And there’s the cop’s reasonable suspicion!
Duh.
Nothing.
It’s a classic case of “consensual police encounter.” Police officers are always free to approach someone and ask any question they like, as long as the person is free to disregard the inquiry and go about his business.
Nothing in the Arizona law purports to change that.
Except that for all we no, the refusal to answer may constitute reasonable suspicion.
nm
Actually, we all DO know the answer to that question, refined in countless Terry-stop cases: It does not constitute reasonable suspicion.
And this law does nothing to change that. It can’t, since those standards are grounded in Constitutional reasoning.
Again: Terry defines reasonable suspicion as a standard regard criminal actions (or perceived imminent criminal actions, more specifically). It does not define reasonable suspicion as it relates to proscribed but non-criminal conduct.
In other words, none of those countless Terry-stop cases deal with this issue.
ETA:
“all we no”? Dunno what the fuck happened here, but that should be “all we know”. :smack:
Try it in front of Sheriff Arpaio and see what happens.
Requires is the language in the bill.
Criminal conduct is what’s at issue here.
The bill says: “A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.”
Where does it say, ‘requires?’
“Shall”. Not “may”.
Come on now.
It’s arresting the person for not happening to have a birth certificate on him that would be illegal.
Because race, ethnicity or national origin can’t constitute “probably cause”. Or am I wrong about that…?
Well, then, you have nothing to worry about. This law does not authorize that.
Question, Bricker:
If I sat on a public sidewalk in front of Home Depot, wearing a shirt that said “Illegal Alien” and holding a sign with a arrow point to me saying “No proof of citizenship” and another sign, with same arrow, saying “Looking for day labor,” it is my understanding that the police would be required under this law to question me, because I have given them reasonable suspicion, and they could be sued if they ignore it.
Now, assume my pockets are empty. I really don’t have any ID or proof of residence.
What happens if I refuse to talk to the officer who questions me?
It’s certainly good to know that believing you have the law on your side means you have nothing to worry about. Thanks.
Thom Hartmann suggests that the whole point of this law is to crack down on dark skinned voters in the next election. He says watch the crackdown at the polls. The real enforcement will occur in Nov. A majority of the dark skinned people vote Democratic.
Correct.
But if a person has been stopped for some other reason, the officer is entitled to inquire about immigration status.
This scene plays itself out every day:
MOTORIST: Was I speeding, officer?
COP: Yes, i got you on radar doing 71 in a 55. License and registration, please?
MOTORIST: Right here… here you go.
COP: You don’t happen to have anything in the car I should know about, do you? Guns, knives, drugs, grenade launchers?
MOTORIST: Ha ha. No, I don’t.
COP: Mind if I take a look?
That conversation is unquestionably legal… even though the officer has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to ask about any violation of law at all (other than speeding.)
So what, in your mind, is objectionable about:
MOTORIST: Was I speeding, officer?
COP: Yes, i got you on radar doing 71 in a 55. License and registration, please?
MOTORIST: Right here… here you go.
COP: You don’t happen to have anything in the car I should know about, do you? Guns, knives, drugs, grenade launchers?
MOTORIST: Ha ha. No, I don’t.
COP: And you’re a U.S. citizen? Or permanent resident?
I was a bit puzzled about how they could be arresting someone now, because the bill wouldn’t take effect for a bit. But thank you for pointing out that ICE is the new acronym for INS. I thought it might just be Arizona’s local customs people. You’re sure it was the federal version?
The intended effect is more likely to deter Hispanic voters from showing up at all.