AZ law first requires "lawful contact" i.e. Traffic violation or other situation prompting police

[dkf]

Response. Then there must be reasonable suspicion. Then they can ask for your ID of which a drivers license will mostly suffice unless you are from one of four states who do not check legal status before issuing licenses.

You do not have to carry around your birth certificate but you may want to carry some state ID. Frankly you should walk around with your medical card anyway since you may find yourself in need of emergency treatment.

You will not be accosted on the street unless you do something wrong. So don't litter and don't jaywalk and you should be fine.

[Bluebear]

1. LOLOL yeah, that'll work.

'You will not be accosted on the street unless you do something wrong.'

:rofl:

[dkf]

3. That is the law. You have to break some law first then they can look further.

[Bluebear]

6. Ah. So if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

[DesertFlower]

8. i live in arizona. about a year

ago a woman was putting gas in her car when she was stopped by one of sheriff joe's deputies.

[Hosnon]

33. The statute doesn't say that.

Got a source for your definition of "lawful contact"?

[sabrina 1]

64. Well, that's what Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity say,

almost word for word, actually, so it must be so. You should turn off that channel, it destroys brain cells.

[Bluebear]

69. +

[msanthrope]

115. That's is simply untrue. Lawful contact includes being a rape victim, a witness....n/t

[billh58]

117. Then why, pray tell,

is a local police officer suing the State over this law, and why is the Arizona Police Chiefs Association totally opposed to its implementation? Why is the DOJ looking into the possibility that the "law" violates civil rights provisions, and oversteps State legal boundaries. And no, "lawful contact" is NOT restricted to breaking any laws, but includes being a victim, a witness, or just an innocent bystander.

There is no national Constitutionally-sound law that requires a citizen of the United States of America to carry ID at all times. Exceptions are very specific, and include driving a car, boarding a commercial airliner, applying for work, etc., but these are all voluntary activities and avoidable.

This "law" is about much, much, more than just being asked for a simple form of ID. It is about intimidation, racism, and a gross violation of civil rights by assuming guilt based on subjective and arbitrary "reasonable suspicion," and making American citizens prove their innocence.

[branders seine]

131. It is not true that you have to break a law for the police to lawfully contact you.

flat out not true.

[billh58]

161. Actually, the phrase

in SB1070 is "legitimate" contact which is very different from "lawful" contact and is not well defined in existing law, but could mean ANY contact with the public. That is precisely why the term was used, because the Arizona rednecks can define it as they see fit.

The same goes for "reasonable suspicion": the "legal" definition is vague, and has been described as "something more than a hunch, but much less than probable cause." Several Arizona law enforcement officials have stated that they do not understand the term as it is applied in SB1070.

Defenders of this obscenity are claiming that neither of these terms are prone to abuse or subjective interpretation. When you consider, however, that these carefully chosen words were drafted by a white-supremacist, for white-supremacists, and passed by Republican racists and bigots, it doesn't take much of an imagination to understand why Americans and other world leaders and citizens are alarmed at the audacity of these cowardly Arizona xenophobes.

[Bluebear]

167. +

[JonLP24]

170. I guess you never heard of "Chandler Roundup"

Or the multiple sweeps by Sheriff Joe.

[dsn]

171. Isn't everyone in violation of SOME law all the time?

[sandnsea]

2. Your medical card?

What medical card?

Just be a good Jew and you should be fine??

good grief.

They can arrest without warrant on suspicion that you've violated the immigration code. Did you read that part?

[dkf]

19. The law states that for any lawful contact...where reasonable suspicion exists...a reasonable

Attempt will be made to Determine the immigration status of a person.

This is limited to lawful contacts.

A law enforcement officer may arrest a person if they have "probable cause" to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the US.

[sandnsea]

30. Like the belief that the ID is fraudulent?

Better arrest the person. Kind of hard to carry the required documentation when all the cops have to do is come up with some obscure reason to reject the documentation.

If you're applying for a job, that's illegal under the new law, reason enough to arrest. If you're standing on the street, they can say you're waiting for a job, which is illegal, and reason enough to arrest.

You have to take the legislation in its entirety and apply it to the people in question. You can't take one or two provisions and act like they've made a law for Beverly Hills.

[sabrina 1]

56. So, you're speeding and a cop pulls you over.

You show him your drivers license and registration. He gives you a ticket, end of story. Wait, no, now he looks at you and he has to decide 'does this person look like an American'? What does that mean? What does an American look like?

Your driver's license doesn't prove you are a citizen, so, Sheriff Joe asks to see your birth certificate. You don't have it with you (who does?). Now, under this law, he can haul you off to jail. In fact, if he doesn't, HE can be sued. That is great motivation for a cop to start throwing brown people in jail until they can get someone to find their birth certificates. And this will happenNOT because you are NOT a citizen, but because you 'don't look like one'. So, in the mind of Sheriff Joe, unless you are a blue-eyed blond, you are a suspect and this law makes it okay for him to throw a U.S. citizen in jail because they 'don't look like a citizen'.

You need to learn a little more about this law. Odd to see someone try to defend it when practically the whole civilized world understands why there is so much outrage over it.

[kevinbgoode]

68. Or Sheriff Joe could be a birther. . .and the driver has a "Si se puede"

bumpersticker on the car, and so decides that no amount of identification you produce can possibly be real, so you must be arrested until you can "prove" to the birther's satisfaction, that you are an American citizen.

And with each level of proof produced or confirmed by yourself or the documented government records, the sheriff refuses to believe it is real, so he invents an increasing number of claims that you must be held until something else is produced, which in turn isn't acceptable. . .

[onenote]

76. what you just described could happen today in AZ and in most states

BTW, I don't agree that the new AZ law requires the cops to have an independent basis for stopping someone. Entering someone's home without a warrant would not be a "lawful contact". Approaching someone out in public -- I think that is a lawful contact.

However, returning to your example -- an AZ drivers license (or one from any of the states other than the four that don't require proof of legal presence) is presumptive proof of legal presence under the AZ law. So Sheriff Joe had better be able to point to some reasonable basis for not accepting that as sufficient or he's gonna face a nasty false arrest claim (which a lot of lawyers will be more than happy to pursue on behalf of the victim on a pro bono basis). That doesn't mean he wouldn't abuse the law. But he could do that today.

I'm outraged over the law, not because it is subject to abuse in terms of what ID law enforcement will accept -- I'm outraged because it allows abuse in terms of who can be asked for ID and when.

[slackmaster]

82. You are repeating a common piece of misinformation - Citizenship is not the issue

You have to be able to prove lawful presence in Arizona. That doesn't mean you have to be a citizen, and a driver's license is sufficient except for those of a handful of states.

[sabrina 1]

96. And how is it determined whether or not someone is a lawful

resident? If they are walking along the street minding their own business, but they look Hispanic eg, this law gives permission, no orders cops, if it appears to them that someone is not a lawful resident, to stop them and ask for papers.

So, how does a cop judge that this person walking along the street is not a lawful resident? What would prompt a cop to stop such a person, going about their business in a free country to ask them for papers?

I think the general public understands exactly what this bill is all about and hopefully it will never go into effect considering the outrage coming even from Republicans. It crossed a line that has not yet been crossed in this country, although we all know from history, that it is certainly not a new idea.

[slackmaster]

152. I don't believe your analysis is correct.

If they are walking along the street minding their own business, but they look Hispanic eg, this law gives permission, no orders cops, if it appears to them that someone is not a lawful resident, to stop them and ask for papers.

That's not what the law says. It doesn't authorize police to perform random checks without some cause for making contact.

Nearly all state-issued driver licenses are sufficient to establish lawful presence in the country.

[Lance_Boyle]

85. Arizona has a stop and identify statute - no reasonable suspicion required

to ask anyone to stop and identify themselves. Every stop and ID is a lawful contact. No suspicion required.

[Indy Lurker]

94. Wrong.

Reasonable suspicion is required to stop you in the first place. (unless your driving)

see Terry v. Ohio


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

[msanthrope]

116. Lawful contact can be someone who witnessed a crime, reported a rape. n/t

[Bill McBlueState]

4. why are there so many on DU

who defend a law that even many conservatives don't like? This place is weird sometimes.

[DesertFlower]

5. self delete.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Because certain aspects of a person will always be more important than party affiliation.

[branders seine]

133. I think there is BROAD support for this law.

Shocking and despicable, but much more widespread than many here seem to think.

Most people are pissed off right now, and if the white ones can take it out on the brown ones, when has America *ever* held back from doing that?

[RoyGBiv]

148. Why?

Because a lot of people on DU really and truly do not understand the concept of white privilege and how it benefits them.

They don't see it as a big deal because this law and laws like it don't affect them, never have affected them, and they cannot wrap their minds around the concept that it affects others in ways they will never be able to understand.

I don't know if that applies to the OP specifically, but I'm certain it applies to a great number of people who are defending this atrocity.

[Bill McBlueState]

155. that's a good point

I've seen how threads about white privilege go around here. I thought it was a basic element of Progressive Sociology 101, so to speak, but tons of DUers act like they've never thought about it before.

[snort]

172. Well put.

[dorktv]

7. I have to respond.

Lawful contact can mean anything from a simple "hello" as one is at a store to the full high risk felony stop.

If the cop does not check person A's papers when person B states "Person A is illegal" then police agency can be sued. So even a simple hello cannot happen.

This will drive an even bigger wedge between LE and the average person.

[dkf]

52. Why are we talking about "papers". It just takes a state ID.

Haven't you been asked for ID at least once in the past month?

[sabrina 1]

59. What would you define as 'reasonable suspicion that

person doesn't look like an American'? What way does an American look, act? Do you really know anything about what you are trying to defend?

I am interested to know what you think would be 'reasonable suspicion' that a person is not an American. How would a cop decide that someone doesn't look like an American and therefore they must prove it? Because that is what we are talking about. So please, explain to me 'what does an American look like'? Is it now a crime to not 'look like an American'? Is that what you are saying?

[Iggo]

86. delete

oops.

[CreekDog]

165. not to avoid being arrested, no

:eyes:

[mrcheerful]

9. I pulled you over because your license plate light isn't working can I ee your papers?

Come on cops invent stuff up to use as an excuse to pull black folks over all the time. They claim brake lights aren't working, oh gee's it wasn't working when I pulled you over, you must have a short in your wiring. I've seen cops do that over the least little thing. Add skin tone and guess what. Screw that noise.

[itsrobert]

26. Driving over the line

not signaling, not coming to a complete stop at an intersection, going 26 in a 25, driving too slow, talking on a cell phone, texting, GPS located in the middle of the windshield and not lower left corner, smelled an odor of cannibis, smelled an alcohol odor, driving while Mexican. And don't forget: minor fender bender, car breaking down on highway, changing flat tire on side of road.

And driving with parking lights only, excessive smoke from exhaust, peeling out from a stop, Obama bumper sticker, Caged (Health Care) Chickens spilling onto the highway, etc, etc, etc

[dkf]

27. Cops who make up shit should be thrown in jail.

But assuming all cops will break laws is like assuming all Hispanics are here illegally.

[uppityperson]

98. Happened to me, I complained about it here and had some tell me I was lucky to find that I had an

intermittent short since those things can be dangerous. So here I am, yrs later, with no further sign of that short.

[LAGC]

10. What do you have against immigrants?

Why is it okay for the police to profile Hispanics and give them extra attention when looking for a minor infraction to harass someone about their identification. Fact is, before Arizona's new law, you don't need to have identification papers on you if you're not driving. All you have to tell police if accosted is your name, date of birth, and address. You don't have to show them your ID. Except now in Arizona, Hispanics will have to carry papers on them, just like in Nazi Germany, just to satisfy some profiling cop's curiosity. Is that a democratic value?

[DesertFlower]

24. well said. nt

[dkf]

28. I'm not against legal immigrants. I am against illegal immigrants. Also against tax evaders

Wall street types who fudge their balance sheets and drug dealers and crooked mortgage brokers who falsified stated income loans.

Basically I am sick and tired of cheaters.

[LAGC]

29. But surely you can see how legal immigrants and even native Hispanics will be targeted?

This law only gives incentive to cops to profile Hispanic-looking people and subject them to extra scrutiny, even before they are stopped.

Is that really a good idea?

[dkf]

42. I'm Asian. I fully expect to produce ID if I travel to AZ. Moreover I am from one of the

States that isn't approved so I would bring my certificate of live birth if ever I should visit.

I've never been carded so much in my life as when I visited California. Every time I used my credit card or got a glass of wine I got carded. Frankly that made me understand that it is a normal occurrence to prove my ID. The TSA has trained me well.

[KonaKane]

62. You're a good little German, aren't you.

It doesn't matter what your heritage is. It matters that the AZ law you are trying to soft pedal clearly targets darker skinned minorities in the state and that's what it is intended to do.

You should be ashamed of yourself. This is America, where we do not demand you walk around with identification papers. Those laws went out in the 30s if you do some research.

[Why Syzygy]

106. So why

does the Amnesty Bill proposed ensure that all inhabitants, legal and illegal, will have to produce "papers"?

[dkf]

119. Umm you can be asked to produce ID at any time.

You do realize that right?

[billh58]

123. By whom?

And for what reason, and where? In which Bill of Rights amendment does the Constitution allow that? Which part of "illegal search and seizure," or the "individual right to privacy" do you not understand? Why do you suppose that search warrants are required even where "probable cause" exists?

Innocent ignorance can sometimes be overlooked, but willful ignorance is just sad...

[dkf]

127. Hiibel v sixth district court of Nevada.

The supreme court ruled that the mere request for identification does not implicate the fourth amendment.

[billh58]

135. Again, where

and under what circumstances? Hiibel was very specific, and held that:

"statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments.

{Snip}

Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” {Emphasis added}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

If a person is already a suspect based on reasonable cause the police can ask them for virtually ANYTHING as long as their Miranda Rights have been explained to them. And, Hiibel has absolutely nothing to do with a suspect's immigration status, nor did it mention casual "lawful contact."

The Arizona law goes way beyond the scope of Hiibel and defines "reasonable suspicion" based on the possibility of being an "illegal immigrant," and assumes that ALL citizens, visitors, transients, and travelers are "guilty until proven innocent."

Many well-respected legal scholars and law enforcement personnel read Arizona's racist "law" as being Constitutionally flawed, so I'm going to have to call bullshit on your defense of SB1070, and sad-assed attempts to give it any legitimacy whatsoever.

Try again bubbette...

[dkf]

156. The question was whether it is constitutional to **ask** for ID and yes it is.

But you can decline. Then it goes state by state as to if you have to or not depending on the circumstance.

[sabrina 1]

81. That's not believable. I am in Ca since three months ago and have

not met a single person who has been carded, unless it's a 16 year-old trying to buy liquor eg. You have to be doing something illegal, like speeding eg, before you will be bothered by the police and that's how it works in a democracy.

Speak for yourself regarding 'carrying papers'. This is a democracy and no one is required to wear a badge, or carry papers in this country and you watch how hard this law will be fought. People died to keep this kind of authoritarianism and bigotry OUT of this country and the majority of Americans will fight until it is rescinded.

If you like living in a bigoted, authoritarian state, this probably isn't a good place for you to be. Just like Saudi Arabia wouldn't be a good place for me to be.

[dkf]

120. I was just carded in sonoma not when I was tasting wine but when I was buying wine.

That was like 2 weeks ago.

[billh58]

125. Jesus!

That was to prove you were of "legal age" to buy alcohol sweetie, and NOT to prove your legality to be in the country.

[dkf]

128. Ummm sweetie I had already bought the wine tasting, drank the wine and was purchasing my choice.

They asked for my ID at the end!

[billh58]

136. So fucking what?

It was not to prove that you are an "legal" immigrant, nor was it done by a law enforcement officer. It was for a valid "age" law concerning alcohol. CA state law requires "carding" in most cases when there is doubt by the establishment's workers, and you could have refused and left without buying anything. See how that works?

You are actually supporting Arizona's racist, bigoted law because someone in CA asked to see your ID at an establishment that serves booze? That's just sad...

[dkf]

154. I'm saying it is no big deal for a person to produce an ID because we do it all the time.

It is a big deal if you are here illegally because obviously you are breaking the law.

The only people that should be screaming about this law are people who want open borders.

You seem to be one of them.

[Iggo]

88. He asked, "Is that really a good idea?"

I'd like to hear your answer.

[dkf]

122. I could care less.

I've had to show my ID so often lately I moved my ID to the front of my purse so I could get it out easier. True story. I think I've had to bring it out about 10 times in the last month. Oh 5 times just to get on the airplane, once to buy a glass of wine, once at macys, once at the winery, once at Ross stores, once at blockbuster video. I think there were some others but I can't recall exactly where.

The macys thing was weird. They asked me to show my ID so I could pay my credit card bill in cash. I don't get that one.

[Iggo]

124. Have you had to show your ID because of your skin color?

And, if so, is that okay with you?

[dkf]

129. I don't know. I'm a pasty white Asian person.

I guess I could assume everyone who carded me was a racist.

Yeah they were all a bunch of bigots. Every last one of
them.

[Iggo]

138. And that's okay with you? (n/t)

[Bluebear]

164. crickets

[Bluebear]

166. .

[sandnsea]

32. So it's okay to piss on the Constitution

because a particular law is being broken?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

44. Protect terrorists, not Mexicans

I see.

[uppityperson]

99. President Obama "shreded" (sic) the Constitution? Oh my. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. Obama has shredded the Constitution?

Is that straight from teabagger rhetoric?

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WolverineDG]

100. How do you tell the difference between "legal" & "illegal" immigrants?

I'm curious to hear just what an "illegal" immigrant looks like.

dg

[dkf]

130. Same way you figure out if a person is over or under age for drinking.

Card em.

[WolverineDG]

142. And what is your "reasonable suspicion" that they ARE illegal?

Because drunks & underage drinkers give off VISUAL CLUES that they are drunk &/or underage.

What, pray tell, are the visual clues that suggest someone is an undocumented alien & not a citizen or green-card holder??? Hmmm?


dg

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

111. If you care so much about the rule of law...

what's with the disregard for the U.S. Constitution?

[dkf]

132. I don't understand how this differs from all the other crap we go through.

It's all an inconvenience. This is just another one. If we want to get rid of intrusiveness I'd pick the TSA laws as more of a bother.

[treestar]

126. Ok so they are cheating

But you are really going to equate them with drug dealers and tax evaders and crooked mortgage brokers? They "cheated" to get a chance at a bottom rung job.

The lack of compassion of supposed liberals around here astounds.

[dkf]

134. It's all part of the same disease.

Nobody wants to do things the right way. It's all about cheating.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ibegurpard]

11. if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about....

what a load of horseshit that argument is.

[NYC Liberal]

12. "You will not be accosted on the street unless you do something wrong" LOL

Yeah. Just like you won't go to jail if you don't commit a crime.

[dorktv]

14. An officer walking down the street to his car and says hello to someone is a lawful contact

So naturally that can lead to one having to show papers.

[NYC Liberal]

18. Yes. Anyone can go to youtube.com and type in "cop threatens"

or "police abuse" and find hundreds of (real) videos of what goes on every day.

http://blip.tv/file/369570"> Corrupt cop threatens to make up charges to prove me who has power

[doc03]

13. In Ohio they won't stop you for not wearing your seat belt. I was

fined twice for that. One time they stopped me for going 3 miles over the speed limit. The trooper said he wouldn't charge me for speeding since it was only 3 MPH just for not wearing the seat belt. Another time I was stopped and the trooper said it looked like I was weaving and wanted to know where I was going and where I came from. I told him I was coming from home heading to work and if I was weaving maybe I dodged a pot hole again I got a ticket for a seat belt.

[mrcheerful]

21. Here in Michigan swerving pot holes can get you a reckless driving ticket

I had a few of those while riding motorcycles where the pot hole was big enough to launch the cycle into the air so hitting the pot hole was not an option. The last one I got a lawyer who took photos of the pot hole, showed it to the judge, who then agreed that the cop was harassing me as he had wrote me up 4 times on the same pot hole. What wasn't mentioned was the motorcycle that was ahead of me wasn't pulled over when he swerved the pot hole.

[doc03]

35. We had a one horse town Barney Fife that had a scam

to catch DWI's a few years ago. He would see a car coming and would pull down to an intersection with his car a couple feet out into the crossing road. When the passing car would swerve around the front of his car he would use that as an excuse to pull them over for suspicion of DWI. If he didn't get you for DWI he would hit you with a ticket for reckless operation or driving left of center..

[doc03]

36. deleted duplicate post

[Rebubula]

77. Of course....

...you COULD just wear your seatbelt.

[doc03]

15. I served in the Army with many soldiers of Mexican decent

some were wounded or killed in Nam. Should they be stopped and carded for looking Mexican?

[SargeUNN]

16. Ok here is what I see and hear here in Arizona

I have talked with Organizations, office holders, even the Governor's office and the things to be most concerned about are these:

It lacks defination of what is reasonable suspecion. This could open up too many doors that will not be more than to make it harder.

The law allows for citizen's to sue Law Enforcement if that citizen feels the law is not being properly enforced. This opens up several cans of worms. What is proper enforcement in the minds of a citizen? I feel that someone visiting from another state might be illegal because they remind me of some latino I know. That I know I can force a cop to check someone out just off the threat of a lawsuit. That I know I won't probably win but I can cost the Law Enforcement agencies money by having to defend themselves in court just because I can.

Another thing and what is even more disturbing is who wrote this and who is involved in it. Russell Pearce is a close friend and ally of J.T. Ready who is a neo-nazi. You can actually find video at YouTube of Pearce hugging Ready with a nazi flag behind him and F.A.I.R. is involved in it's writing which means also that the Patriot Fund is involved. If you don't know about the Patriot Fund google it and be prepared to be in horror at it.

That is a few reasons to be against and of course there are more, but that is the primary problems.

[harkadog]

46. Reasonable suspicion is not defined?

Welcome to the U.S. Why are you picking on Arizona for that? Reasonable suspicion is the law of the land in all 50 states. It is not defined in any of them. How come DUers haven't been complaining about that? It has only been the legal standard in this country since 1968. I think you would have had the time to complain about it. Why now?

[SargeUNN]

66. good finally someone who knows what it means

So good finally someone can tell me when a cop has reasonable suspecion that someone is not a citizen. By the way the Sheriff in Pima County Az, even the stupid Governor that signed it doesn't know but thank goodness now someone who does. Please tell so I can pass it on to them. I will call them and let them know so please inform us.

[harkadog]

109. Again why is this question being asked now?

Cops stop people based on reasonable suspicion every single day in all 50 states. Why haven't you raised this issue before if you are bothered by it? I see you evaded that question.

[dkf]

47. I agree that there needs to be clarification on exactly what is lawful contact and what is

Reasonable suspicion.

But I read the Muehler v Mena case where the supreme court ruled on this issue and it looks like it is legal to ask about immigration status during a detention and that reasonable suspicion wasn't needed at all. I imagine the AZ law was crafted to pass scrutiny so a legal detention would be helpful.

[kevinbgoode]

70. So Latino citizens could sue the city or state, for example. . .

if they notice that no one celebrating St. Patrick's Day is being checked for their citizenship?

[jmm]

17. I feel better about racial profiling now knowing it won't happen if somebody doesn't litter.

Racially profiling is the only reason something like jaywalking can turn into reasonable suspicion that a person is here illegally.

[hlthe2b]

20. Wow... you really drank the koolaid, didn't you?

If you were right, there would not be the outrage. This AZ sheriff begs to differ-- it goes far further than you would suggest.

Source: ABC

Ariz. Sheriff Says He Will Refuse to Enforce Immigration Law
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's Controversial Immigration Bill is Drawing Ire from Many Americans
By EMILY FRIEDMAN
An Arizona sheriff said today that he has "no intention of complying" with the state's controversial new immigration law, calling it "abominable" and a "national embarrassment."

"We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't," said Dupnik. "If we go out and look for illegal immigrants, they accuse us of racial profiling and we can get sued. And if some citizen doesn't think we're enforcing the state law, they can sue us too."

"If the chief of police or sheriff takes a squad out and says to them that their only duty is to go out and round up illegal immigrants, they are going to racially profile," said Dupnik. "But we have never done that and we will never do that."

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/protestors-arizona-immigration-bill-urge-boycott-state/story?id=10487582


***
DO some reading and step away from RW radio and Faux news talking points.

[dkf]

53. Dupnik thinks it's unnecessary because he already arrests hundreds of illegal immigrants every mont.

And he says he will enforce it after all.

[hlthe2b]

73. So, YOU speak for this AZ sheriff now?

Where's you proof that he has backed down from his comments? A google search shows no such thing.

I am appalled that you are so cavalier about the rights of others. You state you are Asian. African Americans are also rallying around Latinos (as well as most progressives of all races and ethnicities). Are you so young that you have little understanding of the horrors that befell some Asians (specifically, Japanese) whose rights were trampled in internment camps during WWII? Is it that your goat is not being gored that permits you not to care if daily life becomes a living hell for both LEGAL and undocumented Hispanics alike? You attitude leaves me nearly speechless.

[chollybocker]

22. Another ignorant apologist on DU.

Go back to your own century.

[Hosnon]

25. Where are you getting that definition of "lawful contact"? nt.

[dkf]

49. This is what the guy who wrote this clause to pass scrutiny explained.

[Hosnon]

80. I ran across that last night. But I can't find anyone with legal training who is familiar

with the phrase as a term of art.

In other words, it doesn't have an agreed upon/accepted meaning in the legal community.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

104. A conservative lying? Unbelievable. Media Matters has taken this on and it's false.

U of A law professor: "Lawful contact" could "mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people." Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman wrote on April 29 that University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller "says 'lawful contact' could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him -- something police are allowed to do -- he may have established 'lawful contact.' "


http://mediamatters.org/research/201004290024

[Lyric]

31. "Lawful contact" = frequent seat belt and/or sobriety checkpoints

Papers please.

[dkf]

48. Not papers...ID. Don't they ask for those anyway?

[hlthe2b]

72. not just license and registration...

BIRTH CERTIFICATE..and no, they don't apparently need probable cause to stop you, because it states that governmental agencies can be sued for not following up on suspicions and that includes complaints against an individual.

[Viking12]

84. You don't know what the concept of 'papers' referes to, do you?

[Iggo]

89. Not for having brown skin.

At least they didn't used to.

[TexasObserver]

34. That is a painfully naive view of what this is and what it will be.

Any police officer can lawfully ask anyone to show their identity papers at any time. That's already the law of the land, thanks to our right wing controlled Supreme Court. Under this new Arizona law, once that stop is made, the officer can use just about any excuse to delve further into the citizenship issue ("he didn't have an ID, his ID looked suspicious, he acted suspicious, I thought I smelled drugs, he looked like a suspect we're after, he threatened me, I thought he had a weapon, he disorder-lied my conduct" and so on ad nauseam).

The police often openly ignore their constitutional duties regarding the first, fourth, and fifth amendments already, and have outright contempt for those rights many times.

Your happy talk about how simple and easy this will be, how free of abuse it will be, is naive. It will be abused, and innocent brown people will be treated like POWs in their home country.

[JPK]

40. Re: Casual proof of citizenship

What is "acceptable proof of citizenship" with this "law"? A driver's license? Can be forged. Social security card? Can be forged. Birth certificate? Can be forged.....shit all I need is a name and $50.00 and I can get your real birth certificate sent to me. No questions asked. State ID? Can be forged. So...what do our right wing friends want as "absolute proof" so at the time of "interogation" will, without question, confirm ones citizenship? This law is an abomination set by politicians with interests other than stopping illegals. It is a law that intimidates those other than whites that are citizens from voting. Line the republican rent a cops at the voting booths in november. The brown shirts have arrived.

[dkf]

54. Because our cops are vindictive lawbreaking assholes you mean?

Well gosh we shouldn't give them any power to do anything then. They obviously can't be trusted with the ability to arrest people.

[TexasObserver]

57. If I'd wanted to say that, I'd have said that.

I'm quite capable of expressing myself in words.

If you have a point, make it.

[JPK]

63. I thought righties .....

...Didn't trust the government. LEOS are part of the gov last I heard and they do have the badge AND THE GUN and they can pretty much haul you off if they get a hair up their ass and they are usually guys that are ex military and are....well I think you might get the picture. Righties are scizoid about the government. They say they really love the military and LEOS who are the ones that would deprive you of your rights and yet they don't trust the government. How is that? Afraid of the government but not afraid of the people that have the guns and stuff to kind of control things like their "rights". And actually, Obama has done more for the military if you are one of those types, than Bush/Cheney did. Gave raises to the military. Raised funding for the VA. Expanded military spending. Ah, especially the VA, Bush and Co reduced funding for the VA even while his wars are going on. Obama increased VA spending to help our vets that have been disabled for the Bush/Cheney war folly.

[JPK]

37. Papers please

Show me your papers.

The dumb fucks in AZ that support this law and the ignorant and self absorbed politicians that passed it just do not see what it really could be. Well, they either know and are traitors to the Constitution or they are just stupid political boobs wanting to be re-elected at any cost. Sure, on the most thin surface it seems like the law's intentions are innocent and well intentioned but beyond the surface and if one looks at it a little more closely and with a little more thought as to what it could morph into later, it is a gestapo law. A LAW LIKE THIS COULD NOT EVEN REMOTELY BE PASSED IN GERMANY today. It would be tossed out so fast the politicians that tried to offer it would be ridiculed and chastized and undoubtedly it would end their political career if it didn't cripple it. The public outcry would be thunderous. I guess since we have never experienced the depravity of a such political transformation that Germany went through in the 30's, we think it can never happen here. Is their society better than ours now? More tolerant? More knowlegable? More fearful of what could happen if they did not keep a watchful eye on what is happening? There has not been a major political/sociatal parallel comparable to this law in this country other than what happened in Nazi Germany. This law must be struck down by the USSC. If it is not our Constitution will truely be as GWB said, just a piece of paper.

[JPK]

41. Hmmmm.....Papers please......................

Can I see your voter regisrtation card? Which party do you belong to? I think you might have to come downtown with me.........

[workinclasszero]

38. You forgot the main one..don't be caught walking around brown eom

[Drunken Irishman]

39. Do you know how easy it is to be pulled over over something innocent?

I was downtown once and had to get gas at a station right by the freeway entrance. Dumb me forgot to put the cap on. As I was pulling onto the freeway ramp, I heard it rattling on top of my car. That's when I remembered what I had done and glanced in my side view mirror and saw the that the gas hatch (or whatever it's called) was open.

Knowing it was on the roof, I pulled over on to the shoulder once I was on the freeway and tried to retrieve it. Unfortunately, it must've slid off as I was merging because it wasn't there. Anyway, I looked a bit around the shoulder hoping maybe it was there and it wasn't.

Just before I was about to get back into my car, a highway patrolman pulls up behind me. That's fine. No problem there. Probably making sure there was no problem. He called me over and asked me what was wrong and I told him. He then said it happens and that it would be best to get home as soon as possible because it's not safe to drive without the cap. I told him my neighborhood wasn't far and I was on my way there anyway. That was it...or so I thought.

I went my way, got into my car and began pulling out when...he hits his lights. So I pull over to the shoulder again and wait to see what I did now.

He comes to the window and asks me if _____ is my surname. I say yes and then he goes, "Do you know you have a warrant out for your arrest?"

He must've ran my plates and saw my name and then crosschecked it with the warrant list.

But I didn't have a warrant out for my arrest. I've never really been in trouble with the law.

He then asks to see my license and I give it to him. He walks back to his squad car, looks up something, comes back and tells me that it was another _______. Probably a cousin. Whatever. Doesn't make much sense since we do not share a first name or even come close to looking like one another.

Then, as he hands back the license, he asks me if I've been drinking. Despite what my username suggests, I was not drunk, nor had I been drinking. I don't drink during the day and never, ever drive...even after even the slightest bit of alcohol.

I tell him no. He pushes and says he smells it (probably smells the gasoline, since there is no f'n cap). I tell him I don't know what to say, I haven't been drinking. He then decides to do the finger test (where they ask you to follow the finger with your eyes). I'm embarrassed, obviously. Here I am sitting on the side of the freeway getting a sobriety test.

After a few finger wags, he decides I'm sober and gives me back my license, allowing me to return home.

ALL of that was uncalled for and I know he was harassing me because of my age (I was pretty young) and my anti-war stickers (this was right after America invaded Iraq).

I didn't push or act like a jerk. I just let it be and came home.

I'm white and even I was pulled over and checked for an idiotic reason. I have no difficulty seeing the same thing happening to a Mexican. I mean, I'd expect it with how some cops are.

Now I say some because I believe there are some very good cops (here in Salt Lake, our police chief opposes any type of racial profiling and won't ever ask any person for proof of citizenship) - but as it is with every profession, you have a lot of assholes.

And those assholes are the ones who'll enforce this and racially profile.

[johnaries]

45. I'll admit that I haven't read the law. But from what I understand

the new law doesn't say that officers "may" request proof, but that they "are required" to request proof of citizenship. And although by Federal Law they have the right to refuse showing ID, as interviews with AZ officials have said "we'll always some other reason to arrest them".

As I said, I haven't read the law. But the very premise of the law is unConstitutional and reeks of fascism. If there is some provision or provisions that eliminate racial profiling, then I would be happy to hear them. But without those provisions, the law itself promotes racial profiling and unequal rights.

The law is prima facie unConstitutional. Literally.

[dkf]

50. They are required if they have a reasonable suspicion that does not include race.

[ProSense]

51. "The legislation requires law enforcement ..."

The legislation requires law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone who they have a "reasonable suspicion" is in the country illegally.

She said she will not tolerate racial discrimination or profiling. Brewer also said she had worked with legislators to make sure the bill protects civil rights.

"We must enforce the law evenly and without regard to skin color, accent or social status," she said, adding that the bill's opponents are "over-reacting."

An estimated 1,200 protesters, many of them students, gathered outside the Capitol to demonstrate against the bill.

She urged the law's supporters and enforcers to be careful not to make "even the slightest misstep."

link

Racist, check.

[dkf]

55. Hmm and I guess expecting wall street to shape up is anti white? Or gasp anti-Semitic?

I find it hilarious that expecting people to follow the law is racist. Expecting people to be responsible and not overspend is obviously against the poor.

Pah I am so sick of lawbreakers. Sick sick sick.

[frylock]

91. i'll just bet you never ever NEVER break the law..

never exceed the speed limit, never fail to signal. right?

[Bluebear]

101. Pah she is SO sick of lawbreakers. Sick sick sick.

:silly:

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maru Kitteh]

58. last I checked, I wasn't constitutionally required to get a driver's license

[Rex]

60. No, the cop can decide you LOOK illegal - hence the reasonable suspicion.

Did you not now that?

[Desertrose]

61. Riiiiight. Keep telling yourself that.

10 to 1 it won't actually play out like that.

[Ozymanithrax]

65. I'm sure Arizona police will be as careful with this law as the Bush Administration was with the...

Patriot Act. There is nothing to worry about.

:sarcasm:

[SargeUNN]

67. yeah so true

just like Joe Arpaio wouldn't ever try to use the law for his own gain. Joe is just a Patriotic American Sheriff :patriot: :sarcasm:

[Cleobulus]

71. Question. What is this law supposed to accomplish?

[pampango]

74. I wondered where this "lawful contact" focus came from. Sean Hanity. My wife was watching a HuffPo

video on Palin (she likes to get her blood pressure up in the morning). Hannity was interviewing Palin (there's a pair for you) and focusing on the "lawful contact" theme to prove that the left is wacko about the prospect of racial profiling. (This was all in the first 2 minutes which is all I could stand. I don't need my blood pressure to go any higher. ;) )

[KG]

75. it's so nice to see racial profiling get a fair shake on DU.

:eyes:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

102. Isn't it though? And the excuses! Man oh man, the excuses!

"The constitution has already been shredded so why not?"
"Everybody stereotypes, it's human nature"
"Other countries do it!"

[Dogtown]

78. I don't believe you're that stupid.

Racist police officers will lie to make a case. If you *choose* not to believe that, you're being intentionally obtuse.

Your sophistry is transparent.

[retread]

79. Stupidity and being intentionally obtuse are NOT mutually exclusive. OP is a

prime example.

[Bluebear]

83. I dunno.

[Dogtown]

87. (snicker)

[coti]

90. That's incorrect. "Lawful contact" with a police officer is merely

contact that is not unlawful- in other words, any contact with a police officer in which the officer is acting within the restrictions placed on him or her by the law.

That would include any casual contact with civilians in which there is no prior suspicion of illegal activity.

An example of such a circumstance being used is asking an officer for directions. If a person stops next to an officer while driving and asks for directions, and the officer smells alcohol on their breath, that's suspicion of DUI reasonable enough for detainment, despite the contact's casual beginning. The same applies for casual contact with those with a skin color or accent leading to "reasonable suspicion" of being undocumented.

[msanthrope]

114. Correct--being victim of a crime is lawful contact. n/t

[Sheepshank]

92. OP makes a poor assumption...and an incorrect one at that...

Here's the part telling law enforcement officers that they need to check on individuals' immigration status:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."

<snip>

There are other reasons to believe that someone could be questioned on their immigration status without a police officer actually suspecting a crime. Jennifer Chacon, law professor at the University of California (Irvine), raises concerns about the phrase "lawful contact."

"Lawful contact can occur in many instances when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime," she said. "A consensual encounter, such as asking a police officer for directions, reporting a crime to a police officer, or being a victim of a crime or a witness and being questioned by a police officer, is a 'lawful encounter.'

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/28/john-huppenthal/arizona-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/

ETA to correct link

[Texasgal]

93. Riiight.

They will be pulling over/stopping brown people for no reason. Watch.

[uppityperson]

95. "You will not be accosted on the street unless you do something wrong", right.

If that were true, things would be easier. I have been stopped for having my license plate light out which, Miraculously!, came on shortly afterwards and has never been out since. I have been stopped for "driving too close to the fog line" in the fog. They can pull you over for made up things.

[WolverineDG]

97. ....

:spray: :rofl:

Please tell me you are being sarcastic. Because it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about and/or have never been the victim of profiling.

dg

[SemiCharmedQuark]

103. D'oh! Media Matters takes on this conservative lie-Lawful contact could include witnesses,victims,

Well there you go.


http://mediamatters.org/research/201004290024

[librechik]

107. lawful contact doesn't mean violation. If the cop is on the clock on the street ANYBODY HE CONTACTS

in any way is a lawful contact. Like, "see that witness and victim over there bleeding on the street? I wonder if they are legal? I will ask them, even though the perpetrator will get away. He was a white man anyway. The witness and the victim look more dangerous, with their brown skin and messy look..."

or any fucking thing the cop does that makes a human contact while he is in uniform and on the clock.

The wording of the law is too broad. It is trouble. There doesn't have to be probable cause, or a violation. It means "ANY CONTACT" that isn't breaking the law. Like seeing somebody on the street and asking them what they are doing or who they are. That is lawful contact, perhaps becasue the cop didn't club the guy first. That might verge on unlawful...except the cop probably felt quite threatened before he clubbed the guy, so he can say the clubbing was lawful and the victim would have to prove them wrong.

THIS LAW PRESUMES GUILT. And cops cannot be trusted to not abuse it.


Here's a Media Matters link to explain:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004290024

[That Is Quite Enough]

108. Lawful contact = driving while brown

[Bluebear]

110. +++++++

[msanthrope]

113. "Lawful contact" includes being a rape victim, a victim of domestic violence, a witness

to a crime, too.

Nice way of valuing some victims, over others....

[spanone]

121. just explained by senator menendez on keith's...2 cops walking down the street and come upon you....

that's lawful contact....policeman drives up on you in his car....lawful contact

[Indy Lurker]

137. No..No..No...

There has to be reasonable suspicion


This exact issue was covered by the Supreme Court in 1979

BROWN v. TEXAS H443 U.S. 47 (1979)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/443/47/case.html

"When appellant continued to refuse to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (a) (1974), which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information."

The supreme court decided such a law was unconstitutional saying:

"The flaw in the State's case is that none of the circumstances 52 preceding the officers' detention of appellant justified a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal conduct. Officer Venegas testified at appellant's trial that the situation in the alley "looked suspicious," but he was unable to point to any facts supporting that conclusion.<2> There is no indication in the record that it was unusual for people to be in the alley. The fact that appellant was in a neighborhood frequented by drug users, standing alone, is not a basis for concluding that appellant himself was engaged in criminal conduct. In short, the appellant's activity was no different from the activity of other pedestrians in that neighborhood. When pressed, Officer Venegas acknowledged that the only reason he stopped appellant was to ascertain his identity. The record suggests an understandable desire to assert a police presence; however, that purpose does not negate Fourth Amendment guarantees.

In the absence of any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest and appellant's right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference. The Texas statute under which appellant was stopped and required to identify himself is designed to advance a weighty social objective in large metropolitan centers: prevention of crime. But even assuming that purpose is served to some degree by stopping and demanding identification from an individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment do not allow it. When such a stop is not based on objective criteria, the risk of arbitrary and abusive police practices exceeds tolerable limits. See Delaware v. Prouse, supra, at 661.

The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.<3> Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is

Reversed."

[coti]

140. You're confusing reasonable suspicion justifying detainment with what constitutes lawful contact.

They're two different concepts.

Reasonable suspicion is what can/may come into an officer's mind and lead to detainment when they are having any lawful contact with a civilian, detainment being the act of requiring a civilian to stick around while the officer investigates the goings on to determine if they have probable cause for an arrest (as opposed to actually making an arrest). Reasonable suspicion is what is required for detainment.

So reasonable suspicion is not required for lawful contact. In fact, lawful contact occurs between officers and civilians all day long- every time officers talk to someone (and including when they detain someone, when they detain them lawfully). Some might even argue that lawful contact occurs simply when an officer observes people on patrol.

[Indy Lurker]

141. reasonable suspicion IS required to see ID

That is the US supreme courts decision in 1979, it supersedes AZ law.

For that matter the new AZ laws explicitly calls out the need for reasonable suspicion.

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

[coti]

143. ....

But not to have lawful contact with them. You're still confusing concepts.

This is the worry: that a police officer will have a lawful contact with someone with a non-white skin color and/or an accent- walking past each other down the street and saying "Hi", for example- and that, on the basis of skin color, clothes, and/or an accent (appearances), the officer will have the reasonable suspicion required to ask them for their "papers."

In other words, the argument goes that this law will require people to produce evidence of citizenship to officers based on appearances alone, with no circumstantially valuable evidence.

Some people would say that is an important step down the road toward totalitarianism. Hence the uproar.


No, it's not a good law.

[Indy Lurker]

144. What your describing is NOT reasonable suspicion

"This is the worry: that a police officer will have a lawful contact with someone with a non-white skin color and/or an accent- walking past each other down the street and saying "Hi", for example- and that, on the basis of skin color, clothes, and/or an accent (appearances), the officer will have the reasonable suspicion required to ask them for their "papers."

Reasonable suspicion is a well defined legal concept, with over 40 years of history. What your describing is not reasonable suspicion.

You can not be "Stopped" (involuntairly detained) without reasonable suspicion. You do not have to produce ID unless there is reasonable suspicion you committed a crime (such as being in the state illegally)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

[coti]

146. Actually, in law the word "reasonable" is used to create deliberately vague concepts.

Whether it's the "reasonable person," "reasonable care," "reasonable cause," "reasonable doubt" or "reasonable suspicion," the word is used in law to allow for flexibility and evaluation of all evidentiary factors. While there is case law with regard to all such terms, just about the last thing the word "reasonable" is, in the law, is "well-defined."


Let's get back to the illegal immigration issue, though. I'm not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that skin color, accent and other outward attributes of people wouldn't be the primary evidentiary factors used to raise a reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally. Without asking for immigration papers (the action at issue), what other evidence is there to base such a "suspicion" on?

Keep in mind, reasonable suspicion and probable cause are not the same concept. Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard of evidence. I'm not even sure it's a greater than a 40 or 50% level of certainty. Reasonable. Suspicion. Kind of like reasonable doubt (which would require a very low percentage of uncertainty if it could be assigned one, perhaps between 5 and 25%), but the opposite, it seems to me. It's not much.

You know what, maybe you should just cite the Arizona case law that says skin color, accent and other outward attributes can not supply the reasonable suspicion required to detain someone on grounds of possible illegal immigration, since you made the statement that it isn't so. That would probably make people feel a lot better.

[billh58]

149. Another definition

of reasonable suspicion:

"To conduct a Terry search, or a stop and frisk, police need reasonable suspicion that the person is suspected of imminent illegal behavior or past criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement; it is commonly described as something more than a hunch but less than probable cause. And what does totality of circumstances mean? It refers to an assessment based on all the circumstances, which includes objective observations, information from police reports, and consideration of the modes of patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers." {Emphasis added}

http://www.quizlaw.com/criminal_law/what_is_reasonable_suspicion.php

SB1070 states that: "The legislature declares that the intent of this act is make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona." So the intent of the law is to arrest "illegal immigrants" and reduce their number by attrition, and includes the potential element of racial-profiling as its premise. If Arizona had a mix of European, Asian, or African "illegal immigrants," along with Hispanics, then the potential for racial-profiling would not be as likely.

SB1070 does not adequately define "legitimate contact," which could mean a non-official conversation with a retail or restaurant worker while ordering lunch or buying a pack of gum, or an official conversation while interrogating a non-involved witness to a crime. If the officer notes a distinct Hispanic accent during the course of the conversation, does that constitute reasonable suspicion of being potentially an "illegal?" If the officer observes that a Hispanic witness is visibly nervous during a conversation, does that constitute reasonable suspicion of being "illegal," or just that the witness is shaken up?

There are numerous news reports of Arizona police officers being skeptical about their ability to be totally objective about what constitutes both "legitimate contact," and "reasonable suspicion." How then can ALL Hispanics be totally assured that they will not become subject to civil rights violations based solely on their appearance, demeanor, or speech? SB1070 includes a provision which allows anyone to sue a law enforcement official for "failure to enforce" its provisions, so when does that provision become "undue coercion" given the vagueness of the language?

The short answer is that Hispanics can't be guaranteed that the law will be applied evenly, unless ALL Arizona citizens who are in contact with law enforcement, for ANY reason, are asked to provide identification in compliance with SB1070.

And that is the main Constitutional "flaw" in SB1070: it provides both the framework and the opportunity for civil rights abuses to a specific class of Arizona citizens, visitors, and transients. This is the main reason that everyone is wanded and their belongings are subject to search at airports: "racial profiling" is, for the most part, illegal.

[coti]

150. Outstanding post. nt

[Indy Lurker]

153. That won't work

"The short answer is that Hispanics can't be guaranteed that the law will be applied evenly, unless ALL Arizona citizens who are in contact with law enforcement, for ANY reason, are asked to provide identification in compliance with SB1070."

Without "reasonable suspicion" (or probable cause or a warrant) police can not compel anyone to show ID.

Skin color and language are simply not enough to to create "reasonable suspicion".

Mexican ancestry and speaking Spanish is NOT enough.

Clearly there are thousands or millions of individuals in AZ with Mexican ancestry that speak Spanish who are there legally.

They can not all be under "reasonable suspicion" of committing a crime.

The notion is foolish.

[billh58]

160. Sorry, but your "notion"

that the rednecks of the Arizona Taliban domestic terrorists will not pervert this law into a continuation of Sheriff Joe's violation of civil rights is laughable.

Continue to support these racists and bigots all you want, that is your right, but many legal minds vehemently disagree with you, including the President of the United States, and the Attorney General. This obscene "law" is nothing more than a thinly designed attempt to "legalize" racial-profiling, and to specifically intimidate ALL Hispanics.

See this piece from the SPLC:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=532818&mesg_id=532818

[Bluebear]

163. +

[Dark]

145. The ONLY way to reduce illegal immigration is to end the reasons why they come here.

While they are legion, one we can target is businesses. Target businesses that hire them and you will reduce the number who come here significantly. If there isn't much work, then they won't come here as much.

But there are other reasons, ones we can't control. That's why we can't stop it.

[coti]

151. Totally agreed.

Been saying just that for years.

You have to crack down on the motivation for it- if you really want to do it, which most businesses don't. They just want the people working for them to be here illegally, so they have their thumb on them and can pay them as little as possible.

[Fridays Child]

147. You always could be stopped on reasonable suspicion. So, what does this law change, then?

If it's not intended to codify racism, what's the actual point of the law?

[AuntPatsy]

157. Honestly, what planet are you from?

[Hansel]

158. They can hold them and turn them over to ICE in these circumstances now.

So ask yourself what the point of the law is if they already can do this.

[billh58]

162. That's an easy

question, but then you knew that...;-)

This obscenity follows immediately after passing the other "Birther Bill" spawned by the Arizona rednecked and white-supremacist's absolute rage at having to acknowledge an African-American POTUS and CIC. SB1070 is just another poorly written Teabagger sign printed on official State of Arizona stationary.

[Bluebear]

168. +

[woo me with science]

159. Or trying to get a job

in which case we all will have to provide biometrics!

[GrantDem]

169. Or property code violations, or just about anything an officer can make up...