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

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Not at all.

I find statements like “I’ll try to keep in mind that you believe …” (followed by distorted versions of what the person said) to be pathetic attempts at intimidation, so I noted it. Nothing else to it.

When a statement makes me pause in surprise, like your statement (as I read it) that you believe it’s generally the fault of black people if they are hassled more often with no provocation by the police, I like to repeat it back just to make sure I am reading it right, and give the poster a chance to correct me if I erred. If I erred, I apologize. It certainly wasn’t an attempt at intimidation – that would be very silly. I don’t try to intimidate – I try to challenge, often, and sometimes I try to mock, but that’s it.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

He was still loitering in the same vicinity with no apparent purpose as he had been when the call was made.

He wasn’t loitering. Waiting for one’s children is not loitering. If you think it is, pull up a cite in the Minnesota legal code that would include waiting for one’s children.

Regardless of what exact square inch of land his foot was placed upon at the instant the police made eye contact with him, they clearly had reasonable suspicion that a crime was in progress, and thus the authority to detain him.

No, they did not have reasonable suspicion that a crime was in progress, because he was in a public place.

[Bricker]

@Smapti

He was still loitering in the same vicinity with no apparent purpose as he had been when the call was made. Regardless of what exact square inch of land his foot was placed upon at the instant the police made eye contact with him, they clearly had reasonable suspicion that a crime was in progress, and thus the authority to detain him.

The crime of trespass is a misdemeanor.

So if they arrived when he was in a public area, the crime of trespass (if it happened at all) was complete. The police did not have the authority to detain him. (US v. Grigg). Right?

[Smapti]

@Bricker

The crime of trespass is a misdemeanor.

So if they arrived when he was in a public area, the crime of trespass (if it happened at all) was complete. The police did not have the authority to detain him. (US v. Grigg). Right?

If they lacked reasonable suspicion that he was in a private area and had no intention of meandering into such an area again, perhaps.

Lacking a surveyor’s map and a precise set of tools, they lacked the ability to excise themselves of such a suspicion.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

If they lacked reasonable suspicion that he was in a private area and had no intention of meandering into such an area again, perhaps.

Lacking a surveyor’s map and a precise set of tools, they lacked the ability to excise themselves of such a suspicion.

They don’t need a surveyor’s map – they just need to know, as I’d expect the local police to know, that the Skyways are public places.

[Cheesesteak]

@iiandyiiii

Misdemeanor’s are treated differently for these purposes, as Hentor and Bricker have repeatedly pointed out. Because he was not in the act of committing a misdemeanor, nor was the misdemeanor any danger to the public, they did not have a right to detain him to identify himself. He had the right to refuse to provide ID.

If he had not already left the premises by the time police arrived, it’s reasonable to state that he was continuing to trespass, and police were now observing the offense.

The real question, the one I’m still not solid on, is over what areas of the Skyway, if any, do the owners of the building have the right to demand that people depart the premises? The owners of the building (and their security) seem to think they have that right.

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

He wasn’t loitering. Waiting for one’s children is not loitering.

Loitering is defined as “the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time without an apparent purpose.” As “waiting for one’s children” is not a purpose that can be discerned by looking at someone, his actions meet the definition of loitering.

No, they did not have reasonable suspicion that a crime was in progress, because he was in a public place.

So you say. Have you got a copy of those surveyors’ maps yet?

[monstro]

@Cheesesteak

How do you investigate a crime if the person accused of committing the crime leaves without you identifying them?

If someone accuses of you being on their private property with their permission, how does flashing your ID answer the question of whether they are telling the truth?

An ID has your name and your place of residency and perhaps your photo. It is not some crystal ball that addresses all investigative queries.

If an ID was a requirement to do an investigation, you’d see cops demanding to see ID before arresting everyone. But they don’t. Either they have probable cause to arrest or they don’t.

If the police had enough information to have probable cause to suspect that he committed the crime of trespass, then they get to detain him and ID him during the investigation. If the guy won’t stop, won’t ID himself and physically resists detainment, then he gets tased and arrested.

But that wasn’t the case in this situation. They didn’t have probable cause and they detained him unlawfully. And assaulted him unlawfully.

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

They don’t need a surveyor’s map – they just need to know, as I’d expect the local police to know, that the Skyways are public places.

Except when they aren’t.

[Ethilrist]

I’d just like to say that the St. Paul police have demonstrated from time to time that some of them are not the sharpest skates in the hockey bag.

[Smapti]

@monstro

And assaulted him unlawfully.

Boy, if you thought the trespassing charge was meritless…

[you_with_the_face]

@Cheesesteak

How do you investigate a crime if the person accused of committing the crime leaves without you identifying them?

Their ability to investigate a misdemeanor that (if even happened in the first place) had ceased to occur is not sacrosanct. There are limits to what they can do.

You’re acting as though they were duty-bound to raze the building and scorch the earth just to find out whether or not his name was John Smith. What if he told them his name was Ham Sandwich? What value does this data bring into the equation? Upon hearing “Ham Sandwich”, what would enable them to determine whether he was breaking the law?

[monstro]

@Smapti

Loitering is defined as “the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time without an apparent purpose.” As “waiting for one’s children” is not a purpose that can be discerned by looking at someone, his actions meet the definition of loitering.

And yet his story was easily verifiable. In the time it took to interrogate and tazer the guy, the cops coud have just gone across the way and verified that the guy’s kids were where he said they were. But they didn’t do this. Why?

Finding that the guy’s story didn’t chek out would have provided more probable cause for arrest than whatever a background check on his ID would have turned up.

[Smapti]

@monstro

And yet his story was easily verifiable. In the time it took to interrogate and tazer the guy, the cops coud have just gone across the way and verified that the guy’s kids were where he said they were. But they didn’t do this. Why?

Because the police do not have unlimited resources to dedicate to a report of a lone male trespasser?

Also, please stop misspelling “Tase” as “tazer”. It’s quite irritating.

[Shodan]

According to this news story, the incident started inside First National Bank, and Lollie was arrested on the skyway.

A guard told police that Lollie had been sitting “for some time” in a skyway-level lounge area designated for building employees, and police have said they were responding to that information when they arrived.

Cite.

Lollie was in the bank waiting (allegedly) for his kids. A security guard in the bank asked him (apparently) to leave, he refused, the guard called the cops, and the first cop on the scene walked him out onto the skyway. Two other officers arrived, Lollie started yelling at the cops and then (after at least one warning) one of the cops Tasered him and arrested him.

I believe the city attorney dropped the charges because where he was arrested was public property, not because where he was sitting was public - according to the security guard it was for employees only.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kobal2]

@Smapti

Loitering is defined as “the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time without an apparent purpose.” As “waiting for one’s children” is not a purpose that can be discerned by looking at someone, his actions meet the definition of loitering.

Of course, since they showed up and arrested him, the evidence of their own eyes fails the “protracted time” test of the definition, regardless of the exact purpose of his sitting quietly in a public chair.

[Smapti]

@Shodan

According to this news story, the incident started inside First National Bank, and Lollie was arrested on the skyway.
Cite.

Lollie was in the bank waiting (allegedly) for his kids. A security guard in the bank asked him (apparently) to leave, he refused, the guard called the cops, and the first cop on the scene walked him out onto the skyway. Two other officers arrived, Lollie started yelling at the cops and then (after at least one warning) one of the cops Tasered him and arrested him.

Well, that certainly makes things much more cut-and-dry.

[Cheesesteak]

@monstro

If an ID was a requirement to do an investigation, you’d see cops demanding to see ID before arresting everyone. But they don’t. Either they have probable cause to arrest or they don’t.

Maybe they don’t necessarily want to arrest you for the crime they observed you committing, perhaps they’d prefer to talk it out, get you and the complaintant to work out your differences.

Only they don’t want to let a guy with 20 arrest warrants go free because they didn’t bother to ID him while cutting him some slack on a minor charge.

But, if you don’t want to give ID, and they have cause to arrest, they arrest.

But that wasn’t the case in this situation. They didn’t have probable cause and they detained him unlawfully. And assaulted him unlawfully.

And arrested him unlawfully. I hope his lawsuit goes forward, I’d be interested in hearing some legal analysis from the guys on the ground there.

[Shodan]

AFAIK Minnesota does not have any state law requiring someone to produce ID. I believe detainees are obligated to give identifying information (legal name, birth date, address, if any), but not any documentation.

IANAL in MN, although I live there.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Smapti

If they lacked reasonable suspicion that he was in a private area and had no intention of meandering into such an area again, perhaps.

Lacking a surveyor’s map and a precise set of tools, they lacked the ability to excise themselves of such a suspicion.

Do you understand that police must point to specific facts that show a crime, as opposed to noticing facts that show their is no crime?

In other words, do you understand that if police simply didn’t know whether or not he was in a private area, that’s not reasonable suspicion that he is?