It is a bit vague, and probably too discretionary.
But that is something that is necessary in law enforcement, sometimes...I think...meh, I dunno.
Its not vague.. As Zyph pointed out already before I could get to it, there is a legal standard for "reasonable suspicion" which, believe it or not, all your traffic stops are based upon. Yes, when you are pulled over, the police officer must have "reasonable suspicion" to do so. This is reviewed on a case by case basis by the legal system via lawyers and judges to ensure that what the officer believed was reasonable suspicion actually complies with the courts opinion as well.
The
vast majority of law enforcement action is based upon
opinion, opinion on whether or not the facts at hand meet the established standards, and sometimes the opinion of law enforcement and the opinion of judges/attorneys just doesn't match. But the judges always win
Additionally, there's the matter of what constitutes "lawful contact." Illegal immigrants will be dissuaded from reporting crimes against them or against others, for fear that they will be deported.
Lawful contact is just that, a contact with a citizen that is lawful. If I bust into a house with no authority to do so, that is not a lawful contact. If I stop a vehicle without
reasonable suspicion to do so, that is not a lawful contact. If I stop a vehicle
with reasonable suspicion then that IS a lawful contact. If I walk up to an individual on the street an ask them if they would mind speaking with me for a second (they have the right to say no unless I possess reasonable suspicion to place them in "investigative detention") and the individual agrees to stop and speak to me, that is a lawful contact.
Your second point is the ONLY issue I have with this legislation in its entirety.
It's all too vague. How do you systematize what constitutes reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien?
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. This new law is going to bring about alot of troubles for the courts until the judges and the officers are in the same line of thinking on what reasonable suspicion of this particular crime constitutes. But for most people who understand what reasonable suspicion is already, its obvious.
A thought/question: How to better define the 'reasonable suspicion'?
Its already defined.
Which is why, as I understand it, they must check with federal authorities as to the suspected illegal's immigration status.
Yes. You can't arrest someone on reasonable suspicion, only probable cause. In order to obtain that probable cause, You would have to check with federal authorities in this particular case.
Hmmm....the cop pulls over the carload of people, and the driver can't cough up a valid license....none of the passengers speak english.
It's totally unreasonable for the cop to suspect that the car is stuffed with Invaders breaking the law, right?
While yes most people would find it reasonable for the officer to think they were illegal immigrants, a procedure for that would be to obtain their ID (which by the way illegal immigrants often carry since everyone loves booze and cigarettes) and ensure they have a current address for the individuals and follow up with Federal authorities to ensure their immigration status, or turn this information over to ICE (which is probably already over-burdened in a place like Arizona).
It's a short bill, written with the clear knowledge that the libs were going to find anything in the bill that smacked of racial profiling. Nothing in the bill does, so it stands to reason that either.....
#1. The "advisors" can't read.
#2. The "advisors" lied about what was in the bill.
#3. The libs are lying about what their "advisors" told them was in the bill.
#4. The libs didn't read it and are talking out their asses.
Take your pick.
Correct.
Please check the posts on the first page. You're also welcome to deny that what is quoted from the law there actually exists and that mexicans and liberals together are just making it up and half the country lives in lalaland... the half you're not part of. :doh
Umm... Its obvious from this post that you don't understand, nor care to understand, what the words in the text from the law actually mean.
Seems to me that is where probable cause comes in. Reporting a crime would not be probable cause to ask for immigration status
You don't need "probable cause" to ask federal authorities someones immigration status. You just need reasonable suspicion and a name, dob, ETC.
The probable cause for the state law IS the confirmation from Federal Immigration authorities that this individual is NOT a legal alien or resident of the United States.
Reporting a crime would be a reason to ask someone for their drivers license or identification, as you need to know who your victim or witness is.
At that point, if no valid state issued ID is given and the officer has reason to believe that the person should have one if here legally (ie, the victim meets the police outside of his CAR to report an incident that occurred at a nearby business where he is the victim, is alone, and cannot provide a driver's license), has difficulty understanding english as an adult, is not to the officers knowledge learning disabled (thus would have a defense to not understanding english), does not possess a valid visa or "green card" (which the person WOULD show, I know from experience), etc. The officer can then obtain this victims information that he needs to obtain anyways for his report and pass it along or follow up on his own to determine this person's immigration status, and obtain a warrant for arrest if he felt the need to do so upon finding out that the individual is not a legal resident/visitor of the United States.
It's not the reporting of the crime thats the probable cause.
Correct.
Then what would be the "probable cause" in asking for ID. when someone is reporting a crime?
This is no probable cause to ask for something.
1. Officers are allowed to ASK people pretty much anything just like any other person.
2. Asking for someone's identification, to, you know, IDENTIFY them when they have been a victim is the expected norm in law enforcement.
What would be the "lawful contact" to look for probable cause when someone is reporting a crime?
The fact that the are lawfully speaking with a victim of a crime. How is that so hard? The lawful contact and the reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) do not have to be related. I think a great deal of people are failing to realize this. Or being intentionally ignorant to support their predisposed beliefs.
I think you are just being intentionally dense so you can float your straw men.
Ditto for you.