....nor shall ANY STATE deprive ANY PERSON

[George Costanza]

You've got a point.

I'm still not sure how or why the 14th nullifies the bill, though.

I don't grasp the argument, either, that claims the 14th Amendment somehow invalidates or nullifies the Az bill. I contend, in fact, that it does not.

Incorporation of the 4th Amendment through the Due Process clause of the 14th.

 

[Barb]

The 4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I hate to turn on one of my own, but you are not correct here. You are leaving out the sentence that follows the one you quote.

You are correct. I learned this after further research, and came back here to correct myself, but you have done it for me. THanks.

The Privileges and Immunities clause does only apply to citizens of the United States.

This would refer to what? The right to bear arms and vote?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I would just like to point out that the state of Georgia recently tried to require proof of citizenship to vote, and the justice department wound up deeply embedded in their asses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Georgia lost in the end.

So if the state of Georgia can't successfully require proof of citizenship to vote, what makes you think Arizona can get away with requiring it just to walk around?

 

[Luissa]

^ 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?

anytime a legal citizen is questioned or arrested because of this law, you can bet they will be suing the state.

Nonsense.

People get subjected to questioning by police officers for a variety of different reasons all the time. It is beyond absurd to think that you have some cognizable cause of action to sue Arizona if the police question you. In the first place, of course, according to the law itself, there must still be some other basis for the police/citizen encounter. Under THOSE circumstances, what precept in our law would validly prohibit a police officer from making inquiry as to the legal status of a person who APPEARS to possibly be an alien? And On what conceivable basis could that turn into the legitimate grounds to file suit against the State?

I know we live in a land where the judiciary is often bent decidedly to the left. That is, they tend to be irrational much of the time. But that's why we have higher courts to shunt such absurd lawsuits aside. Any appellate judge worthy of the name "judge" would have to reject a claim that one may sue Arizona if a cop, upon making an otherwise valid stop of your person, proceeds to determine if you might be an illegal alien.

The very notion is facially absurd.

A methhead's daughter got $50,000 dollars here because he died when the police the tased him. He had attacked the police, set a trailer on fire, and was high as a kite on meth. The city wanted it to go away, so they settled.
If you don't think people will be suing over this, forcing Arizona to also settle, well you are very naive.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

.

without due process of law

Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.

.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A methhead's daughter got $50,000 dollars here because he died when the police the tased him. He had attacked the police, set a trailer on fire, and was high as a kite on meth. The city wanted it to go away, so they settled.
If you don't think people will be suing over this, forcing Arizona to also settle, well you are very naive.

Which city is that? Because some cities don't actually have to pay civil liabilities against them, depending on state and local law. So if they wouldn't have to actually pay it, of course they would settle, rather than hiring defense attorneys that they DO have to actually pay.

 

[Liability]

I would just like to point out that the state of Georgia recently tried to require proof of citizenship to vote, and the justice department wound up deeply embedded in their asses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Georgia lost in the end.

So if the state of Georgia can't successfully require proof of citizenship to vote, what makes you think Arizona can get away with requiring it just to walk around?

Partly right on the premise. Wrong in your follow-up.

It is correct that Ga tried to implement the entirely rational law that required voters to prove basic voting eligibility (i.e., citizenship). It did run into opposition from the DOJ which did (it seems) go to Court over it.

DOJ Fight Over Georgia Proof-of-Citizenship Law Continues | Project Vote Blog

I fail to see how the Federal government can prevent a State from legitimately passing a law that requires that voters present proof of voter-eligibility, but the Voting Rights Act is somehow implicated (I haven't researched it well enough to see what that buzz is all about, yet).

Here's the link to the 3 page responsive letter from the Feds: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id...GUtOTU3Ny00NjQ0LWJlMGEtMDJlMTA5ZTFiODJk&hl=en

Turning now to your follow-up: Your assumption is bogus. The new Az immigration law does NOT require that anybody must carry around proof of citizenship. It merely provides that if a person is stopped by the police for other reasons and a reasonable suspicion arises as to whether that person is here legally, the police MAY investigate that reasonable suspicion more fully. The only people "hurt" by such a law are those who ARE HERE ILLEGALLY and frankly, as to their complaints about it, who cares?

Why on Earth should any of us give a crap about the whining-ass complaint of people whose first action in the United States is to break her laws when the complaint is about the fact that we are endeavoring to enforce the very law they broke in the first place?

 

[Liability]

A methhead's daughter got $50,000 dollars here because he died when the police the tased him. He had attacked the police, set a trailer on fire, and was high as a kite on meth. The city wanted it to go away, so they settled.
If you don't think people will be suing over this, forcing Arizona to also settle, well you are very naive.

Which city is that? Because some cities don't actually have to pay civil liabilities against them, depending on state and local law. So if they wouldn't have to actually pay it, of course they would settle, rather than hiring defense attorneys that they DO have to actually pay.

I'm all for addressing the very complicated problem of frivolous lawsuits. I also understand how some city bean counters can conclude that settling a bullshit lawsuit is cheaper than fighting it, but it might be time to provide such bean counters with other legitimate defenses.

None of that, however, means that a perfectly valid law should go un-passed out of fear of possible future bullshit litigation.

 

[Liability]

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.

I would like to address both of these statements because, in the context of the new AZ immigration law, I think they are both relevant.

In your first comment, you are describing a consensual encounter. Police can approach people on the street and engage them in conversation. That is entirely legal. The person is free to talk to the officer or keep on walking. Most people will talk to the officer because common courtesy, if nothing else says that when someone addresses you, you address them back - as officers initiating consensual encounters well know.

And make no mistake about it, when a cop comes up to you on the street and says, pleasantly, "Hey, how's it going today?" you can be damn sure he doesn't give a hoot about "how it's going" for you - he has a hidden agenda here, and hint: it isn't good for you.

So now you're talking to the cop. Can he ask you, "By the way, do you have anything illegal on you?" Yes. Now, you're in the soup. If you say yes, he can search you. If you say no, his next question will be: "Mind if I take a look? All right to search you?" Again, whatever you say at this point, you're screwed. If you say yes, he searches you. This is a totally legal, consensual search. If you say no, what do you think will happen then? Most people say yes.

OK - now your second comment, in the context of the new AZ law. The law requires a "lawful contact" prior to any attempts being made to verify citizenship. One would think this means a normal detention based on probable cause to believe the person involved is involved in some type of crime other than illegal immigration. But what about a consensual encounter? That's a "lawful contact." Will that satisfy the AZ law so that the cop can then attempt to verify citizenship?

Probably. BUT - what about the cop who uses the consensual encounter as a pretext for a random, immigration stop? Random immigration stops are still illegal, even under the AZ law. Your second comment is directed toward cops who lie. It would be very easy for a cop to lie and testify that, during a "consensual encounter" (that began with the words, "Hey, YOU! Hold it right there. Put your hands on the wall and SPREAD 'EM!") he learned that a person was in the country illegally.

How often does "shit" like this happen? FAR more often than you think.

It happens. But it happens far less often than you imagine.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I would just like to point out that the state of Georgia recently tried to require proof of citizenship to vote, and the justice department wound up deeply embedded in their asses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Georgia lost in the end.

So if the state of Georgia can't successfully require proof of citizenship to vote, what makes you think Arizona can get away with requiring it just to walk around?

Partly right on the premise. Wrong in your follow-up.

It is correct that Ga tried to implement the entirely rational law that required voters to prove basic voting eligibility (i.e., citizenship). It did run into opposition from the DOJ which did (it seems) go to Court over it.

DOJ Fight Over Georgia Proof-of-Citizenship Law Continues | Project Vote Blog

I fail to see how the Federal government can prevent a State from legitimately passing a law that requires that voters present proof of voter-eligibility, but the Voting Rights Act is somehow implicated (I haven't researched it well enough to see what that buzz is all about, yet).

Here's the link to the 3 page responsive letter from the Feds: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id...GUtOTU3Ny00NjQ0LWJlMGEtMDJlMTA5ZTFiODJk&hl=en

Turning now to your follow-up: Your assumption is bogus. The new Az immigration law does NOT require that anybody must carry around proof of citizenship. It merely provides that if a person is stopped by the police for other reasons and a reasonable suspicion arises as to whether that person is here legally, the police MAY investigate that reasonable suspicion more fully. The only people "hurt" by such a law are those who ARE HERE ILLEGALLY and frankly, as to their complaints about it, who cares?

Uhh, the stuff in bold face - what stopped them from doing that BEFORE the law was passed?

Why on Earth should any of us give a crap about the whining-ass complaint of people whose first action in the United States is to break her laws when the complaint is about the fact that we are endeavoring to enforce the very law they broke in the first place?

Its a friggin MISDEMEANOR yet you talk as if they are convicted felons. Why is that?

And the law being broken is one of illegal entry ... ongoing presence in the U.S. is not a crime. Since the law relates to entry at the border, the crime of illegal entry will always occur within federal jurisdiction.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm all for addressing the very complicated problem of frivolous lawsuits.

I have a feeling that you define a "frivolous lawsuit" as any lawsuit in which you think the defendant should win.

 

[Barb]

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.

I would like to address both of these statements because, in the context of the new AZ immigration law, I think they are both relevant.

In your first comment, you are describing a consensual encounter. Police can approach people on the street and engage them in conversation. That is entirely legal. The person is free to talk to the officer or keep on walking. Most people will talk to the officer because common courtesy, if nothing else says that when someone addresses you, you address them back - as officers initiating consensual encounters well know.

And make no mistake about it, when a cop comes up to you on the street and says, pleasantly, "Hey, how's it going today?" you can be damn sure he doesn't give a hoot about "how it's going" for you - he has a hidden agenda here, and hint: it isn't good for you.

So now you're talking to the cop. Can he ask you, "By the way, do you have anything illegal on you?" Yes. Now, you're in the soup. If you say yes, he can search you. If you say no, his next question will be: "Mind if I take a look? All right to search you?" Again, whatever you say at this point, you're screwed. If you say yes, he searches you. This is a totally legal, consensual search. If you say no, what do you think will happen then? Most people say yes.

OK - now your second comment, in the context of the new AZ law. The law requires a "lawful contact" prior to any attempts being made to verify citizenship. One would think this means a normal detention based on probable cause to believe the person involved is involved in some type of crime other than illegal immigration. But what about a consensual encounter? That's a "lawful contact." Will that satisfy the AZ law so that the cop can then attempt to verify citizenship?

Probably. BUT - what about the cop who uses the consensual encounter as a pretext for a random, immigration stop? Random immigration stops are still illegal, even under the AZ law. Your second comment is directed toward cops who lie. It would be very easy for a cop to lie and testify that, during a "consensual encounter" (that began with the words, "Hey, YOU! Hold it right there. Put your hands on the wall and SPREAD 'EM!") he learned that a person was in the country illegally.

How often does "shit" like this happen? FAR more often than you think.

 

[George Costanza]

It happens. But it happens far less often than you imagine.

Well, perhaps. I only know that I deal with defendants who claim the police officers are lying, literally on a daily basis. If only 10% of what my clients say is correct, we are in DEEP trouble which, of course, we are.

 

[Luissa]

A methhead's daughter got $50,000 dollars here because he died when the police the tased him. He had attacked the police, set a trailer on fire, and was high as a kite on meth. The city wanted it to go away, so they settled.
If you don't think people will be suing over this, forcing Arizona to also settle, well you are very naive.

Which city is that? Because some cities don't actually have to pay civil liabilities against them, depending on state and local law. So if they wouldn't have to actually pay it, of course they would settle, rather than hiring defense attorneys that they DO have to actually pay.

Spokane, Washington


I will try to find the article in a minute, I need some breakfast.

or google Spokesman Review $50,000, and meth. lol

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A methhead's daughter got $50,000 dollars here because he died when the police the tased him. He had attacked the police, set a trailer on fire, and was high as a kite on meth. The city wanted it to go away, so they settled.
If you don't think people will be suing over this, forcing Arizona to also settle, well you are very naive.

Which city is that? Because some cities don't actually have to pay civil liabilities against them, depending on state and local law. So if they wouldn't have to actually pay it, of course they would settle, rather than hiring defense attorneys that they DO have to actually pay.

Spokane, Washington


I will try to find the article in a minute, I need some breakfast.

or google Spokesman Review $50,000, and meth. lol

Desn't say anything about meth here:

Spokane County approves settlement in Taser case

Ruff jolted Creager with a Taser three times, which Ruff's report said was necessary so he could be handcuffed. Creager said in a claim filed with the county that the pain was worse than he ever imagined, and that he broke several teeth clenching his jaw.

Seems to me that a taser should only be used as a substitute for deadly force. You wouldn't shoot someone just to handcuff them.

 

[George Costanza]

You all know, of course, that what we are kicking around in great (and most interesting) detail on this thread - illegal detention under the new AZ law - is not the issue that is going to bring this law into the appellate courts.

That issue is: the AZ law usurps Federal law.

But this other stuff is so much more fun to yak about . . .

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I will try to find the article in a minute, I need some breakfast.

or google Spokesman Review $50,000, and meth. lol

Found it for you!

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=9905
Doesn't look good for your side.

When deputies entered the trailer where Yohe had been sleeping, they said, he appeared to suffer a seizure and was combative. He was dragged outside by his feet before an officer fired a 50,000-volt Taser at him.

Surrounded by at least three deputies, Yohe was put in handcuffs and leg restraints, his limbs hogtied behind his back in a "hobbling technique," as deputies prefer to call it. Even in those restraints, Yohe continued to flail.

"There was one deputy at his head, another on his feet and a third kicking him in the midsection," Jones said.

"The third time he kicked him in the ribs so hard that Trent's false teeth flew out of his mouth – literally flew out across the gravel," Jones said.

"A couple more kicks by the officer and Trent went still, his eyes closed," she said. "I was screaming for the other officers who were there to come and help Trent."

See, you're a little confused on the facts. They didn't taze him to death. They hogtied him and kicked him to death. The city was lucky it only had to pay $50,000. If the offender had been a private citizen instead shitty cops who deserves to be locked up for kicking a man to death while he was hogtied and having a seizure - that private citizen would likely lose everything they own in a lawsuit.


How the fuck can you excuse this sort of behavior by your local PD? Is it the job of law enforcement to kick someone's teeth out through their ribs after they've been HOGTIED?

 

[Liability]

I'm all for addressing the very complicated problem of frivolous lawsuits.

I have a feeling that you define a "frivolous lawsuit" as any lawsuit in which you think the defendant should win.

Who cares what you have some alleged "feeling" about?

A frivolous lawsuit is one with no VALID underlying legal basis.

You wouldn't understand that.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Who cares what you have some alleged "feeling" about?

Since you are responding to my statement, I would guess, you, for one.

A frivolous lawsuit is one with no VALID underlying legal basis.

You wouldn't understand that.

Its not hard to understand. My wife explained it to me her first year in law school.