Appeals Court To Cops: There's Nothing Inherently Suspicious About Running From The Police
from the here's-the-payoff-for-abusing-the-public's-trust-repeatedly dept
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed down a refresher [PDF] on a few legal issues, most notably what is or isn't "reasonable" when it comes to suspicion. Police officers thought an anonymous tip about a man carrying a gun and someone running away from them created enough suspicion to chase down Daniel Brown, stop him at gunpoint, and search him for contraband.
Contraband was found, leading to Brown's motion to suppress. The lower court said this combination -- an anonymous report of a gun and Brown's decision to run when he saw the police cruiser -- was reasonable enough. Not so, says the Ninth Circuit, pointing out the obvious fact that a person carrying a gun can't be inherently suspicious in a state where carrying a gun in public is permitted.
In Washington State, it is presumptively lawful to carry a gun. It is true that carrying a concealed pistol without a license is a misdemeanor offense in Washington. See RCW §§ 9.41.050(1)(a) (“[A] person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol . . . .”), 9.41.810 (explaining that any violation of the subchapter is a misdemeanor “except as otherwise provided”). However, the failure to carry the license is simply a civil infraction.
There was no reason for officers to assume Brown's gun was unlicensed. Since carrying a gun in Washington is "presumptively legal," the officers would have needed more info than they had to perform a stop to just to ask Brown for his carry license. The anonymous tip officers received said only that a YWCA resident had approached the desk and said they'd seen a man with a gun. No further information was given by the tipster.
Faced with the weakness of the tip and the presumptive legality of gun ownership, the police then argued Brown might have been illegally "displaying" his gun to "cause alarm." But the court denies this argument -- first raised on appeal -- as being no better than assuming Brown's mere gun possession was enough to justify a stop.
Faced with this reality, the government now argues that the officers suspected that the manner in which Brown was carrying his gun was unlawful: it is “unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm . . . in a manner, under circumstances, . . . that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.” RCW § 9.41.270. Never mind that nothing in the record could support such a finding. No evidence shows that the resident was alarmed at the time she reported seeing the gun. There is no report that she yelled, screamed, ran, was upset, or otherwise acted as though she was distressed. Instead, the 911 call reported only that the resident “walked in” and stated “that guy has a gun.”
Finally, the government argued that Brown's decision to flee when he saw police officers was inherently suspicious. Again, the court says this is wrong. While fleeing officers can be suggestive of wrongdoing, it is only one factor and it's one heavily influenced by the deteriorated relationships many law enforcement agencies have with the communities they serve. The Ninth Circuit quotes Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who put this in his dissent from the Court's 2000 decision in Illinois v. Wardlow:
Among some citizens, particularly minorities and those residing in high crime areas, there is also the possibility that the fleeing person is entirely innocent, but, with or without justification, believes that contact with the police can itself be dangerous, apart from any criminal activity associated with the officer’s sudden presence.
The Appeals Court adds to this, saying not much has improved since Justice Stevens authored his dissent:
In the almost twenty years since Justice Stevens wrote his concurrence in Wardlow, the coverage of racial disparities in policing has increased, amplifying awareness of these issues. [...] Although such data cannot replace the “commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior” underlying the reasonable suspicion analysis, Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125, it can inform the inferences to be drawn from an individual who decides to step away, run, or flee from police without a clear reason to do otherwise. See id. at 133 (“Moreover, these concerns and fears are known to the police officers themselves, and are validated by law enforcement investigations into their own practices.” (footnote omitted)).
Attached to this paragraph is a footnote quoting the DOJ's investigation of the Seattle Police Department -- the one involved in the arrest at the center of this case. The 2011 report found the Seattle PD routinely deployed "unnecessary and excessive force" and engaged in "racially discriminatory policing."
The court goes on to say this isn't just a problem with the Seattle PD, but law enforcement in general, which gives plenty of people all the reason they need to dodge interactions with law enforcement.
Given that racial dynamics in our society—along with a simple desire not to interact with police—offer an “innocent” explanation of flight, when every other fact posited by the government weighs so weakly in support of reasonable suspicion, we are particularly hesitant to allow flight to carry the day in authorizing a stop.
The public isn't obligated to stop just because an officer says, "Stop." In this case, the officers said nothing until Brown was already running. Lots of people have zero interest in talking to the police. Some don't want the hassle. Most don't enjoy the experience. And some suspect they'll probably end up arrested or dead, even if they haven't done anything wrong. If law enforcement doesn't like the way this decision breaks, it really can't blame anyone else for the public's reaction to the unexpected presence of officers. Even the tipster said she didn't want to talk to an officer because, according to the YWCA rep speaking to the dispatcher, she "[does not] like the police." Running from cops isn't inherently suspicious. Far too often, running from cops just makes sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 9th circuit, daniel brown, police, probable cause, reasonable, running from the police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One damning dismissal
When no less than a federal court of appeals dismisses the argument that 'running from police = suspicious' by pointing out that there are very good reasons not to want to have anything to do with them that have nothing to do with being guilty of a crime, you know the police have absolutely tanked their reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One damning dismissal
And you're just now realizing this? Its been this way for at least 25 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One damning dismissal
I doubt the poster is just realizing this, what makes you think so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One damning dismissal
I've read his post several times and do not see any indication that he is just now realizing this. What is the basis for your inference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One damning dismissal
Not all all, I've seen them as the most dangerous gang in the US for years, however there's a world of difference between members of the public saying and thinking that the police in the US are corrupt and dangerous and a federal court saying it.
When you consider that courts and judges will more often than not bend over backwards to avoid saying anything bad about police, the fact that no less than a federal court of appeals is acknowledging in writing that members of the public(some more than others) can have a very real and valid reason to not want to have anything to do police that has nothing to do with criminal activity but rather their own safety, that's all the more striking and damning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on sight.
Police should have first asked witness: "SO WHAT? Connect gun to some threat." -- But in "liberal" areas gun = guilt.
That's THE real cause here, resulting from the hundred year effort of communist-liberals to take away 2nd Amendment Rights so We The People have no effective way to oppose tyranny -- like Russia, China, and Europe.
Guess you were swept away by someone getting let off and didn't notice this is a solid 2nd Amendment victory. -- From the liberal 9th!
[By the way, has it ever struck you that "evil" Saddam Hussein allowed fully automatic AK-47s to be openly carried? Real dictator, huh? -- Sniveling UK serfs can't even carry a knife! Yet London has passed New York for murder rate! Can you even consider that you've got every notion backwards, you commie-libs? You've even forgotten the purpose of gun control, now believe the cover story that it's to keep The Public safe from random nuts, instead of keep commie-libs safe so could impose tyranny.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on sight.
Before grammar-Nazi "Thad" leeeeps in shrieking "Ahah!": I simply spell place as should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on sight.
The idea that the 9th circuit is 'liberal' is a myth.
Also London is WELL below New York for murder rate.
And yes, one of the hallmarks of oppressive regimes is the abundance of firearms, because they're great in offense, terrible in defense, so if they want you dead, you're dead, your gun ain't going to do anything to save you, except maybe also get your family shot too. The Khmer Rouge showed this to perfection, when they took power and then consolidated it by going to every gunowners home, pointing 20 weapons at the house, and said 'hand over your guns, or your family gets it'. People handed them over, because the alternative was that sure you shoot one of the guys, or hell, 5-6 of the guys. There's still 15 more, and they shoot you, and your family, and THEN take your gun. A fairly small number disarmed the much larger armed populace in a week that way. Guns just plain suck as a defensive weapon.
You might want to try some new talking points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See also: Drone strikes, nuclear weapons, tanks, and pretty much every other modern military weapon that can negate the effectiveness of any given rando’s “Second Amendment remedies”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
^This. The idea of taking on the gubmint with whatever firearms the law allows you to possess is intrinsically stupid. You can't win, the odds are against you.
The solution to unsatisfactory government is to engage politically. They're still afraid of being SOPA'd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second Amendment gives life to the Fourth
Today's principal value of individual gun ownership is in maintaining the Fourth Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures." If, like most Americans, you go to bed each night untroubled by fears of house breakers, you have anonymous gun-owners in your neighborhood to thank for it. American burglars go to considerable trouble to avoid occupied houses, for fear of encountering armed residents.
Elsewhere in the World, a once proud boast that "An Englishman's home is his castle" has become laughably quaint, like "A woman's place is in the home."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Second Amendment gives life to the Fourth
NO, I do NOT have "anonymous gun owners" to thank for not pissing myself with fear every time I go to bed. It's actually my lack of paranoia and my understanding of basic statistics to thank.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Second Amendment gives life to the Fourth
And why do you think those statistics report what they do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Second Amendment gives life to the Fourth
Because violent home invasions are rare even in countries where possession of hand guns is limited to criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Second Amendment gives life to the Fourth
Whether or not it turns out to be violent this time, it can still be long-term traumatic, much more so than finding your place has been burgled in your absence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on si
Cops don't want to get shot anymore than obviously you do. But, before some give up their weapons, illegally, some people aren't going peacefully. Thank God for their stance in their convictions to give them the courage to take a whole world of guns aimed at them on. Charelton Heston, former President of NRA said it best, "They can take my gun from me when they pry it from my cold dead hand." Without the courage to stand up against tyranny, you are going to set a bad example for the rest of the nation to follow. If you are guilty of something, however, you would be justified to lay down your weapon and take your punishment. The reason we have the second Amendment is so we can guard our lives and our families and our personal property against those who would bring harm to them. It is our duty to protect our country with a clear conscience against an oppressive tyranny that destroys our Constitution and our peaceble way of life in America. Those forces that are aimed at America now know that entirely too well. It is keeping millions of Americans safe tonight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt o
You are overlooking something. Being armed is a minor side show to stopping tyranny. What is required is a leader to organize opposition, where even unarmed people can overthrow a tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = gui
^This.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun =
Yes, that is why Venezuela is now free from the tyranny of Maduro! The unarmed populace rose up and peacefully expelled him.
Oh, wait....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which g
You need a leader, and one who will not simply become the next tyrant when they win, which usually means somebody outside of the existing parties. Also An armed revolution will only succeed under a strong leader, who usually becomes the next tyrant to rule a country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in whi
rinse, repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in
May I point you at one of my favourite podcasts, Revolutions, who has recently finished the Mexican revolution (9.*), where rinse and repeat is a good summary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in whi
If a leader is so important, they will have to stay well away from the trouble to ensure they are not shot. So who will lead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt o
And Paul Hansmeier was arrested for enforcing copyright, Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt o
Wait, I thought you were demanding both freedom and dignity to be removed from you, because you're scared of the unarmed brown people coming over the border? Or, was that another Coward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt o
And no doubt you think that the lovely guy sitting in the WH is on your side too ?- cares about your Constitution & your peaceable way of life ? Nah - he would be the very first to take your guns away if he cannot get his own way on something. Millions of Brits are safe too - without owning guns - and lots of other countries. They took them away from Australians some years back, a few have them hidden away of course, but no more crime, no big issues, normal people have no desire to gun other people down. This subject is entirely born of the 'cowboy' mentality that is ingrained in the American psyche - you all imagine yourselves riding the plains after those 'indiebums' still. Maybe shooting a couple of deer for dinner is fine, the rest of it is entirely about your 'male pride' !!! It will pass, just a silly phase !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = gui
"They took them away from Australians some years back, a few have them hidden away of course, but no more crime, no big issues, normal people have no desire to gun other people down."
Are you saying you have never heard of Christchurch, or are you saying people are responsible, not guns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun =
"They took them away from Australians...."
"Are you saying you have never heard of Christchurch"
He's at least saying he knows that Christchurch is not in Australia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt o
Why am I picturing Cleavon Little dressed as Uncle Sam, pointing a gun at his own head and shouting "Hold it! The next man that makes a move, the tyrant gets it!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt o
"The reason we have the second Amendment is so we can guard our lives and our families and our personal property against those who would bring harm to them."
Nope, not even close. I literally just had to school my congressman on this as he was happily wishing the US Army its 244th birthday last week. The US Army was formed in 1792 (originally as the Legion of the US) and not 1775. The Continental Army was founded in 1775, but was disbanded in 1783.
The idea of the second amendment being about self defense is a creation of the last 30 years, nothing more. The reason we have the second amendment is because Hamilton hated the military, and Madison was such a loser, he felt the 9 months he was employed as his fathers XO (a position his dad bought so his son wouldn't see combat, but would instead spend doing paperwork) made him a military genius. None of them trusted the military, so they disbanded ALL of the military (except for a regiment to form a central cadre for northwest defense with militia around them, and an artiliary squad to guard the west point armory). Hamilton and Madison pushed for the citizen-soldiery idea, which was a fresh coat of paint on the feudal levy system used until the 1600s. After all, it'd won them the war of independence, right? 200k armed civilian-militiamen? (Well, that and the 50,000 professional troops from France and Spain, to face off against the 25k british troops, and the 20k german mercs, and the threatening noises france and spain were making in Europe which dissuaded the uk from sending more in case they restarted the semi-continuous state of warfare that had been going on between them for the previous 50 years)
Regardless, they pushed it though in 1791, and so it became. Then there was its first test. Battle of the Wabash. 1100 men under General St Clair, militia all, went off against Blue Jackets 1000 trained troops. The result was 30-30 - 30 or so of St Clair's men escaped, while Blue Jacket lost roughly 30 men. Biggest defeat in us history. Almost took down Washington's presidency. in response the Congress started its first ever investigation, which caused washington to call the first ever cabinet meeting, and then in the end create the concept of Executive Privilege to stop the investigation taking him down. Oh, and then he Created the Army (as the legion, as noted above), followed by the navy in 1794, and the marines on July 11 1798), and the militia concept kinda died, because htey had no way to rescind an amendment, and no political capital to do so, having spent it all to pass it a year earlier.
And thus led to a whole series of lawsuits over the 2nd amendment. Basically though, it wasn't about guns for self defense, it was only for legitimate guns useful in warfare, and for the purpose of bolstering the army if needed.
Thus things stayed until the rise of political Justices, there not to interpret the law as written, but as they want it to be, and they've been influenced to make it. The Thomas' and Scalia's, who create new concepts by fabricating a historical basis for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on si
One of the things that the gun nutters and preppers teach is how to preserve and seal guns so that they can be buried underground, such as with a PVC pipe and post-hole digger (and avoid burying them next to obvious landmarks, like under the big oak tree in the middle of an apple orchard) as they know that their gun safe will never be safe from the government. Don't think that the 2nd Amendment radicals have never thought of this. The IRA's allegedly immense weapons caches have never been found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tyranny won’t come in the form of a madman. It will come in the form of a man with whom you agree completely. And when your favored tyrant wants you dead, you’ll never see it coming. You’ll be too busy cheering on the cruelty toward your “enemies” to notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or as put in an apparently unsourced quote:
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on sight.
Did... did you just try to argue that the police are liberal?
HAHAHAHAHAHA -
Oh wait, you're serious.
Let me laugh even harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on si
The police are liberal ? ... hmmmm, doesn't seem all that far fetched considering that some scream about Fox News being liberal and socialist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on sight.
What, again with this? http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2016/02/come-revolution-good-luck-with-that.html
Seriously the epicness of the fail and stupidity in Big Harry's post is ridiculous!
Okay, fine, Big Harry. You let us know when the tyranny has reached peak awfulness and you and your Walmart machine gun are going to put it all right. I need some notice to get the popcorn in so I can watch you be declared a terrorist and taken down in real time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on si
I see there's been no response to this. There's not going to be one, is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt o
Can terrorists be handled the same way? Imagine taking all the military funding and diverting it to education.
Has your Country dismantled its' military?
If they haven't, can you think of any reason why they still have one?
Send them your link and let us know when your military is dismantled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = gui
Forgot to ask, what are your plans regarding all the stabbings, plastic utensils?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun =
Scratch that, just tell me why your Country maintains armed forces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
would be nice
It would be nice if be had an authorized, properly train & equiped ogranization of people with the stated goal of protecting people from hard/offenses prohibited by law (aka the constitiution... or one of the laws passed by a body empowered by the consititutio to do so... in that order or priority)... wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This TechDirt post does not mention the color of Daniel Brown's skin, yet we all knew it immediately when reading the post. Welcome to the United States of America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What the judges are actually trying to say here is if he were white it would be suspicious activity to flee from the cops.. but since he wasn't it's just good sense and not the least bit suspicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are some publications, such as the UK's Daily Mail, that don't always subscribe to the policically-correct narrative of mentioning race, etc selectively, such as when a person of a particular category is an innocent victim instead of a perpetrator. Breitbart makes a criminal's immigration status a central theme to the story.
White collar criminals are another matter entirely, as a highly disproportional number fit in another category which no news organizations in the western world will ever mention, provided of course that they don't victimize their own kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am pleasantly shocked about this outcome... maybe... maybe we can regain sanity in this country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So did he have anything illegal on him?
The article is badly written. It would be nice if there were actual facts listed. If he didn't have anything illegal on him why did he decide to sue? Or did the police just stop someone because he was carrying a gun.
Not saying this wasn't the right outcome, just that the author of the story could actually list facts instead of having to try to guess what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So did he have anything illegal on him?
There's no need to make any guesses about the guy who got arrested - because this story isn't about him. It about cops getting (properly) called out for an unconstitutional arrest.
This guy could have had evidence on his person that he was the Zodiac Killer, and because they arrested him unconstitutionally, he would have to be released, and that evidence would have one of two fates: never able to be submitted, or struck down on appeal.
Cops acting within the constitution keeps crooks from escaping justice. Because even convicted crooks have rights, let alone the merely accused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So did he have anything illegal on him?
might help you to read the first two paragraphs.
contraband noun
con·tra·band | \ ˈkän-trə-ˌband
\
Definition of contraband
1 : illegal or prohibited traffic in goods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So did he have anything illegal on him?
You might not be a native English speaker or an American so you might not realize the article is written just fine.
The facts of the stop are:
-Police are on high alert because someone had a gun in the area
-They see someone they suspect of being the person fitting the description
-He had contraband and was convicted in the local courts for it
** Since it's referred to as contraband and not specified as a gun one can assume it wasn't a firearm as it would be odd to call a single gun contraband in this context.
On appeal the case was thrown out because due process wasn't followed because:
Guns are legal to possess in the US so there is no reason to be on any sort of alert.
** This is the same as saying they saw someone in possession of a motor vehicle and driving it. It's illegal to drive a car without a license but cops don't randomly start stopping people because it was reported that someone was driving a car.
In America if the police do not follow due process it doesn't matter what crimes the charged person has (most likely) committed the case should be thrown out. While annoying and not always followed like it should, this keeps the police from just disrupting people's lives for no reason. For instance when they chased down a dude for no other reason than because he decided to avoid being near police. If the dude had not ran he would have been accosted and his contraband found anyways.
In the future you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills, context of the article (in this case, laws and cultural perceptions in America), and not jump to conclusions that just because you are having a hard time understanding words that the speaker must be dumb.
A dictionary is very helpful when learning so when you read contraband you could have looked that up to see what it meant. Then you could have asked a native speaker what that would mean in this context if it was still confusing to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avoid cops whenever possible
Anyone who DOESN'T do his best to avoid police, who have been turned into revenue-hungry predators, is a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last line in article
Running from cops isn't inherently suspicious. Far too often, running from cops just makes sense.
Can't wait for the TD tee shirt to come out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]