My expectation is that if police transport a suspect anywhere, that is an arrest which must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the suspect had committed a crime.
Now, I don't know how Boston classifies "try to break into a woman's house", but it looks like my web search in the General Laws of Massachusetts brings up part IV, Title I, Chapter 266, Section 18.[0] Maybe IV I 265 18C [1] if there was someone inside the house.
Based on it being daytime, and the quoted statement from the cop including the words "try to break into" rather than "inside", it would appear that no crime actually occurred. So the cops circulated a vague description of an average-height, average-weight, typically-dressed Bostonian male as a suspect for a nonexistent crime.
The Internet Tough Guys aside, the author did make a mistake in answering police questions. It should have gone something like this:
Cop: Hey my man.
SL: Yes?
Cop: Where are you coming from?
SL: Am I free to go?
Cop: No.
SL: Am I under arrest?
Cop: Not yet.
SL: Why am I being detained?
Cop: We had someone matching your description just try to break into a woman’s house.
SL: [remains silent]
Cop: You fit the description: Black male, knit hat, puffy coat. Do you have identification?
SL: My name is Steve Locke. I live at XXXXX, in Dedham.
Cop: No, no, no, do you have a photo ID card?
SL: I do not consent to searches or seizures. I will not answer further questions without the assistance of legal counsel.
At this point, he gets arrested, not for breaking and entering, but for "contempt of cop"--probably even "failure to identify". He beats the rap, but does not beat the ride. He later sues the city, and eventually accepts a $75000 settlement, which isn't bad for enduring one very stressful day and some PTSD.
The bystanders made a mistake in not whipping out their cameras to film the incident.
But that ideal conversation does not happen when you are dropped into a stressful situation with no notice. While you're thinking about burritos, an armed man confronts you and informs you that you are a suspect in a crime. Instead of thinking about how to resist police corruption, you're thinking about not getting killed in the next ten minutes. It doesn't matter if you know, rationally, that you have the right to not get murdered by cops, if you also know in your fluttering intestines that Eric Garner and Freddy Grey theoretically had the same right.
Did you read to the end of the post? No one can actually follow the ITG script.
Maybe if you're a professional lawyer. Everyone else will screw it up somewhere. Following it closely requires an attitude regarding cops somewhere between "Officer Friendly is only here to help" and "these pigs might kill me". That zone on the spectrum for "these guys are cleverly trying to hamstring my lawyer before the trial" is razor thin.
Those on one side will cooperate because they earnestly believe that the innocent do not get punished. Those on the other will cooperate because they believe that resistance is futile in the face of overwhelming force without any form of restraint. The ITG stance is pretty much exclusively held by people who will probably never have the opportunity to try it out on real cops.
Everybody out there in the real world formulates their strategy based on their prior experiences with real cops, rather than activist videos.
Now, I don't know how Boston classifies "try to break into a woman's house", but it looks like my web search in the General Laws of Massachusetts brings up part IV, Title I, Chapter 266, Section 18.[0] Maybe IV I 265 18C [1] if there was someone inside the house.
Based on it being daytime, and the quoted statement from the cop including the words "try to break into" rather than "inside", it would appear that no crime actually occurred. So the cops circulated a vague description of an average-height, average-weight, typically-dressed Bostonian male as a suspect for a nonexistent crime.
The Internet Tough Guys aside, the author did make a mistake in answering police questions. It should have gone something like this:
At this point, he gets arrested, not for breaking and entering, but for "contempt of cop"--probably even "failure to identify". He beats the rap, but does not beat the ride. He later sues the city, and eventually accepts a $75000 settlement, which isn't bad for enduring one very stressful day and some PTSD.The bystanders made a mistake in not whipping out their cameras to film the incident.
But that ideal conversation does not happen when you are dropped into a stressful situation with no notice. While you're thinking about burritos, an armed man confronts you and informs you that you are a suspect in a crime. Instead of thinking about how to resist police corruption, you're thinking about not getting killed in the next ten minutes. It doesn't matter if you know, rationally, that you have the right to not get murdered by cops, if you also know in your fluttering intestines that Eric Garner and Freddy Grey theoretically had the same right.
[0] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...
[1] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...