<p>But, there was a building full of witnesses and a guy who came out and told the couple to knock it off. He could easily have told the cops he took a photo, as well. They could very easily have known more than we initially thought from the get go. Please, don’t accuse me of lying. I’m not. Here’s an exert of my source… </p>
<p>"But Parker refutes Watts’ account, saying he was already near the location to meet up with two other LAPD officers at Starbucks when he got a call about public nudity at the corner of Radford Avenue and Ventura Boulevard, near CBS Studios. Parker tells THR??that he recorded the incident from the moment he got out of his car to when it ended. “They were f&mdashing. He was in the passenger seat with his legs outside,” Parker says, paraphrasing a call from someone at the Art Directors Guild office, complaining about employees watching a couple having sex in a car in broad daylight with the door open, complete with a description of the make and license plate of the car and description of the couple and what they were wearing. He says at least one witness took a photo. “People don’t make this ■■■■ up.”</p>
<p>Based on the COPIOUS evidence that police mistrust blacks and give whites a pass, one could say that the police in the Zimmerman case were just as “politically motivated” as the prosecutor who ended up bringing the case. They also might have sympathized with GZ for “doing his part” to keep his neighborhood safe.</p>
<p>Sure, one could say that if they have a pre-existing agenda. One could also say this actress girl was targeted as a hooker because she was black if that’s what they want to believe. They don’t even need facts. Clearly. And, I’m not saying I have more facts than anyone else could have but after happening to have the chance to see that particular trial and a few other high profile cases beginning with OJ gavel to gavel it’s rather striking the misconceptions people have about what actually happened in these cases. That’s all I’m sayin’. You are speculating about police motives, again. Speculating is a fail, imho.</p>
<p>I still don’t get this. Are we questioning whether it is illegal to do the nasty in public, in a car with the door open?</p>
<p>And you guys know how many college kids are stopped for all sorts of things, regardless of color and regardless of whether they are actually doing anything. I don’t see how these cases are anything other than advertising the need for people to treat ALL suspects with dignity.</p>
<p>I don’t get this either. I think we’re questioning whether white people get ID’d. I think yes. Her defenders are saying we have bigger problems, make love not war. lol.</p>
<p>I really wonder if the whole thing was a set up based on how outrageous the witnesses say the behavior was and how prepared she was for her close up.</p>
<p>CF
Not sure what point you were trying to make, but written statements are not required for establishing probable cause. There are remedies available to deal with people who falsely report incidents to the police. </p>
<p>The ACLU disputes that, Bay. For misdemeanors, a phone call and nothing else does not constitute probable cause , according to them. </p>
<p>For the police to detain a person, they need “reasonable suspicion.” A phone call and nothing else doesn’t establish reasonable suspicion either, for misdemeanors, again according to the ACLU. </p>
<p>A police officer can’t give you a ticket because someone says you were speeding.</p>
<p>Here’s the boyfriend shooting the ***** with Sgt. Jim. It’s mildly entertaining and he is slightly throwing her under the bus. Also, he’s been to prison for pot. He’s white.</p>
<p>He had the right to request it but not to demand it, if you can understand the distinction. The fact that he had no right to demand it means he had no right to detain her for not providing it. Complicated, I know. ;)</p>
<p>Are you a CA criminal lawyer? Cause a lot of them are disagreeing with that statement and calling the report of lewd conduct probable cause and certainly reasonable suspicion which gives them the right to detain and investigate. But, who cares? The actress is so lying and so busted and I can’t even believe people are fighting about to ID or not to ID when there are photos of the couple having sex in the street. On second thought, she played a cop on TV once so she is probably right. </p>
<p>Courts look at “the totality of the circumstances” to determine if there is probable cause, not whether a written statement exists. The police didn’t just have a phone call. They had a phone call(s?) with a description of the incident and perpetrators + descriptions confirmed in person by a police officer + a suspect meeting the description who left the scene. </p>
<p>You know what? Zoosermom makes a good point in Post 388. And, the boyfriend apologetically told Sgt. Jim that she does this alot. And, some of it is just over the top. Thus, I conclude it was a PR stunt/acting exercise.</p>
<p>And, CF I agree with those who say they were never intending to charge anyone. The cop said as much on tape. </p>
<p>So if they were never intending to charge anyone, what was the ID for? What was the whole thing for? Why didn’t the cop just warn them that it’s illegal to have sex in a car and go away?</p>