Los Angeles Police Department told to collect the social media information of every civilian they interview, including individuals who are not arrested or accused of a crime

This shouldn't happen, but I've got two ideas for a world in which it does.

1. Don't have social media. Frankly, this is borderline untenable for a lot of people, even as a communication tool, but is a valid option.

2. Keep that social media blank and private. The only thing the cops got on me is a handful of group chats where the worst thing they'll find are edgy jokes and memes.

Also, don't use your name on any sites that don't require it, so you can have plausible deniability should somebody ask.

This seems super Unconstitutional.

The following is from the DOJ Ferguson Police report from 2015. This seems very similar to what the FPD were doing in requesting ID of random pedestrians and anyone stopped in a vehicle, even without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Stop-and-identify laws stand in tension with the Supreme Court’s admonition that a person approached by a police officer “need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way.” Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497-98 (1983). For this reason, the Court has held that an officer cannot require a person to identify herself unless the officer first has reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52-53 (1979) (holding that the application of a Texas statute that criminalized refusal to provide a name and address to a peace officer violated the Fourth Amendment where the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); see also Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 184 (deeming the reasonable suspicion requirement a “constitutional limitation[]” on stop-and-identify statutes).

In our conversations with FPD officers, one officer admitted that when he conducts a traffic stop, he asks for identification from all passengers as a matter of course. If any refuses, he considers that to be “furtive and aggressive” conduct and cites—and typically arrests—the person for Failure to Comply. The officer thus acknowledged that he regularly exceeds his authority under the Fourth Amendment by arresting passengers who refuse, as is their right, to provide identification. See Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 188 (“[A]n officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.”); Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884, 887-88 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that the arrest of a passenger for failure to identify himself during a traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment where the passenger was not suspected of other criminal activity and his identification was not needed for officer safety). Further, the officer told us that he was trained to arrest for this violation.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

The actions of the LAPD seem very similar to the racial profiling and abuse of power found by the Ferguson PD and I hope the hammer gets dropped on them soon.

That unit also has a history of stopping Black drivers at disproportionately high rates, and according to the LA Times, has more frequently filled out cards for Black and Latino residents they stopped.

Yesterday my husband and I were talking about this article and wondered why more cards are filled out for Black and Latino residents. Is it because Blacks and Latinos are asked more? Is it that white folks feel safer telling them no? Does everyone say no at the same rate, but Blacks and Latinos are pressured more to give that information? Something else?

Regardless the whole thing smells.