Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Washington State Supreme Court Imposes Different Standards On Police “Seizures” For “BIPOC” and Whites

Washington State Supreme Court Imposes Different Standards On Police “Seizures” For “BIPOC” and Whites

Two identical factual circumstances of a police encounter maybe result in different judicial results depending on whether the person is BIPOC or not-BIPOC (i.e. white). This is a good example of how social justice and Critical Race Theory verbiage and language accelerated by the BLM protests of 2020 have penetrated the judiciary.

The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a sweeping Opinion (pdf.) announcing that whether a person is deemed “seized” by the police must take into account race if the person is “Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC).”

BIPOC status, the court ruled on June 9, 2022, is relevant to whether the person “was not free to leave, to refuse a request, or to otherwise terminate the encounter ….” So two identical factual circumstances of a police encounter maybe result in different judicial results depending on whether the person is BIPOC or not-BIPOC (i.e. white).

BIPOC is the term used a dozen times in the Opinion, but BIPOC is a poorly-defined and broad term that puts otherwise disparate groups into a racial category. It also is a term that can have absurd results, such as Elizabeth Warren arguably qualifying as BIPOC since she claimed to be Native American and was treated at Harvard Law School as a Woman of Color.

BIPOC as a term also conflates important distinctions among its various groups as to experience with police stops and perception of policing and policing reform. It is for that reason many “anti-racist” activists and academics object to the term BIPOC, viewing it as erasing the unique experience of black Americans.

BIPOC is a recent term that became common with the protests and riots of 2020. While the NY Times found a 2013 reference to the term, this Google Search Trends charts shows the surge of the term in 2020:

That’s also my “lived experience,” with Cornell University where I work now commonly using the term (which created an internet rage when applied to a rock climbing class). Cornell is not alone, BIPOC is the hot word on campuses and among activists.

The case before the Washington Supreme Court involved a person named Palla Sum who identified as a Asian/Pacific Islander approached by police in a high crime area while sleeping with a friend in a car. The police asked Sum for identification. He provided a false name and birth date, and then took off in the car when the policeman returned to the police vehicle to check the information. His conviction for fleeing the scene is not disputed, only his conviction for providing false information to the police. If the false information was provided pusuant to an unlawful “seizure,” the information was not admissible as evidence.

The issue before the court was whether asking for identification in this circumstance was a “seizure” such that police needed either a warrant or to prove an exception to the warrant requirement. The court made clear at multiple points in the Opinion that it was deciding the case under the Washington State Constitution, which it said contained broader protections than the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The court held that this was a seizure and reiterated that Sum being BIPOC was a necessary consideration. The court did not need to issue the sweeping declaration as to BIPOC status, but chose this case to set down a marker. Here is the introductory summary of the Opinion (emphasis added):

This case concerns the analysis that courts must apply to determine whether a person has been seized by law enforcement for purposes of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. It is well established that an encounter with law enforcement rises to the level of a seizure if “considering all the circumstances, an individual’s freedom of movement is restrained and the individual would not believe [they are] free to leave or decline a request due to an officer’s use of force or display of authority.” State v. Rankin, 151 Wn.2d 689, 695, 92 P.3d 202 (2004). Today, we are asked whether “all the circumstances” of the encounter includes the race and ethnicity of the allegedly seized person.

As the parties correctly agree, the answer is yes. Our precedent has always required that the seizure inquiry be made in light of the totality of the circumstances, and we have never stated that race and ethnicity cannot be relevant circumstances. However, we have not explicitly held that in interactions with law enforcement, race and ethnicity matter. We do so today. Furthermore, to ensure that all the circumstances of a law enforcement encounter are properly considered, including race andethnicity, we take this opportunity to clarify the seizure inquiry as a matter of independent state law, taking guidance from GR 37.

As set forth in this court’s precedent, the seizure inquiry is an objective test in which the allegedly seized person has the burden to show that a seizure occurred. To aid courts in the application of this test, we now clarify that a person is seized for purposes of article I, section 7 if, based on the totality of the circumstances, an objective observer could conclude that the person was not free to
leave, to refuse a request, or to otherwise terminate the encounter due to law enforcement’s display of authority or use of physical force. For purposes of this analysis, an objective observer is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in disproportionate police contacts, investigative seizures, and uses of force against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) in Washington. Finally, in accordance with our precedent, if the person shows there was a seizure, then the burden shifts to the State to prove that the seizure was lawfully justified by a warrant or an applicable exception to the warrant requirement.

Based on the totality of the circumstances presented in this case, we hold that petitioner Palla Sum was seized when a sheriff’s deputy requested Sum’s identification while implying that Sum was under investigation for car theft. As the State properly concedes, at that time, the deputy did not have a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or any other lawful authority to seize Sum. As a result, Sum was unlawfully seized, and the false name and birth date he gave to the deputy must be suppressed. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Thus, under this ruling, consideration of BIPOC status is mandatory because an “objective observer” in determining whether a person is free to leave, would be aware of “implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases” that could lead a BIPOC person not to feel free to leave.  It would not matter if the person was part of a BIPOC group that did not experience police discrimination.

The court made this point at various other times in the Opinion (emphasis added):

Regardless of whether race and ethnicity are considered, the seizure analysis is not based on the subjective viewpoint of the allegedly seized individual, with their unique “life experience” or “attitudes.” Contra Easley, 911 F.3d at 1082. Instead, the seizure analysis in Washington is “‘a purely objective one, looking to the actions of the law enforcement officer.’” O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d at 574 (quoting Young, 135 Wn.2d at 501). And an objective observer in Washington “is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in” many injustices against BIPOC, particularly in the criminal justice system….

Based on the constitutional text, recent developments in this court’s historical treatment of the rights of BIPOC, and the current implications of our decision, we hold as a matter of independent state law that race and ethnicity are relevant to the question of whether a person was seized by law enforcement. We express no opinion as to whether race and ethnicity might be relevant in determining whether a particular warrantless seizure was justified by reasonable suspicion or some other exception to the warrant requirement, as that issue is not before us.

* * *

As a result, the relevance of race and ethnicity in the seizure inquiry cannot turn on whether there has been recent, well-publicized discrimination and violence by law enforcement directed at individuals of the same race or ethnicity as the allegedly seized person. Instead, we must be cognizant that

[f]or generations, black and brown parents have given their children “the talk”—instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.

Strieff, 579 U.S. at 254 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). Simply put, a person’s race or ethnicity does not become relevant with media reports of targeted police discrimination or violence, nor does it become irrelevant in the temporary absence of such reports.

* * *

Thus, holding that a person’s race and ethnicity are irrelevant unless the person produces statistics showing a pattern of targeted police discrimination or violence would reinforce the same systemic inequalities that prevent such statistics from being reliably compiled in the first instance. History has shown that when courts create “‘crippling’” legal burdens to recognizing the constitutional rights of BIPOC, their lived experiences are unjustly disregarded and their rights go unprotected.

* * *

In sum, while it is true that there is no uniform life experience or perspective shared by all people of color, heightened police scrutiny of the BIPOC community is certainly common enough to establish that race and ethnicity have at least some relevance to the question of whether a person was seized.

There certainly could be specific facts of an encounter that would lead a court to consider the race of the person and police as to whether there was a coercion that an objective observer would view as rendering a person not free to leave. But the court’s Opinion goes far beyond that, it presumes that BIPOC status is enough to make race a factor. That doesn’t mean every encounter between a BIPOC person and police is a seizure, but under this Opinion it creates that presumption.

This presents a problem for policing, because police will need to determine BIPOC status at the time of the encounter:

Pierce County Prosecutor Mary Robnett, whose office handled the case, said in a statement Thursday: “In any appellate court ruling, whether it’s a narrow decision or an expansive one, I hope that it will bring clarity. Unfortunately, this decision will likely further confuse law enforcement officers about their interactions with the public. Police officers and trial court judges, especially, are facing some confusing and uncertain times ahead as they try to correctly apply the court’s ruling.”

Prosecutor’s Office spokesperson Adam Faber said via email: “Our office asked the Supreme Court in this case to recognize that race and ethnicity may be a factor in deciding whether someone has been detained by law enforcement. Today’s decision went further and appears to elevate this factor above all other factors, including immigration status, religious affiliation, disability, gender, sexual orientation, use of force by the officer, or any other relevant circumstances.”

Police are already trying to figure out how to treat persons based on the racial factors the court imposed:

Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said he was briefed on the decision Thursday, and deputies will be advised in an upcoming training bulletin. New procedures for dealing with concerns that minority members of the community might have will be tested during quarterly training sessions in mock scenarios, he said….

We have the unusual circumstance that “objectivity” of adjuding a police encounter is anything but objective. In Washington State, objectivity is very subjective based on assumptions and presumptions that anyone who is non-white necessarily will be intimidated by an enounter with the police such that even asking for identification would be deemed a seizure. A white person in the same circumstance and the same facts would not be deemed seized, which has important implications for treatment in the criminal justice system. Same facts, different results based on race.

To highlight the absurdity, what about white people who self-identify as BIPOC, like Elizabeth Warren?

This is a good example of how social justice and Critical Race Theory verbiage and language accelerated by the BLM protests of 2020 have penetrated the judiciary. “BIPOC” is an ill-defined, overly-broad, and relatively new categorization of different groups that only have in common some amount of skin color that would render them not white. This is what it has come to.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Ready to be a dhimmi in your own country?

    The Democrat Party has a party discipline you rarely if ever see outside of an authoritarian single party state.

    Diversity, Inequity, and Exclusion. Take a knee, beg, good girl.

    veryskeptic in reply to TheFineReport.com. | June 15, 2022 at 2:45 pm

    If a state Supreme Court interprets its Constitution in a way that’s inconsistent with the US Constitution, the decision is invalid. Here the decision gives more rights to one racial group than another. That’s a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. A State Constitution can give more rights to individuals than the federal Constitution, but not on an improper basis, like race.

    max dugan in reply to TheFineReport.com. | June 16, 2022 at 10:37 pm

    i’d like to see that data that supports what young black children have been told by their parents for three generations as to how present themselves out side of the house…..in fact, i demand since it seems to a pivotal part of the argument. Science ya know,

Howsabout we just arrest everyone that resists arrest? Did “the talk” include that? Chris Rock understood in his famous short video, “How not to have your a$$ kicked by the police.”

Let’s just call it “BIPOx” and replace monkey pox with it for the next contrived pandemic.

    max dugan in reply to Dimsdale. | June 16, 2022 at 11:23 pm

    but they don’t care, And you freeze…..you don’t know what to do next……you are looking into the face determined evik doers and you don’t know what to do,,……they rip the country apart…..you freeze……they burn down cities……you freeze,,,,,,,,they break the law,,……you freeze….they are clearly abusing your wives and children……and you freeze.

nordic_prince | June 12, 2022 at 10:03 pm

Disparate treatment under the law – now officially sanctioned.

They will not stop until all whites are subjugated.

This is TEXTBOOK racism and a violation of equal protection under the law.

But who am I kidding, liberals don’t care.

Hard to see how they’re going to square that with the 14th Amendment and “equal justice under the law.”

“Thus, under this ruling, consideration of BIPOC status is mandatory…”

Well, it’s mandatory if you live in the state of Washington. Hence, if you are not “BIPOC” and want equal justice you will have to move to another state.

The rulings assumes wrongly, that seizure disparities arise from police biases, because courts refuse to accept the reality that certain underclasses are more prone to crime. But, interestingly, the WA Supreme Court leftists have also accepted in case law, the concept that colored people have “lived experiences” that except them from laws, that only apply to whites.

We’ve seen that Democrats now get a pass too, as juries in Democratic Washington DC and California only convict Republicans, not Democrats. So, laws now apply only to conservative whites. Our Federal government, media, and corporations increasingly treat whites as an enemy. Especially, the Department of Justice and Homeland security which is targeting all whites increasingly as terrorists.

Deja Vu! Leftists are trying to introduce another reign of terror in this country. They murdered 100 million people in the last century throughout the world. In America, if they are not stopped, millions of whites will die from their terror, again.

    This ruling is a result of the court’s racial biases, and its desire to project those biases onto others so as to avoid confronting its own.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to ruralguy. | June 13, 2022 at 9:41 am

    Our Federal government, media, and corporations increasingly treat whites as an enemy. Especially, the Department of Justice and Homeland security which is targeting all whites increasingly as terrorists.

    How many whites do you see pushing back? Even if it is to write a letter to USAA, Verizon, General Mills, and others to tell them whites still exist and we’d like to be seen in their ads, or will assume whites are not welcome as customers?

    How many VISIT their congressman when they are in town, and raise hell?

    Et cetera?

Colonel Travis | June 12, 2022 at 10:13 pm

Other People of Color…
1..) How demeaning is that?
2.) WTF does it even mean?

Hello, other colored person. You shall be patted on the head and treated like a child because of your otherness.

    Diversity, Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE) doctrine is processed under the Pro-Choice “ethical” religion, hence: Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter. It’s a class model in the spirit of Hutu vs Tutsi, Mandela’s Zhosa vs Zulu, Kenyan elite vs deplorables, etc.

      Colonel Travis in reply to n.n. | June 12, 2022 at 10:47 pm

      I get that. But how does one define an “other”? It’s funny to read the consternation on the left about the term. Even those clowns don’t understand.

      And beyond that, followers of leftism don’t see the folly, the stupidity, the destruction. They’re so hell bent on finding the correct person to lead them to the promised land, that the failure in front of their face.

    WTF does it even mean? Exactly. Who is a POC? Does the one drop of blood rule apply? Two drops? 127 drops? I think that a majority (perhaps a large majority) of people most would consider white have at least one drop of black, Asian, or indigenous blood in them. Do they count as POC? If not, why not? And how is a beat cop supposed to know this?

    How about treating all people equal regardless of their race, religion, political believes, color of their skin, color of their shoes, or color of their hair. That would be nice, wouldn’t it? If only there were a country that held to those ideas. That would be nice, wouldn’t it?

This has to go to the SC

Probably they will shrink from their duty

This MUST STOP

We must win in Nov amd 2024, 2028, 2032 to have a minuscule chance of winning our Country back

If not

Let’s split, I’m tired of their BS, they can have all the people of color who feel life owes them more than the rest of us

Let’s split this MF and be done with them

He mentions Senator Warren. However, in WA, Rachel Dolezal seems to be more relevant, as the poster child for self-identifying as Black.

I wonder if a white person would now have standing to sue for being stopped unlawfully, if stopped under more rigorous guidelines?

Somebody slept through Con law class bigtime.

Baby Elephant | June 12, 2022 at 11:03 pm

I get that they are trying to hide behind the Washington State Constitution to reduce the chance the US Supreme Court takes and overturns their ruling, but how does this not violate the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment?

    The state constitution may not violate the U.S. Constitution — and this ruling is clearly in violation.

    Or would be, if SCOTUS hadn’t made a mockery of equal protection in previous race-related decisions.

Subotai Bahadur | June 12, 2022 at 11:22 pm

First of all, if you are any sort of Peace Officer in Washington State, and are classified as “white”; you need to get another job out of state ASAP. This is only the beginning and you are a free fire zone. You cannot do your job, and you are risking your life for nothing.

Second, if you are not a Peace Officer, the same advice applies to you, just at a slightly lower priority because your normal work day probably does not involve the risk of death. However, as “BIPOC” criminals figure out that whites have less or no legal standing, AND that law enforcement cannot and will not pursue them, the risk will constantly rise. Sell out, get out,

Subotai Bahadur

“BIPOC is the term used a dozen times in the Opinion, but BIPOC is a poorly-defined and broad term that puts otherwise disparate groups into a racial category.”

“See ‘BIPOC’ — read ‘nonwhite.'”

Free State Paul | June 12, 2022 at 11:34 pm

The worse, the better.

What it boils down to is nine affluent liberals saying, “We can’t expect non-white people to meet the same standards of behavior we expect from white people.” It’s the infantilizing view of minorities most affluent liberals have. They might as well say, “They’re animals anyway, so let them lose their souls”.

    guyjones in reply to Jingo. | June 13, 2022 at 8:44 am

    It’s what Bush II’s Education Secretary, Rod Paige, memorably and aptly referred to as “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” in the context of schools and education. Only, I’d submit that the Dumb-o-crats’ paternalistic bigotry towards black Americans in all socioeconomic matters, perennially treating them as infants who are incapable of ambition, agency, financial self-sufficiency, personal responsibility and independent success, has become transparently “hard” bigotry.

    guyjones in reply to Jingo. | June 13, 2022 at 8:46 am

    The “lose their souls” quote is from Mario Puzo’s novel, “The Godfather” (re-created in the film), at the conference of the Five Families, in which a proposal to restrict the narcotics trade to black neighborhoods and customers is approved.

So if I identify as a pale pink instead of as white, that means I’m entitled to special treatment even if the police don’t know how I identify?

Where States have targeted certain groups for collective punishment, I believe they required people wear distinctive garments or coded labels to aid law enforcement in making a quick assessment.

Right. Peak Insanity

AnAdultInDiapers | June 13, 2022 at 3:53 am

BIPOC isn’t a term in the use in the UK.

I’m guessing it’s because of who the indigenous people are – which would explain absolutely everything about the people that use the term.

BLM Marxism has come to Washington state, wait until the Supreme Court gets a couple more Judges.

SeymourButz | June 13, 2022 at 6:26 am

Bring it to the Supreme Court. I’d love to hear Ms. “I don’t know what a woman is” define what a BIPOC is and why they deserve more protection under the law than the rest of us.

Where do I sign up for my BIPOC card? You can’t tell by looking at me, just like high cheekboned Senators. Is there a site on the interweb? Extra fee for express delivery?

What the hell do they mean by color.. the C in BIPOC? It is just so vague..
Do Caucasians get different treatment at the end of the summer, after a really deep tan? Except for albinism, we all have color,,, SMH
Same bs, different day.

%20do %20 the %20dougie

Same facts but different outcome based not on individual merit or actions but entirely upon the inclusion or exclusion from a set of immutable characteristics? Has the CT considered that this doctrine might be used as a tool of oppression towards the BIOPIC group? This is far more dangerous than they realize.

This what the vile Dumb-o-crats are ushering in — a new era of brazen and manifestly illegal race-based discrimination, in the name of their vicious and corrosive “social justice” agenda.

First, it was federal job hiring and contract award preferences for women and “minorities.” Then, SCOTUS gave its misguided and indefensible blessing to race-based university and graduate school admissions. Then, after COVID struck, we saw several cities and states proposing race-based, priority distribution of COVID medicines and treatment. We’ve seen indefensible, kid-gloves, lenient prosecution/penalties for “Anti-fa” and “Black Lives Matter” terrorists (on the rare occasion when they’ve been arrested and faced prosecution). And, now, we come to the predictable evolution of all of this — separate legal treatment by state law enforcement, based upon citizens’ skin pigmentation.

This is vile and despicable.

Interesting read that opinion is… what the court doesn’t address (or realize) is the interaction between a “bipoc” police officer (who represents the state) interacting with a non-bipoc. Does a white person feel the same level of intimidation? If not, why not? If so, then how does the ruling square that hole?

It doesn’t. This is meant to further restrict the state from interfering with actors whose sole intent is the fracturing of the civil society.

Steven Brizel | June 13, 2022 at 9:26 am

This ruling should be challenged as unconstitutional both on its face and as applied-it demonstrates a contempt for the equal protection clause for all Americans

A perfect example of why there is gun violence today. Keep excusing the ones committing the crimes and go after a symbol.

    rscalzo in reply to rscalzo. | June 13, 2022 at 9:29 am

    A perfect example of why there is gun violence today. Keep excusing the ones committing the crimes and go after a symbol.

Today you can self identify as anything you want so why not.

The teaching of American history has been dumbed down to the ridiculous platitude that “America is an idea.”

And, to the extent engaging our history of ideas, the analysis has been corrupted to mean “Diversity.”

What’s so sad is that so many of the mis-educated truly believe this: that we as a nation have no political and civic culture, no Constitution, and have accomplished nothing, except as a potential incubator for a new social order in which all outcomes should be distributed by race.

How is this not unconstitutional?

When are people going to respect that I identify as TAX EXEMPT?

Steven Brizel | June 13, 2022 at 9:53 am

This is clearly not an isolated trend. Take a look at these links from the clearly DIE influenced NY Court Systemhttp://ww2.nycourts.gov/careers/diversity/mission.shtmlsystemhttp://ww2.nycourts.gov/careers/diversity/index.shtmlhttps://www.nycourts.gov/whatsnew/pdf/SpecialAdviserEqualJusticeReport.pdf http://ww2.nycourts.gov/CAREERS/diversity/links.shtml

You would be hard pressed to find a link devoted to the issues that victims of crime face on this web site

E Howard Hunt | June 13, 2022 at 10:20 am

The entire system is rotten to the core. In Massachusetts the plan to legalize gay marriage was hatched in the judiciary. The Chief Justice was a blonde lady from South Africa who plotted with her epicene, bow tie wearing, NYT columnist husband to importune the other justices, always in front of woke others, at must-attend, cocktail parties.

There were ways for Romney to have nipped it in the bud, but he chose to let it happen, feigned outrage and engaged in a few ineffectual, showy futile acts.

Insufficiently Sensitive | June 13, 2022 at 10:57 am

The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a sweeping Opinion (pdf.) announcing that whether a person is deemed “seized” by the police must take into account race if the person is “Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC).”

That’s a clear sign that Washington voters elect bigots to its Supreme Court – pretty much as they elect bigots to the Seattle and King County Councils.

There’s a weak sign that Seattle might ultimately change direction – they elected a city attorney who would like more of our multi-coddled shoplifters in the slammer. BUT the City Council hastily passed an Ordinance to sabotage that notion before she was seated. It’s still a majority-bigot Council.

retiredcantbefired | June 13, 2022 at 11:30 am

So Palla Sum is said to be Asian, but East Asians and South Asians count as BIPOC only when it suits our rulers to “include” them. If the case had been about admission to a magnet school, or to a university, the court would not have deemed the complainant to be BIPOC.

There’s nothing particularly novel about this approach. In self-defense, for instance, objective reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a similarly situated individual. A little old lady is expected to perceive threats differently from a 25 year-old linebacker. Race gives rise to differences in whether a person feels safe walking away from a police encounter, and ought to be considered.

When everyone becomes “special”, then no one is special.

Police will simply begin treating everyone as BIPOC in F2F encounters.

How DARE the police discriminate against minorities in criminal enforcement! This is unfair! We should riot… um… I mean peacefully protest in an area with free midnight shopping and…

Wait, you mean the police are discriminating in *favor* of minorities? Oh. Nevermind.

Juris Doctor | June 13, 2022 at 12:29 pm

The ruling violates the equal protection clause by creating race based categories of seizures without a compelling govenrment interest to do so.

Everyone is BIPOC.

Everyone is subject to systemic and historical discrimination.

Everyone is a marginalized group.

There’s no such thing as a colorless person, or a person who isn’t the progeny of systemically oppressed ancestors.

The Washington Supreme Court consists of seven women and two men, one of whom, Chief Justice Steven Gonzalez, is of half-Latino, half-Jewish descrent (reminding me of assistant DA Daniel Torres in The Bonfire of The Vanities, who used his Hispanic name to get a scholarship for his Jewish half–using his yiddishe kop). Only white male is Charles Johnson, who apparently has been grandfathered in.

In our effort to dismantle “white privilege” we are constructing a society of non-white privilege. How long will this be tolerated? How long will men subject themselves to rule by women?

By definition, Washington state (and a few others) no longer have a republican form of government. If only we had one at the national level, we could invoke that clause of the Constitution….

So, did WA police shoot and kill more or fewer BIPOCs than the summer of love CHAZ/CHOP organizers did?

Oliver W Homey | June 13, 2022 at 5:49 pm

How long before the California courts trip all over themselves to follow this garbage. Why not just say we want to give a pass on criminal activity to certain segments of society, and tell the cops not to bother, stay in the station and collect a paycheck.

“an objective observer is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in disproportionate police contacts, investigative seizures, and uses of force against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC)”
____________

Gee, do you know what else has resulted in BIPOC’s having a disproportionate number of police contacts, investigative seizures, and uses of force? The fact that BIPOC’s commit a hugely disproportionate amount of the crime in this country.

But we’re not supposed to mention that inconvenient fact. No, let’s just pretend that it’s only “unconscious bias” and “raaaaaacism” that accounts for the fact that BIPOC’s have more interactions with cops than whites. Then we can continue to treat BIPOC’s like dim-witted children, and pat ourselves on the backs for our fake virtue in making all these special rules for the poor, pathetic, inferior BIPOC’s who can’t possibly be expected to conform their behavior to the rules of society.

I haven’t read all of the other comments, so forgive me if this is repetitious. But isn’t the natural end result of this ruling that the ONLY people who could ever be the subject of warrantless non-custodial searches are straight white males. Everybody else in the country (or, to be fair, the State of Washington) would, at least under this whacked-out reasoning, be conclusively presumed to have a rationale reason to believe that their freedoms have been restricted to the point that they can realistically believe themselves to have been arrested. This is lunacy, not to mention incredibly paternalistic.

    Kemald71 in reply to 35tww. | June 14, 2022 at 12:18 pm

    Just the opposite. Palla Sum claims he was illegally seized because he felt he was not free to go, whereas, according to the court, a non-BIPOC would not make that assumption. The question remains though, if Sum was not detained how was he convicted of fleeing the scene?

For something libs consider a “social construct”, they sure get a lot of mileage out of race.

a minimum IQ of 95 is required to read, comprehend, and follow a basic list of instructions. so, during all police encounters with potential suspects, administer a ‘quick IQ test’ – if the test is failed, then the person is too stupid to understand what’s going on and is released. this is where this is going

The resurrection of racism; this time sponsored by progressive ideologues, just like the last time.

You can’t just sit back and enjoy your rights and freedoms. They are always under attack. You have to fight for them, always and everywhere. Apparently ignorant racial stereo-types are sufficient to serve as legal foundation for the Washington Supreme Court. Everybody who believes in equal justice and the rule of law has a duty to fight back against this. These bastards never give up. We shouldn’t either.

    artichoke in reply to Rand. | June 17, 2022 at 10:05 am

    We can’t fight back, the court has nailed it firmly shut. They were very thorough and used all their final authority as the final legal authority to write as broad an opinion as possible, irreversible by the legislature. Don’t fight a lost battle. I’d even say, don’t fight one where they’ve crippled you. It’s all throwing pearls before swine.

    The right strategy is to check out from such a system. I don’t have to leave the state, because I am not there to begin with.

i’d like to see that data that supports what young black children have been told by their parents for three generations as to how present themselves out side of the house…..in fact, i demand since it seems to a pivotal part of the argument. Science ya know,

    artichoke in reply to max dugan. | June 17, 2022 at 10:02 am

    I don’t care, there is no argument anymore. Washington Supreme Court has declared them the winners, argument over. I’ll admit it, I am intimidated because of that superior legal status they will have forever in Washington state. I’ll avoid the place.

Washington Supreme Court made sure that forever, in a way that can never be changed or worked around, BIPOC will get preferential treatment under the state law.

Fortunately I am not in Washington state and am free not to go there, ever.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode