# 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:** 63
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1241 "2014-09-19T16:52:04Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Where is my strawman argument again? > [@XT](#): > > Yes, it’s too much to expect that cops can do it all, know it all, and be perfect. srsly? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1242 "2014-09-19T17:02:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Well that’s just your claim. It would appear from the professor quoted above that another exception might be when the suspect has been identified (which was not the case with Griggs). Thanks for making my point for me, **F-P**. There are always exceptions, and therefore the idea that it is inexcusable that the police made a mistake is ridiculous. Every time some B-list actress gets carded for dry-humping her boyfriend in front of God and everybody, the Republic totters. :rolleyes: Regards, Shodan ---
**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 19, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1243 "2014-09-19T17:21:13Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Well that’s just your claim. It would appear from the professor quoted above that another exception might be when the suspect has been identified (which was not the case with Griggs). Griggs is a 9th Circuit Court decision. It kind of has more pertinence regarding the establishment of precedence than the opinion of a law professor. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1244 "2014-09-19T17:30:57Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Griggs is a 9th Circuit Court decision. It kind of has more pertinence regarding the establishment of precedence than the opinion of a law professor. If your position rests on the notion that the guy managed to become a law professor at UCLA without knowing about Griggs and only you managed to figure it out, have at it by all means. For me, I’m sticking with the experts. [Bricker noted earlier that he had had some correspondence with this professor and may post it here. But my primary point is that this is not a simple matter, contrary to your claims.] ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1245 "2014-09-19T21:20:32Z")
A case from eight years ago was worse: **Police Accuse 12-Year-Old Black Girl Of Being A Prostitute Outside Of Her Home, Beat And Kidnap Her** > [@](#): > > If you think police brutality is only a recent issue, think again. By now, most of us have heard the report of Django Unchained actress, Danièle Watts, being arrested by police who mistook her for a prostitute. But did you know the same thing happened to an African-American child eight years ago, only worse? > Three police officers in Texas accused a 12-year-old black girl of being a prostitute, beat and kidnapped her, and none of them ever faced any consequences for their actions. > > On August 22, 2006, 12-year-old Dymond Milburn was outside her home flipping a breaker switch to help her family after the electricity went out, when a blue van pulled up and three men exited the vehicle without identifying themselves. The men were cops in plain clothes with the Galveston police and they accused Dymond, who is black, of being a prostitute. > > “You’re a prostitute,” an officer declared. “You’re coming with me.” > > They then tried to drag Milburn into their van while she scratched and clawed in her struggle to stop them from taking her. She screamed for her father to come to her rescue while the angry officers began beating her in an effort to force her into the van. One of the officers, David Roark, muzzled the girl’s mouth with his hand to silence her. After she fought with them (isn’t that what a kidnapped kid is supposed to do?), they “tuned her up” to an $8,000 hospital bill. Nothing bad happened to the cops. And, yes, they were told by the parents that she was only 12 and their child. Didn’t listen. ---
**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 19, 2014, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1246 "2014-09-19T21:52:20Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > A case from eight years ago was worse: > > **Police Accuse 12-Year-Old Black Girl Of Being A Prostitute Outside Of Her Home, Beat And Kidnap Her** > > After she fought with them (isn’t that what a kidnapped kid is supposed to do?), they “tuned her up” to an $8,000 hospital bill. > > Nothing bad happened to the cops. And, yes, they were told by the parents that she was only 12 and their child. Didn’t listen. A link would be nice. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1247 "2014-09-19T21:54:18Z")
But see, it is simple enough for practical use. It’s not a Terry stop because the act has been completed, and the action reported to the police is merely a misdemeanor. Default should be not to insist on ID. There was no crime underway. There was no criminal enterprise ongoing. Nobody, neither the actors, nor the public, least of all the police, were in any danger. So what issue of overwhelming import is served by demanding ID? Yes, perhaps there’s a warrant outstanding, but speculating that a warrant might exist isn’t reasonable articulable suspicion. In the instant case, nobody is being hurt or damaged. So nothing present rises to a level that would justify detention. Could a cop take that action out of lack of knowledge? Sure. But this isn’t some rarefied item of obscure law. It isn’t a complex contractual matter. It doesn’t, or shouldn’t, need a lawyer. It’s a stop, it either is justified through Terry standards or it isn’t. Seems cops everywhere should know this. Giving the actors a mini lecture, telling them not to be seem hauling garbage around the vicinity again (sorry – a different petty crime reference) and let them go would have served everyone, and served society, best. Same for the poor guy taking up butt space in a public bank lounge. Nobody was hurting anything, no higher purpose was served by the actions of the police. Now if, arguendo, the cop had some gut feeling that the situation was more complex, and deserving of action otherwise contrary to a citizen’s rights, said cop should take whatever action s/he thought best. Maybe an invisible crime would have been stopped, or a warrant enforced. But then s/he should also stand up and report the end run around the Constitution. And the cop should be the one to defend his/her actions in court, letting the chips and the convictions fall where they may. That should be the default. Not acquiesce by a citizen to police misconduct followed by later, and highly problematic, recourse to complaint and/or court. “To serve and protect” seems to me to put the onus on the police, not on me. Perhaps the cops need to be held to some variant of the Hippocratic oath – “First, do no harm”. ETA-- sorry, things moved on. Was in reply to post 1244. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1248 "2014-09-19T22:39:40Z")
I think for me the distinction is between “The cop screwed up… cops should be educated better, and appropriate recompense and consequences should occur” and “the cop screwed up, clearly part of a pattern of disregard for the rules, yet one more piece of evidence that cops think they’re above the law, and they’re also probably racist and sexist. Thanks heavens for the brave actions of Ms. Watts for bringing this chilling abuse of power to our attention!”. My feeling about the situation is closer to the first than the second, but that doesn’t mean that I worship the police, or think they can do no wrong, or don’t think that there are systemic/endemic problems in the way cops as a group act. I just don’t think this particular case is a particularly good or clear example of that. (I also think there are some unanswered legal questions here, both with regards to the most recent objections to Bricker’s analysis, and the question I raised of whether the cop has the legal obligation to tell you WHY he’s asking for your ID… as I understand it, there could be a situation in which the cop has the legal right to require you to provide your ID but you don’t KNOW the cop has that right, which is a bit bizarre.) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1249 "2014-09-19T22:59:52Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Thanks heavens for the brave actions of Ms. Watts for bringing this chilling abuse of power to our attention!". And where you are coming off like **MaxTheFool** is in seemingly not understanding that this sentence applies no matter which of the possibilities is true. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > My feeling about the situation is closer to the first than the second, but that doesn’t mean that I worship the police, or think they can do no wrong, or don’t think that there are systemic/endemic problems in the way cops as a group act. I just don’t think this particular case is a particularly good or clear example of that. You don’t think this case is a good example of ignorant cops overstepping their bounds OR a good example of police abusing their authority illegally? No matter which turns out to be the case? Then sorry, but you are a worshipper. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (I also think there are some unanswered legal questions here, both with regards to the most recent objections to Bricker’s analysis, and the question I raised of whether the cop has the legal obligation to tell you WHY he’s asking for your ID… as I understand it, there could be a situation in which the cop has the legal right to require you to provide your ID but you don’t KNOW the cop has that right, which is a bit bizarre.) I doubt there are any unanswered legal questions here anymore other than “why won’t these cops be charged with a crime?” and “how much will Miss Watts’ settlement be for?” And yeah, if the cops can operate in total secrecy and thru deception then we really have no rights anymore; at least we have no rights that the cops won’t allow us to have. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1250 "2014-09-20T00:01:17Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I doubt there are any unanswered legal questions here anymore other than “why won’t these cops be charged with a crime?” and “how much will Miss Watts’ settlement be for?” > > And yeah, if the cops can operate in total secrecy and thru deception then we really have no rights anymore; at least we have no rights that the cops won’t allow us to have. So a cop gets a phone tip that someone who is fairly tall, wearing a blue sweatshirt and a red hat, just held up a convenience store at gunpoint. The cop drives towards that area, and sees a fairly tall man wearing a blue sweatshirt and a red had walking briskly away. He stops that man and asks him for his ID. At this point, from my understanding of the legal issues described in this thread, the cop has a reasonable suspicion that this man was recently involved in a felony (gunpoint robbery). So he has the right to temporarily detain this man long enough to verify his ID. The man, however, who may simply be an innocent passerby, doesn’t know this at all. So he thinks to himself “hmm, I know that Terry stops are only legal blah blah blah, so I’ll just refuse to show him my ID. I’ll call his bluff. And if he persists, then I’ll make a big fuss about it, and my legal rights will win out in the end. I’m a hero!”. What happens? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1251 "2014-09-20T00:15:08Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I just don’t think this particular case is a particularly good or clear example of that. When we have so many examples of police mistreating minorities constantly, routinely, regularly, institutionally … not every example has to be perfect or even good. Systematic institutional mistreatment of minorities by the law enforcement and the justice system has been going on since the end of Reconstruction. And we have seen regular, public flareups of it ever since then. In our generation, it should have been unambiguously clear after the Rodney King incident. Before that, maybe … MAYBE … you could argue that this was an open secret in the black community. But since then? We have had incident after incident after incident after incident of systematic institutional police misbehavior, at the very least in Los Angeles. At this point, the police aren’t entitled to any benefit of the doubt. Every case—even a borderline case like this one—is just another pile on the mountain of dog shit evidence we have that something is seriously, systematically, fundamentally, unacceptably wrong with our law enforcement system. I just don’t have the patience any more to quibble over whether any particular case is the best example or the worst example. We have so many examples, that going down that road is nothing but a diversion. ---
**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 20, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1252 "2014-09-20T00:32:25Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > When we have so many examples of police mistreating minorities constantly, routinely, regularly, institutionally … not every example has to be perfect or even good. > > Systematic institutional mistreatment of minorities by the law enforcement and the justice system has been going on since the end of Reconstruction. And we have seen regular, public flareups of it ever since then. > > In our generation, it should have been unambiguously clear after the Rodney King incident. Before that, maybe … MAYBE … you could argue that this was an open secret in the black community. But since then? We have had incident after incident after incident after incident of systematic institutional police misbehavior, at the very least in Los Angeles. > > At this point, the police aren’t entitled to any benefit of the doubt. Every case—even a borderline case like this one—is just another pile on the mountain of dog shit evidence we have that something is seriously, systematically, fundamentally, unacceptably wrong with our law enforcement system. > > I just don’t have the patience any more to quibble over whether any particular case is the best example or the worst example. We have so many examples, that going down that road is nothing but a diversion. Not too long before this incident was the film producer who was detained for 6 hours. Different set of legal issues, similar questions about race: > **[Black film producer on way to Emmy's party mistaken for bank robber](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2735166/Beverly-Hills-film-producer-way-Emmys-party-mistaken-bank-robber-handcuffed-curb-held-police-six-hours-realized-mistake.html)** > > A film producer on the way to an Emmy's pre-party on Friday says he was falsely detained for six hours by officers of the Beverly Hills police force. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1253 "2014-09-20T00:34:01Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > A case from eight years ago was worse: > > **Police Accuse 12-Year-Old Black Girl Of Being A Prostitute Outside Of Her Home, Beat And Kidnap Her** > > After she fought with them (isn’t that what a kidnapped kid is supposed to do?), they “tuned her up” to an $8,000 hospital bill. > > Nothing bad happened to the cops. And, yes, they were told by the parents that she was only 12 and their child. Didn’t listen. Of course, we now know that the police did not accuse Daniele Watts of being a prostitute. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2014, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1254 "2014-09-20T00:36:25Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So a cop gets a phone tip that someone who is fairly tall, wearing a blue sweatshirt and a red hat, just held up a convenience store at gunpoint. The cop drives towards that area, and sees a fairly tall man wearing a blue sweatshirt and a red had walking briskly away. He stops that man and asks him for his ID. > > At this point, from my understanding of the legal issues described in this thread, the cop has a reasonable suspicion that this man was recently involved in a felony (gunpoint robbery). So he has the right to temporarily detain this man long enough to verify his ID. The man, however, who may simply be an innocent passerby, doesn’t know this at all. So he thinks to himself “hmm, I know that Terry stops are only legal blah blah blah, so I’ll just refuse to show him my ID. I’ll call his bluff. And if he persists, then I’ll make a big fuss about it, and my legal rights will win out in the end. I’m a hero!”. What happens? The officer is generally permitted to detain the person long enough to confirm or dispel his suspicions. This would permit him to detain the man and allow the convenience store clerk to look at him, for example. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1255 "2014-09-20T01:14:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The officer is generally permitted to detain the person long enough to confirm or dispel his suspicions. This would permit him to detain the man and allow the convenience store clerk to look at him, for example. Right, but the man doesn’t know that. If he goes around blithely thinking “if a cop asks me for my ID and I refuse to show him, then he has to let me go, and if he doesn’t, then he’s the one who is wrong, so I’m going to civilly disobey, and it will turn out that he was wrong and I was right”, then he will end up being precisely wrong in my hypothetical, due to information he did not have access to. Correct? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2014, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1256 "2014-09-20T01:46:05Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > When we have so many examples of police mistreating minorities constantly, routinely, regularly, institutionally … not every example has to be perfect or even good. Sure. I agree that there is overwhelming evidence that there are enormous inequities in the way that racial minorities (particularly blacks) are treated by cops in the USA today. I agree that this is an enormous and troubling issue. Nothing I’ve said in this thread was intended to deny or downplay that. And that would still be true even if (to come up with a deliberately ludicrous hypothetical) evidence came to light tomorrow that Ms. Watts had dishonestly staged the entire incident purely as a false flag operation to make a totally innocent cop look bad in order to make some point about racist cops. Or to come up with a more realistic hypothetical, if the thread of legal debate that includes post 1240 is resolved tomorrow and it turns out that in fact there’s a further twist on the legality of the temporary-detention-pending-ID and it WAS legal (as I believe it would have been in several others tates), that doesn’t suddenly swap the cop from being EVIL ABUSER OF POWER to PERFECT PARAGON OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, nor does it swap Ms. Watts from being HEROIC ROSA PARKS FIGURE to EVIL COP-ABUSING SELF-ENTITLED MONSTER. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1257 "2014-09-20T01:49:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Right, but the man doesn’t know that. If he goes around blithely thinking “if a cop asks me for my ID and I refuse to show him, then he has to let me go, and if he doesn’t, then he’s the one who is wrong, so I’m going to civilly disobey, and it will turn out that he was wrong and I was right”, then he will end up being precisely wrong in my hypothetical, due to information he did not have access to. > > Correct? Absolutely. The officer does not have to disclose the basis for his reasonable suspicion (or probable cause). But the citizen accosted should at least know whether his state has a “must identify” law. So if his civil disobedience is limited to refusal to supply ID, and he’s in a state that permits such refusal, he’s not breaking the law. He’s “resisting,” and that resistance allows the police to extend the detention until they identify him or rule him out as a suspect. ---
**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 20, 2014, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1258 "2014-09-20T13:20:10Z")
If someone’s ID is necessary to ruling someone in or out as a suspect, then it follows that an ID is needed and detainment makes sense. In both Watt’s case and Lollie’s case, the cops’ demand for ID had all the appearance of a witch hunt. The people who presumably called in the complaints didn’t know their names, so their names were irrelevant. No, a cop may not be lawfully bound to disclose why they need to see an ID, but can we all agree that their refusal to make a rational argument for their requests played a large part in both conflicts? Such courtesies help defuse the stress associated with being stopped on the street by a cop. Even in the scenario above, what harm is caused by telling the suspect why he’s being detained? There is no practical benefit to leaving him in the dark; he either looks like the thief or he doesn’t. It’s unfair and unrealistic to say that cops can become as suspicious as their imaginations will let allow them to be if someone doesn’t comply with their orders but citizens must always blindly believe cops have only pure intentions, even if they are as obstinate as all get out. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2014, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1259 "2014-09-20T14:28:27Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > In both Watt’s case and Lollie’s case, the cops’ demand for ID had all the appearance of a witch hunt. So the cops were not being racist, but rather were showing religious bigotry? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1260 "2014-09-20T14:44:59Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If someone’s ID is necessary to ruling someone in or out as a suspect, then it follows that an ID is needed and detainment makes sense. > > In both Watt’s case and Lollie’s case, the cops’ demand for ID had all the appearance of a witch hunt. My WAG is that in the Watts case (I haven’t been following the discussion of the other case), the request for ID was not so much “ooh, I hope this lady has some prostitution priors back 10 years ago, because if she does, I’m going to arrest her black ass” and more “ok, these people were apparently having sex in public, I’m going to get their names, write them down in my little book, because that’s pretty much what I always do so it’s force of habit, give them a stern talking to so they realize it’s serious, and then I’ll probably let them go… and oh she did NOT just start yelling at me about her rights and talking to her daddy on her cell phone. OK, in THAT case I’m going to push things a little bit further. Good thing I have the legal right to detain them until they provide ID!\*”, or something along those lines. \*(apparently he was wrong). Granted, that is pure-ass speculation on my part, but barring an incredibly candid interview with the cop in question, that’s all we’ll ever have. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=62) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=64)