Here's the couple, in happier times.
Posted on 09/14/2014 2:51:14 AM PDT by Fenhalls555
A Django Unchained actress is claiming she was 'handcuffed and detained' by police after being mistaken for a prostitute as she kissed her white husband.
Daniele Watts, who played slave CoCo in the award-winning film, posted the news on her Facebook page on 2 September and said her arm was cut when she was handcuffed.
Watts and her husband Brian James Lucas claim that they were kissing on a Hollywood street when police were called and they were asked to show their ID card to which Watts refused.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Yeek. I was going to give her the benefit of the doubt, but she does look really “whore-ish” in those pictures.
That’s what I was thinking, too.
If this happened in West Hollywood, maybe it was a heterophobic shopkeeper who was upset at the sight of 2 heterosexals kissing in public.
That’s funny.
Although just the thought of negotiation for that makes me squirm.
Why is she dressed up in a tattered garbage bag?
Well the good news is that she asserted her 4th amendment rights and then learned that its not always easy trying to protect your freedoms in a police state.
Jennifer Lawrence, Eva Longoria, Sofia Vergara...
Some Constitutional protections and U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the matter.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Texas, a case where a man in Texas refused to show police ID because there was no probable cause. The court noted “he was arrested for violation of Tex.Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02(a) (1974), which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer “who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information.” However, the court reversed his conviction:
[Even if there is a STATE statute, Police need “reasonable suspicion” BEFORE they can demand you show ID or identify yourself.]
“Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be “reasonable.” Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society’s legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers’ actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant’s right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.”
The court concluded “The application of Tex.Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed.” Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
Uh Duh no you are not required to show your papers on demand. If you will read the article the woman was not arrested. The cops have not right to stop and detain people for no good reason. Its called the 4th amendment.
In the past, I have talked to officers about what they do and why they do it The reason why they might put a person in handcuffs, without placing them under arrest, is because the person has become a bit volatile and the officer wants to ensure the safety of him and the person he is interrogating. It does not mean anything beyond that at that point in time.
All the officer did was follow through on a complaint, which he is required to do, until he is able to fully check everything out. The reason why he would have asked her for identification was to check for priors and any warrants.
In tho situation, the police officer did nothing wrong. As far as black or white goes, it’s likely the white person, if they had nothing to hide, would have been willing to give their ID, which might account for why a cop might have acted differently.
Wait a second! This is Calipornia.
Who cares if she’s a whore?
Here's the couple, in happier times.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect’s privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.
The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel’s Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
I would think that once the fact came out that they were married that that would have been the end of it...Sure, he’s paying for it, but it’s legal...
Truly, made for one another...
Yep!
Are you crazy???? No they are not!!!
Hummm...citation or statute please...
I guarantee you if I am am going about my business doing nothing wrong or suspicious and a cop randomly asks me for my "identification credentials"
My response would be to give him my name and politely tell him to KMA...
Married people rarely kiss in public. I think this was a setup.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.