• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Boycott Arizona?

JoeTheJuggler said:
You're right. But if you carry your documents, it can save you from being detained.
Click to expand...
I see no grounds for detainment merely for having no documents. If, however, you're driving a car without documents they can certainly detain you until they figure out who you are, yes?

So I suppose this depends on what you mean by "requires". I would consider it a requirement if carrying your documents can keep you out of jail.
Click to expand...
Sure, if you intend to drive a car on a public road.
 
WildCat said:
It has to be reasonable suspicion. "He looks Mexican" isn't going to cut it, and will likely get the officer and his department in trouble.
Click to expand...

So what is reasonable suspicion?

I think it would go like this: police can ask you to show you ID (not demand it or require it). If you fail to show a valid ID, that in itself is reasonable suspicion that you are in the state illegally. So, it's off to jail unless/until the feds inform the police that you are legal.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes, if they have "reasonable suspicion."
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. "Reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" were terms that existed before this law. Reasonable suspicion is a low level of proof and is required for temporary stops. Probable cause is a higher level of proof and is needed for arrest.

In legal terms, "reasonable suspicion" can never be "probable cause".
 
drkitten said:
Nothing in the law requires the police to allow you to spend the night outside of a jail cell if you can't produce proof of citizenship, either.
Click to expand...
I think any lawyer could think of a large number of reasons why it's illegal to detain you merely for not carrying documents, and nothing in this law changes that. Unless, of course, you're engaged in an activity which requires you to carry documents. Such as driving a car on a public road.
 
WildCat said:
It has to be reasonable suspicion. "He looks Mexican" isn't going to cut it, and will likely get the officer and his department in trouble.
Click to expand...

Has the requirement to check immigration status at all contacts been dropped, then?

Because, otherwise, the only response is "no." The cops can stop you on "reasonable suspicion" of something else other than an immigration violation -- a category so broad, it includes "he was making 'furtive movements'" (see the recent New York Times article on that), or something more substantial like you matching a description of a wanted person, or a suspicion that you might be drunk in public.

Once the cop has any reason at all to stop you, he must (no discretion allowed) ask your immigration status, and if you can't satisfy him, off to the clink you go.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
So what is reasonable suspicion?
Click to expand...

And this is why I don't like the law. It is so vague as to be impotent.

I can imagine some scenarios but they are rare. For example, you might hear two men discussing suspicious acts which could lead you to believe they might be illegals.
 
WildCat said:
I think any lawyer could think of a large number of reasons why it's illegal to detain you merely for not carrying documents, and nothing in this law changes that.
Click to expand...

But they're not detaining you for not carrying documents.

They're detaining you because you were unable to answer the officer's questions about immigration status to his satisfaction.
 
Something that hasn't been brought up here yet: the Real ID Act doesn't necessarily guarantee that a driver's license is proof of legal immigration status. I'm not sure of the specifics in Arizona (and frankly, I'm more concerned about other states, including my own, adopting the same law).

Also, there's very broad opposition to Real ID, and my understanding is that it's not likely to remain the way this is handled for much longer.

Just heard this show on NPR yesterday: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126759966
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
It's a way to remove probable cause. If an officer has probable cause (not based on race or ethnicity--of course), what do you suppose is the sequence of events? I would imagine the officer would ask the person's status. If the person can show good documents, then the officer will no longer have probable cause.

OTOH, I have no idea what "probable cause" could possibly be if it's not racial/ethnic profiling. These aren't border patrol agents, but local and state cops, so they're not witnessing people coming into the country. There is no outward sign (not language, not ethnicity, not the type of car, the clothing, not the commission of other crimes--nothing) that can distinguish an illegal from a legal immigrant or even a citizen.

If you're a Mexican legally living in Arizona, you would be foolish not to carry your documentation with you, if this law goes into effect. The reason is because producing your papers can remove probable cause.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear here. "Probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are two different things. You seem to be using them interchangably.
 
WildCat said:
It has to be reasonable suspicion. "He looks Mexican" isn't going to cut it, and will likely get the officer and his department in trouble.
Click to expand...

Right, because race can't be the sole reason, neither can color. However, it he's dark skin and looks Mexican will satisfy that law.
 
KingMerv00 said:
You misunderstand. "Reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" were terms that existed before this law. Reasonable suspicion is a low level of proof and is required for temporary stops. Probable cause is a higher level of proof and is needed for arrest.

In legal terms, "reasonable suspicion" can never be "probable cause".
Click to expand...


Right, and reasonable suspicion has been substituted for probable cause.
 
drkitten said:
They're detaining you because you were unable to answer the officer's questions about immigration status to his satisfaction.
Click to expand...

What's to stop you from answering their questions when you don't have documentation? If the police stopped me (fat chance, I'm oh so white) that's what I would do.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Right, and reasonable suspicion has been substituted for probable cause.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't. The law even mentions them separately. It says, "Stop upon reasonable suspicion." and then "Check for probable cause."

Probable cause = Yes? Take'em down town.

Probable cause = No? Release.
 
Can someone give me an example what is "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien? I'm not a cop so I don't know how one goes about detecting illegal aliens except when you catch them crossing the border or you catch them for something else and check them out.
 
Spindrift said:
Can someone give me an example what is "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien?
Click to expand...

I posted the only example I could think of above:

"...you might hear two men discussing suspicious acts which could lead you to believe they might be illegals."
 
KingMerv00 said:
Let's be clear here. "Probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are two different things. You seem to be using them interchangably.
Click to expand...

You're correct. "Reasonable suspicion" is the language in question for the part of the law we're discussing now. And if it's not racial/ethnic profiling, then I don't know what it is. As Officer Escobar says, this will burden police. Either they'll be wide open to lawsuits for abusing a very subjective discretionary authority, or they'll have to verify the immigration status of absolutely every person they come into contact with.

The law also, however, gives police authority to arrest someone without a warrant if there is "probable cause" to think that the person has committed "any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States". Presumably, entering illegally is such an offense. And I assume that failure to produce documentation (in response to a "reasonable suspicion" question) would constitute probable cause. So the two are not so very distinct in practical terms.
 
Spindrift said:
Can someone give me an example what is "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien? I'm not a cop so I don't know how one goes about detecting illegal aliens except when you catch them crossing the border or you catch them for something else and check them out.
Click to expand...

The most likely and reasonable situation is that someone rats someone else out. If I phone the cops -- even via an anonymous tip -- and tell them that Bobby is dealing drugs, that's "reasonable suspicion." Similarly, if I tell them that his girlfriend Juanita is an illegal, that's reasonable suspicion for them to pick her up, too.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
I posted the only example I could think of above:

"...you might hear two men discussing suspicious acts which could lead you to believe they might be illegals."
Click to expand...

And those "suspicious acts" would have to be related to being an illegal alien, right? I mean, any other crime does not separate out people based on their immigration status.

So could this overheard conversation be between 2 guys talking about a third person, alleging the 3rd person is an illegal? I see all sorts of room for abuse if that's what they mean. If you've got a grudge against someone, just call in an anonymous tip that they might be an illegal alien. Police would then have to follow up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom