Hey, Bricker. I got into an argument with a guy on another board about this whole thing. He claimed to be a lawyer, and brought up the idea that public lewdness is in fact a public safety issue. He seemed incredulous that I even asked him to explain how, and went into how the whole concept of obscenity and public decency was ultimately about public safety, “think of the children” style. He also tried to argue that it wasn’t a Terry stop at all due to having a specific reason for the stop, and that identification would be required because there was either reasonable suspicion or probable cause because of the phone call.
I already dismissed him as a crank, since he was ultimately talking out of both sides of his mouth, but I’d like to know for sure if this stuff is bull.
What’s the difference if the police suspected that she may have been a prostitute?
The only reason for the initial significance of this allegation is because the couple claimed they had been doing nothing more than PDA, from which followed the implication that the only reason for this suspicion was the race difference. But if the police got reports of sex in a car (accurate or not) then the suspicion would have been founded on non-racial grounds, and isn’t significant.
IMO someone who is willing to publically either have sex in a car or simulate it has no complaint if police suspect that she might be a hooker.
The examples given in Grigg to explain “public safety:”
I don’t see much intersection between the two types of crimes. Perhaps you might ask him to supply you with the California caselaw that classifies public lewdness as an issue of public safety.
What you report of his argument shows a complete misunderstanding of Terry. In fact, the entire definition of a Terry stop is: having a specific reason for the stop! A Terry stop rests on an officer having a reasonable, articulable suspicion of an on-going felony or public-safety misdemeanor, which exists when the officer has specific, articulable facts (as opposed to an inchoate hunch) of criminal wrongdoing.
In other words, Terry stops are conditioned on reasonable suspicion.
Probable cause is a higher standard. Arrests must rest upon probable cause. Here, the officers did not have probable cause, and California does not permit warrantless arrests for misdemeanors unless the officer sees the crime happening. I don’t agree the officers had probable cause here.
Well, all I can say is that if the law doesn’t forbid someone screaming abuse at a police officer, or allow the police to identify and detain someone suspected of a crime, those laws should be changed.
What if when the cops arrive they say that they think Lucas might have committed a felony, based on Watts’ age? If Sgt. Parker says he thinks Watts looks young, is that a reasonable suspicion? Is it enough to demand that Watts ID herself so that they can determine if Lucas is implicated?
IANAL, and I read CA Penal Code Sect. 261 too fast to see if my main hypothetical is possible.
OK. As it happens, I started this thread in the belief that Terry allowed stops in situations like this – i didn’t know the Grigg rule until Hentor brought it to my attention. So I’d be cautiously in favor of a return to the scheme that allows a Terry stop for any crime, felony or misdemeanor.
But I also believe the law should be enforced as it exists now, rather than as we hope it would be someday.
Oh, I agree with that. Part of the problem seems to me that it’s so unclear whether a detention would be legal or not in any given circumstance that lawyers have been disagreeing, so the police or public would have no chance. For that reason alone, the law should be clarified.
I still find it surprising that screaming at anyone in public, let alone a cop, the way she did is legal. As a general rule, based on a bit of quick reading on Wiki, continuing to make loud noise after being asked to stop by a police officer would be considered as some form of public nuisance offence. If this isn’t the case in California, then fair enough I suppose.
What I just fundamentally don’t understand is the American preoccupation with making it as difficult as possible for the police to do their job.
Steophan, in your opinion, what should a person who is illegally restrained be permitted to do to free himself? Shoot the criminal dead? Kick the criminal in the nuts and then run? Scream in hopes that someone comes to the rescue? Sit quietly?
Should it make any difference if the criminal is an on-duty police officer?
In my opinion, it makes all the difference if the criminal is a police officer. We should operate under the assumption that police actions are legal, and challenge them in court, later, if we believe they’re not. There should be serious punishments for police officers who commit crimes whilst on duty - more serious than for others, who don’t have the same rights to detain and otherwise control people.
But my main argument is that what happened to Danielle Watts is not something that should be illegal. If someone reports a crime, the police should be able to question, identify and, if necessary to do either of the above, detain someone who is reasonably suspected of the crime. That’s what I mean by not making it harder for the police to do their job.
In answer to your first question, any or all of your suggestions should be legal. If it turns out that the detention was, in fact, legal, then the punishment for resisting it should be extremely severe, just as it should for a cop who acts illegally.
In short, the police need broad powers, and need to be able to act without having to second-guess their actions based on technicalities. In response to that, the public need broad powers to challenge those actions in court if the police overstep their powers. But handcuffing someone who refuses to provide ID should not be considered an overreach.
On what basis should the law “forbid screaming abuse” at the police? It is a fundamental right to express ourselves as we wish, whether screaming or abusive.
As I’ve mentioned several times in this thread, it appears to be currently the case that a detention can be legal or not based on information that is available to the cop but not the civilian. That means that telling people “if you are being detained illegally, you can resist with violence” is an AWFULLY dangerous idea.
“One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures—and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation.”
Bricker, IMO, since as this specific case illustrates, even lawyers and police can disagree whether a specific detention or arrest was legal or not, so I don’t expect (especially in a circumstance that may be emotionally or mentally stressful) folks who aren’t even in the legal or law enforcement career/community to do much better.
So, while I am in favor of private gun ownership for self defence, I wouldn’t be comfortable giving everyone a “blank check” to resist (with deadly force) any arrest that the arrestee feels is unlawful or improper.
There was that YouTube video. Woman standing on her OWN PORCH. Videoing a police officer. He loudly stated;" I do not feel safe with you photographing me. I feel unsafe". Making that statement gave him license to arrest her.
Nice.
