Very well said.

Okay an outside legal review of the incident, but at least have the facts correct.

Gates offered him his Harvard ID, that only proves his name, not his address. Thus Crowley's call for Harvard police. Even though the entire incidents occurred in minutes, the actual verification of Gates residency in the house was not immediate. And during that period Gates was a loud mouth racist (ck the background squawk on the 9/11 tape ). Which Crowley put up with.

/frankly my only questions is where did Crowley get the "two black men with backpacks" statement from? Since Whalen denies saying that.

Crystal clearly you are not up to date on all the facts. Crowley is a liar as proven by Whalen and the 911 dispatch tapes. I didn't hear a sound of a man making any noise that was so loud as to disrupt the transmission between crowley and the dispatch, nor did Whaten make out the race of the people she called 911 on, and she states that she never talked to Crowley once he arrived at the scene. To hell with people like you Crystal.

Great article.
Thanks.
I must mention that a lot of the article was based on Sgt. Crowley's police report.
The problem with that is the police report contains lies.
So like a glass of water that only has a drop of poison in it, we must throw the whole glass out.
Sgt. Crowley included in his report that he spoke to the 911 caller upon arriving and she told him that there where 2 black males with backpacks breaking into the house.
The 911 caller denies ever having a conversation with Sgt. Crowley.
The rest of the information in that report must be eliminated.
So to derive any thoughts -no matter how noble and well written from that report is -as I'm sure you know, skewed, twisted and I'm afraid.
devoid of worth.
Sorry, but do you see?

/frankly my only questions is where did Crowley get the "two black men with backpacks" statement from? Since Whalen denies saying that.

She might of noticed two black men in the house while she was waiting for the police to show up after her 911 call.

Whalen's attorney is inconsistent with the story about her client talking with Crowley.

At one time she says she never talked to him at all.

Then other times says she did not have a conversation with Crowley EXCEPT that "I was the one who called 911" & he replied "Wait here"

I am wondering if her lawyer suggested her to leave out seeing two black men to avoid from getting harassed about racial profiling that she got accused of during the 911 call.

That might explain, two black men with backpacks in the report.

Under Massachusetts law, Sgt. Crowley was required to show Prof. Gates his picture ID, which Sgt. Crowley is required to have on his person, while in uniform carrying a badge and a gun. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 98D (2008). The statute says

Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer's person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 98D (2008).

The purpose of this law is to make it difficult for people posing as police.

Sgt. Crowley is required to produce his ID to any citizen who makes a lawful demand to see it. Perhaps Blacks or so called “jungle monkeys” cannot make a lawful demand to see a white police officer’s ID. Perhaps that is why Prof. Gates stated that this is what happens to black men in America: demand your rights and get arrested. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 98D (2008), Prof. Gates had a right to see his Sgt. Crowley’s ID.

If you read Sgt. Crowley’s police report carefully, he alludes to this statute by saying that, while in his home,

“I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at XX Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.”

Because Sgt. Crowley’s request to send Harvard Police was almost immediate (listen to the released turret tapes), it clear that Prof. Gates provided his ID promptly upon demand, but Sgt. Crowley did not respond in kind, despite his legal obligation under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 98D (2008) to do so. Prof. Crowley said during an interview that upon receipt of Prof. Gates’s ID, Sgt. Crowley did not acknow;edge who Prof. gates was, but instead turned and started walking out the door, presumably ehile still holding Prof. Gates’s Faculty Harvard ID.

Prof. Gates called the police and asked for the Chief, not only to verify that a police officer should be at his home on official business but also to report that the officer was refusing to produce his ID as required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 98D (2008). History is replete with examples of people who were killed by fake cops. For example, the St. Valentine’s Day massacre occurred when AL Capone had his gang murder a rival gang who voluntarily gave up their guns to people who turned out to not only fake cops but assassins as well. At this point, Prof. Gates was being extremely prudent given, Sgt. Crowley’s willful disregard of the law requiring him to produce his police ID.

Had Sgt. Crowley followed the statute and produced his ID, Prof. Gates would not have followed him outside onto the porch to pursue that information. It is clear that Prof. Gates wanted this information so that he could report Sgt. Crowley to his Police Chief.

Under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), Sgt. Crowley had no right to enter Prof. Gates’s home. There was no emergency; the 911 caller, Lucia Whalen, said it could be someone who lives there having a problem with their key. As soon as Prof. Gates made the claim that he lived there, the emergency was over, subject perhaps to Prof. Gates producing his ID to substantiate his claim of residency, which Prof. Gates immediately produced. Sgt. Crowley’s claim in his police report that Lucia Whalen told him on the scene that there Blacks with Backpacks is not believable. On the 911 tapes, she was extremely careful, conscientious, and measured in her words—she never interjected race into the issue and when she did she pointed toward a Hispanic. I believe Sgt. Crowley intentionally fabricated this fact to explain why he was investigating a black man instead of a Hispanic man. In his WEEI interview before the tapes were released, Sgt. Crowley said that he radioed to slow the cars down so that no one would get hurt rushing to the scene, but on the tapes, after stating that he was dealing with an uncooperative possible owner, he said keep the cars coming. I believe Lucia Whalen and Prof. Gates. I especially believe Whalen’s account of the on scene Whalen-Crowley conversation as brief because what police officer is going to have his back to door for such an extended conversation. It did not happen, Whalen’s brief version is more consistent with common sense and human nature.

The City of Cambridge has already publicly apologized to Prof. Gates. The Governor and the President have weighed in on Prof. Gates’s side. The DA dropped the false charges before arraignment because they are utterly baseless.

The Massachusetts Disorderly Person statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 53 (2008), under which Sgt. Crowley arrested Prof. Gates is so overbroad that the Massachusetts Courts have had to limit the scope of the statute so that it can pass constitutional muster. Comm. v. Orlando, 359 N.E.2d 310 (Mass. 1977) (a headnote from the case states “Massachusetts disturbing the peace law has been construed so as to exclude protected expression from its scope and thus is not overbroad.”) In another case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has recently held that “Contempt of Cop” is not a crime punishable under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 53 (2008). Com. v. Federico, 876 N.E.2d 479, 483 n. 5 (Mass. 2007).

FN5. In reaching this conclusion, we have rejected the Commonwealth's contention that the defendant's conviction on this count can be sustained on the basis of his conduct at the time of his arrest. While the arresting officer testified that the defendant was becoming a “bit belligerent” and insistent in his denials of any wrongdoing during his questioning, the officer did not describe the defendant's conduct as disruptive, violent, or threatening. Nor did the officer testify to any facts indicative of an attempt by the defendant to resist arrest.

Com. v. Federico, 876 N.E.2d 479, 483 n. 5 (Mass. 2007).

Barret said he would have OC’d Prof. Gates for being belligerent, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said that being a “bit belligerent” is not a valid basis for arrest, let alone OC.

Clearly, the law is on Prof. Gates’s side, and Pres. Obama was right: Sgt. Crowley acted stupidly when he arrested Prof. Gates for

(1) demanding his rights under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 98D (2008) to see Sgt. Crowley’s picture ID,

(2) protesting Sgt. Crowley’s illegal entry into his home, which violated the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), and

(3) exercising his First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances when he complained about all of the above to Sgt. Crowley and the other police officers that had massed in his yard.

In this Country, under our Constitution, Prof. Gates did nothing wrong; however, Sgt. Crowley violated

(1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 98D (2008) by not producing his ID to Prof Gates upon Prof. Gates’s request,
(2) the Fourth Amendment by entering Prof. Gates’s home without consent and without exigent circumstances to search for a burlar,
(3) the Fourth Amendment by arresting Prof. Gates without probable cause for believing that Prof. Gates’s protected speech (requesting information and complaining) served no legitimate purpose,
(4) the First Amendment by arresting Prof. Gates for exercising his right to complain about his police mistreatment and protest his innocence.

Prof. Gates’s claims in his civil lawsuit can be brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act because it was designed to provide a civil remedy for police led lynchings. Often we see pictures of lynched black men, hanging from a tree, handcuffed. Whose handcuffs were they?

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Prof. Gates’s damages are easily in the six or seven figure range. Perhaps because of the national support for Sgt. Crowley—without regard for the legal merits of the parties’ respective positions--Prof. Gates’s damages are even higher.

The teachable moment from our Constitutional law Professor turned President will likely include the above.

This comment is akin to the Pelican Brief and may be cited freely as the Crowley Brief.

Edge Guy is right, Whalen had every reason to lie about any conversation in which she might have identified the race of the men who forced open the door of Gates' house; she was receiving death threats from people who claimed she was a racist. That doesn't prove that she did; she didn't seem insincere during her press conference, but with man-hating witch-hunter Wendy Murphy advising her, nothing would surprise me. Crowley would also have had a reason to lie about the statement, given that his probable cause justification for entering the house has been questioned. But, if he did, he did a terrible job; making up the "backpacks" made no sense (it was obviously not true) and his knowing the race of the suspects in advance made him more open to charges of bias. The most overlooked possible reason for this discrepancy was that, having filled out the report after the fact (by which time, he knew they were black), he simply garbled the information he received in the course of this tumultuous incident. Given that they are filled out from memory, it's a wonder anything in arrest reports is correct.
As for Gates' behavior, while it wasn't violent, or threatening, it was certainly disruptive, if Crowley's statements on the subject (which haven't been contradicted by any bystanders, including the guy who took the picture of Gates apparently yelling) are true. Whether or not they were loud or confrontational enough to justify the arrest, I have no doubt that a black officer being verbally abused by a white suspect would receive much more sympathy from the legal establishment, civil-rights movement and he press.

The Crowley/Gates incident should be viewed from the beginning. Upon arriving at the scene of a "possible BE in progress" Crowley had the following info: two male suspects, one possible Hispanic, suitcases involved, 911 caller on scene outside.

Crowley stated in his police report that Whalen, the 911 caller, told him of "two black men with backpacks on the front poarch". Whalen has publically refuted this statement. Neither Crowley nor the CPD have countered.

Accepting Whalen's account as accurate, Crowley had essentially no first hand knowledge of the situation until he saw Gates in the house behind a glass door.

At this point did Crowley view Gates as a suspect? Crowley approached Gates and asked (ordered) him to step outside. Gates refused. Crowley supposely explained that he was with the CPD and responding to a possible BE. He asked Gates for ID. At some point Gates leaves the front door and goes to retrive his ID as asked (ordered).

The next part is the crucial part. Both Crowley and Gates have stated that Crowley is in the Gates house. Neither Gates nor Crowley have explicitly stated that Crowley was invited in nor have they indicated that Crowley asked to enter and Gates refused.

But the important fact is that unless Crowley was explicitly invited in Crowley had no legal right to be in Gates' house unless there existed probable cause (PC) and exigent circumstances(EC). If PC existed Crowley could have arrested Gates outside his house without a warrant. If EC existed Crowley could have arrested Gates inside his house without a warrant for BE. Crowley didn't. Thus no PC and no EC.

If Gates does file a lawsuit it will (should) be based on the illegality of Crowley being in Gates' house which precipitated the DC arrest.