Posted on 04/30/2010 4:27:18 AM PDT by tobyhill
According to the AZ law, the cops have to have “reasonable suspicion” that the person broke the law by being in the U.S. illegally before the cop can check the status of the person.
This is not any different than the cops pulling over a guy, dressed in black, driving really slow in a neighborhood that he does not live in (the cops will run the plates to determine where the suspicious vehicle is from), especially if there have been reports of burglaries in the neighborhood recently. The cops will pull the vehicle over and verify that the driver is not breaking any laws based on the “reasonable suspicion” that the driver is not where he should be and may be casing the neighborhood. Based on the answers and ID given by the driver, the cops will either have “probable cause” to search the vehicle and/or arrest the driver or let the driver go.
Cops also will usually check the ID and question a dressed up woman standing on a busy street corner late at night due to a “reasonable suspicion” that this woman may be a prostitute. Based on the answers and ID given by the woman, the cops will either have “probable cause” to search and/or arrest the woman or just let her go.
So if a cop sees a person that is acting suspicious (like standing on a corner pandering for day labor or evading the cops) then the cops have “reasonable suspicion” to question the person. If, based on the answer and ID provided by the person, the cops determine that the person is here illegally (i.e. breaking the law) then the cops have “probable cause” to arrest the illegal, but if the person proves to be a citizen AND is not breaking any other law then the cops will let him go.
So as you can see, the “reasonable suspicion” burden of proof is used in many aspects of law enforcement and is not restricted to just illegal alien identification. If a cop can’t question a suspicious person that may be breaking the law by being in the U.S. illegally then why would a cop be able to question anyone for any other potential crimes? The AZ law is legal and valid for this situation.
If it walks like an illegal, talks like an illegal, it probably is an illegal.
If an officer walks up to a group of Hispanics hanging out in front of a Home Depot and the officer ask a couple of them, “where do you live?” and they reply, “over there”, in Spanish, that is reasonable suspicion because first they are loitering and second “over there” is not an answer worthy of eliminating reasonable suspicion. The reason they don’t give a real address is in fear of ratting out the 50 other illegals living in one house or apartment.
“Interesting that you cite CNN in your defense.”
CNN is a major news network and that was the first article I ran across searching for relevant material. If you prefer, here is a direct quote from Fox News:
“Critics have called Arizona officials racist, intolerant and downright unconstitutional for passing the law, which makes illegal immigration a state crime and allows police to demand documentation from anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant.”
Note that it doesn’t say “anyone they’ve apprehended that they suspect is an illegal immigrant.”
I do thank you for linking the actual language of the statute. I’m not a lawyer (and once again after trying to read it I’m glad), but I believe the sticky part is:
“B. 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(c).”
I don’t believe “lawful contact” is confined to the situation where the officer believes the law has been violated. Any attorneys care to comment?
Amen to that!
‘If an officer walks up to a group of Hispanics hanging out in front of a Home Depot and the officer ask a couple of them, “where do you live?” and they reply, “over there”, in Spanish, that is reasonable suspicion because first they are loitering and second “over there” is not an answer worthy of eliminating reasonable suspicion.’
Loitering is a crime, no? In that situation the officers could demand ID of anyone under current statutes. So, there would be no need of ‘reasonable suspicion’, if the ID doesn’t show legal status, deport ‘em. The only change needed would be state enforcement of immigration law, as I said above.
As is often the case, if existing laws were enforced new ones would be unnecessary.
Thanks Rick with a P. I want all the money I’ve ever paid for speeding tickets back. We either enforce the law or we don’t.
I am 56 years old and have lived in two widely differing states. In neither state was I EVER contacted officially by a law enforcement officer when there was not clear information indicating that I had violated a statute of one kind or another. I have never heard of it happening to anyone else (it would certainly have made the news in CA or NC, they’re alike in that respect). I also await lawyer response on this, but I’m pretty sure the text you cite is the text which confines estimating reasonability for legal status to situations where the officer has detained the individual for some other clearly evident violation and, in the course of contact, becomes convinced that a material possiblity exists that the person being detained is neither a legal resident nor legal resident alien.
And note, even if there is evidence that lawful contact is permitted without having to have proximate suspicion of lawbreaking, that means that there already was such a provision totally unrelated to the present case.
It would also mean that Federal law also permitted such contact. From all I understand, to actually contact someone requires at least visible evidence of law-breaking or a subpoena signed by a judge.
And after all that foo foo raw is over it still remains: I have to carry positive identifiction wherever I go. If detained I can (and almost certainly will) be required to display that identification and wait while the officer checks it against known databases for various conditions of interest. Are you suggesting that people who are most likely to be truly felony violators be exempt from a condition to which I, a citizen supposedly presumed innocent, am subject?
Thanks for a well thought out reply.
Believe it or not, I’m not in favor of any of the scenarios you mention either. How did the cops know the guy was wearing black inside his car BTW? Maybe he was just a cautious driver..
I lean towards a freer society with more personal responsibility. If someone tries to burglarize your house, shoot ‘em.
Another scenario you didn’t mention is where officers are allowed to bring in sniffer dogs because they think someone is “suspicious”. It’s another situation ripe for abuse, especially since almost all money has drug residue on it. You might view things differently after the interior of your car has been ripped apart looking for nonexistent drugs because a cop is having a bad hair day.
The Fourth Amendment is being roundly abused, and I strongly feel police power should be focused on actual criminal situations rather than fishing expeditions. Your mileage may of course vary. ;-)
Aren't all violations of federal law considered violations of state and local law. I recall when a municipal police officer in the 50’s arresting several persons for the feds. I believe today's police do the same.
Well, you see, Perry no longer has to worry about a primary challenge, so he can go back to being an amnesty supporter.
When an immigrant is issued a “green card,” he is told he/she must have the card in their possession at all times. It is already a federal law to carry it.
the reason Texas is so screwed, is that it is well known that you can’t win statewide office as a dem. I don’t believe there is a single dem holding an at-large state-wide position. So, the dems “change parties” and pretend to be pubbies. The media backs them, because they know they can’t lose when they own both sides of the race. So, you end up with pols who talk like conservatives during the election, and vote like democrats afterwards.
Wrong. This law will only affect illegal alien scum NOT Americans.
Buh-bye, Rick! You’ll protect your dog from a coyote but NOT the LEGAL citizens of Texas from human coyotes?!?!
Kiss your re-election good bye. Yeah, there’s a big block of hispanic and ILLEGAL voters out there—don’t think they make up enough of a percentage to keep your day job though!
What do we know about Bill White’s view on illegal immigration??? (said half-seriously knowing that Houston is a sanctuary city)
You’ve been spun by media misinformation. In fact, the AZ bill does what you propose,no more, no less.
Urge your Governor to Support Tough Immigration Enforcement Legislation
You can find this fax by proceeding to
http://www.numbersusa.com/faxes?ID=12221
Did the same, here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.