That’s logical, I agree.
not quite. they will be consequently asking you for something that they unilaterally have determined is indicative of status.
are they “indeed asking for your citizenship status” if they have a law that presumes you’re a citizen if you own a tennis rackt, and they ask you if you have one?
of course, no one is required to have a d/l, either.
I’m not a lawyer, but I would assume that amounts to the same thing. No one is compelled to answer such questions, though most of us do, and the refusal to answer a question doesn’t imply guilt. To me, it would be the same as answering the question, “what do you have in your trunk?” with “none of your business.” That answer, by itself, doesn’t give the cop cause for a warrant or create reasonable suspicion. It is none of his business, not if you don’t consent.
so then it’s a completely ineffectual law?
Not getting the tennis racket analogy. If the only way you could get a tennis racket is if you’re a citizen, then, yes, asking you to show your tennis racket is a de facto request to prove your citizenship, even if that’s a secondary effect.
But I would agree that the absence of a driver’s license should not imply reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien, if that’s your point.
Is anyone actually reading this thread? I have said that it may well turn out to be a pointless law, one that accomplishes nothing. More likely, though, is that these criminals, like criminals on the whole, will provide us all kinds of reasonable suspicion, generously provided without much prodding by virtue of their own stupidity. Just as criminals across the country currently do for countless other crimes. But we’ll see.
being a citizen isn’t the only way you can get an Arizona driver’s license (unless the law refers to an enhanced DL). that’s the point. the set of what they’re claiming answers their “implied request” is larger that the actual set of people who would answer an explicit request.
(i’m not necessarily giving a legal qualm here - just that it’s not a logical conclusion that they effectively ask for your citizenship if they ask for your driver’s license when non-citizens can possess DLs)
Got it. Agreed.
i’m not referring to you specifically, i was rather looking at the posts that claimed to wrap this whole issue up with a nice bow tie when a citizen merely answers “yes” to the innocuous question “are you a citizen”
but, let’s talk. what “criminals” are you referring to? there can only be two, from what i can see:
a) all illegals are criminals. therefore you’re claiming that all illegals will provide “all kinds of reasonable suspicion…by virtue of their own stupidity”. Do you think that this is true? Do you think that illegals (whose characterization as “criminals” I would take issue with) aren’t adept at figuring out how to operate in this country illegally? All it would take would be the word to get out that they can answer “i’m not answering that” to the cop’s query about their status, and they’d be done. I think they would be fine with doing that.
a1) so let’s assume that this is the class of criminals you are talking about. what reasonable suspicion (could) they engender, by the way?
b) you mean real criminals, like drug dealers. if that’s the class of people you’re talking about, you don’t need a surplus law addressing illegal status because cops have all the tools they need now to detain and question suspected criminals, regardless of citizenship.
Illegal aliens are criminal by definition. That’s not meant as a slur–it’s a simple fact. And the prisons are filled with criminals who would have been within their rights to not answer a question, to refuse a search, to ask for legal representation, who did not. Word didn’t get out because you’re not dealing with an organized network of professionals establishing a standard operating procedure; you’re dealing with fringe people, trying to operate in the shadows, without the resources and infrastructure that others might enjoy.
Certainly some would get the message. Just as many would not, or would fold under the pressure. It’s intimidating to talk to a cop when you have NOTHING to hide.
And examples of reasonable suspicion have been covered in this thread. Bricker’s example, or a person who bolts when asked if he’s a citizen.
so you would not have any problems with being characterized as a “criminal” because you speed? If not, the term effectively means nothing and has no weight as an adjective, because everyone’s a criminal. And, FWIW, I’m not even sure being in this country illegally/overstaying opens you up to criminal sanction, so they’re even possibly less criminal than a speeder or someone who drove on a Friday night after having a beer.
I think you vastly underestimate the support network that illegals access. They operate “in the shadows” of mainstream society, but they are decently connected to their “illegal society”. Many Churches serve as their community base, and most illegals have other family members who live in close proximity. The Mexican government publishes pamphlets and brochures for future illegal immigrants, so disseminating something simple as “just don’t answer” when you’re asked about your citizenship probably wouldn’t be too hard.
Ordinary criminals, on the other hand, sing like canaries because they (incorrectly) believe that their cooperation will help them. That, or they have some sense that “the jig is up” so there’s no point fighting anymore. And, I would also venture a guess that it would be harder to disseminate information about how to avoid arrest to criminals at large than it would be to a subset of society such as illegals.
That’s usually a different crime - fleeing from a lawful stop - that would give a cop probable cause to arrest you, regardless.
I don’t care what anybody calls me, if it’s accurate. I’m not quite so easily offended as some of the hothouse flowers on this board. 
Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so. I think it’s a basic human reaction–appear unsuspicious by acting like you have nothing to hide. “Sure, officer, ask any questions you’d like.” It takes a very level head and brass balls to not wilt at all under the heat, to understand that you don’t have to cooperate by consenting to searches or answering questions, and that your refusal is the better choice in protecting your interests. It’s the illusion we humans create in our heads, that if we want something hard enough–oh God, please just get me out this, please, please!–if we can just act nonchalant enough, we’ll get out of this situation and live to fight another day. “No, officer, I don’t mind if you check under the back seat.”
Then you start contradicting yourself, sweating some more, digging a deeper hole. But, again, we’ll see.
I guess. The point is that somebody could do something to create a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien, a concept that seems astounding to the point of impossibility to many in this thread.
It’s not a question of offense. It’s a question of the word having no meaning.
Fleeing from a cop doesn’t create reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien. It creates probable cause that a crime has been committed in front of a police officer.
So, you’re the one assuring us that it’s so obvious how reasonable suspicion can be created, and the rest of us are just rubes who can’t figure it out. Can you give us a scenario where no other crime has been committed, an illegal has declined to answer whether he’s a citizen, and there exists reasonable suspicion to continue the inquiry as to his status?
I’m not going to take offense at your insinuation that I haven’t read the text of the law, because I’m sure you didn’t mean to be offensive and I have indeed read it.
But as someone who has been stopped by law enforcement I’m telling you that “a cop abusing his power” isn’t some bright line. There is a huge gray area of discretion and judgment between the black and the white extremes of abuse versus reasonable suspicion.
**Rumor_Watkins **has it in one. Remember, we’re not just talking about the driver of a car, who can indeed be compelled to provide his license to operate the motor vehicle (again begging the question of whatever that does or does not demonstrate about his immigration status). It also applies to the passengers in his car, or to the group of people engaged in a stickball game on the street.
So if, as Catholic, you were required to worship Ba’al, and say a prayer to Ba’al in school, you’d have no problem with that?
A criminal is one who commits a crime, right? But feel free to split whatever semantic hairs you’d like. I don’t think this point is important to the debate. Call them “misguided foreign souls” if you’d prefer.
In the scenario I described, it did both.
No. Odd you’d ask since I’ve already answered several times that in such a situation I can’t envision how there would be reasonable suspicion. Unless there’s some other incriminating evidence, I guess, and I’m not sure what that would be. And nobody called anybody a rube. Stop with the false offense.
No one is denying that. What I take exception with is your using this as the foundation to argue for striking down this law, and no other, and then concluding in the circular way I pointed out, that this is because this law allows (or possibly encourages) police “oppression,” when the law specifically guards against such abuse by explicitly requiring reasonable suspicion.
Then that’s your cue to chime in that cops at times misuse their positions by manufacturing “reasonable suspicion,” so this law is a travesty. Then I respond as above and…ad infinitum. See what I mean? For your argument to hold water as it relates to this particular law, ISTM, you need to explain why the underlined is false specifically for this law. That a cop might ignore this could be said of ANY law. That doesn’t counter the assertion that this law moves the standard for protecting the rights of the populace not a whit; in fact, it emphasizes the well-established standard required for the cops to proceed. If your response is, once again, to point out that cops move in that gray area of judgment that determines reasonable suspicion, therefore a cop might target someone just for the color of his skin, I’ll assume this back-and-forth is a lost cause. I don’t know how else to explain it.
The signing of the bill was genius, it worked out exactly how Jan Brewer wanted it to. She could care less what happens with SB 1070. Governor Brewer was able to hide behind the immigration bill and rally the right to her support while slipping in a sales tax increase. Now, she’s not stuck in ugly budget battles with the far right Republicans in the state assembly and she’s going to be the Republican candidate for governor.
I think this law won’t go anywhere. Sheriff Joe will be able to continue to scare people with the so-called threat of illegal immigration. Brewer can be elected to a full term of governor. The Republican state assembly can get busy with rebanning same sex marriage, putting more restrictions on abortion, and pander to the far right.
Republicans are probably hoping it will be overturned. They can then use the ‘liberal judges’ to raise more campaign funds.
I had to produce a birth certificate to get my license which should be on record.
And I have answered that before, so I have no idea why you claim to beasking this for the tenth time, as though it’s never been answered.
If the driver says, “Citizen,” and we don’t have any other facts than the dialog laid out above, then no: no reasonable suspicion exists.