Arizona Immigration Law modified to define "Lawful Contact"

[Smurf-Herder]

Arizona House OKs immigration bill changes to address racial profiling concerns

Barely a week after Arizona's governor signed a tough new immigration bill, the state House has approved several changes to rule out using racial profiling in carrying out the law, The Arizona Republic reports.

The changes, if approved by the Senate and the governor, would take effect at the same time as the new law.

Among them:

The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about legal status.

The word "solely" would be eliminated from the sentence "A law enforcement official or agency ... may not solely consider race, color or national origin" in establishing reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally.
The bill's sponsor says the goal is to clarify that the controversial bill prohibits racial profiling in any form, the newspaper reports.

Opponents of the bill had argued that the word "solely" allowed officers to base their reasonable suspicion on race and color as long as it wasn't just one of them.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/04/arizona-house-oks-immigration-bill-changes-to-address-racial-profiling-concerns-/1

[Hawkeye2j]

Arizona House OKs immigration bill changes to address racial profiling concerns

Barely a week after Arizona's governor signed a tough new immigration bill, the state House has approved several changes to rule out using racial profiling in carrying out the law, The Arizona Republic reports.

The changes, if approved by the Senate and the governor, would take effect at the same time as the new law.

Among them:

The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about legal status.

The word "solely" would be eliminated from the sentence "A law enforcement official or agency ... may not solely consider race, color or national origin" in establishing reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally.
The bill's sponsor says the goal is to clarify that the controversial bill prohibits racial profiling in any form, the newspaper reports.

Opponents of the bill had argued that the word "solely" allowed officers to base their reasonable suspicion on race and color as long as it wasn't just one of them.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/04/arizona-house-oks-immigration-bill-changes-to-address-racial-profiling-concerns-/1
It is still a problem. You could be asked for your papers simply if your grass is too high or your dog is barking too loud. That is a lawful stop.

[Smurf-Herder]

It is still a problem. You could be asked for your papers simply if your grass is too high or your dog is barking too loud. That is a lawful stop.

Think of a solution then. Because the feds aren't doing a good enough job.

I don't think you're giving the cops enough credit for being responsible in doing there job.

And BTW, I don't think just a dog barking or grass growing too high would be a reasonable cause to have suspicion that they're in the country illegally. Maybe if there was somebody hiding in the dog house it would be different. And in that case, all they have to do is pull out there driver's license. It's not like they're being detained at their own home, by a cop just knocking on the door.

I mean seriously, use common sense.

[Hawkeye2j]

Think of a solution then. Because the feds aren't doing a good enough job.

I don't think you're giving the cops enough credit for being responsible in doing there job.

And BTW, I don't think just a dog barking or grass growing too high would be a reasonable cause to have suspicion that they're in the country illegally. Maybe if there was somebody hiding in the dog house it would be different. And in that case, all they have to do is pull out there driver's license. It's not like they're being detained at their own home, by a cop just knocking on the door.

I mean seriously, use common sense.
First of all you are wrong. The change now says any lawful stop. Those are lawful stops. This bill is also financial suicide for Arizona
Ironically, expelling unauthorized immigrants from Arizona would be costly. The Perryman Group calculated that Arizona would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs if all undocumented people were removed from the state.

“This bill does nothing to address human smuggling, the drug cartels, the arms smuggling,” according to Democratic Senator Rebecca Rios.

“And, yes, I believe it will create somewhat of a police state,” she added. “Police in Arizona already treat migrants worse than animals,” said Francisco Loureiro, an immigration activist who runs a shelter in Nogales, Mexico. “There is already a hunt for migrants, and now it will be open season under the cover of a law.”
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2010/04/arizona-legalizes-racial-profiling.php

It is still a Constitutional question as it creates a separate state penalty for violating Federal Law.

[lesminora]

[
<<And BTW, I don't think just a dog barking or grass growing too high would be a reasonable cause to have suspicion that they're in the country illegally. ">> How about too many cars in the driveway or extended family members living in the house? Why were housing codes included?

[lesminora]

Wonk Room recently obtained an email written by Kris Kobach, a lawyer at the Immigration Reform Law Institute — the group which credits itself with writing the bill — to Arizona state Sen. Russell Pierce (R), urging him to include language that will allow police to use city ordinance violations such as “cars on blocks in the yard” as an excuse to “initiate quieries” in light of the “lawful contact” deletion:


To begin with, Kobach’s correspondence affirms that though the bill was proposed and passed in Arizona, the shots are being called by a small group of lawyers whose office is based in Washington, DC. It also indicates that after vigorously defending his bill and its “lawful contact provision” in the New York Times, Kobach may have had second thoughts about the constitutionality of the bill he prides himself with writing.

More importantly, Kobach is basically admitting to Pearce that by allowing police to use the violation of “any county or municipal ordinance” as a basis for inquiring about a person’s immigration status, the bill will still cast a wide enough net to help offset the effect of omitting the “lawful contact” language which would’ve allowed police to ask just about anyone they encounter about their immigration status. The examples Kobach provides, “cars on blocks in the yard” or “too many occupants of a rental accommodation,” suggest that net will mostly end up being cast over the p

[doctordog]

People that don't understand the problem will never understand the need for the law, plain and simple.

[Smurf-Herder]

People that don't understand the problem will never understand the need for the law, plain and simple.

Some people just want to let anybody (including possibly terrorists) run free like gazelles in the wild, while actual citizens are forced to take a biometric RFID card that has potential for keeping tabs on the tax-slaves to Big Brother.

[doctordog]

Some people just want to let anybody (including possibly terrorists) run free like gazelles in the wild, while actual citizens are forced to take a biometric RFID card that has potential for keeping tabs on the tax-slaves to Big Brother.

It all filters back to accountability and personal responisbility. I think many progressives are chemically unbalanced.

[foxbaron]

It is still a problem. You could be asked for your papers simply if your grass is too high or your dog is barking too loud. That is a lawful stop.


You have no clue what you are talking about.

In the parlance of police lingo a "stop" is when you pull someone over for a suspected violation of law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your grass being too high or your dog barking too loud.

Now, if the police get a complaint at a particular address that requires they physically respond to the premises to provide police services then it is possible that they may observe items or activity that raises a legitimate level of suspicion that the occupants may well be illegal.

If they develop probable cause, at that point, I believe they would be well within the parameters of the law to ask for proof of citizenship or legal authority to be in country.

Now what is so difficult to understand about that?

[Hawkeye2j]

You have no clue what you are talking about.

In the parlance of police lingo a "stop" is when you pull someone over for a suspected violation of law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your grass being too high or your dog barking too loud.

Now, if the police get a complaint at a particular address that requires they physically respond to the premises to provide police services then it is possible that they may observe items or activity that raises a legitimate level of suspicion that the occupants may well be illegal.

If they develop probable cause, at that point, I believe they would be well within the parameters of the law to ask for proof of citizenship or legal authority to be in country.

Now what is so difficult to understand about that?

You are dead wrong. The police noticing a dog barking can approach and it is a stop. It is easy to abuse.

[Moby]

Jaywalking is a lawful stop.

If you trip, even if you don't fall, you can be stopped.

I've read in some parts of AZ you can be stopped for wearing suspenders.

[Hawkeye2j]

Jaywalking is a lawful stop.

If you trip, even if you don't fall, you can be stopped.

I've read in some parts of AZ you can be stopped for wearing suspenders.
Great Obama line at the dinner. "I'm sorry Senator McCain couldn't be here tonight. The Senator said despite claims to the contrary he is not a maverick. Well you know what happens when you get caught in Arizona without identification."

I am paraphrasing of course.

[CommonCents]

You are dead wrong. The police noticing a dog barking can approach and it is a stop. It is easy to abuse.

That is a matter of "Lawful Contact", which this new law did not change at all. If it is legal to make lawful contact for that now, than it was legal before.

You're barking up the wrong tree pal, and I understand that no matter what the facts are, you will spew the liberal line and oppose this law no matter what.

It's liberal first, right and wrong second... Right Hawk?

[Linkster]

You guys quoting the original bill might go read the amended one - it was changed after it was signed into law and does change some of the allowances and is not just lawful contact anymore

[CommonCents]

You guys quoting the original bill might go read the amended one - it was changed after it was signed into law and does change some of the allowances

Here, is this better then:

That is a matter of "lawful stop, detention or arrest", which this new law did not change at all. If it is legal to make a lawful stop for that now, than it was legal before.

You're barking up the wrong tree pal, and I understand that no matter what the facts are, you will spew the liberal line and oppose this law no matter what.

It's liberal first, right and wrong second... Right Hawk?

[foxbaron]

You are dead wrong. The police noticing a dog barking can approach and it is a stop. It is easy to abuse.


Sorry Hawk you still don't know what you are talking about. Approaching someone about a barking dog is not a stop unless the person with the barking dog is walking down the street or driving a car at the time, then it would be a stop or a temporary detention.

In police work a stop is normally when they pull someone over in a motor vehicle.

The police may detain individuals on foot for suspicious behavior and even do a frisk for their own protection.

All this law does is give them the ability to get the illegals off the streets. ANy illegal that doesn't like it can leave Arizona.

[Linkster]

You guys need to read about what is called a terry stop - its what is going to be used and unfortunately most people in the US dont know their rights under a terry stop - and it can be done at any time not just while driving or engaged in illegal activities

The other thing you guys are all missing is that while inside the US boundaries - whether here legally or not - the writers of the constitution made it very clear that every person has rights - wheras there are certain sections of the constitution that only apply to US citizens.
If you are asked for your "papers" even if you are an illegal - all you legally have to do is tell them your name and then answer no other questions - after that they have a choice - they can either arrest you and deal with it if they falsely arrested you - or they can "detain" you - and again you (as has been proven many times in the Supreme Court) can sue them and get a hefty check - even if you are an illegal

[CommonCents]

You guys need to read about what is called a terry stop - its what is going to be used and unfortunately most people in the US dont know their rights under a terry stop - and it can be done at any time not just while driving or engaged in illegal activities

The other thing you guys are all missing is that while inside the US boundaries - whether here legally or not - the writers of the constitution made it very clear that every person has rights - wheras there are certain sections of the constitution that only apply to US citizens.
If you are asked for your "papers" even if you are an illegal - all you legally have to do is tell them your name and then answer no other questions - after that they have a choice - they can either arrest you and deal with it if they falsely arrested you - or they can "detain" you - and again you (as has been proven many times in the Supreme Court) can sue them and get a hefty check - even if you are an illegal

That's all fine, but this has nothing to do with the new immigration law.

The new immigration law did not create any new justifications for a police officer to make legal contact with someone.

[doctordog]

That's all fine, but this has nothing to do with the new immigration law.

The new immigration law did not create any new justifications for a police officer to make legal contact with someone.

Have you ever seen so much paranoia in one place over one bill?

[Bill Cosby]

Sorry Hawk you still don't know what you are talking about. Approaching someone about a barking dog is not a stop unless the person with the barking dog is walking down the street or driving a car at the time, then it would be a stop or a temporary detention.

.

But what if the dog is barking in Spanish??

The cop walks up to the fence & yells "perro cállate!!!!"

& the dog shuts up..... Sounds like reasonable cause in Arizona.....:lmao2:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_tfBmKYqH1bw/SoXYu-U7v8I/AAAAAAAADYs/oJem27iOA0g/s512/post_20030723_reno911.jpg

[CommonCents]

Have you ever seen so much paranoia in one place over one bill?

No, I can't say I ever have. What's so amazing about it, is that it's based mostly on falsehoods and political bullshit, and has nothing to do with the actual reality of the law itself.

[Hawkeye2j]

Sorry Hawk you still don't know what you are talking about. Approaching someone about a barking dog is not a stop unless the person with the barking dog is walking down the street or driving a car at the time, then it would be a stop or a temporary detention.

In police work a stop is normally when they pull someone over in a motor vehicle.

The police may detain individuals on foot for suspicious behavior and even do a frisk for their own protection.

All this law does is give them the ability to get the illegals off the streets. ANy illegal that doesn't like it can leave Arizona.

It is perfectly lawful for a police officer to simply approach you on the street or in the grocery store or enter a bus you are riding and, for no apparent reason, engage you in conversation. Once he does, anything you say or do that gives him “reasonable suspicion” that you are an illegal immigrant requires him to force you to show your proverbial “papers.” And, once that occurs, if you can’t demonstrate with the documents you have on your person that you are a lawful immigrant, so much the worse for you, as this story seems to show. No, a drivers’ license is not enough.

More importantly, neither the law (nor Jacobson) makes any effort to explain what exactly would constitute “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant apart from (or at least not in addition to) phenotype and accent. To argue that this law is not an open invitation to racial profiling of Latinos without offering an explanation of how else a reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration status might arise is not much of a defense at all.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=8093&cpage=1

[doctordog]

No, I can't say I ever have. What's so amazing about it, is that it's based mostly on falsehoods and political bullshit, and has nothing to do with the actual reality of the law itself.

Liberals have never been about reality only fantasy.