It is worth considering this story in a broader context.
The broad effects of racial profiling (which is basically what this was) are more pernicious than mere disproportionate inconvenience placed on certain people. Racial profiling effects the community’s relationship with the police. When you can’t drive to your friend’s house without getting stopped because a black man driving a beat up car into a rich white neighborhood (or vice versa) seems suspicious to some shut-in, your relationship with the police can sour. That souring is a very real problem in many areas. When people don’t trust the police, they become reluctant to involve the police when the police should be involved, or to help the police do their jobs.
The fact that this particular racial profiling involved a white man is largely irrelevant, I think. It is the use of race as a cause of suspicion that is problematic. And, of course, the encounter can affect the child. Sure, this guy could have explained his relationship and likely gone on his way. And that may even have been the appropriate thing to do. But that doesn’t make the police actions OK.
So to those who argue that its better to slightly inconvenience this guy in order to ensure that he isn’t a child molester, I submit that you’re taking too narrow a view. Even if it is proper to balance interests in this case instead of just deferring to some absolute constitutional right not to be stopped on the basis of one’s race, the net effect of this kind of use of police power on crime prevention may in fact be negative.
You are allowed to remain silent, though in some states this can result in your arrest for failing to identify yourself. You do not yet have the right to a lawyer.
The flaw in your logic here though is this. “This is my Granddaughter.”, isn’t rope. Being evasive IS rope. So he took the action that gave them rope as opposed to the action that didn’t give them rope. The man was in the right, he was doing nothing wrong, no one was investigating a murder, so the incidence of innocent people going to murder trial in your county is not relevant to the discussion. The cops got a 911 call, they had to follow up on it, and then the guy got belligerent about it because he was offended. The cop answered the 911 call because that’s his job. If you’re going to be pissed off be pissed off at the person who made the call, not the cop who is just doing his job.
This isn’t a matter of rights. There is no slippery slope here. This is looking another man in the eye and answering an honest question. That’s it. It’s not deeper than that. Making it deeper than that is unecessary drama.
Then he could’ve said. “I am her Mother’s Godfather.”, instead. “I am babysitting my goddaugther’s daughter.”, I mean it’s three times as many syllables but it’s not that difficult.
Well for me, I am a little peeved that I got personally insulted for not having the same opinion as the local offenderati, but otherwise I’m not terribly hurt by it. I just think his reaction was kind of well…silly.
But as has been pointed out this is not a case of a man being stopped because police observed him being a particular race in a particular area and we do not know for sure even that it was the racial mismatch that looked suspicious to the caller. From the police POV this is a call of suspicious activity with a physical description of the suspicious character given - which of course includes race a descriptor. Having gotten the call they went to politely inquire and experienced suspicious behavior: refusal to answer a basic question. Again they may have been sloppy and heavy handed in their additional assessment as to whether or not they had enough grounds of suspicion to investigate further but his behavior was trigger from there.
Maybe the concerned citizen was racially profiling. Maybe not. It is not clear. Older man, little kid, neighborhood busybody who knows most of the families that walk up and down the street, may have previously seen that kid walking down the street (to pet those cats) but not with that man, maybe even caught a moment when the kid was wanting to go a different way and he was tugging her along … called it in and described them as she saw them. The police are in a poor position to assess the motivation of the caller and would be derelict if they did not investigate a call of a possible child abduction in progress.
This is not police racial profiling in any case, the bigger picture does not apply, but the little picture of putting the kid through a scary episode just because GrandDad wanted to show off he can stand up to The Man does.
The problem I have with that is that I just don’t know what is rope. As someone else suggested, maybe there’s a suspected kidnapper or pedophile in the area whose MO is to tell people he has a grandchild with him for the weekend. Maybe I think of this child as my granddaughter, and in the stress of the moment, I say she’s my granddaughter, and then when asked again 2 minutes later, I say she’s my goddaughter and then in another 2 minutes I refer to myself as her babysitter and now I’m acting suspicious because I’ve contradicted myself. Is that “probable cause” to make my afternoon a living hell and get my grandgoddaughter put into “The System”? I don’t know.
I just don’t know. And that’s all it comes down to. I want time to breathe, time to calm down, and time to have someone who does know what’s rope, who does know the law and what I’m required to answer and what’s optional, beside me and unambiguously on my side protecting me from them and me from myself and my own ignorance.
I wouldn’t try to file for child support alone, or represent myself in court. Why would I try to represent myself in *this *legal interaction when I know that there’s too much I don’t know, and I know that those guys, who do know a lot more than I do, will lie in order to get their jobs done?
We assume the exact same amount, just in different directions. We don’t know the content of the officer’s minds, so if we want to determine if race was a factor, we have to make inferences from the available evidence. I’m making the same assumption as the man to whom the content of the 911 call was related. You’re assuming he was wrong, that race wasn’t a factor. Since the evidence either way is limited, you’re free to come to whatever conclusion you like. I find my contention more plausible, but then I haven’t lived in the suburbs for a long time. Maybe there are people who sit at home and call the police when a grandpa and grandchild of the same race stroll down the street, and the police respond and stop the man regardless of how non-suspicious this seems.
As a legal matter, I’m somewhat confident that some paranoid shut-in’s 911 call is insufficient reasonable suspicion for a stop. So the police failure to answer the question “am I free to go?” in the affirmative was probably illegal. The man’s assertion of his rights cannot serve as reasonable suspicion, as you suggest.
Here's my story about rope. It is non-racial and involves no children.
I live in the country, on a wooded road. Answering a knock on the door I find two state troopers who ask me my address, which I tell them, and point across the road to the mailbox, which features the number. They seem dubious, so I produce my driver’s ID, with pic and corroborating data.
What’s this about, officers?
We’re following up a report of attempted suicide at xxx This Road.
I inform them that is south so many driveways, on the eastern side of the road.
The troopers radio in to the dispatcher. I clearly hear dispatch say “suspect may be lying”.
They ask if they can come in to “look around”. I said yes as I have nothing to hide, they are two against my one, and they are sporting sidearms.
After searching the house they asked what was in the attic? I replied, not much, maybe some suitcases. Well, can you open it up? We hear something.
So I shoved the sliding hatch open to allow access. While they are up there I see the ambulance passing headed south. When they came down, they saw the ambulance coming back. They leave without word.
The whole episode took about twenty minutes. I have no clue as to resolution.
It’s not exactly a nitpick to ask which of the grandfather’s rights were invaded. He had the right to remain silent, which he exercised. He had the right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, which he was not. I don’t believe there is a right not to be stopped and questioned by the police, just the right not to tell them anything if they do.
I don’t think it is a question of rights - no one is suggesting that the grandfather didn’t have the right to act exactly as he did. The question is if it was prudent to act as he did. ISTM that it would have been easier on everyone if the grandfather had simply told the cops that he was the child’s grandfather. Even if he had the right not to.
It also seems to me that there is something to be said for the old model of the cop on his beat, who knew everybody. There is a drawback to that kind of small town mentality, which is that everybody knows your business. It has the advantage, however, that everybody knows your business. And so, when somebody calls 9-11 to report a suspicious character, the cop on the beat says, “that’s not a suspicious character; that’s Mr. Smith and his granddaughter.”
There is a right not to be stopped and questioned without being free to go. It is the prohibition against unreasonable seizures in the Fourth Amendment. The cops are free to have a conversation, but if the person asks if they are free to leave, the cops have to answer in the affirmative unless they have the basis for a stop.
I have no disagreement on the assessment that telling him he was not free to go was wrong even though IANAL. That is different than assuming which party was paranoid here. It seems to me at least to be equally likely that GrandDad was the paranoid one: “I am being asked a question therefore it must be police racial profiling.”
Is it reasonable to believe that all the concerned citizen said was that a Black Man is walking with a White kid (or visa versa) and that the police responded to that fact alone?
Or is it more reasonable to believe that (s)he said “I see something that doesn’t look right on my street and I am c/o a possible abduction in progress. This is what they look like.”
I would tend to doubt the first, at least as an explicit factor. As the saying goes: “Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.”
If the call included the expression of a concern over a possible abduction in progress could the police dispatch ethically totally ignore the call? Would you like to be the dispatcher who decided to ignore a call regarding a possible abduction because the caller mentioned the races of the people involved and who found out later that a child in that area had been kidnapped, raped, and murdered?
Could GrandDad be leaving out the fact that the kid had been throwing a fit over that he hadn’t wanted to walk out of the way to see the cats or something and that maybe some discipline over tantrums was in progress? What, 2 year olds tantrum? Actually that fits because you are right: there are few shut-ins who are just scanning the street looking out for troublemakers. Most people at home are doing things and go to the window to look out only if they hear an unusual disturbance. Even paranoid elderly shut-ins. Their shows are on man!
So he decided to assume malice rather than assume stupidity or just a cop trying to assess a situation in response to a call. He acted on that assumption of malice in a way that challenged her authority. Yes, he was within his rights to do so and a well trained cop would know that, and that she should say “Yes you are free to go and I am free to tail you. Have a good day.” She instead exceeded her authority and was wrong to do so. They both had something stuck up their asses is my point.
Again, is this worth the conflict?
I know someone who had been waiting for a parking spot downtown. The guy pulled out and someone snuck in behind and stole the spot.
Would you
[ol]
[li]just leave or[/li][li]get out and argue with the jerk over the spot?[/li][/ol]She chose to get out and calmly state that it was her spot and that he should leave. He swore at her. She said, calmly, that that doesn’t change things, it was her spot and he should get out. He then ran her over. (Fortunately she’s okay, her leg is just badly bruised and abraded, nothing broken amazingly enough, and she had her wits about her enough to get a license plate number, still no arrest though 2 weeks later.) Was this a fight worth having because of the principle of it? Or would it have been better to take a deep breath and move along?
A child was present. The cop was obviously not the best trained cop around and was somehow feeling threatened by Gramp’s behavior such that she called for back-up. (Please note - 2 yo grandchild, this guy may not be so elderly. He could be a very fit muscular late 40’s early 50’s.) Could that obviously insecure poorly trained feeling threatened cop have ended up misinterpreting his reaching for his ID as going for a weapon and used excessive force? Why this fight then? Wouldn’t it have been better to just answer, she’s my grandchild, and move along? Than to paranoidly assume malice?
True. Although the police still can’t stop anyone they want-they have to have reasonable suspicion so to do. Even that lower standard seems like a stretch here.
DSeid, at no point have I argued that Gramps did the right thing in the scenario. My only argument has been that, perhaps, the cops did the wrong thing. So much of your post doesn’t apply to me.
Further, I’m also not suggesting that either the dispatcher or the police officer ignore the call. The police could cruise by and take a look for themselves. They could ask a friendly question or two. But that isn’t really what happened, is it?
So our only real point of disagreement is whether race was a factor in what happened, which is largely an academic question, as it were. We both agree that if race was a factor, that would be bad.
But your labeling of this contention as “paranoid” suggests a wide gulf between your personal experience and my own. So perhaps we’re just operating under different background assumptions. I find it unlikely that this scenario would have unfolded in the same way, regardless of the races of the people involved. In this case, our best evidence is the judgment of the person involved. He is the person who heard how the cop related the 911 call, witnesses body language and voice inflection, etc. Is there any reason to think this white guy was especially apt to cry racism at the drop of a hat?
This, right here, is the problem. I assume there was nothing in the attic that would make undue noise? But the cops will hear something, anyhow. Possibly because they’re lying. Possibly because they want to hear something. Either way, it will generate enough reasonable suspicion for them to investigate further.
The more you tell them, the more they will attempt to investigate.