Internal affairs departments and judges are supposed to be the safeguard against officers overstepping the bounds of reasonable suspicion. Like others have said, if there is abuse in the law enforcement system, then that does not mean that the legislation is bad.
Do you support Arizona?
- Thread starter tkron
- Start date
That's a fair question, and it's probably something that will be wrung out in the courts.
The only real guidance is in the text of the law itself, which clearly states that there MUST be factors other than race taken into account.
That said, the Governor said that there will be strict training for LEOs covering what they can use as reasonable suspicion. Remember though, it will ALWAYS be a judgment call. Always has been.
The amusing thing about this whole thread is that there isn't a need to engage in hyperbole to demonstrate just how this law will reinforce Arizona's notorious law enforcement community and their racial profiling.
The basic jist is that this law essentially requires Arizona residents to purchase some form of identification from the state, and it's no secret what particular demographics are less likely to have said identification. Furthermore, given the rather colorful nature of Arizona law enforcement -- particularly in Maricopa County, what with it's regular losses of accreditation, civil cases resulting from mistreatment and death, and even broadcasting of pretrial inmates of the web back in '00 -- I should think this would be of grave concern to anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together.
Frankly, Arizona is a shithole anyway. Let them do things ass backwards.
The basic jist is that this law essentially requires Arizona residents to purchase some form of identification from the state, and it's no secret what particular demographics are less likely to have said identification. Furthermore, given the rather colorful nature of Arizona law enforcement -- particularly in Maricopa County, what with it's regular losses of accreditation, civil cases resulting from mistreatment and death, and even broadcasting of pretrial inmates of the web back in '00 -- I should think this would be of grave concern to anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together.
Frankly, Arizona is a shithole anyway. Let them do things ass backwards.
Nope. The Indians didnt ask the Europeans for "papers" when they came here illegally. All those thousands of Europeans who came her at the beginning of the 20th Century didnt have to carry around "papers" either. White folsk took over and now that another race is basically doing what they did for hundred of years they are getting upset about it.
Sure drug dealers are a problem, but today's drug dealer was yesterday's white dude givine Indian blankets with diseases on them and fire water to get them drunk.
Sure drug dealers are a problem, but today's drug dealer was yesterday's white dude givine Indian blankets with diseases on them and fire water to get them drunk.
Ummmm.
Yeah. That system really worked out well for the Indians, right?
Yeah. That system really worked out well for the Indians, right?
WOW, LGM made about half of a good point.
This is a special day.
I'm impressed LGM.
The only disease you can catch from a blanket is athlete's foot.
The race that you say is 'doing to us what we did to them' done done it to the indigenous Indian population south of the Rio Grande.
The question is why you read so much 'social justice' into the illegal immigration of people who are a genetic and cultural combination of a European superpower, American Indians, and black slaves into a country formed by a European superpower, American Indians, and black slaves.
And you need to do a better job of doing your homework before making these assertions. The Mexicans, and for that matter just about all Latin Americans are a genetic and cultural combination of American Indians and a European Superpower. The exception is people from Brazil, whose European genetic and cultural influence comes from Portugal.
Statements like this make you look like a naive fool.
Where is it a constitutional requirement that you have to show your ID?
I think that we are closer to the same page here than you imagine. I am making more of a philosophical argument based on the Constitution than a legal one that takes into account 200 years of precedent. I am not arguing if a peace officer can do something, but if they should.
So add an IMO to my previous comments to make it easier to understand. IMO, for any crime, the burden of proof is on the government to make an arrest. I don't have to prove that I am a citizen to avoid arrest, the government has to prove (or at least have greater than circumstantial evidence) I am here illegally to arrest me.
Again, that is a political theory argument and IMO.
Shouldn't a driver's license be sufficient proof of citizenship? I don't think they're required to carry "papers." This has been blown way out of proportion. If an illegal immigrant has a driver's license, that's a problem the DMV should have to answer for. A license should be enough to prove that you have a right to be here.
I will say, however, that the potential for abuse here is pretty high, because police definitely do target minorities anyway. It's not unreasonable to imagine a scenario where a Mexican who's lived in America as a citizen his whole life gets repeatedly pulled over and harassed under the guise of some phony traffic violation.
I will say, however, that the potential for abuse here is pretty high, because police definitely do target minorities anyway. It's not unreasonable to imagine a scenario where a Mexican who's lived in America as a citizen his whole life gets repeatedly pulled over and harassed under the guise of some phony traffic violation.
No.
1. You don't have to be a citizen to get a driver's license. You can also be a legal immigrant, or even here on a TEMPORARY visa.
2. The problem with using the driver's license, if a person is here on a TEMPORARY visa, it's possible that their visa would run out before the license would expire. Like my wife, for example. Her visa was for two years, Texas gave her a license good for much longer than that. What if she decided to just stay?
Ultimately, the drivers license isn't enough. And it's what most citizens would carry. So, it's a crappy proof of legal immigration/naturalization/citizenship.
So, either we make the DMV ALSO a part of enforcing immigration, or we come up with something else we ALL would have to carry.
Tell me more about the drunk sweeps. Again the officer has to have a reasonable suspicion (I.e. staggering, slurred speech, smell of alcohol, running down the street with your pants around your ankles). As to #2 that is not a legal reason to investigate. There is no way in hell that would ever stand up in court. Posession of a lighter is not reasonable suspicion. Posessing a lighter or bong and reeking of weed.
Oh and any cop that pulls bullshit like this would get hammered by internal affairs and the judge.
No the SCOTUS required it years ago.
I agree, Sheriff Joe needs to go. He is a corrupt, vengeful, show man and a shitty LEO who loves to endanger his deputies and has no problem violating constitutional guarantees. having said that tent city isnt the problem.
Gee thats nice. Now how about those who hold the opinion that CA is a shit hole?
Research the case that went before the court. Happened in TX where a guy walking down a road (who it later turned out wasn't involved in the crime that brought the LEO out) refused to produce ID and was arrested during the LEOs investigation of the crime. The court said that he did have to produce ID and that the arrest was within the confines of the constitution. It happened during the Shrubs 1st term in office as a time reference. I think its an outrage.
Chaos?Frontline
First-sure, there might be other circumstances-like the driver has long hair or a tiny hole in his shirt, smaller than a dime. In AZ that's "disreputable appearance". Says so on my arrest papers from 93.
And a visible Bic without tobacco products was held up as probable cause in a friend of mine's case. There were no other details beyond "4 long-haired young men in the car". No smell, red eyes or paraphernalia. I should know-I was in the car. Christ, we got pulled over in broad daylight around the corner from my house. My buddy ended up in court for an outstanding traffic warrant, fyi.
Sorry if I blurred the dates/ name regarding "Ev" or, as I like to remember him, "The man who took my raises away for 3 years". Time plays funny tricks as you age, slowing down and speeding up, perspective-wise. You forget unimportant people and exact dates of events. That said, I posted an example, nothing more. And in Az it will stand up and the judge may/may not throw that gavel.
As for drunk driver roadblocks-they stop everyone who comes by. Nobody gets through without at least a cursory once-over. In Az St. Patty's Day is reasonable suspicion. So is New Years Eve. So are Friday nights. That may not be how things are done in Laveen(yet) but in the city it happens all of the time. Don't you pay attention to the local news? They mention the number of arrests made at the DD roadblocks on it(the news). [And how many people operate a motor vehicle while running down the street with their pants around their ankles, anyway?
] Those roadblocks have been contested in court as civil liberty violations and the cases have been struck down by the Az Supreme Court. So here the cops have a nice little funnel of people who ALL represent "probable cause" as established in Az courts. God help you if you take the wife to dinner on the weekend, have black hair/brown skin and drive down the wrong street. Especially if you leave your internal passport(sorry, I mean citizenship papers) at home by mistake.it says that the Officer MUST have reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.A Bic lighter with no cigarettes may be reasonable suspicious for having pot (it's not) but it is most certainly not reasonable suspicion for being in the country illegally.
^going to the heart of this-once you are stopped/approached by a LEO for any reason they can ask for proof of citizenship. Since so many Latino illegals are in Az it stands to reason that being Latino in Az, from a de facto vs de jure viewpoint, becomes a reason to ask for papers.
There's no requirement to purchase ID -- emphasis on PURCHASE. If Arizona had half a mind to actually protect minorities in this regard an amendment making such IDs free of charge would have been included, but, of course, it wasn't.
You and I both know it's usually the poor and minorities who lack what government considers proper ID. There's no getting around the fact that it will be Hispanics who are targeted by this law, and whether you call it racism or classism or whatever, the fact of the matter is that it is extremely likely to occur.
When they're not sucking on the government teat I'll take them seriously. Arizona is sucking up California tax dollars at a fairly impressive rate by virtue of the fact that they pay in less tax then they receive from the feds. Ironic, given that is largely conservative states who have this problem, and yet they whine and bitch about California policy on a regular basis.
To be perfectly frank, I don't like my tax dollars going towards what I consider an angry little fiefdom of upset morons.
Let's say that a citizen is stopped by an officer, does not have identification with them, and the officer claims a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. What happens next? I'm assuming that the person must remain with the officer or at headquarters until citizenship/identity can be verified. This is a big inconvenience, but it's not deportation.
If someone believes that they will be targeted by police who overstep their legal authority, then the expedient thing to do is to carry a driver's license or other necessary card with them at all times.
If someone believes that they will be targeted by police who overstep their legal authority, then the expedient thing to do is to carry a driver's license or other necessary card with them at all times.
Which, of course, poor and minorities lack in a much higher percentage than whites and the middle class, which is the primary complaint of many who represent these people.
I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to start a "free/subsidized ID card" program.
That said, EVERYONE who is here legally should be in possession of at least one of the three following things, regardless of economic status:
1. Birth Certificate
2. Naturalization papers
3. Immigration papers
4. Visa
There's really no excuse to not have the appropriate article available.
It's been suggested on several occasions in different states, largely because some states want to require picture ID to vote. Usually, conservatives scream it down for various reasons.
Like I said, it should have been part of ANY immigration bill, and the fact that it isn't makes me immensely suspect of the true motivations of some of the bill's supporters and sponsors. Enough, anyway, to forgo patronizing the state in any way whatsoever.
Problem there is that none of these are as easily replaced as a state issued ID, and are not likely to be carried. Futhermore, if you're a bit forgetful -- like me -- and tend to forget your wallet, purse, bag, whatever at home, then this becomes a much bigger deal, particularly when it isn't that uncommon to speak to family in a different language (in my case, Polish) on the phone.
I mean, seriously, look at the arcane process it takes to replace a green card. It's also absurdly expensive.
The way Arizona is approaching this issue is completely wrong. Undocumented labor tends to suck up unskilled, low paying work. That's the whole point of crossing the border. Institute ruinous fines against businesses and undocumented labor will dry up. Period.
The morons who passed this will live with the consequences, none of which will turn out to be good - this won't reduce illegal immigration by one person, and it will cost Arizona a lot of money. End of story.
Similar threads
- Poll
