Which party willfully resisted a peace officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment?
No, they cannot. That’s what Hiibel says.
The law has placed limits on when cops can detain people, and in this case they acted unlawfully by detaining Watts. The law is correct; you are incorrect.
I am not denying the existence of anything that exists.
I do hate to be repetitive. It’s just that I cannot help but recall your prior assertions as to where you stand, or kneel and bob as the case may be, on the issue of complying with police orders.
No one, because the police were acting unlawfully by detaining Watts.
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)
According to what law?
And Hiibel does not apply in California.
This has been answered – the answer is no, if the crime in question was a misdemeanor, and the cops did not witness the misdemeanor taking place.
Okay, but that’s not illegal.
All those actions the cops took when they overstepped their authority? You know, all the handcuffing and detaining stuff they did? That was illegal.
So in the final analysis, the cops are the losers. It says a lot about your priorities that your ire is focused almost entirely on her, when she didn’t break the law here.
I’m also looking at things from her perspective. If we assume they weren’t actually acting lewdly (it’s up to you as to whether you think it’s fair to assume that), from her vantage point there was no obvious reason to suspect them of any wrongdoing. When it’s that murky, it’s not unreasonable to suspect a racial motive. The surreal sensation of having cops all up in her face, investigating whether she’s a prostitute of all things, maybe just maybe flipped her switch a bit. I don’t fault her for being upset.
Unlawful detainment is against the law. Anything unlawful is, by definition, contrary to law.
We now return to “When Stupid People Get Existential.”
This is coming from a CA criminal defense attorney;
[QUOTE=Gilberto Vega]
- you never are obligated to carry identification on you in California unless you are in a secure locus, such as an airport, secured facility or other sensitive location. While you are the random Joe Blow on the street, you can walk around with no ID on you.
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 (emphasis mine). As for the reasons to stop, the 4th amendment has been interpreted to allow a stop based only on reasonable suspicion. This is a VERY low standard and can be found based only on innocent behavior, coupled with an officer’s training and experience that a crime MIGHT be afoot. (See Terry v. Ohio).
These stops can also be sustained based on calling the police to report a crime, being in the location where a crime was reported or even being a witness to a crime or accident.
- if you are stopped lawfully and you do not have a license, the police have several actions they can choose from. These range from taking a thumb print at the scene to finally arresting someone and hold then at the police station pending positive identification.
The moral is, you can save yourself a lot of hassle by just carrying ID. While it is noted required, you also do not have the legal right to refuse to identify yourself under certain circumstances.
[/QUOTE]
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.
Determining the charge is a role for the district attorney, not the investigating officer.
This does not apply because the detainment was unlawful. The cops did not have a legitimate legal reason to detain Watts.
There are several kinds of “legitimate” interviews.
A consensual interview needs no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The police are allowed to approach you for any reason they wish and ask you questions, or ask you to produce ID. BUT – you are allowed to disregard their inquiries and go about your business.
A Terry stop allows the police to detain you, briefly, and ask questions. But in order to do a Terry stop, the police must have reasonable, articulable suspicion of a felony, or of a misdemeanor that threatens public safety.
And a warrantless arrest requires that the police have probable cause to believe you have committed a felony.
So what kind of interview was this one?
Cops should know when they can lawfully detain someone. In this case they acted unlawfully. I wonder if this was due to ignorance of the law, or because they knew but wilfully disregarded the law. Either way, the cops acted improperly and unlawfully.
Thanks, Bricker and Hentor, for the excellent legal perspective so far.