Kissing your husband while black? Not if the LAPD can help it.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

The Terry Stop would be my choice. Police had a reasonable suspicion.

The officer would have had a reasonable suspicion that a person(s) may be involved in criminal activity because they were at the reported location and met the descriptions of the suspected persons. Further investigation would have permitted the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further.

Hiibel contented that his conviction violated the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination which, as I understand it, failed because the disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.

Have you bothered to read US V Griggs, which I cited last night? Or any other considerations of Terry stops where a felony is not at issue?

[Bricker]

@Smapti

…and Bricker isn’t a “random attorney on the internet”?

Sure. Which is why I’m not posting saying, “Trust me.” Instead I’m posting with specific citations to specific court decisions that say what I’m saying.

[Marley23]

@Smapti

They had reasonable suspicion of a crime. It was not their responsibility at the time to determine what specific charge/s were viable.

It actually was, and that’s the entire point of the standard. The problem here is that your argument is based on stuff you pulled out of your ass or stuff you think ought to be true.

[Smapti]

@Bricker

Yes. And I thought as much too, when I started posting in this thread. But Hentor set me right: a Terry stop cannot rest on a completed misdemeanor, unless the misdemeanor is a threat to public safety.

The suspect claims that she was still making out with her husband/boyfriend/partner/whatever at the time they were approached, so the claim that it was a “complete misdemeanor” holds no water.

[Smapti]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Have you bothered to read US V Griggs, which I cited last night? Or any other considerations of Terry stops where a felony is not at issue?

I agree that if they had searched Watts’ car and found a shotgun in the trunk, it wouldn’t be admissible evidence.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Smapti

…and Bricker isn’t a “random attorney on the internet”?

Yes - even worse, he’s an anonymous, presumed attorney on the internet. You’re so stupid that you don’t understand what “citing” means.

See where people are writing things like US v. Griggs? Or where people have actually linked to the text of the decision? That’s different than Ask.com, you fucking moron.

[JesterX]

@monstro

Bolding mine.

What an interesting thing to say, my friend. If what she did was so universally unadvisable, the race of your daughter shouldn’t even be on your mind. Yet it is. Why is that?

Seems like if it were not for people exercising their rights like Watts did, people would not be properly educated about what our rights actually are. Even the board’s resident lawyer was ignorant. I shudder to think how many defendents were not properly represented because their counsel made the same error that Bricker did in interpreting the law, and now those folks are sitting behind bars because of it.

Damn right she did the right thing. She’s done her part to educate the masses, which is a lot more than you and the unCleverbot Smapti can say.

Not every single case is gonna fall in line with this one. This actress lucked her way onto legal ground. She wasn’t acting intelligently she was acting emotionally. Following her example, one could act the same way and NOT be on the same legal ground as her. Then they force a confrontation with cops and get themselves hurt. Doesn’t seem with it to me.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

The suspect claims that she was still making out with her husband/boyfriend/partner/whatever at the time they were approached, so the claim that it was a “complete misdemeanor” holds no water.

Making out with her husband (or boyfriend or complete stranger) is not a misdemeanor. Any misdemeanor, if any happened at all, was already complete when the cops arrived.

[monstro]

@Ramira

You have an interesting habit of responding with exagerations. But in fact if one knows the history of how the identification records and papers were used in the round ups of Jews in the France and the other occupied territories - and the horrible role played by persons like yourself in attitude, who just obeyed the authorities and produced the paperwork, then yes. It is for this reason to this day in the France there is such great sensitivities about collecting the personal data of this nature.

It is the same history with the other totalitarian systems, like the stasi and the nkvd. It is indeed people like you in attitude that sent millions to their deaths.

We don’t even have to go to Europe with examples of totalitarianism. Black Americans are very familiar with the oppressive concept of “showing papers”. Not just in slave times, but in Jim Crow days, when black people could be arrested for not carrying documentation establishing employment and residency.

It is not “race card playing” for a black person to be sensitive to a jerk cop demanding ID. The sensitivitiy should be understandable to anyone with a passing knowledge of American history.

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

Making out with her husband (or boyfriend or complete stranger) is not a misdemeanor. Any misdemeanor, if any happened at all, was already complete when the cops arrived.

And what of any felony that may have happened?

[Steve_MB]

@Smapti

“Kidnapping”? Wow.

Some people react with childlike wonder at the simplest facts, such as “The sun rises in the east”, “Unlawful detention is known as ‘kidnapping’”, “Water consists of hydrogen and oxygen”, etc.

[Smapti]

@monstro

It is not “race card playing” for a black person to be sensitive to a jerk cop demanding ID.

When there is absolutely zero evidence of a racial motive, or reason to believe one is going to be summarily arrested and handed off to a slavemaster? It absolutely is.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Smapti

And what of any felony that may have happened?

Just imagine all the felonies that could have happened!!!

[Marley23]

@JesterX

Following her example, one could act the same way and NOT be on the same legal ground as her. Then they force a confrontation with cops and get themselves hurt. Doesn’t seem with it to me.

If all you’re doing is talking to the police - even if you’re being rude - you shouldn’t get hurt. I don’t think the blame goes to the citizen in that case.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

And what of any felony that may have happened?

There’s no evidence that any felony may have happened.

[QuickSilver]

@Smapti

They had reasonable suspicion of a crime. It was not their responsibility at the time to determine what specific charge/s were viable.

@iiandyiiii

They had reasonable suspicion of a misdemeanor. They did not have reasonable suspicion of a felony. That is not enough for detainment.

This is a fair point of debate.

Do we know for certain what the police knew when they showed up on the scene?

I understand an anonymous caller reported a lewd act. Was that enough for the police to determine if it was merely a misdemeanor? How do we know what the police knew at the time? (Perhaps I’m not up on the latest accurate reporting.)

[Bricker]

@Smapti

They had reasonable suspicion of a crime. It was not their responsibility at the time to determine what specific charge/s were viable.

Yes, it is. As Grigg clearly says:

Further, in Hensley, the United States Supreme Court held that “if police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion.” 469 U.S. at 229, 105 S.Ct. 675 (emphasis added). The Hensley court explicitly confined its analysis to the felony context, leaving open the question whether the rule could be extended to “all past crimes, however serious,” i.e., misdemeanors.
.
.
.
We conclude that Officers Roeder’s and McGuire’s investigatory stop of Grigg was not reasonable. As discussed above, the exceedingly harmless past misdemeanor conduct — allegedly playing one’s car stereo at a volume in suspected violation of a local noise ordinance — need not spur the police into instant action as might the opportunity to stop a reputedly armed felon, street fighter, or reckless driver.

You see, it does fall to the officers to distinguish between a felony, a misdemeanor involving public safety, and one that does not involve public safety. A Terry stop is not reasonable to investigate a completed misdemeanor, unless the misdemeanor is one that involves public safety.

[Bricker]

@QuickSilver

This is a fair point of debate.

Do we know for certain what the police knew when they showed up on the scene?

I understand an anonymous caller reported a lewd act. Was that enough or the police to know it was merely a misdemeanor? How do we know what the police knew at the time? (Perhaps I’m not up on the latest accurate reporting.)

So far as I know, the police were called with a report of a couple having sex in a car. That’s the crime of lewd conduct.

When they arrived, they did not see the crime being committed.

[MandaJo]

@JesterX

No, there are local review boards that people can complain to. They can also bring it up with their elected representatives or even sue. As I said, it’s not immediate gratification, but it’s better than anyone getting hurt

If you don’t stand your ground, there’s nothing to take to the review board:

“They asked to see my ID. I was scared of escalating things to violence, so I quickly and politely complied”

“Oh. Well, did the officers threaten you?”

“No, but I’ve read about people who were hurt by cops”.

“Well, these officers did nothing wrong by asking. Your rights weren’t violated”.

[JesterX]

@QuickSilver

No, and…

…Fucking hell, no.
There is a bigger picture here that you’re both failing to see. Laws protecting your civil rights are important. They are not just a matter of principal, they are a matter of enforcement and protection from those who would violate them. It makes for a better society in general if cops aren’t seen as jackbooted fascists to be feared, mollified or obeyed at all costs. That’s not only good for citizens but for the cops themselves.

If you were talking about just questioning people at random I would agree with you, but again, this cop was called to the scene and met with a couple who fit with a description.