Sb 1071

here is my proposition on how to follow up SB 1070.

it is a fairly straightforward bill that the state of Arizona should pass. this bill would prohibit cheating on your taxes, aka tax evasion. a scourge which costs arizonans countless dollars EVERY year.

now, this bill would not be complete unless the local police force were allowed to target potential tax evaders based on characteristics prevalent to the tax evader community (ie...NOT racial profiling!). so this means that when the officer pulls over the dude in the BMW wearing $300 d-bag shades, he should be allowed to ask him for his 'papers'. and we all know that LEOs are not lacking in reasons to pull your ass over...they can pretty much do it for any reason they please.

now, should said tax evader fail to provide current and past tax documents based on meeting the profile of a tax evader, then he will be dealt with accordingly. local LEO sgt. dipshitwhocantdohisowntaxeseventhoughhefilesa1040ez will now be in charge of auditing your recent returns. should sgt. dipshitwhocantdohisowntaxeseventhoughhefilesa1040ez find anything lacking or not forthcoming, he is not allowed to arrest you but you may be 'detained'.

you will be sitting in the festering heat of tent city in july, clad in pink panties, wondering why you didn't just fill out your taxes on the straight and up. i mean, it's not like you were forced into being exploited for your cheap labor to better the life of you family, you were pulling an annual salary that put you in the top bracket....but you just had to have that expensive house/commodities/widget at the expense of other HONEST taxpayers. FUCK!

i put my full support behind SB 1071, and believe you should too. we need to actively stomp down on these tax evaders who cost us so much money year after year.


wait until you hear my plans for SB 1072, which is similar to the aforementioned bill(s), however this legislation would target those who fit the profile of a marijuana user or grower. should a cop decide to pull you over for any reason whatsoever and you 'act nervous' (SB1070 language), then the LEO is OBLIGATED to search your house to make sure you are not growing or using weed.

straightforward, no?

UncleBuck said:

here is my proposition on how to follow up SB 1070.

it is a fairly straightforward bill that the state of Arizona should pass. this bill would prohibit cheating on your taxes, aka tax evasion. a scourge which costs arizonans countless dollars EVERY year.

now, this bill would not be complete unless the local police force were allowed to target potential tax evaders based on characteristics prevalent to the tax evader community (ie...NOT racial profiling!). so this means that when the officer pulls over the dude in the BMW wearing $300 d-bag shades, he should be allowed to ask him for his 'papers'. and we all know that LEOs are not lacking in reasons to pull your ass over...they can pretty much do it for any reason they please.

now, should said tax evader fail to provide current and past tax documents based on meeting the profile of a tax evader, then he will be dealt with accordingly. local LEO sgt. dipshitwhocantdohisowntaxeseventhoughhefilesa1040ez will now be in charge of auditing your recent returns. should sgt. dipshitwhocantdohisowntaxeseventhoughhefilesa1040ez find anything lacking or not forthcoming, he is not allowed to arrest you but you may be 'detained'.

you will be sitting in the festering heat of tent city in july, clad in pink panties, wondering why you didn't just fill out your taxes on the straight and up. i mean, it's not like you were forced into being exploited for your cheap labor to better the life of you family, you were pulling an annual salary that put you in the top bracket....but you just had to have that expensive house/commodities/widget at the expense of other HONEST taxpayers. FUCK!

i put my full support behind SB 1071, and believe you should too. we need to actively stomp down on these tax evaders who cost us so much money year after year.


wait until you hear my plans for SB 1072, which is similar to the aforementioned bill(s), however this legislation would target those who fit the profile of a marijuana user or grower. should a cop decide to pull you over for any reason whatsoever and you 'act nervous' (SB1070 language), then the LEO is OBLIGATED to search your house to make sure you are not growing or using weed.

straightforward, no?

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, you are on a Marijuana site, dreaming about a bill that would target and put you in jail? You can not make up the stupidity I see on a daily basis lately. This is satyr right? Some sort of political expression, against a bill Arizona made to protect themselves from rats who infest their state and leach off of them? I have heard of some dumb shit in my time, but you sir, I'm afraid you just won the booby prize.

I see an awful lot of fourth amendment liberty violations there. Possibly fifth and sixth amendment violations as well. Fail.

Purplekrunchie said:

This is satyr right?

Click to expand...

no, this is not a troop of male companions that roamed the woods and mountains.

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

this is SATIRE.

i'm not surprised you don't get this concept of writing sardonically, you are in fact the type of person who will dehumanize others trying to better their way of life by calling them 'rats'.

you FAIL.

The only problem with this comparison except for everything is that all the bill allows local law enforcement to do is ASK for proof of citizenship. If the person cannot provide it... ER: THEY ARE NOT A LEGAL CITIZEN OF THE USA - then they are turned over to ICE which is the federal government's arm. Then the Fed's deport them...

NLXSK1 said:

The only problem with this comparison except for everything is that all the bill allows local law enforcement to do is ASK for proof of citizenship. If the person cannot provide it... ER: THEY ARE NOT A LEGAL CITIZEN OF THE USA - then they are turned over to ICE which is the federal government's arm. Then the Fed's deport them...

Click to expand...

true enough, but those local police are allowed to detain you, something that could happen to even a legal citizen (and most likely will, resulting in excellent PR for AZ).

UncleBuck said:

no, this is not a troop of male companions that roamed the woods and mountains.

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

this is SATIRE.

i'm not surprised you don't get this concept of writing sardonically, you are in fact the type of person who will dehumanize others trying to better their way of life by calling them 'rats'.

you FAIL.

Click to expand...

You make absolutely zero sense, how does my dehumanizing as you love to say have any shot at bettering my life? And they sure remind me of rats, or shall we use the word leaches? I bet you wouldn't even feel okay calling them criminals, we have a LARGE gap in our philosophy, and must agree to disagree, no progress will be made thats for sure.

UncleBuck said:

true enough, but those local police are allowed to detain you, something that could happen to even a legal citizen (and most likely will, resulting in excellent PR for AZ).

Click to expand...

Yes, I am a legal citizen and a resident of AZ and there is a chance that the local police would detain me. However, since my social security number matches my name and I carry ID almost everywhere I am fairly confident that there would be no reason for them to.

The AZ police cannot even ask unless the person has already committed a crime FFS... The fed's can walk up to you at any time for any reason and demand your immigration status. And yet you freak out about the AZ law while completely ignoring the much more broad and intrusive federal law. Weird... But then you cut your plants in half too... ;]

NLX, you are incorrect. We have not yet evolved into a "papers please" nazi-isque society .... yet. Not even the feds can demand that you prove your immigration status unless there is reasonable articulable suspicion that you are in fact an illegal.

NLXSK1 said:

The AZ police cannot even ask unless the person has already committed a crime

Click to expand...

like say, exceeding the speed limit, even by 1 mph? or possibly impeding the flow of traffic despite driving at the posted speed limit? the police have about 17 different ways to pull you over and cite you no matter what. most are not pricks about it and don't exercise this, but could if they chose to.

Purplekrunchie said:

You make absolutely zero sense, how does my dehumanizing as you love to say have any shot at bettering my life?

Click to expand...

dude, you need to work on both reading comprehension and writing more clearly.

the people you are dehumanizing are the ones trying to better their way of life, not you.

i did not say 'you are they type of person that dehumanizes others trying to better YOUR way of life'. YOUR vs THEIR....look it up. i already handled 'satyr' for you

Countryfarmer said:

NLX, you are incorrect. We have not yet evolved into a "papers please" nazi-isque society .... yet. Not even the feds can demand that you prove your immigration status unless there is reasonable articulable suspicion that you are in fact an illegal.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you are incorrect. The Supreme court ruled in the 80's I believe that the federal government had the right to stop a person without cause and ask for their papers. The ruling was unanimous 12-0 that asking for citizenship did not violate the 14th Amendment.

So yes, the federal government, specifically ICE the border enforcement division can stop you on the street by federal law and ask for your papers. If you are here on visa or temporary visa, you are required by federal law to have these papers on your person.

These rules are pretty consistent if you travel to any other country, the expectation is not excessive.

NLXSK1 said:

Sorry, you are incorrect. The Supreme court ruled in the 80's I believe that the federal government had the right to stop a person without cause and ask for their papers. The ruling was unanimous 12-0 that asking for citizenship did not violate the 14th Amendment.

So yes, the federal government, specifically ICE the border enforcement division can stop you on the street by federal law and ask for your papers. If you are here on visa or temporary visa, you are required by federal law to have these papers on your person.

These rules are pretty consistent if you travel to any other country, the expectation is not excessive.

Click to expand...

So much fail here.


For starters, there are nine justices, not twelve. Secondly, while the 1968 Terry decision established the standard of reasonable articulable suspicion the court refused to allow federal or state police to simply stop people and ask for them to identify themselves in their 1979 Brown v. Texas decision. Even the 2004 Hiibel decision did not establish a requirement that individuals must identify themselves as being US citizens to a state or federal police officer. While that decision did result in a 5-4 decision, the decision was narrowly written to only require those who were already under reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime (of which being an illegal alien falls) to identify themselves to state or federal authorities. Previous precedent establishes that such identification can be established simply by telling the authority your name and place of residence. No "papers" are required.

So, if an ICE agent stops you on the street and asks you for your "papers" you can legally tell them to go pound sand and keep on truckin'.

Oh, and it would be a fourth amendment violation, not a fourteenth.

Here is a relevant article from the center for immigration studies.

http://www.cis.org/announcement/AZ-immigration-SB1070

Click to expand...

Here is a quote from the article...

The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)).

Click to expand...

Now, do you agree or disagree with that point?

Another quote

The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.

Click to expand...

This restriction is not in the federal law. And that is my point. The federal authorities do not need "lawful contact" to ask a person their immigration status. And by law as I have demonstrated above a person here on a visa, temporary worker permit, etc is REQUIRED to carry their ID.

Now, I am not going to throw case law back and forth with you. My point is that the federal law is much less restrictive on asking for proof of citizenship than the Arizona law.

You are right about the justices, 9 of them... my bad... smoking too much pot

Countryfarmer said:

Oh, and it would be a fourth amendment violation, not a fourteenth.

Click to expand...

Yes, silly stoned me... Thank you soooo much for that info. Now DIRECTLY to the case I was referring to.


http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423

Facts of the Case:
Police detained Mena and others in handcuffs while they searched the house they occupied. During the detention they asked Mena about her immigration status. The police had a search warrant to search the premises for deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership. Mena sued the officers in federal district court for violating her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. The district court ruled for Mena. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that using handcuffs to detain Mena during the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the officers' questioning of Mena about her immigration status also violated the Fourth Amendment.



Question:
(1) Did police violate the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure by detaining Mena in handcuffs for 2-3 they executed a search warrant for contraband on the premises she occupied? (2) Did police violate the Fourth Amendment by questioning Mena about her immigration status during the detention?



Conclusion:
No and no. In a 9-0 judgment delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Mena's detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Officers with a search warrant for contraband had authority to detain occupants of the premisses during the search, in order to minimize any risk to officers. Handcuffing Mena while police searched for weapons and a wanted gang member was also justified by officer safety concerns and because officers had to deal with detaining multiple occupants. The Court further held that the officers' questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.



Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Muehler, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

Click to expand...

9 - 0 they did not violate her 4th amendment rights by asking her immigration status.

AND I QUOTE AGAIN FOR EMPHASIS!!

The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena.

Click to expand...

Ok, for starters NLX, you stated that an 80's ruling by the SCOTUS gave the government the "right to stop a person without cause and ask for their papers". Then you quote a 2005 decision that has no bearing on that statement.

The Muehler v. Mena decision you quoted was a unanimous decision of the justices that allows an individual to be placed in handcuffs while a legal search is being conducted (in the Mena case a search warrant was issued and a legally authorized search was taking place to look for evidence of gang membership). The decision you quoted also came to the conclusion that officers do not need to have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning a person under detention (Mena was in handcuffs, obviously under detention) about their immigration status.

How you get "papers please" from this decision I have no idea. This decision did not reverse decades of judicial precedent. It simply came to the conclusion that the officers did not need separate articulable suspicion about a subject in regards to their immigration status in order to ask the detainee about that status.

Notice also the decision did not state that a person had to answer that question. The only questions you are still required to answer in the United States when asked by a federal officer is your name and place of residence, and even then case law states that you are only required to answer such when reasonable articulable suspicion exists. I should point out again that this standard was already far exceeded in the Mena case as a search warrant was being carried out (that means probable cause existed - a higher standard).

this thread has taken an all too informative turn from sardonic to educational. oh well, carry on

*sigh*

Me being wrong about a few facts that we can both agree upon does not change the basic premise of my argument or your counter argument.

Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.

Click to expand...

The citizens of the United States have the 4th amendment right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. That means a cop cannot walk up to you and search you without probable cause. Now, the court has ruled repeatedly over the years and specifically in this case that the police do not violate your 4th amendment rights by asking you for your citizenship.

What other amendment gives you protection against this?

Now, I have proven that in this case and others the police can ask for immigration status while serving a search warrant that is not applicable to the immigration issue.

Would you please provide the case law to show that they cannot ask anyone about their immigration status?


BTW, the fed's did exactly what you are excoriating Arizona for in this specific case... Again, you should re-consider who you are angry at.

Well NLX, I have completely explained this particular judicial ruling and how it did not change decades of precedent. Stare decisis as a legal principle has not been violated by the Mena ruling, but if you choose to believe otherwise ... well, feel free. My best to you.