....nor shall ANY STATE deprive ANY PERSON

[Navy1960]

I think I posted the standard establised in law in another posting on this very thread. It remains clear that the standard is the "reasonable suspicion" standard which is a well established standard in law. It is backed by numerous case law on the matter and has been recognized for some time in law. SB-1070 even make's note in the bill of this very standard of the following;

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Guess what, being in the United States after having crossed the border in an illegal manner is a crime and as such any officer or official of a state , city and county backed by case law has the right and has had the right to stop, detain, and hand over based on that reasonable suspicion standard prior to this law.

"[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983).

"general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983).

All this talk of how this is somehow new and unconstitutional is nonsense and is not even a violation of the 14th Amendment as that issue has been decided prior to SB 1070 as well.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.


As for Due Process

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law. A due process claim is cognizable only if there is a recognized liberty or property interest at stake. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 69 (1972).

In this case , there is clearly a well established legal due process of law, so again the 14th Amendment claim fails.

What I really do not understand here, from all those who take issue with this law , is WEHRE have you been for the last several decades that the very same immigration laws that SB-1070 plans to enforce have been in place.? I have heard few if any claims of racial profiling because of the Federal code, or any protests or boycotts based on the same laws that are being applied here. Perhaps, this anger would be better directed where it needs to be towards WAshington DC that has under both Repbulican and Democrats looked the other way, because one side wanted the cheap labor and the other wanted the votes, or both and allowed this institutional slavery to continue at the expense of American citizens. Don't believe me just ask the Pima county deputy that got shot yesterday by an illegal alien.

 

[George Costanza]

Again, I do not CARE what the alleged "argument" may be. I want somebody to SHOW US that there is any realistic prospect that the Az Immigration Law has ANY adverse impact on ANYBODY'S right to DP.

(There is a reason that nobody, you or anyone else, will take up that particular challenge.)

All right, Mr. Cool . . .

Someone is denied due process when they are subjected to an illegal search and seizure.

Under the AZ law, police officers are authorized to stop and question people without probable cause to do so. A mere suspicion or hunch that the person may be an illegal based solely on the person's race, is not reasonbly objective and is, therefore, insufficient.

A person who is stopped and questioned or searched without probable cause to do so, is the subject of an illegal search and seizure and is, accordingly, being denied due process of law.

I am not sure that the "lawful contact" prerequisite to a stop that is written into the AZ law, will do the trick. It might - have to see how that plays out in actual application and in the appellate courts.

I'll take "What is probable cause " For $1,000 Alex...

 

[The T]

All right, Mr. Cool . . .

Someone is denied due process when they are subjected to an illegal search and seizure.

Under the AZ law, police officers are authorized to stop and question people without probable cause to do so. A mere suspicion or hunch that the person may be an illegal based solely on the person's race, is not reasonbly objective and is, therefore, insufficient.

A person who is stopped and questioned or searched without probable cause to do so, is the subject of an illegal search and seizure and is, accordingly, being denied due process of law.

I am not sure that the "lawful contact" prerequisite to a stop that is written into the AZ law, will do the trick. It might - have to see how that plays out in actual application and in the appellate courts.

I'll take "What is probable cause " For $1,000 Alex...

Keep laughing. What you said of the AZ Law is wrong, and a LIE. They cannot just STOP someone for the way they look.

 

[Navy1960]

I just posted a link to SB-1070 please point to the section that gives Arizona law enfocement the ability to stop anyone without reasonable suspicion and question them as to their status?

 

[George Costanza]

I think I posted the standard establised in law in another posting on this very thread. It remains clear that the standard is the "reasonable suspicion" standard which is a well established standard in law. It is backed by numerous case law on the matter and has been recognized for some time in law. SB-1070 even make's note in the bill of this very standard of the following;

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Guess what, being in the United States after having crossed the border in an illegal manner is a crime and as such any officer or official of a state , city and county backed by case law has the right and has had the right to stop, detain, and hand over based on that reasonable suspicion standard prior to this law.

First off, congratulations on a very well presented post. I agree with almost all you say here - but not all of it.

The portion quoted above - yes, in spite of all the sparring that is going on here (much of it attributable to moi) about "probable cause," "reasonable suspicion" and "due process," I have to say that this requirement of a "lawful contact" prior to citizenship questioning, appears to me to satisfy all of the "lack of probable cause" gripes about this law.

It seems fairly clear at this point, that the legal challenges to this law are not going to be directed at any lack of probable cause argument but, rather, toward the idea that state law is attempting to trump federal law in this area.

As for Due Process

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law. A due process claim is cognizable only if there is a recognized liberty or property interest at stake. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 69 (1972).

Correct. But going into custody because you are busted for an immigration violation, is a sufficient "liberty" issue to generate a 14th Amendment claim, PROVIDED no other adequate remedy exists.

In this case , there is clearly a well established legal due process of law, so again the 14th Amendment claim fails.

I think what you mean to say here is that, in this case, there is a clearly, well established procedure for challenging illegal searches and seizures short of a claim of violation of Due Process and, for that reason, such a claim (Due Process) would be inappropriate. I agree.

My understanding of Due Process is, that it is a claim made when there is no other, adequate remedy. Example: Illegal search and seizure. Defendant moves to exclude evidence on that basis. Denied. Appeal is taken. Denied. Case goes into Federal appellate system - under what theory? Denial of Due Process? No. Why not? Because the 4th Amendment covers illegal search and seizure. It would be a 4th Amendment case on federal appeal, rather than a 14th Amendment case. The 4th is the adequate remedy.

Second example: The court requires the defendant to stand in the corner of the courtroom, facing the wall, during the entire trial. I guarantee you, there is no statute or constitutional section that applies to something like that. The defendant is convicted. He wants to appeal. His basis? Due Process - because there is no other, adequate appellate vehicle.

What I really do not understand here, from all those who take issue with this law , is WEHRE have you been for the last several decades that the very same immigration laws that SB-1070 plans to enforce have been in place.? I have heard few if any claims of racial profiling because of the Federal code, or any protests or boycotts based on the same laws that are being applied here. Perhaps, this anger would be better directed where it needs to be towards WAshington DC that has under both Repbulican and Democrats looked the other way, because one side wanted the cheap labor and the other wanted the votes, or both and allowed this institutional slavery to continue at the expense of American citizens. Don't believe me just ask the Pima county deputy that got shot yesterday by an illegal alien.

I think, at a visceral level, people are up in arms because the new law appears to give state and local police "new ammunition" which they did not have before. Whether it does or not is open to question, but as we all know, perception is reality.

At a more scholarly, legal level, it would appear that the objection is state usurpation of federal authority.

EXCELLENT post here, sir. Thanks.

 

[George Costanza]

I'll take "What is probable cause " For $1,000 Alex...

Keep laughing. What you said of the AZ Law is wrong, and a LIE. They cannot just STOP someone for the way they look.

EASY there, big fellah! I'm laughing WITH your post, not at it.

And I agree that, under the AZ law, police cannot stop someone merely for their appearance. The law requires an (presumably) otherwise "lawful contact" before the questioning can begin.

 

[George Costanza]

I just posted a link to SB-1070 please point to the section that gives Arizona law enfocement the ability to stop anyone without reasonable suspicion and question them as to their status?

Can't do it. Because the AZ law requires an (presumably) otherwise "lawful contact" prior to any questioning about citizenship status.

I would bring up the "consensual encounter," however. I would hope that local police would not suddenly be stepping up their "consensual encounters" as a ruse for establishing the requisite "lawful contact."

 

[Navy1960]

I think I posted the standard establised in law in another posting on this very thread. It remains clear that the standard is the "reasonable suspicion" standard which is a well established standard in law. It is backed by numerous case law on the matter and has been recognized for some time in law. SB-1070 even make's note in the bill of this very standard of the following;

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Guess what, being in the United States after having crossed the border in an illegal manner is a crime and as such any officer or official of a state , city and county backed by case law has the right and has had the right to stop, detain, and hand over based on that reasonable suspicion standard prior to this law.

First off, congratulations on a very well presented post. I agree with almost all you say here - but not all of it.

The portion quoted above - yes, in spite of all the sparring that is going on here (much of it attributable to moi) about "probable cause," "reasonable suspicion" and "due process," I have to say that this requirement of a "lawful contact" prior to citizenship questioning, appears to me to satisfy all of the "lack of probable cause" gripes about this law.

It seems fairly clear at this point, that the legal challenges to this law are not going to be directed at any lack of probable cause argument but, rather, toward the idea that state law is attempting to trump federal law in this area.

As for Due Process

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law. A due process claim is cognizable only if there is a recognized liberty or property interest at stake. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 69 (1972).

Correct. But going into custody because you are busted for an immigration violation, is a sufficient "liberty" issue to generate a 14th Amendment claim, PROVIDED no other adequate remedy exists.

In this case , there is clearly a well established legal due process of law, so again the 14th Amendment claim fails.

I think what you mean to say here is that, in this case, there is a clearly, well established procedure for challenging illegal searches and seizures short of a claim of violation of Due Process and, for that reason, such a claim (Due Process) would be inappropriate. I agree.

My understanding of Due Process is, that it is a claim made when there is no other, adequate remedy. Example: Illegal search and seizure. Defendant moves to exclude evidence on that basis. Denied. Appeal is taken. Denied. Case goes into Federal appellate system - under what theory? Denial of Due Process? No. Why not? Because the 4th Amendment covers illegal search and seizure. It would be a 4th Amendment case on federal appeal, rather than a 14th Amendment case. The 4th is the adequate remedy.

Second example: The court requires the defendant to stand in the corner of the courtroom, facing the wall, during the entire trial. I guarantee you, there is no statute or constitutional section that applies to something like that. The defendant is convicted. He wants to appeal. His basis? Due Process - because there is no other, adequate appellate vehicle.

What I really do not understand here, from all those who take issue with this law , is WEHRE have you been for the last several decades that the very same immigration laws that SB-1070 plans to enforce have been in place.? I have heard few if any claims of racial profiling because of the Federal code, or any protests or boycotts based on the same laws that are being applied here. Perhaps, this anger would be better directed where it needs to be towards WAshington DC that has under both Repbulican and Democrats looked the other way, because one side wanted the cheap labor and the other wanted the votes, or both and allowed this institutional slavery to continue at the expense of American citizens. Don't believe me just ask the Pima county deputy that got shot yesterday by an illegal alien.

I think, at a visceral level, people are up in arms because the new law appears to give state and local police "new ammunition" which they did not have before. Whether it does or not is open to question, but as we all know, perception is reality.

At a more scholarly, legal level, it would appear that the objection is state usurpation of federal authority.

EXCELLENT post here, sir. Thanks.

Thank you George, the issue though as I see it is one of a complete misunderstanding of the bill and illegal immigration that has become an untouchable institution because the Federal Govt. has for years, both Republican and Democrat used this issue for gain rather than simply enforce the law much to Arizona's expense. The bill itself though if people would actually read it is not a change in Federal Law at all, in fact all it is doing is supporting existing case law, and creating a uniform standard for enforcing Federal Law across the state when it comes to illegal immigration. I see no harm in that at all when the Federal Govt. chooses not too and further, there is plenty of legal backing to support statet law enforcemnt doing just that. As to the issue of racial profiling, Arizona in the law itself if they were to engage in such a practice have according to the bill would be in violation of not only Federal Law but state law as well, because the bill is tied to Federal Civil Rights law as well operates under an Executive order from the Gov. What I see here as a tragic issue. is a couple of things, one is that these people for the most part only want a better life for themselves and their family, and are allowed under the existing institution to be used as slaves, also the criminal illegal aliens are costing Arizonans lives,money and property damage, and cannot continue. So it makes sense given all that to end this institution the Federal Govt. has allowed to continue, thats the real racial issue here not Arizonas law.