Because the law REQUIRES officers to ask for proof of legal status when they have "reasonable suspicion," whatever that means--and the bill states that they can be sued if they DON'T ask for proof of legal status. What is reasonable suspicion? Being a brown person? Speaking with an accent? Much of the opposition is not because this bill will lead to "illegals" being kicked out, but because it will lead to legitimate immigrants being harassed and it encourages racial profiling.
"Reasonable suspicion" has been well defined and upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the federal Circuit Courts (including the 9th Circuit), and by the Courts of Appeals as being compatible with the 4th amendment. It does not cover being brown or speaking with an accent, at least not in theory. In practice, there will be some level of abuse, but I'm not sure I can blame this law for that abuse, and I don't know how to correct this law to prevent it, and I'm not convinced it wouldn't be there even after this law is repealed
( ... )
Amazing how much abuse and harassment already occurs in apparent Utopia. Cops in most states can already seize property and sell it without ever even charging someone with a crime.
Just because you've never been harassed by a cop doesn't mean it's not happening all the time.
If your property is seized unjustly, you have recourse in the law. Show me a place on earth with stronger protections against illegal search and seizure. If you choose not to avail yourself of those protections so that you can keep a lower profile and continue smuggling heroin in peace in a newer, shinier speedboat, that's not my problem. The instances of cops seizing property from law-abiding citizens and selling it without charging anyone with a crime are (I suspect) astonishingly rare.
Who says I've never been harassed by a cop? Who said it's not happening all the time? I simply said that people have strong existing recourse, and wonder whether it will really happen that much more often after this law starts being enforced, versus before. I consider the issue of police abuse to be almost entirely orthogonal to SB 1070, rather than being multiplied by its existence
( ... )
Actually, asset forfeiture abuse has gotten pretty extreme in places, thanks to laws that allow law enforcement agencies to directly profit from the sale of seized assets. Yes, there is a process for getting assets returned, but in many places the odds are stacked against the person whose assets were seized. Some police departments, especially in South Western States have become dependent on proceeds from the sale of seized assets.
I'd like to see a better citation on "reasonable suspicion" and how it would operate in this context. I've only heard of it in Terry v. Ohio and frisking for weapons. How does one establish reasonable suspicion for somebody being an illegal immigrant? What are the visible predictors for this other than race, class, or language?
"Reasonable suspicion" comes to bear, at least tangentially, in cases describing pat-downs, stopping and searching vehicles, searches near borders, the reasonableness of sobriety checkpoints, etc. Terry is by far the best known example of the "reasonable suspicion" test, which is actually something of a misnomer because it's not really a formal test the same way "probable cause" has become.
In United States v. Colin, 314 F.3d 439, 443-47 (9th Cir. 2003), "the court conducted a careful analysis of the traffic laws to conclude that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant’s car... where the driver did not cross over the line and in fact made a safe lane change."
"The court rejected a car stop in United States v. Thomas, 211 F.3d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 2000), that was based in part on the purported “distinctive sound” of marijuana bales being loaded into the back of an El Camino." (I kind of wonder what this sounds like)
In United States v. Golab, 325 F.3d 63, 66-67 (1st Cir. 2003), "the court held that an
( ... )
There are probably an infinite number of ways to trigger reasonable suspicion, but the law contains language prohibiting decisions based solely on race, color, or national origin.
I would suspect that being unable to produce a driver's license, or being unable or unwilling to answer questions about where someone lives (or has lived) during a traffic stop would be reasonably indicative of illegal presence in a border state, especially if the car itself has foreign decals and markings, like maple leafs and Oilers stickers, or if the driver is especially funny and has a Tim Horton's box on the passenger seat.
Reply
Reply
Just because you've never been harassed by a cop doesn't mean it's not happening all the time.
Reply
Who says I've never been harassed by a cop? Who said it's not happening all the time? I simply said that people have strong existing recourse, and wonder whether it will really happen that much more often after this law starts being enforced, versus before. I consider the issue of police abuse to be almost entirely orthogonal to SB 1070, rather than being multiplied by its existence ( ... )
Reply
For Starters
Reply
Reply
Reply
In United States v. Colin, 314 F.3d 439, 443-47 (9th Cir. 2003), "the court conducted a careful analysis of the traffic laws to conclude that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant’s car... where the driver did not cross over the line and in fact made a safe lane change."
"The court rejected a car stop in United States v. Thomas, 211 F.3d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 2000), that was based in part on the purported “distinctive sound” of marijuana bales being loaded into the back of an El Camino." (I kind of wonder what this sounds like)
In United States v. Golab, 325 F.3d 63, 66-67 (1st Cir. 2003), "the court held that an ( ... )
Reply
I would suspect that being unable to produce a driver's license, or being unable or unwilling to answer questions about where someone lives (or has lived) during a traffic stop would be reasonably indicative of illegal presence in a border state, especially if the car itself has foreign decals and markings, like maple leafs and Oilers stickers, or if the driver is especially funny and has a Tim Horton's box on the passenger seat.
Reply
Leave a comment