Under Mass. law, Police Officers Have To Identify Themselves

Gothmog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-23-09 07:01 PM
Original message

Under Mass. law, Police Officers Have To Identify Themselves

This is a great article on Mass law here http://www.slate.com/id/2223379/

Gates repeatedly requested the arresting officer's name and badge number. Gates says the officer provided neither, although the officer claims that he did, in fact, state his name. Was the officer required to provide this information?

Yes. Massachusetts law requires police officers to carry identification cards and present them upon request. Officers are also required to wear a "badge, tag, or label" with their name and/or identifying number. The law is aimed at precisely the situation in question�suspects who feel their rights are being violated. Few other states impose this requirement on their officers as a matter of law, but many individual police departments, such as the New York Police Department, have adopted it (PDF) as a matter of policy.

Here are the links to the relevant Mass. laws http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm and http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98c.htm If you read the police report from Crowley, it is clear that he did not comply with the law here.

Finally, the arrest was bogus under Mass law

What, exactly, is disorderly conduct?

Behavior that might cause a riot. Massachusetts courts have limited the definition of disorderly conduct to: fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm. (The statute, however, just says "idle and disorderly persons," a formulation that is, on its own, patently unconstitutional.) Violators may be imprisoned for up to six months, fined a maximum of $200, or both.

The stilted language in the Gates police report is intended to mirror the courts' awkward phrasing, but the state could never make the charge stick. The law is aimed not at mere irascibility but rather at unruly behavior likely to set off wider unrest. Accordingly, the behavior must take place in public or on private property where people tend to gather. While the police allege that a crowd had formed outside Gates' property, it is rare to see a disorderly conduct conviction for behavior on the suspect's own front porch. In addition, political speech is excluded from the statute because of the First Amendment. Alleging racial bias, as Gates was doing, and protesting arrest both represent core political speech.

Here is some good language from the Houston v. Hill case http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=451

Today's decision reflects the constitutional requirement that, in the face of verbal challenges to police action, officers and municipalities must respond with restraint. We are <482 U.S. 451, 472> mindful that the preservation of liberty depends in part upon the maintenance of social order. Cf. Terminiello v. Chicago, supra, at 37 (dissenting opinion). But the First Amendment recognizes, wisely we think, that a certain amount of expressive disorder not only is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom, but must itself be protected if that freedom would survive. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.