• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

roguenuke said:
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?
Click to expand...

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The California Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook ("CPOLS"; written by the office of the California Attorney General) maintains that failure to identify oneself does not constitute a violation of California Penal Code §148(a)(1), resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer:
Unlike Nevada and 20 other states, California does not have a statute mandating that a detainee identify himself, and that obligation cannot be read into Penal Code Section 148. (Rev. 1/08, p. 2.14a)
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

This was not a "stop and identify" situation. This was an investigation of a potential crime. There is a difference in the two things. Stop and identify statutes deal with situations where a police officer just stops someone without any reasonable suspicion at all that a crime has occurred or might occur. It isn't part of any investigation, only curiosity of the police officer given some things he sees that might appear suspicious.
 
roguenuke said:
This was not a "stop and identify" situation. This was an investigation of a potential crime. There is a difference in the two things. Stop and identify statutes deal with situations where a police officer just stops someone without any reasonable suspicion at all that a crime has occurred or might occur. It isn't part of any investigation, only curiosity of the police officer given some things he sees that might appear suspicious.
Click to expand...

Penal Code Section 148 Resisting Delaying or Obstructing Officer

California Penal Code §148(a)(1) applies during investigations and not just "stop and identify"
 
sangha said:
Penal Code Section 148 Resisting Delaying or Obstructing Officer

California Penal Code §148(a)(1) applies during investigations and not just "stop and identify"
Click to expand...

You are not understanding here. The application however of the law applies differently when it comes to whether or not the situation is a "stop and identify" situation or an investigation. Your information, that ruling, was based on a stop and identify situation, saying that a person cannot be charged with obstruction/delaying an officer when the person is solely being asked to identify themselves because the cop wanted to stop them, without any reasonable suspicion of a crime, without really investigating a specific situation. Rulings are specific for the situations, not the laws that are being used. You specifically cited a "stop and identify" wiki page, which is what that CPOLS was referring to, that situation.
 
roguenuke said:
You are not understanding here. The application however of the law applies differently when it comes to whether or not the situation is a "stop and identify" situation or an investigation.
Click to expand...

The link I posted refers to California Penal Code §148(a)(1) which applies to both investigatory stops and non-investigatory stops.
 
sangha said:
The link I posted refers to California Penal Code §148(a)(1) which applies to both investigatory stops and non-investigatory stops.
Click to expand...

Not when it comes to identifying yourself, it doesn't. That law/code itself doesn't cover identifying yourself and whether that is or isn't a violation when someone refuses to do so. That was covered by a court case or policy, that specifically only mentions "stop and identify" situations, not situations where there is an ongoing investigation. In fact, the very fact that the code is written for situations where there is an actual investigation going on shows that it is not meant for only information contact stops, where no investigation is going on, at least not for California.
 
roguenuke said:
Not when it comes to identifying yourself, it doesn't. That law/code itself doesn't cover identifying yourself and whether that is or isn't a violation when someone refuses to do so. That was covered by a court case or policy, that specifically only mentions "stop and identify" situations, not situations where there is an ongoing investigation. In fact, the very fact that the code is written for situations where there is an actual investigation going on shows that it is not meant for only information contact stops, where no investigation is going on, at least not for California.
Click to expand...

The CA Peace Officer's Handbook covers it. It says that not showing ID can not be construed as obstruction.

California does not have a statute mandating that a detainee identify himself, and that obligation cannot be read into Penal Code Section 148. (Rev. 1/08, p. 2.14a)
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
The CA Peace Officer's Handbook covers it. It says that not showing ID can not be construed as obstruction.
Click to expand...

As I've already said, then take it up with the Chief of Police there who said that she could. Did they? No, so... It doesn't matter anyway, because her other actions can lead to the charge.
 
roguenuke said:
As I've already said, then take it up with the Chief of Police there who said that she could. Did they? No, so... It doesn't matter anyway, because her other actions can lead to the charge.
Click to expand...

IOW, I was right - not showing ID is not obstruction
 
sangha said:
IOW, I was right - not showing ID is not obstruction
Click to expand...

Something that actual police in the area, the Chief of Police for example, are contradicting in their statements about this. So we don't actually know. There has not been a ruling on this concerning this particular issue so we wouldn't really know if it is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom