Some VA immigration laws similar to Arizona's new bill... since 2007!

[palehorse]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/No_-Va_-enforces-immigration-as-Arizona-rages-92335879.html

So, it's safe to say that AZ isn't the first locale to implement such measures -- essentially mirroring the powers and procedures federal LEO's already have (but sadly don't use often enough) -- so what's the f'n problem?

It sounds to me like the process has worked fairly well here in VA, so I have no problem with AZ doing the same damn thing. After all, I have lived in VA my entire life and I don't know any legal aliens or foreign-born citizens who are afraid to leave their homes for fear of being deported or arrested for being non-white.

These immigration laws are necessary and just. The overreaction to AZ's "new" law is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Venix]

County supervisors scaled back the measure, voting in October 2007 to direct police officers to check the residency status of crime suspects if they had probable cause to believe they were in the country illegally.

The Arizona statute requires only reasonable suspicion, a much lower standard. Had it required probable cause--the same level of evidence needed to perform a warrantless search or an arrest--the law would have far fewer opponents.

 

[DAGTA]

The Arizona statute requires only reasonable suspicion, a much lower standard. Had it required probable cause--the same level of evidence needed to perform a warrantless search or an arrest--the law would have far fewer opponents.

One article claimed 70% of people in AZ support the law.

I hear plenty of opponents... from outside of AZ. Maybe they should volunteer to open their homes to illegals and see how it goes?

 

[palehorse]

I personally believe that "reasonable suspicion" is an adequate standard for a simple identity check. After all, the USSC deemed it sufficient enough for "investigatory" and "Terry" stops, right?

After re-reading the article a few times and also looking up the latest version of the law itself, it appears that Prince William County modified their law a bit in 2008 to check only those people who have been arrested. (DOH!)

It would be sad to see the same backpedaling bullshit happen in AZ...

 

[bob4432]

the difference is this is a hot election year and people want to make it racial issue, along w/ free press.

the bill is really not the big deal, just the fuel for bottom feeders to get free press, nothing more as most people don't even read the bill.

 

[EagleKeeper]

the difference is this is a hot election year and people want to make it racial issue, along w/ free press.

the bill is really not the big deal, just the fuel for bottom feeders to get free press, nothing more as most people don't even read the bill.

As was aptly demonstrated inthe AZ thread

 

[Infohawk]

We live in the 21st Century. I'm sorry but it's simply archaic to think you don't have to identify yourself when approached by cops. In Europe this is standard practice and nobody gets their panties in a bunch about it. In the past, if you were a stranger in town you'd probably face much worse prospects than being carded.

As long as these local laws don't change rights for immigrants, I'm thinking USSC won't point to the preemption doctrine. But AZ's reasonable suspicion threshhold might be too low. We'll see.

 

[cubby1223]

I still firmly believe the knee-jerk reactions to this AZ bill, are primarily in response to the tea party, the opposition to Obamacare, & the projected losses to Dems in the mid-term elections.

 

[dammitgibs]

The Arizona statute requires only reasonable suspicion, a much lower standard. Had it required probable cause--the same level of evidence needed to perform a warrantless search or an arrest--the law would have far fewer opponents.

Reasonable suspicion vs probably cause? Seriously? Do we have any lawyers that can tell us if theres really that big of a difference between the two.

 

[bob4432]

and it continues, yesterday shakira was in town talking to the pussy phx mayor phil gordon and went and rallied w/ the protesters. she had her little speech prepared but obviously can't understand the illegal in illegal immigration. so free press for her....

now kevin johnson, a long time phx suns who is now mayor in i think sacremento talked out against it saying he was all for biz boycott on AZ - again, free press.

we have this big ass nuclear reactor owned owned largely by a couple AZ companies where a lot of that power goes to CA, maybe that portion should be turned off? (i have no idea how a nuclear reactor works and if this is even possible), but boycotts work 2 ways.

 

[cubby1223]

Reasonable suspicion vs probably cause? Seriously? Do we have any lawyers that can tell us if theres really that big of a difference between the two.

The judicial system would create precedence for what is allowed under "reasonable suspicion", and I'm pretty sure there will not be a judge anywhere who will allow "taking your kid to get ice cream" to pass for reasonable suspicion.

If law officials want to abuse their authority, they can do so with or without this new AZ law. Nothing has changed in that respect. Then it's the judicial system that corrects any problems. Racial profiling is illegal under a different law, so any law official who does so will be dealt with.

 

[Linflas]

Reasonable suspicion vs probably cause? Seriously? Do we have any lawyers that can tell us if theres really that big of a difference between the two.

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion
Once it has been established that an individual possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place to be searched or a thing to be seized, the Fourth Amendment's protections take hold, and the question then becomes what are the nature of those protections. Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and go about their business. However, a police officer may only search people and places when the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity.

"Probable cause" means that the officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside. To possess either probable cause or reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion. Items related to suspected criminal activity found in a search may be taken, or seized, by the officer.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probable+Cause+and+Reasonable+Suspicion

 

[ElFenix]

Reasonable suspicion vs probably cause? Seriously? Do we have any lawyers that can tell us if theres really that big of a difference between the two.

reasonable suspicion means that there are articulable facts that would allow a person to think that the subject is either committing a crime or that a crime has just been committed.

probable cause (which is the standard for searches and seizures) are facts that would also allow a reasonable person to determine that a crime has been committed or is in the process, but it's a higher standard.


chances are the largest application of this law won't be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, but in circumstances were an actual violation is observed by the officer. pretextual stops of people in cars resulting in drugs being found seems like the biggest pile of cases in criminal procedure. don't indicate your lane change? pulled over. cop can then ask for license and registration. in the drug world reasonable suspicion would be satisfied if the car smelled of MJ, there was paraphernalia, bit of joint on the floor, etc. or if a drug dog indicated next to the car. basically, it allows the officer to do a short and limited investigation which is supposed to be strictly tailored to what is being investigated.

The judicial system would create precedence for what is allowed under "reasonable suspicion", and I'm pretty sure there will not be a judge anywhere who will allow "taking your kid to get ice cream" to pass for reasonable suspicion.

reasonable suspicion is already a well known term in the world of criminal procedure. the AZ legislature didn't just pull that language out of a hat.

 

[palehorse]

If reasonable suspicion has already been established by the USSC as sufficient enough for Terry stops (frisking someone), can someone opposed to that standard being used in the AZ bill please explain to me why asking for a person's ID is more intrusive and should therefore require probable cause instead?

 

[Venix]

If reasonable suspicion has already been established by the USSC as sufficient enough for Terry stops (frisking someone), can someone opposed to that standard being used in the AZ bill please explain to me why asking for a person's ID is more intrusive and should therefore require probable cause instead?

The Supreme Court answers this question in Terry. A weapons frisk based on reasonable suspicion is allowed because its sole purpose is to ensure the safety of the officer. Only searches intended to gather evidence against a suspect require probable cause.

Since the entire purpose of the Arizona law is to gather evidence against the suspect, the comparison to Terry is invalid.

 

[palehorse]

The Supreme Court answers this question in Terry. A weapons frisk based on reasonable suspicion is allowed because its sole purpose is to ensure the safety of the officer. Only searches intended to gather evidence against a suspect require probable cause.

Since the entire purpose of the Arizona law is to gather evidence against the suspect, the comparison to Terry is invalid.

I believe reasonable suspicion is sufficient for "investigatory stops" as well, is it not?

IMO, asking for proof of ID qualifies as investigatory.

That said, they've changed the AZ law to be more in line with the Prince William County law described in the OP here. So, while it still contains the reasonable suspicion standard, it now specifically requires the stop to be for another reason before any questions about immigrant status can be pursued.

That should pretty much satisfy all but the most die-hard "open-border" nutjobs, right? Right...

 

[palehorse]

dp.

 

[Venix]

I believe reasonable suspicion is sufficient for "investigatory stops" as well, is it not?

IMO, asking for proof of ID qualifies as investigatory.

That said, they've changed the AZ law to be more in line with the Prince William County law described in the OP here. So, while it still contains the reasonable suspicion standard, it now specifically requires the stop to be for another reason before any questions about immigrant status can be pursued.

That should pretty much satisfy all but the most die-hard "open-border" nutjobs, right? Right...

That's preposterous. An "investigatory stop" is intended to prevent a suspect from fleeing or committing a crime while the officer determines whether probable cause exists for an arrest or search. Once again, it is an issue of safety, not of requiring the suspect to furnish evidence against himself.

During a Terry stop, a suspect's only obligation is to not leave; the Supreme Court wrote in Terry that the police may ask questions, but the suspect is "not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest." That's quite contrary to your claim that demanding written ID and arresting someone for failure to present falls under the same reasonable suspicion umbrella as investigatory stops.

Requiring people to carry and present written identification has already been declared Unconstitutional in Kolender v. Lawson. Even in Hiibel--which upheld Nevada's stop and identify statute--the Court took pains to note that verbally providing one's name is all that can be required. Hiibel further notes that providing a name is only allowed because it does not "furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute", which is the entire purpose of the Arizona law.