There is no evidence that a felony occurred.
But because only a misdemeanor-level crime with no risk to public safety was reported, and it was not occurring when the officers arrived, they did not have the legal right to detain Watts. They acted unlawfully by detaining Watts.
Which they could not possibly have done in this scenario until they spoke to the suspects involved. Is it your assertion that the police should refuse to investigate any reports of public sex because “it’s probably only a misdemeanor”?
And if it has been reported that two people are currently engaged in sexual conduct, and upon arrival a few minutes later police find those people still engaged in fondling and making out, then it is not reasonable to conclude that any potential crime is still underway.
And when one person refuses to provide any means of determining whether they’re of the age of consent or not involved in other criminal acts, then it becomes a potential matter of public safety.
Fucking ug. Aren’t you reading what other people are typing here? Anyone home in there?
Er, no. The correct conclusion to this sentence, assuming that the assertion “CA does not have [stop-and-identify laws]” is correct (which I am inclined to doubt until I see it stated by a credible source), is “…therefore the cops had no possible legal justification to detain Watts”.
It’s also potentially the crime of rape, statuatory rape, sexual assault, or pandering. Do the police have enough evidence to determine specifically that none of those events are occurring and that it’s only a misdemeanor?
(bolding mine)
[nitpick]
It’s Hiibel. The double “i” gets a lot of people.
[/nitpick]
She wasn’t detained for a misdemeanor-level crime with no risk to public safety.
Investigating is fine, in this case. Asking questions is fine. Detaining someone is not fine, and was unlawful, in this situation.
There’s no evidence they were “fondling”, and making out is not lewd behavior, so no, it was not reasonable to conclude that a crime was underway.
No it doesn’t. You are factually incorrect about the law.
She didn’t luck into anything; the cops are the one who gambled and lost. It’s a gamble they probably take every day, too. Gambling with people’s rights.
The more you post, the more I’m glad she was bold enough to do what she did.
“Can you prove that it didn’t happen?”
–Criswell, frame narration to Plan Nine From Outer Space
They have zero evidence that any of these events are occurring.
She wasn’t detained because of the lewdness.
Which is why they needed to investigate and determine the facts of the matter, which Watts obstructed them from doing.
The officers had no lawfully valid reason to detain her. They acted unlawfully by detaining her.
Again, Bricker laid out under what circumstances cops can detain someone. Which category does this apply to?
No she didn’t. They had the right to ask, and she had the legal right to not answer and walk away. They did not have the lawful right to detain her because she wouldn’t answer.
Smapti, I’ll ask again because you haven’t answered: Cops can lawfully detain someone only under the circumstances laid out by Bricker in this post.
The detainment of Watts does not fall into any of these categories. If you disagree, which of the categories described by Bricker does this detainment fall under?
Then she should sue. Why hasn’t she sued, I wonder?
(emphasis added)
(emphasis added)
Smapti, Smapti, Smapti; what have I told you about including United Way updates in these situations?
All three.