More Arizona shenanigans: Sheriff Joe sued by Feds

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think that people are worried because the Arizona law might lead to a cop being able to write "I checked his ID because he's Hispanic" in his report as a valid reason, which could lead to serious abuse potential in any country. It's a non-issue in Germany because a hypothetical crooked cop has to invent a reason for IDing you every time he does, which is more trouble than it's worth (especially considering all the other powers cops already have...)

Well, from what I understand from my last converstion with Thanas, German police have a lot less power than US cops simply because they have a distrust of government figures.

As for racial profiling...that will always be a risk. Is requiring people to have ID going to be a violation of their freedoms or is it necessary to ensure that society is served by making it so that people are documented.

So why are your people so gung-ho about mandatory photo ID laws? If the cops can't just check it and detain you whenever the hell they feel like it, it's a complete non-issue, and it makes everybody's lives easier, not just the police (for example, I once triggered the alarm at my dad's company. A security patrol came screeching over. I didn't know the sekkrit password, but I just showed them my ID and apologized and off I went)

I don't know if gung-ho is the right wording. I think most americans are anti-big government, but they are kind of bi-polar when it comes down to it. They want us to be able to ID everybody...until we're asking them for their ID.

[PeZook]

As for racial profiling...that will always be a risk. Is requiring people to have ID going to be a violation of their freedoms or is it necessary to ensure that society is served by making it so that people are documented.

Yeah, it's the problem with comitting the crime of driving while black: my point was that if there's a risk that "he is hispanic, so I checked his ID" will be considered a valid reason for harassing a citizen when put in an official report, people will be concerned, because you can't even try to complain about such behavior to a cop's superiors.

I don't know if gung-ho is the right wording. I think most americans are anti-big government, but they are kind of bi-polar when it comes down to it. They want us to be able to ID everybody...until we're asking them for their ID.

...and until Holywood makes a scary movie where the government monitors everyone's porn e-mails

[Master of Ossus]

Not if you're a citizen it isn't. Citizens get to walk around in public just as they get freedom of speech.

Try again. Freedom of speech isn't usually restricted only to citizens. Moreover, why are citizens entitled to this "right?" Why don't they have to go through the oh-so-burdensome process of carrying around a valid ID?

How is that different? Being detained for X hours is a punishment, especially since it can happen without warning at very inconvenient times. If you cannot provide proof of citizenship on demand, you are punished. How is that not being required to provide proof of citizenship on demand?

It is absolutely not a punishment. It is an investigatory detention. It's the same way that someone can be held until they post bail, even though they haven't even been convicted yet. It's not a punishment, but a necessary step to the system of justice.

That doesn't make the law just.

"The US system does it" is not a sufficient proof for the claim "it should be done."

But it firmly establishes that it's not nearly as much of a problem as you and Alyrium are claiming.

We have members on this very forum who actually live in countries that have similar laws. In this thread, the members from such countries indicate that it is not a problem, and expressed enthusiasm for the US adopting similar laws.

Why?

The key here is that I find imposing extra requirements on citizens to be a process that should be considered carefully, just like reducing the scope given to a right. We should not do it casually, because there are often undesirable consequences. We should do it only if we can demonstrate that citizens really should have a duty to do whatever the requirement makes them do. I don't think that's been adequately demonstrated about the identification requirement, especially not if there's no corresponding guarantee of a rational ID system.

The "extra requirement" is ridiculously trivial. You and Aly can't cite a single harm associated with this, aside from "what if I lose my wallet?" Well, how do people who already have this requirement deal with this problem?

Moreover, state legislatures are obviously concerned with the problem and a majority of Americans favor the law, indicating that they do not share your concerns and that they see a problem with the current system.

I think Duchess has a poitn there: if we implement that requirement today the inefficiencies of the American state-based ID regime will make it hurt, as will things like racial bias on the part of enforcers.

Well, we may have to revise the state-based ID regime if it proves to be a problem, but that's getting well ahead of ourselves.

And often face harassment or major problems as a result. Why again is it good or necessary that all Americans be faced with the same problem? That police time and effort be expended on identifying random citizens? What's the point?

Again, it makes it much harder for people to violate immigration laws, among other things. Moreover, subjecting all Americans to the law could lead to further benefits, such as the standardization of ID cards, increased regulatory focus on proper documents, and all of the myriad benefits cited by Thanas and Serafina.

Up against this, you have speculation from some people that there might, maybe, be problems associated with this, and erroneous claims that it's unconstitutional (somehow).

Yeah, it's the problem with comitting the crime of driving while black: my point was that if there's a risk that "he is hispanic, so I checked his ID" will be considered a valid reason for harassing a citizen when put in an official report, people will be concerned, because you can't even try to complain about such behavior to a cop's superiors.

That would, by definition, be an unconstitutional act in the US and the officer could easily be subject to discipline for such things. It should not be a legitimate concern with the Arizona law, or any similar piece of legislation.

[Master of Ossus]

I've always found that part strange. What harm is there in having a judge look at the guy before locking him up? Is it a money issue?

Over here the constitution says in clear writing: No incarceration without the approval of a judge, so that is the reason we've got a designated judge around for that in every district.

It's partly a money issue, but there's also a problem with what happens when police directly observe crimes occurring on the street. For instance, if an officer sees a guy punch an old woman, take her purse, and run down the street, then the officer certainly should be able to arrest the person on the spot. The Supreme Court didn't seem to see a way to distinguish this situation from other instances in which officers had probable cause to arrest a particular individual and later identified the person in a public space. Thus, arrests in public space do not require a warrant. Once they enter their own home, or someone else's, then a magistrate judge must be consulted before arresting them because then they have an enhanced expectation of privacy that doesn't exist in public spaces.

[Thanas]

I've always found that part strange. What harm is there in having a judge look at the guy before locking him up? Is it a money issue?

Over here the constitution says in clear writing: No incarceration without the approval of a judge, so that is the reason we've got a designated judge around for that in every district.

It's partly a money issue, but there's also a problem with what happens when police directly observe crimes occurring on the street. For instance, if an officer sees a guy punch an old woman, take her purse, and run down the street, then the officer certainly should be able to arrest the person on the spot.

Woah, back up here. Nowhere did I say the police cannot arrest people without a judge.

Arrests in public spaces also do not require a warrant in Germany if the police officer catch you committing a crime. What happens after he puts you in the car however does require the approval of a judge.

[Master of Ossus]

Woah, back up here. Nowhere did I say the police cannot arrest people without a judge.

Arrests in public spaces also do not require a warrant in Germany if the police officer catch you committing a crime. What happens after he puts you in the car however does require the approval of a judge.

I don't understand what you're talking about, then. How is "incarceration" defined, if it does not begin at the time someone is taken into custody pursuant to an arrest? How is this different than the US system?

[Thanas]

Pretty simple - the period starts when the officer wants to detain you for a period longer than necessary for immediate resolution of the situation. Say, he might handcuff you because you are aggressive and throw barstools.

If he wants to detain you after you no longer throw stools, then the judge comes into play. So, in short and very simplified: As soon as they lock you in jail, the judge has to approve it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Same for my department, and you can't be detained for non-valid ID unless there is cause to suspect you of a crime. However, once approved by your Sgt. a judge doesn't come into play until the preliminary trial.

I've always found that part strange. What harm is there in having a judge look at the guy before locking him up? Is it a money issue?

Over here the constitution says in clear writing: No incarceration without the approval of a judge, so that is the reason we've got a designated judge around for that in every district.

They see a judge. Jail is simply them being detained because the crime they are accused of is severe enough (in the eyes of the law) to warrant their freedom being restricted until a judge has seen them. It's just that a jail doesn't have 300 judges working each shift, so it takes some time. If you get arrested on a weekday then you'll probably see the judge the next morning. If you get arrested a weekend then you still could see a judge the next morning, but due to the smaller staffing you'll probably see one on the next business day.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yeah, it's the problem with comitting the crime of driving while black: my point was that if there's a risk that "he is hispanic, so I checked his ID" will be considered a valid reason for harassing a citizen when put in an official report, people will be concerned, because you can't even try to complain about such behavior to a cop's superiors.

Well, I don't think there is a risk of legal discrimation because the language of the Arizona law doesn't permit it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Pretty simple - the period starts when the officer wants to detain you for a period longer than necessary for immediate resolution of the situation. Say, he might handcuff you because you are aggressive and throw barstools.

If he wants to detain you after you no longer throw stools, then the judge comes into play. So, in short and very simplified: As soon as they lock you in jail, the judge has to approve it.

So, the number of people being booked into jail is probably the biggest factor. I don't know what your arrest rate looks like in your largest cities, but I would be willing to say that the US probably has a much higher arrest per day than Germany.

[Thanas]

Seeing as how Germany has much less (violent) crime per capita, I would say that is a safe bet - besides the constitutional requirement, which is the real reason here.

From my own experience the vast majority of people locked up are drunks who stay overnight.

[Master of Ossus]

Pretty simple - the period starts when the officer wants to detain you for a period longer than necessary for immediate resolution of the situation. Say, he might handcuff you because you are aggressive and throw barstools.

If he wants to detain you after you no longer throw stools, then the judge comes into play. So, in short and very simplified: As soon as they lock you in jail, the judge has to approve it.

I don't understand how that's substantively different than the American system, then. I mean, the American system might take a little while to talk to a judge (for instance, on a holiday weekend if you get taken in on Friday night). Are you saying that the German police can't do things like interview someone, prior to consulting a judge? In the US, they can't do that, either.