They can ask any question they’d like, so long as they don’t unduly prolong the traffic stop (if it’s a traffic stop, as an example). They ask people if they’ve been drinking, do you have drugs in the car, are you carrying a weapon, etc. They can ask anything they want. Also, I don’t view asking someone if they’re a citizen as offensive. Non-citizens are not inferior or sub-human. They’re just not citizens, which has certain legal implications. There is nothing offensive about being asked if you’re a citizen.
If I were the chief of police there, and responsible for overseeing this, my guidelines would be that EVERY person be asked if they’re a citizen at every traffic stop. I may be missing something, but it seems to me to be blindingly easy to deal with the public concern over “who are you going to ask?” My answer would be, “everybody.” Again, I don’t get the outrage at all over being asked this particular question, but apparently it sets some people off. The Gestapo “do you haff your papers, schweinhund?” seems to be the preferred mental image to evoke these days when predicting the parade of horribles that will commence with this law.
When I was vacationing in Mexico, I carried my passport. If (to use the same example) I was stopped by the police for some reason, I would not wonder why they asked a white Anglo if he was a citizen, nor would the question offend me. There’s nothing offensive about it, it’s to establish a legal status. It’s like asking someone at a bar if they’re 21.
I can provide at least ten posts in this and other threads where I have answered this question. How can you possibly say “No one seems to answer this question?”
Reasonable suspicion could come in the following exchange:
COP: I stopped you because you were clocked on radar going 48 miles per hour, sir, and the speed limit here is 35. Do you have your driver’s license and registration?
DRIVER: Yes, here.
COP: Thank you. By the way, are you a U.S. citizen? Or a legal resident?
DRIVER: Resident.
COP: That’s fine, sir. Do you have your green card?
DRIVER: Uh… no, I left it at home.
At that point, the cop has reasonable suspicion.
Now, having read that, it seems to beggar belief that you (or anyone else reading) would again say that “No one seems to answer that.”
The law in Arizona requires cops to ask if they think there is reasonable suspicion. A good way to obey this command without using impermissible racial criteria would be to ask everyone. It’s a question that adds ten seconds to the encounter.
I have several honest questions at this point. Then how does that cop go about investigating? Would it be reasonable for the cop to say, “Ok, let’s go home and look at your green card?” Would the person be obligated to go home and get it? Could the cop search his house for it? Could the person be arrested at this point?
Well, as a number of people have indicated, there is a suspicion that it might be based on skin color or accent. Some have offered this as a predictive trepidation, while others have presented anecdotes demonstrating what they believe to be analogous over-reach by LEOs in their own past experience or in media accounts.
I don’t think my stating that some LOEs are capable of articulating ‘reasonable suspicion’ as a cover for racial profiling can really be controversial. I think there is a wealth of evidence available (some already presented in this thread) to suggest that a LEO doesn’t need to be a bigot to, let us say, stretch the truth a bit and “let the judge sort it out”. After all, we pay LEOs to be suspicious. We hardly want them blithely walking down the street ignoring the running man carrying a woman’s purse. We want the LEO to suspect that as evidence of a crime. What we don’t want is that LEO to have cover for suspecting criminal activity, specifically illegal immigration status, based solely or even primarily on appearance.
I’d say Morton is willing to go along with your domino theory. Arizona enacted Employer sanctions at the beginning of the year.
I’d also say that Morton isn’t in the business of deciding which state he can serve and which he cannot. Someone in the Obama White House should remind this man that Obama took the oath of office swearing to uphold the Constitution and that would include enforcement of the laws as enacted by Congress. And, as he works for the Obama Administration, Morton should be reminded that he doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws he likes and those he dislikes.
It’s pretty evident that if the Federal Government were enforcing the immigration laws of this nation, Arizona wouldn’t be in the position of having to protect it’s citizenry from those who seek to invade it illegally.
It’s like any other law. Unless there’s some obvious evidence in the vicinity, a level-headed, calm criminal would likely not create the necessary suspicion. Fortunately for society, criminals as a group tend to be disposed to doing stupid things. Just like their brothers-in-other-crimes, I have no doubt that these criminals will find ingenious ways to generously incriminate themselves. Bolting when asked the question, for example.
Bricker’s analogy in the other thread is illuminating. Prisons are loaded with people who could easily have said to the cop, “Yes, I do mind if you check my trunk.” Perfectly within their rights and, in that situation, effectively a get-out-of-jail-free card. And yet they didn’t say that, they permitted the search despite the fact that they had drugs in the trunk, and they ended up going to jail. Why did they do it? Criminals are a pretty dumb tribe, I would hypothesize. But in answer to your question, yes, an illegal alien who has the presence of mind to “correctly” answer the questions posed will avoid any further action on the cop’s part, so long as there’s nothing else incriminating in play. Just as it works with every other law.
What flaw would you find in a policy where every motorist, every single one, was asked if he is a citizen during a traffic stop? Skin color is irrelevant, everyone is asked.
And reasonable suspicion is a well-established standard. Cops who abuse it are dealt with. If we discard any law where abuse could occur, we’d have to scrap them all. Should we not prosecute for gang violence because some cops might be prone to racial profiling in assessing suspects?
Honest questions deserve reasonable answers. Pardon me if this though is from the philosophical end of the spectrum.
Our country touts a presumption of innocence as one of its basic tenets, both of societal norms and as a matter of law. So in other instances we accept self serving statements by lawbreakers as a matter of course. We may question people on the street about the bank robbery nearby, but we cannot detain them on “suspicion” merely because we have a hunch. Naturally this may result in a perpetrator getting away. But we deem this to be the proper course of action, given the basic tenet.
We can though go beyond a mere hunch, if say the person has red dye stains on his person (perhaps but not definitively from the cash bag dye pack) or is wearing clothes matching the description of a perpetrator. We could even include race as a part of the description of a perpetrator, and thus stop to question, say, every Asian on that street if epicanthic folds were part of the description of the robber.
But in the specific case of the AZ law, the fear and/or the objection stems from the reality that race, and race alone, may be the single characteristic driving that ‘reasonable suspicion’. That overturns the presumption of innocence for anyone of the targeted race.
And so, although I realize that it places an additional burden on LEOs and on law enforcement in general, and even though I personally agree that illegal border crossers should be returned (and some larger system for legal admission be initiated) I still object to a law that appears to at least allow, if not actually encourage, racial profiling. (And revelations about the background of the author of this law do nothing to overcome my misgivings.)
As I’ve said repeatedly, I think we could have much greater effect on the immigrant situation if we vigorously sought out and prosecuted illegal employment rather than wasting so much fury on illegal individuals.
The flaw is that it’s wasted time, and will just be used to excuse the harassment of people with the wrong skin color. Who will, conveniently, “appear suspicious” and “require further investigation”. A law passed for racist purposes will be enforced in a racist fashion, guaranteed. It doesn’t matter if you can come up with some theoretical way in which it could be enforced in an non-racist fashion, because that just won’t happen.
And there’s nothing else incriminating? No reasonable suspicion.
And, again, cops can ask any questions they’d like–have you been drinking, do you have a weapon, etc.–and that does not by itself create any civil rights issues. And I still don’t understand why asking someone if he’s a citizen is an offensive question. But suppose the policy is that all motorists are asked? Are your fears dispelled?
The Arizona law actually addresses that in that it states clearly that anyone who has a valid, state issued identification, i.e., a driver’s license is automatically assumed to be a citizen. Consequently, when asked for your license in Arizona, they will indeed be asking your citizenship status. I find nothing whatever wrong with that.
Well, first I’d ask what relevance the question holds, when there is no basis upon which to determine the truth of the answer. Sure, ask away! Ask one and all! But then what? If a light skinned, blond, blue eyed person answers “citizen” and a swarthy, heavily accented person answers “citizen”, do we still treat them alike? If the answer is yes, I withdraw my objection.
Cops who abuse reasonable suspicion are hardly ever disciplined. See upthread for both lengthy reports and personal anecdotes. It takes a truly horrific special instance or a staggeringly large number of complaints before a typical LEO would even be questioned by a superior for such abuse. And with this law as cover, even that rather pathetic standard becomes harder to enforce.
As for the baby and bath water argument, well, no one is saying we should have no laws. We are only saying we shouldn’t have stupid laws. Or unnecessarily oppressive laws like this one.
The law does NOT allow racial profiling, nor does it permit “race alone” to form the basis for reasonable suspicion. Speculating that something might occur does not add weight to an argument about what a law permits when the text of the law is available to anyone inclined to read it.
If that does occur, it will occur because a cop is abusing his power, a transgression that occurs regardless of this law. This law does not create any new standard of evidence or any new power for law enforcement. Race “may be the single characteristic driving that ‘reasonable suspicion’” for this and any other law only to the extent that a cop ignores his duty. If we want to guard against that by striking down laws where this could occur, let’s strike 'em all down.
The answer is yes, unless the cop specifically abuses his power and manufactures his “reasonable suspicion.” There is no reaosnable suspicion where nothing suspicious has occurred.
You continue to beg the question. This law specifically prohibits oppressive action by requiring reasonable suspicion. Continuing to assert that it allows (or even encourages) abusive, oppressive behavior does not take on an aura of credibility by virtue of the repetition.