I think for the most part people are well served by being told that they should simply say "no" to requests like these. The article has a different framing, that Californians should instead feel angrily but passively victimized by the process, which is I think not productive.
Sure, people should just decline to share any information with police and many police won't push the point because it won't play out well. But some portion of the desirable assignments will flow toward those eager beavers who most assiduously supply the desires of the brass for more information. Legalities are one thing, the incentives and internal dynamics of the police department are something else, and they don't always line up neatly. Furthermore, not all police officers are rational utility maximizers who base their decision-making on optimizing their future wellbeing.
The gist of the article is not 'you're being passively victimized again, oh no' but nor is it, as you point out, 'they have nos uch right so don't be fooled.' The news here is that LAPD management have instituted a policy of maximizing data collection for pre-emptive surveillance purposes, which is something quite different from individual cops being overzealous or prosecutorial standards having shifted.
I think it's reasonable for the writer to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and that it is not his job to act in loco parentis or in loco advocatus.
Also I think tptacek’s core point holds. Scarcity is the civilian’s best friend: scarcity of LEOs, scarcity of their shift hours, and scarcity of their time to collect some info which has absolutely zero bearing on their current case.
No doubt some LAPD gang unit officers may request this data more frequently from suspected gang members (even if it doesn’t sound like an optional request), but I tend to think tptacek’s suggestion that this article could have been better written by informing the reader when they are legally obligated to comply with police requests and when they can be denied without increasing any legal liability.
My impression is that it's all about negotiating the interaction without winding up in a contest of your rights vs them doing their job. If it goes that way, it seems like "this guy was being a real asshole, boss" is all it takes from the officer for justification.
I guess, on the advisory front, tips on non-escalatory language are probably the biggest win.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-l...
Unfortunately, prosecutors are chicken shit when it comes to criminal cops.
It won't be. That won't come close to holding up in terms of legal challenges. And it won't take long to get challenged legally. It's not a close debate, it's not a maybe situation, it won't come close to holding up.
The LAPD may attempt to use that angle - probable cause - in some isolated circumstances short-term, before there's anything specifically legally blocking them, if they're going to get aggressive with trying to procure social media information from people. They would know that refusal to provide social media details as probable cause can't hold up legally to a challenge and they'll risk getting barred from asking entirely, so they'll likely be careful about who they try that tactic on.
They can essentially detain you for hours, unless you know the keywords and are able to ask for and actually summon legal support.
Better to know and exercise your rights when the risk trade off works for your risk tolerance.
In the end, most officers will give more scrutiny if the civilian they are dealing with “fails the attitude test”. Remain calm and when you disagree / reject a request, do it politely and that will increase the odds that the officer won’t spend extra time to find a reason to cite/arrest you.
Also, quit with the civilian crap. Cops are civilians too. If they want to play special forces join the military.
In my experience, police make lots of quick judgements about whether you are “a criminal” based on how compliant you are with their instructions and how normal your behavior is. If you are a nail sticking out, expect most officers to at least consider putting more effort into looking into what they can cite/arrest you for.
The joke is that given enough time and incentive, any officer can cite any person for a vehicle infraction. Take that, but assume there are tons of other laws (not just vehicle codes) that a sufficiently motivated officer can use.
I suspect it actually takes a lot to make an officer turn just a Terry Stop into an arrest. Maybe a verbal or gesture threat against the officer, maybe an admission of a crime, maybe behaviors that a jury would agree describe a person under the influence. I don’t think just saying “no” to a question on the first ask will cause any arrests. LEOs are very experienced at using small psychological tricks/nudges/anchoring to get what they want with compliant detainees.
If I've learned anything over the last few years cops hate being recorded. It doesn't take much to set them off. And they'll use the fact that you are recording them, you don't stop, and therefore resisting their command.
In my college years I would drive from SE Florida to the mid-Atlantic and there were lots of small town ticket revenue towns along the way. I've never been arrested but have been detained, illegally, many times for petty, imaginary reasons.