Regardless of Beavis ridiculous southern small town officer act his is not a normal scenario.

But that aside it is a bad law. There are several reasons why this is so. The most important one to me is that the law REQUIRES an officer determine legal resident status if enforcing a law. Not request or allow but requires.

Anything with a requirement is bad for law enforcement because much of enforcing the law has to do with applying enforcement to the situation. Enforcing the law is NEVER black and white. Anyone who believes it is has never done the job (and I really don't care how many people in law enforcement you know its not the same).

In concert with this is the fact the law does not differentiate(sp?) between criminal and infraction. If my memory of Arizona law is correct, and it may not be, it is simliar to Washington in the sense that many traffic laws, etc are their version of civil infrations and not criminal offenses. So basically if you are pulled over for running a stop sign, speeding, etc (yes Beavis your tail light example is ridiculous and offensive to me) non-criminal offenses, you, the officer, are REQUIRED to verify the occupants are legal US citizens IF you have reasonable suspicion these folks are illegal.

So here is a question: what is reasonable suspicion? Is it skin color? Ethnic origin? Clothing? The law spells out these type of things are not to be used to determine whether or not to ask for ID regarding status so I ask again what is to be considered reasonable suspicion?

Probably though the most asinine portion of the law is the ability of any citizen (see - anyone moron with a chip on their shoulder) to sue an official i.e. officer if they feel they are not enforcing the law. Not the department, not the city, not the county but the officer. This puts the officer in a horrible position.

And don't try to show the part about not having to enforce it if it hinders an investigation. There are a thousand other reasons officers will rightfully not enforce this and none of them have to do with politics or views.

In the end I get the intent behind this law but some of the more well meaning of the supporters (yes some are just racist and not well meaning) but it is a bad law which is poorly written and thought out.

The one good thing to come from this however is maybe, just maybe this might make the feds stand up and take notice and start to actually work on an immigration solution.

As is your ignorance, not to mention lack of respect for law enforcement.

What don't you understand about the word "contact" being removed?

Reasonable suspicion is something more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch" which can be "articulated" from "specific reasonable inferences which he (an officer) is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience." (Alabama v. White; Terry v. Ohio)




I completely agree.





Rightfully?
Guess again.

http://www.azsos.gov/Info/LOYALTY_OATH_OF_OFFICE.pdf

So you failed to answer the question. Any officer with one day on knows you have to articulate your "reasonable suspicion". Spewing out Supreme Court speak does not answer the reasonable suspcion criteria. You must document the actual events that occured. So where is the reasonable suspicion in my scenario or any just like it? Exactly where do you see "reasonable suspicion" being applied in ANY scenario where someone is stopped for speeding, etc?

I'll answer that last part for you. The ONLY time it could be applied in my reading of the law is when someone forgets their wallet at home. Just like everyone in the world does at one time or another.

Meaning when the nice white english only speaking family of five in the family minivan on their way to church is stopped for speeding and daddy discovers he forgot his ID he gets hauled off even though the officer just by using common sense can REASON (there is the pesky little base for reasonable) he is a US citizen. If by following your obvious lack of understanding of the oath of office everything must be black and white and enforced no matter what the officer has no alternative. BTW I used white family for emphasis only it would be no more right to happen to family of any other origin either.

The person who rear-ended my daughter's car last fall didn't have their license with them. Within a minute or two the officer was able to verify the verbal ID information given to him by the driver was correct, and the person was indeed who they said they were beyond a reasonable doubt.



Any? OK:

A mini-van is stopped for speeding and plates which do not match the vehicle. Inside, 20-30 non-English speaking people are packed like tuna in a can...driver has no ID...neither do any of the passengers. You know at least one half million foreign nationals cross into Arizona illegally each year. There...an articulated reasonable suspicion that the people in the mini-van might not be here legally.

1. Plates don't match the vehicle, so obviously these must be illegals.

2. I'm guessing that 20 or 30 non-English speaking white people in a minivan is a fairly rare occurrence, but I could be wrong.

3. Why did the cop check the plate to begin with? Never mind, I'm sure "driving while brown" would suit your purposes.

You're right, it's not just a southern phenomenon.

I don't see any color included in the definition of "illegal" or "illegal immigrant", do you?

I don't see any exceptions in the Fourth Amendment, do you?

Read the Justice's commentary in the applicable Supreme Court cases.
There are exceptions.