By all accounts Freddie Grey was carrying an illegal switchblade.
One of the charges brought by prosecutor Marilyn Mosby in the Freddie Gray case is false arrest. The police arrested Gray for carrying an illegal knife, but Mosby has announced that Gray’s knife was not an illegal switchblade under Maryland law.
In court documents, the knife is described as a “spring-assisted, one-hand-operated knife.”
Baltimore city law makes it illegal “for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife.”
Originally Posted by Whirlaway
You're a lying, musselman loving cocksucker. It clearly states in the OP that the knife would have to be automatic, not spring-assisted, you cum-guzzling cocktard. Clean the ropey loads out of your eyes, so you can see better.
You think illegal arrest is the crux of the case?
Originally Posted by WombRaider
Where does it ...
It clearly state(s) in the OP that the knife would have to be automatic, not spring-assisted,
You are stupid.
But I would never expect you to be even remotely as intelligent and knowledgeable as Justice Roberts:
"The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable
searches and seizures.” Under this standard, a search or
seizure may be permissible even though the justification
for the action includes a reasonable factual mistake. An
officer might, for example, stop a motorist for traveling
alone in a high-occupancy vehicle lane, only to discover
upon approaching the car that two children are slumped
over asleep in the back seat. The driver has not violated
the law, but neither has the officer violated the Fourth
Amendment.
"But what if the police officer’s reasonable mistake is not
one of fact but of law? In this case, an officer stopped a
vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out,
but a
court later determined that a single working brake light
was all the law required. The question presented is
whether such a mistake of law can nonetheless give rise to
the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold the seizure
under the Fourth Amendment.
We hold that it can."
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 13–604.
Decided December 15, 2014