• 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’

shavingcollywob said:
No, what I'm suggesting is our IDs are different than Canadian IDs.

Crimes might be solved by looking for the criminal ID in Canada but our IDs hold no relevant information on if a crime was committed. Ours are pretty much limited to name, address, date of birth, a picture, and a brief physical description. I suppose they could have found out if she's an organ donor or was required to wear corrective lenses while driving but I'm just not sure what relevance any of that played in whether or not she was having sex on a public street. Since the only "investigating" they did was looking at an ID that, unlike yours, had no details of the crime then I think it's reasonable to say they were basically just harassing her.

I could understand asking for her ID if it was actually pertinent to an investigation but this wasn't one of those times.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear you were on the scene and knew exactly what was going on and could instantly determine that the police had nothing to investigate. Too bad you don't work on 911 emergency hotlines so you could clairvoyantly determine police aren't needed.

Now, back in the real world, the first thing police do when interviewing a witness or suspect is determine the identity of that person. It's really important for actually knowing whom it is you're talking to and also helps when follow up may be necessary. And lets remember, according to those filing the complaint, they knew who these two people were and likely informed the 911 operator of the names of the two people fornicating in public so the police were probably trying to ascertain if they were speaking with the right people. But hey, that wouldn't be important to you because you're an expert on police protocol.

Bottom line, for me, I'm prepared to concede that a police officer has far more knowledge about how to conduct a police investigation than some snide know-it-all spouting off on the internet.
 
shavingcollywob said:
No, what I'm suggesting is our IDs are different than Canadian IDs.

Crimes might be solved by looking for the criminal ID in Canada but our IDs hold no relevant information on if a crime was committed. Ours are pretty much limited to name, address, date of birth, a picture, and a brief physical description. I suppose they could have found out if she's an organ donor or was required to wear corrective lenses while driving but I'm just not sure what relevance any of that played in whether or not she was having sex on a public street. Since the only "investigating" they did was looking at an ID that, unlike yours, had no details of the crime then I think it's reasonable to say they were basically just harassing her.

I could understand asking for her ID if it was actually pertinent to an investigation but this wasn't one of those times.
Click to expand...

Properly identifying someone is a part of every investigation.
 
Gaius46 said:
Don't bet the ranch on that. He's responding to an anonymous call. If he doesn't witness it himself he has zero evidence of anything. No evidence, no reasonably suspicion. No reasonable suspicion no justification to ask for ID or to make an arrest.
Click to expand...

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-your-rights/your-rights-and-police
 
sangha said:
She didn't obstruct any investigation
Click to expand...

She cannot walk away while being detained. She was not free to go, and that was what prompted her being put into handcuffs.
 
People in a nearby building saw the couple doing it. There are pics of Watts straddling her boyfriend. In the park. In daylight where people could and did see them. That kind of "public is affection" is unlawful.
 
VanceMack said:
It would be funny if she and her lawyers REALLY made an issue out of this and got blown out even GREATER and as a result she landed both herself and her BF in jail for the indecent exposure allegations.
Click to expand...

They could be charged with "Engaging in or Soliciting Lewd Conduct in Public California Penal Code 647(a)", especially since someone actually asked them to stop doing it and they continued anyway.

Lewd Acts in Public - California Penal Code 647(a) PC - Defense Lawyer

She could also probably be charged with indecent exposure but that would be a harder one to prove, at least with the pics they have, since it would be most likely for exposing her breasts, not other parts.
 
shavingcollywob said:
No, what I'm suggesting is our IDs are different than Canadian IDs.

Crimes might be solved by looking for the criminal ID in Canada but our IDs hold no relevant information on if a crime was committed. Ours are pretty much limited to name, address, date of birth, a picture, and a brief physical description. I suppose they could have found out if she's an organ donor or was required to wear corrective lenses while driving but I'm just not sure what relevance any of that played in whether or not she was having sex on a public street. Since the only "investigating" they did was looking at an ID that, unlike yours, had no details of the crime then I think it's reasonable to say they were basically just harassing her.

I could understand asking for her ID if it was actually pertinent to an investigation but this wasn't one of those times.
Click to expand...

You really do not understand how investigations work, even here in the US. Many times, investigations take a while, days, even weeks. So police need some contact information about suspects, witnesses, or those involved, including name and address at least, possibly phone number. Plus, it allows police to determine if the person might just have a warrant out on them for the same thing or maybe they are on probation or parole, which is something an officer cannot tell simply from looking at a person. This would give the officer information in itself, which then could in fact clear the person or at least alleviate suspicion. Those involved may not get arrested right away, because police may need some more evidence, but that doesn't mean that police don't have a right and duty to get information about potential suspects in a crime or potential crime to get back to later if more evidence comes out.
 
sangha said:
As I said, she didn't obstruct the investigation
Click to expand...

I saw later down, after I posted this that you said the same thing. Sorry. However, technically, that is why they stop people from leaving and can arrest them, for obstructing the investigation. It can be a charge put onto someone for simply trying to walk away from a lawful detainment. In fact, according to the police chief, she could be charged with delaying/obstruction just for not providing identification during a lawful investigation.

Police chief defends officer in questioning of actress - Los Angeles Wave: News

Beck said the actress' detention has generated “considerable discussion,” and he defended the officers’ right to ask for the actress’ ID, saying if there is “reasonable suspicion” that a crime was committed and a person refuses to produce identification, “they could be found guilty of delaying or obstructing a police investigation.”
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)
 
roguenuke said:
I saw later down, after I posted this that you said the same thing. Sorry. However, technically, that is why they stop people from leaving and can arrest them, for obstructing the investigation. It can be a charge put onto someone for simply trying to walk away from a lawful detainment. In fact, according to the police chief, she could be charged with delaying/obstruction just for not providing identification during a lawful investigation.

Police chief defends officer in questioning of actress - Los Angeles Wave: News


(emphasis mine)
Click to expand...

She could be charged with anything the cops want but CA courts have ruled that not showing ID is not obstruction.
 
roguenuke said:
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-your-rights/your-rights-and-police
Click to expand...


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:
roguenuke said:
She cannot walk away while being detained. She was not free to go, and that was what prompted her being put into handcuffs.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sangha said:
She could be charged with anything the cops want but CA courts have ruled that not showing ID is not obstruction.
Click to expand...

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?
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

In this specific case - yes. I agree. I was speaking generally. If it's an anonymous call and the cop has nothing else there is no reasonable suspicion and hence no investigation.
 
roguenuke said:
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).
Click to expand...

Again agreed in this case. I was making a general statement.
 
Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The tip was not anonymous and it specifically identified those two specific people. Watts has zero leg to stand on at all.
 
Gaius46 said:
In this specific case - yes. I agree. I was speaking generally. If it's an anonymous call and the cop has nothing else there is no reasonable suspicion and hence no investigation.
Click to expand...

Actually, the officers can still investigate based on an anonymous call. If other information leads the officers to a reasonable suspicion that some specific people are involved in a crime, either related to or completely separate from what the call was made about, they can then investigate that crime. The key is only in being able to articulate what that reasonable suspicion was. It doesn't take as much as many want to believe here for a cop to articulate a "reasonable suspicion".
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, the officers can still investigate based on an anonymous call. If other information leads the officers to a reasonable suspicion that some specific people are involved in a crime, either related to or completely separate from what the call was made about, they can then investigate that crime. The key is only in being able to articulate what that reasonable suspicion was. It doesn't take as much as many want to believe here for a cop to articulate a "reasonable suspicion".
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Other information is the key. And I know what's reasonable is pretty much left up to the cop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom