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.
“The 4th amendment to the Constitution” is not a criminal offense. Try harder.
What legitimate reason does the law define for a law-abiding person to hide their identity from a police officer investigating a crime? None.
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.
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:
(emphasis added)
You do agree that the Supreme Court can make those kinds of rules, yes?
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.
And they can lawfully detain someone who refuses to identify themselves.
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.”
“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.
Not in the circumstances in which they detained Watts. They acted unlawfully by detaining Watts, as Bricker and Hector described.
Good thing this wasn’t a Terry stop, then.
Which specifically does not apply to California because California does not have a law of the type which was at issue in Hiibel.
The Supreme Court can establish precedent; it cannot make laws. 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.
And not wanting to is evidence of criminal activity.
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]
Not according to the law. The law exists and you are incorrect about the law here. You are defending the party that acted unlawfully.
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.
Wrong.
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.
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.
The limits have been explained to you. You are denying their existence.
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?