Police Release Details of Snowden's Arrest
Baltimore police said Carl O. Snowden was in a parked car with a sex offender on Friday.
Photos
Baltimore police released the details surrounding Friday’s arrest of Carl O. Snowden, stating that the Annapolis civil rights leader was sitting in a parked car with a registered sex offender when officers approached his vehicle, according to The Capital.
The police report contradicts the words of Snowden’s attorney, Cary J. Hansel, who said Snowden was pulled over for a broken tail light. Snowden, the civil rights director of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, was charged with marijuana possession in Baltimore on Friday, according to online court records.
The Capital reported that the police statement said officers approached a 2010 Honda Pilot with Snowden in the driver’s seat and smelled a “strong odor” of marijuana.
A registered sex offender named Anthony Hill, 28, of Baltimore was reportedly sitting in the passenger seat. Hill has a list of drug, gun and assault charges with few convictions, The Capital reported.
Snowden reportedly went on sabbatical Friday to pursue charges and a $20 million lawsuit against Anne Arundel County Executive John R. Leopold for having a dossier compiled against him. It was revealed in March that Snowden was investigated by Leopold, who was indicted on charges that he used his security detail improperly.
Karen Essen
10:15 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Barrack Hussein Obama: "If I had an uncle, he'd look just like Carl..."
John Coleman
9:57 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Hmm...any details on the sex offender he was caught with's previous charges? Hmmmm? Male prostitution by by any chance? Impersonating a woman? Hmmm?Hmmmmm? Do you like movies with gladiators in them, Carl? Hmmm?
John Coleman
9:46 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
But I digress, Leopold was also "allegedly" caught with his pants down around his ankles with a subordinate in a county car, supposedly with police lookouts (not very good ones apparently) so who is to say who wins the title of the alleged "STUD OF AA COUNTY" hopefully to be awarded at afuture 4H event at Anne Arundel Fairgrounds?
John Coleman
9:46 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Battle it out boys.
Leslie Brown
9:44 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
This man shouldn't worry about a private dossier, his public police records should be the concern. $20 million lawsuit - because the dossier has hurt his reputation, get real! The thought that leader is attached to Snowden's name is incomprehensible. Is it possible to start the day without news of yet another political figure compromising his/her ethics and making poor personal decisions?
cynthia
9:44 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Thank you Karen, your comment really made me laugh and we can
surely use one with all the nonsense that goes on. I am still laughing...
cynthia
9:44 am on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Oh, one more thing, do you think Carl is related to Marion Barry?
Amy Leahy
4:09 pm on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
They're brothers in name only.
H
12:57 am on Thursday, April 26, 2012
I find Karen's comment offensive and disheartening.
Jonathan Moynihan
9:32 am on Thursday, April 26, 2012
If you're offended by a comment, you can flag the comment as inappropriate and remind the whole thread that the site's terms ask that users not post anything that "is defamatory, abusive, obscene, profane or offensive." See the terms at http://edgewater.patch.com/terms
Linda Reece
7:52 pm on Thursday, April 26, 2012
If it's okay for Obama to say it....then it's okay for someone else to say it and no one should be more offended than for the President to make such a remark.
Amy Leahy
3:49 pm on Thursday, April 26, 2012
H - Karen is only paraphrasing what the president said about the Trayvon Martin shooting...."If I had a son he'd look just like Trayvon Martin".
Orwell
11:17 am on Sunday, April 29, 2012
I find the $29,000,000,000,000.00 (That's $29 Trillion) bail-out to Wall Street offensive and disheartening
Mike
12:07 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
To Jonathan Moynihan, quick aside since you mention the Terms of Service. While the concepts seem generally sensible, some things are likely not worded properly (unless I greatly misunderstand the intent).
Some specific no-nos include:
1. Anything "defamatory." But isn't most truthful criticism "defamatory" (meaning harmful to someone's reputation)?
2. Anything "inaccurate, false or misleading in any way." It's a small point, but his should probably just be prefaced with "knowingly."
3. Anything that "promotes any illegal activities." So, civil disobedience is out? If MLK were here today, Patch would be an unacceptable place to promote, say, a sit-in?
4. Anything that "promotes...physical harm of any kind against any group or individual." So, advocacy of a war, or resistance to a war, or forceful self-defense of any kind, or capital punishment...all are off the table?
Bear in mind, I understand C.Y.A. and don't think such term are what Patch truly intends. But a close look at them DOES raise interesting questions about terms of service and perspective on LAW.
The terms, as written, are inaccurate and sweeping.
Thus it's interesting to try to revise the terms to state real intent. Since without that, MOST ALL ARE VIOLATORS, making prosecution quite discretionary.
While trivial on a private site like Patch, people debate a lot of law here, and the issue is FAR from trivial when our LAWS are similarly sweeping and inaccurate.
Regards,
Mike
Jonathan Moynihan
12:12 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
You bring up some great points Mike that I'll send over to our Patch Terms of Use team. So you know, most of the times that I remove a comment is because it's a clear and definite attempt to defame a person, not just a criticism.
Also, if someone violates someone else's privacy, I'll delete the comment (like posting someone's personal address