Wetlook World Forum

And, in this case, "cooperating with the police" was giving them her name (which, according to one of the two articles I read, she did - just not quickly enough for them.)  AND, they apparently explained to her that they needed her name to "put into a database."

Now, you say "But in my opinion, "putting her in a database" might be a slight mis-wording (i dunno, perhaps it is NOT a mis-wording?) because usually the arrest warrant list could be called a "database" of names."  But of course, since she hadn't committed a crime, then we're not talking about an arrest warrant list, correct?  So, my question - just exactly what KIND of police database did they want to put her name into at that point?  IMHO, there's no credible answer to that question, since I agree with your statement that "a person should be convicted of a sex/perversion crime BEFORE they would be put on a list of offenders."  Yes, I'm sure that as a cop its much nicer if a person cooperates with EVERY request you make of them.  But that doesn't change the fact that as a matter of law, you're only entitled to make a well-defined and small list of such "requests" - at least that the "suspect" is required to cooperate with.  The woman wasn't, according to everything I've read, being beliggerent - verbally or physically.  She was reticent to "give them her name to put into a database" and I'd be damn reticent also.  Again, I'd love to hear just what kind of "database" they're keeping that they put people's names into who haven't been charged with a crime?

You say that "the lady just wanted to start drama..." but it sounds to me like the main "starters of drama" here are the police who wanted to "put her into a database" without charging her with any crime.  Again, I think her lawsuit is appropriate, if for no other reason than to stop the police from collecting such unauthorized "databases" of names.  At a minimum, sounds like a list that the police consider "troublemakers" even though they haven't been charged with any crimes.  Sorry, but that's not appropriate, not even remotely so.