Other States Following Arizona's lead

[Stravo]

If I'm reading Ethereal's post correctly all this horseshit about "I have to carry my birth certificate around" is just that - horseshit. The ID's that pass the test are all fairly common and standard - driver's license, non-driver's license, tribal ID card and the big catch-all ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

In other words, whatever you would normally carry around in your pocket is fine.

[Kanastrous]

It's disconcerting that many Americans seem ready to accept such inequalities (many even seem overjoyed) in order to curtail what is realistically a fairly modest political inconvenience.

I don't live in Arizona and so can't speak from experience, but Arizonans in fairly large numbers seem to find that the inconveniences are neither modest nor solely political.

[Simon_Jester]

If I'm reading Ethereal's post correctly all this horseshit about "I have to carry my birth certificate around" is just that - horseshit. The ID's that pass the test are all fairly common and standard - driver's license, non-driver's license, tribal ID card and the big catch-all ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

In other words, whatever you would normally carry around in your pocket is fine.

Until, as General Zod said on the first page, this happens.

If this case isn't outright made up, then we have a serious problem, because this man had about as much identification as the average citizen normally carries: a commercial driver's license. If that wasn't good enough, then there are two possibilities. One is that the law allows Arizona police to cuff a random truck driver who has a license, which is apparently not true, if I read you right. The other is that Arizona police are starting to ignore the part of the law that tells them what kind of identification they are bound to respect, and are cuffing people even after they present valid ID.

Neither of those options leaves a good taste in my mouth. Moreover, even the first option, which is much better, raises a problem, because it makes "existing while not carrying ID" into an arrestable offense in Arizona. I routinely carry my driver's license, and so do most other people. But there has never been a general requirement for all citizens to carry ID at all times if they don't want to be arrested. That's a major setback from a civil rights standpoint, one that should not be made lightly.

I don't live in Arizona and so can't speak from experience, but Arizonans in fairly large numbers seem to find that the inconveniences are neither modest nor solely political.

Now, as you note, Arizona is not doing this lightly. They are genuinely angry about illegal immigration, and it does cause them some real problems. I might not agree that those problems justify the law, but I at least accept that they exist.

Thing is... remember the thread title. Other states are doing this too. I can comprehend why, in Arizona, people might want to allow the police to arrest you without a warrant if they suspect you of being an illegal immigrant. I don't agree, but I can at least comprehend why a sane human being would support that law. But Arizona has the biggest illegal immigration problem in the country, because they're one of the main channels by which illegal immigrants get in.

South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma (three states listed in the article linked in the original post) do not have such serious problems with this. Sure, there are illegal immigrants in those states, but not nearly as many of them. And I'm damned sure they don't have to worry about Mexican drug lords raiding across the border into their states, as Arizona does.

The same goes for other states where: "similar efforts are under way... Minnesota, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Missouri, Nebraska and Idaho." It beggars belief that ANY of those states have the same scale of illegal immigrant problem Arizona does, with the possible exception of Texas. So why are they willing to violate the same civil liberties in order to solve what is, for them, a much smaller problem?

Is it really that tiny a deal to let the police arrest anyone they "suspect" who cannot present proof of citizenship on the spot?

[Kanastrous]

FWIW the fellow detained for having only his commercial driver's license was detained by ICE, not Arizona authorities. Although since the idea behind the Arizona law is to extend similar authority to state law enforcement it does seem valid to bring it up.

As for arresting-without-a-warrant - arrests are legitimately made without warrants, all the time. Lack of one doesn't seem to make much difference, if the arresting officer has reason to bust you, without it.

I don't know how much to make of the scale of the problem, from one state to the next. If a given state is expending legislative energies upon putting together such laws, it seems to suggest that they find they have enough of a problem to be worth addressing.

[General Zod]

FWIW the fellow detained for having only his commercial driver's license was detained by ICE, not Arizona authorities. Although since the idea behind the Arizona law is to extend similar authority to state law enforcement it does seem valid to bring it up.

A CDL should be more than sufficient though. There's absolutely no justification for demanding anything more than a valid ID or license if it's a genuine document.

[Kanastrous]

It seems reasonable to posit that there may be specific things that would inspire an officer to demand more than the ID. If he believes that it's a forgery, for example, or for some reason can't run it successfully.

[Simon_Jester]

FWIW the fellow detained for having only his commercial driver's license was detained by ICE, not Arizona authorities. Although since the idea behind the Arizona law is to extend similar authority to state law enforcement it does seem valid to bring it up.

Exactly. The feds shouldn't be able to pull this kind of shit either. While it makes sense for law enforcement to arrest you if they catch you committing a crime, they should not be able to arrest you on the off chance that you might have committed a crime. Not when the closest they have to evidence is your failure to present an ironclad alibi on the spot when they grab you. Not when the "crime" is "was standing there looking like an illegal immigrant in the judgement of the arresting officer."

Because that's so far over into "guilty until proven innocent" territory that it shouldn't pass a laugh test, let alone a civil liberties test.

As for arresting-without-a-warrant - arrests are legitimately made without warrants, all the time. Lack of one doesn't seem to make much difference, if the arresting officer has reason to bust you, without it.

Yes, but we never made "breathing while swarthy" a sufficient reason for an officer to bust you before.

If I get arrested without a warrant while in the process of breaking into a shop or something, I have only myself to blame. If I get arrested without a warrant while walking down the sidewalk for "looking like an illegal immigrant" (translation: the cop didn't like the slogan on my T-shirt), I don't have myself to blame at all, and the blame falls entirely on the state.

[SVPD]

I should point out that even if you don't carry ID, the police can still verify you're in this country legally without arresting you. Most every polcie dispatch has a computer tied into the National Crime Information Center and networked with its own and every other states' Bureau of Motor Vehicles (which also, in every state I know of, is responsible for issuing not-driver's license state IDs).

If a person stopped can furnish his first and last name and date of birth, even an officer on foot patrol can call dispatch with that information and have them run him. If they happen to have memorized their DL/state ID number, that works even better, and SSNs should work as well.

So, not having ID on you does not necessarily mean you will be arrested and detained. This would only happen if no information on you could be retrieved, and the police would not avoid running your information in order to arrest you because running a person you're stopping to question or issue a ticket to is a basic principle of officer safety. This person may be a violent felon; you want to know who they are as soon as possible. Running every single person you deal with in an enforcement capacity (obviously you don't run the clerk at the gas station when you go buy a pop) is simply standard procedure and any officer who doesn't do it is a fool.

If you've stopped a person with no ID, no information available by name and DOB, and not driving a vehicle, chances are you've stopped someone who is trying not to be identified for some reason regardless of their immigration status. If you've stopped a person driving a vehicle and lacking ID, here in Ohio they are committing an offense simply by driving without their ID on them, and while normally we don't arrest just for that (because we can run them by name, SSN, or OLN and get their information, complete with physical description to make sure it is indeed them) it has been known to happen when we cannot verify who they are.

Any cop who starts dragging people in, for immigration checks or any other reason, when they present valid ID or can be ID'd by running their information and obtaining a record and a matching physical description (easily read back by the dispatcher over the radio, and if you have a computer in your car, which is common, you can view their picture in most cases) is going to A) set himself and his department up for a lawsuit and B) piss off his bosses and he other guys on his shift by taking himself out of service to deal with a baseless arrest and C) possibly piss off the city council, county commission, sheriff, or whoever handles the budget becsue if this person has to be held for any length of time it starts costing money.

[Kanastrous]

Not when the closest they have to evidence is your failure to present an ironclad alibi on the spot when they grab you. Not when the "crime" is "was standing there looking like an illegal immigrant in the judgement of the arresting officer."

Except that the Arizona law specifically requires that you be arrested or detained for some other offense, before the officer in question may even bring up the question of your immigration status. So the "crime" has to be something already on the books, and probably uncontroversial in and of itself, to even get to the point of demanding the ID. "Standing there looking like an illegal immigrant" is the sort of thing that is specifically forbidden, in the text of the law.

As for arresting-without-a-warrant - arrests are legitimately made without warrants, all the time. Lack of one doesn't seem to make much difference, if the arresting officer has reason to bust you, without it.

Yes, but we never made "breathing while swarthy" a sufficient reason for an officer to bust you before.

'Breathing while swarthy' isn't enough for the officer to initiate contact. Maybe that's going to be in his head - can't predict with much accuracy which officer most likely to be thinking what - but he's going to need to find something else to hang the stop on, if he wants to go anywhere with it.

If I get arrested without a warrant while in the process of breaking into a shop or something, I have only myself to blame. If I get arrested without a warrant while walking down the sidewalk for "looking like an illegal immigrant" (translation: the cop didn't like the slogan on my T-shirt), I don't have myself to blame at all, and the blame falls entirely on the state.

Except that 'looking like an illegal immigrant" and wearing a t-shirt aren't grounds for the officer to come after you, and are in fact banned under the law, as reasons for him to do so. You have to already be in contact with the officer, for some other reason, before that comes into play.

[Simon_Jester]

If a person stopped can furnish his first and last name and date of birth, even an officer on foot patrol can call dispatch with that information and have them run him. If they happen to have memorized their DL/state ID number, that works even better, and SSNs should work as well.

So, not having ID on you does not necessarily mean you will be arrested and detained....

If I can depend on the professionalism of the police in the areas where these laws are in place, that is absolutely true. I'm really not sure I can, certainly not in Arizona.

I wish I could trust police to do their jobs and not harass citizens, and on an individual level I do. But on a national level, simple statistics makes me think that laws like this are going to lead to a lot of unwarranted harassment of citizens.

Any cop who starts dragging people in, for immigration checks or any other reason, when they present valid ID or can be ID'd by running their information and obtaining a record and a matching physical description (easily read back by the dispatcher over the radio, and if you have a computer in your car, which is common, you can view their picture in most cases) is going to A) set himself and his department up for a lawsuit and B) piss off his bosses and he other guys on his shift by taking himself out of service to deal with a baseless arrest and C) possibly piss off the city council, county commission, sheriff, or whoever handles the budget becsue if this person has to be held for any length of time it starts costing money.

All true. Now, is the system going to work? Because that's the real question here. If this law were enforced by very professional people who don't start using it as an excuse to harass people they don't like, this might not be so bad. And if we don't see cases of legal residents being arrested because the officer "forgot" to run a check on their name or because the database hiccuped, this might not be so bad.

I'm very skeptical about whether that's actually going to be what we see.

Except that the Arizona law specifically requires that you be arrested or detained for some other offense, before the officer in question may even bring up the question of your immigration status. So the "crime" has to be something already on the books, and probably uncontroversial in and of itself, to even get to the point of demanding the ID. "Standing there looking like an illegal immigrant" is the sort of thing that is specifically forbidden, in the text of the law.

Ah. I seem to have misunderstood the situation.

Could you outline precisely where this is specifically forbidden?

[SVPD]

If I can depend on the professionalism of the police in the areas where these laws are in place, that is absolutely true. I'm really not sure I can, certainly not in Arizona.

I don't know why not. I don't see any reason to think that Arizona does not train its police to operate with good, modern tactics and procedures. Checking people through dispatch is a basic aspect of officer safety. Not wasting time on arresting people pointlessly is a basic aspect of police management. I doubt very much that city councils and the public in Arizona will take kindly to their polcie tying themselves up on spurious arrests.

I wish I could trust police to do their jobs and not harass citizens, and on an individual level I do. But on a national level, simple statistics makes me think that laws like this are going to lead to a lot of unwarranted harassment of citizens.

What simple statistics do you refer to?

All true. Now, is the system going to work? Because that's the real question here. If this law were enforced by very professional people who don't start using it as an excuse to harass people they don't like, this might not be so bad. And if we don't see cases of legal residents being arrested because the officer "forgot" to run a check on their name or because the database hiccuped, this might not be so bad.

I see no reason to think the police in Arizona are not (generally speaking) professional people who care about doing a good job at law enforcement. After all, they and their own families live in this place, and they have a lot to do. It's not as if all the other types of crime, from drunk driving to burglary, to robbery, to domestic violence is going to go away. They also have a strong self-preservation incentive to avoid spurious arrests in order to avoid lawsuits or discipline. As for "forgetting" to run a check and then arresting someone, that's absurd. That's like forgetting your handcuffs.

I'm very skeptical about whether that's actually going to be what we see.

Why? Do you just not trust cops just because you have this preconceived idea of how all cops must be? Did you have a bad personal experience with a law enforcement officer? Are you under the impression that cops generally have plenty of time to waste on spurious arrests? An arrest, even a very simple one like driving with a suspended license, is a good hour of time out of a shift, and that's with everything being smooth.

Except that the Arizona law specifically requires that you be arrested or detained for some other offense, before the officer in question may even bring up the question of your immigration status. So the "crime" has to be something already on the books, and probably uncontroversial in and of itself, to even get to the point of demanding the ID. "Standing there looking like an illegal immigrant" is the sort of thing that is specifically forbidden, in the text of the law.

Ah. I seem to have misunderstood the situation.

Could you outline precisely where this is specifically forbidden?

[/quote]

SB 1070
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Note the beginning: "Lawful contact". In other words, the officer must have a lawful reason to initiate the contact. That means, at a minimum, resonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is not just "He looks suspicious." The officer must be able to articulate why he was suspicious, based on the specific facts and circumstances that existed at the time, in court. That allows him to investigate; he must attain probable cause to effect an arrest. The standard is "Reasonalbe suspicion that the person is engaging in or is about to engage in criminal activity" and it must be articulable what the activity was; it must be articulable based on specific facts. This standard was established in Terry v. Ohio, and the Court upheld that a state may require people to identify themselves to an officer during a stop in Hibel v. 6th Judicial District Court of Nebraska

If you follow the simple, basic procedure of running a person thorugh dispatch (and any officer that "forgets" is taking his life in his hands, and possibly his partner's too) and they come back with any kind of status, even a suspended or revoked driver's license, that will eliminate any reasonable suspicion of the person being illegal just as a matter of course of doing something the officer would automatically do in any lawful contact anyhow.

If the person's information cannot be obtained from the system, that in itself is further suspicion on top of what already exists and warrants further investigation, and not just for illegal immigrant status. People who don't exist in the system are often lying because they have a want or a warrant.

This is all basic law of arrest stuff you learn the first 2 weeks at the police academy.

[Simon_Jester]

If I can depend on the professionalism of the police in the areas where these laws are in place, that is absolutely true. I'm really not sure I can, certainly not in Arizona.

I don't know why not. I don't see any reason to think that Arizona does not train its police to operate with good, modern tactics and procedures. Checking people through dispatch is a basic aspect of officer safety. Not wasting time on arresting people pointlessly is a basic aspect of police management. I doubt very much that city councils and the public in Arizona will take kindly to their polcie tying themselves up on spurious arrests.

Because they've got infamous wastes of oxygen who get reelected to positions of power and responsibility in Arizona law enforcement. A place that reelects Arpaio as sheriff is not one I trust to crack down on spurious arrests of brown people.

I wish I could trust police to do their jobs and not harass citizens, and on an individual level I do. But on a national level, simple statistics makes me think that laws like this are going to lead to a lot of unwarranted harassment of citizens.

What simple statistics do you refer to?

The fact that it happens at all. While police harassment of citizens is not common, it happens. This law allows such harassment to be taken to a whole new level, unless it is enforced with the utmost professionalism. Since I don't expect it to be enforced better than normal laws (well on average with a few horrible exceptions)... I'm dubious.

I'm very skeptical about whether that's actually going to be what we see.

Why? Do you just not trust cops just because you have this preconceived idea of how all cops must be? Did you have a bad personal experience with a law enforcement officer? Are you under the impression that cops generally have plenty of time to waste on spurious arrests?

No, no, and no. See, I believe that most cops, a vast majority, even do their jobs quite well. But I also believe that some cops, a small percentage who I can only assume are despised by their peers, do not.

Those people exist. They are a problem, or there wouldn't be a need for all the paperwork and review processes police departments have built up to deal with them. In areas where particularly infamous bad cops operate, it's reasonable to be worried about whether a law will be enforced with the professionalism and good faith required to avoid civil liberties violations.

Bad cops exist. And trying to launch a counterattack against anyone who bothers to mention them does not make the profession of law enforcement look good.

Could you outline precisely where this is specifically forbidden?

SB 1070
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Note the beginning: "Lawful contact". In other words, the officer must have a lawful reason to initiate the contact. That means, at a minimum, resonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is not just "He looks suspicious." The officer must be able to articulate why he was suspicious, based on the specific facts and circumstances that existed at the time, in court. That allows him to investigate; he must attain probable cause to effect an arrest. The standard is "Reasonalbe suspicion that the person is engaging in or is about to engage in criminal activity" and it must be articulable what the activity was; it must be articulable based on specific facts. This standard was established in Terry v. Ohio, and the Court upheld that a state may require people to identify themselves to an officer during a stop in Hibel v. 6th Judicial District Court of Nebraska[/quote]Very well.

Basically, this boils down to the fact that I am not sure I can rely on the Arizona police as a whole to enforce this law in a way I would consider just, nor on the Arizona courts to rein in the Arizona police if they fail to do so. Arizona has shown, as a state, that it has very little concern for the problems I have with this law when the (admittedly serious) problem of illegal immigration is involved.

And I am especially worried to see this kind of law spreading across the country, to places with relatively minor immigration problems, as part of a generalized "tough on illegal aliens" policy. It's a bigger escalation of the state's ability to require citizens to carry identification papers than I like.

[Ethereal235]

It's disconcerting that many Americans seem ready to accept such inequalities (many even seem overjoyed) in order to curtail what is realistically a fairly modest political inconvenience.

I don't live in Arizona and so can't speak from experience, but Arizonans in fairly large numbers seem to find that the inconveniences are neither modest nor solely political.

Most of these claims are related to specific issues such as gang violence and drug dealing, but these behaviors are already criminal in nature, and in the judicial process it seems unlikely that an illegal alien wouldn't be identified as such. The aspects of this law that I take issue with wouldn't impact this; these people are breaking enforceable laws, and the status of their legality is something that'll come up with basic identification. This law may effect the way these criminals are handled when caught, but it won't decrease this problem.

The only specific target that seems realistic is someone whose only specific crime is being in the country illegally, something associated with certain medical expenses defaulting to the state (ER stuff, specifically), taking legitimate jobs, and utilizing social-welfare services that incur a burden on taxpayers, and since they don't pay income taxes, there's no return. The state has an estimated 460,000 illegal residents, so it's a non-negligible portion of AZ's population (7.9% according to Wikipedia).

First off, the social-welfare services component is a blatant lie. Illegal immigrants have no means of obtaining access to such resources. As for the ER, that's true, but it's true of US citizens as well. Such things are used disproportionately by the poor, so it isn't their status as an illegal immigrant that leads to this problem, it's their income level. Similarly, while they're paid under-the-table, they would likely get a return on their income taxes if they were citizens, since most don't make enough to actually have to pay taxes. Similarly, they're often paid less than minimum wage, which is the main reason they have a comparative advantage in hiring over their legal counterparts. While this does result in a decrease in the labor market, the decrease isn't as big as many think it is; because of the decreased wages, the ultimate cost of products is reduced, so Arizona companies have a slight edge in the market, and many can expand. It doesn't make up for the jobs taken, it just means that you can't say that every job that an illegal immigrant has corresponds to exactly one job an American could have.

Essentially, this "big problem" that this law is meant to deal with is a large group of poor people who contribute more to the economy per dollar than Americans legally can while costing less money per head than American citizens with the same socioeconomic circumstances.

People feel that the problem is bigger than it is because of the highly visible aspect; gangs and drug smugglers. These people are already breaking other laws that they'll be prosecuted for, so how is Article 8 even related to them? How will this law help curtail these problems?

[SVPD]

If I can depend on the professionalism of the police in the areas where these laws are in place, that is absolutely true. I'm really not sure I can, certainly not in Arizona.

I don't know why not. I don't see any reason to think that Arizona does not train its police to operate with good, modern tactics and procedures. Checking people through dispatch is a basic aspect of officer safety. Not wasting time on arresting people pointlessly is a basic aspect of police management. I doubt very much that city councils and the public in Arizona will take kindly to their police tying themselves up on spurious arrests.

Because they've got infamous wastes of oxygen who get reelected to positions of power and responsibility in Arizona law enforcement. A place that reelects Arpaio as sheriff is not one I trust to crack down on spurious arrests of brown people.

You don't? You think Joe Arpaio tolerates wastes of time and resources in his department? You think he does not expect his deputies to follow basic procedures common to pretty much every municipal, county, state, park, and other patrol-type police agency in the country? You don't think he expects his officers to follow procedures that are highly standardized and will protect them, him, and his agency from lawsuits?

Sorry, but I'm not buying that Arpaio is so gung-ho about harrassing people that he's going to tolerate people wasting time on pointless arrests, putting themselves and their colleagues in danger, or opening themselves or him up to lawsuits. It doesn't really matter whether you trust him or not; there's simply no reason to think he's going to ignore problems that are going to come home to roost for him in very unpleasent ways, phrasing that suspicion in terms of "brown people" notwithstanding.

I could also point out that Arpaio is one Sheriff out of all of Arizona, and it is not valid to generalize from him to every other law enforcement agency in Arizona. "Arizona doesn't like brown people" is not an argument; I'd like to see some evidence that Arizona law enforcement agencies do not comply with standard police procedure at levels that significantly exceed the norm.

I wish I could trust police to do their jobs and not harass citizens, and on an individual level I do. But on a national level, simple statistics makes me think that laws like this are going to lead to a lot of unwarranted harassment of citizens.

What simple statistics do you refer to?

The fact that it happens at all. While police harassment of citizens is not common, it happens. This law allows such harassment to be taken to a whole new level, unless it is enforced with the utmost professionalism. Since I don't expect it to be enforced better than normal laws (well on average with a few horrible exceptions)... I'm dubious.[/quote]

Ok, so in other words no statistics at all; just a Hasty Generalization Fallacy. You're just assuming that this law will, somehow, allow harrassment to be taken to some unspecified "whole new level". This is despite the fact that this whole new level relies on the police suddenly deciding to ignore very basic procedures that exist for their own safety, it relies on supervisors and the community suddenly deciding that police are money are plentiful enough to allow spurious arrests to go unchallanged, and it relies on no one caring that ignoring these basic procedures will quickly result in costly lawsuits.

Yes, some police officers do harrass people. This law is not likely to cause that to suddenly spike. Even officers who harrass people do perform good police work as well; they aren't harrassing people all the time. They also tend to mask it with the veneer of respectable police work for self-preservation. If you start doing things like not running a person's name and DOB through dispatch, your deniability just went right out the window, and of course, all this relies on the person not having an ID to begin with. This is really a pretty rare occurance; of the people I have dealt with over 99% have had ID readily available, and of the remianing 1% I cannot recall a single instance where no record could be found of who they were where they were not also lying about it.

No, no, and no. See, I believe that most cops, a vast majority, even do their jobs quite well. But I also believe that some cops, a small percentage who I can only assume are despised by their peers, do not.

Those people exist. They are a problem, or there wouldn't be a need for all the paperwork and review processes police departments have built up to deal with them. In areas where particularly infamous bad cops operate, it's reasonable to be worried about whether a law will be enforced with the professionalism and good faith required to avoid civil liberties violations.

Bad cops exist. And trying to launch a counterattack against anyone who bothers to mention them does not make the profession of law enforcement look good.

This worry could be extended to almost any law or court case. I see no reason that this law is worthy of special concern simply because "bad cops exist". I don't know what you're talking about "launching counterattacks"; are you trying to say that replying to your factually inaccurate statements or calling into question your ideas is unacceptable just because you're talking about bad cops? I was not aware that statements that are negative about law enforcement were immune from challenge.

As for it being "reasonable to be worried" about a law, there is already a mountain of case law regarding Terry stops, frisks, searches, resonable suspicion, probable cause and other aspects of stop, search, and arrest that can be easily exploited by a cop if they want to give someone a hard time. This law doesn't provide any special new fertile ground because it doesn't change how stops and arrest work. (it can't; the state of Arizona cannot override the USSC)

Basically, this boils down to the fact that I am not sure I can rely on the Arizona police as a whole to enforce this law in a way I would consider just, nor on the Arizona courts to rein in the Arizona police if they fail to do so. Arizona has shown, as a state, that it has very little concern for the problems I have with this law when the (admittedly serious) problem of illegal immigration is involved.

So now we've switched from concerns about a few bad apple cops to the police as a whole because they're from Arizona and you just don't trust Arizona.

It sounds an awful lot like you have the same attitude towards everyone from Arizona, and especially their police, that you accuse them of having towards brown people. You also seem excessively concerned with them meeting your personal standards. I don't see why I should care if you don't trust them to enforce it in a way you consider just because Arizona isn't addressing your concerns, especially when your concerns are a result of your ignorance of very basic police procedure (which is understandable since you're obviously not trained) and your apparent idea that police will be willing to throw caution to the wind in regard to both their physical safety and their continued livelyhood simply because they're from Arizona.

And I am especially worried to see this kind of law spreading across the country, to places with relatively minor immigration problems, as part of a generalized "tough on illegal aliens" policy. It's a bigger escalation of the state's ability to require citizens to carry identification papers than I like.

Except that it is not. Again, if you don't have ID on you, your name and DOB or SSN or DL number if yo remember them can be run through dispatch. As I posted above, the courts have ruled that while you do not have to carry ID, you do not have a right to refuse to furnish identifying information at all. An officer who fails to attempt to identify a person through the normal means already available to them and then uses that as an excuse to make an arrest to determine if they are here illegally (because depriving someone of their liberty is an arrest) is ignoring the very basic principle of probable cause.

If they do this, they will do it without any veneer whatsoever of respectability. Regardless of what this law says or allows, you cannot haul someone off to jail without probable cause, period, and you do not have probable cause in regard to believing they are here illegally unless it either A) already exists for some other offense or B) you have made reasonable attempts to identify them. Failing to run their basic information is simply failing to make a reasonable attempt.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Sorry, but I'm not buying that Arpaio is so gung-ho about harrassing people that he's going to tolerate people wasting time on pointless arrests, putting themselves and their colleagues in danger, or opening themselves or him up to lawsuits. It doesn't really matter whether you trust him or not; there's simply no reason to think he's going to ignore problems that are going to come home to roost for him in very unpleasent ways, phrasing that suspicion in terms of "brown people" notwithstanding.

BWAH HA HA HA!!!
Oh, oh man your serious aren't you? Mang you do NOT know good ol' Sherif Joe...

Sheriff Joe is a wanna-be Mini Dictator obsessed that "Everyone" is out to get him, that every elected person in Arizona is corrupted, except for him. Aside from stating that He doesn't "Need" the government" This is a man who in the middle of the night spent Thousands and thousands of dollars sending 60 Officers to a "City Hall" to "Look for illegal immigrants" and turns the place upside down. Surprise surprise, the City Hall in question was investigating Arpaio for illegal activities!

His modus operandi STARTS with harassing people and making pointless arrests.
In Phoenix most recent investigation into his activities, do oyu know the first thing he did upon learning about it? Seek legal council? Defend himself? Speak out?
Nope. he ARRESTED the person involved on charges that are now shown to be 100% patently false.

And Lawsuits! You want to talk about lawsuits?
Lawsuite After
Lawsuite After
Lawsuite

He has cost my City MILLIONS because of his assholiness

THAT his Sheriff Joe "SVPD" THAT is how he works, THAT is how he behaves.
Do not defend him.

[Simon_Jester]

You don't? You think Joe Arpaio tolerates wastes of time and resources in his department? You think he does not expect his deputies to follow basic procedures common to pretty much every municipal, county, state, park, and other patrol-type police agency in the country? You don't think he expects his officers to follow procedures that are highly standardized and will protect them, him, and his agency from lawsuits?

I think I don't know, is what I think. I don't trust him. Not when there's already an example, from before this law passed, of ICE people cuffing someone and taking him to the central office without, apparently, bothering to do that basic routine check on his name. Or without considering that routine check to be enough evidence that he was a citizen.

Maybe those ICE men just fucked up. Maybe they're terrible by cop standards. But if the federal government can have people like that in its ranks, I fail to see why I should be confident that local police forces won't. Especially local police forces that gain popular support when they are seen harassing people as a way of getting illegal immigrant arrests.

And no, that does not mean that I think every cop in Arizona will suddenly start pulling this kind of crap. What bothers me is the potential that some of them will do so, that this behavior will start spreading to other states, and/or that it will become socially accepted that police can do that in the parts of the country where this kind of law exists. I don't think I have to hate police in general, or have a low opinion of police in general, in order to be worried about that.

This worry could be extended to almost any law or court case. I see no reason that this law is worthy of special concern simply because "bad cops exist".

The only reason it's of special concern to me is because it touches on what I think is going to be one of the big civil liberties issues of this century: the level of identification citizens have to present to go about their daily business. At the moment the laws on this are very liberal; I worry that this state of affairs will not continue. That's a pet issue of mine, one that's probably causing me to worry about the Arizona immigration law more than I should.

Because of that pet issue of mine, I worry not just about this law, but about new legal precedents that might be set when it gets challenged, about laws that might be passed as a follow-up to it, about the possibility that it will be used to do things I don't want to see happen.

If that proves not to be the case, then I am worrying about nothing. I hope I am. I'm just suspicious, probably more because I'm a really suspicious bastard when it comes to things I perceive as civil liberty issues, and less because I have cause to be so. I can't prove that I should be.

Basically, this boils down to the fact that I am not sure I can rely on the Arizona police as a whole to enforce this law in a way I would consider just, nor on the Arizona courts to rein in the Arizona police if they fail to do so. Arizona has shown, as a state, that it has very little concern for the problems I have with this law when the (admittedly serious) problem of illegal immigration is involved.

So now we've switched from concerns about a few bad apple cops to the police as a whole because they're from Arizona and you just don't trust Arizona.

I'm afraid you misunderstood. When I say "The Arizona police as a whole," I mean "the set of all police in Arizona." Meaning all of them, the good ones and the bad ones. The good ones, I'm not worried about. The bad ones, I'm worried about. If there are more than a very few bad ones, then overall I worry about the sum total of all enforcement of this law in Arizona. Not because every individual policeman is being unjust, but because some of them are.

So no, that is not a general slur against all police from Arizona.

I don't see why I should care if you don't trust them to enforce it in a way you consider just because Arizona isn't addressing your concerns, especially when your concerns are a result of your ignorance of very basic police procedure (which is understandable since you're obviously not trained) and your apparent idea that police will be willing to throw caution to the wind in regard to both their physical safety and their continued livelyhood simply because they're from Arizona.

You are under no obligation to care. But if you don't care, then I fail to see why it is of such great importance to correct me on this issue.

Except that it is not. Again, if you don't have ID on you, your name and DOB or SSN or DL number if yo remember them can be run through dispatch. As I posted above, the courts have ruled that while you do not have to carry ID, you do not have a right to refuse to furnish identifying information at all.

Very well. Do you have any ideas on why was this not sufficient in the Abdon case?

[SVPD]

I think I don't know, is what I think. I don't trust him. Not when there's already an example, from before this law passed, of ICE people cuffing someone and taking him to the central office without, apparently, bothering to do that basic routine check on his name. Or without considering that routine check to be enough evidence that he was a citizen.

First of all, ICE is not a normal police agency and may or may not have had the ability to contact dispatch at all, if they even have one. I assume they have radio contact with someone, but they are not a patrol agency. Second, trying to generalize from one incident with ICE where they did something highly questionable (at best) to immigration cases in general, to Arizona, or to Arpaio is a significant leap in logic. Third, your personal distrust of Arpaio is not evidence of anything, and certainly not that he lacks a self-preservation desire, or that he does not care if his men engage in practices that are highly dangerous. From Arpaio's reputation, I would expect him to err on the side of excessive concern for his men, not disregard for them.

Maybe those ICE men just fucked up. Maybe they're terrible by cop standards. But if the federal government can have people like that in its ranks, I fail to see why I should be confident that local police forces won't. Especially local police forces that gain popular support when they are seen harassing people as a way of getting illegal immigrant arrests.

Obviously any agency can have some people who are incompetant or of questionable professional merit in their ranks. Some cops and other LEOs are going to do stupid shit regardless. As you say, this case was from before this law passed, and its neither the first nor the last case of police questionably detaining someone. I don't see any reason to think this law will significantly affect that.

I also don't see where you get the idea that police agencies are going to gain popular support by harrassing people, illegal immigrants notwithstanding. Citizens object to being harrassed by the police, and they object to people harrassing other citizens.

And no, that does not mean that I think every cop in Arizona will suddenly start pulling this kind of crap. What bothers me is the potential that some of them will do so, that this behavior will start spreading to other states, and/or that it will become socially accepted that police can do that in the parts of the country where this kind of law exists. I don't think I have to hate police in general, or have a low opinion of police in general, in order to be worried about that.

There's potential for some cops to abuse any law. There's no reason to think this law is going to cause any such spread of "this crap" (which I see you've decided to switch to a vagary when referencing) which A) hasn't occured yet and B) would only result if there were major changes in the basics of arrest and detention case law, and equally major changes in basic procedure. Some cops may abuse their powers, but there is no reason to think this particular law will significantly affect that since the fears you espouse are based on your completely unreasonable idea that they will just start ignoring their own self-interest to do so. Some cops are assholes, but very few are suicidal about it.

The only reason it's of special concern to me is because it touches on what I think is going to be one of the big civil liberties issues of this century: the level of identification citizens have to present to go about their daily business. At the moment the laws on this are very liberal; I worry that this state of affairs will not continue. That's a pet issue of mine, one that's probably causing me to worry about the Arizona immigration law more than I should.

I don't see why you would think citizens will need to present any ID to go about their daily buisness, and as a matter of fact, almost all citizens who are old enough to have any carry ID with them anyhow. You're building a tower of concern on one case. The fact is that the courts have already ruled on the issue, and citizens are not required to carry ID, unless they ar engaging in some other activity which requires them to have it anyhow such as driving. In Kolender v. Lawson the Court struck down a requirement to provide "credible and reasonable" identification.

Because of that pet issue of mine, I worry not just about this law, but about new legal precedents that might be set when it gets challenged, about laws that might be passed as a follow-up to it, about the possibility that it will be used to do things I don't want to see happen.

In otehr words, this is all a slippery slope of "might happen". You're entitled to your worries, but your worry is not evidence.

If that proves not to be the case, then I am worrying about nothing. I hope I am. I'm just suspicious, probably more because I'm a really suspicious bastard when it comes to things I perceive as civil liberty issues, and less because I have cause to be so. I can't prove that I should be.

Thank you for the candid admission.

Basically, this boils down to the fact that I am not sure I can rely on the Arizona police as a whole to enforce this law in a way I would consider just, nor on the Arizona courts to rein in the Arizona police if they fail to do so. Arizona has shown, as a state, that it has very little concern for the problems I have with this law when the (admittedly serious) problem of illegal immigration is involved.

So now we've switched from concerns about a few bad apple cops to the police as a whole because they're from Arizona and you just don't trust Arizona.

I'm afraid you misunderstood. When I say "The Arizona police as a whole," I mean "the set of all police in Arizona." Meaning all of them, the good ones and the bad ones. The good ones, I'm not worried about. The bad ones, I'm worried about. If there are more than a very few bad ones, then overall I worry about the sum total of all enforcement of this law in Arizona. Not because every individual policeman is being unjust, but because some of them are.

There are always going to be some assholes in law enforcement. Police not doing what they are suppsoed to is a perennial problem. That still doesn't explain how this law allows them to circumvent the basics of laws of detention and arrest.

I don't see why I should care if you don't trust them to enforce it in a way you consider just because Arizona isn't addressing your concerns, especially when your concerns are a result of your ignorance of very basic police procedure (which is understandable since you're obviously not trained) and your apparent idea that police will be willing to throw caution to the wind in regard to both their physical safety and their continued livelyhood simply because they're from Arizona.

You are under no obligation to care. But if you don't care, then I fail to see why it is of such great importance to correct me on this issue.

Because you are perpetuating a concern based on a complete misunderstanding of how police procedure and laws of arrest and detention work. This law does not exist in a vaccum; it must comply with prior court decisions in regard to the rights of citizens suspected of crime.

Very well. Do you have any ideas on why was this not sufficient in the Abdon case?

I am not familiar enough with the case to say for sure. From the little knowledge I have of it, it seems that the officers/agents in question were just acting like complete douchebag idiots. It may also be that they had a suspicion his CDL was falsified for some reason or something like that. Either way, it is a single instance, and polcie actions, unlike court actions, are not legal precedent.

[SVPD]

BWAH HA HA HA!!!
Oh, oh man your serious aren't you? Mang you do NOT know good ol' Sherif Joe...

<snip discussion of Arpaio

No, to be perfectly honest I'm only passingly familiar with him. I was not aware of his habit of arresting political opponents.

However, I still do not see him being careless with officer safety issues. From a guy like that I would expect him to be excessive in regard to keeping his men safe and making sure they keep each other safe. I also do not see him being generalizeable to Arizona at large. I also don't really see how harrassing people that are going after him personally (merited or not) would translate to him wanting to waste his time and resources on spurious arrests, especially since some would inevitably be of his constituents. Presumably he wants to get re-elected? I assume that he gets re-elected because the citizens see him as tough on crime; if he starts allowing his resources to go from catching criminals to harrassing random people his electorl support should diminish, yes?

I happen to have a friend that works for the Phoenix P.D. and they do not run their agency anything like Arpaio runs his. Arpaio is an anomoly; hence his fame.

I'm not defending the guy; I'm pointing out that he's not likely to act against his own self-interest when there's no gain to be realized.

[Anguirus]

The same goes for other states where: "similar efforts are under way... Minnesota, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Missouri, Nebraska and Idaho." It beggars belief that ANY of those states have the same scale of illegal immigrant problem Arizona does, with the possible exception of Texas. So why are they willing to violate the same civil liberties in order to solve what is, for them, a much smaller problem?

I can't speak for any of these except Texas. The Texas initiative is DOA from what I hear, it's just being shoved through by some of the crazier right-wingers in the state Congress. However, Rick Perry, who is a pretty big wingnut himself, has explicitly said that a law resembling the Arizona one "won't work here," and he refuses to "turn cops into immigration officers."

He may be a wingnut, but he wants to get re-elected and I suspect that in Texas Hispanics are just a stronger bloc than rifle-toting pseudo-Minutemen. Yes, Texas has an enormous border with Mexico, but there's also a lot MORE of it than the border region. There are even Democrats here! In the Congress they could easily be shoved aside by a GOP majority, but since the GOP is not united on this, I really don't think it's going anywhere.

I also suspect that Maryland is just some state legislator posturing. The Democrats on a national level HATE this Arizona law, and they're in charge in MD.