Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

[delusional]

Pull up outside a home depot and you can pretty much spot whose who

 

[Twilight]

...and this was from a 2004 study:

Arizonans fork out nearly $1.3 billion annually to pay for all of the costs incurred from illegal immigration; around $810 million for education, $400 million for health care related expenses, $80 million in incarceration costs, and the remainder in welfare benefits. All of this is required while Arizona runs a $500 million deficit annually.

Your earlier question on how it solves their problem remains to be seen. However, a logical assumption is that if AZ really cracks down, they'll see illegals proactively move on to other states which have a more "illegal friendly" reputation. For AZ, it isn't just about kicking out the ones they bust. It's about stopping new ones from entering and scaring off old ones without any intervention at all. Since AZ only cares about themselves, I can certainly see how it would benefit them to have a lower illegal immigration population.

The problem with a study like this is it doesn't address how much money those same illegals put INTO the system. Even if they dodge the Federal and State Income tax, they still pay plenty in Sales taxes, for example. Instead, this study just tries to make out the Illegals as a scapegoat for the bad economy. As if getting rid of the illegals will suddenly make the state solvent again.

 

[perry147]

This was all covered in a 1980's documentary called "Born in East L.A"

Great underrated song.

 

[bigbottom]

...and this was from a 2004 study:

Arizonans fork out nearly $1.3 billion annually to pay for all of the costs incurred from illegal immigration; around $810 million for education, $400 million for health care related expenses, $80 million in incarceration costs, and the remainder in welfare benefits. All of this is required while Arizona runs a $500 million deficit annually.

Your earlier question on how it solves their problem remains to be seen. However, a logical assumption is that if AZ really cracks down, they'll see illegals proactively move on to other states which have a more "illegal friendly" reputation. For AZ, it isn't just about kicking out the ones they bust. It's about stopping new ones from entering and scaring off old ones without any intervention at all. Since AZ only cares about themselves, I can certainly see how it would benefit them to have a lower illegal immigration population.

The problem with a study like this is it doesn't address how much money those same illegals put INTO the system. Even if they dodge the Federal and State Income tax, they still pay plenty in Sales taxes, for example. Instead, this study just tries to make out the Illegals as a scapegoat for the bad economy. As if getting rid of the illegals will suddenly make the state solvent again.

It's also possible that many illegals pay more than their share of federal and state income tax.

 

[videoguy505]

Sorry, videoguy, I was gone for a while, so let me try to address your point, which you have made several times:

You have argued that those of us opposed to this law are making assumptions about what "reasonable suspicion" entails when the law itself does no such thing. As an analogy, you point out that police officers already stop people all the time when they are "reasonably suspicious" of a crime having occurred, and you implication seems to be we should trust the police to do this wisely. Finally, you also point out that the law explicitly states that racial profiling shall NOT be used as a form of determining illegal immigrant. (Hope I have summarized your arguments correctly.)

Here are my problems with your argument:

1. If being an illegal alien is a crime, it is a crime of status not of action. Police are normally concerned with people who are in the process of performing a crime, or whom they suspect have performed a crime. This law, therefore, cannot be compared to other examples of "reasonable suspicion".

2. You're correct that the law does not explain how a policeman is supposed to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal immigrant. The argument that I and other opponents are making is this: there is no way to be "reasonably suspicious" that someone is an illegal alien without racial profiling of Latinos. Therefore, despite the fact that the law explicity prohibits racial profiling, it is inevitable that it will take place anyhow. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

Although I am no lawyer, it is my understanding that to be unconstitutional a law needn't explicitly call for a violation of the Constitution; it need only create, through its enforcement, a probable result which will be unconstitutional.

Thanks Tim, I think that's part of what I was saying in a nutshell (although I don't implicitly trust police to do so wisely, as I've raised much earlier in the thread, I do have concerns about how much power police would have to detain solely for an immigration check. Still haven't heard from a lawyerguy as to what the limits are).

1) Having entered the country illegally is a crime performed in the past I personally feel should be investigated and offenders prosecuted. Whether or not it was a day, a year, or a decade ago. I'll agree that "reasonable suspicion" is weak, but, I don't see any way around it that's consistent with existing rules on Terry Stops. A crime is a crime and with the state removing an LEO's ability of discretion, I don't see a way around it. I would just expect a rational standard on "reasonable suspicion", more than just physical appearance, clothing, language used, etc. More than just behavioral, but based on some sort of reasonably trustworthy evidence (tip from employer, overheard plans of sneaking people in, confession to alien status, etc).

2) If there are sufficient constraints on "reasonable suspicion", racial profiling could be avoided. Not that I believe racial profiling is unconstitutional. But whatever standard of "reasonable suspicion" is used, it should be strong enough that it could distinguish between two similar people, but one is an illegal alien. Be it from Mexico, Canada, Germany, or South Africa. Some kind of "giveaway" that would be equal across all races, languages, colors, etc. Like I said, a tip from an employer, documentation uncovered during an investigation, etc.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

...and this was from a 2004 study:

Arizonans fork out nearly $1.3 billion annually to pay for all of the costs incurred from illegal immigration; around $810 million for education, $400 million for health care related expenses, $80 million in incarceration costs, and the remainder in welfare benefits. All of this is required while Arizona runs a $500 million deficit annually.

Your earlier question on how it solves their problem remains to be seen. However, a logical assumption is that if AZ really cracks down, they'll see illegals proactively move on to other states which have a more "illegal friendly" reputation. For AZ, it isn't just about kicking out the ones they bust. It's about stopping new ones from entering and scaring off old ones without any intervention at all. Since AZ only cares about themselves, I can certainly see how it would benefit them to have a lower illegal immigration population.

The problem with a study like this is it doesn't address how much money those same illegals put INTO the system.

With a statement like this, I'd expect you to link to a competing study.

 

[whoknew]

1. I'm certain that people far more qualified than me will come up with a system that doesn't discriminate based on skin color etc.,

How? The whole point of this law is to curtail illegal immigration from Mexico. Cops are not going to be stopping white people to find out if they snuck in from Australia. It's not possible to enforce this law without targeting hispanics.

Right, as it would likely be one of that factors taken in totality for the basis of the stop. My guess is that Arizona judges will permit the stops so long as the arresting officer has one other non-race based fact suggesting he may be illegal - like riding in the back of a truck or something.

 

[Zow]

C) Arizonans care about the escalating violent crimes that are committed in their state by non-Americans...you may not care in Minnesota, but we have a real problem down here and our law enforcement requires measures to combat the problem. If the Federal govt. isn't going to do anything, we have to.

I live in Denver. Huge immigrant population. Big time gang problem with Mexicans. This bill sucks.

Denver doesn't have our problems...not even close. We're a border state.

Haven't seen any problems in Kingman, but that's probably because the racist whites chase out any minority within a few weeks of their arrival.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Some kind of "giveaway" that would be equal across all races, languages, colors, etc. Like I said, a tip from an employer, documentation uncovered during an investigation, etc.

What about if the illegal is a just a crime witness or even a victim? Should the cops be asking for documentation when a Mexican-looking rape victim comes into the station looking for help?

 

[Zow]

1. I'm certain that people far more qualified than me will come up with a system that doesn't discriminate based on skin color etc.,

How? The whole point of this law is to curtail illegal immigration from Mexico. Cops are not going to be stopping white people to find out if they snuck in from Australia. It's not possible to enforce this law without targeting hispanics.

Right, as it would likely be one of that factors taken in totality for the basis of the stop. My guess is that Arizona judges will permit the stops so long as the arresting officer has one other non-race based fact suggesting he may be illegal - like riding in the back of a truck or something.

"Through my training and experience, illegal aliens tend to often ride at high-rates in the back of trucks as that is how they are transported to work."I wish I was joking.

 

[Ray Stevens]

I would just expect a rational standard on "reasonable suspicion", more than just physical appearance, clothing, language used, etc. More than just behavioral, but based on some sort of reasonably trustworthy evidence (tip from employer, overheard plans of sneaking people in, confession to alien status, etc).

Yep, that's reasonable alright. Someone send the cops an anonymous email telling them the LHUCKS is illegal.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Some kind of "giveaway" that would be equal across all races, languages, colors, etc. Like I said, a tip from an employer, documentation uncovered during an investigation, etc.

What about if the illegal is a just a crime witness or even a victim? Should the cops be asking for documentation when a Mexican-looking rape victim comes into the station looking for help?

Ooooh. Nice one.I love you fatguy.

 

[H.K.]

...and this was from a 2004 study:

Arizonans fork out nearly $1.3 billion annually to pay for all of the costs incurred from illegal immigration; around $810 million for education, $400 million for health care related expenses, $80 million in incarceration costs, and the remainder in welfare benefits. All of this is required while Arizona runs a $500 million deficit annually.

Your earlier question on how it solves their problem remains to be seen. However, a logical assumption is that if AZ really cracks down, they'll see illegals proactively move on to other states which have a more "illegal friendly" reputation. For AZ, it isn't just about kicking out the ones they bust. It's about stopping new ones from entering and scaring off old ones without any intervention at all. Since AZ only cares about themselves, I can certainly see how it would benefit them to have a lower illegal immigration population.

The problem with a study like this is it doesn't address how much money those same illegals put INTO the system. Even if they dodge the Federal and State Income tax, they still pay plenty in Sales taxes, for example. Instead, this study just tries to make out the Illegals as a scapegoat for the bad economy. As if getting rid of the illegals will suddenly make the state solvent again.

Looks like it was considered, while additional expenses were left out.

The $1.3 billion in costs incurred by Arizona taxpayers is comprised of outlays in the following areas:

Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in Arizona and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Arizonans spend approximately $820 million annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings.

Health Care. Uncom-pensated medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population is now estimated at about $400 million a year.

Incarceration. The cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Arizona prisons and jails amounts to about $80 million a year (not including the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration).

The unauthorized immigrant population pays some state and local taxes that go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments might generously be estimated at $257 million per year.

The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost items. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other costs such as special English instruction, school nutrition programs, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were added into the equation.

 

[videoguy505]

In Arizona reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts going beyond mere hunch or racial profiling when taken in totality suggest that criminal activity is afoot and officers are permitted to do a brief stop on the suspect. It's not a high standard, but it's a standard that is worth litigating in a decent number of cases.

OK, this is what I'm getting at. I've asked it before, how brief can the "brief stop" be? It seems to me that "probable cause" is needed for an actual arrest, correct? So a cop can make a "brief stop" but, under the state's Stop and Identify law, a person only has to give up their real name. Presumably, then for the LEO "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person". Can the person who is stopped be held until the results of that check come in? If it's 30 minutes, an hour, a day? I would think not, but I'm not a lawyerguy.

 

[Zow]

Some kind of "giveaway" that would be equal across all races, languages, colors, etc. Like I said, a tip from an employer, documentation uncovered during an investigation, etc.

What about if the illegal is a just a crime witness or even a victim? Should the cops be asking for documentation when a Mexican-looking rape victim comes into the station looking for help?

I suppose under the law they would still need reasonable suspicion. I'm curious to see if a judge will find reasonable suspicion in situations where officers casually ask for ID in non-custodial situations and the Mexican-skinned person refuses to speak with the officer.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Has anyone started complaining about the increase of graffiti... in Spanish?

 

[Two Deep]

I for one bow to our State and Federal Overlords. Pass any law you have to to clean up this stinking cess pool of crime that is getting worse with each and every passing day. Political correctness solves nothing. Do what makes sense, if most illegals are hispanic then, profile them. If the majority of drug dealers are black, profile them. If whites commit the majority of white collar crimes, profile them, If middle eastern people are more prone to blowing stuff up, profile them.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I think we can all agree that removing illegals is at this point the best option.

I'm real confident that we won't all agree to that. Personally, I don't really care if people sneak into the US illegally in search of work and I have very little interest in kicking them out. Second, I definitely don't think that removing them is the best option if "removing them" requires passing a law that's going to result in the widespread harassments of latinos, including natural-born US citizens.

 

[RBM]

I for one bow to our State and Federal Overlords. Pass any law you have to to clean up this stinking cess pool of crime that is getting worse with each and every passing day. Political correctness solves nothing. Do what makes sense, if most illegals are hispanic then, profile them. If the majority of drug dealers are black, profile them. If whites commit the majority of white collar crimes, profile them, If middle eastern people are more prone to blowing stuff up, profile them.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Some kind of "giveaway" that would be equal across all races, languages, colors, etc. Like I said, a tip from an employer, documentation uncovered during an investigation, etc.

What about if the illegal is a just a crime witness or even a victim? Should the cops be asking for documentation when a Mexican-looking rape victim comes into the station looking for help?

I suppose under the law they would still need reasonable suspicion. I'm curious to see if a judge will find reasonable suspicion in situations where officers casually ask for ID in non-custodial situations and the Mexican-skinned person refuses to speak with the officer.

Bigbottom asked that same question to videoguy (twice) and was ignored.

If a cop has reasonable suspicion to believe someone is here illegally, and when stopped and asked to produce documentation proving legal residence the person fails to do so, wouldn't you pretty much have probable cause at that point?

 

[perry147]

I for one bow to our State and Federal Overlords. Pass any law you have to to clean up this stinking cess pool of crime that is getting worse with each and every passing day. Political correctness solves nothing. Do what makes sense, if most illegals are hispanic then, profile them. If the majority of drug dealers are black, profile them. If whites commit the majority of white collar crimes, profile them, If middle eastern people are more prone to blowing stuff up, profile them.

If White Christians have more child abuse cases profile them, if men have the most rape convictions then profile them.....

 

[Zow]

In Arizona reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts going beyond mere hunch or racial profiling when taken in totality suggest that criminal activity is afoot and officers are permitted to do a brief stop on the suspect. It's not a high standard, but it's a standard that is worth litigating in a decent number of cases.

OK, this is what I'm getting at. I've asked it before, how brief can the "brief stop" be? It seems to me that "probable cause" is needed for an actual arrest, correct? So a cop can make a "brief stop" but, under the state's Stop and Identify law, a person only has to give up their real name. Presumably, then for the LEO "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person". Can the person who is stopped be held until the results of that check come in? If it's 30 minutes, an hour, a day? I would think not, but I'm not a lawyerguy.

Totally depends on the reason for the stop. Generally, an officer can ask questions regarding his suspicion/purpose for stopping and may be able to frisk/pat down the person for weapons. Generally the stop should be limited to efficiently investigating things within the scope of the stop. In a dog-sniff cases, one of the most litigated Terry-type investigations, defendants have been held over an hour and courts have found that delay to be reasonable. It really it a fact-specific issue.

 

[Twilight]

...and this was from a 2004 study:

Arizonans fork out nearly $1.3 billion annually to pay for all of the costs incurred from illegal immigration; around $810 million for education, $400 million for health care related expenses, $80 million in incarceration costs, and the remainder in welfare benefits. All of this is required while Arizona runs a $500 million deficit annually.

Your earlier question on how it solves their problem remains to be seen. However, a logical assumption is that if AZ really cracks down, they'll see illegals proactively move on to other states which have a more "illegal friendly" reputation. For AZ, it isn't just about kicking out the ones they bust. It's about stopping new ones from entering and scaring off old ones without any intervention at all. Since AZ only cares about themselves, I can certainly see how it would benefit them to have a lower illegal immigration population.

The problem with a study like this is it doesn't address how much money those same illegals put INTO the system.

With a statement like this, I'd expect you to link to a competing study.

I'm sure they are out there, but I'm not invested enough in this argument to search. That's also why I didn't try to assert that they put in more or less than the $1.3B. I'd guess it's more in the long run, but I can't be sure.

It's also possible that many illegals pay more than their share of federal and state income tax.

They definitely pay some, but it depends. From working in the restaurant industry for a while, I know that generally when they fill out their W-2 (with fake SS#s), they will claim 6 dependents to minimize federal and state taxes being taken out. But they do pay into Social Security, and any taxes that were taken out probably won't be returned to them via a Tax Return refund at the end of the year.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Has anyone started complaining about the increase of graffiti... in Spanish?

"Mine the borders!"

 

[Zow]

Some kind of "giveaway" that would be equal across all races, languages, colors, etc. Like I said, a tip from an employer, documentation uncovered during an investigation, etc.

What about if the illegal is a just a crime witness or even a victim? Should the cops be asking for documentation when a Mexican-looking rape victim comes into the station looking for help?

I suppose under the law they would still need reasonable suspicion. I'm curious to see if a judge will find reasonable suspicion in situations where officers casually ask for ID in non-custodial situations and the Mexican-skinned person refuses to speak with the officer.

Bigbottom asked that same question to videoguy (twice) and was ignored.

If a cop has reasonable suspicion to believe someone is here illegally, and when stopped and asked to produce documentation proving legal residence the person fails to do so, wouldn't you pretty much have probable cause at that point?

Well as far as I know videoguy isn't John Roberts so I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to know this answer for sure, but based on my experiences with Arizona judges they will find PC as bigbottom suggested. But obviously it hasn't been litigated which is why I'm curious to see how it turns out - or litigate it myself.

 

[Two Deep]

I for one bow to our State and Federal Overlords. Pass any law you have to to clean up this stinking cess pool of crime that is getting worse with each and every passing day. Political correctness solves nothing. Do what makes sense, if most illegals are hispanic then, profile them. If the majority of drug dealers are black, profile them. If whites commit the majority of white collar crimes, profile them, If middle eastern people are more prone to blowing stuff up, profile them.

If White Christians have more child abuse cases profile them, if men have the most rape convictions then profile them.....

Yes! now you get it. Problems solved.

 

[Gambino]

So there are folks arguing that this effort isn't based (at least on some level) on the skin color of these illegals.

Really?

 

[Two Deep]

So there are folks arguing that this effort isn't based (at least on some level) on the skin color of these illegals.

Really?

No, we don't care. Again most illegal's are hispanic, hispanics are darker skinned. If said police see darker skinned person, pull them over and check them out. If they are legal, have a nice day, if they are illegal arrest them. Pretty simple.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Well as far as I know videoguy isn't John Roberts so I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to know this answer for sure, but based on my experiences with Arizona judges they will find PC as bigbottom suggested. But obviously it hasn't been litigated which is why I'm curious to see how it turns out - or litigate it myself.

A better question would be, how could it NOT be considered probable cause?"Let me see your documentation."

"No."

"Well okey dokey. Have a good day."

 

[TobiasFunke]

I for one bow to our State and Federal Overlords. Pass any law you have to to clean up this stinking cess pool of crime that is getting worse with each and every passing day. Political correctness solves nothing. Do what makes sense, if most illegals are hispanic then, profile them. If the majority of drug dealers are black, profile them. If whites commit the majority of white collar crimes, profile them, If middle eastern people are more prone to blowing stuff up, profile them.

If White Christians have more child abuse cases profile them, if men have the most rape convictions then profile them.....

I've been pleading with the authorities for years to increase security measures on Christian men with conservative political views. The White Christian Conservative is an absolute menace, and must be dealt with accordingly.

 

[videoguy505]

Bigbottom asked that same question to videoguy (twice) and was ignored.

If a cop has reasonable suspicion to believe someone is here illegally, and when stopped and asked to produce documentation proving legal residence the person fails to do so, wouldn't you pretty much have probable cause at that point?

Well as far as I know videoguy isn't John Roberts so I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to know this answer for sure, but based on my experiences with Arizona judges they will find PC as bigbottom suggested. But obviously it hasn't been litigated which is why I'm curious to see how it turns out - or litigate it myself.

Shows what I know. Sorry ray, I thought I answered this before about refusing a search is generally not probable cause to justify same search (if a cop asks to look in your car, and you say no, that can't be used as PC to justify a search of a car). But Woz disagrees. I'm not a lawyer, I guess it's possible that Woz knows more about AZ law than I do.

 

[Card Trader]

So there are folks arguing that this effort isn't based (at least on some level) on the skin color of these illegals.

Really?

No, we don't care. Again most illegal's are hispanic, hispanics are darker skinned. If said police see darker skinned person, pull them over and check them out. If they are legal, have a nice day, if they are illegal arrest them. Pretty simple.

Come on now, that's ridiculous. That might inconvenience someone and take 2 precious minutes out of their day.

 

[videoguy505]

Well as far as I know videoguy isn't John Roberts so I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to know this answer for sure, but based on my experiences with Arizona judges they will find PC as bigbottom suggested. But obviously it hasn't been litigated which is why I'm curious to see how it turns out - or litigate it myself.

A better question would be, how could it NOT be considered probable cause?"Let me see your documentation."

"No."

"Well okey dokey. Have a good day."

See my post above, this is how it already works with traffic stops IIRC. Same with DUI, no? A person's refusing to consent to a voluntary roadside test just deprives the officer of further evidence to form probable cause, refusal can't be used to justify a further intrusion as it's own probable cause. But I could be totally backwards on my understanding of that.

 

[urbanhack]

I for one bow to our State and Federal Overlords. Pass any law you have to to clean up this stinking cess pool of crime that is getting worse with each and every passing day. Political correctness solves nothing. Do what makes sense, if most illegals are hispanic then, profile them. If the majority of drug dealers are black, profile them. If whites commit the majority of white collar crimes, profile them, If middle eastern people are more prone to blowing stuff up, profile them.

If White Christians have more child abuse cases profile them, if men have the most rape convictions then profile them.....

I've been pleading with the authorities for years to increase security measures on Christian men with conservative political views. The White Christian Conservative is an absolute menace, and must be dealt with accordingly.

don't forget about all the child molesting.

 

[Gambino]

So there are folks arguing that this effort isn't based (at least on some level) on the skin color of these illegals.

Really?

No, we don't care. Again most illegal's are hispanic, hispanics are darker skinned. If said police see darker skinned person, pull them over and check them out. If they are legal, have a nice day, if they are illegal arrest them. Pretty simple.

Come on now, that's ridiculous. That might inconvenience someone and take 2 precious minutes out of their day.

The fact that you guys think that scenario is OK is troubling.To deny skin color isn't a driver of this, to some extent, just isn't being honest.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I for one bow to our State and Federal Overlords. Pass any law you have to to clean up this stinking cess pool of crime that is getting worse with each and every passing day. Political correctness solves nothing. Do what makes sense, if most illegals are hispanic then, profile them. If the majority of drug dealers are black, profile them. If whites commit the majority of white collar crimes, profile them, If middle eastern people are more prone to blowing stuff up, profile them.

Actually, crime overall is the lowest it's been since the early 70's.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

The year 2005 was overall the safest year in the past thirty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased over 42% between its record high point in 1991

 

[Zow]

Bigbottom asked that same question to videoguy (twice) and was ignored.

If a cop has reasonable suspicion to believe someone is here illegally, and when stopped and asked to produce documentation proving legal residence the person fails to do so, wouldn't you pretty much have probable cause at that point?

Well as far as I know videoguy isn't John Roberts so I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to know this answer for sure, but based on my experiences with Arizona judges they will find PC as bigbottom suggested. But obviously it hasn't been litigated which is why I'm curious to see how it turns out - or litigate it myself.

Shows what I know. Sorry ray, I thought I answered this before about refusing a search is generally not probable cause to justify same search (if a cop asks to look in your car, and you say no, that can't be used as PC to justify a search of a car). But Woz disagrees. I'm not a lawyer, I guess it's possible that Woz knows more about AZ law than I do.

Actually if I were the judge I would side with you, but my guess is Arizona judges won't/wouldn't. Nonetheless, your car analogy isn't quite accurate because asking for an ID isn't generally protected by the 4th Amendment whereas a search of a car is. However, you have a good point because it is not unlawful to ignore and walk away from a cop in a non-custodial situation which is why I would side with you if I were a judge. I could just see doing so being one of the articulable facts taken in totality the officer/prosecutor to go with to show either reasonable suspicion or PC.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Well as far as I know videoguy isn't John Roberts so I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to know this answer for sure, but based on my experiences with Arizona judges they will find PC as bigbottom suggested. But obviously it hasn't been litigated which is why I'm curious to see how it turns out - or litigate it myself.

A better question would be, how could it NOT be considered probable cause?"Let me see your documentation."

"No."

"Well okey dokey. Have a good day."

See my post above, this is how it already works with traffic stops IIRC. Same with DUI, no? A person's refusing to consent to a voluntary roadside test just deprives the officer of further evidence to form probable cause, refusal can't be used to justify a further intrusion as it's own probable cause. But I could be totally backwards on my understanding of that.

That's because if you're stopped for speeding, the contents of you trunk are not necessarily related to how fast your happen to be driving. So you can refuse the search. If you're stopped for being a suspicious Mexican, your documentation is central to you innocence or guilt.And also, if you refuse the DUI test, you get arrested anyway.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm not sure how important all this "what constitutes probable cause" discussion actually is. As a practical matter, the importance of having probable cause in most situations involves the exclusionary rule. If the cops search your car for drugs without probable cause, then any drugs that they actually find can't be used against you in a future prosecution for a drug charge.

How does that apply to the illegal immigrant situation? Let's say they arrest you without probable cause. Then they discover you're here illegally. What happens then? Won't they still have to turn you over to the feds? And even if they release you, now they know you're here illegally, so won't they just arrest you again? It's not like a drug case where you can avoid getting arrested again by not having drugs anymore.

 

[Zow]

Well as far as I know videoguy isn't John Roberts so I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to know this answer for sure, but based on my experiences with Arizona judges they will find PC as bigbottom suggested. But obviously it hasn't been litigated which is why I'm curious to see how it turns out - or litigate it myself.

A better question would be, how could it NOT be considered probable cause?"Let me see your documentation."

"No."

"Well okey dokey. Have a good day."

See my post above, this is how it already works with traffic stops IIRC. Same with DUI, no? A person's refusing to consent to a voluntary roadside test just deprives the officer of further evidence to form probable cause, refusal can't be used to justify a further intrusion as it's own probable cause. But I could be totally backwards on my understanding of that.

Again, you're generally right (which is why most states take licenses for refusals to do breath samples in DUIs to dissuade people from doing just as you suggested), but identification is something which is generally not considered protected by the 4th amendment search protection and the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. I have had one situation where I advised a client to take the 5th on identifying himself in court and it was upheld fine by the judge.

 

[Gambino]

What happens to someone that is found to be here illegally?

Do they have to serve jail-time or do they just get sent back to their home country?

 

[Zow]

I'm not sure how important all this "what constitutes probable cause" discussion actually is. As a practical matter, the importance of having probable cause in most situations involves the exclusionary rule. If the cops search your car for drugs without probable cause, then any drugs that they actually find can't be used against you in a future prosecution for a drug charge.How does that apply to the illegal immigrant situation? Let's say they arrest you without probable cause. Then they discover you're here illegally. What happens then? Won't they still have to turn you over to the feds? And even if they release you, now they know you're here illegally, so won't they just arrest you again? It's not like a drug case where you can avoid getting arrested again by not having drugs anymore.

And they'll get a public pretender like me just telling them to take a deal so they aren't sitting in jail too long while they wait for ICE.

 

[Zow]

Well as far as I know videoguy isn't John Roberts so I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to know this answer for sure, but based on my experiences with Arizona judges they will find PC as bigbottom suggested. But obviously it hasn't been litigated which is why I'm curious to see how it turns out - or litigate it myself.

A better question would be, how could it NOT be considered probable cause?"Let me see your documentation."

"No."

"Well okey dokey. Have a good day."

See my post above, this is how it already works with traffic stops IIRC. Same with DUI, no? A person's refusing to consent to a voluntary roadside test just deprives the officer of further evidence to form probable cause, refusal can't be used to justify a further intrusion as it's own probable cause. But I could be totally backwards on my understanding of that.

That's because if you're stopped for speeding, the contents of you trunk are not necessarily related to how fast your happen to be driving. So you can refuse the search. If you're stopped for being a suspicious Mexican, your documentation is central to you innocence or guilt.And also, if you refuse the DUI test, you get arrested anyway.

Please stop. kthxbai

 

[Two Deep]

So there are folks arguing that this effort isn't based (at least on some level) on the skin color of these illegals.

Really?

No, we don't care. Again most illegal's are hispanic, hispanics are darker skinned. If said police see darker skinned person, pull them over and check them out. If they are legal, have a nice day, if they are illegal arrest them. Pretty simple.

Come on now, that's ridiculous. That might inconvenience someone and take 2 precious minutes out of their day.

The fact that you guys think that scenario is OK is troubling.To deny skin color isn't a driver of this, to some extent, just isn't being honest.

Well I guess we should stop pulling those dark skinned middle eastern guys out of line at the airport. I mean after all we don't want to offend anybody.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I for one bow to our State and Federal Overlords. Pass any law you have to to clean up this stinking cess pool of crime that is getting worse with each and every passing day. Political correctness solves nothing. Do what makes sense, if most illegals are hispanic then, profile them. If the majority of drug dealers are black, profile them. If whites commit the majority of white collar crimes, profile them, If middle eastern people are more prone to blowing stuff up, profile them.

If White Christians have more child abuse cases profile them, if men have the most rape convictions then profile them.....

I've been pleading with the authorities for years to increase security measures on Christian men with conservative political views. The White Christian Conservative is an absolute menace, and must be dealt with accordingly.

don't forget about all the child molesting.

I don't have a child and I'm not a child myself, so I'm not really concerned with this at all. I do, however, work in a Federal government building. So you can imagine how frightened I am of the White Christian Conservative. The mere sight of a cross, a gun rack and a McCain/Palin sticker makes me pee my pants.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So there are folks arguing that this effort isn't based (at least on some level) on the skin color of these illegals.

Really?

No, we don't care. Again most illegal's are hispanic, hispanics are darker skinned. If said police see darker skinned person, pull them over and check them out. If they are legal, have a nice day, if they are illegal arrest them. Pretty simple.

Come on now, that's ridiculous. That might inconvenience someone and take 2 precious minutes out of their day.

What if you didn't have your wallet on you?

 

[Desert_Power]

So there are folks arguing that this effort isn't based (at least on some level) on the skin color of these illegals.

Really?

No, we don't care. Again most illegal's are hispanic, hispanics are darker skinned. If said police see darker skinned person, pull them over and check them out. If they are legal, have a nice day, if they are illegal arrest them. Pretty simple.

Well, at least you are honest that the rights of others don't matter to you.

 

[Two Deep]

So there are folks arguing that this effort isn't based (at least on some level) on the skin color of these illegals.

Really?

No, we don't care. Again most illegal's are hispanic, hispanics are darker skinned. If said police see darker skinned person, pull them over and check them out. If they are legal, have a nice day, if they are illegal arrest them. Pretty simple.

Come on now, that's ridiculous. That might inconvenience someone and take 2 precious minutes out of their day.

What if you didn't have your wallet on you?

Off to jail until you can produce it.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

So there are folks arguing that this effort isn't based (at least on some level) on the skin color of these illegals.

Really?

No, we don't care. Again most illegal's are hispanic, hispanics are darker skinned. If said police see darker skinned person, pull them over and check them out. If they are legal, have a nice day, if they are illegal arrest them. Pretty simple.

Come on now, that's ridiculous. That might inconvenience someone and take 2 precious minutes out of their day.

What if you didn't have your wallet on you?

Off to jail until you can produce it.

Well how do you expect me to go get my wallet if I'm in jail?

 

[videoguy505]

Well as far as I know videoguy isn't John Roberts so I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to know this answer for sure, but based on my experiences with Arizona judges they will find PC as bigbottom suggested. But obviously it hasn't been litigated which is why I'm curious to see how it turns out - or litigate it myself.

A better question would be, how could it NOT be considered probable cause?"Let me see your documentation."

"No."

"Well okey dokey. Have a good day."

See my post above, this is how it already works with traffic stops IIRC. Same with DUI, no? A person's refusing to consent to a voluntary roadside test just deprives the officer of further evidence to form probable cause, refusal can't be used to justify a further intrusion as it's own probable cause. But I could be totally backwards on my understanding of that.

That's because if you're stopped for speeding, the contents of you trunk are not necessarily related to how fast your happen to be driving. So you can refuse the search. If you're stopped for being a suspicious Mexican, your documentation is central to you innocence or guilt.And also, if you refuse the DUI test, you get arrested anyway.

Honestly unsure of DUI laws. I'm sorry, I thought participation in a field sobriety test was voluntary, and that one was always free to refuse them without penalty.Edit: http://dui-lawyer-la.com/dui-tips-advice/f...sobriety-tests/

"In California and all other US states field sobriety tests are 100% voluntarily, unless you are under 21 or on parole. If you are over 21 and not on parole you have the right to refuse and there are no penalties whatsoever for refusing to take a field sobriety test."