Today’s Globe story about Newton resident Jabari Asim, who police say they pulled over, but but who claims he can prove wasn’t there, is both troubling and confusing.
Asim bought the car for his wife, he said, so it is registered to him, but he does not drive, and was at Emerson at the time the citation was issued. Shaylin Hogan, the administrator in his department, said she saw Asim “engrossed” at his desk when she left the office at around 5:15 p.m. Cellphone GPS information Asim provided to The Globe shows his phone at his office at Emerson from 9:56 a.m. to 6:25 p.m. on June 22. And, he said, at the time the alleged infraction occurred, his wife had the car and was inside Target, with the car parked in the lot. He provided a receipt timestamped for 6:20 p.m.
This may be an honest mistake that could happen.
Well, either the receipt from target and the witness in is dept is wrong, or the police officer messed up some details, or is lying.
I would bet you this is dismissed from court. No ID taken in person, police officer without authority to stop, no proof he was driving, strong alibi.
As for the nervousness, I think many folks, white and black, are nervous of the police. That isn’t enough to pull someone over. At least it shouldn’t be. Probable cause ain’t that.
Not wanting to comment on legal issues but couldn’t resist. You may recall that there has been a lot of talk about license plate scanners being attached to police cars. The police officer receives a beep that something is a amiss with the license plate triggering the beep, which can be one of several things: the car is not inspected, the owners drivers license is expired, or the registration wasn’t renewed due to expiration or non-payment of auto insurance premium. How do I know? In the past month I received a ticket in the mail on my car inspection sticker being expired, which was correct. Written on the ticket was all my personal information, drivers license, home address, etc which the police officer obtained from the scanner data base. (I was not stopped, nor was I driving) Now add in one more step in that when your license is up for renewal you are no longer notified by the RMV to renew, meaning its not uncommon for drivers to have their license expire and not realize it. My guess is that if the individual walks in to see the Magistrate with the renewed license then all will be taken care of.
Jim, the individual in question has no license. He has proof that he was not driving the car, since he was at work. The entire incident is very strange…
One more comment: One thing I overlooked: The mall owners in that particular mall have an agreement with the police that allows them to scan cars on their property.
Owning a car, and registering the car in Massachusetts without a drivers license is another issue, which is at the crux of this problem. The officer seeing the ownership, and no accompanying license has a case of an unlicensed driver. The owner is responsible for the paperwork that determines registration and ownership. At one time in Massachusetts you could not register a car without a drivers license. My understanding now is that you need a licensed driver for the car, meaning, someone on the policy must be licensed. This is more of a paperwork issue with the owners insurance company as the police officer can only see what they insurer/owner submitted to the RMV.
I’ve never committed a crime, gotten a speeding ticket, been in a car accident etc but when I see a police officer looking at me in the car, I have to admit that I do get nervous that maybe I did something wrong and might get pulled over.
Jabari Asim wrote this column about this incident for WBUR
This is a very strange story. If it was an honest mistake, I can’t wait to hear the explanation. Sounds to me like there’s more to this story than we’re hearing.
I’m with Lassy on this. A police car near me might make me nervous too — for no logical reason.
I always feel a little anxious when a police car is behind me for no logical reason.
The article says “he turned his head forward and continued driving.” How is that acting nervous. The professor says he went to the police station to correct the error and the officer said, in front of his lieutenant, it was definitely Mr Asim driving the car.
How would this have anything to do with license plate scanners?
The police chief was quoted as saying that it would be settled in court. Weird indeed.
As a white female who’s had something similar happen to me, I question whether this is racism or just a cop potentially being an equal-opportunity jerk. We have no way of knowing either way.
Ald. Cote seems to have missed the point. Only someone as truly obtuse as he is would be unable to comprehend the obvious racial overtones of this incident and classify this as an issue of paperwork.
In an article in the Tab today that addresses this incident, it includes “Patrolman Gregory Helms, who joined the force in 2014, said he was at a red light at the intersection of Adams and Watertown streets at 6:15 p.m. June 22 when he saw a Gray minivan headed westbound.”
“My attention was drawn to the vehicle as the operator upon observing me immediately looked nervous and quickly turned his head forward and continued driving,” Helms wrote in the police report.
“Once I had a green light I canvassed the area searching for the vehicle with negative results,” wrote Helms in the report.
When he couldn’t find the minivan, he then looked up Asim’s old RMV photo online and confirmed that was who the driver was and mailed him a ticket, he said in his report.”
After Jabari went to the police station, “Helms said in the report after the interaction “I was positive he was in fact the driver to which he adamantly denied stating he was ‘at work with plenty of witnesses…’”
“I then asked Jabari how it was possible that his wife had the vehicle in Stoneham at the time I saw it drive past me with a male driver I identified to be him, to which he again stated ‘It was not in Newton, you never saw my car or me driving,’” Helms recounted the interaction in his report.”
“Newton Police Chief Howard Mintz says “The burden is on us to show probable cause, not anyone else. I feel that this does not belong in the court of public opinion. There is well-established case law to test whether an officer’s action is reasonable. And I believe this incident needs to go through a neutral magistrate in Newton District Court to make a decision about it.”
I’m confused. The police need to prove “probable cause” and “whether an officer’s action is reasonable?”
A rookie officer is sitting at a red light, sees a car drive by, sees the driver look at him, gets a good enough look at the driver as the car is driving by to identify him from an old license photo, determines the driver looks nervous, watches the driver turn forward and continue driving, reads the license plate at a 90 degree angle as it goes by, runs the plate, finds the owner has an expired license, waits for the light to turn green, makes a left and looks for it but can’t find it.
I don’t buy it.
Marti, I am confused also. The policeman states he read a license plate on a vehicle that the professor claims was in Stoneham at the time. I would think there are security cameras near that busy intersection (there is a bank right at the intersection) that could show the episode. Also, I would think there are cameras in Stoneham that could identify the car’s presence in that city. There has to be some technology in place that can be used to help clarify things. JMO.
Actually, the Tab article says “His wife, an actress who was trying out for a musical in Stoneham and then made her way to the Watertown Target that evening, found the receipt that puts her buying the linen at 6:20 p.m., five minutes after Helms said he saw the minivan going the opposite direction from the Target almost 3 miles down the road.
He has witnesses that confirm he was at Emerson and then at the theater event at BU, in addition to his GPS data. His wife had the car at Target at the time. Why is this not dropped? The officer clearly is wrong. How could he have possibly been able to do everything he says he did while watching a car drive by?
The court needs to determine “probable cause” and “if the officer’s actions are reasonable?” The chief needs to know this about the officer’s actions but it has nothing to do with Mr Jabari because he wasn’t there. And the police chief is worried about “public opinion” and how there are “differences of opinion, ” and the mayor wants to know the outcome of the hearing and the hearing has not been set.
There would have to be a conspiracy afoot for the officer to be correct because all of the witnesses would have to be lying, his phone GPS would have had to be tampered with and the cashier at Target would have had to somehow have the register time stamp the wrong time.
Now Mr Jabari has to have pay for representation, who I’m sure will look into their being cameras at any of the places mentioned and the GPS memory in the car, because Mr Jabari has already walked to the police station in his town in an effort to take care of a mistake and instead of trying to work things out, the police said “See you in court.”