Profile Discrimination is agaisnt the law? Or isn't it?

SAM57 · September 22, 2012, 12:08 AM

Judge tosses gun evidence in motorcycle stop
This post is in reference to your above headline from Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 4:19pm, I have attached all of the needed information.
What I want to know is how can the State of Delaware* waste tax payers money?
Please refer to attachment #1 (download.pdf)
A judge at the Superior Court of Delaware heard*the case, saw the dash cam and had the officer stuttering and actually confess that he pulled over the Hells Angel because, the Hells Angel was riding in Pagan terratory, therefor he must have a gun. Which is Profile Discrimination! I must tell you that the Hells Angel has a permit to carry in Pennsylvania.
*
The Superiour Judge Granted Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.
The District Attorney filed to reargue the case. The judge decided that, the State’s Motion for Reargument is DENIED.Please refer to attachment #2 (1106003662-1.pdf)
*
The District Attorney then filed again for the case to be heard by a different judge on the 11 hours, of the final day ...... !!?
Shouldnt the same go for law enforcement officers? Are they above the law?
We need people to get the word out, let us know what is really on!!!
*
I would love your opinoin? I would love for you to cover this issue. Make it known how that State of Delaware is wasting the tax payers hard earned money.
*
Profile Discrimination is agaisnt the law.
*

**Tom Servo** · September 22, 2012, 12:14 AM

None of the attachments are accessible to readers, and we don't have a link to the original story. As such, it's hard for us to comment in any meaningful way.

Furthermore, do you mean "profiling?"

SAM57 · September 22, 2012, 07:24 AM

I know, sorry. Just got them up for you.

**Aguila Blanca** · September 22, 2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAM57

A judge at the Superior Court of Delaware heard*the case, saw the dash cam and had the officer stuttering and actually confess that he pulled over the Hells Angel because, the Hells Angel was riding in Pagan terratory, therefor he must have a gun. Which is Profile Discrimination!

No, it is not profile discrimination. Profiling would be if he pulled over the biker because he was Hispanic, or Black, or Chinese. Pulling him over because he suspected he might have a gun is acting on a suspicion that a crime is being committed. That's not profiling.

The question then because one of whether or not the suspicion is considered "reasonable, based on clearly articulable facts." That is the criterion established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio. To be honest, unless there's a lot here that I'm not seeing, I think this stop probably would satisfy the Terry criteria, and that the State just did a lousy job at the first hearing on the motion to suppress.

Quote:

I must tell you that the Hells Angel has a permit to carry in Pennsylvania.

What is the significance of this statement? According to the HandgunLaw site, Delaware doesn't honor a Pennsylvania permit, so the fact the biker had a PA license to carry is of no relevance to the discussion.

MLeake · September 22, 2012, 11:01 AM

+1. Aguila Blanca pretty much summed up my take.

**Frank Ettin** · September 22, 2012, 11:22 AM

I agree that this has nothing to do with profiling. It's simply about needing a reasonably articulable suspicion to make a stop, and here the State wasn't able to convince the judge.

SAM57 · September 22, 2012, 11:20 PM

I will try and make this easier for you to understand.

Here is the definition:
Profiling, according to the State Legislature’s current policies,
occurs when law enforcement targets an individual exhibiting
characteristics of a class that an officer believes more likely than others to
commit a crime. The practice of targeting an individual because they are
riding a motorcycle or wearing motorcycle paraphernalia is a perfect
example of profiling. (Definition of profiling in SB 5852 passed in 2002.)

Here are a few links that describe the issue a little more in depth:

http://www.delawaretroopers.org/network-news.html?np=65

http://safeaccessnow.org/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=7499

**Frank Ettin** · September 22, 2012, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAM57

I will try and make this easier for you to understand.

Here is the definition:
Profiling, according to the State Legislature’s current policies,
occurs when law enforcement targets an individual exhibiting
characteristics of a class that an officer believes more likely than others to
commit a crime....

Nope, sorry. It seems that you want, for whatever reason, to make this thread into a discussion of profiling, but the Delaware case you brought up in the first post is not about profiling. Both court documents describe the suppression of evidence on the grounds that the officer was not able to satisfy the reasonably articulable suspicion test.

And the documents you link to in post 7 relate to a Washington State law and are thus irrelevant to the Delaware case.

So I'm uncertain about where you hope to go with this.

As far as your making it "easier to understand", as a lawyer with over 30 years in practice, I understand the law quite well and can read and understand a court opinion.

sigcurious · September 22, 2012, 11:44 PM

Delaware is not Washington...What you linked does not apply in Delaware.
Does Delaware have some similar law?

Edit: Frank beat me to it!

MLeake · September 22, 2012, 11:51 PM

Seems to me that profiling is normally not allowed with regard to race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and protected status.

Seems to me that profiling is normally not prohibited with regard to affiliation with groups known to traffic in drugs, weapons, and prostitution.

I am not sure why the OP thinks the defendant has a strong case.

ScottRiqui · September 22, 2012, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Seems to me that profiling is normally not prohibited with regard to affiliation with groups known to traffic in drugs, weapons, and prostitution.

I know that Washington state's definition of profiling ("when law enforcement targets an individual exhibiting characteristics of a class that an officer believes more likely than others to commit a crime") doesn't apply in this particular case, but I'm curious now - would a member of a motorcycle club be considered part of a "class of people", or does "class" have a particular legal definition that limits it to the characteristics you listed earlier (race, age, ethnicity, etcetera)?

**Aguila Blanca** · September 23, 2012, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAM57

I will try and make this easier for you to understand.

I think we understand quite adequately, and there seems to be a consensus that THIS case did not involve profiling.

Quote:

Here is the definition:
Profiling, according to the State Legislature’s current policies,
occurs when law enforcement targets an individual exhibiting
characteristics of a class that an officer believes more likely than others to
commit a crime. The practice of targeting an individual because they are
riding a motorcycle or wearing motorcycle paraphernalia is a perfect
example of profiling. (Definition of profiling in SB 5852 passed in 2002.)

But the biker in this case was not stopped because he was riding a motorcycle or because he was wearing motorcycle paraphernalia. According to your opening post, he was stopped because he was wearing Hell's Angels paraphernalia while riding in Pagans' turf. That gave the officer a suspicion (which he considered to be reasonable -- apparently the court subsequently disagreed) that the biker was probably armed and probably did not have a DE permit to carry.

That's not profiling. That's acting on a suspicion of potential criminal activity. In Terry v. Ohio the Supreme Court made it clear that what constitutes a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" is not etched in granite. The same conditions encountered at noon on a Wednesday might not arouse suspicion but when encountered at 03:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning WOULD arouse suspicion.

Like others, I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. You started off saying you'd love to have our opinion. We gave it to you -- including an opinion from an experienced attorney. Now that you have the opinions you asked for, you seem to think you need to "educate" us about something.

Did you really want our opinion, or did you come here seeking an argument?

**Tom Servo** · September 23, 2012, 07:13 PM

Quote:

would a member of a motorcycle club be considered part of a "class of people", or does "class" have a particular legal definition that limits it to the characteristics you listed earlier (race, age, ethnicity, etcetera)?

Generally, laws on profiling and discrimination focus on protected classes, which are the parentheticals you mentioned. "Motorcyclist" isn't a protected class.

Neither is "gun owner," for all the sturm and drang we see about that.

teeroux · September 23, 2012, 07:39 PM

Quote:

A judge at the Superior Court of Delaware heard*the case, saw the dash cam and had the officer stuttering and actually confess that he pulled over the Hells Angel because, the Hells Angel was riding in Pagan terratory, therefor he must have a gun. Which is Profile Discrimination! I must tell you that the Hells Angel has a permit to carry in Pennsylvania.

Well in my parts this is reasonable suspicion. Its not discrimination if you openly display your gang propaganda and enrollement in such gang in a known rival gangs teritory. I would definately view that as a reasonable belief that a crime has or is about to happen.

Buzzcook · September 23, 2012, 10:41 PM

Not sure that beig a biker or a Hells Angel would fit one into a "Class". At least not in the way that the anti-profiling laws define a class.

NRA_guy · October 8, 2012, 05:44 AM

Interesting that several have mentioned stopping a person because of "a reasonable belief that a crime is about to happen."

I find that kind of troubling---in that it suggests the law enforcement official can predict behavior.

I am not sure how one would have a reasonable belief of what someone has in mind.

The fact that I go into a bank with a CCW gun does not mean that I plan to rob it. But I might.

I suppose what you guys are saying is that it gives the law enforcement official the right to check me out to see what my intention is.

But if I am planning to rob the bank and I get asked about my intentions by an officer, surely I'd deny it.

**Spats McGee** · October 8, 2012, 06:18 AM

To greater or lesser degrees, we all try to predict behavior, LE included. For most of us, it's simply situational awareness. It's not so much a matter of "knowing what someone has in mind" as it is about knowing that behaviors X and Y are often followed by behavior Z. For example, in Terry v. Ohio, an experienced law enforcement officer testified that he had seen three men (I have to paraphrase here) go back and forth in front of a store several times with kind of a "practiced indifference," which the LEO interpreted as them casing the store for a robbery that they planned later.

**Aguila Blanca** · October 8, 2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NRA guy

Interesting that several have mentioned stopping a person because of "a reasonable belief that a crime is about to happen."

Not a suspicion that a crime "is about to happen." A suspicion that a crime is happening.

In fact, the SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio does allow for a police officer based on the totality of the circumstances to form a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. So the SCOTUS left the door open to that, but the Terry decision made it clear that the "reasonable" suspicion must be supported by specific, clearly articulable facts.

In the case that is the subject of this discussion, I didn't get that the officer was claiming he suspected the biker was going to commit an armed robbery, a murder, an assault or any other future crime. The officer saw a Hell's Angel from PA riding in Pagans territory in DE and arrived at the conclusions that (a) the guy probably wouldn't enter another gang's turf unarmed, AND (b) since he's not from DE he probably doesn't have a DE carry permit, therefore if he has a gun he IS COMMITTING a crime.

No future thought involved, just simple deductive logic operating entirely in the present tense.

September 22, 2012, 11:22 AM	#6
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	I agree that this has nothing to do with profiling. It's simply about needing a reasonably articulable suspicion to make a stop, and here the State wasn't able to convince the judge. __________________ "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

October 8, 2012, 06:18 AM	#17
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	To greater or lesser degrees, we all try to predict behavior, LE included. For most of us, it's simply situational awareness. It's not so much a matter of "knowing what someone has in mind" as it is about knowing that behaviors X and Y are often followed by behavior Z. For example, in Terry v. Ohio, an experienced law enforcement officer testified that he had seen three men (I have to paraphrase here) go back and forth in front of a store several times with kind of a "practiced indifference," which the LEO interpreted as them casing the store for a robbery that they planned later. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

September 22, 2012, 12:14 AM	#2
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	None of the attachments are accessible to readers, and we don't have a link to the original story. As such, it's hard for us to comment in any meaningful way. Furthermore, do you mean "profiling?" __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

September 22, 2012, 07:24 AM	#3
SAM57 Junior Member Join Date: September 21, 2012 Posts: 3	I know, sorry. Just got them up for you.

September 22, 2012, 11:01 AM	#5
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	+1. Aguila Blanca pretty much summed up my take.

September 22, 2012, 11:20 PM	#7
SAM57 Junior Member Join Date: September 21, 2012 Posts: 3	I will try and make this easier for you to understand. Here is the definition: Profiling, according to the State Legislature’s current policies, occurs when law enforcement targets an individual exhibiting characteristics of a class that an officer believes more likely than others to commit a crime. The practice of targeting an individual because they are riding a motorcycle or wearing motorcycle paraphernalia is a perfect example of profiling. (Definition of profiling in SB 5852 passed in 2002.) Here are a few links that describe the issue a little more in depth: http://www.delawaretroopers.org/network-news.html?np=65 http://safeaccessnow.org/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=7499

September 22, 2012, 11:44 PM	#9
sigcurious Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2011 Posts: 1,755	Delaware is not Washington...What you linked does not apply in Delaware. Does Delaware have some similar law? Edit: Frank beat me to it!

September 22, 2012, 11:51 PM	#10
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Seems to me that profiling is normally not allowed with regard to race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and protected status. Seems to me that profiling is normally not prohibited with regard to affiliation with groups known to traffic in drugs, weapons, and prostitution. I am not sure why the OP thinks the defendant has a strong case.

September 23, 2012, 10:41 PM	#15
Buzzcook Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2007 Location: Everett, WA Posts: 6,126	Not sure that beig a biker or a Hells Angel would fit one into a "Class". At least not in the way that the anti-profiling laws define a class.

October 8, 2012, 05:44 AM	#16
NRA_guy Junior Member Join Date: January 11, 2006 Posts: 10	Interesting that several have mentioned stopping a person because of "a reasonable belief that a crime is about to happen." I find that kind of troubling---in that it suggests the law enforcement official can predict behavior. I am not sure how one would have a reasonable belief of what someone has in mind. The fact that I go into a bank with a CCW gun does not mean that I plan to rob it. But I might. I suppose what you guys are saying is that it gives the law enforcement official the right to check me out to see what my intention is. But if I am planning to rob the bank and I get asked about my intentions by an officer, surely I'd deny it.