Posted on 07/08/2010 8:01:32 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
On what basis? Law Enforcement can ask anyone about their immigration status.
Yes, they actually do, as do all police when they ask for wants and warrants on a person who they've detained. Those checks include federal wants and warrants. If the IRS has obtained an arrest warrant for tax evasion on the Porsche driver, that warrant would in NCIC system, and the state police officer would arrest the driver on that outstanding warrant, and he would be held in county lockup until such a time that the federal authorities came to collect him.
It happens every hour of every day in cities all across the country. In fact, Canada participates in our NCIC system, and their wants & warrants would also be given to the officer who's asking.
They'll build an enforcement action, that is to say they (the Feds) will collect a number of cases where "victims" allege that their civil rights were violated by the AZ police who were enforcing this law. That would be American citizens that were improperly detained in the enforcement of this law.
Clearly, this will happen. In fact, I'm sure that groups like the ACLU and La Raza are busy constructing "stings" where they'll entrap the AZ police into arresting some American citizens just because they "look" illegal.
The DoJ would then file a civil suit based on the allegations of these US "citizens", that AZ was violating their civil rights. Most of the state laws that are challenged in federal court by the US government, are based on - at least in part - problems with the actual enforcement of those state laws. In this instance, the law hasn't even become effective, so no enforcement problems can be alleged, yet.
This was an important tool in solving NYC's crime problem during the Guiliani administration. Police began enforcing laws for minor crimes such as turnstile jumping in the subway system. Before issuing a citation, policemen checked for wants and warrants and grabbed up lots of really bad actors. When these guys were off the street, crime dropped dramatically.
These procedures are in effect in Rhode Island, and challenges have been defeated. In Muehler v. Mena, The US Supreme Court ruled that police do not need any reason to ask someone about their immigration status, and based on that decision, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures in Estrada v. Rhode Island.
What I’d like to know is this — how does Rhode Island compare with the rest of the other states/counties in terms of the IMPACT on their economy from illegals ?
Do they for instance, have a smaller number of illegals as a percentage of their state population as other states in the North East because of this policy in place ?
The answer to this question will give us an indicator of how effective policies like the one put in place in Arizona will be.
What I’d like to know is this — how does Rhode Island compare with the rest of the other states/counties in terms of the IMPACT on their economy from illegals ?
Do they for instance, have a smaller number of illegals as a percentage of their state population as other states in the North East because of this policy in place ?
The answer to this question will give us an indicator of how effective policies like the one put in place in Arizona will be.
If the Feds cared about usurpation of federal authority, they would have filed lawsuits against the sanctuary cities; their laws are DIRECTLY opposite to federal law. By ignoring those laws, wasn’t some sort of legal precedent set? Something like squatters’ rights? (If I openly squat on someone else’s land for seven years and they do nothing, it’s mine by law.)
This is little Patty Kennedy’s state. They’re all idiots to elect him therefore they’ll be left alone by obama.
I’ll repeat myself when I say I’d like to be a congressman for one day so I could slap “pattycake’s” face.
I think this is going over your head.
The next lawsuit filed by DoJ on this matter will have nothing to with how the Court has ruled with respect to a LEOs right to ask a detainee for identification. It will be based on the practical application of this particular law, nothing more.
In theory, a law could be facially constitutional. But, the Executive - in this instance, the state of AZ - could be violating the civil rights of others in enforcing the law.
All it's going to take to build such an case, is for the state of AZ to arrest and detain an American citizen based upon this law and under circumstances that allow the complainant to allege that other constitutionally guaranteed rights had been violated.
I can promise you that there will be an instance where a cop pulls over a panel van with 10 "Mexicans" in the back who look like they just walked out of the field. They "Mexicans" will all speak no English and carry no ID and will say nothing more than their name and address, which by law is all they are required to say to law enforcement - see: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
They'll be arrested on "reasonable suspicion" that they're illegal. Of course, it will turn out that the "Mexicans" are 2nd generation American citizens of Hispanic ancestry, and probably all honors students at the University of Arizona or some other AZ college.
Since it's not illegal to be of Hispanic ancestry, and because it's not illegal for American citizens to not carry ID, and because it's not illegal for Americans to speak Spanish, and because it's not illegal to be dirty, and because it's not illegal to be in a panel van on a public highway, and because it's not illegal to not give anything other than you name and address, they'll have a case that their civil rights were violated by the state of AZ, and you'll have your first complaining witnesses in a federal civil rights case.
It will be Selma Alabama, all over again and Obama will have his "issue" to campaign on in 2012.
It's already been declared Constitutional to detain someone without ID until that ID can be ascertained. So that argument is out the window. There's no CR violation there. The Court has already ruled.
Ping!
Good night. Did you actually read what you responded to?
Again, I said (emphasis added)...
"The next lawsuit filed by DoJ on this matter will have nothing to with how the Court has ruled with respect to a LEOs right to ask a detainee for identification.
And, by the way, that's not what the central legal holding in Hibel was about. The police can't detain you for not carrying ID. They can detain you if you refuse to identify yourself. It's a HUGE difference. In America, there is no legal expectation that citizens carry any kind of identification on them, just that they give their name to police if so questions. That's it.
I can tell a cop that I'm Douglas Fairbanks and live in Hollywood. The cop has the legal right to, stay with me now, verify that information.
Officer: "Do you have any ID?"
Me: "No, but I'm John Q. Smith from 125 Elm Lane."
Officer: "I have to verify that information, sir."
That's it. No Constitutional issue whatsoever.
Really, what's the "reasonable suspicion" for a passenger in a van? And, the standard set forth in Terry is "briefly detain", not arrest.
From Terry...
"For this purpose it is urged that distinctions should be made between a "stop" and an "arrest" (or a "seizure" of a person), and between a "frisk" and a "search." 3 Thus, it is argued, the police should be allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to "frisk" him for weapons. If the "stop" and the "frisk" give rise to probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, then the police should be empowered to make a formal "arrest," and a full incident "search" of the person. "
If anyone needs to reread Terry, it's you.
This is why this law, although plainly constitutional on its face, is fraught with possible problems in its application and enforcement. As I said, there is nothing suspicious about being a passenger in a panel van on a public highway and without identification. While the citizenship of the driver is very easily made, the citizenship of the passengers is almost impossible to make without some kind of physical form of identification, which the Court has held need not be carried by US citizens.
The fact that he's travelling with an admitted illegal alien maybe? Maybe the fact that he can't speak a word of English?
Can you show me a statutory requirement where Americans must speak English? Can you show me any case law where the Court has held that an unwillingness to speak English is grounds for reasonable suspicion? Can you show me any case law where the Court has held that people being detained for questioning, even in the face of reasonable suspicion, are required to give any information other than their name?
I'll wait.
The minute an AZ police department arrests someone because they look Hispanic, they're dirty, they're in a panel van, they refuse to speak English and only on the suspicion of illegal entry, is the moment right before a federal judge issues a TRO, enjoining the AZ from enforcing the law. That's the practical legal reality.
You can find the Court of Appeals decision here:
http://www.riaclu.org/CourtCases/Case/EstradaVstatepolice.html
Plaintiffs made all the sorts of claims you fear would be made in your “set up” scenario:
“Plaintiffs make claims arising under federal law including unreasonable search and seizure; unlawful discrimination; and deprivation of civil rights. They also make claims arising under state law including negligence; unreasonable search and seizure; unlawful discrimination; and unlawful racial profiling.”
Plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU.
And yet, in the end:
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants moved for Summary Judgement.
Plaintiffs (Estrada, et al.) motion was denied.
Defendants (State of Rhode Island, et al.) motion was granted.
It’s a 20 page decision. You can read it for yourself.
Cheer up! Sometimes the Good Guys win!
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.