Lawyer Arrested For Intervening With Questioning of Client

[nando714]

http://sfist.com/2015/01/28/sf_public_defender_detained_by_poli.php

Is this even legal? Don't people have the right to lawyer up when being questioned and photographed by detectives? Also why was she arrested for resisting arrest? Wouldn't it be obstruction if anything?

[arch stanton]

Sounds like the law is becoming way too much of an inconvenience for some law enforcement officers. The politicians don't have the stones to reign them in so maybe the public should give it a go.

[gotbeer]

The one brother in blue had the look like.  WTF, they just took away my attorney.   

 

Where is Al Sharpton?  He should be all over this.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

The whole thing seemed over the top to me. I saw nothing that the lawyer did wrong. I don't see that what the police did was legal. The one officer kept talking about "resisting arrest", but I saw no resistance whatsoever on the lawyer's part. In fact, when he said that he was going to arrest her, she said "Please do."

[Blarg]

I think a certain detective should have a long talk with the Us District attorney about what he can and can't do in the hallways of a courtroom. Then he needs to be arrested and remanded to a federal prison awaiting trial. This is bullshit.

[nando714]

They charge everyone with resisting arrest. In all the videos where they are see beating limp people lying face down on the ground the cops repeatedly yell "stop resisting!". That's how they get away with everything.

Right lol.

But in this case don't her clients have the right to council when being questioned?

resisting arrest in this specific incident makes no sense? Unless I'm missing something ?

Edited January 31, 2015 by nando714

[Ludwig Von Mises]

"I will arrest you for... resisting arrest."

He's a bright one.

 

 

 

Don't talk to cops. Dull witted bullies who make a career of initiating force are very dangerous.

[gotbeer]

It doesn't matter. The supreme court recently ruled that cops not knowing the law is an excuse for them to do whatever they want. The cops in this case have to simply say they weren't aware that the suspect had Miranda Rights and they are home free.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/us/politics/justices-find-no-rights-violation-in-officers-misreading-of-law.html?_r=0

 

But laws are one thing.  If a cop doesn't know they have Miranda Rights, they should be sent to jump street.

[Hollyw00d]

Photo of the arresting officer:

[Stradling]

In a just society that would be the case. We live in a society where cops choke people to death for selling homemade cigarettes and beat homeless people to death for no reason and are acquitted by their buddies in the judicial system and within their own departments. I doubt arresting a lawyer for providing his/her client with their Constitutional rights will result in any discipline.

I get that these things happen, but you act like this is the norm and not an exception. You speak in absolutes so often it's difficult to agree with you at times.

[gotbeer]

So, he needs pictures of these two for a case he's working on.  Someone should tell SFPD of this new invention.  It's called a mug shot.  One day, maybe SFPD will take that of every person they arrest, and situations like this won't happen.  

[AngelsLongBall]

This is SF. That detective will get crucified, the young man will have all charges dropped and the public defender will get a nice settlement from the city

[Adam]

I get that these things happen, but you act like this is the norm and not an exception. You speak in absolutes so often it's difficult to agree with you at times.

 

Norm or exception, these things should not occur. They occur far too often

[ten ocho recon scout]

Few points.

First, Miranda is only mandated when both detention and interrogation exist. The defense can argue these guys were detained because of where they were (holding tank of the court room), and that may or may not supress whatever the defendant said.

But again, you have to have both. Another caveat, what happened prior to the video? It said they were speaking to this guy and the lawyer heard and went down. If the detective went to interview this guy, and he was fine with it, theres nothing wrong with that. (Obviously not on the video).

As for her getting arrested, its stupid and will likely be tossed out. That said, shes not arrested for 'resisting arrest'. Thats the detective lazily quoting the specific law, which is PC 148 'delay, resist, or obstruct'. If the guy being questioned did not invoke miranda, did not request this lawyer, and she interfered....that is delaying and obstructing. Again, it all comes down to what happened prior to the video starting.

Assuming this guy is a suspect in a seperate case (which based on the article he is), the detective is within his right to investigate that crime. If a detective is already working the case, that means a report has already been submitted, and an investigation is under way.Taking the guys picture is part of that (just as the public is allowed to take pictures of a cop, theres no constitutional right saying the police cant take them of you if youre in public). It sounds like he asked basic questions not specific to the case (height and weight) and is going to use the pictures for a photo lineup for a witness or victim....thats not interrogation. Miranda would not apply, and this lawyer cant invoke for that guy (only he can).

Theres too many what ifs to say either way from this video. It can all get thrown out by the court, it may all be sustained. Cops f**k up all the time....that said, anyone who thinks lawyers are any different watches too much tv. And anyone thinking a lawyer isnt subject to the same laws as everyone else is mistaken.

[Blarg]

She is their lawyer and they are under her protection once retained. That doesn't magically disappear when the detectives decide they want to open a new case.

 

I don't exactly know what authority the detectives had in removing their legal council and putting her under arrest but under our basic principles of civil rights but they should never have that power. Just pushing aside the defendants counsel to attain their goals of evidence seeking sounds a little too Stalinist for my tastes.

 

I am a law and order guy but these two detectives should be facing charges of civil rights violations.

Edited February 2, 2015 by notti

[ten ocho recon scout]

Im not arguing the detective didnt screw up, im saying theres a few things that have to be clarified first. Agin, they werent asking questions pertaining to a case (at least per the article). Theyre investigating a crime and it sounds like theyre only asking basic identifying information (again, just going by whats in the article, could be totally different).

Everyone has the right to not incriminate themselves, and the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Neither of those are being violated by a cop asking basic questions to identify someone and taking their picture in a public place.

Put it like this, everyone is in favor of police wearing body cams....will that become unreasonable because theyre filming people without consent too?

On the surface at least, this doesnt sound like a case where theres a lack of probable cause. Its possible this detective randomly ran into this guy, but the fact there were two detectives and two patrol officers there means they went specifically to talk to this guy. If thats the case, im sure at the very least hes either a suspect or a person of interest in a crime. A lawyer can tell him not to talk, of course, but cant interfere with the investigation.

The hitch in all this is simple though. Can the detective still take his picture with the lawyer standing there? Thats the only argument. If he can its a bad arrest. But all of the other issues im reading on here (and in the article) are bogus. They arent violating the suspects (assuming hes a suspect) by taking his picture. And lawyers arent exempt from laws.

[mp170.6]

Why do California cops have such a fetish for PC 148? 

 

This seems to be the threat of choice for stupid cops.  I got stopped one time walking through a parking lot because I matched a "white shirt, blue jeans" description of a guy breaking into cars, also reported as bleeding and carrying a hammer.  I wasn't carrying anything and definitely wasn't bleeding.  The officer was cool at first.  He realized I wasn't their guy and was about to let me go.  Then he wanted my name for some reason, but I refused.  He then ranted about PC 148 and arresting me for Obstruction.  About that time a Sergeant showed up and without me saying a word, the Sergeant apologized and said I could go.  The other officer wasn't happy. 

[Stradling]

Why would any innocent person refuse to give their name to the cops? Obviously you don't have to give them your name but wouldn't that just be the easiest thing to do to go on with your day? If you were a cop and you asked for someone's name and they refused to give it to you, would you be more or less suspicious of the person? I've never once had a bad experience with a cop, I'm guessing it's because I'm respectful, and see no reason to agitate them.

[Lou]

Why would any innocent person refuse to give their name to the cops? Obviously you don't have to give them your name but wouldn't that just be the easiest thing to do to go on with your day? If you were a cop and you asked for someone's name and they refused to give it to you, would you be more or less suspicious of the person? I've never once had a bad experience with a cop, I'm guessing it's because I'm respectful, and see no reason to agitate them.

 

you're also white

[Stradling]

you're also white

Yea it's pretty great you should try it.

[Lou]

Yea it's pretty great you should try it.

 

i'm not into chewin tobaccy n sleepin with my kin

[mtangelsfan]

Why would any innocent person refuse to give their name to the cops? Obviously you don't have to give them your name but wouldn't that just be the easiest thing to do to go on with your day? If you were a cop and you asked for someone's name and they refused to give it to you, would you be more or less suspicious of the person? I've never once had a bad experience with a cop, I'm guessing it's because I'm respectful, and see no reason to agitate them.

 

If I know I have done nothing wrong and there is zero reason for the officer to take my name, why should I give it to them?

[Stradling]

What's the point of not giving it to him? What do you gain or lose refusing to give it to him? Won't the interaction be a little longer the more questions he has to ask after refusing? I just don't really see the point. I guess I'm just indifferent to this compared to others.

[Lou]

What's the point of not giving it to him? What do you gain or lose refusing to give it to him? Won't the interaction be a little longer the more questions he has to ask after refusing? I just don't really see the point. I guess I'm just indifferent to this compared to others.

 

perhaps because if you are asked again in the future and they run your name, they will see that you

had been stopped and questioned previously.  now it's not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior

 

just a thought.  

[mtangelsfan]

perhaps because if you are asked again in the future and they run your name, they will see that you

had been stopped and questioned previously.  now it's not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior

 

just a thought.  

 

It is that plus the idea that the officer has no reason to be asking.  It is giving them more power over you.