Raising Arizona ... Guns, Illegals ... what next???

[Spekkio]

As far as the alcohol incident, I cannot speak to that on experience, however, since you were detained and not arrested, they cannot search your car unless you consent to the search. You must have agreed to the search or else they would have had to get a warrant to search your car. Even if you had a gun case. So, remember, your 4th Amendment right is still protected but I am almost certain that since you probably said "I've got nothing to hide, search my car, I don't care! I'm am/was officer in the military / work for a reputable company" or something of the like, then you consented to the search. If you said, "NO! you can't search my car, I've got rights," then they would have not searched your car until a Judge signed a search warrant based on Probable Cause. Think real hard about what you said in your conversation with the LE personnel while you were being "detained" during your stop, and if it wasn't based on consent, then if you are not too wrapped up with their due diligence to let you go after 2 hours because your BAC didn't go up, then hire a lawyer to address your unlawful search of your car.

Yes, because officers always politely ask to search someone's car and always inform the person that they have a right to decline.

What really happens is that the officer usually says something like "Open your trunk." Complying is implied consent, and most people in that situation are too afraid to say no.

 

[wink]

What really happens is that the officer usually says something like "Open your trunk." Complying is implied consent, and most people in that situation are too afraid to say no.

I suppose you have either a great deal of personal experience in these matters or you have the case law citation to back it up?

 

[wink]

A Phoenix and Tucson police officer have filed a law suit to have the new AZ immigration law declared unconstitutional. The Phoenix officer claims he will be required to racially profile to comply with SB1070. Odd, since the law specifies LE can not racially profile. The Phx PD officer claims he can be sued for not inquiring about immigration status when all officers have discretion when dealing with misdemeanors and there are exceptions when investigating crimes where cooperation is needed. Moreover, the clause that provides for law suits and penalties for non enforcement are for political subdivisions (cities, counties, etc). That is prevent sanctuary cities like Phoenix was. Better still this officer's attorney says even if an officer does his job without racial profiling it will generate lawsuits just because people will believe they were profiled. That is rich. Mr Augustine Jimenez is just the sort of lawyer to bring those types of non discrimination discrimination law suits. Even while he is representing a PHX officer in this case he is the attorney for a plaintiff suing good cops that shot a suspect while defending themselves.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...arizona-immigration-law-officer-lawsuits.html

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Another lawyer, no doubt. Here is how it works. JIMC stopped lawfully. Police look in car (legal, it is called "on view") and see the Pelican case. Based on their "experience and training" (the actual legal requirement) cops know pelican cases are frequently used for gun storage and transport. So now they have a reason to search the car. Most people truly have no idea when a warrant is necessary or when their rights have to be read to them or what they can or can not withhold from the police. If JIMC did give permission to search it may still have been the least painful course of action. If you have nothing to hide you can still make the police get a warrant just to prove the point. You know how long it takes to get a warrant? You may call their bluff, but if not, you will be detained much longer and in the end they will find nothing any way.
Your call. Take one for the constitution if you will, I'd appreciate it.

Criminology major in college which, ahem....makes me a SME on this. :icon_roll If there were two things I learned, it was: 1) never talk to the cops without a lawyer if you've been arrested and 2) never, ever give the police permission to search your car. Thankfully, I've never had to test this philosophy.

 

[Spekkio]

I suppose you have either a great deal of personal experience in these matters or you have the case law citation to back it up?

Nope, just shared drinks with enough cops to get them to spill some of their "tricks of the trade." Most people don't know the law, so they don't know when they can say no to a cop. An officer looking to make an arrest for his monthly quota isn't going to spill the beans.

 

[wink]

Nope, just shared drinks with enough cops to get them to spill some of their "tricks of the trade." Most people don't know the law, so they don't know when they can say no to a cop. An officer looking to make an arrest for his monthly quota isn't going to spill the beans.

That phrase alone indicates how baseless your comment on this matter is.

 

[wink]

FYI, non-citizens, legal or not, can't vote. While Hispanic is the largest minority living in the country, they also have the highest rate of illegal immigrants. I haven't seen any data that separates it into citizenship.

I know this is from a long past post, but I am in a Spekkio bashing mood.
-In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.
-3 % is more than the winning margin in the 2000 Presidential vote in Florida.
-In 2001 after a mayor's race in Compton, California aliens testified under oath in court that they voted in the elec¬tion. The candidate who was elected to the city council was permanently disqualified from holding public office in California for soliciting non-citizens to register and vote.
-In 1996 Bob Dornan contested his failed re-election in the U.S. House of Representatives. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) database. Dornan lost by just 979 votes.
-A federal grand jury in 1984 found large numbers of aliens registered to vote in Chicago. The U.S. Attorney at the time estimated that there were at least 80,000 illegal aliens registered to vote in Chicago, and dozens were indicted and convicted for registering and voting.
-In 2005, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which requires anyone registering to vote to provide "satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship," AZ issues a "Type F" driver's license to people who are legally present in the United States but not citizens. In the first 3 years after Proposition 200 took effect, 2,177 non-citizens applying for such licenses have attempted to register to vote. Another 30,000 have been denied registration because they could not produce evidence of citizenship.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I know this is in a long past post, but I am in a Spekkio bashing mood.
-In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.
-3 % is more than the winning margin in the 2000 Presidential vote in Florida.
-In 2001 after a mayor's race in Compton, California aliens testified under oath in court that they voted in the elec¬tion. The candidate who was elected to the city council was permanently disqualified from holding public office in California for soliciting non-citizens to register and vote.
-In 1996 Bob Dornan contested his failed re-election in the U.S. House of Representatives. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) database. Dornan lost by just 979 votes.
-A federal grand jury in 1984 found large numbers of aliens registered to vote in Chicago. The U.S. Attorney at the time estimated that there were at least 80,000 illegal aliens registered to vote in Chicago, and dozens were indicted and convicted for registering and voting.
-In 2005, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which requires anyone registering to vote to provide "satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship," AZ issues a "Type F" driver's license to people who are legally present in the United States but not citizens. In the first 3 years after Proposition 200 took effect, 2,177 non-citizens applying for such licenses have attempted to register to vote. Another 30,000 have been denied registration because they could not produce evidence of citizenship.

And that my friend, is what this whole issue is ALL about....votes. It's not about racism. It's not about jobs that illegals are or are not taking away from Americans. It's not about the right for the world's citizens having the right to the pursuit of happiness in the good o'l US of A. It's about political power...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Flash]

I know this is in a long past post, but I am in a Spekkio bashing mood.
-In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.
-3 % is more than the winning margin in the 2000 Presidential vote in Florida.
-In 2001 after a mayor's race in Compton, California aliens testified under oath in court that they voted in the elec¬tion. The candidate who was elected to the city council was permanently disqualified from holding public office in California for soliciting non-citizens to register and vote.
-In 1996 Bob Dornan contested his failed re-election in the U.S. House of Representatives. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) database. Dornan lost by just 979 votes.
-A federal grand jury in 1984 found large numbers of aliens registered to vote in Chicago. The U.S. Attorney at the time estimated that there were at least 80,000 illegal aliens registered to vote in Chicago, and dozens were indicted and convicted for registering and voting.
-In 2005, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which requires anyone registering to vote to provide "satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship," AZ issues a "Type F" driver's license to people who are legally present in the United States but not citizens. In the first 3 years after Proposition 200 took effect, 2,177 non-citizens applying for such licenses have attempted to register to vote. Another 30,000 have been denied registration because they could not produce evidence of citizenship.

You lifted much of that from The Heritage Foundation's report on "The Threat of Non-Citizen Voting", the least you could do is cite it.

Most of the claims in the report are minor discrepancies in voting that have cropped up over many years, and most were in minor elections that have little impact. The Mayor's race in Compton? Wow, thank goodness we got to the bottom of that one. A Grand Jury finding from 1984? A supposition from a US Attorney at that time of 80,000 when only a few dozen were convicted? A government database check? Yeah, that must have been really accurate. The Arizona example shows that some controls are working.

The specter of illegal immigrants voting in mass numbers has long been raised by some but has failed to garner many convictions even with all the effort expended by some US Attorney's from the last administration, some not so much. Why? Probably because that is all it is, a specter and not reality. You will always be able to find a handful of examples, you apparently have to go back 25 years to find some really good ones, but the reality is that like dead people voting it probably is a very rare occurrence. Until you start bringing up more facts and less supposition I guess we will probably have to agree to disagree.

 

[Flugelman]

You lifted much of that from The Heritage Foundation's report on "The Threat of Non-Citizen Voting", the least you could do is cite it.

Most of the claims in the report are minor discrepancies in voting that have cropped up over many years, and most were in minor elections that have little impact. The Mayor's race in Compton? Wow, thank goodness we got to the bottom of that one. A Grand Jury finding from 1984? A supposition from a US Attorney at that time of 80,000 when only a few dozen were convicted? A government database check? Yeah, that must have been really accurate. The Arizona example shows that some controls are working.

The specter of illegal immigrants voting in mass numbers has long been raised by some but has failed to garner many convictions even with all the effort expended by some US Attorney's from the last administration, some not so much. Why? Probably because that is all it is, a specter and not reality. You will always be able to find a handful of examples, you apparently have to go back 25 years to find some really good ones, but the reality is that like dead people voting it probably is a very rare occurrence. Until you start bringing up more facts and less supposition I guess we will probably have to agree to disagree.

Given the principle of the thing, I'd say ONE vote by an illegal is ONE too many...

 

[Flash]

Given the principle of the thing, I'd say ONE vote by an illegal is ONE too many...

I agree, just like dead or double voting, but it isn't the big problem that many suppose it is.

 

[Spekkio]

That phrase alone indicates how baseless your comment on this matter is.

Flash said it best in response to your other post. The only thing I will add is that voting discrepancies occur in a lot of ways, not just by illegal immigrants making their way to the ballet. And while one wrong vote can make or break an election, the percentage of voter discrepancies by people who can or did vote legally is far larger than the 3% who managed to vote in a Compton mayoral election. 97% of illegal immigrants still aren't making it to the ballet.

As far as my claim goes, if you think that police don't have quotas in some areas then you are sorely mistaken. My buddies in NYPD have to make 1 arrest per month...not usually difficult to do, but hey it's a slow month and that box in the back seat looks mighty suspicious. But hey, I must be making this up, right? That badge must transform people into flawless models of ethics who always abide by the letter of the law.

 

[wink]

You lifted much of that from The Heritage Foundation's report on "The Threat of Non-Citizen Voting", the least you could do is cite it.

Most of the claims in the report are minor discrepancies in voting that have cropped up over many years, and most were in minor elections that have little impact. The Mayor's race in Compton? Wow, thank goodness we got to the bottom of that one. A Grand Jury finding from 1984? A supposition from a US Attorney at that time of 80,000 when only a few dozen were convicted? A government database check? Yeah, that must have been really accurate. The Arizona example shows that some controls are working.

The specter of illegal immigrants voting in mass numbers has long been raised by some but has failed to garner many convictions even with all the effort expended by some US Attorney's from the last administration, some not so much. Why? Probably because that is all it is, a specter and not reality. You will always be able to find a handful of examples, you apparently have to go back 25 years to find some really good ones, but the reality is that like dead people voting it probably is a very rare occurrence. Until you start bringing up more facts and less supposition I guess we will probably have to agree to disagree.

Actually, it came from two sources, one being The Heritage Foundation. I am glad you are looking out for their interests. Fact is, I have found it very difficult to write and post in the reply box. It seems to jump all over and will not scroll properly or set the cursor with a click. I was going to ask someone on the Mod site why I am encountering this. Is it me or the new Forum software. Because of the hassles, I try to write things up in word and then cut and paste. in so doing I failed to get the link or citation in. How about invested some of your time looking out for proper academic citations and help me with this damn thing.

The government data base you deride as probably unreliable is the government you seem to put so much faith in. It is a government data base we rely on to check for legal status before hiring people, well in AZ anyway. So how hard is it to check same data base before being put on a voter registration roll? I promise to check for dead people if you allow voters be checked for citizenship. That is the control in AZ you admit has been helpful.

You make a deal out of 25 year old examples, but they are just as valid or more so. Illegal immigration has exploded in the last 25 years. Since there has been no increase in enforcement of those election laws, and access to the polls has increased, ie motor voter, then it is fair to assume any problem 25 years ago is vastly larger today. Given the various residency estimates of illegal immigration alone ( there is plenty of evidence of legal immigrants voting illegally too) the 3% figure cited above means well over 300,000 illegal immigrants can be voting in our elections, and more legal immigrants as well. That is no small matter. You make fun of the Compton election, but the same system and people run the polls for state and national elections. Voter fraud is voter fraud. You say it isn't wide spread and not the mass numbers sometimes characterized, but it only takes a handful of votes to change things dramatically in our winner take all system. One vote may as well be 1000. It is clear that more then one person in every major election is voting illegally. But while the dead and fictitious people on ACRON registration rolls or the Daley machine in Chicago get jokes, no one seems to take the illegal immigrant vote serious enough for even a joke.

 

[wink]

As far as my claim goes, if you think that police don't have quotas in some areas then you are sorely mistaken. My buddies in NYPD have to make 1 arrest per month...not usually difficult to do, but hey it's a slow month and that box in the back seat looks mighty suspicious. But hey, I must be making this up, right? That badge must transform people into flawless models of ethics who always abide by the letter of the law.

Ah, NYPD. That whole arrest quota thing has worked real well for them eh? It is a scandal and that is why it isn't done in 95% of the agencies out there. It always goes bad and defense attornies have a field day. I have to admit that when I heard about the NYPD scandal I was shocked. A large sophisticated agency like NYPD knew better. Quotas have been out since Barney Fife sat outside Mayberry on his Indian. Supervisors know about how much enforcement activity should be taking place and if someone isn't getting out and doing his job it is a personnel thing. No quotas are needed. Sometimes soft goals are set based on historic numbers or peer comparisons. But hard quotas are wrong, rarely occur and always go bad. So ask you NYPD buddies if the have a quota now, after the bad press and bogus arrests?

 

[Flash]

AYou make a deal out of 25 year old examples, but they are just as valid or more so. Illegal immigration has exploded in the last 25 years. Since there has been no increase in enforcement of those election laws, and access to the polls has increased, ie motor voter, then it is fair to assume any problem 25 years ago is vastly larger today.......One vote may as well be 1000. It is clear that more then one person in every major election is voting illegally. But while the dead and fictitious people on ACRON registration rolls or the Daley machine in Chicago get jokes, no one seems to take the illegal immigrant vote serious enough for even a joke.

You still have very little, a tiny amount, of hard data to back up your claim of widespread illegal immigrant voter fraud, even with the last administration's focus on that. To put it in the simplest of terms, show me the beef.