Arizona bill 1070 - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-30-2010, 04:47 PM   #226
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
U2387 is brilliant beyond his years.

<>
Thank you!

Glad we are finally(somewhat) on the same side with something!

BVS, I usually agree with you and you are a very informed poster. I just wish you would see that the AZ law, despite its flaws/political purpose and timing, does in fact go out of its way to make sure that the very loose, very subjective reasonable suspicion standard can not be applied to illegal status for the purposes of initiating an encounter.

Of course it is used later, and though the potential for abuse goes down in this case(ID or a valid name is pretty simple), maybe it is still there and still a concern.

I just think it will not have nearly the amount positive effects the Tea party claims and will not have nearly the amount of negative effects some liberals claim.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 04:50 PM   #227
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

Brush up on your moving violations......
So driving without a license isn't a moving violation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

Bottom Line:

Reasonable suspicion is enough to question John Q Frat Boy with the beer who looks to be a bit under 21.

Reasonable suspicion is not enough to question Pablo the suspected illegal.
You admit yourself the verbage is slippery. So I'm not sure why you act like there are absolutes in the language that stop profiling.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 04:52 PM   #228
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

BVS, I usually agree with you and you are a very informed poster. I just wish you would see that the AZ law, despite its flaws/political purpose and timing, does in fact go out of its way to make sure that the very loose, very subjective reasonable suspicion standard can not be applied to illegal status for the purposes of initiating an encounter.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I've read the law and I've heard a lot of commentary from lawyers over the last several days who agree with me...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 04:58 PM   #229
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
ANY civil traffic law. Well that inclues driving illegally, so if you only need suspicion, there you go.
The key word is "and" this section.

Driving illegally- as in w/o a license, w/a suspended or revoked license, etc is not a civil traffic law. It is a criminal offense in most states, I hazard a guess AZ is one of them.

So the law requires a prior civil traffic violation and excludes illegal status from the reasonable suspicion standard.

Where is the problem, then?

Lets all remember, the local police have no experience or history with enforcing immigration law, so its not like they are already used to pulling people over for the crime of driving illegally and will just do so in higher numbers now.

Again, lets look at "reasonable suspicion." It is a loose standard but not that loose. It is not simply a hunch. The cop has to be able to articulate something reasonable that caught his attention in order for it to hold up.

What can he say " I have x-ray vision your honor, there was no license in his pocket?"

This reminds me of one of the idiot cops in my town who was involved in making up false accusations against my best friend's dad, the long time chief of police in our town. He stopped a car of a kid he did not like in compliance with all traffic laws, but later said he "smelled weed." It was the middle of the winter, all windows were closed and he was 5 cars behind the kid he pulled over.

His response in court "I can smell it your honor, doesn't matter how far away it is or what is between us."

Judge: "And you knew that it was his car, and not the car 1 in front, not the car 2 in front, you knew it was coming from Mr. Smith's car?"

Officer: "Yes, your honor. I just know these things.

Judge: "Get the f out of my courtroom, I was going to rule for you until you said something ludacris like that."
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:04 PM   #230
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
So driving without a license isn't a moving violation?



.
Why the staged ignorance? It gets old BVS.


As you know, cops do not pull over random ppl to find out if they have a valid DL.

That always comes up after they are pulled over and cited for a moving violation first.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:16 PM   #231
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
The key word is "and" this section.

Driving illegally- as in w/o a license, w/a suspended or revoked license, etc is not a civil traffic law. It is a criminal offense in most states, I hazard a guess AZ is one of them.
Well the AZ lawyer on NPR today was saying that driving illegally, whether it being age, not having a license, not being a legal citizen, not having insurance, etc falls under both civil and criminal. One of the reasons he argued against the bill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Again, lets look at "reasonable suspicion." It is a loose standard but not that loose. It is not simply a hunch. The cop has to be able to articulate something reasonable that caught his attention in order for it to hold up.
This is true, but having a close friend that's a cop, I know the gray area that is involved here and how much "reasonable suspicion" can be stretched.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:18 PM   #232
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Why the staged ignorance? It gets old BVS.


As you know, cops do not pull over random ppl to find out if they have a valid DL.

That always comes up after they are pulled over and cited for a moving violation first.

<>
Yes it does get old, looks like you're joining your friends INDY and Bluer in that line.

I'm not saying random ppl. I've seen young people pulled over because cops didn't think they were 16. Not random, suspicion.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:23 PM   #233
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
We'll have to agree to disagree. I've read the law and I've heard a lot of commentary from lawyers over the last several days who agree with me...
I am afraid agree to disagree is inapplicable to a question of fact.

Lawyers can be wrong, especially when their bias is one way or the other.

And said bias (against the law) gives them an incentive to exaggerate the negative impacts in order to win more paid media appearances, clients, etc. I'll stretch the truth when my income depends on it.

I have a bias, general political and a bias that tells me drugs and guns and kidnappings would be better solved through a targeted approach to, you know, guns and drugs and kidnappings.

Whether I would have written/proposed/voted for this law is irrelevant.

We are talking about what it includes.

If a previous, observable traffic violation is required to trigger an initial stop and reasonable suspicion of illegal status is to be developed further from there, then it follows that "reasonable suspicion of illegal status" can not justify the initial stop.

Judge: So what was the reason you initially stopped Mr. Gomez?

Officer: I was reasonably suspicious that he was driving without a license.

Judge: Why is that?

Officer: Well, I was reasonably suspicious that he was an illegal immigrant, and illegals can't have drivers' licenses.

Judge: Well, that is not allowed. Read the law. Doesn't it require an observable traffic violation or reasonable suspicion that some other law was violated. Wouldn't you need an illegal turn or a joint lit up first? I am curious, though, what made you reasonably suspicious that he was an illegal immigrant.

Officer: I don't know, its just, I have instinct, I know these things. Or the officer says "He was Hispanic and coming from a construction site."

Judge: That is exactly why we do not allow initial stops based on reasonable suspicion of being illegal. Instinct does not constitute reasonable, objective, articulable suspicion and race and stereotypes certainly doesn't either.

Case dismissed.

This is simple to any cop, so I highly doubt they will go an ignore this to a great extent. If they do, we have the courts.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:27 PM   #234
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
I just think it will not have nearly the amount positive effects the Tea party claims and will not have nearly the amount of negative effects some liberals claim.
Your posts on this are top-notch.
__________________
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:33 PM   #235
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Yes it does get old, looks like you're joining your friends INDY and Bluer in that line.

I'm not saying random ppl. I've seen young people pulled over because cops didn't think they were 16. Not random, suspicion.
Again, suspicion based on being under age cuts across races and is fairly easy to develop through looking at the person.

Suspicion based on being illegal, no one can define it in a way that excludes my first example in this thread: The guy who came legally in 1983, became a citizen in 1992 and was pulled over in 2010 for "suspicion of being an illegal" because he looked like those old tomato pickers. That is EXACTLY why reasonable suspicion of being illegal is not enough to trigger an initial encounter in Arizona. It would never, ever pass legal muster.

I think when you see the difference between legitimate suspicion based on appearance of age and illegitimate, racist and stereotypical suspicion based on "appearance of illegal status" we will be a lot closer to agreeing. You, myself, Diamond, Bluer White, Indy, all around.

We ask people who look under 30 to show ID when buying alcohol.

Non controversial.

Try asking only people who look like they might be Irish for their ID when buying alcohol.

It would be extremely controversial.

That is literally the extent of the difference in the age/appearance of illegal status analogy you are making.

Age is legitimate.

Race and stereotypes are not.

One side of the analogy does not in any way logically make the giant leap to the other.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:36 PM   #236
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:22 PM
I'm not worried about most cops, for the most part this law won't do much.

It was a political move, and that's it, there was no need for it... Although I'm still waiting on Diamond to answer that...

My fear is that a cop and/or judge with a vendetta can abuse this law very easily.

Of course "because he was brown" won't hold up in court, but would "I overheard them speaking Spanish", "we've had reports of illegal aliens in the area that fit their description", be enough to abuse this suspicion?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:47 PM   #237
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
.

I'm not saying random ppl. I've seen young people pulled over because cops didn't think they were 16. Not random, suspicion.
*sigh*
We covered this already.

The 2 don't relate at all.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:48 PM   #238
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post

would "I overheard them speaking Spanish", "we've had reports of illegal aliens in the area that fit their description", be enough to abuse this suspicion?
I certainly do not think overhearing someone speaking Spanish would be enough.

Actually, I certainly hope not, as "uno, dos, tres, catorce" in Glendale could have really put some suspicion on Bono!!


Again, they need a lawful encounter.

As for reports that fit the description, in order to pull someone over just based on a description, it has to be relatively specific and credible(a Ford conversion van, it has AZ plates with the letters "D" and "Z" in it).

"Ilegal immigrants in the area, so I pulled over the nearest Hispanic guy picking up Pizza" would not work. The entire rationale for a police encounter in this or any other democratic country is you, BVS, you, Diamond, myself, U2387 have done something to draw individualized attention to them.

This is true of course of any crime, the description has to be pretty spot on and the cop must be able to objectively articulate this for it to trigger a stop outside of a pretext.

Maybe a Hispanic would be more likely to get pulled over for 4 miles over than a White guy, and that is unfortunate, but I tend to think the Cops know their resources are limited and that it is not very effective to just pull over any Hispanic in hopes that it may be the one who is illegal. They would more than likely, in your scenario, stick close to their description.

Ultimately, since it is extremely difficult to determine who should be questioned as a possible illegal/how to go about that, I am wholeheartedly in support of leaving this job to a better funded ICE who actually has time to devote to investigating who is an illegal, who they are generally employed by, do they generally travel I-10 or I-25 or I-40, etc.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:48 PM   #239
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
*sigh*
We covered this already.

<>
No, I covered, you avoided
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:50 PM   #240
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
won't hold up in court, but would "I overheard them speaking Spanish",
Of course that wouldn't be valid reason.

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com