Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint
from the underdeveloped-suspicion-and-overreactions dept
What's unreasonable for law enforcement to do when searching for a criminal suspect? Not much, apparently. The Eighth Circuit Appeals Court has handed down a ruling that says detaining minors at gunpoint is just good policework when they're in the general vicinity of a suspected criminal act. (via FourthAmendment.com)
Here's what prompted this apparently excusable violation of rights, taken from the Appeals Court decision [PDF]:
At 3:21 p.m. on April 24, 2016, a Cedar Rapids police dispatcher issued an alert for “a disturbance with a weapon” at “Higley Avenue and Wellington Street” based on a 911 call from a complainant named Elaine. It is undisputed that the dispatch transmitted to officers reported, “Complainant stated that there are three black males they live at the corner house by the alley. They are outside arguing, one displayed a 10-32 [gun] that subject is a black male white t-shirt heavier set. Another black male is in all blue.” There was no description of the third individual, nor did the dispatcher provide the complainant’s name or address.
This information was obtained by the officers being sued twice. While driving to the scene of the reported crime, Officer Tyler Richardson ran into the 911 caller (although he did not know this at the time). The woman again described the suspected individuals, describing one of the suspects as wearing a white shirt and blue pants.
So, Officer Richardson had two suspects: one with a white t-shirt and another described alternately as being in "all blue" or with a white shirt and blue pants. Here's who the officer decided were the most likely suspects:
He saw two people -- later identified as Bates and Irvin -- walking away from him along the left side of the street. The dashcam video shows Bates wearing a red shirt and black pants and Irvin wearing a blue shirt and blue pants.
This is what happened next:
Officer Richardson got out of his car and yelled, “Stop. Stop.” Irvin and Bates turned their heads, then stopped. Richardson said, “Yeah, you guys.” Bates replied, “No, we didn’t do nothing.” Richardson yelled, “Stop right now! Stop!” and drew his gun, pointed it at Irvin and Bates, and ordered them to get on the ground. Officer Jupin, whose squad car had arrived from the opposite direction, drew his gun and did the same. Irvin and Bates slowly got down on their knees. Richardson yelled, “Face down!” Richardson handcuffed Irvin. Jupin handcuffed Bates. A pat-down determined that neither was armed.
Handcuffed and seated on the ground, 16-year-old Irvin remained quiet. Bates, 33 years old, became agitated, speaking loudly and expressing anger that the officers had pulled their guns on him. Jupin stayed with Irvin and Bates while Richardson went a block away and talked to a heavyset black man in a white t-shirt the officers spotted while detaining Irvin and Bates. Richardson ordered the man to stop and put his hands on a stone wall next to the sidewalk. The man complied. Richardson patted him down for weapons, found none, and soon released him.
The pair remained handcuffed for twelve minutes as officers spoke to the witness. The witness confirmed they were not the ones she had seen involved in an altercation earlier. They were released.
The Eighth Circuit says there's nothing wrong with this. As far as the court sees it, cops should be able to stop nearly anybody when a crime has been reported nearby.
It is well established that, “if police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion.” United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985). Thus, Irvin and Bates could be stopped if there was reasonable suspicion that either or both were any of the three men involved in the reported disturbance.
Second, even limiting our focus to more serious gun offenses, Officer Richardson had descriptions of two of the three men. Irvin arguably fit one of the descriptions; Bates did not but the third participant had not been described.
That's the rule in the Eighth Circuit: if you're in the area a crime has been committed, you can be treated like a suspect and detained for as long as it takes to clear you of suspicion. In this case, it only took twelve minutes. But it could have taken longer. And, as this court sees it, time isn't a factor when it comes to turning being detained into being arrested. If it had taken six hours, the court may have still considered this to be an investigative stop.
Here, Officers Richardson and Jupin actively investigated the disturbance after detaining Irvin and Bates, delayed by their refusal to cooperate. When backup arrived, Richardson interviewed a cooperative third individual and searched the area for a weapon. Jupin contacted a witness, who said that Irvin and Bates were not involved in the reported disturbance. Jupin promptly removed the handcuffs and told Irvin and Bates they were free to go, ending their detention. The entire encounter lasted approximately 13 minutes. We agree with the district court that Irvin and Bates “were detained no longer than was necessary for the officers to pursue their investigation” and therefore the lawful Terry stop “did not evolve into an arrest.”
So, what's the endpoint? The court says this:
The circumstances here are readily distinguishable from the handcuffing and extended -9- detention in our recent, divided panel opinion in Haynes v. Minnehan…
But that decision held that a five minute detention was unlawful due to a lack of reasonable suspicion and the fact that officers didn't appear too interested in investigating the alleged crime. That doesn't clear much up. Instead, it creates a gray area where officers can detain someone indefinitely, so long as they have a little suspicion and some interest in pursuing an investigation.
The decision also cites another case where the Eighth Circuit found it acceptable to point guns at unarmed minors just because a criminal act was suspected to have occurred somewhere in the vicinity. That case is currently sitting before the Supreme Court. Whether or not the nation's top court will do anything with it remains to be seen. But that case, summarized here by Jacob Sullum for Reason, is used as justification for the conclusion reached in this case.
On a rainy January evening in 2018, 14-year-old Weston Young and his 12-year-old brother, Haden, were walking home from their grandparents' house in Springdale, Arkansas, after a family dinner. A police officer ordered them to stop, pointed a gun at them, forced them to lie on the ground, handcuffed them, and, together with a colleague, searched them. Their mother and stepfather tried to intervene, explaining who the boys were, where they had been, and where they were going. But the officer, Lamont Marzolf, rebuffed both of them, seemingly uninterested in information suggesting that he was treating two innocent boys like criminals.
"Neither [Weston] nor [Haden] did anything wrong" that night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit later observed. "The boys simply happened onto the stage of a dangerous live drama being played out in their neighborhood because of criminals fleeing police nearby. [Weston] and [Haden] acted bravely, respectfully, and responsibly throughout the encounter, and their family would rightly be proud of them. Likewise, their family acted responsibly and respectfully during what would have undoubtedly been a frightening experience. In this situation, though, Officer Marzolf was doing his job protecting the people of Springdale from fleeing criminal suspects under challenging conditions."
That's the standard as far as the Eighth Circuit is concerned. If a cop is doing their job, then pointing guns at minors and violating rights is just acceptable collateral damage. The decision here rests on the court's conclusion there was plenty of reasonable suspicion underlying this chain of events. The dissent is not so sure.
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Irvin and Bates, Officers Richardson and Jupin lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and detain them. The dispatcher relayed an anonymous 911 call, but did not provide any information indicating the basis of the caller’s knowledge. The only corroboration identified is the information Officer Richardson received from the woman on the street. But at the time of the stop, Officer Richardson did not know the woman’s name or even that she was the 911 caller. Moreover, the woman did not corroborate the dispatcher’s report or report any criminal activity; she simply gave Officer Richardson a description of what a person who had just walked around the corner was wearing—wavering in her description and never mentioning a person in a red shirt—and said nothing more. In short, nothing the woman said to Officer Richardson linked the person she had just described to the conduct reported in the 911 call.
Even setting aside the reliability of the tip, neither Bates nor Irvin matched the description of the person who displayed the firearm—a heavyset man in a white t-shirt.
The dissent points out it's not enough for race and gender to match the description. And without any further corroboration, Officer Richardson had, at best, conflicting descriptions of the suspects. On top of that, Richardson had no reason to believe they were involved in the reported criminal act. The caller had reported only one person with a weapon and that description matched neither of the two people Richardson detained at gunpoint.
The only suspicious activity the 911 caller described was that a heavyset man in a white t-shirt displayed a gun. There was no reason to believe any other person had a weapon, concealed or not, and a suspicion otherwise was nothing more than a hunch. While the 911 caller reported an argument where one man displayed a gun, she reported no threats, assaults, or shots fired. And when Officer Richardson turned the corner, the reported crime had ended, and neither Irvin nor Bates was behaving in a manner as to indicate they were armed or were engaged in––or about to engage in—criminal activity.
Making someone a suspect because someone else brandished a weapon isn't how reasonable suspicion works. Citing another case where qualified immunity was awarded despite the "suspects" not matching the description and being accused of "fleeing" despite walking towards the police officer's car doesn't exactly shore up the shaky reasoning underpinning this decision.
This decision will also likely be appealed to the Supreme Court. The earlier case might be a better fit for reversal, given the disparity between the detainees and the description, but both are questionable. And both serve as cover for bad judgment calls by police officers -- ones that culminate with weapons being pointed at minors.
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: 4th amendment, 8th circuit, law enforcement, minors, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That, exactly that, is the problem all too often.
There are way too many cases where "black skin" is the only identifying feature the cops need to arrest someone. They come in, sometimes literally guns blazing, and target the first black man they spot. Worse yet, they often ignore any other unmatched identifying features they were notified of. Size, clothes, approximate age, none of that matters because they found a black man in the general vicinity of the caller, so that's obviously the culprit... suspect... whatever.
What do they mean by "refusal to cooperate"?
Just that they didn't immediately confess being guilty of... something?
They definitely didn't resist (you can be sure this would have had them arrested - resisting arrest is an all-time cop favorite even when they don't have a legitimate reason to arrest you in the first place), and they had no reason to give any information unless arrested. (5th amendment + saying anything to cops can get you in trouble, even when you're innocent. We discussed that a few days ago with a forfeiture case.)
Also, the problem is not even that the cops investigated something. That's actually a better behaviour compared to other cases where they simply shoot someone dead before asking questions. The problem is that they have the nervous reaction to point guns first, ask question later - sometimes never.
There was report of a gun (I'm not quite convinced there was one to begin with, but the police couldn't know better), so caution was warranted. But they can't hold some random people at gunpoint only because they have black skin as reported. (Surprise! Not sure this happens with white people. At worst, this might happen if they match more features than the color of their skin. At best, they stay polite until they have actual confirmation that the person is armed.) Accidents happen, and their training is definitely not on the "safety and caution" side of handling firearms. Given the number of death by cops in the US, they should definitely not draw their guns unless there is a clear reason, and even less point them at people. Rule 1 of gun handling is and has always been: "do not point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot." Then again... I'm pretty they follow the rule. Their intent has been demonstrated. Repeatedly.
Finally, for a country that holds the 2A in such high standards (among white-skinned far-righters at least), there is a quick negative reaction to seeing armed black men. As if there was a double standard. But that can't be. This would mean there is widespread racism in the US. Obviously, this can't be true. (/sarcasm)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There was no indication of a crime.
It's not illegal to have a gun in the US, only to carry one without a license in certain states, or to have one with a felony record, unless it's black powder. A report that someone simply has a gun, then, does not create reasonable suspension of a crime. There was nothing to investigate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Won't somebody think of the children
... and remove these thugs from the street?
(the ones in the dark blue uniforms, that is)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There was no indication of a crime.
From what I'm reading, the issue may have been the "displaying" of the gun, not possession. I'm no expert on US law but I'm sure there's some difference between carrying one and using it to attempt to intimidate someone. If you receive a 911 call about someone doing such a thing, you also can't logically determine whether the person was legally carrying, was prohibited from carrying, or even just pretending to have one until you do some investigation into who it was.
But, yeah, none of that is an excuse for what they did in response.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: https://greycat.org/wp-admin-post-phppost249actionedit.html
I'm sure as hell not clicking to find out what's going on here, but - you posted the direct link to edit your Wordpress post? That's a new low of spammy incompetence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But...but..but
Cop: But he matched the description.
Court: What description?
Cop: Black male.
Court: Well that's good enough for us!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Unwritten Rule...
"That's the rule in the Eighth Circuit: if you're in the area a crime has been committed, you can be treated like a suspect and detained for as long as it takes to clear you of suspicion. "
You (and the court) left out that this rule typically is only applied to people of color, for some reason or other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Won't somebody think of the children
It's a sad state of affairs that when I read about something like this, I'm surprised those involved are still alive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: There was no indication of a crime.
You can't logically determine if someone driving a car has a license until you pull them over and check. That doesn't mean you pull over every car to check.
But yes, I had missed the "displaying", which is legally called "brandishing", and is generally illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you're innocent, why run? -- Police!
Considering history, if there is a viable option to run from police verses simply being innocent, I think running is the preferred choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If you're innocent, why run? -- Police!
Except that US police have a reputation for shooting fleeing suspects, and by running away you become a suspect, especially if you are not white.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: If you're innocent, why run? -- Police!
LMFTFY
US police have a reputation of shooting black 'suspects', later claiming they were fleeing or were armed with the officers drop gun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comments from a few years ago
Some years ago, some shady characters got together and scribbled down a highly subversive document in which they purported to repudiate a government that failed to live up to their expectations. We call it the US Declaration of Independence, and it is clearly subversive, as we can see from the following:
"For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:"
As this so obviously fits the description of this case and many thousands of others we have seen over the years in which state and federal policemen have killed US citizens without charges being laid, trial or judge and jury being involved, it is obvious that the shady characters so involved were part and parcel of the International Communist Conspiracy aimed at upending ... (rant to be concluded in due course once I have pirated Senator Joe McCarthy's deranged ravings ... ) /sarcasm off.
I don't see how any US Federal court could uphold the "rights" of state or federal police to use excessive force, with a straight face. Evidently the US Federal court officials are superlative comic actors. I am sure that the US Declaration of Independence has more the status of a constitutional document than that of a piece of toilet paper. But you'd never guess it from this Eighth Circuit ruling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
let's be honest. in the USA today, EVERYONE is not just assumed but is classed and treated as being guilty unless proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty! even worse, there are, or so it seems, very few police officers who are not concerned with anything else other than having an excuse of one sort or another to draw their weapon and fire it at usually unarmed 'suspects'. if that person is killed as a result, even though unarmed and having done/not doing anything wrong, it doesn't matter a toss! what makes these all too frequent situations worse are the reactions of the officers comrades back at the station house and the rulings given out by the courts. someone loses their life over the simplest and most minor misunderstanding and no one on 'the legal side' gives a flyin' fuck!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Unwritten Rule...
It is unfortunate in this context and there is certainly some truth to the amount of police attention being proportional to the amount of melanin in your skin.
However, the pair did loosely fit the description of the suspects and were located near the location. Eyewitness accounts are often poor and incomplete as they were in this event. There were seemingly few others around. That would mean those two could reasonably be assumed to be two of the persons reported in the 911 call. Detaining them long enough to clear them is not unusual. In this case it was not an extraordinary length of time (although unquestionably traumatic to the innocents involved)
Rolling up on them with full guns drawn seems like overkill but you’re unlikely to sway a court on that point. Police get away with over exuberant gun use all the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: If you're innocent, why run? -- Police!
Hey, now, sometimes they face consequences. For example, this officer was brought to the full force of the law for shooting a guy in the back moving slowly away from them in a wheelchair.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/02/arizona-police-officer-fired-fatally-sho oting-man-wheelchair
Erm, did I say "full force of the law"? Sorry, I meant he was fired with no charges applied (to date at least), which usually means he'll just get rehired in a different department. (For the trolling idiots, yes he had a knife, but cops in other countries who are not roid raging cowards somehow manage to deal with such things without guns, even when the suspect has working legs).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If you're innocent, why run? -- Police!
I’m not clicking on a guardian link but is this the man who had just caused the armed ruckus, fled, and then refused to stop before entering another populated store?
The video I watched of that exchange showed excessive force, not wrongful interdiction.
Just saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you're innocent, why run? -- Police!
"I’m not clicking on a guardian link"
Of course not. Facts are available elsewhere if you want to look for them, they might not be on Murdoch approved outlets but there's plenty of options.
"The video I watched of that exchange showed excessive force"
I love the fact that you think this somehow counts as a retort against the points being made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you're innocent, why run? -- Police
That would be because I don’t block cookies and tracking. I like targeted advertising.
I don’t want that changing anything.
I’m not understanding how the police did anything wrong here!
The person they stopped as part of a criminal investigation fit THREE descriptions!
Race, gender, and clothing!
How was that not proper?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you're innocent, why run? -- Po
"The person they stopped as part of a criminal investigation fit THREE descriptions!
Race, gender, and clothing!"
Erm, I'm not sure which story you were referring to, but I was referring to the guy who was shot to death because the coward responding couldn't take down a guy in a wheelchair slowly moving away from him without using his toys.
If you're trying to switch the subject of the comment mid-thread to the one in the article because you can't address the examples the rest of us are talking about, I'd just say that there's a slight difference between being stopped and questioned when you're suspected of something and being handcuffed and held to the ground at gunpoint. Also, there's other things that don't make sense here - such as the fact that age and other distinguishing features had not been mentioned, the fact that both suspects had been reported as wearing white shirts but one person detained was wearing a red shirt (both of which mean they took it as licence to detain any black male they saw), etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you're innocent, why run? -
From the article
There’s a separate story about the wheelchair man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]