AGAIN, now, for the third time: the mere sight of the foreign-issued passport is NOT enough for reasonable suspicion. Please try to focus on what I’m saying.
The sight of the passport, together with the denial that it belongs to the person carrying it, would generate reasonable suspicion.
No.
No.
No.
Yes, although not of an immigration violation.
Yes, although not of an immigration violation.
No on the taco.
I have presented a number of different scenarios showing at what point along the incident’s timeline reasonable suspicion develops. You continue to act as though this is all new and scary, but the standard of “reasonable suspicion” was carved out in 1968. In the subsequent forty years, it’s been litigated extensively, and it is not a new or difficult concept. Many factual situations under this standard have been run through the courts – thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.
I don’t find that you are understanding the scenarios, given your frequent mischaracterizations and your return to questions that have already been answered.
The statute does not authorize arrest without probable cause.
But fine. What to make it interesting?
$200 says the statute is upheld. If it’s overturned on preemption, the bet’s a push – no one wins. And if the statute is overturned for any other reason, you win.
If the legislature should repeal or substantially modify the law before judicial review, it’s a push.
Well, I like money, of course. But more to the point: it is extraordinarily frustrating to deal with these kinds of confident yet utterly wrong predictions.
In 2006, a similar discussion and outrage arose over another bill: the same-sex marriage state constitutional prohibition in Virginia. Like this bill, there were many reasons to argue it was a bad idea. And like this bill, some posters buttressed their case by also arguing something that wasn’t true: that if passed, the provision would weaken or even destroy domestic violence protections between unmarried couples in Virgina.
Despite extensive, line-by-line explanations of the issue, the poster obstinately refused to acknowledge the weakness of this claim. At the time, I asked whether if, a year after the law was passed, there were no such problems, this would indicte that the poster was wrong.
And after nearly a year had passed, I posted a thread callnig out this poster. Several people there posted to criticize me for holding a grudge. The poster popped in to say that I was three weeks too early, and so he wasn’t conceding anything.
So after nearly FOUR years passed, I posted another thread on the same subject. Again many posters criticized me, wondering about what might motivate me to “be right” – as though being right was of no particular consequence.
So for that issue, it appeared there was no real consequence for the poster: in 2006, he was free to argue, in the face of all reason, for an absurd result. In 2007, it was too soon to call him out. In 2010, it was ridiculous to dredge up incidents from the past, and I should just forget it.
So – will this issue be treated similarly? You’re sure now, but in two years, I’l be an ass for daring to mention you were wrong?
And this is supposedly the norm rather than the exception? Again, if they say “yes” the cop is still presumably going to search the vehicle and find the contraband, so they gain absolutely NOTHING by trying to head off suspicion in this case. Yet you would have me believe that this is the average criminal and not some extreme minority of the more graphically stupid cases?
Sorry, not buying it. I think it’s much more likely that you realized somewhere along the way that by defending this bill against any encroachment on civil rights at all, you’ve essentially admitted it to be completely ineffective in any real sense and this is more like a last ditch attempt to show that it will work in practice where it fails in theory.
I wasn’t around for this series of debates you’re referring to, but by your description it sounds like you were defending the same sex marriage ban and claiming that if it didn’t destroy domestic violence protections that that in and of itself is enough to declare it a success?
Either way - again from your own description of events - it sounds like the board’s reaction to your claims had a lot more to do with your approach to the subject rather than if you were right or wrong. Mentioning previous disputes in passing in a thread where the other poster is once again disputing you on speculative grounds may be fair game; remembering that poster’s handle and waiting in the shadows for FOUR YEARS after the fact, only to create a post aimed solely at calling them out and showing yourself to be right? Yeah, that does come off as obsessively creepy. Even a generous assessment of your motives in that case would have to allow that it comes off like you’re trying to build up a rep of being correct in the past that you can use to coast on in the future without having to actually debate the new issue at hand.
Look, the way I see it the current argument has essentially boiled down to one primary point of divergence: the pro side believes that this bill is no more of a civil rights violation than many other laws already on the books and that, although there may be isolated incidents of abuse by LEOs, that’s true of any law so you can’t pick and choose the laws you pass based on the possibility that some rogue cop could abuse it; the con side is largely arguing that whatever one may think of the civil rights implications, there is plenty of historical evidence to show that even in 2010 LEOs continue to abuse their authority in targeting minorities with enough frequency that it’s ludicrous to introduce a law which seems to institutionalize rather than discourage that behavior.
So a lot of this rests on how strictly to the letter law enforcement officers will enforce this new law. Given the current political climate in AZ - the rhetoric which attended the passing of the immigration bill, the near-simultaneous law attacking ethnic studies, etc - to say that it’s highly unlikely police will get the idea that they’re being given a “nudge nudge, wink wink” go ahead to harass people with brown skin seems disingenuous at best. At any rate, any speculation that rests upon a prediction of large scale human behavior cannot possibly be offered with any kind of guarantee, so your demand that we come back and hail you the new Nostradamus in 12 months time or whatever is pompous and arrogant no matter which view you hold on the subject.
What is a naturalized citizen provided to prove citizenship? As far as I know the only thing given to naturalized US citizens is a 8x11 certificate that states very clearly ‘illegal to copy’.
Jason Richwine wrote that article; he has some nasty fans. From the SPLC:
I’m not such a feted (or fetid) scholar, but I occasionally watch Si TV on my cable system. It’s aimed at Young Hispanics, so I’m definitely old for their demographic. But my dreadful Spanish doesn’t prevent my understanding, since all the programming is in English.
AGAIN, I’ll ask, why would that cause reasonable suspicion? Suspicion of what?
No, you really haven’t. All you’ve done is put down four lines of hypothetical dialogue, and then declare that reasonable suspicion exists. When I point out that your dialogues BEGIN with questions that already assume reasonable suspicion, you roll your eyes and imply that I am being deliberately obtuse or something, but you never explain your case for reasonable suspicion, you just declare it.
YOU continue to act as if everyone is a lawyer with all the same facts and experiences you have, and as if everyone should have interpreted things the way you did.
In fact, I find AGAIN that there is less suspicion raised by a person openly carrying a passport who admits it is not his than by a person who claims it is his.
Look at it this way:
COP: Is that your passport?
BO: No.
COP: I’m going to have to ask to see it.
BO: On the grounds that what law might be being broken?
COP: Never mind.
If the passport was mine, and I claimed it was, then the cop could be suspicious that I’m lying, and am trying to use a pasport that isn’t mine, but until the cop sees the passport isn’t mine, how can he have “reasonable” suspicion that it isn’t?
There’s been no mischaracterizing going on from this end. And you don’t answer questions, you just declare them to have been answered. If you would answer my questions I wouldn’t have to keep asking you for the answers.
According to the law a valid driver’s license would work:
**
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Nope. It says what would dispel reasonable suspicion if such suspicion exists. It does not say that the absence of ID, by itself, is cause for reasonable suspicion. I have absolutely no hope that this canard will cease being offered as a given, but no citizen is required to carry ID or prove their citizenship as a result of this law. If reasonable suspicion exists, these IDs can dispel that suspicion. So, if anything, this law provides further protection for the wrongly suspected person’s rights by providing specific means for how to eliminate the reasonable suspicion.
If no reasonable suspicion exists, then the ID and any other subsequent action by the cop are irrelevant. It’s the same way that reasonable suspicion I committed a burglary could lead a cop to ask for an alibi. If I can provide a credible one, that suspicion could be dispelled. That is NOT the same as saying all citizens are now required to provide alibis for their whereabouts if questioned by the police. It’s only the reasonable suspicion, a well-established legal standard, that gives cause for the cop to explore further.
Again, this law does not require citizens to carry ID. It does not.
But the effect of the law may be that all citizens will have to carry papers, or risk being stopped, taken into custody, etc. until they can prove they are citizens. If the net effect of the law is to cause the need to carry ID or risk police intervention in my day on some flimsy excuse like Bricker thinks is reasonable, then the law has affected me, even tho I’m innocent and a citizen, and that’s where the objection comes from.
There is no way to tell, by visual inspection, if someone is a citizen or not (barring a nametag that says “¡Hola! Me llamo Jose de México!” or something).
I know we’re going to get into legal technicalities back and forth such as is NOT carrying an ID probable cause for arrest or what happenes if I show a cop my Colorado driver’s license and they don’t recognize it as a legal presence state, but to be honest, my first answer to this post was …
So the fuck what?
[rant]Honestly? With the Federal government trampling over civil liberties such as required health care or Gitmo (notice I included both sides) and giving out tax money like a drunk Jim Bob at a titty bar, you are HONESTLY concerned that the government may require you to carry a fucking ID? I hear the liberal and conservative sides of this board support wackier government interventions than making people carry around a piece of plastic. Do you really think they’re going to RFID the cards and then DEA will pop you while you’re tending your plot of “medicinal” marijuana or do you just live your life vicariously through MP and the Holy Grail and anything you disagree with has you yelling “Help! Help! I’m being oppressed.” At least if you are a true libertarian and thing the government should stay out of Iraq and UHC you have a moral standing but the rest of you talk about how the government should ban trans-fats, smoking or same-sex marriage and worry about THIS government intervention in our lives? REALLY? [/rant]
You’re right. I have given the same examples multiple times, but I have sort of assumed that at the point when I said, “…and now reasonable suspicion exists…” that it would be obvious to the reader why this was so.
I will go back and explain for each of the examples I have posted, but perhaps it’s unnecessary, because:
This is a valid objection. The risk is small, but it’s not zero. And a prudent person may well conclude that carrying ID is the prudent course.
So if your point was to show that some valid objection may be made to the law’s effects, I agree you’ve done so.
I don’t agree that the negative value you raise here outweighs the positive effects this law’s enforcement will bring, but perhaps that an “agree to disagree” moment.
I don’t have a problem agreeing to disagree there; damn near any law (or regulation or rule, etc.) will have it’s supporters and it’s detractors.
I’m still just very curious, tho, about the reasoning you use to determine what is suspicious and what isn’t. I understand the Terry Stop, Bricker, I just can’t for the life of me figure out what anyone would think is validly objective criteria that could be used to claim “reasonable suspicion” that wouldn’t be so overly broad or superficial as to place every single human being in the state in a perpetual state of readiness with their government issued ID.
And I find the irony of the situation disturbing: when I was growing up, it was hammered into me in school and in society that one of the biggest differences between our country and communist/fascist countries was that THEY had to show their papers to the authorities whenever asked, or risk being sent to Siberia (or wherever). It was constantly touted as a small but significant way that our system of government was superior to others. Now, here we are a mere 25 years since I graduated from high school, and I’m being told that now I am going to need to show my papers. It’s kind of hard to reconcile the two attitudes, since they seem to come from the same group: people who are rah-rah-sis-boom-bah Americans.
I want to put in thisstory (and more here) as an example of what can happen when presenting proper papers. I am not sure if this has already been presented here or in another thread (got some catching up to do). Search didn’t show the guy’s name, Eduardo Caraballo, but maybe already linked by other terms, etc…
Pretty clear there is a serious issue systemically when the only thing that kept the guy from being deported was a Congress-critter. And this was not even in Arizona, which makes my eyebrows go waaaay up as to the likelihood of exponential increase of such occurrences. It appears that actual bona-fide documents are not good enough for proving citizenship to the ones that do the deporting itself (ICE, per se).
I agree completely with you. This “no, you’re not required to carry and ID, but carry one just in case” reasoning is complete sophistry. The net effect of the law is that everyone in Arizona is required to carry government issued id, simply to be in Arizona, or risk arrest on suspicion of being an illegal alien.
Unless of course only those who look or sound like they might be illegal aliens are asked for ID, you know, like former AG Alberto Gonzalez, or Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado.
I had been thinking about that, too. I guess it’s just a good thing Sam Neill didn’t make it to America, especially considering where he wanted to winter in Arizona…
Well, as I acknowledged above, a prudent person may well decide to carry ID to avoid even the possibility of being detained under this law. But the law does not require this.
In the examples I crafted of reasonable suspicion, the police officer used his ability to ask questions without reasonable suspicion existing first to elicit information which would then serve as reasonable suspicion for additional investigation.
Here was one similar to the one of the earlier ones I gave, this time with more play-by-play explanation added:
COP: I pulled you over, sir, because my radar unit clocked you going 48 miles per hour, and the speed limit here is thirty miles per hour. So this is a valid, race-neutral detention for a traffic stop. Happens every day, everywhere.
COP: DO you have your license and vehicle registration? The cop is allowed to ask this in connection with the traffic stop.
DRIVER: Here you go. (Produces a non-Arizona driver’s license)
COP: Thank you. By the way, sir, are you a U.S. citizen, or a permanent legal resident? The cop doesn’t have any reasonable suspicion yet, but he is allowed to ask these sorts of question during a valid detention for some other reason. In this case, the valid detention is the traffic stop. In the same way, he could ask if there are drugs or guns in the back of the car, again without any reason to do so at all.
DRIVER: Resident.
COP: I see. And do you happen to have your green card, sir? Still there is no reasonable suspicion, but the cop is allowed to ask this question, again, because there has already been a valid traffic stop.
DRIVER: Uh, no, I left it at home. At this point, the cop has reasonable suspicion. Why? Because the driver has admitted to a violation of the law requiring permanent residents to carry their green cards at all times. This isn’t proof that the driver is an illegal alien; indeed, he may well be telling the truth. But it’s a race-neutral, specific, articulable fact that would lead a person of reasonable, prudent caution to suspect that something was amiss here. It permits the officer to continue the detention even after the traffic citation is issued in order to either confirm, or dispel, his suspicion.
Now here’s the same basic scenario, with a slight twist:
COP: I pulled you over, sir, because my radar unit clocked you going 48 miles per hour, and the speed limit here is thirty miles per hour. So this is a valid, race-neutral detention for a traffic stop. Happens every day, everywhere.
COP: DO you have your license and vehicle registration? The cop is allowed to ask this in connection with the traffic stop.
DRIVER: Here you go. (Produces a non-Arizona driver’s license)
COP: Thank you. By the way, sir, are you a U.S. citizen, or a permanent legal resident? The cop doesn’t have any reasonable suspicion yet, but he is allowed to ask these sorts of question during a valid detention for some other reason. In this case, the valid detention is the traffic stop. In the same way, he could ask if there are drugs or guns in the back of the car, again without any reason to do so at all.
DRIVER: Citizen.
COP: I see. *At this point, the cop still has no reasonable suspicion. Why? Because the driver has said he’s a citizen, and without any evidence to the contrary, there is no race-neutral, specific, articulable fact that would lead a person of reasonable, prudent caution to suspect that something was amiss here. *