Arizona Immigration Bill - What is objectionable

He agrees with you. Very important to provide your papers and documents at all times.

 

Yes, one can lead to the other. However, in no state is failure to prove identity sufficient to establish probable cause. At best, failure to prove identity can be considered as one link in the chain used to show probable cause. In short, in no state can simple failure to produce ID lead to one's arrest. As always, burden of proof lies with the LEO, not the citizen. The citizens is NEVER required to prove identity to a LEO except when they have agreed to do so before the fact.

Absolutely agreed. Asking for ID is perfectly fine. Asking a person to identify themselves when reasonable suspicion exists is perfectly fine. Punishing those who refuse to cooperate in those simple things or those who give false info is perfectly fine. Detaining them in the process is fine. Requiring by law the a person must be able to prove their identity or citizenship or else face arrest is not. At that point liberty is being infringed.

I agree. I have been anything but hysterical about this law. I merely have concerns about the potential of this law. I recognize that they may never be realized. So, please don't confuse my concerns with other people's hysteria.

Agreed and understood. I am not talking about mere investigation. No problem there. Its what is required for an arrest which is of concern.

Agreed. In fact, many states require by law that a person identify themselves in cases of reasonable suspicion. However, in no state is failure to *prove* ones identity grounds for arrest. If a police asks for ID there are no legal consequences for failing to provide it. The police can't arrest you for failing to do so - at best, they can detain you while they attempt to establish your identity by some other means.

I have read up on them. Am I condensing a lot of the complexities? Yes. But as far as I can tell I am doing so with accuracy. Please explain where I am being inaccurate about stop and identify laws.

More accurately, the mistaken arrest is a false arrest. There is no legal distinction between the two. However, LEOs are protected from being prosecuted for false arrests as long as they follow whatever procedure is established by law. The procedures are established to protect people from mistaken/false arrests and thus the burden of proof remains with the LEO - they just get some extra protection if they stick with established procedure.

 

Ok I can agree with that.

 

Citizens of the US are not required by law to carry ID, so no, police cannot arrest a citizen for failing to show it upon request. Aliens however are required to carry documentation that they are legally in country, and they can be arrested if they don't.

Granted, it is a tricky situation. Our laws and society are not set up to deal with this type of thing very well. But Arizona and other states that are being swamped with illegals are grasping for whatever legal tools they can use. There's maybe no magic bullet, but when the feds refuse to act, when the present administration cuts back funding for the fence and border patrol (which they have done) then this is what happens.

 

Right. No problems there. However, how can a police know if a person they stop is an illegal? They ask them if them whether they are citizens or not and the person replies in the affirmative. But how can the officer know if he got the truth or not? After all, the person may be citizen and telling the truth or they may be an alien who is lying (either because they are illegal or because they are legal but don't have their documents with them).

The concern I have is over how the LEO goes about establishing what the truth of the matter is. As the law stands now, it seems that there is the possibility that failure to *prove* you are telling the truth could result in arrest. The law isn't clear enough on what can be done when a "reasonable attempt" fails to establish whether a person is legal or not.

So, for instance, if a LEO asks the person under suspicion for ID or some proof of citizenship but person doesn't have any on hand (or claims they don't), and a computer search still leaves the LEO in doubt as to the status of the person's citizenship (ie. there is no clear info showing whether they are or are not citizens), then what happens? It seems that the vagueness of the law on this matter might leave open violations of civil liberties.

 

Reasonable Contact and Probable Cause and Legal Contact are Federal issues and Federally established and mandated laws. The States do not have the authority to water them down. Again, ThinkingStuff, educate yourself. An LEO is not legally authorized to interrogate an hispanic person who is simply existing in a white neighborhood. That has civil rights violation written all over it and every department in the United States of America trains their officers to not do that if for nothing but to avoid the huge financial civil liability associated with that kind of police work.

 

I did educate myself on those terms and I expressed them as they are expressed in law. And violations of civil law happens all the time. The question is about recourse. However, if a Leo is able to articulate the report in such a way as to be favorable the violation is allowed. Look its not just Me who is having a problem. 1/2 of LEOs are debating how to implement this ridiculous provision.

Also note now Arizona is ready to prevent electricity to LA because of their boycott. I half hope they do because it would force a federal resolution.

However, if you are comfortable living in a country that has road blocks every 20 kilometers where you are constantly asked to provide your papers then thats your affair. I on the other hand stand for liberty.

 

Thinking, your paranoia is striking. I strongly, strongly urge you to spend a significant amount of time on rides-along with your local agency. You will see that your fears are flatly unfounded. Road blocks every 20 miles? Will never, never, never happen. It won't happen because local law enforcement does not have the staffing to enable such an endeavor, and neither do the Feds. Same with a gun ban in this country. That I 100% guarantee will never, never happen because the burden to enforce it would fall to local LEO's and, frankly, local LEO's would not enforce it on principle.

 

Targus is right I was using Hyperbole. I being a bit facetious to prove a point. I don't like rights being taken way in favor of security. I've lived in countries where there were road blocks every 20 kilometers. I've had a drunk soldier stick an AK-47 to my head while his friend look at my identification documents. I'm certain he couldn't read so he had to go by the picture. I was 16 when that happened left an impression. I was 17 when I was shot at because we had diplomatic plates on the car. I've seen police ask for money from stopped cars and people dieing in the streets. I see the United States as the last bastion of freedom and any law which passes limiting our freedoms I have a problem. I think we should never have passed the HLS legislation. And I don't like where race relations in this country is going especially with the hispanic community. I see a lot of hypocracy and thing other things can be done.

 

Agreed other things can be done. We can start by bringing our troops home and securing our 4 borders much like the DMZ in Korea. This would provide absolute border security. From there we can then begin managing a guest worker and immigration program to provide for our needs in those areas. It's frighteningly simple. As far as all the illegals currently in our country: that's a very difficult subject. I lean towards simply giving them citizenship if they qualify and moving on with life.

 

The longer thinkingstuff posts here, the more anti-law enforcement the posts become.

A few weeks/months from now, TS will be convinced that law enforcement is the enemy.

 

Targus, I agree in principle. Practically, there is such a vast amount of them here, though, that to attempt to manage them in such a manner would be probably impossible for a Federal government that frankly can't get much right at all other than providing for our national defense, which they are very, very good at. Because of this, I have the opinion to just let those already here start from scratch and get going with their lives.

 

No, I'm in favor of a disciplined police force that has proper oversight. So far our country is there. But I would hate for legisltation to be passed that limits our freedom and give us a police state. This is dangerous territory.

 

I see your point but I believe in a "poison pill" solution to it. Businesses that use this solution make so that a hostile will have no desire to take over the buisiness. I believe we should do this with the illegals primarily by taking on those who hire them, shelter them, etc... If they cannot get work and earn an income here then there is no reason for them to be here.

 

Thinking, agree with the idea. However, to do so abruptly would throw our economy into a tailspin due to lack of cheap labor.

 

Thinking, there is also a major, major difference between the police structure of the U.S. and frankly almost every other nation in the world. In most countries, the police force is largely federal. Thus, the crackdown of citizens as a whole is empowered and enforced strictly at the federal level. This country is wholly and completely different, in that the vast, vast majority of police work is done at and by the local municiplaties, who can and will buck Federal edict if need be in some cases. Much like my contention that there will never, never be a crackdown and removal of guns from Americans. Similarly, due to most of law enf. being at the local level, I am quite confident there will never be a Police State kind of atmosphere in this country.