Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

If you're detained in any of the 26 states that don't have these Stop-and-Identify laws, you don't have to identify yourself, no. If you're in one of those states, you do have to identify yourself, although the extent of that required identification varies from state to state. It may be sufficient, for example, simply to provide your name as the extent of your self-identification.

Indeed. Though in this particular case, California has no Stop-and-Identify law, so the source of their "reasonable suspicion of a crime" is irrelevant.

 

The way I read it is, without a stop-and-identify law, you can still be detained for a short while (under Terry) if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime, you just don't face further consequences if you fail to answer any questions, whereas in a SandI state you'd be arrested for obstruction.

GrandAdmiralJello

 

Oh. Yes. I see what you were saying now. Misread you before. Yeah, I agree.

Edit: But to be clear, the detention under a Terry Stop, as I understand it, is to support conducting a frisk/search. I'm sure GrandAdmiralJello or AaylaSecurOWNED can add more detail.

 

GrandAdmiralJello , this is what you went to law school for!

 

so goddamn horrifying

 

Setting the police behavior aside, what happened to Daniele Watts is clearly the result of racism, because let's be real here: whoever reported her and her husband did it because they saw a black woman kissing a white man and thought it was prostitution. I can't offer a verdict on the cops' behavior here because I don't know enough about the situation to make a call on it, but I will say that the police SHOULD take into account the influence of racism in responding to a call like this and how they approach a "suspect." They should know -- and care -- that there are people out there who would have assumed she was a prostitute based on her skin color; she shouldn't have to be punished for some jerk's racism. But again, I wasn't there, so I don't know how they approached her.

As for the legality of her being handcuffed, I think the police MAY have been within the law there, because while she can't be arrested for refusing to show ID in California, I think it *might* be permissible for the police to detain a person while they investigate and figure out who she is. I'm not positive about that though, and I can't find legal clarification on that point. Regardless, I think it's fair to consider whether handcuffing her was really warranted in this situation.

 

Right but I'm not talking about detaining her for failing to provide ID: I get that they can't do that in of itself. But what I'm wondering is if they had any other grounds for detaining her. Don't get me wrong: this situation is totally FUBAR, but I'm just curious what the laws in California say with respect to when a cop can detain a person.

 

The Constitution says you can only be detained on reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, as I understood Jay's explanation above.

Edit: My emphasis seems to indicate that the Navy's tall ship said that.

 

Man how would the police even begin explaining that? There is just no way it sounds remotely good.

 

So what? This situation wasn't "stop and identify" statute related, it was based on suspicion of a crime.

You're incorrectly interpreting the statute because you're completely focused on the end result and not the procedure. The "reasonable suspicion" aspect was initiated when the police were called in relation to possible criminal activity. When they arrived, and there was a person standing there who matched the description of the subject being called in, the "Terry Stop" aspect kicked in, and she was not free to leave. This is where you start confusing goals, and this is the important aspect. If her goal was not to be detained, then she just should have answered the questions and confirmed what the situation really was. If you're asking Jello for confirmation, if he has had any legal training, then he can confirm that this is the basic nature of a Terry Stop. But setting all the legal mumbo-jumbo aside, if she didn't want to prolong the investigatory aspect of the Terry detention by the police who then have to verify what the situation is from other sources because she refuses to talk to them herself, then that's the exact wrong way to go about the encounter.

I like how you then say "Though in this particular case, California has no Stop-and-Identify law, so the source of their "reasonable suspicion of a crime" is irrelevant." This is absolutely, 100% incorrect here. The source of the reasonable suspicion has everything to do with this stop.

Let's say that someone calls in a reports that a bank was just robbed by a tall man wearing a red hat. When the police arrive in the area and observe a tall man wearing a red hat, they can detain that man until he is either 1) determined not to be involved in the robbery or 2) evidence is found that he was involved in the robbery, and then he gets arrested. If there was a red hat convention in town, then that description would be enough to detain every single tall man wearing a red hat who happens to be in the area, even knowing that only 1 out of the 50 "red hat men" actually committed a crime. Again, it's kind of basic police 101 and fully supported by the law. Now, suppose at this initial stage, 49 men just provide information which confirm that they couldn't have been the ones who robbed the bank. They would get a hearty "sorry for the inconvenience, someone matching your description just robbed a bank..." and they would be on their way. However, suppose that during the initial contact, there is 1 red hat man who says "screw you, I'm not telling you who I am, or what I was doing.." Well, that 1 man out of 50 just prolonged his Terry stop. It just depends on what he wants out of the encounter. But now the police will have to look at video footage. The police will have to round up witnesses. The police will have to talk with the caller who originally described the red hat man. It's not like if a suspect in a crime says "screw you, I'm not going to tell you what I was doing..." the police can only sit back and go "Drat! foiled by the one person who discovered the loophole in being guilty of a crime."

In a nutshell, a Terry Stop lasts as long as it takes to either discount any evidence of a crime or determine that a crime has been committed. A person is not free to leave during a Terry Stop, and may be detained for as long as the above outcome takes. If the person themselves refuse to answer questions and/or attempts to walk away, then they just prolonged the stop itself.

So for this situation, when someone called in and reported possible prostitution and the police responded- had she simply said "prostitution? Why this is my husband, and we were just kissing..." They would have been on their way because no crime had been committed. However, when she refused to identify herself and/or started to walk away, she was detained until the actual situation could be determined. In either case, no one was arrested, but procedures still apply.



(In fact, if anyone cares, a couple of years ago, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling which affirmed that such silence during the initial investigation phase CAN be used as one part to develop probable cause of the crime. (the person can't have been arrested yet.)The original case revolved around a man who was recklessly driving and killed a girl with his car, but it applies to any "unnatural silences" before someone is accused of a crime. Basically, in the original case, the police arrived to determine what happened, and the man responsible refused to mention anything about the girl who was killed. The CA SC indicated that such unnatural refusal to discuss events could be used as one aspect to indicate guilt. And this is CA, which sits in the most liberal appellate district, and as far as I know, their ruling hasn't been overturned.)

 

This was a pretty long winded way of saying it's her fault for being targeted and treated the way she was by the police and that it's her responsibility to take actions so that she's not unfairly discriminated against. You should just flatly state that as your opinion instead of filling a post with unrelated examples.

 

You have absolutely no evidence for this point. What the articles describe is that she declined to provide a photo identification. The husband, however, did. His account also describes that they both answered several questions from the officer. It seems less likely to me that they could have gone through all this without it coming out that the two were in fact married or at least in a romantic relationship of some kind.

If that was the case, why did the officer proceed with demanding a photo ID? How does that make the story more or less likely? Married people don't have to share the same last name? Unmarried romantic couples almost never do. So once he had ascertained that they were romantically involved, how does her driver's license help rule out prostitution? Why didn't he just walk away when they answered his questions? The police officer did have to investigate, and may have had the right to detain them. But there is no apparent rationale for why he actually proceeded to do those things.

 

That's not it at all. She wasn't targeted at all by the police.This is the first perception related issue, because people are acting like the police were just randomly driving by. By the accounts, they were called there because some other person called to report prostitution. We don't know the motivations behind whoever called. Maybe it was a high prostitution area, and the business owners were already on edge. Maybe the caller was racist, and called 9-11 because she was black. Anything is speculation, but this doesn't have anything to do with her or the police.

So, because a call was generated, now an officer responds, and in the area observes the same subject who was described as being involved in prostitution. The police go up to ask her what's going on, and she refuses to identify herself and tries to walk away. As mentioned, I'd like anyone to describe how they think the police should react? Again, there's that major loophole regarding being charged with anything. The best way to avoid being caught for any crime is to just say "I'm not a ____(insert crime here)" and then just walk away. Oh well, it doesn't matter what the situation was, the person just wants to leave so I guess the police should just watch her go?

According to her own account, she was handcuffed and detained for as long as it took to verify what the situation was because she refused to talk to the police when they arrived and it seems like the police got their information from her husband who was there from the beginning, because no crime had taken place.

 

Let's understand this. A pair of people are wanted for committing a crime in tandem. You approach a suspect couple, and one of them provides and explanation that rules out the involvement of both of them. The appropriate response is therefore to handcuff the one that didn't say anything, even though at that point it's only one person and you are specifically looking for two? Really? That's the only reasonable option? One shouldn't go look for an actual pair of people with no excuse so you have something fitting the description again?

 

Wocky, now you're just acting weird. But I'll directly answer your scenarios.

Do you ever wonder why police separate and interview people apart from each other? It's not simply because they're jerks.

So as you said, you approach a suspect couple, one of who refuses to identify herself, even though such identification actually proves what was really going on.

1)The two people say they are married, and in fact have licenses which have the same last name and address. It's pretty obvious that they are married. But how do you know without looking at them?
2)The two people are married but don't have the same last name, as is common practice, but still share the same residence. Ok, it's pretty obvious that they're in a relationship, but how do you know?
3)The two people are only dating, but it still isn't a case of prostitution. So both get separated and asked what's the name and/or address of the other person. Two people involved in a prostitute-john relationship aren't going to know the other person's name, and certainly aren't going to know the other person's address, so you get their answers and compare. But how do you know beforehand without seeing their license?
4)Actual customer/prostitutes may know each other's first name, or try and lie and make up a name, but how do you know beforehand without seeing their license to compare?

See, in every scenario based on this situation, the key factor is confirming the identity of the people involved. But how do you do that without looking at their ID? Sure,legally, the woman didn't have to identify herself or otherwise confirm that they married, but that just means it comes down to using other methods to confirm the exact same situation which takes longer and prolongs what was a simple exchange.

I mean, I know you're generally anti-authority, but what do you think investigations entail? A crime is reported, so you walk up to the person, ask if they committed the crime, and when they say "no," conclude "well, that's good enough for me?"

 

And not that anyone really cares, but more information has been released regarding the initial call. They weren't just walking along and kissing. The original call was a report of "indecent exposure," because the two of them were possibly getting busy while in a silver Mercedes parked on the side of the street. Of course, the two of them deny any sexual activity, but whatever they were doing looked enough like it that the original person who called 9-11 reported the indecent exposure and supplied some specific details which probably exceed the TOS here.

No matter if they were or they weren't. Whatever happened wasn't all that big of a deal. If you're having fun in a car, no harm, no foul, but you should probably just get a room or just go home for privacy. But along the same lines, if someone calls in a report for indecent exposure and the police show up to investigate, don't act like it was suddenly a surprise or pretend that it was random.

After the walk away/being detained incident, the police let them go specifically because they knew each other/were in a relationship and there was no harm with the alleged indecent exposure, after it was established that was the case.

 

Jedi Merkurian, I notice we didn't dissect that incident very much and Mr44 had nothing to say on the new video on Michael Brown. Fascinating.

 

Not sure where to put this article so I'll dump it here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...ks-fan-in-wheelchair-to-stand-up-9731845.html

 

A word of caution: the lack of a "Stop and Identify" (S&I) statute does not mean that there is no obligation to identify yourself. For example, in Virginia the requirement is found in case law, not statutory law, stretching back to English Common Law, although it only requires that a person identify themselves when they are "at large in the night-time", and all you are required to give is your name and place of residence (i.e. city or town). Depending on your state, a specific locality might also have a S&I statute which may or may not be enforceable. (Virginia has a few localities that have a S&I statute, but those statutes are unenforceable because Virginia follows the Dillon Rule that requires that local governments be specifically granted authority from the state legislature in order to pass specific statutes.)

 

Oh, I'm aware that it is always in your best interest to at least provide your name to police. And unless you want to extend your time with the police, you're better off showing them your ID. I was simply challenging the assertion that you are required by law to do so. About half the time you are, and half the time, you're not. And if you're unsure, you should provide your ID because, in general, in a conflict with the police, you will always lose. Especially if you're black.