Reasonable request or not, it was illegal to detain her for then not producing ID to confirm the verbal identification. Reasonable to ask. Reasonable to refuse. Illegal to extend detention based on refusal.
But we’re still onboard for this, with the upgrade from kissing, right?
Probably would have been better to go with a good old fashioned sex tape.
And when she turned and started walking away, was it illegal for police to detain a suspect fleeing the scene of the crime?
I’ve listened to the audio and at no point does she ever state her name, and she refuses to answer the question “What is your name?” when asked - she immediately becomes hostile and tells the cops to arrest her if they want to find out who she is.
Fleeing the scene of crime? Who’s being melodramatic now?
For example … what friggin’ crime?
I don’t mean this question in any sort of smart ass way Muffin but does the information in the TMZ link change the situtation at all?
Honest question because I really don’t know (I tend to listen to you and Bricker when stuff like this is debated).
And sure it might be reasonable to refuse but to my view it’s just much easier to simply provide the requested information so I can move on it a timely fashion.
The crime that they were called to the scene to investigate - public lewdness. We’re well beyond the “cops randomly stop kissing couple for no reason because RACISM” angle here.
The crime they were called to investigate based on an anonymous phone call? Gee, you’re right. They should have shot her in the leg or something so she couldn’t get away.
Oh yeah. I forgot. You never met a jack-boot you wouldn’t happily lick.
So in Jack Batty world, a person who calls 911 is obligated to identify themselves, but a person being questioned by police isn’t, and is in fact allowed to just walk away if they believe the police are being mean to them?
Most of the time, getting on your knees is the path of least resistance.
I said, “Ask,” rather than “Make them,” and I was picturing an officer saying, “Look, guys, there’s kids right over there watching you – maybe you could find a more private place?”
Now I know that the Daily Fail is often full of it. But they were on her side yesterday.
Is the other side of the story? Or have they been nobbled?
On point, I live in outer London, and often don’t carry ID, simply because my only IDs are my passport and debit card, which I don’t carry if I don’t need to.
No Bobby has ever bothered me about it on the times I have been stopped. Just swapped badge number for my name, and gone away.
Though in my recent experience, now they mainly bump my chair up the curb, and open water bottles for me. 
Exactly, the cop that did this just made a bad mistake. If I was in her shoes I’d take time out of my busy day to make this assholes future career advancement options much more limited. Someone just got a desk job.
As I believe I mentioned above, anonymous tips can legally justify Terry stops.
The problem here is not the anonymous tip. It’s the fact that the reported crime was a misdemeanor, and when the officers arrived on the scene, the crime (if it happened at all) was no longer in progress. It was completed. Case law in the Ninth Circuit holds that police cannot base a Terry stop on reasonable suspicion of a completed misdemeanor unless the misdemeanor involves public safety.
Sure. Of course anyone should be able to make such a comment, it doesn’t require the power of the police and the police should be able to take actions any member of the public would be allowed in that circumstance.
From my point of view, it makes her actions clearly defensible.
The police are trained to use the uncertainty people have about the law. They will get into court and say, “No, at that point it was a completely consensual encounter,” while the reality is that they’re standing there demanding that you provide ID and counting on you not knowing the precise point at which it becomes illegal to refuse to identify yourself.
In this case, though, it didn’t work out for them. She walked away, and the police grabbed her and detained her. That forced their hand: they had to show that what they knew at that moment justified at least a Terry stop.
And as it turned out, it didn’t.
For whatever it’s worth, I absolutely believe they looked like they were having sex, onlookers complained and called the police, and they composed themselves and their clothing before the police arrived.
But as Hentor’s post clearly establishes, in California that’s a misdemeanor, and it doesn’t involve a threat to public safety, and it was complete by the time the cops arrived. So the actress was, legally, “free to disregard their inquiries and go about her business.” She exercised that right.
Agreed. Of course, any member of the public would legally be permitted to stand there, which I suspect would be a mood killer.
And as they’re standing there, if they see one person touch another person’s genitals, buttocks, or the female breast, they then have probable cause to arrest for violation of California PC 647(a) relating to lewd conduct in public.
My WAG is that whether or not they were having sex, she probably didn’t want her name on a police report that would end up on TMZ— so there’s an unfortunate Streisand effect at play.
So explain this to me:
The couple committed a misdemeanor. The cops showed up after the act had been completed and were not witness to it nor was there a witness present. HOWEVER, they had every reason to suspect this was an act possibly involving prostitution, did they not? Is that still considered a misdemeanor and are they not under obligation to question/investigate/detain until such time as they are satisfied an actual crime had not occurred?
Additionally, while they were trying to conduct their investigation, the suspect played the race card, the “Don’t you know who I am?” card, the calling daddy because my mommy is sick and dying card and the “Talk to the hand, I’m outtie!” attitude. All in one breathless tirade when all they wanted from her was to get a positive ID.
Is that a fair characterization of what happened (based on the voice recording)?
And the police was not fully in their right to detain her until they established her identity?
I’m curious because I guess I don’t understand what the justification is for making the claim the police exceeded their authority in this specific situation.