LA Sued for Impounding Cars of Unlicensed Illegal Aliens

[red states rule]

RSR, just because their presence in the country is illegal, this does not necessarily mean that a checkpoint would be legal. Random house searches to identify illegal immigrants surely aren't Constitutional even if 1 out 30 times, you actually identify an illegal immigrant.

Not being US citizens, they are not entitled to US Constitutional rights. I do not care how the government gets them out of the country - just get them out

 

[ReillyT]

Not being US citizens, they are not entitled to US Constitutional rights. I do not care how the government gets them out of the country - just get them out

Please try to follow with me. The government cannot conduct illegal searches of the populace (including citizens) merely because every once in a while, the illegal search will from time to time turn up someone here illegally. To suggest that it can is just silly. This is why some people (but never me) don't take you seriously RSR.

 

[red states rule]

Please try to follow with me. The government cannot conduct illegal searches of the populace (including citizens) merely because every once in a while, the illegal search will from time to time turn up someone here illegally. To suggest that it can is just silly. This is why some people (but never me) don't take you seriously RSR.

So the Police are powerless, and they have to let illegals drive without insurance or a license? Do they have to wait until they kill someone before they can stop them?

They are illegals to begin with - they need to be kicked the hell out of the country

 

[Edward]

Perhaps you are right about the checkpoint at issue in the article (a court obviously agrees with your result), but the police do have the right to set up checkpoints in certain circumstances, even when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed, provided the selection of vehicles stopped isn't arbitrary and the government intrusion is slight (at least, that is my recollection). The question would appear to be whether identifying illegal immigrants is a compelling enough government interest to warrant the checkpoint. Apparently, at least one court has said it is not. I haven't researched the issue so I don't have a contrary or affirmatory opinion.

You are partly right. Setting up checkpoints in instances such as an escaped convict, or a sobriety roadblock is reasonable. The police can walk up, shine a light into the car, look around and make sure that the suspect is not in the car or that the person driving does not smell like alchohol. Here, the burden on the person being detained is minor compared to the legitimate interest of the state to capture the fugitive or to prevent drunk driving. Yet, in both of these instances the police do not have the right to demand that the drivers of the vehicles stopped identify themselves unless there is a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police that they are harboring the fugitive or are driving drunk. It is in this instance that the police can escalate the search to require the person step out of the vehicle and frisk them to make sure they do not pose an immediate danger to the police. If they suspect that the person is driving drunk then they can demand that they take a sobriety test.

The question would appear to be whether identifying illegal immigrants is a compelling enough government interest to warrant the checkpoint. Apparently, at least one court has said it is not.

The problem is that it could be considered a compelling interest in setting up the roadblock but it wouldn't be a compelling interest in requiring people who have not committed a crime to identify themselves. If there was some criteria where the police could determine who they would require to identify themselves based on probable cause than they would be able to escalate the search. This poses a problem though since it would begin to bring in the issue of racial profiling. The police can't based on appearances along decide that someone is more likely to be an illegal immigrant than someone else and since they don't have any reason to believe that every person they stop has committed a crime or is here illegally they don't have a legitimate state interest in requiring those being detained to identify themselves. This is the most general part of the case law. The Courts have not ruled that the police have the authority to check up identification check points under any circumstance nor would they because it violates the Constitution. There are many legitimate reasons to set up a checkpoint and which pose a minor inconvenience to those detained for a brief time such as sobriety checkpoint. No one is going to be overly upset that they are stopped for a short time and the police speak to them to determine if they are sober.

This is why it would make sense to have checkpoints along the Mexican border since the police can stop vehicles traveling into the United States to determine whether it appears to be transporting illegal immigrants but even then the police do not have the right to force the driver to identify himself if there is no reason to believe he is transporting illegal immigrants.

 

[Edward]

RSR, just because their presence in the country is illegal, this does not necessarily mean that a checkpoint would be legal. Random house searches to identify illegal immigrants surely aren't Constitutional even if 1 out 30 times, you actually identify an illegal immigrant.

The problem is that the checkpoints aren't constitutional. You can't detain an American citizen and force them to identify themselves because you want to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Yet check points directed at addressing the problem of illegal immigration aren't unconstitutional in themselves. The location of the checkpoint is important since it ultimately determines its legitimacy. If we are talking about a check point a few miles this side of the Mexican and Canadian border then the road block could be set up, the police could stop every vehicle and do a cursory inspection of it to determine if there is probable cause to search the vehicle and to detain the driver of the vehicle yet even in this instance the police do not have the authority to require the driver to identify himself until they have enough probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed. If the check point is in a non border state than that is a different issue since there is no reasonable cause to suspect that the vehicle is transporting illegal immigrants.

 

[red states rule]

The problem is that the checkpoints aren't constitutional. You can't detain an American citizen and force them to identify themselves because you want to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Yet check points directed at addressing the problem of illegal immigration aren't unconstitutional in themselves. The location of the checkpoint is important since it ultimately determines its legitimacy. If we are talking about a check point a few miles this side of the Mexican and Canadian border then the road block could be set up, the police could stop every vehicle and do a cursory inspection of it to determine if there is probable cause to search the vehicle and to detain the driver of the vehicle yet even in this instance the police do not have the authority to require the driver to identify himself until they have enough probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed. If the check point is in a non border state than that is a different issue since there is no reasonable cause to suspect that the vehicle is transporting illegal immigrants.

So let the illegals roam free, to commit crimes, have acidents, and kill people. All so you won't have to be detained for 2 minutes at a roadblock

 

[Edward]

Not being US citizens, they are not entitled to US Constitutional rights. I do not care how the government gets them out of the country - just get them out

But the rest of us who are American citizens are entitled to our Constitutional rights and since there is no way to determine that a person is an illegal alien as opposed to a citizen based solely on a road block there is a constitutional right of American citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and that includes at checkpoints. If getting them out of the country causes the government to violate the rights of citizens then I draw the line as is the case with these road blocks. There are many avenues that the government can take to deport illegal immigrants and it does not require the government to violate the rights of U.S. citizens in the process.

 

[red states rule]

But the rest of us who are American citizens are entitled to our Constitutional rights and since there is no way to determine that a person is an illegal alien as opposed to a citizen based solely on a road block there is a constitutional right of American citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and that includes at checkpoints. If getting them out of the country causes the government to violate the rights of citizens then I draw the line as is the case with these road blocks. There are many avenues that the government can take to deport illegal immigrants and it does not require the government to violate the rights of U.S. citizens in the process.

So let the crime rate soar as they thumb thier nose at out laws and laugh at poeple like you who handcuff the Police to do their job

 

[ReillyT]

You are partly right. Setting up checkpoints in instances such as an escaped convict, or a sobriety roadblock is reasonable. The police can walk up, shine a light into the car, look around and make sure that the suspect is not in the car or that the person driving does not smell like alchohol. Here, the burden on the person being detained is minor compared to the legitimate interest of the state to capture the fugitive or to prevent drunk driving. Yet, in both of these instances the police do not have the right to demand that the drivers of the vehicles stopped identify themselves unless there is a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police that they are harboring the fugitive or are driving drunk. It is in this instance that the police can escalate the search to require the person step out of the vehicle and frisk them to make sure they do not pose an immediate danger to the police. If they suspect that the person is driving drunk then they can demand that they take a sobriety test.



The problem is that it could be considered a compelling interest in setting up the roadblock but it wouldn't be a compelling interest in requiring people who have not committed a crime to identify themselves. If there was some criteria where the police could determine who they would require to identify themselves based on probable cause than they would be able to escalate the search. This poses a problem though since it would begin to bring in the issue of racial profiling. The police can't based on appearances along decide that someone is more likely to be an illegal immigrant than someone else and since they don't have any reason to believe that every person they stop has committed a crime or is here illegally they don't have a legitimate state interest in requiring those being detained to identify themselves. This is the most general part of the case law. The Courts have not ruled that the police have the authority to check up identification check points under any circumstance nor would they because it violates the Constitution. There are many legitimate reasons to set up a checkpoint and which pose a minor inconvenience to those detained for a brief time such as sobriety checkpoint. No one is going to be overly upset that they are stopped for a short time and the police speak to them to determine if they are sober.

This is why it would make sense to have checkpoints along the Mexican border since the police can stop vehicles traveling into the United States to determine whether it appears to be transporting illegal immigrants but even then the police do not have the right to force the driver to identify himself if there is no reason to believe he is transporting illegal immigrants.

I am not so sure that it is impermissible to administer an alco-sensor according to a pre-determined patter of vehicles at a sobriety checkpoint. I also wonder whether the police are allowed to ask preliminary questions of a person stopped at such a checkpoint. I don't know what the acceptable level of intrusion is.

I am not saying that you are wrong, but do you have any case cites that discuss the acceptable level of intrusion at checkpoints?

 

[Edward]

So let the illegals roam free, to commit crimes, have acidents, and kill people. All so you won't have to be detained for 2 minutes at a roadblock

It has nothing to do with being detained. I don't mind being detained at road blocks for two minutes or for that matter 10 minutes since I have to wait in traffic all the time but I do draw the line at being forced to identify myself to police at checkpoints when I haven't committed a crime. I do not live in Nazi Germany and I do not live in a totaltarian state and I do not intend on doing so regardless of your opinion on the matter. There are numerous ways for the government to deal with the problem of illegal immigration without violating the rights of U.S. citizens. You can attempt to trivialize this issue but the fact remains that there are people who are opposed to the very idea that they have to provide identification to the government when they haven't committed a crime. There have been many people who have suffered under totaltarian governments such as Nazi Germany who are forced to relive the pain they went through when forced to go through a ID checkpoint. What happens if some holocaust survivor has a flashback and dies of a hard attack?

That you cannot seem to understand this shows that people like you cannot be trusted with our rights and the rights of Americans and that it is a constant battle to preserve our rights and liberties from being infringed upon by people who trivilize them and who would destroy them out of fear of some illegal immigrant committing a crime especially since American citizens are just as likely to commit a crime including those who do have driver's licenses.

 

[red states rule]

It has nothing to do with being detained. I don't mind being detained at road blocks for two minutes or for that matter 10 minutes since I have to wait in traffic all the time but I do draw the line at being forced to identify myself to police at checkpoints when I haven't committed a crime. I do not live in Nazi Germany and I do not live in a totaltarian state and I do not intend on doing so regardless of your opinion on the matter. There are numerous ways for the government to deal with the problem of illegal immigration without violating the rights of U.S. citizens. You can attempt to trivialize this issue but the fact remains that there are people who are opposed to the very idea that they have to provide identification to the government when they haven't committed a crime. There have been many people who have suffered under totaltarian governments such as Nazi Germany who are forced to relive the pain they went through when forced to go through a ID checkpoint. What happens if some holocaust survivor has a flashback and dies of a hard attack?

That you cannot seem to understand this shows that people like you cannot be trusted with our rights and the rights of Americans and that it is a constant battle to preserve our rights and liberties from being infringed upon by people who trivilize them and who would destroy them out of fear of some illegal immigrant committing a crime especially since American citizens are just as likely to commit a crime including those who do have driver's licenses.

Pulling out the nazi card? that proves you are losing here

 

[Edward]

I am not so sure that it is impermissible to administer an alco-sensor according to a pre-determined patter of vehicles at a sobriety checkpoint. I also wonder whether the police are allowed to ask preliminary questions of a person stopped at such a checkpoint. I don't know what the acceptable level of intrusion is.

I am not saying that you are wrong, but do you have any case cites that discuss the acceptable level of intrusion at checkpoints?

It is apparent that you did not understand what I said since I do not oppose sobriety check points and believe they are constitutional. It is permissible to administer alco-sensor according to a pre-determined pattern of vehicles including 100% of them since it isn't unreasonable. The police are also free to ask any questions they wish to ask and a person is free to answer them or not at their discretion. The police cannot arrest the person based on their refusal to answer or to identify themselves but they can arrest them based on probable cause which leads them to believe that they are drunk or that they have committed a crime. It is at this point that the police must read them their rights and arrest them or allow them to proceed on their way. Refusing to answer the questions of the police when they haven't committed a crime is not cause to arrest them. As for court cases the one I would recommend is Delaware v. Prouse since it is relevant to this discussion and addresses this issue specifically even though other cases are more explanatory of the constitutional questions.

The court ruled that "Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." It goes on to state "The State's interest in discretionary spot checks as a means of ensuring the safety of its roadways does not outweigh the resulting intrusion on the privacy and security of the persons detained. Given the physical and psychological intrusion visited upon the occupants of a vehicle by a random stop to check documents,...,the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials."

As you can see based on what I just quoted. The Courts are quite clear that a person's right to be secure in their person does not end when they leave their home and "an individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles." I can understand that the people want to control illegal immigration but it shouldn't be at the cost of our liberty or our rights.

 

[Edward]

Pulling out the nazi card? that proves you are losing here

Referencing the tactics of Nazi Germany and other totaltarian states does not prove that I am losing and as I have already stated. The courts don't agree with your positon and the U.S. Supreme Court takes a different view since the rights of people to be secure in their persons is a constitutional right which cannot be infringed upon simply because you feel like it. You haven't provided a single solid reason why the police have the authority to stop a person, detain them and demand that they provide a identification when I have demonstrated time and again that the police do not have this authority because it is unconstitutional to do so since there are several constitutional rights which are violated and to name a few those are the 4th amendment and the right to privacy. A person doesn't simply lose their rights because you and those who agree with you decide that illegal immigration is a problem that warrants an infringement upon their rights. As I noted with my example of a survivor of the holocaust. A police stop has a pscyhological effect upon people and it forces survivors of the holocaust to relive their pain. They remember being branded and forced to carry papers and having to go through random identification checks and it is outrageous that you would seek to trivilize their rights.

 

[red states rule]

Referencing the tactics of Nazi Germany and other totaltarian states does not prove that I am losing and as I have already stated. The courts don't agree with your positon and the U.S. Supreme Court takes a different view since the rights of people to be secure in their persons is a constitutional right which cannot be infringed upon simply because you feel like it. You haven't provided a single solid reason why the police have the authority to stop a person, detain them and demand that they provide a identification when I have demonstrated time and again that the police do not have this authority because it is unconstitutional to do so since there are several constitutional rights which are violated and to name a few those are the 4th amendment and the right to privacy. A person doesn't simply lose their rights because you and those who agree with you decide that illegal immigration is a problem that warrants an infringement upon their rights. As I noted with my example of a survivor of the holocaust. A police stop has a pscyhological effect upon people and it forces survivors of the holocaust to relive their pain. They remember being branded and forced to carry papers and having to go through random identification checks and it is outrageous that you would seek to trivilize their rights.

Yawn

Wimpy libs are so boring

 

[ReillyT]

It is apparent that you did not understand what I said since I do not oppose sobriety check points and believe they are constitutional. It is permissible to administer alco-sensor according to a pre-determined pattern of vehicles including 100% of them since it isn't unreasonable. The police are also free to ask any questions they wish to ask and a person is free to answer them or not at their discretion. The police cannot arrest the person based on their refusal to answer or to identify themselves but they can arrest them based on probable cause which leads them to believe that they are drunk or that they have committed a crime. It is at this point that the police must read them their rights and arrest them or allow them to proceed on their way. Refusing to answer the questions of the police when they haven't committed a crime is not cause to arrest them. As for court cases the one I would recommend is Delaware v. Prouse since it is relevant to this discussion and addresses this issue specifically even though other cases are more explanatory of the constitutional questions.

The court ruled that "Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." It goes on to state "The State's interest in discretionary spot checks as a means of ensuring the safety of its roadways does not outweigh the resulting intrusion on the privacy and security of the persons detained. Given the physical and psychological intrusion visited upon the occupants of a vehicle by a random stop to check documents,...,the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials."

As you can see based on what I just quoted. The Courts are quite clear that a person's right to be secure in their person does not end when they leave their home and "an individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles." I can understand that the people want to control illegal immigration but it shouldn't be at the cost of our liberty or our rights.

I was actually on your side on this, and was just curious about the case law. However, with your "It is apparent that you did not understand what I said" comment, you pissed me off.

Delaware v. Prouse does not involve checkpoints. It involves a roving patrol, the arbitrary nature of which necessarily makes the case inapposite.

Note the language in the case.

"For Fourth Amendment purposes, we also see insufficient resemblance between sporadic and random stops of individual vehicles making their way through city traffic and those stops occasioned by roadblocks where all vehicles are brought to a halt or to a near halt, and all are subjected to a show of the police power of the community. "At traffic checkpoints the motorist can see that other vehicles are being stopped, he can see visible signs of the officers' authority, and he is much less likely to be frightened or annoyed by the intrusion." Id., at 894-895, quoted in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S., at 558 . [440 U.S. 648, 658]"

"Accordingly, we hold that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. 26 Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative."

Try again.

 

[Edward]

I was actually on your side on this, and was just curious about the case law. However, with your "It is apparent that you did not understand what I said" comment, you pissed me off.

It's your choice to be pissed off but let me be as clear as I can. I stated a fact about your lack of understanding as to what I said. How you take that statement is your concern and not mine. Could I have worded what I said differently. That's possible but you would have just as likely construed it in a negative manner regardless of how I worded it.

Delaware v. Prouse does not involve checkpoints. It involves a roving patrol, the arbitrary nature of which necessarily makes the case inapposite.

Actually, Delaware v. Prouse does deal with check points. It deals not only with roving patrol's, random spot checks but also check points. It focuses on each of these areas both in the holding, majority opinion and the dissenting opinions of the case. It further cites relevant case law. The persuasive nature of the case while not mandatory is relevant to the issue at hand.

Note the language in the case.

I did note the language in the case and the reason I cited it was because it dealt with more than just one of the areas we were discussing. I could have cited other cases but none of them addressed the whole of this discussion and would have been to narrow so I chose to cite the case that builds upon most of the others. Your attempt to make this case solely about roving stops ignores the fact that this case is a persuasive precedent and applies to the issue at hand.

 

[ReillyT]

It's your choice to be pissed off but let me be as clear as I can. I stated a fact about your lack of understanding as to what I said. How you take that statement is your concern and not mine. Could I have worded what I said differently. That's possible but you would have just as likely construed it in a negative manner regardless of how I worded it.

Actually, Delaware v. Prouse does deal with check points. It deals not only with roving patrol's, random spot checks but also check points. It focuses on each of these areas both in the holding, majority opinion and the dissenting opinions of the case. It further cites relevant case law. The persuasive nature of the case while not mandatory is relevant to the issue at hand.

I did note the language in the case and the reason I cited it was because it dealt with more than just one of the areas we were discussing. I could have cited other cases but none of them addressed the whole of this discussion and would have been to narrow so I chose to cite the case that builds upon most of the others. Your attempt to make this case solely about roving stops ignores the fact that this case is a persuasive precedent and applies to the issue at hand.

To the question of what is the acceptable level of intrusion that may be applied in a checkpoint stop, just admit that you don't know. It is okay. With respect to stopping illegal immigration, I don't know either. We discuss the issue with respect to sobriety checkpoints because this is where most of the law pertaining to checkpoints comes from.

Delaware v. Prouse deals with roving stops, and the court in the last paragraph of the decision makes clear that the holding does not apply to checkpoints, as these (properly conducted) do not involve the same level of discretion.

"This holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative."

Because you didn't provide any further cites, I will do the work for you. The following cases both discuss the level of intrusion that is permissible at a checkpoint (whether the state can ask questions of the driver, or even demand documentation).

Maxwell v. City of New York (2nd Cir. 1996) (upholding right of police to question vehicle drivers attempting to enter a high crime area and suggesting (see FN) that if the drivers don't answer, they can be denied entry) (I don't have the proper cite, but it should be easy enough to find on Findlaw, Westlaw, or Lexis)

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte , 428 U.S. 543 , 96 S. Ct. 3024, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1116 (1976) (involving right of state to question and request identification of persons at checkpoints within 90 (I think) miles of border with Mexico) [I know that you must know this case b/c you discussed the facts of it in an earlier post]

State v. Orr (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 389 (Upholding validity of checkpoints stops to identify unlicensed drivers) [Good discussion of federal and state case law contained within.]

As I said, I don't know what the acceptable level of intrusion is with respect to checkpoints for illegal immigration, but your blanket assertions that the police cannot under any circumstance demand documentation and that one is always free to refuse to talk to the police at a checkpoint and then go on their way is wrong.

Don't worry Eddie, I can understand you. The concepts that we are dealing with are not that complicated as to be beyond my grasp.

P.S. You aren't a first year law student by chance?

 

[ReillyT]

Sorry about the first year law student comment. It was uncalled for, and I apologize. Even if it is the case, there is nothing wrong with being a law student.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My level of reputation around here can be attributed to you, GunnyL, and RetiredGySgt since each of you have given me numerous negative reps each day but I am not going to stop saying what needs to be said so you assholes will stop neg repping me.

Thats a lie. I have repped you maybe twice in all the time I have been here.

 

[Superlative]

NO, Clinton made it nearly impossible to do that and Bush has done nothing to correct it.

Yer Point?

Once again just for you, neither party cares. One wants cheap labor and one thinks they will get votes.

Exactly, so nothing will be done by corporations that are currently benefitting from illegals.

Rank and file republicans CARE though and voiced their position in defeating the Democratic plan to legalize 20 million illegals that Bush supported.

Of course Republicans and Bush opposed the bill to legalize, who else is going to do all the shit jobs for less than nothing?
As if the Cons want 20 million more people added to the poor pool.

And for that they were labeled racists. Further your entire opening rant was about how evil it was to stop search and impound illegals cars. NOW your claiming we should actually arrest them and deport them? Make up your mind.

Please, Please, Please, find me the quote to back up this load of horseshit.