Arizona Governor signs new immigration law, Obama disagrees with the states rights?

THE STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN WRITTEN YET and ALL of LE have been told you will do NOTHING until it's in black and white. The folks in AZ are VERY concerned about this being done "correctly, in compliance with the US Constitution, etc."

And it's not even a law yet...have to wait 90 days.

Who will be writing these standards?; and when? This body would ostensibly have to perceive every possible police encounter.

SCOTUS hands down the standards.

Reasonable suspicion is the standard, and issue, under scrutiny in the AZ law.

Under the 4th Amend. and case law, reasonable suspicion to stop a person in a public place is that which is based on specific and articulable facts that reasonably justify the stop.


This places LE in a very difficult position, hence my previous question. LE is left to interpret "reasonable suspicion". How can LE discern from one individual to the next as to their immigration status, citizen or non-citizen? The potential for abuse at this threshold step is the concern and IMO will not stand under the 4th.

Meanwhile in TX:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...immigqt_29tex.ART.State.Edition1.4c29b83.html

Gov. Perry and a spanish language web sit?!?! Must be goin' after the illegals vote. You know he was a democrat.:wink:
 
Who will be writing these standards?; and when? This body would ostensibly have to perceive every possible police encounter.

SCOTUS hands down the standards.

Reasonable suspicion is the standard, and issue, under scrutiny in the AZ law.

Under the 4th Amend. and case law, reasonable suspicion to stop a person in a public place is that which is based on specific and articulable facts that reasonably justify the stop.

This places LE in a very difficult position, hence my previous question. LE is left to interpret "reasonable suspicion". How can LE discern from one individual to the next as to their immigration status, citizen or non-citizen? The potential for abuse at this threshold step is the concern and IMO will not stand under the 4th.

Exactly! :thumb:
 
As previously stated see Michigan Department Of State Police v Sitz. There is no "Enumeration" in Supreme Court deciusions. The only "Enumiration" is in the Constitution. It is legal as per SCOTUS under DUI State regulations to stop anyone for a "precived" violation of law. Therefore I may be "precieved" to be an in violation of the current State Law or upon further investigation by the investigating officer be in violation of the State Law or an illegal alien and therefore in violation of Federal Law. I agree SCOTUS says it is OK to stop and question. Where does this violate the Fourth Ammendment???? It doesn' violate because SCOTUS says it doesn't.


Your flaw in this arugment is that you are making AZ sb1070 about being stopped while driving or riding in a motor vehicle. The courts have pretty much upheld driving a car as a privilege and not a right.
However, his law extends far beyond that. If anyone walking down the street "looks" like they may be an illegal immigrant they must be detained until they can prove they are not.
Sorry, but I have no idea what an illegal immigrant looks like - do you?
 
Your flaw in this arugment is that you are making AZ sb1070 about being stopped while driving or riding in a motor vehicle. The courts have pretty much upheld driving a car as a privilege and not a right.
However, his law extends far beyond that. If anyone walking down the street "looks" like they may be an illegal immigrant they must be detained until they can prove they are not.
Sorry, but I have no idea what an illegal immigrant looks like - do you?

JAM,

Sorry but that's not true.

The proposed law states "B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

So I spoke with my neighbors that are law enforcement members...and they answered my question of: "What constitutes a lawful contact?"

They said: traffic stop, DUI checkpoint, investigation of criminal activity, etc. I then asked "Will you be able to simply drive around and see a group of folks and say they look illegal, lets go check?"

After their laughter died down, they said (words to this effect): "Steve, we don't have time to do that and even if we did, that is illegal as we'd have no probable cause simply by observing them randomly on the street."

And then I asked: "Do you have to do this ALL the time, every time?" And they BOTH said: "Steve, the law as written says WHEN PRACTICABLE." When will I have time to waste? This will be an issue only during those events I described above."

So I said: "Let me summarize...if you have a legal reason to stop/encounter someone and after speaking with them, you have reasonable suspicion that they are illegally in the state/country, then you have THE OPTION if its practicable to attempt to verify they're here legally?"

The answer: YES.

I like to have a little faith in people...until they give me a reason to NOT. I think the media and pundits are blowing this WAY out of proportion.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
JAM,

Sorry but that's not true.

The proposed law states "B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

So I spoke with my neighbors that are law enforcement members...and they answered my question of: "What constitutes a lawful contact?"

They said: traffic stop, DUI checkpoint, investigation of criminal activity, etc. I then asked "Will you be able to simply drive around and see a group of folks and say they look illegal, lets go check?"

After their laughter died down, they said (words to this effect): "Steve, we don't have time to do that and even if we did, that is illegal as we'd have no probable cause simply by observing them randomly on the street."

And then I asked: "Do you have to do this ALL the time, every time?" And they BOTH said: "Steve, the law as written says WHEN PRACTICABLE." When will I have time to waste? This will be an issue only during those events I described above."

So I said: "Let me summarize...if you have a legal reason to stop/encounter someone and after speaking with them, you have reasonable suspicion that they are illegally in the state/country, then you have THE OPTION if its practicable to attempt to verify they're here legally?"

The answer: YES.

I like to have a little faith in people...until they give me a reason to NOT. I think the media and pundits are blowing this WAY out of proportion.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

Steve, your naiveté in believing your LE neighbors is, well...naive.

As I, too, have many friends and family in LE (local and Federal, btw) so I can also comment on this scenario.

And every one of them assures me that they know how to make EVERY contact a legal, lawful contact. It's something every rookie cop learns - they all know how to say "he kept reaching in his pockets and looking around nervously" or something similar to make every contact a "good one."

FYI - Did you know a cop can approach you and say "Can I talk to you for a second?" and if you stop and talk to him you have just consented and the contact is now lawful. If you say nothing and keep walking, you are within your rights to do so, but your refusal to stop and talk WILL be turned into a lawful contact when the paperwork gets turned in.

There's the way it's SUPPOSED to work, and there's real life police work on the streets. I KNOW how it works, and to think of giving them MORE power over the liberty and freedom of the ordinary citizen is scary beyond belief.

(Unless you a white and speak without an accent - then you have nothing to fear. But every Hispanic, Latino, dark haired dark skinned LEGAL US CITIZEN is going to be needlessly stopped, harassed, questioned, and burdened with having to prove his citizenship ("May we see your papers, please?")any time the Geheime Staatspolizei is near.)

If we're going to err, let's err on the side of liberty and freedom, rather than erring on the side of arrest and detention.

:cool:
 
Golly, this law is gaining as much notoriety as George Bush's "Patriot Act" and yet, the current admin still loves it, but hated it back then?!?!??!
 
Vamp,

I saw a defendant wear that in court one day. The judge didn't bat an eyelash or comment about the young man's wardrobe. He just hammered him during sentencing. :biggrin:
 
Steve, your naiveté in believing your LE neighbors is, well...naive.

As I, too, have many friends and family in LE (local and Federal, btw) so I can also comment on this scenario.

And every one of them assures me that they know how to make EVERY contact a legal, lawful contact. It's something every rookie cop learns - they all know how to say "he kept reaching in his pockets and looking around nervously" or something similar to make every contact a "good one."

FYI - Did you know a cop can approach you and say "Can I talk to you for a second?" and if you stop and talk to him you have just consented and the contact is now lawful. If you say nothing and keep walking, you are within your rights to do so, but your refusal to stop and talk WILL be turned into a lawful contact when the paperwork gets turned in.

There's the way it's SUPPOSED to work, and there's real life police work on the streets. I KNOW how it works, and to think of giving them MORE power over the liberty and freedom of the ordinary citizen is scary beyond belief.

(Unless you a white and speak without an accent - then you have nothing to fear. But every Hispanic, Latino, dark haired dark skinned LEGAL US CITIZEN is going to be needlessly stopped, harassed, questioned, and burdened with having to prove his citizenship ("May we see your papers, please?")any time the Geheime Staatspolizei is near.)

If we're going to err, let's err on the side of liberty and freedom, rather than erring on the side of arrest and detention.

:cool:
What upsets me is the open "total distrust, fear, and cynical view" folks seem to have. It's not naive to trust in the law and the "normalcy" of the HUGE majority of people: of all ethnic backgrounds. Will there be "questionable" folks? OF COURSE. Oh duh, that's normal NOW with ALL our laws.

But to equate this to a police state is not naive, its simply fear mongering. And references to the Nazi state with your comment to the "Secret State Police" or, as you point out: "Geheime Staatspolizei" also known, to English speakers as "The Gestapo" is totally out of line, IMHO and insulting.

The sad thing is this will never be law because there is too much money involved now that will fight it on any ground that can be found. And the PC community of the states and the power of the polical action groups, will ensure that those in office and on the bench create good reasons to not allow this.

So what WILL happen is a lot of bellicose fearmongering, open lying (see that already in the media), and more divisiveness in our nation. And in the end, the only real impact it'll have is to push the present government into another "Amnesty for All."

When does this end? When do we stop throwing money away taking care of other nations folks illegally in our nation? We are virtually the ONLY nation on earth that will spend itself into bankruptcy for the illegal immigrant, and yet won't take care of our own poor/indigent/disadvantaged citizens.

No Luigi, it's not naiveté. It's an abiding faith in the rule of law, in the foundations of our nation, and the belief, however misplaced, that the citizens of this country will by and large do the right thing.

FYI...I have been stopped by a LEO...and during the "contact" he said "Do you have any weapons with you? And I said yes. He said he needed to see them and I said no he didn't. He said he DID to ensure they were legal...I again said NO, you don't; they're mine. And after he looked long and hard at me, he left. I had answered his questions honestly and he had no probable cause to search. Similar in essence to what you fear and yet the rule of law prevailed because...

I was within my rights, and he was fishing. Do I think this will occur with the new law? Yes, as it does with ALL laws. Do I fear that? No. Why? Because if they stopped me and after a while said they suspected I was not legal...I would simply say "I am legal." If they asked for paperwork to show it, then I can tell them:

a. I'm a citizen and I'm not required to carry any paperwork. If driving, I must have my DL, that's the law. And
I am required to show it. In AZ that will end the discussion.
b. I'm a legal visitor in the country. FYI...it's Federal Law that ALL visitors to our nation carry proof of their legal entry to the USA with them.
c. I'm not answering any questions...expect to be delayed while investigation begins.

Oh and by the way, a few paragraphs down in SB1070 is the part about the legal right and expectation to SUE all LEO's, etc., that misuse this authority. THAT has more folks in AZ worried than the other parts...because they're afraid some LEO's won't be smart and will generate lawsuits. Another reason I believe that they'll be SUPER careful about the rules of engagement.

Again, I guess we'll agree to disagree on this.

But that's BOTH our rights and something I've defended for a long time and will continue to do so. :thumb:

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
But to equate this to a police state is not naive, its simply fear mongering. And references to the Nazi state with your comment to the "Secret State Police" or, as you point out: "Geheime Staatspolizei" also known, to English speakers as "The Gestapo" is totally out of line, IMHO and insulting.

I disagree. Being asked to see you papers is exactly how the secret state police began to separate "real Germans" from the "other" kind of Germans. History has a way of repeating itself.

So what WILL happen is a lot of bellicose fearmongering, open lying (see that already in the media), and more divisiveness in our nation. And in the end, the only real impact it'll have is to push the present government into another "Amnesty for All."

Maybe it will re-ignite a focus on the real problem - securing the border. The fence seemed to be working, why not continue building it? We have the technology to make it as secure as we want to.

It makes no sense to start shoveling snow while in the middle of a snowstorm. :wink:

FYI...I have been stopped by a LEO...

....Do I think this will occur with the new law? Yes, as it does with ALL laws. Do I fear that? No. Why? Because if they stopped me and after a while said they suspected I was not legal...I would simply say "I am legal."

Are you a white, non-Hispanic Latino? You'll never be asked to show ANY citizenship ID papers, ever. Why would you? No LE officer has any reason to suspect you are not a legal resident. Unless we start experiencing overwhelming illegal immigration from Vancouver or Toronto, it's doubtful that any white non-Hispanics will ever be subjected to "the citizenship questions" during any LE contact.

However, you can bet that EVERY Hispanic or Latino WILL be questioned.

And that is all that is necessary to declare this law unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. We need not go forward with the violations of the 4th Amendment, as being unconstitutional for one reason is enough.

If they asked for paperwork to show it, then I can tell them:

a. I'm a citizen and I'm not required to carry any paperwork.

Again, you will NEVER be asked if you are non-Hispanic / non-Latino. And if this remote possibility actual does occur, you will be released immediately without any need to show any documentation, as long as your skin is white and you speak clear unaccented English.

How many Hispanic/Latino men are going to be released without a demand to show "ze paperz?" :rolleyes:

Again, I guess we'll agree to disagree on this.

We agree that something needs to be done about the uncontrolled illegal immigration into the country. We differ when it comes to the method - I believe that we should start with securing the border (Step 1) before proceeding to "the round-up (Step 5).

But that's BOTH our rights and something I've defended for a long time and will continue to do so.

Thank you. :thumb:
 
People in VA are scratching their heads over this because this has been around here for yrs. On our local news this morning they did a segment and showed side by side how the bills are almost identical. The "profiling" issue was a big deal here too, but it never has come to anything except rhetoric that it would come to profiling.

I think in actuality, it probably didn't come to that because the police made a conscious effort to make sure they were not profiling. Get pulled over no matter what you look like and they are going to do a background check.

What did occur was that many illegals were caught and deported, but in every case the police caught them in a speeding violation or a dui road block, thus, had they not been speeding or drinking they would have never been caught.

I agree with flieger people are being very cynical and distrusting of our police, the same people they rely on to protect them. If you look at how you get a DL in AZ, you have to show US citizenship as a primary requirement. So if a cop pulls you over and you don't have a DL while driving you are going to get caught anyway. This whole PAPERS thing is ridiculous since you are going to have those papers anyway. The passengers would be asked to exit the vehicle, since the driver is breaking a law. This would occur no matter what your race is. The officer would be required to enter their names in the report, hence they will be asked for id too. Now, granted some may be too young to have identification, which means they are a minor and, the police would be required to detain them until the parents arrived to present identification.
There is nothing sinister in this scenario, and it would not be treated any different if the child was blond and blue eyed then if they had an accent.

Our DD gets very tan in the summer, with her skin tone and hair color she is frequently mistaken for hispanic, under everyone's fear here, I should worry for 4-5 months out of the yr that she would be pulled over at least once a yr for profiling issues. She never has been asked for her PAPERS.
 
Get pulled over no matter what you look like and they are going to do a background check.

What did occur was that many illegals were caught and deported, but in every case the police caught them in a speeding violation or a dui road block, thus, had they not been speeding or drinking they would have never been caught.

Red Herring Alert! Red Herring Alert! :biggrin:

This bill has NOTHING to do with riding in a car! Why do you keep going back to vehicle passengers?

This is about demanding citizens prove their citizenship on the street, walking, in their home, while shopping - anytime they come in contact with the policia, not just while in a vehicle.

Pima said:
I agree with flieger people are being very cynical and distrusting of our police, the same people they rely on to protect them.

Off Topic - Reliance on the police to protect you is foolishness. SCOTUS has already ruled that the police have no constitutional obligation to protect you.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

They are there to catch the criminals AFTER the crime(s) occur. Anyone not protecting themselves is a future victim. - Back On Topic

Pima said:
If you look at how you get a DL in AZ, you have to show US citizenship as a primary requirement. So if a cop pulls you over and you don't have a DL while driving you are going to get caught anyway. This whole PAPERS thing is ridiculous since you are going to have those papers anyway. The passengers would be asked to exit the vehicle, since the driver is breaking a law. This would occur no matter what your race is. The officer would be required to enter their names in the report, hence they will be asked for id too. Now, granted some may be too young to have identification, which means they are a minor and, the police would be required to detain them until the parents arrived to present identification. There is nothing sinister in this scenario, and it would not be treated any different if the child was blond and blue eyed then if they had an accent.

Red Herring Alert! Red Herring Alert! :biggrin:

Again, you go back to the DL and the vehicle scenarios, when this bill has NOTHING to do with driving!
 
Last edited:
I disagree with those supporting this law. I do agree that this is complicated problem and that it is not entirely the fault of the illegal immigrants or their families. For those who say that it is not a big deal to show papers/ID when I have done nothing wrong, I strongly disagree. I detest being treated like a potential shoplifter everytime I walk into a store and I also hate being treated like a potential terrorist when I board an airplane. Our freedom and the presumption of innocence is part of what makes our country great. This law edges way to close to undermining these basic rights for all.
 
Luigi,

I go back to driving because that is the most popular scenario being given...i.e. pulled over for a driving violation.


How often do you see in your grocery store a police officer asking for identification while you are shopping? How often do you see the police roaming the malls on duty?

Our state has this same type of system in place, but actually it really started from the county level. I have never seen road blocks or police in the mall asking for "papers".

I think people are just going over the top with this issue. I believe there is a trust issue here with the fear of govt invading their lives. This has occurred at other times too. Remember racial profiling back in the early 90's? How about people flipping out over the Patriot Act? This is just the new version.

I guess I am just as naive as fleiger. I choose to believe in the good of our police. I don't jump to conclusions that at every stop light police will be sitting there and knocking on car windows asking for papers. I don't believe that they are going to now go door to door and start pulling people out of their homes like the Nazi's did because their last name is Lopez and not Smith.

It seems many of you actually think that the police have so much time on their hands that they sit in the 7-11 parking lot eating donuts watching people go in for their morning cup of coffee on their way to work.

Sook it is the rent a cop and store clerks that are looking at you, not the actual police. I use to work in retail as a mgr of a national retailer. Trust me, when we saw a group of girls go into the dressing room, we also followed them for potential shoplifting. That was profiling in its own way, but we still kept our eyes open. That was yrs and yrs ago, and our decision was not based on race or age, it was based on their own actions. A gaggle of girls that spent too much time in a dressing room without ever coming out to model the clothes to each other, raised red flags to why they were in there so long. Traditionally they were then followed around by our undercover security to be there as they exited waiting for the alarm sensor. Young sales associates were also watched, especially in JRS because that had a higher rate of theft. Unfortunately, that is how it works in many parts of life.
 
Last edited:
I guess I am just as naive as fleiger. I choose to believe in the good of our police. I don't jump to conclusions that at every stop light police will be sitting there and knocking on car windows asking for papers. I don't believe that they are going to now go door to door and start pulling people out of their homes like the Nazi's did because their last name is Lopez and not Smith.

Do I think that is going to happen in every occurance?

Probably not.

Is it ever going to happen to me?

Probably not.

However, the idea that IT CAN happen, LEGALLY, to a fellow American Citizen, is something we should all fear. A gradual erosion of our liberty, a little bit here, a little bit there, is just like the frog in the pot of slowly heated water. We won't know how much trouble we're in until it's too late..

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."


Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller

:cool:
 
What upsets me is the open "total distrust, fear, and cynical view" folks seem to have. It's not naive to trust in the law and the "normalcy" of the HUGE majority of people: of all ethnic backgrounds. Will there be "questionable" folks? OF COURSE. Oh duh, that's normal NOW with ALL our laws.


A healthy distrust is more like it and valid. As I've stated before: " After 20+ years around the criminal justice arena, suffice it to say I've seen excellent police work and police work that would make your skin crawl. The latter is why our system contemplates skilled defense attorneys. I've seen the guilty go free and innocent incarcerated. Our system is not perfect and we must continually strive at that goal. However, I don't know of a better system of justice on this planet.



The sad thing is this will never be law because there is too much money involved now that will fight it on any ground that can be found. And the PC community of the states and the power of the polical action groups, will ensure that those in office and on the bench create good reasons to not allow this.

You believe in the sanctity of LE, but the judges are on the take?:confused:


No Luigi, it's not naiveté. It's an abiding faith in the rule of law, in the foundations of our nation, and the belief, however misplaced, that the citizens of this country will by and large do the right thing.

Sir, again the right thing is subjective, and you've already stated that those in office and the bench WILL NOT do the right thing.


FYI...I have been stopped by a LEO...and during the "contact" he said "Do you have any weapons with you? And I said yes. He said he needed to see them and I said no he didn't. He said he DID to ensure they were legal...I again said NO, you don't; they're mine. And after he looked long and hard at me, he left. I had answered his questions honestly and he had no probable cause to search. Similar in essence to what you fear and yet the rule of law prevailed because...

Paint me skeptical here; under the limited facts given, LE would have had the right to "pat and search" to determine if the weapons were on your person. Need more info on how the "contact" came about, but most LE won't turn their back on an armed suspect.


But that's BOTH our rights and something I've defended for a long time and will continue to do so. :thumb:

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

Thanks :thumb:



Now some Republican voices. Read Connie Mack,R-Fla., as well.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/rick_perry_has_concerns_about.html
 
Lookie here - whew! All ye good US Citizens of Arizona need not fear asking your local police for directions any longer -
AZ legislature has made a change to the law, we'll see if this is enough:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20100501,0,2712336.story

The Arizona legislature late Thursday narrowed a controversial immigration law in response to allegations that the measure legalized racial profiling and forced police to determine the immigration status of people they encountered on the streets.

The initial law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week, required police to determine someone's immigration status if officers formed a reasonable suspicion about their legality based during any "lawful contact." That led to suggestions by some legal experts that police would be obligated to scrutinize even people who simply asked for directions. A Phoenix police officer who patrols an area near a school sued, contending that it would require him to ask children he encounters during the day if they are in the country legally.

Lawmakers Thursday night changed the language to require scrutiny only of people who police stop, detain or arrest. They also changed a section of the bill that barred officers from "solely" using race as grounds for suspecting someone is in the country illegally; opponents noted that would allow race to be a factor. The legislators removed the word "solely" to bar race from being used at all by officers enforcing the law.




"It absolutely clarifies what the intent was," said Paul Senseman, a spokesman for Brewer, who supported the changes and is expected to sign them into law. "It's undeniable now that this bill will not lead to racial profiling."

Opponents of the bill, who to date have filed three federal lawsuits against it and promise more, called the changes "cosmetic."

"They're nice cosmetic changes," said former State Sen. Alfredo Gutierrez at a press conference Friday at which activists called for a boycott against Arizona and companies based in the state. "But they're insufficient."

The Arizona law, which also makes it a state crime to lack immigration papers, is the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the nation. It has been denounced by a wide range of people, including President Obama and Colombian pop star Shakira, and triggered proposals to boycott the state. In a Gallup poll, the law is supported by 51% of Americans.

Critics contend that even if police are restricted to stops, it's easy for them to invent a reason to pull over someone they believe is an illegal immigrant. "It can be a cracked windshield. It can be a broken taillight. Any pretext to stop somebody and ask for their status," said Lydia Guzman, an activist here who tracks complaints of racial profiling by police who enforce immigration laws in Arizona.

It remains to be seen if a state can criminalize immigration status.
 
A healthy distrust is more like it and valid. As I've stated before: " After 20+ years around the criminal justice arena, suffice it to say I've seen excellent police work and police work that would make your skin crawl. The latter is why our system contemplates skilled defense attorneys. I've seen the guilty go free and innocent incarcerated. Our system is not perfect and we must continually strive at that goal. However, I don't know of a better system of justice on this planet.





You believe in the sanctity of LE, but the judges are on the take?:confused:




Sir, again the right thing is subjective, and you've already stated that those in office and the bench WILL NOT do the right thing.




Paint me skeptical here; under the limited facts given, LE would have had the right to "pat and search" to determine if the weapons were on your person. Need more info on how the "contact" came about, but most LE won't turn their back on an armed suspect.




Thanks :thumb:



Now some Republican voices. Read Connie Mack,R-Fla., as well.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/rick_perry_has_concerns_about.html

To answer some of your questions...

a. I didn't say judges were on the take, rather it was my "intimation" that judges "these days" are very into creating laws from the bench (judicial activism) rather than ruling on the laws that exist.

b. The incident I related was a traffic stop for a burned out brake light. In the course of normal discourse with the officer, he asked the question. He was wrong, there was no reason to ask, and I had no requirement to comply with his request. He was a bit "huffy" when I answered the way I did and ultimately I said: "Officer, am I under arrest? Because if not, I'm going to leave now unless you have anything else." His answer, after a long stare?
"Have a nice day."

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Back
Top