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

[mmx1]

Of course. Are you detained indefinitely every time you go 39 in a 35? It is illegal, and gives the police the right to check your identity and check for warrants, etc. But if you check out, even if you get a ticket, you'll be on your way. No ID and you'll be sticking around for a while.

Difference being that it is an infraction if you drive without your license (not just any form of ID), since we've established it's privilege, not a right to drive. Forget the convenience argument; it's convenient to register your guns too. Are folks really suggesting that we should compel residents by law to carry proof of citizenship at all times or to place the burden of proof on the individual?

-Lawful contact is quite a different thing from "legitimate contact." The latter implies that if you're having a conversation with a LEO who is not actively violating your constitutional rights he can inquire after ID if he comes up with reasonable suspicion. The actual text means that the LEO must be engaged with a suspect in a normal situation where the suspect would otherwise be obligated to produce ID. The AZ house sent an amendment up to make this even clearer, changing the text to "lawful stop or detention," although I don't know the status of that legislation.

It was signed by the governor.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4nY72M0hFVOHUzIrqYpD67DoBxgD9FDNO0O0

 

[wink]

Yawn. Let's talk about my "sources" for a moment. According to the azleg.gov link posted by someone named wink on some website I visit, this provision "Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S."
So that settles the point as to whether it's just for "crimes or offenses." It's not just for crimes or offenses, but any 'legitimate' contact with any official or agency of any level of government. Firemen, utilities, etc., all based upon a "reasonable suspicion." What constitutes a reasonable suspicion, exactly? We shall see, but I suspect it will have a lot to do with trivialities which have nothing whatsoever to do with ones citizenship.

OK. I was confused by your crime and offenses comment. I still don't get it but will concede that the comment wasn't inspired by nefarious elements you have been taken in by. And as you may have gathered from the posts below, let alone mine above, your reference to "legitimate contact" in the law has been superseded. While some parts of SB1070 were clear enough to law enforcement and the legislative authors, they obviously were not to the general public. That is why the change, so people who see racists around every saguaro have a clearer understanding of the intent of the law.

 

[m26]

"Lawful contact" to me means any contact between a law enforcement official and a private citizen which is not illegal. Since it isn't illegal for a cop to walk up to someone on the street and speak to them, that would constitute lawful contact.

However, I don't speak legalese, so maybe I'm way off.

I couldn't find an objective source, so here's two from the right and one from the left. It's all moot now anyhow.

http://www.redstate.com/johnstoirvin/2010/04/29/lawful-contact-means-racial-profiling/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...fted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004290024

 

[Spekkio]

Well, it's not really moot because it will define how police will be trained to interpret the law.

 

[m26]

It is if the legislation has been changed to clarify.

 

[wink]

Well, it's not really moot because it will define how police will be trained to interpret the law.

You are wrapped around the axle on this for no reason. This isn't new territory. Things like "reasonable suspicion", lawful contact, and legitimate contacts or stops are how the police do their jobs every day. You want to know more look up how the Supreme Court has ruled on these issues (start with Terry v. Ohio, or Terry Stops). There are current rules, established training. There is plenty of case law. You guys all think you are so smart, like no one has ever been concerned about these things in other contexts. They have, and it has been litigated.

 

[Spekkio]

I realize this isn't new territory. My concern is what Flash already stated: what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien?

 

[wink]

I realize this isn't new territory. My concern is what Flash already stated: what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien?

Again, not new territory. I am sorry you are not comfortable. I think I gave two examples above. Maybe you should speak with a Border Patrol or ICE Agent. They have been using "reasonable suspicion" to do their jobs longer then you have been walking this earth. In addition, hundreds of local law enforcement have been trained under the 287(g) program by the Feds to assist in immigration enforcement. They use "reasonable suspicion " for immigration investigations as well and there has been no hue and cry. How about this, just imagine how immigration investigations would go on the northern border. Or maybe you just think all cops are racists and don't question or apprehend suspects if they aren't brown.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Sorry, that's not how it's done in the land of freedom.

Please educate us then on how it's done.

This shit needs to get scuttled, regardless of the "best intentions". The 4th Amendment exists for a reason, and this is infringing on it.

How is this infringing on the 4th Amend?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

You are wrapped around the axle on this for no reason. This isn't new territory. Things like "reasonable suspicion", lawful contact, and legitimate contacts or stops are how the police do their jobs every day. You want to know more look up how the Supreme Court has ruled on these issues (start with Terry v. Ohio, or Terry Stops). There are current rules, established training. There is plenty of case law. You guys all think you are so smart, like no one has ever been concerned about these things in other contexts. They have, and it has been litigated.

Funny, I just mentioned Terry v. Ohio to my wife last night after a talking head on tv said something completely ignorant and borderline stupid. Even busted out my case law book from college and had her read the case. The left wing media is treating this issue as if the subject of stopping someone and asking for ID has never come up before.

 

[jtmedli]

I realize this isn't new territory. My concern is what Flash already stated: what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien?

What's wrong with expecting someone to be able to produce some sort of ID or asking Immigrants (legal or not) to produce to some proof they are here legally? Because that might make someone uncomfortable or cause them the trouble? Who cares. If you're here legally then no big deal. You should be carrying your green card anyways. Especially if you're in a state like AZ, CA, TX, etc... where this is a legitimate problem. Reasonable suspicion = the same reasonable suspicion that they use to try to figure who's dealing/trafficing drugs. Why aren't we complaining about that one while we're at it?

Have we really gotten so soft that asking someone to produce an ID/Green Card is too much because they might get butthurt about it? So what, get over it. It's for your own good if you're here legally. And those of you who aren't can get the hell out. Don't get me wrong as I'm all for LEGAL immigration and helping people find a better life here, but let's encourage people to do it the right way. Both parties are at fault here for not being hard enough on the subject until it was a pandemic across the southern border. Now that someone is doing something about it, everybody bitches and moans because they might actually be asked to produce some sort of proof that they're legal.

 

[m26]

What's wrong with expecting someone to be able to produce some sort of ID or asking Immigrants (legal or not) to produce to some proof they are here legally? Because that might make someone uncomfortable or cause them the trouble? Who cares. If you're here legally then no big deal. You should be carrying your green card anyways. ... Reasonable suspicion = the same reasonable suspicion that they use to try to figure who's dealing/trafficing drugs. Why aren't we complaining about that one while we're at it?

Have we really gotten so soft that asking someone to produce an ID/Green Card is too much because they might get butthurt about it? So what, get over it. It's for your own good if you're here legally. And those of you who aren't can get the hell out.

I have agreed with almost everything you've said in this thread until now. Correct me if I'm reading you wrong because so far you've been spot on, IMHO.

First of all, there's no way to tell the difference between a citizen, a legal immigrant, and an illegal just by looking at them. It's not about being "butthurt." The government being able to demand ID for no reason is an unreasonable intrusion into our rights as citizens.

Luckily, this law isn't asking that of AZ LEOs. It says that someone already being detained may be asked to demonstrate his immigration status if there are "specific and articulable facts" to indicate that he may not be here legally.

 

[jtmedli]

First of all, there's no way to tell the difference between a citizen, a legal immigrant, and an illegal just by looking at them. It's not about being "butthurt." The government being able to demand ID for no reason is an unreasonable intrusion into our rights as citizens.

Luckily, this law isn't asking that of AZ LEOs. It says that someone already being detained may be asked to demonstrate his immigration status if there are "specific and articulable facts" to indicate that he may not be here legally.

This is what's meant by reasonable suspicion. We're on the same page. It's just reading a little different between the two of us. I don't want the gov't to go around demanding ID's from people at will either. If you're caught doing something and they wanna see it, then that's well within the rights of an LEO to do they're job. I just don't want to see any sort of "Well, so-and-so got caught shoplifting/kidnapping/etc... but he's all butthurt and suing the LEO division that caught him because them wanting to see a green card or ID of some other sort is profiling". That sort of thing really 'ercks' me.

 

[SkywardET]

Fair enough about the update for LEO contact only. Then again, that doesn't address the core issue.

What, exactly, constitutes reasonable suspicion? How can anyone have any "reasonable suspicion" about a person's immigration status and not include some enormous number of citizens? The day that an American citizen with a "Hispanic complexion" and a "Latino accent" gets detained for not producing proof of citizenship will be the beginning of the end for this law, so what's the point of it anyways?

 

[hokieav8r]

Here is a current event that is concurrent with officer safety in border areas in the SW border states. Including what was mentioned briefly in this story but pointing out that a resident rancher in the same area was shot and killed in the same vicinity by suspected illegal or undocumented aliens.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=deputy+shot