This looks like it could be an effort by police to subvert the right to counsel. What could the police be charged with here, at the federal/state levels? How is this NOT a violation of either the defendant’s or the public defender’s civil rights?
That’s weird. San Fransisco is the last place I would expect that kind of nonsense.
I couldn’t see the part where police were trying to question the person before lawyer was there. I find it odd that the lawyer objected to her client being photographed in a public place. That’s perfectly fine so her objection was unwarranted in that regard.
Unless she was physically trying to stop them from photographing him, this appears to not be a valid cause for arrest, AFAIK. IANAL, however.
Thanks. Mea culpa. Posting from my phone.
…and we’re done. Nothing more to see here, folks.
Yeah, I still say it’s a federal civil rights violation. Assuming that’s true, I don’t see why the public defender’s office is simply demanding an apology. Police interfering with the right to an attorney is an extremely serious thing.
Care to identify the specific civil right that was violated here?
Depending on exactly what happened (the video captures only part of the event), the Sixth Amendment right to counsel seems to be the one in play. The guy was in custody, the guy had an attorney, and the cops know they’re not supposed to interrogate somebody in custody without the attorney being present.
The right to an attorney, like I already said.
IANAL either.
Well, firstly a courtroom may not be a public place. Not sure about the corridors. (Try bringing your camera into a courtroom and see how far your get). Outside in the corridor, maybe everyone is entitled to take any pictures they can, but I don’t see that it is the policeman’s right to not have someone stand between them and someone they want to take pictures of. They have arrest, cells and and such for that. If they want an unobstructed view of the subject, nobody standing between them, no hands in front of face - well, taking a photo is like a videotape or an interrogation in my mind - so if they want an unobstructed picture, they can detain and arrest the subject in the usual manner.
The $64,000 question - do the police have the right to ask the lawyer to step aside, unless they are arresting the client all over again?
Since he is standing in the corridor, with his lawyer, I assume he is not a prisoner, not under arrest ((Probably on bail?) and therefore does not have to do what the police ask unless they arrest him.
If you were out on the street, would you be required to stand there and do the mugshot thing if the police told you?
They have his mugshot, if he’s on trial. What was the point of this, other than to threaten “if you make this case difficult, we’ll charge you with this something else as soon as the case id over”.
Google the lawyer’s name ( Jami Tillotson ) and you find a bizarre site called the Wonkette, (do yourself a favour and stay off that site) which is somewhat leftist, but quotes the case against the arresting / harassing officer, Officer Brian Stansbury.
Officer Brian Stansbury pulled over a DWB suspect in a traffic stop a while ago… and… lawsuit followed…
According to the SFGate article linked above, that might be ambiguous. The cops were questioning the guys about a different burglary than the one that Tillotson was already representing the one guy for. So she wasn’t actually his lawyer, w.r.t. the case they were questioning him about.
The guy the police were trying to take pictures of was in court on a shoplifting charge. That’s why he was there with his lawyer. I’m sure the police took mug shots when he was arrested, so why did they need to take his picture again?
Another thing: they arrested the lawyer for resisting arrest. It’s not that they were trying to arrest her for something else and she resisted - resisting arrest was the only charge. When they did tell he she was under arrest she allowed herself to be handcuffed and led away without giving them any problems. It seems absurd.
Finally, my understanding of the law is that, while it’s legal for the police (or anyone else) to take someone’s picture in a public place, there’s no legal requirement to submit to having one’s picture taken. You can turn to the wall, put your hand in front of your face, tell the photographer to cut it out or walk away. I also don’t know of any law against a third party objecting to someone’s picture being taken, which is what the lawyer was doing. I suppose the rules are different when someone is in custody or under arrest, but is that what was happening here?
I’m trying to understand this from the point of view of the police. I guess they were conducting some sort of investigation, and thought the lawyer was interfering with it. The interference consisted of standing there and telling the police that she was the guy’s lawyer and she didn’t want them to take his picture. That doesn’t seem like much interference to me. Even if the police did think she was interfering somehow, I think a defense lawyer in a courthouse should be given a good deal of deference.
How on earth can you be arrested for resisting arrest, as a first charge?
Doesn’t there have to be a different crime that you are being arrested for, so that you can then resist that arrest, and so that you can then be charged with resisting arrest.
How do you walk up to somebody and go straight to “I’m arresting you for resisting arrest!”.
That is ridiculous.
California seems to have a very broad definition of resisting arrest.
Once a person has a lawyer, then don’t they have to have that lawyer present for all questioning?
“We don’t want to question you about the murder. We want to question you about breaking into the house and stealing a knife from the kitchen the minute before the murder… and the failure to stop at the stop sign outside the house 10 minutes after…”
Exactly.
There’s also no law against standing between the police and a man not in custody, nor against insisting that you are their lawyer (if true) and that any interaction with the person stop unless they are going to arrest him.