Getting Locked Up for Drinking an Arizona Iced Tea - Video

[Kilmer17]

If he has actual reasons, like smelling alcohol from the can.

PC to believe there is alcohol may provide PC to arrest for open container violation and thus a search incident to arrest would be valid.

No, a can labeled tea does not by itself create probable cause, even if the cop suspects it has alcohol. A hunch is not sufficient.

So a cop wouldnt have probable cause to stop me if I was walking around with a can of Budweiser?

[Taylor703]

So a cop wouldnt have probable cause to stop me if I was walking around with a can of Budweiser?

Apples to Oranges. A can of Arizona Tea looks significantly different than a can of Budweiser.

[abdcskins]

Complete garbage. That man did nothing wrong. The cop wanted to be a tough guy and show how powerful he was.

Once he saw it was an Arizona iced tea he should've left him alone. Forget, "making the cop's job easier," the black guy didn't have to do anything. His rights were completely violated. Hope the cop gets fired, clearly didn't want to lose the fight and didn't want to back down. Horrible.

[GoSkins561]

Wouldnt a can that the cop thought to be alcohol give him probable cause?

Only if he was a complete and total moron.

[No_Pressure]

So a cop wouldnt have probable cause to stop me if I was walking around with a can of Budweiser?

A cop could stop anyone if they thought they saw them carrying an open alcoholic beverage in public. Once he figured out that it was a can specifically labeled Arizona Iced Tea, unless the person holding the tea smells like alcohol or is behaving as if he's drunk, the officer has no right to seize his property.

[Kosher Ham]

I tell you Vish...sometimes you are on point. Others are so reaching it is disturbing.

[Prosperity]

A cop could stop anyone if they thought they saw them carrying an open alcoholic beverage in public. Once he figured out that it was a can specifically labeled Arizona Iced Tea, unless the person holding the tea smells like alcohol or is behaving as if he's drunk, the officer has no right to seize his property.

A cop can approach anyone and talk but if he uses his authority to stop someone he needs "reasonable suspicion" that the detained person is involved in a specific crime.

The cop's subjective suspicions are actually irrelevant. What matters is whether a reasonable person would find the conduct to be related to a specific crime.

Probable cause is even a more stringent standard than that.

[Kilmer17]

So again, if the cop THOUGHT the can was alcohol, does he have PC to stop the person?

[JMS]

Fictitious rights? Like the 4th Amendment?

Fictitious right like being able to loiter in the parking lot of a state ABC store after a police officer has asked you too leave.

Won't discuss the additional facts he was cursing and being disruptive which again in public might be ignored by a cop with a lot of other things to do; but this cop was an ABC officer who was there specifically to ensure the state store didn't have disruptive or unseamly conduct going on... No drinking in the parking lot... cursing and generally being disruptive likely also fall into his purview. That's why the state has a monopoly on liquir sales in Alcohol Control states like Virginia and North Carolina.. because they are hard asses about everything to do with the distribution of alcohol.

Mr. Rapper is going to be just fine as I am certain he has been in contact with legal representation (likely the ACLU) regarding a civil complaint against the Fayetteville ABC Dept and Mr. Officer.

Mr. Rapper has no case because he was in the wrong. Drinking Ice tea, doesn't give him the right to loiter at the ABC store after a cop ask's him to leave. And Mr. Rapper likely spent hours if not the night in the klink and hundreds if not thousands of dollars in legal fees and more time trying to stay out of jail for a longer sentence. Mr. Rapper could have easily addressed teh officers concerns and been on his way, but he decided on another route... The route which impacts his evening and liberty the most.

---------- Post added May-8th-2013 at 09:43 AM ----------

So again, if the cop THOUGHT the can was alcohol, does he have PC to stop the person?

IF you are driving around drinking a beer the cop can absolutely stop you for htat. Therefore if he has reasonable cause to believe you are drinking a beer he can stop you for that and ask you to prove otherwise. But here he didn't stop anybody, he walked up and asked to see the can the guy was drinking..

A better question is does an Alcohol Enforcement Officer have the right to ask someone for any reason to vacate the state abc store's property ( parking lot ).... and if that person refuses to leave does he have the right to arrest him. I'll bet the answer to that is yes.

---------- Post added May-8th-2013 at 09:52 AM ----------

JMS you are using the word respect incorrectly, respect does not mean submit and politely comply. Certainly now when the police officer had no legal grounds to search the individual. By your definition of respect refusing an unreasonable search is an insulting gesture towards a police officer. That's obviously problematic. Even if I accept your perspective, that refusing to hand over personal property in this instance equates to a lack of respect and insult, you're position is still essentially that the cop manipulated the situation in order to manufacture cause for an arrest over a perceived slight. A man being arrested and charged over hurt feelings is not ok.

Refusing an unreasonable search imay be disrespectful or offensive to a police officer. But this officer wasn't "searching" Mr. Rapper much less conducting an unreasonable search.. The officer was an ABC enforcement officer stationed at the state ABC store parking lot to ensure folks weren't drinking in the parking lot. He wanted to inspect the guy's ice tea. That's not a search. That's not like he asked to see what was in the guys pockets. Also the guy wasn't out in public as he thought. He wasn't in the front yard of his buddy or down at the local drug store... He was on the property of the state ABC store drinking which in and of itself is grounds for the officer to inspect what the guy was drinking

Oh and I will also note the cop did ultimately inspect what was in the guys pockets because once he was arrested that was in the cops purview too. So being reasonable likely would have allowed Mr rapper to avoid a lot of what he now mistakenly is asserting as unreasonable.

---------- Post added May-8th-2013 at 09:58 AM ----------

I'm honestly not sure if you're being serious anymore. Fictitious rights? The 4th amendment is quite clear.

Just because the officer wanted to search the man doesn't mean he can. He can't do anything he wants whenever he wants to do it. And as much as he may have wanted to search the guy drinking out of a can in an ABC parking lot, he has to show restraint. It's not in his rights to search him.

The charge was not refusal to hand the officer his ice tea. The charge was trespassing. You don't have the right to loiter in or on the property of a state ABC store after the police have asked you to leave. Mr. Wrapper thought he did have that right. Mr. Wrapper was mistaken. The Cop fully understood what he had to do to arrest Mr. Wrapper, and Mr. Wrapper asserting his FICTITIOUS right to loiter got him arrested.

---------- Post added May-8th-2013 at 10:07 AM ----------

No, a can labeled tea does not by itself create probable cause, even if the cop suspects it has alcohol. A hunch is not sufficient.

He didn't arrest the guy for drinking in public. He didn't arrest the guy for not submitting to a search. He arrested the guy for trespassing, not at a public store, but at a state run ABC store..

There is no 4th amendment issue here because he's not being charged with refusing the search. He's being charged with trespassing and resisting arrest which are more serious crimes.

and asking to inspect the guys drink as he's drinking in the parking lot while loitering at a State ABC store isn't like doing the same thing at WallMart. In Virginia alcohol enforcement officers have broad authority to enforce alcoholic policy on ABC store grounds. North Carolina is similar to Virginia in that both grant the state monopolies on the selling of bottles of alcohol. Welcome to the South.

[PleaseBlitz]

Fictitious right like being able to loiter in the parking lot of a state ABC store after a police officer has asked you too leave.

Won't discuss the additional facts he was cursing and being disruptive which again in public might be ignored by a cop with a lot of other things to do; but this cop was an ABC officer who was there specifically to ensure the state store didn't have disruptive or unseamly conduct going on... No drinking in the parking lot... cursing and generally being disruptive likely also fall into his purview. That's why the state has a monopoly on liquir sales in Alcohol Control states like Virginia and North Carolina.. because they are hard asses about everything to do with the distribution of alcohol.

Mr. Rapper has no case because he was in the wrong. Drinking Ice tea, doesn't give him the right to loiter at the ABC store after a cop ask's him to leave. And Mr. Rapper likely spent hours if not the night in the klink and hundreds if not thousands of dollars in legal fees and more time trying to stay out of jail for a longer sentence. Mr. Rapper could have easily addressed teh officers concerns and been on his way, but he decided on another route... The route which impacts his evening and liberty the most.

This is hilarious. Do you work in law enforcement?

[Kosher Ham]

This is hilarious. Do you work in law enforcement?

Note to self...Stay out of Colorado if I want to enjoy a non-alcoholic beverage near an ABC store.

[PleaseBlitz]

Note to self...Stay out of Colorado if I want to enjoy a non-alcoholic beverage near an ABC store.

Are you disagreeing with him? He WILL LOCK YOU UP FOR TRESPASSING BOY.

[JMS]

This is hilarious. Do you work in law enforcement?

As far from working for law enforcement as you could get, actually.

I think it's hilarious somebody who lives in a alcohol beverage control state would confuse a state ABC store with a package store in New Jersey. You think drinking ice tea caused the guy problems. You should see some videos of folks with t-shirts, flip flops, or even shorts trying to buy alcohol. Guys who mistakenly bring their teenage children with them into the ABC store and then are denied the right to buy liqueur altogether. When they say... Alcohol Beverage CONTROL, they mean control.

---------- Post added May-8th-2013 at 12:56 PM ----------

Note to self...Stay out of Colorado if I want to enjoy a non-alcoholic beverage near an ABC store.

Note to self if you are a dick to a cop, The cop can and sometimes will be a dick to you right back. So don't be a dick to a cop. If he asks you for something reasonable like verifying you aren't drinking in public in the parking lot of a state run store... don't play keep away with the can as he's reaching for it. Don't laugh to yourself at how stupid his job is.. Don't pretend like folks don't drink in that parking lot. And finally don't don't compound your liability by making up fictitious rights for yourself because you think the cop was over reaching or doesn't know what he's doing. This cop knew exactly what he was doing. He was keeping orde. Not keeping order as the folks who loiter in parking lots think is reasonable, Keeping order like folks with crew cuts and sharp creases in their pants think. Keeping order and arresting folks who were not falling in line.. Which is exactly what the State of North Carolina puts an Alcohol Beverage Control Enforcement Officer in the parking lots of their stores to do.

I mean imagine that. Stationing the equivalent of a state police officer in the parking lot of an ABC store? You don't do that unless someone pretty high up is pretty serious about enforcing order there. And really in Alcohol Beverage Control states, where the state runs the ABC stores; they have state employee's behind the cashregisters, so they are already very serous about the orderly control of where and how alcohol is dispersed.

[PleaseBlitz]

As far from working for law enforcement as you could get actually.

I think it's hilarious somebody who lives in a alcohol control state would confuse a state ABC store with a package store in New Jersey. You think drinking ice tea caused the guy problems. You should see some videos of folks with t-shirts, flip flops, or even shorts trying to buy alcohol. Guys who mistakenly bring their teenage children with them into the ABC store and then are denied the right to buy liqueur altogether. When they say... Alcohol Beverage CONTROL, they mean control.

Im not confusing anything and I actually DONT think that drinking iced tea caused the guys problem. You keep thinking this is about the rapper's conduct and that the cop didn't do anything wrong by conducting an unreasonable search and seizure. The guy's case isn't that he wasn't trespassing, its that the cop didn't have probable cause to start the confrontation, demand that the guy hand over his tea, and thus violated his 4th Amendment rights. The unreasonable search occured before the issue of trespassing was ever raised and before the cop identified himself as the POlice. Its a pretty clear-cut case, it could end up in a law school Crim Pro case book.

[JMS]

Im not confusing anything and I actually DONT think that drinking iced tea caused the guys problem. You keep thinking this is about the rapper's conduct and that the cop didn't do anything wrong by conducting an unreasonable search and seizure. The guy's case isn't that he wasn't trespassing, its that the cop didn't have probable cause to start the confrontation, demand that the guy hand over his tea, and thus violated his 5th Amendment rights. The unreasonable search occured before the issue of trespassing was ever raised and before the cop identified himself as the POlice. Its a pretty clear-cut case, it could end up in a law school Crim Pro case book.

I wasn't saying you were confused, I think Mr. Rapper was confused.

First off the rapper was arrested for trespassing and probable resisting arrest. Not for refusing to hand over his ice tea or refusing a confiscation or whatever else you think the Wrapper was justified in resisting.

Absolutely, drinking ice tea wasn't this guys real problem. The guys core problem was he was dumb, misinformed,, disorderly, loitering and generally not at a state ABC store to conduct business. All of which would have been fine at a normal retail store, where the guy merely would have been an annoyance to anybody trying to conduct business, but this particular store was a state run ABC store.. and one with an ABC officer there to stop exactly that sort of behavior.

The guy is there cursing, hanging out, waiting for friends, not going into the store or conducting business... and he's giving the cop a hard time to boot.....

it could end up in a law school Crime Pro case book.

Ha!....Good luck with that.

[dfitzo53]

The guys core problem was he was dumb, misinformed,, disorderly, loitering and generally not at a state ABC store to conduct business.

Are we talking about Tea Dude or the cop?

In all seriousness though, how was he (Tea Dude) misinformed? (Haven't read 13 pages of thread.)

[DC9]

Cop was looking for a problem:

Started with the drink - likely looking for implied consent to charge with DUI. Not familiar with NC DUI law, but some states you can be charged with DUI for standing by or sitting in your vehicle with a beverage. Heck, in Washington State you can be charged with DUI if you bring a six pack to someones house and one of the cans is disloged from the plastic wrappings.

Then went on to trespassing - not sure a cop can be someone who determines tresspassing. Typically this is something we call "lesser included offenses" on the legal side of the house. It's something to add an additional charge that lawyers use when making deals... it's normally not the result of an arrest.

This stinks... that's exactly where I'm moving to for the next few years, too lol. Awesome.

EDIT: The things we don't know from the vid... did the owner of the ABC store call the police and complain about loitering. And a booboo that was committed by the dude making the vid... at the begining he states something to the effect of "we are just here waiting on..." So it'd be hard to prove that they were going to go in and make a purchase. I never heard him say he was going in there. Who knows.

[Titaw]

See probable cause is easy in this case. The individual in question was drinking SOMETHING in the parking lot of a STATE run liquor store, the officer wanted to see what he was drinking. You can't tell what is in the can, call me crazy but the individual could have put a little "pick-me-up" in the can and proceeded to drink from the can, no? The only way he could inspect the contents is if the individual complied with his reasonable request to inspect the contents of the can.

All the individual had to do was comply, but nope he had to go hard on a cop, how did that work out for him? I am willing to bet that if he simply handed the can over, the police officer would have smelled it, handed it back to him, and politely asked him to move along.

It's not that hard, just comply and everything will work out.

[PleaseBlitz]

I wasn't saying you were confused, I think Mr. Rapper was confused.

First off the rapper was arrested for trespassing and probable resisting arrest. Not for refusing to hand over his ice tea or refusing a confiscation or whatever else you think the Wrapper was justified in resisting.

Absolutely, drinking ice tea wasn't this guys real problem. The guys core problem was he was dumb, misinformed,, disorderly, loitering and generally not at a state ABC store to conduct business. All of which would have been fine at a normal retail store, where the guy merely would have been an annoyance to anybody trying to conduct business, but this particular store was a state run ABC store.. and one with an ABC officer there to stop exactly that sort of behavior.

The guy is there cursing, hanging out, waiting for friends, not going into the store or conducting business... and he's giving the cop a hard time to boot.....

Holy moly. It is clear from the video that the cop initially confronted the guy because he thought he was drinking, despite having no real evidence of this other than the guy being a black guy. That is what is called probable cause, and the cop needs to have it in order to stop the guy and search him. Then, when the guy didn't immediately comply with the cops ILLEGAL SEARCH, the cop made up some other BS. The trespassing charge might stick, but I doubt it. What I do know is that the illegal search that occurred is going to be a major problem for the cop and the department.

And the guy was not dumb or misinformed. It seems to me that he was very informed that what the cop was doing was violating his 4th Amendment rights, which IS ILLEGAL. He also was not disorderly until the cop violated his constitutional rights. He was far less disorderly than the cop.

I don't know how to explain this any better than that. If you still think the ABC guy was justified in his actions, then I don't know what to tell you other than you are just wrong.

[GoSkins0721]

See probable cause is easy in this case. The individual in question was drinking SOMETHING in the parking lot of a STATE run liquor store, the officer wanted to see what he was drinking. You can't tell what is in the can, call me crazy but the individual could have put a little "pick-me-up" in the can and proceeded to drink from the can, no? The only way he could inspect the contents is if the individual complied with his reasonable request to inspect the contents of the can.

All the individual had to do was comply, but nope he had to go hard on a cop, how did that work out for him? I am willing to bet that if he simply handed the can over, the police officer would have smelled it, handed it back to him, and politely asked him to move along.

It's not that hard, just comply and everything will work out.

The guy never identified himself as a cop before reaching to grab the can from Mr. Rapper's hand.

As I have stated before in this thread, had this person (who never said he was a cop) put his hand on Mr. Rapper's drink without Mr. Rapper's consent, Mr. Rapper should have punched him squarely in his face.

[PleaseBlitz]

See probable cause is easy in this case. The individual in question was drinking SOMETHING in the parking lot of a STATE run liquor store, the officer wanted to see what he was drinking.

I don't think that's even close be being enough. The standard isn't "potential cause" or "maybe cause" its PROBABLE cause. Maybe if the guy had already gone into the liquor store and come back out and the officer saw this happen.

[sacase]

See probable cause is easy in this case. The individual in question was drinking SOMETHING in the parking lot of a STATE run liquor store, the officer wanted to see what he was drinking. You can't tell what is in the can, call me crazy but the individual could have put a little "pick-me-up" in the can and proceeded to drink from the can, no? The only way he could inspect the contents is if the individual complied with his reasonable request to inspect the contents of the can.

All the individual had to do was comply, but nope he had to go hard on a cop, how did that work out for him? I am willing to bet that if he simply handed the can over, the police officer would have smelled it, handed it back to him, and politely asked him to move along.

It's not that hard, just comply and everything will work out.

See probable cause is easy in this case. The individual in question was drinking SOMETHING in the parking lot of a STATE run liquor store, the officer wanted to see what he was drinking. You can't tell what is in the can, call me crazy but the individual could have put a little "pick-me-up" in the can and proceeded to drink from the can, no? The only way he could inspect the contents is if the individual complied with his reasonable request to inspect the contents of the can.

All the individual had to do was comply, but nope he had to go hard on a cop, how did that work out for him? I am willing to bet that if he simply handed the can over, the police officer would have smelled it, handed it back to him, and politely asked him to move along.

It's not that hard, just comply and everything will work out.

There is no PC here. PC would have been drunken behavior or the smell of alcohol. The cop was attempting to conduct a search in violation of this guys 4th amendment rights, and when he did not get consent and obedience, he pulled the trespass charge because he felt "disrespected" respect goes both ways, you don't just walk up to someone and attempt to grab what they are drinking.

So here is goes, they are shooting a video, waiting for a friend.

:50 An Unidentified person approaches them and asks to see the can and attempts to grab it two times.

U/I man says" let me see it, I want to make sure"

Rapper says "who is you"

U/I man: "police"

U/I man keeps demanding to perform a search

May allows limited consent and shows the U/I man the label of the can, proving it was not liquor.

1:25 video guy "you don't know if he's real or not"

Rapper "he ain't show me no identification"

1:31 U/I Man "you got 5 seconds to leave or I am taking you to jail"

1:42 Rapper "what's the crime?"

U/I man: "trespassing"

1:52 Guy who is drunk in public and exhibiting public intoxication at the ABC store wanders by, U/I man ignores.

2:02 rapper "What's your badge number"

2:12 Flashes badge for half a second

2:13 U/I man "you got 5 seconds to leave"

2:14 U/I man pushing rapper in chest and tells him to put his hands against the car.

2:50 cop does not maintain control of the scene and does not maintain control of the evidence as the video guy picks it up.

The cop never identified himself through the whole encounter other than a quick flash of his badge. This is just poor police work, anyway you cut it. The cops behavior is what caused the crime, not the rapper.

[Kilmer17]

So the cop saw the guy drinking out of a can in front of a liquor store. And somehow that's NOT probably cause to investigate?

I wish Predicto would reply here- Why WOULDNT that be probably cause? And does the cop, or someone else, get to determine whether the PC is valid?

[DC9]

Note to self if you are a dick to a cop, The cop can and sometimes will be a dick to you right back. So don't be a dick to a cop. If he asks you for something reasonable like verifying you aren't drinking in public in the parking lot of a state run store... don't play keep away with the can as he's reaching for it. Don't laugh to yourself at how stupid his job is.. Don't pretend like folks don't drink in that parking lot. And finally don't don't compound your liability by making up fictitious rights for yourself because you think the cop was over reaching or doesn't know what he's doing. This cop knew exactly what he was doing. He was keeping orde. Not keeping order as the folks who loiter in parking lots think is reasonable, Keeping order like folks with crew cuts and sharp creases in their pants think. Keeping order and arresting folks who were not falling in line.. Which is exactly what the State of North Carolina puts an Alcohol Beverage Control Enforcement Officer in the parking lots of their stores to do.

How fictitious is a 4th ammendment right? You lose evidence that isn't found IAW with the 4th ammendment.

If he knew what he was doing, why didn't he identify himself as a police officer from the jump? Why did he go from DIP/implied consent DUI to tresspassing?

It'd be a different story if he went up and said, "Hello, I'm officer Bigteninch (shows badgde), we've received some complaints about loitering and possible drinking. Do you mind if I look at your can to make sure you aren't drinking any alcohol?" If Ice-T shows his ass after this, you might and I mean MIGHT have a touch more to work with in your argument, but he didn't. And BTW, exercising your 4th ammendment right does not establish PC for the cop to then grab his can, either.

We have rules... it's pretty simple. Follow them. That goes for everyone.

---------- Post added May-8th-2013 at 02:54 PM ----------

So the cop saw the guy drinking out of a can in front of a liquor store. And somehow that's NOT probably cause to investigate?

I wish Predicto would reply here- Why WOULDNT that be probably cause? And does the cop, or someone else, get to determine whether the PC is valid?

He may have PC if he witnesses the guy come out of the liquor store with the can and then he drinks it in the parking lot. That's about all I can think of in this situation.

[mcsluggo]

i think that EVERYONE in here is way overstating their personal understanding of applicable statute (bill of of rights or otherwise), but the basic facts appear to be that the cop was probably speciffically engaged to discourage dinking on the ABC store property, and general loitering. as such, trespassing would be his basic "go to" for getting rid of people.... fine, he had a job to do.

and then the rapper dude was a teeny bit obstinate in refusing to just do whatever the cop said

and then the cop got a bit of napoleon complex and over-reacted.

BUT... when i look at this scene i am struck by the fact that there is no way in hell that this scenario would ever happen to me in a hundred bazzilion years. As a 45 year old white man, dressed in "business casual" colothes and living in McLean, Virgina. That fact is a problem, no matter how you look at at it. Part of the reason that it would never happen is that there is a very low chance that "people hanging out at the ABC store" ever becomes much of a problem in McLean, but more to the point, I personally don't fit any any demographic that would be profiled threatening or as a problem. If i dressed like a biker, or a redneck, or a skate rat, or had a bunch of tatoos, or whatever, i MIGHT fall into a profiled demographic, but that rapper dude falls into profiled teritory by the basic fact that he was black and hanging out at the liquor store.

please note i am NOT accusing the cop (as an individual) of racially profiling the rapper. It is a little more subtle than that. As a society on the whole we are segmented, and i think that as a white, <devastatingly handsome and> well dressed dude in McLean, i am the one that is profiled as "not to be bothered".

(ok.. the devestatingly handsome part was both gratuitous, and not germaine to the conversation... actually i wouldn't be bothered because i am nerdy/bookish looking and thoroughly non-threatening)

anyway, after much blather:

1) the rapper dude was a little obstinate, and argumentative. it should NOT have resulted in him handcuffed and in teh bak of a police car, but he also didn't do himself any favors.

2) the cop had a disagreeable job to do: keep loitering down at a liquor store that apparently attracts loitering. But he did a fairly piss-poor job of managing the situation, and un-neccesarily escalated it to an arrest level.

3) chances are the cop has had to deal with drunks and loiterers there for a while, and feels like he is a single paper towel trying to hold back class-4 rapids...and as such he has little patience for dealing with people's s**t. It is no excuse to do the bad job he did in managing the situation, but it might be a partial "explanation" (as opposed to excuse).

4) those of us that simply don't fit any profiles that attract negative police attention really have a different view of the world. Police are basically there to serve ME, and keep ME comfortable and safe, and i know that (even when i am annoyed by getting a speeding ticket, or the like) and so do the police. Not everyone has that same view of teh police, and the reasons why are hard to unwind, and are a viocious circle (for instance: it is harder to police a neighborhood where teh people don't trust the police, and the police end up being less accomodating and more forcefull where it is harder to police-- rince wash repeat and accelerate). I can see why different people looking at this tape would have different reactions. It is all based on experiences

(for instance, my 50 year old PhD chemist brother in law is permanenty posioned against the police, because as a 20-something long-haired grad student chemist in a 1960s beater car he used to have a penchant for going off alone into rural areas alone to hike and camp, and he was OFTEN harrassed by local Cleetus'. Now as a clean cut 50 year old suburban white male... he still sounds like a radical anrachist, and can't talk about the police without spite dripping on his tongue.) I think it is safe to say that a higher proportion of african americans or latinos have had negative encounters with a policeman that have clouded their outlook/relationship with police in general.

THAT is a problem