Resisting Arrest; Charlena Michelle Cooks

[Temple69]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Barstow California

This is in regards to the arrest of Charlena Michelle Cooks. Perhaps you've send video of it on local news or the web. It's been determined that state law says she was not required to comply with the request for her ID. She had committed no crime and the officer had just said moments before no crime had been committed "on body cam". My questions are.

1. Was his attempt to arrest her legal? Given what the law didn't require her to do so in the case, the judge also through out the case/charge after the fact, I see no reason to do so if it was valid.
2. If the request for ID wasn't a legal one, How could she be legally charged with resisting arrest when the arrest itself wasn't legal?

I'm having some disconnect with the idea that you can be arrested anywhere, anytime even illegally. My thought is, wild as it may be to most, is that if you know you are within your rights you should resist. Yes, I'm aware that's a dangerous position to take and the old "why not just do what your told" argument, as ridiculous as it is to me personally, is the path of least resistance. No pun intended.

Thanks for the knowledge!

 

[FlyingRon]

The ACLU (or perhaps the news reporter who relayed the story) is wrong on this one. If she was DRIVING (as she was reported to be) she is obliged to present her license. Yes she can be arrested if she refuses to show it (or doesn't have one).

Note there is no such official charge as "resisting arrest" in California. The charge commonly associated with the term "resisting arrest" is really 148 PC which makes it illegal to willfully interfere with the police officer performing their duties. But to answer your question, if the arrest was WRONGFUL, that is that the officer had no probable cause that a crime had been indeed comiitted then the PC 148 related to protesting that arrest is almost always dropped (and it's a powerful defense in court). The charge is also fightable if it elevates to a self-defense type situation. Note a "wrongful arrest" doesn't mean you were not guilty of the charge you were arrested for, just that the officer lacked the necessary requirements (probable cause, presence requirement (if no warrant), etc..) to legally make that arrest. Being lawfully arrested is a lower standard than "beyond all reasonable doubt" needed for conviction.

 

[CdwJava]

No apparent crime was committed against the original reporting party/victim. I also don't see any lawful reason to COMPEL ID as there seems to be no request for a reckless driving arrest/citation (per a private person's arrest), and as such no apparent requirement to COMPEL the production of identification. We have two differing accounts of what happened.

However, it is possible that the police have articulated some other crime such as an attempted vandalism or some such thing (though I don't see it in the initial contact with the reporting party - but, I can't see if there is a mark on the side of her vehicle or some other indicator of an attempt to do damage).

In short, while it appears that Ms. Cooks was probably the instigator of whatever happened and was intentionally being obstinate, it also appears she did not do anything unlawful. I would have probably advised her to leave the property since it appears it was a school official who made the initial report and then obtained the license plate of the vehicle when she left to at least get some ID on her for documentation.

 

[Temple69]

No apparent crime was committed against the original reporting party/victim. I also don't see any lawful reason to COMPEL ID as there seems to be no request for a reckless driving arrest/citation (per a private person's arrest), and as such no apparent requirement to COMPEL the production of identification. We have two differing accounts of what happened.

However, it is possible that the police have articulated some other crime such as an attempted vandalism or some such thing (though I don't see it in the initial contact with the reporting party - but, I can't see if there is a mark on the side of her vehicle or some other indicator of an attempt to do damage).

In short, while it appears that Ms. Cooks was probably the instigator of whatever happened and was intentionally being obstinate, it also appears she did not do anything unlawful. I would have probably advised her to leave the property since it appears it was a school official who made the initial report and then obtained the license plate of the vehicle when she left to at least get some ID on her for documentation.

Thanks for the information.

 

[Temple69]

The ACLU (or perhaps the news reporter who relayed the story) is wrong on this one. If she was DRIVING (as she was reported to be) she is obliged to present her license. Yes she can be arrested if she refuses to show it (or doesn't have one).

Note there is no such official charge as "resisting arrest" in California. The charge commonly associated with the term "resisting arrest" is really 148 PC which makes it illegal to willfully interfere with the police officer performing their duties. But to answer your question, if the arrest was WRONGFUL, that is that the officer had no probable cause that a crime had been indeed comiitted then the PC 148 related to protesting that arrest is almost always dropped (and it's a powerful defense in court). The charge is also fightable if it elevates to a self-defense type situation. Note a "wrongful arrest" doesn't mean you were not guilty of the charge you were arrested for, just that the officer lacked the necessary requirements (probable cause, presence requirement (if no warrant), etc..) to legally make that arrest. Being lawfully arrested is a lower standard than "beyond all reasonable doubt" needed for conviction.

Thanks for the information.

 

[justalayman]

I watched the complete video. I think the aclu got it right.

The woman was not in her car at any time the police were present. The police told the "victim"
There was no crime they could ascertain.

When the cop started talking to the cook and asked her name. cook said she was not going to divulge her name. Cop said they have a right to require her to provide her name. Cook said wait a minute I'm going to check. Cook calls somebody and starts telling the person on the phone the cops want her name. Cop said he would give her 2 minutes to comply. About 10 seconds later cop approaches cook and starts the arrest.

He never asked her for her driver's license. He only asked her for her name.


Last I knew unless the cops has reasonable suspicion a crime was committed (and he had actually already said he saw nothing illegal when talking to the "victim"), that means the cop could not have reasonable suspicion a crime was committed, they have no right to require a person divulge their name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REjKtVOZ_R0

 

[CdwJava]

In CA we cannot compel ID even from a person who as been detained. Only if they are to be cited or arrested, or were stopped for a motor vehicle violation must the subject identify themselves.

There was certainly reason to detain Ms. Cooks, but, no good cause to compel her identification. It's clear that Ms. Cooks was being obtuse and was intent on making a mountain out of a molehill, but, I do not see any reason to compel ID or to make an arrest here. There may be some reason, but, I don't see it.

 

[LdiJ]

In CA we cannot compel ID even from a person who as been detained. Only if they are to be cited or arrested, or were stopped for a motor vehicle violation must the subject identify themselves.

There was certainly reason to detain Ms. Cooks, but, no good cause to compel her identification. It's clear that Ms. Cooks was being obtuse and was intent on making a mountain out of a molehill, but, I do not see any reason to compel ID or to make an arrest here. There may be some reason, but, I don't see it.

What bothers me on this one is taking a pregnant woman to the ground...even if she was being obtuse.

 

[justalayman]

they had no reason other than the interaction with the police to make an arrest as the cop himself said. It was only upon the refusal to divulge her name did the cop get all butt hurt and want to play bad guy and arrest her for obstructing an officer (and of course the resisting issue tossed on top of that since she did not want to play stupid games with the cop)

 

[justalayman]

What bothers me on this one is taking a pregnant woman to the ground...even if she was being obtuse.

You cannot really see how it was done and actually a human with child is a dang tough duo. The child is quite well protected thanks to mom nature.

I suspect the cops were fairly easy on her given the tenor of the cops voice. He was not acting angrily or anything of the sort where you might see a cop get quite aggressive. I suspect the force used was the least level possible and still get the results intended.

 

[CdwJava]

What bothers me on this one is taking a pregnant woman to the ground...even if she was being obtuse.

I never said that there was any apparent lawful reason to make the arrest in the first place. But, if an arrest were to be made, taking someone to the ground is a viable option as resistance is determined by the suspect. If a person does not want to be taken to the ground - pregnant or not - don't resist.

 

[HighwayMan]

I'm having some disconnect with the idea that you can be arrested anywhere, anytime even illegally. My thought is, wild as it may be to most, is that if you know you are within your rights you should resist.

Crimes are committed "anywhere, anytime" so why shouldn't perpetrators be subject to arrest?

While New York has nothing to do with this case, I'd like to point out that here we DO have a criminal charge of resisting arrest. If one "knows" that the arrest is invalid one is still not permitted to resist. The place to deal with the issue is the court room not out on the street where the chances are great that someone will get hurt.

Most times the street lawyers may truly believe that their arrest is unlawful while nothing could be further from the truth. Many people >think< they know what's lawful but in reality have no clue I have seen instances where the arrested person resisted and the other charge or charges were dismissed (not necessarily due to an unlawful arrest) but the resisting charge stood and was adjudicated.

Resisting arrest is never a good idea.

 

[CdwJava]

We also have a crime for resisting arrest. PC 148(a)(1) covers this ...

148. (a) (1) 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.​

... and, in CA, it can still be a crime top resist even an unlawful arrest (PC 834a).

834a. If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable
care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace
officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or
any weapon to resist such arrest.​

 

[LdiJ]

I never said that there was any apparent lawful reason to make the arrest in the first place. But, if an arrest were to be made, taking someone to the ground is a viable option as resistance is determined by the suspect. If a person does not want to be taken to the ground - pregnant or not - don't resist.

I am a bit disappointed with this response. After all these years I don't believe in a minute that you would take a pregnant woman to the ground unless it was absolutely necessary to the safety of someone. Nor do I believe that you think its acceptable barring a safety issue.

 

[CdwJava]

I am a bit disappointed with this response. After all these years I don't believe in a minute that you would take a pregnant woman to the ground unless it was absolutely necessary to the safety of someone. Nor do I believe that you think its acceptable barring a safety issue.

If I had to, yeah, I would, and I have. Sometimes the best and most effective way (and the safest) is to take someone to the ground. There's nothing mystical about it. Pinning someone on the ground is an effective way to end a fight. It also prevents the need to use other options such as Tasers, batons, or even leg sweeps or impact strikes in order to take someone under control.

Now, I am not going to sit through the entire video again, but, I don't know that the officers knew she was pregnant. And, even if they did, if she was resisting and they had to control her, then they can and should use that force necessary to take control of the situation quickly and safely.