Judge blocks Arizona "show me your papers" law

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@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.

Sorry.

I’m catching up.

[Bricker]

@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.”

If it does, this story doesn’t demonstrate it. Driving with a cracked windshield is a violation of A.R.S. § 28-957.01(A).

[Bricker]

@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?

Irrelevant, since the phrase “lawful contact” is not in issue here.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@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.

So a sobriety checkpoint is not a lawful stop, its something less than that. Its been a long time since I took crim pro.

then is suspect that cops couldn’t ask folksn in a hispanic neighborhood for immigration status if they were merly going around looking for information on some crime that happened in teh neighborhood.

How do you bookmark a thread?

[Bricker]

@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?

It’s not, but let’s say it was.

This law neither adds nor subtracts anything to that process.

In other words, suppose we repeal the controversial Arizona law.

Then it will OBVIOUSLY be illegal for that officer to detain and check the individual. But the same sequence would occur: the check is run and and the individual’s immigration status discovered.

Right? In other words, you’re asking what happens if the law is violated. But if the law is repealed, then anyone acting as it commands is… violating the law. Either way.

[Bricker]

@Damuri_Ajashi

then is suspect that cops couldn’t ask folksn in a hispanic neighborhood for immigration status if they were merly going around looking for information on some crime that happened in teh neighborhood.

Correct.

Well, to be clearer: they could ASK, in the context of a consensual encounter. But the individual would be free to disregard the inquiry and go about his business, and the police could not draw any adverse inference from that.

How do you bookmark a thread?

In Firefox, you can navigate to the page you wish to bookmark and hit Ctrl-D.

In general, get the URL of the thread. This thread’s URL is: Judge blocks Arizona "show me your papers" law - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board. Paste that into the address section of the bookmark properties line of whatever browser you’re using.

[Unregistered_Bull]

@Bricker

@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.”

If it does, this story doesn’t demonstrate it. Driving with a cracked windshield is a violation of A.R.S. § 28-957.01(A).

''Sheriff Joe Arpaio shrugged off Judge Bolton’s ruling and proceeded Thursday with a planned sweep in the greater Phoenix areas to search for illegal immigrants suspected breaking traffic laws;"

Quite frankly, I doubt that. You have a Sheriff who sent out Officers and Volunteers to target Latinos by enforcing traffic laws violated by Latinos.

[Bricker]

@emacknight

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.

And likewise in the case of illegal immigration.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@Bricker

[I’m bookmarking this thread.

How do you bookmark a thread?

Same way you bookmark any other webpage.

[CannyDan]

@Bricker

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I would say that on its face, it is no longer objectionable, and that the opposition to the law was largely justified to begin with.

To clarify, you are saying that the pre-modified version of the law was objectionable, and that the modifications erased your objections?

And I hate to turn you away from your new-found ally status, but the DOJ’s challenge is on pre-emption grounds, which we haven’t really discussed here, despite that being (in my view) the most promising area to challenge…

Agree with **RNATB **here. I’ve read and participated in at least several of those threads, Bricker, and I see an evolution of the AZ law. The original version was clearly an open invitation to abuse, and the adopted version is much less so. Still, actions like those of Sheriff Arpiao and mindsets like that of our friend **Lonesome **still give me reason to suspect a likelihood of abuse. But we shall wait and see.

As for pre-emption, that too remains to be resolved. I no longer believe that this law is so obviously discriminatory in effect as I once did (and it once was). But I still wouldn’t mind if it gets thrown out, either.

[Unregistered_Bull]

@Bricker

If it does, this story doesn’t demonstrate it. Driving with a cracked windshield is a violation of A.R.S. § 28-957.01(A).

Picture of the ‘cracked windshield’ here. Looks pretty dubious. I doubt that a White guy would have been pulled over for that windshield.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@Unregistered_Bull

@Bricker

If it does, this story doesn’t demonstrate it. Driving with a cracked windshield is a violation of A.R.S. § 28-957.01(A).

Picture of the ‘cracked windshield’ here. Looks pretty dubious. I doubt that a White guy would have been pulled over for that windshield.

That doesnn’t have any such picture, is it the right link?

[Unregistered_Bull]

@Gangster_Octopus

@Unregistered_Bull

@Bricker

If it does, this story doesn’t demonstrate it. Driving with a cracked windshield is a violation of A.R.S. § 28-957.01(A).

Picture of the ‘cracked windshield’ here. Looks pretty dubious. I doubt that a White guy would have been pulled over for that windshield.

That doesnn’t have any such picture, is it the right link?

Shit! They changed it. There is a picture of the Governor now. There was a picture of the pulled over man and truck that Dalton and Kowacz pulled over.:smack:

[Eva_Luna]

@CannyDan

actions like those of Sheriff Arpiao and mindsets like that of our friend **Lonesome **still give me reason to suspect a likelihood of abuse. But we shall wait and see.

Looks like the fun is starting already.

[Bricker]

@Unregistered_Bull

@Bricker

If it does, this story doesn’t demonstrate it. Driving with a cracked windshield is a violation of A.R.S. § 28-957.01(A).

Picture of the ‘cracked windshield’ here. Looks pretty dubious. I doubt that a White guy would have been pulled over for that windshield.

I wasn’t able to see the picture before it was changed, but I can tell you that from my years as a public defender in Virginia, there were plenty of white guys pulled over for tiny cracks in windshields. Of course, I saw these cases because they had evolved into suppression hearings for drug possession, but the fact remains that police in Northern Virginia were very willing to issue tickets for VERY small cracks.

No reason to believe Arizona police would be any different.

[Bricker]

@Eva_Luna

Looks like the fun is starting already.

Very creative on their part.

Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

[Eva_Luna]

@Bricker

@Eva_Luna

Looks like the fun is starting already.

Very creative on their part.

Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

What’s your point? Are you saying they made up that one of their attorneys got arrested? Or are you saying that she was doing something other than just observing enforcement of the law when she was arrested - something that she deserved to be arrested for? Or something else?

[Unregistered_Bull]

@Bricker

@Unregistered_Bull

@Bricker

If it does, this story doesn’t demonstrate it. Driving with a cracked windshield is a violation of A.R.S. § 28-957.01(A).

Picture of the ‘cracked windshield’ here. Looks pretty dubious. I doubt that a White guy would have been pulled over for that windshield.

I wasn’t able to see the picture before it was changed, but I can tell you that from my years as a public defender in Virginia, there were plenty of white guys pulled over for tiny cracks in windshields. Of course, I saw these cases because they had evolved into suppression hearings for drug possession, but the fact remains that police in Northern Virginia were very willing to issue tickets for VERY small cracks.

No reason to believe Arizona police would be any different.

No doubt. When the Police want see someone that they looks like a White drug offender, they can pull them over for the most minor of charges that they never would have pulled over someone that didn’t look like a White drug offendor for.

What I think many Latinos are worried about here is that Latinos will be pulled over for the most minor of the infractions in order to determine their immigration status. And as long as the ethnic profilling law enforcement officers pull over enough Whites,Blacks, etc., then their ethnic profiling won’t even be determinable statistically. And I’m sure that District Attorneys will sell their souls in order to defend them.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

@Eva_Luna

Looks like the fun is starting already.

Very creative on their part.

Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

What is your point with this? What are you suggesting was "creative"on their part? Could you please explain yourself here? Th story said she was writing down the names of those arrested as part of her duty as a legal observer, and she was arrested for it. What is the crime there, and how is it “creative” on her part?

[CoolHandCox]

@Unregistered_Bull

@Bricker

If it does, this story doesn’t demonstrate it. Driving with a cracked windshield is a violation of A.R.S. § 28-957.01(A).

Picture of the ‘cracked windshield’ here. Looks pretty dubious. I doubt that a White guy would have been pulled over for that windshield.

Purely anecdotal, but my girlfriend was pulled over for a cracked windshield the other day. I didn’t even realize it was illegal, but it is, and she got a ticket.

Doesn’t have much to do with Arizona, but people do get pulled over for just having a cracked windshield.