patrick.net

Old fashioned stupidity.

Obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/embed/igQDvYOt_iA

Citizens in California are not required to carry, or present to police, "ID" or Travel Permissions or other "papers please" documents to random costumed authority figures. You don't have to chat with them or answer their questions.

If the cop has articulable reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime (in this case "making out") to detain you, you do have to provide him, verbally, with your full name and address.
This chick didn't feel like cow-towing to LAPD, but she should have know her rights in finer detail.

Call it Crazy says

I think in this instance, it was her "elitist" attitude where she feels above the law enforcement because she is an actress.... Don't they know who she is?

She put on airs, indicating that she thinks she's better'n me.

We can't all be down-to-earth, like humble Cliven Bundy.

HydroCarbon,

I can't tell whether people disliked some of your posts because they did get the parody or because they didn't.

ApoF*ck is easier, people have figured him out by now.

Strategist says

This was made for Dan.

1. There is no legal requirement in the United States to even carry ID. You are thinking of Nazi Germany -- show me your papers -- not the United States.

2. California is not a "stop-and-identify" state.

3. Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in illegal activity. And a phone call by an anonymous citizen is not reasonable suspicion by any sane standard.

If they had attempted to do so, they know they would lose the subsequent lawsuit for false arrest and false prosecution.

4. If she had committed a crime by not giving her ID, the officer would have arrested her and the DA would be pressing charges. The fact that neither of this happens demonstrates that even the state is acknowledging that she committed no crime.

5. This clearly was a power trip for the cop. You can be as much against the politics of the woman, but that doesn't change the fact that the cop had no suspicion that she was a prostitute a mere minute into the conversation. A prostitute would immediately show her ID to appear "lawful". So the only reason the cop didn't back down after realizing that this woman clearly isn't a prostitute is he was playing a power game. That alone should get his ass kicked off the force for ethics violations.

6. Producing an ID would in no way, shape, or form indicate whether a person is a prostitute or not. Any past behavior is not evidence of current behavior. Thus identification serves no purpose but to allow for fishing expeditions. If such fishing expeditions were legal, we'd all be require to carry ID at all times.

Of course this whole situation could have been avoided if she was practicing her open carry rights, preferably with an AK-47 (legal in CA with small clips). Then the cop would feel far less need to stroke his ego with a power trip.

Personally, I'm all for power symmetry. I have no problem with people being required to identify themselves if the police have to give up as much information about themselves as they get. For example, they get your SS # and you get theirs. They get your home address and you get theirs. They get your driver's license and you get theirs. Keep the information exchange even and they'll be far fewer problems as the police won't want to exchange personal data.

I want an app that displays holographic IDs of mine and whatever cop asks me for ID. There's nothing like information equality to keep everybody honest and lawful.

Dan8267 says

You can be as much against the politics of the woman, but that doesn't change the fact that the cop had no suspicion that she was a prostitute a mere minute into the conversation

Aside from the cop politics, regarding the above issue ...

A lot of ppl on this forum should visit Australia. The cities there: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, etc, look a lot of like our SF, Boston, Minneapolis, etc. Thus, it's a close facsimile to our American cityscape.

Here's the difference ... prostitution is legal. Men and women can legally engage in their own adult activities w/o police oversight. In fact, the only time I saw heavy security, was on the Sydney subway but late at night, past 8PM, for the safety of the passengers.

And then, don't give me the horseshit about random crime. That can happen anywhere. Sure, Sydney's got its slums, like Redfern, however, I'd been around that area and in comparison to the South Bronx, North Philadelphia, west side of DC, or even Boston's Roxbury, etc, it's not even close.

That's all fine Dan except that you don't have the actual set of facts.

What actually happened was after receiving the radio call and observing conduct reasonably similar to what was described in the radio call, the cop approached the car and told both individuals involved why he had come out to the location and asked for both to show ID, which he is not only legally entitled to do, but it's also mandatory as part of his job(department policy and standard police procedure). At that point the male handed over his ID and said he also had her passport. While the male was looking for the passport, the female started walking away.

The cop was not inclined to chase her over a minor matter so he radio'ed another car that was on its way, said that the female was walking away and asked for the other car to stop her and bring her back. At that point the male said that he made a mistake and did not have her passport. The other car handcuffed her and brought her back to the original scene.

And it's all recorded. Of course that doesn't make a good news story(except when the cop not involved in her handcuffing relays the story on John and Ken).

So public servants with 100k salaries and lifetime pensions-who get to retire at 50- have nothing better to do than chase after a husband and wife in a mercedes. Damn-I need me one of these jobs.

justme says

HydroCarbon,

I can't tell whether people disliked some of your posts because they did get the parody or because they didn't.

ApoF*ck is easier, people have figured him out by now.

APOCALYPSEFUCK IS SATIRICAL??

From what I can see, a lot of girls and women are TRYING to be mistaken for a prostitute.

Just don't know what they want, after all.

The cop's recorded audio of the incident is hilarious, the white boyfriend seems almost embarrassed of his gf's actions when talking to the cop. He also showed considerable patience letting her walk away and calling for a female officer to pick her up.

The funniest part, is how she acts like an over privileged brat threatening the cop with her publicist, and talking and pouting on her phone with her father. "But daddy he's being very mean". Handing the phone to the cop, "My daddy wants to talk to you"(cop declines to take the phone). And "BUT DADDY! HE REFUSES TO TALK TO YOU!" lmfao

HydroCabron says

APOCALYPSEFUCK IS SATIRICAL??

I'm butt-hurt over this one. I believe everything I read on the interwebs, which is a series of tubes (they can't tell lies on the interwebs - ask my French boyfriend!).

I've quoted AF many times, which resulted in my being asked to leave from many a fine establishment. If he's satirical, my life has been turned upside-down and I've got nuthin' to live for.

Oh - the black chick who was kissing her boyfriend/husband/significant other in the middle of the daytime in a nice car outside of a business? She could have de-escalated the situation by identifying herself, but this went wayyyyy too far. Once the dude said she was his girlfriend and they realized that she wasn't a whore, they should have stood down.

LA cops got better things to do than to harass people for kissing. They're fucking idiots.

lakermania says

The cop's recorded audio of the incident is hilarious, the white boyfriend seems almost embarrassed of his gf's actions when talking to the cop. He also showed considerable patience letting her walk away and calling for a female officer to pick her up.

The funniest part, is how she acts like an over privileged brat threatening the cop with her publicist, and talking and pouting on her phone with her father. "But daddy he's being very mean". Handing the phone to the cop, "My daddy wants to talk to you"(cop declines to take the phone). And "BUT DADDY! HE REFUSES TO TALK TO YOU!" lmfao

ZOMG do not interject with FACTS, presented in context no less!

Actually, the way the story was written, the cop sounded pretty cool and she sounded like an asshole.

Dan8267 says

3. Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in illegal activity. And a phone call by an anonymous citizen is not reasonable suspicion by any sane standard.

The possibility of a crime taking place was very reasonable. Her white boyfriend, the celebrity chef who was cooking her up had no problem showing an ID.

Dan8267 says

6. Producing an ID would in no way, shape, or form indicate whether a person is a prostitute or not.

Stop making excuses. Just show the damn ID.

Dan8267 says

Personally, I'm all for power symmetry. I have no problem with people being required to identify themselves if the police have to give up as much information about themselves as they get. For example, they get your SS # and you get theirs. They get your home address and you get theirs. They get your driver's license and you get theirs. Keep the information exchange even and they'll be far fewer problems as the police won't want to exchange personal data.

Stop dreaming. You may want every cop and their families to be easy targets of criminals. We don't.

That bimbo should be arrested as she tried to walk away and never showed her ID. Her boyfriend, who has more sense than her gave the cop her ID and diffused the situation. Look at her wail like a little brat....Wwaaaaa, the mean man asked for my ID, wwaaaaaaa, daddy.

Blurtman says

Actually, the way the story was written, the cop sounded pretty cool and she sounded like an asshole.

An asshole egomaniac actress. Who would believe that?

Strategist says

The possibility of a crime taking place was very reasonable.

A racist calls in saying he sees a black woman with a white man, therefore the black woman must be a prostitute. And that's your criteria for "reasonable suspicion"? If that's the standard then the law should be changed so that cops can't act on reasonable suspicion.

And you have to be a complete idiot to believe that cop had ANY doubt that this woman wasn't a prostitute after talking to her for a minute. Even the cop with the least detective skills would have figured out that she's not a prostitute when she got upset over her civil rights being abused. Cops know how to read people, and this cop didn't want to see her ID because it would tell her whether or not she is committing prostitution. This cop wanted her ID precisely because she refused to give it. It was a power trip and nothing more. The law is not about stroking the egos of cops.

Strategist says

Stop dreaming. You may want every cop and their families to be easy targets of criminals. We don't.

Asymmetry of power has been the cause of every evil in this world including slavery, torture, and every genocide. What you don't want is accountability in the police.

Furthermore, prostitution should not be a crime. It is a violation of the First Amendment, freedom of religion, to make it a crime. Also, there is no legal justification for the state to even have the power to make any kind of consensual sex illegal.

The solution to the problems presented in this thread is to simply declare all anti-prostitution laws Unconstitutional and void. Then there would be no pretext for a stop-and-question.

The same goes for all anti-drug laws.

Finally, the broken window theory says that we don't tolerate small crimes so that big ones won't occur. This theory applies to cops as much as it does to the rest of us.

Blurtman says

Actually, the way the story was written, the cop sounded pretty cool and she sounded like an asshole.

Irrelevant. It's not illegal to be an asshole. If it were, half the people on Patrick.net would be behind bars.

The story reports that the cop received a call about possible illegal activity. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like he has the law behind him.

Dan8267 says

And you have to be a complete idiot to believe that cop had ANY doubt that this woman wasn't a prostitute after talking to her for a minute. Even the cop with the least detective skills would have figured out that she's not a prostitute when she got upset over her civil rights being abused. Cops know how to read people, and this cop didn't want to see her ID because it would tell her whether or not she is committing prostitution. This cop wanted her ID precisely because she refused to give it. It was a power trip and nothing more. The law is not about stroking the egos of cops.

Rubbish. The cop asked her boyfriend for the ID too. He treated them both equally, but only she had a problem complying. As per the article, legal experts have concluded the cop did the right thing.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Stop dreaming. You may want every cop and their families to be easy targets of criminals. We don't.

Asymmetry of power has been the cause of every evil in this world including slavery, torture, and every genocide. What you don't want is accountability in the police.

Your proposals would result in no cops leading to criminals in control of society. That is asymmetry.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, prostitution should not be a crime.

Different debate.

Strategist says

Rubbish. The cop asked her boyfriend for the ID too. He treated them both equally, but only she had a problem complying.

What you are saying is irrelevant to what I am saying.

The cop did not have any suspicion that she was a prostitute. This is obvious from his behavior in the video. He was going on a power trip and that is NOT the intent of the law.

Strategist says

As per the article, legal experts have concluded the cop did the right thing.

Appeal to authority means nothing. Any ethical court would conclude that the police had no authority to place this woman under arrest, which he did when he handcuffed her, for not showing her ID because the law in California states that people do not have to identify themselves if there isn't a reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.

Anonymous hearsay is not reasonable suspicion. Nor is the desire of a cop to demonstrate his authority. Not even you are dumb enough to believe this cop really thought she was a prostitute when he arrested her.

If you want to make the argument that there should be a national law requiring people to carry ID at all times and to present them to cops at any time including random questioning, then have the balls and the honesty to make that argument. It is disingenuous to argue that in this particular case, the officer had any reasonable reason to believe that this woman might be a prostitute and that he needed her ID to somehow confirm this. That's a bold-face lie.

?

He doesn't have to believe she was a prostitute to ask for her ID. On the John and Ken show last night he stated that had not even crossed his mind. On the audio recording he never mentions anything about her being a prostitute.

I'm not sure why you, someone who seems to pride themselves on posting rational thoughts based on factual foundation, continues to object to a cops behavior that is not built on a factually true foundation.

dodgerfanjohn says

I'm not sure why you, someone who seems to pride themselves on posting rational thoughts based on factual foundation, continues to object to a cops behavior that is not built on a factually true foundation.

Just because you say there is no factually true foundation doesn't make it so. According to the article, the cop was called in on a civilian report of alleged prostitution. As you just admitted, the cop had no such suspicion at the scene. You are agreeing with me on the facts.

According to California law, like it or not, a civilian is not legally obligated to produce ID or identify himself to a cop merely because the cop wants ID. According to the law, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. This cop, as you have just admitted, did not.

My foundations are quite factual. If you think I have misrepresented some truth then specifically state what fact you believe I got wrong.

The Professor says

Should we also require travel papers verifying that we have a "legitimate" need to be on the street?

I agree that "show me your papers" smacks of Nazism and other police states. It's not the kind of country that most Americans want to live in.

But importantly, the police cannot be allowed to create law on the spot at their whims. There is a reason we separate the legislative branch from the executive branch.

This cop, like many others, was inventing his own laws on the spot. We should not tolerate this.

Strategist says

Your proposals would result in no cops leading to criminals in control of society. That is asymmetry.

Pure, unfounded conjecture. We do not have to choose between anarchy and a police state. That is a false dichotomy.

The cop was there on a lewd conduct call. After seeing the couple in the car engaged in intimate behavior, probably cause exits. This is what the law says.

She brought up anything to do with prostitution, not the cop.

And the entire incident is audio recorded at tmz.com

One of those pics of an ostrich with its head in the sand is quite appropriate here.

Dan8267 says

dodgerfanjohn says

I'm not sure why you, someone who seems to pride themselves on posting rational thoughts based on factual foundation, continues to object to a cops behavior that is not built on a factually true foundation.

Just because you say there is no factually true foundation doesn't make it so. According to the article, the cop was called in on a civilian report of alleged prostitution. As you just admitted, the cop had no such suspicion at the scene. You are agreeing with me on the facts.

Dan - while I admire your zeal for this subject, it would be more helpful if you had a better grasp of what the 4th amendment allows and does not allow.

The fact of the matter is, if I called in to the police and indicated that I knew you to be a drug dealer named "Dan" who drives a red volvo convertible, the 4th amendment allows the police to detain you, ask you to identify yourself, pat you down and possibly even handcuff you based on nothing more than my statement. Your redress of course is a case against me for malicious prosecution, but that matters not when we are dealing with a Terry Stop as is the case here in LA.

You are on the right path with the whole "reasonable suspicion" language, but the fact is you are confusing whats going on because you have never heard of a Terry Stop or read any of the extensive case law that came about as a result of Terry V Ohio and the nuanced interplay between the 4th & 5th amendments.

If you really do care about this stuff, I encourage you to see if your local law school has a criminal law or a crim pro class that you can audit. It would help a lot should choose to continue to educate fellow patnetters on these sorts of things.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

As per the article, legal experts have concluded the cop did the right thing.

Appeal to authority means nothing. Any ethical court would conclude that the police had no authority to place this woman under arrest, which he did when he handcuffed her, for not showing her ID because the law in California states that people do not have to identify themselves if there isn't a reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.

Anonymous hearsay is not reasonable suspicion. Nor is the desire of a cop to demonstrate his authority. Not even you are dumb enough to believe this cop really thought she was a prostitute when he arrested her.

So the legal experts are wrong according to you.
You sound like someone who makes up the law just to suit yourself.

Dan8267 says

Appeal to authority means nothing. Any ethical court would conclude that the police had no authority to place this woman under arrest

The court follows the law even if you think it's unethical.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Your proposals would result in no cops leading to criminals in control of society. That is asymmetry.

Pure, unfounded conjecture. We do not have to choose between anarchy and a police state. That is a false dichotomy.

We don't have a police state here. And we don't want anarchy with everyone defying those who maintain law and order.

CDon says

ask you to identify yourself,

The only thing you're legally required is to state your name and where you sleep. The police can choose to detain you for 24 hours or not.

If you do show your ID, make sure you tell the cop you sleep at the address on the license, or it's something they can charge you with.

thunderlips11 says

CDon says

ask you to identify yourself,

The only thing you're legally required is to state your name and where you sleep. The police can choose to detain you for 24 hours or not.

If you do show your ID, make sure you tell the cop you sleep at the address on the license, or it's something they can charge you with.

Pretty sure that's not true in CA. If it is, cops don't enforce it. DMV in CA will make you pay for a new DL if you want one showing a new address.

Anyway I'm still missing the part where she was detained or arrested for refusing to show her ID.

She was detained for walking away, and AFAIK was not arrested or cited.

dodgerfanjohn says

thunderlips11 says

CDon says

ask you to identify yourself,

The only thing you're legally required is to state your name and where you sleep. The police can choose to detain you for 24 hours or not.

If you do show your ID, make sure you tell the cop you sleep at the address on the license, or it's something they can charge you with.

Pretty sure that's not true in CA. If it is, cops don't enforce it. DMV in CA will make you pay for a new DL if you want one showing a new address.

Anyway I'm still missing the part where she was detained or arrested for refusing to show her ID.

She was detained for walking away, and AFAIK was not arrested or cited.

It's not fair to others who would be arrested in this situation.
1. She NEVER showed her ID. Her BF with more sense showed it for her.
2. She was waking away. It's a crime.
3. She needs to get cited for being stupid and wailing like a baby in public. It's people like her who give Americans a bad name.

dodgerfanjohn says

Pretty sure that's not true in CA. If it is, cops don't enforce it. DMV in CA will make you pay for a new DL if you want one showing a new address.

It's a SCOTUS decision. AFAIK If you don't show your ID, you risk being "held for questioning" for up to 24 hours, where they'll see your ID anyway.

I should add, now that I thought about it, she WAS in her car, in which case they can ask for a Driver's License since it's required to operate a vehicle. If she was in the street, that doesn't apply.

dodgerfanjohn says

She was detained for walking away, and AFAIK was not arrested or cited.

Yep, she should have kept asking "Am I being detained?".

Cops want to talk to you as long as possible to give you the maximum opportunity to throw away your 5th Amendment Rights.

sbh says

Two other things: first, the call came from someone who probably has a hardon for mixed race couples.

One former resident of Altadena sure did.
http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/extremely_disturbing_behavior/5033/

dodgerfanjohn says

The cop was there on a lewd conduct call. After seeing the couple in the car engaged in intimate behavior, probably cause exits. This is what the law says.

Now you're just making shit up. Getting an unverified call that a couple in engaging in sex in a car -- which there is no evidence is the truth -- is not probable cause by any standard. By that criteria, if I call the police and tell them I think you're cooking meth in your house, they have probable cause to bust in your door at 2 a.m. with a swat team.

Oh, and if you think that's a ridiculous example, you're wrong.

Probable Cause:

Probable cause is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or obtain a warrant for arrest. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, probable cause requires facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has committed a crime.

Note the phrasing, "has committed" not "might have committed". This standard is not met which is why the police did not file charges. If they had, they would have gotten their asses sued off.

P.S.

The Dodgers suck.

CDon says

4th amendment allows and does not allow.

When did I mention the 4th Amendment?

I stated that CA state law does not require citizens to identify themselves at the mere demand of an office. There are some states that require citizens to do so and other states that do not. CA is one that does not. This is a cold, hard fact. Whether or not you like that law, doesn't change what the law is.

I live in FL, a state that does require identification regardless of the situation. I don't like that law, but I obey it because it is the law. The police also are require to obey the laws even if they don't like it. The fact remains that the cop in this article broke the law by using arrest to force a citizen to give up her ID in a state where that is not allowed.

Strategist says

So the legal experts are wrong according to you.

You sound like someone who makes up the law just to suit yourself.

The law is what it is. I can find plenty of legal experts who know what the law is. Anyone telling you that a person in CA is legally obligated to hand over ID to a cop without probable cause is simply lying or mistaken.

From the mother-fucking LA Times

Do you have to show an ID whenever an official asks for one?

No. In California, police cannot arrest someone merely for refusing to provide ID.

Police can always ask for identification, just like they can ask if you'll step over and answer a few questions, or if they can search your bag or come into your house. But just because they can ask doesn't mean you have to allow them to see your ID.

If you don't want to provide identification, you can politely say you do not want to do so and ask if you are free to go.

Game, set, match
http://www.youtube.com/embed/2AIRQZAgtaE

Again, you may think the law should be changed, but the law is exactly what it is. And in this particular case, the law is not on the side of the officer. It cannot be plainer.

Dan, have you seen Ex-cop Barry Cooper's Cop Sting, where he showed that Police use FLIR patrols (illegal) to detect grow lamps, then have "confidential" paid informers lie to give them cover of "probable cause" to get a warrant?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Excop_Barry_Cooper_launches_Kop_Busters_1206.html

Your probable cause remark reminded me of this.

thunderlips11 says

Your probable cause remark reminded me of this.

Yes, most cops are crooked and will plant false evidence. But that's an entirely different matter.

This thread has been a debate about whether or not this woman in California broke the law, and could be legally arrested, by refusing to give her ID. The cold, hard, indisputable fact is that NO, she did not break any laws; the cop did.