Fun Fact: the law was supported by majorities in both legislative houses in Arizona and signed by the governor. Are they also hanging out with Neo Nazis?
Fun Fact the Second: the law is reportedly supported by a massive ~70% of Arizona voters. I suppose they, too, are just big ol’ neo Nazis, eh?
Popularity has nothing to do with content.
I would assume you would understand that people support things based on their perception of that thing. A law can be crafted to have effects that are not obvious to a causal read or a bullet point summation. If the public is happy with the bullet points it in no way means that they understand and would support the nuanced policies within.
Does it now?
If he has a reasonable suspicion, he may detain the person and ask for ID. But there is no law requiring that the person have ID (unless, of course, the person is a permanent resident). The law does require the person identify himself by name.
The purpose of an investigative detention is a brief, minimally intrusive detention to allow the officer to either confirm or dispel his suspicions.
It depends. If you walk away from them, and they order you to stop, then at that moment the encounter has transformed from a voluntary one to a detention. That means the officer must be able to point to specific, articulable facts that were in his possession or awareness at that moment to justify the detention.
Yes. But the law doesn’t say, as you claimed, that they must ask every Mexican looking person on the street if they’re a citizen. Does it?
Who cares? The police have every right to ask questions. They did before this law ever was crafted. They may not detain you without something beyond speculation and hunches. I’m sure they’ll be asking plenty more questions as a result of this law. But that behavior doesn’t attack any particular right that any of us have. They have ALWAYS had the power to come up to you and ask questions.
Your own contentions in this thread prove that point rather well.
And I guess you like democracy only when it delivers the results you favor.
In any event, the only ones misconstruing the law that I can see are the ones that disfavor it. A list of the outright lies posted in this thread about the content of the law would not be short.
I am sure if it was discussed somewhere in these 7 pages, but what is the standard for “reasonable suspicion”?
Oddly enough it seems you are the one who is steeped in misunderstandings here.
I never said that. I appreciate that you want this to be combative, but I did say that popularity has nothing to do with merit. Most people didn’t like HCR, but on the merits it was the right decision. All I’m talking about are the merits of this law, I don’t understand why you want to argue that because it’s popular it’s good.
And a list of honest misunderstandings would include your name, I’m pretty sure.
At least twice, but to quote directly from the seminal case on the matter:
So – it’s a standard less than probable cause, but greater than a mere unparticularized suspicion or inchoate hunch or guess.
This is Great DEBATES. I have supported my contentions with quotes from the actual law, and from seminal cases construing investigative detentions.
You have claimed that the law will allow “…a cop can ask a Hispanic guy that is doing nothing wrong for his papers…” and force cops “…to ask every Mexican looking person on the street if they’re a citizen.”
In support of those claims, you’ve provided zero cites.
Why would you imagine for an instant that I am the one misunderstanding anything?
And when the reasonably suspicious person gives no id, what happens then?
Which police are more than able to do. In fact they do it on a daily basis.
It wouldn’t say something so obvious. It creates a system of incentives that push police to err on the side of more questions. This is a fact from what I can tell.
The situation:
[ol]
[li]Civic governments want to limit lawsuits against them.[/li][li]They pressure police to be very public and vigilant about this law.[/li][li]Cleetus the racist sees “some Hispanics at the Home Depot” every day on his drive to work. He sues the Civic government over not enforcing the law well enough.[/li][li]Goto 1.[/li][/ol]Surely you can understand that this is the system of incentives created by this law?
[Raises Hand]
But now there is a set of incentives to get them to ask more questions preferentially of Hispanics.
So if someone feels an officer acted in violation of this resaonable suspicion standard when asking for proof of some kind he or she would sue the police department I assume. How hard is it to prove something like that, I wonder.
This has already been cited:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Question about the bolded part: How do you determine the person’s immigration status without ID?
Well you have been wrong before. And major news sources haven’t been walking back about their claims (although if they have please let me know), so pretty much it’s you against everyone else.
Not sure what you mean. Are you picturing that a person tries to walk away but is detained, even though the police have no reasonable suspicion?
Because, again, the police don’t need any suspicion to simply ask questions, as long as the person is free to disregard those questions and go about his business.
So can you lay out a sequence of events that you fear might happen?
Someone is asked for their papers, doesn’t produce them and is arrested. The officeer cites Reasonable Suspicion because the person doesn’t speak English, lets say. However, the person is legal in every sense of the word, how would we determine if that was Reasonable Suspicion? What is the avenue to determine if the officer’s judgement was within the law?
You can’t.
So you ask the person if they’re a citizen or permanent resident. If they claim to be a permanent resident, or here on a visa, you ask for their visa or green card. If they claim to be a citizen, you might ask for their name, DOB, and social security number. All of this would be consensual. That’s reasonable. If the person refuses to answer… and there’s no other indicia of suspicion… then there’s nothing more to be done. That is now the law will have to work.
That’s all the law says it will do.
If you say it will do something else, point to the section of the law that you feel makes your case. But the law itself specifies that it does not abrogate the civil rights of any person:
On a law? I have?
And if “everyone else” is posting speculation, and I am posting specific cites to the actual text of the law, why is “everyone else” more credible than I?
Coming back to this for a moment.
I remember three discussions about the prospective effect of laws. I’m sure there have been others in ten years, but off the top of my head, I recall these three.
[ul]
[li]A heated discussion with Zalweke about Ohio’s prohibition of same-sex marriage and whether it would elminate domestic violence laws as applied to unmarried cohabitating couples. Zalweke contended the law shouldnot pass because it would mean that cohabitating, unmarried couples could no longer be prosecuted for domestic violence. We ended up making a bet on the issue, which he lost[/li][li]A heated discussion with Steve MB over a similar law in Virginia, and whether it would have similar effects. No bet, and a good thing for Steve MB as he was wrong [/li][li]A discussion about the ACORN defunding bill being a Bill of Attainder, which a district court judge found it was and which decision is on appeal right now[/li][/ul]
Of the three I recall, that’s two clear wins and one still undecided.
What are you thinking of?
Bricker: What is the point of this law, if it doesn’t change anything? Maybe the legislators were idiots, but surely they thought something needed to change, or they would not have enacted this law? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your analysis, but you seem to be saying that this law doesn’t change anything. Correct me if I’m wrong on that, if you will.
It’s about *winning *here, that’s all? 
Perhaps your statement earlier in this thread that failure to provide papers is not a state misdemeanor?
How about the sequence of events I mentioned previously, in which the police come up with a BS excuse such as “fits the profile of a known gang member (young male Hispanic)” to stop everyone who fits the profile? But which has the effect of stopping every young male Hispanic?
It happens all the time. I’m guessing some civil rights lawyers are going to be VERY busy if this law sticks for any length of time.
Oh, it definitely changes things, but they are not things that (at least directly) vitiate anyone’s civil rights.
First: it means that every time a cop pulls a driver over, he will ask that driver about his immigration status. He has to. Every time he arrests someone, he will investigate that person’s immigration status. He has to. Prior to this law, he didn’t have to, and most departments didn’t encourage it.
And if he, or his department, decides not to, then anyone can sue them to force them to do so.
Then the police are violating the law.
What’s to stop them from doing that without this law?
And do you have any cite to any appellate case that upheld an investigative detention based solely on the officer’s claim that “young, male, Hispanic” fit the profile of a known gang member?