Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality."
US Supreme Court
YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)
In conclusion Arizona's immigration "Law" is DOA.
.
^ What a truly absurd, stupid and ridiculous post.
Since the AZ law denies nobody of Equal Protection of the Law nor does it deprive anybody of due process, there is NO basis whatsoever to believe the new AZ immigration law is "DOA." In fact, it should stand up QUITE WELL.
,
Even if it does stand up, they are going to bankrupt themselve trying to prove they are right.
And anytime a legal citizen is questioned or arrested because of this law, you can bet they will be suing the state. Last time I checked Arizona wasn't doing that great in this economy.
Why do they spend their tax dollars in a smart way, and go after the employers?
All the Americans of Mexican descent I've heard opine on this state they're sick of being lumped together with illegals, and they are 100 percent behind the law.
Er..go ahead and take that to wherever you're headed. I'll wait.
Why do they spend their tax dollars in a smart way, and go after the employers?
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdfn employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If,
12 in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other
13 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this
14 state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a
15 person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the
16 labor, the employer violates this subsection.
No, it doesn't. It requires probable cause.
So there goes all that well constructed post, fffft, down the drain. Because you're starting with a FALSE PREMISE.
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.
Er..go ahead and take that to wherever you're headed. I'll wait.
The Arizona law authorizes detention of citizens without probable cause. The fact that someone "looks like" an illegal alien does not confer probable cause to stop on a police officer. What does an illegal alien look like? Does he look any different than the Americans of Mexican descent you are talking about?
So an Arizona officer might be just as likely to stop your American of Mexican descent as he would a Mexican who is an illegal.
Police are not required to ignore contraband they come across during a detention for some purpose totally unconnected to the contraband in the first instance. Hence, an American of Mexican descent with contraband in his car, illegally stopped pursuant to this law you say so many of them "are 100% behind," would be hauled off to jail, even though he was a U.S. citizen.
The point is, I doubt that someone in that fix would be so sympathetic to a law that had just empowered an officer to throw him behind bars due to an illegal search and seizure.
No, it doesn't. It requires probable cause.
So there goes all that well constructed post, fffft, down the drain. Because you're starting with a FALSE PREMISE.
Here is what the law says:
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.
This would appear to require probable cause for the initial stop, in that it only applies following a "lawful contact" between the police and the subject.
But what about a consensual encounter that is based solely on a mere hunch that the subject is an illegal? That would appear to be legal under this law, yet it is NOT legal under the 4th Amendment, because it is a stop that is, de facto, not based on probable cause.
No, it doesn't. It requires probable cause.
So there goes all that well constructed post, fffft, down the drain. Because you're starting with a FALSE PREMISE.
Here is what the law says:
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.
This would appear to require probable cause for the initial stop, in that it only applies following a "lawful contact" between the police and the subject.
But what about a consensual encounter that is based solely on a mere hunch that the subject is an illegal? That would appear to be legal under this law, yet it is NOT legal under the 4th Amendment, because it is a stop that is, de facto, not based on probable cause.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality."
US Supreme Court
YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)
In conclusion Arizona's immigration "Law" is DOA.
.
No, it doesn't. It requires probable cause.
So there goes all that well constructed post, fffft, down the drain. Because you're starting with a FALSE PREMISE.
Here is what the law says:
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.
This would appear to require probable cause for the initial stop, in that it only applies following a "lawful contact" between the police and the subject.
But what about a consensual encounter that is based solely on a mere hunch that the subject is an illegal? That would appear to be legal under this law, yet it is NOT legal under the 4th Amendment, because it is a stop that is, de facto, not based on probable cause.
What the hell do you think reasonable suspicion is?
Answer: Probable cause.
If a cop thinks someone is suspicious, they have the right to stop them. This goes for any crime, and last I heard, it was illegal to be in this country without proper documentation.
I think it is, in terms of harassment if not arrest when you couple this vague "lawful contact" with the fact that the police may be sued if they don't turn in enough illegal immigrants. (btw, this is also unfair to the police, imo).Then define it. Reason I ask is because someone I know recently appealed to a street cop for help and because the cop had a hair up his ass this person was mistreated and charged with a crime without probable cause.Because it's such an alien concept in the law, you mean?
A lawful contact between a police officer and a citizen (or a "person") is well established in the law. I mean, jeez. come on.
So, helping someone across the street is lawful contact, no?
Jeez. You have conveyed one side of a story. I think, with all due respect, that maybe it should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.
It is not exactly unknown in our collective experience that some cops have been known to lie. (Sometimes its the citizens/persons who do that lying thang, however.) Fucking LOTS of people get speeding tickets. I don't know the percentage, but I do know LOTS and LOTS of the drivers insist that they were NOT speeding. And sometimes, no doubt, they are right. They weren't. But oftentimes, they WERE despite their protests of innocence.
A lawful encounter between a cop on the street and a citizen (or a person) is analyzed in a variety of ways. It takes into account numerous factors. Does a cop need any particular Constitutional basis to approach me on a street to ask me a non-accusatory question? What must he do to elevate that presumably lawful encounter (which usually requires no probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything) to a "seizure" of my person for constitutional purposes?
I'm not trying to duck your question. I'm just saying that it is not even remotely as simple as you make it out to be -- at least not in terms of proper legal analysis.
This is entirely distinct from the more troublesome question of what may happen if a police officer chooses, unilaterally, to distort the law or to later lie about an encounter when testifying about it in Court. I know that kind of shit does happen. The question is: how often does it happen. Then there's the question of whether or not -- in any particular case -- it happened at all.
Here is what the law says:
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.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality."
US Supreme Court
YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)
In conclusion Arizona's immigration "Law" is DOA.
.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality."
US Supreme Court
YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)
In conclusion Arizona's immigration "Law" is DOA.
.
Sorry, but you're wrong on this. The 14th amendment only protects U.S. Citizens. It says so in Section 1 " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States "
You've got a point.
I'm still not sure how or why the 14th nullifies the bill, though.
A lawful encounter between a cop on the street and a citizen (or a person) is analyzed in a variety of ways. It takes into account numerous factors. Does a cop need any particular Constitutional basis to approach me on a street to ask me a non-accusatory question? What must he do to elevate that presumably lawful encounter (which usually requires no probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything) to a "seizure" of my person for constitutional purposes?
(Snip - not relevant to reply.)
This is entirely distinct from the more troublesome question of what may happen if a police officer chooses, unilaterally, to distort the law or to later lie about an encounter when testifying about it in Court. I know that kind of shit does happen. The question is: how often does it happen. Then there's the question of whether or not -- in any particular case -- it happened at all.
