Yes, I do understand that, I actually said that a few times.
You really shouldn’t keep accusing people of dodging questions while you yourself are dodging questions.
So to you: since you mentioned contraband searches, I assume you are aware of other factors that might give a cop reasonable suspicion. Aside from self incrimination, are you aware of any other causes for reasonable suspicion with regards to a person’s residency status?
And let’s be clear, I am not hand waving away self incrimination. It’s great, lots of people plead guilty. But surely you are aware of at least one person that plead not-guilty, that was later found to in fact be guilty.
So it seems to be you that is hand-waving away all the other work done in the process of a conviction. As if all that has to be done is wait for them to confess. Makes you wonder why cops need radar guns and breathalyzer. A guess search warrants are never issued either. All we need to do is ask.
“Reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” are two very different things. One is not a synonym of the other.
I don’t remember where I discussed what could happen with probable cause in any great detail, or even at all.
So I suspect that in your mind, you’re conflating “reasonable suspicion,” which I did indeed devote much discussion to, with “probable cause.” Is that what’s happening here?
“Probable cause,” is the standard for an arrest. If there is probable cause to believe a person committed a crime, they may be arrested. That’s the law in every state in the land.
If the police do develop probable cause to suspect an immigration violation (again, a standard different than ‘reasonable suspicion’) then, yes, in Arizona it will probably not happen very often to white people. And that’s because the number of white people in Arizona guilty of immigration law violations is vanishingly small compared to the number of non-white people.
So what? Do you believe that the justice system has some obligation to enforce racial equality amongst their arrestees?
So what?
Wait, let me modify that statement. As to a person turned over with probable cause… so what? No arrest process anywhere in the country can be described as ‘pretty.’ But an arrest anywhere in the country can be made based upon probable cause.
Now, you slipped in “…probable cause or not.” I agree with you that if a person is turned over to ICE without probable cause, that’s not pretty. And more to the point, it’s not right.
Fortunately, this law does not permit that to happen.
Boo fucking hoo. They are free to ignore the officer’s inquiries, something that’s not true at border crossings. You may well be right – the opposition to this law may come from precisely that fear. But that’s not a constitutional problem. That’s a public policy problem. If the people of Arizona don’t like this treatment, they can vote out the legislators that crafted it.
But wait - they LOVE this law. So it’s only you, then.
Asked and answered above, in great detail. To summarize: incrimination by one’s associates, prior personal knowledge of the officer involved, documentary evidence possessed by the person being investigated.
Who is talking about “pleading” guilty??
I am talking about making inculpatory statements at the side of the road.
In fact, inculpatory statements that give rise to probable cause are much more useful, numbers-wise, than breathalyzers are. I doubt you actually care about this, because your pattern is to studiously ignore facts that don’t help you.
But for the benefit of readers who might actually … you know… read… let’s discuss the breathalyzer and the radar gun.
So the radar gun gives the officer cause to pull over a car. (The analogy to our Arizona law is obvious: the cops have to have someone detained for another violation, non-immigration related, before the Arizona law even applies).
Once the car is pulled over, the officer cannot simply stick a breathalyzer tube in the car and say, “Blow into this.” He must have reasonable suspicion that the driver is intoxicated. (The analogy to our Arizona law is obvious, and identical: he is not required to make an effort to verify the immigration status unless he has reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed an immigration violation.)
So the officer looks for a way to develop that reasonable suspicion. He may well ask every driver he stops, “Have you had anything to drink this evening?” That’s somewhat of a joke amongst law enforcement, in fact, because so many people will respond, "Just a couple of beers. (The analogy to our immigration law is obvious, and identical: the officer asks everyone he stops, “Are you a U.S. citizen or legal resident?”)
The answer to the officer’s question may end the investigation, or it may develop further. The officer may smell alcohol on the driver’s breath, or the driver’s speech may be slurred, or the driver may admit to consuming alcohol, all of which can create reasonable suspicion. (The analogy to our Arizona law is obvious: the detainee may provide an inculpatory answer, one that incriminates himself.)
At this point, lacking reasonable suspicion, the officer can issue a citation for the original offense of speeding, but nothing more. (Analogy: the officer issues a citation for the original offense, but nothing more).
Or, if the officer has reasonable suspicion because of an inculpatory answer or external evidence, he may require a field sobriety test. This is a test that drivers, “even though they are legal,” can “expect to be treated like they aren’t.” The driver must stand at the side of the road and perform a series of physical steps at the command of the officer. You may be asked to take nine heel-to-toe steps forward, pivot, and then take nine heel-to-toe steps back to your starting point while counting out loud the number of steps that you have taken. You may have to raise one foot six inches off of the ground while keeping yours arms at your side, count out loud to 30, and then put your foot back down. You may be asked to watch the officer’s pen by moving your eyes while keeping your head still.
All of these are performed by the side of the road in full view of passing cars.
(The analogy to the Arizona law? Probably the brief detention while the officer attempts to confirm immigration status using the name, date of birth, and alien registration number if available.)
If the results of the field sobriety tests show intoxication, then the officer has probable cause to believe the driver is guilty of that offense. At this time, the officer will arrest the driver and transport him to jail. (The analogy: the officer receives words that the person is an immigration violator, and now has probable cause to arrest him).
If the results of the field sobriety test do not show intoxication, then the investigation is over, and the driver is free to go (after being cited for the original offense). (Analogy: If the immigration information shows no violation, or is not returned in a reasonable time, the person is free to go).
At the jail, the person is required to submit to a breathalyzer test, the result of which are admissible at his trial for DWI. (Analogy: transportation to ICE for processing and eventual determination of action).
That was a lot of typing on my part. I hope it had some effect. I hope you can see I’m not claiming that confession, alone, is all that’s needed in either case.
I’m not sure if you’re just stubborn, or if you have vast gaping holes in your understanding of how the criminal justice system works.
Not a fair assumption. But in this case, I don’t see where he’s said anything incorrect; he simply hasn’t laid out the minutiae of detail that is apparently necessary to explain the steps involved.
Not necessarily. He may immediately have probable cause. “Reasonable suspicion,” is a level of suspicion below that of probable cause, but above a mere unparticularized suspicion or a hunch. An officer has reasonable suspicion when he can point to specific, articulable facts that together give rise to the reasonable inference that a crime may have been committed.
So… what Stratocaster said is:
The brackets I added were to fill in what may have been missing in your understanding of the statement. (And, obviously, if this is NOT what Stratocaster meant, I am sure he’ll correct me).
So the sequence of events is:
stop, detention, or arrest for some other crime
during that stop, officer develops reasonable suspicion of immigration violation
officer investigates further to confirm or dispel suspicion of immigration
How long can this further detention take to investigate? Not long, as Stratocaster hinted. It can’t generally exceed the length necessary for the original detention.
Good, adding self-incrimination, from this point on, that is what we’ll consider “reasonable suspicion.”
You can keep saying that, thus forming a pattern, but it doesn’t negate the facts that you so eloquently ignore. Pot meet kettle.
That’s right, you agree there are lots of reasons to pull someone over.
Good, we agree about this point too.
Now let’s keep this analogy tight. Lots of people say, “had a couple of beers” because you are legally allowed to do that and still drive. It’s also a fungible term to both tell the truth (drank alcohol) and hide the facts (drank a lot of alcohol).
But as far as our comparison goes, the people that answer “had a couple” are still legally allowed to drive, they are below the legal limit. They represent the group I am trying to discuss–false positives.
Does that make sense to you? Maybe you don’t have enough training in statistics. This group (people that had one beer) are legally allowed to drive, but they answer the question as asked truthfully, and give reasonable suspicion. We have now created a condition that makes a group of the population suspected criminals.
Let’s just outline that again in case there is a specific legal term I misused. There is nothing illegal about having 1 beer and then driving*. We have DUI laws to catch the people that over 0.08, but in the process we have to make the people that are between 0.01 and 0.08 suspected criminals. That is a the group of false positives, that give “reasonable suspicion” but are in fact legally allowed to drive.
So for the AZ law, we have to consider what will count as “reasonable suspicion.” You mentioned above, the cop will ask, “Are you a citizen**.” The suspect will truthfully say no–and still be a legal alien. Now by virtue of being both honest, and not a citizen, our suspect has given reasonable suspicion for further investigation. This is analogous to the people that “had a beer.” They are legal, but give reasonable suspicion.
**Remember that we are looking for an analogous question to “have you been drinking?” Cops don’t ask, “Are you drunk?” Or “did you consume more alcohol than legally allowed before operating a motor vehicle.” They ask a very simple generic question as you pointed out, intended to get reasonable suspicion.
Can you see how this law can create a huge number of false positives? There is a grey area between citizen/greencard and illegal alien. According to wiki, United States Visas were issued to 6.6 million foreign nationals visiting the United States and to 470 thousand immigrants in 2008. So we are looking for the 12 million illegal aliens, but mixed up in the population of 320million citizens are about 7million legal immigrants.
What that means to me, is that for every 100 stops, 3.75 might be illegal, and 2.18 might be visa holders. Or said another way, for ever 3 people that give reasonable suspicion, only 2 of them are in fact illegal, but the third gives reasonable suspicion leading to probable cause.
Notice that with a DUI there are other factors an officer can use to get reasonable suspicion? So both DUI and the AZ law involve a question, that may lead to self incrimination. Both could have a friend say, “dude just tell the truth.” Both could be known to the officer.
But the AZ law doesn’t have what we might consider “external clues.” Both groups could lie, “no i haven’t been drinking, yes I am a citizen.” In the first, the officer can find reasonable suspicion in other ways, in the second he doesn’t have any that are unique to this law. Does that make sense to you? All the reasonable suspicion examples you gave also be applied to DUIs, but the external clues for a DUI can’t be translated back to the AZ law.
It reminds me a lot of Rastafarians, who by virtue of their culture are suspected of being high and having pot. This is why a lot of people suspect that race/accent/appearance will be used as an external clue to provide reasonable suspicion.
Now, consider the field sobriety test. As we said above, the officer asks, “have you been drinking,” suspect says, “yes.” The suspect is legally allowed to drive, but now must submit to a field sobriety test that is both lengthy and humiliating. We have created a sub-population that is always considered a suspected criminal. For the AZ law, the cop now as reasonable suspicion to verify that person’s immigrant status.
Here is a case you might understand: If officers were to set up near a Catholic Church on Sunday around 11am, stop cars for a valid reason, and then ask, “sir, have you had any wine today?” Do you see the way all good Catholics driving that morning would answer “yes” thereby giving reasonable suspicion. Do you see the way that might make the law seem like it’s targeting legal drivers who happen to be Catholic? Officers now have reasonable suspicion to perform a field sobriety test on what amounts to every Catholic on a Sunday morning.
Secondly, you mentioned the field sobriety test. A small portion of the population has a problem with their inner ear making it difficult for them to pass the field sobriety test. Imagine for a second if that group was about 30% of the population. By virtue of being unable to pass the field sobriety test, that 30% will be suspected criminals, leading to probable cause for arrest.
We were trying to find people that were drunk, instead we caught people with an inner ear problem. The problem with the AZ law, is that there are going to be a lot of people in the analogous group. People that are legal, but fail the initial screening by virtue of who they are***.
True or false: It is possible to fail the field sobriety test while legally under the limit.
Here are 8 ways, and here are 4 others. So again, let’s have an officer validly pulling people over near a retirement home for fat people seniors. Do you see the way the test designed to catch drunk drivers would instead catch fat old people? Granted, they would all be cleared of charges, but they all ended up giving probable cause by virtue of their demographics.
So do you see now the way a field sobriety check could lead to the arrest of a lot of innocent drivers?
The very last problem with the AZ law is that those innocent people are going to be sent to ICE for detention. Do you understand what is involved with that process? What you described as “eventual determination of action.” As I said before, it takes immigration officials over an hour to verify my visa documents. It takes the DMV over 6 weeks.
Wow, that as a lot of typing on my part. I hope it had some effect. I hope you can see I’m not claiming that confession, alone, is all that’s needed in either case.
I’m not sure if you’re just stubborn, or if you have vast gaping holes in your understanding of how the immigration system works. Maybe this cleared a view things up.
*Assuming a normal human that can consume 1 beer and hour and stay below the legal limit of 0.08.
***It is still unclear what follow up screening will be involved. What is the “field sobriety test” equivalent for the AZ law?
Voters are really fucking stupid, can we agree on that point? Shouldn’t we, as the intelligent elite, make at least a semblance of effort to route out the facts? To question the merits of a new law?
As you just said with Aaron Spelling, popularity produces shit, sweet delicious surgically enhanced and sickeningly profitable shit. So should we give up trying to create quality? Should we lie to the masses and tell them the WB (or the new CW) is all Shakespeare?
Why are you so quick to report on popularity of laws you like, and then disregard the popularity of bills you’re against?
The result has been a political party that is emulating Aaron Spelling. This law is nothing more than T and A for the likes of **bull **and lonesome. Hell ya this bill is popular, because it’s candy for the ill-informed. Is that what you as an intelligent conservative want?
Is now the correct time to point out the unpopularity of the civil rights movement? Or the unpopularity of ending slavery? Hell, let’s throw Goodwin on the pile and point out the popularity of Hitler.
Well, this law isn’t exactly legislating by polls. It was duly passed by the state’s elected representatives, and signed by the elected governor. The fact that the people ALSO overwhlemingly favor it simply rebuts any notion that it’s contrary to the wishes of the people.
Of course we can question the merits of a new law.
But honestly: don’t you see that your “questioning” here has involved repeated recitations of points answered and disproved over and over? This isn’t neutral questioning – it’s an agenda-driven fight marked by an unwillingness to even learn anything that contradicts your starting position.
When have I disregarded the popularity of bills I’m against?
Candy for the ill-informed?!?
Your opposition to this bill isn’t based on anything factual, but mere speculation about what abuses might ensue if it’s put into effect. And
you have been the one consistently offering up non-factual information here. In this very post I’m replying to: “Why are you so quick to report on popularity of laws you like, and then disregard the popularity of bills you’re against?” Is that based on anything factual? When have I done that?
But you felt free to toss it out as an attack, despite the total lack of any factual basis. Didn’t you?
Yes. But so what? Who cares? The officer in Arizona won’t have any external clues, no other way to develop reasonable suspicion. The officer investigating a DWI does.
So what?
I don’t care what “a lot of people suspect.” That’s not what the law allows. The law explictly forbids the use of race in developing reasonable suspicion. The officer has to explain his reasonable suspicion to a judge. He can’t just say to the judge, “Well, judge, the driver looked a little… you know…? Like that. So I detained him.”
What “a lot of people suspect” is bullshit, since these “lot of people” don’t seem to understand that reasonable suspicion must be supported by specific, articulable facts. If the officer can’t ARTICULATE those facts, the reasonable suspicion will not exist.
So what are “a lot of people” worried about?
If the driver answers, “Only the tiny sip that comes with communion,” then no reasonable suspicion would exist. If the driver simply answered, “Yes,” then sure, the cop might have reasonable suspicion. And that’s fine. That’s the law.
So your theory is that this law will lead to unacceptably high numbers of false positives, but you can’t quite explain why you’re sure it will happen?
True. Absolutely true.
And what of it? The situation you describe is true, right now, in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Yet no one is marching with a demand to repeal probable cause laws or field sobriety tests, despite the fact that they suffer from precisely the same flaws you find abhorrent in the Arizona law.
Why is that?
Well… a lot of “not guilty” drivers.
No shit. The standard for arrest is “probable cause.” The standard for a criminal conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” To get a conviction, you need much stronger evidence than you need for an arrest. So naturally, as a consequence of this, people will be arrested but ultimately not convicted, because the standard of proof required to arrest them is much lower than that required to convict them.
Again: the situation you describe is true, right now, in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Yet no one is marching with a demand to repeal probable cause laws or ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standards, despite the fact that they suffer from precisely the same flaws you find abhorrent in the Arizona law.
A call to ICE for verification of immigration status.
Are you aware of the sentencing discrepancy between crack cocaine and powder cocaine? Pres. Obama just repealed the the five-year mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack cocaine.
Do you see the way a “get tough on drugs” law was set up that targeted two groups? Rich white men use powder cocaine, poor black men use crack cocaine. So there is a case where a law was repealed.
Each aspect of the law was both popular and constitutional, but when applied it was incarcerating a higher number of blacks than whites for the same crime–possession of cocaine.
I’m not sure, but there may have been marching involved.
Can you understand now why I might suspect that this new law might target non-whites disproportionately more than whites?
A call to ICE for verification of immigration status.
[/QUOTE]
So here is a question I assume you’ll dodge. Where in the process of a lawful stop does this phone call fit in?
Remember when you said that the stop can not last longer than the original purpose. You said that if it takes too long for the drug dogs to show up the guy gets to leave?
Legally speaking, how does this phone call to ICE fit into the process? You are aware that I am not a lawyer and I do not have experience as a public defender. So as a result I may incorrectly put this phone call into the wrong part of the arrest process.
Valid traffic stop
question about immigration
reasonable suspicion
phone call to ICE?
The issue here is: how long can that phone call take? Is there a limit to how long the suspect can be reasonably detained?
Wait. What? So the profiling cop is not only profiling against hispanics, he is profiling against everyone else too, then how is it profiling? is it because he is pulling over rich black and white guys and poor hispanics?
I think there still may be some confusion here. I do not always explain myself clearly (although I am trying). My point in bringing up the entire Border Patrol tangent is that law enforcement is already using the interrogation techniques described. The Border Patrol routinely conduct interviews based either on reasonable suspicion or at stationary check-points. They do this throughout the US. They are legal and demonstrably successful.
Note: These are far broader powers than are being proposed in the AZ legislation.
The Border Patrol is not the same thing as ICE, USCIS, or even customs. When you are hassled coming into the US at a port of entry it is not the Border Patrol you are dealing with.
Now, if it’s the USCIS or customs that you have an issue with, you’ll get no argument from me. Dealing with either is a horrible process and I will line up with you to argue for changes. The bureaucratic nightmare that is US immigration would make even Terry Gilliam sit up and take notice. Dealing with customs when returning to the US is definitely not a breeze. But, none of that has anything to do with the US Border Patrol or their enforcement stops.
One important distinction between the two is the amount of time allowed for a stop. Immigration and Customs can detain you for as long as they like (It is up to you to prove that you can legally enter the country as opposed to them proving that you cannot). With the Border Patrol (as with normal police), this detention may only last a “reasonable time”.
So, it seems to me that your issue these types of stops extend to the already lawful stops conducted by the US Border Patrol and as such the issue is more with immigration enforcement in general as opposed to the AZ law. If that is the case, that’s fine, but just say that. If it’s not the case then please explain the difference, because I’m not getting it (which is probably my fault).
Haven’t we determined that reasonable suspicion almost never exists during a routine traffic stop once the illegal aliens know to say “I’m not going to answer that”
OK so your position is that this law is designed to catch the illegal aliens that are stupid enough to tell a cop that they are in fact illegal aliens?
I think his point is exactly that. This law will catch all the people who confess to being illegal aliens. Sure msot illegal aliens won’t confess but you might catch a few who slip up and say something that provides reasonable suspicion.
Its beena while since I took criminal procedure but many cases we read involved a relatively stupid criminal who gave the cops the rope to hang them with. Its not some vanishingly small number, if every illegal alien was as well informed as the people on this baord, sure it would be a vanishingly small number but do you really think the discussion among drug dealers about how to deal with traffic stops is any different tahn the converstaion that will occur among ilegal aliens on how to deal with traffic stops? And yet for some reason, drug dealers get nervous and let cops search their trunks anyways.
Yes. In much the same way the drug smugglers are largely caught because they’re stupid enough to tell a cop that they are drug smugglers, and felons in possession of firearms are largely caught because they are stupid enough to tell a cop that they are in possession of a firearm.
I can’t quite figure out what you’re getting at, though? Do you doubt the existence of the many drug smugglers and felons I mention? Do you believe that illegal aliens will be better versed in Fourth Amendment law? What?
But I am confident that despite the undoubtedly massive effort, funded by liberals, that will ensue to get the word out to illegal aliens, it won’t be that successful, and many aliens will be caught in contradictions and confessions.