DogofWar1 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Interrogation or Questioning? I doubt they would hold an interrogation out in the hallway. Questioning is interrogation. Any express questioning relating to their charges is considered interrogation, and requires a waiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Sorry was just watching the videos you referenced it being shown in, didn't look at the article. But either way, from my post above, you cannot interfere with someone who isn't your client. She was rightfully arrested for obstruction because it wasn't her client (if it was her client then yes, she could question it further). Through the link below, it lists that they were being questioned for an unsolved burglary which wasn't related to the case that they were currently at the courthouse for. In this situation, as far as I know, when assigned a public defender, it is for a specific case so if the case isn't related to what they are at court for then she isn't technically her client. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-police-won-t-press-charges-against-6063816.php Sources told The Chronicle that Stansbury had been in court for a separate case when he heard that the two men, who were being eyed as suspects in an unsolved burglary, were in the same building and wearing similar clothing to when they allegedly pulled the heist. The men have not been arrested. The men could have also not answered the questioning and stated that 1.) the one was going to wait for his lawyer or the 2.) I want a lawyer. What she did would be no different than me or you stepping between a cop while he was questioning someone and telling him he can't do that. She was NOT his client. I guess you should point out where the police make the distinction between the 2 men and say "we aren't worried about your client, just this other guy." That doesn't happen. Instead, the police officer IMMEDIATELY threatens the attorney when she challenges him: "Look, you can either step aside . . ." The men in custody certainly could have said something, it appears they decided to just let the white people in suits do the talking. SHAME ON THEM FOR NOT VERBALLY ASSERTING THEIR RIGHTS IN THAT SITUATION. Further, the fact that there was a separate charge may or may not have just been an excuse for the police to get the suspects away from the attorney so they could question them (about either or both charges) without the benefit of counsel. Essentially a backdoor way to violate the **** out of their rights. The attorney knows this is what is happening, and she isn't buying it (nor should she). So where this stands is the attorney spent an hour handcuffed to a wall, no charges were filed against her (because she didn't do anything wrong), a complaint was filed against the cop (not his first, he was previously accused of racial profiling by another cop after he stopped and arrested an African-American off-duty police officer, lol), and the ACLU is threatening a lawsuit as well. And the chief of police issued a half-assed apology as well. But yea, the cops did everything by the book here, for sure. Edited July 24, 2015 by PleaseBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Interrogation or Questioning? I doubt they would hold an interrogation out in the hallway. For 5th Amendment purposes, "interrogation" means any "words or conduct that the police should have known would reasonably influence an individual to respond." In other words, asking questions IS interrogation, as DogoWar stated above. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/police-interrogation-and-confessions/rhode-island-v-innis-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Questioning is interrogation. Any express questioning relating to their charges is considered interrogation, and requires a waiver. they were not questioned related to their charges Years of experience doing what? Violating people's civil rights, im guessing? Perhaps years of experience commenting on the internet about stuff you have no clue about? Regardless, I know (and have cited to) the actual law, which is way better than your "experience," no matter what it is in. watching lawyers overstep what was she told to do and why would that violate those being photographed right's? actual law please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Thanks! Learn something new everyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 One of the things I always love, in these threads, is watching the non-lawyers trying to tell the lawyers that the things the lawyers have already said, multiple times, isn't really true. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Sources told The Chronicle that Stansbury had been in court for a separate case when he heard that the two men, who were being eyed as suspects in an unsolved burglary, were in the same building and wearing similar clothing to when they allegedly pulled the heist. The men have not been arrested. I'm loving this part, too. What we've got here, is: The two men are suspects in a burglary case. The cops have decided who they want to convict, and are trying to find things that will help them do so. They want to show some photos to a witness. They think that the witness will be more likely to point a finger at the right guys, if the people they want him to point at, are wearing similar clothes to what the witness described. In short, they're trying to artificially encourage the witness to pick the two guys who the cops want them to pick. And, that's the story that they're willing to admit to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 they were not questioned related to their charges watching lawyers overstep what was she told to do and why would that violate those being photographed right's? actual law please I love that you are only citing to your "experience" and you won't even say what that is, and now you are demanding "actual law please." Hilarious. I don't even understand the question you asked. Actual English please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 One of the things I always love, in these threads, is watching the non-lawyers trying to tell the lawyers that the things the lawyers have already said, multiple times, isn't really true. There are usually lawyers on both sides of an argument, who obviously disagree. One of them is wrong. In short, lawyers aren't always right. (Though i strongly suspect they are in this thread) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I love that you are only citing to your "experience" and you won't even say what that is, and now you are demanding "actual law please." Hilarious. I don't even understand the question you asked. Actual English please. simple version She was told to step aside and allow pictures to be taken.....how does that violate their rights? ya'll can deflect to questioning if ya wish,but the arrest was because of her not stepping aside. since that question seems too hard: Is there any interference a lawyer cannot do in a police investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) simple version She was told to step aside and allow pictures to be taken.....how does that violate their rights? ya'll can deflect to questioning if ya wish,but the arrest was because of her not stepping aside. since that question seems too hard: Is there any interference a lawyer cannot do in a police investigation? The arrest was for resisting arrest. I feel that this is pretty clearly stated by the arresting officer at 32 seconds into the video where he says, quote, "if you continue with this, i'll arrest you for resisting arrest." Ya'll can deflect to obstruction if ya wish, but she was not arrested nor later charged with obstruction, she was arrested for resisting arrest and never charged with anything. You are just making up a post hoc rationalization for an egregiously ridiculous abuse of police power. If that is too hard for you to understand: If the attorney did anything wrong, why wasn't she charged with anything? Edited July 24, 2015 by PleaseBlitz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Ya'll can deflect to obstruction if ya wish, but she was not arrested nor later charged with obstruction, she was arrested for resisting arrest and never charged with anything. You are just making up a post hoc rationalization for an egregiously ridiculous abuse of police power. But that's his experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) The arrest was for resisting arrest. I feel that this is pretty clearly stated by the arresting officer at 32 seconds into the video where he says, quote, "if you continue with this, i'll arrest you for resisting arrest." Ya'll can deflect to obstruction if ya wish, but she was not arrested nor later charged with obstruction, she was arrested for resisting arrest and never charged with anything. You are just making up a post hoc rationalization for an egregiously ridiculous abuse of police power. but poor little police detectives are not bound by the terminology, thus resisting and obstruction are interchangable at that time. The law dogs file the actual charges and tidy up the wording(sometimes ) add Is there any interference a lawyer cannot do in a police investigation? Edited July 24, 2015 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 but poor little police detectives are not bound by the terminology, thus resisting and obstruction are interchangable at that time. The law dogs file the actual charges and tidy up the wording(sometimes ) So why didnt the law dogs charge her with ANYTHING? ACTUAL LAW PLEASE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 So why didnt the law dogs charge her with ANYTHING? ACTUAL LAW PLEASE. no need, she was removed.....legally I might add. why bother with a misdemeanor when ya got the pictures ya wanted......and had a laugh please do LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 But that's his experience. I think his experience may involve too many movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I think his experience may involve too many movies. don't forget Perry Mason, Old Ironsides and Hawaii 5-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) The arrest was for resisting arrest. I feel that this is pretty clearly stated by the arresting officer at 32 seconds into the video where he says, quote, "if you continue with this, i'll arrest you for resisting arrest." Ya'll can deflect to obstruction if ya wish, but she was not arrested nor later charged with obstruction, she was arrested for resisting arrest and never charged with anything. You are just making up a post hoc rationalization for an egregiously ridiculous abuse of police power. If that is too hard for you to understand: If the attorney did anything wrong, why wasn't she charged with anything? California's "Resisting Arrest" Law Penal Code 148(a)(1) PC http://www.shouselaw.com/resisting-arrest.html California's "resisting arrest" law prohibits you from willfully Resisting, Delaying, or otherwise Obstructing Definition of Resisting ArrestThe offense prohibits one to resist, obstruct, or delay a law enforcement officer in the performance of his/her duty. Edited July 24, 2015 by steve09ru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 no need, she was removed.....legally I might add. why bother with a misdemeanor when ya got the pictures ya wanted......and had a laugh please do LOL Thank you for proving my entire point. According to you, arresting someone under false pretenses is legal, and now the cops are free to interrogate the black guys without the pesky lawyer lawyering things up. Thanks Dirty Harry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Thank you for proving my entire point. According to you, arresting someone under false pretenses is legal, and now the cops are free to interrogate the black guys without the pesky lawyer lawyering things up. Thanks Dirty Harry. false pretenses my ass....let me know how that charge works out. a smart lawyer would have stepped aside(as legally required) and remained there as counsel.....instead she got a break chained to a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 California's "Resisting Arrest" Law Penal Code 148(a)(1) PC http://www.shouselaw.com/resisting-arrest.html Good research, does it apply to attorneys advocating for their client? Doubtful, because on its face, a lawyer telling a client not to answer a question would be resisting arrest according to that law, and that would be antithetical to the 5th Amendment and therefore preempted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 California's "Resisting Arrest" Law Penal Code 148(a)(1) PC http://www.shouselaw.com/resisting-arrest.html California's "resisting arrest" law prohibits you from willfully Resisting, Delaying, or otherwise Obstructing Definition of Resisting ArrestThe offense prohibits one to resist, obstruct, or delay a law enforcement officer in the performance of his/her duty. don't show lawyers law Good research, does it apply to attorneys advocating for their client? Doubtful, because on its face, a lawyer telling a client not to answer a question would be resisting arrest according to that law, and that would be antithetical to the 5th Amendment and therefore preempted. advocating or blocking access? step aside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Good research, does it apply to attorneys advocating for their client? Doubtful, because on its face, a lawyer telling a client not to answer a question would be resisting arrest according to that law, and that would be antithetical to the 5th Amendment and therefore preempted. But doesn't that change when she comes right out and says "no, no..he's not represented by us." So by her admitting that isn't her client then does she still have that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) false pretenses my ass....let me know how that charge works out. a smart lawyer would have stepped aside(as legally required) and remained there as counsel.....instead she got a break chained to a wall. LOL! This is a fantastic insight into why most of the country hates cops now. The charges against the police have not yet been resolved. There ARE NO charges against the attorney. Anyways, you can bet that anything the police got from the represented suspect after the attorney was arrested will not be admissible in court, most certainly not in CA. Also, who doesn't love a good break? She's still getting paid, and now she somewhat famous in the legal community (which will help her career). Sounds like she got a pretty good deal. But doesn't that change when she comes right out and says "no, no..he's not represented by us." So by her admitting that isn't her client then does she still have that right? She was referring to one of two different guys (there is a guy in a blue polo and a guy in a black jacket), and you keep making a distinction that the police were only interested in the other guy. I don't see how you get to that conclusion AND the articles indicate that BOTH were subsequently questioned. Are you insinuating that she just happened to be there and neither guy is her client? Edited July 24, 2015 by PleaseBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I'm also reflecting on this scene. (From a really great movie.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now