Hey, there! Log in / Register
Random police searches
By Neal on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 10:16pm
A friend of mine who was coming to my house to meet me to go out was handcuffed for over a half hour and searched by an undercover Boston Police officer the other night. His crime: getting off the bus one stop after he got on when he realized that his wallet wasn't in his pocket.
He was headed in to meet me in the South End and boarded the bus at Washington St. near Roslindale Village heading to Forest Hills. Upon boarding he realized that his wallet wasn't in his pants pocket and got off at the next stop and began to walk home. As he was walking up the street, an undercover police officer came up from behind and grabbed him and pushed him to the hood of a parked car and handcuffed him. For the next half hour the police officer (who had called for backup) searched his phone, wallet (which he actually did have, it was in a leg pocket in his cargo pants) and repeatedly questioned him about text messages (even asking "who's Neal?") and his employment status, if he had ever been arrested or even got tickets (neither of which he had gotten ever, despite the cop saying he "had it on the screen") and why he got off the bus after one stop.
The cop said that they suspected he was buying drugs because another person who boarded the bus at the same stop (a Latino guy with whom he had no contact at all) looked like a dealer and that his getting off one stop later was suspect.
They let him go without so much as an apology, etc. I advised him to call the Mayor's 24 hour hotline immediately and his city councilor on Monday to report the incident and raise holy hell, however he seems reluctant to do anything about it at all.
He's a very mild mannered 33 year old guy with blond hair, so I suppose we can't blame them for profiling him (though they seemed to have no problem profiling the alleged "dealer").
So folks, be careful, it seems that the Boston Police have a new tactic: randomly searching people with very little or no cause.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Yeah. .. Mumbles the Constitutionalist will get right on it
First Amendment? You need a permit from City Hall to organize a protest of the actions of city officials.
Second Amendment? Don't get me started.
Fourth Amendment? What's that?
He didn't have to consent to
He didn't have to consent to the search. See the helpful ACLU film here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
... he likely -did- consent, and didn't realize that he had.
I am not a lawyer, I am not
I am not a lawyer, I am not licensed in Massachusetts, I am not giving legal advice, and I'm not your lawyer.
Necessary disclaimers out of the way, definitely consult the ACLU of MA over this one. From what you described, there was no consent here, and once the cuffs came on, he was in custody.
Under Terry v. Ohio, police are allowed to perform a cursory search for weapons without consent. It does not allow searches of cell phones, beepers, blackberries, or things of that nature. It does not allow a 30 minute, handcuffed detention.
don't waste your time with the mayor's hotline
They let him go without so much as an apology, etc. I advised him to call the Mayor's 24 hour hotline immediately and his city councilor on Monday to report the incident and raise holy hell, however he seems reluctant to do anything about it at all.
BPD doesn't give a flying noodle about your city councillor.
Your friend needs to call the ACLU, and needs to do it on matter of principle. It will only get worse, not better, if citizens let shit like this slide. It's absolutely disgusting that there are people like that working at BPD, but NOTHING will happen to said people unless you DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
PIck up the phone, have a chance at making a difference. Do nothing, have zero chance.
Absolutely don't let this slide.
This is the problem. The bright line has been erased because our society is afraid of extremists with train bombs.
We all know policemen could not search your person without "probable cause" unless you gave them consent.
Then the MBTA started searching peoples bags as a requirement to ride the train to protect us from train bombs.
Now, ride a bus and get off and the cops don;t care whether you're a suspect for a bus bomb or you may have bought a doobie at Rosi square. Your 4th amendment right are being violated.
Absolutely don't let this slide.
happens every day in C-Town
this is an every day occurrence in charlestown...the police stop the kids whenever they feel like it and routinely shake-em down or search them whatever you prefer....99% of the time THERE'S no reason or cause....
RIGHTS?? WHAT BLEEPIN RIGHTS!!
Assuming the story is true
Assuming the story is true as presented... I assume that you people think that police should only be allowed to detain guilty people. How should they know the guilty from the innocent? That's there problem. The police should never make mistakes - just like us at our jobs. If we never make mistakes at our jobs, why can't the cops do the same thing?
The problem is
that the police are spending too many resources on this type of "crime" because its an easy target. Are they spending enough resources on stopping actual crime? No. Figuring out who killed that gay guy in Dorchester? Probably not. Going after high level drug dealers? No. But they are targeting some guy on a bus who even if he had been buying drugs, it probably would have been a dime bag of weed, because he was an easy mark. Notice how they didn't pursue the suspected dealer.
dealing illegal drugs isnt a
dealing illegal drugs isnt a real crime?
how do we know they didnt pursue the suspected dealer? we only know what happened with this one guy.
it shouldn't be a crime
since it has no victim. It is a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. The police should have better things to do.
this would imply then that
this would imply then that anything without a victim shouldnt be a crime, right?
interesting theory, i'd like to know other instances where this is the case.
I lean that direction, yes
I see no merit to drug prohibition. Our society has developed methods of regulating and taxing alcohol and tobacco use, without prohibiting them. Why not apply these proven models to other substances?
To Answer Bill
Another obvious example would be most instances of prostitution. A great book on the subject of victimless crime is Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams.
(Mr. McWilliams, ironically enough, died because he was denied the medical marijuana he used to quell nausea brought about by his chemotherapy. The use of the marijuana helped him to keep his meds down. Denied it by a judge [in California!], he choked to death on his own vomit.)
All of Mr McWilliams's books are available free on-line. Here is the url.
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
i think it's an interesting
i think it's an interesting thought, and i definitely agree the police could be using their time more wisely, but there must be boundaries to this.
is it just weed or all drugs? what if they sell to someone who then does something while impaired and there is then a victim?
what about driving laws? surely when i speed there are no victims. if i can run a light without causing an accident there are no victims...
there must be more, but i just can't think of them... scalping tickets? selling to minors (alcohol, cigarettes, porn, and lottery tickets)?
i dont know, just a thought...
Re: Victimless Crime
"what if they sell to someone who then does something while impaired and there is then a victim?"
It's then a totally different act, not the original sale of drugs. It is a different crime altogether. Driving while intoxicated, for instance, is a separate crime from buying/selling drugs, and it most definitely is on the books because of the harm someone can conceivably do to someone else.
"surely when i speed there are no victims. if i can run a light without causing an accident there are no victims..."
Just because you are able to perform some criminal task without causing harm to another person, that does not make it a victimless crime. It is the consensual nature of an act that makes it victimless.
Two people meet, one wishes to buy sex, the other wishes to sell sex. They exchange money and bodily fluids. Although it is against the law, it is consensual. Both parties are in agreement on the act and the state has nothing other than a moral cause for laws against it. That is what constitutes a victimless crime.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Similarly for sales to minors
there should be one uniform legal age for all of these substances -- and it should be 18, same as the voting age.
personally, i think the
personally, i think the option is to just not commit the crime then...
but i think we can agree that illegal drugs are generally a bad thing (i know some people think marijuana is okay), so is it okay to perpetuate someone's addiction? especially when it is an illegal substance? or should all drugs be legal? and isnt it fair to say that some drug use ruins lives including people other than the user. aren't those people victims? i'm sure most dealers know that this could be happening, and can probably even spot which buyers are worse off...
and why is selling to minors not a victimless crime?
Selling to minors
is a crime because of the theory that someone below a certain age is not yet fully capable of making an intelligent decision. This is why there is a minimum age for voting, for signing contracts, for enlisting in the Army, and several other things. Most of these ages are 18, which is why it should be the same for alcohol and any other drugs.
My First High School Debate Topic!
Yes! Resolved: the state has no interest in the prosecution of victimless crime!
Wow, way to make me feel 13 again.
?
You won. I know you did.
No evidence
They should only be allowed to detain someone if they have sufficient evidence to charge that person with a crime. They had no such evidence against this person.
Not true
The police can initiate a stop and search based on any suspicion of a crime they may have. Read up on Terry V. Ohio and what is termed a "Terry Stop."
They can stop you, yes.
They can stop you, yes. They cannot search your person without consent or probable cause. They cannot search your home without consent or a warrant.
You are Next
You won't know why, but something will make you an easy mark.
And if the warrantless, probable-cause-less searches continue, we will wind up with the situation they have in Albany, NY, where people have been forced into hospitals for body cavity searches based on their getting off the bus from NYC with a backpack. Another woman is suing because she was subjected to a street-side, ungloved vaginal search by officers who pulled her over because she was driving a rental car.
Sure, anonymous, it's all fun and games until you get your rear end probed. Never mind that it is all illegal without cause or warrant - and cause isn't just something some cop makes up to cover his or her ass while they search yours.
What ever happened to protect and serve? Oh, that's right - now it's dominate and intimidate and harrass because 9/11, etc.
They're lookin
for the asses of evil. Dubya said they were around here somewhere.
Probable cause is SO last
Probable cause is SO last century. Who can worry about the constitution when there's SO MUCH GOOD TV to catch up on?
Get with the times! Set your Tivo and lick the jackboot!
"Those who would give up
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin
get this out
more than aclu, this information needs to make it's way into the mainstream press! we shouldn't stand for this.
ratemycop.com
http://ratemycop.com/
Perhaps? The site doesn't display very well for me, however, so I don't know how usable it is. Interesting concept, though ...
yeah, good luck with that
Good luck asking an officer for their name and badge number.
I've watched video where (not Boston) cops were roughing up someone arresting them, and after the guy is bleeding and in cuffs on the ground (ie, arrest is over), someone demands the cops' name and badge number, and the cop threatens them with arrest. WHILE BEING VIDEOTAPED.
Remember the kid who got tired of getting searched at illegal checkpoints out west? Pulled into a public parking lot open 24x7 to pick up a friend, and a cop started pestering him. Kid tells him he's recording audio and video, the cop acknowledges it, and still goes on to scream at him and threaten him- directly, point-blank stating that he'll make up charges against the kid.
That cop got fired, but if officers on the force will act that flagrantly in front of a video camera, what do you think they do when there isn't one?
STFU
Stop BLEEPING whining, this happens everyday in charlestown an rep O'flaherty is well aware of it yet nothings been done. the CROOKED tactics of BPD will never stop, that you can bet on...
since this happens in poor ole Rozzi its a big friggin deal, just shut the BLEEP up an deal with it...
"my friend was on the bus an got off, he was cuffed, blah blah blah stop BLEEPIN cyin, geeeeez usss..."
Code of Silence?
You would really like it if nothing ever changed, now wouldn't you?
Ooh, such hostility!
Ah, yes, Charlestown - the downtrodden underclass of Boston neighborhoods, forever persecuted by evil overlords. Nobody else has a right to complain about anything, ever.
If you want a blog that's only about how life across the harbor sucks and how all those damn hippies in Rozzie should take their beatings like real men, you could start one yourself:
www.blogger.com
www.wordpress.com
geez haha
geez didn't realize my opinion was so hostile, thanx for responding adam at least i know you know i'm here...thanx again, muuuah......
I'd like to see how this turns out
Please post the results if you decide to do something about this.
BPD
This type of illegal police activity happens quite often in Boston, particularly in the "Hood". The citizens of Boston need to be screaming about this type of illegal search AND those victimized by these unethical, unprofessional, cops should be getting a lawyer, suing the Mayor, Police Commissioner, the officers involved and their supervisors. If BPD and the City officials were to get sued for such conduct, maybe they would start getting rid of the police officers who violate our rights.
Its bad enough that BPD is in the news about misconduct and down right illegal activity. And now the union says that the Commissioner's more strict punishment is hurting the relationship between him and the rank and file. The union should be concerned with the illegal activities of their memebership, you know, those sworn to uphold the law.
um
Chaztown is terrible!
thank you, thank you....