Procrustes Stretched
"intuition and imagination and intelligence"
first, I was illegally detained while having state issued ID. later I was given a ticket with a notation that said I possessed no ID. that lie covered the cop's butt. but my ID wallet was entered in the property log. the cops got away with it because when charges were dropped, no cop showed up. not being a high profile case, nobody wanted to take mine. people are asking for trouble allowing local police these powers. trouble. as sure as the sun rises in the east.Not everyone who agrees to be verified agrees as a matter of law. This is about ID on demand. If I am not a suspect in some way, who I am is none of the state's business.Not your papers, your state issued DL or ID card. That is a law in all 50 states, rarely enforced thanks to online DMV and NCIC capabilities. It's not a federal law, its a state law in all 50 states. Prior to everything being computerized, a cop wouldn't know if a person had a valid DL without it being present, and cops couldn't tell if a person was a fugitive without ID, so DMV's issued ID cards in the absence of a DL if a person was ineligible. Today, the online NCIC and DMV allows cops to run a name and DOB check to ID any citizen without an ID, so it's basically a law that is not really necessary, but still IS ON THE BOOKS in all 50 states.
I promise if you get pulled over, the cop will verify your identity if you don't have a DL or ID card on you. But you had to be issued one, as all people are, whether they know it or not, through their state ID by virtue of having a social security number. It's called a "customer number" in most states, so if you drive drunk without a valid DL, you have a number they can "suspend" for punishment so if you get caught again you can be subject to the Driving Under Suspension 2nd offense statute. A non-citizen won't be in this ID system, because they have no DL or no social security number, THUS the federal law requiring them to "have their papers" on them at all times.
I'm not advocating or criticizing this set of laws, I'm informing the lefties that every person, like it or not, is verified through some type of "papers", be it physical or electronic.
you are advocating we all become suspects
The courts have ruled on state laws that require an ID.The limited issue resolved in Hiibel
CNN.com - Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police - Jun 24, 2004
The issue in Hiibel was whether someone who had been lawfully subject to a Terry stop -- that is, someone as to whom the police did have reasonable suspicion -- can also be required to provide his name to the police officer who stopped him.
The justices answered yes. But they divided 5-4 on the issue.
All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification. All nine justices also agreed that under the Court's prior precedents, the police could ask a person who has been subject to a Terry stop for his name.
The only disagreement that split the justices -- and the specific issue the case addressed -- was whether the person could be prosecuted for failing to answer that question.
The dissenters had precedent on their side
Oh, of course, you are 100% right. And that is EXACTLY how the Arizona law reads. No person's immigration status can be the reason for the stop. Arizona cops MUST have an unrelated violation to stop them for FIRST, then if probable cause exists pursue the immigration status.
I worked as a cop for 8 years and am very proud of my service. I 100% believed then, and still do, in a person's privacy. And yes, if you are just walking down the street, it's none of my damn business who you are or what you are doing until you violate a law. But then, identification IS mandatory. "Show me your papers" through DL, ID card, etc. But an immigrant would have neither, so a passport or "papers" is a must.
In my LEO practice, that split on whether a person could be prosecuted for not providing ID was an issue. The way most, if not all, places handle that is the person is "detained", not "arrested", and held at a holding facility, usually PD headquarters, until identification is confirmed. Paperwork up to that point uses John Doe as ID, but no charge is officially laid on them for failing to provide ID, just the process of confirming an ID is done.
But, anyway, ALL humans within our borders are required by law to have proof of ID or immigration papers on them for purposes of LEO identification. And Arizona's law forbids cops from checking this unless that person is stopped for an unrelated offense.
as far as I know, the Arizona politicians have on two occasions had to retool their law to fit a semblance of federal law. any state law that mimics a federal law is a waste of tax payers time and money. Federal law supersedes state law on immigration matters.
Arizona needed the law so local police could act as immigration official, because absent a new law they were told they were not immigration officials. trouble