When you courtwatch, you become familiar with legal language and learn to decode it. That means that you quickly learn what phrases such as “probable cause” and “least onerous condition” mean outside the confines of a law book.
“Displaying characteristics of an armed person” is one of the phrases we hear most often. Typically, it is used by prosecutors in bail reviews as they read or summarize a police report and describe what a cop alleges happened.
“Characteristics of an armed person” comes directly from Baltimore Police Department training materials that instruct officers on how to conduct stops and searches. It is intended to meet the standard of “reasonable articulable suspicion.” Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard meant to limit police by making arbitrary stops illegal. Instead of just stopping people at random, we are told that officers must have reasonable suspicion that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed. Without reasonable suspicion, theoretically, evidence from an illegal stop may be inadmissible.
On first reading, it might seem like common sense. A cop stops someone only when there is some suspicion that is reasonable and specific enough to articulate. In reality, the language is a farce currently being used to legitimize the rebranding of stop-and-frisk, zero-tolerance, mass incarceration-style policing.
When examining how the phrase “characteristics of an armed person” operates in the real world, the important question is: when does this standard limit police stops and searches? What is not reasonable suspicion? The characteristics we have heard mentioned in court include a wide variety of clearly harmless and innocent behaviors.
The Department of Justice’s 2016 report on the Baltimore Police Department went into detail on the many aspects of BPD’s harmful and often deadly practices.
These characteristics include: wearing a hoodie around your waist in the spring, wearing a black satchel, wearing all black, acting nervous, backing up when approached by police, turning your body away from police, leaning away from police, quickening your pace, walking with a backpack and holding it against your body, pinching your legs together, having an observable bulge, walking up to a car, touching another person’s hand, grabbing your waistband, holding your waistband while running, holding your waistband for more than five seconds, holding your waistband for a while and then later not holding your waistband, fleeing when an unmarked police car drives directly at you, being recognized by police, and widening your eyes when you see police.
These behaviors are not illegal, suspicious, or inherently indicative of anything. As we heard a defense attorney tell a judge about one of the above characteristics, “everyone could be stopped if that was reasonable suspicion.” And that is the point: these characteristics’ broad and vague nature allows police to justify any stop.
The Department of Justice’s 2016 report on the Baltimore Police Department went into detail on the many aspects of BPD’s harmful and often deadly practices. One section titled “BPD Uses Unreasonable Force Against Persons who Are Fleeing from Them and Present Little or No Threat of Harm” includes a subsection on foot chases (II.C.4.b.i.). This section is particularly relevant because the report itself was largely a response to the murder of Freddie Gray, which occurred after a chase that police said was justified because he ran after making eye contact with police.
The report states that in justifying chases, “officers frequently cite factors learned in BPD’s training on ‘Characteristics of an Armed Person’ such as ‘grabbing one’s waistband’ or ‘wearing loose clothing.’” The DOJ goes on to say that BPD’s training materials warn officers of “false positives” and tell them that “eighty percent of individuals who show characteristics of an armed person… will not be armed.”
In a footnote, the DOJ clarifies that it is “highly unlikely that only eighty percent of individuals who are wearing loose or baggy clothing are unarmed.” They advise officers to rely on a “set of characteristics” rather than a single characteristic. Presumably, if your eyes widen because a cop with a gun is approaching, you may also back away, and you just might be wearing a hoodie or black satchel.
Whatever exceedingly small percentage of the time benign characteristics like wearing loose or baggy clothing align with a person being armed, it is absurd to believe they are cause for “reasonable” suspicion. But in Baltimore City, cops are arresting, prosecutors are prosecuting, and judges are holding people in cages based on an underlying assumption that it is reasonable. And it doesn’t stop there. Despite a consent decree and promises of reform, police are using “characteristics of an armed person” to get away with shooting and killing people.
In May, Officer Cedric Elleby chased and shot a 17-year-old in the back. The BPD said officers initially approached him because he “displayed characteristics of an armed person.” Baltimore City State’s Attorney Ivan Bates refused to press charges against the officer but is prosecuting the victim.
On November 7, Baltimore Police officers William Healey, Brittany Routh, Justin Oliva, and Brandon Columbo chased, shot, and killed 27-year-old Hunter Jessup on Wilkens Avenue. In a press conference at the scene, Commissioner Richard Worley explained why the cops chased Jessup: “They saw something that made them believe he was armed.”
Worley also praised his officers, saying they’d done a great job apprehending an armed individual.
Community members who spoke to the media in the immediate aftermath and the days that followed mentioned frustration with police harassment and violence.
Both shootings were instigated by District Action Teams that are designed to replace the Gun Trace Task Force. And they are doing the same, terrorizing citizens and increasing arrests. Their stated goal is to get guns off the street. But these special units have no special powers to sniff out guns. Instead, they often simply patrol, drive around, and harass Black people until they initiate an interaction where they determine the person “displays a characteristic of an armed person.”
Baltimore Courtwatch is made up of Baltimore citizens who watch court proceedings and report what they see in order to hold court actors accountable and end the injustice of the criminal legal system. Learn more about them at baltimorecourtwatch.org.