More Arizona shenanigans: Sheriff Joe sued by Feds

[Master of Ossus]

I would like to point out that "identifying oneself" and "proving one's identity" are two different things. Albeit I am not educated in American law, I imagine that if the officer asked Simon_Jester's brother to identify himself, he could reply
"Yes, officer. My name is Brother_Jester,"
and he just fulfilled his legal obligation to truthfully identify himself. Saying one's name is the easiest and most efficient form of doing this, no ID needed.

Of course, it's unreliable for immediately proving that you are who you say you are, but that's not what the law requires you to do when an officer asks. Showing identification is only needed when this proof is needed, such as when you want to buy liquor, prove that you are competent to drive, or prove that you're not a criminal trying to flee the country. So there is a difference between asking someone to identify oneself and demanding identification.

I believe I already stated that requiring someone to present ID does represent a change to the law as it exists in most states, however this seems a patently reasonable change given that people must already furnish their identifications under a wide variety of circumstances (you cite several innocuous ones), and moreover given the constitutionality of requiring people to truthfully identify themselves when asked by police officers. In another thread, I previously stated that while this sort of requirement extends the SCOTUS ruling in Hiibel, it does so only very slightly. I simply cannot believe that the Supreme Court intended to permit people to escape identifying themselves clearly to officers by stating a name, but preventing the officers from taking any steps to confirm the accuracy of the information provided.

Edit: Fixed typos.

[MKSheppard]

This creates a defacto inequality in the law, which is in violation of the 14th amendment.

So you are calling for the ADA act to be repealed, then?

[Master of Ossus]

Alright. Ossus, this has gone on long enough. I lived in AZ for 12 years. I have been stopped on multiple occasions because I am a bit of a night owl and used public transportation. Officers would stop me, ask who I was and were I was going. I was only legally obligated to inform them who I was and that I was going home. Now, a guy walking in a residential area with a backpack on at 1 AM looks kinda suspicious. TThey never asked me for ID, my word was enough for them. That is the legal obligation you are referring to. Failure to provide a certain standard of proof of your identity is not the obligation.

Conceded. The Arizona law does not require the showing of a valid form of ID--it merely calls for officers to detain people suspected of being in the country illegally until their ID can be established, and conclusively presumes that people who do display valid forms of ID are lawfully in the country. But, moreover, an officer asking for some form of identity pursuant to a state law permitting such inquiry is most likely consistent with the SCOTUS ruling in Hiibel. I don't know what the law was in Arizona when you lived there, and I acknowledge that Hiibel is not precisely on point because it dealt only with a law requiring someone to truthfully state their identity, but I do not see how it can be constitutionally objectionable for a state to require the presentation of some form of identification under prior constitutional decisions.

Now in AZ, if the same thing were to happen again, my word would still be enough for the police officer. Were I brown, had an accent, or a speech impediment that made me sound german (I know a guy with one, Philosophy professor, nice guy) then that person's word would not be enough.

Evidence for either portion of this claim? How do you know that your "word would still be enough for the police officer?"

How do you know that people in the categories you have mentioned would be treated differently?

The relevant law is facially neutral. Indeed, it specifically prohibits law enforcement personnel from solely using race, color, or national origin (see Art. 8, 11-1051(C) of the Arizona Code, as revised by the relevant bill).

This creates a defacto inequality in the law, which is in violation of the 14th amendment.

Nonsense. The bill specifically prohibits unconstitutional discrimination in its application.

Afterall, the laws governing much of the Jim Crow south specified equality, but they were applied... differently to different races and ethnic groups. Same thing here.

No, it's not. Even if you could show disparate impact in the law, that would be insufficient to show that the law was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The impact of a law is explicitly not determinative under Washington v. Davis. The difference is that the Jim Crow laws which were struck down were found to have been intended to discriminate. Here, there is no such intent (or, at least, it's not obvious--the legislature in Arizona specifically stated a non-discriminatory intent in the bill).

Indeed, it's questionable that there's even a disparate impact, here. You cited someone who appears to be German, thus showing that you believe the law will be applied to people regardless of both race and national origin, provided that police reasonably suspect them to be in the country illegally. There is no "protected class" for people whom police reasonably suspect to be in the country illegally. Hence, there can be no equal protection violation except under the framework of rational basis, and Arizona evidently has a rational basis in distinguishing between people who are reasonably suspected of being present illegally and those who are not.

The Arizona law seems to me to have been very carefully drafted to fit within the current requirements of the Constitution as articulated by the Supreme Court in prior decisions.

Frankly, getting a drivers license in AZ is not proof of immigration status anyway. Frankly, documents can be faked. Many illegals have them. So the license itself may be perfectly valid, but the underlying documents are not.

But the Arizona law specifically states that a person displaying any of several documents, including "a drivers [sic] license in AZ" is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." It may not be absolute proof, but it's considered sufficient by the State of Arizona.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because there are no laws requiring you have the documents on them in the first place. I damned well have no intention of providing a cop with any of my documents just because they ask.

It's constitutional for a state to have and enforce laws requiring people to identify themselves to police officers. What is the functional difference between identifying yourself, which you must do truthfully, to a police officer and providing them with a document stating your identity?

Actually, only when you're being stopped for a violation or you've been involved in a crime (witness, victim, suspect) are you required by law to identify yourself. You aren't required to carry ID on you in any place that I'm aware of besides when operating a vehicle.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That being said I would support measures to make carrying an ID a law. Doing so doesn't hurt the innocent, and it makes people who are engaged in suspicious activity unable to lie as easily. If I see someone hanging around a metal recycling plant after hours and they don't have ID the most I can currently do is ask them for their name and date of birth. I don't have enough to fingerprint or photograph them, and I don't have enough to hold them for identification.

Most departments have the ability to look up photographs, so chances are even if you had one in your name and the officer was able to verify it was you from the photograph or because you knew details about the ID then you probably wouldn't get cited for not carrying. Like in Chewie example. It is against the traffic code in most states to drive and not have the physical ID on you. The cop gave you a break...and most cops I know don't write people for that violation.

[PeZook]

Actually, cops in Germany and most of Europe don't have the right to just ask you for ID on a whim, they need to have a reason to, such as identifying a witness, suspicion that you comitted a crime, etc that they can articulate (and, obviously, put in their shift report)

If they just walk up to you, demand ID and then lock you up for 48 hours, you can demand reparations in court. Of course, a bent cop could just make up an excuse, yeah, but the situation is extremely unlikely (you'd pretty much have to annoy a specific cop enough that he'd harass you daily in the off chance you wouldn't have ID with you).

[Thanas]

If they just walk up to you, demand ID and then lock you up for 48 hours, you can demand reparations in court. Of course, a bent cop could just make up an excuse, yeah, but the situation is extremely unlikely (you'd pretty much have to annoy a specific cop enough that he'd harass you daily in the off chance you wouldn't have ID with you).

Nobody can lock you in jail in Germany without at least another cop double-checking up on it. So he'd have to fool his duty sargeant as well. And nobody can really detain you for non-valid ID, unless he caught you perpetrating a time. Even then, a judge usually has to sign off on it (except if it is during the night).

[PeZook]

The particulars obviously vary: in Poland, the police can detain you for 48 hours without charging you, but only if they have a reason to and they need to make sure you appear before a judge in 24 hours if you want to, who can determine if you will be "temporarily arrested". Or if you'll get reimbursed because the cops had no reason to detain you. So they're usually pretty careful with that.

Nevertheless, the idea that "mandatory ID" = "cops can do whatever they want" is wrong. It's just a measure to save police from obtuse assholes who can't live in society and would prefer to make trouble over a non-issue than to just present the damn ID card and be on their way in five minutes. Plenty of countries have both mandatory ID laws and - horror of horrors! Standard and laws on when the police can ask for one and for what reasons.

Clearly, none of this would work in America, because America is exceptional.

[MKSheppard]

An interesting precedent has been set by a Federal Prosecutor and Federal Judge in Texas.

Fairly recently, the BATF took down someone at an Austin, TX gunshow who was blantantly bending the laws regarding non FFL regulated, private sales of firearms. (Short version: you can sell x amount of guns each year as a private individual or collector without having to do a background check; this covers selling guns to friends, family, to make some money quick, etc).

What this guy was doing was basically being an unlicensed straw dealer -- table full of weapons, "psst. you can buy any of these without a background check"

Instead of building up a nice airtight case; the Feds decided to basically toss something quick together to get this guy out of circulation; probably in order to get a quick bullet point that they could curry favor with National ATF HQ; which has been under increasing pressure to "stop the flow of illegal guns to mexico" or some bullshit.

Link to story

One of the gun dealers of Austin's Gun Show is sentenced to 6-months at a federal work camp for selling a weapon to an undocumented immigrant. Independent firearms dealer-Paul Copeland says for years he has commonly sold handguns and antique weapons with no problems and prior to his arrest the illegal immigrant showed him what appeared to be a valid Texas driver’s license. In January 2009, the ATF along with the Austin police department set up a sting operation targeting independent firearms dealers that were selling weapons to illegal immigrants, both inside the show and outside the Austin’s Gun Show’s parking lot. Shortly after the series of arrests, the regularly scheduled weapons-event was asked to move from the North Austin location. Investigators with the Austin police department believed many of the guns sold to the undocumented immigrants at the show were headed back across the Texas-Mexico border. “I guess you need ask them <Latinos> for their documentation too; if the police aren’t going to profile why should the common citizen have to” says Copeland. He says none of the undocumented immigrants that were asked to testify against him were arrested by federal agents. Austin's Federal Judge Sam Sparks sentenced Copeland to spend the next 6-months at a federal work camp followed by 2-years of probation.

Now; the fun part is this. Apparently during the trial which ended in a conviction (see above); the Feds conceded that the Defendant did not know that the buyer was an illegal alien; but that the jury should convict him anyway, based on 'reasonable cause to believe' that he was selling to an illegal, due to the fact the buyer was Hispanic and spoke Spanish.

Under Texas Law; you're required to check for a legal ID when selling a weapon, and the defendant did do that -- the guy produced a Texas DL. (Of course the illegal was working as a confidental informant for the ATF).

So basically we have a Federal Case that basically says we should racially discriminate when engaged in firearms related transactions.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

My concerns about mandatory ID checks would be considerably reduced if there was a standardized federal ID card which had a limited amount of data on it which was determined by the federal government (by the civil service, not by legislation). If everyone in the country was required to carry a passport and that passport was the only legal ID they ever had to show for any circumstance whatsoever, I'd find that much more acceptable. As it is, the states are the sole determinator of what actually is put on their ID cards and those ID cards and their content are ultimately controlled by some far less representative governments.

Design, say, a card which just has name and "is an American citizen" on it with a photograph, or "is a legal alien" the same. The card then can be run through a device similar to a credit card reader and provide a unique code which would reference back to an actual database of more detailed information, including referencing their right to work in the US and their driving licensure information, with citizens accessing the network rather than law enforcement having access to a less detailed level of data, and in all cases the data in combination not having more levels of information than what's already on a passport and driver's license.

My main problem with the idea of currently making document checks mandatory is that our documentation is presently subject to the whim of about fifty state governments, all of which will impose different requirements and procedures, making the system both absurd and easily abused by some state governments to impose a variety of ridiculous requirements on individuals or policies without reference to a national standard. In that current atmosphere of regulatory disorganization in this country I think it perfectly reasonable to oppose any kind of stop-and-identify behaviour on the part of Arizona law enforcement.

[Simon_Jester]

Up till now, we asked them to carry driver's licenses to prove they were competent to drive, because of the hazard posed to bystanders by an incompetent driver.

If the issue were mere proof that they were competent to drive, then asking people to carry a driver's license while driving is a poor proxy for that.

No it is not. It is proof that they have passed the necessary certification process (or they wouldn't have the license), and that they have not had the certification revoked (likewise). Now, it may be that the certification process is to liberal, that you can get a driver's license in the state without being a competent driver. But that's a problem for the DMV's testing standards, not for the police.

The license proves you are certified to drive; the state then assumes that its own defined standards of certification are sufficient to prove that you are competent. If it did not believe so, the solution would be to raise the standards for driver's licenses, not to make you carry additional paperwork while driving.

But you're ignoring the fact that police can still stop such pedestrians and ask them to identify themselves. There is little functional difference between asking them to identify themselves (which the police are permitted to do) and asking them to present identification. This is particularly true in terms of how the Arizona law works: people who present ID are presumed to be legal residents; people who cannot present ID are taken in while their identity is established.

In that case there is a colossal difference.

As others have pointed out, if a policeman asks me to identify myself and I say "My name is Simon Jester and I live on 1313 Cherry Lane," I have complied. He can make a note of that, and if the police need to talk to me later, they can. Now, if he asks me to present ID I might have a problem, especially if I've lost my wallet (or had it stolen; this can happen).

If we adopt "papers please" regulation, that's a huge difference right there. I can always identify myself, but I may not always be able to present identification. Bad luck could stop me from presenting identification. In that case I may find myself arrested for the crime of "breathing in public without documentation proving my right to breathe in public..." which is exactly what I think we should be trying to avoid.

I agree that this is a change from the current state of the law as it exists in most states. I cannot agree that this change is somehow unconscionable or that it violates some principle of human dignity. When you are out in public, you are expected to behave in certain ways: you are required to wear clothing, for example, and refrain from certain behaviours. Asking people to carry some form of identification is perfectly reasonable, particularly given that you may already be required to truthfully identify yourself.

In your scenario, while your brother needn't carry a driver's license, he must still identify himself truthfully if a police officer asks him to do so (or, at least, he can be required to do so consistent with the Constitution). This is in spite of the fact that, in your view, he is merely "breathing while in public." I am not advocating that a driver's license be required for a passenger in a car. I am saying that it's reasonable to require passengers to present some form of identification to peace officers who ask for such identification while in the course of their duties, because this is the easiest and most efficient form of identifying oneself.

I submit, again, that while this is not a profound matter of human dignity, it does represent an additional imposition, especially because (as I said before) simple bad luck can render you unable to present your ID. Perhaps you have never lost your wallet; I have.

I do. I expect them to be licensed to drive. Insofar as I'm concerned, I really wouldn't care if they have the license on their persons or if they merely have a license and are able to identify themselves unambiguously through some other means and allowing the officer to verify that they are, in fact, licensed to drive. Nonetheless, the requirement exists for the sake of police efficiency. Expecting someone to be licensed to drive is not the same thing, for purposes of this discussion, to having a driver's license on their person...

I would be happy to accept a system where any form of ID could substitute for a driver's license. I would prefer not to create a system where I cannot even walk down the street without being vulnerable to the kind of situation Driver A finds herself in, where due to bad luck or innocent forgetfulness the form of ID I'd been carrying was lost, and I was (in effect) arrested for not carrying ID. That would be a waste of my time, a waste of police time, and a needless difficulty created for a citizen who has every right to be walking down the street.

I would still expect the man walking down the sidewalk to be able to carry the card too... but in this case, I have no legitimate interest in expecting him to present such a card on demand to prove that he does in fact have rights.

Why not? We have a social interest in making sure that people are identifiable, and asking them to carry a card is a simple and easy way of making this happen. Moreover, he must already identify himself to police officers upon request. There is no functional difference between this and asking them to present some form of identification, except that it requires them to actually have an ID on their person, and this is not a significant imposition.

Perhaps I would be more inclined to agree if not for the aforementioned incident where I lost my wallet. This incident was stressful enough (identity theft!) without the fear that I might wind up being taken in by the police for being in public without a permit.

In this situation I would not have minded identifying myself to an officer of the peace, and would cheerfully have given him all the accurate information he needed to, say, contact me later. I would even have given him enough contact information that he could call third parties who would vouch for my identity. But I literally could not have given him ID to save my life, because I didn't have it.

[Master of Ossus]

No it is not. It is proof that they have passed the necessary certification process (or they wouldn't have the license), and that they have not had the certification revoked (likewise). Now, it may be that the certification process is to liberal, that you can get a driver's license in the state without being a competent driver. But that's a problem for the DMV's testing standards, not for the police.

But merely because one does not have a driver's license on their person doesn't mean that they haven't passed the test.

The license proves you are certified to drive; the state then assumes that its own defined standards of certification are sufficient to prove that you are competent. If it did not believe so, the solution would be to raise the standards for driver's licenses, not to make you carry additional paperwork while driving.

True, but this doesn't mean that an individual who doesn't have a driver's license is not qualified to drive--something which I described in detail in my post that you responded to and which you have ignored entirely.

In that case there is a colossal difference.

As others have pointed out, if a policeman asks me to identify myself and I say "My name is Simon Jester and I live on 1313 Cherry Lane," I have complied. He can make a note of that, and if the police need to talk to me later, they can. Now, if he asks me to present ID I might have a problem, especially if I've lost my wallet (or had it stolen; this can happen).

If that can happen, then you're screwed under the modern law (which you have defended) that requires drivers to carry their licenses with them when they drive. But in any case, you have ignored the fact that a verbal statement can easily be forged; a driver's license (presumably) cannot, and hence provides verifiability when a person is required to reveal their identity.

If we adopt "papers please" regulation, that's a huge difference right there. I can always identify myself, but I may not always be able to present identification. Bad luck could stop me from presenting identification. In that case I may find myself arrested for the crime of "breathing in public without documentation proving my right to breathe in public..." which is exactly what I think we should be trying to avoid.

Oh, boo hoo. The same thing can happen to drivers who lose their licenses for whatever reason--a point that you have persistently ignored. Indeed, you have defended such laws.

I submit, again, that while this is not a profound matter of human dignity, it does represent an additional imposition, especially because (as I said before) simple bad luck can render you unable to present your ID. Perhaps you have never lost your wallet; I have.

I, frankly, do not care. It is at most a very slight imposition in exchange for potentially significant social benefits.

I would be happy to accept a system where any form of ID could substitute for a driver's license. I would prefer not to create a system where I cannot even walk down the street without being vulnerable to the kind of situation Driver A finds herself in, where due to bad luck or innocent forgetfulness the form of ID I'd been carrying was lost, and I was (in effect) arrested for not carrying ID. That would be a waste of my time, a waste of police time, and a needless difficulty created for a citizen who has every right to be walking down the street.

But not without a form of identification. Also, you're assuming that there is no alternative method for resolving this situation. Moreover, you seem to believe that everyone who's walking down the street without a license will be arrested. This is obviously not true: the police will still need an articulable, reasonable suspicion that the person is in the state illegally. Such people do not have the right to walk down the street in any circumstances. Police ought to have a mechanism for addressing this.

Perhaps I would be more inclined to agree if not for the aforementioned incident where I lost my wallet. This incident was stressful enough (identity theft!) without the fear that I might wind up being taken in by the police for being in public without a permit.

And you couldn't... like... call them and tell them?

In this situation I would not have minded identifying myself to an officer of the peace, and would cheerfully have given him all the accurate information he needed to, say, contact me later. I would even have given him enough contact information that he could call third parties who would vouch for my identity. But I literally could not have given him ID to save my life, because I didn't have it.

So, assuming that the police had a reasonable suspicion to suspect that you were unlawfully present in the state, then you would've been taken to the station until they could verify your ID (and probably would've taken a statement and gotten you the reports you needed, anyway). That hardly seems like a terrible situation to be in, since you almost certainly talked to them, anyway, and they almost certainly would've dealt with the situation just by taking you back to your own house such that you could've proven your identity that way, or else phoned a relative or a friend of yours to help you out.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This creates a defacto inequality in the law, which is in violation of the 14th amendment.

So you are calling for the ADA act to be repealed, then?

Only if you consider methods by which to address an inherent inequality a bad thing. The ADA was put in place to make damn sure that those who are disabled have access to employment, education, and public facilities. That is a far cry from discrimination based on race.

Conceded. The Arizona law does not require the showing of a valid form of ID--it merely calls for officers to detain people suspected of being in the country illegally until their ID can be established, and conclusively presumes that people who do display valid forms of ID are lawfully in the country.

A prejudice very common in AZ is racism against hispanics. Living there for 12 years, you will be amazed at how often you hear disparaging remarks about "fucking beaners" and "Damn illegal immigrants" directed at anyone who looks even remotely hispanic for the slightest inconvenience whatsoever.

Do you seriously think that this provision will not be used to harass hispanics?

Evidence for either portion of this claim? How do you know that your "word would still be enough for the police officer?"

Because I am white and not suspected of being an illegal immigrant almost by definition.

How do you know that people in the categories you have mentioned would be treated differently?

Because I am neither naive nor a moron

What really gets me is how they treat anyone who say... forgets their wallet and is a legal immigrant such as a permanent resident.

13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

....

D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.
15 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

Yes. You read this correctly. If a legal immigrant does not have their documents on them and get stopped for any reason they are guilty of trespassing and subject to a 500 dollar fine in addition to any other penalty. Twice that amount of it happens twice. The same occurs if they fail to immediately notify the state of a change in address. Note. This is for the legal ones. It is however misdemeanor trespassing unless...

G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
31 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
32 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
33 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
34 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
35 13-105.

So is they have a knife of pseudaphed...

The relevant law is facially neutral. Indeed, it specifically prohibits law enforcement personnel from solely using race, color, or national origin (see Art. 8, 11-1051(C) of the Arizona Code, as revised by the relevant bill).

You missed the part about "except as provided by the United States or Arizona Constitution" Granted, Strict Scrutiny is what applies. On the other hand, I do not believe for a second that you are so naive that you think that the police will not stop brown people disproportionately. The law would also have an impact on the german immigrant population down by Main and Recker... they just wont get stopped as often.

[Shroom Man 777]

This whole Arizona thing is a farce. I mean, Big Government is just trying to legislate and regulate the free markets of American citizenship. I still say that if they privatized US citizenship, and got rid of the stupid statist Big Government regulations and legislations (and these statist fascist socialist police forces acting like fucking KGB border guards - fucking communazis!), the free market would do its magic and America wouldn't have to worry about immigration issues at all because capitalism will solve your problems! De-regulate American citizenship! Won't the anti-socialist, anti-democrat, pro-libertarian pro-freedom pro-capitalist Red-voting Arizona guys go for this? Big Government Bad! Big Business Good!

[Simon_Jester]

True, but this doesn't mean that an individual who doesn't have a driver's license is not qualified to drive--something which I described in detail in my post that you responded to and which you have ignored entirely.

No I didn't.

I would be happy to accept a system where any form of ID could substitute for a driver's license. I would prefer not to create a system where I cannot even walk down the street without being vulnerable to the kind of situation Driver A finds herself in...

So no, I didn't ignore what you say I ignored.

Also, there is a profound difference between being a passenger or pedestrian and being a driver. Driving is a privilege; not every person is presumed to have the right to do it simply because it pleases them to do so. Existing is not a privilege, not in an open society, nor is existing in public.

I am prepared to accept more restrictions on a citizen who is exercising a privilege than on one who is exercising a right.

If that can happen, then you're screwed under the modern law (which you have defended) that requires drivers to carry their licenses with them when they drive.

Not if I'm not driving I won't be. And, for that matter, I'm not defending the modern law either, that's a lie, see above. I would be quite happy to see it replaced with a system that accepts alternate forms of identification and just looks the stopped person up in the records.

Even so, saying that a driver must be able to provide proof that they are a certified driver does not automatically imply that any citizen must be able to provide proof that they are a citizen. Especially not if they aren't doing anything that requires a permit, such as driving.

But in any case, you have ignored the fact that a verbal statement can easily be forged; a driver's license (presumably) cannot, and hence provides verifiability when a person is required to reveal their identity.

If verifiability is the concern, what if I propose still other means of identifying myself? Such as a phone call to a third party? Or if the people around me vouch for me, and if they have verifiable identities (so that they can be punished for lying)? Of course, all such methods can be faked... but at some point, the IDs themselves can be faked or obtained fraudulently. How suspicious can we afford to be before we wind up with all citizens required to carry their original birth certificates or something?

Oh, boo hoo. The same thing can happen to drivers who lose their licenses for whatever reason--a point that you have persistently ignored. Indeed, you have defended such laws.

Once again this is a lie, as I explained above.

And yet even so, we still come back to a critical point: driving is not a right. Being able to move in public is- you cannot live as a member of society without the ability to go out in public. If bad luck can render you liable to be arrested at any time, and especially if you are a member of a group that is more likely to be stopped and harassed in any case, (like, say, brown people in Arizona), you are being forced to pay a vastly undue price for your participation in society.

Note Alyrium's citations about penalties accruing to legal immigrants who happen not to carry their ID...

I would be happy to accept a system where any form of ID could substitute for a driver's license. I would prefer not to create a system where I cannot even walk down the street without being vulnerable to the kind of situation Driver A finds herself in, where due to bad luck or innocent forgetfulness the form of ID I'd been carrying was lost, and I was (in effect) arrested for not carrying ID. That would be a waste of my time, a waste of police time, and a needless difficulty created for a citizen who has every right to be walking down the street.

But not without a form of identification. Also, you're assuming that there is no alternative method for resolving this situation. Moreover, you seem to believe that everyone who's walking down the street without a license will be arrested. This is obviously not true: the police will still need an articulable, reasonable suspicion that the person is in the state illegally. Such people do not have the right to walk down the street in any circumstances. Police ought to have a mechanism for addressing this.

I wish I were as optimistic as you about the degree to which we can trust police not to harass citizens who look funny. Since the actual Arizona residents on this forum seem to be rather skeptical, I don't think I can afford to be much less skeptical.

If my only security against being randomly arrested for walking around without ID is that I look too white to be an illegal immigrant and frequent the nicer parts of town where you don't see illegal immigrants very often... that is not good enough. Especially not when there are going to be legal immigrants who do frequent those areas and do look brown enough... and who can be penalized for just happening not to have their papers on their person, just like the famous Driver A.

Perhaps I would be more inclined to agree if not for the aforementioned incident where I lost my wallet. This incident was stressful enough (identity theft!) without the fear that I might wind up being taken in by the police for being in public without a permit.

And you couldn't... like... call them and tell them?

Call who and tell who?

Call the police and tell them that I mislaid my wallet, in hopes that they wouldn't report me? That strike me as yet another waste of police time: should they have to deal with every person who realizes they've forgotten their ID? And how would they be sure of my bona fides, when I wasn't carrying ID?

[[R_H]]

An interesting precedent has been set by a Federal Prosecutor and Federal Judge in Texas.

Fairly recently, the BATF took down someone at an Austin, TX gunshow who was blantantly bending the laws regarding non FFL regulated, private sales of firearms. (Short version: you can sell x amount of guns each year as a private individual or collector without having to do a background check; this covers selling guns to friends, family, to make some money quick, etc).

What this guy was doing was basically being an unlicensed straw dealer -- table full of weapons, "psst. you can buy any of these without a background check"

Instead of building up a nice airtight case; the Feds decided to basically toss something quick together to get this guy out of circulation; probably in order to get a quick bullet point that they could curry favor with National ATF HQ; which has been under increasing pressure to "stop the flow of illegal guns to mexico" or some bullshit.

Link to story

One of the gun dealers of Austin's Gun Show is sentenced to 6-months at a federal work camp for selling a weapon to an undocumented immigrant. Independent firearms dealer-Paul Copeland says for years he has commonly sold handguns and antique weapons with no problems and prior to his arrest the illegal immigrant showed him what appeared to be a valid Texas driver’s license. In January 2009, the ATF along with the Austin police department set up a sting operation targeting independent firearms dealers that were selling weapons to illegal immigrants, both inside the show and outside the Austin’s Gun Show’s parking lot. Shortly after the series of arrests, the regularly scheduled weapons-event was asked to move from the North Austin location. Investigators with the Austin police department believed many of the guns sold to the undocumented immigrants at the show were headed back across the Texas-Mexico border. “I guess you need ask them <Latinos> for their documentation too; if the police aren’t going to profile why should the common citizen have to” says Copeland. He says none of the undocumented immigrants that were asked to testify against him were arrested by federal agents. Austin's Federal Judge Sam Sparks sentenced Copeland to spend the next 6-months at a federal work camp followed by 2-years of probation.

Now; the fun part is this. Apparently during the trial which ended in a conviction (see above); the Feds conceded that the Defendant did not know that the buyer was an illegal alien; but that the jury should convict him anyway, based on 'reasonable cause to believe' that he was selling to an illegal, due to the fact the buyer was Hispanic and spoke Spanish.

Under Texas Law; you're required to check for a legal ID when selling a weapon, and the defendant did do that -- the guy produced a Texas DL. (Of course the illegal was working as a confidental informant for the ATF).

So basically we have a Federal Case that basically says we should racially discriminate when engaged in firearms related transactions.

I found an interesting blog entry about that case

Feds convict Texan for selling a gun to illegal alien with Texas Driver's License

In Federal District Court on July 20, 2010, the ATF won a conviction from an Austin jury that defies logic and reason. In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he "had reasonable cause to believe" he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.

The firearm transaction at issue occurred on January 16, 2010, at a gunshow at the North Austin Events Center, at 10601 N. Lamar Blvd., in Austin, Texas. Undercover ATF agents followed Mr. Huerta, his son, and another Hispanic male, Hipolito Aviles, around the "Texas Gunshow" that day, and claimed to observe Huerta’s transaction. Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.

Mr. Copeland is a 56 year old Cedar Creek resident and Vietnam veteran who liked to buy, sell, and trade firearms as a hobby. On January 16, however, he had the misfortune to sell a handgun to Leonel Huerta Sr., who spoke both English and Spanish. Huerta Sr. negotiated his purchase from Copeland in English, showing Copeland his Texas Driver’s License. At Copeland’s trial Huerta admitted on the witness stand, that he is in the country illegally, (Huerta Sr. had previously admitted this fact to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Leo Buentello). ATF Agent Shawn Kang claimed he saw Huerta later hand off the gun to Aviles. Despite these admissions, Huerta Sr. was never arrested, charged, or deported. Instead, his presence at the gunshow was used to entrap an American citizen into an unwitting violation of a federal gun control law. Huerta Sr., who is a resident of the City of Austin, appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power. To date Huerta Sr. has not been prosecuted for his purchase, possession, or disposition of the handgun he bought from Copeland, while Copeland is now a convicted felon.

"Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for selling," commented Paul Velte, attorney and founder of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. Velte asked, "who was in a better position to know the buyer’s immigration status, the buyer or the seller?" He also said, "What happened to Paul Copeland should enrage all Americans. The Federal Government is using illegal aliens to entrap citizens lawfully exercising their right to sell firearms. The illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted. The same government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense? It makes no sense unless the purpose is to discourage attendance at gunshows and frighten citizens from selling their firearms to other citizens."

Velte pointed out that "There is no way for a citizen to know who is here legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish." Velte noted that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona was based on that very type of conduct: Concluding someone could be here illegally based on their looks or their language. Velte said gun owners in his group are outraged, and they want to know:

1. Why is the illegal alien who purchased the gun, Leonel Huerta Sr., still living in Austin?
2. Why does he still have a Texas Driver’s license?
3. Why is ATF using illegal aliens to set up and convict American citizens?
4. What has he been promised for his cooperation?
5. Why has he not been prosecuted? He committed three distinct crimes: he purchased a firearm knowing he was an illegal alien, he possessed the firearm, and he transferred the handgun to another illegal alien (Hippolito Aviles, who was convicted and given time served on June 30, 2010).
6. Why has Huerta Sr. not been deported?

Judge Sparks sentenced Copeland on August 27 to six months confinement and 24 months of probation, and called Copeland "a liar" for not admitting guilt. ATF confiscated Copeland’s entire gun collection and initiated forfeiture proceedings. Copeland was also fired from his job due to the indictment, and he would have lost his home to foreclosure, if not for his family stepping in to pay his mortgage while he serves his sentence.

Bolding mine.

[MKSheppard]

The reason why he hasn't been deported, was becuase he was "turned" by the ATF and used as a Confidental Informant. You can't get a CI to wear a wire or participate in a sting if it's known you fuck them over.

[Kamakazie Sith]

We over here in Germany carry our ID with us all the time. However, we also have a police which does not act like dicks when asking for it. Also, your driver's license is valid ID over here, so I kinda doubt it would be that much of a hassle for the americans.

We have a police that also don't act like dicks when asking for ID.

Nobody can lock you in jail in Germany without at least another cop double-checking up on it. So he'd have to fool his duty sargeant as well. And nobody can really detain you for non-valid ID, unless he caught you perpetrating a time. Even then, a judge usually has to sign off on it (except if it is during the night).

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.

[Master of Ossus]

A prejudice very common in AZ is racism against hispanics. Living there for 12 years, you will be amazed at how often you hear disparaging remarks about "fucking beaners" and "Damn illegal immigrants" directed at anyone who looks even remotely hispanic for the slightest inconvenience whatsoever.

Do you seriously think that this provision will not be used to harass hispanics?

I don't know, but private citizens discriminating is not unconstitutional. Government officials are not permitted to use their power to discriminate against people based on a series of characteristics.

Because I am neither naive nor a moron

What really gets me is how they treat anyone who say... forgets their wallet and is a legal immigrant such as a permanent resident.

How do they treat such people? They're supposed to just detain them until they can check with the Federal government about their immigration status. That takes about as long as the Federal system takes.

Yes. You read this correctly. If a legal immigrant does not have their documents on them and get stopped for any reason they are guilty of trespassing and subject to a 500 dollar fine in addition to any other penalty. Twice that amount of it happens twice. The same occurs if they fail to immediately notify the state of a change in address. Note. This is for the legal ones. It is however misdemeanor trespassing unless...

When you actually bother to check up on those other laws that were quoted as being the relevant underlying violation, you'll see that the Federal government already requires aliens to carry their alien registration (8 USC Sec. 1304(e)). That law doesn't affect someone who is here in conformity with US federal law--blame the Feds if you don't like the outcome, or the federal definition of crimes--Arizona just adopted the federal rules as their own.

G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
31 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
32 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
33 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
34 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
35 13-105.

So is they have a knife of pseudaphed...

Eliminating this law would be a great victory for all illegal aliens who are taking a shower in the morning, walk out onto their porch to get the morning paper, and have the door slam behind them and the doorknob break off.

Possession of pseudophed is not in violation of Section 13-3404.01 unless, for instance, you're knowingly walking around with more than 24 grams of the stuff without a license or permit to do so or knowingly carrying around pure and unmixed drug. It is also not a dangerous drug as listed under the parent section. I looked up what the adult dosage of pseudoephedrine is. It's 60 milligrams/6 hours. So under the statute, the guy would have to be knowingly walking around with more than 400 doses of pseudophed for this to be a violation. As for the "deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument," under Section 13-105 these terms are defined to exclude the sort of boxcutter or kitchen knife you seem to be describing. It specifically requires that the instrument be designed for lethal use--a kitchen knife wouldn't be included; a "dangerous instrument" "means anything that under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury."

So to recap your scenario but apply the actual laws which you seem to have been too lazy to look up and read for yourself, our poor legal resident friend is guilty of a felony if he's walking down the street in violation of federal law (without the proof of registration he's required to carry around at all times), minding his own business, while knowingly toting around enough Sudafed to let him continuously take the drug for roughly 3 months and threatening people with a butcher knife or carrying around a katana!

What a horribly unreasonable law.

The relevant law is facially neutral. Indeed, it specifically prohibits law enforcement personnel from solely using race, color, or national origin (see Art. 8, 11-1051(C) of the Arizona Code, as revised by the relevant bill).

You missed the part about "except as provided by the United States or Arizona Constitution"

I have no idea how you drew the conclusion that I had somehow "missed" this part.

Granted, Strict Scrutiny is what applies.

No, it's not. No distinction drawn in the relevant law is subject to strict scrutiny.

On the other hand, I do not believe for a second that you are so naive that you think that the police will not stop brown people disproportionately. The law would also have an impact on the german immigrant population down by Main and Recker... they just wont get stopped as often.

Stopping certain groups of people disproportionately is not unconstitutional. Read Washington v. Davis. I dont' care that they will "stop brown people disproportionately" because that is not relevant in evaluating the reasonableness of the law. Laws that have a disproportionate impact on different minority groups can and often are perfectly constitutional. This rule of constitutional interpretation, for instance, explains how the government is allowed to have welfare laws (which disproportionately benefit e.g., blacks in this country). To use another example, it's how the Federal government is permitted to outlaw heroin or cocaine or mescaline, even though those laws impact certain racial groups (as well as people from certain nations of origin) disproportionately. I spelled this out in my last reply to you. If you are confused, please ask me specific questions about the analysis that I walked through.

[Master of Ossus]

Also, there is a profound difference between being a passenger or pedestrian and being a driver. Driving is a privilege; not every person is presumed to have the right to do it simply because it pleases them to do so. Existing is not a privilege, not in an open society, nor is existing in public.

I am prepared to accept more restrictions on a citizen who is exercising a privilege than on one who is exercising a right.

But walking down the street in the US is a privilege which is freely denied to certain classes of people. Admission into this country is a privilege which is extended only to US citizens and certain foreign nationals. Since the ability to appear in public is specifically excluded from certain classes of people (e.g., foreigners attemtping to sneak into the country) it is evidently a privilege similar to driving, albeit one that only sometimes requires testing, etc.

Not if I'm not driving I won't be. And, for that matter, I'm not defending the modern law either, that's a lie, see above. I would be quite happy to see it replaced with a system that accepts alternate forms of identification and just looks the stopped person up in the records.

Even so, saying that a driver must be able to provide proof that they are a certified driver does not automatically imply that any citizen must be able to provide proof that they are a citizen. Especially not if they aren't doing anything that requires a permit, such as driving.

No law that we're talking about requires proof of citizenship on demand, it simply permits police to detain people who cannot present such proof for the limited purpose of evaluating their claims of citizenship. This is a far cry from what you are asserting.

If verifiability is the concern, what if I propose still other means of identifying myself? Such as a phone call to a third party? Or if the people around me vouch for me, and if they have verifiable identities (so that they can be punished for lying)? Of course, all such methods can be faked... but at some point, the IDs themselves can be faked or obtained fraudulently. How suspicious can we afford to be before we wind up with all citizens required to carry their original birth certificates or something?

No law that we're discussing requires police to demand a specific form of ID. It just requires police to presume that certain types of ID are valid and confirm lawful presence. And verifiability is an obvious concern. Even a phone call to a third party does not provide the same level of verifiability as provided by a legal form of identification.

And yet even so, we still come back to a critical point: driving is not a right. Being able to move in public is- you cannot live as a member of society without the ability to go out in public. If bad luck can render you liable to be arrested at any time, and especially if you are a member of a group that is more likely to be stopped and harassed in any case, (like, say, brown people in Arizona), you are being forced to pay a vastly undue price for your participation in society.

Note Alyrium's citations about penalties accruing to legal immigrants who happen not to carry their ID...

Alyrium's citations only serve to prove my point: appearance in public for foreign nationals already requires them to carry a form of identification while they're here, even though you have claimed repeatedly that this is a "right" since they cannot live in society here without going out into public while they're here. Evidently, then, appearance in public is not a right since it can be freely denied to groups of people who are specifically permitted to live in the US. Moreover, there are other requirements for people who are US citizens that apply even for mere existence. For instance, people must register with the Selective Service upon reaching a particular age.

Your entire view of citizenship appears to be that it is no more than a rights that accrue, rather than having responsibilities inherent to citizenship. If you acknowledged that citizenship carries duties as well as privileges and benefits, then you would obviously have no trouble at all imposing an additional (and extremely minor) duty to the list. Indeed, this duty is already imposed under Federal law upon people who have been lawfully admitted into the United States--obviously it is not a cripplingly difficult requirement to impose upon people who live in our society, as you portray it to be.

I wish I were as optimistic as you about the degree to which we can trust police not to harass citizens who look funny. Since the actual Arizona residents on this forum seem to be rather skeptical, I don't think I can afford to be much less skeptical.

The actual Arizona residents on this forum don't seem to understand the new law.

If my only security against being randomly arrested for walking around without ID is that I look too white to be an illegal immigrant and frequent the nicer parts of town where you don't see illegal immigrants very often... that is not good enough. Especially not when there are going to be legal immigrants who do frequent those areas and do look brown enough... and who can be penalized for just happening not to have their papers on their person, just like the famous Driver A.

It's not an arrest. It's a detention for the limited purpose of evaluating your claims of citizenship. Moreover, legal immigrants are already subjected to this "risk", such that it is. Somehow, it works for them.

Call who and tell who?

Call the police and tell them that I mislaid my wallet, in hopes that they wouldn't report me? That strike me as yet another waste of police time: should they have to deal with every person who realizes they've forgotten their ID? And how would they be sure of my bona fides, when I wasn't carrying ID?

Ask legal immigrants how they manage to deal with this horrible, awful restriction on their freedoms while they're in the US.

[Simon_Jester]

But walking down the street in the US is a privilege which is freely denied to certain classes of people. Admission into this country is a privilege which is extended only to US citizens and certain foreign nationals. Since the ability to appear in public is specifically excluded from certain classes of people (e.g., foreigners attemtping to sneak into the country) it is evidently a privilege similar to driving, albeit one that only sometimes requires testing, etc.

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

No law that we're talking about requires proof of citizenship on demand, it simply permits police to detain people who cannot present such proof for the limited purpose of evaluating their claims of citizenship. This is a far cry from what you are asserting.

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?

Alyrium's citations only serve to prove my point: appearance in public for foreign nationals already requires them to carry a form of identification while they're here, even though you have claimed repeatedly that this is a "right" since they cannot live in society here without going out into public while they're here.

That doesn't make the law just.

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

Your entire view of citizenship appears to be that it is no more than a rights that accrue, rather than having responsibilities inherent to citizenship. If you acknowledged that citizenship carries duties as well as privileges and benefits, then you would obviously have no trouble at all imposing an additional (and extremely minor) duty to the list.

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.

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.

It's not an arrest. It's a detention for the limited purpose of evaluating your claims of citizenship. Moreover, legal immigrants are already subjected to this "risk", such that it is. Somehow, it works for them.

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?

[PeZook]

We have a police that also don't act like dicks when asking for ID.

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...)

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.

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)

[Thanas]

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.

[Surlethe]

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?

Might it just be that we lock so many people up, there aren't enough judges to go around?

[Thanas]

= money issue