There is an interesting backlash in California where civil rights leaders are condemning an African-American actress for alleging racism in her encounter with members of the Los Angeles Police Department. Actress Daniele Watts (who was in “Django Unchained”) accused the LAPD of detaining her and her boyfriend because they are a mixed race couple. Witnesses insisted that, in fact, they were having sex in a car in plain view on a street. An audio tape below has further undermined Watt’s claims of racism. She immediately claims that the only reason that they stopped them was race on the audiotape available here. In the midst of the tape, she freaks out in a conversation with her father but admits that they were “making out” in the course of the diatribe. In a true Hollywood moment, Watts is heard saying “I know my rights, I played a cop on TV and I know that when someone asks for ID you aren’t required to give it to them.”
After the incident, Watts went to Facebook and raised the call of racial profiling that was soon echoed by a wide variety of irate civil rights and community leaders demanding justice and firings of officers.
Watts wrote on her Facebook page that
“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. . . . A few minutes later, I was still talking to my dad when 2 different police officers accosted me and forced me into handcuffs. . . . 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.”
The man described as her husband but referred to by Watts as her boyfriend also wrote that
“I could tell that whoever called on us (including the officers), saw a tatted RAWKer white boy and a hot bootie shorted black girl and thought we were a H* (prostitute) & a TRICK (client). What an assumption to make!!! . . . So they handcuffed her and threw her roughly into the back of the cop car until they could figure out who she was. In the process of handcuffing her, they cut her wrist, which was truly NOT COOL!!!”
TMZ obtained the original complaint and pictures information from witnesses who said that the couple was making love with the door of their car open and continued despite someone actually leaving an office building to ask them to stop. Witnesses say that she was on top of her companion with her breasts exposed.
The LAPD maintained that the two were “involved in indecent exposure” in a silver Mercedes and Watts was detained until police determined no crime was committed after she refused her identification.
Civil rights leaders are calling on Daniele Watts to apologize to the Los Angeles Police Department after the black actress claimed she was racially profiled for kissing her white boyfriend in public.
The initial press was overwhelmingly in support of Watts and denounced the LAPD with various black leaders calling it a clear case of racial profiling. Now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction with civil rights leaders denouncing Watts for what they say was a false profiling charge. Such criticism has come from leaders like Project Islamic Hope President Najee Ali, and Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson.
Watts, 28, has refused to apologize.
Activist Najee Ali insists that civil rights figures like herself have nothing to apologize for in denouncing the police: “We have nothing to be embarrassed about. She should be embarrassed. She’s the one that told the lie. She came and stated she’s a victim of racial profiling. We found out later on based on new information that she wasn’t.”
For his part, Hutchinson now admits that he was “outspoken” in denouncing the racial profiling before he looked at the pictures which “actually show that perhaps there was probable cause for the stop. There was probable cause for the detention.”
Hutchinson added a warning to Watts: “Don’t make us look dumb.” Of course, it was the unleashing of the race allegations without an investigation that made these leaders look dumb. There is real profiling out there and there is nothing wrong with raising an alarm over allegations of abuse. However, the account of an alleged victim cannot be treated as dispositive in fairness to the officers.
Dicta – the law student’s bane.
Eric – not to be too much of a pain, but I think Dicta is everyone’s bane. 🙂
David:
When I read your link, this caught my eye:
“At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts”[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.”
In this case, the officer did not lack “specific and articulable facts.” He had an exact description of their clothes, person, and car.
In my previous link, a UCLA law professor reviewed the reasonable suspicion and obstruction angles. Check it out and tell me what you think.
From my understanding, one could use a lawyer to argue the “specific and articulable facts” aspect, but it is not a blanket statement that ID is not required.
You bring up an interesting point – about the right against self incrimination, and the right to a lawyer. Does ID constitute self incrimination? If a cop says he’s looking for John Brown, and you’re John Brown, can you use the right against self incrimination to refuse to provide ID WITHOUT being lawfully arrested?
CA definitely has lax ID laws. ID laws are racist, did you know? 🙂
What is definitely clear is that this lady and her boyfriend wrongfully accused this police officer, and tried to ruin his career, all because they were caught having sex in public. If the eyewitness account is true, they didn’t even stop when a working in the building walked up to them and asked them to knock it off.
Karen S, I agree that the officer had the right to detain her. The question is whether he had the right to arrest her for “obstructing a police officer” if she does not tell him her name.
The arguments presented in your link are very weak. They rely on Hiibel v. Nevada, but that case is about a State where there was a valid law requiring ID. The high court said it is not unreasonable for a State to require ID. The problem is, that ruling was for Nevada, not California. California has no such law, so there is no legal authority requiring her to present ID. Furthermore, even in the Hiibel case, the State only required telling the officer your name, not presenting ID or other information about yourself, like an address or date of birth.
Again, the prosecutor’s office references the Hiibel case, and here is what that court said when it was argued that the Fourth Amendment protected their client:
“Here, the source of the legal obligation arises from Nevada state law, not the Fourth Amendment. Further, the statutory obligation does not go beyond answering an officer’s request to disclose a name. See NRS §171.123(3) (“Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer”). As a result, we cannot view the dicta in Berkemer or Justice White’s concurrence in Terry as answering the question whether a State can compel a suspect to disclose his name during a Terry stop.”
Do you notice how it says that the legal obligation arises because of Nevada law? California has no such law. Ergo, there is no legal obligation. That means the dicta in Terry applies, where the court said:
“… the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest…”
Where does the legal obligation to identify yourself come from in California? There is no State law, and no federal law requiring it. Does the city of Los Angeles have an ordinance requiring it?
Once California crafts a specific law like Nevada has, there is little doubt that it would pass constitutional muster. Until then, citizens have a constitutionally protected right not to answer any police questions.
david – I think the woman can be arrested for being a racist twit. Often the original charge is changed once they get you to the station. Not sure if CA has a ‘racist twit’ charge, but they should.
david – CA is throwing a beautiful state right down the toilet.
I am curious to see if there will be follow up on the discrepancy between the LAPD’s opinion or not. Thanks for the link.
Karen S wrote: “I am curious to see if there will be follow up on the discrepancy between the LAPD’s opinion or not.”
Karen, I thought like you did until Liz set me straight here in this forum. You may want to review what Justice White had to say in the SCOTUS decision in Terry v Ohio:
“Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked, but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1#writing-USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZC1
If we believe in this constitutional right, that the person is not obliged to answer a policeman’s questions when being detained, and that refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, then the LAPD is just blowing smoke. You should not wait for their rebuttal, because when there is no basis for a rebuttal, none will be made. They will just continue to blow smoke.
Having said all that, the SCOTUS does opine that it is not unreasonable to require someone suspected of a crime to identify themselves. The thing is that the court is clear that the legal obligation comes from State law. In the Hiibel case cited by the LAPD, the SCOTUS said:
“Here, the source of the legal obligation arises from Nevada state law, not the Fourth Amendment. Further, the statutory obligation does not go beyond answering an officer’s request to disclose a name. See NRS §171.123(3) (“Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer”). As a result, we cannot view the dicta in Berkemer or Justice White’s concurrence in Terry as answering the question whether a State can compel a suspect to disclose his name during a Terry stop.”
So the bottomline is that while it would not be unconstitutional for the State to require people suspected of a crime to identify themselves, in the case of California, they do not have any such law. Therefore, people suspected of any crime do not have to answer any questions the police ask, including who they are. Miranda basically rules over all inquiries by the police. The California legislature should fix this.
Paul – I think I just threw up a little. I think that cop deserved a bonus, or hazard pay, or something!
Paul – no kidding, right? And the boyfriend is also guilty of making false statements about what happened!
Karen – who drew the short straw and had to pick up the tissue? 😉
Speaking of another wonderful aspect of living in a Liberal Democrat Haven – they’ve passed a gas tax that will cost up to $1.50/gallon, are working on a mileage tax to further squeeze us, and now they are going to install meters on wells, shutting them off if people use to much of the resource they spent up to $60,000 developing themselves.
But, that is the end result of the Liberal tax-and-spend, intrusive government philosophy.
Karen – btw, I think getting caught having sex in public is a crime. 😉
Paul Schulte wrote: ” I think getting caught having sex in public is a crime.”
An interesting aspect here is that the officer did not see the crime himself. He would require a citizen to press charges (technically, a citizen’s arrest). Historically, there has never been a citizen’s arrest in California for someone having sex in public. Citizens are very reluctant to do that. From what I have read, that is what happened here, which is why she was never charged with a crime.
david – murder is often a crime without witnesses, but in this case many people saw the offense and called the police and complained. There may be phone video available. And of course, the infamous tissue.
Paul Schulte wrote: “And of course, the infamous tissue.”
Reminds me of Clinton and the Blue Dress. I think there is a pretty good chance, however, that the cop left the tissue in the street where Watts threw it.
david – thought she threw the tissue on the dash. However, I have not been following it that closely. If she threw it in the street, there could be a littering charge. 😉
Paul, one witness said she threw it in the gutter, and another said she threw it on the grass. Maybe it hit the grass and rolled into the gutter?
Democrats in CA keep fighting for amnesty – they’ve even just passed a bill that will give drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
David:
This story has links from statements from the LAPD. The ACLU stated that you cannot be arrested if a cop just stops and asks you for ID. There are stop-and-ID laws in some states, but not in CA. However, according to the LAPD, if a cop has reasonable suspicion, and you refuse to ID yourself, you are obstructing him, and can be arrested.
Of course, someone can always hire a lawyer, and try to get off, but the report described them, their clothes, and their cars exactly, so I don’t think she’s going to be able to get away with the whole “they just stopped me because I’m black” thing. Plus, there’s the tissue on the dash with the DNA evidence that they were, indeed, having sex in public and not just kissing.
http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/09/17/can-you-refuse-to-identify-yourself-to-police
Karen S wrote: “according to the LAPD, if a cop has reasonable suspicion, and you refuse to ID yourself, you are obstructing him, and can be arrested.”
According to the courts, you are not obstructing the police officer if you do not identify yourself. The State has to have a law requiring you to ID upon reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Then the criminal suspect would have to ID themselves, but without a State law requiring you to ID yourself, there is no law that says you have to do it, so you don’t. Rights are retained by the people when the law does not specifically regulate it. California used to have a law that required it, but it was ruled unconstitutional because it was too vague. Now they have no law requiring it, so people in that State are free not to ID themselves. By the way, one of the court cases said ID’ing yourself meant just saying your name. It was not necessary to produce photo ID.
I don’t often quote the left wing site, Daily Kos, but here is an article that does a decent job rebutting the LAPD’s position on this issue:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/17/1330341/-LAPD-Protective-League-says-Cops-can-too-Demand-Your-ID
If you read through the cases that Liz listed, the legal standing on this issue becomes more clear. California has the right to have such a law requiring ID when a person is being investigated for a crime, but they don’t have any such law. Therefore, suspects do not have to ID themselves, even after being arrested (and nobody was arrested in this case).
Liz – yes, I saw that. And yet, even the ACLU recommends that you show ID and cooperate. So take it up with them.
You can try to fight in court. But having sex in public is a crime, and if you are arrested of a crime, you have to be identified. If you commit a crime, and then loudly declare that you don’t have to cooperate, well, good luck to you.
Karen – somewhere there is a person serving time as John Doe. I remember reading about it. Refused to identify himself. Was convicted of the crime, but refused to identify himself at any point during the trial or during his incarceration.
Karen:
•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
Literally the first line.
Just because our police are lawless thugs doesn’t change what your rights are.