Baltimore Police Department Sued For Seizing Phones, Cash, And Jewelry From Crime Victims Recovering From Shootings

from the adding-insulting-of-rights-to-shooting-injuries dept

It's not enough that law enforcement can seize property if it pretends it must be linked to some criminal endeavor, even if the cops can't be bothered to actually find any direct evidence of said criminal endeavor… or even bring charges against forfeiture victims. It's not enough that almost anything can be seized when accompanied by criminal charges, which can lead to officers stripmining someone's residence while serving warrants.

When alleged criminals are difficult to find, sometimes the cops just take stuff from crime victims. Multiple people are suing the Baltimore Police Department for grabbing all sorts of property from shooting victims while they were hospitalized and recovering from their injuries.

It would seem these seizures would be illegal, but the Baltimore PD pretends it's all about rounding up evidence -- even when said "evidence" has nothing to do with the crime being investigated.

On an unusually warm spring evening in the early days of Covid-19, Amber Spencer turned out to celebrate her boyfriend’s birthday at a front stoop cookout in East Baltimore.

Suddenly, bullets flew, hitting her in the chest. When she turned to run, a bullet struck the back of her head and lodged itself in her skull. Then Spencer lost consciousness.

“When I came to, I had been shot in the head. I asked, ‘Where’s my phone?’ and my mom said, ‘The police took it,’” she said.

And once this property is gone, it's gone. The BPD has no interest in giving up what it's taken, even if the crime is no longer being investigated.

To date, none of the plaintiffs or their loved ones have been able to get their property back even though none of the four is accused of a crime.

It's not just phones. It's whatever crime victims happened to have on them when they were assaulted by actual criminals. This is from the lawsuit [PDF] seeking to have these seizures found unconstitutional.

Plaintiff Damon Gray is a 23-year-old Black man who resides in the City of Baltimore, Maryland. On June 29, 2019, a stranger shot Mr. Gray approximately seven times in the back, neck, and chest while Mr. Gray was walking in and around Catherine Street in the southwest area of Baltimore. Mr. Gray was transported by ambulance to the hospital where BPD officers seized without consent his cell phone, a bracelet, a necklace, and several articles of clothing. These items remain in BPD custody.

While it's possible the clothing might have some evidentiary relevance in terms of recreating the crime and performing ballistic examinations, it's difficult to see how a phone adds anything to the evidentiary mix, much less the victim's jewelry.

This isn't an aberration.

Plaintiff Amber Spencer is a 27-year-old Black woman who resides in the County of Baltimore, Maryland. Just before midnight on March 20, 2020, a stranger shot Ms. Spencer in the head and chest while she was attending a cookout near 1800 North Chapel Street in Baltimore, Maryland. After the shooting, Ms. Spencer was transported by ambulance to Johns Hopkins Hospital, where BPD officers seized her personal property without her consent, including her cell phone, jeans, shirt, shoes, car key, and approximately $400 in U.S. currency. These items remain in BPD custody.

The same questions are raised here, but with the addition of shoes (the victim was shot in the chest and head), car keys, yet another phone, and $400 in cash that cannot possibly have anything to do with the criminal act being investigated.

Plaintiff Faye Cottman is a 36-year-old Black woman who resides in the City of Baltimore, Maryland. On March 14, 2019, a woman that Ms. Cottman did not know shot Ms. Cottman and her then-11-year-old son in the head while he was playing with his brother at a playground in the Cherry Hill area of Baltimore, Maryland. BPD officers arrived at the scene and seized Ms. Cottman’s personal property without consent, including her jacket, cell phone, wig, and shoes. Despite numerous unsuccessful attempts to reclaim her personal property from BPD, these items remain in BPD custody.

Once again, this appears to be BPD officers taking all of a hospitalized person's belongings and then refusing to return them.

One more time:

Plaintiff Audrey Carter is a 58-year-old Black woman who resides in the City of Baltimore, Maryland. On June 9, 2018, her son, Dwayne D. Cheeks, was shot and killed in the 2200 Block of Germania Avenue in Baltimore City. BPD officers seized, inventoried, and logged in the Evidence Control Unit (“ECU”) all of Mr. Cheeks’s effects, including his driver’s license, cell phone, a lottery ticket, keys, and cash.

In this case, the victim's mother was able to talk the BPD into giving her back her son's cash. That happened in December 2019, a year-and-a-half after officers took control of it. The BPD refused to give back anything else officers took. Worse, the department claimed the rest of "evidence" officers had seized had been destroyed.

Not only did officers take property, but they took advantage of unconscious shooting victims in other ways. Faye Cottman's phone was warrantlessly searched by officers while she recovered from surgery. The officers claimed the phone was "evidence," remarked that they were able to search "pretty far back" in her messages to see if she had had any communications with the shooting suspect, and then refused to give the phone back despite closing the investigation in September 2019.

In some cases, victims were not given inventory lists of the property seized or any receipt showing the BDP had taken their property, making it extremely difficult to talk the department into giving them back their stuff. In other cases, officers and detectives stonewalled requests, citing COVID policies or ongoing investigations. Even when investigations concluded, the BPD made no effort to return seized property. And, in the case described above, the BPD destroyed property officers knew was being sought by its previous owners, in direct contravention of their own evidence policies.

The justifications for these seizures don't work. And if the BPD expects crime victims to believe officers are operating in good faith, it would ensure property is returned as soon as an investigation concludes. It would also seek consent from fully cognizant crime victims, rather than stripping them of their belongings while they undergo surgery or recover from their wounds. And if they really need to see the contents of someone's phone, they need to obtain warrants supported by probable cause, rather than taking advantage of situations where crime victims can't actually provide consent to engage in warrantless searches.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: baltimore, baltimore pd, civil asset forfeiture, evidence, police, theft


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 4:28am

    The lottery ticket that was destroyed. I hope there was a massive unclaimed prize...yeah that was MY ticket....sue the cops for 10s to 100s of millions....

    they effectively stole his ticket...prove otherwise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Ben (profile), 23 Nov 2021 @ 4:46am

    I think it's pretty clear by now that some police departments are simply the best armed and most predatory of street gangs in their respectively localities.

    And they want our respect without question?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    me, 23 Nov 2021 @ 4:55am

    Nothing but thieves

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 6:07am

    Re:

    And they want our respect without question?

    Well, if you define respect as boot licking subservience to them, along with instant obedience, then yes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 7:26am

    So, we've got an group of armed individuals robbing people right after they are victims of another (allegedly unrelated) crime?

    And on an fairly consistent basis?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 8:20am

    Guys, you don't have a few bad apples. You don't even have a spoiled barrel, you have a mass of rotting pulp even the "Ever Given" couldn't hold.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 8:36am

    well done those doing the suing!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 8:42am

    For the phones and clothes there is certainly some possible reason to seize it initially. With the phones though, it’s the data that is relevant not the actual piece of hardware. The hardware should be able to be returned with zero impact on an investigation. The only reason they’re stubbornly holding onto this stuff is “because they can”

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 23 Nov 2021 @ 9:00am

    Plaintiff Damon Gray is a 23-year-old Black man who resides in the City of Baltimore,

    Plaintiff Amber Spencer is a 27-year-old Black woman who resides in the County of Baltimore, Maryland.

    Plaintiff Faye Cottman is a 36-year-old Black woman who resides in the City of Baltimore, Maryland.

    Plaintiff Audrey Carter is a 58-year-old Black woman who resides in the City of Baltimore, Maryland.

    I don't WANT to say there is racial bias here but... all of the victims do have 2 things in common, 1) They all live in Baltimore, 2) They are all African Americans.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    sumgai (profile), 23 Nov 2021 @ 9:55am

    Re:

    IOW, "Baltimore, the northern-most city within a Southern state". Is that about right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    David, 23 Nov 2021 @ 10:56am

    Are you sure this is robbery?

    The police says they are holding onto potential criminal evidence. In a Southern state, and evidence for violent crimes committed against black people.

    Maybe indeed that is what they are doing. Keeping the evidence under their control until the statute of limitations runs out or at least until they have found the time for tampering with it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 11:12am

    Re:

    Ironically, considering how racist Baltimore's police department is, this particular example is actually exactly who a non-racially biased police department would steal from as well. Shooting victims here are greater than 90% african american and nearly 100% local.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 12:36pm

    Re: Are you sure this is robbery?

    Where's the due process?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    David, 23 Nov 2021 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re: Are you sure this is robbery?

    Still due.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 3:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Are you sure this is robbery?

    Then I can't say as it looks like anything other than theft.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. icon
    Bergman (profile), 23 Nov 2021 @ 8:10pm

    Re:

    I've been saying for many years that only stupid serial killers just start killing people. The smart ones graduate from a police academy before they start their killing sprees.

    Apparently the same is true of pickpockets and muggers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. icon
    Bergman (profile), 23 Nov 2021 @ 8:11pm

    Re: Are you sure this is robbery?

    Police are not exempted from armed robbery statutes, and many of those only require possession of a firearm while committing a theft to upgrade the offense from theft to robbery.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. icon
    Shaun Wilson (profile), 23 Nov 2021 @ 11:59pm

    Just to be clear, they are literally claiming "the unconcious person didn't tell me no" as their excuse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 24 Nov 2021 @ 4:33am

    Re: Re:

    Yeah, the correlation here might not be racist. Mind you, I don't think the correlation targets the vulnerable and exposed victims of crime looks that good either.

    That said <checks a quick google on "baltimore police racist">...Yup, the Baltimore PD sure do act like their official uniform was a white bedsheet. You know a PD has dun goofed when the DOJ itself is producing damning reports of pervasive racial bias.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisment

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.