Arizona to illegals: GTFO.

[Dimmauk]

Probable cause = looking like an illegal Mexican.

[Rhinox]

If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about

Is the biggest crock of shit I've seen people say.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpoXEune1m0

[Rhinox]

Btw you don't have to tell the cop shit or give them any paper work unless your driving a car.

This opens the door for cops to detain and arrest anyone who refuses to give proper ID at say a rally or protest in AZ since its now Illegal to be in the state Illegally. They now can arrest you for being a dick to them under the "suspicion of being in the country Illegally" law.

The thing people don't realize is they won't/can't get arrested for not providing Proper ID unless you are a suspect in a crime.

[Arcticfox]

Ron Paul makes some great points, but sometimes I feel like he should be wearing a tinfoil hat. I still voted for him in 08' or at least wanted to

[Kuya]

I don't really find the arguments against National ID cards convincing. The arguments seem to rely on extreme what ifs that aren't documented, and the more concrete argument is that these cards are inconveniant. I still don't like the idea of National ID cards though.

[Rhinox]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet.

(In before: "Read all 19 pages or gtfo")

This state (AZ) is full of U.S. Border Patrol check points. At these check points everyone gets stopped and asked if they are a US citizen.

There has been no national outrage in the many years this has been going on.

You get asked your citizenship simply for driving down the road. Additionally, there are typically K-9 units searching for drugs in all vehicles passing through the checkpoint.

Again, where is the outrage?

At the border, or like...in the middle of the state? When I drove through Arizona I didn't go through any border patrol checkpoints.

There's a checkpoint between AZ and CA, and then of course Mexico, but I don't believe there are any between AZ and Utah/Colorado/New Mexico.

They do have "interior," checkpoints.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...or_Checkpoints

Both of those are still terribly close to the border. Both near Mexico, one near California as well.

I typically pass through two driving to my mom's place.

But are still interior checkpoints of which people who aren't entering/leaving either country would still have to pass through.

Just passing the info along.

Well I've managed to miss a lot of them driving around AZ a ton lol. Maybe this is an example of being white and having MN plates being advantageous?

Edit: And yeah I understand. I guess it just doesn't seem as shocking as a checkpoint near Phoenix. But for people living in those areas (Yuma, Nogales) it could be less than ideal.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ACLU_h...iles_1022.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPOuj-WzAoA

[Rhinox]

Oh what do you know! turns out the Rancher that was killed in Arizona wasn't killed by some random Illegal after all!

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/bord...97ee2f0d5.html

This won't stop the bigots from invoking his name similarly to how Polk used Davy crocket's death at the Alamo as a rallying cry for the Illegal invasion of mexico.

[Kuya]

Do you have a right to refuse a search? What's the point of giving you the right to refuse a search if they're just going to intimidate/punish you for refusing when it is your right to refuse?

[Rhinox]

Yes unless they have a warrant they don't have the right to search your car.

[Kuya]

Then the right to refuse a search just seems disigenuous if they're just going to try and intimidate you. What's the point of a right if you're going to be preassured by the government (or more accurately, law enforcement agencies) against it. It's like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Rhinox]

To be clear Federal border agents can search you at anytime without a warrant which is why the ACLU is kicking up a storm because the Federal government Essentially Moved the Border up to 100 miles in without really moving the border if you get my meaning.

[Kuya]

Federal Border agents can search you regardless of your refusal, but other law enforcement agencies can't? And the issue is that moving Federal Border checkpoints inside the State rather than at the border allows these insitutions to do exactly what, say, the police couldn't do? So in essence, if the cops can't search you, then just move the Federal Border agents deeper into the State so they can? Is this right?

[Rhinox]

Its Unconstitutional but thats not stopping the Obama administration DHS from doing it. It yet to be challenged in the supreme court.

[*Shinzon*]

Federal Border agents can search you regardless of your refusal, but other law enforcement agencies can't? And the issue is that moving Federal Border checkpoints inside the State rather than at the border allows these insitutions to do exactly what, say, the police couldn't do? So in essence, if the cops can't search you, then just move the Federal Border agents deeper into the State so they can? Is this right?

What exactly are you referring to I don't follow? Checkpoints have always been held as constitutional. If you're stopped at a checkpoint and an officer can articulate reasonable suspicion, they can search you. Same standard as stop and frisks.

[Rhinox]

What exactly are you referring to I don't follow? Checkpoints have always been held as constitutional. If you're stopped at a checkpoint and an officer can articulate reasonable suspicion, they can search you. Same standard as stop and frisks.

ehm

[Kuya]

Rhinox is talking about Federal Border agents, but you're saying that even non-Federal Border agents can search you even if you refuse. What does it mean that they can articulate reasonable suspicion?

[Rhinox]

to be more clear

lolwiki put the sources are referenced.

The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_..._United_States

I find it funny how you can minorly infringe constitutional rights and still be constitutional..

[Kuya]

I find it funny how you can minorly infringe constitutional rights and still be constitutional..

To be fair, as i understand it, this is a well established constitutional practice, and i can see the benefit to it.

[Kuya]

For example, even though the Supreme Court ruled that corporate spending on airwaves for the purpose of political campaigning was constitutional, this could be challenged under the guise that this would cause considerable damage to political campaining that infringing this right of corporations would be justified. This is without considering whether it's reasonable to consider corporations as persons.

[*Shinzon*]

Rhinox is talking about Federal Border agents, but you're saying that even non-Federal Border agents can search you even if you refuse. What does it mean that they can articulate reasonable suspicion?

The constitutional standard for stop and frisks/searches and seizures is if an law enforcement agent can articulate in court, through experience and observation, that there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

Terry v. Ohio is the case, which is why I was kinda confused when I read what you posted, just curious what you were referring to. This standard also extends to stops while in a motor vehicle.