| Author | Message | ||
     Reindog |
I'm gonna keep doing this until someone posts to the "Lost (Spoilers)" thread  Whatdayathinkdisis? A motorcycle forum? | ||
| Pwnzor |
what's with all the broken links? | ||
| Reindog |
   | ||
| Reindog |
    | ||
| Reindog |
   | ||
| Reindog |
    | ||
| Reindog |
    | ||
| Reindog |
Can you hear me now? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Yes. | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
You forgot my favorite.  | ||
| Court |
I am so ashamed of our President and the current administration. | ||
| Buellkowski |
I have read SB1070 and find that it conflicts with an existing AZ statute: 13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer. B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. SB1070 does not amend 13-2412 above. Here's the current, relevant section of 11-1051, as amended by SB1070: F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES: 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE. 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE. 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED. 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT. Remember, we're given certain rights when we're "detained" by an LEO as opposed to when we're "arrested". | ||
| Buellkowski |
Another relevant paragraph of 11-1051: B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). If an illegal isn't under arrest, he isn't compelled to offer anything other than his true name and to submit to a pat-down. Once he's under arrest, it's a different story. (Message edited by buellkowski on May 21, 2010) | ||
| Xb12xmike |
Love the cartoons!!! | ||
| Bigdaddy |
I'm late to the game and I'd be shocked if Reindog hasn't already enlightened the masses with the story of Richard D. Lamm. Prophetic? I vote yes, yes indeed. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp | ||
| Nevrenuf |
scary crap indeed. just another reason to think about arming myself. | ||
| Blake |
Buellkowski, No one is saying that the illegals must respond to a police request to provide proof of legal status. You are correct. That bit of legal code is simply reinforcing the 5th amendment of the constitution. But if a suspected illegal refuses to respond to a request for immigration status, guess what happens. They are legally sent to detention and booked for trial. In trial if they are unable or unwilling to provide evidence of their legal status in America, guess what happens. Interestingly though, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that folks must provide evidence of ID or legal status when duly requested by police. So it may be that the AZ law stating otherwise wouldn't hold up. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Interestingly though, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that folks must provide evidence of ID or legal status when duly requested by police. Which case was that, please? | ||
| Drkside79 |
Do you all really think that it's ok to grab people off the streets and demand a Birth certificate? And you call the dems Nazis. | ||
| Court |
The case was: Muehler, Darin v. Mena, Iris (03/22/2005)
For a much more attractive recitation . . . try THIS | ||
| Xb12xmike |
I don't understand the resistance to this law. I have ID, and I have no problem showing it to a peace officer anytime they request it. I have been pulled over for no reason before and when asked, I submit my ID. If I am near an incident of any concern to any peace officer and they ask me for ID... I will produce it without question. OH...and if that day I happen to forget my ID and they do not know me... they will probably hold me until they can confirm who I am. This.... I accept fully as a citizen of the USA. (or maybe it is just because I have lived in New Jersey all my life) I can't wait till other states join Arizona. (they would actually just be FINALLY enforcing existing federal law) | ||
| Court |
I should clear that up . . . . Under the Federal Law, as affirmed by a RECENT UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT DECISION . . . a Police Office DO NOT need ANY reasonable suspicion to ask for proof immigration status. Under Federal Law, which governs absent a state law in conflict, a cop can simply pull a person(s) over arbitrarily and ask for proof of citizenship. Under the NEW ARIZONA LAW . . .which is much more restrictive . . . the Police Office would have to have "reasonable suspicion" and have had contact with a person(s) for other reasons. In other words . . if you have a tail light out and a cop pulls you over they can ask for proof of citizenship. By the way . . . as a strictly practical matter . . . I've been pulled over A LOT . . in my years and never once has a cop failed to ask me "license, registration and insurance" with the first words out of there mouths. Really the only person who could POSSIBLY have any problem with this is a criminal. Like it or not . . . . that's the law of the land. | ||
| Reindog |
D'oh!.....Court beat me to it. Mueller v Mena (2005) The Supreme Court unanimously decided that it is legal to inquire about immigration status during questioning. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZO.h tml (Message edited by reindog on May 21, 2010) | ||
| Reindog |
This isn't about logic. Dems know that AZ has done nothing illegal. Dems want to divide America into easily controllable fiefdoms so they stir the hornets nest as a means to gain power. There are plenty of stupid people who don't understand the AZ law. And they ARE stupid. The modus operandi is to scream real loud about an issue knowing in advance that the Dems are wrong. That is not what is important. The next step is to back off as if nothing ever happened. The net result is stupid people "remember" how evil the opposition is even though it was never based in fact. Is it any coincidence that lately, we never hear a peep out of Nancy Pelosi? (Message edited by reindog on May 21, 2010) | ||
| Xb12xmike |
I got stuck in a random vehicle inspection roadblock. where "EVERYONE" has to provide ID: valid drivers licence, registration and insurance and valid inspection stickers. I am pretty sure they still do this but I haven't seen one recently. It was kind of like a DUI spotcheck but in the afternoon. If anything was out of order, the vehicle would be parked and/or impounded and you would be on your own getting to your destination,...plus any violations (tickets). One time I was on my bike (cb550) and had everything except I never got a valid motorcycle license. They gave me a ticket for unlicensed driver, $$$ fine, plus $100.00 a year surcharge for 3 years. I was allowed to call a normal towtruck and was able to just go home with my bike hanging on the back of it. Are there random checkpoints where you live? (Message edited by xb12xmike on May 21, 2010) | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
Do you all really think that it's ok to grab people off the streets and demand a Birth certificate? And you call the dems Nazis. ID, not birth certificate, and yes, if someone is stopped they must show ID, that is nothing new. You must have missed this cartoon. | ||
| Buellkowski |
LEOs can ask anything they want during a detention, but an individual is not compelled to answer anything beyond their name. Mena only addresses the plaintiff's claim that mere questioning by LEOs constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. In that case she was under no obligation to answer. So, alluding to Blake's point, does it then become that if an LEO detains a suspected illegal (reasonable suspicion), asks for proof of legal status, the suspect declines to provide such proof (they are not compelled to under AZ law), does that then give the cop the "probable cause" required to arrest the suspect? Think of this: once arrested, say the suspect is then found to be a legal resident. Oops. | ||
| Buellkowski |
In my mind, a brown-skinned dude simply standing on a streetcorner is not the same as an operator of a motor vehicle (or as in Mena, a person the subject of a search warrant) when it comes to responsibility to produce documentation. However, once said dude is lawfully arrested for a crime, all bets are off. | ||
| Xb12xmike |
If the suspect (who is a citizen) declines to provide such proof... at that point the officer would have probable cause and have no choice. And at that point, it would the suspects decision to withold his information and thus preventing a LEO from tending to other more important matters. Suspect should then be fined for being an ass wipe. (Message edited by xb12xmike on May 21, 2010) | ||
| Court |
Quoting the unanimous decision:
|
