[QUOTE=Folacin]
And, in the American system of jurisprudence, we believe them.
[/QUOTE]
No, in the American system of jurisprudence the jury is supposed to presume them innocent. I am not on the jury, and I have little doubt that she was, indeed, dry humping her boyfriend in a public place.
Plus she’s black, the police officers are white, and you with the face is defending her - she’s gotta be guilty.
Regards,
Shodan
Zing!
Or you can see that as if frequently the case, the cops are in a very horrid situation.
They apparently got a call of lewd behavior and/or prostitution in one’s neighborhood from a citizen. They sent a cop to look into it. If she refuses to show ID and the cop says “well, that’s fine, it’s no biggie anyway” the locals who asked for the help of the police will be pissed.
“What am I paying taxes for? Two people are having sex in a parked car with the door open in the middle of the day. I don’t want my kids seeing that! Why didn’t you doing anything about that??”
“Next at 6 o’clock - Cops ignore pleas of parents to crack down on blatantly lewd behavior in broad daylight!”
That doesn’t trump the constitutional guarantees that all shield all citizens. The cop was prohibited from detaining her because the Fourth Amendment (as interpreted in the Ninth Circuit) forbids it. The neighbors can be as upset as they wish; that doesn’t erase the Constitution.
That’s exactly what the cops should be spending money on - trying to stop the “petty” crimes that make the lives of people nearby that bit worse than they should be.
God knows I don’t want to get into a legal debate with you. . . but
it was my understanding that the police can detain you and take you to the station to identify you if you’re a suspect and you refuse to produce identification. Is that not correct?
Per an article in the “LA Weekly” on Sep 16:
"UCLA law professor Paul Bergman, who teaches a “Street Law Clinic,” appears to agree:
Once a police officer identifies the suspect as matching a description of people involved in committing a crime, even a low-grade misdemeanor, it gives the police officer the right to do a minimally invasive investigation. And an investigation, typically, even the most minimal investigation, consists of asking for identification. The refusal to provide identification generally gives the police officer the right to investigate further. "
Sure, Bricker but that’s quite a fine interpretation of the law. You, yourself took the opposite interpretation at firs in this thread, then after some nudging and research, felt the Officer had no right to detain. Most legal experts seems to agree with you, but not others.
It’s totally unreasonable to expect a line police officer to know a point a law that fine and that debatable and make that call in a couple of minutes while being screamed at.
I disagree and think this attitude is ridiculous. What other professions are your willing to give a pass when they don’t know basic regulations pertaining to their job? Pharmacists? Surgeons? People who make bombs? Train conductors? Truck drivers? Where does the list end?
Sure, we expect Police to know “basic regulations” but not fine points of the law that even legal experts were wrong abut and had to research and even thendisagree about.
Yeah, I keep hearing people natter on about this, but it’s just bullshit.
The cops were doing something they do every day and should know the laws and regulations pertaining to it.
The lawyers are talking about something that is part of someone else’s job. And yeah, some of them are going to sound about as smart as I would trying to tell a pathologist how they should do their job.
The notion that the cops should be given a pass for not knowing how to do one of the most basic and common parts of their job is ridiculous and indefensible, IMO. It’s even more ludicrous when said ignorance (if that’s what this was) results in a citizen being unlawfully deprived of her rights.
This precise claim was the subject of extensive commentary in this thread, and it even led to an email exchange between me and Professor Bergman.
Yes, but in my own defense, the law in the Ninth Circuit is not precisely the same as the law in the Fourth Circuit (my own home territory). When I first spoke up here in the the thread, I gave a statement that accurately reflects the law in my own circuit, and (incorrectly) assumed it was homogeneous across the whole country.
The law governing this precise situation was clarified by the Ninth Circuit in August of 2007 --relatively recently, in other words, and in a decision that applied only to the Ninth Circuit. (The Sixth Circuit, I have since learned, has an even more restrictive rule than the Ninth). In either event, I’d expect police officers within the Ninth Circuit to become aware of this without necessarily expecting a lawyer on the East Coast to be.
It’s equally unreasonable to demand that a citizen relinquish the Fourth Amendment rights to which she is entitled simply because the police are unaware of their precise application.
What is totally unreasonable is entrusting cops to enforce the law but not expecting them to respect it.
Hey look, we agree!
Police spend much of their time dealing with mopery, misdemeanors and Terry stops, so they should know when then can or cannot detain and when they can or cannot arrest in their own jurisdiction. It’s basic knowledge, not something that is complicated, arcane, or infrequent. Sure, there are lots of laws that are too complicated for a street cop to figure out on the spot, or are so specialized that most street cops might not even have heard of them, or are only used very infrequently such that a street cop might honestly not recall how to implement them, but Terry stops? Terry stops are bread and butter work for street cops, so yes, it is entirely reasonable to expect a street cop to know how to make a Terry stop in that officer’s jurisdiction.
Does this mean, if it would be difficult to identify the offender, a detention for ID purposes would be acceptable?
If so, I can see an argument (at least theoretically) where the cop says that he has no certainty that the offender can be identified after the fact. Especially if both Watts and BF decide to walk away without giving ID.
Its a matter of finding a balance between the freedom of law-abiding people to go about their lives without being accosted by the police, and the security found in ensuing that no possible miscreant gets away.
You know the expression “don’t sweat the small stuff”? Well that’s what the 9th’s decision on Terry stops is about. Yes, some lawbreakers will get away because the police will not know who they are, but in the balance it will reduce the number of perfectly innocent people from being rousted. It’s a policy decision that has arisen out of the 9th in the interest of freedom. The legislature can always move certain crimes out of the misdemeanor class into the felony class if it is concerned that too many people are escaping the net, or if the crimes are too serious to permit such an escape.
I don’t agree – again, the car was there, with its license plate.
But your first question is interesting.
The ease of identification is discussed in the main opinion, but here’s the meat of the rule:
So while they discuss the availability of alternative investigation methods, the focus is the relative lack of importance of a completed misdemeanor that does not involve public safety.
I’m shocked that you believe, “we’re all shocked”.
People were sufficiently upset with Watts public sexual display that they called the police to report the crime in progress. People are still sufficiently upset that Watts and the cook haven’t been charged and demanded police action. The police followed thru and charged Watts and the cook.
The people have spoken and it’s obvious that most of them do not support Watts.
So Bricker in a nutshell, minor legal transgressions are so, well, minor that they do not triumph one’s rights to refuse the show ID, is that correct? So if the police instead we told for example, that a black woman and while male couple in a sliver sedan on that street were seen killing someone they could have legally been forced to see ID because that crime rose to a level that triumphed one’s fourth amendment rights? Is this correct?