On July 19, 2015, then 25 year old Raymond Tensing went to his job at the University of Cincinnati Police Department. He was assigned to patrol an off-campus area enforcing the traffic laws of the State of Ohio.
During his shift, Tensing made three known traffic stops. All were African-Americans who committed traffic violations and also showed driving suspensions on the police computer. The last traffic stop resulted in the death of Samuel Dubose. The complete duration of the incident was captured on two dash cams and Tensing’s body cam.
Tensing was indicted by a Hamilton County, Ohio grand jury and was fired from the University of Cincinnati Police Department. His first trial ended with a hung jury in 2016, and his re-trial began on May 25, 2017.
The case for Raymond Tensing:
- Both sides agree that the traffic stop of Mr. Dubose was lawful.
- When Mr. Dubose was unable to produce a driver’s license, Tensing attempted to open the driver’s door, but Mr. Dubose pulled the door closed. Tensing reached into the vehicle with his arm and a single shot was fired striking Mr. Dubose in the head. There is no dispute that driving without an operator’s license is a crime in Ohio which carries a maximum of $1,000 fine and/or 180 days in jail.
- Raymond Tensing did not start Mr. Dubose’s vehicle.
- Raymond Tensing did not put the vehicle in gear.
- A quantity of drugs and cash were recovered from Mr. Dubose’s car. The State of Ohio argues that Tensing was unaware of this when the shot was fired. Whether or not Tensing knew is irrelevant. The fact is that Samuel Dubose did know about the drugs and cash, and knew enough about the legal system to know that he would be arrested and the car would be towed. Before being towed, it would be searched by the police and the drugs would likely be found.
What actually transpired in this tragic incident is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is whether Tensing had a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger. The standard by which he must be judged is whether a reasonable police officer, in a like circumstance, would have reacted in the same manner. Graham v Connor 490 U S 386 (1989)
Reaching into a vehicle is a major tactical error, but a tactical error does not constitute a crime. Both sides have “experts” who will offer an opinion about the stop and the video and the trial is expected to last three to four weeks.
Being represented by a criminal attorney, even the best, is akin to a General Practice physician performing neurosurgery. They simply do not ask the right questions.
EVERY police witness should be asked the same set of questions:
Do (did) you consider yourself to be a reasonable police officer?
Based on (state facts) would you have had a belief that your safety was in imminent danger?