Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LIVEFRMNYC, Feb 4, 2015.
good for her, hope the cops get a vacation slip
"This is not Guantanamo Bay..."
That's awesome. She is right. Since when is it illegal for an alleged criminal to hide their face from photographers? Is this not done daily?
the bigger issue was
There's little information available since this just happened a few days ago. But, if the detective was questioning him about another crime other than what the PD was representing him on, then they are within the legal boundaries. Miranda gets more complex but there's plenty of case law to settle it. Besides, the right to counsel is owned by the suspect not the counselor. If she wants to actively interfere with the detention and interview she is risking arrest.
I predict no charges will be filed against her and nothing will come of this other than the the PD's office running a PR campaign.
We will see how it turns out.
Which you can do unsless denied by suspect. I still like her fiery instincts.
They arrested her for resisting arrest. It was obvious the officer's intention of the actual arrest was none other but to get her out the way, or she would have been arrested for another reason. It's easy to make a ton of technical arguments AFTER the fact.
She was arrested for 148 PC. Resisting, delaying, interfering. It's all the same section. And the technical arguments were more than likely known before they detained him. That's why they did what they did when they did.
I do think it's kinda weird that you can threaten someone with a charge for resisting arrest before they've had a chance to resist arrest, which is more often than not a secondary charge to some other crime. Why wasn't she arrested for interfering with an investigation?
edit: Gutwrench answered that for me.
Maybe I'm missing something ....
The guy was not being arrested. It wasn't clear if he was being detained. Since the officer stated, "I just want to take some pictures, ok, then he will be free to go". Did he say that in loose terms or was he officially detained?
And also, do officers have the right to do that to a suspect while still being represented for another case in the court house?
Most cops are like this, but some are really good and nice
He was interrogating a suspect, which would mean she was guilty of interfering with an investigation. Going by what Gut said, she would've only been allowed to represent him if the suspect specifically stated such, otherwise she was interjecting herself into the middle of it.
I'll say this, it's one of those things that was likely perfectly legal by the letter of the law, but the investigator jumped the gun, and exercised his authority a little too forcefully. It falls under a "just because you can doesn't mean you should" things, because the police do have to worry about PR as much as anyone else. Especially these days.
I have to be honest that I am making a few educated guesses.
I do believe he was being detained for the investigation of another crime other than what his attorney was representing him on. In that case even if he had invoked Miranda for the first crime (the one the PD was representing him on) he could be still be interviewed because he was not in custody and there was a break in 'Miranda custody.'
And not to intentionally complicate this, but an invocation of Miranda can be to remain silent or to have counsel, or to have both. Specific rules apply to each.
As for pictures, I don't know of any requirement to cooperate with pictures in a detention. I'm a little rust in this area though. There was a time in a gang unit taking pictures of people for gang books were commonplace then a ruling came down that hinder it. I'm sorry I don't remember the specificx.
I could be wrong ...... but this is what I got from the video.
She was perfectly unfazed until the beginning of the video when the officer asked for pictures. There is no way she would have allowed questioning/interrogation only to be concerned with having a picture taken of her client. That just makes no sense. Also, the officer didn't even seem to allow her to advise her client what to do.
Good point, however, does the detective have authority to hold a syspect to 'take pictures with his cell phone'? Or does it matter because he was being detained and had limited rights?
I honestly don't know if he is authorized to take such actions. Is he?
If it were for another case, then he wouldn't have been her client, and since she's an assigned public defender, I believe she can only represent him for specific cases. Though with that said, he's always free to invoke the 5th and request council again at any time, which apparently he didn't do.
One thing you need to understand about the law when it comes to situations like this is that it's very, very specific.
My current knowlege is shaking here so take this with a gram of salt. I don't think anything bars the detective from taking pictures. In a gang unit we used to force take pictures of people and their tats for our gang books. But a ruling came down that had us to be less forceful in asking for the gangsters cooperation. I don't remember the specific and don't want to BS anyone here.
What I don't understand is why the detective felt he needed a picture.
Yeah, that just sounds weird. Wouldn't they already have pictures of the suspect?
Barring tattoos that he noticed, what would be the purpose? And why a cellphone? Correct me if I am wrong but do they not have substantially nicer cameras for their photography needs?
There has to be more to the story. .. it does not add up.
I personally think it's nothing more than harassment. Same way accident lawyers chase ambulances, is the same what that officer was doing. Officer is going to ask his informants if they know the guy and any info on him. Sure it's said that he was a suspect for another case, but that excuse has been used so much, it's become generic.