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

[Cheesesteak]

@MaxTheVool

Do you have the right to refuse to provide your ID to cops who ask for it? Well, that depends on whether the cops have the right to ask for it. Do they have the right to ask for it? Well, that depends on why they’re talking to you. Why are they talking to you? Well, that depends on information that you do not have.

This is why, instead of throwing a hissy fit and walking away from cops who are asking you questions, you use your words to understand the situation.

Am I free to go? Am I being detained? Am I being arrested? I do not consent to a search. I do not consent to providing you with ID.

What you really need to know immediately is whether or not they are detaining you, not whether or not they have the right to. You’re not going to know whether or not the cops have the right to detain you until a post-event legal analysis, regardless of what you ask and what the cops say to you. The cops themselves might not know.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Cubsfan

Because she was fucking a guy in a car in a parking lot? What’s hard to understand about that? There are pretty damning pictures and statements from people in the office that called the cops to begin with.

cite?

[iiandyiiii]

Here are the requirements laid out by Bricker for detainment and arrest.

[Acsenray]

@Cheesesteak

You’re not going to know whether or not the cops have the right to detain you until a post-event legal analysis, regardless of what you ask and what the cops say to you. The cops themselves might not know.

If you don’t know whether you have a right until you have surrendered the opportunity to exercise that right, then * you don’t have that right*.

That’s why the cops bear the burden of knowing what they’re not supposed to do and to refrain from doing it. The cops are the ones who are supposed to have a better understanding of the law.

They should be trained to exercise that understanding to protect the rights of the people they encounter.

[XT]

@Acsenray

If you don’t know whether you have a right until you have surrendered the opportunity to exercise that right, then * you don’t have that right*.

That’s why the cops bear the burden of knowing what they’re not supposed to do and to refrain from doing it. The cops are the ones who are supposed to have a better understanding of the law.

They should be trained to exercise that understanding to protect the rights of the people they encounter.

I agree in principal with this, but it seems kind of unrealistic. I mean, even lawyers, folks who go to school for years (and, you know, make boatloads of money) can argue about this stuff. You seriously expect some police officer with a year or two of training (mostly in law ENFORCEMENT techniques) to know all of the ins and outs of our legal system? Some guy you are paying…well, a hell of a lot less than a lawyer makes anyway? I don’t think that’s going to happen.

[Acsenray]

Nm

[Kobal2]

@Smapti

Bull. We achieved same-sex equality in this country without people getting their skulls cracked in.

Holy shit, you guys. You guys ! We’ve not only just proven that not only do parallel universes exist, there’s open lines of communication between them !

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@iiandyiiii

Here are the requirements laid out by Bricker for detainment and arrest.

We’re discussing a demand for ID.

[Bricker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

If I had to guess I would say all that did happen. Not in such a formal manner, with all the legalese, but in effect.

Because the same facts that you are saying establish probable cause are the same ones which would also help the officer in dealing with the situation when he got there (who the complainant is, what the suspect did prior to the officers arrival etc.)

And the same goes for the Watts case. Guy reported witnessing them having sex in a car. ISTM that this is probable cause for indecent exposure.

Whoa.

The absolute difference there is that it’s undisputed in Watts that the officer arrived after the act (if it happened) was completed. In California, an officer does not have the power to make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor he has not personally witnessed.

We can theorize about what the police knew in the Rollie case. In Watts, no source suggests facts that would allow them to detain.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

You raise a good point. I amazed (and gratified) to see some of the people here supporting the legal issues, when they have earlier been vocal opponents of the legal analytical approach.

Funny how that works.

[Evil_Economist]

@Smapti

Noone in this thread is acting uncivilized. Not even the anarchists and terrorist sympathizers.

As your superior I get to decide if you’re acting uncivilized or not, and by arguing with me you just earned yourself another thrashing. Now stop resisting and take your punishment like a man.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bricker

In California, an officer does not have the power to make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor he has not personally witnessed.

But can they demand ID?

[Acsenray]

@XT

I agree in principal with this, but it seems kind of unrealistic. I mean, even lawyers, folks who go to school for years (and, you know, make boatloads of money) can argue about this stuff. You seriously expect some police officer with a year or two of training (mostly in law ENFORCEMENT techniques) to know all of the ins and outs of our legal system? Some guy you are paying…well, a hell of a lot less than a lawyer makes anyway? I don’t think that’s going to happen.

If it’s unrealistic then the whole concept of a police force is unrealistic. You don’t think that a large part of the training of cops doesn’t already consist of things like “you are allowed/not allowed to do this?”

There are certainly close calls that can’t be resolved in court, but life is not all close calls. In a situation like that of Lillie in St. Paul, it seems to me quite easy for a cop to be trained to just let it go. You think encounters like that don’t already happen every day in which cops don’t escalate like they did with Lillie? When, for example, the person is an affluent-looking white guy?

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

We’re discussing a demand for ID.

That is addressed in Bricker’s post. There are three circumstances in which a cop can ask or demand ID:

A “consensual interview”: the cop just asks questions, like “what is your name”, and “can I see your ID”. The cop can do this to anyone at any time, but the questionee is free to disregard these questions and does not have to comply.

Terry stop: Police can detain you, briefly, and ask questions. But for a Terry stop, the cops must have reasonable, articulable suspicion of a felony, or of a misdemeanor that threatens public safety.

Warrantless arrest: the police must have probable cause to believe you have committed a felony.

None of these apply in Watts’ case. Are you saying there are additional circumstances in which police can demand ID?

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

But can they demand ID?

They can ask, but not “demand”, if demand means “show ID or you will be detained/arrested”. And the questionee doesn’t have to answer or comply.

[Smapti]

@Evil_Economist

As your superior I get to decide if you’re acting uncivilized or not, and by arguing with me you just earned yourself another thrashing. Now stop resisting and take your punishment like a man.

Let’s see your badge.

[Hooleehootoo]

@Dolukhanova

… but I think Bricker is oversimplifying Grigg here. Grigg does not set forth a per se rule that a Terry stop cannot be performed based on a report of a completed misdemeanor. It says that … the court/police must “assess the potential risk to public safety associated with the nature of the offense,” but that sole factor is not dispositive. …

In short, while you could certainly read Grigg as strongly disfavoring a stop based on a report of a completed misdemeanor, it’s still a case by case analysis… a court might reasonably find that the police were justified.

Here is a poster who sounds calmer and seems less hated than Smapti opening the possibility that a Terry of Watts might be correct.
Earlier Smapti pointed out some ways that a felony might have occurred. See post #257. Bricker pointed out that just because that was a possibility does not mean that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that it had occurred.
Now some statutory rapes in CA can be felonies. If the officer looks at Watts and thinks she might be under 18, does that make his Terry stop legal?
I don’t want to take the time to support this, but I think some of the criticism of Smapti claimed that he said it was legal for the police to detain Watts on suspicion of public lewdness. I’m pretty sure that he claimed only 1) or 1A)

1. DW was handcuffed (or “was legally detained”) because she was stopped in a legal Terry stop and when asked to show ID, she refused.
   1A) DW was handcuffed (or “was legally detained”) because she was stopped in a legal Terry stop and when asked to identify herself, she refused.

Confusingly, it seems that the officer asked for physical ID, when even if he has a valid reason for a Terry stop he can only ask for self identification.

And, DW may have thought that she didn’t need to either show physical ID or identify herself as long as she believed the Terry stop was illegal.

If the Terry stop were legal, and Snapti claimed 1A, would he not be right?

Since statutory rape is a felony, it is probably reasonable for an officer to make a Terry stop to observe the ages of people he has reason to think might have been engaging in lewd conduct, right? Let me assume is is a felony to have sex with someone who is so intoxicated he or she can’t consent. That makes a Terry stop ok to check if they are high, right?Might there not be some details on an ID relevant to this, like ages? Let me assume it is a felony to have sex with a mentally handicapped person in public. Then the LAPD can talk to the people to see if either of them appears to be in that category. Does a CA ID have some indication on it that might be relevant (can’t drive because of epilepsy, or schizophrenia or something)?

Can a bunch of small probabilities of different felonies and/or continuing misdemeanors that affect public safety add up to a legal justification for a Terry stop?

[Cheesesteak]

@Acsenray

If you don’t know whether you have a right until you have surrendered the opportunity to exercise that right, then * you don’t have that right*.

You can still exercise the right, assert that you have rights and you are not consenting to searches. You’re forcing their hand to openly use their power of detainment and arrest rather than relying on your consent. THAT is the violation of your rights, the improper use of detainment and arrest power, not the perusal of your Drivers License.

They should be trained to exercise that understanding to protect the rights of the people they encounter.

They’re still going to be wrong sometimes, and you’re not going to know when they’re wrong until after the encounter is over.

[iiandyiiii]

@Hooleehootoo

Now some statutory rapes in CA can be felonies. If the officer looks at Watts and thinks she might be under 18, does that make his Terry stop legal?

I’m pretty sure this doesn’t follow, because if this was statutory rape, Watts was the victim and not the suspect.

[Evil_Economist]

@smapti

let’s see your badge.

STOP RESlSTlNG!