Drug Wars tooooo close to home!

Originally Posted by jinx

Yeah but, the actual law says "for any lawful contact by law enforcement" which, as far as I know, is not having a cop walk up to anyone they want on the street and demand ID. That's what I wanted to know about before getting upset.

It's all about how the initial contact is made.

In fact, the law does now allow a cop to walk up to anyone on the street and demand ID by criminalizing "trespassing" to a much higher level...to mean standing on any public or private property (assuming one is here illegally)...from a city park to a 7-11 store, you can now be charged with "trespassing"...if the cop thinks (no standard) that one is suspicious, he charges "trespassing" and the burden of proof is on the victim to prove he/she is a citizen or legal resident.

The law is fraught with Constitutional issues, from the supremacy clause to 4th and 14th amendment issues.

I dont think it can stand up to the test...but time will tell.

added: a member of Congress, Brian Bilbray (R-CA) offered his perspective on determining "suspicion":

"They (cops) can look at the kind of dress you wear, there’s different type of attire, there’s different type of…right down to the shoes, right down to the clothes."

One would hope the AZ law enforcement community has a tougher standard...but the fact is, there is no standard.

[lumberjim]

I think she said repeatedly that she wanted clarification on whether it is a PRIMARY (meaning.....that's the reason they stop you) offense to look like an immigrant.

It's fucking incredible in the classical meaning of the word. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths if they say they're going to do this and NOT profile. This is BY DEFINITION profiling.

[Cloud]

it is now, assuming they have "probable cause" to suspect someone is an illegal alien. How do they do that? I guess if they look poor and brown.

Vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol's windows.

I laughed. So sue me.

[jinx]

Yeah but, what are you basing that on? The law says lawful contact first, then suspicion. That the media says suspicion then contact doesn't mean that's what the law says.
Srsly, show me something official that says suspicion first and I'll be pissed right along with ya.

[Cloud]

hmm. it's a chicken and egg question, really.

I looked at the law here, and it doesn't really go into that, except to say that they can stop a car if there's a traffic violation, and then ask about immigrant status.

The AZ law creates a new definition of trespassing:

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

It gives law enforcement the legal cover to apprehend "suspicious" persons....with no legal standard of what constitutes suspicious.

Think about it...any person in AZ can now be charged with trespassing by simply standing on any public or private property IF (#2) they cannot prove (by carrying papers at all times) they are a citizen or legal resident.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

any person in AZ can now be charged with trespassing by simply standing on any public or private property IF (#2) they cannot prove (by carrying papers at all times) they are a citizen or legal resident.

Sounds like a great plan. They need to either buy more buses or build bigger holding facilities..

[jinx]

I see what you're saying... but not quite. *Any* person cannot be charged, because the code is specific to aliens, presumably legal, but in violation of the trespassing law to some degree, either by being illegal or by not having their papers on them.

Originally Posted by jinx

I see what you're saying... but not quite. *Any* person cannot be charged, because the code is specific to aliens, presumably legal, but in violation of the trespassing law to some degree, either by being illegal or by not having their papers on them.

Right...but the burden of proof is now on the person to prove he/she is a citizen or legal resident and NOT on the cop to have reasonable doubt that the person isnt.

This goes way beyond stopping someone for a traffic violation or a civil disturbance and then, secondarily checking citizenship status. It is using the cover of trespassing to force a person to prove his legal status.

IMO, its highly questionable that this is constitutional.

[Aliantha]

When Dazza was in the US last year he was inspected very thoroughly at every airport he had to pass through. The only thing he could put it down to was the fact that he had a pretty shaggy beard. He didn't care much except when it almost caused him to miss a connecting flight.

[TheMercenary]

Glatt has a point. But the reality is that we alreay face increased levels of security in many places where we neve did before.

But if you have never visited other countries, other than the US, it would be obvious that people would find it not natural. Even in the mid 1990's European security was much higher than ours, as well as that in the Orient. That was my experience anyway.

[jinx]

Redux, I know you hate Merc. I don't care.

Originally Posted by jinx

Redux, I know you hate Merc. I don't care.

I dont hate Merc...I think he and the double standards of some here are a joke.

If you want to accuse Shawnee of "hating away" and ignore Merc's hateful posts, that is your choice, just as it is mine to point out the double standard.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I dont hate Merc...I think he and the double standards of some here are a joke.

Should we laugh now?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

There are some issues that are not that ambiguous based on overwhelming Supreme Court precedents, including guaranteed rights to non-citizens.

But, ultimately, the Court will decide.

Originally Posted by Redux

IMO, its highly questionable that this is constitutional.

Strong Supreme Court precedent in support of Arizona immigration law

On Monday, the ACLU announced a lawsuit challenging the Arizona illegal immigration law on the basis of the “prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments.”

The ACLU, however, might have a difficult time making that case. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muehler v. Mena that questioning someone regarding their immigration status is not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights - provided that person is already lawfully detained.

In the wake of a drive-by shooting, Officer Muehler and other members of local law enforcement handcuffed and questioned Iris Mena in connection to the shooting. They did so while executing a search warrant for a safe house which she and members of West Side Locos gang would gather at, most of whom were illegal immigrants. Small wonder, then, that they asked if she was in the country illegally.

Muehler v Mena establishes that “officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.”

Even though this was a gang-related case, “no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required.” If that’s true in California, it’s true in Arizona. This is a strong precedent, with six justices from that unanimous decision remaining on the bench.

Certainly, Arizona law enforcement must take care not to be heavy handed, but the choice between heavy-handed local police action and wide open borders was forced upon the states by past administrations and congresses which punted on illegal immigration rather than do the hard work of governing.

Link
Since I am certainly not a constitutional scholar, I'm not sure what this means, but it seems to counter your opinion.