-Warren was arrested on Dec. 18, 2011, by police who were investigating a break-in in Roxbury. Police had been given a description of the suspects as three black men — one wearing a “red hoodie,” one wearing a “black hoodie” and the other wearing “dark clothing.” An officer later spotted Warren and another man (both wearing dark clothing) walking near a park. When the officer approached the men, they ran. Warren was later arrested and searched. No contraband was found on him, but police recovered an unlicensed .22 caliber firearm in a nearby yard. Warren was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and later convicted.
On September 12, 2016 the state of Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court came to a ruling which eradicated the gun conviction of Jimmy Warren for the SGC stated that the officer’s “hunch” and description failed to justify the stop. The justices said the police didn’t have the right to stop Warren in the first place, and the fact that he ran away shouldn’t be used against him. The court stated that when an individual flees the action doesn’t necessarily mean the person is guilty. Based upon the BPD and ACLU a pattern of racial profiling of black males within the city of Boston has been documented and must be taken into consideration, stated the courts. They even listed the rights that the state laws permit individuals. FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] disproportionately targets black males in Boston repeatedly. The desire to avoid the indignity of being racially profiled may motivate an individual to flee when approached by the police. Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans remained “troubled” since the courts cited the ACLU report, which he called “heavily tainted against the police department.” Although, I’m inspired after having seen the powerful influence the courts portrayed when addressing these concerns within this communities.