In the article, the author states that you do not have to identify yourself to an officer unless he has probable cause to ask for that information. This is not correct, and bad information such as this can cause tragic circumstances if not corrected.

In the case of Terry -vs- Ohio, (1968), the United States supreme court ruled that officers do have the right to ask for identification in the case of probable cause. This 'probable cause' can be based upon many factors including (but not limited to) whether the area is a high crime area, whether crimes had been comitted at that spot (or business, or residence) before, whether the cricumstances support a 'reasonable belief' by the officer that a crime might be (or have been) comitted, and a whole host of other factors. One cannot used the defense "The officer did not have probable cause" because the person who the information is being requested from simply cannot begin to know all the facts from the officer's point of view. If the person refuses, the officer can simply detain the person for identification purposes for officer safety.

It should be noted that the area of Gate's house is (1) designated as a high crime area, and (2) had been broken into before.

While getting professional advice in writing an article is commendable, using the ACLU was a poor choice of reference. Perhaps in the future a simple search into the supreme court rulings would be warranted.

You are correct! However, had the author gotten his info. form any other source, he would not have been able to color his article against the officers as much as he did.

akula69:

In the article, the author states that you do not have to identify yourself to an officer unless he has probable cause to ask for that information. This is not correct, and bad information such as this can cause tragic circumstances if not corrected.

In the case of Terry -vs- Ohio, (1968), the United States supreme court ruled that officers do have the right to ask for identification in the case of probable cause. This 'probable cause' can be based upon many factors including (but not limited to) whether the area is a high crime area, whether crimes had been comitted at that spot (or business, or residence) before, whether the cricumstances support a 'reasonable belief' by the officer that a crime might be (or have been) comitted, and a whole host of other factors. One cannot used the defense "The officer did not have probable cause" because the person who the information is being requested from simply cannot begin to know all the facts from the officer's point of view. If the person refuses, the officer can simply detain the person for identification purposes for officer safety.

It should be noted that the area of Gate's house is (1) designated as a high crime area, and (2) had been broken into before.

While getting professional advice in writing an article is commendable, using the ACLU was a poor choice of reference. Perhaps in the future a simple search into the supreme court rulings would be warranted.

That's an important distinction, thanks for sharing. As I understand it, one of the neighbors called the police and reported seeing two men forcing their way into Gates' house. Of course it turned out to be Gates , because he was having a problem with the lock. Of course it also makes a compelling argument for getting to know your neighbors. Admittedly it's been years since I knew the names of anyone on my block.

Actually, Terry concerned the "reasonable suspicion" (which is a lower standard than "probable cause") needed to make an 'investigatory stop'. In this case, however, the prof was within his own home. The constitution affords special protection to people within their homes and the Supreme Court has supported this throughout our history. While it may have been legal to stop and question the prof on the public street based on a certain set of circumstances, an entirely different legal standard is used to determine what they can do to him in his own home.

Secondly, the facts are not usually judged "from the officer's point of view" but rather "objectively." Court judgments about whether or not an officer was conforming with the law when making a Terry stop are made every day. The supreme court has ruled that police must have one of two things to make warrantless entry into a residence --- consent or 'exigent circumstances.' I doubt this officer could have made a case for 'exigent circumstances,' hence the prosecutor dropping the charges. Since there are no charges, there will probably never be a formal legal decision on the matter.

Besides, the major problem is not the probable cause for demanding the Professor's ID. He actually complied with that request. The major violation of his civil rights occurred AFTER it was established that no burglery had taken place.

At that point the officer arrested him on the BS Disorderly Conduct charge just because he didn't like Gates' attitude. That was the time when it would have been appropriate for the officer to say some thing like: "Okay, sorry to bother you sir." A single gesture of recognition that Gates was not in the wrong would have sufficed, but apparently that is not something this particular officer can manage. That plus the stupid (yes, I said "stupid") arrest are strong evidence that the officer is not fit for his position of authority.

Fozzy, this case had to constitute "exigent circumstances" sufficient to justify the cop's entry into the home. A 911 call from a witness to breaking & entering; a broken & entered front door lock; a suspect "owner and Queen of England" heading toward the back door to "get his ID." The cop had a duty to follow him into the house to make sure he was getting his ID.