On Dec. 18, 2011, police in Massachusetts were called to investigate a robbery in the town of Roxbury. They were given the details of three Black men, described only as one wearing a “red hoodie,” one wearing a “black hoodie” and the other wearing “dark clothing.”
RELATED:
Police Kill Black Man In North Carolina, Clash With Protesters
Jimmy Warren happened to walk past the police that evening, strolling through a park with a friend in dark clothing. As police charged toward the men, they attempted to run away. Warren was later arrested, searched and found to be in possession of a .22-caliber firearm. He was charged and convicted with unlawful possession of a firearm, despite having nothing to do with the robbery.
But this week, a landmark ruling by the the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court threw out Warren’s gun conviction based on the premise that Black men who try to avoid an encounter with Boston police by fleeing may be justified in doing so, and should not be deemed suspicious.
In its ruling, the court essentially concluded that the police didn’t have the right to stop Warren, and that his sprint to flee the cops is in no way criminal.
The court ruled that state law affords individuals the right to not speak to police and walk away if they aren’t charged. It also ruled that when an individual does flee, that action alone is insufficient to demonstrate guilt.
Perhaps most importantly, the court cited a report by the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, that documents “a pattern of racial profiling of Black males in the city of Boston,” and concluded “...the finding that Black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO (Field Interrogation and Observation) encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt,” declared the court, as reported by WBUR. “Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity.”
RELATED:
US: Oklahoma Police Release Video of Terence Crutcher's Killing
Matthew Segal, the legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, welcomed the decision, calling it "a powerful ruling" that addresses community concerns about policing.
"The state’s highest court, in talking about people of color, it’s saying that their lives matter and under the law, their views matter," Segal said. "The reason that’s significant is that all the time in police-civilian encounters there are disputes about what is suspicious and what is not suspicious. So this is an opinion that looks at those encounters through the eyes of a black man who might justifiably be concerned that he will be the victim of profiling."
In nefarious fashion, Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans blasted the SJC ruling, saying he was "troubled" that the court heavily cited the ACLU report, which he called "heavily tainted against the police department," despite the ruling also taking into account the BPD’s own report, which found that Black people were 8 percent more likely to be stopped repeatedly and 12 percent more likely to be searched and frisked.
The SJC ruling comes a week after the launch of police body camera pilot program in Boston, that many, including Segal, see as transformative in terms of ensuring police accountability and transparency.