Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 236

Thread: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

  1. #211
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,493

    Re: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And you're wrong. He has reasonable suspicion of a crime if he has a report, people matching those described, and a situation that appears to be what was described. He can investigate the potential "crime". Now, at that moment he would not have probable cause to arrest anyone for a crime, but absolutely does have "reasonable suspicion" of a crime. While investigating the potential crime however, if someone becomes uncooperative and decides to try to walk away, now a crime has occurred and that person can be arrested, very similar to what happened to the guy in St Paul, that came out a few weeks ago. You cannot walk away from a police officer who is conducting an investigation. Without more evidence that something is going on, then those involved would be free to be on their way.

    The major issue here is the people who insist on continuing to be uncooperative and refuse to identify themselves, then try to walk away from police trying to investigate. You cannot do that. Even the frickin ACLU says to show identification when asked by the police because it will save you a whole lot of grief, since many people obviously do not really know what rights they do and do not have.

    https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know...hts-and-police

    No I'm not.


    First the ACLU says to ID yourself so as to avoid hassles. They said the arrest may be illegal - and it would be in CA if the officer lacks reasonable suspicion. btw illegally arresting someone can open the officer personally to a lawsuit under Federal law.

    According the Supreme Court anonymous tips are generally not good enough, even with a description, to stop someone. The SC in Florida v J.L found that a anonymous tip that said a "young black male in a plaid shirt standing at a bus stop" had a gun did not on it's own give the police justification to seach the man.

    There's also a specific California Supreme Court decision (People v Wells) that basically says uncorroborated anonymous tips only give reasonable suspicion in cases of grave public risk (in this case it was a drunk driving stop). That's a very narrow reading of the Supreme Court ruling that would probably get tossed if someone challenged it but even here there needs to be a grave public risk. Watts doesn't come close to what anyone would call a grave public risk.

    What I got wrong was that the Watts call wasn't anonymous. If it had been and if the cop didn't see it he could not legally ask for ID and she would have been right to refuse it. Sure he could have arrested her and complying with the request may make sense from a "I don't want to be hassled" standpoint but that does not make it legal.
    Last edited by Gaius46; 09-29-14 at 01:40 PM.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  2. #212
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,493

    Re: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    She cannot walk away while being detained. She was not free to go, and that was what prompted her being put into handcuffs.
    Correct. If you have been stopped you can't walk away - though the officer cannot detain you forever (20 minutes max seems to be to rule of thumb). The question is whether the detention would be legal in this case. As I stated above if the tip was anonymous the detention probably would not be legal.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  3. #213
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    No I'm not.


    First the ACLU says to ID yourself so as to avoid hassles. They said the arrest may be illegal - and it would be in CA if the officer lacks reasonable suspicion. btw illegally arresting someone can open the officer personally to a lawsuit under Federal law.

    According the Supreme Court anonymous tips are generally not good enough, even with a description, to stop someone. The SC in Florida v J.L found that a anonymous tip that said a "young black male in a plaid shirt standing at a bus stop" had a gun did not on it's own give the police justification to seach the man.

    There's also a specific California Supreme Court decision (People v Wells) that basically says uncorroborated anonymous tips only give reasonable suspicion in cases of grave public risk (in this case it was a drunk driving stop). That's a very narrow reading of the Supreme Court ruling that would probably get tossed if someone challenged it but even here there needs to be a grave public risk. Watts doesn't come close to what anyone would call a grave public risk.

    What I got wrong was that the Watts call wasn't anonymous. If it had been and if the cop didn't see it he could not legally ask for ID and she would have been right to refuse it. Sure he could have arrested her and complying with the request may make sense from a "I don't want to be hassled" standpoint but that does not make it legal.
    He has reasonable suspicion that these two people were involved in some sort of crime due to having gotten a report and a statement about people matching their description having sex in a car, which is "lewd public behavior" or something like that, a crime.

    They weren't searching them. They were asking for identification. There is a difference. Plus, this wasn't an "anonymous tip", it was a call with information about who gave it, because the cops then went and talked to the person who made the call.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #214
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    Correct. If you have been stopped you can't walk away - though the officer cannot detain you forever (20 minutes max seems to be to rule of thumb). The question is whether the detention would be legal in this case. As I stated above if the tip was anonymous the detention probably would not be legal.
    There is no set rule of thumb. It depends completely on the circumstances. If the officer has to wait longer for something reasonable, then you can be detained for that long, but if he/she only needs information that takes just a few minutes or less to get, then 20 minutes is too long.

    The detainment was legal. This wasn't an "anonymous tip" and I'm not sure why you assumed it was to begin with.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #215
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    She could be charged with anything the cops want but CA courts have ruled that not showing ID is not obstruction.
    Apparently, the Chief of Police disagrees with you. Perhaps you should take that up with him. Do you have a link to the ruling as to whether it is just in general not showing ID or actually not showing ID or at least refusing to identify yourself during an investigation, as was going on here?
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #216
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,493

    Re: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    He has reasonable suspicion that these two people were involved in some sort of crime due to having gotten a report and a statement about people matching their description having sex in a car, which is "lewd public behavior" or something like that, a crime.

    They weren't searching them. They were asking for identification. There is a difference. Plus, this wasn't an "anonymous tip", it was a call with information about who gave it, because the cops then went and talked to the person who made the call.
    A matching description from an anonymous call is not sufficient. That's not me talking that the US Supreme Court. In the case I cited the police were given a description from an anonymous call and the SC plainly stated it wasn't enough. I've already granted that since the call wasn't anonymous that changes the picture completely.

    Under CA law you are not required to give police ID and cannot be arrested simply for refusing.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  7. #217
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,493

    Re: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    There is no set rule of thumb. It depends completely on the circumstances. If the officer has to wait longer for something reasonable, then you can be detained for that long, but if he/she only needs information that takes just a few minutes or less to get, then 20 minutes is too long.

    The detainment was legal. This wasn't an "anonymous tip" and I'm not sure why you assumed it was to begin with.
    You might be right. I could swear I read in an opinion that Justice Kennedy wrote that 20 minutes was reasonable but I could be wrong.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  8. #218
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,493

    Re: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Apparently, the Chief of Police disagrees with you. Perhaps you should take that up with him. Do you have a link to the ruling as to whether it is just in general not showing ID or actually not showing ID or at least refusing to identify yourself during an investigation, as was going on here?
    There wouldn't be ruling. There would be a law stating that one has to show ID and the penalty for not doing so - as the one NY has. If there's no law, there's no requirement.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  9. #219
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    A matching description from an anonymous call is not sufficient. That's not me talking that the US Supreme Court. In the case I cited the police were given a description from an anonymous call and the SC plainly stated it wasn't enough. I've already granted that since the call wasn't anonymous that changes the picture completely.

    Under CA law you are not required to give police ID and cannot be arrested simply for refusing.
    You are required to cooperate with an investigation, which is what was going on. She refused to even identify herself, a necessity for an ongoing investigation, which is different than a cop simply asking to see your ID. He was investigating a potential crime, something he had every right to be doing and needed to know her identity for.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #220
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    There wouldn't be ruling. There would be a law stating that one has to show ID and the penalty for not doing so - as the one NY has. If there's no law, there's no requirement.
    Not how it works. There is a difference between having to provide ID or identify yourself to a police officer simply because he wants to know who you are and having to identify yourself during the course of an investigation the officer is conducting when you are connected to that investigation. Laws pertaining to identifying yourself normally deal only with the latter. The former is always considered something you have to do unless in those rare instances identifying yourself could be self incrimination (even then, it is iffy).
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •