(underline added)
They didn’t arrest Watts for failure to produce ID.
Hentor the Barbarian was nice enough to provided a case, U.S. v. Grigg, that seems to suggests that the 9th Circuit Court ruling wouldn’t permit a Terry Stop for a completed misdemeanor, if there were no threat to public safety. I think it’s important to note that Grigg was decided in 2007.
…We hold that under the balancing test set forth in Hensley, a court reviewing the reasonableness of a stop to investigate a past misdemeanor (or other minor infraction) must assess the potential risk to public safety associated with the nature of the offense. Under the circumstances here, it was unreasonable for the Nampa police to pull over Grigg on suspicion of having played his music too loudly where they did not duly consider the lack of any threat to public safety, especially given the untested alternative means of ascertaining Grigg’s identity. The motion to suppress was erroneously denied.10 We reverse Grigg’s conviction and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It’s now 2014 and the LAPD seems to be adamant that their officers can detain Watts and request her to identify herself, but not necessarily producing an actual ID of some sort. (Hello. I’m Daniele Watts and I’m just “acting” like a whore. You know, practicing for a future role in a movie I haven’t been offered yet.)
What part(s) of this puzzle is still missing? Hasn’t a LA not-public-safety-related completed-misdemeanor-detainment been challenged in a California court as opposed to the Nampa, Idaho court? Has another, more recent case, altered the Grigg ruling? Do the LA prosecutors drop criminal charges, or plea bargain down any charges, if there is a chance that a detained person may challenge the LAPD ID detainment policy?
Lawyers, experts, and instructors/professors still seem to disagree on whether a detained person needs to identify themselves. Why isn’t Grigg currently considered the final word in the 9th Circuit district by California PD’s and state attorneys? What’s missing?
Next, as far as I’m concerned, the Hollyweird actress and the chef wanted the public to see them having sex in the car. Broad daylight, car door open, hands and feet sticking out of the car, some 5 feet from a public sidewalk, surrounded by occupied buildings with windows facing their parking place, ignoring the personal request that they stop doing the ol’ hibidy dibity in public, waiting for the cops to show up, ranting like a deranged lunatic when police dared to questioned the chef first, threatening the officer with her publicist, etc.
The lame stream media promoted the one-sided story until eye-witnesses, videos, and pictures began to be released. Oops. Maybe the LSM should have spent a few minutes verifying the story BEFORE they went with the ratings-boosting version?