Its not just Arizona police

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Mom Suing After Wet T-Shirt Leads to Arrest at Fla. Splash Park

(Aug. 5) -- A central Florida woman who was arrested after her shirt got wet at a kiddie splash park in Tavares is suing the city for violating her rights, the woman's attorney told AOL News.

"We are trying to vindicate her [and] establish [that] what was done to her was unconstitutional and wrong," said civil rights attorney Howard S. Marks.

The incident that provoked the lawsuit occurred in April when Janet Lovett and her husband took their 7-year-old son, who is autistic, to the Children's Splash Park in Tavares. While she was in the park, Lovett was splashed by water, which soaked the front of her white T-shirt and made her padded bra visible.

"She was ultimately approached by an individual [who] professed to be a city employee and [told] she was not appropriately dressed for the park," Marks said. "[He told her] she would have to change into a bathing suit or some other clothing."

Marks said his client left her husband with their child, put a towel over her shoulders and walked out of the city-owned park. She was planning on going home to get a bathing suit when she was approached in the parking lot by a police officer.

"[The] police officer confronted her and started essentially quizzing her and demanding information from her, stating that she needed to put Mrs. Lovett's name in a database," Marks said.

Lovett, a Peruvian native who was granted American citizenship in January, speaks English, albeit "not perfectly," Marks said. She said she explained the situation to the officer and requested to speak with her husband. The officer allegedly denied that request and asked Lovett to produce her identification. She had none with her and told the officer it was in her car.

"I started shaking. I [felt] nervous. My son was inside [the] park with [my] husband. I was alone," Lovett said in an interview with ABC-affiliate WFTV. "[i was] very scared. I [had] never been arrested before."

A police report obtained by WFTV indicates Lovett did not give her name fast enough. As a result, she was taken into custody on suspicion of obstructing justice and resisting arrest.

"[The officer] took my client's arms and twisted them behind her back after handcuffing her," Marks said. "That caused some bruises to her arms and her hands. [she was] then escorted into the back of a patrol car and taken to jail."

Lovett sat in jail for about five hours before her husband could arrange to pay her $1,500 bond. The state attorney later dropped the charges without explanation.

"Legally, under the constitution of the state of Florida and the U.S., it is our position that Mrs. Lovett did not have to provide any identification information, but she never refused to do so," Marks said. "Obviously, [police] have a right to investigate crimes if there is a reason to believe somebody committed a crime, but there was no crime here."

Marks said he is also concerned about the city's alleged refusal to disclose information on the database into which the officer allegedly said she wanted to put his client's name.

"We have never been able to get any answers from the city," Marks said. "I don't know what database they could be putting her in. It is either a wet T-shirt database -- if the city is maintaining one of those, that's an entirely different story -- or an illegal alien database."

The city of Tavares acknowledges receiving a notice of intent from Lovett's attorney but declined to comment on the case.

"I can't respond to any of those questions," public communications spokeswoman Joyce Ross told AOL News. "[it's] typical for any type of lawsuit or notice of suit that we can't comment."

Marks said the lawsuit he is filing is for violation of civil rights, false arrest and malicious prosecution. He also said that it will ultimately be up to a jury to decide how much money to award his client.

"Mrs. Lovett committed no crime," Marks said. "Absolutely no cleavage [was showing]. Even if seeing someone's bra is indecent exposure or illegal in the U.S., then we are going to have to have a lot of appropriations for jails because most of the public is going to be in them."

[Danno 1,228]

It seems the Police acted "stupidly" again.

[justashooter 430]

worthless without pics

[slim 1,525]

I don't think there's much of a case here on either side. That's probably why the state's attorney dropped the case. They had nothing to go on.

Seems like she has nothing to go on either. So they arrested her and she sat in jail for a while? She was bailed out and charges were dropped. That's how it works sometimes.

Here's a picture of the plaintiff - http://www.inquisitr.com/81346/janet-lovett-arrest-splash-park/

I didn't look hard enough to find the cop.... but I'm guessing she wasn't quite as shapely.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

"So they arrested her and she sat in jail for a while?"

You are jokeing I hope??? This woman is a US Citizen. The police are WAY out of line here.

This case has Fourth Amendment written all over it!!

The state attorney dropped this case cause their a$$ was in a major sling and he knew it!!

I don't think there's much of a case here on either side. That's probably why the state's attorney dropped the case. They had nothing to go on.

Seems like she has nothing to go on either. So they arrested her and she sat in jail for a while? She was bailed out and charges were dropped. That's how it works sometimes.

Here's a picture of the plaintiff - http://www.inquisitr.com/81346/janet-lovett-arrest-splash-park/

I didn't look hard enough to find the cop.... but I'm guessing she wasn't quite as shapely.

Edited August 10, 2010 by PhiLandShiR

[slim 1,525]

"So they arrested her and she sat in jail for a while?"

You are jokeing I hope??? This woman is a US Citizen. The police are WAY out of line here.

This case has Fourth Amendment written all over it!!

The state attorney dropped this case cause their a$$ was in a major sling and he knew it!!

I sat in jail for a month on pending charges that the state couldn't even produce witnesses for. That is how it works. If you're suspected of a crime, which she was, then she gets arrested and booked on that crime.

She wasn't arrested for "being illegal" she was arrested for obstructing justice. Happens all the time here in America and no, it's not a violation of your 4th Amendment rights.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I don't have to tell squat to the police. And there is not squat they can do about it. 4th amendment insures that. Nor can they hold me if I don't tell them anything.

If you sat in jail for a month you had a pi$$ant poor lawyer. 6th amendment problems all over the place with that.

Speedy trial refers to one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to defendants in criminal proceedings. The right to a speedy trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is intended to ensure that defendants are not subjected to unreasonably lengthy incarceration prior to a fair trial.

[slim 1,525]

I don't have to tell squat to the police. And there is not squat they can do about it. 4th amendment insures that. Nor can they hold me if I don't tell them anything.

If you sat in jail for a month you had a pi$$ant poor lawyer. 6th amendment problems all over the place with that.

Speedy trial refers to one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to defendants in criminal proceedings. The right to a speedy trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is intended to ensure that defendants are not subjected to unreasonably lengthy incarceration prior to a fair trial.

Contrary to what you see on TV, justice doesn't always happen in 42 minutes.

And you're correct. You don't have to tell the police squat. But where you're incorrect is they can't do squat to you. Actually, you'll be arrested for obstruction and hauled off to jail, just like this woman was.

Also contrary to what you see on TV, the police can arrest you at any time for just about anything they decide to make up. You will beat the charges, but that doesn't mean they can't do it. Justice can ultimately prevail, but it's not going to prevail before the next show comes on.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

I don't have to tell squat to the police. And there is not squat they can do about it. 4th amendment insures that. Nor can they hold me if I don't tell them anything.

If you sat in jail for a month you had a pi$$ant poor lawyer. 6th amendment problems all over the place with that.

Speedy trial refers to one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to defendants in criminal proceedings. The right to a speedy trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is intended to ensure that defendants are not subjected to unreasonably lengthy incarceration prior to a fair trial.

incorrect - you do have to identify yourself if asked.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

incorrect - you do have to identify yourself if asked.

Exactly!

[PhiLandShiR 18]

incorrect - you do have to identify yourself if asked.

Nonsence!

U.S. Supreme Court

Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)

Hoffman v. United States

No. 513

Argued April 25, 1951

Decided May 28, 1951

341 U.S. 479

"(a) The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment extends not only to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute, but also to those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime. Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 159. P. 341 U. S. 486.

(b) To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result. Pp. 341 U. S. 486-487."

As this police officer was acting in a threating manner: "[The] police officer confronted her and started essentially quizzing her and demanding information from her, stating that she needed to put Mrs. Lovett's name in a database,"

Ms. Lovett was well within her rights to remain silent.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

Nonsence!

U.S. Supreme Court

Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)

Hoffman v. United States

No. 513

Argued April 25, 1951

Decided May 28, 1951

341 U.S. 479

"(a) The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment extends not only to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute, but also to those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime. Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 159. P. 341 U. S. 486.

(b) To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result. Pp. 341 U. S. 486-487."

As this police officer was acting in a threating manner: "[The] police officer confronted her and started essentially quizzing her and demanding information from her, stating that she needed to put Mrs. Lovett's name in a database,"

Ms. Lovett was well within her rights to remain silent.

see the hiibel case.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), the Court considered whether police, in the absence of probable cause, can stop, question, or frisk an individual at all. The Court recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects the " 'right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person.' " Id., at 9 (quoting Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891)). At the same time, it recognized that in certain circumstances, public safety might require a limited "seizure," or stop, of an individual against his will. The Court consequently set forth conditions circumscribing when and how the police might conduct a Terry stop. They include what has become known as the "reasonable suspicion" standard. 392 U. S., at 20-22. Justice White, in a separate concurring opinion, set forth further conditions. Justice White wrote: "Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Id., at 34.

About 10 years later, the Court, in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47 (1979), held that police lacked "any reasonable suspicion" to detain the particular petitioner and require him to identify himself. Id., at 53. The Court noted that the trial judge had asked the following: "I'm sure [officers conducting a Terry stop] should ask everything they possibly could find out. What I'm asking is what's the State's interest in putting a man in jail because he doesn't want to answer . . . ." Id., at 54 (Appendix to opinion of the Court) (emphasis in original). The Court referred to Justice White's Terry concurrence. 443 U. S., at 53, n. 3. And it said that it "need not decide" the matter. Ibid.

Then, five years later, the Court wrote that an "officer may ask the [Terry] detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984) (emphasis added). See also Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 365 (1983) (Brennan, J., concurring) (Terry suspect "must be free to . . . decline to answer the questions put to him"); Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U. S. 119, 125 (2000) (stating that allow-

ing officers to stop and question a fleeing person "is quite consistent with the individual's right to go about his business or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning").

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), the Court considered whether police, in the absence of probable cause, can stop, question, or frisk an individual at all. The Court recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects the " 'right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person.' " Id., at 9 (quoting Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891)). At the same time, it recognized that in certain circumstances, public safety might require a limited "seizure," or stop, of an individual against his will. The Court consequently set forth conditions circumscribing when and how the police might conduct a Terry stop. They include what has become known as the "reasonable suspicion" standard. 392 U. S., at 20-22. Justice White, in a separate concurring opinion, set forth further conditions. Justice White wrote: "Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Id., at 34.

About 10 years later, the Court, in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47 (1979), held that police lacked "any reasonable suspicion" to detain the particular petitioner and require him to identify himself. Id., at 53. The Court noted that the trial judge had asked the following: "I'm sure [officers conducting a Terry stop] should ask everything they possibly could find out. What I'm asking is what's the State's interest in putting a man in jail because he doesn't want to answer . . . ." Id., at 54 (Appendix to opinion of the Court) (emphasis in original). The Court referred to Justice White's Terry concurrence. 443 U. S., at 53, n. 3. And it said that it "need not decide" the matter. Ibid.

Then, five years later, the Court wrote that an "officer may ask the [Terry] detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984) (emphasis added). See also Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 365 (1983) (Brennan, J., concurring) (Terry suspect "must be free to . . . decline to answer the questions put to him"); Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U. S. 119, 125 (2000) (stating that allow-

ing officers to stop and question a fleeing person "is quite consistent with the individual's right to go about his business or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning").

that's not what the point is - i stated if asked. the above is whether police, in the absence of probable cause, can stop, question, or frisk an individual at all.

[TBoneTX 45,288]

see the Hiibel case.

Si, man -- and a travesty of a ruling if ever there were one. Search "Hiibel" for several in-depth threads in other VJ fora.