MOST RECENT MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL ABOUT A GUN CASE I HAD DISMISSED
Lawyer: Police abusing 'stop and frisk'
Bruce Vielmetti , Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Published 8:18 a.m. CT Dec. 6, 2016 | Updated 9:16 a.m. CT Dec. 6, 2016
You know a motion to suppress evidence was on the mark when the prosecutor doesn't even respond, but concedes the point and dismisses the charge.
That's what happened recently in the case of Rudy Aphay, after an arrest his attorneys say clearly violated U.S. Supreme Court guidelines about when police may "stop and frisk" someone, and illustrate why abuse of the practice disproportionately affecting minorities.
"The Milwaukee Police Department believes that Rudy’s determination to walk at night from his parked car to home could upset social stability in Milwaukee so Rudy had to be stopped," his attorneys wrote in a brief.
"In reality, the vagueness of the police command to Rudy on the street is far more socially destabilizing."
"A police officer is NOT entitled to seize and search Rudy simply because they see him on the street or because they make inquires of him which he does not answer," the brief states.
Aphay, 32, was charged in June with possessing a gun as a felon and possessing methamphetamine. He moved to suppress the gun and the drugs because he was unlawfully arrested.
According to the motion filed by his attorneys, Paul Ksicinski and Wendy Patrickus, Aphay had just parked his car across National Ave. from his home when a squad car turned onto the street from S. 23rd St. As it passed Aphay, it stopped and officers said he seemed to be crossing the street without paying attention, that they almost hit him, and asked if he hadn't seen the car approaching.
Aphay said he had seen, and just kept walking toward home, even after officers asked him his name.
That's when the officers stopped him, grabbed his arm, frisked him, and found the gun and drugs.
In a 32-page brief, his attorneys provide a mini-treatise on the history of field interrogations and stop-and-frisk, reminding that the latter requires facts from which a reasonable inference, narrowly drawn, suggests a crime may have been committed. And if during such a stop, an officer has more particular reason to suspect a weapon, he can, for his own safety, conduct a limited search, or frisk, the subject.
His attorneys successfully argued that the officers had no reason to stop Aphay. "The refusal to cooperate by not answering the questions, without more, does not furnish the objective justification needed for a detention or stop," the lawyers wrote, citing another opinion.
Clearly, any law or police procedure that makes the right to stand or walk across a street after they park their car dependent on "the whim of any police officer" is unconstitutional, the brief states.
"What will be accomplished if this practice continues unchecked is that innocent people, mostly minorities like Rudy, will continue to learn that all too often the police are not there to serve and protect them."
Aphay's motion had been set for a hearing Thursday, but Assistant District Attorney Michael Lonski.
Lawyer: Police abusing 'stop and frisk'
Bruce Vielmetti , Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Published 8:18 a.m. CT Dec. 6, 2016 | Updated 9:16 a.m. CT Dec. 6, 2016
You know a motion to suppress evidence was on the mark when the prosecutor doesn't even respond, but concedes the point and dismisses the charge.
That's what happened recently in the case of Rudy Aphay, after an arrest his attorneys say clearly violated U.S. Supreme Court guidelines about when police may "stop and frisk" someone, and illustrate why abuse of the practice disproportionately affecting minorities.
"The Milwaukee Police Department believes that Rudy’s determination to walk at night from his parked car to home could upset social stability in Milwaukee so Rudy had to be stopped," his attorneys wrote in a brief.
"In reality, the vagueness of the police command to Rudy on the street is far more socially destabilizing."
"A police officer is NOT entitled to seize and search Rudy simply because they see him on the street or because they make inquires of him which he does not answer," the brief states.
Aphay, 32, was charged in June with possessing a gun as a felon and possessing methamphetamine. He moved to suppress the gun and the drugs because he was unlawfully arrested.
According to the motion filed by his attorneys, Paul Ksicinski and Wendy Patrickus, Aphay had just parked his car across National Ave. from his home when a squad car turned onto the street from S. 23rd St. As it passed Aphay, it stopped and officers said he seemed to be crossing the street without paying attention, that they almost hit him, and asked if he hadn't seen the car approaching.
Aphay said he had seen, and just kept walking toward home, even after officers asked him his name.
That's when the officers stopped him, grabbed his arm, frisked him, and found the gun and drugs.
In a 32-page brief, his attorneys provide a mini-treatise on the history of field interrogations and stop-and-frisk, reminding that the latter requires facts from which a reasonable inference, narrowly drawn, suggests a crime may have been committed. And if during such a stop, an officer has more particular reason to suspect a weapon, he can, for his own safety, conduct a limited search, or frisk, the subject.
His attorneys successfully argued that the officers had no reason to stop Aphay. "The refusal to cooperate by not answering the questions, without more, does not furnish the objective justification needed for a detention or stop," the lawyers wrote, citing another opinion.
Clearly, any law or police procedure that makes the right to stand or walk across a street after they park their car dependent on "the whim of any police officer" is unconstitutional, the brief states.
"What will be accomplished if this practice continues unchecked is that innocent people, mostly minorities like Rudy, will continue to learn that all too often the police are not there to serve and protect them."
Aphay's motion had been set for a hearing Thursday, but Assistant District Attorney Michael Lonski.