Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Then what are the factors for probable cause that police should use as instructive? Riding a burro while wearing a poncho?

The bill's provisions don't pass the smell test in the slightest.

no id and can't speak english?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by starang21

no id and can't speak english?

1 - The tail wags the dog with the "no ID" portion, since generally American citizens who are not driving are under no compulsion to carry ID (see: why national ID cards have failed), and AZ's law seeks to change that.

1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

If the law only requires documentation for people already subject to criminal/traffic stops, then it is not even worth enacting because it does nothing. The original wording seems to go far beyond this, allowing police to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion" . . . which seems awful at best.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

1 - The tail wags the dog with the "no ID" portion, since generally American citizens who are not driving are under no compulsion to carry ID (see: why national ID cards have failed), and AZ's law seeks to change that.

1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

If the law only requires documentation for people already subject to criminal/traffic stops, then it is not even worth enacting because it does nothing. The original wording seems to go far beyond this, allowing police to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion" . . . which seems awful at best.

HB2162 covers that i believe.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

1 - The tail wags the dog with the "no ID" portion, since generally American citizens who are not driving are under no compulsion to carry ID (see: why national ID cards have failed), and AZ's law seeks to change that.

Probable cause doesn't mean you have to have to be 100% sure a crime is going on, there just has to be reasonable suspicion. If the police officer began his investigation based on that one item, the judge would likely throw out anything he found. But that item and other things? No license, can't speak English, acting nervous, won't make eye contact? Add a few together and you have probable cause.

[quote]1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.[

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

If the law only requires documentation for people already subject to criminal/traffic stops, then it is not even worth enacting because it does nothing. The original wording seems to go far beyond this, allowing police to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion" . . . which seems awful at best.

My understanding is that the law requires that the suspect has already been detained for some other offense.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

My understanding is that the law requires that the suspect has already been detained for some other offense.

Yes, and the creators of that law specifically listed violations to target poor Hispanics. (See above.)

Also the police have a well documented history of racial profiling anyway.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes, and the creators of that law specifically listed violations to target poor Hispanics. (See above.)

All of those things are probable cause. You can't ask that police simply ignore reasonably obvious signs that a crime is being committed. Whether the things held up by the creators of the law would hold up in a court of law to a judge is also a different matter. Really, what the creators thought is pretty irrelevant when you get right down to it.

Also the police have a well documented history of racial profiling anyway.

And if you can show that's what happen, you have a civil rights suit. The mere threat of racial profiling is not enough to overturn a law.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

All of those things are probable cause. You can't ask that police simply ignore reasonably obvious signs that a crime is being committed. Whether the things held up by the creators of the law would hold up in a court of law to a judge is also a different matter. Really, what the creators thought is pretty irrelevant when you get right down to it.



And if you can show that's what happen, you have a civil rights suit. The mere threat of racial profiling is not enough to overturn a law.

That's not what the law's being challenged on, legally, so you can stop making that point.

And when we're talking about the intent behind the law, we're not talking about what would hold up in front of a judge. We're talking about racist, asshat, lawmakers and lobbyists targeting Hispanics in campaign based on fear and prejudice to make political hay by "making a stand" on illegal immigration. All of which serve to do nothing to actually solve the problem, but it sure sounds good to all those people who are now afraid, "fed-up" and convinced that if it weren't for those immigrants they'd all have jobs and McMansions.

I don't have to drag the law in front of the Supreme Court to say it's a bad law. It's pretty obvious it's a bad law. Even if the federal government lost its case (which I sincerely doubt it will), it'd still be a bad law.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That's not what the law's being challenged on, legally, so you can stop making that point.

And when we're talking about the intent behind the law, we're not talking about what would hold up in front of a judge. We're talking about racist, asshat, lawmakers and lobbyists targeting Hispanics in campaign based on fear and prejudice to make political hay by "making a stand" on illegal immigration. All of which serve to do nothing to actually solve the problem, but it sure sounds good to all those people who are now afraid, "fed-up" and convinced that if it weren't for those immigrants they'd all have jobs and McMansions.

I don't have to drag the law in front of the Supreme Court to say it's a bad law. It's pretty obvious it's a bad law. Even if the federal government lost its case (which I sincerely doubt it will), it'd still be a bad law.

This is starting to sound like a rerun from yesterday.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That's not what the law's being challenged on, legally, so you can stop making that point.

I know what grounds the law is being challenged on. I believe the potential for discrimination is one of those grounds, but it is not a ground upon which the TRO was issued.

It's not ripe for litigation yet at any rate.

The law will more than likely be struck down for various reasons. The argument that the preemption argument is pretty tough to overcome, but not insurmountable. The smart money is on the feds, but not too many people have called this a sure thing just yet.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

My understanding is that the law requires that the suspect has already been detained for some other offense.

That's my understanding too - I was asking somewhat rhetorically, but I suppose I can be more specific.

Essentially, the law gives local police the authority to do something that would eventually happen anyway (determine citizenship of criminals) - only for non-criminals as well (since, as you noted, "probable cause" is not legally defined as "crime in progress" and for good reason). Is that really a good plan? Does this really provide adequate disincentive for immigration on the whole? Will streams suddenly be sent across the border?

Additionally, I'm basically categorically against any increase in subjective authority to determine probable cause in real time - I can't imagine why others wouldn't be as well, but I'm willing to listen I guess?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Additionally, I'm basically categorically against any increase in subjective authority to determine probable cause in real time

Agreed

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Does this really provide adequate disincentive for immigration on the whole? Will streams suddenly be sent across the border?

If you lend the news networks any credibility, illegals have been leaving Arizona in droves, fear is evident in the streets, etc. It's all a little overplayed and hysterical.

Additionally, I'm basically categorically against any increase in subjective authority to determine probable cause in real time - I can't imagine why others wouldn't be as well, but I'm willing to listen I guess?

I don't see how it does that at all. Maybe I misunderstand your point. The definition of probable cause hasn't changed. There's just now a new potential criminal activity which an officer can find probable cause to investigate without first arresting the individual.

Once the newness of this law wears off, I imagine this probable cause will be used pretty sparingly--and for what it's worth, if an officer really wanted to get someone deported, in many states, they can level an accusation such as public intoxication without having to do anything more than say that at the time of the arrest, the subject appeared intoxicated--no breathalyzers, no blood tests, go directly to jail and deportation, do not collect $200, etc.

If the police wanted to illegally discriminate, deport and harass minorities, the tools are really already there.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't see how it does that at all. Maybe I misunderstand your point. The definition of probable cause hasn't changed. There's just now a new potential criminal activity which an officer can find probable cause to investigate without first arresting the individual.



If the police wanted to illegally discriminate, deport and harass minorities, the tools are really already there.

The police need only reasonable suspicion to stop or investigate somebody for suspected "wrongdoing", you need Prob cause to make the actual arrest though. It's almost borderline offensive to read how people are assuming that cops just can't wait to run out and start racial profiling everyone in their jurisdiction. If people are worried about it I suggest they read up on their 4th amendment and sue the hell out of the cop that violates it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

The police need only reasonable suspicion to stop or investigate somebody for suspected "wrongdoing", you need Prob cause to make the actual arrest though. It's almost borderline offensive to read how people are assuming that cops just can't wait to run out and start racial profiling everyone in their jurisdiction. If people are worried about it I suggest they read up on their 4th amendment and sue the hell out of the cop that violates it.

This is pretty short-sighted, on a variety of levels - although I feel where you're coming from.

The point isn't that police everywhere are bigoted assholes - the point is that some police are likely bigoted assholes (just like some people), and providing those assholes new tools that seem only to benefit assholes and not the greater good is probably a bad idea.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If you lend the news networks any credibility, illegals have been leaving Arizona in droves, fear is evident in the streets, etc. It's all a little overplayed and hysterical.

First, I really don't.

Second, if we assume this to be the case, illegals are not flooding back to Mexico - they're flooding to New Mexico, Texas, Pennsylvania (seriously, PA was mentioned in one of the Fox reports), etc. Yet another angle to attack the law: it's a NIMBY proposal of the highest order, and NIMBY laws are the stupidest type possible.

Sure, it shouldn't be the focus from a legal standpoint - but it adds another color to the paint-by-numbers of how insipid the law (and AZ lawmakers) really can be.