Reply #228: This discussion has taken place on DU.

[merh]

Gates did cooperate, at first he hesitated, but then he gave the man his identification that proved he belonged at that address.

You want to discuss this from the LEO standards that cops I know would have applied?

Crowley was a Harvard University cop before he went to work for Cambridge PD. He knew the area and he knew that houses on Ware were Harvard houses. When dispatch sent him on that call he should have asked the dispatcher to call the Harvard PD and ask if that address was one of their houses and, if it was, who was the occupant. He should have told the dispatcher that if it was a HU house the dispatcher should have the HU cops meet him no the scene. He should have asked the dispatcher to get the name and a description of the lawful occupant so, when he arrived on scene he would better prepared. Let's say if he found out a white 50 year old white woman lived there, then the 2 black men on the porch were probably out of place.

When Gates gave Crowley his identification that proved he lived there, Crowley should have apologized for any inconvenience and then handed Gates one of his business cards with his name, badge number. On that card Gates should have written the incident number and then he should have explained to Gates that if he wants a copy of the report how and when he could obtain a copy.

Then Crowley should have left the scene. He should have sent the other cops on their way. He didn't need to call Harvard University cops at that time, the situation was under control. No crime had been committed.

As the man who trains LEO cadets on how to avoid racial profiling and how to deal with issues concerning same, he should have just continued to do his job and not escalate the situation by telling Gates, who was on the phone with the chief's office, "I gave you my name two times, if you want more information you can come out on the porch." There was no need for Gates to step out on the porch. The situation had been handled, the residency and identity established.

See, Gates has the right to be an ass in his own home. He has the constitutional right to be uncivil and rude and insulting to the police. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution and SCOTUS has said criticism of the police is not a crime. Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461-63, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 2509-10, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987).

Although the preservation of liberty depends in part upon the maintenance of social order, the First Amendment requires that officers and municipalities respond with restraint in the face of verbal challenges to police action, since a certain amount of expressive disorder is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom and must be protected if that freedom would survive. Pp. 471—472.


The Massachusetts Supreme Court has said:

Given that an inherent part of police work involves being in the presence of distraught individuals, and given that police officers are trained to maintain order, the Court concluded that police should be the least likely to be provoked.

Crowley wanted Gates on the porch so he could arrest him for disturbing the peace, the problem was, there were no "others" present that could have been provoked into some act of violence. Seven passers-by that looked in the direction of Gates does not constitute the public needed to form an element of the crime as charged. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has said that "the rationale behind criminalizing disorderly conduct rests on the belief that a disorderly person can provoke violence in others."

Commonwealth v. Mulvey
57 Mass. App. Ct. 579 (March 14, 2003)

Police presence in and of itself does not by itself turn an otherwise purely private outburst into disorderly conduct.

The defendant was charged with disorderly conduct for yelling and pacing on private property that was set back from the road in a secluded area. There was no one around at the time except police officers. While the statute requires that the disturbance be such that it had or was likely to have an impact upon people in an area accessible to the public, the presence of police officers alone will not suffice to prove the public element.

In reaching its decision, the Court noted that the rationale behind criminalizing disorderly conduct rests on the belief that a disorderly person can provoke violence in others.. Given that an inherent part of police work involves being in the presence of distraught individuals, and given that police officers are trained to maintain order, the Court concluded that police should be the least likely to be provoked. Therefore, police presence alone does not satisfy the public element.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dmdaterminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Court+Decisions&L2=Court+Decisions+by+Topic&L3=Crimes&L4=Disorderly+Conduct&sid=Dmdaa&b=terminalcontent&f=courts_mulvey&csid=Dmdaa

So yes, I've read the report and I believe Crowley was unprofessional and he not only failed to do his job properly, he failed to do what he trains others to do and that is diffuse a situation that involves the charge of racial profiling.

Citizen Gates was well within his rights to be uncivil in his home.

Officer Crowley had a higher duty to citizen Gates, his job was to "protect and serve" Gates and to maintain the peace. He failed and his failures resulted in the violation of Gates constitutional rights.