You asked a question, I answered it. Sorry if I missed the context or that bothers you.
Whatever some idiot politician said of it, the law doesn’t demand that someone can be suspected only because some other crime was committed, which is what your cite seems to be concerned with. That’s not what “reasonable suspicion” for this particular crime means. The law doesn’t dictate that this suspicion only exists when in the commission of some other offense. Neither does common sense. Again, the law, as written, is punitive only to the extent any law is–it subjects those who a reasonable officer could suspect of the crime to certain processes, and in some instances that will involve people who are ultimately proven to be innocent. Just as any other law does.
If the top sheriff is saying what you indicate, he’s an ass who should be removed from office. Do you have a cite? But that is not a reflection on the law itself.
Well, then, what does it mean? What actions, attitudes, or clear evidence is required to foster that “reasonable suspicion”? You keep tossing this phrase about as though its meaning were clear and unequivocal, so I’m assuming you can offer us a clear and unequivocal definition. So bring.
And if you can’t, won’t you at least entertain the notion that we have a point?
If none exists in reality, then it’s a pointless law. That circumstance does not give law enforcement free rein to manufacture its own definition of reasonable suspicion. Worst case scenario, as I already acknowledged in this thread, is that this is a toothless law, nonsense that accomplishes nothing. But it does not somehow dispense with constitutional protections or make the term “reasonable suspicion” evaporate.
I’m not a law enforcement officer, so I’m speculating in any event. Bricker already provided one such example: an officer asks someone if he’s a citizen, gets a response of “No, I’m a legal alien.” When the person is asked for his card (which the law demands that legal aliens carry), he answers, “I left it at home.” Reasonable suspicion.
Again, I’m not a cop, but how about the same scenario, but after the cop asks the question, the person gets a terrified look on his face and bolts.
How about the cop asks a series of questions, where the person starts to provide contradictory answers, first he’s a legal alien, then he’s a citizen, that kind of thing.
I don’t know, I’m not a cop. But, again, the law specifically requires reasonable suspicion. If in practice, no such thing exists for this crime (which I don’t believe) then no harm can occur unless the cop specifically ignores the law. Is that really an argument against the law? “Yes, as written, it does not demand anything unreasonable or assign some new legal standard for detainment, but my Spider-sense tells me that cops will find it irresistible to abuse.” Is that it?
To clarify, the requirement for legal aliens to carry ID was an existing law, not an aspect of this new legislation.
Look, Apu, we don’t accept Indian driver’s licenses. When you get your phone call maybe you should call tech support - maybe you’ll find someone to bail you out.
-Joe
Then it seems to me the best answer is to say, “I am a US citizen,” even if you are illegal. Under this law, are the cop’s hands tied by these magic words?
Stratocaster, you seem to miss the point(s). Legally, a citizen doesn’t need to carry ID and if asked by a police officer, is only required to identify him/herself by saying “My name is John Smith”. This is true unless the police officer has some objective reason to suspect the individual of a crime, as when the person fits the description of the perpetrator of a holdup that just happened nearby. Absent this, the declaration of identity is all the citizen is required to provide.
So in your hypothetical above, when asked, the illegal alien can simply (although untruthfully) answer “I am a citizen named John Smith”. That should end the encounter. Unless, of course, the officer somehow suspects the “citizen” part to be a lie.
The controversy stems from the assumption that officers will default to such suspicion if the person looks like a “Jose” but default to *meh *if the person actually looks like a “John”.
Swarthy, accented citizens are suspicious that they will be needlessly confronted, and likely be detained unless and until they can prove their citizenship, thus being “required” to “carry papers” not by direct fiat of the law, but by practical effect. Otherwise, they expect repeated trips “downtown” to “get this straightened out”.
The objection to this law isn’t because people don’t want illegal aliens to be caught. The objection is to the predicted massive, well at least inconvenience, if not outright harassment, of actual citizens and legal aliens.
ETA- Fear Itself, your post snuck in while I was typing!
I would think answering “I am a U.S. citizen” would mean no reasonable suspicion in a majority of cases. Like many crimes, I think reasonable suspicion will not exist except to the extent that dopey offenders generously provide it themselves.
If that’s how the law is put into effect, I predict multiple successful challenges and lawsuits. Again, the notion of “reasonable suspicion” does not somehow get modified or evaporate because of this law. “Appearing to be of Mexican descent” does not by itself equate with reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien.
Yes, although it seems to me you read the GD thread in which I did just that, and even replied to the posts in that section of the thread. Did you forget?
But here’s an example:
A person is approached by a police officer on the street. “Say, there, partner,” says the officer, “Are you a U.S. citizen?”
“Uh, no.”
“Permanant legal resident?”
“Uh… yeah.”
“Great. Do you have your green card?”
“I left it at home.”
At that point, reasonable suspicion exists.
Why in the world would he say that? He has nothing to gain by telling the truth, and apparently the police have no recourse if he utters the magic words: “I am a US citizen.”
Here is where your post jumps the rails.
The officer cannot simply “somehow suspect.” The term reasonable suspicion has a long and well-defined pedigree in the legal world. It means that the officer must be able to point to specific, articulable facts that would permit a reasonable person of prudent caution to conclude that suspicion exists.
So when you jump to “somehow suspects,” you make a leap that the law does not permit you to make. In order to reach this point, what specific factors can the officer point to that created his suspicion?
But as I have tirelessly explained, the officers cannot “default” to suspicion, and cannot use “He looked like a José” as a specific, articulable factor.
So, again – what would the officer say?
If these citizens are suspicious, it is because people, like the many commentators here, continue to repeat this canard, depsite the refutations that exist.
Well, all I can tell you is that a similar truth has existed for many years in other areas of law.
At a traffic stop:
“Say, partner, you don’t have any drugs, guns, rocket launchers, anything like that I should know about in the car, do you?”
“No.”
“Great. Then you don’t mind if I take a look, do you?”
“Uhhh… ok.”
Now, knowing he had three ounces of marijuana and a crack pipe with residue in the car, why did he say ok, especially because to avoid a search all he had to do was say 'No, I don’t consent to any search," or even “Yes, I do mind.”
Yet despite that truth, the scenario above gets played out every day. And people get searched and arrested, and their lawyer agonizes over the situation, because there is no good defense to a consent search.
So… why in the world would he say that? Because he didn’t go to law school, I guess.
Yes, that was my point as well. The endless chorus of “define reasonable suspicion, how will this miracle occur?” seems disingenuous to me. How will it occur? Having no law enforcement experience whatsoever, I still have no trouble believing that violators of this law will carry on the proud tradition established by their criminal brethren in other arenas; they will demonstrate an almost limitless capacity to stupidly and deliberately incriminate themselves. Why would this be different?
It’s intimidating to talk to a cop, even when someone has nothing to hide. Why this crime, out of all crimes, will be perpetrated by people immune to this kind of stupidity or stress has yet to be explained. No, in this circumstance we can only seem to envision objectively blameless people being harassed, despite the small army of offenders walking around, despite the fact that there’s no basis for the harassment short of a cop ignoring what the law specifically requires.
That doesn’t answer the question of how a cop can see somebody walking down the street and have a reasonable suspicion that he’s in the country illegally. Can’t happen. And it doesn’t have to be in conjunction with any other stop or suspicion. The law doesn’t say that.
Yes, it does. It was quoted many times in the GD thread, and I will quote it again here for you:
It doesn’t say the stop has to be separate from or independent of the suspicion of resident status.
Even so, there is STILL no way to arrive at “reasonable suspicion” about that status other than race.
What about the ability to speak English ? I I was a cop who happened to converse with a person who couldn’t speak English, I would certainly be suspicious of their legal status.
There’s also the impression of undue stress on the part of the suspect during an interact with a cop that may become evident requiring further investigation.
-TFD, who for many years zealously guarded his blue immigration landing card, the only evidence for his right to remain in Canada.
That would come as a surprise to US citizens visiting Arizona from Puerto Rico.