Hey, there! Log in / Register

Judge: Cops had ample reason to pull gun suspect out of car even before he pulled his pants down

A federal judge this week ruled prosecutors can use a gun allegedly found on Wesner Theodore as evidence against him when he goes on trial on a charge of being a convicted criminal in illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.

Theodore's attorney had argued that because the car belonged to somebody else and was just sitting there, cops did not have "reasonable suspicion" to pull Theodore - who already has two gun convictions - out of the car without a warrant. And without that reasonable suspicion, the search that led to a discovery of a gun in his jacket was illegal.

But US District Court Judge Denise Casper concluded this week that officers had more than ample "reasonable suspicion" to think Theodore might pose a threat to them or the public or be doing something illegal when they went over to the car and tried to talk to him.

Casper wrote that the criterion was met even before officers asked Theodore out of the car, even without information from a confidential informant that a Castlegate member going by Theodore's nickname of "Weezy" may have shot a rival H-Block member on Humboldt Avenue the night before. Among the reasons: The car was registered to a suspected Castlegate member with an outstanding warrant, it was parked on Castlegate Road the night after a shooting that that guy might have been involved in and the car was in violation of Massachusetts law on car-window tinting:

Even without the confidential informant information about the shooting [possibly linking it to Theodore], the other information coupled with the suspected excessive tint violation, cumulatively, gave the officers reasonable suspicion to approach the Malibu and its driver.

With their suspicions sufficiently raised, police thus had the right to ask Theodore out of the car, the judge wrote.

As she outlined in her order, he did not make it easy:

When an officer - whom he addressed by name - tapped on the window, he rolled it down just two inches, and when the officer told him to roll it down more, he only cranked it another half inch.

When he handed over his license and the registration, his hands were shaking. "[The officer] then repeatedly instructed Theodore to show the officers his hands, which he did only intermittently as he was, at times, going into the center console, opening his jacket and putting his hands down to his waist." And he started yelling, demanding to know "Why are you fucking with me?"

The officer and a partner grew worried he might have a gun and asked him out of the car, but he refused, put his hands down his pants and told the officers they needed a warrant. Then he rolled the window back up, refused to put his hands on the wheel and pulled his pants down. Finally:

As he was being taken out of the car, Theodore said something to the effect of “fine, or here it is,” and reached toward his left breast pocket. Delahanty reacted by getting control of Theodore’s arms and frisking that area of his jacket and pulling out a firearm.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Thanks, BPD. Well done.

up
Voting closed 0

I side with the suspect on this one. Massachusetts window tinting law is just plain bad. The law routinely gives cops an excuse to pull over cars, and apparently now the law also gives cops an excuse to pull over cars and search the cars' passengers.

Massachusetts (and other states') window tinting laws only apply to aftermarket window tint film. The law doesn't apply at all to factory tint, or to tint that's built into the glass. The law also doesn't apply to things like roll-down shades or suction-cup attached shades or to duct-tape and cardboard. It only applies to laminated film. Massachusetts has a particularly dumb standard of 35% transmission for both the front and rear windows. For comparison, California has a more sensible standard of 70% transmission for the front windows and as-dark-as-you-want for the rear windows.

Why the legislature doesn't just fix the damn law, I don't know. The only reason I can think of is that cops want to keep the ability to pull people over.

up
Voting closed 0

NOPE; excessive taint violation; plus he was on "pubebation"

up
Voting closed 0

Also, his crank was only a half-inch?

up
Voting closed 0

You can read the law yourself: Section 9D: Windshields and windows obscured by nontransparent materials

"Massachusetts (and other states') window tinting laws only apply to aftermarket window tint film."
Not true:

No person shall manufacture, sell, offer for sale or trade, equip or operate a motor vehicle in the commonwealth in violation of the provisions of this section; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the manufacture or sale of reflective or nonreflective film in the commonwealth.

That means you can make the film here, but if it's too dark, you can't sell it or use it here.

up
Voting closed 0

"Aftermarket" refers to the car, not the film. The point is that if you buy a Honda and it comes from the factory with darkly tinted glass, then that's ok. But if you buy and Honda and stick on tinty-film yourself, then that's not okay.

And it's not as if there's a safety issue with tinted film vs. tinted glass. The only way that cops can tell is because aftermarket tint leaves a gap of a couple of millimeters around the border. It's just a dumb law.

up
Voting closed 0

if you buy a Honda and it comes from the factory with darkly tinted glass, then that's ok

Except that neither Honda nor any other manufacturer makes cars with darkly tinted glass. If they did, it'd be in violation of the law quoted above, and not OK. It isn't a dumb law; you just don't like it. The cops have very good reasons to want to be able to see who's in a car and what they are doing. You apparently would rather the cops couldn't see you and what you're doing. Why is that?

up
Voting closed 0

To the contrary, Honda does make cars with darkly tinted glass.

The key difference is that factory tint must comply with federal DOT standards. Aftermarket tint must comply with a patchwork of state laws. If you took the time to read the rest of the MA law, you'll see that it contains an exclusion for factory tint.

up
Voting closed 0

A. You present a picture from Motor Trend, with no statement that that tint was put on at the factory, or by a dealer or somebody else. Note that the front windows are not tinted, and your picture does not establish whether the rear windows are tinted more darkly than MA law allows.

B. The MA law exempts factory tints that comply with Federal standards. You have not shown that those standards differ significantly from MA law.

C. Your citation of CA regulations seems to imply that they allow darker front-window tints than MA does. This website says you are completely misinterpreting the regulations.

As you read these laws, remember that window tint percentages refer to the amount of light allowed in, also known as the Visible Light Transmission percent.

So if MA requires that 35% of visible light pass through, and CA requires 70%, then MA actually allows darker tints than CA does.

I'm still wondering why you object to being seen.

up
Voting closed 0

The question is not whether somebody objects to being seen. The question is why is it so important for you to peek into the backseat of other peoples cars?

If you don't believe that factory tinted windows are a thing, then just check wikipedia.

And yes, MA's standard is brain dead because it allows windows to be too dark in front, not dark enough in back. For safe driving, it does help to be able to see the driver next to you.

up
Voting closed 0