A stupid reason isn’t a solid one. Only a fool thinks “a man and woman kissing” constitutes a solid reason to think the woman is a prostitute.
I have kissed my fiancee in public many times and I think she would take exception to the implication this constitutes a solid reason to think she is a prostitute. Of course, she’s white, which to a lot of cops means less suspicion.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
I’m not getting why the cops needed to see her ID anyway. Is there some kind of law of nature that says hookers don’t have IDs?
[/QUOTE]
I was going to go with snarky, but this thread is already emotionally charged enough, so I’ll just say that the cops wanted to see the ID so they could use their radios to call it in and see if the person had a record. Probably the same thing with the link you provided later as well…they wanted to see the guys ID so they could radio it in to dispatch and check to see if the guy had a record (or, if they have a wireless network system, they could type it in on their computer in the squad car to do the same thing).
I guess I’m just not able to see how pushing the cops, even if they are 100% in the wrong is ever a good idea. If you have ID, and they ask for ID, then show them the ID, regardless of whether they have a good reason to ask or not. Be polite, give them what they ask for, and if you are really offended then take notes on the event and document it and go see a lawyer afterward. Or go to the press, who will be thrilled to hear your story. But for the sake of the gods, why push people who are probably already stressed, who deal with criminals all the time, and who are freaking armed and maybe on the edge, and maybe prejudice and bigoted or whatever and looking to abuse their power??? I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be tasered or hand cuffed or smacked around, and if giving someone my ID, even if they have no right to ask for it will prevent that, then I’m all for it.
Yeah, I know this. Hence, the rest of my post. My question about hookers not having ID was said kind of tongue and cheek, because Smapti is carrying on like all the cops wanted was to know who she was.
If someone has a record, the cops can use that against them in assessing probable cause. Which is why probable cause should exist before any demands are made to see someone’s ID. She did the right thing by refusing to show her ID.
She did the right thing, and the right thing cost her some humiliation and handcuffs and an hour or so of hassle. If she is good with that as a stand on her principals then it’s all good…she was certainly in the right, and the cops will most likely be smacked down (perhaps), and people got to vent. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend my weekend than being harassed by the police, but whatever floats folks boats, I guess.
(totally whooshed me in the tongue in cheek part…sorry about that, my irony/whoosh meter is obviously out of calibration :))
Obviously prostitution was not observed because there had been no observation of a transaction tied to the alleged lewd behaviour, and the 911 call only alleged indecent exposure, not prostitution. Without such an observation, there was no reason to suspect prostitution, and therefore no legal justification to detain the parties on suspicion of prostitution. Based on the 911 call, at most there might have been reason to suspect disorderly conduct in the form of lewd behaviour. Concerning lewd behavior, there would have to have been an observation of sexual contact of boobs, butts or dicks.
The police attended, saw the both parties fully clothed, with the actress standing on the sidewalk speaking on her phone. That in itself did not provide reason to believe that there had been lewd behaviour, however, the 911 call alleging indecent exposure would have been sufficient to detain the parties as per Terry. Note that according to the actress’ spouse, the Terry stop was for suspicion of prostitution. The Terry stop was illegal, because it was made for the wrong reason – prostitution rather than lewd conduct.
Had the Terry stop been legal, then the police would have had the authority to require the parties to identify themselves. The parties did identify themselves, but the actress refused to confirm her identity by way of written identification. There is no law in California that requires a pedestrian to carry or produce written identification. Had the actress been in control of the vehicle, then written identification could have been required, but she was on the sidewalk speaking on her phone, rather than in control of the vehicle, and in any event, she was detained on suspicion of being a street prostitute, which made it entirely unreasonable to assume that she had been in control of the Mercedes. The cuffing and placing of the actress in the police car on grounds of written identification not being produced was also illegal.
What the police should have done would be to move along and, if time allowed, to contact the complainant and explain the difference between kissing in public (which is what the actress says she and her spouse were doing and which has not been contested by the police press release) and indecent exposure (which the police did not observe), but the police did not do this. Instead, they illegally performed Terry stop and compounded their offence by illegally extending the detention by requiring written identification.
In short, the officers broke the law twice, whereas according to the police, “no crime had been committed” concerning the actress and her spouse.
Interesting how some posters blame the victim for standing up for her rights.
Well, actually, it’s not interesting. It’s pathetic.
Thanks, Muffin. That’s a helpful analysis.
Not any more humiliation and hassle than the LAPD is dealing with right now. I say it’s a fair trade.
Absolutely.
Have you not seen any of the criminal bullshit perpetrated by the cops in Ferguson? Hell, I just was talking to a detective in my lovely town’s police force at the local Kroger just the other day about the wildfire-like way that heroin usage is increasingly blighting our fine town, and he flatly stated that he was of the opinion that NOT ENOUGH people are dying from the addiction on a weekly basis.
If that isn’t considered fucking evil-as-fuck, then I truly shrink from what actually is.
New York City, that hotbed of liberalism, has its officers regularly feel up young men who are not white. It’s called stop, frisk and fuck the constitution.
I read this too. Is it true? If so they should release the 911 (or whatever) recording to the public.
The only justification for their actions imo, is that if she looks really young (I have no clue what she looks like, the link wouldn’t load on my phone)…but if she looked like a minor kissing an adult man, then they might have a case. But handcuffs? Wtf??
**If this was already answered, I apologize, but does anyone know the race of the officers involved? It shouldn’t matter, but just curious if they were black, white, hispanic, asian, indian, etc.
Would you have let them search your car? Or would you have denied them permission?
OBJECTION: You don’t know that she refused to identify herself. You keep saying it, but it isn’t right.
Either you have a right or you don’t. You should not have to surrender that right just to avoid “making it harder on yourself.” It is absolutely laughable that there was any reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed in this case. If the cops can’t articulate solid reasonable suspicion, then they should be trained to back off.
This is the problem with almost all the stories that have been coming out about cops lately. It’s the COPS who should be required to back off—not only under the law, but also in practice—not the people they’re harrassing.
Oh sure, blame the victim.
Very true.
Here’s a report made by Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government’s Program in Criminal Justice Policy & Management a couple of months before the 2001-2009 supervision of the LAPD by the Federal Justice Department and the Federal Court was lifted. It show how the systemic problems were addressed, making it possible for officers to be thoroughly trained, to be properly supervised, and to be held responsible for making good decisions. Note that although there was very strong improvement, the LAPD was still not up to snuff in its service to the black community. Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree: The Dynamics of Change at the LAPD.
The incident concerning the actress is just the sort of thing that had not improved enough during the period of supervision. The LAPD has come a long way, but still has a long way to go.
I concur and would also like to say thank you for that, Muffin.
So you’re in favor of letting the police enforce laws through intimidation and further encouraging the abusive ones?
I’m going to quibble a bit over (1). The standard for a Terry stop is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, and there’s no requirement that the police on the scene provide a justification for their stop to the people stopped. The 911 call, as Muffin suggests, together with the presence of the people described by the 911 caller when police arrived, is sufficient basis for a Terry stop. So I am afraid I must disagree that the Terry stop was illegal.
Now, the purpose of a Terry stop is a brief investigative detention to permit the officer to either confirm or dispel the suspicion of illegal activity. I agree with Muffin that the scope of the detention impermissibly exceeded the original Terry grounds, since there is no requirement for anyone to carry written identification. Even if California had such a law, it would likely not pass muster under Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District, which permitted a state law that required a detained person to supply a name but did not go as far as requiring specific written identification.
To the contrary, as Muffin described, the totality of the circumstances argued against the assertion that a crime had been committed.