# 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:** 22
**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, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/421 "2014-09-15T18:10:52Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > And Hiibel does not apply in California. Hiibel is a United States Supreme Court decision. It applies in the whole country. ---
**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, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/422 "2014-09-15T18:10:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This does not apply because the detainment was unlawful. The cops did not have a legitimate legal reason to detain Watts. Did you even _read_ the cite? Here, I’ll quote it again; > [@](#): > > 2)HOWEVER, once the police have a reason to stop a person they can demand identification and legally hold someone for a reasonable amount of time to determine their identification. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/423 "2014-09-15T18:11:17Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Assuming that the legal analysis from **Bricker** et al is correct, and the cop did not in this precise instance with this precise set of circumstances have the legal right to detain her while verifying her ID, this all still reflects very badly on her, imho, because it’s almost certainly the case that her argument was not: “Hey, you know and I know that the crime that you suspect me of is only a misdemeanor, and you arrived after the fact and are no longer witnessing it, therefore due to (case law citation) the _Terry_ test is not in effect and you do not have the right to temporarily detain me despite the fact that you do have substantial suspicion (or whatever that term is) that I might have committed a crime”. Rather, her argument was “how DARE you ask me for my ID that is a HORRIBLY VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS (race card race card race card)”. And technically, she’s right, but for reasons subtle enough that they fooled CNN’s legal reporter, and also initially fooled **Bricker**. > > So it’s hard for me to see her has a Rosa-Parks-esque heroine… there’s a difference between: > (1) Black people should not be legally forced to sit in the back of the bus > > and > > (2) People should not be required to show their IDs to cops (unless the cop reasonably suspects they committed a crime) (certainly a felony) (maybe a misdemeanor) (maybe not a misdemeanor if it’s no longer occurring) (and they can always ASK) (but the case law is confusing enough that it’s taken several lawyers a lot of arguing to figure it out) (and lots of it depends on various levels of reasonable suspicion which are of course not always precisely defined) You know, I don’t plan on burning any American flags any time soon, but I am grateful for those who endured consequences large or small to establish and uphold the principle involved. They needn’t all be celebrated in the fashion of Rosa Parks. Hell, they needn’t all have comported themselves with any dignity while doing so. ---
**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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/424 "2014-09-15T18:11:50Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Did you even _read_ the cite? Here, I’ll quote it again; They didn’t have a legitimate reason to stop/detain, so the cite doesn’t apply. Cops have to have a legally allowed reason to detain someone, and they did not in this case. ---
**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, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/425 "2014-09-15T18:12:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Hiibel is a United States Supreme Court decision. It applies in the whole country. It applies to the whole country in which stop-and-identify laws exist. CA does not have one, therefore the ruling is irrelevant to CA law. ---
**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, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/426 "2014-09-15T18:13:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > They didn’t have a legitimate reason to stop. Cops have to have a legally allowed reason to detain someone, and they did not in this case. They had received a call of public sex occurring. That is a legitimate reason to stop. Thus they had, per the understanding of people who actually work in criminal defense law in CA, the authority to demand identification and legally hold someone for a reasonable amount of time to determine their identification. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/427 "2014-09-15T18:13:05Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Determining the charge is a role for the district attorney, not the investigating officer. Arrest first, determine the charge later? Ah, Louis Renault would be proud. **Smapti** , I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/428 "2014-09-15T18:14:25Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > They had received a call of public sex occurring. That is a legitimate reason to stop. No it’s not, because it was a misdemeanor, and was not occurring when the cops arrived. This means it is not a legitimate reason to detain, according to the law. The cops 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, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/429 "2014-09-15T18:16:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No it’s not, because it was a misdemeanor, and was not occurring when the cops arrived. This means it is not a legitimate reason to detain, according to the law. The cops acted unlawfully. The cops did not have enough information to determine whether it was a misdemeanor or not until they had investigated. It is not the role of the cops to decide what offense people should be charged with, unless you’ve now switched sides and are arguing that the police should have _more_ power than they currently do. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/430 "2014-09-15T18:17:47Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Rather, her argument was “how DARE you ask me for my ID that is a HORRIBLY VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS (race card race card race card)”. And technically, she’s right, but for reasons subtle enough that they fooled CNN’s legal reporter, and also initially fooled **Bricker**. She objected because she didn’t believe the cops were justified in demanding her ID. And she was right. They didn’t. I’m not sure why you think she was only right “technically”. From her vantage point, the cops had no reason to suspect her of prostitution. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/431 "2014-09-15T18:18:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Thanks, **Bricker** and **Hentor** , for the excellent legal perspective so far. Just to be crystal clear, and not that you said otherwise, I am not a lawyer. **Bricker** is the legal expert; for me it’s only an avocation. 🙂 ---
**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, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/432 "2014-09-15T18:18:25Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The cops did not have enough information to determine whether it was a misdemeanor or not until they had investigated. Yes they did. The only information they had was that an act of public lewdness was reported. That is a misdemeanor. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/433 "2014-09-15T18:19:28Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > **Bricker** is the legal expert; for me it’s only an avocation. 🙂 Either way, as long as you’re making the gaucamole. ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/434 "2014-09-15T18:20:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes they did. The only information they had was that an act of public lewdness was reported. That is a misdemeanor. They had received a report that two people were having sex in a car. That _could_ merely be public lewdness. It could also be a second offense. Or it could be non-consensual. Or one of the people involved could be a minor. Any of those potentialities could make it a felony, and the police have no idea whether that is the case unless they investigate. What it does give them is reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, which gives them the right to investigate and to demand identification. ---
**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, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/435 "2014-09-15T18:22:26Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > They had received a report that two people were having sex in a car. That _could_ merely be public lewdness. It could also be a second offense. Or it could be non-consensual. Or one of the people involved could be a minor. Any of those potentialities could make it a felony, and the police have no idea whether that is the case unless they investigate. What it does give them is reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, which gives them the right to investigate and to demand identification. They only had reasonable suspicion that a misdemeanor had occurred. They did not have reasonable suspicion that any of these things that would make it a felony had occurred. No reasonable suspicion it was a 2nd offense, no reasonable suspicion it was not consensual, no reasonable suspicion one of the people was a minor (especially when they arrived and could see the people involved, who were obviously not minors). Because that reasonable suspicion did not exist, they acted unlawfully by detaining Watts. They have the right to ask questions; they do not have the right to detain, in this case. You are incorrect, and you are defending the party that acted unlawfully. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/436 "2014-09-15T18:22:46Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > They had received a report that two people were having sex in a car. That _could_ merely be public lewdness. It could also be a second offense. Or it could be non-consensual. Or one of the people involved could be a minor. Any of those potentialities could make it a felony, and the police have no idea whether that is the case unless they investigate. What it does give them is reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, which gives them the right to investigate and to demand identification. That is your personal opinion, which contradicts case law. ---
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/437 "2014-09-15T18:24:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > They only had reasonable suspicion that a misdemeanor had occurred. They did not have reasonable suspicion that any of these things that would make it a felony had occurred. No reasonable suspicion it was a 2nd offense, no reasonable suspicion it was not consensual, no reasonable suspicion one of the people was a minor (especially when they arrived and could see the people involved, who were obviously not minors). Because that reasonable suspicion did not exist, they acted unlawfully by detaining Watts. They have the right to ask questions; they do not have the right to detain, in this case. They didn’t detain anyone for the report of public sex. They detained someone for refusing to identify herself in the course of an investigation, which, per the above cite, is entirely within their authority. ---
**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, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/438 "2014-09-15T18:25:46Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > That is your personal opinion, which contradicts case law. Please state the case law that obligates a cop to fully assess the evidence and determine what criminal charge is to be levied against any potential arrestees _before_ initiating an investigation. ---
**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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/439 "2014-09-15T18:26:21Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > They detained someone for refusing to identify herself in the course of an investigation, which, per the above cite, is entirely within their authority. This is incorrect. Your cite was discussing circumstances in which the cops were performing a lawful detainment – it did not discuss in which cases cops are allowed to detain someone. This detainment was unlawful. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/440 "2014-09-15T18:26:23Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > No. Her rights can be addressed in the courts. If the cop was wrong the charges are dropped and she can sue. It’s not immediate gratification but it’s a lot safer than arguing or fighting with them in the street. Is there no value in establishing practical limits to what actions police may or may not take with regards to the people whom they protect and serve? Suppose a person fitting your description was reported to be selling narcotics outside a school. They stop you and decide to perform a cavity search. Find nothing because they got the wrong guy. Let you go. You’d be okay with that as long as you had a court with whom to redress your detention and search? Now, before you say, “Yeah, but asking name =/= cavity search!”. And you’re right. But the reason you are not subject to cavity searches at random stops is the same reason you don’t have to provide your name and address to police without probably cause that would stand up to existing laws. Because you should not have to wait for your day in court to be retro-actively protected by laws AFTER they’ve already been violated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=23)