AZ Cop Stops Man with Fast Car - Says He Suspects Man Was Speeding Back There

[dannno]

Ok, this is obviously an analogy for the fourth amendment issue we are dealing with the AZ illegal immigration legislation.

Some people on this forum seem to think that stopping people with a fast car is OK because there is reasonable suspicion that they are/were speeding, because that is precisely what this legislation is doing to supposedly fight illegal aliens.. But it is actually moving us closer to a Federal ID and police tyranny against average Americans.

This legislation won't just affect illegal immigrants, this legislation is actually removing 4th amendment rights from every single citizen while in the state of AZ.


Warning: You are about to see posters refer to me as supporting open borders. I don't support open borders as long as we have a welfare state, and we have a welfare state, therefore protecting our borders I believe is completely reasonable. I believe in ending entitlements for illegal aliens. Essentially, I currently have the precise view on immigration and how it should be handled as Ron Paul. So anybody attacking me or my views are essentially attacking Ron Paul and his views. They are most certainly attacking the fourth amendment and the Constitution, so be very wary of those who attack my character for making this thread.

[dannno]

Be especially wary of posters to claim they know the fourth amendment, but actually don't have the first clue about it.




Quote:
Originally Posted by John Taylor View Post
It is no constitutional violation to require people to present identification.


Actually it is, that is an illegal search. That is the definition of the fourth amendment. It is the most basic premise of the amendment. It's not that you don't understand it just a little bit, you don't understand it AT ALL.

[John Taylor]

Be especially wary of posters to claim they know the fourth amendment, but actually don't have the first clue about it.






Actually it is, that is an illegal search. That is the definition of the fourth amendment. It is the most basic premise of the amendment. It's not that you don't understand it just a little bit, you don't understand it AT ALL.

When police stop someone with probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, they have the legal right to require that the person identify themselves. This has been repeatedly upheld.

Read a book and lay off the Alex Jones.

[dannno]

Reasonable suspicion?

You are working in a strawberry field, you must be an illegal alien!

You are hanging out on the corner of a Home Depot, you must be an illegal alien!

You have a fast car, you must have been speeding back there!


None of these are legitimate forms of reasonable suspicion, and asking for an ID would be an illegal search.

[John Taylor]

Reasonable suspicion?

You are working in a strawberry field, you must be an illegal alien!

You are hanging out on the corner of a Home Depot, you must be an illegal alien!

You have a fast car, you must have been speeding back there!


None of these are legitimate forms of reasonable suspicion.

Yep, and nothing you just wrote has ANYTHING to do with this law in AZ.

[speciallyblend]

Yep, and nothing you just wrote has ANYTHING to do with this law in AZ.

really? tell that to the american citizen arrested after showing his id!! he did nothing wrong!!

[John Taylor]

really? tell that to the american citizen arrested after showing his id!! he did nothing wrong!!

What citizen is that? That's grounds ofr a sucessful law suit. PM me his personal contact information.

[angelatc]

So you felt compelled to fabricate a scenario and start yet another thread.

There are already legal precedents set for probable cause. Hint: The cops can't pull a guy over for driving a Ferrari.

[dannno]

What citizen is that? That's grounds ofr a sucessful law suit. PM me his personal contact information.

It was youtubed. It happend. ALREADY. And your posts were littered around the video. That appeared. Several times. On the same page.

You seem to be unable to take in new information from this forum.

Maybe that is why I've had to repeat everything like 30 times in basic english.

[angelatc]

What citizen is that? That's grounds ofr a sucessful law suit. PM me his personal contact information.

It's the 4409 video they're showing. Which actually weakens their point, because the law hasn't even kicked in in AZ yet, so it will make it tougher to prove that the law encouraged bad behavior on behalf of the cops in the future.

[Hamer]

I agree Danno, you need to stop listening to Alex Jones.

I am actually well versed on the 4th amendment. It is really very simple.

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be 'reasonable.

' See U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44 ('85) (analyzing constitutionality of length of traveler's border detention under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard); Caban, 728 F.2d at 75 (considering whether duration of border detention without a hearing was reasonable).

The gathering of fingerprint evidence from 'free persons' constitutes a sufficiently significant interference with individual expectations of privacy that law enforcement officials are required to demonstrate that they have probable cause, or at least an articulable suspicion, to believe that the person committed a criminal offense and that the fingerprinting will establish or negate the person's connection to the offense.

See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 813-18 ('85); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-28 ('69).

I don't mind they are doing it but they will open themselves up for major lawsuits if they overstep their grounds, The guy recently that this action happened to be detained and held without cause has a major lawsuit if he chooses. The fact is the current system isn't working and these are not new laws per say, being illegal has always been illegal.

These laws substantially change when pertaining to crossing US borders.

[dannno]

So you felt compelled to fabricate a scenario and start yet another thread.

There are already legal precedents set for probable cause. Hint: The cops can't pull a guy over for driving a Ferrari.

But in AZ they can now detain people who they suspect of being here illegally... based on what? Lawful activity such as having a Ferrari? Hanging out on a corner? What would that be?

We already debunked that crap about having to commit a crime first, so now we're back to where we were.

Reasonable suspicion. What is it? How do you tell a lawful natural born citizen who grew up in a Mexican neighborhood speaking spanish who does day labor from an immigrant?

[dannno]

The gathering of fingerprint evidence from 'free persons' constitutes a sufficiently significant interference with individual expectations of privacy that law enforcement officials are required to demonstrate that they have probable cause, or at least an articulable suspicion, to believe that the person committed a criminal offense and that the fingerprinting will establish or negate the person's connection to the offense.



Great, finally somebody who can explain what probable cause there is for asking somebody on the street for their papers :)

I'm so relieved!!

What is it, then?

[angelatc]

Reasonable suspicion?

You are working in a strawberry field, you must be an illegal alien!

You are hanging out on the corner of a Home Depot, you must be an illegal alien!

You have a fast car, you must have been speeding back there!


None of these are legitimate forms of reasonable suspicion, and asking for an ID would be an illegal search.

They aren't allowed to ask for ID unless they're interacting with the suspect as part of a lawful conversation.

The hanging out at Home Depot could indeed be considered probable cause under the precedents established by the war on drugs. I don't like it, but it's hardly anything new.

[angelatc]

Great, finally somebody who can explain what probable cause there is for asking somebody on the street for their papers :)

I'm so relieved!!

What is it, then?

You keep saying that, despite the fact that the statue clearly says they can't do that. Why?

[Hamer]

Great, finally somebody who can explain what probable cause there is for asking somebody on the street for their papers :)

I'm so relieved!!

What is it, then?


Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true.

The probable cause standard is more important in Criminal Law than it is in Civil Law because it is used in criminal law as a basis for searching and arresting persons and depriving them of their liberty. Civil cases can deprive a person of property, but they cannot deprive a person of liberty. In civil court a plaintiff must possess probable cause to levy a claim against a defendant. If the plaintiff does not have probable cause for the claim, she may later face a Malicious Prosecution suit brought by the defendant. Furthermore, lack of probable cause to support a claim means that the plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence to support the claim, and the court will likely dismiss it.

In the criminal arena probable cause is important in two respects. First, police must possess probable cause before they may search a person or a person's property, and they must possess it before they may arrest a person. Second, in most criminal cases the court must find that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime before the defendant may be prosecuted.


The precise amount of evidence that constitutes probable cause depends on the circumstances in the case. To illustrate, assume that a police officer has stopped a motor vehicle driver for a traffic violation. In the absence of any other facts indicating criminal activity by the driver, it would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the officer conducted a full-blown search of the driver and the vehicle. The mere commission of a traffic violation is not, in and of itself, a fact that supports probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a crime. However, if the officer notices that the driver's eyes are bloodshot or that the driver smells of alcohol, the officer may detain and question the defendant, search him, and place him under arrest. Most courts hold that a driver's commission of a traffic violation combined with the appearance that the driver has used drugs or alcohol constitute sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that the person is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt. Courts should take care to review the actions of police in the context of everyday life, Balancing the interests of law enforcement against the interests of personal liberty in determining whether probable cause existed for a search or arrest.

Hope this helps.

[tropicangela]

What happens if they stop you (a citizen) and run the info through DHS and you're on a terror watch list?

[dannno]

They aren't allowed to ask for ID unless they're interacting with the suspect as part of a lawful conversation.



No, Melissa debunked that with actual text from the bill. That's why I'm back on the fourth amendment binge.

They can stop you and ask for your papers if they suspect you are an illegal immigrant.. so they can essentially stop anybody because there is no lawful way to suspect someone of that.

Citizens will be required to hand over their papers even though there is no legitimate reason to suspect they are engaged in illegal activity. That is a violation of the 4th amendment.

[Brian4Liberty]

The hanging out at Home Depot could indeed be considered probable cause under the precedents established by the war on drugs. I don't like it, but it's hardly anything new.

An interesting case.

Is a woman standing on a corner a prostitute? What criteria are used? When is a woman standing on a corner questioned?

Would the police send an undercover officer up to a group standing in front of Home Depot and yell, "hey, I need some workers". And then "are you US citizens?"

[dannno]

Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt. Courts should take care to review the actions of police in the context of everyday life, Balancing the interests of law enforcement against the interests of personal liberty in determining whether probable cause existed for a search or arrest.

Hope this helps.

Great, so the cops don't have to be CERTAIN that the person is an illegal immigrant to stop them and ask for their papers, they only need reasonable suspicion that they are an illegal immigrant. Great, very helpful. This sounds ripe for 4th amendment violations of average citizens engaging in lawful activity.

[Hamer]

Great, so the cops don't have to be CERTAIN that the person is an illegal immigrant to stop them and ask for their papers, they only need reasonable suspicion that they are an illegal immigrant. Great, very helpful. This sounds ripe for 4th amendment violations of average citizens engaging in lawful activity.

They still need probable cause and will have to justify probable cause. The fact is when people start saying no you can't see my papers and they start getting arrested it will launch major lawsuits and will probably bankrupt AZ. After a few major law suits they won't be so easy to arrest people.

[roho76]

Don't worry peeps. They'll just exempt the illegals from the legislation. Problem solved.

[RCA]

Ok, this is obviously an analogy for the fourth amendment issue we are dealing with the AZ illegal immigration legislation.

Some people on this forum seem to think that stopping people with a fast car is OK because there is reasonable suspicion that they are/were speeding, because that is precisely what this legislation is doing to supposedly fight illegal aliens.. But it is actually moving us closer to a Federal ID and police tyranny against average Americans.

This legislation won't just affect illegal immigrants, this legislation is actually removing 4th amendment rights from every single citizen while in the state of AZ.


Warning: You are about to see posters refer to me as supporting open borders. I don't support open borders as long as we have a welfare state, and we have a welfare state, therefore protecting our borders I believe is completely reasonable. I believe in ending entitlements for illegal aliens. Essentially, I currently have the precise view on immigration and how it should be handled as Ron Paul. So anybody attacking me or my views are essentially attacking Ron Paul and his views. They are most certainly attacking the fourth amendment and the Constitution, so be very wary of those who attack my character for making this thread.

Exept Ron Paul made the goof of backing the Chicago Gun Ban. To me, that was a serious blunder because legions of his supporters followed suit with the same nutty opinion.

[dannno]

bump

[ARealConservative]

Be especially wary of posters to claim they know the fourth amendment, but actually don't have the first clue about it.






Actually it is, that is an illegal search. That is the definition of the fourth amendment. It is the most basic premise of the amendment. It's not that you don't understand it just a little bit, you don't understand it AT ALL.

do you know what year did the 4th amendment first started applying to states?

[dannno]

They still need probable cause and will have to justify probable cause.

OK, how do you justify probably cause that somebody is illegal, and how do you protect legal citizens rights??


This is the BIG QUESTION that people backing this bill REFUSE to answer.. except John Taylor, who once told us that he would randomly stop people picking vegetables in the hot AZ summer sun because obviously they are desperate to work so they must be illegal. This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment that he described.

[John Taylor]

OK, how do you justify probably cause that somebody is illegal, and how do you protect legal citizens rights??


This is the BIG QUESTION that people backing this bill REFUSE to answer.. except John Taylor, who once told us that he would randomly stop people picking vegetables in the hot AZ summer sun because obviously they are desperate to work so they must be illegal. This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment that he described.

I did not say that Danno, that's a lie.

[dannno]

do you know what year did the 4th amendment first started applying to states?

It doesn't apply to the states, the states can make a law that goes against the 4th amendment, but they will be sued in Federal Court for violating it once said violation occurs.

[dannno]

I did not say that Danno, that's a lie.

Oh yes you did.. under the hot AZ sun, that was a direct quote from you.. buried in one of the first threads on the topic.

[JeNNiF00F00]

So you felt compelled to fabricate a scenario and start yet another thread.

There are already legal precedents set for probable cause. Hint: The cops can't pull a guy over for driving a Ferrari.

Thats funny that you should say that. I've been pulled because cops were profiling a car like the one I was in. And guess what, we probably would have been arrested and processed if we were males in the car.

They do it all the time. If you are fidgeting with your nose and driving a corvette they probably would pull you over as soon as you changed a lane without turning on your blinker or something very minor, then would want to search your car for cocaine. Seriously.

[ARealConservative]

It doesn't apply to the states, the states can make a law that goes against the 4th amendment, but they will be sued in Federal Court for violating it once said violation occurs.

and what year did the Federal government first claim the power to interfere, and have it upheld by SCOTUS?

[dannno]

and what year did the Federal government first claim the power to interfere, and have it upheld by SCOTUS?

Hmmm, not sure, that would be a great question for Judge Napolitano. Do you think you know more about the Constitution than him? He's the one I got that from, I tend to trust him on those issues.

[ARealConservative]

Hmmm, not sure, that would be a great question for Judge Napolitano. Do you think you know more about the Constitution than him? He's the one I got that from, I tend to trust him on those issues.

I'm sure he knows the correct answer is 1961.

[John Taylor]

Oh yes you did.. under the hot AZ sun, that was a direct quote from you.. buried in one of the first threads on the topic.

I stated that engaging in certain kinds of behavior is likely to give rise to reasonable suspicion of illegality... like someone who stands on street corners, slyly handing off small ballons to people who hand him small wads of paper in return...

Nothing here necessarily criminal, but it creates a REASONABLE SUSPICION that a crime has taken place, and allows for investigation.

[Anti Federalist]

I agree Danno, you need to stop listening to Alex Jones.


FYI, Alex Jones favors this law.

[John Taylor]

FYI, Alex Jones favors this law.

Mother of God, he's in on the conspiracy to subvert the 4th Amendment!!!!;)