A complaint has been filed with the Cambridge Police Review and Advisory Board, to request a review of the arrest of Professor Henry Gates on July 16, 2009. The substance of the complaint is as follows:
This complaint is brought by a third party non-witness to the events described in Incident Report #9005127 and #9005127-1. The complainant Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Fund, Inc. (d/b/a/ The Anti-Violence Project of Massachusetts) is an advocacy organization under 401 CMR 4.01 dedicated to improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in enforcing hate crimes and civil rights laws in the Commonwealth, particularly as they concern the LGBT Community. The grounds for the complaint are as follows:
The police reports referenced above do not disclose a good faith legal basis to arrest and detain a citizen on charges of being an “idle and disorderly person,” G.L. c. 272, § 53. The “offender” is accused of “tumultuous behavior” in his private home and on the porch appurtenant to the dwelling. According to the reports, the “offender” did not enter onto public property, such as the streets, or upon the property of another. Moreover, the reports establish no more than that the “offender” was engaged in expressive conduct which is not a basis for the “disorderly person” charge. See Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580, 587 (1975.) An arrest and detention made on the basis of expressive conduct, without probable cause to charge the elements of G.L. c. 272, § 53 “disorderly person,” violates the citizen’s rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and the public interest in the rule of law.
We ask that a determination be made that the arrest described in the above-referenced police reports be declared unlawful and in violation of the arrestee’s rights under law. As a remedy, we propose that the officers involved and other such members of the Cambridge Police Department as may be appropriate undergo mandatory training in the civil and constitutional rights of citizens, especially the rights declared in Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462-63 (1987); and particularly be instructed in identifying the elements of the crime of “disorderly conduct.”
…don’t you think?
but a story is likely running in the Cambridge Chronicle tomorrow. It was necessary for the din to die down in order to focus investigative attention on the legality of the arrest.
The recent arrest of Professor Henry Gates by Cambridge Police is a troubling development, and one which merits the attention and concern of the LGBT community as we continue to observe the 40th Anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. What I find most alarming is the likelihood that Sgt. Crowley arrested and detained Gates without a probable cause basis to charge “disorderly conduct.” The Gates incident exposes a serious type of due process violation-police unlawfully targeting non-criminal conduct-that has been the bane of LGBT existence for a very long time.
<
p> It appears that Professor Gates’ “crime” was to verbally challenge the police, intemperately and perhaps disrespectfully. But “expressive conduct” is not a crime even if it offends somebody. On the contrary, vociferous criticism of police officers going about their duties is a First Amendment right, which was recognized by the US Supreme Court in a 1987 case involving a particularly outspoken gay activist in Houston. (He was convicted in the Texas courts.) Police officers still exceed their authority to punish or interfere with non-criminal LGBT conduct. On the anniversary of Stonewall this year, police in Fort Worth, Texas raided a gay bar with probable cause dubious, knocking heads and making some bogus arrests while on the premises. In New York at the time of Stonewall, police twisted a 19th century law against wearing disguises to prohibit cross-dressing, arresting transgenders like those loaded into the Paddy Wagon on Christopher Street on June 28, 1969. Without legal basis, bars were prohibited from serving homosexuals, and same-sex dancing was banned. Gay men have been driven away from public property, which GLAD went to court to stop in the 90’s. Some police officers still use intimidation in the absence of law to disrupt public displays of affection by same-sex couples.
<
p> The LGBT community should be very concerned when police officers exceed the letter of the law to administer some of what Pat Buchanan fondly calls “street justice.” We have a greater stake than most in seeing that police officers, who carry guns after all, stay tethered to the rule of law.
I don’t imagine this will show up in the next umpteen fundraising letters this organization sends out…
appears at this link: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cam…
What standing do you have to bring this case, since you were not party to the incident nor even a witness? Haven’t courts repeatedly thrown out cases from third parties on standing grounds?
and our concern as an advocacy organization is the public interest in the rule of law. Although non-justiciable perhaps, the complaint sets forth a due process violation that has directly affected Anti-Violence Project victims. Consider the Barry Scott arrest on private property in Provincetown in 2007 for the crime of saying (allegedly) “I hate the police.”
I read too quickly I guess. Point taken that it was filed with the police rather than in court.