TheStatutoryApe
- 296
- 4
Esoteric said:Crowley is required by law to state his badge number, he did not(the police report makes no claim that he did).
Gates request of Crowleys name and badge number occurred AFTER it was established that Gates was the owner of the home. How is he still a suspect? Crowley conceded Gates request was lawful when Crowley stated his NAME. If the request was unlawful why state his name and not his badge number? he is required to state both.
If the latter part of your post is fact(the "Outburst" that occurred outside, Evo says witness agree), then both broke the laws that day. Both are equally to blame for this escalation.
From what I read of the report Gates asked for Crowley's name. I did not see any reference to a request for badge number but I will take a look and see... nope. Just says he asked for a name. And according to Crowley he furnished it but Gates apparently did not hear because he was busy ranting. Gates made a request for Crowley's ID before furnishing his own. At that point Crowley may not have been obliged to show it, the law states it is to be furnished upon "lawful request". I am unsure what exactly constitutes a lawful request. How about you? I am pretty sure that while questioning a suspect in a possible burglary, before they have properly identified themselves with ID, an officer is not likely under any obligation to show ID other than a badge which is usually worn in plain view on the uniform.