Court throws out Kalamazoo fleeing and eluding case

The Michigan Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man found guilty of fleeing from Kalamazoo police officers, a ruling that is expected to change how Michigan officers articulate reasonable suspicion. (July 23, 2024)

[worker-wfem]

Police chief: “We had no evidence that he was innocent so we went ahead and assumed him guilty. Also without any evidence.”
US policing 101

[ethansprofile]

Our officers weren't there to harass citizens but we did.

[chadhaight]

Thank you to the Michigan Supreme Court for upholding our rights..

[Facetiously.Esoteric]

So he loses to the Supreme Court and immediately comes out and says the court is wrong and his officers just didn't articulate it correctly?
This man is going to cost the city millions in lawsuits. I hope the people of Kalamazoo are good with their taxes going up.

[proudpatriot]

They are not entitled to investigate citizens at their will. Gestapo policing needs to stop in America.

[RpVane]

5:07-5:15 ... translates to "We don't think we did anything wrong so instead of looking into how we violated this man's rights we're going to learn how to better manipulate language."

[hoovertb]

Listen to the cop, he still doesn’t get it. They’re going to continue to do whatever they want.

[ianbattles]

Notice how the department doesn't respect the court's decision??? These cops are sovereign citizens who want to play by their own rules.

[richardgladstone]

America.... you better step up and get your government under control. That chief is a liar.

[ianbattles]

"I don't consent to any searches, seizures, or questions, *so either place me under arrest or leave me alone."*

[boogin]

Oh man, it's almost like we are innocent until proven guilty and we have 5th amendment to not answer their questions

[Cantudreams]

You shouldn’t have to prove you’re allowed to be at a private dwelling in the United States of America

[robevans]

This should never have had to go to the state supreme court. The idea that cops can detain you simply because you're in a "high crime" area is ridiculous. If that is allowed, then any police department can declare any area they choose as "high crime", and thereby detain and potentially arrest ANYONE who is simply in that area.

It's WAY PAST time for the citizens of this country to assert our Constitutional rights. And it's high time to declare that there's no such thing as qualified immunity. If the cops don't understand and adhere to our country's laws and legal rights, then they are no different than any other criminal who would assault you.

[ZombieKiller]

I do love it when a Chief of Police thinks he knows the law better than the Superior Court. The arrogance of the Chief means you know the whole department is a basket case.

[heroesandzeros]

A "High Crime Area" is where police are committing crimes.
According to the police, it is illegal to get out of the crossfire.

[MurphCat-zlvu]

Chief: "The person may have said he was visiting someone. We had no proof of that."

You don't need proof, doofus. If that guy was there visiting someone, that was none of your business. Are you gonna make everyone going into a Target prove that they're to shop?

[celang]

That Chief is full of shif😢
The crime is this Chief still not understanding the law😢
Where are those 5 factors written in the constitution?

[neilkratzer]

What was the reasonable suspicion? Just by being there. You had no proof he did anything wrong. The federal Supreme Court has ruled on this too with precendce.

[timothybutler]

OKAY CHIEF, WHAT WAS THE CRIME THAT YOUR OFFICERS HAD R.A.S. OF?

[magnavoxfifty]

All the judges that denied the motions and rulings need to be sent back to law school for training.