Posted on 09/14/2014 3:34:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
At first glance, this story doesn’t look like the sort of thing which would normally catch our attention, but it really does tie in to broader issues currently under discussion nationally in terms of race relations and how the police interact with those they serve and protect. Out on the left coast, quite close to the liberal Ground Zero of Hollywood, actress Daniele Watts ran into some trouble this week. (You may remember Watts from her appearance in Django Unchained among other roles.) As Reason tells the tale, she was outdoors, hanging out with her husband and talking on the phone with her father, when she was approached by the police.
African-American actress Danièle Watts claims she was “handcuffed and detained” by police officers from the Studio City Police Department in Los Angeles on Thursday after allegedly being mistaken for a prostitute.
According to accounts by Watts and her husband Brian James Lucas, two police officers mistook the couple for a prostitute and client when they were seen showing affection in public. Watts refused to show her ID to the cops when questioned and was subsequently handcuffed and placed in the back of their car while police attempted to ascertain her identity. The two officers released Watts shortly afterwards.
There are two sides to this story and we shouldn’t ignore either of them. I will grant that there are questions to be answered as to how and why the officers determined that she might be a prostitute and approached her on that basis. Watts is black and her husband is white, so it would be disingenuous to ignore that aspect of the encounter with the cops entirely. If this was an area which was experiencing a lot of problems and complaints about such activity, they might approach anyone. But if this was some sort of selective targeting which was out of their normal enforcement priorities, it’s fair to ask questions about that.
But there’s a second part to this story as well. By her own account of the events, the cops began by asking questions, not throwing her to the ground, tazing her or any other such tactics. And the leading question – which I’m sure anyone of any race who has ever had to speak to the police has heard as well – was can we see your ID? This is pretty basic. If the cops think that there might be a crime to be investigated, ascertaining who they are speaking with is pretty much square one. Watts made the conscious decision to refuse to identify herself or show her ID.
What are the cops supposed to do in cases like this? If there was a burglary in the area and they saw someone who matched the description of a suspect, if that person refuses to show their ID should the police just say, Oh well, I guess that’s a dead end and walk away? Watts clearly knew where this was going and it’s difficult to believe she didn’t react that way as a provocative act to get a reaction from the police. Had she simply identified herself and revealed that the person with her was her husband – particularly given her high profile identity – this matter would have been over in moments. And in the end, she was not taken to the station, locked up, or anything else. The cops figured out who she was, that there was no crime in progress, and cut her loose.
Many years ago, Chris Rock put out a comedy video about how not to get in trouble with the police. (Language warning should go without saying.) Behind the humor there’s probably some pretty good advice to be found. (And before you set your hair on fire, yes… that was a joke. And I’ve always loved that video.)
In California you don't have a constitutional right to commit lewd acts in public...with your wife or otherwise.
Is it unreasonable to assume that what these two persons were engaged in was more than just 'kissing', which drew the attention of law enforcement?
She is wearing a, ‘New York’, T-Shirt in southern California. That could be cause for conflict...
Certainly the police can investigate according to the level of the LEGITIMATE Probable Cause they have, and in a true "Free Republic", unbiased courts closely monitor the types, levels and validity of Probable Cause.
A complaint of "prostitution" would be rendered moot by verbal identification of husband and wife, a complaint of "having sex in public (if illegal)" would not be moot, and would need further investigation.
you assumed correctly
Well those Pride parade organizers never got that memo.
What witnesses think they see from a distance is often not what really happened. Since the police admit no crime was committed I’ll go with the they had no right to detain her argument.
Yes she is a bit of a drama queen seeing racism under every bush. But we don’t make personality faults a reason for suspending or ignoring the constitutional protections and rights a person enjoys in this country.
Here’s the thing unless you hear the officer say (for example) “We are detaining you for disturbing the peace.” You are free to go. You should of course make that clear by asking the police whether you are free to go. Another example would be “We are detaining you on suspicion of burglary.” The idea being they have to give you the reason you are being detained and that reason has to be that they have probable cause or reasonable suspicion you have committed a crime.
If they do not make it clear you are being detained because they believe you have violated the law you may walk away. You can say, “Officer I am leaving now since I have done nothing illegal and have not been accused of doing anything illegal.”
You don’t even have to give your name in “stop and identify states” unless you are suspected of criminal activity. So when asked you are free to ask “Why do you need that informaton? Have I violated any laws?”
You have a reasonable expectation to go about your daily business without fearing harassment by the police. Being put in cuffs for the “crime” of not obeying a request (not a legal order) of the police certainly scraps that expectation.
I am guessing probable cause. They got a report of lewd behavior. She and her boyfriend were having sex IN the passenger seat WITH door open and cleaned up afterwards with tissue according to witnesses. No decent woman does that in broad daylight.
What she was doing was having sex with the door open. According to witnesses. THAT is why the cops came to investigate. They had a call about it. It’s not like she is someone people could recognize as NOT a prostitute. Listened to audio recordings on TMZ and she tried to get the policeman to talk to her daddy. Now how the heck does the cop know daddy is her daddy and not a pimp or some such.
Not kissing. Having sex with the door open in broad daylight according to witnesses. She’s just trash.
Agreed. I don’t understand why sneakers, a tee shirt and shorts would be considered provocative by anyone but a muslim.
I hope so.
She’s lucky. A kid in Independence, Missouri was tazed, thrown to the ground, cuffed, and wound up in critical condition in the hospital because he wasn’t quick enough in rolling down his window and showing his ID to a cop during a traffic stop.
What people allege they saw and what the police find upon looking into a complaint are two different things.
The article in the Daily Mail states it was people from a nearby building that complained. How far away were they? Were there any complaints from anyone who was nearby with a clear line of sight?
Notice no mention is made of the police questioning people in the area to see if the couple had been having sex in public.
Notice too that the police themselves state that no crime had been committed. Which means they had every reason to believe the couple were not having sex.
True on all you said BUT IF there was a call they had to follow up on it. HAD this little twat went ahead, showed them her id (since she was a nobody to them) and not started off with the race card, everything would have been fine.
Even little twats are not required to produce I.D. unless the police have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
Checking out an allegation to does arise to probable cause or reasonable suspicion unless there is evidence or behavior to support that.
In this instance none of that applies. She was well within her rights to refuse to produce identification and to go on her way.
Working with your suspicions (guess), there are a few variables.
First if public sex and/or indecent exposure are criminal acts under the local code, then a citizen's report of those activities constitutes Reasonable Cause for investigation including identification of persons fitting the physical description in the citizen's report.
If the citizen's report is overly vague, lacks a description, or is anonymous, then much more care must be taken and much less Reasonable Cause exists, and there may not be enough Reasonable Cause to justify anything more than observation.
If there is no statue adressing the Citizen's complaint (no law on the books), then there is no Probable Cause whatsoever, but police are free to respond and observe the area only on a general patrol basis alone (walking their beat, so to speak).
The cops had audio recording
She was not telling the truth
http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/15/django-actress-daniele-watts-lapd-race-card-fame-audio/
The “Django Unchained” actress who claimed she was harassed and hurt by cops after making out with her boyfriend was actually having sex in her car according to witnesses ... then went on a rant with cops accusing them of racism and not knowing who she was ... according to police audio obtained by TMZ.
Daniele Watts had just left CBS studios in the San Fernando Valley around 2 PM Thursday. She says she was making out with her BF, but we’ve learned witnesses from the nearby Art Directors Guild office building told cops they were watching her and her BF have full-on sex in the passenger seat WITH THE DOOR OPEN!
Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/15/django-actress-daniele-watts-lapd-race-card-fame-audio/#ixzz3DQufYskM
Apparently she was miffed that the hackers DIDN’T steal home porn from her iCloud.
“What? And give up showbiz?!!!”
That is a good point!
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.