For the sake of anyone less stupid than Smapti who might actually understand the distinction, a person who calls 911 should be obligated to identify themselves if they want their testimony to have any legal weight. If they just want a cop to be in the right place at the right time to witness a crime being committed and respond accordingly, an anonymous tip would suffice. But if the cop shows up and witnesses no criminal activity, the mere fact that some anonymous caller called you a whore should not be grounds for the cop to infringe upon your rights to any greater extent than if they were acting on a hunch.
You assume that the goal of the police is to “use” people.
I assume that their goal is to enforce the laws that we the people have placed into effect.
How can you claim to love the principles of democracy when you so openly hate the means of enforcement that the people have created to ensure that their will is carried out?
“When” the Gestapo shows up? Paranoid much?
It doesn’t.
That may be a problem we want to address --we are, collectively, free to amend the law. Because these principles arise from the Constitution, it might take an amendment to the Constitution to do that.
Or we could pass more stringent laws concerning indecent exposure. If that were a felony, then the police seizure of the actress would have been legal. That just requires a majority of the California legislature and the governor to change.
But that’s not the case right now. Right now, in the current legal framework, the officer had no legal power to seize her.
Yes, there are simply too many individual liberties! We must ensure everyone is as obsequious as I am.
Any soldiers need quartering? I’ve got an extra bed!
But that’s the thing.* She is winning the argument. *The police department is catching flak and she’s coming off as a hero. By refusing to give in, she has highlighted just one more instance of cops overstepping their bounds.
“Smart people” also don’t sit in the front of the bus because they know black people are required to sit in the back. “Smart people” don’t march in Selma or Birmingham, and they certainly don’t let cops turn firehoses on them or let food be thrown on them at lunch counters. I don’t see why you and others keep reducing this to pragmatism and convenience. There are higher principles at stake here, and if you can’t see that, then yeah…prepare to not have your name added to the distribution list either.
I agree. Cops and citizens shouldn’t be arguing over fine legal points at every encounter. The bf gave up his Id immediately, he wasn’t cuffed, she refused, she was. As soon as the bf gave them her id, she was uncuffed. Now, it could be that they were only kissing and some prudish person called it a “sex act”, but the cop wouldn’t have known that upon arriving at the scene.
Then I fully encourage her to sue the police department and explain under oath in a court of law what happened in that car and why she didn’t want the police to know her name, because if she’s as innocent as she swears she is, she’ll win.
You’re thinking above your station, dog. Whether or not it is a problem that needs addressing is for your betters to decide, not you.
If asking someone their name is “overstepping their bounds”, then clearly we’ve gone way off the deep end in terms of allowing the cops to do their job.
You say things like this, and I’m the one who’s a fascist. Right.
You’re right. The police are absolutely permitted to ask someone’s name.
What they cannot do, however, is require that she answer. She chose not to answer, and walked away, and the police seized her in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.
Did he know that he wasn’t investigating a felony?
Getting attention is not the same thing as “winning the argument”. You saw how skeptical the CNN hostess was when she was interviewing her. The actress came off as a drama queen.
No, I’m not paranoid. But it seems you are totally oblivious to the slippery slope your ideas portend.
Letting police powers override civil rights is a recipe for fascism.
Hmmm. Seems like there might be a point being illustrated there. Are you so thick as to have missed it?
Educating the police and the public regarding civil liberties is also a desirable - winning - outcome.
I didn’t mention the police. I was talking about your attitude toward authority in general: every time there’s a story about a powerful person or group abusing their authority, your reaction is always to blame the people who brought it to the public’s attention. No matter what they do, the authorities always mean well and whistleblowers are not nice people because they’re saying mean things - and because they’ve disturbed your peace of mind.
I do, too. Now and then they fuck this up royally, and they deserve to be called on it when they do.
So in your mind, democracy is all about protecting the powerful from the powerless? That’s fascinating.
If she sues, she won’t have to answer any questions about what happened in the car prior to the arrival of the police.
And all she would have to say in answer to, “Why not give your name?” is: “It was my right under the Fourth Amendment to disregard the question about my name and go about my business.”
I see nothing unreasonable about apprehending a fleeing suspect at the scene of a potential felony.