<p>
</p>
<p>Nor does he seem to think she’s a minor, which was how someone up thread excused the officer’s demanding her ID.</p>
<p>Who gets to decide what this cop was thinking? He specifically stated that “it never crossed my mind” that she was a prostitute. Do we assume that he is lying? Why do we want to assume that?</p>
<p>I don’t really care if he suspected she was a prostitute or not because that seems like a real possibility when two people are reportedly having some kind of clothed quickie sex in a car. Police go into a situation suspecting the chance of all sorts of things. So what? It’s not an insult. It’s an investigation. But, the boyfriend offered up the woman’s passport before the cop said, “Who is she to you?” It’s a reasonable question under the circumstances. </p>
<p>Okay, it looks like the cops released the tape to TMZ.</p>
<p><a href=“LAPD Officer: ‘Django Unchained’ Actress “Is Lying” – The Hollywood Reporter”>LAPD Officer: ‘Django Unchained’ Actress “Is Lying” – The Hollywood Reporter;
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me? Is that a typo? Of course you can have suspects demanding, and deserving, deference. Cops are not jackbooted thugs whose very word is law. They are supposed to follow procedures, follow the law, and treat similarly situated people the same. They can’t just do whatever their little hearts desire and call it legal.</p>
<p>D is the actress, O is the cop, and this is from the transcript:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This, too, and this encapsulates the problem in one sentence:
</p>
<p>That is not the law, although Officer Condescending appears to believe it is. We are not required to obey all orders from cops. We are required to obey all lawful orders from cops. IF the cop is not entitled to ask for her ID (and the California Supreme Court, I’ve been reading, is unclear on this) then she is not required to give it. Cops lie-- it happens, for example, all the time during interrogations. They are legally allowed to lie. But we don’t have to believe their lies.</p>
<p>CF, her story has officially fallen apart and her publicist is not responding to press inquiries. It’s done…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s correct but in this case, the the police only have to meet the reasonable suspicion standard not the higher standard of probable cause. </p>
<p>The article cited by someone said that a witness took a picture of them having sex in the car. If so, I bet TMZ will pay a lot of money for that one and wait until the appropriate moment (for TMZ) to release the picture.</p>
<p>Y’know something? The story doesn’t fall apart at all. Probable cause isn’t retroactive. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_z7x4w6tr/”>http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_z7x4w6tr/</a></p>
<p>A TMZ wrap-up.</p>
<p>There’s two minutes I can’t get back, actingmt. That TMZ wrap up is completely useless and tells us nothing new, nothing that we didn’t know. TMZ’s editorializing on the audio doesn’t give us any more information than the audio itself, which we already had. Why did you waste our time posting it? Clearly it will persuade no one.</p>
<p>Well, I knew something was wrong with this story a few days ago. But, people are catching up rapidly it seems. I Googled lying actress and she came up first on Yahoo. Sorry.</p>
<p>I don’t form my judgments by majority vote, and neither do you, actingmt. Only stupid people do that. So what comes up on Yahoo searches is of no interest to me. </p>
<p>Clearly, at the time of the incident, the police had the phone call and no other information. If they had had information about the alleged sex in the car (such as a video or a still photo) then they would not have let the couple go, and they would not have subsequently said the couple had committed no crime. The fact that such information exists, if it does, has no bearing whatsoever on the police’s actions, because they didn’t have any such information and didn’t know it existed.</p>
<p>I don’t think the cops ever had any interest in arresting two people for having sex in a car. They had to clear the call, expected to ID the couple and go get coffee. Done. I also think they would have done the same thing if the two people were black, white, green, or purple.</p>
<p>How does ID’ing the couple help them clear the call? Possibly they were terrorists having sex in a car? Illegal immigrants? Humping in public with outstanding warrants?</p>
<p>What’s the point of that? Why don’t they just get the coffee and ignore the ID-checking, if they’re not going to arrest the couple or give them a ticket? Or, swing by, notice that no sex is happening now, and head off for a cup of joe and a doughnut? What’s the ID-checking for?</p>
<p>If the plan is to check IDs and leave, it’s illegal, because the ID-checking is a fishing expedition, which is illegal search and seizure.</p>
<p>Well, I imagine they would run a warrant check and let them go if nothing came up. They pretty much said that was the plan before the unexpected outburst. Here’s the LAPD Chief explaining his understanding of the law.</p>
<p><a href=“Daniele Watts: LAPD chief says officers acted 'well within' authority”>http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-daniele-watts-lapd-chief-20140916-story.html</a></p>
<p>Here’s what the ACLU has to say, from the same link:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So on the one hand, we have the LAPD, notorious bastion of racism, corruption and police brutality, home of the Rodney King beatings and the Rampart scandal. This is the same department that last year sent 70 officers to break up a party of black students at USC, while the party of white students was left unmolested. Yeah, that LAPD. And then on the other hand we have the ACLU. I’m going with the ACLU here, because I care about civil liberty.</p>
<p>Except that they didn’t arrest her so I don’t know why they are saying that other than to confuse people further. She was detained pending ID.</p>