BOP
Well-Known Member
I am ready for the next civil war. I think plinking liberals would be fun.
Boring, maybe. Well, they are slow, stupid, and not very clever.
Blatant Profiling!
- Thread starter kwillia
- Start date
Boring, maybe. Well, they are slow, stupid, and not very clever.
BOP
Well-Known Member
It sounds reasonable, but a) libs aren't real well known for their reasonableness, and b) this is the same administration that has, for the 3rd time, issued a moratorium against offshore drilling, despite a circuit court judge and an appeals court telling them "oh, no you can't."
Tilted
..
I've read a Supreme Court case, U.S. v Brignoni-Ponce (1975), which I find to be interesting with regard to this (Arizona immigration law) issue. I'm not quite sure what to make of it though, as it seems to me that it may cut both ways, and I'm not even sure that it's still valid law. It also lead me to the conclusion that something is missing from the Arizona law.
On the one hand, it would seem to support the use of "Mexican appearance" as "a relevant factor", though not the only factor, in determining that reasonable suspicion exists that someone is an illegal alien - at least in so far as the Constitution might prohibit such use. Additionally, it would seem to support the Constitutionality of a brief investigative seizure based only on reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien.
On the other hand, to my reading, it suggests that anything more than a brief investigative seizure would require probable cause to believe that someone is an illegal alien (or, of course, that they had committed some (other) crime). "The officer may question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, and he may ask them to explain suspicious circumstances, but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause." (This case involved border patrol officers on roving patrol stopping vehicles in the border area, though not actually at the border, based solely on suspicion that they contained illegal aliens. The facts are clearly different from what might present under the Arizona law, but I don't discern any reason to distinguish the situations with regard to this last finding.)
Reading the first section of the Arizona law again, it contains this:
Which leaves the question, what is a LEO required or allowed to do if and when, after having made a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of the person in question, they neither are able to confirm that they are legally present or have probable cause to believe that they aren't? I can't find where the law tells us. Based in part on U.S. v Brignoni-Ponce, I'm inclined to believe that arresting them, merely because an officer hasn't been able to satisfactorily determine their immigration status, would be unConstitutional (per the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments).
Does anyone know, does Arizona law require everyone to carry a valid ID, and are they subject to arrest for failing to do so or to provide it to a LEO when asked? If not, even with this new law, I don't see where LEO's could detain someone that they reasonably suspect to be an illegal alien and who fails to prove otherwise, unless an initial inquiry yields probable cause to believe they are. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are quite different standards.
On the one hand, it would seem to support the use of "Mexican appearance" as "a relevant factor", though not the only factor, in determining that reasonable suspicion exists that someone is an illegal alien - at least in so far as the Constitution might prohibit such use. Additionally, it would seem to support the Constitutionality of a brief investigative seizure based only on reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien.
On the other hand, to my reading, it suggests that anything more than a brief investigative seizure would require probable cause to believe that someone is an illegal alien (or, of course, that they had committed some (other) crime). "The officer may question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, and he may ask them to explain suspicious circumstances, but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause." (This case involved border patrol officers on roving patrol stopping vehicles in the border area, though not actually at the border, based solely on suspicion that they contained illegal aliens. The facts are clearly different from what might present under the Arizona law, but I don't discern any reason to distinguish the situations with regard to this last finding.)
Reading the first section of the Arizona law again, it contains this:
Which leaves the question, what is a LEO required or allowed to do if and when, after having made a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of the person in question, they neither are able to confirm that they are legally present or have probable cause to believe that they aren't? I can't find where the law tells us. Based in part on U.S. v Brignoni-Ponce, I'm inclined to believe that arresting them, merely because an officer hasn't been able to satisfactorily determine their immigration status, would be unConstitutional (per the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments).
Does anyone know, does Arizona law require everyone to carry a valid ID, and are they subject to arrest for failing to do so or to provide it to a LEO when asked? If not, even with this new law, I don't see where LEO's could detain someone that they reasonably suspect to be an illegal alien and who fails to prove otherwise, unless an initial inquiry yields probable cause to believe they are. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are quite different standards.
Tilted
..
Have there been 3 moratoriums issued or 2? I may have missed one, but I only recall 2.
More importantly though, the most recent moratorium wasn't issued despite the Administration being told 'oh, no you can't' issue a moratorium. The Administration was told that the moratorium it had issued was being enjoined, but that decision was based on the specifics of that moratorium. The district court judge found that its immense scope wasn't sufficiently connected with the findings of the Secretary's Report, in specific, and the safety concerns expressed, in general. It wasn't that the Administration didn't have the authority to issue a moratorium, it was that it couldn't issue the one it did issue (i.e. based on the details of it).
If anything, the judge's opinion was inviting, not prohibiting, a more narrowly tailored action. Whether the latest moratorium is sufficiently narrow, or otherwise sufficiently supported by new information or findings, is another question. I have no idea of the answer. But, the Administration's issuance of a new moratorium is not, per se, defiance of the judge's previous order.
Tilted
..
Arizona Immigration Law: Phoenix Cop David Salgado Sues Over Racial Profiling Concerns - WSJ.com
EDIT: BTW, I think this lawsuit is probably on flimsy ground.
EDIT: BTW, I think this lawsuit is probably on flimsy ground.
Last edited:
foodcritic
New Member
I dont see how he has legal standing. His claim about being sued is a legitimate one however he could potentially be sued for any arrest he makes or law he does not enforce.
gary_webb
Damned glad to meet you
TurboK9
New Member
That's stupid. If he racially profiles he's breaking the law, thus not enforcing it to the fullest extent, so he can't be sued for NOT racially profiling. This is NOT a lawsuit over the AZ law, it's a lawsuit over profiling. Nobody is telling the man to profile as part of his job, in fact, the enforcement of law requires that he NOT profile.
It's a bull#### lawsuit by a crappy cop who sees potential CHA-CHING what with all the hubbub.
IMHO.