1070 already working (Phoenix: crimes, house, transfer)

[Rick Lee]

Gawd, that article was ridiculous and a teenager could have done better journalism. What makes them think weekend garage sales in Hispanic neighborhoods are some new phenomenon? We have them in Cave Creek every weekend too. And what's with the legal resident whose wife is an illegal? Why doesn't he sponsor a green card for her instead of moving the whole family to NM? I did that for my wife and it's pretty much a formality. Why would legal residents feel any kind of pinch? They have every right to be here. Did the "journalist" think about asking any kind of probing questions?

[Ritchie_az]

The funniest thing to me is that apparently illegal immigrants are more afraid of Arizona law enforcement than federal law enforcement....

[MotleyCrew]

Originally Posted by Gurbie

<<If I were a law enforcement officer reading this, I'd be offended. These guys are highly trained and very respectable and skilled folks. They will (and many already have begun to) receive training on this law. Just like they received training on all of the laws. There is no need to belittle them just because you disagree with the law.>>

I AM a law enforcement officer (in Socal, not Az, thank god). I'm not belittling Arizona's cops. I feel sorry for them. Thanks to your politician's short-sighted ambitions, and your general populace's apparent xenophobia, your police officers are going to be burdened with attempting to enforce an unworkable, odious law. Furthermore, they are going to be COMPELLED to enforce this law, lest they be subject to up to $5000 a day in civil fines (read it if you don't believe me). Whichever Heritage Foundation lawyer back in DC put THAT clause into SB 1070 certainly demonstrated just what the authors think of Arizona's cops, didn't they? They stripped your officers of one of a cop's greatest tools in attempting to enforce laws in a democratic society- the power of discretion. Why don't you check with your officers about how they feel about that?

Again, good luck.

Our polls show that the majority of cops support this law and if you would read it you might understand that it does not tell our officers to just go round them up, only gives them what the Federal law already gives them, the right to ask for I.D if they are being questioned for another offense. They still have discretion. Time will tell. I am glad you are in SoCal as well.

[Gurbie]

<<<The law is the law, and I'm glad law enforcement doesn't have discretion. They are sworn to uphold the law, not just whatever laws they agree with and forget about the ones they don't. It wouldn't be law enforcement anymore. Police officers don't get to pick and choose.>>>

This is for Ritchie, and others, who may not have understood where I was going with the police discretion issue.

Discretion is a crucial tool for a police officer in a free society. At it's simplist level, it is what allows me to choose when to issue a ticket on one traffic stop, and a warning on another. Or when it would be best to arrest a drunk, and let him sleep it off in our sobering cell, as opposed to giving him a ride home and letting his family take care of him.

The Califonia Penal Code and Vehicle Code have literally tens of thousands of sections. Many of them pertain to citable/arrestable offenses. As a police officer in California, there are virtually NO instances where I am COMPELLED to make an arrest, or take any particular enforcement action in any given case (the Domestic Violence laws come closest, but even there, we have some wiggle room). Within the boundries of the law, policy and common sense, the decision how best to resolve the situation is left entirely up to my judgment (scary, huh? That's why they pay me the big bucks!)

So it's not really a question of "picking and choosing which laws to enforce", it is more having the freedom and the responsibility for deciding how to proceed in any given case, based on the totality of the circumstances, in the interest of justice. See the difference?

And that "power of discretion" is precisely what Sections G and H of SB 1070 takes away from your cops. So don't be surprised when you hear about issues of poor morale and dissatisfaction among Arizona police officers trying to enforce SB 1070. It will be a natural consequence of being constantly compelled to take certain actions against their better judgment. I would love to hear from some Arizona cops on this issue. I know how I'd feel!

Sorry about the ad hominim references in my previous posts (that's the "fallacy" Ritchie correctly called me out on). I wrote them after a 12 1/2 hr full-moon graveyard Saturday shift, and I was tired and cranky. I shouldn't have called your politicians "morons" (). I should know better than to post on immigration issues without getting a few hours sleep first.

And I don't mean to imply things are perfect in California. We have EPIC problems here in Blade Runner land. But, befuddled as our politicians are, and hard-pressed as our residents are, we're not on the verge of expelling people from our state, like you guys. And, it looks like whatever governor we get, Whitman or Brown, we'll have someone who supports "comprehensive reform" (Whitman talked tough to get the GOP nomination, but there's really not much day light between her and Brown on the issue).

Longish post, thanks to anyone who has the patience to hear me out. I don't mean to "poach" on the Arizona board, and I'm not here to cause trouble (No, really! I'm not!) Obviously, illegal immigration is an issue I find compelling for a lot of reasons, and Arizona is ground zero right now.

(PS to Ritchie- if you're really starting to doubt I'm a police officer, show my posts to some of your cop friends, and get a professional opinion! They may not agree with my politics, but their "cop detector" radar will be pinging (Though I think you may be surprised about their politics, too. There are a lot of liberal "closet cases" in the ranks, especially among us silver backs. The longer you do this job, the less "black and white" things get )

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by MotleyCrew

Our polls show that the majority of cops support this law and if you would read it you might understand that it does not tell our officers to just go round them up, only gives them what the Federal law already gives them, the right to ask for I.D if they are being questioned for another offense. They still have discretion. Time will tell. I am glad you are in SoCal as well.

Motley, have you read the bill? Section B (line 20) establishes the legal standard for an Arizona officer to be permitted to inquire about a person's immigration status at the level of a "lawful contact". This is a much lower burden to meet than "being questioned for another offense". That would amount to a detention under the 4th Amendment. I don't see that language anywhere in the law.

A "lawful contact", on the other hand, can be something as casual as an officer strolling up to someone on the sidewalk and engaging him in conversation- the term of art is "consensual encounter" (under the somewhat dubious proposition that the average citizen would feel "free to disengage". We've abused this tool in L.A. Co. to the point where the filing DA's are giving us the stinky eye)

As for the discretion thing, see my other posts in this thread. Read Sections G and H again, and tell me what YOU think they mean. I know what the growing legal consensus is.

As for being glad I'm a cop in SoCal, instead of AZ, that sems to be the consensus on this board. But I'm starting to think you guys need me!

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Gurbie

Motley, have you read the bill? Section B (line 20) establishes the legal standard for an Arizona officer to be permitted to inquire about a person's immigration status at the level of a "lawful contact". This is a much lower burden to meet than "being questioned for another offense". That would amount to a detention under the 4th Amendment. I don't see that language anywhere in the law.

A "lawful contact", on the other hand, can be something as casual as an officer strolling up to someone on the sidewalk and engaging him in conversation- the term of art is "consensual encounter" (under the somewhat dubious proposition that the average citizen would feel "free to disengage". We've abused this tool in L.A. Co. to the point where the filing DA's are giving us the stinky eye)

As for the discretion thing, see my other posts in this thread. Read Sections G and H again, and tell me what YOU think they mean. I know what the growing legal consensus is.

As for being glad I'm a cop in SoCal, instead of AZ, that sems to be the consensus on this board. But I'm starting to think you guys need me!

You are not properly informed. That section was amended in a trailer bill to require lawful stop, arrest or detention, not contact. The same amendment expressly prohibits any use of race, color ethnicity in determining reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration status whereas the original version prohibited its sole use.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Gurbie

Motley, have you read the bill? Section B (line 20) establishes the legal standard for an Arizona officer to be permitted to inquire about a person's immigration status at the level of a "lawful contact". This is a much lower burden to meet than "being questioned for another offense". That would amount to a detention under the 4th Amendment. I don't see that language anywhere in the law.

What? Lawful contact is the same as detention? Since when? If a cop came up to me on the sidewalk and started asking questions, I'd politely excuse myself and continue on my way. If he persisted, the only further words out of my mouth would be, "Are you detaining me or am I free to go?" and the cop would then have to have a good reason for continuing the "lawful contact." If he detains me, he needs a pretty good reason. If he's fishing, I'd put an end to it and be on my way. Anyone who doesn't know their rights doesn't have any.

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

You are not properly informed. That section was amended in a trailer bill to require lawful stop, arrest or detention, not contact. The same amendment expressly prohibits any use of race, color ethnicity in determining reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration status whereas the original version prohibited its sole use.

Thanks, Ponderosa. I'll check that out. I do remember the amendment prohibiting racial profiling, but not that it raised the legal standard for the intial contact to a "detention". If true, it's good news from a civil rights standpoint. But, it still doesn't make the law a good idea, IMO.


Sorry if I'm not propely informed. I got my info by reading directly from the text of SB 1070 as it currently appears on the official Arizona Government web site. Hopefully, they'll get aound to updating it, someday.

Guess I should've known better than to trust the government, right?

[Creek Hollow]

I wish other states would copy Arizona, creating a domino effect and giving Obozo pause. What's FedGov going to do, sue 10 to 20 states at a time?

Arizona politicians have some REAL conviction. I wrote to my congressperson and asked why he hasn't sponsored the same here? Still waiting for an answer.
People really need to push their representatives.

[Hunter Wold]

Ya know, the states enforce many other Fed laws,i.e., fish and wildlife laws, drug laws, interstate traffic, trucking etc.

Seems most people object to is the racial point; I have been down around southern NM and the persons coming across and traveling in the "bush" north are well, they ain't white...duh...
The BOrder Patrol is doing it's best but it is like the dog chasing the rabbits..

Enforce the laws or just pull back and see what happens...

HW...that all folks..