patrick.net

?

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.

Dan8267 says

When did I mention the 4th Amendment?

You didn't, which is part of the problem. You use the words "reasonable suspicion" that's a very specific term of art under the 4th amendment.

Dan8267 says

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.

You think this because you do not understand the nuanced, but very important distinction first annunciated in Terry. There was no arrest here. This was an investigative detention, it was not a custodial interrogation. The difference between the two makes this action by the police legal, as it would be in my hypo of my call about dan the drug dealer in the red convertible.

Again, if you are just here to "talk & shit" the way most patnetters do, that is fine. But if you truly want to understand this (which given your zeal, perhaps you do), see if you can audit a law school class in crim pro.

Dan8267 says

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.

This is 100% correct BTW. Interestingly, this standard is not inconsistent with the officer in LA conducting a snarky, passive aggressive, power tripping, yet perfectly legal custodial interrogation.

CDon says

You didn't, which is part of the problem. You use the words "reasonable suspicion" that's a very specific term of art under the 4th amendment.

That term is also used in state law. I was quite clear. See
Dan8267 says

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.

CDon says

There was no arrest here.

Regardless of what you call it, placing a civilian in handcuffs is by definition arrest.

See

CDon says

you can audit a law school class in crim pro.

I'm sure I could, but one doesn't have to attend law school to know the law. It is a fact that in California a person does not have to hand over their identification at the order of a cop. If you think this factual statement is wrong than explain, in detail, why the LA Times article is wrong. It's wording is pretty darn clear.

CDon says

legal custodial interrogation.

The officer may detain a person for question, but that person does not have to answer any questions and does not have to hand over an ID. That's the law in CA. In other states it varies, but this event took place in CA.

However, placing a person under arrest crosses a line. To place a person under arrest for simply not giving ID, which is indisputably the case in this story, is illegal. Arrest and interrogation is not the same thing.

Furthermore, a person has the right to have a lawyer present during any police interrogation in any state. If you demand a lawyer and the police continue to interrogate you without one present, they have violated the law.

Again, one does not have to have a law degree to understand the basics of our legal system. Every citizen should understand these things.

I stand by my statements, not a one of which is factual inaccurate.

Dan8267 says

That term is also used in state law. I was quite clear. See

Dan8267 says

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.

I don't disagree with any of that. What you are missing is, once an investigative detention is taking place, the police have the right to determine the individuals identity. This does not have to be via an ID card (many people don't have drivers licenses, hence no ID of any kind), but the presence of one can speed up the process. For example, see the ACLU attorneys statement in the LA Times:

"If you really haven't done anything wrong, knowing your identity could help police resolve their investigation in your favor, and refusing to provide identification could prolong it.

For example, suppose a neighbor reports a burglary at your house and police arrive at the moment you happen to be carrying a computer out of the house. They would have a reason to detain you to investigate the burglary call, but you might be able to clear up the situation by showing your ID to prove you live there. In that case, refusing to show ID could make their investigation take longer even though it's not illegal to refuse."

Dan8267 says

Regardless of what you call it, placing a civilian in handcuffs is by definition arrest.

Absolutely and emphatically no Dan. You are drawing a bright line here, when one does not exist:

"From these standards, we have concluded that drawing weapons, handcuffing a suspect, placing a suspect in a patrol car for questioning, or using or threatening to use force does not necessarily elevate a lawful stop into a custodial arrest" - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1321607.html#sthash.qmHB3nET.dpuf

US V. Leeshuk 65 F.3d 1105

It took me two seconds to find this on the gimpy findlaw site. If you had access to lexus or westlaw, I could find you ones where the SCT reversed and remanded on this exact point. So, is this the universal answer? No, of course not - and herein lies my point - sometimes handcuffs may equate to an arrest, sometimes not. It is thus erroneous to make a blanket statement when the nuances between an investigative detention and custodial interrogation are very much fact specific.

Dan8267 says

However, placing a person under arrest crosses a line. To place a person under arrest for simply not giving ID, which is indisputably the case in this story, is illegal. Arrest and interrogation is not the same thing.

You have completely turned yourself around here. She was indisputably arrested? Here is what you said earlier in this same thread:

Dan8267 says

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.

Again, get a better handle on the subject matter - learn the distinction between an investigative detention and custodial interrogation. This is a clear case of the former, and not the latter, but until you have read an extensive amount of the actual caselaw (which you would normally encounter in crim pro btw) its understandable why you would make these types of mistakes.

Dan8267 says

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.

Actually it looks like she may have. The local radio stations here in LA have been coming across more of facts regarding this case. It looks like she had her shirt lifted up with her breasts exposed and was riding(having sex with) her boyfriend in the car with the door open. One of the managers from an adjacent building went outside to tell them to stop, as it was causing a distraction within her office. But when they continued to "make out", she called the cops. Lewd acts in public is a crime in California, she also could have been cited for littering by tossing her semen stained tissues out of the car after she cleaned herself.

She is very lucky to have gotten off without at least some sort of infraction, but instead she is acting like she is a victim in all this. Around here at least, it doesn't seem like too many people are sticking up for her.

lakermania says

It looks like she had her shirt lifted up with her breasts exposed and having sex with her boyfriend in the car with the door open. One of the managers from an adjacent building went outside to tell them to stop, as it was causing a distraction within her office. But when they continued to "make out", they called the cops.

I'm sure someone had an iphone to record this. It will be interesting to see a video of this.

lakermania says

She is very lucky to have gotten off without at least some sort of infraction, but instead she acting like she is a victim in all this. Around here at least,bi don't here too many people sticking up for her.

Dan opposes cops by default. Then mixes up facts, myths and laws.

The Professor says

Strategist says

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

Yeah, if this were a police state we would have tanks on the street and a larger percentage of our people in gulags than any country in the world.

There will always be some country with the most incarceration rates. Does not indicate a police state.

Strategist says

There will always be some country with the most incarceration rates. Does not indicate a police state.

Uh, our incarceration rates are multiple times that of equivalent developed countries like Spain, the UK, etc. Yet our crime rate is the similar. Our police killings are much, much higher, adjusted for population. I think the UK has about 90 Million, and one or two police killings a year. We have about 300 Million, and hundreds of police killings.

Don't hand-wave it away.

Clearly we are doing something wrong.

Strategist says

I'm sure someone had an iphone to record this. It will be interesting to see a video of this.

Here you go. Fresh pics from TMZ. No vids yet though.

http://m.tmz.com/#Article/2014/09/17/django-unchained-actress-racism-lapd-daniele-watts-pictures-photos

"The "Django Unchained" actress who cried racism against the LAPD ... claiming they harassed and hurt her because she was just making out with her white boyfriend in a car -- has some explaining to do, because we obtained pictures that seem to show A LOT more than sucking face.

The pictures were taken Thursday outside the CBS lot in Studio City. You see Daniele Watts straddling BF Brian -- their hands steadying themselves around the sunroof.

An eyewitness who saw Daniele and Brian as he worked in a nearby office tells TMZ ... Brian was sitting in the passenger seat with his feet on the curb and Daniele was straddling him with her shirt pulled up -- breasts exposed. The eyewitness says she was grinding on top of him, rocking back and forth.

Someone from the office went down and asked Daniele and Brian to stop because everyone in the office could see them but they continued.

The eyewitnesses say Brian then began "horizontally bongoing her boobs back and forth." He says she eventually reached into the center console, grabbed a tissue, wiped him down and then herself and tossed it on the grass.

Someone from the office called the cops and made an indecent exposure complaint. TMZ obtained police audio when the cops came out, and Daniele played the race and fame cards."

CDon says

You have completely turned yourself around here. She was indisputably arrested?

Yep I made a mistake. I meant to say the police would have booked her rather than arrest her. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect. Occasionally, I err.

I still stand by that my statement that handcuffing a person is a form of arrest as defined here. And to back that up, New York v. Quarles, supra; United States v. Purry (D.C. Cir. 1976) 545 F.2nd 217, 220.

While putting a juvenile in a security office at the border, and frisking her, were not enough to constitute an arrest, handcuffing her shortly thereafter when contraband was found in her car was an arrest.

Placing a person in handcuffs against his will is, by definition, both "a forcible restraint" and "an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty" and is "the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority".

Think about it this way, if a civilian placed another person in handcuffs against that person's will when no crime had been committed, he would be charged with an illegal arrest. It should be no different for a cop when he breaks the law.

Also, Reeves Law Firm, P.C. | Roy L. Reeves

A person is under arrest when a normal person in the same position would not feel free to leave. Handcuffed is under arrest using this definition.

Also, What Constitutes an Arrest?

An arrest requires taking someone into custody, against that person's will, in order to prosecute or interrogate. It involves a physical application of force, or submission to an officer's show of force. In sum, the arrestee must not be free to leave. Whether the act by the police is termed an arrest under state law is not relevant.

An arrest occurs when police officers take a suspect into custody. An arrest is complete as soon as the suspect is no longer free to walk away from the arresting police officer, a moment that often comes well before the suspect actually arrives at a jail.

The U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amend­ment authorizes an arrest only if the police have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the suspect did it. This probable cause requirement restrains the power of the police to deprive people of liberty. It prevents the type of random roundup of “undesirables” that sometimes occurs in other countries.

Example A police officer yells, “Hold it right there, you’re under arrest!” to two suspects who assaulted someone on the street. As the officer handcuffs Suspect 1, the officer tells Suspect 2, “Stay right there and don’t move.” Suspect 2 does not move. By submitting to the police officer’s authority, Suspect 2 has been arrested, even though Suspect 2 has not physically been taken into custody.

Dan8267 says

Placing a person in handcuffs against his will is, by definition, both "a forcible restraint" and "an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty" and is "the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority".

Think about it this way, if a civilian placed another person in handcuffs against that person's will when no crime had been committed, he would be charged with an illegal arrest. It should be no different for a cop when he breaks the law.

So is throwing someone in prison. People who harm others don't deserve their liberties.

Strategist says

People who harm others don't deserve their liberties.

WTF does that have to do with people who DON'T harm others like the woman in the article that you referenced in the original post.

By the way, I completely agree that "people who harm others don't deserve their liberties" and should be locked up. And "people" includes cops. Cops who harm others don't deserve their liberty and should be locked up just like any other criminal would be.

I'm not sure you truly believe that "people who harm others don't deserve their liberties" because you make an exception for cops who commit crimes, even first degree felonies.

The thing that you and I keep arguing about is that you think having a police badge is a get-out-of-jail-free card that can be used an indefinite number of times. In contrast, I say that using a badge to commit the crime makes the crime worse because you are using the power of the state, breaching the trust of the public, and corrupting the government and the judicial system.

Sometimes it seems to me that people who attract attention of the police have some sort of karma or malady that attracts such acts, similar to people who gravitate towards alcoholics or batterers in relationships without "meaning to."

When I was poor the police paid me a lot more attention than they do now, when they largely ignore me.

When I was poor and drove a 20 year old dented beater, they would follow me for miles waiting for me to change a lane without signaling or go over the speed limit. Sometimes they would ride my ass on purpose to try to get me to speed up.

That's why I believe in income based fines like Finland. Cops would be more diverse in traffic stops.

Dan8267 says

Placing a person in handcuffs against his will is, by definition, both "a forcible restraint" and "an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty" and is "the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority".

The amusing aspect of this is you are bolstering my point and you are not aware of it. Notice how many times the word "custody" comes up in all your citations? Now look back at how many times I mentioned "custodial" (versus merely "investigative") as being essential to determining arrest. Again, this would not happen if you had a better understanding of the fourth amendment.

Dan8267 says

I still stand by that my statement that handcuffing a person is a form of arrest

I am not sure what you mean by "form of" arrest, but I guess this an improvement over your earlier statement:

Dan8267 says

Regardless of what you call it, placing a civilian in handcuffs is by definition arrest.

Either way, the point is, you are (or were) arguing that it was a matter of black and white while knee deep in a world of grey, and I think you see that now. If you really want to understand why what the cop did in LA was legal, I encourage you to go back and read, not just the citations, but the actual cases themselves on your cite: http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/45

Your zeal is admirable, but it truly would be so much better served if you understood the 4th amendment underpinnings that affect police procedure.

CDon says

Your zeal is admirable, but it truly would be so much better served if you understood the 4th amendment underpinnings that affect police procedure.

That's not a counter-argument. That's like insert counter-argument here.

Unless you present an counter-argument, I've got nothing more to add.

Dan8267 says

CDon says

Your zeal is admirable, but it truly would be so much better served if you understood the 4th amendment underpinnings that affect police procedure.

That's not a counter-argument. That's like insert counter-argument here.

Unless you present an counter-argument, I've got nothing more to add.

it isn't meant to be one. As to my points of law, specifically what it says about detention vs custody, do you have anything to add?

Dan8267 says

Yep I made a mistake. I meant to say the police would have booked her rather than arrest her. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect. Occasionally, I err.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't one need to be first arrested in order to be booked?

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/booking.html

CDon says

doesn't one need to be first arrested in order to be booked

Yes, although I don't see what point you are trying to make.

My only stances in this thread have been
1. The woman did not break any laws.
2. The cop did break California law by illegally using arrest and the threat of imprisonment to force the woman to show her ID.
3. The cop should face prosecution the crimes he committed.

Nothing you said conflicts with any of those points.

Dan8267 says

CDon says

doesn't one need to be first arrested in order to be booked

Yes, although I don't see what point you are trying to make.

My only stances in this thread have been

1. The woman did not break any laws.

2. The cop did break California law by illegally using arrest and the threat of imprisonment to force the woman to show her ID.

3. The cop should face prosecution the crimes he committed.

Nothing you said conflicts with any of those points.

1 is correct.
2 and 3 hinge upon whether this was an investigative detention or a custodial interrogation, based on the particular facts and circumstances. I have laid out why 2 (and hence 3) are nowhere near as clear cut, black and white as you claim them to be.

But again, this is based upon my reading and understading of the 4th amendment, specifically as modified by Terry. If you read the 4th and Terry differently as applied to this instance, please explain how this is the clear cut slam dunk case of 2 and 3 you claim it to be.

CDon says

4th amendment

The Fourth Amendment is irrelevant. The woman was handcuff and threatened with imprisonment for not giving her ID when she was not legally bound to do so. This is a violation of California Law. As the LA Times article says, the police cannot arrest or threaten a person with arrest for "merely for refusing to provide ID".

Some states require you to identify yourself to the police and some states do not. California is one of the states that does not. Therefore, the actions of the cop were indeed illegal.

Furthermore, it is transparently obvious that the cop was not asking for ID in order to investigate whether or not a crime had happened. As the video shows, the cop explicitly said,

"I do have more power than you," says Sgt. Jim Parker. "When I tell you to do something you have to do it, ma'am, that's the law."

Aside from the obvious fact that a cop telling you to do something does not make it the law -- a cop could tell you to suck his dick -- this statement does indicate beyond any reasonable doubt that the cop was only interested in exercising his authority, humiliating the woman, and getting her to submit to him. This is the quintessential example of an ego trip. The cop was using his power not to uphold the law but to enjoy having power over another human being.

If you don't think that should be illegal -- and by the way, it is -- then what kind of a world do you want to live in?

Police authority should never be used to dehumanize another person or to gratify a person's desire to get off by dominating another person against his or her will. It's basically the psychological equivalent of rape and what people mean when they say "rape isn't about sex; it's about power". This cop is no different than a rapist. Same mindset.

Rape is a particularly difficult crime because it's about both power and violence. Rapists use sex organs as the locus of their violence, but rape isn't about sex, at least not in the sense of being motivated by sexual attraction or an uncontrollable sexual urge. Rape is about sex in the sense that rapists not only commit acts of sexual violence, but that the pervasive threat of sexual assault is used to limit women's sovereignty and justify sexual assault itself.

Rapists don't rape because they can't "get" sex elsewhere. Rapists don't rape because they're uncontrollably turned on by the sight of some cleavage, or a midriff, or red lipstick, or an ankle. They rape because they're misogynist sadists, and they flourish in places where misogyny is justified as tradition and maleness comes with a presumption of violence.

Sounds like police culture.

What mental disorder do these retards have that leaves them to defend The State/LEO , at every turn.

These people can't possibly be Americans.