California residents are not required to identify oneself or provide identification even when lawfully detained.
Read the settlement and training bulletin of the Katz v. Barstow city/police:
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/doc02773720150521123440.pdf
Claim
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Tort_Claim_Katz_v_Barstow.pdf
Settlement
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/doc02773720150521123440.pdf
Training Bulletin
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Training-Bulletin-Demanding-Identification.pdf
Read the settlement and training bulletin of the Katz v. Barstow city/police:
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/doc02773720150521123440.pdf
Claim
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Tort_Claim_Katz_v_Barstow.pdf
Settlement
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/doc02773720150521123440.pdf
Training Bulletin
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Training-Bulletin-Demanding-Identification.pdf
People v. Curtis , 70 Cal.2d 347
[Crim. No. 12665. In Bank. Feb. 13, 1969.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT ALLEN CURTIS, Defendant and Appellant.
We confirm that a resisting defendant commits a public offense; but if the arrest is ultimately determined factually to be unlawful, the defendant can be validly convicted only of [70 Cal.2d 356] simple assault or battery.
There are, however, two distinct and separate rights at stake. The common law rule allowing resistance to technically unlawful arrests protects a person's freedom from unreasonable seizure and confinement; the rule allowing resistance to excessive force, which applies during a technically lawful or unlawful arrest, protects a person's right to bodily integrity and permits resort to self-defense. Liberty can be restored through legal processes, but life and limb cannot be repaired in a courtroom. Therefore any rationale, pragmatic or constitutional, for outlawing resistance to unlawful arrests and resolving the dispute over legality in the courts has no determinative application to the right to resist excessive force. The commentators are unanimous on this point (e.g., Note (1967) 7 Natural Resources J. 119, 126; Note (1962) 39 U.Det.L.J. 595, 597 fn. 11; Note (1956) 9 Okla.L.Rev. 60, 62-63), and the Model Penal Code states it explicitly. fn. 7 [5] Under Penal [70 Cal.2d 357] Code sections 835 and 835a, an officer may lawfully use only reasonable force to make an arrest or to overcome resistance. Sections 692 and 693 set forth the basic privilege one has to defend against unlawful force. In the absence of unequivocal language, we cannot ascribe to the Legislature an intention to penalize the exercise of a right it has specifically bestowed. fn. 8
[6] To summarize, then, construing sections 834a and 243, it is now the law of California that a person may not use force to resist any arrest, lawful or unlawful, except that he may use reasonable force to defend life and limb against excessive force; but if it should be determined that resistance was not thus justified, the felony provisions of section 243 apply when the arrest is lawful, and if the arrest is determined to be unlawful the defendant may be convicted only of a misdemeanor. fn. 9 [70 Cal.2d 358]
The above construction of sections 148 and 243 as not applying to unlawful arrests makes it unnecessary to reach a potentially difficult constitutional question. Unlike section 834a, which applies only to forceful resistance, section 148 penalizes even passive delay or obstruction of an arrest, such as refusal to cooperate. (See In re Bacon (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 34, 52-53 [49 Cal.Rptr. 322].) The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that "one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if that command is itself violative of the Constitution." (Wright v. Georgia (1963) 373 U.S. 284, 291-292 [10 L.Ed.2d 349, 354-355, 83 S.Ct. 1240].) Yet this would be the result if "duty" were construed to include unlawful arrests, since, as we have seen, an arrest without probable cause is by definition an "unreasonable seizure" within the Fourth Amendment.
FN 7. Model Penal Code (Tent. Draft No. 8, 1958) section 3.04. The comments thereto state, at page 19: "The paragraph, it should be noted, forbids the use of force for the purpose of preventing an arrest; it has no application when the actor apprehends bodily injury, as when the arresting officer unlawfully employs or threatens deadly force, unless the actor knows that he is in no peril greater than arrest if he submits to the assertion of authority." (Italics added.)
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-curtis-22684
Federal Court Rules You Have the Right to Record the Cops—Even in Secret
The Massachusetts police must stop arresting civilians who dare to film them covertly.
Eric Martin and René Pérez are civil rights activists with a very specific passion: They record the police. When Martin and Pérez see law enforcement officers performing their duties, they take out their phones to capture the scene on camera, ready to film any misconduct that might occur. Officers sometimes retaliate—Pérez says they have even grabbed his phone—so both would like to film in secret. But they have a problem: Massachusetts’ wiretap law prohibits the covert recording of anyone, even government officials doing their jobs in public. Violators can be imprisoned for up to five years.
This pattern of persecution is deeply disturbing. Although the Supreme Court has never specifically discussed the right to record, the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have all held that the First Amendment plainly protects the filming of officers and public. And for good reason: A long line of Supreme Court precedents confirms that the government may not “repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process.” As the 7th Circuit explained, the “act of making” a recording is “a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.”
https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/right-to-record-police-massachusetts-aclu.html
Almost every court to consider the issue has determined that the First Amendment gives you the right to record (pictures, video, and audio) police officers in public while they are performing their duties. But that doesn’t mean you’re allowed to record if you’re doing so surreptitiously (secretly), interfering with the officer, or otherwise breaking the law.
The courts' primary rationale for allowing police officer recording is that the First Amendment includes the right to freely discuss our government, and the right of freedom of the press and public access to information. Given the prevalence of personal filming devices, more and more “news” is being gathered and disseminated by members of the public. The courts have found that freedom of the press applies to citizen journalists and documentarians just as it does to formal members of the press. (See, for example, Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).)
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/recording-the-police-legal.html
If the police retaliate against you for recording them, you might or might not have a good lawsuit. You could have a case against them under a federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”), for deprivation of civil rights. Your claim might involve your First Amendment right to record and your Fourth Amendment right against unlawful arrest.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/recording-the-police-legal.html
http://law.scu.edu/wp-content/uploads/site/open_road.pdf
Expectation of Privacy Supreme Court
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/supreme-court-says-your-expectation-privacy-probably-shouldnt-depend-fine-print
filming cops in public latest case
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-recording-police
The Massachusetts police must stop arresting civilians who dare to film them covertly.
Eric Martin and René Pérez are civil rights activists with a very specific passion: They record the police. When Martin and Pérez see law enforcement officers performing their duties, they take out their phones to capture the scene on camera, ready to film any misconduct that might occur. Officers sometimes retaliate—Pérez says they have even grabbed his phone—so both would like to film in secret. But they have a problem: Massachusetts’ wiretap law prohibits the covert recording of anyone, even government officials doing their jobs in public. Violators can be imprisoned for up to five years.
This pattern of persecution is deeply disturbing. Although the Supreme Court has never specifically discussed the right to record, the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have all held that the First Amendment plainly protects the filming of officers and public. And for good reason: A long line of Supreme Court precedents confirms that the government may not “repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process.” As the 7th Circuit explained, the “act of making” a recording is “a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.”
https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/right-to-record-police-massachusetts-aclu.html
Almost every court to consider the issue has determined that the First Amendment gives you the right to record (pictures, video, and audio) police officers in public while they are performing their duties. But that doesn’t mean you’re allowed to record if you’re doing so surreptitiously (secretly), interfering with the officer, or otherwise breaking the law.
The courts' primary rationale for allowing police officer recording is that the First Amendment includes the right to freely discuss our government, and the right of freedom of the press and public access to information. Given the prevalence of personal filming devices, more and more “news” is being gathered and disseminated by members of the public. The courts have found that freedom of the press applies to citizen journalists and documentarians just as it does to formal members of the press. (See, for example, Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).)
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/recording-the-police-legal.html
If the police retaliate against you for recording them, you might or might not have a good lawsuit. You could have a case against them under a federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”), for deprivation of civil rights. Your claim might involve your First Amendment right to record and your Fourth Amendment right against unlawful arrest.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/recording-the-police-legal.html
http://law.scu.edu/wp-content/uploads/site/open_road.pdf
Expectation of Privacy Supreme Court
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/supreme-court-says-your-expectation-privacy-probably-shouldnt-depend-fine-print
filming cops in public latest case
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-recording-police
Below is a promotional video put out by the Pacer County Sheriff stating how the Sheriff's offiece upholds the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
Why would the Placer County Sheriff hire someone who has committed so many violations of the law and ethics of the profession especially after the Sheriff's office is attempting to reform itself?
|
On the Right is Placer County Sheriff Deputy Manuel Temores. Prior to joining the Placer County Sheriff's Office Temores was a Palo Alto Police Officer. While working with the PAPD Temores violated numerous state and federal laws and the Constitution of the United States and of course the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics by unlawfully detaining and arresting a suspect and then using excessive force on that suspect and then covered it up by tampering and fabricating the crime scene as well as audio/video recordings and taser gun activation data in addition to making numerous false statements in his police report as well as in court testimony.
Click Here for the Evidence: https://chiefburns.weebly.com/temores.html |