Except in this post, I provided examples that have nothing to do with looking swarthy. Did you read it? Was it unclear in some way?
That’s exactly the point, and exactly the question we’re trying to answer.
“reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present”
You admitted to looking Hispanic, so there is a reason to suspect you’re an alien.
And if you talked to the officer the way you talk on this message board, he/she would probably suspect you’re hiding something–like being unlawfully present.
Yesterday on your way to work, were you prepared to prove your lawful residency?
OK, perhaps this is the stumbling block.
You continue to assert that the officer can use “looking Hispanic” as the reason to suspect someone is an alien.
Why? The law itself specifically forbids this. I have given you several examples of how reasonable suspicion would ACTUALLY be developed, reasons that have nothing to do with how you look.
Yet you continue to ignore those and focus on the “looking Hispanic” claim. But you’re the only one making that claim. The law forbids it, and it can’t be used.
This is called a “strawman” argument. You don’t address the actual argument made by your opponent. Instead, you construct a “strawman” of his argument and attack it.
Please read the following sentence carefully:
It is not permissible to use race, appearance, or skin color to develop reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien.
Stop claiming that it is. You’re attacking an argument that you have created. The law explicitly forbids that use. If you ask, “Well, then how will they do it?” I have provided several examples in this post, none of which involve appearance.
Maybe he would. But he wouldn’t reasonably suspect it, so what do I care?
No. But yesterday on the way to work, there was no circumstance by which an officer could reasonably suspect I was an alien, so what did I care?
The law specifically forbids using only race, color and national origin, not using them at all.
No, that’s not true.
The law forbids their use, period.
It’s true that the OLD, outdated bil that never became law said “…A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin…”
But the actual bill, as amended by HB 2162, the one that actually became law, struck the word “solely.” So the law forbids the use, period.
And I KNOW that you wouldn’t be quoting the old SB1070 that never became law, not after the temper tantrum I threw about that above. Right?
Right?
When you said it the first time it was not clear enough, that was much more clear, thank you.
But the original problem is still there, why did the cops suspect there were drugs? What is considered “reasonable?”
So the law as written says something to the effect that cops can call in the drug dogs if there is reasonable suspicion. What is reasonable suspicion? As you said, it’s up for a judicial review AFTER the event.
Here is the pdf from the DOJ: “During the traffic stop, police were more likely to carry out some type of search on a male (7.1%) than a female (1.8%), and more likely to carry out some type of search on a black (10.2%) or Hispanic (11.4%) than a white (3.5%).”
Here is another lawsuit in NY about cops frisking individuals based on what they consider ‘reasonable.’
You didn’t answer the question. In each case you suggested that the cop simply asks everyone not if they are a citizen/legal resident. Is that what you intended to suggest?
And if that is the case, is the answer to simply say, “Soy un ciudadano.”
And I have yet to hear what happens when the person stopped can’t provide documentation. I heard the end result is, “they’re handed over to ICE.” What happens in between the traffic stop and that hand over. And what happens if they are in fact citizens?
They can. The law says they can’t uses it as the sole reason, but it doesn’t say they can’t us it at all, and in fact, the practical reality is that they WILL use it as the sole reason because there isn’t anything else they CAN use. They can always make up something else later to go with it so they can SAY it wasn’t the sole reason, but we all know they would rely primarily on racial profiling.
And don’t bother to tell me that a lot of these detentions wouldn’t hold up in court. Court is not the point. They don’t care about making anything stick in court (although I’m not as confident that every judge in Arizona will be as solicitous of the rights of the harassed as you do). The goal is not to make anything stick in court, but to make the state an inhospitable place for Hispanics to live. Not just illegal residents, but legal ones as well, especially the ones who can vote. Those are the ones they most want to get rid of.
The law doesn’t say “sole” reason. The word “sole” or “solely” is not in the law.
That’s not a true statement. Why did you make it?
And as for there being nothing else they can use, I have provided multiple example of what they can use. So you know, or should know that THAT is not a true statement. Why did you make it?
If you’re brown and short, you’re driving without a license, insurance or proper registration, and you don’t have any identification on you, then a cop has a pretty good reason to suspect that you may be illegal.
I see that word “solely” was struck from the text of the final bill. My bad. I still maintain that they will use race as the sole factor, because there isn’t anything else they can use, and because harassment of Hispanics is the entire goal of the bill.
That’s what I was worried about. Thank you.
Is this the old bill, then?
So? Where do you get the idea that race and ethnicity should not be used at all?
Don’t you have some crosses to burn or something?
What reason would that be? What if you’re short and white and don’t have any of that documentation? There’s a lot of shirtless white trash driving around without vehicle documentation. Not having that stuff is suggests nothing at all about resident status. Neither does being short. How the hell does being short suggest that somebody is in the country ilegally?
All you’re left with is “brown,” which the cops are not supposed to be allowed to consider. So what can the arrsting cops in this scenario take to the judge as reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally? Short and driving without a license isn’t going to get it done.
The Arizona law now says they can’t be used at all, as I have just found out.
Even if this were true, you completely fail to consider the fact that the federal government’s refusal to secure our borders is monstrously unfair to American citizens, particularly poor and working class citizens who would have gotten jobs that went to illegal aliens instead.
Isn’t it about time for you to give up your dumbass hippie fantasies about what a beautiful multicultural society we’re becoming and live in the real world?
I think a bad habit I have when discussing things like this is to assume everyone is familiar with the basics of Fourth Amendment law, an assumption as silly as a chemist assuming that everyone is familiar with exothermic reactions and getting irritated when they’re not. My bad – I’m working on seeing that and correcting it.
To conduct a dog sniff outside the car, the cops don’t need any suspicion, reasonable or otherwise. The reasoning there is that a dog’s sniff is not an infringement on your privacy, which is what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect. The dog may, of course, sniff your KY Jelly and latex bodysuit, but he can’t communicate those findings to anyone and doesn’t himself care. If the police search your luggage and find those items, you will be embarrassed, which is what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to guard against.
Not really, because these cases have all been litigated, and there’s nothing really new or novel anymore. The kids of facts that support reasonable suspicion are well known, as are the kinds of facts that support the higher standard of “probable cause.” Again, no reasonable suspicion at all is needed for the dog sniff. But to search the car, probable cause is needed. One way to get probable cause is to have the dog alert on the car. There are others, and all of them are well-defined by case law.
And…? That doesn’t say the law is flawed; it says that police were more likely to search blacks and Hispanics than whites. And our prison population bears this out: more blacks and Hispanics (per capita) than whites are in prison. But since crime correlates well with poverty, and since poverty correlates well with blacks and Hispanics per capita, the police could be utterly neutral in simply reacting to probable cause for searching – that is, they would search whenever they saw probable cause, without regard for race, and still have similar numbers result.
No. That is a lawsuit that complains that the police kept data about who they stopped and frisked, even though the individuals were never implicated in any crime.
Yes. The best way to comply with Arizona’s law is simply to ask everyone if they are legal residents or citizens. If done as an across-the-board practice, no accusations about the use of race or appearance will be tenable.
Yes.
Although we have an analogous situation in the search of cars. The answer for any driver is to say, “No, officer, I don’t consent to any search. Am I free to go?”
And yet, despite that simple get-out-of-jail-free card being available, thousands of people every day incriminate themselves and go to jail.
In this case, I suspect that many illegal immigrants will incriminate themselves, just like the car search situation.
I can answer that. But will anyone read it?
United Farm Workers has invited people making this claim to put their money where their mouths are. So far, there don’t seem to be many takers.