Kissing your husband while black? Not if the LAPD can help it.

[Bricker]

@Muffin

The problem for the police is that as it stands, the reasonable suspicion cat got out of the bag when the police told the couple that prostitution was suspected, so until it comes out otherwise (maybe it will, maybe it won’t) that they did not disclose this, the best the officers can now assert is that yes, they unreasonably suspected prostitution and stated their suspicion at at the time, and they also reasonably suspected lewd conduct but did not state it.

That’s going to be a tough cat to get back in the bag, for the officers would be [del]lewdly[/del] loudly blowing and sucking at the same time, since s. 647 a (lewd) and s. 647 b (prostitution) do not overlap without the consideration aspect to tie lewd behaviour to prostitution, and the officers did not have any reasonable suspicion of there being consideration unless one is to accept that it is reasonable to suspect consideration when a black woman allegedly has been lewd with a white man in an expensive car. (Not to mention that given how racial profiling is considered to be pernicious, the officers might be better off steering clear of this.)

Which is more reliable? The statement made at the time by the officers, or something they come up with in the coming days? Barring hearsay problems (I defer to you on knowledge of hearsay), I’m inclined to go with a statement made at the time.

Determination of reasonable suspicion is made by determining the facts of which the officers were aware at the time, and the inferences reasonably reachable from those facts. Whether they claimed another rationale at the time is simply irrelevant. Maybe they suspected both, and only the indecent exposure was justified. That’s fine.

(I just read US v. Grigg, a Ninth Circuit case which does in fact say that Terry stops can hang on a completed misdemeanor when there’s an ongoing threat to public safety or a lack of alternative investigative methods, so it’s not in fact as cut and dried as I described above).

There’s no hearsay problem here, though. Hearsay is generally admissible in hearings to determine probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

So I still say your analysis is wrong as to point (1). But I was wrong on the certainty of the validity of the Terry seizure for the reasons Hentor identifies.

[grude]

@Bricker

I anticipated this question above.

I think the police ought to act reasonably. A couple making out hot and heavy next to the elementary school ought to be asked to move on; a couple next to a movie lot ought to be left alone.

But the discussion above that I answered was about the legal aspects surrounding a Terry stop.

Bricker, man I hope you know that time I yelled RACIST! was a total non-malicious joke. I have nothing against you at all, in fact I think you add a ton of ignorance fighting to this board with your legal analysis posts.

But sometimes I wish you would split your posts in two, one part the legal analysis and one part your personal opinion.

[Muffin]

Kudos to Hentor.

United States v. Grigg, 498 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2007)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

*1081 Despite the misdemeanor-felony distinction, and the fact that some courts have relied on this distinction to limit Hensley, we decline to adopt a per se standard that police may not conduct a Terry stop to investigate a person in connection with a past completed misdemeanor simply because of the formal classification of the offense. We think it depends on the nature of the misdemeanor. Circumstances may arise where the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is wanted in connection with a past misdemeanor that the police may reasonably consider to be a threat to public safety. See, e.g., Myers, 490 So.2d at 704 (reckless driving), Devils Lake, 639 N.W.2d at 467 (altercation with a potential for violent escalation); Burgess, 776 A.2d at 1228 (drunken person making threats that he would shoot vehicle if not moved). We leave that case for another day.

We adopt the rule that a reviewing court must consider the nature of the misdemeanor offense in question, with particular attention to the potential for ongoing or repeated danger (e.g., drunken and/or reckless driving), and any risk of escalation (e.g., disorderly conduct, assault, domestic violence). An assessment of the “public safety” factor should be considered within the totality of the circumstances, when balancing the privacy interests at stake against the efficacy of a Terry stop, along with the possibility that the police may have alternative means to identify the suspect or achieve the investigative purpose of the stop.

[Muffin]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Muffin, isn’t prostitution a misdemeanor in CA? Wouldn’t that still represent a completed misdemeanor. US v Grigg, a Ninth circuit decision indicates that the gravity of the alleged misdemeanor must be sufficient for Terry to apply to a completed non-felony.

Missed edit. Yes, it is a misdemeanor there.

[Grumman]

@Bricker

If you make that 911 call, you certainly give the police reasonable, articulable suspicion to briefly detain the people you described in your call and investigate.

I’ve said it before, but citing “an anonymous source” is about as credible as “my ass”. Anything you allow cops to do based on some anonymous tip might as well be standard procedure, because if nothing else there’s nothing stopping the cop calling it in himself. An anonymous tip should not be grounds, in and of itself, to call a woman a whore and arrest her for not showing you ID that she is not legally required to carry. It should not be grounds to kill a decorator carrying a table leg for turning around to see who’s yelling at him. And it should not be grounds for a SWAT team to break into a guy’s house, guns drawn, to give some troll his jollies.

[TokyoBayer]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

See what a wild success “stop and frisk” has been on the communities here in NYC. Completely eroded public-police trust.

That is insane. I’ve seen a few videos YouTube and the cops are crazy. One guy was just sitting on his porch and the police hassle him “because people don’t sit on their porches in this neighborhood.” The percentages on minorities stopped his disproportionally high.

@Smapti

Because two wrongs don’t make a right.

We all know what the cops did wrong. What did she do “wrong.?”

I’m just saying Watts could have made it easier for herself.

Which makes her actions that much more admirable.

@RickJay

Of course, she’s white, which to a lot of cops means less suspicion.

It’s like the black guy who was shoveling snow from his driveway, and the police came and questioned him and none of his neighbors. There had been reports of people going into the neighborhood and asking if they could shovel the snow. So, who is the suspicious one?

@XT

I guess I’m just not able to see how pushing the cops, even if they are 100% in the wrong is ever a good idea. If you have ID, and they ask for ID, then show them the ID, regardless of whether they have a good reason to ask or not.

Are you a minority? Serious question. I suspect that the chance of me, as a middle age white guy, getting pulled over is going to be pretty low. Not so for many minorities. I think there are times when making a principled action is justified, especially when it’s legal and the police are in the wrong.

[Smapti]

@Acsenray

Either you have a right or you don’t. You should not have to surrender that right just to avoid “making it harder on yourself.”

She had a right, which she exercised. The consequence of exercising that right was that the cops then had the right to detain her and determine her identity through other means.

[Smapti]

@Eddie_F

Have you not seen any of the criminal bullshit perpetrated by the cops in Ferguson?

I’m not aware of any “criminal bullshit” being perpetrated by the cops in Ferguson. Some of its citizens, on the other hand…

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=Bricker]

A couple making out hot and heavy next to the elementary school ought to be asked to move on …
[/QUOTE]

… because it’s a violation to “make out hot and heavy next to the elementary school?” Or is that assuming that there is some exposure of genitals or contact with genitals going on?

[Bricker]

@Acsenray

… because it’s a violation to “make out hot and heavy next to the elementary school?” Or is that assuming that there is some exposure of genitals or contact with genitals going on?

When I say, “Making out hot and heavy,” it’s not a term of legal precision. But I picture that to include kissing and fondling, with hands under clothes.

[Bricker]

@Smapti

She had a right, which she exercised. The consequence of exercising that right was that the cops then had the right to detain her and determine her identity through other means.

Except that here, the officers did not have that legal right to detain her.

[Ramira]

@Smapti

She had a right, which she exercised. The consequence of exercising that right was that the cops then had the right to detain her and determine her identity through other means.

I read here that you are making an assertion that is not supported by the law in this case, as bricker and other lawyers are presenting it.

[Muffin]

@Smapti

She had a right, which she exercised. The consequence of exercising that right was that the cops then had the right to detain her and determine her identity through other means.

She identified herself and her spouse identified her. Please cite the law that supports your opinion that “the cops then had the right to detain her and determine her identity through other means.”

[Acsenray]

@Bricker

When I say, “Making out hot and heavy,” it’s not a term of legal precision. But I picture that to include kissing and fondling, with hands under clothes.

Well, I would want there to be something more precisely illegal or even very close to illegal before I would agree that the cops should be able to make them move on.

[Cheesesteak]

@TokyoBayer

Are you a minority? Serious question. I suspect that the chance of me, as a middle age white guy, getting pulled over is going to be pretty low. Not so for many minorities. I think there are times when making a principled action is justified, especially when it’s legal and the police are in the wrong.

In this case, she was with a white guy who was also stopped, questioned and asked for ID. AFAIK, the only reason he didn’t get cuffed and stuffed was because when the cop asked for ID he said “Here you go, can I leave now?”

[bobkitty]

The police audio is available now: 'Django Unchained' Actress -- Cops: After Car Sex She Pulls Race, Fame Card (POLICE AUDIO)

Eyewitnesses report full-on sex with the car door open, including post-coital cleanup with a tissue. Sounds like she went batshit on the cops, not the other way around.

Considering her witnesses were folks in the Directors Guild building, I wonder what this will do to her career.

[Smapti]

Well, what do you know - there was more to the story than “racist cops stop innocent interracial couple for no reason”.

[Muffin]

@Acsenray

Well, I would want there to be something more precisely illegal or even very close to illegal before I would agree that the cops should be able to make them move on.

As noted upthread, s. 647 a of the California Penal Code.

[Oliveritaly]

@Smapti

Well, what do you know - there was more to the story than “racist cops stop innocent interracial couple for no reason”.

Shocker I know. Certain people here are just full of it painting an entire profession with the same brush.

When a police officer asks you to do something completely reasonable (like identify yourself) you should probably just fucking do it. You’re not Rosa Fucking Parks for refusing a very reasonable request.

Seriously, “can I see some ID,” isn’t an unreasonable request at all. If, for whatever reason, you don’t have your ID on you then calmly explain to the officer why you don’t.

[Muffin]

@Smapti

Well, what do you know - there was more to the story than “racist cops stop innocent interracial couple for no reason”.

Shall we take as a no, you cannot cite the law that supports your opinion that following her and her spouse identifying her, “the cops then had the right to detain her and determine her identity through other means”?