I won’t. Because in order to protect themsleves from this kind of attack, they WILL start to ask everyone, no matter how pale their skin, what their immigration status is.
No, that’s not the fact. Nor does your blanket assertion create the fact. This law will succeed or fail by the guidelines that are developed for the ordinary police officer. I agree that if this were simply left in the hands of each patrol officer, wildly inconsistent standards will emerge, and some will be improper.
I don’t anticipate this. I expect that each department will develop standards for implementation, and those standards will prevent the abuses you fear.
I am willing to acknowledge that this may not happen, and that the law may end up being a vehicle for racial profiling. But I do not regard it as a fait accompli.
Crap. I knew I should’ve just left it alone. All right…now that I’m in…
It was not my intent to make a statement as to whether or not abuse will occur. Nor to guess at what qualifies as “abuse”. Rather, I was simply making a rather sterile point, commenting on situational frequency.
By increasing the total number of times questioning occurs (i.e., the new “default action”), the total number of times abuse can/will occur also increases. Thus, the law “encourages” abuse simply by increasing the frequency of encounters where abuse is possible. Similarly, one might also characterize the law as “encouraging” catching illegals – that frequency will also increase.
It seems to me that you can’t really have one without the other…
So explain DMC’s post. That kind of harassment is clearly illegal too, but it still happens. Are you calling DMC a liar, or claiming Arizona police are magically different?
If no to both of those two, why do you feel Hispanics, such as your parents, deserve to be harassed by the cops?
Average person has a cop, with a gun and the power to give them a lot of grief, walk up to them, are they going to feel free to continue their business, especially if the cop is going on like some fool that thinks they need to be deported?
And before you bah bah your lawyer sheep speak that they have no power to bother if you’ve done something wrong like some stupid fool, do you have any idea what kind of damage a rogue cop could do?
Traffic tickets, plant a little weed and get some jail time, all sorts of trouble. People generally find being investigated by the police to be stressful.
Police officers have in the past been guilty of drug running, accepting bribes, and murder. It’s certainly within the realm of possibility that the officers in DMC’s town included a number willing to lie about reasonable suspicion.
Of course, DMC doesn’t appear to have made any complaints against a single one of those uncalled-for traffic stops, so we really don’t know what sort of evidence the officers would have presented to justify their actions. You want to me to accept, uncritically, DMC’s version of events, and resolve every fact in his favor, without the other side getting so much as a chance to air its version?
Sure, it’s possible the cops in DMC’s town were playing fast and loose with the rules. It’s not common, in my experience, but it’s not impossible.
But all that does is show that this law changes nothing. It was possible before, and it will be equally possible now. So your complaint has nothing to do with this Arizona law: DMC’s experience happened well before the Arizona law was even a whiff of a suggestion in the minds of legislators.
Again: that is the law right now. In all fifty states of the union, cops may come up to you and initiate a conversation for no reason at all. As long as you are free to walk away, they do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Now, your complaint is that this is fictitious, that a person won’t feel free to walk away. Even if that is true, it’s not a complaint about this law.
Plant a little weed? Seriously? Now you have the cops carrying little baggies of marijuana around to plant on people?
Yes actually I would like to believe immigrants who are victims of crime aren’t in fact punished.
Second as to your multifallacious argument that if we scrap one law for abuse we should scrap all.
Are you fucking daft? If only there was some way to control immigration without harassing legitimate citizens and residents. If only there was some unique number employers are legally required to keep track of for tax reasons, social reasons, or security reasons or something. Then maybe we could catch people at work or something when they use fake ones. Without harassing legit folk.
Sadly such a number doesn’t get exist, here in the retard universe.
You used fucking accent as a reason then claim the law isn’t encouraging abuse and ethnic profiling. So you, as a supporter of this law, are in fact okay with ethnic profiling?
Nothing at all? Really? All that text is just meaningless fluff? And its writers, the heavily-lawyer-infested legislature, and the governor didn’t realize that? Only you know The Truth?
But that’s the problem, one which you adamantly refuse to acknowledge: If you refuse to show your papers, you have created reasonable suspicion and your ass now belongs to Sheriff Arpaio. You are NOT free to walk away.
Anyone in AZ, especially those who “look Mexican”, will now have to bring their ID’s with them. Even for an American, losing your wallet is now putting you at risk of getting hauled off. That’s the effect, and that’s the intent too. Your endless bleatings about how you’ll get released when your legality is established, and therefore you have nothing to worry about, are simply silly. Do you really believe that one’s encounter with the police/legal system doesn’t begin until charges are filed? Please.
What else would it take to make that clear to you? Maybe putting on shabby clothes and hanging out in front of a Home Depot in Phoenix, perhaps? Try it and be sure to let us know what happens, after you get released, that is.
If the cop comes up, out of the blue, and asks you if you’re a citizen, and you say yes, then there is, as far as i can tell, no requirement for you to show your papers. Simply answering “yes” to that question does not, in and of itself, create any reasonable suspicion.
Similarly, if you say to the officer, “I’m sorry, but i’m not going to answer that question,” then, absent any other articulable reason for keeping you detained, the cop is supposed to just let you go on your way. He can’t require you to show your papers, and your refusal to answer does not, by itself, create the suspicion necessary for the cop to detain you.
If you haven’t done anything in the presence of the cop that gives him cause to detain you, about the only way you can (legally) get hung up is if you tell the cop that you’re not a citizen, but you are a resident alien. As a resident alien, you are required to carry your Green Card with you, and the cop would then be within his rights to ask you to produce it, in the same way he can ask a driver to produce a license. If you can’t, then reasonable suspicion is created.
Now, there are other categories of people that i’m not so sure about. For example, for quite a few years before i got my Green Card, i was in the US legally as a foreign student. To my knowledge, i was not required to carry my passport and other visa documentation with me everywhere (i could be wrong about that), so if i had been required to prove that i was in the country legally, most of the time that would have been impossible without going home and getting the relevant papers out of my filing cabinet. Many tourists, also, don’t carry their passports with them when they’re just walking around; they leave them in hotel rooms, or hotel safes.
I’m nowhere near as sanguine as Bricker about the effects of this new law, nor about the likelihood of the cops manufacturing “reasonable suspicion.” In a legal framework requiring only that the cop able to articulate a reasonable belief, and that will likely take the cop’s word over that of a civilian, “reasonable suspicion” is a pretty damn easy barrier for an unprofessional officer to cross. But then, this was the case even before the Arizona law was passed.
Basically, police fishing expeditions asking people about their citizenship or residency status will rely, as do so many police contacts, on the fact that people are not aware of what their rights are, or are afraid to exercise them for fear of police intimidation or harassment. If cops walk up to people and ask about their citizenship or residency status, the person’s first and only reaction should be, “I’m not going to answer that question. Am i free to go now?” But, because society itself invests cops with authority, many people are understandably afraid to do that.
Have some fun examining what the NYPD considers standard operating procedure. And there’s audio to confirm it’s not just made up. Arrest people for standing on the sidewalk. Demand ID or they get arrested. Let them go later, it’s all about making numbers.
Note, by the way, in the second link, the nurse who got busted for failing to show ID. In front of her own house. Apparently, it’s illegal not to have ID. Or at least, it’s sufficient for cops to arrest you for that.
Quoted for truth. THAT is the substance of my complaint. Sorry I didn’t make myself as clear.
As I did offer earlier, “acting furtive” or “giving evasive answers” or “attempting to avoid contact with the officer” all or each would be sufficient to create reasonable suspicion. And then result in your detention or arrest.
Does anyone really believe that this requires a cop to be a “rogue” or a deliberately evil abuser? Hardly. It’s the kind of diligence that might be admired, endeavoring to maintain the peace and good order, as is an officer’s duty. It derives from the same foundation as that old expression “Take it downtown and let the judge sort it out” and for the same reason. Cops often think of themselves as having an instinct for transgressors, and see their proper role as sweeping with a wide net, expecting (and often rueing) the fact that “the justice system” will later release all but the most egregious violators. And most people, under most circumstances, would defend their actions—especially if there is a real or perceived “crime problem”.
So I’m not claiming that all cops are bigots or gleeful abusers of citizens’ civil rights. Nor do I claim that the kind of abuse outlined here would be an extra-ordinary practice. I think it is actually the common practice, as DMC and likely many members of minority groups would attest. It doesn’t so much cross a line, as to stretch the boundary. DMC was asked why he didn’t report or officially complain about the incidents he related here, if they were so bad, but I think the answer is self evident. The word “reasonable” requires a judgment call and when it comes to a desire to feel protected, most people are willing to give cops the benefit of the doubt. And so pulling over a lone driver at 3am, or perhaps squinting rather hard to “see” reasonable suspicion in a darkly complected person are defensible when our protection is at stake. If pressed, the officer can surely offer a reasonable articulation of justification. The complaint is seen as hollow, especially if the (eventual) result was simply to send you on your way. “Was that really so bad?” After all, even if they haul you in, you still get a day in court!
Thought ya’ll might be interested in reading this:
Start at paragraph 61. I think, for people interested in the legal debate, it is a worthwhile read.
I don’t have time to respond to your earlier post at length, Bricker, but I think we basically agree that there are only two plausible ways to enforce this law: Either the cops question everyone they encounter about citizenship, or they profile by race, at least in part. I think the latter is likely, though on reconsideration, I think you’re right that the former is also plausible. I also think we’ll never find which way it goes in practice, because the law is likely preempted.
I agree that preemption is a distinct possibility. There is no law precisely on point, and I don’t believe I’d find preemption if I were on the bench, but I don’t think someone who does is acting plainly wrongly.
And yet, where are the waves of protest against the NYPD?
You use these examples to show why we should oppose the Arizona law, and yet not a peep about opposing the ACTUAL FUCKING SITUATION you raise as an example. People talk about boycotting Arizona, and yet take no action against an area where you’ve actually demonstrated that abuse is occurring.
Hmmm.
Actually, I’ll amend that statement a bit. Some folks did call for a boycott of Arizona Ice Tea. Turns out, it’s made entirely in New York.
Where cops, and the cop mentality, are entirely different, as are the percentages of immigrants and illegals. *Entirely *different. No comparison whatsoever.
Easy enough to find, if you really want to know.
You do understand the difference between a problem being contained to a particular police department and opposed by the people and a problem created by the will of the people. The appropriateness of target selection, IOW. You’re smart enough to get that, so your reason for posting that crap must have been … something else.
Think just a little harder and it might come to you, if you’re really having trouble.
I can see where you’re coming from here, and can’t say you’re wrong. But the same could be said of just about any law the cops are asked to enforce. Prior to its passage there is zero times that it can be abused in its enforcement. After passage, and assuming, the law is actually enforced, that umber can’t be expected to stay at zero. So, I think you’re correct. But you’re criticism apples to almost any law, not this specific one.
Yes, you offered it. But i’ll need more than your word to believe that it’s all true.
For example, what does “attempting to avoid contact with the officer” mean, to you? If a police officer just asks you a question on the street, and you refuse to answer and ask to leave, then you are, in fact, attempting to avoid further contact with the officer. But it is my understanding that your refusal to answer questions and your request to leave do NOT, in fact, constitute reasonable suspicion. Do you have any evidence to refute this?
Even something like “acting furtive” is probably not enough, by itself, unless the officer has specific reasons that the furtive actions made him suspicious that the person committed a crime. If the guy is “acting furtive” in a parking lot, while carrying a coat hanger, then that probably constitutes reasonable suspicion; but if someone is “acting furtive” by simply standing on the sidewalk, with no other contextual reason it would be difficult to make a case for reasonable suspicion.
These are the understanding i’ve developed based on reading about this issue, and based on extensive discussion of them on these boards. I’m willing to believe that my understanding could be wrong, but it will take more than simple say-so from you to convince me.
None of this means that i support the law. I still oppose it, i still believe it’s bad policy, and i still believe that it will give some cops incentive to engage in racial profiling and in attempts to manufacture the type of reasonable suspicion necessary to allow the law to be used. Despite my own arguments, above, and despite Bricker’s rather blithe assurances about the requirements for reasonable suspicion, the fact is that this law is open to abuse in particular ways.
First, as i said earlier, in a legal framework requiring only that the cop able to articulate a reasonable belief, and that will likely take the cop’s word over that of a civilian, “reasonable suspicion” is a pretty damn easy barrier for an unprofessional officer to cross.
Second, and perhaps more important, i wonder what the consequences will be in cases where the cop’s initial “reasonable suspicion” is determined by the courts to be unfounded. Because, by the time this determination is made, it’s probably too late to undo the damage.
If a cop stops a citizen and conducts a Terry search, and finds some marijuana, he can arrest the citizen. If a court later determines that the cop’s “reasonable suspicion” was just that the guy happened to be Hispanic, then the court can throw out the search, free the citizen, and the citizen may even have some further possibilities for redress of the situation.
But if a cop manufactures “reasonable suspicion” in order to find out someone’s immigration status, then by the time the error is corrected, the person in question has already been handed over to the federal authorities and is probably on the way out of the country.
Very interesting stuff.
I’m nowhere near expert enough to say too much about the arguments of the constitutionality of the law itself, but from a general standpoint of justice and enforcement authority, i found these paragraphs particularly convincing:
As someone who’s recently been through the process of becoming a permanent resident, and who spent the prior seven years or so in the US on an F1 student visa, and who knows plenty of other people who have come to the US on a variety of different visas (J1, TN, etc.), i’m aware of the vast minefield of conditions and exclusions and qualifications and caveats and restrictions involved in coming to live and work legally in the United States.
My own visa and immigration folder is inches thick, and has all sorts of documents, forms, and other crap detailing my stay in the US. My status has been investigated and confirmed by multiple specialists from within the Department of Homeland Security and the US Customs and Immigration service. I completely reject the idea that Officer Plod of Arizona has the necessary information, experience, and qualifications to make assessments about a person’s status in this country, and i don’t think he should have that authority either.
At least, in New York City, ‘standing on the sidewalk’ is sufficient for a charge of ‘blocking the sidewalk’, which is enough reason to run someone in.
I think we’re simply misunderstanding each other here. The new AZ law as re-written requires first a legal interaction, based upon some criminal activity or investigation other than an immigration issue. So while the cop can ask you questions on the street and you are free to walk away, this law doesn’t allow him to create “reasonable suspicion about an immigration crime” from your walking away. This far, you are correct.
But if this is an interaction for investigative purposes relevant to another crime or possible crime, like a traffic stop, the first prong has been satisfied. And the driver, being the driver, can be compelled to provide ID. But what about the passengers? Their presence in the car doesn’t obligate them to do likewise. However, the officer’s interaction with the driver can include references to immigration status. The officer can easily articulate a “reasonable suspicion regarding immigration status” if said passengers appear uncomfortable, furtive, or less than forthcoming during this interaction. And thus they can now be detained on suspicion of being illegal aliens. Even if they are citizens. Unless they present papers.
Same goes for the group gathered in the parking lot of the neighborhood bar or grocery when there is a disturbance. The officers make initial contact because of possible criminal activity. But even if no actual crime is discovered, the interaction may raise the same “reasonable suspicion regarding immigration status” for almost anything a cop’s imagination might provide. Any of the grounds above can be offered here as well.
Will these articulations be the real suspicions, or will they be a cover for “non-white or accented” and further, will this discriminatorily apply to Hispanics? This potential for abuse by profiling is the fear.
ETA-- I’m glad you object to the law, even if you arrive at your objection by a different path.
All right…now that I’m in…