There is a concept known as "driving while black" literally synonymous with unlawful racism and racial profiling in America. What appears to have occurred with Gates makes driving while black look like a legitimate and justified police practice in comparison. Professor Gates was in his own home and showed appropriate identification exhibiting the same. At that point the incident needs to end. Period. If Gates demands the responding officer's name, it is a reasonable request, the officer needs to say he is sorry, give Gates his name and badge number and leave. It is really the only reasonable action under the circumstances.
Cursing at an officer is not a crime and one cannot be arrested for it. Of course, cops generally have as much understanding of the law as cats do of geography, which results in numerous arrests on false premises and other cases being thrown out of court because of illegal actions by cops. Anyway, a 9th Circuit judge determined that contempt of cop was not a crime in Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990).
Duran's conduct is not totally irrelevant, however, as it suggests a possible motive for his detention, one upon which law enforcement officers may not legitimately rely. The Durans contend, and the district court held, that Aguilar stopped their car at least partly in retaliation for the insult he received from Duran. If true, this would constitute a serious First Amendment violation. "[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509. The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
...
No less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely anyone who takes an oath of office knows--or should know--that much. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 462, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Whether or not officer Aguilar was aware of the fine points of First Amendment law, to the extent he is found to have detained Duran as punishment for the latter's insults, we hold that he ought to have known that he was exercising his authority in violation of well-established constitutional rights.
And therein lies the problem for the Cambridge Police Department, which has pointedly refused to apologize to Professor Gates for their officer's outrageous and racist conduct. Here's the Statement of Facts from Gates' police report:
On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. ___ of ___ Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at __ Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.
Signed: Sgt. James Crowley
"[L]oud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer." Shockingly, it seems that Sargent James Crowley was ignorant of the fact that his authority is not absolute and he is not to be treated with the deference owed a monarch.
Amusingly, Crowley is now claiming that he is not a racist, based on the fact that he gave CPR to a dying black basketball star, Reggie Lewis. So that's settled.
0 comments:
Post a Comment