Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
This no Arizona law is really nothing new, as it completely mirrors the constitutional question raised in Hiibel v. Sixth Judiciary District court of Nevada. The Supreme Court upheld the right of law enforcement officials to arrest an individual who refuses to/or is unable to identify themselves. The SC also stated that there was no burden for "probable cause", only rather reasonable suspicion.
The Supreme Court held that the gentleman, Hiibel's, 4th & 5th amendment rights were not violated.
Also from the holding
Color me crazy, but I would imagine that illegal immigrants would be guilty to some degree of criminal activity.
HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. |
The AZ law does something new.
It creates a new criminal activity, "trespassing by illegal aliens" that give police the power to apprehend any person on public or private property if the police have suspicion that the person is illegal.
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Presently, the police can demand identification if they have apprehended a person as a result of being suspected of committing another crime or traffic violation....whiich was the case in Hibel, was it not?
The new law, in effect, expands the definition of "lawful" contact. Under the law, a cop in AZ could apprehend a person standing in a city park or a 7-11 based solely on suspicion that the person is illegal and in violation of the "trespassing by illegal alien" provision.
What is reasonable suspicion? That is whee the 4th amendment comes into play.
---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I also have a question to pose to you DC_Dux. You state that immigration regulation is the responsibility of congress. How then can you explain the validity of sanctuary cities?
|
I dont think the sanctuary city's ordinances could stand up to a constitutional test.
The Bush admin never pursued it and neither has Obama.
It is also a fact that immigration enforcement is NOT a local or state govt responsibility so a city could chose to simply do noting in regards to checking the legal status of individuals (w/o a sanctuary ordinance) and would probably be in compliance with the law.