Cops Arrest Public Defender For Attempting To Do Her Job

from the you-have-too-many-rights,-brother.-let-me-ease-your-burden-by-taking-a-few. dept

Due process? In this "justice" system? It is to LOL.
A San Francisco deputy public defender was handcuffed and arrested at the Hall of Justice after she objected to city police officers questioning her client outside a courtroom…
Here's the video:


The two responses gathered by SFGate show the divide between those who represent the accused and those who haul inconvenient people away so they can continue their "work" unimpeded.
...an incident that her office called outrageous and police officials defended as appropriate.
The public defender, Jami Tillotson, was charged with the one-size-fits-all-who-give-us-any-lip crime of "resisting arrest." This charge doesn't work the way people expect it would, much to their anger, dismay and surprise. One would think that the police would need to be arresting you for a different crime and, after encountering some resistance, add "resisting arrest" to the charges. But no, apparently "resisting arrest" simply means not doing what cops say to do, no matter the legality of the request.

Tillotson was representing her client in a misdemeanor theft case. The police wanted to chat with him about an unrelated case in which he was "a person of interest." Presumably the photo-taking was part of building a lineup.

Now, the Sixth Amendment only guarantees the right to an attorney during criminal prosecution. But being a "person of interest" presents its own problems, what with it usually leading to questioning centered on gathering incriminating evidence -- either against the person being questioned or someone else on the list of suspects.

As an American citizen, you can always refuse to answer questions, especially when you're not in custody. Easier said than done, though, which is why the option of referring law enforcement to a lawyer is always on the table. Of course, police officers will try to avoid this possiblity, usually by framing the questioning as an innocuous, purely voluntary chat. They get irritated, though, when people realize this and tell them to talk to their lawyer or continually ask if they're free to go.

So, while Tillotson's attempt to defend her client from questioning related to a different crime may not have fallen under guaranteed Sixth Amendment protections, her willingness to protect her client from additional police questioning certainly falls within the bounds of what she (and her client) are legally allowed to do in a situation like this (i.e., "Talk to my lawyer.")

But the police weren't interested in speaking to a lawyer. They wanted to take pictures and ask questions without the "interference" of someone who knew how the system works. So, they arrested her for resisting arrest -- which, as the video shows, she was very clearly NOT DOING BEFORE, AFTER OR DURING THE ARREST.

Tillotson objected to the arrest, but she placed her hands behind her back and allowed police to cuff her. She never struggled or otherwise impeded the officers in their duty -- which was [WARNING: circular reasoning ahead] TO ARREST HER FOR RESISTING ARREST.

It's a mindbending, oxymoronic, ugly display of force, where might = right and anyone standing in the way of an investigation needs to GTFO. With cuffs.

Here's how Gideon at A Public Defender sums up this incident:
It’s one thing for officers to get their way by removing civilians from the scene who object to their searches and seizures, but it takes quite another level of totalitarianism and disregard for the law to arrest and make absent an officer of the court.
Even the law prof [Is it impossible to get quotes from actual lawyers with "in the trenches" experience? Are there really that few of them?] quoted by SFGate -- who believes Tillotson erred by inserting herself between police and their "person of interest" -- had this to say about the PD's actions.
[Hadar Aviram] added, “Regardless of where the constitutional disposition is, the attorney was in no way being violent or resisting arrest or being disruptive in any way. It’s extreme and it’s bad press for (the police). I’m surprised.”
I'm not. Many officers -- far too many -- simply don't care what the public thinks of them or their actions. The detective captured here on video is among that number.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:16am

    There is no excuse for this. There is absolutely no possible justification.

    If these officers are not fired for gross violations of both the lawyer and her client's civil rights, we live in a police state.

    Ms. Tillotson, please sue the fuck out of these thugs and the department they work for.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:12pm

      Re:

      If these officers are not fired for gross violations of both the lawyer and her client's civil rights, we live in a police state.

      Uh, you do. But even a police state has rules. That's more like a police anarchy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 1:07am

        Re: Re:

        I disagree. The rules are very clear here. The police ARE the law (at least in their minds).

        but it takes quite another level of totalitarianism and disregard for the law to arrest and make absent an officer of the court

        The US is deep inside the totalitarian waters already. It's just that the high profile people are starting to get targeted.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:48pm

      Thin Blue Line Uber Alles

      Maybe LEOs should start wearing brown shirts.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:03pm

      Re:

      You have lived in a police state for quite a while now.

      Might I suggest the website police state USA. Helps to know what's going on depressing as it is.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John85851 (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 5:03pm

      Re:

      Why is suing them an option?

      The case will be settled by the police union or even the police department, which will come out of the city's budget, which will mean taxpayers have to pay for this. Then, because the city has to pay the lawsuit, they may cut the budget of the public defender's office, where she works.

      There's no incentive for police not to do things like this since they won't be held personally accountable.
      Oh, they shouldn't do these things because it's the right thing to do? That's a nice dream to have.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Mr. Garner, 29 Jan 2015 @ 8:55pm

      Re:

      Where have you been, we do live in a police state. On the bright side, they didn't choke or shoot her...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:46am

    As it's been said; "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Binko Barnes (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:49am

    The officers won't be fired. They most likely won't even be disciplined. And, yes, we do live in a police state.

    We have allowed a legal and judicial system to be empowered where citizens have ever diminishing rights while police and government officials have increasing levels of immunity from consequence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:20pm

      Re:

      Most likely those officers will actually be PROMOTED.

      And those in power will one day be shocked to find that people have been tipped over the edge and have openly and violently rebelled against the police state and have started killing anyone they perceive as part of the corrupt system.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Pragmatic, 2 Feb 2015 @ 5:44am

        Re: Re:

        These people will promptly be labeled terrorists and shamed in the national and international media.

        On the flip side, no state can be governed without the consent of the people. That there's enough of a consensus to grant that consent is the problem.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Matt Corby, 30 Jan 2015 @ 4:27am

      Re:

      You left out the corporations in that list.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      ThinNewLine, 30 Jan 2015 @ 9:41am

      .

      A Thin New Line Has Appeared Between Law Enforcement and Their Taxpayer-Employers, and her Name is Jami Tillotson

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:53am

    Thugs use physical force to get their way. That's exactly what we just witnessed here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:56am

    Good cops who protect bad cops are bad cops.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:08pm

      Re:

      Therefore all cops are worthless pieces of shit. Er, I mean 'bad cops'.

      Note: I'm not being sarcastic. I think we need to fire all police officers and start fresh.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 3:00am

        Starting fresh

        I think we're going to have to create a new system that does not involve dedicated enforcers.

        All systems with police forces lead to this. We need to create a newer system (or adjust what we have) so that it doesn't.

        I doubt anyone knows how to do this.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 8:02am

          Re: Starting fresh

          Well, I doubt anyone even knows where to start. All known large scale societies have had dedicated enforcers, so this is all we've ever known.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 7:02am

      Re:

      Sir, you just explained why there are no good cops.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:57am

    Unbelievable. He actually says, "If we continue with this [objecting to me communicating with your client] ... I will arrest you for resisting arrest." (Missed a few steps there, sir.)

    "Please do, Officer Kafka."
    "It's Detective Kafka." [points to cheap suit]

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:09pm

      Re:

      Perhaps if she had said "I would love nothing more than for you to arrest me for resisting arrest" then maybe he would have gotten the point that this might not end well with him. Or maybe not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Oblate (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:37pm

      Re:

      > "It's Detective Kafka." [points to cheap suit]

      "It is for now."

      ...would have been a great follow up line- and even better if actually followed up on.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TruthHurts (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:09pm

    Those cops won't be cops for long, they'll be inmates...

    The cops will be arrested for false arrest, if they aren't, they'll tack on resisting arrest as well.

    False imprisonment, kidnapping also come to mind for charges against the officers - who as "ahem" detectives, should have known better.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:04pm

      Re: Those cops won't be cops for long, they'll be inmates...

      why do you expect this? more likely as others have noted they will be rewarded and or promoted and the police will do a smear campaign against her to make it look like she is a horrible person that deserved to be arrested illegaly

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:24pm

      Re: Those cops won't be cops for long, they'll be inmates...

      Probably should be arrested for impersonating police officers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gwiz (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:12pm

    I'm having a really hard time wrapping my mind around this one.

    Wouldn't this cop's reasoning apply anytime a person chooses to be represented by a lawyer when being questioned by police?

    Also, what would the cop have done if the man in the video simply turned to the wall or hid his face. They didn't look like they were in custody at the time. Would he have charged them for resisting too, just because they didn't want to be photographed?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TruthHurts (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:12pm

    In an Ironic turnabout...

    What I'd love to see is a Federal Tactical Team do a full on breach and attack against that police department, full riot gear, automatic weapons, the whole bit.

    They go in, guns blazing against these criminals, arrest the supposed detectives, while releasing the public defender.

    They then report to congress how they took down another terrorist group that was planning an unconstitutional attack within our borders.

    If during the shooting a couple of the other dirtbag "cops" criminals go down, oh well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    limbodog (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:26pm

    "Here's how Gideon at A Public Defender sums up this incident:
    It’s one thing for officers to get their way by removing civilians from the scene who object to their searches and seizures, but it takes quite another level of totalitarianism and disregard for the law to arrest and make absent an officer of the court. "

    No, they're not so different. In both cases, it's police abusing their power to get what they're after. The subject is irrelevant.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:26pm

    As an American citizen, you can always refuse to answer questions,

    Why even bother, theres gonna be a database somewhere soon enough to circumvent that right away........and the majority are gonna sleep walk their way into it


    You have the right to remain silent, but were gonna acces all your information anyway

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 9:17am

      Re:

      Many cops (I am a former peace office, San Diego, PD) are not above threatening, coercing the subject.I've witnessed it myself, when I was a rookie, unsure about speaking up. Kind of hard for most folks to clam up when they start talking about taking your children and putting them in CPS

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:30pm

    Confused...

    She says in the video that "He's not represented by us" - doesn't that mean she's technically not his lawyer (looks like she's the other guy's lawyer who is wearing blue)? Is she just arbitrarily speaking for the guy cuz she assumes he needs to be protected?

    I suspect the detective just didn't think quickly enough, and the first thing that came to mind was "resisting arrest"...what he probably meant to charge her with was impeding a police investigation, or something similar... but he was an idiot.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:34pm

    Fire every officer involved, or suspend them for six months without pay, as well as full revocation of all accrued benefits.

    Problem solved. Thne only acceptable way to fight this is to ensure that any abusers are forced out. This is starting to make Gotham's police force look like the reasonable one, for fuck's sake!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:10pm

      Re:

      Fire every officer. Out of a cannon. Into the sun.

      FTFY.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Quiet Lurcker, 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      Something like this, you have to get a message to the entire system, in terms even the most dimwitted of morons will understand. To borrow a phrase: "I smite thee with the mighty rod, Cluebringer!"

      Suspend the idiots who arrested the attorney for six months with no pay, and strip them of all accrued benefits and deny any and all future benefits.

      Same for their immediate supervisor.

      Any 'good*' cops who did nothing to stop this simply get suspended for three months, with no pay.

      Fire the top cop.

      Whoever was responsible for training the peons gets fired and barred form working in anything approaching to law enforcement (for example, lawyer, probation officer, even private security guard) for life.

      The lawyer gets instant and unconditional immunity for any charges arising from the incident.

      The person they were 'interviewing' gets instant and unconditional immunity for any and all crimes/charges which may arise even indirectly from the 'interview'.

      Quiet Lurcker



      *Terms and conditions may apply. See your lawyer for details.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 3:06am

      Remove the position.

      It's not the officers in question, it's that the position itself exists in the first place.

      Having the ability by the state to use force is, it appears, too much power for a single person to wield without being corrupted by it.

      Consider all positions of representation with this notion, and recalibrate.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:39pm

    Constitutionally Protected Civil Rights*

    * terms and conditions may apply

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 8:07am

      Re:

      1: These rights fail to apply as soon as you break our license to you.
      2: Attempting to find said license shall be deemed evidence of attempting to identify loopholes, and your Constitutionally Protected Civil Rights shall be terminated from that point on.
      3: If you are a corporation, neither of the previous restrictions apply.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Steve Swafford (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:40pm

    It just keeps getting worse and worse. It really does seem like the law enforcement community is lashing out at anyone standing up for themselves and their rights. Police and other officials have been getting away with this behavior for a hundred years and just hate it that anyone would dare question them. I've never seen as much police resentment than I have the last year. It's hard to find anyone I know that trusts law enforcement of any kind now. Sad. They are doing it to themselves.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:58pm

    Why did they want his picture?

    They already had his mugshot from the previous case, right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:52pm

      Re: Why did they want his picture?

      They wanted to show the pictures to others for an unrelated case apparently. Also without a lawyer present, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out the suspects provided a full confession that was sadly only witnessed by the police present and therefor can't be questioned by the lawyer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      aldestrawk (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:52pm

      Re: Why did they want his picture?

      They wanted a picture to use in a photo lineup for investigation into a different crime. A mugshot would not do as that would be prejudicial. They wanted a posed shot similar to the others in the lineup.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:09pm

    Let's just account for human nature since this is coming down to an ideological dissonance. People do what they either think is easiest or what is right. They had to have come to some equivalent of these choices.

    1)Cooperate with the defender would be an easy option.

    2)They believe it would be more work (or impossible) to get the responses they were seeking if they properly questioned the person than the effort of arresting the public defender (removing the obstacle). This is another easy option.

    3)They could have also thought they were genuinely right in their actions either believing what they are doing is to protect everyone (or some equivalent of improving the ____ ) which is reinforced by their perceived responsibility as a cop.

    4)They thought they are superior (with the caveat that they believe enforcing superiority is acceptable). This makes this a right thing to do (from their perspective) option.

    They obviously went with one of the last three options. What we need is to change the weight of the factors they consider to get a change in behavior. Making it more effort/work (this can be anything, paperwork to risk of being fired which is more work to find a new job etc.) for not following correct procedure, to counter the bad thinking that goes into the second option, such that the value of the information will be sufficiently high before they make this choice. Chance of being caught/enforced is also a factor, having strict punishments that are rarely enforced reduces the viewed effort. This still doesn't help if they believe they were doing the right thing. To change that behavior we have to change their beliefs and is a non-trivial change. Still it is possible to change their culture, but is very unlikely without their cooperation.

    In conjunction with a culture change effort (regardless of the initial effectiveness) The most efficient way out of this mess now is to strip the responsibilities and the (afterword) unnecessary power to enforce them. This reduces responsibility for making the right decision, so they can go to one of the easy options. This still leaves us with the problem of what to do with the responsibilities taken from the police. They can be returned back to the public (which sadly many do not want which is exactly why we got into this position), or we these partial responsibilities to another group that counter balances the police. They should be completely separate and no over lapping responsibility. The new group would protect the public from police and only police, while the police would try to protect the public from the members of the public. The trick is to not let the new group protect the public from the police, but some other justification. This leaves out the common ground for the police and the new group to work together making cooperation easier or justifying cooperation as right. ψ(^∇^)ψ

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:25pm

    Murica!! for freedom. LOL

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    OldGeezer (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:55pm

    Not exactly a scene from the show Cops where it takes 4 officers to handcuff some coked out idiot who is punching, kicking and spitting all while repeatedly screaming "I'm not resisting arrest!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:58pm

    The frog is in the pot of water and it is going to the slow boil. If you look around more and more unrest in the civilian populace is showing up. Witness the business over Ferguson, followed by a similar one in NYC.

    Since this lack of tracking of civilians murdered by the police and getting away with it, reports are starting to surface every week of the latest victim and what sort of punishment has been doled out to the officers involved.

    If nothing else, this combined with the totalitarian actions of the government are going to put this country in marshal law for rioting. No one has forgotten Ferguson and more keeps being thrown on the pile.

    I hate to say it but there is a reckoning day coming.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:00pm

    Consent

    Ms Tillotson consented to arrest.

    From the video:
    Officer:If you continue with this... I will arrest you for resisting arrest.

    Tillotson: Please do.
    That “please do” is unequivocal consent to arrest.

    It's not unreasonable to arrest someone who consents to being arrested.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Racer XL, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:44pm

      Re: Consent

      It's hard though to see how one can charge one for resisting arrest when they're consenting to arrest.

      This, of course, ignores that the notion of resisting arrest being the only charge... is already sort of Kafkaesque. If she were first charged w/ interference or obstruction or something similar and then actually resisted, then the charge might make sense. As it stands it seems the only charge she's actually guilty of is "contempt of cop" which some cops seem to believe is a felony, but it can't actually be found in the criminal code AFAIK.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:54pm

        Re: Re: Consent

        It's hard though to see how one can charge one for resisting arrest when they're consenting to arrest.
        Whether the stated charge ultimately holds up or not is entirely irrelevant to whether the seizure was reasonable.

        The pertinent question would be whether the consent was coerced.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          art guerrilla (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 4:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: Consent

          um, *as if* it is an invalid arrest if you don't 'consent' to it ? ? ?
          *as if* the flustered kops *won't* arrest you if you don't 'consent' ? ? ?

          um, liberty univ law school grad ?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 3:09am

        According to a recent ruling...

        If a cop believes that there is a law, he is given the benefit of the doubt for enforcing it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DogBreath, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:50pm

      Re: Consent

      I think you forgot to put in the /s mark at the end of your post.


      That “please do” is unequivocal consent to arrest.

      Thereby totally nullifying the "resisting arrest" charge in the first place.

      You can't "consent to arrest" for "resisting arrest" when you never "resisted arrest" in the first place. If she said anything else, then the "Officer" (who will soon be walking a street beat, if he is lucky) might have had a leg to stand on in court. As it stands now, he doesn't even have a pot to piss in.



      It's not unreasonable to arrest someone who consents to being arrested.

      But it is false arrest to arrest someone who clearly did not do the thing they are being arrested for.

      Sounds like the cop was trying to get the lawyer to say something else so he could make his bogus charge stick, but in the end, he is the one who will be sitting on that stick...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:57pm

        Re: Re: Consent

        I think you forgot to put in the /s mark at the end of your post.
        Nope. Wasn't being sarcastic at all.

        It's just that I tend to look at these things through different eyes.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:37am

        Re: Re: Consent


        It's not unreasonable to arrest someone who consents to being arrested.

        But it is false arrest to arrest someone who clearly did not do the thing they are being arrested for.

        There is a reason he is named "Detective Kafka".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 4:49pm

      Re: Consent

      The inherently adversarial nature of the act of arrest probably makes it something to which you could not consent, and I have a feeling that her “please do” statement may have had no small amount of sarcasm behind it. That said, I wish the attorney had taken another tack. At the point the officer stated his intention, she could have informed him that she was making a citizens arrest; the detective issued a terroristic threat with the intent to unlawfully detain a private citizen and deny her client the right to remain silent. The cop should lose qualified immunity because the qualifier is acting responsibly and in good faith to perform your duty—not knowingly running roughshod over the rights of others.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 12:05am

      Re: Consent

      It's hard to resist arrest for no crime committed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 9:57am

        Re: Re: Consent

        It's hard to resist arrest for no crime committed.
        The officer's subjective motivation for the arrest is immaterial to the objective reasonableness of the arrest. Further, the title of the statute does not control the substantive elements of the offense.

        As Ms Tillotsen is an attorney, she shouldn't mislead the officer by voluntarily affirming that there exists probable cause for her arrest.

        In any case, Ms Tillotsen is presumably competent to waive a probable cause argument. Ms Tillotsen may even elect to plead guilty.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 10:24am

          Re: Re: Re: Consent

          "she shouldn't mislead the officer by voluntarily affirming that there exists probable cause for her arrest."

          Where did she do that?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 10:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent

            Where did she do that?

            Officer: If you continue with this... I will arrest you for resisting arrest.

            Tillotson: Please do.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Gwiz (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 11:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent

              That wasn't affirming probable cause for her own arrest at all. You are really reaching here.

              Anyone with half a brain realizes from her tone and attitude that there was an unspoken thought at the end of that sentence, as in:

              Please do...(so I can show you how completely wrong you are in open court).

              She probably refrained from finishing that sentence because being overly confrontational at that point would have served no useful purpose.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 11:55am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent

                Please do...(so I can show you how completely wrong you are in open court).
                You allege that Ms Tillotson invited the officer to handcuff her so that she would have opportunity to complain about his battery against her person.

                ... would have served no useful purpose.
                If she thought the officer was on the verge of a mistake, then perhaps she had no positive duty to stop him by vocalizing the unspeakable.

                But she did have a duty to refrain from requesting the officer commit error.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Gwiz (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 12:28pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent

                  You allege that Ms Tillotson invited the officer to handcuff her so that she would have opportunity to complain about his battery against her person.

                  Nope. I surmised that Ms. Tillotson invited the officer to arrest her so she could dispel, in a court of law, his incorrect notion that an attorney interceding between their client and the police is obstruction. I really have no idea if that was her intention or not, I'm just basing it upon her tone and attitude at the time.



                  If she thought the officer was on the verge of a mistake, then perhaps she had no positive duty to stop him by vocalizing the unspeakable. But she did have a duty to refrain from requesting the officer commit error.

                  I really haven't clue as to what you are getting at there. My point was that once the detective decided to arrest her, any further objections were pointless and would be better served when brought up in front of a judge.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 12:41pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent

                  Ah. The law can get around Russell's Paradox with the Axiom of Bullshit.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 1:00pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent

                  "You allege that Ms Tillotson invited the officer to handcuff her so that she would have opportunity to complain about his battery against her person"

                  Which is exactly what cops are always telling people they should be doing: don't argue with the cop, argue with the judge. So now you're saying that doing what the cops want is some sort of admission that the cops behavior is OK?

                  Talk about "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

                  "But she did have a duty to refrain from requesting the officer commit error."

                  Oh? Please tell us what law requires this.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 12:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent

              That is in no way affirming that there is probable cause for arrest. That is simply telling the officer "if you're gonna arrest me, then arrest me already."

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:09pm

    Makes me wonder, if police are upset when we know where they are and say it's stalking, why is it ok for them to stalk citizens? Oh, they call them unattended criminals? That makes sense then.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    connermac725 (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:12pm

    Police state

    rights? cops need to held accountable for this kind of bad behavior fined time off NO pay and possible arrests of their own

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 11:12am

      Feudal state.

      It's good to be king.

      Or, in this case, a knight among peasants.

      You get to bully, even murder, whoever you want and no-one can do a thing. Only the alleged notions of honor and pragmatism keep you from discharging your strength at whim.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Crazy Canuck, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:13pm

    So the same officer, Brian Stansbury, was also involved in another incident where a black off duty police officer and racial profiling and abuse.

    http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/SF-cop-sues-claims-traffic-stop-racial-profiling-4979100.p hp

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:26pm

    The chief of police was interviewed by Ronn Owens on KGO this morning. He didn't sound particularly happy but this was more in line with being embarrassed at his officers being caught rather than admitting that they were in the wrong.

    Here are a couple of things that may clarify. The pictures were being taken in relation to a different crime. The interest was because the police had a report that the perpetrators were dressed in clothes like that.

    The other point that was being pushed was that the public defender was not their lawyer for that case. This is the part that has me scratching my head. Where exactly does the lawyer's role end for a public defender? When the judge moves to the next case? When the defendant steps out of the court room? Leaves the building? It seems to me like they are trying to flip the right to a attorney on its head and saying that she didn't have a right to represent them.

    The way that this will probably play out is that Tillotson will sue, the PD will settle and the citizens of San Francisco will be stuck with a bill for bad policing. Said officers will have a "chat" with the chief and all will be back to normal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:33pm

      Re:

      ... Tillotson will sue, the PD will settle...
      Sue for what? You think she has § 1983 suit for an unreasonable seizure of her person?

      Ms Tillotson consented to the seizure of her person.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:35pm

        Re: Re:

        Are you being sarcastic? My detector doesnt seem to be working. If "Ms Tillotson consented to the seizure of her person" then the circle logic of her resisting arrest makes even less sense.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:36pm

        Re: Re:

        She consented to her arrest for "resisting arrest"??? Love to hear that argued before a judge and jury.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Love to hear that argued before a judge and jury.
          It won't get to a jury. The judge will toss it on qualified immunity, and then it will go to appeal.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Padpaw (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:08pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          bit pointless to argue with the police white knights.

          You can show them the contradictions in their defense and they will just ignore you over it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So, Detective Kafka. That is your name, right?

          You arrested the plaintiff without resistance for resisting arrest, correct?

          Uh, is Kafka your birthname, or have you acquired it later?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:14pm

        Re: Re:

        So to avoid a fake arrest for resisting arrest, she should have...resisted arrest so she could be arrested for actually resisting arrest.

        Sound logic.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          she should have...resisted arrest
          Suppose the exchange had gone like this:
          Officer:If you continue with this... I will arrest you for resisting arrest.

          [Hypothetical] Tillotson: You have no cause to arrest me.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            DogBreath, 29 Jan 2015 @ 10:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You have no cause to arrest me.

            If that ever had a chance in hell of working, she might as well have even gone all out:



            Officer: Let me see your identification.

            Tillotson: [with a small wave of her hand] You don't need to see his identification.

            Officer: We don't need to see his identification.

            Tillotson: These aren't the droid... uh, person you're looking for.

            Officer: These isn't the person we're looking for.

            Tillotson: He can go about his business.

            Officer: You can go about your business.

            Tillotson: Move along.

            Officer: Move along... move along.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 12:58pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I think this is more Star Trek than Star Wars, and Tillotson played a perfect Kirk:

              Officer: I'm going to arrest you for resisting arrest.

              Tillotson: Please do.

              Officer: You have agreed to arrest, therefore you are not resisting. So I can arrest you for resisting. But you are not, so I cannot. But you agreed, so I can. Norman, coordinate! *beeeeep*

              Tillotson: Mr. Scott, beam this officer into deep space, highest dispersion.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      jackn, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:51pm

      Re:

      Here are a couple of things that may clarify. The pictures were being taken in relation to a different crime. The interest was because the police had a report that the perpetrators were dressed in clothes like that.


      Doesn't matter. The kid should have said, you got a warrant, or, talk to my lawyer.

      That brings up another good point, now the cops thinks they can take pictures of us just like we do of them. The nerve.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:34pm

    While I would never be able to take any action to stop police from doing this sort of crooked stuff, what I can do is LACK OF ASSISTANCE. Simply put, when I see a police officer in this area in need, I will turn around and walk away.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Retsibsi (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:57pm

    I don't know what the law is in the US but I was always taught that before you could arrest someone for resisting arrest you had to be arrested for something first (I mean other than the charge of "resisting arrest") and then, only when you resisted arrest on that charge, could you be arrested for resisting arrest.
    Later on, even if the original charge was dropped, the charge of resisting arrest could still be pursued as a separate offence.

    So, what was she actually arrested for in the first place?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:01pm

      Re:

      contempt of cop. She got off light though in some cases the police will just shoot you or beat you up if you do not show them the respect they demand you give them

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:59pm

    "we don't need no stinking badges" comes to mind every time I see police ignoring the laws to do whatever the hell they want.

    This is something one would expect to see in North Korea

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:07pm

    Land of the free? Sorry, I was the last one to leave and I did take the flag with me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:44am

      Re:

      Land of the free? Sorry, I was the last one to leave and I did take the flag with me.

      You are a big meanie. Now they are down to the Constitution for asswipes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    got_runs? (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:10pm

    >

    The US is a 'Pig State'

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:18pm

    How Very Professional

    This is nothing short of petty authoritarianism run amok.

    The detective and his two costumed side kicks are cretins.

    The actions of these three law enforcement cretins is a glaring public example of why many folks refuse to cooperate with police investigations.

    Who in their right mind would want to be treated as chattel by supposed law enforcement professionals whose very existence is completely predicated upon the productive people in our society going to work, earning a living, buying property and then paying taxes on such.

    The only visible resistance was that the three law enforcement cretins resisted using their brains.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    J. R., 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:55pm

    Surprised they didn't beat her to pulp, probably didn't want to get caught on camera. How long before it becomes a felony for a lawyer to defend someone the cops want to jail?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    aldestrawk (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 4:37pm

    A charge under California penal code, section 148 is commonly referred to as "resisting arrest", but it includes more than that:
    "Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
    technician..."

    If you look at it as a charge of "obstructing a police officer", then it makes more sense.

    However, the truth of that charge depends upon whether she was representing her client at the time. The police are arguing that the posed photography and questioning are related to another criminal investigation and the Public Defender (PD) has not been appointed to represent their client in that context. If that new investigation is ongoing, then how can the police know it is unrelated to the current one? Does the PD have to accept the cop's word on the matter?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nerys (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 4:38pm

    I am sorry but you are incorrect regarding the constitution the Supreme court decided in 1976

    “at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment” Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 at 398 (1976). "

    Judicial Proceedings means "ANY" action by the judiciary which would include the police taking pictures for another case against your will (IE your not free to go)

    hearing, indictment, INFORMATION, or arraignment.

    emphasis mine.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    me, 29 Jan 2015 @ 5:21pm

    disgrace

    And we're supposed to feel bad for the cops being shot?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Watchit (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 5:25pm

      Re: disgrace

      Um... yes? Because murder is bad? Even if their morals are warped doesn't mean they deserve to die.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 31 Jan 2015 @ 11:29am

        "They don't deserve to die"

        One of Charles Dickens' running themes was that if you are a despicable person, the karmatic consequences are not that your business endeavors will run foul and you'll wind up on the street -- that happens to anyone -- but that people will celebrate your eventual demise and remember you with only spite.

        All police officers either do terrible, despicable things, or they condone such deeds without reprisal. I'm going to save my limited condolences for those who were clearly more innocent, the kids shot by police officers, the young people who were too weird and got jailed due to a questionable search, lying cops and tough-on-crime judges. (88% conviction rate in Alabama.) Not the bullies who willingly participate in this hostility.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 10:31pm

    I can't believe it ..this is why we don't trust cops anymore .. I hope he looks back at what he has done. But I did not hear was someone read her writes..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Leit, 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:34pm

      Re:

      Miranda only applies when being questioned, and the only question these thugs would be interested in is "Ready to bend over for the police state yet?"

      Contrary to what TV would have you believe, being read your rights at the arrest is neither necessary nor common. Of course, some cops do it anyway because cops watch TV as well... which is why they think they can get away with acting as though Lethal Weapon was a documentary.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:18pm

    It's time to write it again: United Fascists of America.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 1:24am

    I've watched many Youtube videos, and that is the very first time I've ever heard "You are under arrest" before reciting the standard "Turn around and put your hands behind your back." (despite that the arrestee was already facing away from the arrestor)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 8:06am

    Well, to paraphrase Judge Dredd: "I am the law! Drop your weapons! Fire!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Tony (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 10:12am

    how the hell do we possibly stop this crap?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 31 Jan 2015 @ 11:31am

      Stopping this crap...

      There are books and books about that very subject.

      But before you commit to the cause, you have to get to where you have nothing left to lose.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.