• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Public Defender Arrested For Intervening Between Police And Her Client

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I would like to hear from someone who is a lawyer on this, is what they did got any legal grounds here? from a lay person understand of the law here, you must get consent to take pictures or question someone. what the cops did seems very illegal here, using a false charge to remove legal counseling of a teenager.
 
nyker96 said:
I would like to hear from someone who is a lawyer on this, is what they did got any legal grounds here? from a lay person understand of the law here, you must get consent to take pictures or question someone. what the cops did seems very illegal here, using a false charge to remove legal counseling of a teenager.
Click to expand...

Them asking to take pictures or asking their name is perfectly legal. The lawyer telling them to get bent is perfectly legal. Them arresting the lawyer is totally not legal.
 
Resisting arrest??????? Are you fucking serious? I can think of half a dozen bullshit laws that would have at least sounded better that they could have used as an excuse for their jackbootery but resisting arrest???? She didn't once resist anything.

The jackboot should be arrested for absurd acts of public dumbfuckery.
 
PokerGuy said:
What a horribly written article, it's completely unclear what happened and what the points of contention are. Does the police have a right to take a picture of someone without their lawyer present? She's saying she was arrested for not allowing her client to be questioned without her being present, but the cop wanted to take a picture, I didn't see anything about questioning. Representing your client doesn't mean you can interfere with lawful activities. The question is, was the activity lawful, and did she have a right to not allow it?
Click to expand...

I think that we can all agree that she damn sure wasn't resisting arrest. Hell she was never told she was under arrest until she was arrested for resisting arrest so how the hell could she be resisting something before "it" even happened?
 
Genx87 said:
Second does blocking the ability of a cop to take a picture of somebody in public constitute a criminal offense?
Click to expand...

If it was she would have been arrested for obstructing justice or some other bullshit.

But I'd wager the veteren public defender is well aware of the law and if she had a right to intervene on her clients behalf. No lawyer in the world is going to risk going to jail to prevent their client from getting photographed. Hell the cop could have taken the photo the entire time and cropped the lawyer out.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Interesting comments in the SFGate article.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-public-defender-detained-outside-court-6046088.php
Click to expand...

While I find it humorous that the clarifications added by the additional information provided by your link seem only to have generated further debate, I think providing it was a really valuable way to contribute. The implications I took away was that with most things, the issue isn't cut and dried but far more nuanced than the instant conclusions so many seem to need to reach.
 
Moonbeam said:
The implications I took away was that with most things, the issue isn't cut and dried but far more nuanced than the instant conclusions so many seem to need to reach.
Click to expand...

Stop bringing reason to this this discussion please. I am disappointed in you Moonie.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
That's not what was said in the article and according to the police she was aware it was concerning a different case.

As far as I know public defenders are assigned by the court to handle specific cases.
Click to expand...

If he was being detained he should have the right to counsel. If it was a voluntary interaction with the police he should have been free to go without having to pose for a picture. Of course the cop is free to take photo's of him in public all he wants but to force him to pose, that sounds like being detained to me.

And then the lawyer was let go because the officer had to testify at another case??? When the hell have you ever heard of someone being let out of jail for that, they have days/weeks (60 days in my state) to charge you so the officer could have easily written whatever report he had to after his court case. Anytime I see them letting people go within that kind of time frame I automatically assume the police fucked up. Hell it takes a day for them to actually book you around here at times.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
According to the article the police wanted to know their names and take their pictures.

In a public arena anyone can take pictures, but you cannot ask for them to *pose*.


This is not a violation of the law nor a person's constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge, BILL OF RIGHTS then, amendment 4, 5 and 6.
 
Last edited:
Evadman said:
Stop bringing reason to this this discussion please. I am disappointed in you Moonie.
Click to expand...

I don't know what I bring to any discussion but it seems to me that what I bring is my absolute certainty that I personally know almost nothing about almost everything and the accompanying astonishment that I am in this so completely different, it seems, from almost everybody else who posts, if not in fact, then certainly how I see myself.
 
rudeguy said:
No but false arrest is. The police are not entitled to take pictures or question people.

It doesn't matter if the lawyer was representing the defendant on a different case. If the police came up and asked him if he had committed a murder and the lawyer told him not to answer, would she be guilty of a crime?

Cops need to respect our rights.
Click to expand...
As usual, you are totally wrong.

The attorney's client in this case is the subject of a police investigation; he hasn't been charged, afaik. That being the case, there's no requirement to first give a Miranda warning before asking questions. In other words, the police can ask questions until the subject tells them they refuses to answer and/or asks that their attorney be present. Furthermore, I don't think that a person who is the subject of a police investigation can refuse to be photographed in public by investigators. And it's probably NOT okay to hide your face from the camera; that would be obstruction.
 
shira said:
As usual, you are totally wrong.

The attorney's client in this case is the subject of a police investigation; he hasn't been charged, afaik. That being the case, there's no requirement to first give a Miranda warning before asking questions. In other words, the police can ask questions until the subject tells them they refuses to answer and/or asks that their attorney be present. Furthermore, I don't think that a person who is the subject of a police investigation can refuse to be photographed in public by investigators. And it's probably NOT okay to hide your face from the camera; that would be obstruction.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he needed miranda warning your moron. Just an FYI: you still have rights without the police telling you that you have them.

Are you able to read? At all? Here is what I said:
The police are not entitled to take pictures or question people.
Click to expand...
 
I've met several older attorneys who have terrible understandings of basic criminal law. Not so surprisingly, there are many cops who also have terrible understandings of basic criminal law.

I'm not surprised. I'm not outraged. On to the next...
 
mizzou said:
I've met several older attorneys who have terrible understandings of basic criminal law. Not so surprisingly, there are many cops who also have terrible understandings of basic criminal law.

I'm not surprised. I'm not outraged. On to the next...
Click to expand...

You're also so full of fear that you would surrender your rights at the mere presence of police.
 
shira said:
As usual, you are totally wrong.

The attorney's client in this case is the subject of a police investigation; he hasn't been charged, afaik. That being the case, there's no requirement to first give a Miranda warning before asking questions. In other words, the police can ask questions until the subject tells them they refuses to answer and/or asks that their attorney be present. Furthermore, I don't think that a person who is the subject of a police investigation can refuse to be photographed in public by investigators. And it's probably NOT okay to hide your face from the camera; that would be obstruction.
Click to expand...

NO, you are the one wrong here. If this person is a suspect, or "subject", in an investigation they could ask him if he would be willing to talk. Ordinarily, this interrogation is not conducted in a hallway, with the request to stand against the wall and pose for a *mug* shot. This was police intimidation, plain and simple. Thank GOD an honest PD was present! (1000 to 1 odds). They ALREADY had photos! Obstruction for hiding my face in pubic??? LOL, you want a clear photo?
GET A FUCKING WARRANT, AND CHARGE, AND BOOK ME WITH SOMETHING!!
 
Last edited:
rudeguy said:
I didn't say he needed miranda warning your moron. Just an FYI: you still have rights without the police telling you that you have them.

Are you able to read? At all? Here is what I said:
The police are not entitled to take pictures or question people.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm completely able to read and understand. But are you able to understand what you're writing?

To repeat myself: You are completely wrong. The police CAN legally question people relevant to an investigation. The police CAN legally photograph people relevant to an investigation if the people are in public.

For your information, the verb "question" means to "ask questions of (someone), especially in an official context." It doesn't mean that the person being asked the questions are required to answer.
 
Last edited:
shira said:
I'm completely able to read and understand. But are you able to understand what you're writing?

To repeat myself: You are completely wrong. The police CAN legally question people relevant to an investigation. The police CAN legally photograph people relevant to an investigation if the people are in public.

For your information, the verb "question" means to "ask questions of (someone), especially in an official context." It doesn't mean that the person being asked the questions are required to answer.
Click to expand...

Actually no.

Questioning can only happen if you consent and arresting your attorney who prevents that questioning is even worse. And they cannot force you to pose.
 
Jimzz said:
San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Arrested For Intervening Between Police And Her Client
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...or-intervening-between-police-and-her-client/


Well duh, what did you think was going to happen Ms. lawyer when you tired to follow the law and represent your client. The police ARE the law you should just ignore your clients rights and let the police do as they want. /s


"According to Public Defender Jeff Adachi, Stansbury arrested Tillotson for refusing to let her client be questioned without the presence of his attorney."
Click to expand...

here in sf, the public defender, jeff adachi, has been like a superhero against police criminality for years. he recently caught a bunch of cops burglarizing houses when going on calls and they were recently convicted. so the criminal cops seriously hate the public defender, i fully expect the cops to arrest/abuse/assasinate as many people from the public defenders office as possible for years to come
 
rudeguy said:
Actually no.

Questioning can only happen if you consent and arresting your attorney who prevents that questioning is even worse. And they cannot force you to pose.
Click to expand...
You're wrong that questioning can happen only if you consent. If you're not being charged with a crime, police can ask you any question they want. They're not required to ask you "Can I ask you questions." It's up to YOU to tell them, "I don't want to answer any questions." Further, even if you are being charged with a crime, they are required only to give you a Miranda warning and ask you if you understand your rights. At that point, they can (and will) ask you any questions they want and - again - it's up to you to tell them you don't want to answer.

You previously wrote:

The police are not entitled to take pictures or question people.
Click to expand...

If you had intended to say, "The police are not entitled to . . . question people who have told them they don't want to answer," then you would have been correct. But that's not what you wrote. At best, you're badly in need of a good remedial writing course. But far more likely, you're a troll who's been caught with his pants down and is now trying to pretend that when he said "A" he actually meant "B."

You're also backtracking on your "taking pictures" statement. Now you're telling us that police cannot FORCE you to pose for pictures. Why don't you explain to use how the statement "The police are not entitled to take pictures" means "The police cannot force you to pose for pictures?"

Idiot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top