Black actress arrested for banging white guy in car

[Schnauzer]

So a cop turns up in an area known for prostitution where he has (maybe) had a report of a prostitute in a car and he arrives and finds her wandering around on her phone ignoring him (read between the lines of her story) and its now a decision he has to make of 'is it reasonable to assume this person ignoring me and attempting to leave the scene is a prostitute or not'?

You're making too much sense for the Getbig simpletons with "J.D.s" .

Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is, or has been, occurring.  

[Skylge]

Stupid woman only has herself to blame. But as usual, she wants media attention and what better way than to complain about racism etc.....

[Nails]

LMFAO! , there is no hookers walking the streets in STUDIO CITY , next to the CBS building




 

[Schnauzer]

LMFAO! , there is no hookers walking the streets in STUDIO CITY , next to the CBS building




 

No hookers in LA? Are you kidding? They go where the money is.

[avxo]

So a cop turns up in an area known for prostitution where he has (maybe) had a report of a prostitute in a car and he arrives and finds her wandering around on her phone ignoring him (read between the lines of her story) and its now a decision he has to make of 'is it reasonable to assume this person ignoring me and attempting to leave the scene is a prostitute or not'?

It is a decision that he has to make, that's right. But keep in mind that he can't just use "well, she ignored me" or "she won't talk to me" to reach a conclusion: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that refusing to talk to police cannot be used in a reasonable suspicion analysis - I am on my iPhone and don't have easy access to Lexis right now, but I will dig up the reference later today and update this post with it.

To suggest that a complaint that two people was kissing on the street provides an officer with reasonable suspicion to detain someone is laughable because as I said before, people kiss in public all the time. You might as well argue "well, she was breathing and prostitutes breathe, therefore reasonable suspicion."

[Nails]

No hookers in LA? Are you kidding? They go where the money is.

seem plenty of hookers on Lankershim Boulevard a few miles away on Lankershim Blvd , but not in studio city

then again i guess im not really trolling around for hookers like Jr

[avxo]

You're making too much sense for the Getbig simpletons with "J.D.s" .

Quoting legalzoom is probably not the best of ideas. You may want to read Terry v. Ohio which defines, in quite clear language, what qualifies as reasonable suspicion.

[Simple Simon]

It is a decision that he has to make, that's right. But keep in mind that he can't just use "well, she ignored me" or "she won't talk to me" to reach a conclusion: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that refusing to talk to police cannot be used in a reasonable suspicion analysis - I am on my iPhone and don't have easy access to Lexis right now, but I will dig up the reference later today and update this post with it.

To suggest that a complaint that two people was kissing on the street provides an officer with reasonable suspicion to detain someone is laughable because as I said before, people kiss in public all the time. You might as well argue "well, she was breathing and prostitutes breathe, therefore reasonable suspicion."

No but if you take that to its logical conclusion you get the scenario of a report of a white male in a red shirt breaking into a car, cop turns up so guy just starts talking on his phone and walks away and cop is powerless.

[Moontrane]

Well... except that (a) she is NOT required to produce ID and (b) unless she was being detained she was free to walk away at any time, and if the cops had legitimate reason to detain her in the first place, they would likely have arrested her when she started to walk away. That someone else called the cops about two people kissing is irrelevant.


She cannot be handcuffed for refusing to provide ID: there is no stop-and-identify statute in California.

If she had just shown the cops her ID, as her white boyfriend did, she would not have been detained.[/b]

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. She is not required to identify herself just because a cop wants to know who she is and failure to produce id is not sufficient for her to be detained because california does not have a stop-and-identify statute.

Any questions?

Correct about not needing to produce ID, however, in the context presented, she is required to identify herself by name.  Police will ask for ID knowing most folks don't understand it's not required by law.

[Schnauzer]

Quoting legalzoom is probably not the best of ideas. You may want to read Terry v. Ohio which defines, in quite clear language, what qualifies as reasonable suspicion.

Brutal citing of Ohio law when debating California statutes . Try again, Perry Mason.

[avxo]

Brutal citing of Ohio law when debating California statutes . Try again, Perry Mason.

It's a U.S. Supreme Court decision that applies throughout the United States...

[Schnauzer]

It's a U.S. Supreme Court decision that applies throughout the United States...

Did you even read the case?

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

[EastCoastChick]

Did you even read the case?

Did you bother to read the rest of the statement?

"...if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

[avxo]

No but if you take that to its logical conclusion you get the scenario of a report of a white male in a red shirt breaking into a car, cop turns up so guy just starts talking on his phone and walks away and cop is powerless.

He may not be - that's particularized enough to maybe stand up. Besides, such a report is usually not all that the cop has to make a decision. Let's look at the hypo: As before, the cop that gets a report of a white male in a red shirt breaking into a car. He arrives at the location and observes broken glass by the car. He also sees a white male in a red shirt with a cut on his fist, rapidly walking away. THAT is reasonable suspicion.

[Simple Simon]

He may not be - that's particularized enough to maybe stand up. Besides, such a report is usually not all that the cop has to make a decision. Let's look at the hypo: As before, the cop that gets a report of a white male in a red shirt breaking into a car. He arrives at the location and observes broken glass by the car. He also sees a white male in a red shirt with a cut on his fist, rapidly walking away. THAT is my interpretation of reasonable suspicion.

fixed

the point is "reasonable suspicion" is going to vary greatly and is down to the situation and the individual.

The cops in the case we are discussing I believe had reasonable suspicion to approach this woman and question her, and Im pretty sure the court will agree.

[Schnauzer]

Did you bother to read the rest of the statement?

"...if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

Exactly, but you are applying it to a case involving an "unarmed" citizen. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Try again, Atticus Finch.

[avxo]

Did you even read the case?

I have. What's important isn't the particulars of Terry's situation but the establishment of the reasonable suspicion standard. You're grasping at straws - first you claimed that the case is irrelevant because it was in Ohio () and now you say it doesn't apply because it's not exact same situation.

Keep making a fool of yourself...

[Schnauzer]

I have. What's important isn't the particulars of Terry's situation but the establishment of the reasonable suspicion standard. You're grasping at straws - first you claimed that the case is irrelevant because it was in Ohio () and now you say it doesn't apply because it's not exact same situation.

Keep making a fool of yourself...

The Terry case involved a suspect with a concealed weapon. I think it is you that is grasping at straws. You are comparing case law based on an armed suspect with the detention of an unarmed person.

A fool indeed...

[avxo]

fixed

Of course it is. But the standard says that when it comes to reasonable suspicion, the analysis involves examining how a reasonable person would evaluate the officer's inferences. I'm not the arbiter of what is an isn't reasonable, but I'd like to think I'm a reasonable person; as a reasonable person I'm stating that in those circumstances detaining the white male in the red shirt seems reasonable.

[Deacon Jeschin]

So a cop turns up in an area known for prostitution where he has (maybe) had a report of a prostitute in a car and he arrives and finds her wandering around on her phone ignoring him (read between the lines of her story) and its now a decision he has to make of 'is it reasonable to assume this person ignoring me and attempting to leave the scene is a prostitute or not'?

What actual facts did the cops have? - NONE.  Just the word of someone who called, and their fucktard instinct.

If a cop walks up on a car filled with three known hookers and a known John at the wheel....yet all they are doing is talking, what can he do?  The answer is nothing.  You can't bust people based on what an idiot cop mind deems illegal or what he thinks is going on..  Yet, these asshole pigs made the assumption that the skinny, black female was a whore, and acted inappropriately.

Hope it costs the LAPD lots of cash and these simpleton pigs their worthless badges.....  

[Schnauzer]

I have. What's important isn't the particulars of Terry's situation but the establishment of the reasonable suspicion standard. You're grasping at straws - first you claimed that the case is irrelevant because it was in Ohio () and now you say it doesn't apply because it's not exact same situation.

Keep making a fool of yourself...

Great grasp of the law, J.D.

[EastCoastChick]

Exactly, but you are applying it to a case involving an "unarmed" citizen. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Try again, Atticus Finch.

I'll leave avxo to continue to lay bare your stupidity for the board to read. How you missed what I quoted speaks volumes.

[Schnauzer]

I'll leave avxo to continue to lay bare your stupidity for the board to read. How you missed what I quoted speaks volumes.

What did you quote? And how many volumes would it "speak", EastCoastDick?

[Mr Anabolic]

Well... except that (a) she is NOT required to produce ID and (b) unless she was being detained she was free to walk away at any time, and if the cops had legitimate reason to detain her in the first place, they would likely have arrested her when she started to walk away. That someone else called the cops about two people kissing is irrelevant.


She cannot be handcuffed for refusing to provide ID: there is no stop-and-identify statute in California.

There will be one day... you can bet on that.

[EastCoastChick]

What did you quote? And how many volumes would it "speak", EastCoastDick?

Alas, I won't recover.