# Officer Nero Not Guilty On All Charges **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2016, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505 "2016-05-24T00:04:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2016, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/101 "2016-07-23T04:57:56Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Does there need to be a change in the law? It feels wrong to me that if fault is diffused among enough people that everyone avoids conviction. Is it simply an inherent implication of our “beyond a reasonable doubt” judicial system that makes it impossible to do better? You seem to have ‘diffused’ the guilt completely away from one person: Freddie Gray. Besides the original crime that got him arrested, when he was placed in the van, despite being handcuffed & shackled, he was still combative enough that the officer declined to get close enough to buckle his seat belt. Assuming that it was the lack of being buckled in that caused his injuries (I don’t know if that has been proven), it seems that his actions deserve a good share of the .fault’. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2016, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/102 "2016-07-23T14:24:24Z")
Freddie Gray committed no crime, according to the state’s attorney. There was never probable cause for an arrest. The idea that the officers found a cuffed and shackled prisoner too “combative” to also be seat-belted is a serious denigration of their professional abilities. Or, you know, the expectation that they give a shit about this citizen’s life. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/103 "2016-07-23T14:34:07Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > when he was placed in the van, despite being handcuffed & shackled, he was still combative enough that the officer declined to get close enough to buckle his seat belt. I would like to learn more of that. Do you have a link? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2016, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/104 "2016-07-23T23:36:37Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Freddie Gray committed no crime, according to the state’s attorney. There was never probable cause for an arrest. Unfortunately for the State’s Attorney, they have lost every case in which they made that allegation at trial. And, indeed, they should lose it. From my understanding of the facts, the officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain Gray, and during the course of that detention discovered a knife that gave rise to probable cause that Gray violated Baltimore City Code §59-22, which provides in pertinent part: > [@](#): > > It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring. In other words, according to the State’s Attorney, officers Nero, Goodson, and Rice were all guilty of various crimes, including participating in an arrest not grounded in probable cause, and in each case, the court did not accept the State’s Attorney’s analysis. Can you explain why you believe there was no probable cause for the arrest, if in fact you believe this? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/105 "2016-07-24T16:44:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you explain why you believe there was no probable cause for the arrest, if in fact you believe this? Running from police is not a crime, of course. Do you believe this arrest would have been upheld, and a conviction on the knife obtained, if Freddie Gray had survived police custody? (Are you certain he possessed the knife?) ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2016, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/106 "2016-07-24T20:20:33Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Do you believe this arrest would have been upheld, and a conviction on the knife obtained, if Freddie Gray had survived police custody? (Are you certain he possessed the knife?) As a practical matter it’s virtually 0% likely the State’s Attorney would have claimed the police unlawfully arrested Gray if no harm had come to him. They’d have never heard of the case. Whether Gray would have been convicted is immaterial to whether the arrest was an unlawful act by the police, very different burdens of proof. It just obscures things to speculate about that. Likewise we could speculate and ask one another if we were ‘sure’ what suspects did or had that the police say they did or had in just about every arrest. So that response doesn’t effectively counter the previous statement IMO. The States Attorney’s _claims_ there wasn’t probable cause for an arrest, but the court has basically rejected that claim in the cases so far. There was strong political pressure to mount some kind of prosecution of the officers involved in this case. I can see the prosecution’s motive to move forward despite a weak case. I don’t see what the motive of the judge has been to find against the prosecution except that the case is weak: simplest explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/107 "2016-07-24T20:23:04Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Running from police is not a crime, of course. It seems to me that is clearly part of “resisting arrest”. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/108 "2016-07-24T20:51:10Z")
As far as I can tell there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Freddy Grey was injured due to his seatbelt not being buckled. By that I mean there is no evidence that the vehicle he was in hit any thing, nor evidence of a “rough ride”. People don’t die solely by being in a car without a seat belt, something else has to happen to make that happen. If he decided to stand up and bang around that’s on him. Anyone who has ever ridden in a car knows that standing is a bad idea let alone banging around, as evidenced by the other passenger, in an effort to protest being arrested. At some point Mr. Grey needs to take the blame for his own actions. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2016, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/109 "2016-07-24T21:57:12Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > It seems to me that is clearly part of “resisting arrest”. Not exactly, at least in this case. Taking off running at the sight of the po-pos isn’t resisting arrest. It goes a good long way towards reasonable suspicion, and no doubt most of the runners don’t tamely submit the instant they get caught, but I don’t think Gray was charged with resisting arrest for running. I am open to correction on the point. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/110 "2016-07-25T01:28:22Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Running from police is not a crime, of course. Who cares? The question is, “Did probable cause exist for the arrest?” > [@](#): > > Do you believe this arrest would have been upheld, and a conviction on the knife obtained, if Freddie Gray had survived police custody? (Are you certain he possessed the knife?) Who cares? Obtaining a conviction requires that the State prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But probable cause requires merely that the facts and circumstances in the officer’s knowledge, together with the reasonable inferences therefrom, give rise to a a belief that the suspect likely committed the crime. So if nothing untoward had happened, I think the arrest would have been upheld but the charges dismissed or, if for some reason taken to trial, resulted in a not guilty verdict. But that not guilty verdict is utterly irrelevant to the issue of probable cause. I asked: > [@Bricker](#): > > Can you explain why you believe there was no probable cause for the arrest, if in fact you believe this? Your response had no explanation at all. Can you explain why you believe there was no probable cause for the arrest, if in fact you believe this? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/111 "2016-07-25T15:09:37Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > It seems to me that is clearly part of “resisting arrest”. No. The police had not even indicated an intent or reason to arrest him at that time. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/112 "2016-07-25T15:12:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Who cares? > > The question is, “Did probable cause exist for the arrest?” > … > Your response had no explanation at all. I guess this is some kind of lawyerly game, to pretend that you are stupider than (I believe) you are. I’m not interested in playing. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/113 "2016-07-25T15:44:25Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > No. The police had not even indicated an intent or reason to arrest him at that time. When he took off running at sight of the police? I don’t think the police wanted to arrest him before he started running. If I recall the circumstances correctly, the police were on bike patrol thru a high-crime district. Gray spotted them and took off running at the sight, whereupon the police chased him, caught him, and found the knife on him. Question for the lawyers - does making like a bunny as soon as the police make eye contact constitute reasonable suspicion, and sufficient legal basis for a brief detention? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/114 "2016-07-25T15:48:53Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > I guess this is some kind of lawyerly game, to pretend that you are stupider than (I believe) you are. I’m not interested in playing. It’s not in the least a game. I’m asking you if you believe the arrest was supported by probable cause. Your earlier comment on the matter simply relayed the State’s Attorney statement on the matter. I pointed out in response that the State’s Attorney had lost that claim in court and I supplied reasons that the existence of probable cause had nothing to do with the further points you raised. So, again: can you explain why you believe there was no probable cause for the arrest, if in fact you believe this? > [@Peremensoe](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > It seems to me that is clearly part of “resisting arrest”. > > No. The police had not even indicated an intent or reason to arrest him at that time. Correct. It’s not illegal to suddenly begin running when you see police, and there was no arrest or detention in progress. It can be suspicious, and can serve as the basis for a Terry stop. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/115 "2016-07-25T16:03:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > When he took off running at sight of the police? I don’t think the police wanted to arrest him before he started running. > > If I recall the circumstances correctly, the police were on bike patrol thru a high-crime district. Gray spotted them and took off running at the sight, whereupon the police chased him, caught him, and found the knife on him. Question for the lawyers - does making like a bunny as soon as the police make eye contact constitute reasonable suspicion, and sufficient legal basis for a brief detention? Excellent question. In 2000, the Supreme Court confronted this question in the case _Illinois V. Wardlow_. Wardlow fled when he saw police cars approaching the area. He was pursued and detained by two Chicago police officers. They performed a patdown - the “frisk” part of “stop and frisk” – and discovered a concealed firearm, which led to his arrest and conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. Mr. Wardlow appealed this conviction, claiming that the officers’ detention was not based on reasonable, articulable suspicion. From that case’s head notes: > [@](#): > > Officer Nolan was justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further. Such a holding is consistent with the decision in Florida v. Royer, supra, at 498, that an individual, when approached, has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Unprovoked flight is the exact opposite of “going about one’s business.” While flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity, Terry recognized that officers can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct, 392 U. S., at 30, and thus accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people. If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/116 "2016-07-25T16:53:16Z")
Thanks, **Bricker**. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/117 "2016-07-25T21:15:46Z")
_Wardlow_ is the law of the land. But I’m not sure the Kennedy of 2015, much less post-Scalia Court, comes out the same way. I think we are also likely to witness the unraveling of the “high crime area” justification featured in _Wardlow_. Which, again, is not to disagree with **Bricker’s** analysis, but just to note that it might be a bit like relying on Bowers v. Hardwick in [2002](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2016, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/118 "2016-07-25T22:25:19Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > _Wardlow_ is the law of the land. But I’m not sure the Kennedy of 2015, much less post-Scalia Court, comes out the same way. I think we are also likely to witness the unraveling of the “high crime area” justification featured in _Wardlow_. > > Which, again, is not to disagree with **Bricker’s** analysis, but just to note that it might be a bit like relying on Bowers v. Hardwick in [2002](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas). I certainly acknowledge that Wardlow may be living on borrowed time, although I think it’s more likely to die the death of 1,000 cuts than get explicitly overruled in one fell swoop viz. Bowers. But that won’t help the State’s Attorney convict officers for making an arrest without probable cause that happened April 2015. Side note of interest: the next trial up is Officer Garret Miller. His testimony was used against Officer Nero involuntarily – that is, he declined to testify at Nero’s trial citing his own Fifth Amendment rights. The state obtained an order compelling him to testify, but this order came at a price: they are foreclosed from using Miller’s testimony, or any derivative evidence, against him at his trial. The state had to assemble a “clean team,” of prosecutors who had to promise not to listen to or read anything that would let them know anything from Miller’s immunized testimony. So Miller will be tried by a fresh prosecution team, with presumably additional guarantees that ensure his Nero trial testimony is not being used against him. Miller’s trial will be particularly interesting on the issue of probable cause for the arrest. The state’s theory of the case is that Miller detained and arrested Gray and then transported him to a different location before he ever found the knife, in contrast to Miller’s report that his discovery of the knife led to the decision to arrest Gray. Even if the arrest is found to be without probable cause, the state faces an uphill battle in its legal theory that an arrest not grounded in probable cause constitutes per se criminal misconduct in office. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2016, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/119 "2016-07-27T13:55:30Z")
FYI- just saw a banner on CNN that charges were dropped against the remaining 3 officers in the Gray case. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/120 "2016-07-27T14:13:44Z")
Yup. Happened during the “use and derivative use” immunity hearing I spoke of above. ("…presumably additional guarantees…") [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505.md?page=7)