Arizona requires you to carry your papers

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

It was an excellent (if entirely accidental) exhibition of exactly why these types of laws are ineffective and, more often than not, racist.

[Balta1701]

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.

If they can't "go solely based on race" then this law wouldn't exist and you know that.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

 

No, I really am not confusing them, though its possible there is a subtle difference in definition here where we are talking past each other. Custody and arrest are NOT the same, though they usually end up both occurring. And in all the training I ever had, the word "seizure" was never used in reference to a living person. I think we're just using different words here.

 

Also, you can arrest someone, or take them into temporary custody, with out police arrest, and without issuing a Miranda warning. Its just that those situations are rare, and its not recommended if you plan to actually arrest them and charge them for something.

 

My point was, and still is, that this law is attempting to bridge the gap between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, which are two different legal hurdles. My example earlier is what I mean - if you ask for someone's papers and they say "no habla" and walk away, that might pass reasonable suspicion, but it does NOT pass probable cause. So if you then stop them from leaving - which is polic custody, and effectively in that case, an arrest - you have made an arrest purely on suspicion. This will not survive a court test, mark my words.

 

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.

 

A police officer can definitely falsely imprison someone, in the same sense that a police officer can act illegally. They could take someone into physical custody for no legal reason, for example. Police arrest powers are not boundless, therefore, they can be abused.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

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

 

 

"arizona immigration law" and "arizona immigration bill" didn't get me anywhere.

[Jenksismyhero]

Thanks for avoiding the question.

 

I think the fact is there are laws in every state and also at the federal level that have the potential for abuse, yet we trust other offices/agencies/people not to abuse them. Why make a big stink about this one without being worried about all of them? If they do illegal stuff and if they abuse their powers, the victim can have his day in court and be compensated accordingly. I think the benefit of the bill far outweighs the negatives. And I hope this type of bill (cleaned up) gets enacted everywhere.

[Balta1701]

I think the fact is there are laws in every state and also at the federal level that have the potential for abuse, yet we trust other offices/agencies/people not to abuse them. Why make a big stink about this one without being worried about all of them? If they do illegal stuff and if they abuse their powers, the victim can have his day in court and be compensated accordingly. I think the benefit of the bill far outweighs the negatives. And I hope this type of bill (cleaned up) gets enacted everywhere.

Because this law is unenforceable without abuse.

[Jenksismyhero]

Because this law is unenforceable without abuse.

 

I guess you need to point me to the part of the bill that says "when you see brown people, expect them to be illegal, and demand proof of their immigrant status."

 

 

[Balta1701]

I guess you need to point me to the part of the bill that says "when you see brown people, expect them to be illegal, and demand proof of their immigrant status."

That's the issue with the law. It allows for searches based on reasonable suspicion, and any rational person would assume that reasonable suspicion basically is essentially race (i.e. the "you don't expect 14 white people in a van speaking english to be illegal immigrants). It then states that you can't use race, because otherwise the ACLU would already have won the lawsuit.

 

So either, you violate the race provision or its unenforceable.

[G&T]

No, I really am not confusing them, though its possible there is a subtle difference in definition here where we are talking past each other. Custody and arrest are NOT the same, though they usually end up both occurring. And in all the training I ever had, the word "seizure" was never used in reference to a living person. I think we're just using different words here.

 

Also, you can arrest someone, or take them into temporary custody, with out police arrest, and without issuing a Miranda warning. Its just that those situations are rare, and its not recommended if you plan to actually arrest them and charge them for something.

My point was, and still is, that this law is attempting to bridge the gap between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, which are two different legal hurdles. My example earlier is what I mean - if you ask for someone's papers and they say "no habla" and walk away, that might pass reasonable suspicion, but it does NOT pass probable cause. So if you then stop them from leaving - which is polic custody, and effectively in that case, an arrest - you have made an arrest purely on suspicion. This will not survive a court test, mark my words.

 

The bolded is absolutely true, I messed up that one.

 

I never said this law is Constitutional. This law has jurisdictional issues and constitutional issues. All I'm doing is giving you the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment. I don't know how police are trained, all I know is how the law is interpreted and, yes, there is a difference between seizure and custody. And under the law, it is permissible to request identification with reasonable suspicion. I am not talking about practicalities of the real world. But I think the issue might be moot for other reasons.

 

Under the current law, it is not illegal to fail to possess identification if you are walking down the street. Under this law it basically would be for illegals. As a result, this is not a mere stop on the street, but a warrantless search for contraband or the lack thereof because failure to possess the papers would result in arrest. Asking for papers under this law is essentially an arrest, interrogation, and search. What's worse is that if the police ask and they consent by answering the question (no i have no papers) it could be viewed as an exception to the warrant requirement. This is just rife with problems.

 

A police officer can definitely falsely imprison someone, in the same sense that a police officer can act illegally. They could take someone into physical custody for no legal reason, for example. Police arrest powers are not boundless, therefore, they can be abused.

 

I honestly have no idea. I didn't know whether it was a tort of false imprisonment or some other action under USC 1983 for deprivation of civil rights.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The bolded is absolutely true, I messed up that one.

 

I never said this law is Constitutional. This law has jurisdictional issues and constitutional issues. All I'm doing is giving you the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment. I don't know how police are trained, all I know is how the law is interpreted and, yes, there is a difference between seizure and custody. And under the law, it is permissible to request identification with reasonable suspicion. I am not talking about practicalities of the real world. But I think the issue might be moot for other reasons.

 

Under the current law, it is not illegal to fail to possess identification if you are walking down the street. Under this law it basically would be for illegals. As a result, this is not a mere stop on the street, but a warrantless search for contraband or the lack thereof because failure to possess the papers would result in arrest. Asking for papers under this law is essentially an arrest, interrogation, and search. What's worse is that if the police ask and they consent by answering the question (no i have no papers) it could be viewed as an exception to the warrant requirement. This is just rife with problems.

 

 

 

I honestly have no idea. I didn't know whether it was a tort of false imprisonment or some other action under USC 1983 for deprivation of civil rights.

I think we're on the same page. I was just thrown off by "seizure" as pertaining to living persons, as I had not seen that phrase used in that frame of reference before.

 

The law is problematic in the leap it attempts to make between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and there are some very obvious potential risks as written (that go well beyond the garden variety risk by enforcement tactics that JIMB is going after).

 

 

[Texsox]

I just stood in front of 27 eighth grade students. It would be impossible to tell a difference between them and who may and who may not be here illegally. Basically these kids are facing a United States where they will have to prove, perhaps on a regular basis, if they are here legally or not. How would you like to have to carry your birth certificate or other government issued ID everywhere you go or risk being arrested? But hey, maybe the Constitution only applies to white people.

[Rex Kickass]

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?

 

I guess I have a hard time understanding why setting up an exchange to offer more health insurance choice for working Americans is government intruding too much into our lives, but requiring people to carry proof of citizenship or legal residency (and a drivers license does not constitute proof of citizenship by the way) at all times is A-OK!

[Jenksismyhero]

That's the issue with the law. It allows for searches based on reasonable suspicion, and any rational person would assume that reasonable suspicion basically is essentially race (i.e. the "you don't expect 14 white people in a van speaking english to be illegal immigrants). It then states that you can't use race, because otherwise the ACLU would already have won the lawsuit.

 

So either, you violate the race provision or its unenforceable.

 

But you're reading it like it says if you see one brown person that's enough to pull them over. That's wrong.

 

14 people shoved in a fan can and should be suspicious. That's your window. White/black/brown, doesn't matter.

[Texsox]

But you're reading it like it says if you see one brown person that's enough to pull them over. That's wrong.

 

14 people shoved in a fan can and should be suspicious. That's your window. White/black/brown, doesn't matter.

 

That sounds like multiple murders on CSI: NY

if you meant van, than it sounds like a Church outing in my neighborhood. If you can see them, they aren't be smuggled in.

[Balta1701]

But you're reading it like it says if you see one brown person that's enough to pull them over. That's wrong.

 

14 people shoved in a fan can and should be suspicious. That's your window. White/black/brown, doesn't matter.

But see here...you're applying your judgment to probable cause, with the specific goal of finding a workable solution to apply the law without having it look like you're being racist, as a way to justify the law. Your argument is "It's possible to use this law in a way that isn't contradictory, therefore the law is ok." No one is checking immigration papers if they find a van full of 14 white people unless they're deliberately trying to make the statistics look non-racist, and you know that.

 

And if they were...well, that's reason enough for me not to go to Arizona. Because I don't want to have to carry my passport with me.

[Jenksismyhero]

That sounds like multiple murders on CSI: NY

if you meant van, than it sounds like a Church outing in my neighborhood. If you can see them, they aren't be smuggled in.

 

yes i meant van.

 

And a passenger van is one thing. Look, we all know what we're talking about here. We all know what looks suspicious and what doesn't. And if you can't then you can't harass those people. That's the point. Sure a small percentage of people will get harassed for no good reason, they'll sue, and they'll most likely get compensated. That's how our system works. No different than any other law out there that cops abuse and enforce illegally.

 

My viewpoint on this is talking with my cop buddies who work in the worst areas of Chicago. They're limited in what they can do despite what common sense would dictate. This legislation should have been worded differently, and should have included more detail as to what reasonable suspicion means. But the intent of the law is good, and I don't see much abuse happening that wouldn't happen with any other law.

[NorthSideSox72]

yes i meant van.

 

And a passenger van is one thing. Look, we all know what we're talking about here. We all know what looks suspicious and what doesn't. And if you can't then you can't harass those people. That's the point. Sure a small percentage of people will get harassed for no good reason, they'll sue, and they'll most likely get compensated. That's how our system works. No different than any other law out there that cops abuse and enforce illegally.

 

My viewpoint on this is talking with my cop buddies who work in the worst areas of Chicago. They're limited in what they can do despite what common sense would dictate. This legislation should have been worded differently, and should have included more detail as to what reasonable suspicion means. But the intent of the law is good, and I don't see much abuse happening that wouldn't happen with any other law.

The flaw is not about detailing what reasonable suspicion means - police understand that test (or should) and use it regularly. The flaw is that the law attempts to force police action normally reserved for situations of a higher legal hurdle (probable cause) to occur based solely on suspicion. That is where it breaks down.

 

[Balta1701]

yes i meant van.

 

And a passenger van is one thing. Look, we all know what we're talking about here. We all know what looks suspicious and what doesn't. And if you can't then you can't harass those people. That's the point. Sure a small percentage of people will get harassed for no good reason, they'll sue, and they'll most likely get compensated. That's how our system works. No different than any other law out there that cops abuse and enforce illegally.

 

My viewpoint on this is talking with my cop buddies who work in the worst areas of Chicago. They're limited in what they can do despite what common sense would dictate. This legislation should have been worded differently, and should have included more detail as to what reasonable suspicion means. But the intent of the law is good, and I don't see much abuse happening that wouldn't happen with any other law.

In other words...we're back to the real point of this law...as long as it rounds up the illegals, who cares if it requires every hispanic looking person to carry their papers.

[Jenksismyhero]

The flaw is not about detailing what reasonable suspicion means - police understand that test (or should) and use it regularly. The flaw is that the law attempts to force police action normally reserved for situations of a higher legal hurdle (probable cause) to occur based solely on suspicion. That is where it breaks down.

 

Wrong. Only after "lawful contact" can they then get to the "reasonable suspicion" part. It's not circumventing anything. As written they cannot just simply walk up to every brown person and ask for proof of their status.

[Jenksismyhero]

In other words...we're back to the real point of this law...as long as it rounds up the illegals, who cares if it requires every hispanic looking person to carry their papers.

 

Oversimplifying the process.

[Balta1701]

Wrong. Only after "lawful contact" can they then get to the "reasonable suspicion" part. It's not circumventing anything. As written they cannot just simply walk up to every brown person and ask for proof of their status.

Why? How is the latter not lawful contact? As long as they're not going up to your house and drawing you outside to ask for your papers, if you're in a public place, don't the police have the right to approach you?

[Texsox]

yes i meant van.

 

And a passenger van is one thing. Look, we all know what we're talking about here. We all know what looks suspicious and what doesn't. And if you can't then you can't harass those people. That's the point. Sure a small percentage of people will get harassed for no good reason, they'll sue, and they'll most likely get compensated. That's how our system works. No different than any other law out there that cops abuse and enforce illegally.

 

My viewpoint on this is talking with my cop buddies who work in the worst areas of Chicago. They're limited in what they can do despite what common sense would dictate. This legislation should have been worded differently, and should have included more detail as to what reasonable suspicion means. But the intent of the law is good, and I don't see much abuse happening that wouldn't happen with any other law.

 

What paperwork will citizens need to carry to identify themselves as citizens? If you forget your wallet and perhaps get caught speeding, shouldn't you also go to jail until you can prove you are a citizen? Or will the cops have to make a judgement if you "look" like a citizen? If you "talk" like a citizen? Basically what you are saying is citizens will have to prove they are citizens if they pile into a van for a trip to the beach or ballpark.

[Balta1701]

Btw, liked this one:

But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

[BigSqwert]

Btw, liked this one:

[Jenksismyhero]

Why? How is the latter not lawful contact? As long as they're not going up to your house and drawing you outside to ask for your papers, if you're in a public place, don't the police have the right to approach you?

 

Walking outside isn't suspicious enough. What would your argument be? He looks illegal so I reasonable suspected him to be illegal? Come on. Let's use common sense here.

 

I've said it before, that's the problem with the law, it doesn't say what circumstances would be reasonable. But that doesn't make the law bad, it just means they'll go through a few cases to interpret what that means and what it doesn't mean, just like every other law we've ever had.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Jenksismybitch