Arizona bill 1070

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.
 
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?
 
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.
<>
 
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.
 
No it's not. Once you show a valid ID the discussion is over.
<>

:banghead:

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.
 
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?

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

Federal law says that I.C.E. must be contacted. How do you fine someone who is being deported and doesn't have any means to follow up by?

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?

<>

You've already proven that suspicion is enough :shrug:
 
No, I'm not following you.

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

Brush up on your moving violations......

No, its not. The law very clearly states that reasonable suspicion of being illegal is not grounds for the initial stop, but developed later after another lawful encounter. Be it a traffic violation or a general suspicion of the guy pacing back and forth by the bank.


So my point is what is stopping them in this verbage, I haven't found anything.

The part about vehicle stops from an existing traffic offense under AZ law takes care of vehicle situations.

The part about "lawful encounters" takes care of situations where a vehicle is not present.

In the ambiguity of "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful encounter" which has always existed, these are not new words, I see some potential for abuse but that is tempered by the fact that the last thing the cops want are lawsuits, and the last thing they are is enthusiastic about enforcing this law.

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.

Yes, suspicion of violating any law is grounds for being pulled over.

However, the AZ law, in the verbage I mentioned above, makes clear that reasonable suspicion of being illegal can not justify an initial stop.

Again, probably precisely because no one could come up with a definition for reasonable suspicion of illegal status that did not focus on race/appearance.

The suspicion to justify the initial stop has to be a broken taillight or a guy smoking a joint. Or exceeding the speed limit.

If an illegal immigrant is deported after being pulled over for one of these reasons, but the cops primarily suspected him of being illegal and would have left him alone w/the taillight otherwise, that is called a pretext stop. It is an important tool for law enforcement and has been upheld 9-0 by the Supreme Court on a number of occasions.

The cops need to be able to go on hunches sometimes. "I think he's a crack dealer, he just left that crack house. Nothing says "crack" to me except my instinct, but hey, he's 3 over the limit. I am going to stop him and investigate further." Then they see a baggie and there is probable cause to search the car, find the crack, etc.

I don't feel anyone in this kind of situation was violated in any way.

If you are going to commit a crime, including being in the country illegally, the moral of the story always has been and still will be with this law, obey all traffic laws!


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.
 
No, it doesn't-you haven't read the bill.
Show us where it says or allows for pulling over anybody at random.

We're waiting.

<>

A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.

ANY civil traffic law. Well that inclues driving illegally, so if you only need suspicion, there you go.
 
U2387 is brilliant beyond his years.

<>

Thank you!

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

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

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, 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...
 
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."
 
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.

<>
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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!!
:lol::lol::lol:

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom