https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-aclu-lawsuit

Roadblocks are routinely set up in Canton and other black towns, the suit says, usually in quiet residential streets, outside churches or black businesses, or in parking lots at the entrance to black housing complexes.

Such searches can involve detailed scrutiny of driver, passengers and the interior of the car and take 20 minutes or more to complete, yet they are very rarely staged in the city of Madison or other majority-white communities. Similar intrusive surveillance is imposed on black people walking in the streets, in methodical targeting known as “pedestrian checkpoints”, and in some cases without a warrant in their homes.

One of the plaintiffs, Betty Tucker (no relation to the sheriff), 62, was having a celebratory barbecue in her garden in Canton about three years ago when two plainclothes deputies turned up at her house. They entered her yard without a warrant and without explanation or permission began checking the pockets of Tucker and each of her guests.

They found nothing, but proceeded to carry out a bizarre inspection of her patio on their hands and knees before leaving as mysteriously as they had arrived.

The lawsuit also details the case of the co-plaintiff Quinetta Manning, 29. At about 7am one day last June, six Madison County deputies entered her home in Canton illegally, without a warrant.

The lawsuit alleges that the deputies cajoled Manning into giving a false witness statement relating to a neighbour’s boyfriend. She tried to resist, but they then handcuffed her husband, choked him and threatened to jail him and set his bond at $50,000 if she didn’t cooperate, the filing claims.
Back to Baltimore, since RB and Lewk have no doubt ignored the report:

“We found evidence that BPD supervisors have explicitly condoned trespassing arrests that do not meet constitutional standards, and evidence suggesting that trespassing enforcement is focused on public housing developments. A shift commander for one of BPD’s districts emailed a template for describing trespassing arrests to a sergeant and a patrol officer. The template provides a blueprint for arresting an individual standing on or near a public housing development who cannot give a ‘valid reason’ for being there—a facially unconstitutional detention. Equally troubling is the fact that the template contains blanks to be filled in for details of the arrest, including the arrest data and location and the suspect’s name and address, but does not include a prompt to fill in the race or gender of the arrestee. Rather, the words “black male” are automatically included in the description of the arrest. The supervisor’s template thus presumes that individuals arrested for trespassing will be African American. …

“One African-American man in his mid-fifties was stopped 30 times in less than four years. The only reasons provided for these stops were officers’ suspicion that the man was ‘loitering’ or ‘trespassing,’ or as part of a ‘CDS investigation.’ On at least 15 occasions, officers detained the man while they checked to see if he had outstanding warrants. Despite these repeated intrusions, none of the 30 stops resulted in a citation or criminal charge.”

[...]

“In addition, BPD’s disproportionate enforcement against African Americans is suggestive of intentional discrimination because the racial disparities are greatest for enforcement activities that involve higher degrees of officer discretion. In the five years of arrest data we reviewed, African Americans accounted for a larger share of charges for highly discretionary misdemeanor offenses than for other offenses, including: 91 percent of those charged solely with trespassing, 91 percent of charges for failing to obey an officer’s orders, 88 percent of those arrested solely for “impeding” and 84 percent of people charged with disorderly conduct. As noted above, booking supervisors and prosecutors dismissed a significantly higher portion of charges made against African Americans for each of these charges. This pattern indicates that, where BPD officers have more discretion to make arrests, they exercise that discretion to arrest African Americans disproportionately. Moreover, the racial disparities in dismissal rates exist only for highly discretionary misdemeanor arrests, not felony arrests. That is, booking officials and prosecutors dismissed charges at nearly identical rates across racial groups for felony charges like first degree assault, burglary, and robbery for which there is little officer discretion about whether to arrest suspects. For every discretionary misdemeanor offense that we examined, however, officials dismissed charges against African Americans at significantly higher rates—indicating that officers apply a lower standard when arresting African Americans for these offenses.

[...]

In one case, police stopped a black man wearing a hoodie in a “high crime area” because he “thought it could be possible that the individual could be out seeking a victim of opportunity.” The incident escalated with police — who had no legal reason to stop the man — beating the man in the face, neck and ribs and deploying a Taser on him twice.

The man was later taken to a hospital, and not charged with any offense. Yet later, the officer’s supervisor determined in a report that the “officers showed great restraint and professionalism.”