Police Arrest Public Defender For Defending Her Client

Deputy Public defender Jami Tillotson was arrested outside of a courtroom while advising her client that he does not have to answer any of the questions posed to him, nor allow himself to be photographed.

Mrs Tillotson was in a nerarby courtroom when she heard that her client was being questioned, and that an investigator, Brian Stansbury, was photographing him on unrealated issues.

After hearing this, she left to advise her client, as any good lawyer would do, that it was unnecessary for him to answer any questions or allow himself to be photographed. As she was explaining this, officer Stansbury asked to speak with her privately, she declined. At this point, the officer then threatened her with arrest, "for what she said, for doing my job,"
go ahead.

And they did. She was charged with resisting arrest and detained for an hour. And for what, doing her duty and advising her client of his right's.

Source

In an unprecedented incident, Deputy Public Defender Jami Tillotson was arrested and booked Tuesday on a misdemeanor resisting arrest charge for refusing to let a client of hers be questioned by a police investigator who was also trying to take pictures of the client, Public Defender Jeff Adachi said

edit on 30-1-2015 by Daedal because: edit

From the source:

“This is not Guantanamo Bay,” he said. “If this happens to a public defender in front of her client, I can only imagine what is happening on our streets.”

In the streets, an encounter with the Blue Mafia could put you in the morgue...

a reply to: Daedal

Um....

What? This is one of those moments when you can be forgiven for a certain degree of dumbfounded indignation. First of all, one is only guilty of resisting arrest, if one has been advised by an officer of the law that one is under arrest, and then resists the attempt at a lawful arrest.

The resisting arrest charge was bogus in the extreme therefore, because the first mention of her being arrested, was made when the officer suggested she might be, as a result of her totally legal defense of her clients rights under the law. Her response to that possibility was in fact, entirely positive. The phrase "Please do" is not at all combative, and cannot be seen as an attempt to resist in any fashion what so ever, quite the opposite in fact.

The arrest was trumped up. An honest statement explaining her arrest would have read something along the lines of "The arrest was made on the basis that the arrested party was interfering in my attempt to sidestep law, and acceptable police procedure, by questioning, and photographing the suspect who had no idea that under the law, he had a right not to answer my questions, and to refuse to be photographed."

She should sue the police for "abuse of process" . You can't be charged with
Resisting arrest without being arrested for something in the first place.

a reply to: TrueBrit

boom! My thoughts exactly.

Many people are arguing that she had no business getting involved.

However that's just ludicrous! That's her client. That's her job to be there for her client.

The officer wanted to get rid of the lawyer so he could ask questions that could confuse the guy and make a mistake and let something slip to arrest him.

With the lawyer there he couldn't do that.

I think it will be interesting to see what comes of this. If I were the public defenders office I'd be aiming the legal torpedos and setting phasers on sue.

That anyone is arguing with the judicial system of our country or not, is irrelevant. Only what is legal proceedings and law counts. This of course is not referring to the lawfulness of some of the questionable laws on our books, that are unlawful, this is concerned with the due process and rules governing arrests and trials. And as such, the entire thing is bogus.

I also think cops are a little foolish in doing this to an attorney, who knows the law and probably will file a suit against them.

LEOs are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on their behalf)
5. Protecting the private property of large land owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that are also contributing to and participate in local politics
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from consequences and the citizens are picking up the tab. Its that simple, but no one understands this, nor are many willing to accept these facts. Also most importantly, that’s how Fascism works and in turn uses domestic police forces. This is the simplest answer that nearly everyone continues to ignore.

We should ALL be trying to de-fund police departments, instead of trying to prosecute their employees or change laws. Such measures have proven overwhelming to be ineffective. De-funding police departments is perfectly legal and solves the bad apple problem MUCH faster, than legal action in the court system.

Activists should be finding ways to legally cut the budget for NYPD for example and all the other PD's acting illegally, forming their own opposing PAC's (Political Action Committee) focused on chipping away at this single Budget reduction issue, little by little. Cutting off the money supply will stop them dead, cold, in their tracks.

Suddenly, after years of hatred and ridicule, lawyers are going to be our best friends.

What a time to be alive.

California Penal code 148(a) includes delaying an officer ..

most over used and abused code they have..


www.leginfo.ca.gov...


a reply to: Daedal

a reply to: Daedal

S&F but there was already had a thread on this.

Thread

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: Daedal

S&F but there was already had a thread on this.

Thread

And so there is.

Please add further comments to the existing thread.