The Chattanooga Police Department has decided that an officer who assaults two people, including pushing one through a plate glass window, will not be criminally charge. Det. Kenneth Freeman is truly a free man after, on Christmas Eve, shoving 71-year-old Wal-Mart greeter Bill Walker to the ground. Why? Because he was asking for a receipt check. Freeman then reportedly shoved Gholom Ghassedi through a glass door when he tried to assist Walker. The police routinely charge people with battery and resisting arrest if they touch the sleeve of an officer. Even hugging an officer or passing gas near an officer has led to a charge of assault. Yet, the Chattanooga Police Department can’t imagine what it would charge Freeman with after assaulting an elderly man and shoving a good samaritan through a glass door.
Collegedale Judge Kevin Wilson reviewed the complaint filed by Walker and decided that there was no room for an assault charge.
Walker said an alarm went off when Det. Freeman and another city police officer, Edwin McPherson, were leaving the store. He tried to stop Freeman and pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor. He said the officer then stood over him in a threatening manner as he lay on the floor.
A customer, Gholom Ghassedi, then told Freeman, “You can’t push down an old man” and began struggling with him only to be shoved through a glass door. He was bleeding from his neck when officers arrived.
Cpl. Larry Robbins Jr. of the Collegedale Police said he decided not to bring assault charges against Det. Freeman because the incident was a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of an officer — not counting the officer doing the beating of course. He further insisted that, since Gholom Ghassedi, did not seek medical attention, it did not meet that criteria. Finally, he explained “there were no other crimes committed along with the possible simple assault.”
If that seems a bit ridiculous, it is. There is a host of possible charges here in the abuse of an elderly person and assault on not one but two individuals. The police department had to struggle to find a way not to charge Freeman, insisting that they were “unable to determine at the scene that there was any intent to commit an assault.” Well, whatever his intent, he succeeded in knocking an elderly man to the ground and throwing another through a door. Was that all involuntary muscular reflex?
By the way, Freeman was involved in a scuffle with attorney Lloyd Levitt at the Courts Building in May 2007. What is clear is that the problem is not just Det. Freeman, but the Chattanooga Police Department itself.
For the full story, click here.
It would be good to know if the detective was in plain clothes. I suspect that he was, since detectives in police departments where I have lived, including Tennessee, are always in plain clothes.
I may be wrong but in my opinion both the 70-year-old greeter and the good Samaritan did not know that the two men who walked through the door setting off the electronic beeper were police.
Mesmerize, your bias and reading comprehension fecklessness are glaring. The Tennessee code on the matter clearly says:
“A merchant can detain a shoplifting a suspect for a reasonable time using reasonable force.”
Therefore, the 70-year-old man reaching to hold the suspect by the arm was NOT unreasonable. Every arrest or detention by a police officer is accomplished by the use of physical contact.
And yes, the officer assaulting the old man makes him a jerk, and a lawbreaker.
FFLeo,
You’re right about the C-A quote, could my mind be going from age faster than I though it was?
indieregister:
It is an exercise in doltishness to construe what I said as support for the proposition that an activated EAS, in and of itself, supports s finding of probable cause. The activated alarm coupled with the thug Officer’s refusal to stop and cooperate do provide a sufficient basis as both cases found.
Mespo said:
“I showed my 15 year old son this posting…. I also like my son’s colorful description of the cowardice shown by this rough and tough peace officer: “candy-ass.”
_____________________________________________________
I, like others here, just agreed with those comments. The full credit for the original classic ‘C-A’ comment goes to mespo’s 15-year-old son. Kids say the darndest things! (and often the most appropriate and spot-on things!)
Intricate and interesting legal arguments not withstanding the off duty (and presumably un-uniformed) was brutal and bespeaks a candy ass as FFLeo put it. That his superiors cover up for his behavior besmirches the Chattanooga Police Department. The toughest people I’ve ever met were the slowest to use their strength. The cowards and bullies used intimidation to hide their own fear.
The Sporny case did not establish that an EAS alarm equals probable cause. The court ruled that Burlington Coat Factory had probable cause to detain Sporny given the complete facts of the case. I quote from the judge’s ruling:
“As noted above, it is undisputed that, when plaintiff
was leaving the store, she had in her possession a pocketbook which had not been paid for, and which was the property of the retail establishment. Under the terms of the statute set forth above, there was probable cause for her detention and for the police referral and further investigation, as a matter of law.”
Sounds like it was the shoplifting — not the alarm — that justified her detention. Yes, the fact that she activated the alarm and tried to leave the store quickly was noted, in a paragraph the judge devoted to “alternative arguments.”
An alternative argument not even applied to the case at hand hardly constitutes a statewide precedent, mespo. Good try, though.
You are correct on the Messer case, but that opinion is certainly a head-scratcher. The court finds that the EAS alarm was sufficient probable cause to detain the customer, but the customer was never detained! The opinion states that the store manager asked her to return to the store, show her receipt and provide her bag for inspection, which she did voluntarily. That’s not detention, it’s a consent search! The court’s reasoning is specious and its conclusion speculative, but it remains legally binding.
I’m truly sorry I neglected to mention that at least four states by my count — Florida, Georgia, Mississippoi and West Virginia — have shoplifting laws that empower merchants to detain and search shoppers who activate the EAS sensors. While I certainly disagree with the law in these cases, I do respect it, and it would be reckless to ignore or minimize the impact of these statutes in their respective states.
Courts have grappled to define probable cause, and it’s at best a fluid definition that adapts to the totality of the circumstances. Could an EAS activation factor into a PC finding when it’s a stipulated fact that the customer did possess unbought merchandise? Sure. Could the store alarm, in itself, empower employees to accuse you of theft and search your belongings?
Not unless you’re unfortunate enough to live in one of those states that’s erroneously equated a security sensor with a magic theft detector.
Well said Mespo and Bob Frog. It is really heartening to see the level of knowledge that is on display on Prof. Turley’s site.
indieregister:
“No, what disturbs me the most is mespo727272’s posting of the state shoplifting law and the extremely irresponsible conclusion that the Wal-Mart greeter had a right to detain Detective Freeman.
Merchants can detain a shopper only with PROBABLE CAUSE to believe he or she has stolen something. PC is a stringent legal standard that demands some measure of evidence, not unfounded suspicion. The activation of a store security alarm doesn’t even approach probable cause”
******************
Lay your disturbance aside along with your rudimentary knowledge of the law of probable cause. It has been the opinion of the US District Court in Eastern Pennsylvania that the activation of an EAS alarm along with the suspect’s attempt to avoid security does establish probable cause to detain. Pennsylvania is just one of several jurisdictions to so hold. If you need a primer see the case of PAMELA SPORNY v.BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE OF PHILADELPHIA, INC., et al. : 97-5550 (EDPa) where just such a restrictive and foolish approach as yours,on these same facts, was rejected. Kentucky also permits detention upon the sounding of the EAS and the refusal to cooperate with store employees Messer v. Robinson, NO. 2007-CA-000977-MR (2008). My view may be “unreasonable” to your way of thinking, but it is unquestionably the law and considered policy of at least two jurisdictions who have considered it. May we have your contrary authority?
From Blade Runner:
“If your not cop, you’re little people.”
I won’t enter the fray on whether the detective should have been charged with simple assault. I believe he severely overreacted, but I also agree that the greeter had no legal right to grab the detective’s arm.
No, what disturbs me the most is mespo727272’s posting of the state shoplifting law and the extremely irresponsible conclusion that the Wal-Mart greeter had a right to detain Detective Freeman.
Merchants can detain a shopper only with PROBABLE CAUSE to believe he or she has stolen something. PC is a stringent legal standard that demands some measure of evidence, not unfounded suspicion. The activation of a store security alarm doesn’t even approach probable cause. Electronic article surveillance is a shoplifting deterrent, not a crook catcher — the alarms sound hundreds of times a day, and only a sliver of those may actually signal shoplifting.
Because the majority of EAS alarms sound for improperly deactivated merchandise, not theft, they do not provide employees with the necessary proof to accuse someone of stealing. Neither do customers have an obligation to stop immediately and stand, sheepishly, while someone rifles through their bags because a robotic voice tells them to return to the store.
A receipt check is basically a consent search. Once you buy something, it becomes your personal property, and the store cannot inspect it without your permission. Employees can ask to check receipts all day long, and while many customers will participate, every shopper has the right to simply say “No, thanks” and leave the store uninspected.
For more on bag checks, see: http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm
mesmerize,
You are an abjectly illiterate, cowardly fool.
Please review the Mayor Dixon thread ‘Pay to PlayStation’ for more evidence of your illiteracy.
mesmerize:
“The article states “He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.”
Turley CHANGED this to “tried to stop”, ”
Dear Grammatical Whiz,
The “try to stop” phrase is the root predicate while “reached to” is a modifier.
Thus the only place where use of the “tried to stop” phrase would alter any meaning conveyed by the original article lay solely within your imagination.
Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.
TURLEYS CHANGING THE ARTICLE PROVES HE IS A MADDOW/OLBERMANN TYPE CLOWN THAT GOES AROUND MAKING A CHANGE HERE AND THERE TO BENEFIT HIS ARGUMENT:
The article states “He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.”
Turley CHANGED this to “tried to stop”, just like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann do; change a word here and there TO TOTALLY OBFUSCATE AND CHANGE ANY ORIGINAL STATEMENT, guess they learned it from him.
mesmerize,
Even if the cop had a right to shove an old man to the ground, he was still, as Former Federal LEO puts it so well, a “sissy/candy-A” for having done it.
FFLeo:
I think your apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree. Good for you!
mesmerize:
“The law allowing you to DETAIN someone does not mention by force DOES IT YOU RANK AMATEURS…Sheese.”
**************
Send me your state of licensure. Around my office we like to know which state permits the illiterate to obtain law licenses. It helps on referral decisions. Wait, let me guess: Alaska? West Virginia (sorry to my ‘eers friend)? Mississippi?
mesmerize:
I ‘ll let the lawyers on the blog decide who is the lawyer and who is the person that has no idea what the legal term “detain” means in the context of first sentence that refers to “reasonable force.”
MORE IMPORTANTLY TURLEYS CHANGING THE ARTICLE PROVES HE IS A MADDOW/OLBERMANN TYPE CLOWN THAT GOES AROUND MAKING A CHANGE HERE AND THERE TO BENEFIT HIS ARGUMENT:
The article states “He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor.”
Turley CHANGED this to “tried to stop”, just like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann do; change a word here and there TO TOTALLY OBFUSCATE AND CHANGE ANY ORIGINAL STATEMENT, guess they learned it from him.
and the rest of the story is:
Those that have seen the video tape say it exonerates the COP. You canNOT detain people by putting your hands on them and holding them back. You want to get pulled in for assault, go ahead and try. The law allowing you to DETAIN someone does not mention by force DOES IT YOU RANK AMATEURS…Sheese.