• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hispanics Are Surging in Arizona

Hatuey said:
http://www.sentencing.utah.gov/ProsecutionManual/chapter6.pdf



You're out of your mind if you think that DUI statutes don't define reasonable suspicion.



When you start off not knowing what you're talking about, you end up with posts like the one you just made.



Lmao, more nonsense.
Click to expand...
You're so clueless, you don't even know what you're quoting. That's a "Prosecution Manuel". It contains the statute, sure, but also case law, examples and commentary which are not part of the statute. Good grief. I'll see if I can find the actual statute, and only the statute, for the very same state you use in your link so we can compare.
 
Ok, this is the actual DWI statute for Utah (which is the state you linked to)

Title 41 Motor Vehicles
Chapter 6a Traffic Code
Section 502 Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both or with specified or unsafe blood alcohol concentration -- Reporting of convictions.

**** 41-6a-502.** Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both or with specified or unsafe blood alcohol concentration -- Reporting of convictions.
**** (1) A person may not operate or be in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state if the person:
**** (a) has sufficient alcohol in the person's body that a subsequent chemical test shows that the person has a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .08 grams or greater at the time of the test;
**** (b) is under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or the combined influence of alcohol and any drug to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely operating a vehicle; or
**** (c) has a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .08 grams or greater at the time of operation or actual physical control.
**** (2) Alcohol concentration in the blood shall be based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, and alcohol concentration in the breath shall be based upon grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
**** (3) A violation of this section includes a violation under a local ordinance similar to this section adopted in compliance with Section 41-6a-510.
**** (4) Beginning on July 1, 2012, a court shall, monthly, send to the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing, created in Section 58-1-103, a report containing the name, case number, and, if known, the date of birth of each person convicted during the preceding month of a violation of this section for whom there is evidence that the person was driving under the influence, in whole or in part, of a prescribed controlled substance.
Amended by Chapter 109, 2010 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 41_06a050200.ZIP 2,448 Bytes
<< Previous Section (41-6a-501) Next Section (41-6a-502.5) >>
Click to expand...
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE41/htm/41_06a050200.htm

Now, where is the list of things that defines reasonable suspicion?
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that the DWI statutes should have anything to do with the conversation here. I can tell you first hand that you are stopped for DWI because you exhibited behavior that warranted suspicion. In my case, I was driving head up ass, and cannot argue that there wasn't reasonable suspicion. On the other hand, stopping people because they look like a Mexican clearly has nothing to do with reasonable suspicion.

BTW, only 5 and half months more, and I am off probation for my DWI. When it comes to driving after having a few, don't do it, folks. You will not like the consequences if you get caught. Take it from me. LOL.
 
Last edited:
Simple way of enforcing Az's new law....make the question a standard question asked of everyone. Of course then people will just holler about nazism etc etc.

But hey, as Abraham Lincoln once said...

"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time" ~Abraham Lincoln~
 
danarhea said:
I don't believe that the DWI statutes should have anything to do with the conversation here. I can tell you first hand that you are stopped for DWI because you exhibited behavior that warranted suspicion. In my case, I was driving head up ass, and cannot argue that there wasn't reasonable suspicion. On the other hand, stopping people because they look like a Mexican clearly has nothing to do with reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...
The DWI statutes were just an example that no statute defines or lists out what reasonable suspicion is, so to criticize the AZ law for not doing so either is a red herring. Reasonable suspicion is a case law creation applied to every detention. I absolutely agree that pulling someone over for looking Mexican would not meet the reasonable suspicion standard, in fact, the AZ law expressly forbids taking race, ethnicity or place of origin into consideration. That means, those "articulable facts" will have to be justified without using race as a factor. Once again, the only way to argue the unconstitutionality of this law is by assuming the enforcement of it (the alleged profiling) will violate the constitution, and that's not something we were ever allowed to determine, so an assumption is all it's ever been.

BTW, only 5 and half months more, and I am off probation for my DWI. When it comes to driving after having a few, don't do it, folks. You will not like the consequences if you get caught. Take it from me. LOL.
Click to expand...
Hang in there. :)
 
Hatuey said:
That is a straw man. What I'm arguing is that if the law itself leads to racial profiling then by default that's the method of enforcement.



The law bars police officers from taking race alone into consideration when asking about a person's immigration status. So what else would they take into consideration?
Click to expand...

Documentation. If a person is pulled over for speeding and can't produce a driver's license or social security number that's cause for consideration.

Say during a routing traffic stop? All this running around is silly. Tell us, if the law doesn't lead to racial profiling, what does it lead to?
Click to expand...

Deportation of illegal immigrants. Let me ask you this: why is it that the only people concerned with race are the people against the bill?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom