Judge blocks Arizona "show me your papers" law

[emacknight]

@Zoomer

@DigitalC

Because there are absolutely NO OTHER REASONS. Your ridiculous example of giving the wrong answer to a citizenship question doesn’t disprove that, who do you think is going to be asked for green cards? what is going to happen when word gets around that all you gotta say is “I’m a Us citizen”?

There is a border patrol checkpoint ~30 miles north of Nogales, AZ on I-19. The border patrol stops all traffic norbound towards Tucson. They ask all drivers and passengers some variation of the question “What is you country of origin?” (in Spanish or English as appropriate).

All that is required is to reply with some variation of “I am a U.S. citizen”, and they wave you on your way.

Despite this easy check. They arrest thousands of illegals every year at this stop. (They have a tote board at the stop counting the arrests.)

I have driven through this check-point hundreds of times. (Sometimes for variation they have a drug-dog there as well sniffing all the cars.)

(On preview) As always Bricker has answered this much better than I could.

Bingo, this is EXACTLY what I was trying to talk about, routine check stop, and all they ask is, “country of origin.” Here is how I see this playing out:

[1] White guy: I’m a citizen–gets waved on. Sounds good but you missed me, the white immigrant, that knows what to say. So there is your first failure.

[2] Mexican guy: Answers “Mexico” in broken English, gets the secondary, doesn’t understand his rights, get’s sent for processing with the other illegals. Sounds good, but he’s actually a US citizen that lives in Mexico. His only crime was being too stupid to understand what was going on. So you failed again.

[emacknight]

@Bricker

The police are free to approach you and ask you any question they like.

And you are free to disregard that inquiry and go about your business.

@Bricker

Not an arrest, no. But he could detain the individual briefly to investigate. There’s no law against running away from a cop.

But that’s the current state of the law in every nook and cranny of this land. It’s by no means something unique to Arizona.

And let me point out again that if the suspect merely walks away, there’s no cause for a detention.

Which is what I suspected. So can we conclude that there is no reason for anyone to comply with this law?

And wouldn’t that make the law pointless?

There doesn’t seem to be any reason for a cop to suspect a person is an illegal alien, unless you know of one that you haven’t told us. I was say the two obvious situations might be a person running north from the Mexico/Arizona border, or a truck heading northbound full of people hiding under a tarp.

But if you can’t suspect race or origin, what else can you use?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@capeo

@bullrun

The Arizona Law dealling with illegals was copied almost word for word from the federal law. The Feds refuse to enforce the law. One of their excuses was that they did not have the manpower. Arizona said …‘good…then we will help you’. The feds wanted no part of such help. The federal government under obama simply refuses to help American citizens in Arizona defend their state and themselves from an onslaught from another nation. An onslaught that is costing them tons of money and the very lives of their citizens due to a great influx of illegal criminals.
Dems think they have won a great victory. They are celebrating the defeat of the law by an activist judge. They do not know that this is another nail in their proverbial political coffins. A lot of people are angry over this judge’s ruling. We all have seen the socialism and anti-Americanism of the obama regime. When Washing D.C. will allly’s itself with illegal alien invaders over American citizens; when Washington sides with law breakers and ignores the suffering and needs of it’s own citizens; then the citizens of this nation will must change Washington in Novermber or ignore it.
This aciton by a liberal judge has added more votes against the democrats in Novermber. People will not forget the plight of Arizona. Washington is hastening the time when people are simply going to quit obeying the dictates of left leaning activist judges. Soon…people and state governments will simply ignore the dictates of Washington D.C. IN most instances…the rules and laws coming out of Washington D.C. are unconstitutional anyway. Let them send their troops. Frankly…when the American people finally get enough…this nation does not have enough troops to enforce their ridiculousness.
Washington D.C. is run by internationalists. Obama is an internationalists. What does he care of the problems or the borders the nation?
Yes…he and the dems think the won a great victory today. THey have simply added more fuel to the fire that will eventually virtually burn down their rule.

It’s quite similar, except for the blatantly unconstitutional and unenforceable parts that the judge rightly put a stop too. But I guess freedom, to you, means only your freedoms, huh?

And, boy, hyperbole much? Do you really expect some kind of well thought out response to what is really nothing but a rant?

Well he did say “almost”

[emacknight]

@Zoomer

There is a border patrol checkpoint ~30 miles north of Nogales, AZ on I-19. The border patrol stops all traffic norbound towards Tucson. They ask all drivers and passengers some variation of the question “What is you country of origin?” (in Spanish or English as appropriate).

Wait a second, doesn’t the wording of this law prevent them from using country of origin as a reason to suspect illegal residency?

[emacknight]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Well he did say “almost”

Lawyered!

[Zoomer]

@emacknight

Bingo, this is EXACTLY what I was trying to talk about, routine check stop, and all they ask is, “country of origin.” Here is how I see this playing out:

[1] White guy: I’m a citizen–gets waved on. Sounds good but you missed me, the white immigrant, that knows what to say. So there is your first failure.

[2] Mexican guy: Answers “Mexico” in broken English, gets the secondary, doesn’t understand his rights, get’s sent for processing with the other illegals. Sounds good, but he’s actually a US citizen that lives in Mexico. His only crime was being too stupid to understand what was going on. So you failed again.

Without going into specifics on this, if you have any issue with how this stop is conducted, you’ll have to take it up with the Feds. This is a U.S. Border Patrol stop. It has nothing to do with Arizona.

I use it only as an example of how such interactions could be conducted and still produce results.

[Bricker]

@gonzomax

That is not what we were discussing. I agree the only way to kick out bias is to ask everybody. But more than that, if they are without acceptable proof, and as I showed the vast majority of all people would be, then it is off to incarceration for them.

That’s not the case, and that’s not what the law says.

Again.

If it was everybody ,the result would be police state where everybody a cop pulls over has to have proof on him. I don’t like it at all.

No, because, again, the law doesn’t address pulling people over in the first place. It doesn’t allow the police to pull people over for suspicion of immigration problems.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Whack-a-Mole

@Wilbo523

@Whack-a-Mole

The difference here is Arizona troopers could stop you merely to ask for documentation. If you merely “look” like an immigrant the police could harass you demanding your documents.

Wrong. Go read the Arizona law.

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

SOURCE: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf (PDF)

Do tell what “reasonable suspicion” is?

Apparently I am not the only one raising these questions:

A series of questions have been raised about the implementation and constitutionality of Arizona SB1070. Some implementation concerns include the costs to the state for enforcing federal immigration law, particularly in tight budget times; how “reasonable suspicion of immigrant status” will be interpreted; and the narrow list of documents eligible to demonstrate lawful presence. Court challenges have raised constitutional issues including due process, equal protection under the 14th amendment, the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th amendment, and preemption under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

SOURCE: http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=20263

So its not jsut when the officer has arrested someone. What does lawful contact mean?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Simple question from a Canadian. I happen to know that our local police can arrest drunk drivers and charge them for driving beyond .08 which I know contravenes a federal statute.

Are you telling me that local law enforcement in the States are prohibited from enforcing federal law ?

There is no federal law requring that people be stopped on the street and asked to prove legal residence, nor is there any law that they be asked to prove it during a routine stop for other reasons. Arizona wouldn’t have been enforcing a federal law, they would be imposing news laws which they have no jurisdiction to pass.

So if officers are running sobriety checkpoints, the officers have to check for immigration status as well as sobriety?

[Bricker]

@emacknight

Which is what I suspected. So can we conclude that there is no reason for anyone to comply with this law?

And wouldn’t that make the law pointless?

AGAIN.

AGAIN.

AGAIN:

What about the analogy I have offered up, repeatedly, concerning consent to search?

It’s clear that the consent law isn’t pointless, considering the many arrests that are made subsequent to consent searches. Right?

Equally, we can supposedly conclude that because all a person has to do is say, “No,” or even better, remain silent, that there is no reason to comply with the law.

But it doesn’t seem to work that way.

And you, apparently, don’t wish to confront that truth, so you ignore it, despite it being mentioned a number of times.

There doesn’t seem to be any reason for a cop to suspect a person is an illegal alien, unless you know of one that you haven’t told us. I was say the two obvious situations might be a person running north from the Mexico/Arizona border, or a truck heading northbound full of people hiding under a tarp.

But if you can’t suspect race or origin, what else can you use?

Seriously?

I feel like screaming.

Didn’t I offer examples of what else you can use?

It’s as though you think that by not mentioning them, they cease to exist.

Let’s try an experiment: can you summarize any of the examples I have given, in your own words, just to show you’ve read them?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@G-SE

@Whack-a-Mole

Do tell what “reasonable suspicion” is?

Nice how you just skip over the whole “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT” part. That means a legal stop has to be made FIRST. And currently, formerly, and in the future, it is not legal in AZ to stop someone because of the color of their skin or just to check their papers.

It’s funny to see such outrage by the left by a law that they know nothing about.

So what is lawful contact? Is a sobriety check point lawful contact? If a cop is walking through the Home Depot parking lot and encounters a group of latino males looking for work, is that a legal contact (it doesn’t sound like an illegal contact). Can he ask that group of latino males for ID, can they refuse? Does that refusal create reasonable suspicion?

[Bricker]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So its not jsut when the officer has arrested someone. What does lawful contact mean?

Christ in HEAVEN!!!
It means NOTHING!!! It’s not part of the law. That quote is not part of the law! Did you not read the thread?!?

The law doesn’t contain the phrase “lawful contact,” ok? Got it? If someone tells you it does, they are a Bad Person and will try to touch you in Bad Places, so run away as fast as you can.

Maybe that will work.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

@G-SE

@Whack-a-Mole

Do tell what “reasonable suspicion” is?

Nice how you just skip over the whole “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT” part. That means a legal stop has to be made FIRST. And currently, formerly, and in the future, it is not legal in AZ to stop someone because of the color of their skin or just to check their papers.

It’s funny to see such outrage by the left by a law that they know nothing about.

There was a valid objection to this phrase, however. A “lawful contact” is made between the police and Emma when Emma reports that her home was burglarized, and the police respond to investigate.

For this reason, the phrase was removed by the passaage of HB 2162, and replaced with:

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state…

This change was referred to in SDMB threads approximately 8,876,621 times.

Now make that 8,876,622. Not that liberals let facts get in the way of good ol’ outrage.

So does this include sobriety check points?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Is there any practical difference between “lawful contact” and “lawful stop?” I submit that the answer is no. The cops can use virtually any pretense to stop somebody.

A lawful stop implicates the Fourth Amendment. A lawful contact does not. So the difference is: a lawful contact required no suspicion of any crime, but a lawful stop does.

If a crime occurred in a brown neighborhood and cops went knocking on doors, would oeping the door to talk to the cops be a lawful contact?

[ricksummon]

@Bricker

And let me point out again that if the suspect merely walks away, there’s no cause for a detention.

Ah, but what about the idea of male captus bene detentus? Suppose an officer improperly detains someone on the basis that they “look Mexican.” By the time the officer’s lieutenant discovers this, a check has already been run that shows the individual is, in fact, illegally in the country. The lieutenant reprimands the officer, but turns the individual over to ICE anyway. Is this legal?

[Unregistered_Bull]

@Bricker

No, because, again, the law doesn’t address pulling people over in the first place. It doesn’t allow the police to pull people over for suspicion of immigration problems.

So when the Officer sees someone Driving While Latino, he or she just pulls them over for whatever violation that he or she can come up with. Driving 24mph or 26mph in a 25MPH Zone, cracked windshield, failure to signal, license plate light out, etc.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

[I’m bookmarking this thread.

How do you bookmark a thread?

[Unregistered_Bull]

And pulling over someone for Driving While Latino would never happen in the state of Arizona:

Deputy Bob Dalton and volunteer Heath Kowacz spotted a driver with a cracked windshield in a poor Phoenix neighborhood near a busy freeway. Dalton triggered the red and blue police lights and pulled over 28-year-old Alfredo Salas, who was born in Mexico but has lived in Phoenix with a resident alien card since 1993. Dalton gave him a warning after Salas produced his license and registration and told him to get the windshield fixed. Salas, a married father of two who installs granite, told The Associated Press that he was treated well but he wondered whether he was pulled over because his truck is a Ford Lobo. “It’s a Mexican truck so I don’t know if they saw that and said, ‘I wonder if he has papers or not,’” Salas said. “If that’s the case, it kind of gets me upset.”

[emacknight]

@ricksummon

@Bricker

And let me point out again that if the suspect merely walks away, there’s no cause for a detention.

Ah, but what about the idea of male captus bene detentus? Suppose an officer improperly detains someone on the basis that they “look Mexican.” By the time the officer’s lieutenant discovers this, a check has already been run that shows the individual is, in fact, illegally in the country. The lieutenant reprimands the officer, but turns the individual over to ICE anyway. Is this legal?

I asked that earlier but was given the run around.

Anyone care to comment? Does an illegal alien have some sort of legal recourse if he’s illegally outed?

In the case of drugs, the charges can be thrown out if the cop failed to have reasonable cause.

[Bricker]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So does this include sobriety check points?

No, I don’t see that it would. The key element of the kinds of checkpoints approved in Michigan v. Sitz is their complete lack of discretion on officers’ parts. That is, the rules of engagement must be agreed upon well in advance “Stop every third car,” or “Stop every fifth car,” but never, “Stop a car with a driver that looks like a good candidate for intoxicated driving.” Even then, the stop must be a minimally-invasive affair that is targeted only to the issue of sobriety; police may not substitute a goal of general law enforcement. So even in a sobriety checkpoint, police would be forbidden to ask about immigration status.