'An object in the suspect’s pants was causing his pants to sag '
Boston Police report that officers responding to a shots-fired call on Deering Road in Mattapan around 9:45 p.m. yesterday quickly zeroed in one particular guy:
As the suspect walked away, officers observed him grasping an object in his right pocket. Officers also noticed that an object in the suspect’s pants was causing his pants to sag and his pants pockets to sway as he walked. The suspect, when he realized the presence of officer, immediately clutched his side and became wide-eyed when he made eye contact with the officers. Officers exited their cruiser and approached the suspect to ask him some questions and as they did so he immediately bladed his stance turning the side that officers had observed sagging from officers. The suspect continued to grasp and clutch his side subconsciously as officers engaged him in conversation.
Based on the nature of the call, the guy's behavior and his sagging pants, police say, officers frisked him and promptly found a loaded semi-automatic handgun.
Oscar L. Sanchez, 32, of Mattapan, was then arrested on charges of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, and with being an armed career criminal.
Innocent, etc.
Comments
Kudos BPD
a well executed Terry search (pat down) based on reasonable suspicion (no probable cause necessary) reveals an illegally possessed firearm and a handful of related and entirely appropriate charges.
STOP acting like you know
STOP acting like you know what you are talking about. I've read your recent police related incidents, both posotive and negative, and you sound foolish.
And you do?
We live in a state where courts over the past year have thrown out numerous drug- and gun-related convictions either because of the way frisks were conducted or (more commonly) because the way Massachusetts let prosecutors submit lab tests as evidence turned out to be unconstitutional. My crime posts tend to be short, so I leave out the probable-cause stuff that BPD now seems very careful to include in their BPDNews posts. What's wrong with somebody pointing that out?
Adam, you really need to put
Adam, you really need to put your comments in perspective. The cases being tossed out of court are related to one case - Melendez-Diaz - that did not question the probable cause of the arrest but mandated that the DA's office call the lab technician to court when the case comes to trial. The actions of the police were upheld and found to be lawful, but the Court wanted the accused to be able to question the scientific and/or forensic validity of the Commonwealth's case. The actions of the the Officer were found to be lawful. The SJC has only thrown out a few gun cases this year. The Boston Police make hundreds of gun arrests a year, as do the other agencies in the Commonwealth. The only ones you hear about are the ones posted on BPDnews. To focus on three cases getting tossed, whether one agrees with it or not, compared to other hundreds of gun arrests that are found by judges to have probable cause is not fair and is certainly not indicative of a problem with how police are conducting pat frisks.
Most, but not all
See Commonwealth vs. Robert Flemming.
There have also been more than three gun cases thrown out this year because of Melendez-Diaz, by both the SJC and the Mass. Appeals Court; enough that after awhile I stopped posting about them because I only have so much time in the day (damn, where's my newsroom?) and it didn't much seem like anybody was all that interested, so I started posting about other stuff. True, a tiny number compared to the overall number of gun arrests each year, but a significant number of the gun and drug cases making their way to the appellate courts.
But I'm not arguing that there is some great pattern of malfeasance on the part of police or prosecutors (after all, the Melendez-Diaz case focused on a practice expressly permitted by Massachusetts courts; you can hardly blame an assistant DA for that). I'm just questioning what is wrong with somebody discussing the issues involved in pat frisking.
is the the case DA Conley's PR rep
commented on at UHub, saying the distinction the court made regarding how to properly conduct a Terry search was wrong-minded and that the Suffolk County DA would appeal decision? He neglected to mention that the decision was already an appeal from a lower court and therefore had been ruled on twice.... already.
How Appeals Work
A Massachusetts case is tried and decided in the Trial Court, appealed to the Appeals Court and decided again, then appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court where it's decided a third time (though some are appealed directly to them or are plucked by the justices when they see a new issue of law). Neglecting to mention that a case before the SJC has been decided twice already is like neglecting to mention that it's in court or being argued by lawyers: The venue itself tells you that.
I work in civil law (IANAL!) and don't know any of these gun cases, but the basis for each appellate step is that lower courts get it wrong, like the prenup case a few years ago: the Trial Court made a ruling, the loser appealed it to the MAC and got the same ruling, and the loser obtained further appellate review from the SJC. Lo and behold, the SJC ruled that the trial judge AND appellate justices were in error, and the loser prevailed. The case was decided twice already ... but wrongly.
in this case
the BPD did not comply with the requirements for a Terry stop. The DA is arguing that what the BPD actually did should be allowed. The DA is trying to make new precedent that would expand the bounds of how Terry stops can be conducted, which means this case will have to advance to the Supreme Court on appeal and be decided for the Suffolk DA before Conley's PR flack statements here at UHub have merit, and before the suspect can be found guilty. (He was in fact illegally in possession of a gun. The question is whether the search is allowed as evidence in court.) Conley's PR flack argues the case was wrongly decided and they'll win on appeal. What does that say about the quality of the public relations function at the Suffolk DA's office?
A Terry stop is supposed to be an non-intrusive search that can be done without probable cause to allow officers to search for weapons on the basis of reasonable suspicion. A Terry stop is a pat down search, not a disrobe search. In this case, the officers asked the suspect to lift his shirt to expose the bulge beneath it. What bothers me about the incident, is that the officers clearly did not know how to conduct a Terry stop.
The context, reasonable suspicion, requires a Terry stop which is to say, a pat down. Conversely it clear the suspect consented to a more intrusive search.
We'll see which argument controls.
Universal Hub
is dedicated to the proposition, you don't have to be right to have an opinion. Imagine, writing down in a comment, concepts you've learned about the standards for a Terry search and how that's different from probable cause and obtaining a warrant/granting consent to be searched. Radical. At the bottom of a comment, you'll find a reply button, click on it to comment about what you think or know to be misguided. You haven't and you wont.
Indicators
I'm pretty sure the BPD hit all the major indicators that someone is carrying:
-unusually Weighted clothing
-Altered gait
-"protecting" side/area
-Clutching area/weapon
Nicely done.