Arizona requires you to carry your papers

[Balta1701]

if i understand the law correctly, the following could happen.

 

A hispanic guy is walking back to an apartment building with groceries. A police officer says, hmmm, he may be illegal.

He could pull up to the guy and ask him for his papers to prove he's a citizen.

 

Is this correct? There is no "probable cause" just suspicion.

Based on the most stringent reading of the law...if the officer chose not to ask him for his papers, and another citizen witnessed that...the other citizen could sue the city for not enforcing the law stringently enough.

[Balta1701]

The conflict over a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Arizona intensified Monday as vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol's windows.

AP

[G&T]

if i understand the law correctly, the following could happen.

 

A hispanic guy is walking back to an apartment building with groceries. A police officer says, hmmm, he may be illegal.

He could pull up to the guy and ask him for his papers to prove he's a citizen.

 

Is this correct? There is no "probable cause" just suspicion.

 

No it is not correct, although it might happen in practice. The officer must have articulable facts to justify the intrusion of privacy. You scenario does not contain any such facts.

[CanOfCorn]

AP

 

I'm sorry...but that made me laugh. Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up.

[G&T]

That will be a key question in any legal questions. Probable cause still needs to be the rule, so if this law works on "suspicion", it probably won't survive a legal test.

 

Probable cause is only necessary to satisfy the warrant requirement and to make an arrest. An officer can approach anyone and ask simple questions if they have "reasonable suspicion." From that point, the answers to those questions can result in a more invasive intrusion, but probable cause is not necessary until the handcuffs are applied. The problem here is that we don't know what articulable facts are acceptable to constitute reasonable suspicion in this case.

[CanOfCorn]

Probable cause is only necessary to satisfy the warrant requirement and to make an arrest. An officer can approach anyone and ask simple questions if they have "reasonable suspicion." From that point, the answers to those questions can result in a more invasive intrusion, but probable cause is not necessary until the handcuffs are applied. The problem here is that we don't know what articulable facts are acceptable to constitute reasonable suspicion in this case.

 

No habla espan-lawyer.

[NorthSideSox72]

Probable cause is only necessary to satisfy the warrant requirement and to make an arrest. An officer can approach anyone and ask simple questions if they have "reasonable suspicion." From that point, the answers to those questions can result in a more invasive intrusion, but probable cause is not necessary until the handcuffs are applied. The problem here is that we don't know what articulable facts are acceptable to constitute reasonable suspicion in this case.

Those are steps, but probable cause still holds to hold someone for a crime. Sure, a cop can ask anyone walking down the street some questions. But said person can also say "no thanks", and keep walking, and that alone is not enough for police custody. You need more. Thus, the intrusion to the point of asking for papers proving they didn't commit a crime (in country illegally), still requires probable cause. And it isn't about handcuffs - its police custody, which is affected not just with phyiscal restraints, but also any condition where a reasonable person would feel they had no right to leave.

 

I'm fairly familiar with the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, particularly as it relates to what actions can be taken by law enforcement. And this law tries to make a bridging leap between them, which will not fly on legal test.

 

[Texsox]

Ah yes, distraction from the fact that the Federal government has completely failed in the area of immigration for generations now.

 

 

I agree, they have failed. It was clear for years, even before Reagan, that we need a guest worker program. But the government knows that adding millions of low wage earners to the tax rolls is a tough financial pill to swallow, not matter who is working those jobs.

 

Since illegals can come from anywhere, and the better educated illegals work the higher paying jobs, Arizona should start their campaign by checking all educated people of european ancestry for papers. Imagine catching someone earning $60 or $70K a year. I still have a few friends out of work that could use that job. So far they haven't been knocking down the doors to be migrant workers in the agriculture industry.

[Texsox]

I'm all for the demand-side changes, and penalties being made more severe for hiring or transporting illegals.

 

 

My only concern is there needs to be some proof that the business knowingly hired an illegal. Imagine if a store clerk would be arrested for accepting a counterfeit bill. Same thing here. If the business has complied with all the necessary proof of the right to work and later the documents are proven to be good or great forgeries, I think it is wrong to prosecute them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Based on the most stringent reading of the law...if the officer chose not to ask him for his papers, and another citizen witnessed that...the other citizen could sue the city for not enforcing the law stringently enough.

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

 

What? Come on. It says nothing of the sort. Unless I've missed it, the law says that an agency/office/person of official capacity can be sued if they try to limit or restrict FEDERAL immigration law (via adopting/implementing new policy), not if a cop decides not to question one guy. GMAB.

 

A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

 

Everything I'm reading says that 99% of this bill is great. They're going after illegals, and they're going after people that harbor illegals, move illegals, and hire illegals. They're making it more difficult for employers to hire/hide illegals away (a protection for both the US and for the illegal, since I'd have to assume a lot of them are exploited for basically slave labor).

 

They were stupid to include the problem language -

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©."

 

But part of me wonders if the simple fact of enacting this was good enough for them. Clearly everyone is talking about it, so maybe they're just sending a message? Either way, it'll get challenged, probably lose, and they'll just have to fix up the language to include a bit more detail of when/how a police officer can request proof of citizenship.

[Jenksismyhero]

My only concern is there needs to be some proof that the business knowingly hired an illegal. Imagine if a store clerk would be arrested for accepting a counterfeit bill. Same thing here. If the business has complied with all the necessary proof of the right to work and later the documents are proven to be good or great forgeries, I think it is wrong to prosecute them.

 

That's what the law aims for - knowingly hiring illegals, and intentionally hiring illegals. And the penalties are actually a little soft - probation at first, then more sever penalties later.

 

And if this issue doesn't show the f'd up nature of our news agencies. Try to find a copy of the actual law we're all debating here. You have to sift through hundreds of stories about it (which don't include links or even quote the actual text of the statute). What a shock that our society debates talking points over substance.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[G&T]

Those are steps, but probable cause still holds to hold someone for a crime. Sure, a cop can ask anyone walking down the street some questions. But said person can also say "no thanks", and keep walking, and that alone is not enough for police custody. You need more. Thus, the intrusion to the point of asking for papers proving they didn't commit a crime (in country illegally), still requires probable cause. And it isn't about handcuffs - its police custody, which is affected not just with phyiscal restraints, but also any condition where a reasonable person would feel they had no right to leave.

 

I'm fairly familiar with the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, particularly as it relates to what actions can be taken by law enforcement. And this law tries to make a bridging leap between them, which will not fly on legal test.

 

You are confusing seizure and custody. Yes, the person is seized if they do not reasonable believed that they can walk away, but that does not mean custody. If he were in custody then he would have to be given Mirandas.

[Jenksismyhero]

You are confusing seizure and custody. Yes, the person is seized if they do not reasonable believed that they can walk away, but that does not mean custody. If he were in custody then he would have to be given Mirandas.

 

I dunno that a person can be "seized." They can be "falsely imprisoned" via threats/fear of not being able to leave.

[G&T]

I dunno that a person can be "seized." They can be "falsely imprisoned" via threats/fear of not being able to leave.

 

The 4th Amendment disagrees. This is Terry stop (essentially, what you can search for is state specific). Also, I am pretty sure a police officer cannot falsely imprison because they have proper authority to do so.

Edited April 26, 2010 by G&T

[Balta1701]

And if this issue doesn't show the f'd up nature of our news agencies. Try to find a copy of the actual law we're all debating here. You have to sift through hundreds of stories about it (which don't include links or even quote the actual text of the statute). What a shock that our society debates talking points over substance.

Dude...it really wasn't that hard. It was "Arizona immigration law text" and the 2nd link on Google.

[kapkomet]

Dude...it really wasn't that hard. It was "Arizona immigration law text" and the 2nd link on Google.

 

The law CLEARLY states this as well:

 

Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

 

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?in...overnor.doc.htm

 

 

So, we can stop the cherry picking now, no? As I said earlier, I don't necessarily agree with this law because the enforcement is almost impossible, and it's too arbitrary. But, the race baiters are out there in full force even though it's damn clear that the case will be dropped and even the law enforcement people are subject to lawsuits themselves if they go solely based on race.

[EvilMonkey]

So it seems that alot of people here are worried that government, in this case police, will overstep their boundries and abuse the power given to them here. But yet many of these same people see no worries with turning over 1/6th or more of our economy to government oversight. No chance for abuse there, eh?

[Texsox]

If it was 14 white looking people with out ID what would you do?

The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally

 

So, if they pull over an old van packed with 14 hispanic looking people in it for speeding, nobody speaks english and they don't have a drivers license or state issued ID, you don't want them asking if they really belong here?

[EvilMonkey]

If it was 14 white looking people with out ID what would you do?

If nobody spoke English and had no ID, the same thing. Tex, I am all for going after the 'other' class of illegals as well, the ones that overstay their visas. So if Dilip, Vladimir and Svetlana are here illegally, boot them out as well.

[BigSqwert]

If nobody spoke English and had no ID, the same thing. Tex, I am all for going after the 'other' class of illegals as well, the ones that overstay their visas. So if Dilip, Vladimir and Svetlana are here illegally, boot them out as well.

Given the extremely controversial tactics employed by the Sheriff's office down there over the years you don't think this law will be completely abused?

[EvilMonkey]

Given the extremely controversial tactics employed by the Sheriff's office down there over the years you don't think this law will be completely abused?

Given the amount of scandal and abuse by our current congress over the years, don't you think that the health care bill will be completely abused?

[Texsox]

So speaking English will help assure your rights as a citizen?

If nobody spoke English and had no ID, the same thing. Tex, I am all for going after the 'other' class of illegals as well, the ones that overstay their visas. So if Dilip, Vladimir and Svetlana are here illegally, boot them out as well.

[BigSqwert]

Given the amount of scandal and abuse by our current congress over the years, don't you think that the health care bill will be completely abused?

Thanks for avoiding the question.

[StrangeSox]

So speaking English will help assure your rights as a citizen?

 

Yeah I like that one. Really brings out the spirit of the bill, no?

[Texsox]

Yeah I like that one. Really brings out the spirit of the bill, no?

 

Yep, 14 people in a van not speaking English is a routine thing here. The cops will spend all their time pulling over my neighbors and no time on anything else.