DogofWar1

More than likely, true that. One exception might be Zingano 2. The first one was weird with how Zingano rushed in. Not that it'll likely make much of a difference if she takes things slower. Holly Holm will probably end up fighting Rousey soon, that poor lady. She's had 2 UFC fights (Correia has 3) and is undefeated in her MMA career (against cans, but still undefeated, exactly like Correia). But yeah, we're gonna have to wait a while for Cyborg, IF Cyborg ever happens.

I mean, searching homes without warrants is simpler too, but you still have to get warrants (unless an exception exists).

Well, she was 144.6 for Invicta FC 13, so Cyborg needs to drop 10 pounds still. And she probably can't. She juiced to her eyeballs for years until 2011. She's 145 when she loses all the weight she possibly can. Not to mention, in her previous agreements (which she back out of) Cyborg said she'd fight through 2 and then 1 contender before fighting Rousey. Now Tate v. Cyborg and Zingano v. Cyborg would be really good fights too. Would love those.

TJ looked great. That last exchange was fun to watch, but it was so clear Barao was just done. Looks like it's time for Rousey v. Tate 3. Assuming Rousey wins next Saturday, that is. Of course, I imagine the bigger threat to Rousey is Cyborg throwing some jeer from the sidelines and Rousey doing something that gets her in trouble than Correia. She can't take Bethe for granted, certainly, but I don't think that'll be an issue after Bethe's boneheaded suicide comment. Rousey is build to destroy people at 135, and you just pissed her off. If I were a betting man, I'd skip betting on who wins, and rather bet on whether Rousey just snaps Correia's arm like a twig before she can tap. Shame Eye couldn't pull it off, would have been nice to get Correia, Eye, Zingano 2, and THEN Tate 3, in that order, instead of Tate 3 this early, but at the same time, Tate is the only one at 135 who's lasted more than 1 round. If she can get us a PPV fight that lasts more seconds than dollars spent to see it, it'll be worth it, even if she loses.

Oh yeah, some people definitely are overly belligerent. It's still prickly to excuse short fuses or vagueness for officers. Like, there's a pretty easy to set line in terms of explaining things, and as soon as officers cross that threshold of explanation, then there's no issue, and they can take their actions, but I think we've all got to be wary of lowering the burden officers have to demonstrate that they aren't overstepping their authority, especially in cases where there's a fairly clear appearance that they may be.

Lawyers are bound by their rules of Professional Conduct, which places a duty on attorneys to zealously represent and defend their client, and she is permitted to assist others in not having their rights violated. Cops are duty bound to not violate people's rights in the course of their duties. All outer appearances were that right violations may have been occurring at the time the lawyer rolled up. The attorney did not get any information from the cop to dispel her suspicions, indeed the cop likely heightened them by being vague and dismissive of the attorney. When there's a conflict between these two, shouldn't the burden of clearing up the problem fall on the guy with the information that could clear up the situation? But I get your view. The cop here can do no wrong. Doesn't matter if he danced all over the 5th Amendment line, or made it appear to everyone that he violated these guys' 6th amendment rights. Doesn't matter that he could have easily defused the situation by actually explaining his purpose, and not being vague and dismissive. Doesn't matter that his go-to response to anyone questioning his authority is to immediately put them in cuffs. Doesn't matter. Cops should be allowed to investigate without anyone getting in their way, even if there's a damn good reason to question what they're doing. We don't need those pesky Constitutional rights, right? I mean, HEAVEN FORBID a cop actually have to EXPLAIN THEMSELVES and use some bloody RESTRAINT in the course of their duties, right?

Haha, I know, walls get long, but it's tough to keep things short. There's a lot going on here. Good thought exercise, if nothing else, since it seems like the most that's coming out of this case is a civil suit.

Well, first and foremost, they did more than just take pictures. They asked questions both beforehand and afterwards. The "two minutes and then they're free to go" thing was clearly not true. On the 5th right against self-incrimination and Miranda rights. Need: Custodial Interrogation via totality of the circumstances Custody - reasonable person would not feel free to leave Interrogation - express questioning that is likely to provoke a response, which would be self-incriminating When the video begins, we've previously had questioning, and likely orders issued to the client and co-defendant to assist the cops in taking pictures. Now, remember, the cops started this whole thing because the clothes were supposedly similar to those reported in a burglary offense. Any questions were very likely to provoke an incriminating response (for example "How long have you had those clothes?" would qualify since if they'd had them since before the alleged burglary, that would weigh against them). As for custody, prior questioning inside of a courthouse is suspicious, but likely doesn't reach that. However, any orders with reference to taking pictures likely would. After being expressly questioned by police and ordered around for the purpose of taking pictures, you are getting very close to custodial interrogation, if not there. Now, as for the 6th Amendment, individuals have the right to have attorneys present for all major criminal proceedings, and during any questioning specific to the indicted charges. This is again where the officer's failure to communicate creates serious issues. An officer approaching and questioning a person on their court date in a courthouse creates a suspicious situation, one that the attorney was justified in investigating. When the officer fails to give a reasonable explanation ("investigation" could reasonably relate to anything criminal, including the current charges) that suspicion is further aroused. The attorney, having a reasonable belief that her client and another individual were being questioned about the present charges, moved to protect her client, and the other man. So ultimately, there's the appearance of a 6th amendment right to counsel violation, without anything said by the police to dispel that notion, and quite possibly an actual 5th Amendment right to have an attorney present attaching at the moment the pictures are sought. As has been said before, the whole situation stemmed from the officer's failure to communicate, though having thought about it more, the officers were dancing dangerously close to the Miranda line anyway, a line which they got much closer to when they started trying to take pictures.

We've been over this. She's refusing an order that, by all appearances, will result in the violation of her client's and another person's rights, either their 6th Amendment if they're being questioned on their current charges, or potentially their 5th, if they're being detained such that they would not reasonably feel free to leave. There's no deflecting. There are rights, which you keep refusing to acknowledge people have in the face of police questioning.

twa HAS to be trolling us. This must be some next level modern art. twa's vagueness about his profession mirrors this officer's vagueness about the purpose of his actions. And we've been over this, like, 6 times in the past three pages. It's not that hard to understand dude. Police are questioning people who have outstanding charges. Police did not explain what they were asking questions about. Looking at this from the perspective of a bystander, one would conclude that there is a strong possibility, if not probability, that the questioning was related to the present charges, which is against the law. The cops held the information about the separate charge. They failed to present that information. The attorney did her job and protected her client and another individual who was undoubtedly represented by another attorney. Absent the presentation of the information about the separate charge and investigation, she has zero reason to assume her client's rights and the rights of the other person were not being violated. Pictures came after they already questioned the clients. Questions that, again, in the absence of an explanation otherwise, would likely have been violations of their 6th amendment rights. Moreover, following the arrest of Tillotson, further questions were asked of the individuals. So no, they didn't want to just take pictures, they'd already asked questions, a potential 6th amendment violation, the cops refused to explain how their actions were not violations of the 6th amendment, then they attempted to take pictures (probably ordering the individuals to stand in certain ways as well, which could arguably implicate their 5th amendment rights), and then further questioned them, which again, in the absence of an explanation, was a potential 6th amendment rights violation, and might have been an actual 5th Amendment rights violation. And we've already gone over your question. Yes, there is interference they cannot do. If police had stated that they were attempting to engage in consensual questioning in relation to a separate investigation, then yes, she would have been incorrect in her interference. They did not though. They went straight from potentially violating 6th (and 5th) Amendment rights and being vague about their reasons to trying to arrest her. Since those basic constitutional concepts seem too hard: Are there any limits to what a cop may do in pursuing a criminal investigation? True enough, though in that hallway she's the only lawyer we know of. Everyone else was police, clients, or bystanders. Moreover, other lawyers, the prosecutors, declined to charge her with anything. So we've got two sets of lawyers on the same side of this issue. As for in this thread, no idea of the numbers. I'm in law school (where I did my previously mentioned internship), PleaseBlitz said he was an attorney, no idea about others though. This is something of a separate issue, but I'd guess probably 80-90% of cops are "good cops." That number probably fluctuates community to community, there are certainly communities where the police are all wonderful people, and then there are certainly communities where larger %s of police are very bad. The issue just as large as the 10-20% bad cops though is the tacit approval the good cops give to the bad ones. When a cop violates someone's rights, good cops tend to look the other way. There needs to be a lot more active expulsion of bad cops. The combination of bad cops + good cops failing to stop bad cops has led to the degradation of people's views of police. As PleaseBlitz mentioned, this has limits, specifically Constitutional ones. After all, construed broadly, a lawyer coming in post-Miranda and advising his client to not say anything would violate the statute. Heck, the 6th Amendment right to counsel attaches once an indictment is filed. That's not the end of the police investigation, police investigate up to the trial. If we assume an officer has a "duty" to investigate crimes, then wouldn't an attorney protecting a client under the umbrella of the 6th Amendment violate this? Of course, the law's power ends where Constitutional rights begin. In this case, there was the appearance of a 6th Amendment violation, and a potential actual 5th (though that one is a bit tougher, but nonetheless, being questioned, in a courthouse, by police, and then told to pose for photographs; it is arguable that a reasonable person would likely not have felt free to leave in that situation). The appearance is that the police are acting outside of their duties, in which case obstruction would not occur. Right, there's more grey with regard to the other individual, but it's not like attorneys can't step in if someone's rights are being violated. They definitely can. Attorneys consistently cover for each other, take on clients right in the courthouse on the fly for free, etc. In addition, if the police are expressly questioning the non-client, there is still a potential 6th Amendment violation if they're talking about a current charge, or a 5th Amendment one if the police conduct created a situation in which the individuals did not reasonably believe they could leave. Once in custody, all the Miranda rights come into play, including right to an attorney. Basically, he might not have been HER client, but he was likely SOMEONE'S client, and so all the rights still attach to him, even if the guy's attorney isn't standing right there next to him.

Questioning is interrogation. Any express questioning relating to their charges is considered interrogation, and requires a waiver.

If someone is being interrogated in relation to a charge without an attorney present, another attorney is allowed to step in and ensure the client's rights are protected. Your 6th Amendment right doesn't evaporate because your attorney went to the bathroom, or is stuck in traffic. If you're charged with something, police cannot question you about it, and an attorney is perfectly justified to step in. Happens all the time. PDs covering for other PDs, private attorneys handling cases for other private attorneys, etc. If an attorney reasonably believes an individuals rights are being violated, they can and should step in, whether they represent that person or not. With a vague explanation of the purpose of the "investigation," it was reasonable to believe that a rights violation was occurring.

And again, TWA is ignoring that without telling the attorney what they're investigating for, there's a very real chance a 6th Amendment violation is happening. It, as I said yesterday, is forcing attorneys to play dangerous games with their client's rights. It is flatly unconstitutional to interrogate a client represented by an attorney on a charge. It is, however, fine to ask them questions about a separate matter in a hallway (provided the person is "consensual" in answering). If you're their attorney, and you don't know which it is, what exactly should one do? You're suggesting they should step aside and let the police go. And that's utter garbage. If you don't know if your client's rights are being violated or not, you darn well better inquire, and if the explanation is unsatisfactory ("we're doing an investigation" "About what!? My client's current charges?" "Uh...we're not gonna say.") then you better step in the way. You're not "interfering," you're "protecting."

Technically, during a "consensual" pre-arrest encounter, the police may question an individual. So long as the person keeps answering questions, it's "consensual." Of course, the line gets very blurry very quickly. I've seen situations where cops will have a guy handcuffed and sitting in a cruiser, but since the door to the cruiser was open, they weren't "under arrest," were still free to leave, and therefore not entitled to Miranda rights. General District Court in Fairfax is really bad about these things, because clients have a no questions asked right to appeal to the Circuit Court of the county de novo. The judges err on the side of the cops, knowing that they'll probably get overturned on appeal, but better to look tough on crime rather than lenient on it. And of course, it's not interference to protect someone's 6th Amendment rights, especially your client's. The cop screwed up. Plain and simple. Your investigation is not some James Bond "I could tell you why I'm questioning your client but then I'd have to kill you" thing, explain yourself or wait until the court date is finished. Jeez.

Conducting what investigation? Because if it's an investigation into the case they're about to go into court on, you've just violated the client's rights. And yes, cops do pull that. All the darn time. I interned at a public defender's office, and their clients are basically treated in subhuman fashion by the cops. The number of times cases got thrown out because a cop questioned someone when they should have Mirandized them first, or lied to clients to get them to confess was mind boggling. A public defender's job is to protect her client. If a policeman rolls up and starts questioning your client, you're at least going to ask why, and are very much entitled to do so, as per the 6th Amendment. If the police offer some half-ass explanation about "an investigation" without actually explaining what investigation, that's pretty much code for "we're gonna nail your client to the wall in some shifty way as soon as you leave." I know everything starts to look like toilet paper when we start running low, but the 6th Amendment is going a little far. What you're suggesting should be the standard is basically police state 101 material. They were questioning both individuals. The fact they were going after both made it a grey area a little more, but she still had a right to step in for her client. Moreover, if their unexplained "investigation" was related to ongoing criminal charges for the other guy, and again, there's no way to be sure, they'd be violating that other guy's 6th Amendment rights too. Unless he expressly waived his right to an attorney, any interrogations must happen only with an attorney present. If both were indigent, it's very possible that the other guy was represented by the public defender's office too, or by a court appointed private attorney. Attorneys cover for each other all the time. Just because their specific attorney isn't around that minute doesn't mean their 6th Amendment rights evaporate. So she definitely had a right to intervene with relation to her client, and she probably had a right to intervene in relation to the other guy too.

She is definitely entitled to an explanation. Officers are not allowed to begin interrogating a person charged with a crime about said crime without having their attorney present. Interrogation is any express questioning. The police began expressly questioning her client. Without being offered an alternate explanation, it was entirely reasonable to believe the questioning was in connection to the present case, which means she had a duty to stop the officer's inference with her client's right, since any interrogation regarding the case she represented him on was in violation of her client's rights. Without further explanation by the police, there is no way for her to have been given a reason to not think her client's rights were being violated at that very instant, and that her duty to stop the officer's interference did not invoke. If we apply this line of thinking to other cases, that attorneys must not intervene in police interrogation of an attorney's client, then you're going to end up with a TON of rights violations by the police of the clients' rights, because plenty of cops DO attempt to question clients regarding existing charges, as well as a ton of attorneys getting disciplined by their state's respective bar for failure to protect their client's rights. You're asking attorneys to play russian roulette with their client's rights, and their own freedom, for that matter. Cop comes up to talk to your client, but doesn't say what about. If you stay, and it's about the case for which you represent the client, cop has to leave. If you stay, and it's about a separate case (again, without telling the attorney that), attorney gets arrested. If attorney leaves, and it's about a separate case for which no charges have been filed, then it's fine. But if the attorney leaves and its about the case he's represented on, the client's rights have been violated and the attorney is subject to discipline. It's an absurd situation to put attorneys in, and one that will definitely lead to abuse and client right violations. If you're a cop investigating a separate matter, say it. Then all the problems go away. It's simple and easy.

Yes and no. Yes, in that any questioning tied to anything post arrest/Miranda has to give the client the opportunity to have an attorney present to advise the client. No, in that consensual questioning tied to a matter where the individual has not been arrested/Mirandized is outside of the right to have an attorney. If police walk up to you on the street and start asking questions, and you answer, it's consensual. If you stop answering, police, in order to further question, need to arrest you and therefore Mirandize you, in which case you get the right to have an attorney present. Of course, that right can be waived if the client starts talking on their own. Anyways, in this case, the attorney was completely right to step in between the cop and her client, in that the situation objectively looked like the former situation, questioning regarding a current, post-arrest, charge. You keep missing the fact that the police did not explain their presence. They rolled up, started trying to interact with a client, on his court date, in front of his attorney, with no explanation for what they were questioning him/taking his picture for. It is NOT a lawful order to order an attorney to stop representing their client's interests and protecting their client's rights. That is what the officer told the attorney to do, as far as anyone on the scene (except that one cop) knew. Had he verbalized his subjective intent better, mentioning the separate investigation, then you'd have a point. But he didn't. Bad cop is bad.

Perhaps, but her telepathy could also influence others. One would think she'd have just influenced everyone around her, Jedi mind tricking everyone. "These aren't the black people you're looking for," *handwave* "in fact, you're not looking for black people at all. You're going to go home and re-read police department guidelines and follow them in the future." That or she could just Phoenix Force everybody there, except her client.

Thought it would consolidate into the previous post, I guess that timed out, so did it manually.

Interfered with what though? If she's interfering with cops questioning her client about the case they're both in the courthouse for, then in reality, the cops are the interference. They're interfering with Tillotson's representation of her client, and with her client's right to be represented by an attorney. And that's exactly what the situation objectively appeared to be from the video. At no point did anyone mention anything about a separate investigation. A bystander could not have known about the separate investigation. Tillotson could not have known. The defendant might have suspected, but he too could not have known for certain what he was going to be asked about. The only person in that hallway who knew about the separate investigation was the cop, and he didn't verbalize that to anyone else. So, no, Tillotson did not clearly interfere based on the video. Indeed, if one just watched the video, and didn't get the later explanation of the cop's subjective mindset, the person who interfered would have to be concluded to be the police interfering with her client's rights and her duty to protect her client. The only ways one can come to the conclusion that Tillotson "clearly interfered" is if we assume she's a mind reader, and therefore knew of the separate charge, or we assume that anytime a cop gives an order, regardless of legality, that order MUST be followed, and any questioning it, no matter how reasonable, is interference. This is a huge problem in these kinds of cases, and we're seeing it more and more as police videos come out of the woodwork. Bad cops don't seem to understand the whole "don't escalate the situation, and if possible, de-escalate" thing. The beating at the pool, for example, 11 of the 12 officers were calmly controlling the situation, and everything was calm. Officer 12 rolls in and starts screaming and barking orders and tosses a girl to the ground and waving his gun. In Tillotson's case, the officer could have easily said "there's a separate crime we'd like to question him about. We will not question him about the case for which you represent him." Bam, done. If she continues to interfere, then you've got a reason to remove her, but instead, cops go straight from ambiguously trying to interfere with her client's right to an attorney to arresting the attorney. In the Bland case, she's frustrated, potentially rightfully (seriously, if a cop tailgated you and then pulled you over for moving out of the way, you'd be annoyed too), and instead of keeping things calm, the cop escalates the situation into an arrest for nothing. This keeps happening. Someone needs to drag police nationwide into a big auditorium and re-explain to them how not to escalate situations, because apparently a not insignificant percentage didn't get it the first time, and there's too much at stake to let it shake itself out.

I think you've got the strange idea. People aren't mind readers. If you're representing your client and a cop walks up and starts trying to ask questions, it's not unreasonable to expect it was tied to the present case. If the questioning had been tied to the present case, then Tillotson had a duty to protect her client's rights; she could have been disciplined by the state bar for failure to protect her client from questioning in violation of his rights. The fact that no charges were filed against Ms. Tillotson demonstrates the cops understood they screwed up by not telling her there was a separate investigation for which they were doing questioning. Ultimately, neither side in the Tillotson situation seems to have taken unlawful action. However, one side was incompetent, and that side was the police. As for the Bland case, I mean, the text message seems pretty cut and dry. I suppose the tests could have been wrong, but generally, tests can figure out the time-frame in which the marijuana was ingested/smoked with decent certainty. If it'd happened earlier, they'd probably have been able to tell, or at least would have not said "in the jail," but rather been more noncommittal about it. Moreover, one of the most popular tricks cops use to get the right to search a vehicle is pulling the ole "I smell marijuana." If she had smoked it, and probably even if she'd ingested it before being put into police custody, odds are one of the cops would have smelled it said something at the scene.

Well, in most states, you are allowed to use reasonable force to repel unlawful force an officer is using. Of course, it's tough to show that an officer was using unlawful force without a video or something, since cops can generally come up with reasonable suspicion on the fly if they truly want to (and are bright enough to). And then you've got states like Texas which say resisting an arrest, even an unlawful one, is still a crime. It's crazy, but then again, that's Texas.

This is the problem in the Tillotson case, the officer was NOT doing his duty, at least not in a reasonable manner. He never told Tillotson he was investigating a separate matter, it appeared as though he was questioning her client on the matter for which she represented him, during which it was her duty to defend her client from violations of his rights. So his duty to investigate bumped up against her duty to protect her client. They arrested her for obstructing an investigation which she had no notice of, and which the police could easily have provided her notice of, but didn't. And that's on the police, frankly. It's absurd to blame a lawyer for not being able to read an officer's mind. _______________________ Another wrinkle in the Bland case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-bland-swallowed-or-smoked-large-quantity-of-marijuana-in-jail-da_55b12ba9e4b08f57d5d3f041?cps=gravity_5043_-3505967028057514712 How in the world does one manage to swallow or smoke a large quantity of marijuana while in prison? Someone screwed up big time, and that's assuming no foul play.

The thing that struck me most when watching the "arrest" tape for Sandra Bland (quotes because that was hardly a lawful arrest), was when he says she's under arrest and is trying to force her out of the car, she asks what she's under arrest for, and there's just this period of like 3 seconds where he says nothing, followed by him just repeating his order to get out of the car. That is so unbelievably absurd and stupid on the part of the officer that he should be fired on the spot just for that BS. If you cannot tell someone who you are forcefully removing from their car what you are arresting them for MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE ARRESTING THEM! I mean, there are failures all over the darn place on this, it's a textbook case of systematic failure at all levels. - Officer doesn't know the law - Paperwork is wonky at the jail - $5K bail for a traffic infraction!? - video is glitchy/edited upon release - If paperwork is accurate (which, at least half of it isn't because its inconsistent, but still, should have erred on the side of caution anyway, or gotten confirmation), she should have been on suicide watch (15 minute check-in, not 1 hour) And that's without going into the potential issues elsewhere that suggest foul play, this is just the stuff that is apparent on its face, the utter incompetence.

With the added bonus that they don't have to delve into, or really even know, the details of the law. Not that they would delve into it, but it's a lot harder to avoid getting into the nitty gritty with voters when the Supreme Court does something with a bit of nuance like "close exchanges in 34 states," leaving 16 states with them and some other states swiftly establishing them thereafter. If 16M people lost healthcare tomorrow, and maybe 4 or 5 million got it back because of newly created state exchanges between now and 2016, people might throw more complex questions about specifics of new exchanges, or how to deal with the 10M gap the SCOTUS ruling made. With this ruling, the law can remain this evil, monolithic, thing, and they can play off that (even if there are positive results).