returning to pocket large enough to contain a weapon in high crime area after being asked if he had a driver's license supported pat down); Graham v. State, 146 Md. App. 327, 807 A.2d 75 (2002)(no basis for pat down); Bailey v. State, 412 Md. 349, 987 A.2d 72 (2010); Hicks v. State, 189 Md. App. 112, 984 A.2d 246 (2009)(Terry frisk for weapons justified based on the inherent dangers of drug enforcement and that a detention based on reasonable suspicion of drug dealing); In re Lorenzo C., 187 Md. App. 411, 978 A.2d 890 (2009)(reasonable belief that suspect may be armed stemmed from :refusal to take hands out of pockets, officer solo handling three subjects, subject’s attempt to walk away from officer, furtive movement, investigation into crime of violence, and early morning hour); Epps v. State, 193 Md. App. 687, 1 A.3d 488 (2010)(order that defendant lift his shirt exceeded permissible scope of Terry pat-down frisk of outer clothing for weapons.; pat-down would not have permitted recovery of plastic baggie that was protruding from waistline of defendant's pants, as it was not hard object that could have been mistaken for weapon). 

Question: where are “your rights” on the street? Perhaps rights exist if the cops also share in your illusion that they do - otherwise you better hope some other authoritarian such as a prosecutor or judge agrees that you had some rights, sometime subsequent to the harmful government intrusion. FUNKTIONARY calls this “the thought standard.” Brazen cops so frequently abuse their power that no one—no Black motorist, no juvenile, no adult, no professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that constitutional rights afford Black or Latino people any real protection from police - not on the street. Dr. Blynd states, "The child who is taught to believe the law will be his protection is the child who will become the victim of its own beliefs."  "Unquestioned beliefs own you." Rights are myths and are better characterized as “master’s favors.” Believe in this bullshit at your own risk.

From [HERE] The city of Durham released body-camera footage Tuesday showing the initial interaction at a convenience store between a white police officer and a 16-year-old whose family is now suing the city. A second video from the store reportedly shows the white cop body slamming the teenager before he gets away. The initial stop and seizure of Scott was unlawful. Subsequent to the incident white cops used dogs to try to find the teenager.

Police falsely charged the teen, Tony Scott, with assault inflicting serious bodily injury, and assault on a law enforcement officer. The Hillside High School sophomore, who is now 17, has said he went to the store to get a snack during lunch.

The charges were dropped four months later, which Scott said came after the prosecutor watched the interaction on a separate, convenience-store video.

The body-camera video released Tuesday shows Officer Michael McGlasson walking into the Caroco gas station and convenience store on Jan. 23, 2019.

18 MONTHS AFTER THE FACT THE TRUTH COMES OUT. in a credibility contest between a sworn white police officer and a Black MAN AND NUMEROUS BLACK WITNESS BACKING HIM UP WOULD THE DEPENDENT [WHITE] MEDIA BELIEVE THE BLACK FOLKS OR BELIEVE ALMOST ANY DAMM THING A WHITE COP SAYS?

An unidentified [white?] caller had telephoned 911 at 1:23 p.m. to report drug activity at the business at 3700 Fayetteville Road in Durham, according to a city of Durham news release. The gas station is across the street from Hillside High.

McGlasson was wearing a body-worn camera, which he activated upon arriving at the Caroco, the city news release states. He immediately approached Scott who was leaning against the counter to make a purchase.

“Officer McGlasson believed that Tony Scott, Jr. was the individual engaged in the drug activity referenced by the 911 caller, who had noted the color red in the individual’s clothing,” it states. That is, the officer did not make an independent assessment of the facts or attempt to corroborate what he heard prior to putting his hands on the young man. He simply saw the color red on the sleeves of the Black man’s jacket and immediately approached and put his hands on him. He certainly didn’t witness any crime being committed. He didn’t bother to corroborate details such as height, weight, age, skin color, hairstyle or length, facial hair, clothing etc. He did not bother to interview anyone on the scene, such as the store manager or workers. The cop also did not witness Scott making any furtive gestures, attempts to conceal anything or any conduct related to drug activity. He saw a Black man leaning against a counter and nothing more because he prevented himself from seeing anything more. As such, there was no reasonable articulable suspicion to seize or search Scott, so the stop and seizure violated the 4th Amendment - that is, if you believe in the actual existence of such things.

Nevertheless, this incompetent race soldier had all the info he needed. As explained by Dr. Amos Wilson ‘in the dominant White American consciousness the Black male is existentially guilty, (i.e., he is guilty by his mere existence) for merely having the audacity of being alive. As there is no innocent Black male, just Black male criminals who have not yet been detected, apprehended or convicted.’ [MORE].

“What you up to?” McGlasson asked.

“Who me?” Scott replied.

“I am going to pat you down real quick,” the officer said.

“I ain’t doing nothing,” Scott said, and the officer reached and grabbed his hand.

The officer, still holding Scott’s hand, repeated he was going to pat Scott down, and that the teen would go in hand cuffs if he didn’t stop.

Scott pulled his hand away, the officer yelled something and a scuffle followed for several seconds.

Scott ran out of the store.

“He is running,” McGlasson said. “I dislocated my shoulder.”

He later turned himself in at the jail with his mother and father.

Mayor Pro Tem Jillian Johnson also called the video disturbing, especially as the officer runs out the door, gun drawn, past young people outside the store.

“I didn’t see any reason for the officer to put his hands on Tony Scott, and it’s even more concerning that he then pointed a loaded gun at a group of teenagers,” she said. “I’m very interested to know how DPD plans to handle this situation.”

LAWYER DESCRIBES SECOND VIDEO

Sharika Robinson, one of Scott’s attorneys, said the convenience store video, which Scott’s legal team obtained soon after the incident, shows the officer slamming Scott onto the counter.

Scott is leaning on the front counter, then backs up with his hands held up, Robinson said the store video shows.

McGlasson tries to seize Scott’s wrists, and Scott moves back, she said.

“McGlasson then seizes Mr. Scott Jr., applies his body weight backward towards the counter and throws Mr. Scott Jr. in a semi circle into the counter,” Robinson stated in an email to The N&O and The Herald-Sun.

“Mr. Scott Jr. hits the counter with enough force to bounce off of it and send the contents of the counter flying,” she stated.

In June, Scott, who is Black, and his father filed a federal civil rights lawsuit accusing McGlasson, who is white, of picking him up and body slamming him. The officer then framed the teen for assault after the officer injured his shoulder using excessive force, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit accuses the officer and Police Department of excessive force, battery, and violating the teen’s Fourth Amendment rights with an illegal search and seizure.

The lawsuit also accuses the officer, the city and Police Department of civil rights violations, illegal seizure and unlawful detention, along with abuse of process, false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution.

The N&O and The Herald-Sun have asked to interview McGlasson and sent numerous questions about the case to Police Department officials, who have declined to comment.

The lawsuit calls the incident a “modern day lynching” and seeks to hold the Police Department and city accountable for creating an environment that allows the disparate treatment of Black children without consequence.

After the charges were dismissed, Scott’s father filed a complaint against McGlasson with the Police Department.

The department reviewed the complaint and sustained the allegations of warrantless search and seizure, meaning it found evidence to support them, according to an Oct. 31 letter from the Police Department to Scott’s father.

On July 13, 2019, two months after the charges against Scott were dismissed, McGlasson received a 5% merit increase to raise his annual pay to $42,766.

In general, if an officer receives a satisfactory or better performance review, which looks at a dozen different factors, the 5% merit raise is automatic, City Manager Tom Bonfield has said.

His employment record, which The N&O and The Herald-Sun requested, shows McGlasson was suspended Oct. 28, 2019, but doesn’t say why, for how long or provide any other information. [MORE]