Crowley bringing lawyer to Beer Summit-Is this Sign of Weakness?

[Gothmog]

Crowley is bringing an attorney and a police union rep. to the beer summit. http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20090729union_brass_lawyer_to_accompany_sgt_crowley_to_white_house/srvc=home&position=recent

A union official and attorney will accompany Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley to tomorrow’s “beer summit” with President Obama and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

Crowley will be joined at the White House by Dennis O’Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, and Alan McDonald, the attorney for the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association and the Massachusetts Municipal Police Coalition.

Is this a sign of weakness?

[ensho]

1. or they plan to 'bully'

nt

[JohnnyLib2]

2. I believe it is fairly routine union procedure.

Others may know more about this. And hopefully the WH anticipated this??

[rocktivity]

3. Nope, it's a sign that Crowley has lost his leverage

Now that the 911 call and Crowley's dispatch tape (minus Gates' yelling) solidify the fact that the arrest was bogus, O’Connor and MacDonald are tagging along to prevent Crowley from incriminating himself.

:woohoo:
rocktivity

[seabeyond]

8. exactly. accepted. truth comes out. uh oh. nt

[FSogol]

4. Maybe they'll arrest Obama in his home? n/t

[Fuzz]

17. Obama better not act 'uppity'

[Sal Minella]

20. Yeah, I'd hate to see Crowley call in the units and frog-march Obama out of HIS house.

[sabrina 1]

32. Well, they know better than that.

However, if they invite him out onto the porch .....

[madokie]

5. Sounds like Crowley has some skeletons he would like to keep in the dark

Somethings with that guy. If I was President O I'd say forget it, you stay home

[rurallib]

6. I thought Crowley was not a union member?

If so, is Mass. a fair share state or does he get this service for free?

[Bombero1956]

27. not sure

but if they're anything like us firefighters in Massachusetts non union members get the benefit of the union bargaining for them and union representation and pay a service fee upon contract ratification. Cambridge may be different.

[Fumesucker]

7. Crowley is afraid Obama and Gates are going to tag team disrespect him.

Respect my authoritee, eh?

[kentuck]

9. Unbelievable!

Are they bringing a rope also?

[enough]

10. Does Gates get to bring his people too? Will Obama have legal representation?

Sounds like the opposite of the original intent of the event.

Absurdity abounds.

[Graybeard]

11. Crowley is a liar, he needs all the help he can get.

Falsifying the report and making shit up? Damn right he needs a lawyer.

[theothersnippywshrub]

12. Truly pathetic, but very republican. Probably afraid the Negroes would steal his beer. n/t

[moondust]

13. Ahh, the perfect icebreaker...

"Meet my lawyers."

[Dreamer Tatum]

14. Gates said he might sue. I'd want a mouthpiece there, too.

Sorry, that's the way the world is now.

[Gothmog]

22. Prof. Gates has a summary judgment case against Crowley

Larry O'Donnell had a good piece on this. If Prof. Gates sues, he will get a summary judgement against Crowley

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. No one knows what would happen, actually nt

[KDFW]

26. Why on earth are you wasting your psychic talents -here-?

:eyes:

[Gothmog]

29. Here is Lawerence O'Donnell's piece on this

Here is the piece from Countdown http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32179133 Here is O'Donnell's Time Magazine piece http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912778,00.html

Unless you confess to a crime or threaten to commit a crime, there is nothing you can say to a cop that makes it legal for him to arrest you. You can tell him he is stupid, you can tell him he is ugly, you can call him racist, you can say anything you might feel like saying about his mother. He has taken an oath to listen to all of that and ignore it. That is the real teachable moment here: cops are paid to be professionals, but even the best of them are human and can make stupid mistakes.

We have an uncomfortable choice with Sergeant Crowley. Either he didn't know what disorderly conduct is or he decided to show Gates who's boss the only way he knew how — by whipping out his handcuffs and abusing his power to arrest. Police make the latter choice in this country every day, knowing the charges are going to have to be dropped.

The arrest report does not describe a crime and Prof. Gates has a great case if he sues

[Dreamer Tatum]

31. Great...hope The West Wing has a courtroom set they can use

Who the F is Lawrence O'Donnell?

[4lbs]

35. Who is Lawrence O'Donnell? You don't watch MSNBC programs much do you?

He's a frequent guest on Hardball, The Ed Show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow. He also appears sometimes on Morning Joe and slaps Joe Scarborough around, figuratively.


This guy is Lawrence O'Donnell:

[ColbertWatcher]

48. You mention The West Wing and don't know who O'Donnell is!?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0640713/

(Scroll down, second credit listed under "Producer" first listed under "Writer")

You're welcome.

[Dreamer Tatum]

55. Exactly...he's a writer and a producer, not a lawyer or a judgent

[ColbertWatcher]

59. Um ...

... I only said that because you mentioned West Wing and asked who O'Donnell was.

If he was a lawyer or a "judgent," would you have known who he was then?

[TorchTheWitch]

36. no such thing

Summary judgment is a motion to dismiss an existing civil case. The judge in the existing civil case decides based on the merits of the motion to dismiss by summary judgment and the corresponding answer to the motion by the opposing party whether or not to dismiss the case at that point. It's a procedural device normally used to get rid of frivolous lawsuits without having to go through the whole legal process to either settlement or trial.

Summary judgment motions can also be used to dismiss certain issues within an existing civil case. This is called a partial summary judgment. If a partial summary judgment is granted, it only dismisses the certain issues requested to be dismissed and the case goes forward to either settlement or trial based on whatever other issues remain.

O'Donnell must have explained that in the event that Crowley was to file a civil suit against Gates, Gates would then file a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case and the judge would decide whether or not to do so based on the merits of Gates' motion to dismiss by summary judgment coupled with Crowley's answer to that motion. The summary judgment, if granted, just dismisses the case... it doesn't do anything to Crowley. Summary judgment motions are very often filed by a defendant in a civil case as a matter or course. If Crowley were to sue Gates (thereby creating an existing civil case) I would be surprised if Gates did not file a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case just as a matter of course.

While partial summary judgments being granted in a case are somewhat common, summary judgments that dismiss an entire existing civil case are pretty rare. If Crowley was to file a civil case against Gates for libel/defamation, it isn't going to be dismissed by summary judgment.

I believe the purpose of this beer drinking session between Obama, Crowley and Gates is for Obama to act as a mediator to snuff out any escalation by either Crowley or Gates particularly concerning lawsuits, have the two men kiss and make up and for the whole thing to go away. This matter being aired out all over the press is stifling the important issues like healthcare reform that Obama wants first and foremost in the public mind, and I imagine he's not too happy about that.

[Gothmog]

43. Summary Judgments are appropriate whenever there are no fact issues

I am lawyer also and summary judgments are appropriate in any case where there are no fact issues. I have used a series of partial summary judgment to win a case when I was plaintiff in effect a breach of contract case because we ended up defeating all of the affirmative defenses and establishing breach of contract as a matter of law (if the facts are not in dispute determination of breach of contract is a question of law in Texas and most states). The case was appealed up to the Texas Sup. Ct. where we had to brief the case on the merits before the Tx. Supremes denied writ.

Here there are no facts in dispute. The Crowley arrest report speaks for itself and establishes that there was no legal basis for arresting Prof. Gates. I am not the only who has come this conclusion. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/25/757613/-Arrest-of-Prof.-Gates-Violated-His-Civil-Rights-

I have read the police report and even if it is accepted as true (which I do not necessarily accept), there are no allegations of any threat of violence or anything that reasonably could amount to "fighting words" as that term is understood. The police report, read with knowledge of the relevant case law, essentially is a concession by Sgt. Crowley that he violated the civil rights of Prof. Gates, and Prof. Gates should win a motion for summary judgment if he sues Sgt. Crowley.

In reading up on this subject, I came across the following case that involved the exact same fact pattern and was decided on the basis of summary judgments. http://openjurist.org/904/f2d/1372 In that case, one of the more conservative judges on the 9th Cir. upheld the grant of a partial summary judgment as to liability in favor of the plaintiff. One of the more interesting rulings was that the police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law

The only remaining issue, then, is whether the rights here in question were so clearly established that officer Aguilar should have known he was acting illegally when he initiated the traffic stop. We believe they were. If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person's conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property. Were the law any different--were police free to detain and question people based only on their hunch that something may be amiss--we would hardly have a need for the hundreds of founded suspicion cases the federal courts decide every year, for we would be living in a police state where law enforcement officers, not the courts, would determine who gets stopped and when.

No less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely anyone who takes an oath of office knows--or should know--that much. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 462, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Whether or not officer Aguilar was aware of the fine points of First Amendment law, to the extent he is found to have detained Duran as punishment for the latter's insults, we hold that he ought to have known that he was exercising his authority in violation of well-established constitutional rights.

If there are not fact issues, then Prof. Gates would also prevail if he sues Crowley. Right now based on the record and the arrest report, I simply do not see any fact issues as to liability in this case

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. I wasn't aware "fighting words" were required for a d/c arrest??

I thought Crowley covered the base in the arrest report with the stipulation Gates acted "tumultuous" and caused seven passers by to become "surprised and alarmed". I recognized that verbiage because I have been the victim of such a bullshit arrest.... as have friends of mine.

Now, Gates might dispute the criminal charge and prevail because the burden of proof is so high in a criminal case but I doubt Gates would prevail in a civil case - certainly not a summary judgment.

A "disorderly person" is defined as one who:

with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
recklessly creates a risk thereof
engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

[Gothmog]

49. SCOTUS has ruled that First Amendment protects speech to the police

Here is a good thread on this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6137980 Here is a good article from Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2223379

What, exactly, is disorderly conduct?

Behavior that might cause a riot. Massachusetts courts have limited the definition of disorderly conduct to: fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm. (The statute, however, just says "idle and disorderly persons," a formulation that is, on its own, patently unconstitutional.) Violators may be imprisoned for up to six months, fined a maximum of $200, or both.

The stilted language in the Gates police report is intended to mirror the courts' awkward phrasing, but the state could never make the charge stick. The law is aimed not at mere irascibility but rather at unruly behavior likely to set off wider unrest. Accordingly, the behavior must take place in public or on private property where people tend to gather. While the police allege that a crowd had formed outside Gates' property, it is rare to see a disorderly conduct conviction for behavior on the suspect's own front porch. In addition, political speech is excluded from the statute because of the First Amendment. Alleging racial bias, as Gates was doing, and protesting arrest both represent core political speech.

See also Houston v. Hill http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=451

The Houston ordinance is much more sweeping than the municipal ordinance struck down in Lewis. It is not limited to fighting words nor even to obscene or opprobrious language, but prohibits speech that "in any manner ... interrupts "an officer. The Constitution does not allow such speech to be made a crime. The freedom of individuals verbally <482 U.S. 451, 463> to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state

[Hassin Bin Sober]

54. Speech to police is protected, yes. That's why Crowley included seven bystanders in his report.

I have no doubt the criminal case would go nowhere .... but I don't see how Crowley could be held PERSONALLY liable for enforcing a statute on the books. I would think malice would have to be proved and that would be a tall order - especially since Crowley was responding to a b/e in progress.

Don't take my argument as a defense of Crowley. I think the guy is a dick. But I also think he is offered a certain amount of protection and malice would be hard to prove.

[Gothmog]

57. Criminal complaint has been dismissed

The criminal complaint was dismissed the night of the arrest.

As for civil case, the seven people in front of the house did not meet the public element required under the law. Prof. Gates has four years to sue and can sue both Crowley and the City or just Crowley. I think that based on the law that I have seen, Prof. Gates has a very strong case against the City of Cambridge and Crowley if he wants to pursue such case.

The City of Cambridge has hired some independent police experts and is conducting its own review or investigation. I doubt that Prof. Gates would do anything until after that investigation was complete because he could get some free discovery.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. I'm aware the criminal case was dismissed.

Why do you think the seven people gathered in front of the home don't meet the public element criteria?

Not that I think it would get this far, but what would happen if three or four people were to come forward and testify they were, in fact, surprised, annoyed and alarmed?

My point is, I don't think a court will hold Crowley personally liable for acting within the statute - as bogus as I think the statute is.

Correct me if I'm wrong - if a statute, as structured, is found unconstitutional, do they also attach blame to the officer enforcing the statute and hold him PERSONALLY liable?

[Gothmog]

63. This still does not satisfy public disturbance element

If the conduct occurred on private property it is very difficult to meet the conditions of the disorderly conduct law. Here is a good case that is often cited on this issue http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=appslip/appMar03i&invol=1

It also may be satisfied where the disturbance takes place in a more secluded environment, but only if members of the public are likely to be affected. See Commonwealth v. Collins, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 25, 33 (1994) (disruption occurred in area of police station that was public place); Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 543, 549 (1996) (voyeur's conduct, even though unseen by victim, occurred in public alley). Compare Commonwealth v. Blavackas, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 746, 747-750 (1981) (defendant's sexual solicitation and conduct should not have been prosecuted as disorderly conduct; regardless, public element was not met where acts took place in car parked fifty feet from street, up driveway and on lawn area of house).

Whether the disturbance itself occurs on publicly owned property is not dispositive. The public element may be satisfied where the actor's conduct takes place on private property that is frequented by the public, such as stores, apartment houses, or theaters. See Model Penal Code § 250.2 comment 2, at 329. See also Commonwealth v. Carson, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 920, 921-922 (1980) (tumultuous conduct in dormitory and abutting plaza). It also is possible that behavior occurring on purely private property may be shown to affect or be likely to affect persons in an adjacent or nearby "place to which the public or a substantial group has access," Model Penal Code § 250.2, such that a disorderly conduct charge would be appropriate. Still, "othing less than conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of public nuisance will suffice for liability." Model Penal Code § 250.2 comment 2, at 328-329.

Here, the defendant's conduct took place on purely private property. Thus, in order to satisfy the public element of the crime, the Commonwealth was required to establish that the disturbance nevertheless had or was likely to have had an impact upon persons in an area accessible to the public. This it did not do. As it stood at the end of the Commonwealth's case,(8) the actions that precipitated the defendant's arrest took place thirty to fifty feet up the driveway, shielded from off-premises view by the partially opaque fence. There was no evidence that a crowd, inquisitive neighbors, or passersby actually saw or heard the disturbance. Nor was there any evidence to establish that people could have seen or heard the defendant from any place of public access, such as a nearby sidewalk, publicly used path or road, shopping area or other neighborhood facility.

There is a good discussion of the law here on this blog http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/07/24/gates/permalink/47ed41676c1bbc0ccf5004af42dbbdd9.html

[Hassin Bin Sober]

65. According to Crowley's report, the public element WAS met.

It's in the case quotes you posted.

The public element may be satisfied where the actor's conduct takes place on private property that is frequented by the public, such as stores, apartment houses, or theaters.

It also is possible that behavior occurring on purely private property may be shown to affect or be likely to affect persons in an adjacent or nearby "place to which the public or a substantial group has access,"

....this is the sidewalk where Crowley makes sure to note "7" people had gathered and were annoyed and alarmed.

Here, the defendant's conduct took place on purely private property. Thus, in order to satisfy the public element of the crime, the Commonwealth was required to establish that the disturbance nevertheless had or was likely to have had an impact upon persons in an area accessible to the public. This it did not do. As it stood at the end of the Commonwealth's case,(8) the actions that precipitated the defendant's arrest took place thirty to fifty feet up the driveway, shielded from off-premises view by the partially opaque fence. There was no evidence that a crowd, inquisitive neighbors, or passersby actually saw or heard the disturbance. Nor was there any evidence to establish that people could have seen or heard the defendant from any place of public access, such as a nearby sidewalk, publicly used path or road, shopping area or other neighborhood facility.

This quote makes my argument.

Crowley may be a racist but he isn't stupid. He's a very seasoned veteran of this shit. That report, true or not, satisfies the public element AND the "annoyed and alarmed" persons who were "disturbed" requirement.

Like I said, the criminal D/C case against Gates wouldn't last 10 seconds in a court of law. I doubt most do under any real scrutiny. The cops who arrested me didn't even bother to show in court - I beat the case but "not the ride" as the cops like to say.

D/C is purely a judgment call by the arresting officer - woefully abused, I agree but still a judgment call.

[Gothmog]

66. Public requirement NOT met-you can not count police

I disagree. This was on Prof. Gates property and most of the people there were police who do not count for this purpose http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/07/the-henry-louis-gates-jr-arrest-and-disorderly-conduct.html

However, one requirement that Massachusetts courts have recognized is that the behavior must in some way be public.

At the very least, the conduct must be likely to have an impact on people in an area accessible to the public.

And generally, the presence of a police officer does not make the scene a public scene. In 2003, a Massacusetts Court of Appeals opinion (Commonwealth v. Mulvey, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 579) specifically held that the presence of a police officer is not enough to make behavior public. So behavior in a private setting with an officer present should not be disorderly conduct under Msssachusetts law.

The 2003 Court of Appeals decision recognized that part of the rationale behind disorderly conduct laws is to prevent public disorder -- to prevent someone from provoking violence in others. Because police officers are trained to maintain control, and routinely deal with distraught or volatile individuals, they are supposed to be less subject to provocation.

Prof. Gates was not provoking violence in others and this requirement was not met. Again, I think that Prof. Gates would get a summary judgment if he sues here

[Hassin Bin Sober]

67. I don't know why you are saying it was only police present. From the arrest report:

Clearly the public element is met .... according to the report. I don't know how you can say it's not????

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html
When I left the residence, I noted there were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Additionally, the caller, Mrs. Walen and at least seven unidentified passers-by were looking in the direction of Gates who had followed me outside the residence.

As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me............due to the tumultuous behavior exhibited in the residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly".......

.....which drew the attention of both police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates outburst

[EFerrari]

68. What part of that do you think is true? And where are all those

witnesses? :)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

69. I don't believe cops as far as I can throw them.

That said, we KNOW Walen was there. We know Walen heard Gates screaming. One would assume there were at least a couple more people present to a pretty good sized "police action" in the neighborhood.

[EFerrari]

70. Walen was there, and it is possible that a few people stopped to look

after Crowley called for more cars. He needed some bodies there in order to make the arrest.

[Gothmog]

71. The public requirement was NOT meet-there was no risk of pubic violence

You are not reading the law correctly. The so-called illegal conduct has to be in public where it can lead to public violence. Here is yet another explanation http://www.pr-inside.com/why-gates-should-sue-not-socialize-r1415279.htm

Even if Gates' statements to Crowley were offensive and abusive, Massachusetts has held that such expression is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment unless the words constitute "fighting words which by their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Since the police report states that there "were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk" at the time, and no indication that any of the "seven unidentified passers-by" were anything more than curious, it seems doubtful that anything Gates said would tend to "incite an immediate breach of the peace" under the circumstances, or that anyone would fear physical violence from a middle-aged man with a cane surrounded by police.

This conclusion is consistent with Massachusetts jury instructions which list the following elements of the crime of disorderly conduct which the police must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. The defendant engaged in fighting or threatening, or engaged in violent or tumultuous behavior, or created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act that served no legitimate purpose, AND 2. The defendant’s actions were reasonably likely to affect the public, AND 3. The defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

Under the Mass. jury instruction, it is clear that the so-called public requirement was not met. The pubic was not effected and there reckless risk of public alarm. The public requirement can only be satisfied if Prof. Gates behavior would have an adverse effect on these bystanders and no reasonable fact finder would find this to be the case

[Hassin Bin Sober]

72. We're going around in circles here.

I am reading the statue AND the jury instructions quoted by the author.

Risk of violence is not required. You and the author are keying in on fighting words and that clearly is not the case.

At the risk of appearing as if I am defending Crowley or this arrest - the report is clearly written to cover the statute AND the requirements listed in the article YOU keep posting.

From your article:

This conclusion is consistent with Massachusetts jury instructions which list the following elements of the crime of disorderly conduct which the police must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. The defendant engaged in fighting or threatening, or engaged in violent or tumultuous behavior, or created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act that served no legitimate purpose, AND 2. The defendant’s actions were reasonably likely to affect the public, AND 3. The defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

The article's author is a little mixed up. He acts as though "fighting words" and only fighting words can constitute disorderly conduct. That's not true. Tumultuous behavior that results in annoyance and alarm according to the statute AND the jury instructions he lists is enough.

He says there is no indication that any of the "seven unidentified passers-by" were anything more than curious. Really? Was the author there? Crowley will testify otherwise. He stated as much in the report.

Is Crowley's testimony enough to secure a conviction - beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course not. THAT'S why these cases get tossed when held up to any scrutiny.

Does that mean Gates is entitled to a false arrest judgment in court? Not likely. Especially when Walen appears in court and testifies she heard Gates "screaming". The burden of proof will be on GATES to prove no one was annoyed or alarmed by his own behavior. Now that the burden is on him, how do you suppose he will do that? What evidence is there that Crowley acted with any intent to NOT follow the statute OR case law? Tell me.

Furthermore, Crowley doesn't even have to PROVE annoyance or alarm. From YOUR article:

The defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

[Gothmog]

73. You are ignoring the law-The SCOTUS limits this law to "Fighting Words"

I keep pointing out that the Mass. disorderly conduct law is limited to fighting words for one very simple reason. That is the law. The SCOTUS in Houston v. Hill is very clear on this issue. The author above is ignoring the law here. The only conduct that a statute like the Mass. disorderly conduct statute can cover is fighting words. See Houston v. Hill http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=451

The Houston ordinance is much more sweeping than the municipal ordinance struck down in Lewis. It is not limited to fighting words nor even to obscene or opprobrious language, but prohibits speech that "in any manner . . . interrupts" an officer. 10 The Constitution does not allow such speech to be made a crime. 11 The freedom of individuals verbally <482 U.S. 451, 463> to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state. 12 <482 U.S. 451, 464>....

Today's decision reflects the constitutional requirement that, in the face of verbal challenges to police action, officers and municipalities must respond with restraint. We are <482 U.S. 451, 472> mindful that the preservation of liberty depends in part upon the maintenance of social order. Cf. Terminiello v. Chicago, supra, at 37 (dissenting opinion). But the First Amendment recognizes, wisely we think, that a certain amount of expressive disorder not only is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom, but must itself be protected if that freedom would survive. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is the SCOTUS who limits the applicability of this law to fighting words. Mass. case law is also consistent with the SCOTUS in this respect.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

74. The author above is ignoring the law? You posted it. Now you don't agree with it?

The case you are now referencing pertains to a very specific restriction of free speech: Hill was arrested under Houston Code of Ordinances, 34-11(a), for "willfully or intentionally interrupt a city policeman . . . by verbal challenge during an investigation."


This has no bearing on the Gates case. Gates was NOT arrested for intentionally "interrupting" a police officer. He was arrested for causing "annoyance, surprise and alarm" of private persons witnessing his public "outburst." The article and case law you posted previously specifically says "fighting words" are not a requirement in that instance.

The case you are NOW presenting seems to have set a higher hurdle for a specific action: "Interrupting" a policeman in his duties. That seems fair. In other words, you can "annoy" a cop but that doesn't rise to the level of interference unless it involves "fighting words"


So far, you haven't shown anything to support your contention it is now within your rights to act in a manner that causes "surprise, annoyance and alarm" to CIVILIAN persons in PUBLIC places.

[Gothmog]

75. You are free to ignore the law but the SCOTUS trumps your analysis

The Mass. courts and the SCOTUS all have ruled that any speech that is protected by the First Amendment can not be prosecuted under the Mass. disorderly conduct law. You are ignoring that law and the ruling of the SCOTUS. You are free to ignore the law here but the courts will care far more about the ruling of the SCOTUS in Houston v. Hill than your attempt to justify the actions of Officer Crowley. Prof. Gates' conduct was protected by the First Amendment and Prof. Gates has a summary judgment case against Crowley for this illegal arrest.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

76. The case you presented doesn't say what you think/say it does.

That case is re:speech to a policeman. That's where you are hung up. He was arrested for "annoying and alarming" civilians through "tumultuous" behavior and that is NOT protected. The jury instructions you mentioned earlier support that.

"Any speech that is protected by the first amendment" ........ and therein lies the rub - disorderly conduct (screaming yelling annoying and acting tumultuous) is not protected.

And I'll say it again - I'm not justifying Crowley's behavior. This thread is about Gates' ability to get a judgment against Crowley - I don't think that will happen since he used a "valid" statute on the books.

[Gothmog]

77. The Case is applicable and it is you who does not understand the law here

This is getting silly. The case is applicable. Prof. Gates was making comments at the time to Crowley. The speech was protected by the First Amendment and your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

There is a great deal of Massachusetts law on this topic and some of this law predates Houston v. Hill http://www.reason.com/news/show/135084.html

Even if we accept Crowley's version of events, the arrest was not justified (a conclusion reinforced by the city's decision to drop the charge). Let's say Gates did initially refuse to show his ID—an understandable response from an innocent man confronted by police in his own home. Let's say he immediately accused Crowley of racism and behaved in a "loud and tumultuous" fashion. So what? By Crowley's own account, he arrested Gates for dissing him. That's not a crime, or at least it shouldn't be.

In Massachusetts, as in many states, the definition of disorderly conduct is drawn from the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code. A person is considered disorderly if he "engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior...with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm" or "recklessly creates a risk thereof."

Crowley claims Gates recklessly created public alarm by haranguing him from the porch of his house, attracting a small crowd that included "at least seven unidentified passers-by" as well as several police officers. Yet it was Crowley who suggested that Gates follow him outside, thereby setting him up for the disorderly conduct charge.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that Crowley was angered and embarrassed by Gates' "outburst" and therefore sought to create a pretext for arresting him. "When he has the uniform on," a friend later told The New York Times, "Jim has an expectation of deference."

As the Massachusetts Appeals Court has noted, "the theory behind criminalizing disorderly conduct rests on the tendency of the actor's conduct to provoke violence in others."

See also http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2009/07/gates-gate-whats-the-law-say.html

In a 1976 decision, Commonwealth v. Richards, 369 Mass. 443, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the First Amendment prevents application of the disorderly conduct law to language and expressive conduct, even when it is offensive and abusive. The one exception would be language that falls outside the protection of the First Amendment, "fighting words which by their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

See also http://blog.masslive.com/thefray/2009/07/what_is_disorderly_conduct_in.html

Arrest under Massachusetts "idle and disorderly person" statute was unlawful under Massachusetts law, where defendant was arrested for yelling, screaming, swearing and generally causing a disturbance but, though the yelling was undoubtedly loud enough to attract the attention of other guests in hotel, it did not rise to level of "riotous commotion" or "public nuisance." U.S. v. Pasqualino, D.Mass.1991, 768 F.Supp. 13....

Defendant who did not physically resist his arrest arising out of a domestic violence incident could not be convicted of disorderly conduct based solely on his loud and angry tirade, which included profanities, directed at police officers as he was being escorted to police cruiser, even if spectators gathered to watch defendant; defendant did not make any threats or engage in violence, and his speech did not constitute fighting words. Com. v. Mallahan (2008) 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 889 N.E.2d 77, 2008 WL 2404550....

Defendant's conduct, namely, flailing his arms and shouting at police, victim of recent assault, or both, after being told to leave area by police, did not amount to "violent or tumultuous behavior" within scope of disorderly conduct statute, absent any claim that defendant's protestations constituted threat of violence, or any evidence that defendant's flailing arms were anything but physical manifestation of his agitation or that noise and commotion caused by defendant's behavior was extreme. Com. v. Lopiano (2004) 805 N.E.2d 522, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 723.

The First Amendment has limited the Massachusetts disorderly conduct law to situations where there is a risk of violence i.e., fighting words. You may not like the law but the law is clear here

[datasuspect]

15. he's an intellectual midget drinking beers with intellectual giants

he's probably trying to level the playing field a bit.

[whistler162]

53. No need to insult Professor Gates.... He is probably tired

from his flight to DC!

[datasuspect]

61. are you saying the cop is an intellectual?

where is he a professor or what country is he the president of?

[dogtag]

16. Where does it say

that the lawyer and the union official coming to the White House was Sgt. Crowley's idea?

[Raschel]

18. A reflection of the kind of cop/person he is. A bully and a coward.

[BlooInBloo]

33. Yep.

[seabeyond]

34. but.... the bully truly is the coward. nt

[opihimoimoi]

19. FOR GODS SAKE...This beer thing was supposed to be a friendly beer to patch things

in a friendly way

To bring lawyers is a hugh mistake...it sends the wrong message...upsets the intent...

MEism at work....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. LOL

[pnorman]

23. If I were to invite a couple of guys over for a beer,

and one of them were to decide to bring along a lawyer and a union official, I'd probably say: "SORRY!" Buy your own fucking beer!"

(Purely hypothetical; I quit drinking many years ago)

pnorman

[ecstatic]

24. Uggh what a jerk & coward

He couldn't face Gates and the President alone, I see.

[TexasObserver]

28. What a coward. This guy just proves more and more what a dork he is.

[cloudbase]

30. They don't have to let

the union guy and the attorney in. They can cool their heels in the reception area.

Crowley's action here is a tacit acknowledgment that we don't have a justice system, we have a legal system.

[lame54]

37. will the lawyer get a percentage of the beer?

[Strong Atheist]

46. !

:spray:

:rofl:

[orleans]

38. i didn't realize obama invited crowley to bring his whole fucking posse. n/t

[Fire1]

39. HA! It figures. Too many powerful black folks in one place.

Got to level the playing field some how. I get it.

[EFerrari]

40. Or, the union wants a shot at hooking up with the president..

It's hard to blame them for trying.

[Fire1]

41. I'll never believe that. If the President was white, yes.

I believe this is all about leverage. These fascist mother f*****s HATE him! Did you see the thread where two police officers ran
a backround check on the President of the United States??????????????? THAT says it all.

[EFerrari]

42. I understand and largely agree with you. But these same people

are attracted to power like moths to a light bulb.

[zbdent]

47. didn't another call Gates a "jungle monkey"?

answering my own question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8559363

guess that the crowd who loves the idea of the government reading citizens' e-mails ("If you're not breaking the law, why are you worried?") got bitten in the ass ...

[BlooInBloo]

45. Crowley is himself a walking, talking sign of weakness.

[ColbertWatcher]

50. B-b-but ...

... SEKRITMUSLINBIRTHCERTIFICATE!

[BlooInBloo]

51. "I'm glad Joe is here, in case you two try to jump me."

[ColbertWatcher]

52. ...

... Heh, heh ... http://www.wikiality.com/Daily_Poll#July_30.2C_2009

[gleaner]

56. Could be a sign....

that he knows he falsified a police report and wants to protect himself from jail by having representatives to protect him.

[Gothmog]

60. Lawyer and Union Pres. were at Crowley's press conference

The lawyer and the union rep were at Crowley press conference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWyfOFmooA0

[Tim01]

62. He is not highly educated. He needs some people around him at this thing.

All though it is supposed to be friendly, he would be in deep shit if things went not so friendly. He is a cop not a lawyer.

[onenote]

64. and professor gates brought his attorney

Gates attorney and Crowley's representatives met separately. And, yes, I know that they could've met in Cambridge. But they all decided to meet in DC.

In other words, the poutrage on this thread is misplaced.


"As Gates and Crowley met with Obama, Ogletree met with Alan McDonald, the lawyer for the police unions in Massachusetts, and other law enforcement representatives from Cambridge to talk about how both camps can work together."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003563_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009073004266