I don’t awfully disagree with anything you said, I’m confused as to what your link has to do with the topic of asset seizure in general, as opposed to asset seizure in the specific case of drug scenarios. Can you elaborate?
Oops. Didn’t notice quite how long it was.
I’m sure you’re right, but it seems to me that the quickest way out of that is to type a dramatic sigh and say something like, “Dude, I didn’t literally mean ‘usually.’ I meant that it happens enough that we should be uncomfortable with it…” or whatever his actual intended meaning was.
On the other hand, defending the literal phrasing even after it’s obvious that it can’t be defended is… not useful.
Fair enough – although I would point out parenthetically that there is another alternative, which I hinted at above: both sides were telling the truth. If the car 's speedometer was not calibrated correctly, then perhaps he was crusing with his cruise control set to 55 at 63 mph.
But since there’s no fun in pursuing that, let’s move on.
The problem in extending this reasoning as you have is that the police subject themselves to external review. It’s one thing to hassle Hispanics on the sode fo the road; it’s quite another to take steps that make it possible you’ll have to defend yourself under oath in court. Sure, you can lie on the stand, but at that point, you don’t know a bunch of things. Did somene have a recorder or a cellphone camera? Can the suspect present evidence that proves his story is true? Did he just come from a winning poker game with a priest, a state senator, and a famous actor all willing to testify where the money came from?
I grant the possibility; I reject the certainty or even the probabilty.
Now, if a particular department has a culture of corruption, then all bets are off. But as a general rule, even if a cop would fudge a radar reading to make a stop, I don’t agree that it’s likely he’ll lie to confiscate money.
Good. 
That’s fine. I never thought it was irrational – just contrary to the weight of the evidence.
But I wouldn’t say “…to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.”
Really?
I mean, it’s not a crazy claim, but is it really fairly imputable from his words?
Actually that is laughable in some ways. They did tell the truth when they told me they were working interdiction. But they lied about my speeding. Cars were passing me when they pulled me over. And when they told me I was speeding I immediately told them that that was absolutely untrue. Then there are 2 more factors. One, there were 3 cops which I already mentioned. Police departments do NOT assign 3 cops for a traffic control. That would be a waste of resources. The second thing is they did not cite me. They gave me a warning ticket. And one more thing that I already mentioned. They hadn’t bothered to even ask for papers on the minivan.
That just shows that other cars were going faster, niot that you were at or under the speed limit.
Which would be explained by the inaccurate speedometer.
Oh, I believe they were working drug interdiction. This wasn’t simply a speeding stop.
But the question is: were you actually speeding? Cops are allowed to pull you over for pretextual reasons. If a cop thinks you’re running drugs but had no reasonable suspicion, he can pull you over for speeding even if he has no intention of issuing you a ticket. Or he can pull you over for following too closely, or for failing to signal a llane change, or any other observed traffic violation.
You seem to be hinting that because their real interest was drug interdiction, this makes them liars as to the traffic stop. Not at all.
Now, granted, if you really weren’t speeding, then THAT makes them liars. But I’m pointing out the theoretical possibilty that both of you were telling the truth.
I wasn’t speeding. They admitted I fit a profile. Their words.
They lied. They knew they lied. That is why they didn’t write me a ticket.
Why you keep trying to defend their case, who knows. But if this was actually a court case being argued I hope you were against me because you have presented one lame case.
Are you really a lawyer? Or just an “internet” lawyer?
What are you bitching about? you at least got pulled over.
I have to go through a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint on my way to work everyday. I have to state my citizenship, they ask a bunch of questions that I usually refuse to answer and I occasionally have to show ID. Oh yeah, and the dogs. They hold me there long enough to send the dogs around about twice a week. They crawl under my truck and bang on stuff, jump in the bed of my truck and “inspect” stuff.
And if I take the highway instead of the backroad, 20-45 minute waits are not uncommon.
This is INSIDE the United States, but nobody has a problem with that.
Don’t take it out on me. It is your government. They allow it.
Yeah, people are weird. A lot of times in debates people are afraid of conceding any point, or acknowledge a good point at all. And they get angry instead.
Well, uh, yeah. I suppose I could dig up some numbers and we could try to find out what percentage of seizures that should have been overturned aren’t. We could try to extrapolate that to Arizona. And then I’d say something like “ok, there is an X% chance that the money won’t be returned”. It really doesn’t get us anywhere useful though.
I think we can agree that, had the money been confiscated, it probably would have been overturned and given back at some point. There’s a chance the system won’t work out for a number of reasons, and I’d say we can add two reasons that aren’t normally there 1) Escapee spends a lot of time in another country and 2) I think there’s going to be bias in the proceedings.
He is the most interesting man in the world. And he drinks Dos Equis.
As a general rule, I agree. But I feel that this is a scenario where the general rules don’t apply. The cops were looking for drug runners, and having $8000 in your car means they’re going to believe that you’re doing something illegal, and will attempt to get you via whatever means they can. And I don’t hold it against them. I think they’d have [cough]reasonable suspicion[cough]. (that statement was meant to be more of a joke than one carrying legal opinion)
I think we’re on agreement with most points.
I live in Tucson. There are a few more wrinkles in this law, if you read it. If I am caught transporting an “illegal” I can lose my car to impoundment. If I am married to an illegal - even though I am legal (and trust me, there are many households of mixed legality - and some have mixed legal and illegal children) if I have to drop my spouse at work on the way to drop off my children at school on the way to my own job … I am now terrified that if I have a taillight out on my car, we can all be stopped and detained. When it is firmly established that my spouse is illegal, and that I knew that when I gave him a ride, I am now subject to a fine and losing my means of transportation.
And what if my house is broken into? I cannot report the crime because my spouse’s status may be discovered. (That’s why a lot of law enforcement officials don’t like the law - it changes their relationship with the community they are trying to protect.)
There is a huge hispanic population here. Many folk have relatives on both sides of the border. Some are citizens of one; come are citizens of the other. My own (step) brother is as Mexican as they come - but he is a US citizen, living in the heart of Mexico. How careful do I have to be when he is visiting me? It is NOT a requirement that he carry proof of citizenship, nor is it for me. But, if we get stopped for any reason, he will be under suspicion of being here illegally and I will be under suspicion of harboring an illegal immigrant - and how long before we prove to all concerned that we are both legal and – hey! where’s my car?
oboelady, interesting wrinkle. But has this law changed any of that? What do you propose? Amnesty all around? I’m not trying to be flip, but what solves the scenario where people operating illegally are in danger of being arrested for that activity? That’s what’s supposed to happen, right?
Stratocaster, I am just trying to point out that this problem is so complex that a simple “Hey! You’re here illegally, go home!” won’t work. We get stories in the paper about kids who just applied to college, with excellent academic records, who suddenly find out that they are here illegally (brought in as 2 year olds or something) and are now being deported to a country they do not know. There are families who split up, so one parent can stay here with the (citizen) kids. There are kids who are now being raised by uncles or cousins because they are citizens but their parents are not and were deported.
On the other hand, you have people trying very hard to become legal - which takes a good lawyer and many years. In the meantime, they get married and have kids and jobs and buy goods and pay taxes and help the economy sputter along. But now that they are working to become legal, they are in the system. Which is scary.
On the other, other hand, you have most people who recognize that we have to do something about the border crossings. But we won’t sanction the employers who recruit these people because they are business owners and we (Arizona lawmakers) don’t want to annoy them. The border fence follows a line that isn’t always on the actual border (there are stories in the paper about the politicized process of determining where to build). Violence is up for drug trafficers, but down for other crimes (that border rancher who was killed a few months ago became a rallying cry for rounding up illegals, but it turns out that he was not killed by a stray illegal wandering across his property). We are stopped regularly by the Border Patrol and waved on sometimes without a question (I am white, but so are many hispanics).
So, what’s the solution? Where is the balance between trying to get some sort of control of the border (which we need!) without harming families or businesses? Honestly, I don’t know. The border states are such a mixture of cultures that nothing is easy. I do know that requiring the local police to add this to their already busy duties is not the answer.
Here’s the problem with your agument. It applies equally to the ICE or other federal authorities as it does to local police. In other words, it is an argument agianst deporting illegal aliens who have family entanglements. This may be true or it may not be true, but it has nothing to do with Arizona’s law.
You add one sentence at the end: “…requiring the local police to add this to their already busy duties is not the answer…” but nothing whatsoever in the rest of your post addresses the distincton between local police and federal authorities, or highlights any distinctions that would apply to local police but not to federal authorities.
In short, this is a classic example of Appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.
As I understand it, the federal objection to this law is that it requires local officials to do federal duties, which is a no-no. Beyond that, local police are against it because it adds a layer of suspicion which makes it harder to do their jobs.
And you are absolutely correct in that the emotional arguments are not legal arguments. My point is that this is a much more complicated issue than just stopping people for speeding and then checking on their citizen/immigration status. For years, there has been a growing population of legal/illegal mixed families. I really don’t know how to deal with the border security question without a lot of upheaval of these families. They are already established as hard-working quasi-citizens. Are they to be treated in the same way as the people who are now coming across the desert, through back yards and ranches, hoping to find a job? Maybe that is the route they came, years ago. Have they been here illegally all this time? Yes. Are there consequences to their actions? Yes. Should the legal members of the families be made to suffer, too? Does it matter if a person has a “good” job as opposed to being a migrant worker or day laborer? Once there are (legal) children involved, is it right to deport parents and split up the family or deport the children also?
I honestly don’t know the answers. I want to stop the flow of people across the border, both for our country’s protection and for the safety of the people crossing. But how to do it without infringing on my own rights, how to do it without harassing citizens who are of Hispanic origin, how to do it without causing real hardship to citizens connected by family to illegal immigrants is beyond me. And this new law is too simplistic.
I’m interested in Bicker’s take on this, but I don’t think that’s right. Local officials are simply being asked to enforce a state law, albeit a new one. True this new law aligns with federal law, but local LEOs are not being asked to perform federal duties.
I say “yes”. I don’t see why being able to get away with a crime for a period of time should give people a pass on the continuation of that crime. If I embezzle from my company every year for 15 years and get caught on the 16th, should I be able to keep all the money? And my job?
If you marry Tony Soprano to enjoy a lavish lifestyle and then he gets arrested and all his homes, cars, boats, and money are confiscated, should you be able to keep half of it?
No.
You deport the parents. The parents are free to decide whether to take the children with them or have them stay with relatives or friends. That’s not the government’s business. Or problem.
From someone in your position, that is a relief to hear. Seriously.
Not sure what you mean here. Which of your rights are being infringed uopn due to this law?
This raises a great point. And it all comes down to what people perceive as harassment. I’m inconvenienced when I’m singled out of an airport line (more than a few times). I’m inconvenienced at a DUI checkpoint when I’m asked to pull over and answer additional questions, and I just about never drink. But I don’t perceive this as harassment. The question is, given the desire to stop illegal crossings and protect the country, how much “inconvenience” are you willing to tolerate? That’s an important question for anyone in Arizona who believes they might suffer some extra scrutiny yet wants illegal crossing stopped.
I’d go as far as to ask, shouldn’t hispanic looking people be given some extra scrutiny? I mean, given our limited resources, does anyone really think it is wise that every person with blonde hair and blue eyes and a Swedish accent should be given the same scrutiny as every hispanic looking person with poor english? Do we really want our LEOs acting so ridiculously? To be clear, I’m not suggesting anyone profile Hispanics and stop someone just for looking Hispanic.
Why is that anyone’s problem other than the people who either came here illegally or the person who chose to marry and/or have children with them?
I believe that the objection is because immigration is covered by federal law and Arizona overstepped its authority. I can’t find a cite for this specifically, but this is my understanding from newspaper accounts. Of course, different people interpret differently.
35% of Tucsonans are hispanic. There are third generation citizens who speak English poorly (that’s another question - let’s not go there) and visitors who speak better than many natives. Who should we stop? How do we know? And let’s not forget the sorry history we have of treating non-whites poorly around these parts. That’s not all in the past.
Look, honestly, I am torn by this whole thing. We really need comprehensive immigration reform and we really need to figure out how to control the borders. It doesn’t help that we have employers who willingly and knowingly (wink, wink) hire people they know are here illegally. It’s a really, really complicated problem.
Yes, I know what the objection is. But the way that you worded what you wrote posed a slightly different problem.
Let’s be clear: this law does NOT tell LEOs to stop people who might look Hispanic. In fact, it clearly states that that is NOT allowed. It is also against existing laws. A person may only be asked about his citizenship status if he has already been stopped for a non-immigration infraction.
Well, I do think that one of the first two things we should be doing (the other being securing the border) is going after the employers in a serious way. And as I’ve stated numerous times, they will not stop until business are lost and owners and managers walk away in handcuffs and spend time in jail.
I appreciate your situation, and I respect the fact that you are not one of the open borders crowd. BU, as you say, something has to be done. And that something will greatly inconvenience some people. BUt that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be doing those things.
I hereby petition for a user name change!
Or “during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision” - which is what local officials object to. They are afraid that no one who is illegal themselves - or who has relatives who are illegal - will report crimes or come forward if they know something about a crime that has been committed. At the point of contact with any official, they can now be asked about immigration status. If local officials decline to look into that question, they can be sued by any citizen who thinks they are not zealous enough.
I am all for the federal government looking for illegals and I am all for anyone in jail or prison having to show immigration status and being turned over to INS. I really am. I am - I think - against local agencies being dragged into this, too. (Although I think they should drag themselves into it if they find, for instance, a safe house full of illegals.) That is, I think that local LEOs should do their jobs without having to worry about loss of cooperation from the general (and sometimes illegal) public.
I know I am wishy-washy on the subject. I could cheerfully argue both sides of the legislation. I keep going back to re-read it and figure out what it really says when another blog or letter to the editor or whatever comes out. And when I read replies on this subject, I appreciate the opportunity to have to think it over again!