No, we’re allowed to treat the suspect as a suspect until he is charged with a crime.
No, it doesn’t. The police can make a Terry stop when they have reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is or has been engaged in a crime. They can make an arrest based on probable cause.
Maybe some examples would help - how does someone genuinely innocent talk themselves into trouble with the police? And how specifically would the police presuming innocence help?
I assume you don’t mean getting pulled over for a traffic stop, telling the cop it is OK if he searches the vehicle, and then they find crack behind the visor.
No, more getting pulled over for whatever reason they decided to pull you over for, with the option of having the cop pressure/trick you into letting them search your vehicle, then they start an argument with you, that they end by putting you in handcuffs and charging you with resisting arrest, even though you at most broke a minor traffic law.
That’s for more honest cops. I assume you do not deny that cops do in fact plant evidence on people, then get them convicted of a crime. Having the ability to just make up whatever reason they want to to justify the stop makes the dishonest cops job much easier as well.
Of course, you also have the cops that are just straight up criminals with badges, like Daniel Holtzclaw, who take advantage of the free lattitude that such advantages give them to intentionally abuse the people they are supposed to protect.
No, they aren’t. If they were going to be presumed innocent, the cops would never stop someone and never arrest someone. They are supposed to be treated as suspects - not innocents.
Not a good example. Bland talked her way into being arrested by refusing a lawful order and assaulting a police officer. Under Texas law, police may arrest you for a traffic violation, at the officer’s discretion. If you wanted her to be presumed innocent, her resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, and refusal to obey a lawful command certainly overcame that presumption.
I have to admit, I had an incomplete understanding of Terry. I had only ever heard of it in conjunction with “stop and frisk” and traffic stops. Apparently, it can apply to persons suspected of criminal activity as well.
It still feels like a grey area where a cop can use the pretense of a weapons patdown to search for evidence extra-legally. But I don’t really know.
They are either innocent, or they are guilty. The law makes that a binary choice. So, are they treating suspects as if they were innocent, or as if they were guilty.
I would say the ideal would be that they are treated as if they are innocent until a court has looked at the facts of the case and made a determination.
But, you know, if the cop thinks that they are guilty, that’s good enough, right?
Your question was if they found contraband in the car. Was there any contraband in the car? No.
The cop took advantage of his superior knowledge of the law, combined with the fact that he was the one in total control over the situation to bully a nervous person who was innocent of any crime until he had something that he could charge her for.
Now, you said upthread that you don’t mind that people that aren’t smart enough to navigate the tricks that the cops throw at you get thrown in jail, but I really disagree that that is an appropriate way to treat a populace. Your mileage obviously varies.
Or plant evidence, or bully you into doing something the cop can arrest you for, or use it as a pretense to put you in custody so that they can rape you.
Your formulation makes zero sense. First, the typical formulation is guilty or not guilty. Innocence is typically not part of the equation. Second, the binary choice doesn’t exist until trial. Before that, there are varying levels of detention and seizure available. Third, why would a police officer conduct an arrest if they are treated as if they are innocent? The entire concept of presumption of innocence exists for the courtroom, not for the police when pursuing apprehension of suspects.
Nope , that’s why we have a trial where the presumption of innocence applies. But it only applies to the trier of fact, that is, the judge or the jury. It doesn’t apply to the prosecutor or to the police. And we don’t want it to - because if the police officer doesn’t believe someone is guilty we don’t want her to arrest that person. Nor do we want the prosecutor to prosecute someone he doesn’t believe is guilty.
Because the police make the presumption that someone is guilty, they go ahead and treat them as guilty. There are people that the police will encounter that they suspect are guilty of something, but have actually done nothing wrong. Treating someone who has done nothing wrong as if they were guilty is a problem. It means that rights that they should have are ignored, it means that the police will bend the truth here and there to ensure that they get a conviction on the person that they “know” is guilty. It means that people who have done nothing wrong will be treated poorly by the police, who will then use any negative reaction that the citizen has towards being treated poorly as an excuse to abuse their power and call it refusing police instructions or resisting arrest.
So, if the police suspect someone of committing a capital crime, they can go ahead and execute them?
I am talking about how people are treated, not about how they are thought of. I don’t care if you think I am guilty as sin, as long as you treat me as if that has not yet been proven, and give me a chance to give my side of the story before I am subject to mistreatment by the police.
Yes. Police will handcuff a person. Arrest them. Interrogate them. DAs will file charges against them. They will try to convince a jury that they are correct, etc. All of this is treating a person as if they are guilty.
The other side of the coin is that there are restrictions placed on what can be done so as to limit the potential for various abuses.
But police treating suspects as if they are guilty is expected.
They often don’t get to a jury, as part of the interrogation is often bullying them into confessing to something they didn’t do. They are informed that they can either get a “lighter punishment”, if they admit that they are guilty, or, if it goes to court, then they will get a harsher penalty.
Penalizing people for trying to show that they are innocent is not a just way of adjudicating guilt.
My point is that they have already decided that they are guilty, and they will do whatever is necessary to secure that conviction.
Unfortunately, they have many tools at their disposal to exceed those restrictions. One of the biggest is that their peers in blue stand by and let them. Restrictions do no good when they are not enforced.
Treating them as though they were potentially guilty, and therefore, detaining them, investigating them, sure. Treating them as though they have already been convicted and punishing them for their “crime”, not so much.
Do you feel the same way about jails where detainees that are waiting for their court date are mistreated. Is that acceptable because the jails should treat them as though they are guilty?
It seems like you want to focus on police misconduct - ascribing behavior of some to all. I’m not really interested in that aspect of the discussion. It’s like, we can talk about the different degrees between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, etc. but then your reply is like, well police lie, plant evidence, and rape you so fuck everything. If we could just get it out of the way that police who break the law should be prosecuted in accordance with the law, and police who violate policy should be punished appropriately, then would we be able to set aside those instances? If the response to everything is,* ‘and then police will rape you’* then you’re on your own.
People being detained waiting for trial shouldn’t be mistreated and police and the justice system have a responsibility to take steps to see that they are treated appropriately. But your idea that there is a presumption of innocence even from police is just not how our system is setup. Police may treat others as suspects, and that is different than guilty or not guilty. That’s a feature not a bug.
Well, the OP does kind of focus on police misconduct, so I thought that wasn’t too much of a hijack.
To roll back, rather than back and forth, it is my opinion that decisions like this make it easier for police to justify misconduct. If it is easier to justify misconduct, then misconduct will be more prevalent. Even amongst “good” officers, the temptation to cut corners, simply because you can, is corrosive to their ability to serve their role of protectors of law and order.
I interpreted the OP as asking not about police misconduct but rather how the Supreme Court has set the bar for proper police conduct so low that it now fails to protect our civil liberties. Although all communities in the U.S. theoretically have the same low protections for their civil liberties, in practice, the most objectionable boundary pushing happens predominantly to minorities.
Police misconduct is a whole other kettle of fish.
No, they can’t. I think that is about as much as the above needs.
How does a Terry stop prevent someone from giving their side of the story?
They don’t have to - you never have to answer questions from police (apart from your true name, address, and birthdate) - but that applies to Terry stops, custodial arrests, and trials alike. But you always can if you want to. If you think you can talk your way out of it, ISTM that the police are glad to listen.
But if you are talking about how people are treated, maybe you could be a little more specific.
Officer Friendly receives a report on the radio that a big, black guy wearing a red baseball cap and a yellow shirt has just robbed a convenience store two blocks away. He immediately spots a big black guy with a red cap and a yellow shirt walking down the middle of the road. Most people would agree that this is a reasonable, articulable suspicion. So the officer decides to stop the guy and figure out what his deal is.
In scenario A, Officer Friendly assumes this guy is/was up to no good, and is the one who robbed the store. In scenario B, Officer Friendly assumes the guy is innocent as a lamb. What does Officer Friendly do in scenario A that he doesn’t do in B? What doesn’t he do? Does he stop the guy in either scenario? Does he pat him down for weapons? Does he ask him what he has been doing?
What I am asking is how police should behave when they are suspicious of someone AND assume he is innocent vs. being suspicious of someone and NOT assuming this.
That might be true in other contexts, but not in this one. She started out with a racist agenda and wrote her article based on it. That is what I pointed out.
I agree. The presumption of innocence applies basically to the courtroom, and even then only part of it. It doesn’t apply to the prosecutors overall, that they must literally presume the defendant innocent, that’s as ridiculous as saying it applies overall to the police. If it were really true for either they’d walk away from every potential arrest and prosecution. The presumption arguably relates to the rules of evidence prosecutors and police must follow and the judge’s decisions in any trial in interpreting those rules but still isn’t the same thing as those rules. Principally the presumption of innocence applies to juries, or judges in their role rendering a verdict in bench trials.
It’s not even valid IMO to say the 4th or 5th amendments flow from a presumption of innocence per se. They can equally validly be viewed as separate. Countries where the burden of proof in court isn’t as tilted in the defendant’s favor can still uphold rights against unreasonable search or self incrimination without being self contradictory.
So rules of police conduct can’t rationally be based on a presumption by the police that everybody’s innocent. And anyway this discussion seems to make frequent leaps from over general concepts like that ‘the presumption of innocence should govern police conduct’ (no, it doesn’t and shouldn’t) to specific accusations v the police (they generally aim to use allowed procedures to express racial bias, or even that they generally aim to abuse, rape, etc).
Even the basic contention that racial disparity in who gets arrested is due to racial bias is accepted wisdom. It’s not actually obvious how true that is, if it is at all. Which is the fundamental weakness in the BLM constellation of concerns. How actually true is that? (besides it being ‘the right thing’ to believe it’s the predominant or even, at the extreme, sole explanation of racial disparities in the justice system). Which isn’t to say it’s never a reason in particular cases of generally. But how much matters, and that’s a matter of (secular) faith AFAICT.