Public defender arrested for resisting arrest.

[CountDeMoney]

Can't watch the video as am at work but does 'Obstructing a Police Officer' not exist in the US as a charge?

I really don't see how a defense attorney can be considered obstructing or hindering an officer's "investigation" during what is an obvious custodial interrogatory of her client.  It was obvious what the cop was trying to do, and trying to score photographs of somebody in a courtroom hallway and calling it an "investigation" is a stretch.
Like I said, the smart cop catches up to Mr. Instagram outside in the courthouse parking lot, and gets them then.  But sometimes a cop just has to win the Big Dick Award right then and there.

[Admiral Yi]

So taking someone's picture is arresting them? Is this really the justification you are going with?

I didn't know I was justifying anything.

[grumbler]

In plain English, "resisting arrest" does not specify who's arrest is being resisted.

Actually, in plain English, "resisting arrest" refers only to resisting your own arrest.  I defy you to find me counter-examples that aren't from the fringe (and thus not "just plain English").

[grumbler]

That is indeed a difference.

But it's a damn hard difference to prove.

Not in this case.

[grumbler]

In the five or six states where I've either practiced in or spent a fair amount of time in the criminal courts

I'd like to hear from posters with similar level of experience. Ide?

[Barrister]

That is indeed a difference.

But it's a damn hard difference to prove.

Not in this case.

Disagree.

Even assuming the cop's actions were not justified, the line between "Bad faith" and "stupid" is awfully hard to discern.

[Razgovory]

Is the defendant required to stand in the hall and let the police photograph?

[Kleves]

I don't think the issue here is that he said she was being arrested for resisting arrest - though that's humorous, I think it is fairly clear that the officer meant she was being arrested for the related charge of obstruction of justice. I don't believe that the officer saying the wrong basis for the arrest during the arrest invalidates it, if there was a lawful basis for the arrest. So the question becomes Raz's: were the police doing something they had a right to be doing, and was she interfering with that.

[The Minsky Moment]

The California Penal code section for obstruction is the same code section as resisting arrest.  So the officer gets a semantic foot fault but that is not the problem IMO.

The bigger problem is that there doesn't seem to be a valid basis for an obstruction charge.  From the video it appears she was standing next to a man who is her client (and another who is not).  It is fair to presume that she had a right to be there in a public building with her client.  That is not obstruction.  The officer then says: "Can I talk to you for a second." She says: "sure". Officer says" "let's talk over there." She declines.  At this point there is no obstruction I can discern as she is under no obligation to honor the officer's preference as to location for a non-custodial conversation (or even engage in conversation at all).  Then the officer threatens her and she says "I am OK here.". That doesn't look much like obstruction to me.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is the defendant required to stand in the hall and let the police photograph?

Not unless he is placed under arrest.  He could cover his face, or walk away or do whatever.

The police are free to take photos of whomever they want to, but those people are not under any obligation to cooperate unless the police place them into custody, even if temporarily.  But that would require reading rights, and of course would also trigger right to have counsel present . . . 

[dps]

The

I don't think the issue here is that he said she was being arrested for resisting arrest - though that's humorous, I think it is fairly clear that the officer meant she was being arrested for the related charge of obstruction of justice. I don't believe that the officer saying the wrong basis for the arrest during the arrest invalidates it, if there was a lawful basis for the arrest. So the question becomes Raz's: were the police doing something they had a right to be doing, and was she interfering with that.

Well, the officer told her to stop doing what she was doing, or she'd be arrested.  But what she was doing was advising her client not to let the police take the cop take the photos he wanted to take--so what he was asking her to stop doing was giving legal advice to her client.  Pretty sure that's not legit. 

I'm a bit puzzled as to why they wanted the pictures anyway.  Since they were in the courthouse and he already had a lawyer, I've got to figure he'd already been booked, so they would have his picture and fingerprints on file. 

[CountDeMoney]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why they wanted the pictures anyway.  Since they were in the courthouse and he already had a lawyer, I've got to figure he'd already been booked, so they would have his picture and fingerprints on file.

But police said the five officers, led by a plainclothes sergeant, were investigating a burglary case in which Tillotson's client and his co-defendant were considered persons of interest.

In short, to use in a photo line up and to ask somebody "Hey, is this the negro?"

[grumbler]

That is indeed a difference.

But it's a damn hard difference to prove.

Not in this case.

Disagree.

Even assuming the cop's actions were not justified, the line between "Bad faith" and "stupid" is awfully hard to discern.

Not in this case.  There's a video.

[Jacob]

Not in this case.  There's a video.

Yeah, based on the video I'd be very curious to hear what sort of argument could be made that the arrest was not in bad faith.

[grumbler]

The California Penal code section for obstruction is the same code section as resisting arrest.  So the officer gets a semantic foot fault but that is not the problem IMO.

If he was just misquoting the appropriate code section, this evidence might have weight.  But he wasn't.  He was pretty clearly inventing a charge on which to arrest her because he wanted to arrest her, and wasn't going to let the lack of a charge on which to arrest her stop him.  I agree with you that this issue wasn't that resisting arrest was the phony charge on which he arrested her, but rather that he was arresting her on a phony charge to begin with.

Of course, the police department won't see that the problem is that they have given a badge to a man manifestly unfit to carry it; they'll focus on how unfair it is for the press and public to attack a man merely grossly exceeding his authority.  Police departments generally seem to be dumber collectively than the dumbest individual among them.