Are You Wondering If Sgt. James Crowley Should Have Arrested Henry Louis Gates For "Disorderly Conduct"? Well, Wonder No More. Below Is The Analysis.
Read more here.
Below is the gist of the whole legal thingy:
In Connecticut, the case of Commonwealth v. LePore, 666 N.E.2d 152, 40 Mass.App.Ct. 543 (Mass. App. Ct., 1996), defines the term "disorderly" thus:
A person is “disorderly” under G.L. c. 272, § 53, “if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof; he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable [40 Mass.App.Ct. 546] noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.”
Public is defined in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 304, 231 N.E.2d 201 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Feigenbaum, 404 Mass. 471, 474, 536 N.E.2d 325 (1989):
"Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access." Alegata v. Commonwealth, supra
So the answer depends on whether conduct attributable to Professor Gates took place "in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access".
So, if the actions took place inside Gates' house, then the arrest was illegal.
I suspect this may be the case, as the charges were quickly dropped!
Stay tuned for more updates.
Below is the gist of the whole legal thingy:
In Connecticut, the case of Commonwealth v. LePore, 666 N.E.2d 152, 40 Mass.App.Ct. 543 (Mass. App. Ct., 1996), defines the term "disorderly" thus:
A person is “disorderly” under G.L. c. 272, § 53, “if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof; he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable [40 Mass.App.Ct. 546] noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.”
Public is defined in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 304, 231 N.E.2d 201 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Feigenbaum, 404 Mass. 471, 474, 536 N.E.2d 325 (1989):
"Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access." Alegata v. Commonwealth, supra
So the answer depends on whether conduct attributable to Professor Gates took place "in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access".
So, if the actions took place inside Gates' house, then the arrest was illegal.
I suspect this may be the case, as the charges were quickly dropped!
Stay tuned for more updates.
Labels: General information
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 10:10 PM
2 Comments:
You think that might be why the officers kept trying to get Gates to come out onto the front porch to discuss things rather than discussing things in the privacy of his home?
It appears that the police INITIALLY acted properly, more or less, but in failing to disengage once they had identified Gates as the lawful occupant of the residence, they did, indeed, act "stupidly."
Of course, some police officers believe that the First Amendment does not apply to those addressing them. Gates acted stupidly, too, but it is not his job to know how to handle such situations properly and in a way to diffuse tensions.
YES, to your question, and you have made EXCELLENT points.
Post a Comment
<< Home