• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

DOJ: Arizona Immigration Law Must Be 'Struck Down'

R

Ruiz

New Member
Dragoon68 said:
I'm glad you're against the lawsuit but sorry that you're also against the law. This thread, of course, is more about the lawsuit than the law so that's the main perspective of my comments.

Reasonable suspicion - not just a "hunch" - is a principle of law under which a law enforcement officer can investigate further. It may lead to probable cause for an arrest or to an immediate release if there is no probable cause. All of this is covered by by the so-called "Terry Stop" case. The Arizona law is completely Constitutional and follows all the proper principles. The DOJ lawsuit doesn't challenge this point so that's not the basis of it.

When people scream "4th amendment violation" around this lawsuit they are, whether intentionally or not, giving the uninformed the idea that this is what the DOJ lawsuit is about. It's not and it's important that people know the truth.
Click to expand...

Dragoon,

I am not giving uninformed ideas about this lawsuit, my first post on this issue outlined my opposition to both.

I, as well, do not hold to a prior case on this issue as I believe this case law does not apply (I believe there are limits to stare decisis, Plessy v. Ferguson is one area I believe stare decisis should not have been maintained, and was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. As well Roe V. Wade was a poor decision that should not be maintained by stare decisis). Again, until someone can show me in the Constitution where it says "reasonable suspicion", I will agree. Otherwise, I believe it is a violation of my constitutional rights. You can have all the reasonable suspicion you want, but you should not stop me, question me, or keep me unless you have probable cause.
 
D

Dragoon68

Active Member
Mexdeaf said:
Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68).
Click to expand...

You got it! The latter is the so-called "Terry Stop" ruling!
 
D

Dragoon68

Active Member
Ruiz said:
Dragoon,

I am not giving uninformed ideas about this lawsuit, my first post on this issue outlined my opposition to both.

I, as well, do not hold to a prior case on this issue as I believe this case law does not apply (I believe there are limits to stare decisis, Plessy v. Ferguson is one area I believe stare decisis should not have been maintained, and was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. As well Roe V. Wade was a poor decision that should not be maintained by stare decisis). Again, until someone can show me in the Constitution where it says "reasonable suspicion", I will agree. Otherwise, I believe it is a violation of my constitutional rights. You can have all the reasonable suspicion you want, but you should not stop me, question me, or keep me unless you have probable cause.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying and agree with the danger of case law but I think you're wrong about this particular law.

Remember that the term "probable cause" in the 4th amendment is a requirement to obtain a warrant for a search or seizure. This is a different criteria than "reasonable suspicion" required for a traffic stop, for example, where a warrant is not required. In the course of such a stop observations may lead to "probable cause" for further action. A person could be detained or arrested for possession of illegal drugs, carrying an illegal weapon, being recognized as suspect in a robbery, having stolen merchandise in clear view in the back seat of their car, etc. - and being an illegal alien. The probable cause developed after the reasonable suspicion even if not the same as the suspicion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Ruiz

New Member
Dragoon68 said:
I understand what you're saying and agree with the danger of case law but I think you're wrong about this particular law.

Remember that the term "probable cause" in the 4th amendment is a requirement to obtain a warrant for a search or seizure. This is a different criteria than "reasonable suspicion" required for a traffic stop, for example, where a warrant is not required. In the course of such a stop observations may lead to "probable cause" for further action. A person could be detained or arrested for possession of illegal drugs, carrying an illegal weapon, being recognized as suspect in a robbery, having stolen merchandise in clear view in the back seat of their car, etc. - and being an illegal alien.
Click to expand...

The 4th Amendment protects me from all sorts of searches. As well, violation of a traffic law is not even reasonable suspicion, it is clearly the officer witnessing a crime. There is no suspicion about stopping a person when they have broken the law. The issue comes when you only reasonably suspect they have broken the law.
 
D

Dragoon68

Active Member
Ruiz said:
The 4th Amendment protects me from all sorts of searches. As well, violation of a traffic law is not even reasonable suspicion, it is clearly the officer witnessing a crime. There is no suspicion about stopping a person when they have broken the law. The issue comes when you only reasonably suspect they have broken the law.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the reasonable suspicion can, and often does, lead to probable cause. You could, I suppose, rename what's called "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause" as you suggested earlier and then there would be no problem except this is not the customary meaning of the terms.

Many traffic stops are, in fact, based on reasonable suspicion of, let's say, driving under the influence. The probable cause for arrest comes after further investigation.
 
KenH

KenH

Well-Known Member
Revmitchell said:
Not going to give you a pass on this one.
Click to expand...

Surely you know as well as I do that there are conservatives quite willing to ignore the U.S. constitution just as there are liberals quite willing to ignore the U.S constitution if it stands in the way of what they want.
 
D

Dragoon68

Active Member
KenH said:
The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Click to expand...

... but Obama's goal seems to be to turn it into a democracy by gaining the overriding popular vote of every entitlement class possible probably even including illegal aliens.

... and, as a republic, the States have a duty to their citizens that the federal government should, but does not, respect preferring instead to continue the advance towards subsidiary Providences.

... and, is Arizona also a republic?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KenH

KenH

Well-Known Member
If a state decided that the federal government was not doing its job of defending of citizens by not bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would it be appropriate for a state to put together its own air force and bomb Iran?
 
D

Dragoon68

Active Member
KenH said:
If a state decided that the federal government was not doing its job of defending of citizens by not bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would it be appropriate for a state to put together its own air force and bomb Iran?
Click to expand...

This is not even close to being a valid argument as such is specifically prohibited.

Try instead the arrest of a suspected bank robber that is subsequently handed over to federal authorities.
 
T

targus

New Member
KenH said:
If a state decided that the federal government was not doing its job of defending of citizens by not bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would it be appropriate for a state to put together its own air force and bomb Iran?
Click to expand...

Silly comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top