Thanks for the heads up. I'm working on a way to get past it and will post a self-post when I get it figured out.

In the mean time, here is the relevant text from the article:

Hadar Aviram, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, said the rights of Tillotson and her client during the confrontation appeared to be “a stickier legal issue than it seems.”

The public defender’s office is arguing that Tillotson’s client had a right to counsel. But Aviram said that for the right to counsel to apply to this situation, the officers would have to be questioning Tillotson’s client about the theft case for which she was representing him.

Police officials said the officers were talking to the two men in connection to a separate, unsolved burglary case. Esparza said that investigation is also ongoing, and that the men were not arrested.

Types of detention

As for the right against self-incrimination, Aviram said the issue is whether the police interaction with the two men was a custodial interrogation, which requires officers to issue a Miranda warning informing a detainee of his or her rights.

Esparza said there are different types of detention that can range from interrogation, in which a person has a right to have an attorney present, to a casual “consensual encounter.”

“What I saw from the video was the cops asking their names and taking their pictures from angles that lead me to believe that they were putting together a lineup for another offense,” Aviram said. “Presumably they can do this, but ordinarily they wouldn’t grab you from a courtroom hallway.”

She added, “Regardless of where the constitutional disposition is, the attorney was in no way being violent or resisting arrest or being disruptive in any way. It’s extreme and it’s bad press for (the police). I’m surprised.”