Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[steve09ru]

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. 

Except the part that says 'they were already being eyed as suspects'

 

So if you're looking for someone or want to talk to someone and they happen to be in the same vicinity, are you going to talk to them or just say, 'nah, it's not important'

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. 

 

 

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?

 

No I get that part and as I've pointed out, she has a right for her client.  But she specifically states what I mentioned and regarding the pictures, the PO was engaged with the one that wasn't her client.  That doesn't mean he wasn't going to go to hers next but at the time of the incident, the attention was to the other.

[Larry]

Except the part that says 'they were already being eyed as suspects'

 

So if you're looking for someone or want to talk to someone and they happen to be in the same vicinity, are you going to talk to them or just say, 'nah, it's not important'

 

No I get that part and as I've pointed out, she has a right for her client.  But she specifically states what I mentioned and regarding the pictures, the PO was engaged with the one that wasn't her client.  That doesn't mean he wasn't going to go to hers next but at the time of the incident, the attention was to the other.

Except they didn't want to talk to them. (According to the people defending the cops.)

They wanted to take their picture, wearing clothes that were similar to what a witness had seen.

Now, I've posted one possible motive for wanting such a picture.

You got another one?

[PleaseBlitz]

 

No I get that part and as I've pointed out, she has a right for her client.  But she specifically states what I mentioned and regarding the pictures, the PO was engaged with the one that wasn't her client.  That doesn't mean he wasn't going to go to hers next but at the time of the incident, the attention was to the other.

 

I just don't see how you get to the conclusion that the PO was only interested in the other one.  Then why didn't the cop just say so?  :whoknows:  

[Larry]

I just don't see how you get to the conclusion that the PO was only interested in the other one.  Then why didn't the cop just say so?  :whoknows:

And why does the article say they wanted pictures of both of them?

[steve09ru]

I just don't see how you get to the conclusion that the PO was only interested in the other one.  Then why didn't the cop just say so?  :whoknows:  

I didn't say he was only interested in the other one.  I said at the time of the video, his focus was on the one that wasn't her client.  She specifically states this and when he is taking pictures, he is taking pictures of the one on the right that she acknowledged wasn't her client.  If it was her client then she has every right to deflect.

Except they didn't want to talk to them. (According to the people defending the cops.)

They wanted to take their picture, wearing clothes that were similar to what a witness had seen.

Now, I've posted one possible motive for wanting such a picture.

You got another one?

Who said that?  I've said from the get go that they were questioned.  It's in the article stating that as well.

Edited July 24, 2015 by steve09ru

[PleaseBlitz]

I didn't say he was only interested in the other one.  I said at the time of the video, his focus was on the one that wasn't her client.  She specifically states this and when he is taking pictures, he is taking pictures of the one on the right that she acknowledged wasn't her client.  If it was her client then she has every right to deflect.

Who said that?  I've said from the get go that they were questioned.  It's in the article stating that as well.

 

 

Well, I would posit that by "he's not represented by us" she means that there is not an attorney from the public defender's office with that guy at the present time (so they should wait to interrogate him until there is one).  Not "he's not represented by us (and never will be)."  

[Major Harris]

LOL! This is a fantastic insight into why most of the country hates cops now.

That is because most of the country is really, really dumb.

I hate assholes. Not nearly all cops are assholes.

Most of the country won't hate cops when they need them.

[PleaseBlitz]

And why does the article say they wanted pictures of both of them?

 

 

Because they were BOTH "persons of interest" in a different crime.  

That is because most of the country is really, really dumb.

I hate assholes. Not nearly all cops are assholes.

Most of the country won't hate cops when they need them.

 

 

Or maybe its because every week a video emerges of cops beating the **** out of people for no good reason, or because a black person has died in police custody or shot/choked for being black?  :whoknows:  Sadly, its common enough that we have a thread specifically for this subject.

 

The profession of cop attracts assholes, specifically bullies.  

Edited July 24, 2015 by PleaseBlitz

[Major Harris]

Because they were BOTH "persons of interest" in a different crime.

Or maybe its because every week a video emerges of cops beating the **** out of people for no good reason, or because a black person has died in police custody or shot/choked for being black? :whoknows: Sadly, its common enough that we have a thread specifically for this subject.

The profession of cop attracts assholes, specifically bullies.

I still say there are way more good than bad. Am i guessing right that you're a defense attorney?

Edited July 24, 2015 by Major Harris

[twa]

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.

 

 

There are no charges against the detective either.

 

Mot of the country hates lawyers as well 

 

ya never answered about blocking access for some reason.

[PleaseBlitz]

I still say there are way more good than bad. Am i guessing right that you're a defense attorney?

 

 

I totally agree with that.  Still way too many assholes though.

 

No, not a defense attorney, they don't make enough $.

[PleaseBlitz]

There are no charges against the detective either.

 

Mot of the country hates lawyers as well 

 

ya never answered about blocking access for some reason.

 

 

There are not criminal charges, but there is an active inquiry against the arresting officer and the other 5 officers present with the SF Office of Citizen Complaints (which reports directly to the chief of police) and the ACLU is considering civil charges.  But yea, totally unfounded.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons an attorney would not be allowed to block access.  Its just that none are applicable in the case at issue.  

 

And yes, I am well aware that most people hate lawyers.  ****ing public defenders man, providing constitutionally guaranteed legal counsel to poor people who (might be) CRIMINALS (probably).  

[Duckus]

I still say there are way more good than bad. Am i guessing right that you're a defense attorney?

Of course ther are more good than bad cops. But a small percentage of bad cops with a large amount of power can cause big ****ing problems.

Police abusing power - especially with minorities - is not new. It is just that on in recent years with rapid advancements in personal video technology has it been exposed on this level.

The crazy part - this is how rouge cops act knowing they are ON CAMERA. Just imagine what was happening a hurt 5+ or more year ago. Terrifying.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Duckus

[twa]

civil charges gonna fly with qualified immunity? 

 

case at issue?.....what case?

[DogofWar1]

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.

 

 

they were not questioned related to their charges

 

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.

 

 

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? 

 

 

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?

 

 

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)

 

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.

 

 

I still say there are way more good than bad. Am i guessing right that you're a defense attorney?

 

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.

 

 

The offense prohibits one to resist, obstruct, or delay a law enforcement officer in the performance of his/her duty.

 

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.

 

 

I didn't say he was only interested in the other one.  I said at the time of the video, his focus was on the one that wasn't her client.  She specifically states this and when he is taking pictures, he is taking pictures of the one on the right that she acknowledged wasn't her client.  If it was her client then she has every right to deflect.

 

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.

Edited July 24, 2015 by DogofWar1

[twa]

So you deflect again to the questioning and ignore the refusal to obey the order to move which necessitated her arrest.....typical lawyer

 

I'm a bodyman, even have a thread on it.

[DogofWar1]

So you deflect again to the questioning and ignore the refusal to obey the order to move which necessitated her arrest.....typical lawyer

 

I'm a bodyman, even have a thread on it.

 

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.

[NoCalMike]

I feel like as someone who works in the billing department of an insurance company I often get more attitude from clients then these cops do from these people before they are flipping a lid.  I understand the two situations don't 100% compare, but I just feel that in a lot of these cases, regardless of the end result, they should be shown to police trainees as to what not to do in situations where they are potential traffic violations.  

 

Sometimes if you just let people blow off some steam, they eventually calm down and relax a little and accept what is going on, even if they aren't necessarily happy about it.  Instead what I am often seeing in these cases is that the second the citizen doesn't 100% conform and obey or even when they do seem like they are going to, but just throw in a little attitude, the cops immediately fly off the handle and pull the "how dare you not respect my authority, now it's on" card, when it feels completely unnecessary.

[twa]

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.

 

yes we have been over it and you continue to ignore the reason she was arrested....hint, it was not for opposing questioning.

 

kindly explain how taking their picture violates their rights or the 6th 

 

 

edumacate me

[Major Harris]

I feel like as someone who works in the billing department of an insurance company

Now we're getting somewhere. Lets focus our hate here.

[The 12th Commandment]

yes we have been over it and you continue to ignore the reason she was arrested....hint, it was not for opposing questioning.

 

kindly explain how taking their picture violates their rights or the 6th 

 

 

edumacate me

I would've thought a little angry white woman standing in front of the perps to be a plus for the cops' picture.

[Passepartout]

There are good cops around. But sadly the bad cops dominate the news. And give those that are good a bad name.

[DogofWar1]

kindly explain how taking their picture violates their rights or the 6th 

 

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.

[Major Harris]

Dog, 3 paragraphs or less. No one reads more. But the first 3 were good.

[DogofWar1]

Dog, 3 paragraphs or less. No one reads more. But the first 3 were good.

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.