Who? The cop? He’s not getting paid to only enforce felonies
Do you see a distinction between asking someone their name and insisting on seeing their ID?
Absolutely. A right not exercised is a right that is ripe to be lost.
In general, the authorities are right, and the people complaining are angry because they broke the law and got caught.
In my mind, democracy is about carrying out the will of the people. The people have determined that public lewdness and prostitution should not be allowed and they have empowered the police to investigate if such things are alleged to have occurred. Why do you begrudge the police for carrying out the will of the people?
Nor do I. If this had been the scene of a potential felony, I’d agree the seizure was reasonable.
But the problem is: it was only the scene of a potential misdemeanor.
If the suspect refuses to provide their name, as is the case here, then no.
Okay so you are that fucking thick.
Which is credited more towards the CNN hostess who reminded the audience at the end of the interview that the ACLU advises every citizen to always comply with police instruction, even if you feel you’re being treated unlawfully.
No shit. They are limited in what they can do when they aren’t. Understand?
[QUOTE=CA Penal Code, SECTION 314-318.6]
Every person who willfully and lewdly… Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any
public place, or in any place where there are present other persons
to be offended or annoyed thereby… is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Upon the second and each subsequent conviction under subdivision 1
of this section, or upon a first conviction under subdivision 1 of
this section after a previous conviction under Section 288, every
person so convicted is guilty of a felony (emphasis mine), and is punishable by
imprisonment in state prison.
[/QUOTE]
If the suspect had previously been convicted of misdemeanor lewd conduct, or one of any number of other sex offenses defined under Section 288, then a second offense would be a felony. As such, the officer had a duty to identify the suspect and determine whether they had a prior record so as to discern whether a felony had taken place.
I agree that democracy has resulted in the public legitimately outlawing both public lewdness and prostitution.
But the public also said that both public lewdness and prostitution were to be classified and punished as misdemeanors. Do you agree that this is true?
And the will of the people is to place limits on the powers of the police. Get that?
Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of giving the cops a hummer upon demand.
Limited, as in, not allowed to ask for id? Cops are trained to look for suspicious behavior. A person refusing to give their id is suspicious. Don’t you agree?
Crap, sorry Hentor. I admit I was skimming and missed your post. This is an interesting thread but I was a bit distracted reading it. Thus, thanks for explaining that and fighting my ignorance.
And the police acted within those limits, so what are you complaining about?
So in your book, being asked your name is comparable to forced sodomy?
Nice try.
You’re absolutely right: a second conviction would make it a felony.
But remember that in order to effect a Terry stop, he has to have at least reasonable suspicion that there’s a felony involved.
And remember that reasonable suspicion is derived from all the facts in the officer’s knowledge, along with all the reasonable inferences from those facts.
You can list every single fact the officer knew. But not one of them makes it reasonable for the officer to suspect that the actress had a prior conviction for prostitution. (And, in fact, she does not, as we now know – that’s not relevant to reasonable suspicion analysis, though; we look at what the officer knew at the time, not what he later learned.)
So under the rules relating to Terry stops, he did NOT have reasonable suspicion to believe the actress had a prior conviction.
Did he?
Yes, generically.
But since there’s no law requiring a person to carry ID, it’s not a particularized suspicion of a crime. It’s just an inchoate suspicion.
These people didn’t.
Your mind is wrong. Without strictly-enforced limits on the will of the people, there is no democracy. Smarter people than you figured this out centuries ago.
He’s talking about another concept you’re probably not familiar with: the judicious exercise of state power.
I have to agree. Showing your ID to law enforcement isn’t exactly being forced to give a blowjob. Ninety-nine percent of us give way more info out to google/FB/amazon/twitter than the info that’s on a drivers license everyday.
Let the record show that the above poster believes the will of the people is irrelevant to democracy.