So yesterday I wrote what turned out as my 400th Recommended Diary over the temporary lawful detention of Django Unchained Actress Daniele Watts in response to a "lewd activities" call. Some have said the issue is trivial and minor, others have been outraged and shocked by the conduct of the Officer's, while others claim he did nothing wrong. But it's this sentiment that currently sticks with me and I feel the need to address more fully. Via Linda61.
I understand, so do you..... use your head. If you are doing nothing wrong, waiting for a friend in the parking lot of a store (which my husband does all the time), you may appear to be a menace to society, whether or not it's your Audi. You may be a perfect citizen, there are still a lot of old foggies out there who base everything they do in bigotry. Try to remember that. Don't make things worse for yourself. You should always use your head. Avoid making things worse for yourself. Let others be bigots, while you don't have to be their victim. Be a good citizen and use your head, no matter what color you are. But if you want to get into a legal fight, make certain you are ready and prepared for the results. Advice from a mom.
I think this is intended as honest good advice. But also that, this is exactly the problem. I don't see how Leonard Deadwyler made things "worse for himself" when an officer’s gun "accidentally" shot him during a traffic stop as he was trying to take his pregnant wife to the Hospital. I don't see that with Michael Brown who had been grabbed by the throat, ran with the first shot, stopped, turned around with his hands up and still died. I don't see it with Darrien Hunt who was shot in the back by Police in Utah. I don't see it with Bryce Masters who was Tased into a Coma, apparently because his window wouldn't roll down and this enraged the Officer who was trying to follow up on an arrest warrant for a woman who clearly wasn't 17 year-old Bryce.YouTube Video Don't open the window, get tased, tossed out of the car, your head slammed on the ground. It took the Officer several minutes to even realize the kid was unconscious and needed medical attention. Is this what you get when you "make things worse for yourself" by having a broken window? More over the flip.
And then there's this sentiment from eherman
I have been stopped by cops a fair number of times. And each time they want ID. I have NEVER asked them why they need it or whether they have a right to demand it. And I have never refused. Just for the record: I am a white male, upper middle class. And I NEVER backtalk to cops. Why? Because I was taught by my dad, long ago, that you treat police with respect and authority. NOT because they deserve it, mind you. But because they can cause you a world of hurt. Cops are often in the right. But whether a cop is right or wrong, they have a lot of power -- and a gun. Why get someone mad who can kill you? I get that this woman has had to deal with a lot more cops, in very annoying ways, than I have. But the truth is this: cops have ALWAYS had the ability to cause a lot of grief. This is nothing new. To be honest, I think these cops exercised a lot of restraint and dealt with the situation well. They may have been wrong about the law, but they were good at not escalating the situation. Rights are important, and it is important to fight for them. Standing up to make a statement is sometimes necessary. But that isn't really what happened here. What happened here is that a woman got in-your-face with cops because she had a chip on her shoulder. Notice how her boyfriend gave ID quickly? Maybe he did not legally need to, but the TRUTH is that he had no trouble because he complied. To reiterate: whether cops are right or wrong, they can cause a world of hurt if pissed off.
So in both of these cases the argument is that even if the law isn't with the officer, and after quite a lot of debate it appears that under Kolender v Lawson - and subsequent repeal of California "ID law" CPC 647(e) in 2008 - it isn't, people should just "go along to get along" anyway because you won't be "making it worse" by having a "chip on your shoulder". This is the same argument we hear when Police walked up to Chris Lolle demanding his ID, and he made the same argument that Daniele Watts made "I know my rights".YouTube Video And soon as he says "Please don't touch me" - he's told he's going to jail. Then he's gets tased and assaulted by Police. Or this Registered Nurse, who got body slammed to the concrete by LAPD. Then after she was already handcuffed, she was body slammed again. What did she do, refuse to provide her ID?YouTube Video
Pardon this mid-diary digression but I just listened to L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck on the news announce that this Officers behavior is "Exactly what the People of Los Angeles expect from their Officers..."
"It appears to me that they acted in exactly the manner that I would expect a Los Angeles police officer to act: They respond to a complaint of a crime by a person in Los Angeles, and when they get there, they do an adequate investigation," Beck told reporters. "And then, based on that investigation, they take action. And that's what they did in this case." "Their decision to detain, investigate further and then release is well within the bounds of policing and the authority of police in the state of California," Beck said.
Uh huh, just listen to this guy once he has Daniele in going on and on Deliberately Humiliating Her So all his little snide comments, asking her if she needed him to call "paramedics", and whether "she put herself in handcuffs" and his claims that "he has the power here" - are how Beck would expect his officers to act?
On Monday, Sgt. Jim Parker defended his role in the incident, telling The Times it was a routine call that escalated into a “long, drawn-out drama” when Watts refused to identify herself. He said he approached the couple because they matched the description of the people described in the 911 call. Beck told reporters that officers may properly ask for identification when they have reasonable suspicion -- a threshold lower than probable cause -- that someone may have been involved in the commission of a crime. "There is no absolute requirement in California that a person carry ID or provide it just upon demand by a police officer," Beck said. "However, if you're being investigated for another offense and your identity is important to the investigation of that offense, then you must, by state law, comply with the legal authority of the officer -- which is to request your ID."
Well, that sure is very interesting because the Sgt went on and on in the arrest about how he had "probable cause" to ask for ID, again he was quite snide about it, and here Chief Beck is admitting he didn't have probable cause, he had a "reasonable suspicion" which is a lower legal standard. Beck is basically claiming this is a Terry Stop, which under Terry v Ohio would grant the Officers the ability to perform a "patdown" of a person under suspicion of committing a crime. Terry itself doesn't authorize the request for ID, that comes from Hiibel v Nevada.
In some jurisdictions, persons detained under the doctrine of Terry must identify themselves to police upon request. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Court held that a Nevada statute requiring such identification did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, or, in the circumstances of that case, the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination
As it turns out California is NOT one of jurisdictions under control of Hiibel, because the California ID statute - as I said before - has been repealed.
Kolender was cited in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), as an example of a “stop and identify” statute the Court had voided on vagueness grounds. In Hiibel, the Court held that a Nevada law[6] requiring persons detained upon reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime to identify themselves to a peace officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination. Unlike California Penal Code §647(e) as construed in Solomon, the Nevada statute was apparently interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court as requiring only that persons detained state their names.[7] California Penal Code §647(e) was repealed in 2008 at the request of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.[8]
Beck would be correct in some other Jurisdictions, but based on our long discussion of it yesterday, he's not correct under California State Law under Hiibel. Bottom line: We don't have a Papers Please Law in California so she didn't have to provide ID. Sgt Parker didn't have "Probable Cause" because then he would have been able to arrest her - Chief Beck just admitted to that - but then his claim about "reasonable suspicion" under a Terry Stop still doesn't authorize the ID demand. Not in this jurisdiction. From everything I've seen and read Daniele had every right, under California Law and the U.S. Constitution to say "No". Conversely Officers also had every right to detain her for a reasonable period, but did they really have a right to use the detention as a method to FORCE her to give up her rights? To use her detention as a method of coercion and intimidation to force her, and her boyfriend, to comply against their will and against the law. Eventually her boyfriend caved-in, and they released her. Some would say "no harm, no foul", but here's the thing, what if he hadn't - would they have implemented an illegal arrest, not having any actual evidence of any actual crime and then piled a bunch of false charges against her out of spite? Is that what we've come to expect as a matter of course? That cops get to punish you for being mouthy, even if they have no proof or evidence you've done anything wrong? Isn't that exactly the kind of power we don't want to grant to anyone? Ever? When the ACLU advises the people should give Police their ID, it's for exactly this reason, not because the law says they should have it, it's because they might go to jail for having the temerity for demanding their Constitutional rights. https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/your-rights-and-police
If you are stopped for questioning, DO... DO give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal. DO remember you have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested or detained for refusing to answer questions. But it can look suspicious to the police.
Using your 5th Amendment Right "can look suspicious" to police. Isn't it supposed to be exactly the opposite, that asserting your right to remain silent isn't supported to be used against you? That's what a "Right" is isn't it? Also Chris Lolle was correct about his rights too, he wasn't required by law to provide Identification in his jurisdiction either. \End Digression
Ok, back to the point. The reason I think this is much bigger than just a potential case of racial profiling is because it gets directly to the case of the right for privacy. Do we have a right to remain silent or don't we? Should we be expected to immediately surrender this right so easily and so casually in the name of "public safety" when there's no real evidence of a crime in progress? Isn't this directly at the heart of the criticism of the NSA reading our emails and web traffic? Is Everyone under "reasonable suspicion?" Is Everyone subject to probable cause for being a terrorist, or a criminal or a spy or a hacker? If that's true, then "probable cause" doesn't really mean anything. If that's true then all suspicion is therefore reasonable. If that's true, then we have no "privacy", all we have is an illusion. A fantasy. A phantasm. Sure, you have "privacy" until a cop asks you a question, then you don't anymore because if you don't answer and immediately surrender your rights - even though you don't have to - you could go to jail, you could get tased, head smashed on the ground, thrown into a coma, or you could get shot with your hands up, or your back turned. And that goes for everyone. Black or White, although according to the Bureau of Justice Statistic you can triple the chances of the worse scenario occurring if you happen to Black, no matter what you do otherwise. It's easy for some people to say "just ignore it" when it happens, because it doesn't happen to them very often. Don't bother to make a scene, get a "chip on your shoulder", stomp your feet and petulantly demand your rights - because geez, Cops have Guns and you want to live don't you? You don't want to go to jail. You don't want to End Up Dead, do you? Is that the deal? Really? Just give up because you can't win and even if you do you're going to suffer for trying? So I guess then we don't have those rights then, do we if anytime we actually need them the first thing we're expected to do - when the police ask, when the NSA asks, when Homeland Security ask, and the TSA asks... is to sit down, shut up, and do what we're told. How's America the "Land of the Free" under those conditions because sounds more like a Velvet Glove Totalitarianism to me? I don't agree with anyone in the Right-Wing on much. But I will give them credit for this: They fight tooth and claw for every INCH of their "Rights". They see any encroachment, any little small movement of the line as part of the massive, deliberate Slippery Slope into a sad, desperate, paranoid Totalitarian Regime. They pointed sniper rifles at Federal Agents, then one of their guys Killed Two Cops, yet they still won't back down. That's some Chutzpah. But I have bad news for them. That Regime is already here, and it's been here a very long time - with our voluntary, tacit, acquiescence. We're giving away our Freedom, as it were spare change and pocket lint. As if it were totally worthless. We do it everyday. There's a reason why we shouldn't just "Give In" when these minor, trivial little affronts happen. Particularly when it's not just every once in a while, once in a blue moon, this happens every day. Particular when it's exactly how Police Chief Beck would expect his Officers to behave. That's just chilling. Each time we give in, each time we surrender, particularly when we know it's wrong - that we have no choice - that we've done it only because we're afraid - it chips away our spirit, at our soul. No, nobody died. Nobody got beat up. Nobody got tased in Daniele's case. But it's still a tiny, itty bitty, minor little soul murder. So small we might hardly notice if it's just once, or twice. Or twenty times, but to twenty different people. But they build up, little by little. Until finally it explodes just as we can see it exploding from Daniele, because of experiences she's already had "Do you know how many times....?" Just as we've seen it blow up in Ferguson. All of this is not just because Michael Brown is dead. It's not just because Darrien Hunt is dead. Or even that Chris Lolle and Bryce Masters got tased, or a RN got body slammed. It's all these little sacrifices. Building scar tissue. Sometimes you have to see it to understand, and although it's highly compacted, the story arc of Terrence Howard in the Oscar winning film Crash going from when an innocent stop when their interrupted by LAPD as his wife is giving him head...YouTube Video To this scene as the toxic shame of having to let an Officer molest his wife right in front of him finally explodes after he's car-jacked. This is why you just don't "go along". Not when you don't have to.YouTube Video At a certain point, before it corrupts, poisons and grows cancer in our soul - we need to take a stand, and take our rights back. All of them. Do we have to force a confrontation? No. Do we have to be strident? Hysterical? Violent? No. In fact, it pays to be more calm, more committed, more focused than our opposition. But we, on the Left and the Right, maybe we should consider making a voluntary, willful, calm, patient, deliberate act of defiance to protect our rights next time we're asked to give them up without cause. We really should know our rights, in detail, in specifics. When you have every advantage, and if the facts and the law are on your side - you shouldn't have to back down. Not 'Cuz fear. If you've truly done nothing wrong, all they can do under the law - unless they want to do something unlawful, which they might I admit - is to detain you for up to 30 minutes or so. That's not too high a price too pay to gradually begin to claw back a tiny piece of our Freedom. Piece by piece. Those who can, those who are brave enough and have the facts on thier side, should draw the line and stand by it. Vyan