Crowley vs. Gates

Remove all ads!

Yes, the owner has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and the owner can ask police to leave at any point, but a 911 call about a break-in without any sign of the homeowner (outside, if he's inside they have to go in to find out) is still probably cause for entry. And actually, a police officer can pursue a fleeing suspect onto private property and anything he sees out in the open in that private property is admissible in court.

The 4th amendment protects you from "unreasonable" search and seizure. If there's reason, they're allowed to search and seize.

 

Did any of you read the "reasonable" part, in "a REASONABLE expectation of privacy?" We can always point to exceptions, but my comments are mostly regarding general situations. The point of the 4th Amendment is to protect a private citizen from abusive government intrusion.

Actually, I heard the 911 tape and the caller even commented that "it could just be someone locked out of his own home." In this instance, the caller had more sense of what was going on than the police were able to figure out, if they thought that Gates was lying (which they didn't, as revealed in the report). If the cop isn't a moron, he can usually figure out in the first few moments that the perosn is the homeowner. They can certainly ask for an ID, just to be sure, but they need to respectful and polite once they start making demands on a private citizen who is in his/her own home, and going about his business in a lawful manner.

 

If the cop had been respectful and polite and it tutned out he'd been conned, the Race Card gang would be accusing him of racism for NOT exercising due diligence in the defense of Gates' property ("he would have taken the time to find out the truth if it had been a WHITE man's house!")

Gates should have dropped it and filed a suit the next morning if he felt he'd been seriously wronged. As it was, the cop was leaving and he just had to keep on being a pain in the <donkey>.

 

I'm not backing off anything. I was speaking generally, while I suppose you were taking this in an absolute, every single time, no-matter-what, instance, which was not my intent.

Nevertheless, my view is from that of the Revolutionary generation. As the article that you quote from points out, the 4th Amendment has its roots in the famous Writs of Assistance case. I would recommend that you take a close look at James Otis' comments during the trial, and how it affected those who were profoundly moved by them, including John Adams. The case is often considered the spark that set off the Revolution.

I would not, since the homeowner informed the police that they had no idea what they were talkig about in that regard.

 

OK, clarify something for me here -- once the police officer ascertained that Gates was the legal homeowner, what did he do? It is my understanding that he left -- am I wrong? If he left after learning that Gates was the owner, what was Gates' problem? Why did he escalate the issue? If the cop did not leave after learning Gates' true identity, what did he do to provoke Gates?

 

My understanding (and no one really seems to know) was that Gates explained to Crowley that he was locked out of his house and had to force the door. When Crowely demanded an ID (which Gates said was in a rude and condenscending tone) he refused, saying "don't you know who I am?" And "If I was a white guy you wouldn't be asking me."

You learn to deal with that kind of stuff when you work with the public. I'll never forget one guy, I asked him for an ID to run his credit for a new computer system. Would you want me to make sure that it was really you I was about to open an account for? The guy was huge and turned ugly, "You wouldn't be asking me for an ID if I was white" he muttered, angrily. I just smiled and explained very calmly that it was policy to ask for an ID to open a credit account. I explained to him that it was for his own protection that we did ID checks. And yeah, he was a cop.

BTA - Sorry, I don't see that in your link. Where does it say that a rumored break-in is grounds for a forced entry if the homeowner objects?

 

Oh, sorry again, BTA, I was trying to agree with you on that one (I guess I was confused). My bad.

 

Chandos, saying it doesn't make it true. ANYONE could claim to live in the house. Without verifying it, the officers can't just take someone's word at it. The thing you seem to be forgetting is that the officers didn't know who the guy was. That was the whole point of asking for ID. Could the officer have been more polite about it? Sure, but being rude isn't illegal, even for an officer. Being rude didn't remove his authority, either.

Yeah, that guy was an idiot. It still didn't mean you could just take his word for it, though.

Did a confirmed homeowner object to the entry? And note that careful use of the word "confirmed". Did the man provide his ID, prove he was the homeowner, and the police still forced their way in? Because that's not what it sounds like happened.

 

T2,
did I read that right? I find that line of thinking highly objectionable. Not only can an officer allow that - he has to.

The purpose of the police, of law enforcement personnel, is to enforce the law. Any arrest is an infringement of rights, and thus only allowed in response to a violation of laws. There is no law requiring citizens to be courteous to the police. There is no law that the police is to be respected. Maybe there is a law against insulting the police. Certainly, the credibility of the police is no good in itself, and it being at risk is most certainly not a reason to arrest someone, infringing on his rights, to make an example in order to stay 'credible'. Much less so, after it has become clear that there was no crime and that they have pestered an innocent citizen.

You're perhaps not aware of it, but what you talk about is basically nothing but the 'street cred' of armed men and force. This is just like the days of Billy the Kid. You have an armed man going down a dusty street and that is authority. That was then and now the US has established laws, constitutional rights and law enforcement, and they don't allow the police arrests for not losing face after embarrassing themselves.

Gates might be a jerk, but that is beside the point. If the police officers in Gate's case followed your suggested line of reasoning (i.e. re-establishing 'street cred' presumably lost through Gate's probably justified harangue) they are goons and thugs, because what they do is no longer motivated by the dictates of law enforcement but simply by their pursuit of personal or group interests, like their personal 'street cred' or ego or that of the police as a whole.

If Gates insulted the cops he might have, depending on the law on that, perhaps committed a misdemeanour, but that would not justify an arrest - as the facts were established, the witnesses plenty, and the identity of Gates known - everything a judge or prosecutor wants and needs. It is not the police's job to deal out punishment against uppity citizens.

 

NOG - I not taking sides in this matter, since I believe that both sides were in the wrong. My only concern is for the Constitution and property rights. I guess that makes me more Libertarian than liberal on this one, since I don't see this as a race issue, but an issue of individual rights.

 

T2 is exactly right. With all of the bad press they get, the police always need to save face with the public. They didn't make the arrest because they are goons. Quite the contrary, the arrest was made to dissimulate the situation from escalating into violence. Angry words lead to violence more often than not. The last thing any police force wants is a violent scene in public, with witnesses. No matter how lawful their actions are, it will be blown up all over the media and dissected into bits with accusations of fault that are just absurd. Don't get me wrong, there are times when certain cops blantantly cross the line, but this was not one of them.

 

Don't be silly. Escalating? Escalating into what? To prevent 'Gate's harangue from escalating' the police would have to do what? Leave, that is, remove the source and object of his justified anger, and let the man go to bed. He was on his way there anyway.

That approach would certainly have been at least as effective in defusing the situation, and far less intrusive than arresting him. There was no need for the police to stay on after they found out that there was no crime.

 

Ragusa ... the police WERE leaving. Gates followed them out and continued to verbally abuse the officer in public. At that point it was not about escalating -- I don't think anyone believed Gates was a threat -- Gates' arrest was all about maintaining the authority (both real and perceived) of the police.

Had Gates let it go and simply stayed in his house after the police left he would never have been arrested.

 

The police overreacted. Gates was no threat to anyone, despite his harangue, and they should have shrugged it off.

See it from Gate's point of view. The police kept him at his house, probably after confronting him at gunpoint; he eventually convinced them, in his own house, that he was living there, and only then, and slowly the cops decided to leave - and all Gate's was supposed to do was to pliantly say: "Yessir! Thank you Sir!" The man had every reason to be angry. To arrest him for freaking out is adding insult to injury.

The cops would have been well advised to suck it up.

Also, there is, in particular among conservatives and centrists, an undue deference to police - in a sense contrasting the utter distrust on the fringes of the left (and, coming to think of it, right). The truth is somewhere in the middle, suggesting conservatives to be more critical.

 

They were leaving when Gates blew up at them. Now we have a 2nd situation, not just a break-in call. This was not a situation where the cops were the aggressers, quite the opposite. Arresting Gates was no abuse of power, just a safe resolution to a potential problem. Hence they let him go at the precint. Do yopu really think they were going to prosecute him? Highly unlikely. They were put into a bad spot and choose the best resolution, given the circumstances. By leaving and letting Gates taunt and throw accusations in public puts all police officers(and potentially others) at risk in later situations, as this shows it is ok to be aggressive with the police. To believe that type of behavior is ok is a disgrace and I would hope that any American that loves and honors his country would belive otherwise.The police have to shut that type of behavior down before it becomes acceptable by society, for everyone's sake. Otherwise, we degenerate as a Society.

 

Have you even read any of the accounts of what happened?

Both sides overreacted. Period. Blame can be liberally spread to both sides of the issue.

 

Salomonic.

Practically, it means what? They were justified to arrest Gates, because he carried some of the blame? And he is entitled to arrest them? Hardly. Or is Gates to sue them because they share some of the blame? I don't see that as a satisfactory result. This is not about give and take. The parties here are not equal. The issue is about state authority being imposed on a citizen, in a situation in which the police shares some of blame. If the police shares some of the blame that suggests that they should have engaged in self restraint.

Any anyway, to pick up your and BoV's point, I don't see how him getting agitated when the police was leaving makes any difference. Sometimes things take time to sink in, that's unsurprising. I don't see that as in any way justifying the arrest, or making it any more plausible. Getting agitated is no criminal offence, irrespective of the police leaving, coming or not being there at all.