Court overturns man's guilty verdict for carrying loaded gun on Northeastern campus
A man who went into court ready to acknowledge he was walking across the Northeastern campus with a loaded gun had his conviction dismissed because campus police didn't have enough of a reason to "seize" him in the first place and because the judge in the case failed to ask him at the start of his trial if he were really sure he wanted to admit possession of the gun.
Jesse Harris was walking across campus on Sept. 23, 2015 with two other people, one a Northeastern student, and two bicycles, when they were approached by three Northeastern police officers looking for people who'd been spotted apparently casing the bicycle rack outside Snell Library, from which several bicycles had recently been stolen, according to the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruling in the case.
The three denied stealing the bikes and said they had just come from the Popeyes in the campus food court - one showed a takeout box. When asked if they'd been in trouble before, Harris lifted a pants leg to show an ankle GPS device - worn as a condition for bail on an unspecified earlier charge. The officers asked for their IDs and used their radios to check on two of them. Harris, who did not have ID, provided his birth date and address:
As Officer Sprague was calling in the defendant's information, Officer Sweeney observed the defendant make a movement to his left side, causing his sweatshirt to ride up and expose a knife clipped inside of his waistband. Officer Sweeney, "concerned for his and other officers' safety[,] grabbed the knife handle to remove it."
Officer Cooney then told the defendant to place his hands on his head because he intended to conduct a patfrisk. The defendant began to comply, but then fled, chased by Officer Good. While fleeing, the defendant dropped the firearm that is the subject of the motion to suppress.
So, cut and dry? No, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled.
In order to detain somebody, even if for questioning, police have to have probable cause that the people have either committed a crime or are about to. The court ruled that the three became detained or "seized" at the point at which the police asked for and got their ID cards. Before that, they were free to end their conversation with police and leave. After that, they could reasonably assume they could not leave without further trouble, the court ruled.
The problem for the police officers in the case is that up until that point, they had no evidence the three were up to anything bad: They voluntarily talked to police, they showed evidence to back up their alibi - the Popeyes container - and they were nowhere near the bike rack. So there was no probable cause justifying police "seizing" them by asking for their IDs, the court ruled. And because the actions that led to Harris's arrest - the exposure of his knife, his flight, the recovery of the gun - all happened after what was an improper stop, the gun should not have been used against him at trial, the court ruled.
In this case, the police exercised coercive power to effect the stop and seizure before they observed or knew anything of the knife in the defendant's waistband. At the time they effected the stop they lacked reasonable suspicion of an existing or intended crime. The defendant and his companions accordingly should have been left to move on. The subsequent seizure of the knife, the defendant's flight, and the recovery of the gun are all fruits of the unlawful stop and should have been suppressed.
But the court continued that even if there were no problems with the evidence, they would have to toss Harris's conviction because of what happened - or rather, what did not happen - at the beginning of his trial before a judge.
Before the trial, Harris had signed a document stipulating to certain facts, among them that the gun was in his possession at the time of his arrest, that it was loaded and that he did not have a license for the gun. But the judge never asked Harris a required series of questions to ensure the document was accurate and that he had willingly signed it.
These facts constituted all the elements of the crime charged, and the stipulation was thus the equivalent of a guilty plea. A judge may not conduct a trial on such stipulated facts without first having a colloquy to establish the defendant's knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights, including rights against selfincrimination and to confront the witnesses against him. See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 399 Mass. 761, 763-764 (1987).
Here, the trial judge conducted a colloquy regarding the defendant's waiver of trial by jury, but did not conduct the required colloquy regarding the defendant's stipulation to facts that established guilt.
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
![]() | 83.77 KB |
Ad:
Comments
My Son Is Thinking of Applying to NU
Glad to see the Mass State Courts think his safety on campus should be a secondary concern over the rights of someone who was carrying an illegal gun on the grounds.
I am not a lawyer, but my concern is that NU (did they ever get their AR-15s liked they asked?) is a private school, and the campus, though open to the public is still "private".
Wouldn't the cops not have to worry about asking for id, since they were on private land, that they are tasked with for policing, while questioning these young folks?
Does this mean I can go back and question the legality of the BU Cop that dumped out my beer while on the then still crappy Kenmore Square end of Newbury Street, not on campus oh those so many years ago?
Not going to try to explain the Constitution to you but ...
Yes, the Constitution applies on private land - people cannot be held illegally by security guards, either - except these were not security guards, these were full-fledged police officers, with guns and arrest powers and everything, who, at least until the Constitution is revoked, have to follow it. "Probable cause" is something they learn in police academy.
And, yes, you probably would have a case against that BU officer.
Thanks
The role of the campus cop and their powers can be hazy to me.
If they stopped this man in
If they stopped this man in front of your house and the results were the same then how would you feel Adam? Still in good spirits that he got off the hook?
I'm not all jolly and heartily laughing about it
Oh, goody, the ol' hypothetical question.
If the circumstances were similar, yes, I would understand why the case would be tossed. Sometimes the Constitution protects bad people. Sucks. Also sucks when the Constitution is violated - doubly so in this case (the police violation was kind of subtle and I'd stipulate the Northeastern cops were acting in good faith, but in the end, they did something they shouldn't have; the judge had absolutely no excuse). I like knowing that we live in a state where the law still holds.
And as somebody noted elsewhere in this discussion, it's not like the guy's getting his gun back.
Yes, it is refreshing to see
Yes, it is refreshing to see a court valuing liberty over safety.
I assume when the cop dumped your beer by the campus cop (who was also presumably deputized by the city police), that you weren't arrested/charged? There's a big difference with having your contraband seized by police, and being prosecuted for it. The Court isn't giving the illegal gun back to anyone, nor will they give you your illegal beer back to you. They just won't prosecute either of you for carrying it, if the search wasn't legal.
I don't support a guy who was violating the gun laws.
Why his conviction was overturned is a mystery to me, especially since the Bay State has among the strictest gun laws in the United States. The fact that the court valued the freedom to carry a gun over public safety in this instance is beyond disgusting.
You don't support reading your constitution, either
Or the legal opinion, for that matter.
Go read it - they explain why it was overturned.
The guy was minding his own business and got profiled and searched. That is illegal.
I don't want to live in your world where the cops are allowed to shake people down so long as they find something. Didn't you just spew about how racist Mass is? You are simply broadcasting yours. Seriously girl - check your own privilege.
You don't know if the guy was minding his own business.
One of them was actually already breaking the law, and without knowing who they were and what their records look like, they could have all been looking to steal bikes.
Was it the monkeys flying out of his pants that were suspicious?
Or was it Biking while Black?
Be honest, dear - you want a right to attack anyone for any reason without those meddling judges and that nasty constitution questioning your badge.
Own it.
It was the things you left out (of course you did)
That the campus has a recent history of bike thefts, that someone called and saw three people looking to commit a crime, that the police saw three people in the area matching the description.
Or the GPS or gun probably didn't help things either.
Not his freedom to carry a gun that was valued
The court wasn't ruling on his freedom to carry a gun. It was ruling on his freedom to walk unmolested when there was no apparent (constitutional) reason to hassle him.
rights are rights
Either cops can hassle whoever they feel like for any reason, or they can't.
If that makes you scared to send your kids out into the world, then too bad I guess.
This case doesn't make me
This case doesn't make me feel any safer about my rights being protected.
Not Scared, Concerned
To those of you who do not have children, you would not understand my concern.
Get back to me when you have a kid heading out into the world and let me know your concern level then. I'm sure your response will be self righteous BS, but deep down inside you will feel the same.
I have kids
The difference between you and me is that I don't demand that the police randomly hassle "suspicious" people on my kids' behalf. You can call that self-righteous BS if you feel like it.
You seem to know...
... an awful lot about how people think and what they are capable or not capable of understanding.
I have kids heading into the world
I fully expect that they can go about their business without being singled out and harassed.
Get back to us when you have a BLACK kid heading out into the world, dear.
Well then
I suspect I'm not the only person reading this discussion who has faced/is facing the same exact issue of a kid heading out into the world who does not feel the same about this particular decision.
Signed,
Somebody who brought his daughter to South Station yesterday so she could get on a bus back to college all the way on the other side of the state, a college where I don't know if the cops have long guns, but they do have riot gear and those ominous SWAT-type vehicles and tear-gas guns and stuff - oh, and horses with which to charge into crowds of rioters, because, you know, they've had Issues in the past.
Navigating that Underground
Navigating that Underground Railroad to the Rich White Kid's School in VT must have been particularly painful.
Better to remain silent, I guess ...
Unless there's been a monumental earthquake in the last 24 hours, UMass Amherst is still in Massachusetts. I suspect you're the first person to ever call it a haven for rich white kids, but you be you.
Not quite "all the way on the other side of the state"
-- Signed, someone who went to college (way back when) really all the way on the other side of the state - as in, on the NY border.
It does rather change your perspective on those colleges "back east" - you know, in the Connecticut Valley. :-)
For what it’s worth
A citizen does not give up any of their constitutional rights and they don’t give up protections against unreasonable detention, search and seizure by entering private land. The land owner has a long list of rights that do vary a bit depending on the setting (shopping mall, school, prison, household) but they can’t extend to requiring a citizen give up the Bill of Rights to enter the premises even if they agree to do so.
Sometimes they do give up some rights....
If you are trespassing (and detained for it) the police will have all sorts of additional legal opportunities to search you.
Your 1st amendment rights are also probably limited on a private schools campus as well. Now that we are at it, you can’t carry a firearm on campus either.
But that wasn't what happened
What happened was that the cop saw some people with bikes who didn't fit his image of people who would have their own bikes and proceeded to demand things.
you forgot about the racist person who called right?
Someone actually called the police and thought 3 black males with a specific clothing description were casing bikes in an area where black males actually do steal bikes, (have been caught before) and bikes are actually stolen. Probably a good idea to talk to those guys were even close to the bikes?
Or just make up what you think happened and what people thought. The cops did this whole thing on their own.
And you are ignoring
The judges who ruled that the cops - and you - are wrong.
The judge did not rule on what you said.....
That the cops saw people who fit an image or whatever you just made up. So technically you are wrong.
Keep Digging
Just be aware of storm surges.
They ruled that they had no cause to search. Not sure what part of that you ain't getting here, but your mansplaining yoga-worthy backbending in order to be wrong and still not be wrong speaks volumes about why LEOs get themselves in trouble in court.
Wrong again.
They ruled they had no right to detain. I'm trying to be accurate here while your trying to be the snarky jerk you usually are. We all know how your grandfather founded Northeastern and invented black people, but that doesn't give you the right to just make up shit.
Read what you wrote again. It is your spin, not anything the judge actually ruled on.
Alum here
The tuition is too high and the ROI is too low. Send your kid to UMass. A university located in Roxbury is probably not a good fit for John Costello, Jr. anyway.
To give another perspective,
To give another perspective, I'm an NEU alum as well and think it was definitely worth it. I agree that tuition is too expensive, but the co-op program was invaluable and a main reason I got a job when I graduated into a terrible market.
Many of my peers that didn't graduate with 1.5 years of experience either went to live at home with their parents since they were unemployed for 1+ years or went back to grad school and piled on more debt.
So depending on what scholarships you get or aid you qualify for, and whether you think the co-op program would be valuable to either get full time experience or figure out what career path works for you, I'd say it's a great choice.
Another NU Alumni here with a
Another NU Alumni here with a third perspective. I graduated and became a Boston police officer. Northeastern is completely surrounded by gangs and some of the worst violence in the city. Your kids are not safe there. Save the money and send them somewhere else.
To say "your kids are not
To say "your kids are not safe there" is very inflammatory. Boston is a relatively safe city, and MA has the least amount of gun deaths out of all 50 states.
ANY college student ANYWHERE should be aware of certain risks: don't walk by yourself through sketchy neighborhoods when it's dark, don't walk home at 3 am alone, don't go out on the town without some trusted friends, order drinks that you either watch the bartender pour or get a beer in a bottle that you can keep your thumb over if dancing, own a really loud whistle you can use in emergencies, be aware of your surroundings, etc etc etc.
If you follow basic precautions, there's no need to panic. But if you're sending your children out into the world without this knowledge, then yes, you should be concerned. Whether they go to college in Boston or some remote, rural campus. Bad stuff can happen anywhere.
Black men on bicycles
Interesting decision but the simple fact is that being black by a bicycle rack is no justification for stopping and searching young men. On the other hand the campus cops did get an illegal gun off the streets. The judge made the right decision but the cops don't deserve to be disciplined by campus officials for a spit second decision in a dangerous encounter with men with guns and knives..
These NU cops...
... were also carrying guns. All the more reason to discipline them.
The cops deserve to be
The cops deserve to be disciplined for making a bad call on probable cause. It's really that simple.
I'm not saying fire and arrest them, but they clearly need some re-training at the very least.
No Tim it isn't that simple
there are hundreds of factors that may or may not give the police reasonable suspicion to conduct a threshold inquiry. If a judge says they wanted 25 instead of twenty, should the cops be "discipined" especially if a lower court judge found enough reasonable suspicion to make the stop?
Cops have to make a split second decision based on often incomplete information.
Let's put it this way, if these three guys sued the police for violating their 4th Ammendment rights, they would probably lose because there just isn't enough to say the cops acted in bad faith or serious disregard for these guys civil rights.
They didn't need to make a
They didn't need to make a split-second decision on whether to amble over and engage Harris & company. And all they had to go on, apparently, was "people with bikes". I attended Northeastern. There are a *shitload* of people with bikes on campus.
When the officer saw the knife, that upped the stakes a bit and might call for split-second thinking, but even then 1) the overstepping had already occurred (so it's kind of irrelevant), 2) knives of many sorts are not illegal to carry in MA, including ones that have a belt clip, and 3) Harris wasn't acting aggressive or reaching for it, as far as I can tell. (I find it alarming that the officer just *grabbed* for it, in fact.) Seems like the officer was doing all the escalating here.
Note that I also never claimed they'd win a 4th amendment suit. Not sure why you're bringing it up.
this is all about the fourth amendment.
Read the decision. Someone called and saw 3 black males casing out bikes. Cops go to the area and see 3 black males with bikes (near the area, on bikes, similar description, etc)
What the cops didn’t have was a crime besides a caller saying they were “casing” the bike stand for bikes.
Everything else you mentioned in your second post about the knife isn’t an issue and the court didn’t rule on that, they ruled on the initial detention. (Having a knife would be a factor in the police investigating a crime)
You say there are plenty of people with bikes which is fine, but we had more here. We had 3 black males on bikes with a clothing description. Again that wasn’t the issue either, the lack of a crime was.
Sounds like the judge got it right this time
Love it or hate, laws are laws and they must be respected by your average Joe and by law enforcement.
Don't forget the judge's errors
"Forgetting" to ask important questions about whether the defendant understands he's waiving his right against self-incrimination is a major mistake. This was a chain of errors.
Yes, I'd prefer that the guy was convicted. But I even more strongly prefer that judges not participate in trampling on Constitutional rights.
Question
Shouldn't the defendant's LAWYER had explained to his client the consequences of admitting to having the gun beforehand, instead of that being incumbent on the judge?
Perhaps
But certain people don't always get good lawyers.
That doesn't mean that they should be punished for mistakes made by judges and cops.
Yes
What is your point?
He should be punished if the judge screws up because his public defender in a case where the cops should never have arrested him isn't able to do that?
Nice. Punished for being black. Punished for being poor. Mighty white of you.
Punished for carrying an illegal gun
Punished for carrying an illegal gun. The cops may have saved someone's life
Yes, but it's incumbent on
Yes, but it's incumbent on both, for different reasons. The lawyer needs to advocate for the client; the judge needs to authenticate the written statement as usable evidence.
They call it the Justice System for a reason
It isn't the Adversarial System or the Play Games To Win System or even the Punishment System.
It is about justice - which includes independent judges making sure that the law is followed and rights are protected, not favoring the prosecution because Roadman likes them better.
Not exactly Adam.
The police need reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a threshold inquiry. They need probable cause to search, and if they wanted to pat frisk someone, they would need a reasonable fear for their safety.
Yes, the law is a subtle thing
Apologies if I elided things.
Is the threshold inquiry the same as an FIO?
There was nothing wrong with the cops talking to the three people. As I read the decision (and obviously I am neither a lawyer nor a police officer), one of the key questions for the court was when they were detained or "seized." The police argued it was only after the guy inadvertently displayed his knife, ran and was captured. The court disagreed, saying the three were no longer free to leave once the cops had collected the IDs from two of them, that they should never have put the three in that position because there was no proof they were involved in anything criminal and so that everything after that (the attempted pat frisk, the chase, the seizure of the gun) was essentially illegal
Correct.....
But in order to "seize" them (which courts have ruled asking for an ID is a seizure in MA in most cases), police officers need reasonable suspicion that a crime happened, is happening or is about to happen. You said they needed probable cause which is technically not true.
If they wanted to search them, they would have needed probable cause. If they wanted to pat frisk them for weapons, they would have needed to show "a reasonable fear for their safety".
And yes a threshold inquiry is the same as an FIO. An FIO is a police term for field interrogations .
so if I get pulled over for speeding?
So if I get pulled over for speeding, the cop can only verify that my license is valid. The cop can't check for any open warrants because the cop doesn't have probably cause, correct?
Not correct.
They can check for warrants, it’s the same system (attached to the RMV) and not really an invasion of your privacy.
Edit: Police need reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop