An analysis of Officer Crowley's misbehavior without reference to race.

[enough]

This was linked on Brad De Long's blog today.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/crime_control_/2009/07/nightmare_on_ware_street.php

July 22, 2009
Nightmare on Ware Street
Posted by Mark Kleiman

Lowry Heussler, who has worked on police-misconduct cases in Massachusetts, writes:

****************

A couple of years ago, my neighbor locked herself out and figured she could save the locksmith charge if she could get to an unlocked door on her second floor porch. A Cambridge police officer happened by and helped us carry an extension ladder across the street from my garage. He even held the ladder steady while my nimble neighbor ascended to the porch. The police officer never asked two laughing Caucasian women to prove we were not burglars.

We all know that race and sex explain the difference in the way Sgt. James Crowley treated Professor Gates, but I'd like to leave that to the side for now. The incendiary issue of race in policing diverts public attention from examining the foundation of Crowley's misconduct. When addressing basic errors in law and fact can solve a problem, we should start there before tackling the enormous and slippery issues of race and crime investigation. We're all talking about whether Lucia Whalen should have called the police and whether race was a factor in Sgt. Crowley's deplorable treatment of Gates, but so far, I have seen no straightforward analysis of Crowley's own account of his actions.

Sgt. Crowley's report almost certainly contains intentional falsehoods, but even accepting his account at face value, the report tells us all we need to conclude that Crowley was in the wrong here, and by a large factor.

The crime of disorderly conduct, beloved by cops who get into arguments with citizens, requires that the public be involved. Here's the relevant law from the Massachusetts Appeals Court, with citations and quotations omitted:

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.' "Public" is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.

The lesson most cops understand (apart from the importance of using the word "tumultuous," which features prominently in Crowley's report) is that a person cannot violate 272/53 by yelling in his own home.

Read Crowley's report and stop on page two when he admits seeing Gates's Harvard photo ID. I don't care what Gates had said to him up until then, Crowley was obligated to leave. He had identified Gates. Any further investigation of Gates' right to be present in the house could have been done elsewhere. His decision to call HUPD seems disproportionate, but we could give him points for thoroughness if he had made that call from his car while keeping an eye on the house. Had a citizen refused to leave Gates' home after being told to, the cops could have made an arrest for trespass.

snip> Much more, well worth the read

[TexasObserver]

1. Recommend

[seabeyond]

2. a simple "you are right, you belong. sorry to disturb, bye" would have done it

having been approached by many cops, they first treat you as criminal (most of them and i so dont look criminal so it tells me about everyone else approached by cops) . that raises anger. then he knew he belong and had to prolong it with further checking if he belongs. in his own report, which i know is not "factual" he says knew he belonged and checked further..... cop wrong

the man was a vet cop, he trained in diversity adn the anger on the streets, teaching how to defuse. he was a paid, profressional who is trained how to handle these situations. he egged a confrontation

[RDANGELO]

3. When I was a kid,

and both of my parents were working, they left a side door unlocked for us to enter. Sometimes they forgot, and I entered through a basement window. This must have happened dozens of times, and no one ever called the cops. This was in the 1960s, in an all white neighborhood.

[jberryhill]

4. Guy Was Arrested On My Street Two Weeks Ago

...even though the address on his driver's license was the address of the house he was trying to enter.

Of course, his wife had kicked him out the week before that, and had obtained a restraining order against him.

So, I'm still confused at the notion that simply because your address is the one on your idea that you are lawfully present there, because it is not always true, and it is quite common for separated/divorced spouses to break into homes which are, indeed, printed on their drivers' licenses.

Cops should know better, though, than to hassle people who have wealth and power - and this cop is toast.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Uh - your example is stupid.

But you knew that right?

Your 'guy' was arrested explicitly because of a restraining order on file with the PD prohibiting him from being where he was. That has nothing to do with the Gates case, unless of course the Cambridge PD had a restraining order on file prohibiting Gates from being in his own house.

[jberryhill]

10. They are not filed with the PD, sorry

My neighbor had to produce it to the cops in order to prove that he was not allowed to enter.

The main thing here is that the cop should have known better than to screw with someone who has wealth and status.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Uh - sure they are - but this is irrelevant

The cop in question may not have known that there was a restraining order on file, but when you get a restraining order a copy is sent by the court to the relevant PD.

All of which is irrelevant. Yes of course if there is a court order prohibiting you from being in a specific location, for example your house, then yes the police can enforce that order. Now, what exactly does that have to do with the Gates case? Oh, right, absolutely nothing.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. If I understand it, Crowley baited Gates onto the porch in order

to have some grounds for a 'public' disturbance. My guess is that whatever was said inside the house caused Crowley to decide to punish Gates with an arrest and the only way to do that was to get Gates to step outside.

[joeybee12]

9. "Baited"...as you understand it, that is apparently Gates' attorney's point...

...not Crowley's...the problem with this whole mess is people are chooising sides based on what he said/he said...very little facts we're judging on in this story.

[WeDidIt]

6. Gates needs to sue Crowley

It's clear that Crowley violated the law in arresting Gates.

Gates needs to sue because this case is importnat for those Massachusetts citizens who are not Harvard Professors and do not know the president.

[joeybee12]

8. According to Crowley, he then left, it was Gates who followed him outside

and continued berating him...asked him to calm down, didn't, continued after him...if that's the case, then it's a whole new ballgame.

[Wednesdays]

12. OT, but your name made me laugh

"I've seen enough on DU"
"Let's see if there are enough threads today."
"Do we have enough agreeing with us on this issue?"
"Don't stop 'til you get enough."

:rofl:

Kicked & rec'd, by the way.
:kick:

[enough]

13. Actually, I took the name from an all-purpose political button I used to have back in the sixties:

The button was black with big white letters saying:

ENOUGH

I wore it to countless demonstrations for various causes. Wish I still had it.

[TahitiNut]

14. Exactly what I've been saying.

"The crime of disorderly conduct ... requires that the public be involved."

In and of itself, this is a CLEAR indicator that Crowley overreached .... OBVIOUSLY in an autocratic, don't-fuck-with-me fit of pique. While nobody can read the heart and mind of another and it's not at all unusual for a cop to 'punish' anyone who fails to OBEY the BADGE ... it's not at all unreasonable to conclude that Crowley's attitude was seasoned by a perception of an "uppity black man."

The 'smoking gun' is the go-to and contrived charge of disorderly conduct ... where NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT is material to the incident.