Court in MA says running from cops not a sign of guilt because of police discrimination

[James Madison]

There may be, but being a legitimate suspect in a crime should not be one of them.

It really appears to me that the court was saying these men were NOT legitimate suspects for the crime. They only tangentially matched the vague description given which did not give the cops grounds to stop them.

What is your beef with the actual decision, rather than your impression of the headline?

For me, it is the logic of the court is not entirely consistent with the rationale for reasonable suspicion, although their conclusion is not entirely inconsistent with the reasonable suspicion rationale.

 

[Treedbear]

...
The court's ruling was more nuanced and narrow than what is reported at the link.

"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, 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. 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. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."​

The court specifically stated they were not eliminating flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis when a black subject is stopped on the basis of fleeing. The court is explicitly stating flight is still a factor in determining reasonable suspicion and this is applicable to blacks. The court's ruling instructs lower courts to consider another factor in addition to flight in regards to blacks.

In my opinion the most important part of the quote is:

... 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. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, ...

But this is Boston. Let's see, what else is Boston famous for?

The Journal of Occurrences, an anonymously written series of newspaper articles, chronicled clashes between civilians and soldiers while troops were stationed in Boston, feeding tensions with its sometimes exaggerated accounts of the events. Tensions rose markedly after Christopher Seider, "a young lad about eleven Years of Age", was killed by a customs employee on February 22, 1770.[16] Seider's death was glorified in the Boston Gazette, and his funeral was described as one of the largest of the time in Boston. The killing and subsequent propaganda inflamed tensions, with gangs of colonists looking for soldiers to harass, and soldiers also on occasion looking for confrontation.

Sounds familiar. There were about 16,000 residents in Boston at the time and they were required to house, feed and launder the uniforms of 4,000 British troops. Which is to say they had all the reason to feel indignant. They were patient but were recurringly ignored. And somehow everyone agrees they had the right to destroy $1 million worth of tea and burn a local merchant's ship.

 

[Jaecp]

In my opinion the most important part of the quote is:

... 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. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, ...

But this is Boston. Let's see, what else is Boston famous for?

The Journal of Occurrences, an anonymously written series of newspaper articles, chronicled clashes between civilians and soldiers while troops were stationed in Boston, feeding tensions with its sometimes exaggerated accounts of the events. Tensions rose markedly after Christopher Seider, "a young lad about eleven Years of Age", was killed by a customs employee on February 22, 1770.[16] Seider's death was glorified in the Boston Gazette, and his funeral was described as one of the largest of the time in Boston. The killing and subsequent propaganda inflamed tensions, with gangs of colonists looking for soldiers to harass, and soldiers also on occasion looking for confrontation.

Sounds familiar. There were about 16,000 residents in Boston at the time and they were required to house, feed and launder the uniforms of 4,000 British troops. Which is to say they had all the reason to feel indignant. They were patient but were recurringly ignored. And somehow everyone agrees they had the right to destroy $1 million worth of tea and burn a local merchant's ship.

Well yeah, I mean, back in 1773 or whatever we were all like "TEAR THIS DOWN" and now it's all "oh, you blocked traffic? Protest Invalidated!"