Henry Louis Gates Arrested in his own home

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Where did I say I never heard of this guy? Show me!

Get your facts straight.

LOL, are you trying to tell me that you're personally acquainted with Mr. Gates to the point that you have familiarity with some apparent desire to self aggrandize? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that isn't the case.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

1. The burden of establishing probable cause for entering a residence without permission. (i.e. the race of the person inside should not be sufficient).

According to our own Supreme Court (have not reviewed US jurisprudence), the PO had probable cause.

1) Report of crime in progress at particular location
2) Individual unknown to PO generally fitting the description at that particular location
3) Said individual refused to cooperate with PO and identify himself

In Canada anyhow, that is sufficient for the PO to go in and arrest the individual (not to mention have a look around for drugs, thanks to Mdme. Justice L'Horeux Dube ). Not sure about US law.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by peter12

I have no problems with race. I don't "see it" to the greatest extent possible. I'm actually capable of looking at these issues in a grown-up matter.

Racism is a moral issue. We are all racists, thus we all have to deal with the issue in the same way. Racism is never acceptable, but an examination from a systemic or social perspective is stupid. It's okay if that's all you have experienced, I mean, observing some other guys' failure to get into a club must have been a pretty insightful experience, but really...

You're right man! You are so insightful! Please help me see the light! I bet you drive a really fast car too!

Take the prententious self-righteousness elsewhere, and stop being a bitter old man. On an anonymous internet message board, your opinion is as worthless as mine. Don't forget that.

Racism exists on a daily basis. And if you can't see that, you have lived a very sheltered life, or have been blinded by your own bias. The prejudice you experience as an old white man versus that of a 20 year old black man aren't even comparable.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Oh Vlad...this year is the big test to see who is truly right on that point...can't wait to prove you wrong!

You do realize I win either way?

[VladtheImpaler]

BTW the second PO (who is Hispanic? Black?) backs up the "racist" cop.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

You're right man! You are so insightful! Please help me see the light! I bet you drive a really fast car too!

Take the prententious self-righteousness elsewhere, and stop being a bitter old man. On an anonymous internet message board, your opinion is as worthless as mine. Don't forget that.

Racism exists on a daily basis. And if you can't see that, you have lived a very sheltered life, or have been blinded by your own bias. The prejudice you experience as an old white man versus that of a 20 year old black man aren't even comparable.

Heh, I'm a 23 year old graduate student, who also works part-time for an organization that assists international democratic movements. Might want to watch your stereotypes.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by peter12

Heh, I'm a 23 year old graduate student, who also works part-time for an organization that assists international democratic movements. Might want to watch your stereotypes.

Do you want a gold star?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

According to our own Supreme Court (have not reviewed US jurisprudence), the PO had probable cause.

1) Report of crime in progress at particular location
2) Individual unknown to PO generally fitting the description at that particular location
3) Said individual refused to cooperate with PO and identify himself

Well, no. 3 is incorrect, per both the police report and Gates' own report.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

According to our own Supreme Court (have not reviewed US jurisprudence), the PO had probable cause.

1) Report of crime in progress at particular location
2) Individual unknown to PO generally fitting the description at that particular location
3) Said individual refused to cooperate with PO and identify himself

In Canada anyhow, that is sufficient for the PO to go in and arrest the individual (not to mention have a look around for drugs, thanks to Mdme. Justice L'Horeux Dube ). Not sure about US law.

I don't know if Massachusetts has restricted the grounds for probable cause, but under the Constitutional standard I don't see how there wouldn't be probable cause to enter the home at the initial investigation. All that's required under the federal standard is particularized facts leading to reasonable suspicion. The factors you've listed would satisfy that. However, once it was determined that the house was indeed his that warrant exception is gone, and any access to the home or arrest inside the home would require a warrant or a valid waiver. The only valid waiver I see as possible here is consent, and it doesn't sound like that occurred.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

An interesting blog from a criminal lawyer in Boston about the incident:
http://www.bostoncriminallawyerblog....arreste_1.html


Note in particular the reaction of a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal justice:

Robert McCrie, professor of security management at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, called Professor Gates' arrest "gratuitous" because, he said, even if Mr. Gates had yelled, such conduct doesn't amount to disorderly conduct. He said police departments need to improve training, especially when interviewing citizens at home. "We in America believe very much in the privacy of our own home," he says.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't know if Massachusetts has restricted the grounds for probable cause, but under the Constitutional standard I don't see how there wouldn't be probable cause to enter the home at the initial investigation. All that's required under the federal standard is particularized facts leading to reasonable suspicion. The factors you've listed would satisfy that. However, once it was determined that the house was indeed his that warrant exception is gone, and any access to the home or arrest inside the home would require a warrant or a valid waiver. The only valid waiver I see as possible here is consent, and it doesn't sound like that occurred.

He was not arrested in his home, he was arrested outside. There was no intention to arrest until his behavior became disorderly outside.

[Cowboy89]

Bottom line is Gates got arrested for being an a$$, and the cop overstepped his boundaries to prove a point by arresting him and being an a$$ himself. Both are wrong. Gates pulled the race card, he should have realized that a person of any color could theoretically get falsely arrested by a$$ cops too, especially when aggrivating said a$$ cops. It doesn't mean the cop's racist, just that he's vengeful against a-hats he encounters in his work (Still something that he should get repremended for).

As for Gates, if we really and truly reach the level of a 'colorblind' society, he's out of a job, out of prestige, and has to do something else of value to society. Something tells me that's not the kind of life Gates wants to live.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by valo403

LOL, are you trying to tell me that you're personally acquainted with Mr. Gates to the point that you have familiarity with some apparent desire to self aggrandize? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that isn't the case.

Not once did I say I was personally aquainted with this jerk. I only said or implied that he wasn't publicity shy and his name has been in the news and tv frequently before. He knows the system. Even I, Joe Shmo, living in cowtown Alberta, had heard of him before this.

Gates felt he was being unfairly singled out by the cops because he was black (his opinion) and he was certainly willing to take it to the next step and get the neighbors involved (by his shouting and accusations of racism in front of everybody) and push as hard as he could at the cops. Its no wonder he got arrested and I doubt he was one bit surprised at the turn of events.

The guy is no idiot. He knew what he was doing and what was going to happen.


.... and guess what happens.... his story is on the front page of every newspaper in America, he's being interviewed on CNN... etc. etc.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

An interesting blog from a criminal lawyer in Boston about the incident:
http://www.bostoncriminallawyerblog....arreste_1.html


Note in particular the reaction of a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal justice:

This is really the only thing I have issue with. I don't really see this as a racism issue, I guess I find it hard to believe that an elderly man in a Bill Cosby sweater fit any criminal profile regardless of skin color, but I do see this as a case of police officers overstepping their bounds because someone didn't treat them nicely.

Officers may want to be treated respectfully, but they are not required to be treated any more respectfully than any other person. I think that all too often personal offense elevates a situation that doesn't constitute a crime under the law into an arrest.

Obviously it's a good idea to be respectful to police officers, but 'acting like a dick' isn't illegal and arrests made on that basis shouldn't be supported.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Here is some case law that also quotes other case law that justify the entry into a dwelling house by officers investigating a crime or possible crime in progress.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...0bcsc1547.html

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

He was not arrested in his home, he was arrested outside. There was no intention to arrest until his behavior became disorderly outside.

On his porch, you mean. He wasn't going to get too far off the porch without his cane.

Here's what I've found about probable cause as regards entering a home in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Nothing really conclusive, but I really do have to get back to work (emphasis added):

Probable cause exists only if the facts and circumstances known to the officer would warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has been committed and that you committed it.

If you are in your home, you have an additional layer of constitutional protection. Probable cause alone is not enough to allow a police officer to enter your home for the purpose of arresting you. The general rule is that an officer needs a warrant to enter your home for the purpose of arresting you. But there are important exceptions to that rule which are too complicated to discuss on this tape.

I bolded the second part because it corroborates part of Gates' story--that it was immediately upon stepping outside that he was arrested.

Furthermore:

You have the right to be free form an illegal search of your home. The police need a search warrant or probable cause plus an exception to the warrant requirement in order to conduct a legal search of your home. You have the right to see the search warrant. The police may legally search your home, even without a warrant, if you consent to the search.

It doesn't specify what is required, but my guess is that the standard in Massachusetts is a little higher than in Canada, based on the above. Note that probable cause alone is not sufficient grounds to begin a search of the home. Given that even probable cause is in doubt here, my suspicion (without having read the relevant statutes) is that the officer should not have entered the house without permission, and if he had arrested Gates inside the house would have been in even bigger doo-doo. Luckily, he didn't do that, but he may still have entered without proper cause in this case.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, no. 3 is incorrect, per both the police report and Gates' own report.

When the PO was outside, Gates refused to step out or provide ID ---> probable cause. Pretty simple. As valo said, once inside, and once ID is provided... US law has much stronger privacy and sanctity of home protection than Canadian law (thank you, Mdm. Justice L'Horeux Dube), so I am not sure what one can and can't do in Boston.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Wow, 13 pages now..holy cow.

To me, the real issue here (and where the racial profiling aspect comes in) is with the neighbor who called the cops in the first place, not knowing his own neighbors well enough to know that one of them was a prominent black scholar.

That's the problem.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Not once did I say I was personally aquainted with this jerk. I only said or implied that he wasn't publicity shy and his name has been in the news and tv frequently before. He knows the system. Even I, Joe Shmo, living in cowtown Alberta, had heard of him before this.

Gates felt he was being unfairly singled out by the cops because he was black (his opinion) and he was certainly willing to take it to the next step and get the neighbors involved (by his shouting and accusations of racism in front of everybody) and push as hard as he could at the cops. Its no wonder he got arrested and I doubt he was one bit surprised at the turn of events.

The guy is no idiot. He knew what he was doing and what was going to happen.


.... and guess what happens.... his story is on the front page of every newspaper in America, he's being interviewed on CNN... etc. etc.

Wow, who would've thought that a person know as the pre-eminent scholar in their field would have been in the news before, what a stunning revelation.

I just want to get your point of view straight here, because he's been in the media before his claims are obviously the basis of a fabrication meant to garner himself more attention? Is that what you're going for here?

What should he have done upon feeling that his rights were being trampled on due to the color of his skin? Just turn around and take it? Sounds like a pre-13th Amendment world to me.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

On his porch, you mean. He wasn't going to get too far off the porch without his cane.

Here's what I've found about probable cause as regards entering a home in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Nothing really conclusive, but I really do have to get back to work (emphasis added):


I bolded the second part because it corroborates part of Gates' story--that it was immediately upon stepping outside that he was arrested.

Furthermore:

It doesn't specify what is required, but my guess is that the standard in Massachusetts is a little higher than in Canada, based on the above. Note that probable cause alone is not sufficient grounds to begin a search of the home. Given that even probable cause is in doubt here, my suspicion (without having read the relevant statutes) is that the officer should not have entered the house without permission, and if he had arrested Gates inside the house would have been in even bigger doo-doo. Luckily, he didn't do that, but he may still have entered without proper cause in this case.

I have to chuckle a bit. I know what the case law is. I also know there is nothing I can say to you that would make you believe that I have a bit more knowledge about this than you. But, lets wait and see the independent reports first.