Prof. Gates arrested. Legal?

[ObamaSaidStupid]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

I'm wondering about Prof. Gates being arrested by Cambridge police. The charges were dropped, but why? Was it because the arrest was bogus, or because of publicity? If the charges were dropped because the arrest was bogus, can Prof. Gates sue the police department or the arresting officer?

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

I'm wondering about Prof. Gates being arrested by Cambridge police. The charges were dropped, but why? Was it because the arrest was bogus, or because of publicity?

The vast majority of public disturbance and delaying an officer arrests are dismissed. Largely, this is because the matter is considered resolved by the arrest itself. Unless the prosecutor has reason to believe that the pattern of problems will continue, they tend not to file on these.

If the charges were dropped because the arrest was bogus, can Prof. Gates sue the police department or the arresting officer?

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. I imagine he WILL try to sue ... and the city will almost certainly settle out of court. Though with the firestorm this has created, while the city may want to settle, I imagine the police department will vote to dig in its heels. But, with the mayor already apologizing, I imagine that any suit will be met by a CPA and a checkbook asking, "How much?"

If the police report and the gist of the witness accounts are to be believed, the officer(s) did everything by the numbers and Prof. Gates was foolish enough to exacerbate a situation that never should have gotten that far.

The full police report is available on line at ...

http://www.policeone.com/policeone/data/pdfs/sgt_crowley_report.pdf

- Carl

 

[JakeB]

I agree with one thing CdwJava wrote:

The vast majority of public disturbance and delaying an officer arrests are dismissed.

He may be right that some are dismissed because the arrest itself resolved the matter, but that is probably rare. Most of those types of cases are dropped because the arrest is BS and there would never be a conviction.

In this particular case, Gates was probably acting like a jerk. But yelling at a cop and calling him a racist is not illegal. Any law that makes it illegal would be unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the police officer arrested him, probably to teach Gates a lesson. If you actually read the disorderly conduct law in MA, you'll see that Gates did not even come close to actually violating it.

Gates may sue, but I would be surprised. He's already got money, so his purpose would be to bring more attention to the matter. But this has already gotten enough attention, and I think Gates will soon realize that although the arrest was BS, it had nothing to do with race. Plus, winning the lawsuit will boil down to proving that the police officer maliciously arrested Gates. That will be tough to prove, particularly since a million cops around the country will be glad to testify that an arrest in those circumstances is standard (though that doesn't mean that the arrest wasn't BS).

 

[BL]

I find this interesting .

At first read , the neighbor noticed someone trying to break the door in and reported it .

Apparently the professor had been away for awhile , and was having a time gaining entry to his home.

The police arrived and the professor was uncooperative and then caused a scene .

How is that racial?

I can't find the clip now ,but an African American women was saying if anyone was racist ,it was the neighbor .

Oh , right .

And now the White House has invited all ..

Here we Go Jessee....

 

[Just Blue]

It wasn't racial. The officer did his job properly and should NOT apologize for it. Gates should beg forgiveness for the disparaging comments made.

 

[CdwJava]

He may be right that some are dismissed because the arrest itself resolved the matter, but that is probably rare. Most of those types of cases are dropped because the arrest is BS and there would never be a conviction.

Obviously, our experiences in this area differ.

But, keep in mind that an arrest requires only the probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that the suspect committed the crime. A conviction in court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and most prosecutors have no great interest in wasting time and resources on a low grade misdemeanor. hence, they are dismissed. It's more a matter of resource management than an indictment on the quality of the arrest.

While a conviction may not be likely, that is not the standard necessary for an arrest. The arrest can be good even if there is no chance of a conviction. We make those arrests all the time ... many DVs and public intoxication arrests fall into that category, yet we still make the arrest.

So, in the end, the answer to the question is almost certainly going to be, "Yes. The arrest was legal."

And if anything this is a case about attitude, not about race.

- Carl

 

[JakeB]

But, keep in mind that an arrest requires only the probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that the suspect committed the crime.

So, in the end, the answer to the question is almost certainly going to be, "Yes. The arrest was legal."

Probable cause? What crime did the officer reasonably believe was being committed? Have you read the MA disorderly conduct law? In a nutshell, the police officer would have needed to reasonably believe that Gates was going to cause a riot.

 

[CdwJava]

Probable cause? What crime did the officer reasonably believe was being committed? Have you read the MA disorderly conduct law? In a nutshell, the police officer would have needed to reasonably believe that Gates was going to cause a riot.

I don't know about that one, but I've read the one cited in the police report:

Chapter 272: Section 53.
Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.​

It seems mighty vague and subjective, thus leaving a great deal of wiggle room for articulated probable cause. But, if it is intentionally vague and thus grants probable cause with some ease, that's the fault of the legislature and the courts, not the officers.

As I said, probable cause is a lesser standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if a prosecution was not likely to meet the legal standard for a conviction it does not necessarily infer that the arrest was unlawful.

- Carl

 

[JakeB]

I don't know about that one, but I've read the one cited in the police report:

Chapter 272: Section 53.
Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.​

It seems mighty vague and subjective, thus leaving a great deal of wiggle room for articulated probable cause. But, if it is intentionally vague and thus grants probable cause with some ease, that's the fault of the legislature and the courts, not the officers.

As I said, probable cause is a lesser standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if a prosecution was not likely to meet the legal standard for a conviction it does not necessarily infer that the arrest was unlawful.

- Carl

It's vague because that's just the statute that punishes disorderly conduct. Here's what disorderly conduct is defined as under MA law:

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(a) engages in fighting or threatening or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or

(c) creates a hazardous, or physically offensive, condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor

So Gates would have needed to be purposely or recklessly creating the risk of a public (public means public at-large, not a police officer) inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. And he would have needed to be creating that problem by threatening violence or by actually being violent.

The purpose of the law is literally to prevent riots. Yelling at a cop doesn't fit the bill. There was no probable cause. It was a bad arrest.

edit --- subsection (b) is purposely omitted as not applying in MA.

 

[CdwJava]

It's vague because that's just the statute that punishes disorderly conduct.

That's what it seems on its face ... however, THAT is the section cited in the actual police report. It also seems to be the section that is cited for generic disturbances of this sort that are not covered by the other, more specific statutes.

The purpose of the law is literally to prevent riots. Yelling at a cop doesn't fit the bill. There was no probable cause. It was a bad arrest.

I disagree, since that not the section for which the police said he was arrested. If you look up disorderly conduct for MA on the web you find numerous references to C272 S53 ... the section I cited, and the police cited. When even attorneys are printing that section as the "disorderly conduct" section, I suspect that is the section - vague as it might be - that is used.

Since that seems to be the general section used, it would seem that the arrest was lawful. I would certainly support legislation to refine this section and remove its vagueness. But, as it is, it seems to cover a variety of offenses not otherwise covered in the section you were looking at and their penalties.


- Carl

 

[JakeB]

That's what it seems on its face ... however, THAT is the section cited in the actual police report. It also seems to be the section that is cited for generic disturbances of this sort that are not covered by the other, more specific statutes.


I disagree, since that not the section for which the police said he was arrested. If you look up disorderly conduct for MA on the web you find numerous references to C272 S53 ... the section I cited, and the police cited. When even attorneys are printing that section as the "disorderly conduct" section, I suspect that is the section - vague as it might be - that is used.

Since that seems to be the general section used, it would seem that the arrest was lawful. I would certainly support legislation to refine this section and remove its vagueness. But, as it is, it seems to cover a variety of offenses not otherwise covered in the section you were looking at and their penalties.


- Carl

That may be what people are quoting, but read part of this MA case Com. v. Mulvey, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 579, 2003:

The statute authorizing prosecutions for disorderly conduct, G.L. c. 272, § 53, has been saved from constitutional infirmity by incorporating the definition of "disorderly" contained in § 250.2(1)(a) and (c) of the Model Penal Code. The resulting definition of `disorderly' ... includes only those individuals who, `with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ...(a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or ... (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

So, if Gates was arrested for 272 § 53, then that means the police officer, to have probable cause, must have reasonably believed that Gates was guilty of 250.2(1)(a), (c) (which is the statute I quoted). That was not a reasonable belief, and it was a bad arrest.

 

[JakeB]

Also, read the statute that I quoted, then go back and reread the police report. The police officer attempts to link the facts to the statute I quoted by using key phrases that are right out of it. Things like the "public" was "alarmed," and Gates' behavior was "tumultuous." That report was very much written with the statute I quoted in mind. But it doesn't change the fact that Gates' conduct doesn't really fit the bill.

 

[tranquility]

The cop does not need to be right, he just needs to be arguably right. It seems to me the only one with a racial agenda or *demonstrated* racial bias here is the professor. The officer acted reasonably from his accounts and what I believe the evidence will show (I'd love to hear the tapes.), up until the moment of arrest. I don't think many there will believe that the professor should have been arrested. I do think the professor completely misinterpreted the situation, got his panties in a bunch and escalated things to the point they got to.

At least from the officer's report, there could be a case made in CA for the delaying statute. While a person does not have to follow instructions with alacrity, the cop was reasonably there and was conducting a reasonable investigation which was unreasonably delayed by the professor's actions.

But, does anyone here think the whitest Irishman in the world would have been treated differently under the same circumstances? (With the change of two white males possibly breaking in on the 911 call.) Really? I believe this is a contempt of cop arrest. But, that doesn't fit the all cops (all society) are[is] racist, and act on it, schema which one of the two main parties involved makes his living lecturing and writing on.

 

[JakeB]

It seems to me the only one with a racial agenda or *demonstrated* racial bias here is the professor. The officer acted reasonably from his accounts and what I believe the evidence will show (I'd love to hear the tapes.), up until the moment of arrest. I don't think many there will believe that the professor should have been arrested. I do think the professor completely misinterpreted the situation, got his panties in a bunch and escalated things to the point they got to.

I believe this is a contempt of cop arrest.

I agree with this. The prof probably acted like a jerk and is most likely wrong about any racism. The cop was in the right ... until he made the "contempt of cop" arrest. It was completely unwarranted. The cop should have just gotten The hell out of there when he realized that no crime had been committed.

 

[justalayman]

:



So, if Gates was arrested for 272 § 53, then that means the police officer, to have probable cause, must have reasonably believed that Gates was guilty of 250.2(1)(a), (c) (which is the statute I quoted). That was not a reasonable belief, and it was a bad arrest.

I totally disagree. In fact, if you read the police report again, consider the possibility the officer was actually setting up Gates to be arrested. His statements of "tumultuous acts" and the public reacting to Gates actions fit the statute quite well.

While I am not claiming the arrest was the actual intent of the officers actions, the officers statements do show that he did believe Gates to be guilty of the law. If nothing else, maybe the police are trained to make such statements simply because of the questions that follow so they write their report with the specific requirements of the law in mind simply to remove the questions.

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(a) engages in fighting or threatening or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or

(c) creates a hazardous, or physically offensive, condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor

How many people use the word "tumultuous" in normal conversation? He keyed on that term specifically. The officers intent would be the only question remaining.

and yes, Gates actions do fit the bill, at least by the officers statement. Gates was loud and invoking terms intentionally meant to cause alarm and the officer specifically uses the term tumultuous in describing Gates. What else do you want?

But, does anyone here think the whitest Irishman in the world would have been treated differently under the same circumstances? (With the change of two white males possibly breaking in on the 911 call.) Really? I believe this is a contempt of cop arrest. But, that doesn't fit the all cops (all society) are[is] racist, and act on it, schema which one of the two main parties involved makes his living lecturing and writing on.

I believe Gates was treated properly. The officer was verbally accosted by Gates. Crowleys actions are explained quite well and fit well within the situation at hand. Only after Gates continued to accost Crowley AND after Gates was warned was he arrested. While you want to claim contempt of cop (which I will not totally dismiss being possible), I see it as simply a necessary action to bring an end to the situation that Gates had obvious intent to continue. While it may be legal to berate an officer, it is not legal to cause the disturbance he did. Gates' actions appeared to be quite deliberate in an attempt to garner the publics attention. He just got a little more attention than he expected.

and would it have happened to a couple of white guys? I'm sure it has, somewhere in the country, even without the officer being black. I do not believe race had any place in this entire situation. The officer admits to believing Gates was the occupant but merely sought to confirm that. Is there anything wrong with that?

While it may be legal to berate an officer, at some point, such an action does cross the line. An officer does not have to be subjected to continued abuse with no recourse indefinitely.