Arizona bill 1070

[Bluer White]

It's good to have a man on the scene, diamond

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

Only if you broke another law first.

Can you please show me this verbage?

If you are here illegally, then you are breaking the law. Everything I've read from lawyers who have actually read the law says this is the case. Just like a young person holding a beer might be in suspicion of breaking the law, so is anyone now in Arizona.

If it's the same as the Federal law then you don't need to rewrite it. Just because you rewrite it doesn't mean cops will change what they do.

[U2387]

Originally Posted by BVS

Can you please show me this verbage?

If you are here illegally, then you are breaking the law. Everything I've read from lawyers who have actually read the law says this is the case. Just like a young person holding a beer might be in suspicion of breaking the law, so is anyone now in Arizona.

If it's the same as the Federal law then you don't need to rewrite it. Just because you rewrite it doesn't mean cops will change what they do.

I guess this is going to hinge on how Police/Courts, etc interpret the "any other lawful encounter" verbage.

Can we all agree that the vehicle can not be stopped simply based on reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal?

So that leaves non vehicle encounters.

Minor in possession laws are quite different. Age and race are 2 factors you can not control, but unlike with race, there is a legitimate justification for applying laws differently by age group. I am no expert, but due to physical make up, brain development, etc we don't think its a good idea to be drinking when you are under 21. So reasonable suspicion of being underage is enough in that case for law enforcement to question. When is there ever a justification to stop someone because of their race?

To me, any other lawful encounter says they need a reason to stop in the first place. The reasonable suspicion of being illegal develops in the course of the lawful stop. I think from reading the law further that Diamond is right, if you just walked up to someone who looked the part and said "where's your papers" that would be a very, very weak case.

The lawful encounter criteria was developed in AZ probably because no one can come up with a "reasonable suspicion" criteria for an initial stop that does not center on race or appearance thereof. In other words, the suspicion comes from gathering information that the officer can not gather from just looking at the car and driver(i.e. I.D., unwillingness to answer questions, etc).

Again, I think this law, with its lack of definition of key points like "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful encounter" leaves far too much ambiguity for Police and citizens alike, and is just inviting a bunch of costly court battles.

It is my conclusion that this law really will not pick anyone up that could not be picked up today without abuses and a major court battle that in all likelihood, the Police will lose or bargain out.

How extensive will the abuse be? My instinct is not very extensive, as like I keep mentioning, Police Departments are weary of enforcing this law on its face, never mind when they actually do want/have to enforce it. You can be sure they will be crossing every legal "T" and dotting every "I."

There will be different levels of enforcement by different Police Departments throughout Arizona, different court battles(some by Police Departments and cities against the State, some by affected citizens against Police/State), different results from each.

This law is the antithesis of a clear, effective standard for approaching and solving a problem. It is this fact, not the over hyped effect on innocent parties, that gives me pause and tells me it is a bad idea.

[diamond]

The more I think about it, the stupier the minor in consumption law analogy was.

We also pull over kids who don't look at 16 yrs of age who are behind the wheel of a car.

Some here will then say: "Now, you're picking on minors"

Ludicrous.



<>

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

Can you please show me this verbage?

.

Here's the bill, look it up yourself:

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

[BVS]

Originally Posted by U2387

Minor in possession laws are quite different. Age and race are 2 factors you can not control, but unlike with race, there is a legitimate justification for applying laws differently by age group. I am no expert, but due to physical make up, brain development, etc we don't think its a good idea to be drinking when you are under 21. So reasonable suspicion of being underage is enough in that case for law enforcement to question. When is there ever a justification to stop someone because of their race?

I'm not saying there is justification, but my point is you don't need justification anymore. You don't have justification to stop a young person when coming out of a bar until after you ID them, suspicion is enough. And it happens all the time, especially in college towns, they need the revenue.

Since you don't fine those who are here illegally there is no revenue incentive, but my fear is that they will create some kind of quota incentive, and that suspicion will be enough now for certain cops to start harassing people.

Originally Posted by U2387

It is my conclusion that this law really will not pick anyone up that could not be picked up today without abuses and a major court battle that in all likelihood, the Police will lose or bargain out.

Exactly, I think this law is only designed to pick up votes from the tea bag crowd. That's it. There was no need for the law. Absolutely none.

[deep]

Looks like an undocumented driver to me

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

Since you don't fine those who are here illegally there is no revenue incentive, but my fear is that they will create some kind of quota incentive, and that suspicion will be enough now for certain cops to start harassing people.






There was no need for the law. Absolutely none.

Wrong on both statements.
Your worries might be projection or transference of your values on to someone else perhaps.

<>

[diamond]

Originally Posted by deep

Looks like an undocumented driver to me

Only a bigot would claim (or joke) one was undocumented by appearance alone.

<>

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

The more I think about it, the stupier the minor in consumption law analogy was.

Analogies are hard aren't they, especially when you have to apply thinking...

Let me spell it out for you:

What is the justificiation for going up to a young looking person and asking for ID if they are holding a beer in legal area?

Suspicion that they might be under 21. You can't prove they are a minor until you ID them. Some people who are 21 look much younger. That is all you need, is that suspicion.

So how will suspicion be applied to this law?

If you can come up to me and ask for my ID only because I look young, what's to stop you from coming up to me only because I look like I'm not a legal citizen. It's all based upon subjective looks.

[U2387]

Originally Posted by BVS

I'm not saying there is justification, but my point is you don't need justification anymore. You don't have justification to stop a young person when coming out of a bar until after you ID them, suspicion is enough. And it happens all the time, especially in college towns, they need the revenue.

Since you don't fine those who are here illegally there is no revenue incentive, but my fear is that they will create some kind of quota incentive, and that suspicion will be enough now for certain cops to start harassing people.

Careful here.

I was saying that suspicion justifies the initial stop in the case of the suspected minor at the bar.

Nowhere in the AZ law does it state in any way that certain cops can use "reasonable suspicion" (brown, leaving a construction site, paint on his pants) to justify an initial investigatory stop.

Justification is not a standard, it is just the word I used to describe the reasonable suspicion of being a minor as legitimate versus the illegitimate reasonable suspicion based on race or appearance independent of age issues.

The only standards for stops that exist as far as I know, unless a law enforcement officer or lawyer wants to correct me here, are reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Justification or a synonym thereof does not factor in unless you are describing the use of one of those standards.

I hope I made sense.

Exactly, I think this law is only designed to pick up votes from the tea bag crowd. That's it. There was no need for the law. Absolutely none.

Well, there you go.

They do not even try to hide it.

The same kind of laws picked up steam at the same time in 2006.

In Massachusetts, we now have local Republican politicians for whom knowing their ass from their elbow in general is questionable, never mind on federal immigration matters! Nonetheless, they are making it the "centerpiece" of their campaigns.

The problem with 85% of the Republican Party and their right wing allies is they could care less about this issue until election time comes around and they can whip up their base over it.

Obama really needs to press forward with immigration reform this year as a solution to this, and really play up the national security, border control, law enforcement and fine provisions of the bill.

Call out the people who say the feds are unwilling to act. When swift action is proposed, they will be the 1st to call it "amnesty" and "surrender" and the 1st to filibuster.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

Wrong on both statements.

How am I wrong? Do you fine the illegal alien and then deport them? How the hell does that work?



Then tell me why it was needed? And don't give me the BS you said earlier. You don't make cops enforce a federal law that they haven't been enforcing by passing another law. The law doesn't force cops to apply these measures. And if it's the same as the federal law then a memo would have sufficed. So tell me old wise one, how was I wrong?

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

Analogies are hard aren't they, especially when you have to apply thinking...

Let me spell it out for you:

What is the justificiation for going up to a young looking person and asking for ID if they are holding a beer in legal area?

Suspicion that they might be under 21. You can't prove they are a minor until you ID them. Some people who are 21 look much younger. That is all you need, is that suspicion.

So how will suspicion be applied to this law?

If you can come up to me and ask for my ID only because I look young, what's to stop you from coming up to me only because I look like I'm not a legal citizen. It's all based upon subjective looks.

No it's not. Once you show a valid ID the discussion is over.
<>

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

How am I wrong? Do you fine the illegal alien and then deport them? How the hell does that work??

Read the bill and get back to us.

<>

[BVS]

Originally Posted by U2387

Careful here.

I was saying that suspicion justifies the initial stop in the case of the suspected minor at the bar.

Nowhere in the AZ law does it state in any way that certain cops can use "reasonable suspicion" (brown, leaving a construction site, paint on his pants) to justify an initial investigatory stop.

Justification is not a standard, it is just the word I used to describe the reasonable suspicion of being a minor as legitimate versus the illegitimate reasonable suspicion based on race or appearance independent of age issues.

The only standards for stops that exist as far as I know, unless a law enforcement officer or lawyer wants to correct me here, are reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Justification or a synonym thereof does not factor in unless you are describing the use of one of those standards.

I hope I made sense.

No, I'm not following you.

Is driving as an illegal driver a moving violation? Why yes it is. So my point is what is stopping them in this verbage, I haven't found anything.

You can get pulled over for suspicion for a lot of other things, so where is the verbage that stops profiling? It doesn't exist.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

Read the bill and get back to us.

<>

I have.

Now did you read my post? Please answer the specific questions... Come on at least try.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

No, I'm not following you.

Is driving as an illegal driver a moving violation? Why yes it is..

But you won't get pulled over for it.

<>

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

No it's not. Once you show a valid ID the discussion is over.
<>

You just proved my point, AGAIN!

Thank you.

So once the person is asked for ID under suspicion for being illegal and he produces valid ID the discussion is over as well...

Except, that he shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

But you won't get pulled over for it.

<>

But the new law allows for it, so why not?

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

I have.

Now did you read my post? Please answer the specific questions... Come on at least try.

Yes, and I already did. That you claim my answers are BS makes my answers moot to you-but not most Americans and Arizonians.

If you read the bill it says an illegal can be fined.

And it says only after probable cause can an officer ask to prove citizenship.
The officer can't pull somebody over at random.

So, your point is what then?

<>