After reading both entire transcripts and listening to the call, my opinions are as follows:
Yes, they were probably having sex in the car. A misdemeanor. Not just kissing.
No, this had nothing to do with race.
Yes, the Officer had the right to* ask *for, but not the right to demand her ID.
He was calm, she was hysterical. She had justification, however. She did play the race and 'do you know who I am?" cards, which does lessen my sympathy for her. But she was brave about her rights, which increases it.
In the end, legally, he was wrong for the handcuffs. The LAPD should apologize.
But I dont think they will. The Police really do think they have the right to demand ID anywhere at any time for any reason, and they are not going to give up on that.
The shorts that can be seen here? HuffPo video.
Those shorts look pretty puffy, and there is space between her legs and the shorts at the bottom of the shorts. Not too tight imho.
Maybe it should be policy that the police must let you know when you will face consequences for not complying? Something like how they read you your rights when you are arrested. For example:
“Can I see some ID” – A casual request. Can be denied
“I suspect you of doing XYZ. You are required to identify yourself. If you don’t, I can detain you under section 1234…” – Makes it clear that you are obligated to comply or be detained.
This would mean the police would need to first inform the person before they could detain them. If they didn’t, then the person would not get in trouble for denying the request.
I think it’s unreasonable to expect typical citizens to understand all the legal nuances which affect their rights when confronted by the police. Citizens aren’t lawyers and shouldn’t be expected to understand the law in that level of detail. Instead, the police should make it clear when there’s a penalty for refusing. That way everyone would be clear on what was going on.
That so many people are so fixated on whether or not they were actually getting it on in the car is crazy. By the time the police got there, they were NOT getting it on, which would be a misdemeanor and therefore something the police have to WITNESS in California to be able to do anything about.
The fact that she was absolutely RIGHT about not being required to produce ID seems to be ignored by a lot of people. She was NOT required to produce ID. Hiibel does NOT apply in CA.
To me the shorts look puffy up top but too tight at the end around her thighs to pull up enough for him to penetrate her. Either way, it would be too obvious they were having sex. I can’t see any SANE person choosing to do that outside of their workplace. IMHO, I think they were just dry humping.
Why wouldn’t someone be interested in that? If the claim is true, (big if, and I personally think it isn’t) that means she was fucking her boyfriend in a car, while parked on a busy street, in front of the Director’s Guild, with the door open for everyone to watch. Then, when the cops show up, she starts into them about how they’re racists. That’s just nuts. It’s hitting all kinds of hot buttons, of course people are interested.
In terms of public interest, having a bunch of lawyers discuss relevant casework in the 9th District to determine whether the police had the appropriate level of suspicion to justify a brief investig…
.
.
.
.
I’m sorry, I nodded off there for a moment, does TMZ have video of her yet?
For those commenting on the prostitution angle, the officer never said he suspected prostitution, but the boyfriend assumed that was his suspicion based on his questions (e.g. Who is she? How do you know her? Are you together?).
Regarding the legal aspects, I think this would have been a valid stop in a “stop and identify” state (depending on the statute, I guess). Nevada’s (of Hiibel fame) statute allows an officer to detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and requires the person so detained to identify himself or herself (NRS 171.123).
Oh, and I disagree that Hiibel does not apply in California. It’s just that for it to apply, there has to be a valid Terry stop, which this was not according to US v Grigg.
I think the best approach the cops should have taken was informed the couple that there was a call about public lewdness and that they matched the description of the people who were the subject of the complaint. Then the conversation should have proceeded thusly
Cops: “Now, I can see nothing lewd is going on right now. No one looks like they’re doing anything wrong, and I get that. Be that as it may, as a general rule, sex in public is a misdemeanor so please be aware of that in case you weren’t already.”
No reason for the cops to even hang around at that point. They could have made a non-accusatory public service announcement and then kept it moving. A warning wrapped up in the form of education–probably the least threatening way to modify behavior possible.
Instead they asked for ID’s when ID’s would have served zero purpose in establishing whether a crime had taken place at that moment. And then they detained someone for not falling for the okey doke. This unnecessary intrusion created a situation where someone was forced to invoke their civil rights lest they be taken advantage of by a government authority. And that the cops seemed to take it as a given that their actions were acceptable indicates they are either gravely indifferent to constitutional protections or gravely ignorant of them. Don’t know which is worse.
This is what I mean by training cops to respect people’s rights. Whatever crime might have been committed was no longer in progress and the cops couldn’t have done anything about it. Thus, there was nothing for them to investigate. Inform them of the law and move on. Don’t press them on questions they are resisting answering.
No. That’s not true. Hiibel applies in California just fine.
But remember what Hiibel stands for. Hiibel stands for the proposition that a state law requiring a person legally detained by the police in a Terry stop to identify himself does not offend the Fourth Amendment. That’s true in each and every state.
California does not have a “must identify yourself,” law. So what doesn’t apply here is: no California state law requires a person to identify themselves during a Terry stop. If California had such a law, Hiibel would validate its constitutionality.
This distinction is important, because Hiibel ALSO says that any state law that required a person to identify themselves OUTSIDE the context of a lawful detention is unconstitutional. That’s what happened here: there was no lawful detention, so any attempt on the officer’s part to require identification was illegal.
I think often what happens in exchanges between cops and civilians is that the power differential intrinsically heightens the intensity of the interaction. Even if the cop is a mild as Mr. Rogers, the truth is that the gun and the badge he/she carries a veiled threat of violence. Anyone who has had a pair of blue lights show up in their rearview mirror one too many times is at least a little bit psychologically conditioned to respond negatively to cops. For people who have had truly bad interactions with cops, that conditioned response is severe.
Demanding info from someone, legally or not, is escalating a conflict, particularly if “not playing ball” implies the threat of violence.
So I find plenty in this thread to agree with, and disagree with. I have one question, mostly for “she was standing up for her rights” side. Do you/would you make a practice of declining an officer’s request that you identify yourself? Would you instruct your children similarly?
Frankly, as a card-carrying (white) liberal, it never occurred to me to decline to ID myself on the occasions I’ve been asked (usually a traffic stop) as a civil rights stand, or to instruct my kids similarly. (Yes, I get that I am legally obligated to produce a license and reg if I’m operating a motor vehicle).
I think that would be fairly stupid advice, but I’m open to hearing others’ POV that it wouldn’t, that it would be a brave, meaningful stand in support of civil rights.
And finally, do think the hypothetical advice to our children should be different if your kid is black than if your kid is white?
I don’t think I have the guts to say “no” in this situation, but I hope that enough people do say “no” so that police realize they have to change their practices.
Personally, as I said up thread, I’ve told my children the same thing my father told me…if the police stop you, be polite and do what they say. And keep your hands in plain sight, and don’t make any sudden moves. Perhaps for a white person you could push things, or if you are a brave hero type wanting to right wrongs and clean up the system. And if you know your rights and don’t mind pain or humiliation, then I will applaud you from afar (actually, I’ll think you are an idiot to push someone with a gun, a badge and who knows what else). Me? I’m giving the coppers my ID if they ask for it and then going on my merry way.
Oh, and I’m not having sex with my wife or girlfriend outside of my place of work, or even necking heavily. That’s what the bedroom/stair case/kitchen table is for, back at my house.
