# Kissing your husband while black? Not if the LAPD can help it. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 14, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492 "2014-09-14T19:21:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/381 "2014-09-15T17:48:11Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > What legitimate reason does a law-abiding person have to hide their identity from a police officer investigating a crime? None. The law says otherwise, and you purport to worship the law. If this were an old Star Trek I think your head might explode at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/382 "2014-09-15T17:48:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The 4th Amendment to the Constitution. This is a serious answer. “The 4th amendment to the Constitution” is not a criminal offense. Try harder. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/383 "2014-09-15T17:49:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The law says otherwise, and you purport to worship the law. If this were an old Star Trek I think your head might explode at this point. What legitimate reason does the law define for a law-abiding person to hide their identity from a police officer investigating a crime? None. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/384 "2014-09-15T17:49:28Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Well then, do feel free to define the specific statute under which a police officer can be arrested for asking someone their name. For the millionth time, it was the detainment that was unlawful, not asking someone their name. The cops cannot lawfully detain anyone they want. The courts have decided under that circumstances they can detain someone, and they did not meet these requirements when they detained Watts. They acted unlawfully. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/385 "2014-09-15T17:49:49Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > That she refused to identify herself when asked. No. The Supreme Court has said that refusing to identify yourself outside a valid Terry stop can’t be required. In _Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court_, the Supreme Court said: > [@](#): > > The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. . . .A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. > . > . > . > Petitioner argues that the Nevada statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement, in effect allowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious. According to petitioner, this creates a risk of arbitrary police conduct that the Fourth Amendment does not permit. . . .These are familiar concerns; they were central to the opinion in Papachristou, and also to the decisions limiting the operation of stop and identify statutes in Kolender and Brown. **Petitioner’s concerns are met by the requirement that a Terry stop must be justified at its inception** and “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop. (emphasis added) You do agree that the Supreme Court can make those kinds of rules, yes? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/386 "2014-09-15T17:50:28Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > “The 4th amendment to the Constitution” is not a criminal offense. Try harder. It is the law of the land – and you asked what law they broke. In addition to acting unlawfully with regards to the 4th amendment, they may have committed an unlawful detainment, or a similar crime. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/387 "2014-09-15T17:51:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > For the millionth time, it was the detainment that was unlawful, not asking someone their name. The cops cannot lawfully detain anyone they want. The courts have decided under that circumstances they can detain someone, and they did not meet these requirements when they detained Watts. They acted unlawfully. And they can lawfully detain someone who refuses to identify themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/388 "2014-09-15T17:51:47Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > “The 4th amendment to the Constitution” is not a criminal offense. Try harder. It’s not a criminal offense. The police (probably) did not commit a crime by unlawfully detaining her. But their detention of her was still unlawful. “Unlawful,” means “not authorized by law,” as opposed to “violates the criminal law.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/389 "2014-09-15T17:52:00Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > What legitimate reason does the law define for a law-abiding person to hide their identity from a police officer investigating a crime? None. “I don’t want to” is a legitimate reason, when the cops do not meet the requirements for detaining you. The courts have decided that a person in Watts’ situation does not have to show ID to the cop. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/390 "2014-09-15T17:53:14Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > And they can lawfully detain someone who refuses to identify themselves. Not in the circumstances in which they detained Watts. They acted unlawfully by detaining Watts, as **Bricker** and **Hector** described. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/391 "2014-09-15T17:53:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The Supreme Court has said that refusing to identify yourself outside a valid Terry stop can’t be required. Good thing this wasn’t a Terry stop, then. > [@](#): > > In _Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court_, the Supreme Court said Which specifically _does not apply_ to California because California does not have a law of the type which was at issue in Hiibel. > [@](#): > > You do agree that the Supreme Court can make those kinds of rules, yes? The Supreme Court can establish precedent; it cannot make laws. No **law** was violated by the police here. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/392 "2014-09-15T17:54:36Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > No **law** was violated by the police here. They acted unlawfully. Their detainment was not lawful. You are defending the party that acted unlawfully here. Watts’ refusal to show ID was lawful. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/393 "2014-09-15T17:55:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “I don’t want to” is a legitimate reason And not wanting to is evidence of criminal activity. > [@](#): > > when the cops do not meet the requirements for detaining you. The police have every right to detain an unruly person who is impeding an investigation; [QUOTE=CA Penal Code, Section 148] 148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/394 "2014-09-15T17:56:13Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > And not wanting to is evidence of criminal activity. Not according to the law. The law exists and you are incorrect about the law here. You are defending the party that acted unlawfully. > [@](#): > > The police have every right to detain an unruly person who is impeding an investigation. Not in this case. The police do not have the right to detain someone in which their only reasonable suspicion is that they committed a misdemeanor. The police acted unlawfully in this case. You are defending the party that acted unlawfully. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/395 "2014-09-15T17:56:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Not in this case. The police acted unlawfully in this case. You are defending the party that acted unlawfully. Wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/396 "2014-09-15T17:56:42Z")
**Smapti** , you can’t claim to love democracy and then complain about every single limit on the power of the police and the government. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/397 "2014-09-15T17:57:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **Smapti** , you can’t claim to love democracy and then complain about every single limit on the power of the police and the government. I am complaining about no limits that exist here. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/398 "2014-09-15T17:58:25Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Wrong. I think **Smapti** is afraid to admit he’s defending the unlawful party because it might cause him to rampage about town, shouting “DOES NOT COMPUTE”, with smoke billowing out of his ears. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/399 "2014-09-15T17:58:39Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I am complaining about no limits that exist here. The limits have been explained to you. You are denying their existence. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/400 "2014-09-15T17:59:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > As **Bricker** and **Hentor** have explained, this is only the case if they have reasonable suspicion a **felony** was committed. In this case they only had reasonable suspicion a **misdemeanor** was committed, and therefore the officers were acting unlawfully by detaining Watts. The cops broke the law in this case. Not according to the responding officer. The officer responded to a complaint from the public. The officer asked both parties for ID. Watts refused to show her ID and walked away from the officer. Watts was then detained. Not for prostitution, not for committing a lewd act, but for walking away from a legitimate police interview. This wasn’t a random stop of random people on the street. This was not a random stop of couples, or black males and white females. This was a stop of two people who met the description of the complaint. The question is - can LA police detain possible suspects of a crime until their identity has been established, especially when they walk away from a legitimate interview? Watts seems more interested in boosting her own career. Who else would bring up their publicist when what they need is a lawyer? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=21)