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

[monstro]

Cheesesteak, what if a person doesn’t have ID? Maybe they left their wallet at home, or maybe they have been living off the grid for the past decade and don’t have one.

How should a cop respond to a person who says, “I don’t have an ID. But my name is Monstro Jenkins and I live on 123 Mockingbird Lane.”

Do you really not understand why a black person may not take too well with having to show papers? If I’m sitting in a public area (or in an area that I assume is public) and there are all kinds of people milling about, but I’m the only one being asked to prove I belong there, why wouldn’t I have a bit of an attitude? Why does me having an attitude, but still behaving within the law, warrant me being tazed and arrested?

[Ethilrist]

@Smapti

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

So, why is it that you think they released him?

[Smapti]

@Bricker

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?

The most recent cite, showing that the suspect was within the bank building when the police arrived, would seem to render most of the last several pages’ worth of discussion moot.

[Bricker]

From the second of Shodan’s cites:

St. Paul’s skyways are public, similar to a public sidewalk, City Attorney Sara Grewing said last week. She said she has seen areas of the skyway marked “employees only,” but that “certainly was not what we had here,” Grewing said of the First National Bank Building seating area.

[Smapti]

@monstro

How should a cop respond to a person who says, “I don’t have an ID. But my name is Monstro Jenkins and I live on 123 Mockingbird Lane.”

In both these cases, the suspect hasn’t even offered up that much - it’s been “You can take me to the courthouse if you want to know my name” and “Why do you need to know who I am?” respectively.

[Bricker]

@Smapti

The most recent cite, showing that the suspect was within the bank building when the police arrived, would seem to render most of the last several pages’ worth of discussion moot.

From that cite:

The First National Bank video shows Lollie sitting on a bench, when he is approached by a security guard. They are seen talking, and the security guard goes back to his desk. At some point police were called. A few minutes into the video, Officer Lori Hayne arrives. Lollie gets up from the bench and approaches her. They both walk out into the skyway together.

Do you agree that this fairly describes the events?

[you_with_the_face]

@monstro

[How should a cop respond to a person who says, “I don’t have an ID. But my name is Monstro Jenkins and I live on 123 Mockingbird Lane.”

Lol. The guy was actually doing the cops a favor by not entertaining the question. Because if he’d told them his was name Piss Off and that he lives on 1234 WTF Avenue, what were they going to do about it? It ain’t like they could verify whether he was telling the truth.

But they probably would have just gone on and tazed him anyway.

And yeah, I typed tazed.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bricker

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?

Can you expand on this a bit? I would have thought the police have reasonable suspicion based on the initial report.

If I report a burglary, and the police show up and don’t find a burglary in progress, IOW the robber has already departed. Does that mean they don’t have “reasonable suspicion” if I identify the guy outside my house, simply because he’s no longer there?

Or are you saying again that it’s a misdemeanor and is different?

Does this mean than the police cannot ever detain anyone for any misdemeanor unless they personally catch the guy in the act? Otherwise the guy can just walk off and refuse to talk to them and they can’t do anything about it?

[Shodan]

@Bricker

From the second of Shodan’s cites:

St. Paul’s skyways are public, similar to a public sidewalk, City Attorney Sara Grewing said last week. She said she has seen areas of the skyway marked “employees only,” but that “certainly was not what we had here,” Grewing said of the First National Bank Building seating area.

FWIW the police have said all along that they were acting based on the security guard’s report that the area was employees only. Might there be such a thing as a good-faith exception to the law, where the police could proceed on the assumption that the security guard who worked there knew what she was talking about?

Regards,
Shodan

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Smapti

Would the cops be any less “evil” if she had shown her ID when asked?

Yes. Or at least their evil would not have surfaced. It was their reaction to her refusal to show ID that exposed their evil.

Would things have gone any worse for her if she had shown her ID when asked?

Yes, we should all submit to racists and bullies if it will make them go away.

[Bricker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Can you expand on this a bit? I would have thought the police have reasonable suspicion based on the initial report.

If I report a burglary, and the police show up and don’t find a burglary in progress, IOW the robber has already departed. Does that mean they don’t have “reasonable suspicion” if I identify the guy outside my house, simply because he’s no longer there?

Or are you saying again that it’s a misdemeanor and is different?

Does this mean than the police cannot ever detain anyone for any misdemeanor unless they personally catch the guy in the act? Otherwise the guy can just walk off and refuse to talk to them and they can’t do anything about it?

Close.

The rule applies to most misdemeanors. The police are permitted an exception if the misdemeanor involves a threat to public safety. (In the Sixth Circuit, that exception doesn’t exist, and what you said is true: the police cannot ever detain anyone for any misdemeanor unless they personally catch the guy in the act.

Note this is discussing Terry stops, and reasonable suspicion. A different analysis exists for probable cause.

[monstro]

@Smapti

In both these cases, the suspect hasn’t even offered up that much - it’s been “You can take me to the courthouse if you want to know my name” and “Why do you need to know who I am?” respectively.

And in both cases, they were legally allowed to say both of these things. And in both cases, they were detained unlawfully.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Smapti

And she made it harder on herself in the process.

The cops made it hard for her.

[Smapti]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Yes. Or at least their evil would not have surfaced. It was their reaction to her refusal to show ID that exposed their evil.

Yes, we should all submit to racists and bullies if it will make them go away.

Is “submitting to racists” a bad thing if a result of it is that “their evil will not surface”?

[Bricker]

@Shodan

FWIW the police have said all along that they were acting based on the security guard’s report that the area was employees only. Might there be such a thing as a good-faith exception to the law, where the police could proceed on the assumption that the security guard who worked there knew what she was talking about?

Yes. There is such a thing as a good-faith exception, but the key words are “good” and “faith.”

By that I mean that the police interpretation must be a reasonable one, even if mistaken.

Here, though, when the police arrived, the man got up and left the contested area. It’s hard to paint a “good faith” veneer on the subsequent police conduct when, even if they thought the area was employee only, they didn’t see the man be told to leave to warn him personally he had to leave. what they saw was him leaving.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Smapti

They had a solid reason - they thought she was a prostitute.

It was a stupid solid reason, but it’s solid nonetheless.

And why would they think she was a prostitute? What made them think she was a prostitute and all the other women in the area who were with men were not prostitutes?

[Acsenray]

Yeah, an ordinary citizen is not required to make out an airtight legal case while exercising his or her rights. “Fuck you, it’s none if your business” should be just as effective.

[Bricker]

@Smapti

In both these cases, the suspect hasn’t even offered up that much - it’s been “You can take me to the courthouse if you want to know my name” and “Why do you need to know who I am?” respectively.

@monstro

And in both cases, they were legally allowed to say both of these things. And in both cases, they were detained unlawfully.

Correct. There is no law requiring the suspect in either California or Minnesota to offer up his (or her) name. Do you agree with the truth of that claim, Smapti?

[Smapti]

@Bricker

Here, though, when the police arrived, the man got up and left the contested area.

But since we now agree that he was in a “contested area” at the time, then that means we’re not dealing with a “completed misdemeanor”, and thus the police had the right to detain and identify him.

[you_with_the_face]

@Shodan

FWIW the police have said all along that they were acting based on the security guard’s report that the area was employees only. Might there be such a thing as a good-faith exception to the law, where the police could proceed on the assumption that the security guard who worked there knew what she was talking about?

If the issue was that murky, seems to me the cops should have taken the time to establish whether the area was private or public first, before they went after the guy. His name had no bearing on the issue at hand, but whether or not he’d been sitting in a restricted area did have bearing. And if they didn’t take the time to figure that out, they were incompetent as well as abusive.