I have a few, not sure you’ll like them. I’d respect your opinion a lot more if you acknowledged the weaseling that exists within the text of the law. As I read it, the decision is left to the arresting officer to determine what he/she feels is reasonable.
For you, and many other middle aged white men, the idea of reasonable is going to be very different than for the targets of this law.
Was it really that long ago when racial profiling of African Americans was an issue? Cops were frequently stopping African Americans based on what was considered “reasonable.” Those of us that remember that issue are able to carry it forward to this law. Now cops are being offered the opportunity to find a *reasonable *reason to stop people that look like an illegal alien.
So tell us, as a lawyer and a scholar, [1] what do you consider as reasonable conditions for suspecting a person is an illegal alien. [2] what do you consider as a practical effort to determine that person’s residency?
Pretend you’ve been hired by the Nothing Police Department to put together an information session for their officers, too help avoid litigation.
What do you tell about reasonable suspicion? What do you tell them about reasonable attempt?
As a very real side issue: what would happen if this law was applied in a place with an actual immigrant population like LA or NY?
Has anyone stopped to consider the extended length of time an officer will have to spend for each traffic stop? “Sir, I need to see your License, registration, proof of insurance, and proof of legal residency. Now excuse my while I got back to my air conditioned squad car to verify all four documents you’ve provided.”
That shit takes time, which means that officer is unavailable to deal with “people being killed, property being destroyed and a general breakdown in law and order along the border.” Instead of dealing with real issues, this has cops wasting time dealing with USCIS. Now that I think about it, I seriously doubt anyone in this thread is aware of the length of time it can take to verify immigration documents. I’m required to show proof of residency to renew my driver’s license and that process can take upwards of 6 weeks.
But the question that has yet to be answered here is, “what happens when the driver is unable to produce proof of legal residency?” What’s next?
I’ll go on and answer the bulk of your question in a bit… but you don’t seem to realize that I am Hispanic. Not sure where you got the idea that I’m white. Middle-aged and a man, I grant.
I was picturing a multi-cultural area, something like Toronto where more that 50% of the residents are either immigrants or first-generation Canadians, and also has a high diversity of immigrants.
I get the impression this law is based on the idea that a traffic stop will either involve a white guy or a Mexican looking guy. I can’t see this law working in an area where everyone you stop could easily be suspected of illegal residency.
As the text of the law states, “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present.” I have yet to hear the definition of what is considered “reasonable suspicion.” If we’re going on “looks foreign and has a thick accent” the cops in Toronto would be extremely busy.
Quite simply, if the proponents of this law would bother to tell us what is considered “reasonable suspicion” these debates would be a lot shorter.
There’s no city in the US with Toronto’s level of diversity in terms of national origin. New York comes kind of close at 36%, but only half of those are not already citizens.
“Reasonable” refers to the attempt made, and will be subject to judicial review. The same word is used in the standard that guides enforcement of every single criminal law: reasonable suspicion, the quanta of suspicion necessary to effect a temporary detention in order to investigate and confirm, or dispel, the belief that a crime has been committed.
So I can’t get too worked up over the use of that word and the idea that it’s left to the offcer, since that same statement may be applied to every single criminal law on the books of every single state in the country.
I’ve noted my own heritage above, but write again here to say that no, what actions are reasonable are reviewable by a court. For example, a roadside detention to summon a drug-sniffing dog is not forbidden, but the original traffic detention may not be unreasonably extended. That’s the standard, again, in every state in the union. I’m sure that drug smugglers convicted after application of this law may have a different idea of “reasonable” than the officers did, but society is undamaged by this discrepancy.
No. As the law clearly states, persons must be stopped in the enforcement of some other law or ordinance. No one may be stopped because they look like anything.
Sure. In the many threads discussing this issue, I have provided many helpful scenarios that answer this question. I’m sorry you missed them, and am happy to reproduce some of them here:
In this first example, we see the officer has developed reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation by his questioning. The driver is legally detained because the officer has at least reasonable suspicion to believe he’s guilty of speeding. In course of that detention, he asks about the driver’s citizenship. The drivers avers he’s a legal permanent resident, but then advises he is not in possession of his green card, an offense under 18 USC § 1304(e).
In this encounter, there is no initial detention. The officer has simply chosen to ask a person the question. This is known as a consensual encounter, and does not implicate the Constitution, because any person is free to disregard the police inquiry and go about his business. In the same way, the officer could approach an individual and ask if he;s carrying drugs, or a weapon. As long as the person’s liberty is not restrained in any way, the officer may ask anything he wishes, for any or no reason at all.
However, the responses of the other people involved give rise to reasonable suspicion of questionable immigration status. The first person’s refusal to answer cannot be held against him in any way, but the second and third people involved appear to know that the first person is both not a citizen and and is in need of a phony answer.
A consensual encounter can quickly become a detention. Here is an example of how this might play out:
The second individual has exercised his right both to remain silent, and, in the face of a consensual police encounter, disregard the encounter and go about his business. When he does so, the cop orders him to remain. At this point, a reasonable individual would not feel free to leave, and is thus seized for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. That means that at that instant, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts and inferences that cause him to believe a crime is being committed. In the example above, the cop cannot point to any such facts, and thus the detention is illegal.
As to the second question, a reasonable effort to verify status would be either the production by the suspect of papers showing his status, or an inquiry to the federal resource. If the feds don’t answer within a reasonable period of time, the suspect must be permitted to leave.
It doesn’t matter if they are citizens or not. The issue here is “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present.”
Having lived in Toronto for a number of years, the text of this law makes me laugh because I picture an environment where well over half of all individuals at the very least qualify for “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien.”
That’s right, it’s part of every law on the books. I know you’re not stupid, and I know you are aware of the potential for abuse. So it strikes me as odd that you would so callously disregard that aspect of a new law. It’s been pointed out before how easily a cop can generate “reasonable” reasons, and as you said, it’s then dependent on a judicial review, how long is that going to take?
I’m not sure why you aren’t able to see the natural flow from “reasonable suspicion” to the ability to harass and detain “someone that looks like an alien who might also be illegal.” That has been the basis for all of the previous cases of racial profiling of cops towards blacks. Now we’ve taken this a step further and encouraged the action.
You asked why people don’t read your posts. The simple reason is that the facts you present are buried in your bias. You know full well the statement of “reasonable” is in every single criminal law on the books, and you also know how frequently it is abused. You highlight the first part, and ignore the second.
You mentioned the case of “reasonable to suspect drugs.” So follow that process, the party involved is detained until a drug dog is brought out, the car stripped and searched, nothing found. Historically speaking, “reasonable suspicion” meant “driver is black” (I’ll dig up the cite in a minute).
This law is the same, it’s based on “reasonable to suspect person is an illegal alien.” But what other than skin colour and accent do you based that on? The only thing cops have is racial profiling because it’s a racial issue. I know as a white immigrant, this won’t affect me as long as I say out correctly. Which is why this law is so fucking hilariously retarded.
So as a lawyer you know the debate that exists for determining “reasonable.” But that’s after the person has been detained.
So after a cop suspects the person is an illegal alien, what next? How long is a reasonable detention, considering that the person is in fact a citizen?
It shouldn’t be hard for a person of your skill to work your way through that process, and I’m disappointed you drew the conclusions you did, but not at all surprised they follow directly with your political leanings.
But here is the real question: let’s say a cop does find an illegal alien, what happens if after a judicial review it’s found the cop didn’t have reasonable cause? Do we let the alien go free?
I know, which is what makes this law so fucking hilariously retarded. You are a citizen but a cop has *reasonable suspicion *you aren’t, are you ready to prove it?
I on the other hand do not present reasonable suspicion, but I’m not a citizen so I should be checked.
So what has this law accomplished? You the citizen get detained until you can prove citizenship, I the alien get waved on. We have both a false positive, and a false negative.
You mean like the time it would take if a US citizen was in Mexico or Canada and went through the same thing? The time involved verifying legal documentation is close to nil. It means carrying one more piece of ID (I carry my passport card with me all the time). It’s the time spent handling illegal entry that is substantial and that is the whole point. Illegal aliens are leaving Arizona because the existing laws are being enforced. The same thing would happen in California.
So is your objection to this law that it might be abused?
That’s quite a different objection from “The state of Arizona has no authority to legislate in this area,” isn’t it?
I’d certainly be willing to reconsider my support of the law if your fears about abuses came to pass. But we cannot ask courts to overturn a properly passed law because of inchoate hunches about how it might possible be abused.
I’m not really sure where or how you learned debate, but “Take a wild guess,” isn’t really considered either a refutation or an explanation, or indeed an argument rife with cogency.
What determines if you need to produce papers? A cops opinion. If he suspects you are an illegal, if you look swarthy ,he can ask for papers. Only 22 percent of legal people have passports. Less than 30 percent have certified birth certificates. That makes it likely that legal citizens will get swept up into the police system. They may get released after the legal system determines they are legal, but how long and how expensive would it be? If the law could pinpoint illegals, that would be one thing, but it will likely sweep a lot of innocent people into the legal system. You can get fingerprinted ,jailed and pushed around by the police. For how long? If you get pulled in the weekend before Christmas ,and the INS is understaffed, you could disappear for some time. Then we are assuming that the INS would get it right. If they don’t, you might get into a long and expensive court case.
Many are just thinking of the illegals being swept away in a spasm of proper justice, but it is never that clean and neat.
Perhaps, when I said the following, I was not clear enough:
This means that if a person is pulled over for a traffic violation, a drug-sniffing dog may be used to sniff the outside of his car without offending the Fourth Amendment. But the length of time to do this may not unreasonably extend the time needed for the original traffic stop. The police, in other words, may not unreasonably prolong a traffic stop and citation in order to conduct a dog sniff.
The car cannot be “stripped and searched” unless the dog alerts on the car. This gives independent probable cause that the car contains contraband. So far as I am aware, drug-dog sniffs are race-neutral, and the dog alerting on the presence of drugs cannot possibly be used in a racially biased fashion.
Did you read my examples above?
Didn’t I give examples that were not based on skin color or accent?
Why do you ask this question, when I have already answered it?
