The sleeze keeps right on oozing

[Lonestar_logic]

driving is different law and you know it! why don't you read what the courts have established on this....? they have been pretty clear on disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and when a policeman can enter our homes and when it is required to show id and when our free speech can be infringed.

one thing is FOR CERTAIN....under massachusetts law, gates was not required to show any ID, AND crowley WAS REQUIRED to show his State issued, police identification card carried in his wallet, to mr gates, the first time gates asked for it.

You stated you didn't have to produce ID when requested by an officer of the law. Now you're backpeddling. Typical response from a kool-aid drinker.

Crowley had his ID pinned to his shirt all one needed to do was READ!

Show me the statute under Ma. law that states you do not need to to produce ID was when requested by an officer of the law.

It's called a "Terry stop". Look it up.

You are not required to answer questions, other than to state your name. There was also another SCOTUS case in 2004, Hibel v Nevada, that relied heavily on the Terry case.

Every person has the right to remain silent. The only exception to this is the requirement state your name. You do not have to provide supporting evidence, such as an ID. In the case that you may believe your name would tend to incriminate you, you may invoke your fifth ammendment right to not incriminate yourself and refuse to even state your name.

Just to keep the debate honest, those of you claiming that anyone is required to produce an ID are incorrect. There is no law requiring that every person carry an ID, much less any law that states you must prodice one or be a criminal.

Here's the legal definition of "Terry stop" now point out where it states you do not have to provide proof of you the fuck you are when requested by a police officer. As a matter of fact it states,

The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries.

Asking for an ID is a reasonable inquiry.

Terry Stop Law & Legal Definition

 

[Sweet Willy]

Care4all, you are using the wrong terms and it is important to get them right.

Reasonable suspicion is what gives an officer the right to investigate, ask questions, like your name.

Probable cause is what gives an officer the right to effect an arrest, make entery or conduct a search.

They are two different levels that have been well tested and established and are very important. This gets back to the point I was makingyesterday about why the "two black men/backpacks" is so God awful important, knowing where it came from. That little statement moves this incident from reasonable suspicion (the ability to ask questions and lawful right to demand answers) to probable cause. If there is an already established description of "two black men/backpacks" burglarizing homes, and an officer says someone told him they saw "two black men/backpacks", then that established probable cause, without a doubt and Crowley is free to enter. Without that description, Crowley only has reasonable suspicion, based on a possible B&E and he does not have cause to enter.

Making more sense now about where and why this "two black men/back packs" showed up in a post event report? After Crowley entered, was not invited and there was a scene? He knew damn well his report had better reflect probable cause.

 

[chanel]

You know what? Then it should be. If a cop is driving around my neighborhood and sees a bunch of thugs drinking on my property I want them to verify that their name is not "Zippity Doo Da"

 

[Missourian]

just an fyi i come from an era, where we did not have id's with pics on them or any kind of id at all that was carried on us if you didn't drive....my mother in law was 65 before she got her first id, a drivers license....that's when she learned how to drive....65!!!!

i begin with this, because the answer to your question seems very easy to me....

all he had to do, is take the name mr gates gave him and run it through their computers to see if a mr gates lived at the address on ware street...


THE ROBBER would NOT have opened the door for the uniformed police officer....

The robber would not have traversed the house to his telephone to call his boss at harvard university....

his harvard id did not have an address on it, i looked it up on the internet...so when he called in the name from the id, there was NO address either, so what could he have gathered from that....? just a name missourian.....right?

WITHIN 1 MINUTE of crowley knocking on the door of mr gates to when officer crowley placed the call to dispatch giving them mr. gates' full name and for them to call harvard university police because he was a professor there.....

1 MINUTE ELAPSED before crowley had the gates id in hand....according to the police recordings released....that doesn't seem uncooperative to me, does it to you? i mean honestly?

i couldn't have found my own drivers licence in that short of a time...!!!! but i don't work anymore so it's not like i keep my purse at breast....but still!

so again, to answer your question, by law we only have to identify ourselves by name to the police in 12 states only, massachusetts is not one of them....

my era believes the police are the GOVERNMENT and the government has no right to question us or demand anything from us, unless they legally have probable cause to believe we are committing a crime....

such is not the case with mr gates....he was not suspect....no one even established any crime and there were no signs of a crime....story over....the cop leaves....period.

otherwise, any cop can have any person call in a possible break in of any residence so they can send cops to insist on your id, when you are absolutely doing nothing wrong and are in your own home....?

what i am trying to say, is what is to stop cops who have been watching someone, setting that person up, for them to enter his home without warrant, by having someone call in a fake B and E? or an angry neighbor calling it in....?

the cop has to go to the scene, i understand, but the cop HAS TO USE HIS JUDGMENT in assessing the situation looking for signs to confirm the witness's concern or debunk it in the first few seconds....Crowley did this in less than 60 seconds....he is ''led'' to believe that mr gates lives there....according to his call in to dispatch....he should have never entered the home and left right then....that is, after he showed gates his official state identification card that gates asked for...which is REQUIRED under massachusetts law in this kind of situation... imo.

I hope the police never adhere to your 'theory of policing'.

Your entire argument is armchair quarterbacking after the fact.

1) The house was a rental. Gates name was not in the computer. The police had to verify who he was so they could contact the owners (Harvard University) which was handled by Harvard Security.

the police had NO PROBABLE CAUSE to need this information....do you understand that? They had NO PROBABLE CAUSE to need this information...there was no sign of a breakin, mr gates opened the door to speak with him, mr gates was an elder man with a cane and not 2 black hoods with a back pack as crowley lied and said Whalen told him... if was a false alarm or a false report....but Mr Gates DID OBLIGE him and did give him his ID.

And as far as being a renter and having no record of such, that is simply hogwash....cops can get the names of the renters at ANY ADDRESS, it is part of their system...most in Boston are NOT owners, but renters...it's simply ridiculous to believe such missourian...

2) It is an assumption to believe the person who answers the door is a resident of the home...cops cannot assume.

Yes it can be assumed and SHOULD BE ASSUMED by any cop.

3) It is assumption to believe that a robber would not answer the door...cops cannot assume.

Again, yes they can assess the situation, they do it every day for every incident, they get paid to think on their feet and they are good at it...AND Crowly's ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION was that Gates was the lawful resident of the home....if Crowley assessed that he was possibly NOT the lawful resident of the home, HE WOULD HAVE REPORTED SUCH to dispatch missourian, he would have NOT reported that he was led to believe Gates was the lawful resident of the home. He made this assessment within the first minute there....and his instincts, his gumshoe ability, was correct.

4) It is assumption to believe that a robber wouldn't know the name of a resident of the home...cops cannot assume.

He already did make the assessment that gates belonged there....the 911 caller was not certain a crime was even committed, only called it in cuz some old lady asked her to....

As I stated, cops are paid to make good, sound, assumptions with their assessments, every day they are on the beat.


5) Gates was suspected of a crime...breaking and entering.

simply not true....there was no description of the suspects, there was no crime that was committed to be a suspect of....there was a call that said they thought they saw one man using his shoulder to get the door opened...THATS IT.

6) The police need proof when investigating a crime of who it is they are confronting.

There was no crime....there was an investigator to determine such, and within a minute the investigating officer KNEW there was no crime based on his sound observations..

7) I have no idea if the 1 minute is accurate, but the point is moot. Gates was not arrested for failure to produce ID.

true, he wasn't, and even if he hadn't shown it, he would not have been arrested, because it is not against the law for him not to show the police his id if he even had one.

He was arrested for Disorderly conduct after he listened to crowley and followed him outside as crowley ASKED HIM TO DO TWICE....immediately before going outside.

And it was a FALSE CHARGE and ARREST, if you look up the laws in massachusetts and review the supreme court cases on disorderly conduct it is EVIDENT, PLAIN AS DAY, that crowley should not have charged him or arrested him.

He WAS FALSELY ARRESTED....whether crowley is innocent and did this by accident or on purpose, is yet to be found out, and probably never will be.....

care

You are wrong.

A BREAK-IN HAD OCCURED. GATES ADMITS HE BROKE INTO THE HOUSE.

And there was an attempted break-in recently reported at the same address.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What if he did not own an id, like my mother in law, who did not until she was 65 when she learned to drive?

If a frog had wings. You're not seriously going to base your argument on "what if's... are you?

SURE, WHY NOT?

That's what everyone else is doing?

ID is NOT REQUIRED by LAW TO HAVE in massachusetts.....

do you understand that?

Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.

 

[Sweet Willy]

You stated you didn't have to produce ID when requested by an officer of the law. Now you're backpeddling. Typical response from a kool-aid drinker.

Crowley had his ID pinned to his shirt all one needed to do was READ!

Show me the statute under Ma. law that states you do not need to to produce ID was when requested by an officer of the law.

It's called a "Terry stop". Look it up.

You are not required to answer questions, other than to state your name. There was also another SCOTUS case in 2004, Hibel v Nevada, that relied heavily on the Terry case.

Every person has the right to remain silent. The only exception to this is the requirement state your name. You do not have to provide supporting evidence, such as an ID. In the case that you may believe your name would tend to incriminate you, you may invoke your fifth ammendment right to not incriminate yourself and refuse to even state your name.

Just to keep the debate honest, those of you claiming that anyone is required to produce an ID are incorrect. There is no law requiring that every person carry an ID, much less any law that states you must prodice one or be a criminal.

Here's the legal definition of "Terry stop" now point out where it states you do not have to provide proof of you the fuck you are when requested by a police officer. As a matter of fact it states,

The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries.

Asking for an ID is a reasonable inquiry.

Terry Stop Law & Legal Definition

Dumbass, Terry lays out exactly when you are required to give your name. It lays out the scenario of reasonable suspicion for cops to request YOUR NAME. Not a photo ID or anything of the sort. It only established when an officer has the right to stop and ask for your name.

To contend that a police officer may ask anyone, anytime for their name is absurd. That was the whole point of Terry. It established WHEN an officer has the right to ask your name, or stop you and detain you for questioning. Even then, you are only required to STATE your name.

 

[Sweet Willy]

You know what? Then it should be. If a cop is driving around my neighborhood and sees a bunch of thugs drinking on my property I want them to verify that their name is not "Zippity Doo Da"

But....how does he know they are thugs? He doesn't know if they might be your friends. Cops don't just randomly stop and ask for IDs.....

I don't even know how to address this very basic misconception about what FREEDOM is.

Jesus fucking Christ.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's called a "Terry stop". Look it up.

You are not required to answer questions, other than to state your name. There was also another SCOTUS case in 2004, Hibel v Nevada, that relied heavily on the Terry case.

Every person has the right to remain silent. The only exception to this is the requirement state your name. You do not have to provide supporting evidence, such as an ID. In the case that you may believe your name would tend to incriminate you, you may invoke your fifth ammendment right to not incriminate yourself and refuse to even state your name.

Just to keep the debate honest, those of you claiming that anyone is required to produce an ID are incorrect. There is no law requiring that every person carry an ID, much less any law that states you must prodice one or be a criminal.

Here's the legal definition of "Terry stop" now point out where it states you do not have to provide proof of you the fuck you are when requested by a police officer. As a matter of fact it states,

The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries.

Asking for an ID is a reasonable inquiry.

Terry Stop Law & Legal Definition

Dumbass, Terry lays out exactly when you are required to give your name. It lays out the scenario of reasonable suspicion for cops to request YOUR NAME. Not a photo ID or anything of the sort. It only established when an officer has the right to stop and ask for your name.

To contend that a police officer may ask anyone, anytime for their name is absurd. That was the whole point of Terry. It established WHEN an officer has the right to ask your name, or stop you and detain you for questioning. Even then, you are only required to STATE your name.

Did you even read the definition? Obviously not. Quote the part that states that you DO NOT have to comply with an officers request for ID!!!

You're backpeddling just like care4all.

Surely you're not suggesting Crowley didn't have probable cause to question Gates and ask for identification. If you are, then you must be related to CharlieDumBass.

 

[Sweet Willy]

If a frog had wings. You're not seriously going to base your argument on "what if's... are you?

SURE, WHY NOT?

That's what everyone else is doing?

ID is NOT REQUIRED by LAW TO HAVE in massachusetts.....

do you understand that?

Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.

No no NO. Arresting someone for not providing an ID is unconstitutional. And a cop is not allowed to fingerprint or detain you after giving your name UNLESS he can establish REASONALBE SUSPICION that you are being untruthful. An officer is bound to believe that what he sees and hears is true, UNLESS he can provide reasonable suspicion otherwise. A cop absolutely does not get to detain me, finger print me or anything else just because he wants to be sure. He must be able to provide a reasonable suspicion NOT TO BELIEVE ME.

This really amazes me. No wonder this kind of shit happens. You folks are laying down for the gestapo.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Here's the legal definition of "Terry stop" now point out where it states you do not have to provide proof of you the fuck you are when requested by a police officer. As a matter of fact it states, Asking for an ID is a reasonable inquiry.

Terry Stop Law & Legal Definition

Dumbass, Terry lays out exactly when you are required to give your name. It lays out the scenario of reasonable suspicion for cops to request YOUR NAME. Not a photo ID or anything of the sort. It only established when an officer has the right to stop and ask for your name.

To contend that a police officer may ask anyone, anytime for their name is absurd. That was the whole point of Terry. It established WHEN an officer has the right to ask your name, or stop you and detain you for questioning. Even then, you are only required to STATE your name.

Did you even read the definition? Obviously not. Quote the part that states that you DO NOT have to comply with an officers request for ID!!!

You're backpeddling just like care4all.

Surely you're not suggesting Crowley didn't have probable cause to question Gates and ask for identification. If you are, then you must be related to CharlieDumBass.

Dude, you need to do a littel more than a skimming of Terry v Ohio and also perhaps Hibel v Nevada, which was the defining case in continuing the progression of reasonable suspicion inquires.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

The Terry stop gives an officer only the right to a limited detainment and investigation. It does not absolve your 4th and 5th ammendment rights. As noted above, a Terry stop is limited to mainly, frisking. That was the real issue. Whether or not a frisk, without probable cause, only reasonale suspicion, was an illegal search. What the Terry case decided is that these limited searches and inquiries are just, under reasonable suspicion, but the gathering of EVIDENCE is not allowed. A photo ID is EVIDENCE of who you are. A Terry stop does not allow for such. You are not required to PROVE.....and that is an important word....who you are. You just have to say who you are. The officer has no right to demand EVIDENCE of who you are.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The Hibel caser took the Terry stop to it's next level, the specific level of requiring a person to supply their name to the police. The court held that once a Terry stop had been initiated, a limited investigation, based on reasonable suspicion, a person must provide his name. That is all. There is absolutley no law, no case law, nothing that even comes close to requiring the produciton of an ID or criminalizing those who can not do such.

Furthermore, the Justices all agreed, both the majority opinion and the dissent, that no one is required to provide their name or an ID to an officer, just because he ask. He must first make a Terry stop.....establish reasonable suspicion.

it is fucking scary that you people vote.

The limited issue resolved in Hiibel
The issue in Hiibel was whether someone who had been lawfully subject to a Terry stop -- that is, someone as to whom the police did have reasonable suspicion -- can also be required to provide his name to the police officer who stopped him.

The justices answered yes. But they divided 5-4 on the issue.

All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification. All nine justices also agreed that under the Court's prior precedents, the police could ask a person who has been subject to a Terry stop for his name.

The only disagreement that split the justices -- and the specific issue the case addressed -- was whether the person could be prosecuted for failing to answer that question.

CNN.com - Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police - Jun 24, 2004

 

[Lonestar_logic]

SURE, WHY NOT?

That's what everyone else is doing?

ID is NOT REQUIRED by LAW TO HAVE in massachusetts.....

do you understand that?

Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.

No no NO. Arresting someone for not providing an ID is unconstitutional. And a cop is not allowed to fingerprint or detain you after giving your name UNLESS he can establish REASONALBE SUSPICION that you are being untruthful. An officer is bound to believe that what he sees and hears is true, UNLESS he can provide reasonable suspicion otherwise. A cop absolutely does not get to detain me, finger print me or anything else just because he wants to be sure. He must be able to provide a reasonable suspicion NOT TO BELIEVE ME.

This really amazes me. No wonder this kind of shit happens. You folks are laying down for the gestapo.

Now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?

You're a fucking moron. I wish the hell you'd come to Texas and try that bullshit and see how you fare. When a police officer asks for an ID, he's already established reasonable suspicion. You are so full of shit. You're saying a cop must take your word and everyone elses word that they are who they say they are unless he can prove reasonable suspicion?

I guess it's a good thing that we are all honest people.

 

[Sweet Willy]

So now, does anyone still think that Gates had to show an ID?

I've said this several times about this incident: Gates showing a picture ID to Crowley was a COURTESY that Gates did for Crowley. He was not required to show any kind of ID.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Dumbass, Terry lays out exactly when you are required to give your name. It lays out the scenario of reasonable suspicion for cops to request YOUR NAME. Not a photo ID or anything of the sort. It only established when an officer has the right to stop and ask for your name.

To contend that a police officer may ask anyone, anytime for their name is absurd. That was the whole point of Terry. It established WHEN an officer has the right to ask your name, or stop you and detain you for questioning. Even then, you are only required to STATE your name.

Did you even read the definition? Obviously not. Quote the part that states that you DO NOT have to comply with an officers request for ID!!!

You're backpeddling just like care4all.

Surely you're not suggesting Crowley didn't have probable cause to question Gates and ask for identification. If you are, then you must be related to CharlieDumBass.

Dude, you need to do a littel more than a skimming of Terry v Ohio and also perhaps Hibel v Nevada, which was the defining case in continuing the progression of reasonable suspicion inquires.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

The Terry stop gives an officer only the right to a limited detainment and investigation. It does not absolve your 4th and 5th ammendment rights. As noted above, a Terry stop is limited to mainly, frisking. That was the real issue. Whether or not a frisk, without probable cause, only reasonale suspicion, was an illegal search. What the Terry case decided is that these limited searches and inquiries are just, under reasonable suspicion, but the gathering of EVIDENCE is not allowed. A photo ID is EVIDENCE of who you are. A Terry stop does not allow for such. You are not required to PROVE.....and that is an important word....who you are. You just have to say who you are. The officer has no right to demand EVIDENCE of who you are.

You failed to highlight unreasonable.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.

No no NO. Arresting someone for not providing an ID is unconstitutional. And a cop is not allowed to fingerprint or detain you after giving your name UNLESS he can establish REASONALBE SUSPICION that you are being untruthful. An officer is bound to believe that what he sees and hears is true, UNLESS he can provide reasonable suspicion otherwise. A cop absolutely does not get to detain me, finger print me or anything else just because he wants to be sure. He must be able to provide a reasonable suspicion NOT TO BELIEVE ME.

This really amazes me. No wonder this kind of shit happens. You folks are laying down for the gestapo.

Now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?

You're a fucking moron. I wish the hell you'd come to Texas and try that bullshit and see how you fare. When a police officer asks for an ID, he's already established reasonable suspicion. You are so full of shit. You're saying a cop must take your word and everyone elses word that they are who they say they are unless he can prove reasonable suspicion?

I guess it's a good thing that we are all honest people.

Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?

Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail.

Are you now going to explain to us how a person that has not been arrested gets a trip to jail?


I am not saying anything. The SCOTUS is saying this. Take it up with the law of the land.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Did you even read the definition? Obviously not. Quote the part that states that you DO NOT have to comply with an officers request for ID!!!

You're backpeddling just like care4all.

Surely you're not suggesting Crowley didn't have probable cause to question Gates and ask for identification. If you are, then you must be related to CharlieDumBass.

Dude, you need to do a littel more than a skimming of Terry v Ohio and also perhaps Hibel v Nevada, which was the defining case in continuing the progression of reasonable suspicion inquires.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

The Terry stop gives an officer only the right to a limited detainment and investigation. It does not absolve your 4th and 5th ammendment rights. As noted above, a Terry stop is limited to mainly, frisking. That was the real issue. Whether or not a frisk, without probable cause, only reasonale suspicion, was an illegal search. What the Terry case decided is that these limited searches and inquiries are just, under reasonable suspicion, but the gathering of EVIDENCE is not allowed. A photo ID is EVIDENCE of who you are. A Terry stop does not allow for such. You are not required to PROVE.....and that is an important word....who you are. You just have to say who you are. The officer has no right to demand EVIDENCE of who you are.

You failed to highlight unreasonable.

I don't know how else to spell it out for you.

No one is required to even have a picture ID. There is no law saying everyone must have an ID. Right? Can you agre that this is true?

Now, fucking explain to me how it is reasonable to require someone, under penalty, to produce something that they aren't even required to have?

Now I gues I'll go dig into the opinions in the Terry and Hibel cases and give you the SCOTUS own words about producing an ID.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The Hibel caser took the Terry stop to it's next level, the specific level of requiring a person to supply their name to the police. The court held that once a Terry stop had been initiated, a limited investigation, based on reasonable suspicion, a person must provide his name. That is all. There is absolutley no law, no case law, nothing that even comes close to requiring the produciton of an ID or criminalizing those who can not do such.

Furthermore, the Justices all agreed, both the majority opinion and the dissent, that no one is required to provide their name or an ID to an officer, just because he ask. He must first make a Terry stop.....establish reasonable suspicion.

it is fucking scary that you people vote.

The limited issue resolved in Hiibel
The issue in Hiibel was whether someone who had been lawfully subject to a Terry stop -- that is, someone as to whom the police did have reasonable suspicion -- can also be required to provide his name to the police officer who stopped him.

The justices answered yes. But they divided 5-4 on the issue.

All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification. All nine justices also agreed that under the Court's prior precedents, the police could ask a person who has been subject to a Terry stop for his name.

The only disagreement that split the justices -- and the specific issue the case addressed -- was whether the person could be prosecuted for failing to answer that question.

CNN.com - Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police - Jun 24, 2004

The issue in Hiibel was whether someone who had been lawfully subject to a Terry stop -- that is, someone as to whom the police did have reasonable suspicion -- can also be required to provide his name to the police officer who stopped him.

The justices answered yes. But they divided 5-4 on the issue.

The comment I made about going to jail is because that's usually where they take a person to be fingerprinted. At least that's the case here in Texas, they may take you to a couthouse or some other place for identification. I was speaking on what I know to be true where I'm at.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The Hibel caser took the Terry stop to it's next level, the specific level of requiring a person to supply their name to the police. The court held that once a Terry stop had been initiated, a limited investigation, based on reasonable suspicion, a person must provide his name. That is all. There is absolutley no law, no case law, nothing that even comes close to requiring the produciton of an ID or criminalizing those who can not do such.

Furthermore, the Justices all agreed, both the majority opinion and the dissent, that no one is required to provide their name or an ID to an officer, just because he ask. He must first make a Terry stop.....establish reasonable suspicion.

it is fucking scary that you people vote.

The limited issue resolved in Hiibel
The issue in Hiibel was whether someone who had been lawfully subject to a Terry stop -- that is, someone as to whom the police did have reasonable suspicion -- can also be required to provide his name to the police officer who stopped him.

The justices answered yes. But they divided 5-4 on the issue.

All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification. All nine justices also agreed that under the Court's prior precedents, the police could ask a person who has been subject to a Terry stop for his name.

The only disagreement that split the justices -- and the specific issue the case addressed -- was whether the person could be prosecuted for failing to answer that question.

CNN.com - Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police - Jun 24, 2004

The issue in Hiibel was whether someone who had been lawfully subject to a Terry stop -- that is, someone as to whom the police did have reasonable suspicion -- can also be required to provide his name to the police officer who stopped him.

The justices answered yes. But they divided 5-4 on the issue.

The comment I made about going to jail is because that's usually where they take a person to be fingerprinted. At least that's the case here in Texas, they may take you to a couthouse or some other place for identification. I was speaking on what I know to be true where I'm at.

Evidently, you aren't even aware of what is true, where you are.

You should read Brown vs. Texas.

Officers stopped a man leaving an alley where another man was standing. It was a known drug area and the police stopped and asked for ID. The man refused and was arrested on a Texas "stop and identify" statute. The Supreme Court held that the arrest for failing to identify himself was unconstitutional and vilolated the 4th ammendment.

Brown v. Texas

Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.

Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.

What you think is the law does not = the law.

The Court has held, in several cases, that failure to state your name, in an of itself, is not a crime. They have only held that states may require you to state you name in the course of investigating a possible crime, if there is reasonable suspicion.

There is absolutley no way to legally punish anyone for not providing an ID card of any sort. The question has never even been presented to the court. It's common sense. Until we actually have a law requiring you to carry an ID, there is no way to legally penalize you for not producing something you are not required to have.

I know this is a little tougher than making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but it is not rocket science.

 

[Care4all]

I hope the police never adhere to your 'theory of policing'.

Your entire argument is armchair quarterbacking after the fact.

1) The house was a rental. Gates name was not in the computer. The police had to verify who he was so they could contact the owners (Harvard University) which was handled by Harvard Security.

the police had NO PROBABLE CAUSE to need this information....do you understand that? They had NO PROBABLE CAUSE to need this information...there was no sign of a breakin, mr gates opened the door to speak with him, mr gates was an elder man with a cane and not 2 black hoods with a back pack as crowley lied and said Whalen told him... if was a false alarm or a false report....but Mr Gates DID OBLIGE him and did give him his ID.

And as far as being a renter and having no record of such, that is simply hogwash....cops can get the names of the renters at ANY ADDRESS, it is part of their system...most in Boston are NOT owners, but renters...it's simply ridiculous to believe such missourian...

2) It is an assumption to believe the person who answers the door is a resident of the home...cops cannot assume.

Yes it can be assumed and SHOULD BE ASSUMED by any cop.

3) It is assumption to believe that a robber would not answer the door...cops cannot assume.

Again, yes they can assess the situation, they do it every day for every incident, they get paid to think on their feet and they are good at it...AND Crowly's ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION was that Gates was the lawful resident of the home....if Crowley assessed that he was possibly NOT the lawful resident of the home, HE WOULD HAVE REPORTED SUCH to dispatch missourian, he would have NOT reported that he was led to believe Gates was the lawful resident of the home. He made this assessment within the first minute there....and his instincts, his gumshoe ability, was correct.

4) It is assumption to believe that a robber wouldn't know the name of a resident of the home...cops cannot assume.

He already did make the assessment that gates belonged there....the 911 caller was not certain a crime was even committed, only called it in cuz some old lady asked her to....

As I stated, cops are paid to make good, sound, assumptions with their assessments, every day they are on the beat.


5) Gates was suspected of a crime...breaking and entering.

simply not true....there was no description of the suspects, there was no crime that was committed to be a suspect of....there was a call that said they thought they saw one man using his shoulder to get the door opened...THATS IT.

6) The police need proof when investigating a crime of who it is they are confronting.

There was no crime....there was an investigator to determine such, and within a minute the investigating officer KNEW there was no crime based on his sound observations..

7) I have no idea if the 1 minute is accurate, but the point is moot. Gates was not arrested for failure to produce ID.

true, he wasn't, and even if he hadn't shown it, he would not have been arrested, because it is not against the law for him not to show the police his id if he even had one.

He was arrested for Disorderly conduct after he listened to crowley and followed him outside as crowley ASKED HIM TO DO TWICE....immediately before going outside.

And it was a FALSE CHARGE and ARREST, if you look up the laws in massachusetts and review the supreme court cases on disorderly conduct it is EVIDENT, PLAIN AS DAY, that crowley should not have charged him or arrested him.

He WAS FALSELY ARRESTED....whether crowley is innocent and did this by accident or on purpose, is yet to be found out, and probably never will be.....

care

You are wrong.

A BREAK-IN HAD OCCURED. GATES ADMITS HE BROKE INTO THE HOUSE.

And there was an attempted break-in recently reported at the same address.

NO he didn't? where do you get that from? gates did not admit he had to BREAK IN to his house....the door was stuck....that's it....happens to my storm door in winter up here and i hate it!!!

Gates door could not even be locked, due to a PREVIOUS break in by a perp....yes, this is true....

but you know, crowley was very unaware of such....he saw no signs of a break in at the front door...never reported such to dispatch, never reported such in his police report afterwards, and was surprised when he asked gates after he arrested him if he would like them to shut his front door and lock up for him when gates replied it wouldn;t lock and hasn't been able to since a previous B & E that had happened there....

i'm sorry, but there was no reason for crowley to lure mr gates outside and arrest him for disorderly conduct....

even though, if crowley's report is correct, and he was calling him a racist and calling him a jerk or WHATEVER....accusing crowley of being racist at the very top of a good set of lungs is not against the law, not even out on the street or his stoop or frnt porch, it is not disorderly conduct....the Mass supreme court ruled on this....

so gates appeared to be race baiting at worse, according to the police report....but REGARDLESS it is not against the law to call a cop racist in a yelling and screaming manner.... crowley did not have the right, under the law, to charge and arrest him for disorderly conduct because he was yelling...let alone at 1 pm in the afternoon on his own front porch.

this is what i have problems with....the arrest, when crowley asked gates twice to come outside if he wanted his cop identification WHILE gates was yelling at him....he already knew and said gates was yelling....for him to BRING mr gates outside and arrest him for yelling when he was the one that encouraged him to do such, smells like a SET UP for him arresting him a few seconds later....

i could be wrong, i hope i'm wrong....but from what i have read or heard on this....regarding the incident, regarding massachusetts law, regarding SC rulings, regarding ordinances, regarding the 911 call, regarding the calls to dispatch, regarding the police report, regarding Whalen testimony....I honestly do not believe i am.....

care

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The Hibel caser took the Terry stop to it's next level, the specific level of requiring a person to supply their name to the police. The court held that once a Terry stop had been initiated, a limited investigation, based on reasonable suspicion, a person must provide his name. That is all. There is absolutley no law, no case law, nothing that even comes close to requiring the produciton of an ID or criminalizing those who can not do such.

Furthermore, the Justices all agreed, both the majority opinion and the dissent, that no one is required to provide their name or an ID to an officer, just because he ask. He must first make a Terry stop.....establish reasonable suspicion.

it is fucking scary that you people vote.




CNN.com - Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police - Jun 24, 2004

The comment I made about going to jail is because that's usually where they take a person to be fingerprinted. At least that's the case here in Texas, they may take you to a couthouse or some other place for identification. I was speaking on what I know to be true where I'm at.

Evidently, you aren't even aware of what is true, where you are.

You should read Brown vs. Texas.

Officers stopped a man leaving an alley where another man was standing. It was a known drug area and the police stopped and asked for ID. The man refused and was arrested on a Texas "stop and identify" statute. The Supreme Court held that the arrest for failing to identify himself was unconstitutional and vilolated the 4th ammendment.

Brown v. Texas

Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.

Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.

What you think is the law does not = the law.

The Court has held, in several cases, that failure to state your name, in an of itself, is not a crime. They have only held that states may require you to state you name in the course of investigating a possible crime, if there is reasonable suspicion.

There is absolutley no way to legally punish anyone for not providing an ID card of any sort. The question has never even been presented to the court. It's common sense. Until we actually have a law requiring you to carry an ID, there is no way to legally penalize you for not producing something you are not required to have.

I know this is a little tougher than making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but it is not rocket science.

You are an idiot.

The case you're citing states the police stopped the man for no reason other than to identify him, that action violated his 4th amendment rights. And I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that when a police officer ask you for ID, reasonable cause having already been established that it's unlawful not to comply.

http://sobek.colorado.edu/~mciverj/2481_443US47.PDF

"(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to report or gives a false report of his name and residence
address to a peace officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information."