XBradTC

You may have seen the news where Daniele Watts, an actress from the movie Django Unchained, claims she was unjustly place in handcuffs and mistaken for a prostitute, just because she was black.

As usual, it’s not quite that simple.

Ms. Watts admits she was with her boyfriend, Brian Lucas, and that the two were kissing in the car.

Apparently, witnesses in the Directors Guild building thought the two were having sex in the car. Whether they were or were not is irrelevant.

Someone, likely someone in the DG building, called the police to report what they thought was indecent exposure.

And the police responded.

When the police encounter you in such a circumstance, or more often, when they pull you over for a traffic violation, that’s known as a Terry stop, from the 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio, the decision which laid down the constitutional guidelines for such an encounter.

Basically, the police may briefly detain you so long as they reasonably suspect that someone may be engaged in criminal activity. And “reasonably suspect” is further described as “specific and articulable facts”  that a crime has been committed, or is being, or will be.  Note, this is a far, far lower bar than probable cause for arrest. Basically, the reasonable suspicion of a crime is the hurdle that must be cleared to begin an investigation, not to effect an arrest.

The police, having received a call that someone matching the descriptions of Ms. Watts and Mr. Jones, and finding persons matching that description at the reported location, can articulate specific facts that led them to suspect a crime had been committed, at least enough to investigate.

Approaching Ms. Watts, the officers demanded identification. Now, there are conflicting court decisions regarding the validity of a stop and identify status in California. But at this point, for the purposes of Terry, this encounter became a detention.  And it is generally held that you must identify yourself to police during a detention. Whether that must be via written, state issued ID, or simply a telling of a full true name, or other biographical information, what you may not do is simply walk away and disregard the officer. And apparently, that’s what Ms. Watts did.

In a police audio of the incident obtained by TMZ, Daniele Watts is heard accusing the police of racism when Sgt. Jim Parker asks her for ID. She then tells cops that they don’t who she is before storming off, refusing to show her ID.

Witnesses from the nearby Directors Guild office building allegedly told the police they were watching her and her boyfriend have sex in the passenger seat with the door open.

One eyewitness said the man was sitting in the seat while she was straddling him, in plain sight of everyone around them.

After storming off, Watts was apprehended by a police officer a short distance away and brought back where she continued her rant.

First, having authority to detain you, they also have the authority to use reasonable force to effect the detention.  Having left the scene, the escalation to handcuffs is a reasonable one for the police to take. Mind you, at this time, the police still have not ascertained Ms. Watts identification.

Further, in many jurisdictions, storming off would constitute interfering with an investigation or some similar offense. That is, while the Terry stop is a brief detention for purposes of investigation, the interfering with investigation is a crime itself, outside the original suspicion that prompted the stop, and the police, having seen the violation with his own eyes, would have more than cleared the bar for probable cause not just to investigate, but to actually arrest and charge.

We’re reasonably quick to condemn the heavy handed actions of the police. And we’re appalled at the numbers of officers who seem to not understand the laws of their jurisdictions. But virtually every officer in America is extremely well versed in the rules and limits of Terry, even if Sgt. Parker conflated the reasonable suspicion of a Terry stop and Probable Cause. That they chose to complete their investigation into the original complaint of indecent exposure, and not to pursue charges against Ms. Watts for interference is to her good fortune.

We’ll not also a common police tactic that every Army recruiter is familiar with.

We have a strong suspicion that part of why Ms. Watts reacted the way she did was the police were not terribly forthcoming with what they were doing, and what Ms. Watts legal status was. Rather forthrightly explaining why the police were detaining her, and why they could demand she identify herself, Sgt. Parker prefers to ask open ended, fact finding questions.

Sgt. Parker (to Watts): What’s your first name? Why do you think you’re in handcuffs? Do you think we put you in handcuffs or you did?

Watts: I put myself in handcuffs?

Sgt. Parker: Who do you think put yourself in handcuffs? Who do you think put you in handcuffs?

Watts: I think that this officer right here put me handcuffs because…

Sgt. Parker No, I think you did the minute you left the scene.

While at first, it seems Sgt. Parker is going of a little self justifying rant, what he’s really attempting to do is get Ms. Watts talking. And the first rule of staying out of jail is, DON’T TALK TO THE POLICE.

Sgt. Parker likely doesn’t have any great particular expectation that Ms. Watts will say something terribly incriminating. It’s just that officers virtually always talk to citizens and suspects this way, in an attempt to get people talking. You never know. Maybe she will suddenly say something terribly self incriminating.

Army recruiters use open ended fact finding questions both as a means of establishing rapport with prospects, and as a tool to help better determine the possible motivations and goals of applicants.