Lawyers rail against 'unlawful' jailing of public defender for shielding client

[Wells]

I hope they throw the book at her and wipe that smug look off her face.

Well using it as a weapon would certainly preclude having to actually abide by it instead.

[Kasierith]

What a shitty police decision. One of the biggest rules that police officers with a minutia of intelligence follow is that if there's a lawyer, they know the law better than you, and if you have a problem with them interfering (outside of very obvious problems) get someone from the state's attorneys office or wherever to be told how to proceed.

The arrest seems bogus, but don't they have the right to take pictures for personal reasons and for their "investigation"?

They could argue that they can just take photographs because whatever, but it wouldn't be admissible as police evidence in court. What's more, the 1st allowing some measure of photography as free expression doesn't mean they can arrest her for interfering.

[Jaxsz]

If he is being detained and questioned, he has the right to legal counsel.

Oh I agree completely, but in this case apparently they believe his legal counsel was illegally preventing them from performing their police duties.

These are detectives in San Francisco - as much as people like to joke, those kind of cops are generally rather intelligent and well educated. They know they're in a court house with cameras everywhere, including other lawyers actively recording them. They aren't idiots that will generally be illegally arresting people, getting themselves involved in lawsuits and disciplinary actions by their department.

Basically, none of us know everything about the law here, but it's hard for me to imagine two detectives in a city like San Francisco inside of a courthouse would be so blatantly "unlawfully arresting" a lawyer. They probably have more justified cause than we think.

[Daerio]

Yeah, the officers certainly have no authority to be demanding people pose for their camera anywhere outside of the jailhouse. Nor do they have any authority to question anyone outside of the presence of their lawyer, nor demand the lawyer "get out of the way" so they can illegally question her client. None of that is how our law works.

"Resisting arrest" is obviously a laughable charge that couldn't possibly apply, but that's the one cops rely on for the go-to when they want to arrest somebody even when it makes zero god damn sense. Cop should be charged with filing a false report, and false arrest, and summarily dismissed from service.

They probably have more justified cause than we think.

Suggesting the cops know the law better than the lawyers is pretty laughable, too.

[Jaxsz]

Yeah, the officers certainly have no authority to be demanding people pose for their camera anywhere outside of the jailhouse. Nor do they have any authority to question anyone outside of the presence of their lawyer, nor demand the lawyer "get out of the way" so they can illegally question her client. None of that is how our law works.

"Resisting arrest" is obviously a laughable charge that couldn't possibly apply, but that's the one cops rely on for the go-to when they want to arrest somebody even when it makes zero god damn sense. Cop should be charged with filing a false report, and false arrest, and summarily dismissed from service.



Suggesting the cops know the law better than the lawyers is pretty laughable, too.

Well it's a public defender, and surprisingly detectives are pretty well versed in what their legal rights are when detaining or making arrests. It's kinda their job, too.

[Daerio]

Well it's a public defender, and surprisingly detectives are pretty well versed in what their legal rights are when detaining or making arrests. It's kinda their job, too.

So you're saying his explanation of resisting arrest was accurately applied in this case?

Can you explain your logic for me?

Or how about the fact that she was released an hour later without charges, which makes it obviously ridiculous?

[Jaxsz]

So you're saying his explanation of resisting arrest was accurately applied in this case?

Can you explain your logic for me?

Or how about the fact that she was released an hour later without charges, which makes it obviously ridiculous?

She was cited for obstructing a police investigation.

Again, this isn't so cut and dry. In fact;

"Hadar Aviram, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, said the rights of Tillotson and her client during the confrontation appeared to be “a stickier legal issue than it seems.”

The public defender’s office is arguing that Tillotson’s client had a right to counsel. But Aviram said that for the right to counsel to apply to this situation, the officers would have to be questioning Tillotson’s client about the theft case for which she was representing him."

"As for the right against self-incrimination, Aviram said the issue is whether the police interaction with the two men was a custodial interrogation, which requires officers to issue a Miranda warning informing a detainee of his or her rights.

Esparza said there are different types of detention that can range from interrogation, in which a person has a right to have an attorney present, to a casual “consensual encounter.”

“What I saw from the video was the cops asking their names and taking their pictures from angles that lead me to believe that they were putting together a lineup for another offense,” Aviram said. “Presumably they can do this, but ordinarily they wouldn’t grab you from a courtroom hallway.”

[Kruncholyo]

What authority do these officers have to photograph someone outside a courthouse? At what part of an investigation does that come into play?

If you're out in public, they can photograph you as much as they want.

[Daerio]

She was cited for obstructing a police investigation.

If you watch the video in the OP, you can clear hear the officer, and there are subtitles. Starting at ~25 seconds in. "If you continue with this, I will arrest you for resisting arrest."

Do I need some kind of extra context for that video, to warp that from "resisting arrest" to "obstructing a police investigation" ? My hearing and seeing is pretty good, I feel like I understood what the officer was saying in this video pretty clearly.

If you're out in public, they can photograph you as much as they want.

But they can't grab you and force you to pose for them, or detain you and ask you questions and demand your lawyer not interfere.

[Jaxsz]

If you watch the video in the OP, you can clear hear the officer, and there are subtitles. Starting at ~25 seconds in. "If you continue with this, I will arrest you for resisting arrest."

Do I need some kind of extra context for that video, to warp that from "resisting arrest" to "obstructing a police investigation" ? My hearing and seeing is pretty good, I feel like I understood what the officer was saying in this video pretty clearly.



But they can't grab you and force you to pose for them, or detain you and ask you questions and demand your lawyer not interfere.

He did say that, and it made little sense. It was probably quickly clarified that it was for obstruction, and she was issued the citation. Him saying a dumb word once doesn't really change the reality of what took place, though.

It's also possible that this conversation had been going on before filming starts, and they had already told her to move or she would be arrested for obstruction, and she continued regardless, leading to the resisting comment. Not really sure, but it definitely doesn't make much sense in the video as presented.

[AndaliteBandit]

She was cited for obstructing a police investigation.

"I'll arrest you for resisting arrest." That's what he said.

The arrest was purely retaliatory, which is why she was handcuffed to a wall for the hour she was in custody.

[Daerio]

He did say that, and it made little sense. It was probably quickly clarified that it was for obstruction, and she was issued the citation. Him saying a dumb word once doesn't really change the reality of what took place, though.

Pretty sure it's more an example of, "I'm arresting you for doing something I don't like, I'll figure out what for later."

But, if you're going to take the angle that the cops know the law better than the lawyers, and they REALLY KNOW their limitations and what the legal boundaries are, why would he make such a foolish mistake as "misspeaking" the charge? Do you think this guy really thought out this arrest, and it was simply a slip of the tongue?

Because that's obviously all bullshit.

[Jaxsz]

"I'll arrest you for resisting arrest." That's what he said.

The arrest was purely retaliatory, which is why she was handcuffed to a wall for the hour she was in custody.

Again, this video doesn't contain the whole interaction. They may have informed her to stop interfering or she'd be arrested for obstruction, then she continued, adding resisting. It isn't relevant since her citation was for obstruction - it doesn't matter what random thing he said during this small portion of the interaction.

She was cited for obstruction. Read above, where law professors agree that the officers were likely in the right, legally.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty sure it's more an example of, "I'm arresting you for doing something I don't like, I'll figure out what for later."

But, if you're going to take the angle that the cops know the law better than the lawyers, and they REALLY KNOW their limitations and what the legal boundaries are, why would he make such a foolish mistake as "misspeaking" the charge? Do you think this guy really thought out this arrest, and it was simply a slip of the tongue?

Because that's obviously all bullshit.

No, like I said, it's probably more likely the scenario I described above, as this had been going on for an unknown period of time before filming began.

[AndaliteBandit]

Again, this video doesn't contain the whole interaction. They may have informed her to stop interfering or she'd be arrested for obstruction, then she continued, adding resisting. It isn't relevant since her citation was for obstruction - it doesn't matter what random thing he said during this small portion of the interaction.

She was cited for obstruction. Read above, where law professors agree that the officers were likely in the right, legally.

- - - Updated - - -



No, like I said, it's probably more likely the scenario I described above, as this had been going on for an unknown period of time before filming began.

"As for the right against self-incrimination, Aviram said the issue is whether the police interaction with the two men was a custodial interrogation, which requires officers to issue a Miranda warning informing a detainee of his or her rights.

Esparza said there are different types of detention that can range from interrogation, in which a person has a right to have an attorney present, to a casual “consensual encounter.”

What would have happened if her client refused to be photographed or interrogated?

Would he be arrested for resisting arrest? Obstruction?

If we're dealing with may haves, we have to acknowledge that the encounter may have not been consensual.

[Kathandira]

In hindsight, I kinda wish the suspect had covered his face for the pictures.

If you want to question and photograph a suspect, you should do it at the police station. Unless you are being arrested and processed, you have no obligation to be photographed by the police. Nor are you obligated to answer any questions with out an attorney present.

but again, gotta wait for a bit more information. Something unique could be going on here.

And thank you all for pointing out that he was suspected of a different crime, that at least makes a little more sense.

[Every Pwny]

"I'll arrest you for resisting arrest", what?

[The One Percent]

Since when?

Are you fucking serious?

[prwraith]

If the cops are not actively arresting him, then that lawyer can stand in front of her client all damn day and deny pictures.

Cops can fuck right off in this case, and most cases lately. Seriously this power tripping bullshit has got to stop.

[Heywes]

The arrest seems bogus, but don't they have the right to take pictures for personal reasons and for their "investigation"?

I to am curious and would like more information before an reasonable judgement can be made.

[Vohon]

Cops recently started taking photographs to run them through the database. You see it all the time when people flex their rights on youtube. So to "gain" access to the persons information, they take a picture and run it through the database. Pretty sure that's what he was doing in this case, but is in the wrong.