Arizona's Immigration Enforcement Bill

[CraigStern]

Don't you have your drivers license on your person at all times anyway?  The police are only allowed to stop people with reasonable suspicion or "probable cause".

I usually do--but the law doesn't require me to (unless, of course, I'm driving).

Also, keep in mind that probable cause is the bare minimum required for police to perform a warrantless search or seizure under the 4th Amendment. From what I've read, the Arizona bill permits the cops to arrest people based on just reasonable suspicion. Those are two different standards, with probable cause being a higher bar for police to meet than reasonable suspicion.

[SmartyPants]

I wouldn't. A yellow paper will, inevitably, try to sensationalize a topic as sensitive and debatable as illegal immigration. There would inevitably be stories about little children being sent to foster homes when their parents got deported.

There are also stories on the other side of the issue.  The inability to enforce the law encourages illegal immigrants to come here and some commit murders like the death of Robert Krentz.

And protesters piss me off.

I don't really mind as long as it is legal and nonviolent.  The first admendment gives the right to protest to American citizens.

Don't you have your drivers license on your person at all times anyway?  The police are only allowed to stop people with reasonable suspicion or "probable cause".

I usually do--but the law doesn't require me to (unless, of course, I'm driving).

Also, keep in mind that probable cause is the bare minimum required for police to perform a warrantless search or seizure under the 4th Amendment. From what I've read, the Arizona bill permits the cops to arrest people based on just reasonable suspicion. Those are two different standards, with probable cause being a higher bar for police to meet than reasonable suspicion.

To me, you explanation between the differences between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" is like differentiating a "secretary" from an "administrative assistant".  It is a different name for the same thing.

Plus, doesn't a cop have to justify reasonable suspicion, because if he can't, then a court case would be thrown out for violating the fourth amendment? (This isn't one of my rhetorical questions. I am realy asking.)

[CraigStern]

Well, here is (in really simplistic terms) how it works. An arrest is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. (There are other things that count as a seizure as well, but we're not talking about those right now.) In order to seize someone, a police officer needs probable cause.

Reasonable suspicion is not probable cause. They are two different legal standards. Reasonable suspicion has been defined as "a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity." That's only enough to justify a so-called Terry stop, in which a police officer stops someone to briefly ask them some questions. That isn't enough to justify an arrest.

Probable cause, which is necessary for an arrest, requires "known facts and circumstances." So it's not enough that a policeman is suspicious, and can articulate why. He also has to have sufficient facts that objectively make it reasonable for him to suspect that the person he's arresting has committed a particular crime.

Here is an article that explains it pretty well: http://donsobservs.blogspot.com/2006/08/probable-cause-v-reasonable-suspicion.html

[SmartyPants]

There are other ways to have reasonable suspicion.  For example: Lets say a cop pulls over someone for a traffic violation and the driver is unable to produce licence and registration.  The cop then asks the driver where he is from and the driver can't get his story straight.  Black, white, or hispanic doesn't matter in this case, because there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

So this scenario would be considered reasonable suspicion, while the inability to provide any sort of documentation that proves one is in the country legaly would be considered probable cause.

[Pylons]

Fruit from the poisoned tree?

In the case Mapp v. Ohio, it was decided that you can't prosecute anyone on evidence obtained not the original target of the search/seizure.

[SmartyPants]

In the case Mapp v. Ohio, it was decided that you can't prosecute anyone on evidence obtained not the original target of the search/seizure.

I don't think that is true at all.
Mapp v. Ohio said you can't use evidence that was illegally seized to prosecute a crimminal.  I don't even see how this court case applies to this new law.

[CraigStern]

Having now read the text of the bill, it seems the rumor about it authorizing an arrest based on reasonable suspicion is false. This is what the reasonable suspicion section says:

20      B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37      1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38      2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39      3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41      4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

[SmartyPants]

For any lawful contact made by a law enfrocement 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. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released the person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 30 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
     1. A valid Arizona driver license.
     2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
     3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
     4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

The rumor about racially profiling is false too.  Law enforcement will be breaking the law if they use racially profiling.

[CraigStern]

Weeeeell, maybe.

The wording they use there is a little tricky. It says: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

If they combine racial or nationality discrimination with something else, then presumably it won't conflict with this law. So maybe the cops can get a reasonable suspicion from Hispanic + expired license plates, and it will be okay under the law, even though they're exclusively targeting Hispanics. Does that make sense?

[SmartyPants]

If they combine racial or nationality discrimination with something else, then presumably it won't conflict with this law. So maybe the cops can get a reasonable suspicion from Hispanic + expired license plates, and it will be okay under the law, even though they're exclusively targeting Hispanics. Does that make sense?

Wouldn't anyone have to show a license and registration?  If they can't provide a license and registration, then it would be reasonable to check their citizenship after not finding their name in the system.

[CraigStern]

If they're stopped, sure. But the point is that the cops are allowed to use race or nationality as a factor in deciding whom to stop under this law. It just can't be the only factor.

[SmartyPants]

If they're stopped, sure. But the point is that the cops are allowed to use race or nationality as a factor in deciding whom to stop under this law. It just can't be the only factor.

Cops are not allowed to stop people for no reason.  They can only ask people for identification during lawful contact(like a traffic violation).  White, hispanic, black, and blue drivers are all already required to be driving with a licence.  It is a falsed rumor that a cop can harrass a hispanic american for just taking his/her kids out for ice cream.

[Zhampir]

Not really, if a cop wants to pull you over, I'm pretty sure he could find a reason.

[SmartyPants]

Not really, if a cop wants to pull you over, I'm pretty sure he could find a reason.

Again, if you are on the road, then you would already have a licence.  I am saying a cop can't ask random people on the street to show identification.  They are making a mountain out of a molehill.  I have been pulled over and shown my licence before and it wasn't a big deal.

[Ertxiem]

[...]  The inability to enforce the law encourages illegal immigrants to come here and some commit murders like the death of Robert Krentz.

I must say that I strongly disagree with that sentence. Although you didn't write it explicitly, it seems that you're implying that illegal immigrants come to commit murders. From my point of view, illegal immigrants try to go to a country that (in their perspective) will provide them a better living. Furthermore, regarding the crimes committed by illegal immigrants, I think (but I don't have the statistics to back or to disprove my opinion) that illegal immigrants might have the same probability (if not lower) to commit a crime when compared with a local resident with the same income and education.


I'm not from the USA, so my views might be biased from what happens in my country. From what I've seen, a cop is more likely to pick on someone poor than on someone rich. Simply because they think twice before picking someone that might give them an hard time. And usually, the immigrants and their descendants have lower income, so, that's where some of the bias comes from.

I agree with Zhampir. A cop can make up a reason to pull me over. If it's just the two of us in there, it's my word against his word. Nonetheless, most of them will not do that, but we know that there are prejudiced people everywhere.