No ruling in hearing over Arizona immigration law

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That does seem pretty clear. ID not required on the spot, although I presume the police can request confirmation of identification and that request must presumably be complied with within a reasonable time period (unless you can't - in which case I guess you disappear) So, it is correct that the new Arizonan law indeed potentially changes the focus of an investigation and the requiment of the officer to properly determine status, from something that might become apparent during the course of an investigation to a primary objective. That seems like a waste of resources for an uncertain increase in detention of illegal immigrants if the law is applied indiscriminately.

Yes they can detain you in place or transport you to say the crime scene. Unfortunately "Reasonable Detention" is pretty vague. One of the precedent rulings was about a guy in a car with hidden drugs. He was stopped and held on the roadside for 4 hours while the nearest dog was brought to the scene.

[Peikko 1,575]

Right - and it is a reasonable expectation that a person suspected of a crime should provide a name and address. Presumably the officer can make an instant attempt at verification of the name and address but beyond that, nothing further is required of the suspect?

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes they can detain you in place or transport you to say the crime scene. Unfortunately "Reasonable Detention" is pretty vague. One of the precedent rulings was about a guy in a car with hidden drugs. He was stopped and held on the roadside for 4 hours while the nearest dog was brought to the scene.

Well, I think they probably have to justify the 'reasonable' at the moment. The Arizonan law does not appear to have similar language on detention from what I can understand, which is admittedly not that comprensive.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Right - and it is a reasonable expectation that a person suspected of a crime should provide a name and address. Presumably the officer can make an instant attempt at verification of the name and address but beyond that, nothing further is required of the suspect?

Other than allowing themselves to be moved if necessary, mostly to the crimes location.

...and a pat down is legal too.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Sousuke

[Heracles 417]

Let's hear the pros & cons of how the 14th Amendment should or shouldn't or does or doesn't protect USCs or illegals vis-a-vis the Arizona law.

Here's a different angle, there is a reason why next to no other first world country has such an automatic citizenship right anymore. Common sense rather than opinions or out-of-context amendments should prevail here, regarding why this would be the case.

[DEDixon 39]

And here is the official Ohio statute since Terry vs. Ohio was mentioned:

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

i have not paid much attention to this thread so forgive me if my comment has already been posted.

with name, date of birth and address, the officer can radio that in or enter into the computer that is in the patrol car to verify and get a lot more information on the person. ID might not be required, however that doesn't mean you can't be identified.

if the person isn't in the database, maybe an illegal?

[Heracles 417]

It kills me that people don't get the law and its intention, rather, prefer to stick to imaginary worst case what-if scenarios.

Here is the reality: You are pulled over and suspected of DUI > Officer asks for ID, which you do not and cannot produce > DMV database search does not match any record > You are evidently foreign born > E-verify does not match any record > You are then asked to verify status, which you fail to do. You are held and ICE is contacted.

1. First point is that you have to have police interaction during the normal course of police work. This is NOT a case of pulling people off the street period.
   
2. Second point is that once every measure to verify ID is exhausted, you are then held and ICE is contacted.
   

I'd draw it in a flowchart if I could.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It kills me that people don't get the law and its intention, rather, prefer to stick to imaginary worst case what-if scenarios.

Here is the reality: You are pulled over and suspected of DUI > Officer asks for ID, which you do not and cannot produce > DMV database search does not match any record > You are evidently foreign born > E-verify does not match any record > You are then asked to verify status, which you fail to do. You are held and ICE is contacted.

1. First point is that you have to have police interaction during the normal course of police work. This is NOT a case of pulling people off the street period.
   
2. Second point is that once every measure to verify ID is exhausted, you are then held and ICE is contacted.
   

I'd draw it in a flowchart if I could.

Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions, it is walled and roofed with them

[TBoneTX 46,282]

The Hiibel case (a ####### ruling) irks my chimes. Read the Supreme Court's dissents below.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court claimed that one's mere name is not inherently self-discriminatory, and thus not protected by the Fifth Amendment. (Such assumes that the detainee is not wanted by police for another matter.) However, all that the cop may legally demand is your name (varies by state; in Texas, also address & birthdate). Once you've stated or written it, you are not required to provide ID (unless a driver in a traffic stop). You are NOT required to answer further questions, such as where you're going, what you do for a living, what's in your trunk, etc.

The four Justices' dissents are worth reading. Although I rarely agree with Stevens, Souter, Breyer, & Ginsburg, I do here:

"Given a proper understanding of the category of 'incriminating' communications that fall within the Fifth Amendment privilege, it is clear that the disclosure of petitioner's identity is protected. The Court reasons that we should not assume that the disclosure of petitioner's name would be used to incriminate him or that it would furnish a link in a chain of evidence needed to prosecute him. But why else would an officer ask for it? And why else would the Nevada Legislature require its disclosure only when circumstances 'reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime'? If the Court is correct, then petitioner's refusal to cooperate did not impede the police investigation. Indeed, if we accept the predicate for the Court's holding, the statute requires nothing more than a useless invasion of privacy. I think that, on the contrary, the Nevada Legislature intended to provide its police officers with a useful law-enforcement tool, and that the very existence of the statute demonstrates the value of the information it demands." -Justice Stevens, dissenting.

"The lengthy history -- of concurring opinions, of references, and of clear explicit statements -- means that the Court's statement in Berkemer, while technically dictate, is the kind of strong dicta that the legal community typically takes as a statement of the law. And that law has remained undisturbed for more than 20 years. There is no good reason now to reject this generation-old statement of the law. There are sound reasons rooted in Fifth Amendment considerations for adhering to this Fourth Amendment legal condition circumscribing police authority to stop an individual against his will. Administrative considerations also mitigate against change. Can a State, in addition to requiring a stopped individual to answer 'What's your name?' also require an answer to 'What's your license number?' or 'Where do you live'? Can a police officer, who must know how to make a Terry stop, keep track of the constitutional answers? After all, answers to any of these questions may, or may not, incriminate, depending upon the circumstances." -- Justice Breyer, with whom Justices Souter & Ginsburg join, dissenting.

Hiibel affirms merely the police power to demand your name in a Terry stop -- not produce your driver's license, passport, etc. (much less compel one to answer further questions). Again, look into the "stop & identify" or "failure to identify" statute of your own state. While "stop & identify" laws remain unconstitutional during a mere suspicionless contact encounter (Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 [1979]), we sadly no longer have the previously perfect Fifth Amendment right of silence during a lawful detention.

"What's the big deal?" we may ask. OK, how about this: The cops ask your name, and you give it. They run a computer check and find an outstanding traffic ticket. Or, they see your name in the gun-permit database -- and thus subject you to an immediate Terry frisk of your person & your car interior. If a firearm is found that (unbeknownst to you) has a stolen past or was prohibited after the fact, then simply having given your name will result in your arrest. Nifty, si man.

Although Hiibel does not allow a systemwide ID check, it does help pave the way for such in the future. Terrifyingly, we are just a few laws away from biometric "Homeland Security" National ID Cards, gun registration, & owner licensing.

Edited July 27, 2010 by TBoneTX

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Hibel does not prohibit states from requiring more definitive proof other than verbally complying with a request for your name. The ruling is not as narrowly drawn as some seem to think. It is not out of the realm of permissibility for a police officer to request official ID, and, upon your inability or refusal to produce it, trigger "reasonable suspicion". In the case of SB 1070, OR federal law, which require that legal immigrants carry their status ID, it is possible that a lack of ID could trigger suspicion of legally.

While the claims are made that Hibel doesn't require official proof of ID it also doesn't provide for a prohibition.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry about the typos above.

[TBoneTX 46,282]

While the claims are made that Hiibel doesn't require official proof of ID it also doesn't provide for a prohibition.

Which is exactly why Hiibel is dangerous in itself and representative of a slippier slope. When's the funeral for the 4th Amendment, & for the overlap between the 4th & 5th?

[Moonandstar 6]

Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions, it is walled and roofed with them

And a witty saying proves nothing.

[Heracles 417]

Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions, it is walled and roofed with them

I think you will find similar practices employed in various other first world countries that do not even have 1/10,000 the issue with illegals.

Arizona has a serious problem and it needs to be dealt with accordingly. Ultimately, looking out for the interests of America and Americans is more important than worrying about illegal aliens being inconvenienced.

It's also a joke that legal migrants have to [rightfully] go through screening and immigration hurdles, while illegal aliens in America are pretty much one step under citizens. Free to do as they please.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Heracles

[Peikko 1,575]

If in your attempt to 'protect' your way of life, you destroy the way of life you are seeking to protect; the price is far too high.