What is wrong with our police? They think they’re an occupying military force trying to control the citizenry. This is a destructive and incorrect perspective, and it’s leading to obscenities like the ongoing oppression in Ferguson and elsewhere, and now this latest absurdity: a women arrested for kissing her husband.
As is often the case in America, this incident was the product of institutionalized racism. The woman, Danièle Watts, is black, while her husband is white…so the police leapt to the assumption that she was a prostitute and her husband was her customer, and slapped handcuffs on her (they seem not to have tried to arrest her purported customer, which is a whole ‘nother problematic issue).
The police eventually let her go, and didn’t even make a report of the incident, once they discovered that she was actually a professional Hollywood actor…which should mean nothing in a matter of justice. So if she’d been a poor black unknown, she would have been charged with prostitution for a simple act of affection?
This is an injustice by the police, plain and simple. Watts stood up for her rights, and I applaud her for it.
Here’s a statement she posted:
Today I was handcuffed and detained by 2 police officers from the Studio City Police Department after refusing to agree that I had done something wrong by showing affection, fully clothed, in a public place.
When the officer arrived, I was standing on the sidewalk by a tree. I was talking to my father on my cell phone. I knew that I had done nothing wrong, that I wasn’t harming anyone, so I walked away.
A few minutes later, I was still talking to my dad when 2 different police officers accosted me and forced me into handcuffs.
As I was sitting in the back of the police car, I remembered the countless times my father came home frustrated or humiliated by the cops when he had done nothing wrong. I felt his shame, his anger, and my own feelings of frustration for existing in a world where I have allowed myself to believe that “authority figures” could control my BEING… my ability to BE!!!!!!!
I was sitting in that back of this cop car, filled with adrenaline, my wrist bleeding in pain, and it occurred to me, that even there, I STILL HAD POWER OVER MY OWN SPIRIT.
Those cops could not stop me from expressing myself. They could not stop the cathartic tears and rage from flowing out of me. They could not force me to feel bad about myself. Yes, they had control over my physical body, but not my emotions. My feelings. My spirit was, and still is FREE.
I will continue to look any “authority figure” in the eye without fear. NO POLICE OFFICER OR GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ME. WE ARE EQUALS. I KNOW THAT I WILL ALWAYS BE FREE BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF MY SPIRIT.
And moreover, I deeply enjoyed connecting with the cops who detained me. I allowed myself to be honest about my anger, frustration, and rage as tears flowed from my eyes. The tears I cry for a country that calls itself “the land of the free and the home of the brave” and yet detains people for claiming that very right.
Today I exist with courage, knowing that I am blessed to have experienced what I did today. All of those feelings, no matter how uncomfortable. These feelings are what builds my internal strength, my ability to grow through WHATEVER may happen to me.
That internal knowing is what guides me in this world. Not the law, not fear, not mistrust of government or cops or anything else.
In this moment there is a still small voice whispering to me. It says: You are love. You are free. You are pure.
If you want to know what to do in similar situations, here’s a handy, simple set of rules:
“Resisting arrest” is thrown about all the time now. It’s gone way over its intended meaning.
So the police are radical feminists who believe marriage is the same as prostitution?
Who knew?
Story, as told by an officer who was proud of the encounter, in order to get a laugh from someone not-me while I was present:
As Ed so frequently says, the status quo effectively criminalize “Contempt of Cop”.
Given that too many cops feel entitled to arrest if not given “sufficient respect”, and given that “sufficient respect” changes depending on the social status relationships involved (the monarch doesn’t bow to the merchant), “Contempt of Cop” inevitably becomes a racist and classist weapon.
Considering the laws we have on the books, that means don’t become a police officer. Works for me.
I was threatened with a charge of “resisting arrest”
How did I come to get threatened with it? Simple – that’s what said they were going to do.
I hadn’t resisted.
Why did they choose to arrest me in the first place?
“Disorderly Conduct.”
Why that? Because that’s what they typed, that’s why,
They typed that along with claiming that I was causing a disturbance and refused orders to leave.
What really happened? I was sitting quietly on some steps with a girl I knew, talking.
They pulled up, said something which I didn’t hear, so I asked “Did you want us to leave?”
I asked that because they regularly showed up on that corner and told teenagers to leave.
They said no, they didn’t want us to leave, they were going to search me. etc.
In the police car I learned the real reason I was arrested.
Turns out that a couple of weeks before two undercover cops arrived at that same street corner with a kid I knew, and as a few of us were joking around, I made a cops/donut joke. (I was a teenager… you know…)
They asked me threateningly if I wanted to be left in a room alone to “talk” with those two cops about donuts.
Sorry for the long story but the point is:
Disorderly Conduct = pissing off a cop while not breaking the law.
Resisting arrest (often) = pissing off the cops even more.
The chart above is good advice, but DON’T expect it to prevent a false arrest, false charges, or even a conviction.
The police are NOT your friends. They are random people of varying morals and attitudes who share an affinity for power, weapons, and who have the ability to destroy your life on a whim.
Jafafa Hots @ #5
This.
Especially the last 6 words. They can kill you. They have shown that sometimes they will. And there is no case I know of in which when they decide to murder that that is not what they do. Follow that chart, don’t exacerbate, but don’t delude yourself that anything you do or don’t do will necessarily make a difference. Especially if you’re the wrong colour, ther wrong state of mental health, the wrong age, the wrong …
I already posted this in the Lounge, but Raw Story has updated their original story on this. According to new information obtained through super sekrit channels, the couple was ::gasp:: having sex in the car, and that’s why someone tipped off the police. There’s just one teensy, weensy problem with that:
That’s the only indication in the article of activities the couple was engaged in other than the kissing we already knew. Yet the headline for the story says they were having sex.
When the fuck did straddling your SO become having sex??!!
I notice they also say ‘boyfriend’ rather than ‘husband’.
It was always having sex.
However, when Europeans lost melanin production, our milky white thighs became too pure for sex. Some people, however, have mistaken the straddling/sex distinction for whites for something universal.
This has been your daily dose of misanthropy from Crip Dyke, the superior makers of Misanthropy since 1989.
The problem I always have with charts like that is that they’re about legal rights, not about the best way to get through an encounter with a cop while minimizing your chance of being assaulted. Isn’t the very act of asserting your rights likely to mark you as someone who merits ‘special attention’? What good does it do to point out that recording your arrest is your legal right if the cop arresting you without cause steals your phone and beats the shit out of you for your presumption?
(But then, is the alternative of terrified capitulation any better? It may be that this is the best advice possible – it’s just that it’s not reliable protection from people who don’t consider themselves bound by any laws.)
@Morgan #10 –
Simple advice: Don’t Talk To The Police
And don’t miss Mano’s post on police seizures: Governments making money by seizing assets
PZ, you seem to be basing your summary entirely on Ms. Watt’s account. Other stories report that she was detained for refysing to identify herself when asked to by the police. I also notice the “what to do” part that follows your post advises people to identify themselves when asked to by police in these circumstances. She refused, it seems and so was detained.
Question: under existing law, must people identify themselvrs when asked to by police? (Note: I’m not asking if they should have to. I’m asking if the law at presnt requires them to. I don’t know.)
Here’s how the story was reported in my local mullet-wrapper. (Link below) If the story there is accurate, then the headline is not. If the story is accurate, she was detained for refusing to identify herself, not for “kissing her white husband.”
http://www.standard.net/Entertainment/2014/09/14/Black-actress-Danielle.html
@12, cops have no legal authority whatsoever to demand ID from anybody absent genuine probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by the person being asked for ID. Nothing of the kind existed in this case. Get your head out of your ass.
Let’s never forget that cops couldn’t get away with this shit if there weren’t so many judges suffering from craniorectal inversion.
Jafafa, #5
That was a very good post. I think the most important part of it is the “varying morals and attitudes”. And that’s also the scariest part. One should never expect to have consistent encounters with police; nor should one be surprised how differently one cop treated them versus another. And that’s scary because it makes the law enforcement aspect of public life unpredictable when it should be very predictable and safe. When you walk into a Starbucks, you can pretty much 99% expect to be treated in a consistent courteous way. I wish something like that could be said about encounters with the police.
flatlander100, #12
I don’t know if such a law exists either, but I hope to at least half the gods that it doesn’t. Not even coming close to causing any trouble + not telling a police officer your name = arrest?
*I don’t want to live on this planet anymore meme*
Another black actor arrested for no actual reason:
http://www.utne.com/politics/right-place-wrong-face.aspx?PageId=1#axzz3DOntSZBa
These are relatively well-known people, so eventually they were released and even sort-of apologized to, but imagine how many times this happens to people of color (or even whites who are poor) who are not known, connected, and/or don’t have money for lawyers if they are needed. I’m sure for every case like this that we read about there are dozens, if not hundreds, incidents this bad or worse that we never hear of.
Every black guy I know says he has been stopped multiple times for “Driving While Black.” I have never in my entire life been pulled over by a cop without reasonable cause (either I’ve actually committed a minor infraction, or my tail lights are out, or something), even in my long-haired, hippy-looking days. And on those few occasions when I was stopped, the cops invariably were polite, called me “sir” and “Mr.,” did whatever they had to do quickly and efficiently and sent me on my way. My black friends report car and body searches, being addressed by their first names, even well into adulthood, and frequent rudeness, if not worse.
Post-racist society, indeed.
I’ve spent a large majority of my life thinking cops were decent people. Sure there is always the odd duck that steals or beats his wife but as a whole the police are good people. This is, of course, because I’m white. I know less about the truth of law enforcement and black people than they know about the truth of law enforcement and white people. I sometimes think us white people are waiting for the final straw, or maybe we’re waiting for the incontovertable truth to laid at our feet, tied up with a pretty bow, before we finally decide that we need to change law enforcement. Not talking about changing some rules or calling for video equipment, I’m talking enforcing our privilege upon law enforcement by always stopping to watch them, even if you can’t take a video. Cops will go after you no doubt, but white people can get away with being witness to something uncomfortable for cops in a way no minority can. We have to make cops start bothering white people before other white people will help change things.
@14 Steve: been looking around on line, and there seems to be considerably more doubt about the matter than you suggest. The statutes regarding manditory ID seem to vary considerably from state to state. The ACLU’s list of things to do/not do when stopped by police does not directly address the ID matter. If there is a binding SCOTUS decision on the question, I’m unaware of it. Does the “right to remain silent” following an arrest extend to refusing to identify yourself prior to arrest or even detention? Again, I don’t know.
If you have some definitive source or sources on the manditory ID matter, I’d appreciate your posting them.
According to Hiibel, they can ask anyone to identify themselves based upon reasonable suspicion.
I always remember when LeVar Burton was stopped by cops in Gilroy, Ca. and held for an hour and a half before being let go. His “crime” was driving a new BMW while being black and wearing a fancy track suit that was in style then.
This is a guy who, at that time, was in Reading Rainbow, ST:TNG, and been a principle in Roots, seen by approximately every white person in America. And with an unusual, instantly recognizable name. It really drove home the DWB problem to me.
@19 Username: thanks. Interesting decision I was not familiar with. Also interesting the vote was 5-4 upholding Nevada law’s requirement to ID yourself. Close. But this was the court construing a state law. Presumably, if a state does not have such a law, there would be, in that state, no requirement to UD yourself? Does seem to vary then somewhat from state to state.
Once again, thanks very much for the link.
Thanks @ 19, I wrongly used the phrase probable cause when I should have said reasonable suspicion. But in no case do these laws allow cops to demand ID just for the hell of it. That is a practice that belongs in an authoritarian state, not a so-called democracy. Now, as always, actual practice is different from legal theory. But that’s exactly the problem.
Reminds me of that satirical movie where a guy wakes up one morning as a POC. He tries to do his usual routine of a morning jog, and gets immediately picked up as a “Running Black Man”. Blacks only run cuz they just committed a crime, so these cops were just doin their duty to pick up this running blackman while they figure out what crime he was running from.
… ugh…
It seems to happen, for realz, too often these days. Seems like the govs have taken that movie as police training films and the satire flew right over their heads.
Sure there is. Black woman accusing cops, talk about racism, she must be lying! How long before anybody digs up some nude photos to prove that she’s probably a prostitute anyway*
*This doesn’t even address the clusterfuck of criminalizing sexwork
++++
At which point we’re back to why anybody would think she was a prostitute in the first place
+++
US police’s and judicial system’s rights need to be cut back like 95%
I keep reading stories and stories where people are arrested an put in jail for things like jaywalking. Or kissing their husband. Other countries have strict regulations when and where you can arrest somebody. The USA apparently not.
Reasonable suspicion.
How many cops do you think ever consider their own requests and desires to be unreasonable?
If something is limited by “reasonable suspicion” that means that cops will do it whenever they want to for whatever reason they want to… and IF you are arrested, and IF it goes to trial, and IF you can afford a good lawyer and IF you can somehow prove they didn’t have reasonable suspicion and IF the jury believes you, then that “reasonable suspicion” restriction on cops’ actions MIGHT help you…
…and if all that happens and you prove the cop broke the rules and you manage to get your conviction vacated, you’ll be fine – minus of course the stress, the months of years of your time wasted, and the many thousands of your dollars gone.
And the cop who broke the rules and violated your rights may actually even hear about it from someone over coffee.
They are going to do what they are going to do.
“Reasonable suspicion” gives the system the illusion of being just.
“Resisting arrest” is thrown about all the time now. It’s gone way over its intended meaning.
Yes! Unless one is being arrested, there is no arrest to resist. That’s why you want to clarify whether or not you are being arrested.
I love in the greater LA area if I am not mistaken S.W.A.T. was first used (invented) here there is a long history of policing problems to include corruption and civil rights abuse.
What ever the legal requirements of cops and citizens are when I am stopped I have to look at the situation as it is. I have to decide what do I want to happen how can I get it to happen?
Do I want the cops to just go away quickly or do I want to make a case out of this encounter?
Is this cop close to the edge already? already angry frightened tired frustrated, over worked, or some other way stressed out?
I do not want to be beat up nor spend a bunch of time in some jail house while they figure out that I did not do anything they can convict me of.
Are they wrong? very often. Are they nuts? Are they dangerous? Should there be some major reforms to how we do policing and justice. Yes and true but when I am stopped what do I want to happen?
an example I was once stopped by an officer with my brother we had just left a drugstore where we must have scared some one he was driving what could be called a VW ghetto sled (beat up and loud) we had to stand in the gutter while the cop did cop stuff. He was nervous and aggressive at first but as we were waiting for what ever record check I asked how the union labor contract talks were coming on along. By the end he was smiling and clearly glad it turned into an easy no stress stop and we were not any kind if threat.
What ever our rights may be and how wrong they are acting the first thing I want to do is defuse the situation for me right then and remember that they are just individual people first then cops.
uncle frogy
“resisting arrest” has been used when people haven’t even BEEN arrested yet! Like the scenario where a cop will arrest someone and decide on what to charge them with later on. If you ask “WTF, why am I being arrested?” because you’re not 100% compliant with your arrest, you’re now “resisting arrest”. Cute how it works, eh?
Or another fun cop game…”not submitting to a search” becomes “reasonable suspicion” and hence justification for a search. So if they’re just gonna do it anyway whether they’re allowed to or not, why even bother asking?
“contempt of cop” just means they don’t like you…and half the time they didn’t like you before they even met you.
Also they like to “demand respect”, but respect can only be earned.
Sheesh, were cops EVER decent people and respected in their communities? Because they sure gave up on trying…
Disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace = cop in a bad mood ants to take it out on someone.
Don’t take legal advice from posters (though this one is pretty good) Don’t take legal advice from internet comments, even this one.
ACLU’s Know Your Rights
but see
The Privilige to Shut Up
Controlling precedent is still Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). You only need to provide a name unless an actual crime is being investigated.
@24 Giliell The matter about which there seems to be considerable doubt is whether someone must, under existing law, identify themselves if asked to by police. Nothing in any of my posts suggested Ms. Watts was being dishonest.
@31 yak2 Thanks. Will look it up. From press reports, she refused to identify herself. If that meant refused to even give her name, then it would seem her being detained for so doing was legit, that giving her name (but no more) was by law required. Going to find the decision now. Thanks again.
@2 Amphiox
Either that, or hardcore conservatives who accidentally ‘fessed up.
And still the best piece on this subject (with one huge flaw… or not, depending on how deeply the white-folks satire is taken) is Chris Rock’s “How not to get your ass kicked by the police.”
No link, because opinions on the bit vary violently.
Which is to say: WARNING: View with extreme caution.
Also, I am endorsing nothing.
Has anyone ever tried to find out how black conservatives take being stopped for Driving While Black? Especially those who make a big issue of how law-and-order they are. What happens when they are the ones being bitten by policies whose defenders they have associated with?
@13 If the story as reported by the news is accurate then the situation from the police perspective was:
– police receive a call complaining that a couple was having sex in a car
– they arrive on scene and question the couple (the phone call having given them probable cause)
– the man cooperates when asked for his ID
– the woman refuses to cooperate, and then insists that they are harassing her for being black
– the woman is handcuffed and detained until her identity could be verified, then released
From that perspective, I see no problem with the police’s actions, other than how they managed to cut her hand with the handcuffs. I’m sorry if race was an issue, if only with the caller, but I was taught that you always cooperate with the police or risk the situation escalating to your detriment.
The article has made me curious though, how widespread is (apparent) police racism worldwide? I assume Canada has less of a problem than the U.S., but what about Europe, Australia, etc.?
Indeed. “Papers, please” is a totalitarian stereotype for a reason.
Have you seen the official AP news wire story about this?
At no point does the story mention that her “white companion” was actually her legally married husband. The story seems written to make the LAPD’s actions seem perfectly reasonable.
@31 yak2, I read the holding of Kolender to be ” Although the initial detention is justified, the State fails to establish standards by which the officers may determine whether the suspect has complied with the subsequent identification requirement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 361 (1983). and thus the Statute is “is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute.” Kolender id.
In other words, the State could specify exactly what identification is sufficient but cannot just say that a person must identify themselves to an officer’s satisfaction because that’s unconstitutionally vague. In fact, footnote 10, the court specifically disavows addressing 4th amendment issues. Thus, I don’t think your description of Kolender’s holding is accurate.
flatlander100 @33:
Detained for *what* though? She was in the lap of her husband. That’s a crime?
Michael @36:
Shouldn’t the cops have tried to determine if there was sex going on before detaining her?
Michael #36
Reporting from Denmark:
There was a widely publicized case a few years back about possible police racism against immigrants, involving a Palestinian protest and a possible racist slur used by a cop (“perle” sagen). It’s my impression that such cases catch more public attention here and therefore the police can’t get away with as much as in the States. That said, I seem to recall some accusations of racial profiling in relation to stop-and-frisk actions and targeting of predominantly immigrant neighborhoods for “search zones”.
I wish, but that will land you in jail, depending on the state.
Generally no. The right to remain silent, aka the right against self incrimination, is rather weaker than you might think. Generally, it has been held to not include the right to not identify oneself – plus more. Look up some case law on the 5th. It’s interesting.
I agree, but we do live in an authoritarian state. Shit sucks. For example, see this post by Ed:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/09/15/how-images-can-completely-flip-public-opinion/
I’m normally just a lurker but this is it, I have to comment. This is the last straw, really. The police are an oligarchical class completely separated from the everyday reality of the plebs they supposedly serve. “Who watches the watchmen?” The answer is no one. Because we enable them, this fucking country full of fucking authoritarians and bootlickers and racists, always racists.
I think we’re beyond saving. Make no mistake, the default position of this country is authoritarian and racist. All other deviations are viewed as extremism. I have read all sorts of books and articles that chart a very clear map of how this country became the way it has, why black people are confined to ghettos and treated as second-class citizens and murdered with impunity, what the exact historical circumstances were that led to this current dystopic situation, and it’s frustrating to me because the picture is just. So. CLEAR. There is very little to dispute about it. But the general public is not willing to do the research. They live with their heads in the sand content to believe their patriotic kumbaya memes, and while academics and activists may try their best at educating and outreach, in the end they will never, ever, have the influence of the authoritarians. As if Newsweek will ever give the time of day to a black militant. But they sure as hell don’t see a problem posting a cop’s racist drivel like this: http://www.newsweek.com/quora-question-what-do-police-officers-think-about-how-police-department-ferguson-269439
And millions of Americans will read that shit, and nod along, and think it sounds reasonable, and swallow wholesale the lies that the media has been painting from day one. They won’t ever wonder why there are so many damn shows about the glamorous and dangerous lives led by law enforcement and never wonder why the accept the existence of a distinct class of people known as “criminals” and automatically feel compelled to take law enforcement at its word and happily agree that minorities are too quick to cry racism and always call a rebellion or protest a riot and think affirmative action is the greatest evil that could ever exist because that’s the language they’ve been given, and they live in such complacency they see nothing wrong with it.
I’m burnt out, I really am. A lifetime of anti-racism advocacy and research and there is no end in sight. Black people were brutalized by white law enforcement in the nineteenth century and they’re still being brutalized by white law enforcement. All that’s changed are the labels we use to talk about things. “Freedom,” what a joke. We can’t be free when most of this country can never see the truth.
@Michael, #36:
It’s impossible to get data on something without an operational definition, but I wouldn’t make your assumption without a lot more backing you up than you have in your #36.
[in amateur Perry Mason mode]:
“reasonable suspicion” is “suspicion a reasonable man would experience given the observation of the situation”. So the cop cannot decide what he thinks is reasonable, he must postulate the hypothetical “reasonable man” to decide if the hypothetical would be suspicious that a crime is being committed.
“right to silence” is the _?_th amendment, where the suspect is not required to be self-incriminating. Providing one’s name does not qualify as incrimination so can legally be required information. aka Miranda Rights
.
But since IANAL I’ll bow out now …
Funny, that’s what I got taught about large agressive dogs…
@Tony! #40/41:
The police are empowered to identify the people they detain. The initial detention would have been on suspicion based on the caller’s report. The caller didn’t report a marital relationship. While ID would possibly have proven the two are married, Watts didn’t provide it.
The whole situation is obviously racist, but there doesn’t appear to be a legal question about the detention. You’ve got actual lawyers here, though, so they may disagree. But the simple answer to your questions as I understand the situation
1. Initial detention for a few questions related to a call about suspicious sexual activity
2. Continued detention pending identification.
Giliell #47
Sounds about right.
Michael @36 – the full story however appears to be that the arrest was not made by the initial responding police duo, it was a second car sent to collect her after she had left the scene (outside her and her husbands TV employers place of business). The fact remains that the ‘arrest’ was not in relation to the call of possible prostitution – it was due to a black woman exercising her right not to be interrogated for kissing her husband in their car in front of their place of work. Also, the police KNOW they screwed up as they did not record the arrest or file any report of the incident. If they were totally just doing their job why was the force unable to locate any incident report or arrest report? And why have they issued a half apology for injuring Ms Watts during the arrest that they initially claimed didn’t even happen? As ever it pays to read the full details. Even if you believe that Ms Watts is lying – then why have the police admitted they lied as well? According to her husband they simply didn’t believe that a young black woman and a white guy with tattoos could actually be married. It didn’t compute. If it wasn’t for the fact that the pair were eventually recognized for their celebrity this wouldn’t even be in the news at all.
And in other news, we have cops shooting a black man for buying a samurai sword. That’s right, not even the exalted katana can protect black people from cops. When will the madness end?
@Giliell #47:
That and never turn your back on them…
According to NBC:
California Indecent Exposure Statute
California Public Lewdness Statute
Assuming the LAPD spokeswoman is saying that the caller reported behavior that would fall under one of those statutes, that might be enough to justify an investigatory detention (aka a Terry stop (there are issues here depending on the specificity of the report and whether the caller was anonymous). While California has a statute criminalizing giving a false id, I don’t see an active requirement to identify oneself. That said, there is some case law on the ability of police to detain someone while verifying their identity, including handcuffing someone. US v Hensley 469 US 221 (US 1985); US v. Neff 300 F. 3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002) [note that California is in the 9th circuit, and 10th circuit cases are therefore not binding precedent).
@50, you’re probably right that handcuffing and placing Ms. Watts in the squad car was meant as extra-judicial punishment and not as a form of good faith investigation. The police are very good at using legal or almost legal procedures in an unreasonable way to hurt people they don’t like.
@50 https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/daniele-watts-goes-on-the-offensive-after-being-detained-by-lapd-for-heavy-pda-170420117.html
Has a recording of the officer involved, and I stand by my comments. Until she provides ID so that the police can check whether she is known to them (eg. warrant for arrest, history of criminal activity, etc.), refusing to provide ID is a quick method of getting a trip to the station to determine your identity no matter what your sex, race, etc. If the police failed to do that, then a real criminal could pull the same stunt and be left alone.
If they did not need to charge her, there is no requirement to write a report as she was not arrested for a crime. I don’t think she is lying, nor do I think the police were either. I sympathize if she is regularly bothered by the police without probable cause, but since they were called, they did have probable cause. If the call wasn’t anonymous, then the police should have a chat with the caller to ensure it wasn’t racially motivated.
In regard to previous comments, I don’t deny that police racism occurs in Canada, particularly toward First Nations, but as ‘Crommunist Manifesto’ wrote ” It is the case that Canada’s history of racism is not as obvious as it is in, say, the United States. “. It may also be the case that racial profiling is used in many countries because certain groups lack the opportunities that others have and are driven into a life of crime. One hopes to correct that, but in this particular case I think that almost anyone in the same situation, who then refused to provide ID to the police, would get similar treatment.
@auraboy, #50:
Thanks for the additional info.
Also, I agree with all of qwints’ #54. My #48 was about what I believe is the police rationale for detention, not what I believe actually motivated the individual officers’ decisions.
IANAL, however:
Police generally DO need reasonable suspicion before they can demand your identity. In lots of jurisdictions, you are then required to give it–in some jurisdictions verbally, and in others by showing official ID.
The first problem is that you probably don’t know when there is or isn’t reasonable suspicion. A traffic stop always furnishes reasonable suspicion, because the cop already had to have RAS in order to pull you over in the first place. The rest of the time, cops will not tell you whether they have RAS, or what their RAS is: they’re trained to get you to waive your rights by asking for consent in such a way that you believe you have no choice. In other words, they’re trained never to tell you honestly whether or not they have RAS. You’re stuck taking your chances, and possibly being arrested if you’re wrong.
And that’s ignoring the fact that they can fabricate RAS with the greatest of ease. A woman in a man’s lap–not suspicious, right? Oh, but they were of different races, which might be accepted as “reasonably” indicating that they aren’t, e.g., married. And they’re in a car? Prostitutes ply their trade in cars, so that might be “reasonable” suspicion right there. Now just wait: they can describe this as “in an area where prostitution is known to occur.” Suspicious? Reasonably. And then they can describe how she was dressed–and as you’ll observe by talking to any misogynist, any woman’s dress can be described in terms that make her sound suspiciously like a sex worker.
So yeah, while we’re not a police state on paper (at least in some ways we’re not), the fact is that RAS is an incredibly low bar for cops to get over, and the consequences for you can be quite severe if you make any mistakes attempting to exercise your rights.
@55, if it was an anonymous caller, it’s quite unlikely that had reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause. See Florida v. JL 529 US 266 (2000) (holding that an anonymous tip of a black man carrying a gun was insufficient for a Terry stop of the defendant.) but see Navarette v. California 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) (permitting a traffic stop of a suspected DWI based on an anonymous tip).
seriously, for those thinking “we’ve always been at war with EastAsia”, it really IS different in other countries. I was shocked at the non-confrontational, non-intimidational approach the police here in NZ use.
they’re downright chatty most times.
It doesn’t HAVE to be the “US VS THEM” mentality that so many police forces in the US have adopted.
really.
Thanks for the reads, qwints:
As I see it, there is a problem here. The indicia of reliability in Florida v JL are spoken of as being identifiable by making predictions about the behavior of the parties accused observable to the police before detaining and conducting the Terry search.
The indicia in Navarette are that the incident was alleged to have occurred a short time before the 911 call giving little time to fabricate a story (but if the story was fabricated, you can always say it just happened a moment ago), and the fact that it came in over the 911 system (which, it is argued, false reporters would be loathe to use for fear of identification). There was no predictive quality other than identifying a particular subject. As SCOTUS said in Florida v JL, it’s highly problematic if an anonymous prankster/false reporter can be judged reliable simply because they accused a specific person whom they wanted stopped.
Navarette seems weird considering the stress in JL that identification is far short of the bare minimum established in (I think) White.
Do you think that there’s a latitude in traffic stops that isn’t present in personal detention? I’m finding it hard to follow the logic the court uses to distinguish the cases.
In any case, *I’d* certainly argue (if it mattered in an action) that fingering Watts and her husband provides no indicia of reliability about actual criminal activity, which was the standard stressed in JL.
There are those who would call a ludicrous departure from precedent. Scalia’s dissent called it “a freedom-destroying cocktail”. The distinction is not between traffic stops and personal detention since they’re governed by the same basic case law standards.
Basically, Thomas says that a 911 call giving details sufficient to create reasonable suspicion ( as opposed to a conclusory statement that a crime has occurred) about a clearly identified suspect (good description, and in the right place) is sufficient for a stop even if the caller is anonymous.
It is generally smart to avoid contact with police, provided you do not run or otherwise attract their attention or ire in doing so. In almost every situation there is nothing you can say that will prevent your ticketing or incarceration if they have determined to do it. Words are not your friend. And the more elaborate and emotional your explanation the more likely it is to get you deeper into trouble.
Things to remember:
The primary role of police is to feed people and cases likely to gain convictions into the criminal justice system where the AG will prosecute.
Enforcement is always selective because there are always more crimes that could be prosecuted than time and manpower. The local political and economic powers will dictate the priorities to the police chief or sheriff. Politicians seeking reputations as ‘tough on crime’ will favor high profile and high visibility crimes. The laws are so complicated and so poorly defined that virtually everyone can be charged. If you are not arrested the assumption has to be that the police didn’t want to arrest you. Keep in mind that the police do not write the laws or set their own priorities.
In any encounter with police keep it clear in your mind that if everything goes exceedingly well, you will be allowed to walk away. If things go less swimmingly there are consequences. There is virtually no up side while the down side is immeasurably wide and deep. Every minute under the gaze of law enforcement is another minute for them to spot the crime they are not allowed to, or are unwilling to, overlook.
Then there is the police side of things:
Join a police department as an idealistic and optimistic person and inside a few months your views will change. Nobody is really happy to see you. You will always see people at their worse. People will lie their asses off in blatantly false and brain-dead ways. They will do things in front of you and deny they did them. Rapist, murderers and child molesters will present themselves as choir boys and perfect gentlemen in court. If anything goes wrong people with no understanding of the situation or of policies defining how police are to respond will wade in with conclusions of what happened and what your motivations were before any facts or investigation is completed.
What a number of lawyers have told me about showing or refusing to show ID to cops, or at least give them your name:
1) Legal requirement to identify yourself vary. Many cases you legally don’t have. In many cases where you legally have to identify your self you still are not required to show ID. These vary by state and with circumstances.
2) However, whereas in many cases polite refusal can terminate an encounter with polices (I do not consent to searches etc)., refusing to ID yourself will almost always prolong the encounter. Not consenting to searches and so on won’t always protect you but it sometimes will. But it is almost universal among cops that refusing to give your name results in the cop escalating the encounter. That does not mean you should not exercise your right not to ID yourself. In many cases it remains a legal right, and legal rights should be defended. But you should be aware that while at least some cops will respect your rights in many circumstances, just about every cop ever will turn asshole on you if you refuse to identify yourself – even when you are totally in the right.
That practice will never change if nobody actually exercises their right not to identify themselves or “show their papers” in arbitrary circumstances. But it is worth knowing that it is a brave thing to do, and will produce retaliation by almost every cop . Even so called “good cops” will react badly to this, and cops who are already in process of bullying even more so.
I don’t know how the hell we stop thiis. But a good start might be to recognize that it is something a large part of the population has wanted in cops. Anyone who supports the “war on drugs” the “war on crime” the “war on terror” is supporting the attitude the lead to the mlitarization of the polices. That militarization goes way back, and precedes the current habit of handing out military grade weapons to civilian police departments like candy on Halloween. Also we need to recognize that the police have behaved like an occupying army in marginalized communities, especially communities of color since the founding of police forces.
The “Bobbies” in England, were the first modern police force, and their founders words are often used as examples of how to police properly and with restraint. Yet those original Bobbies when on duty in Whitechapel or Soho were not above the use of torture in extracting confessions, nor above planting evidence to make cases. In the bad neighborhoods of London they acted in ways the people of New Orleans today would have no trouble recognizing. It is a deeply rooted problem. It may have grown worse, but it is not fundamentally new.
As pointed out by Michael @55 police audio from the event was released
Django Unchained’ Actress — Cops: After Car Sex She Pulls Race, Fame Card (POLICE AUDIO)
and from that it seems what media reported according to @36 is mostly correct
She seems to have been handcuffed and returned to the scene by a different police squad after she walked away from the scene.
I’m not denying racially motivated police actions, but there is reasonable doubt it is the case here… (couldn’t say anything about the motivation of the anonymous caller)
@64: Yes. the only real issue I had with the entire scenario was the anonymous caller, who just assumed that she was a sexworker. I had the thought that that was the only part where race came up. The police were just doing their job going by what they were told by the caller. She refused to identify herself, thereby prolonging the encounter. Once she was identified ,she was released. All said, the entire encunter went about as well as it possibly could. I have a pretty low bar for police conduct, so I’m just happy she’s not dead or beaten.
Incidentally, is it normal to have PTSD for something that hasn’t even happened to you? All these media reports of “cops behaving badly” makes me panic every time I see a cop car. It makes me wonder if it’s time for me to have my horrible experience, will I be killed, what’s it like to be shot, what if I’m beaten? What if hey ask to search my vehcle and I refuse? I’m a woman, what if he asks for something I can’t possibly consent to? Every time I hear of some other Black person shot by the police, I get weepy and my fear of something that has never happened to me increases. And I’ve never had a bad experience with the police. The two experiences I did have were years ago and for moving violations and one of the cops was nice enough to just let me off with a warning bc it was my birthday. Is anyone else experiencing anything like this?
Quick question: Is anyone else but me experiencing a kind of panic or PTSD for something that hasn’t even happened yet? With all the news stories about “cops behaving badly”, my panic increases every tie I see a ploice car. I wonder if I’ll be stopped. What will I do? What if he’s abusive or asks to search my vehicle? What if I refuse and get arrested?What if I refuse and get beaten? What if I miss work bc I’ve been detained for some reason? How wil I get out of jail? What if he asks for something I couln’t possibly consent to (I’m a woman,btw.)
Everytime I hear of another shooting by the police I get incredibly weepy and my fear increases, even though I personally have never had a bad experience with the policee and a couple of them were amicable.
Is anyone else dealing with this or am I just being Anxiety Jane?
@55 and @64:
I would only say that the police said they received a call. I have been stopped before where the police said a car resembling mine had been reported involved in a burglary (a ’64 Dodge Dart GT? Primer Gray? I haven’t seen anything resembling that car since 1978!). I did cooperate, but the THREE cop cars full was, in my opinion, a bit excessive. It was really just an excuse for them to stop and perform a random search.
So, I restate — the police said they received a call and that was their reason to stop and search. In the audio, the cop is saying “We received a call and that give me the right to be here.”
Keep that in mind, and read my IMHO analysis of another recent tragedy.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2014/08/28/the-killing-of-kajieme-powell/#comment-2921057
In short, if the police fear a violent confrontation, then as the number of police increase, the need they feel to shoot first and ask questions later should decrease.
From the link @ 67 by EnlightenmentLiberal
Yeah, I have nothing to say to you if that’s how you see the Kajieme Powell shooting. To me you’re just another person proving the rule that if it has “skeptic” or “rational” or “liberal” or whatever in the name, you can expect just about the opposite qualities in the commenter.
EnlightenmentLiberal @67:
I think they reacted far too quickly before assessing the situation. They ought to have waited a bit longer before deciding to kill Powell. Maybe tried other tactics first. It’s not like he was aiming a grenade launcher at their car. They exited the car with their guns raised, ready to fire and did so within 15 seconds.
@Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk
Sorry. If you are walking towards someone with a knife yelling “kill me, kill me”, and you get within a few feet, and that person shoots you, that’s not a crime. That’s justified self defense. Whether the shooter is a cop or not.
As Tony alluded to (maybe?), the way the cops handled themselves was abysmal, but not criminal. They needlessly escalated the situation when there were far better options available that didn’t involve putting themselves in a situation where their only choice was to shoot the guy. However, once they put themselves in that situation, their next choice (to shoot the guy) was justified.
EL:
I’m not on your side here.
Watching the video I don’t think the cops were in the right AT ALL, nor do I think they were in danger. The dude was *walking* the whole time.
Err, sorry for double post, but I want to make it clear that I have a huge and serious problem with the way that the police handle themselves, including in this case. I want drastic and severe reforms done in police and prosecution. Even this case is ridiculous.
I was merely noting that it wasn’t criminal – aka if on a jury, I would have to find that the police acted in justified self defense. It’s a pedantic but important point.
However, I still want these two cops reprimanded, punished, or even fired, and I definitely want police departments to have better training and protocol to avoid outcomes like this. If the police managed to handle Bundy’s armed rebellion without shooting someone, then they should be able to handle this lone guy without shooting him – or at least make the same effort that they did with white nutjob armed insurrectionists.
@Tony! The Queer Shoop
Have you seen this police training video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9igSoJHEdUo
So what if he was walking? Walking or running, if you get within range, you can stab someone. Is there an acceptable range at which you can shoot someone preemptively when they’re walking towards you yelling “kill me, kill me” with a knife, or do you need to get stabbed first?