You may need to catch up. The police do not have a right to DEMAND anything from them because they are suspected of committing a completed misdemeanor (that didn’t pose a safety threat). They can ask anything they want, you can ignore them unless they have the right to demand it.
The ACLU said that? Really?
This article seems to say that some people from organizations I never heard of have called for an apology and their call for an apology is based in Watts playing the race card not on the notion that her civil rights were not violated.
So, CITE please.
Is anyone taking pictures of you right now? Why not? Isn’t everyone constantly being photographed 24/7? :smack:
Eyewitnesses said the couple was having sex. The eyewitnesses must obviously :rolleyes: be lying because they didn’t take pictures of the chef’s dick. :rolleyes:
In this matter, two wrongs do not make a right.
The detention was wrong because it was illegal as per Grigg (and if anyone does not believe that Grigg is the leading case, please provide cites for proof).
The race card was wrong, because it most likely appears to have made false accusations.
Those two wrongs did not make the first wrong (the detention) right. They are separate issues.
Just to clarify, as far as it’s related to a LEO requesting you identify yourself, what’s the difference between DEMAND vs ask?
Either Grigg is the law or it is not. Please provide a cite that established that Grigg is not the law in California.
Your not providing a cite for Grigg being successfully challenged in the courts and your not providing a cite to a law that negates Grigg does not establish that Grigg is not the law in California.
In short, Grigg is the law in California until you prove otherwise, so let’s see the proof please.
What does the police report indicate was the actual cause for the Watts detention? I can’t find the officer’s official report.
I do not disagree that Grigg is the law within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. The LAPD seems to disagree with the Grigg ruling. Or maybe they’re just ignoring it? I have questioned how that could be possible.
Although in fairness it’s worth mentioning that at least one knowledgeable person (a UCLA law prof who Bricker emailed) disagrees with that analysis, and thinks that (I hope I am describing this right) the fact that the cop had a clear idea that these specific people were the offenders in the now-committed misdemeanor means that they CAN in fact be temporarily detained.
I’m guessing that in his view difference is between a situation like:
-You get a report that there was some misdemeanor vandalism. You show up there, and there are 5 or 6 people hanging around nearby, and you want to identify all of them
vs
-You get a report that there was some misdemeanor vandalism. You show up there and there and there is one guy nearby who matches the description you were given and has what looks like spray paint on his hands. You want to identify him.
Bricker: does that sound approximately like the distinction your correspondent was making?
Oh please … How many people do you think park outside their office in LA every day? Do you think they call the police every time a black person parks outside their office? Whip out their cell phones and take pictures every time they see a black person?
Do you think their office has an appointed sentry to look out the window and wait for a black person to park so they can summon all their co-workers over to the window, whip out their cell phones, make up a story together and call the cops in their master plan to stop the blacks of LA from parking near their office? Get real.
Even the boyfriend/husband tried making up some half-assed story on one of his FB pages about how they were doing some “yoga pose” in the passenger seat with her mounted on him and his own friends were laughing him down and calling bs on his story.
Now he is claiming they weren’t really having sex, but they were having “fun”. :rolleyes:
The Director’s Guild office directly above the spot where they were parked. 11900 block of Ventura Boulevard. The office also sent a couple of employees down to ask them to stop.
What are you not getting about this, Slick? Read the fucking thread. It doesn’t matter if they were fucking. Respond to the relevant issue, if you can.
Yeah. It does matter if they were fucking. It just doesnt matter to YOU.
You are confused as to the difference between legally asking for identification, and illegal detention.
If they had not been fucking, then the detention was illegal. If they had been fucking but had stopped before the police arrived, then the detention was illegal. Had they been fucking when the police arrive, then the detention would have been legal, but in fact they were not fucking when the police arrived.
Please provide a cite of the precise law that you are relying on to assert that the detention was legal despite Grigg.
Well, when it comes to me, on the one hand, no I don’t really care if they were fucking. On the other hand, generally I’d prefer that people don’t fuck in public. I don’t have any problem considering that sort of thing both distasteful and worthy of a misdemeanor charge.
But, in reality, where it matters is in the Fourth Amendment, and at the Supreme Court and in the 9th Circuit District Court. So, yeah, it matters if they had completed their misdemeanor prior to the cops rolling up.
Well, to be clear, the cops could ask if she would provide identification, or what she thought of the Dodgers chances, or if she knew what time it was. They could not do anything further, including compelling her to say who she was or to produce identification.
(post shortened)
Maybe you can clear up one of the questions I still have about this Watts debacle? At what point in the interview was Watts actually considered to be detained? The use of handcuffs is usually a good indicator but that occurred after Watts had left/fled the scene. If Watts wasn’t allowed to leave the scene, she would have already been considered detained. Was it when the interviewing officer requested that another officer, a female officer, bring Watts back to the scene? Was it while Watts was originally going through her repertoire of acting skills, yelling, crying, threatening, interspersed with a calm demeanor that led an officer to believe Watts needed to be detained (if only for her own safety)? Was it when Watts continued to refuse to identify herself? Was it when Watts originally refused to identify herself?
A person is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when he is in a position from which a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave; when a person’s liberty is restrained by police action, they are ‘detained.’
It’s true a person can be detained for their own safety. But the criteria for that was not satisfied here.
(post shortened)
Then Watts would know that she was detained when the 2nd and 3rd officers attempted to return Watts to the original interview site. Watts left the interview when she was not allowed to leave the interview.
I’m hoping that the 1st responding officer’s report will identify when he felt Watts should be detained and for what reason.
The LAPD is supposed to be (reported to be?) investigating their own policies and the various policemen’s performances. Maybe the Grigg ruling will be a featured addition to LAPD policy?
So they were there. They were already taking pictures but they waited until they got their clothes back on. Almost everyone carries a camera around with them everywhere, the notion that people took pictures of a clothed couple dry humping in a car but didn’t take pictures of them actually fucking beggars belief.
All this talk about what they were doing is a distraction. Because it doesn’t matter if they were fucking or not, the cops didn’t have the right to detain her for not providing ID.
I still don’t see where there is any proof that the race card was inappropriately played here. Cops happen upon mixed race couple and assume the woman was a prostitute. Has there been any evidence that the cops didn’t do what the chef said they did?