General Discussion

pnwmom

(110,251 posts)

118. There is no law against making out, and no reasonable suspicion to me

Mon Sep 15, 2014, 11:51 PM

Sep 2014

based on a phone tip that they were doing more than that. It just isn't reasonable for the police to take action on every phoned-in tip when they find no evidence at the scene.

I just found this statement by a police officer who says in CA they don't have the right to detain for ID -- but people should provide it anyway, because they can't know if the officer has probable cause.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060711011931AAbmgHG

Just because we're police officers does not allow us to require identification from people.

Hiibel v. Nevada does not apply in California, even though it was decided by the US Supreme Court, because California has no statute requiring you to identify yourself when detained on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Nevada does, and Hiibel was convicted of violating it. If California had such a law, then Hiibel would apply. California does have a law having to do with resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer performing his duties, and it's possible someone can make a case for this if you refuse to ID yourself - I haven't seen it done yet, though.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

227 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In my opinion, it changes the narrative if Daniele Watts and Brian Lucas were engaged in sex [View all] cali Sep 2014 OP

She'd have been cuffed for something different if that was the case. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #1

He gave them his ID. She refused. The cop gave her more than one opportunity cali Sep 2014 #3

How does giving ID show that he wasn't engaged in sex in public? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #4

it doesn't demonstrate that. My only point is that he had the legal right to ask for ID cali Sep 2014 #7

Nope. jeff47 Sep 2014 #31

True...ID or none if they we're having sex in public the id.... uponit7771 Sep 2014 #14

I think often a cop asks for an ID to simply see the individual's reaction. randome Sep 2014 #17

He assumed she was a prostitute TexasMommaWithAHat Sep 2014 #32

If he assumed anything, he never told her. LisaL Sep 2014 #87

Well, he did TexasMommaWithAHat Sep 2014 #173

Cop was trying to ID her since she refused to provide an ID. LisaL Sep 2014 #176

He must have thought she could be a prostitute TexasMommaWithAHat Sep 2014 #181

if she is a prostitute hfojvt Sep 2014 #52

That was my read on it. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #56

But she wasn't arrested for that. She was arrested for not giving her ID, pnwmom Sep 2014 #95

She was not arrested. She was detained. LisaL Sep 2014 #107

But this all hinges on reasonable suspicion. Should they have had any reasonable suspicion, pnwmom Sep 2014 #108

Per police, there was a 911 call about lewd acts being committed in the car. LisaL Sep 2014 #110

There is no law against making out, and no reasonable suspicion to me pnwmom Sep 2014 #118

What action did police took other than asking her for an ID? LisaL Sep 2014 #119

They detained her. They put her in handcuffs. And it would have been more reasonable pnwmom Sep 2014 #121

This message was self-deleted by its author LisaL Sep 2014 #123

The police did detain her (or arrest her -- that's unclear) on suspicion of prostitution. pnwmom Sep 2014 #124

It appears to be a poorly written article. LisaL Sep 2014 #129

I agree. But the bottom line to me is that the police didn't find any sign of a crime. pnwmom Sep 2014 #130

So police can only arrest/detain someone if they personally see a crime? LisaL Sep 2014 #131

If the crime consists of a DISPLAY, then yes, the police should SEE it. pnwmom Sep 2014 #134

so some flasher in the park shouldn't be bothered because the police didn't see that DISPLAY cali Sep 2014 #143

Either the cop has to see it, or a witness has to be with the cop saying "That's him, officer". jeff47 Sep 2014 #162

How do you know what witness said or didn't say? LisaL Sep 2014 #171

There were no witnesses present in the video of the arrest. jeff47 Sep 2014 #198

And Watts and Lucas weren't arrested. cali Sep 2014 #185

Actually, she was jeff47 Sep 2014 #197

YES. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #191

Ludicrous, isn't it? LisaL Sep 2014 #170

But that's different. It's appropriate to ask other people in the park if they've seen something, pnwmom Sep 2014 #192

Not if their only evidence was a phoned-in tip, no. That would be a way to harass anyone pnwmom Sep 2014 #190

A witness would... tonedevil Sep 2014 #208

Audio available here: KurtNYC Sep 2014 #64

All of which is fine, but... Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #66

Did not "stand." She tried to walk away. That will get you cuffed no matter who you are. KurtNYC Sep 2014 #73

One more time: she was not cuffed for indecent exposure or lewd acts cali Sep 2014 #90

A telephone call is not probable cause. jeff47 Sep 2014 #164

yes it is. the caller described the couple and the attire they were wearing. cali Sep 2014 #186

And I bet I could find several identical couples in LA. jeff47 Sep 2014 #199

Per the police, witness gave a license plate number. LisaL Sep 2014 #221

UGH. The 911 callers = snitches. nt alp227 Sep 2014 #125

Snitches? TexasMommaWithAHat Sep 2014 #174

Good for them. kiva Sep 2014 #215

"pubic" sex? cwydro Sep 2014 #217

A typo, kiva Sep 2014 #220

Not in America ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #80

Evidence seems to indicate that is not the case here. joeglow3 Sep 2014 #149

Ahhh, evidence! ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #158

I don't disagree with that joeglow3 Sep 2014 #178

I have to admit it changes the way I look at the story. hughee99 Sep 2014 #2

You know, I heard about crying after sex snooper2 Sep 2014 #5

Your concern is noted, however... Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #6

yeah, yeah. why not just have some guts and call me a racist. cali Sep 2014 #13

I said that I have no idea what happened Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #29

You claimed the witnesses were "most likely white" joeglow3 Sep 2014 #150

Why are the witnesses most likely white? NCTraveler Sep 2014 #201

I grew up in a diverse area with a good amount of whites, blacks asians etc... Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #204

You summed it up nicely in your last two sentences. NCTraveler Sep 2014 #212

Your hypotheticals are interesting Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #213

Hey Daniele Watts, Good luck ever getting another job in the industry. NEXT! n/t 951-Riverside Sep 2014 #8

Didn't get enough victim-blaming in yet? nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #12

She is not a victim Egnever Sep 2014 #83

+1 TexasMommaWithAHat Sep 2014 #175

What is this, 1950? progressoid Sep 2014 #92

If this were Joe and Beverly Schmoe saying it was racism, joeybee12 Sep 2014 #9

to some a white person kissing a black person is lewd... uponit7771 Sep 2014 #10

what lack of specifics? Witnesses claimed they were having sex in the passenger seat of their car. cali Sep 2014 #15

Witness could be dead wrong, cops should check first and the question of why they weren't uponit7771 Sep 2014 #43

What is it that you expect cop to check? LisaL Sep 2014 #72

How do they check? joeglow3 Sep 2014 #151

No, because the school personnel are complaining witnesses. jeff47 Sep 2014 #165

I disagree. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #11

He was asked to produce ID and immediately complied. cali Sep 2014 #16

She was not free to leave. Thus she was arrested. jeff47 Sep 2014 #21

No, no...the new term for it now is 'detained'. Rex Sep 2014 #65

Unfortunately for the officers, it's still legally an arrest no matter what they call it (nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #99

"Just do what we say and there won't be any trouble" 951-Riverside Sep 2014 #25

Oh my! In_The_Wind Sep 2014 #138

They had intent to arrest--they figured she was a street prostitute geek tragedy Sep 2014 #26

Have you listened to the tape? kiva Sep 2014 #62

Exactly. LisaL Sep 2014 #86

Cops make an assessment on the spur of the moment sometimes. randome Sep 2014 #18

So, cops get to ignore the law when they are a tad suspicious? jeff47 Sep 2014 #23

When they arrive on the scene, what are they supposed to do? Nothing? randome Sep 2014 #28

Yes, nothing. Look around, see no evidence of a crime, move on. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #33

Did you listen to the recordings? WillowTree Sep 2014 #166

Legally, they were entitled to say "Hi, what's up?" jeff47 Sep 2014 #35

Agree with everything you said. But you're "simply" stating facts. randome Sep 2014 #36

Breaking the law is a lot more problematic for police jeff47 Sep 2014 #40

I hope the cops who are now in "deep shit for false arrest" are punished for it. They violated the Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #53

No, they didn't. LisaL Sep 2014 #106

Legit call? geek tragedy Sep 2014 #24

Were there other cars around? Maybe they had reason to think the call related to these two. randome Sep 2014 #27

Even so, no crime in progress/in evidence. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #30

I think the cops were not smart. randome Sep 2014 #34

Having never been racially profiled by cops, geek tragedy Sep 2014 #37

I hear that. randome Sep 2014 #38

so you still haven't listened to the audio I take it snooper2 Sep 2014 #182

I take it you haven't listed to the audio snooper2 Sep 2014 #20

Then sell it to TMZ for big $$$. LisaL Sep 2014 #69

And they didn't arrest/cite him because...........? jeff47 Sep 2014 #19

Because 95% of cops aren't going to arrest a married straight couple for screwing around in a car ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #57

As far as I can tell, they aren't actually married. LisaL Sep 2014 #68

I've heard all sorts of different reports as to what the relationship is ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #75

Cop was going to let her go after she showed her ID. Which he told her repeatedly. LisaL Sep 2014 #84

How dare she expect the cop to follow the law. jeff47 Sep 2014 #100

Police did follow the law. LisaL Sep 2014 #104

Nope. jeff47 Sep 2014 #112

Per TMZ, there were witnesses. LisaL Sep 2014 #116

There were people who talked to TMZ. However, the cops showed up and put on the cuffs jeff47 Sep 2014 #140

Utterly wrong. jeff47 Sep 2014 #102

We've already been through ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #109

The cop had no complaining witness, and did not see the lewd acts himself. jeff47 Sep 2014 #113

You're writing that with a straight face? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #115

Yes, seriously. jeff47 Sep 2014 #141

You think that is what a police state is like? joeglow3 Sep 2014 #152

Demanding people carry ID at all times and show it to the police on demand jeff47 Sep 2014 #154

What if police are called to a school because of a creepy man in a trenchcoat flashing kids? joeglow3 Sep 2014 #177

CA law allows cops to check idea if they have probable cause cali Sep 2014 #145

No, the phone calls do not. The calls do not identify the suspect. jeff47 Sep 2014 #147

Did we hear the 911 calls or just speculating? ksoze Sep 2014 #148

Because ID the type of car, color, etc isn't enough. jeff47 Sep 2014 #153

A description that matches car & suspects is detainable ksoze Sep 2014 #157

Again, description of the car is not reasonable suspicion. jeff47 Sep 2014 #160

We disagree on what is reasonable suspicion ksoze Sep 2014 #167

And since they need an arrest to demand ID..... jeff47 Sep 2014 #169

Incorrect again ksoze Sep 2014 #172

Which is called "arrest". jeff47 Sep 2014 #203

No, it's actually not - there is a difference legally ksoze Sep 2014 #205

If you are not free to leave, you are under arrest. Doesn't matter if people call it "detention". jeff47 Sep 2014 #206

In your mind yes, legally there is a difference ksoze Sep 2014 #207

What reasonable suspicion? tonedevil Sep 2014 #210

Legally there is a definition ksoze Sep 2014 #211

911, Operator, yes, There is a late model blue civic with a black spoiler on 47th and Elm Street snooper2 Sep 2014 #183

Again, not sufficient. jeff47 Sep 2014 #202

Per the police, witness gave them a license plate number. LisaL Sep 2014 #222

He was cooperative. They asked him for ID, he gave it to them. LisaL Sep 2014 #70

Doesn't matter that she refused. CA law does not allow the cops to ask for ID. jeff47 Sep 2014 #103

That's not true. LisaL Sep 2014 #105

He would have to have evidence that she was the suspect jeff47 Sep 2014 #114

Where exactly did you get this idea? LisaL Sep 2014 #117

There were people who talked to TMZ. There were no witnesses talking to the cop. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #139

And one is allowed to refuse in CA. Gormy Cuss Sep 2014 #195

Disagree. If they were engaging in sex in public / people were seeing the show, IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #22

I sure agree with you...Sometimes I hear a person scoff at a young couple hugging Tikki Sep 2014 #39

"Where you dancing the dance of the seven veils while chanting odes to the Dark Lord when you were s logosoco Sep 2014 #77

Thank you - I am kicking myself for using "where" instead of "were" -- IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #81

My problems with this are varied The Traveler Sep 2014 #41

And they will continue to do this until we fight back Generic Other Sep 2014 #82

I have to say The Traveler Sep 2014 #135

Pile on? kcr Sep 2014 #42

Before I heard the audio I had read that kiva Sep 2014 #44

If they were having sex why weren't they arrested for doing so? Kissin a black person is lewd to som uponit7771 Sep 2014 #45

By no definition I've ever heard is making out the same as having sex kcr Sep 2014 #46

And saying that the police kiva Sep 2014 #48

No. It is not an overreaction. kcr Sep 2014 #49

Why? kiva Sep 2014 #61

Racism does happen to individuals kcr Sep 2014 #76

I have a hard time believing kiva Sep 2014 #78

And I have no problem believing it kcr Sep 2014 #96

"but they aren't entitled to facts" kiva Sep 2014 #97

You should heed your own advice. joeglow3 Sep 2014 #155

What advice would that be? n/t kcr Sep 2014 #200

Look at the facts BEFORE coming to a conclusion. joeglow3 Sep 2014 #214

Someone upset by interracial relationships and PDA could have called in this report. kwassa Sep 2014 #50

No proof they were having sex. trumad Sep 2014 #47

The witnesses said they were having sex Evergreen Emerald Sep 2014 #54

And if the cops don't witness the actual act NickB79 Sep 2014 #60

Not true. They can investigate. If police could only investigate crimes they witnessed Evergreen Emerald Sep 2014 #63

Yes, they can investigate NickB79 Sep 2014 #93

They can investigate and ask for ID and send them on their way ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #111

If you report someone threatened to kill you and then left the scene.. Mercy_Queen Sep 2014 #71

It is legal for them to talk to the couple, and ask them to move along. jeff47 Sep 2014 #168

Your understand of the CA requirement is simply incorrect. Mercy_Queen Sep 2014 #196

Eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable evidence. stevenleser Sep 2014 #122

In their interview on CNN they sure didn't deny it n/t cali Sep 2014 #146

Given that nowdays almost everything is videotaped, it LisaL Sep 2014 #67

When I was young, "making out" just meant good old fashioned "necking," NOT sexual intercourse. nt tblue37 Sep 2014 #51

This whole case is why most cops would prefer to take a nap behind the Sav-A-Lot ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #55

Never call the cops about trivial things. Never. hunter Sep 2014 #58

I completely agree. cali Sep 2014 #74

what is trivial is in the eye of beholder KT2000 Sep 2014 #127

I don't know if it's my teaching experience or if I'm turning into a grumpy old man yelling... hunter Sep 2014 #180

If that's the case, yes, it would change my view quite a bit. NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #59

I think the cops make on the spot decisions gwheezie Sep 2014 #79

they were having..... SEX???????? Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #85

Just to clarify the law on this: Vattel Sep 2014 #88

Per law, cop didn't do anything wrong here. LisaL Sep 2014 #89

That seems to be the case. Not that I like the way the 4th amendment has been interpreted. Vattel Sep 2014 #91

Sounds like she is getting the publicity whistler162 Sep 2014 #94

Someone asked "Why was the door left open" while they screwed? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #120

I wonder if they will trace the 911 caller... whistler162 Sep 2014 #137

The cop was responding to a report. Calista241 Sep 2014 #98

Uh huh. And Michael Brown was charging, Trayvon Martin was stealing, yada yada ecstatic Sep 2014 #101

THREAD WINNER. Number23 Sep 2014 #219

Who in the hell are 'Daniele Watts and Brian Lucas'? Seriously, I recognized neither Purveyor Sep 2014 #126

I admit to re-thinking my stance on the police action. WinkyDink Sep 2014 #128

Lots of people defending the cops here. That is sad. BillZBubb Sep 2014 #132

Either you want the police to follow proper whistler162 Sep 2014 #136

first of all, there doesn't have to be a crime in progress for police to investigate cali Sep 2014 #142

Name Calling Crap .... Trajan Sep 2014 #156

lol. I can't help but laugh at you. cali Sep 2014 #209

The anti-police thing here is getting weird ksoze Sep 2014 #144

it got way past that years ago n/t TorchTheWitch Sep 2014 #161

Completely agree. That's what my other thread was about, by the way. closeupready Sep 2014 #133

When the cop stated that if she just produced her license it would have been over 15 minutes ago. dilby Sep 2014 #159

What is their definition of "sex"? tularetom Sep 2014 #163

old fashioned fucking. cali Sep 2014 #187

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I think it's disrespectful to ask a woman to have public sex with you. DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2014 #179

Maybe she initiated it. cali Sep 2014 #188

Why do you automatically think he asked her? n/t OnlinePoker Sep 2014 #193

Except that, to still far too many liberalhistorian Sep 2014 #184

except it wasn't. it was fucking. cali Sep 2014 #189

But we don't liberalhistorian Sep 2014 #216

they didn't deny it in the CNN interview cali Sep 2014 #218

Not denying something liberalhistorian Sep 2014 #223

no it doesn't TorchTheWitch Sep 2014 #194

Evidently, there are now photos and more details cali Sep 2014 #224

somewhat appropriate kick. agreed with your analysis from the beginning. maximillian1974 Sep 2014 #226

somewhat smug kick cali Sep 2014 #225

Well, it looks like the narrative has now been changed. NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #227