Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

 

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

 

Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.

How many people on here have actually read the new law from beginning to end? Are we just taking the media's short short version and running with it? Are we like AG Holder who stated he was opposed to the law, then admitted that he hadn't actually read it.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

 

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

 

Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.

 

 

A quick google found this:

 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_debour.htm

 

My quick reading tells me that an officer in AZ cannot simply walk upto a brown-skinner person (even if they do not recognize them from the neighborhood) and ask for ID.

 

If that is how this law is enforced then there will be no issues. Will it? We'll see.

It has been a week or two since I have read the bill in its entirety, but from what I can recall, this is the provision that many people have a problem with:

 

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTPURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©

 

I could be mistaken, but I do not interpret this as giving police officers the authority to question someone based on their appearance alone. I read this provision as meaning that the officer must first make a lawful contact with the person, then develop a reasonable suspicion that he or she is an unlawful alien before questioning his or her immigration status.

 

For example: The person is speeding and the officer pulls them over. Upon pulling the car over, the officer learns that the driver does not speak English, nor does the driver have a license or any insurance with him. That may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally, and the officer can take steps to ensure the driver's immigration status.

A quick google found this:

 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_debour.htm

 

My quick reading tells me that an officer in AZ cannot simply walk upto a brown-skinner person (even if they do not recognize them from the neighborhood) and ask for ID.

 

If that is how this law is enforced then there will be no issues. Will it? We'll see.

 

According to the law, the citizenship verification can only take place if an officer has made "lawful contact" with a person, and then has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is not in the United States legally. So, a fear of officers randomly asking people for identification is not really the problem, but it could result in disproportionate enforcement against a particular demographic.

 

What the problem is, for me, is the "reasonable suspicion" of being in the US illegally. Despite all the lip-service in the bill about avoiding racial/ethnic discrimination, can you define "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" without using "Hispanic" or "Spanish"?

 

To me, this implicitly demands racial/ethnic discrimination. Either officers have to use this method to identify those without documented citizenship, and subject legal and valid citizens to unequal standards, or face law suits for not enforcing this law. Furthermore, adding this requirement to policing creates the potentiality that, as stated above, officers may be more likely to prosecute Hispanic people for crimes in order to engage in the "lawful contact" standard to begin questioning citizenship.

It has been a week or two since I have read the bill in its entirety, but from what I can recall, this is the provision that many people have a problem with:

 

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTPURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©

 

I could be mistaken, but I do not interpret this as giving police officers the authority to question someone based on their appearance alone. I read this provision as meaning that the officer must first make a lawful contact with the person, then develop a reasonable suspicion that he or she is an unlawful alien before questioning his or her immigration status.

 

For example: The person is speeding and the officer pulls them over. Upon pulling the car over, the officer learns that the driver does not speak English, nor does the driver have a license or any insurance with him. That may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally, and the officer can take steps to ensure the driver's immigration status.

 

The case I cited had discussion about the "lawful contact" issue. In that case they argued that since he a)it was late at night and b)he crossed the street when he saw the officers then they had a right to detain him.

 

I think most are OK with the concept of an officer approaching/pulling over someone who has violated a law or is seen , say, running from a store even though the office didn't see that person actually take anything. That's logical. The concern is an increase in "busted tail light" arrests" or "56 in a 55" arrest. The "dude was just walking down the street being brown" fear seems easy to refute as a possibility or , worst case, easy to beat in court.

The case I cited had discussion about the "lawful contact" issue. In that case they argued that since he a)it was late at night and b)he crossed the street when he saw the officers then they had a right to detain him.

 

I think most are OK with the concept of an officer approaching/pulling over someone who has violated a law or is seen , say, running from a store even though the office didn't see that person actually take anything. That's logical. The concern is an increase in "busted tail light" arrests" or "56 in a 55" arrest. The "dude was just walking down the street being brown" fear seems easy to refute as a possibility or , worst case, easy to beat in court.

 

No doubt about it, there is a line that many people are very sensitive to, and understandably so.

 

I think, as it stands now, the law passes constitutional muster. Whether or not it is enforced in accordance with the constitution remains to be seen. I think Arizona's motive behind this legislature is to alert the federal government that, if it isn't going to take care of business, the states will do so themselves.

 

The revenues created through the enforcement of this law are put back into the state to fund the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team. I like that.

 

One thing that I found a bit odd about the immigration law is that it allows citizens to sue the state, or anyone who does not enforce the law to the fullest extent possible.

You got me there. He hasn't been nearly liberal enough to suit me.

 

I agree. He has spent way too much time and political capital trying to appease those that can't be appeased. I know it's politics, but I would like to see him behave like a true progressive.

I agree. He has spent way too much time and political capital trying to appease those that can't be appeased. I know it's politics, but I would like to see him behave like a true progressive.

 

You and me both.

I agree. He has spent way too much time and political capital trying to appease those that can't be appeased. I know it's politics, but I would like to see him behave like a true progressive.

He knows if he did he wouldn't get re-elected.

DELETE

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/17/immigration-costs-rising-rapidlty-new-study-says/

Too little, too late... Makes Obama look desperate in the light of more and more states seeking Arizona like immigration laws.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_national_guard_border

The Chosen One standing in solidarity with the Mexican President before Congress must not have polled well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_national_guard_border

Racial Profiling!!! :lol: