In this case, the cops can detain or arrest you for failure to produce the demanded ID. They can ask me if they can search my car for any reason whatsoever, they cannot stop me from ignoring them and driving away unless they have a right to search my car.
I don’t want to undermine this UCLA law professor but the guy works in a clinic. These clinics are not really tenure track positions, they tend to be adjuncts or staff attorney type positions. I think he has to provide some reason beyond “I work for UCLA law school” why the cops can ignore Griggs.
So people are fucking ina car outside your window and the only picutres you get are ones with clothes on?:dubious:
Seems like a pretty accomplished guy to me.
What have you got?
Yes. The police never mention the words “prostitute,” “hooker,” “whore,” or the crime of prostitution.
Is there a legal standard for when it is determined that it was a completed misdemeanor not involving a threat to the public, and therefore brief detention would be illegal? As opposed (I would guess) to sexual assault or drug dealing or something else.
It seems a bit less than cut-and-dried than simply ‘Griggs said it, I believe it, that settles it.’ Thus the police get a complaint of public sex, they show up to find a couple swabbing up the cumstains, and then attempt to determine what is/was going on. The couple refuses to identify themselves or give any other information besides a shit fit. I don’t see that the police can tell only on that either that there was or wasn’t anything going on.
And thus it is hard for me to get too upset if the police don’t let Ms. “Do Me in the Parking Lot” walk away even if she has a tantrum and starts hollering that if she were white the police would scatter rose petals on their bower of love instead of trying to figure out why they were doing the bump-and-grind in front of the public.
Okay, so the detention was illegal. Maybe - expert opinon seems to differ. It would appear to be at least a miild shade of gray instead of black and white (heh).
Regards,
Shodan
Whether or not this actually is a legal “gray area”, this brings up a further complaint – in such a gray area, when there is very obviously no danger to anyone present, why does the officer err on the side of using force? Why aren’t police trained specifically to not use force (including detaining someone) unless they have very clear legal authority and/or there is an immediate public danger that must be addressed?
Because being briefly detained after dry humping your boyfriend in public and screaming racism when the cop wants to know who you are is not that big a deal.
I don’t care if you were in a Western and had a recurring role on a TV show with Kelsey Grammer. Knock that shit off.
Regards,
Shodan
So, mostly because she had it coming. Sounds almost like you think she was getting uppity, even.
“She had it coming” is not a good standard for tolerating breaches of civil rights, in my opinion.
The minute she started screaming at the officer, she was committing a crime that justified detention, regardless of what happened before. Apart from that, if the law prevents a cop IDing someone accused of a crime, there’s something really fucking wrong with the law. What is it with you Americans and wanting to prevent the police from doing their jobs?
The Fourth Amendment.
Basically we like the idea that cops’ jobs do not completely override people’s rights.
Not in the scheme of things, but it’s a much bigger deal than not getting detained and walking away. Better community/public relations for the cops, too, and no increased danger to public safety.
Screaming at an officer is not a crime.
Since its been reported that the LAPD is investigating/reviewing their procedures, I’m hoping that Grigg will be incorporated into LAPD procedures and training. It’s only been seven years :rolleyes: but LA is a really big city and updating their procedures may be a low priority issue. idk.
On a personal level, I don’t agree with the court’s ruling that suspects of a completed misdemeanor, where there is no public safety issue, should not have to identify themselves. There was reasonable suspicion, the suspects matched the given description and were at the proper location. While the suspects aren’t required to produce an ID, they should be required to identify themselves verbally. But that’s just my opinion, the Grigg ruling is the law in the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction.
You keep writing about this as if Grigg was a new procedural thing that the 9th Circuit created and the LAPD has to account for.
The 4th Amendment predates the LAPD. Grigg clarifies and circumscribes, but it’s not like it’s a new recommendation for the LAPD to take under consideration.
'That fugly bitch from the Tarentino movie was fucking her boyfriend right out in the parking lot! We sent over a couple of people to ask her to stop, but she wouldn’t.
So we called the cops but when they showed up, she started screaming racism so they just let her walk away and leave the cum-stained Kleenex on the ground for us to clean up. I guess if you are famous you get to do stuff like that.
Fucking LAPD lets actors do anything they want and leaves working people to clean up their mess."
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure why, or when, Watts was actually detained by the original officer. Watts walked away from the interview and the original officer requested another officer(s) to return Watts to the scene. Watts was placed in handcuffs before she was placed in patrol car and returned.
Watts was definitely considered, by the police, to be detained when the original officer made the request to bring Watts back to the scene. I wonder at what point did the original officer decide that Watts was detained and why he made that decision. Maybe the official reports of the involved officers will make this clear?
The media reports have been, well…, piss poor up to this point. Except for TMZ, which actually managed to put reporters in the field and actually talked to eyewitnesses. What a refreshing change of pace from the usual cut-and-paste reporting of the main-stream media.
This hypothetical someone who calls a woman “fugly bitch”, or anyone who calls Danielle Watts in particular “fugly”, is not someone whose opinions on either community values or aesthetics have any worth, IMHO.
Whether it’s Grigg or the 4th Amendment, it appears that the LAPD doesn’t currently recognize the “not required identification of the suspects of a completed misdemeanor with no public safety issues” aspect of Grigg. Under the assumption that something has to change in order to prevent another, similar, police response, then I believe LAPD needs to update its procedure and training. That update could be done voluntarily or by order of the court. Otherwise it SSDD.
Yeah, I doubt that. It, at absolute minimum, gives reasonable suspicion of disturbing the peace, and could reasonably count as assault if the officer felt threatened by it.
The fourth amendment protects against *unreasonable *search and seizure. It says nothing about providing your name. Are you maybe thinking of the fifth? That sounds like the only one that could justify not allowing a cop to make someone identify themselves, if there’s a warrant out on them.
The idea that the police can’t identify someone to see if they’re wanted is absurd. Telling the police your name, and showing ID if you have it, is not in any way an imposition. And if you are wanted by the police, you should have turned yourself in earlier. You don’t have a right to ignore it, just because you may have the ability to.
So, again, why do you want to make it difficult for the police to do their job?