Arizonas immigration law

[BluePriest]

Arizona is passing (maybe passed? Idk) that, as ive been told, works something like this.

If you are stopped because of a crime, whether its a policeman pulling you over for a speeding ticket, or robbing a bank, then you may be required to show proof of citizenship.

As far as ive been told, a cop is NOT allowed to ask for proof just because you look suspicious, you have to actually being doing something wrong.

So what do you think? And if someone can explain it better, then please do. My explanation was horrible.

EDIT
this is my best info I have on it, been looking at it a little more.

Taken from the actual bill itself

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf)


lawful contact, im trying to figure out what is meant by that, and doing research

taken from the site linked below

Brief detentions are known in the law as "Terry stops" — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Courts are deferential to the judgment of police officers — the standard is not what any person would think of the facts observed but what an experienced cop acting reasonably and responsibly would think. But there must be specific, describable indicia of criminal activity.

The permissible duration of a Terry stop depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has not set in stone some magic moment where a brief detention evolves into an arrest. But arrest happens when the detention has become police custody. At that point, the officer must have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.

So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU= (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=)

More Helpful Links
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm)

[PuppyChow]

You're wrong about it in that police can actually just stop you on a suspicion. Quote from the NY Times:

The law (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22immig.html), which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure  in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

For that reason alone I disagree with it. If it was as you said and you must be already breaking the law, then it would be fine for me.

[BluePriest]

Taken from the actual bill itself

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf)


lawful contact, im trying to figure out what is meant by that, and doing research

taken from the site linked below

Brief detentions are known in the law as "Terry stops" — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Courts are deferential to the judgment of police officers — the standard is not what any person would think of the facts observed but what an experienced cop acting reasonably and responsibly would think. But there must be specific, describable indicia of criminal activity.

The permissible duration of a Terry stop depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has not set in stone some magic moment where a brief detention evolves into an arrest. But arrest happens when the detention has become police custody. At that point, the officer must have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.

So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU= (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=)

I reset the poll puppy, youll need to re-vote

[Boingo]

It's my understanding that US federal law already "requires" foreign visitors to carry identification papers with them.  This is a law that's been on the books for decades but not actually enforced.  All the outrage over the the AZ law is pretty ridiculous. It's a pretty standard requirement in just about any country around the world--you need to be able to present proper identification or you get jailed/booted.

The sad fact in this case is not that Arizona enacted this redundant legislation, it's that they felt they had to since the federal government, that is, the people supposedly "protecting" the border have failed so miserably.  Sure, it'd be unreasonable to think you could reduce illegal immigration to 0, but at this point perhaps 1 in 15 people in the US are there illegally.  It's impossible to know how many (they don't exactly sign up on lists) but most estimates put the number at 12-20 million.

[BluePriest]

I agree completely with you boingo, and this law reminds me of a quote I heard before,

"We must not let political correctness get in the way of national security, "

this is exactly whats happening and AZ is doing something about it

[Belthus]

Michael C. Dorf on Findlaw: (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20100503.html)

Courts have resisted calls to quantify the "reasonable suspicion" standard. However, it appears to be a relatively undemanding test.

Consider, for example, the sorts of factors that law enforcement authorities have successfully invoked in court as part of the so-called "drug courier profile" to meet the reasonable suspicion test. In his 1999 book, No Equal Justice, Georgetown law professor David Cole listed factors that courts had approvingly cited as justifying the conclusion of reasonable suspicion for a stop. Every factor on Cole's list was matched by one or more contrary factors.

Thus, "made eye contact with officer" and "avoided making eye contact with officer" were suspicious. So were "arrived late at night," "arrived early in the morning," and "arrived in afternoon." "Traveled alone" was suspicious, but so was "traveled with a companion." And so on.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a much lower bar than "probable cause."

[BluePriest]

Thats not the only pre-requisite though. Thats why I posted what I did.

LAWFUL CONTACT. Read the posts, it has all the REAL information, and not propaganda. I posted a link to the bill itself, and to the concern about "reasonable suspicion"

You can ask under reasonable suspiscion IF, AND ONLY IF lawful contact was already made for some reason.

[Belthus]

Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04-29/news/ct-oped-0429-chapman-20100429_1_illegal-immigrant-cops-immigration):

Law professor Miller says "lawful contact" could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him — something police are allowed to do — he may have established "lawful contact."

But let's suppose a cop can get nosy only if he has already intercepted someone for, say, a traffic violation. That's cold comfort for the innocent. Any officer who wants to make a stop can easily come up with some trivial transgression — improper lane change, going 1 mph over the speed limit, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

When I went to traffic school years ago, the officer teaching it strongly advised us never to argue when being issued a ticket. On the average car, he said, he could find half a dozen reasons to write up additional citations if provoked. Any of those would serve equally well to justify a stop.

[BluePriest]

Before I go any further, let me clarify something, you marked that you dont like it regardless right? So why are you debating over something like this if you wont like it regardless? To me, you are doing that, not because you really think you are right about them having a good reason, but because you dont want other people to like it. so another question, do you think everyone here illegally should get amnesty? if thats the case, just say thats the reason that you dont like it, instead of trying to falsify what the law actually says.

Anyways, I suggest you read the full article I listed, as it shows quite clearly, that you have to be stopped for something already

There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable suspicion."

Any officer who wants to make a stop can easily come up with some trivial transgression — improper lane change, going 1 mph over the speed limit, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

Never touched a drop of alcohol in my life. First time my soon to be sister in law met me, we were driving through my town in the middle of the night (picked her up from the airport). I wasnt doing anything wrong, but a cop pulled me over. He checked to make sure I wasnt drinking, but he "said" it was because I went over the white line.

In the middle of the night, a cop wont be able to tell if someone is a mexican or not, so you know thats not going to be why they are pulling you over. If a person has tinted windows, they wont be able to tell either.

Cops do that all the time anyways on areas that have a ton of drunk driving or any other things. its for safety, and when im stopped (the average 19 year old white male) I am not bothered in the least bit, because I know the cop is just trying to do their job to keep all of us safe. Sometimes they do that by being proactive instead of waiting for a crime to take place.

[Demagog]

Didn't read much of the other posts, but I don't see a problem with it. If they ever went over the line (pun intended :-D ) of what is reasonably suspicious, one or two court cases would stop that. I'm assuming that's not a state case though... last time I heard, states can refuse to be prosecuted. The vast majority of when this law will be used is when the people in question can't speak English.

[bojengles77]

On one side, the law pretty much allows cops to discriminate freely against minorities and this obviously makes it questionable. However on the other hand, Mexican drug cartels will kidnap Americans and hold them for ransom in Mexico if their drug deals go bad. They also sometimes give American women as gifts to Mexican police ( according to Americas most wanted and the history channel documentaries). In light of this some may Argue that law enforcement needs more power to act decisively in cases where illegal aliens may be involved. I agree with both but the law will work well only if officers aren't inherently prejudicial or biased to begin with - something I find hard to believe

[BluePriest]

The way I look at it, we allow them to carry guns, why are we worried about something like this. In my opinion, 66% of claims that something is racist, really isnt racist in the least bit, and is just people trying to find racism.