Arizona Immigration Law: Examining the Debate

[IcedEcliptic]

I don't know if this is racist or not, but I do know if I looked to be hispanic, I would not want to be in Arizona now. Well, I have been there before, and I didn't want to be there at the time either; dry and hot place, but nice canyons.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I'm curious about about that. Reasonable suspicion, like Miranda notification, is required under due process to convict, not to detain or arrest. As was just pointed out for some of these terrorists incidents, the cops don't have to Mirandize unless they want assurance of conviction later. So absent RS, what's to stop the cops from simply detaining, identifying as illegal, and deporting? I suppose either federal civil rights legislation, or civil law suits? I vaguely recall the latter was specifically included in the Az law, maybe for this reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

They cannot make you show ID or talk under Reasonable Suspicion, so how is it useful unless there is something to be arrested on? If the person is not legally in the USA then they have no recourse, but if they are, and the police officer oversteps then I think that is a lawsuit there.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm curious about about that. Reasonable suspicion, like Miranda notification, is required under due process to convict, not to detain or arrest.

Huh?

Reasonable suspicion is required, I believe, to detain; it's apparently required by the law under discussion here. More than reasonable suspicion is required to arrest -- in particular, that requires probable cause. Conviction generally requires a yet higher standard, usually either clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. The Miranda notifications aren't required for detention, arrest, or conviction (see, e.g., Florida v. Powell; c.f. Dickerson v. United States).

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Huh?

Reasonable suspicion is required, I believe, to detain; it's apparently required by the law under discussion here. More than reasonable suspicion is required to arrest -- in particular, that requires probable cause. Conviction generally requires a yet higher standard, usually either clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. The Miranda notifications aren't required for detention, arrest, or conviction.

A police officer can arrest for nothing at all, and detain on reasonable suspicion, or take action on probable cause. It is in the law, but it seems to be against other laws and jurisprudence. Reasonable Suspicion isn't enough to search someone's car, or demand identification, so how can it be used to determine legal status? Upon refusal, the officer can then arrest you of course, but as you point out this sets more into motion.

How is Miranda not required for conviction?

Let me clear something, they can arrest you for nothing, but you'll be out in a heart's beat, and it opens wrongful arrest charges. In practice this seems rare. Detention in this case is only in the context of detaining for investigation, and upon conclusion it is arrest, or freedom, or a choice to have a "friendly talk".

 

[mheslep]

Huh?

Reasonable suspicion is required, I believe, to detain; it's apparently required by the law under discussion here. More than reasonable suspicion is required to arrest -- in particular, that requires probable cause. Conviction generally requires a yet higher standard, usually either clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. The Miranda notifications aren't required for detention, arrest, or conviction.

Back at ya. I didn't say Reasonable Suspicion was sufficient to convict. I say that if a search or detaining action is done which results in an arrest, the demonstration of RS on behalf of the cops is then required to introduce any evidence obtained in keeping with the Due Process clause of the the 5th. Miranda is applied similarly.

Now, absent an interest in convictions or fear of a subsequent law suit (for harassment?), what legal, physical restraint do you assert is on the cops to use RS in a search or detaining action? There is no 'failure to use Reasonable Suspicion' criminal law that would allow a 2nd cop to arrest the 1st.

 

[mheslep]

I don't know if this is racist or not, but I do know if I looked to be hispanic, I would not want to be in Arizona now. Well, I have been there before, and I didn't want to be there at the time either; dry and hot place, but nice canyons.

Try this. Tuscon City Council, speaker last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShkpO9Rf1bo

 

[CRGreathouse]

Let me clear something, they can arrest you for nothing, but you'll be out in a heart's beat, and it opens wrongful arrest charges.

I said only what was required by law, not what would happen. Of course people (including police officers) violate the law.

How is Miranda not required for conviction?

How would it be?

Miranda v Arizona gave specific guidance to police officers. If the guidance is followed, they're indemnified against certain claims. If not, there's no such legal safe harbor. For example, if a suspect is arrested and confesses without being read her Miranda rights, the confession may be inadmissible. But that need not bar conviction. Etc. (See my citation above for more wrangling. Certainly I wouldn't recommend skipping giving a Miranda warning!)

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Try this. Tuscon City Council, speaker last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShkpO9Rf1bo

So, you are stopped for having a brake-light out, yes? What is the reasonable suspicion from there? Someone who does not speak English could be visiting, and if they do not have to provide ID on this RS, then how do you make this determination? If I have reasonable suspicion that you are preparing to commit a burglary, and I detain you, search your car and find gloves, bolt cutters, and a knife, that is Reasonable Suspicion to detain, but not probable cause. You will be arrested, but if you do not talk, it is a hard case to make, I think.

If you have a brake-light out, and you consent to search your car, and nothing is found?... then what? There is no right to demand identification if a crime is not committed, and how else do you know if this person is illegal? As the nice lady said, it is nowhere in the law that people of a specific color are to be stopped, but it seems very obvious.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I said only what was required by law, not what would happen. Of course people (including police officers) violate the law.
How would it be?

Miranda v Arizona gave specific guidance to police officers. If the guidance is followed, they're indemnified against certain claims. If not, there's no such legal safe harbor. For example, if a suspect is arrested and confesses without being read her Miranda rights, the confession may be inadmissible. But that need not bar conviction. Etc. (See my citation above for more wrangling. Certainly I wouldn't recommend skipping giving a Miranda warning!)

Ah, I understand, if I later confess to murder, Miranda or no, I can be found guilty if they are later given to me and I choose to speak, or if they find a bloody knife with my fingerprints and DNA. There is a good reason why police like confessions I think. What police officer would be so stupid to risk an evidence chain? Do you know of the term, "Fruit of The Poisoned Tree?" regarding evidence? You wrongfully search my car, find a loaded gun that is stolen, and a kilogram of drugs. You then go to my home, and find an enormous stash of drugs and weapons. You searched my home because of an illegal search of my vehicle, and now both are inadmissible in court.

 

[CRGreathouse]

After a Google search I also found United States v. Patane which is relevant.

Ah, I understand, if I later confess to murder, Miranda or no, I can be found guilty if they are later given to me and I choose to speak, or if they find a bloody knife with my fingerprints and DNA. There is a good reason why police like confessions I think. What police officer would be so stupid to risk an evidence chain? Do you know of the term, "Fruit of The Poisoned Tree?" regarding evidence? You wrongfully search my car, find a loaded gun that is stolen, and a kilogram of drugs. You then go to my home, and find an enormous stash of drugs and weapons. You searched my home because of an illegal search of my vehicle, and now both are inadmissible in court.

These situations are extremely difficult and I'd prefer not to make specific comment. State law varies and is quite relevant: for example California generally admits evidence even when obtained wrongfully. Confessions are also special; there is case law on both sides (Dickerson v. United States on one; I've read one on the other but can't recall the citation offhand).

 

[mheslep]

If you have a brake-light out, and you consent to search your car, and nothing is found?... then what? There is no right to demand identification if a crime is not committed, and how else do you know if this person is illegal?

I don't believe vehicle stops will be relevant. Get stopped in a car, show a valid driver's license as anyone is required to produce, and you should be on your way. (Edit: except maybe for passengers as Russ pointed out? )

 

[IcedEcliptic]

After a Google search I also found United States v. Patane which is relevant.



These situations are extremely difficult and I'd prefer not to make specific comment. State law varies and is quite relevant: for example California generally admits evidence even when obtained wrongfully. Confessions are also special; there is case law on both sides (Dickerson v. United States on one; I've read one on the other but can't recall the citation offhand).

I believe you, and I think legal citations would be wasted on me if I am to be honest. Law is very complex, and state by state, wow.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Back at ya. I didn't say Reasonable Suspicion was sufficient to convict.

You said:

Reasonable suspicion, like Miranda notification, is required under due process to convict, not to detain or arrest.

I interpreted the RS part (the Miranda part not being relevant here) as
1. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to convict.
2. Reasonable suspicion is not required under due process to detain.
3. Reasonable suspicion is not required under due process to arrest.

I was then disagreeing with #3. (#2 may also be wrong, but I'm less sure here.) In fact, more is true: probable cause is required to arrest.

So are you disagreeing with my interpretation of what you wrote into #1-3, or are you holding that #2 is true?

I say that if a search or detaining action is done which results in an arrest, the demonstration of RS on behalf of the cops is then required to introduce any evidence obtained in keeping with the Due Process clause of the the 5th. Miranda is applied similarly.

No disagreement there.

Now, absent an interest in convictions or fear of a subsequent law suit (for harassment?), what legal, physical restraint do you assert is on the cops to use RS in a search or detaining action? There is no 'failure to use Reasonable Suspicion' criminal law that would allow a 2nd cop to arrest the 1st.

I have made (and make) no such assertion. I'm not interested in participating in that part of this discussion, only discussing reasonable suspicion.

 

[Matterwave]

Well, I think "reasonable suspicion" is going to be tested...I mean, even though it's a legally defined term, there is still room for interpretation since it is what "a reasonable police officer in that situation" would suspect. Whenever we have terms that are defined to be "reasonable", then there is always wiggle room. The extreme may not be tolerated (e.g. stopping a person purely because he is Latino), but that just leaves a lot of Grey area to deal with.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I believe you, and I think legal citations would be wasted on me if I am to be honest. Law is very complex, and state by state, wow.

I often wonder how people can be expected to follow the law when no person can even know it all...

 

[mheslep]

You said:

I interpreted the RS part (the Miranda part not being relevant here) as
1. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to convict.
2. Reasonable suspicion is not required under due process to detain.
3. Reasonable suspicion is not required under due process to arrest.
I was then disagreeing with #3. (#2 may also be wrong, but I'm less sure here.) In fact, more is true: probable cause is required to arrest.

More may be true, I don't know. Also I suspect I lack a full understanding of the difference between detain (held?) and arrest (charged by the cop with a crime?). Otherwise I assert that all three above are true, with some possible exceptions (Ca apparently?) here and there for convictions (#1).

I have made (and make) no such assertion. I'm not interested in participating in that part of this discussion, only discussing reasonable suspicion.

I thought it followed from disagreement with 2-3 above. If as you say 3 (maybe 2) is false, ie RS is required, how is it enforced? Hypothetical: A cop walks up, detains me, arrests me and puts me in jail without RS. Can I call another cop to stop him? If not, I assert 2-3 are visibly true. Note that stating that a states attorney would not charge a person held without RS merely collapses 2-3 back on top of #1.

 

[CRGreathouse]

More may be true, I don't know. Also I suspect I lack a full understanding of the difference between detain (held?) and arrest (charged by the cop with a crime?). Otherwise I assert that all three above are true, with some possible exceptions (Ca apparently?) here and there for convictions (#1).

My claims are that, contrary to your #2 and #3,
2a. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to detain.
3a. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to arrest.
3b. Probable cause is required under due process to arrest.
where 3a is redundant in the presence of 3b but is included for clarity.

I'm not quite sure of 2a, but I think that's true.

I thought it followed from disagreement with 2-3 above. If you say 2-3 are false, what positive force of law stops the cops from detaining or arresting without RS?

I'm still not interested in that discussion. I imagine that it's enforced by disciplinary action and civil and/or criminal law (e.g. harassment or wrongful arrest).

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I often wonder how people can be expected to follow the law when no person can even know it all...

It's hard I guess, when "ignorance of the law is no excuse" too. Still, most laws are pretty easy to obey if you're not being clearly criminal. Must be hard for the officers however.

 

[mheslep]

My claims are that, contrary to your #2 and #3,
2a. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to detain.
3a. Reasonable suspicion is required under due process to arrest.
3b. Probable cause is required under due process to arrest.
where 3a is redundant in the presence of 3b but is included for clarity.

I'm not quite sure of 2a, but I think that's true.



I'm still not interested in that discussion. I imagine that it's enforced by disciplinary action and civil and/or criminal law (e.g. harassment or wrongful arrest).

Alright, we'll let it go if you like, and I'll complete my thought to in a no-reply post ...

 

[mheslep]

I think absent the idea of enforcement the word required becomes nebulous or meaningless in 1-3. In #1, 'required under process' is enforced by the fact that any conviction wrongfully obtained can, has, and will be overturned by the courts up to the USSC. But if I am in fact arrested without RS, maybe released sometime later (or deported), there's no recourse to overturn anything. There's only civil action - which I'm not sure applies unless the the state agrees by law that it can be sued (as I believe is true in this immigration case).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes I know that "reasonable suspicion" is necessary; the wording is in the law itself. The first 3 sentences of my post was addressing this issue. "Reasonable suspicion" as applied to this particular law, however, can be hard to judge at times. Does looking Mexican or non-Caucasian give "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant? Does not speaking English? Does hanging out by the home depot looking for work arouse "reasonable suspicion"?

"Reasonable suspicion" can be used right. For example, if you see a man walking down the street with a bloody machete, a block away from a murder by machete, then obviously it's smart to detain this man under "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause". However, when we try to apply "reasonable suspicion" to this law, the morality of it becomes hazy and may lead to racial profiling.

This is a separate issue from the issue I was trying to address in my post though.

My point in my post has less to do with the reasonable suspicion (on whether or not you are an illegal immigrant) than to do with the fact that the police are allowed to ask you for ID GIVEN that reasonable suspicion (that you are an illegal immigrant), whatever that may mean, is present. They DO NOT need to have you ALREADY detained for some other previous crime or misdemeanor. The part I quoted, I think, makes this point very clear when they say "For ANY lawful contact...".

I understand the issue here regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion. It is a major part of why I feel the whole thing is unconstitutional.
As for the misunderstanding it seemed to me very much like you were insinuating the police can stop anyone in public any time for any reason. Particularly this part here...

As far as I know, it is lawful for policemen to randomly make contact with citizens at any time on public property. The only instances of unlawful contact would be for intruding into your house or other private property without a warrant or immediate danger (such as chasing another criminal).

Sorry if I was mistaken.

 

[Jack21222]

russ:

About half the professors in the physics department where I attend would resent your remark that immigrants will be a net drain on the tax system. You see, about half of them are immigrants.

We have a few from China, one Russian, one Indian, and a Canadian. I can assure you that they all make enough money to pay federal income tax.

Was your point that only Hispanic immigrants are unable to climb the economic ladder?

 

[mgb_phys]

About half the professors in the physics department where I attend would resent your remark that immigrants will be a net drain on the tax system. You see, about half of them are immigrants.

Yes but how much do physics profs make? If they really wanted to benefit America they would become lawyers.

 

[edward]

russ:

About half the professors in the physics department where I attend would resent your remark that immigrants will be a net drain on the tax system. You see, about half of them are immigrants.

We have a few from China, one Russian, one Indian, and a Canadian. I can assure you that they all make enough money to pay federal income tax.

Was your point that only Hispanic immigrants are unable to climb the economic ladder?

This isn't about immigrants. This law is about illegal immigrants. Did any of the professors you mention above sneak across the border? Were they basically illiterate when they arrived here?

As far as the economic ladder the highest climbers are the drug smugglers.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

This isn't about immigrants. This law is about illegal immigrants. Did any of the professors you mention above sneak across the border? Were they basically illiterate when they arrived here?

A good point.

As far as the economic ladder the highest climbers are the drug smugglers.

Cite?

 

[mgb_phys]

This isn't about immigrants. This law is about illegal immigrants. Did any of the professors you mention above sneak across the border?

This law is about the police being able to stop people and demand their papers based only on race.
Obviously in Arizona it's only going to hassle mexican standing outside Home depot - but imagine in other states.
What if you were checking chinese outside the physics dept in Berkeley.

I work with a company that just moved it's development team from the west coast to Houston. The american but ethnically chinese and indian engineers were very resistant to moving to where they thought they would be surrounded by rednecks in white sheets with shotguns and pickups (racial stereotypes work both ways!)

Research triangle spent millions visiting universities and companies to persuade them that North Carolina doesn't = deliverance.
And ask Georgia tech what the state's image does to it's international recruitment efforts

 

[IcedEcliptic]

This law is about the police being able to stop people and demand their papers based only on race.
Obviously in Arizona it's only going to hassle mexican standing outside Home depot - but imagine in other states. What if you were checking chinese outside the physics dept in Berkeley.

I work with a company that just moved it's development team from the west coast to Houston. The ethnically chinese and indian engineers were very resistant to moving to where they thought they would be surrounded by rednecks in white sheets with shotguns and pickups (racial stereotypes work both ways!)

Research triangle spent millions visiting universities and companies to persuade them that North Carolina doesn't = deliverance.
And ask Georgia tech what the state's image does to it's international recruitment efforts

That's a good point, like the appearance of impropriety concept. Your comment about racism is so true, I traveled to Japan, and while I had no troubles, I have never met more racist people in my life. Not mean, but the stereotypes of myself (blond, with blue eyes, but not American or German) made them stare and not in a good way) and others (an Indian woman, and one American who is VERY tall) were looked upon as freaks. I heard a couple commenting that my American friend smelled, and to my nose he did not. I later learned that this is a common prejudice, much as Americans vs. Indians smelling of curry. At least the Japanese have the excuse that they have a small homogeneous population, what is Arizona's excuse?!

The federal government should employ a strategy, but that doesn't mean you should risk boycotts for this!

 

[biorhythm]

The absurdity of this law is obvious. Its a shame so many Americans are too obtuse to understand this.




A couple of things:

*Police are not neccesarily your friends

*Police are not neccesarily good people.

*It shows ones ignorance to hand over ones rights to a police force and trust in it to not misuse it

*It shows ones sickness to hand over someone elses rights to a police force and put them at the mercy of it

*Police can and do arrest people all over the world(including the USA) every day, for no real cause and without reasonable suspicion. To think this is not the case is ignorant.


*You really show your own lack of worth if you try to condemn others for being "illegal", as if that was some sort of moral crime. Someone being alive and happening to live on a certain continent does not make them a criminal in any sense of right and wrong.


*Its disgusting how ugly and uncouth people can be given the chance to pretend to be a moral judge. What about the young girls out there who get robbed, beatup or abused and are too afraid to be around cops now because they will be arrested, the people working 14 hour days and not getting paid for a months worth of work and being too afraid to do anything about it now. Peoples homes being robbed and families abused but they can't do anything about it.


*To say certain people don't have rights is pathetic. To not even have the right to just exist and walk down the street or live in ones house is absurd.

The people in Arizona who support this law don't deserve to be called Americans. And I certainly don't consider them compatriots.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The absurdity of this law is obvious. Its a shame so many Americans are too obtuse to understand this.

This isn't an argument. Perhaps you would like to sharpen it's focus?

A couple of things:

*Police are not neccesarily your friends

This is true of all people, and is a straw man argument.

*Police are not neccesarily good people.

This is true of all people, and is a straw man argument, and is pretty messed up too.

*It shows ones ignorance to hand over ones rights to a police force and trust in it to not misuse it

What rights have been "handed over" to the police by this law? Answer- NONE.

*It shows ones sickness to hand over someone elses rights to a police force and put them at the mercy of it

Everyone is subject to the laws of this country, whether they like it or not. Tell me, what "new" limitation has been put in place by this law? Legal aliens are already required to carry a green card with them, and to present it to authorities if required to.

*Police can and do arrest people all over the world(including the USA) every day, for no real cause and without reasonable suspicion. To think this is not the case is ignorant.

This isn't an argument, and isn't true anyway. Are we getting to some real facts any time soon?

*You really show your own lack of worth if you try to condemn others for being "illegal", as if that was some sort of moral crime. Someone being alive and happening to live on a certain continent does not make them a criminal in any sense of right and wrong.

So just because two countries happen to be on the same continent, they have no right to maintain sovereignty, borders, and laws? A foreign national crossing the border into the United States without registering properly violates the laws of the United States, and therefore is ILLEGAL.

Illegal- (adj) illegal (prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules) "an illegal chess move"

*Its disgusting how ugly and uncouth people can be given the chance to pretend to be a moral judge. What about the young girls out there who get robbed, beatup or abused and are too afraid to be around cops now because they will be arrested, the people working 14 hour days and not getting paid for a months worth of work and being too afraid to do anything about it now. Peoples homes being robbed and families abused but they can't do anything about it.

What the heck does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?! NOTHING.

*To say certain people don't have rights is pathetic. To not even have the right to just exist and walk down the street or live in ones house is absurd.

People of the planet don't have the natural in-born right to go into any country they want without following that country's laws. Rights given to people is a moral argument, but right to go wherever they want without consequence is not one of them.

The people in Arizona who support this law don't deserve to be called Americans. And I certainly don't consider them compatriots.

So you have absolute moral authority and anyone who disagrees with you isn't an American? American laws are to be disregarded if you feel like it?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

This isn't an argument. Perhaps you would like to sharpen it's focus?



This is true of all people, and is a straw man argument.



This is true of all people, and is a straw man argument, and is pretty messed up too.



What rights have been "handed over" to the police by this law? Answer- NONE.



Everyone is subject to the laws of this country, whether they like it or not. Tell me, what "new" limitation has been put in place by this law? Legal aliens are already required to carry a green card with them, and to present it to authorities if required to.



This isn't an argument, and isn't true anyway. Are we getting to some real facts any time soon?



So just because two countries happen to be on the same continent, they have no right to maintain sovereignty, borders, and laws? A foreign national crossing the border into the United States without registering properly violates the laws of the United States, and therefore is ILLEGAL.

Illegal- (adj) illegal (prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules) "an illegal chess move"



What the heck does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?! NOTHING.



People of the planet don't have the natural in-born right to go into any country they want without following that country's laws. Rights given to people is a moral argument, but right to go wherever they want without consequence is not one of them.



So you have absolute moral authority and anyone who disagrees with you isn't an American? American laws are to be disregarded if you feel like it?

I think he just insulted pretty much all of us here. He speaks like someone who does not really understand what a true police-state is. I give you a hint Biorythm, in police states the civilians don't outgun the police.

*Many police are your friends when you need them.
*All police are not BAD
*What rights do you hand-over? An officer may arrest you, and a judge can let you go and you can sue!
*We are all at one another's mercy, and anarchy is not merciful
*Some police break the law, so do civilians, so what? This should be cracked down on always.
*Being an illegal immigrant is a CRIME in the country you enter. I am not from the USA, but I am a naturalized citizen. I broke no laws to come here, and if I did, I am taking my chances. How does a reasonable person expect to start a good life in a new country by starting with a crime?
*Rights are an artificial (and beneficial) construction. You speak as though there is a "THEM", and an "US". We are them, and they are us! As Mech_Engineer said, there is no right to enter countries illegally. I still don't like this law, and it will almost certainly be overturned, but your arguments are insulting and ridiculous. Your presumption of who can be American is arrogant and meaningless.