> the ACLU advises that you have no obligation to tell officers
> your name unless you are being properly detained OR unless you
> are in a vehicle.
IANAL, but this is a misreading of the (fine) ACLU handout, which, I believe, is an attempt to give you a fighting chance if you are randomly stopped. This is *not* the case we are discussing. In this case, the officer is asking Gates to identify himself *because he is investigating the crime of someone breaking into that house* ...
It is indeed a crime to refuse to identify yourself in that case, and the ACLU handout is not applicable.
> If failing to provide ID was basis for arrest, he would have
> been arrested for *that*.
You're doing it wrong. This is evidence that the cop *was* held to a higher standard than even Wacko would demand; he *could* have arrested him right there and then, and yet: he worked through it, eventually got the proof he was (lawfully) looking for, terminated the investigation, and then left.
> Instead, the officer led Gates outside of his home, and then arrested
> him on disorderly.
When you say "Instead" you appear to be making the case that he had a choice of two things: he could arrest him for not giving up his ID, or he could lead him outside and arrest him for disorderly conduct. You're missing the middle of the story: Gates *did eventually identify himself*, his information was confirmed, and the investigation was terminated.
Besides: I believe that Crowley tricked Gates into believing that Crowley's mother was out on the porch, and that's where Gates could talk to her. Or something :-)
> It was a "proper" arrest for disorderly order in so far as disorderly
> conduct is so broadly defined as to be meaningless.
Tell it to the Supreme Court, who has looked at this question *many* times and disagrees with you :-)
> Gates was not properly detained while inside his home.
He was certainly not detained in his house (!), but he *was* the subject of an active, narrowly defined investigation -- this is the commonj standard. He was obliged to identify himself. If he continued to be unwilling to identify himself, the cop would have no choice but to take him into custody for burglary! Forget the not identifying yourself, if you can't explain what you are doing in a house, you're a burglar!
This is all just soooo silly.
Again, quoting the ACLU handout:
> IN YOUR HOME
>
[...]
> 2. However, in some emergency situations (like when a person is
> screaming for help inside, or when the police are chasing someone)
> officers are allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant.
This is exactly the situation that Gates found himself in!
/jordan