• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

SFPD has Public Defender Arrested for Representing her Client During Questioning

Status
Not open for further replies.

mowho

Banned
How does one resist arrest before being arrested?

Can't watch the video right now, but in Massachusetts you can be arrested for resisting arrest if you interfere with an officer trying to place someone else under arrest..
 

wildfire

Banned
This is crazy. People usually hate lawyers but this is one of those times you can't help but root for them. The police are master public relations specialists.
 

MechaX

Member
She handled this really well.

Was she correct? Can she keep police from photographing her client?

The police had no special right to force someone to get photographed like he was on a lineup. If you're being forced or not free to go, you're being detained, which is a major problem in this situation.
 

Artorias

Banned
This is crazy. People usually hate lawyers but this is one of those times you can't help but root for them. The police are master public relations specialists.

Anyone who hates public defenders is a legit shitty person, though. There are ineffective ones for sure, but I consider it similar to being a teacher. NOBODY does it for the pay.
 

gohepcat

Banned
The police had no special right to force someone to get photographed like he was on a lineup. If you're being forced or not free to go, you're being detained, which is a major problem in this situation.

Ahhh I see.

Theoretically, they were fine to take his picture, but they couldn't tell him to "stand still", he could have covered up his face or walked away.

Interesting.
 

phaonaut

Member
Ahhh I see.

Theoretically, they were fine to take his picture, but they couldn't tell him to "stand still", he could have covered up his face or walked away.

Interesting.

With the two other cops standing to the left, no way they let those guys walk.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Anyone who hates public defenders is a legit shitty person, though. There are ineffective ones for sure, but I consider it similar to being a teacher. NOBODY does it for the pay.

Seriously, thanks for this.
 

Africanus

Member
I was expecting the police-officer to make some sort of actual charge, even if it was a useless, non applicable one such as "Obstruction of justice" before arresting her. To state "I will have you arrested for resisting arrest" demonstrates not only a lack of mastery over the English language (Putting "the wagon before the horse" so to speak) but also the blatant corruption in police department considering the public defender was released but an hour later with no charges. I am quite disgusted at the events that occurred.
 

dan2026

Member
Do they even bother training US cops any more?

They don't even seem to know the very basic things about their jobs these days.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
Turning in a bad cop is a real fast way to finding yourself unemployed.

I don't understand how that can possibly be true in light of the comments in other threads about how the police union protects bad cops. Why would it be so hard/rare to fire bad cops, but so easy to fire good ones?

I could see turning in a bad cop having other repercussions (assigned the lousy shifts, passed over for promotions, etc.), but I don't understand how the system could be set up to treat those who turn in a bad cop worse than the bad cop himself.
 

Jag

Member
That was the most polite "fuck you" I've ever seen.

She's an 18 year veteran of the PDs office. She's seen it all.

BTW, the correct answer is: Her client was in police custody, therefore she has a right to advise him.

Essentially the situation Miranda was designed to protect against.
 

Toxi

Banned
This is crazy. People usually hate lawyers but this is one of those times you can't help but root for them. The police are master public relations specialists.
Who hates public defenders?
Anyone who hates public defenders is a legit shitty person, though. There are ineffective ones for sure, but I consider it similar to being a teacher. NOBODY does it for the pay.
Seriously.
 

AntoneM

Member
Stories of police so-called abuse always sound fishy to me, so I look to the wisdom of the people:

From all the reports I read, there is no statement that the police made it clear that their actions were for a different crime under investigation. I think the attorney acted correctly.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Its actually legally questionable whether there's a right to counsel there. But arresting the public defender there is absolutely asinine and defies all common sense.
 

Jenov

Member
I don't understand what is happening above? The cop wants to take a picture or question him or what? Because if he wanted a picture, she cannot object to it, especially if it's in attempt of an investigation. He doesn't need to speak or do anything without an attorney present. Can someone chime in with more info about the case?

This ^^^ that whole situation is like....what? Just because the cop said something stupid doesn't mean she was in the right per say. Was she obstructing an investigation or something?
 

nictron

Member
Meanwhile....


hallofjustice.png
 

Blader

Member
I don't understand how that can possibly be true in light of the comments in other threads about how the police union protects bad cops. Why would it be so hard/rare to fire bad cops, but so easy to fire good ones?

I could see turning in a bad cop having other repercussions (assigned the lousy shifts, passed over for promotions, etc.), but I don't understand how the system could be set up to treat those who turn in a bad cop worse than the bad cop himself.

Because the unions are run by bad cops.
 

Jag

Member
Its actually legally questionable whether there's a right to counsel there.

Possibly. Obviously we don't know all the facts BUT it does appear that he is in police custody, which means he has the right to be represented by counsel prior to questioning. So absent an administrative purpose (booking, etc) or an exigent circumstance (possible crime being committed), I don't see how the cop has the right to deny the lawyer from speaking with her client.
 

Syriel

Member
Its actually legally questionable whether there's a right to counsel there. But arresting the public defender there is absolutely asinine and defies all common sense.

It is pretty clear that there was a detention. Both from the officer's initial words about them being free to go after they comply and from the fact that he has no legal right to order them to stand and pose for his camera phone.

A reasonable person would not have felt free to walk away from that situation. Not when a large group of cops is barking orders and just arrested your attorney for no reason.

She had every right to advise her clients that they did not have to submit to having their photos taken.
 
Good stuff here. Proud of that public defender. It's a tough job, I did it for about four years. You sometimes have to take hard stances to protect your clients interests and frankly a lot of pds would just roll over on this, so good on this person.
 
From what I have been reading, the public defender may have actually violated the penal code of San Francisco. The above the law article states in the editorial comments that the officer was taking pictures, and she refused to move. That would indeed be violating a portion of the penal code. Then again, the officer would be in the wrong had he been questioning prior to the intervention.
 

Dali

Member
From what I have been reading, the public defender may have actually violated the penal code of San Francisco. The above the law article states in the editorial comments that the officer was taking pictures, and she refused to move. That would indeed be violating a portion of the penal code. Then again, the officer would be in the wrong had he been questioning prior to the intervention.
Care to link to this article.
 
Care to link to this article.
I am on my iPad and cannot do so at the moment. Please see Above The Law. It is a website dedicated to snarky legal journalism. It can be found on Google, and it is the first or second article on the home page. Check contributor comments.
 

Syriel

Member
From what I have been reading, the public defender may have actually violated the penal code of San Francisco. The above the law article states in the editorial comments that the officer was taking pictures, and she refused to move. That would indeed be violating a portion of the penal code. Then again, the officer would be in the wrong had he been questioning prior to the intervention.

Don't trust the comments. In fact, Tillotson was quoting that exact section of the CA code back to the officer, telling him he was in the wrong.

  • When a someone is detained, they have a right to counsel.
  • When represented, a lawyer speaks for their client.
  • An officer cannot make the unilateral decision that an attorney does not represent a given client. Only the client can do that.
  • An officer has no special rights to demand that someone allow a photo to be taken.
  • The attorney, on behalf of her client, declined the officer's request to have photos taken.

At that point the officer should have just stepped back and waited for a clear shot. While you can decline to pose for a photo, anyone in public has the right to take a photo of you while you are in a public place.

Constitutional rights override state law.

Brewer v. Williams 430 U.S. 387 (1977) said:
Whatever else it may mean, the right to counsel granted by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments means at least that person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him -- "whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment." Kirby v. Illinois, supra at 406 U. S. 689. See Powell v. Alabama, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst,304 U. S. 458; Hamilton v. Alabama,368 U. S. 52; Gideon v. Wainwright, supra; White v. Maryland,373 U. S. 59; Massiah v. United States,377 U. S. 201; United States v. Wade, 388.U.S. 218; Gilbert v. California,388 U. S. 263; Coleman v. Alabama, supra.
 

Syriel

Member
Results of the investigation into the incident are now public. Officer was wrong to do what he did, but SFPD is treating it like an "OOPS, MY BAD!" type thing, as if the officer made an innocent mistake and didn't do anything wrong.

But Deputy Public Defender Jami Tillotson is discouraged by the conclusion of the investigation into her arrest. She said that while the video clearly shows the officer was in the wrong when he handcuffed her, the findings seem to indicate there will be little to no accountability.

”If you give a citizen of San Francisco a black eye, you should be held accountable for that," she said. ”I'd like to see [the officer] at a desk job. I don't think he has a good idea of the boundaries of his authority."

The finding comes from the Office of Citizen Complaints, which investigated the January 2015 incident and issued their findings in December. The incident was caught on video.

Those case details were made public Friday by the complainant, and include findings that the officer made an arrest without cause, and that his detaining of a person without justification for a prolonged period was unwarranted.

Other allegations in the complaint were not sustained, but the OCC recommended that the department change its policies regarding interfering with a lawyer's right to counsel their client and making inappropriate comments to the media.

Since her arrest, the charges have been dropped and Suhr apologized for any distress the incident caused her, but has also insisted Stansbury had a reasonable suspicion to take the photos.

Note: Suhr is the SFPD Chief.

Source:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/police-wa...y-arrested-deputy-public-defender-courthouse/
 

Apathy

Member
Lol the worst person to try and push in legal matters and treat them as if they don't know their rights is a lawyer. Imbecile police offer. Why do you think they said please do with gusto fucko.
 

WedgeX

Banned
Results of the investigation into the incident are now public. Officer was wrong to do what he did, but SFPD is treating it like an "OOPS, MY BAD!" type thing, as if the officer made an innocent mistake and didn't do anything wrong.





Note: Suhr is the SFPD Chief.

Source:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/police-wa...y-arrested-deputy-public-defender-courthouse/

When the job is specifically governed and constrained by the Constitution, lack of knowledge about Constitutional requirements is fucking laughable.
 

akira28

Member
Ridiculous. Being a police officer in this country literally is a license to do whatever you want.

well in a lot of countries they tend to use the extra layer of authority as a catch all, but yeah police wing it like shit so much of the time. and then they have to find out after the fact that it wasn't allowed. And their "not knowing" it was wrong is a court admissible defense, guys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom