Officers Visit SubRosa

I work as a researcher at the university and they neither pay social security benefits, nor are we eligible for unemployment. UC has special permission to do this. I bet a lot of teaching assistants don't even realize we don't get credit towards social security.

Teachers in the school system of Santa Cruz pay into Social Security through taxes, but are unable to draw on those benefits after retirement. That's because they get a pension, which is better than social security. UCSC staff also get a pension, which is better than social security. The only rub is that you have t work there until you're vested. So saying UCSC received some form of special way out is not correct.

do not talk to the police, under any circumstances, other than to tell them to GTFO or to say "i do not consent to this conversation." follow the example below:

"get a pension, which is better than social security."
Yes - the original concept was that the California teacher's pension fund would be a better deal than SS, and it largely is. I think a lot of people think that state employee pensions are a perk on top of regular social security. If you switch to teaching at age 50, they will reduce your expected social security despite how much you paid in, so you can't 'double dip'. It would be really unfortunate if the state of California went bankrupt, wouldn't it, like the city of Vallejo did. Some banks on Wall street are actually betting against CA in the bond market. I mean, recessions eventually have to end because demand picks up, so stock market value will go up again. They did screw up by letting Arnold put his friend in charge of the fund who started putting the money in risky real estate http://www.eastbayexpress.com/eastbay/parskys-party/Content?oid=1083283



"talks, walks"
--Even better if there is nothing for anyone to potentiall have to hide or shut up about, as in, the window vandal may have been some twit from San Jose, or had ridden the rails to Phoenix.

Use a temp agency. They cover the workman's comp for a bargain 50% over the wage that the worker gets paid, and you pay by the hour. This is much better than purchasing workman's comp insurance on your own and having to pay for the whole year's worth of payroll up front.

the point of this alert is not to compare and contrast workers comp laws, so comments about that would be better placed elsewhere.

The folks at SubRosa may discover what one of our local lawyers shared recently A criminal defense attorney (here in Fresno) posted on his blog recently that one can be arrested (and convicted) in California for refusing to speak with a peace officer when he/she approaches you. The offense is "delaying an officer."

The attorney says "it is apparently the law in California is that you can be charged with a crime where the only crime is not allowing an officer to try to talk to you. If the officer “has a legal right” to do so, then the officer may detain anyone. If you know that he’s trying to detain you, then — believe it or not — you have a “duty to permit [your]self to be detained.” (People v. Allen (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 981, 985 [167 Cal.Rptr. 502], emphasis added.)"

The case he was describing was one where a police officer wanted to talk with a local teen According to what was said in court, The teen apparently knew that the officer wanted to talk to him and the minor walked away from the officer.

"Now I don’t know the details of this case. It wasn’t my case. I didn’t see the police reports. But what I’ve written above is what was said in court. When the judge asked the minor to allocute, the minor began a story that — frankly — sounded to me like he was saying the only thing that happened was the police officer called his name and he walked away because he didn’t want to talk to the officer."

Do you have something to hide? What is the point of not talking, wouldn't it help to clear your name and Subrosa to clear this issue up. By not talking it makes you look guilty.

Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

"Why not talk? Hell, if you have nothing to hide, refusing to talk to the police makes you look guilty."

We've all heard that argument and it doesn't wash.

I am truly happy for you (and a little envious) that your exposure to the criminal prosecution system has been so limited that you believe that a clear conscience and a good heart and honest intentions will allow you to talk to cops in a criminal investigation and walk away unscathed.

There may be cops that are truly wonderful people who live their personal lives with tremendous integrity, but their job is to apprehend and help prosecute people. They are very well trained and have tremendous resources. If they decide you are guilty, regardless of your guilt or innocence, they are very good at making a case against you, most often using bits and pieces of what you told them directly.

You might find this a useful link. http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/ Here you will find further information about seven of the most common causes of wrongful convictions:

* Eyewitness Misidentification
* Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science
* False Confessions / Admissions
* Government Misconduct
* Informants or Snitches
* Bad Lawyering

You may be jaded by what you believe is police corruption but the bulk of the Santa Cruz community will see your lack of dialogue as an admission of guilt. The vast majority already does based on the public statement already made. If I was a volunteer I would tell my truth just to cover myself if I was innocent. Just sayin'.

Well - can the officer even identify who is 'in charge' there when he comes in the door?

On the bicycle side of the building, it is easier to determine who the volunteers are because there are rules about signing in before working, and asking them before grabbing tools. There is a table at the cafe side that a volunteer is often sitting behind, but she could also be standing outside talking. Other people familiar with the place could be sitting around, but aren't actively volunteering. Then there are many more guests sitting by a computer or drinking coffee. It is probably challenging to identify who to question. If he/she picks a random individual carrying a sleeping bag, they might be friendly and wanting to talk about many topics.

Yeah Yeah... They LUV intimidating teenagers... natural born anarchists, and they MAY even arrest a CHILD for 'delaying an officer', but they will NEVER be convicted, or most likely even appear in court more than once before being released.

Trust me.. the odds of them doing anything of the sort is NIL, unless you LIE to them. Then you'd be interfering with an investigation, which, as anyone who's ever dealt with the police knows, really ISN'T an investigation.

411: If they're asking the questions they already believe they know the answers.

Therefore: "Am I free to go now?" are the ONLY words one should EVER say.

No response or ambivalence about the response (anything besides "no")? Back away saying "I'm leaving now".

NEVER turn your back on the SCPD, or, as countless people around here will tell you (mostly homeless people), you'll find yourself tackled to the ground and detained for 'fleeing'.

I know these kids...

doesent matter, police lie no matter what. carry a gun ,protect yourself, there has been a military coup

Auntie--that's what happens in Fresno. If a cop walks up to you,says he wants to talk to you, and you try to walk away. You WILL be arrested and then likely convicted of "resisting, delaying...." Our DA aggressively prosecutes "resisting" cases. And, if convicted, you WILL do jail time (6 months) and pay a hefty fine ($3,000). Be thankful you live in the People's Republic of Santa Cruz. Here in Fresno, people get 'justifibly' shot for "threatening" police officers with a cell phone.

"If a cop walks up to you,says he wants to talk to you, and you try to walk away. You WILL be arrested and then likely convicted of "resisting, delaying...." Our DA aggressively prosecutes "resisting" cases. And, if convicted, you WILL do jail time (6 months) and pay a hefty fine ($3,000)."

Please provide a link to this lawyers blog you speak of. A search for this blog turned up nothing. In short, you are saying that if you refuse to talk to the police you will be arrested and go to jail for the misdemeanor crime of obstructing justice.

I don't want to call you out, but I'm going to have to. You may sincerely believe what you read, but it is not lost on me that your advice benefits the police immensely.

This is just misinformation. Dangerous misinformation at that.

You have NO obligation to talk with an officer EVER.

The firth amendment which is still taken very seriously in court and in court precedent says, "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." In fact, it is taken so seriously, that prosecution attorney's are prohibited in court from suggesting the argument that a defendant's silence implies his or her guilt. I could provide numerous caselaw precedents.

Yes, refusing to cooperate with police, may increase your risk of arrest, but better to spend a few hours in jail now than months or years behind bars later, because you said something that will be used against you.

So again, in spite of the bad advice of cop internet trolls, you are never obligated to talk to any form of law enforcement officer.

Print the flier above and give it to at-risk friends you know. It was developed with the help of several attorneys.

The 5th amendment only applies to saying anything that might prove your guilt. If you keep your mouth shut about a crime you know about then the 5th amendment does not apply. Sorry to tell you citizens have a legal duty to cooperate with a legal investigation. From one who has been around the world and seen true police states you people do not know what the hell you are talking about and do not know how good you have it. Telling the police to F off does not make you a revolutionary badass. Just a punk.

Hey there. If you know how to use Google, type in Probable Cause. Or, Rick Horowitz and Probable Cause. The entry is titled An Arresting Affair, posted on April 20th. To make things really easy for you, the entry is below....

An Arresting Affair
Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

Yesterday, I was sitting in court waiting for a case to be called when I became aware that the accused minor in custody was in the process of making an admission to a crime.

What caught my attention is the nature of the crime.

The minor was apparently arrested for the crime that — and here I have to quote the judge verbatim because otherwise I don’t really know what to call the crime — “he delayed the officer being able to make contact with him.”

That’s right. According to what was said in court, a police officer wanted to talk to the minor. The minor apparently knew that the officer wanted to talk to him and the minor walked away from the officer.

Now I don’t know the details of this case. It wasn’t my case. I didn’t see the police reports. But what I’ve written above is what was said in court. When the judge asked the minor to allocute, the minor began a story that — frankly — sounded to me like he was saying the only thing that happened was the police officer called his name and he walked away because he didn’t want to talk to the officer.

The charge was a violation of Penal Code section 148(a)(1), which reads:

Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

WTF?! Delays?!

Since “delays” is in there, the judge’s words accurately describe a potential crime. But, seriously, the cop wants to talk to you and you clearly don’t want to talk to him so you walk away, and that’s against the law? Yet that’s all it can be: too often I see this “crime” charged by itself. Usually, in most courtrooms, the crime is described as “resisting arrest.”

The problem is that, as here, the obvious question — “what ‘arrest’ was being resisted?” or “what was the basis for the arrest?” — is seldom given a good answer an answer that makes sense.

In this instance, the kid was basically arrested for not wanting to talk to a police officer. Does the law really require a person to talk to a police officer?

If it does, that law is unconstitutional. Consider, first off, that under the obscure and little known legal doctrine of the so-called “Miranda warning,”

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

So if you don’t want to talk to a police officer, you don’t have to do so. You have the right to remain silent.

Secondly — and, as I said, I don’t know all the details of this case, but I did hear what the kid was saying during his allocution, until it was stopped because it was going down a “I didn’t do anything illegal” path — there is no legal requirement that a person remain in the presence of a police officer when one does not want to do so, unless the officer has specifically ordered you to stop and remain in his presence. However, as noted above, even if you are ordered to stop, there is no requirement that you then talk to the police officer. (Certain exceptions regarding providing your identity under certain circumstances apply.) Normally, if the police walk up to me and start chatting, I have every right under the law to just walk away. Normally, if I’m ordered to remain in the presence of the police officer, I have “the right to remain silent.”

At least, that’s what I’ve always believed and told people.

The United States Constitution seems to support that, as well. The Fifth Amendment, for example, is usually interpreted as indicating the aforementioned right to remain silent. The Amendment itself arguably limits itself to “criminal cases,” but I have a hard time believing that police officers have a right to force me to discuss the weather with them.

The First Amendment would appear to provide a basis for this, as well. The constitutionally-protected right to freedom of speech has more than once been interpreted to include freedom from speech. Admittedly, this usually means freedom from being forced to say specific things, like having a license plate that communicates a message of which you disapprove. I see no reason it shouldn’t include the freedom from having to speak to particular types of people. Similarly, the freedom to associate includes the freedom to choose with whom not to associate.

Then, of course, there are so-called penumbral rights — a misnomer to anyone who actually knows how to read (as in, hey, judges, how about you start reading the Constitution for a change?) — which include the right to privacy and the right to be left alone. I shouldn’t have to become a hermit to be able to avoid contact with people I don’t wish to contact; going out on the street doesn’t mean I’m inviting a conversation with every Tom, Dick and Harriett I pass along the way.

Nor am I simply the oddball criminal defense attorney holding this viewpoint from an overzealous dislike of law enforcement. Numerous attorneys both in Fresno, where I practice criminal defense, and across the country — I communicate with the latter via Twitter, blogs, or email — are apparently of the belief that if you don’t want to talk to a police officer, you can walk away when an officer attempts to talk to you. In fact, the response to my “tweeting” about the minor “admitting” to a crime for not wanting to a police officer was met with responses like,

» “That’s a statute in CA?”
» “!!!?!”
» “:-/ that’s frustrating.”
Indeed.

But apparently the law in California is that you can be charged with a crime where the only crime is not allowing an officer to try to talk to you.

If the officer “has a legal right” to do so, then the officer may detain anyone. If you know that he’s trying to detain you, then — believe it or not — you have a “duty to permit [your]self to be detained.” (People v. Allen (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 981, 985 [167 Cal.Rptr. 502], emphasis added.)

Even more remarkable, the officer doesn’t have to tell you that he’s trying to detain you. In the Allen case just cited, the officer never said a word; he was in a police car. The defendant-appellant in that case was assumed to know the police officer wanted to talk to him:

Appellant knew full well, and counsel conceded so at argument, that the officer’s attention was centered on him and that the officer wanted to talk with him. When appellant saw the police car he slammed the trunk lid down and took off at a high step. As he left the scene he continued to look back nervously toward the officers as he hurried away. Finally, as the officers closed in, he broke into a run and eventually attempted to hide from the officers. Bystanders knew appellant was aware of the officers’ desire and that appellant was attempting to escape from the officers. Officer Barron testified “…numerous subjects were pointing in the same direction, stating he was running from us.” Under the ambient circumstances here involved and the totality of facts of this case, we believe that it was unequivocally clear to appellant that the object of the police’s attention was appellant as an individual. (Allen, supra, 109 Cal.App.3d at 987.)

As stated more succinctly in a footnote, “Appellant could refuse to cooperate, but could not run and hide.”

So, yes, in California it is entirely possible to be arrested for walking away from a police officer who wants to make contact with you.

It is, of course, an utterly stupid rule when it allows a citizen who has committed no other crime except to believe he lived in a free republic to be arrested just because he did not wish to interact with the police. It clearly demonstrates that we do, indeed, live in a police state.

But until the citizens of the police state throw off the shackles of the police state — and, increasingly, that probably means until there is a bloody revolution — that’s the law.

At least in California.

My comment: this is the real world. Have fun, hotshot!

yes - it would be interesting if the lawyer above could clarify.

The case described above does sound unconstitutional or at least like an unusual courtroom.

While these police approaching Subrosa seemed to want information about paid employees, we could think about a hypothetical situation where there had been lots of gossip about some sort of crime committed in the community.

If a person is caught riding as a passenger in a stolen car, they can be convicted as an accessory to a crime if there is evidence that they knew it was stolen. If someone refuses to speak about information they heard 3rd hand (weren't direct witness to), can they also be compelled to repeat this in a casual interview, or would they need to be subpoenaed in order to be legally required to speak about these stories. Can the 5th amendment nonincrimination clause apply to this accessory status, or do they become the accessory by not proactively volunteering info they directly witnessed.

Rose--this is NOT uncommon in Fresno nor in California. A friend of mine was involved in a similar situation, tried to walk away from an officer who 'just wants to talk to you,' and was arrested--as California law permits--for "resisting." Our DA refused to drop the charge, and my friend's attorney told him he didn't have any defense to the charge. Yes, you don't have to talk beyond questions about identity, but you can't go in the opposite direction once approached. In the Central Valley, that will land you in jail.

Oh, the quote from the State Administrative Manual? That rule only applies to government agencies using volunteers....

"But apparently the law in California is that you can be charged with a crime where the only crime is not allowing an officer to try to talk to you. "

A police officer has the same right on the street to walk up to you and say hi just like every othet citizen. That's correct. BUT once they make their official capacity and duty clear in regard to the contact, they ARE NO LONGER that 'every other citizen' and you no longer have to speak with them without a lawyer.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

I've been refusing to talk with the police since I was a teenager (I'm almost 60 now)... Had LOTS (and LOTS) of 'contact' and I NEVER was arrested for delaying, interfering, etc.

Maybe I'm just lucky (and honestly, I've never been that)... or maybe some people here misinterpret the law.

My understanding is that the law requires you identify yourself if asked by a law officer, as in provide them with your ID if you have one, or tell them your name.

The key point is that if an officer stops you to question you, you should determine if you are being detained or if you are free to go BEFORE trying to walk away. That situation is where people are getting in trouble (walking away when you are being detained). At no point are you required to answer questions, as long as you don't walk.

In the state of California you are not obligated to provide ID unless you are operating a motor vehicle.

The amount of misinformation on this threat is astounding. Please do not post if you do not know what you are saying.

Rose said: "If someone refuses to speak about information they heard 3rd hand (weren't direct witness to), can they also be compelled to repeat this in a casual interview,"

Right... It would have to be assumed you already spoke about it.

Once you talk about something, you've essentially waived your 5th amendment right... but only narrowly, about what you had discussed.

THAT is EXACTLY the reason why one should not speak to the police. Because if they can even get you to say the simplest, non-related thing about something in question, you've pretty much waived your right to silence. At least in the moment, under pressure, with no lawyer.

Needless to say that the person who said you can be jailed for simply not talking does not know what they're talking about or it would be common knowledge to all activists

Frankly, what Rick Horowitz shared on his blog has much more validity to me. He specializes in criminal law defense, so he knows of what he speaks of. The Central Valley is a world removed from Santa Cruz attitude-wise. Here in Fresno, the cops are applauded whenever they kill someone "armed" with a cell phone (as occurred last year). This is a law and order community, so behavior by cops that wouldn't be tolerated in Santa Cruz or the Bay Area is perfectly okay here.

As for the issue of identification. A California peace officer has the legal authority to establish the identity of people he is talking to if he chooses. Of course, one can refuse. Then the officer can take you into custody and transport you to the police station to establish who you are. They can fingerprint you, even unwillingly, to identify you. Once your identity is established, you are then released--unless you have outstanding warrants or the detention leads to other charges.

Dan, you are right ONLY if you are a suspect in a crime. Not just for the usual cop shakedown when you are sitting on a wall at the levy late at night.

Speaking of lawyers and speaking to cops, did this escape everyone's attention when it was posted before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

But it seems that this has devolved into a 3 way conversation between parties who somewhat disagree. I suggest to anyone curious about this issue, to do your own DIY research. Don't trust cops or the random odd lawyer, but on caselaw

...with that attitude cuz our cops will show you how far they can go and get away with it legally.

BTW, do the UC campus cops police in town, off campus?

Our CSU campus cops do. They go a mile off campus. Doing sweeps with the assistance of the local cops, US Marshals, the Sheriff's Office, FBI, probation, parole. Here at Cal State Fresno, the administration recognizes that "policing is messy."

Also, you do know it's a federal crime to lie to a FBI agent?

Yes, we know it's a federal crime to lie to an FBI agent. It is NOT however, a federal crime to refuse to answer--without the presence of a lawyer--questions from the FBI.