pro-bipartisan
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 939
- Reaction score
- 96
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I must have missed that in the legislation... Can you point this line of text out to me?According to the new law, it most certainly is, right?
And that would be that person's own problem for agreeing to answer those questions. Stopping someone because they are hispanic is not reasonable suspicion to stop anyone. However, if an officer walks up to a person on the street and asks them, and they agree to answer the questions, the Officer has done nothing wrong because this is what is called a "voluntary contact". The individual is free to tell the officer they don't feel like talking to them and walk away.Basically, if the police officer wants to check your immigration papers simply because you are hispanic or speaking Spanish, you could face detainment if you don't produce them, or they verify your immigration status by holding you until they do.
If the law prevents officers from doing this specifically, can you show it to me? I missed it when I read the law, and since this is what the fuss is all about, i'd love to see it.
So if there are bodies stackedon top of each other that isn't reasonable suspicion? If it were, there would be a lot more illegal immigrants captured.
The problem is that people who don't live in Arizona don't see the things that Arizonians see. Reasonable suspicion should be a broad term so more people who are obviously illegal can be captured. If you aren't an illegal immigrant then why wouldn't you support 'reasonable suspicion' being a broad term? I am fine with getting pulled over because I look Spanish if more illegals are captured.
Jesus christ, I need to make an entire thread dedicated to this...
REASONABLE SUSPICION IS A WELL DEFINED LEGAL STANDARD THAT HAS BEEN USED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DECADES.
Depends on what was viewed.
If "bodies" are "stacked on top of each other" and appeared to be lifeless.
I don't think you could find a place in the U.S. where that stop would not be justified.
I must have missed that in the legislation... Can you point this line of text out to me?
Because reasonable suspicion is a very well known legal standard that has been used for decades. The police officers already know what reasonable suspicion is NOT. The only people pissed off about this are people who have no clue what it is, and think it is some type of new concept. In most states, it only takes an officer to have "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a traffic stop. North Carolina included.
And no, just because someone is hispanic, it is not REASONABLE to believe they are an illegal immigrant. Thus any suspicion would not be REASONABLE. And any action taken on faulty reasonable suspicion would be nullified.
Im sorry, the word Brown and English or Spanish aren't in there like you said.Certainly.
"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."
It doesn't have to specifically say so. Does it specifically say so for every other law that is on the books? No. Because Statutes that restrict officers from racial profiling are already on the books in a different chapter of the statute, not to mention local directives.Yes, but the police officer does not stop me and ask for my immigration papers simply because he suspects I am hispanic. Under Arizona's law, I see nothing that prevents them from profiling, which is why I asked if you could show me specifically where it does so.
Why should it be in there when the state already have statutes regarding racial profiling?I haven't seen it anywhere in that new law, and again, since this is what the fuss is all about, then seems it should be in there.
Im sorry, the word Brown and English or Spanish aren't in there like you said.
I think you have failed to realize that this is a misdemeanor just like any other misdemeanor.
This law doesn't give the Arizona courts Immigration Court powers.
Haha you obviously don't live in a border state because the Bush administration never enforced immigration laws either, well if they attempted to, they did a terrible job.
This isn't really a democrat republican or liberal conservative issue. Both parties are guilty of tossing the salad of illegals and those who aid and harbor them. Yeah pro-illegals on both sides are lying their ass off about Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law that allows cops to check the legal status of someone they pull over for some other offense. If McCain wasn't Facing reelection he would have have been tossing Calderon's salad just like Obama. Heck his tongue probably would have went in deeper than Obama's tongue when tossing that salad seeing how he tried to make it seem like he was friendlier to illegals than Obama was.
Well defined? Then what is the exact definition? There is no room for it to be interpreted?
According to the new law, it most certainly is, right? The police are given a fairly wide latitude here, and I certainly saw nothing in the law that put any limit whatsoever on 'reasonable suspicion'.
Yes, but the police officer does not stop me and ask for my immigration papers simply because he suspects I am hispanic. Under Arizona's law, I see nothing that prevents them from profiling, which is why I asked if you could show me specifically where it does so.
But the words 'reasonable suspicion' are. And since there is nothing in the law from preventing the police from doing so, they most certainly can detain you for those reasons alone.
Well defined? Then what is the exact definition? There is no room for it to be interpreted?
"Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion."
But that's just my opinion.
Quick...ask me if I think Bush did a good job of this...
I get it...I get it...we cant do the job...we didnt know it was so hard...its all Bush...its not our fault...waaaah...****ing waaaah. This administration is pathetic. Simply pathetic.
What the hell did he get hired for if not to do a difficult job?
First, and foremost, reasonable suspicion IS defined. Is it somewhat loosely defined? Yes. Guess what, so is probable cause. These types of statutes are given a bit of latitude for officers specifically because every situation is not identical and so you can not right out code for every single solitary possible situation or else you're going to wind up with statute law that reads like 4 bibles stacked on top of each other.
Second, there is an issue of the supremacy clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that in a direct sense, exercising reasonable suspicion based singularly on the facet of race is unconstituional and thus illegal. Additionally, U.S. v. Montero-Camargo found that race can't be part of a broader group of reasonings as well. Its currently constitutional only to use race when looking for a specific suspect. Last I checked the Arizona Law did NOT overturn the supremecy clause so there's no reason to yell and scream about "show it to me where it says they can't ask for papers cause someone's brown" in the law because it would be stupid and wasteful to put it in there because its already made unconstitutional at a level HIGHER than where the states are. This is like saying that if a state does a law regarding funding for abortion clinics that it must include a piece of law that says abortions are legal prior to the 3rd trimester despite the fact that this is the federal constitutional standard.
Third, common sense involves here. Reasonable Suspicion is already on the books and is used for a variety of things. Ask yourself this. Is it legal to frisk someone just because they're black. The answer? No, it is not. Yet I garauntee you if you go to the law and statutes on Frisking that it's not going to have a section that says "It is illegal to frisk a person solely because they are African American". If these kind of idiotic pieces of law that you want shoved in aren't there in other cases reasonble suspicion is used, and racial profiling isn't allowable in those situations by federal law, how exactly are you thinking that its in any way intelligent or legitimate to argue that this law somehow allows it.
Fourth, an officer has to be able to specify and articulate legitimate facts and infrences to his superiors or to a court to justify the use of reasonable suspicion. If they are unable to do so then they'd definitely have a lawsuit and punishment on their hand, as that's what the standard requires. Going "Uh, he looks mexican" is not articulating legitimate facts and infrences that would allow for any action to be taken because its unconstitutional. There would have to be legitimate reasons states for it to be upheld.
Finally, COULD there be racial profiling going on? Yes, yes there could. In an unofficial way, such as an officer seeing a hispanic person that is speeding and deciding to pull him over rather than the white guy he just previously saw speeding. That said, two things on this....
1) Even if the reason the officer is choosing this one is because the violator is hispanic there would still need to be legitimate reasonable suspicion circumstances for it to in any way stick.
2) This kind of racial profiling is still, one, technically illegal and doesn't become magically legal by the legislation and, two, could happen even WITHOUT this legislation present.
As such, the potential for internal racial profiling doesn't magically exist simply because of this law but is always possible and thus is not the laws fault since it in no way magically legalizes it.
You all can keep screaming about "reasonable suspicion" and act like it just came into existance with this law...but it didn't, and it doesn't allow in any way the things you all are suggesting it does.
That's fine, you're opinion on this issue is not just wrong, its ignorantly wrong as its clear you're not taking the time to educate yourself on the very thing you're forming an opinion on.
No.
First off, 'reasonable suspicion' is what is being addressed here (ref: Terry v. Ohio, 1968), and while you claim that reasonable suspicion is 'somewhat loosely defined' and go on to defend how it will be used for the greater good of the state, nowhere have you made mention of the negatives, which are pretty worrisome.
If, after the initial stop, the officer develops a further reasonable suspicion that the detainee is an undocumented immigrant, the officer then must take steps to ascertain the detainee's immigration status.
Should an officer's hunch be relevant here? No. Hunches are only as good as the base of experience on which they rest.
You're not concerned about this at all?
You should start taking posts in the cotnext they are written in (and not just make irrelevant posts).
The fact that Hispanic people have been living in the United States, legally, and able to speak spanish as they wish for centuries proves in itself that it would not be 'reasonable' to suspect that a person is an illegal immigrant based upon that information alone..........But the words 'reasonable suspicion' are. And since there is nothing in the law from preventing the police from doing so, they most certainly can detain you for those reasons alone. Defense attorneys won't have an obvious mechanism for contesting the reasonability of the request for documentation, as the very fact that the individual(s) are hispanic is reason enough. The question to me is not will it be used - I think it's obvious it will be - but how will it survive judicial interpretation here. Will a judge throw it out because any 'resonable suspicion' is not gleaned by physical evidence from an illegal stop, but simply because the person is of a particular race? Or because he is also speaking Spanish?
Again, there are statutes that prevent police from using racial profiling. Just like a person can't stop a car simply because the driver is black, someone can't stop a person simply because they are hispanic and start asking them questions in relation to their immigration status.we part ways on the issue of how reasonable suspicion will be used under such a law. Your belief is that nobody will be profiled, and everything will be hunky dory. I see it as a recipe for police abuse, and for unchecked racial profiling. Time will tell which one of us ends up correct on the issue.
My discussion is not about what powers lie with the Arizona courts here, but what I see as problematic with the new law.
Well defined? Then what is the exact definition? There is no room for it to be interpreted?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?