Henry Louis Gates Arrested in his own home

[Gozer]

As resident weenie...edit: val403's post says everything I said but more smarter.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Really? I, and I think damn near everyone else, thinks that is the least problematic element to the incident.

"Honey, there's a black guy breaking into Mr. Gates' house!"
"Gates is black"
"Of course, how silly of me!"

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

deleted unhelpful post... :/

[valo403]

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.

You're confusing 2 different issues here, the ability to make an arrest inside a persons home and the ability to enter a home for the purpose of investigating the initial report of a crime.

Under the Constitution there is a protected right in the home, and an officer seeking to make an arrest in the home would require a warrant. The arrest here seems to have been made on the porch, not inside the home. It's a bit of a grey are as to what constitutes the protected area, but the porch is likely not an area that would require a warrant for an arrest to be made.

The other issue is the ability to enter the home as part of the investigation of the initial complaint. There is probable cause here, all that is required is particularized facts leading to reasonable suspicion. There is also likely an exception to the warrant requirement under exigent circumstances as pursuit of an individual matching the description of the alleged perpetrator. But, like I said before, once Gates was established as being the rightful owner that exception is no longer applicable and any entry into the home would have to be consensual.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're confusing 2 different issues here, the ability to make an arrest inside a persons home and the ability to enter a home for the purpose of investigating the initial report of a crime.

Under the Constitution there is a protected right in the home, and an officer seeking to make an arrest in the home would require a warrant. The arrest here seems to have been made on the porch, not inside the home. It's a bit of a grey are as to what constitutes the protected area, but the porch is likely not an area that would require a warrant for an arrest to be made.

The other issue is the ability to enter the home as part of the investigation of the initial complaint. There is probable cause here, all that is required is particularized facts leading to reasonable suspicion. There is also likely an exception to the warrant requirement under exigent circumstances as pursuit of an individual matching the description of the alleged perpetrator. But, like I said before, once Gates was established as being the rightful owner that exception is no longer applicable and any entry into the home would have to be consensual.

I appreciate the clarification. So... once probable cause was removed, the police officer would be required to immediately leave, or would the initial probably cause be grounds for a continued search and continued presence in the home?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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.

With all due respect, citing case law out of BC on an issue arising under the US Constitution and laws of Massachusetts isn't really helpful to understanding the issues here.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

With all due respect, citing case law out of BC on an issue arising under the US Constitution and laws of Massachusetts isn't really helpful to understanding the issues here.

I'd thank you, but I'm out of thanks.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm glad to concede your superior knowledge as soon as you demonstrate it. Let me guess: several of your close friends are attorneys in the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Can you not have a discussion without being a ######? Jesus. Consider my olive branch retracted.

Wow. now I am a ###### again. I was simply laughing at the post about what is and isn't probably cause and when someone can and cannot enter someones house. I do appreciate the effort in looking up this and our debate has been much more cordial than the last, up until now I suppose. It wasn't ment to offend you but I guess you took it that way.

I do not have the same knowledge of case law in the USA as I do in Canada. However, this event happening in Massachusetts is irrelevant. The protection of unlawful search and seizure is governed by the US constitution which is the law of the land.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I appreciate the clarification. So... once probable cause was removed, the police officer would be required to immediately leave, or would the initial probably cause be grounds for a continued search and continued presence in the home?

I'm not an expert in this area, but my understanding is that once once it was determined that he wasn't a perpetrator the police would have no right to be present in the home. I'm not sure about how immediate the departure has to be, but I would think any undue delay would be unconstitutional. Once an exception to the warrant requirement is removed a warrant would be required to continue a search, unless of course there was another exception that they slipped into. There's no search issue here though, so it's pretty much a non-issue.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The protection of unlawful search and seizure is governed by the US constitution which is the law of the land.

The protection of unlawful search and seizure has no bearing on this case.

edit: ok, an argument can be made as such, but no one has made it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by valo403

With all due respect, citing case law out of BC on an issue arising under the US Constitution and laws of Massachusetts isn't really helpful to understanding the issues here.

With all due respect, case law regarding search and seizure specifically with entering a dwelling house for emergencies and or exigent circumstances is fairly similar to that of the US.

The point was to bring some meaning into the debate reagrding what has and hasn't been allowed in the past.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Wow. now I am a ###### again. I was simply laughing at the post about what is and isn't probably cause and when someone can and cannot enter someones house. I do appreciate the effort in looking up this and our debate has been much more cordial than the last, up until now I suppose. It wasn't ment to offend you but I guess you took it that way.

I do not have the same knowledge of case law in the USA as I do in Canada. However, this event happening in Massachusetts is irrelevant. The protection of unlawful search and seizure is governed by the US constitution which is the law of the land.

Look, I'm not saying you're a ######. I'm just saying that if you had been on Henry Louis Gates' porch, Officer Crowley would probably have arrested you.

[troutman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The protection of unlawful search and seizure has no bearing on this case.

Um, well it is. The officer entered the home would be considered a "search" to look for evidence of a crime. If you are arguing that GATES rights were abused it would most likely be the 4th amendment.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

With all due respect, case law regarding search and seizure specifically with entering a dwelling house for emergencies and or exigent circumstances is fairly similar to that of the US.

The point was to bring some meaning into the debate reagrding what has and hasn't been allowed in the past.

Fair enough, my only point is that if you're going to start citing case law it should be on point.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Really? I, and I think damn near everyone else, thinks that is the least problematic element to the incident.

"Honey, there's a black guy breaking into Mr. Gates' house!"
"Gates is black"
"Of course, how silly of me!"

Oh, I wasn't privy to the actual conversation that took place immediately before the call. How did you get ahold of that information?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Oh, I wasn't privy to the actual conversation that took place immediately before the call. How did you get ahold of that information?

I phoned in the 911 call.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I phoned in the 911 call.

Racist!

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

Question #1: Do you think that Gates believes that racism is alive and well in America?
Question #2: Do you think that Gates believes that some cops are racist?
Question #3: Do you think that Gates believes that cops use racial profiling as a basis of detention, harassment, and arrest?
Question #3: If you answered yes to all of the above questions, do you think that Gate's attitude toward the officer and the media attention it garnered will further his cause (see questions #1 through 3)?

The guy knew what was going to happen and what the end result would be. He's no dummy. Al Sharpton couldn't have done better if he'd done it himself.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I phoned in the 911 call.

Wow, great response. How about addressing my point, which was fairly obvious I think.