Judge upholds Arizona's 'show your papers' immigration law

a reply to: Sremmos80

It is not reasonable for a cop to just come up and ask you to show your ID, that is against the 4th, period.

The Court has ruled that it is reasonable, given "probable cause."
Quite vague, unfortunately and that's where the Court gets involved. However it does not mean that you can be detained because you don't have an ID on you.

a reply to: Phage

If by not carrying you mean not having on one your person, that shouldn't happen. But if you mean not having an ID at all, yes that is cause for detention because you can not be here legally without having some kind of identification. Whether it is a drivers license, passport, green card, work visa, whatever. Everyone should be able to demonstrate the fact that they have the right to be here. I do not agree with going door to door demanding that people show documentation allowing them to be here, but if stopped by police, or if participating in some act that requires identification, certification of age, or identity, then no, it is not unconstitutional to detain or deport someone who fails to satisfy that criteria.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

If by not carrying you mean not having on one your person, that shouldn't happen.

Yes. That is what I mean.

But if you mean not having an ID at all, yes that is cause for detention because you can not be here legally without having some kind of identification.

Can you cite that law please?

Everyone should be able to demonstrate the fact that they have the right to be here.

Presumption of guilt?

participating in some act that requires identification,

Walking down the street? The Arizona law seems to say that would be the case, given "reasonable cause", of course. It seems you can be jailed until you produce proof of legal status, or until a judge says "what the hell are you doing, let that guy go!"

a reply to: Sremmos80

I am going to tell you a story. A true story. I know it is a true story because it happened to me.

I was going through a terminal at an airport in Texas to get to my gate. It was one very long curving hallway that for some reason was pretty much empty except for me...and the officer with the dog walking toward me. When we got near each other the officer asked me if I had a green card. I said "No." He said I had to go with him. I said "No. I have a plane to catch. He told me I wasn't going to be catching any planes and that I had to go with him. I asked him why and he said because I had no identification. I asked him if a drivers license was good enough. He asked, "Do you have one?" I said "Of course I do..." not really sure what he was implying. He asked me how I got a drivers license. I was confused. Everyone knows how you get a drivers license. I asked him to explain what the problem was, I was running out of time to catch my flight. He asked me again for a green card. I told him again that I didn't have one. I was 17 years old and unfamiliar with the concept of illegal aliens and green cards. I didn't even know what a green card was at that time. I showed him my drivers license instead. He asked me where I was from. I said I was born in PA and lived in a suburb of Chicago. He told me I was lucky and walked away.

Through all of that, as upset and insulted as I was, I did not find it illegal or harassing. He had a job to do. Granted, he wasn't doing it well. But he was doing his job. He was looking for illegal aliens and the way to do that was to distinguish between legal and illegal status via proper documentation. Same thing for Sherriff Joe. How is he supposed to determine who is here legally and who isn't? He has a job to do. If he cant ask for identification what is he supposed to do, just look the other way and pretend everyone is legal or just make a snap decision and go for it, right or wrong? It seems like no matter what he does or doesn't do, he is automatically wrong to some people.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Through all of that, as upset and insulted as I was, I did not find it illegal or harassing.

Yes, you were a kid who didn't know better.

He had a job to do. Granted, he wasn't doing it well. But he was doing his job.

He was acting unlawfully, knew it, and using intimidation.

He told me I was lucky and walked away.

Lucky? How so? What an ass he was.

How is he supposed to determine who is here legally and who isn't?

If he can only do it by violating the rights of citizens, he isn't supposed to.

If he cant ask for identification what is he supposed to do, just look the other way and pretend everyone is legal or just make a snap decision and go for it, right or wrong?

Go for it, right or wrong, of course. Because catching misdemeanor criminals trumps the rights of citizens every time.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Didn't find it harassing but you said no at first and were hesitant?
It sounds very harassing, Saying that you are not going to catch any planes that you are lucky sounds intimidating.
His job isn't to go fishing, it is to have some sort of reasonable suspicion.

It is fine that you are for papers checks, just don't complain about the NSA or the Patriot act ever.
They use the same logic as this.

a reply to: Sremmos80

No, he was an illegal from south America, after everything was done and I was cleared and my money returned, he was nowhere to be found to pay for the almost 50 thousand dollars he ran on my name, this was by the IRS accounting offices because some of the debt was against the government, when my wages were garnished that's when I fund out that I was a target to fraud, and it was not only me that the government went after but my husband too, and at the time they could not even tell me how much I supposedly owned and never was told how many places he defaulted on payments, but I got his name by a third party but I was warned that the name could have been just false, when you are illegal and a criminal you can become a chameleon, because the records they build are base on stolen identities and false names, until eventually may or may no be caught, because one thing is for sure, when I found out what was done to me, I didn't rest until I got my life back.

a reply to: marg6043

Marg, I am sorry it happened but it has nothing to do with the topic, let's move on.
Unless you can show how this law would somehow prevent it.

And yes your chances of having your ID stolen by a citizen is just as likely.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I said no because I didn't have one and I honestly didn't know what he was talking about. I thought it might have been my ticket, or some part of it, boarding pass, whatever.

It was a bit intimidating and I did worry that I was going to miss my flight. I remember I kept asking him what he meant and he wasn't giving me a straight answer, at least not one I understood. When I finally figured out he wanted to see some identification I showed it to him and he said I was lucky. I took that to mean that if I didn't have an ID on me I wasn't going to be getting on any planes that day.

I don't have a problem with showing an ID when asked, especially under certain circumstances. Like I said, if it is age restricted, or some act that requires some validation of some kind, such as voting or purchasing firearms, I don't see a problem with it. In fact, I am in favor of good solid background checks for firearms. And I also don't think it would hurt to know for sure that the people voting in our elections are actually citizens of the US. We don't get to vote in anyone else's elections, so why should illegal aliens get to vote in ours?

That having been said, I do not agree with things like sobriety checkpoints. That is not a probable cause situation, that is a trap hoping to catch a bad guy and catching a lot of good guys in the process. The main problem I have with a sobriety checkpoint is that if you either refuse to take part in it or make a turn to avoid it you are automatically considered guilty.

AS for mass data gathering, NSA, etc, no I don't agree with that and I never will. Wire tapping and searching emails for trigger words is just wrong no matter how you slice it. With a properly ordered warrant, snoop away. I hope you catch a criminal. Without the warrant, get your nose out of my business and go find a way to earn your pay that doesn't involve spying on innocent people.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Would you react the same way now, if it meant missing your flight?

I don't have a problem with showing an ID when asked, especially under certain circumstances.

In general, I don't either. But if someone is going to detain me if I don't...no. Just no.

And I also don't think it would hurt to know for sure that the people voting in our elections are actually citizens of the US. We don't get to vote in anyone else's elections, so why should illegal aliens get to vote in ours?

I'm all for showing ID to vote. I do it each election. But that's not what this is about.

The main problem I have with a sobriety checkpoint is that if you either refuse to take part in it or make a turn to avoid it you are automatically considered guilty.

And, in Arizona, if you don't produce ID, it is presumed you are not in the US lawfully, apparently.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Intimidation is part of harassment.
So it is ok to infringe on rights to 'carch illegals' but you don't apply the same logic to the NSA.

They are trying to catch terrorist...or are they just saying that to make it sound justified...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Intimidation is part of harassment.
So it is ok to infringe on rights to 'carch illegals' but you don't apply the same logic to the NSA.

They are trying to catch terrorist...or are they just saying that to make it sound justified...

That comparing apples and shower curtains, isn't it?

A sheriff pulls you over for speeding, or whatever *reason* (implying there was one) and he asks to see an ID. Why is that wrong? I don't think I have ever been pulled over when I was not asked to show an ID. Now if he is stopping people for absolutely no reason other than to ask for an ID, then no it shouldn't happen. But that is not what is happening here.

The NSA is using practices like wiretapping and invading the privacy of everyone, not just suspected criminals or terrorists. Then using any information they happen to find as evidence against people. That is wrong on every level.

There is no comparison between the two. A more accurate comparison would be if the sheriff was breaking in to peoples homes and looking for evidence he can use against them. Then coming back later and arresting them for whatever he found that he feels is in violation of the law. There is supposed to be cause for suspicion in order to get a warrant issued. And the warrant grants permission to search specific areas for specific pieces of evidence. Anything else found should be determined to have been obtained illegally and could therefore not be used as evidence against you.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Would you react the same way now, if it meant missing your flight?

I don't have a problem with showing an ID when asked, especially under certain circumstances.

In general, I don't either. But if someone is going to detain me if I don't...no. Just no.

And I also don't think it would hurt to know for sure that the people voting in our elections are actually citizens of the US. We don't get to vote in anyone else's elections, so why should illegal aliens get to vote in ours?

I'm all for showing ID to vote. I do it each election. But that's not what this is about.

The main problem I have with a sobriety checkpoint is that if you either refuse to take part in it or make a turn to avoid it you are automatically considered guilty.

And, in Arizona, if you don't produce ID, it is presumed you are not in the US lawfully, apparently.

If I had missed my flight, I would have been mad as hell, and the dog probably would have chewed my face off.

If you don't have an ID that proves you should be here, then you should be detained. If you sneak in to a concert and a guard asks to see your ticket, what do you think is going to happen when you cant show him one? You get kicked out. And you should consider yourself lucky you don't get charged with criminal trespassing, unlawful entry, theft of services, and whatever else they could charge you with. You don't get to be indignant, stomp your little foot, and say NO. It doesn't work that way.

If you are in Arizona and you cant produce an ID, you are detained - and given ample opportunity to produce one, if you have one. Its not like these people are rounded up, denied any contact with the outside world, and shipped out of the country without a chance to even talk to a family member, or lawyer.

If you have a drivers license but forget to take it with you and get pulled over, there are several ways that can work out. If you know your license number, like I do, you can tell the officer the number and if it checks out he probably wont ticket you for not having it with you. At least that is what happened to me. Or, he can ticket you and you take your ticket and your drivers license to court and tell the judge you simply forgot to bring it with you. Chances are he will drop the charge. He could be a prick and say you have to have it with you whenever you operate a motor vehicle, but he doesn't have to be that hard nosed about it. My point is, even if you don't have an ID on you, if you have one there are options. The only time it would ever really be a problem is if you don't have one to begin with.

You are really making too much out of this. If you have an ID, even if you don't have it with you, it probably wont be a problem. If he stops you for a legitimate reason, he has the right to ask to see your ID. I have never been stopped by a police officer that didn't ask to see my ID.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

If I had missed my flight, I would have been mad as hell, and the dog probably would have chewed my face off.

I said, now. Would you have been as compliant now, if it meant missing your flight?

If you don't have an ID that proves you should be here, then you should be detained.

So I should carry my ID with me at all times? Walking my dog? Surfing?

You are really making too much out of this.

I disagree. I said that I am willing to show my ID. I also said that I would be highly outraged if I was detained because I did not have it on me.

If he stops you for a legitimate reason, he has the right to ask to see your ID.

Yes he does have the right to ask. Does he have a right to detain me if I don't have it on me?

I just can't belive on ATS people are saying they want ID cards and the police the power to stop and ak for those ID cards.
As you can see some people have refused to answer a simple question because it shows them to be hypocrites If answered.
Those folks who bleat about rights and the Constitution normally but now want something that goes against freedom and liberty.
Taught me a lot this thread about some members and the fact that the USA is not as free as I thought.

What about McLovin?
Fake ID's? so to combat those I suggest a barcode tattooed on every natural born citizen...hhhm they can be faked also.
Tell you what how about a chip implanted under the skin at birth? it is 2015 after all.
Blimey how many on this thread complain about Orwellian tactics all the time but welcome them in this thread?

a reply to: Phage

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I don't know if I would feel exactly the same way I do now. We are all shaped by the events and experiences of our lives. However, this is one event among many. I don't know if it would have changed my outlook all that much. I have to concede that if it had changed even a little, my response and ultimately other situations may have ended differently as well. I cant say with certainty what an alternate timeline would have resulted in. I can only guess based on how I feel today that I would feel at least reasonably similar having changed only one event. I am not trying to avoid the question, but I cant say with absolute certainty how I would feel if things had been different.

Its not law, but people should have an ID on them all the times. It makes sense to have one in case of some tragedy or unforeseen event that might require identification by a third party.

Does he have a right to detain you if you do not have an ID on you? Legally, yes he does. Morally or ethically, that can be argued. But legally he does have the right to detain you.

It is important to make the distinction between the legality of detaining someone and what can result from that detainment. For example, as I noted in an earlier post, a police officer has to have a warrant to search your home and that warrant must be specific in regards to what is being searched and what they are looking for. If he finds something illegal that is not within the defined search parameters of the warrant he can not use whatever it was as evidence against you. That is the important part of this conversation. He cant use it as evidence. He can find it. He can seize it. But he cant use it as evidence because it was gathered without justification. Same for the detention for no ID. He can detain you for any reason at any time. But he may not be able to charge you for anything unless he had a specific reason to stop you in the first place.

I had a police officer tell me very directly with no uncertain terms that he could come to my house, kick my door in, take anything he waned out of my house, including me, hold me for up to 72 hours, then let me go with no charges filed. And there is little to nothing I could do about it. Legal search and seizure is about what can be used as evidence against you. Not whether they can search or seize in the first place. No self respecting cop would ever do something like this, but strictly legally speaking, they could.

Sheriff Joe sees you jaywalking. He stops you and asks for your ID. You don't have one. Yes, he can legally detain you. If it is determined that the only reason he did that was because of your nationality, he has a problem. Short of proving some kind of discrimination he is well within his legal bounds to detain you any time he wants to. That is why the ruling made a point to state that the issue is not specific to Hispanics. That negates the discrimination aspect of the complaint rendering it a moot point.

You have to have an ID to buy cigarettes and alcohol. We have all seen the signs, "We card everyone..." People don't have a problem with that. The consequences of not having an ID is that you don't get to make your purchase. A cop in a border town with illegal immigration problems asks you for an ID and you don't have one. The consequences of not having one are that you get detained until your identity can be determined.

The answer here is really very simple. Have an ID and carry it with you. Think about it. All the complaining about being detained and the presumed infringement of constitutional rights is wasted effort if you are forewarned with the knowledge that the ID is required. If you intentionally refuse to carry an ID just to incite or provoke a response, you will probably be successful. I don't have a problem with that either. If you don't want to be inconvenienced with having to carry an ID, my question would be why is this any different than being required to have a DL when driving? That's how it is. You know that's how it is. And when you drive, you carry a DL with you. The problem is solved for anyone who has an ID. The only people it is still a problem for are the ones who don't have an ID. And that is exactly how it should be.

You may not like it. But that is how it is.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
I just can't belive on ATS people are saying they want ID cards and the police the power to stop and ak for those ID cards.
As you can see some people have refused to answer a simple question because it shows them to be hypocrites If answered.
Those folks who bleat about rights and the Constitution normally but now want something that goes against freedom and liberty.
Taught me a lot this thread about some members and the fact that the USA is not as free as I thought.

I think you need to look more closely at the statements made by "some people" before you shoot your mouth off.

As you can see, I answer any questions asked of me as best I can. I don't make up answers if I don't have one. I address the question honestly and with the intent to answer as fully as possible. The circumstances under which the ID can be requested and the consequences of not having one are clearly defined. Its no different than having a DL when driving. Or do you have a drama queen hissy fit every time you are forced to "sacrifice your freedom and liberty" by having to carry a drivers license?

Tread carefully when accusing someone of being against the Constitution of the United States. "Some people" take that very seriously - and personally.

BTW, how does being asked to show an ID after being stopped legally go against freedom and liberty? You are making a very serious allegation. Let me see you make a very serious and detailed response to that allegation. Please, for all of us "some people" who don't have your vast expansive knowledge of constitutional law, explain it in sufficient detail as to remove all doubt about the legality/constitutionality of these acts.

I eagerly await your insightful and informative response to what I am sure is a very simple request for someone so knowledgeable.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
What about McLovin?
Fake ID's? so to combat those I suggest a barcode tattooed on every natural born citizen...hhhm they can be faked also.
Tell you what how about a chip implanted under the skin at birth? it is 2015 after all.
Blimey how many on this thread complain about Orwellian tactics all the time but welcome them in this thread?

FAcial regognition cameras on the streets. ANyone with a ID is already in a government database to begin with correct? PLacing cameras in public places where you have no expectancy of privacy would be useful to catch un documented people. if they try to avoid the cameras they are suspisious and there is your in on stopping and asking for ID. There you go. perfect and lawful.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The circumstances under which the ID can be requested and the consequences of not having one are clearly defined. Its no different than having a DL when driving. Or do you have a drama queen hissy fit every time you are forced to "sacrifice your freedom and liberty" by having to carry a drivers license?

Driving a car is not a right it is a privilege. A person does have the right to go about freely without undue harassment.

BTW, how does being asked to show an ID after being stopped legally go against freedom and liberty?

Unless you have broken the law the police have no right to stop you and ask you for any sort of identification.