If a police officer accosts you, it may be a consensual stop. So asking him, immediately, “Excuse me, officer, but am I free to go?” establishes right up front what kind of encounter this is.
If he tells you that you may not leave, then he needs to have reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain you. He doesn’t have to share this with you, but ultimately, he will have to cough it up.
The Arizona law says that you may not withhold your name if the officer asks for it and informs you that you are legally required to provide it. So basically, if he says you must give your name, you must. There is no requirement that I can see to provide a DOB or SSN.
Obviously this is not intended to be legal advice. Consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction for specific advie about your facts. I am not your attorney and you are not my client.
I am unfamiliar with the Constitutional underpinnings of the concept “abdication”. Is that one of those penumbra?
Does this mean that if the legilslature of the State of Arizona determines, in its wisdom, that the Fedeal government has failed in its duty for the national defense, they might raise their own army and invade Venezuela?
I’m not sure this concept is as well grounded as you might imagine…
No department should leave it to the individual officer to try to follow his law. Police departments should coordinate with their local district attorney to develpoo guidelines that will pass constitutional muster.
I suspect that in the beginning, there may well be some confusion, as you suggest.
Way, way back on the second page of this thread, I said:
Let me raise that spectre again. Does it really make sense to declare that this law will have these “parade of horribles” results without seeing what guidelines will actually be used in giving it effect?
Actual results may certainly be taken into account. Speculation may not. and that goes back to my page 2 point: you have a huge uphill battle in claiming that the facially constitutional law will be applied in an unconstitutional manner without a single actual example in front of you.
Thank you. But what’s amazing to me is that this thread has gone on for eight pages, with me answering every single objection and being subject to some staggeringly poor, incoherent attacks. And not one person, until you just now, has stepped in to comment on the strength of my presentation or (more welcome)the weakness of some of the more staggeringly poor rebuttals.
Well, I think you know why. Many people, myself included, find this law to be amazingly poor public policy. It’s hard for folks to take a nuanced position such as, this law may pass constitutional muster even while being poor public policy. You’ll find similarly few people taking the opposite nuanced position of saying it’s good public policy but is illegal.
There’s also the fact that some of the people who are arguing with you are, as you suggest, prone to incoherent attacks. I’d just as soon not point them out, because past experience suggests they’ll gladly turn those incoherent attacks on me, and that’s not what I’m looking for from the thread. Sorry, but you’ll have to weather those on your own.
As for whether it makes sense to worry about your so-called “parade of horribles,” yeah, actually, I think it makes a lot of sense to worry about that. In fact, I have trouble imagining why one wouldn’t be conservative in one’s approach to changing laws, why one wouldn’t want to consider unintended consequences before creating new laws.
What is to stop this encounter outside of Home Depot?
Cop (approaching several Hispanic males standing around): Good morning, Gentlemen. I assume you are all citizens.
Leader of Group: Good morning, Constable.
Cop: Do you have identification?
Leader of Group: No, we do not. Are we free to leave?
Cop: Well, since you want to play it that way, you are all under arrest for loitering. Form a line, the wagon will be here shortly. Once we run you through the system and verify your U.S. Citizenship, the judge will fine you 11 cents for loitering.
I mean, is it really hard for a cop to find some sort of law that you are breaking in order to justify running you through the system? Wasn’t there a case in Texas a few years back where the police were allowed to make a custodial arrest for a seat belt violation? What’s to stop the same thing here?
As to the specifics of loitering, here is the Arizona law:
So I think our hypothetical police oficer cannot charge anyone under this statute.
As to your more general claim, it’s one I’ve heard a lot… “Oh, there are so many laws; every one of us is guilty just by breathing…”
This simply isn’t true. I will grant that there are probably adminstrative code requirements that would ensnare someone running a business, for example. But simply standing around? No.
Now, yes, you’re remembering correctly about Texas – but in that case, the woman was driving without a seatbelt, which is a violation of the law. If our hypothetical officer were to see someone here driving with no seatbelt, he’d certainly have his needed reasonable suspicion to detain.
So might he then “trade” that into getting the documents? Yes. If he does have you on one violation, he can certainly choose to pursue it to the fullest.
And that was true last year, and last decade, and the decades before that. This law changes nothing about that truth.
In fact, you made that point yourself: the horrendous arrest for driving without a seatbelt was in 1997. In Texas. With no such horrible law as our Arizona law. Right?
FWIW, your response to him was wholly unsatisfactory. I don’t see anywhere in the document where it states that a US citizen faces a misdemeanor charge for not carrying papers. Nor do I see where Bricker has said otherwise. He has stated that it is a violation of federal (and now Arizona) law for permanent residents to fail to carry papers, if I understand correctly. I’m unclear on whether it’s a violation for undocumented immigrants to fail to carry documents.
If you see a contradiction in what he posted, it’d be helpful for you to post both statements. If you think one of them is wrong, it’d be helpful for you to post the line from the law that you believe he’s misinterpreting. As it is, I don’t see either thing. And your response to him that quotes the beginning to the law, I have no idea whether that’s intended to be persuasive of anything, much less of what.
Bricker, this little piece by the Daily Show has a quote by Maricopa County’s Arpaio in which he seems to say that, if he suspects someone will violate this law, he’ll find some other law to arrest them on in order to trip them up with this one. That’s exactly the sort of thing that I and others fear will happen–and here we have someone in Arizona confirming that’s how they’ll use this law.
I’m accustomed to your taking a conservative position on legal changes: that is, I think you usually look at what a law’s consequences may be. Am I incorrect in general, or is there a reason why you think this is an inappropriate approach in this case?
Err, I still have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
I have, of course, read the thread. I could just come out and say that you’re suffering from delusions, but I thought I’d give you the chance to offer some evidence for your beliefs. If you’re less interested in persuasion than in random snipes, however, you’re doing fine, and should carry on.
In GD, I think an argument should stand or fall on its own merits; it’s not relevant to count noses on the sides of an argument.
But I have to tell you that when it’s one or a few against the world, and some of the world is just tossing garbage, it’s extremely heartening to have at least one person “on the other side” point out the garbage, because when that doesn’t happen, it feels like the other side is endorsing it.
I try to to do that (although heaven knows I’m seldom in the majority) and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it. Thanks.
Here is my concern, Bricker, and perhaps you can give me your opinion of it.
Let’s take context into consideration. There exists a large number of illegal immigrants in Arizona, in which the vast majority of them constitute as having migrated from Mexico to Arizona, or perhaps some other central American country, in other words, they are likely to have brown skin. Law enforcement is aware, along with the general public, most of the people in Arizona illegally are Hispanic, look Hispanic, and speak Spanish. After all, Arizona is not known for having an illegal immigrant problem from the Nordic countries, or caucasion people.
So, the effect is for the law to be applied on the basis of race (let’s assume this, I am familiar with the immediate objection and flaw to this argument). What I am suggesting is law enforcement will selectively enforce this statute on the basis of race. Would you have an objection then if the law is applied in this manner? (Again, a hypothetical. I have no idea this will actually happen).
Can someone tell me what is the practical concern that people from Arizona have? I mean is there some sense that the illegal immigrants are making it more dangerous or something, because I read comments from folks who favor the bill in Arizona that they are “protecting themselves”. Is there something tangible that they are trying to address here?
Bricker only posted that it’s a misdemeanor for legal aliens not to carry evidence of their legal presence. He never said that it’s a misdemeanor for U.S. citizens not to carry evidence of their legal presence.
No one has yet quoted a section of the law where it supposedly makes it a crime for a U.S. citizen not to carry evidence of legal presence. CoolHandCox only quoted a section on legal aliens, not U.S. citizens. Bricker is still right on this one.
