ACLU sues state for arresting illegals!
- Thread starter thirty-thirty
- Start date
- Status
MSGT9410
Member
People seem to be forgetting about the portion of "Illegal Immigrant" that says "Illegal."
A lot of posts kick around laws and precedent for vehicular searches. That's the connection here, not that the thread has shed any light on the subject, really.
My 2 cents:
"Racial profiling" means profiling based on race. The classic case would be pulling over someone in a wealthy "white" neighborhood because he is black. crazed_ss has had this happen on a wealthy local island that also has a Navy base, near where I live, though I, too, have been pulled over in the same place, from what I can tell because I was a white male driving a Jeep with a surfboard in it. I figure they don't much like sailors, surfers, or anyone else who "doesn't belong." Oh yeah, they found something to "nail" me for: a crack in my windshield, which I do not believe violated the law in California, where the crack has to be somewhere in the driver's field of vision. I was going to fix the windshield anyway, so I didn't fight it, I just fixed it.
Now anyway, searching someone simply for being Guatamalan is illegal. However, a whole bunch of Guatamalans stuffed into a van can be argued to be probable cause to investigate illegal alien smuggling here in California near the border. But this was Rhode Island, nowhere near the border, though I guess it could have been near a marina, where these people were unloaded from a boat or something, maybe... Smuggling illegal immigrants is a crime, and the evidence for prosecuting said crime generally involves something like a group of immigrants stuffed into a van.
It's a classic Catch-22, in some ways. If you can't investigate something that sure looks a lot like a crime in progress, then it's awfully hard to catch criminals. A van full of stereo equipment with cut wires would be fair game for a search, for example. Stereo equipment doesn't have any rights, and it doesn't care if you check to see where it comes from. People do care, and people do have rights. Note that no one knows they're illegal immigrants just because they're originally from Guatamala, and i don't carry citizenship papers with me, ever. On the other hand, if the police can't investigate something that looks a lot like a crime in progress, then what are we paying them for? Note that the driver, if guilty, is an actual criminal here, not the illegal aliens, who would not be criminally prosecuted, just sent to their home country.
So what do you do if people are the evidence?
Bottom line? It's a gray area. The courts will have to decide what takes precedence, when, and where.
MICHAEL T
Member
illegals= lawbreakers .Same as terrorist in my book, both a threat to United States and should be treated same.
Screw ACLU another terrorist group
Screw ACLU another terrorist group
Um, no. Immigrants can no more be detained due to unlawful conduct on the part of cops than a murderer can be convicted on bad evidence.
Else you've just opened the door to violating the basic rights of anyone with brown skin in a pointless search for 'illegals' - hey, it's against the law to detain that guy, but if we find out he's an immigrant, c'est la vie.
Seems like the right-wingers freaking out about Latinos like to trot this one out a lot. Anyone got Supreme Court caselaw confirming that 'illegal immigrants' have no legal or Constitutional protections?
That's not even the point, though.
If it requires the police to violate legal and Constitutional protections in order to ascertain if the people are illegal aliens, then this means NONE of us has the right to be free of harrassment in the streets, since any of us could be here illegally. There's no way to find out, except to demand proof of citizenship or legal residence. Therefore, the police could search any of us at any time, to ascertain whether we are in the US legally. This is the perfect excuse for a police state.
So, whether or not someone who has broken our immigration laws has one right or another is irrelevant, if the rights of all of us would be nullified in order to find out whether who has or has not violated immigration laws.
In my world, the rights of everyone take precedence over any need to enforce immigration laws. Whether or not you like those laws is irrelevant.
Davo
Member
Id be curious to see if this goes to court, and if it eventually does what the ruling will be.
I agree - it's just that I notice that line a lot (twice or more in this thread, even), but it makes very little sense and I've never seen justification for it.
By the logic that rights and laws don't apply to non-citizens... then you should be free to assault and rob illegals to your heart's content. I don't think anyone believes that's a reasonable assumption to make.
longeyes
member
When citizenship no longer matters a police state is an inevitability.
This was all set in motion long ago but our current Admin has all but destroyed the concept of American citizen.
This was all set in motion long ago but our current Admin has all but destroyed the concept of American citizen.
So, all of a sudden the people of THR are totally cool with this sort of police power? Can *you* produce a document proving your U.S. citizenship? Is it appropriate for you to have to do so as a passenger in a traffic stop? You really want to live in a country where the police have the right to require your "papers" for any reason they see fit?
Oh yeah, at gunpoint.
Interesting, I wonder what would happen if I, a 27 year old white man, couldnt come up with some nonexistant form of "proof of citizenship" as a passenger in a car. Think I would be heading over to I.C.E? This "justice" was dispenced *soley* based on the physical appearance of the people in the car.
The question we need to ask here is this. IF these men were legal American citizens, would the officer's actions be criminal? He had no way of proving it one way or the other beyond his personal opinion based on their appearance. If it is *ok* to treat people like this in order to determine their immigration status, then it is OK to treate everyone like this untill their status is established. Again, being born in this country means that you probably dont have *any* paperwork in your wallet that prooves your an American citizen, so this is your future tomorrow if you think it's ok today.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
yea but
he could tell! /sarcasm off
he could tell! /sarcasm off
As a white, blonde haired, blue eyed male who was stopped by the police and couldn't produce documentation as to who I was I believe I would be detained till I could. I would guess that the overwhelming majority of over 18 US citizens have some form of identification.
As a white, blonde haired, blue eyed male who was stopped by the police and couldn't produce documentation and couldn't speak english I believe I would be reasonably suspicious enough to investigate further.
Also when I travel in a foreign country I ALWAYS have documentation as to who I am. DL, passport. If for any reason it would be lost the US embassy is my first stop.
As a white, blonde haired, blue eyed male who was stopped by the police and couldn't produce documentation and couldn't speak english I believe I would be reasonably suspicious enough to investigate further.
Also when I travel in a foreign country I ALWAYS have documentation as to who I am. DL, passport. If for any reason it would be lost the US embassy is my first stop.
I got pulled over when I was 18 and had no identification on me (I thought I'd lost it, turns out a cop forgot to give it back to me at a checkpoint the night of prom a week before - we had been in a hurry to get away that night, having just picked up, uh, supplies) . I wrote down my license number and that was perfectly acceptable to him.
Had I been anything but a (relatively) clean-cut white kid, I don't think that would fly.
In all the times I've been pulled over or hit checkpoints, not once have my passengers been spoken to, much less asked to produce ID.
Had I been anything but a (relatively) clean-cut white kid, I don't think that would fly.
In all the times I've been pulled over or hit checkpoints, not once have my passengers been spoken to, much less asked to produce ID.
Can a police officer open the doors of a vehicle without probable cause or permission? (van registration and driver license checked out)
Think the answer is no.
If a passenger has not violated any law (van was pulled over because driver did not use turn signal), can he be asked to produce identification?
Think the answer is no.
Has anybody provided any reasonable argument that justify the officer's actions.
Think the answer is no.
I think the point isn't whether they had papers or not, it is that the officer had no legal right to ask for them during a traffic stop, where the only suspicion is the color of their skin.
Think the answer is no.
If a passenger has not violated any law (van was pulled over because driver did not use turn signal), can he be asked to produce identification?
Think the answer is no.
Has anybody provided any reasonable argument that justify the officer's actions.
Think the answer is no.
I think the point isn't whether they had papers or not, it is that the officer had no legal right to ask for them during a traffic stop, where the only suspicion is the color of their skin.
I think the point isn't whether they had papers or not, it is that the officer had no legal right to ask for them during a traffic stop, where the only suspicion is the color of their skin.
I agree that isn't the point. But I think their lack of not speaking english raised more suspicion then their color of skin. An assumption on both our parts.
Also the account of what happened and the reasons given for the search are from the ACLU's version of what happened. That doesn't make it fact. The officer has not given his version of the events and I'm sure won't, till the trial.
I agree that isn't the point. But I think their lack of not speaking english raised more suspicion then their color of skin. An assumption on both our parts.
Also the account of what happened and the reasons given for the search are from the ACLU's version of what happened. That doesn't make it fact. The officer has not given his version of the events and I'm sure won't, till the trial.
We should not be judging LE actions on the outcome, but on whether that action was legal and constitutional.
I am not overjoyed with the prohibition on so called "racial profiling", but that is the law in RI and LE ought to obey it.
I am not overjoyed with the prohibition on so called "racial profiling", but that is the law in RI and LE ought to obey it.
MikePGS
Member
I can only assume the ACLU is just as aggressive defending our civil right to own guns as they are every other civil right. Though really, the name itself it misleading, since a civil liberty is some permission granted to us by a governing body, whereas a civil right is something that we have regardless of whether or not the government "allows" us to. This just goes to show you, that if your ever pulled over don't volunteer anything.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
sense of humor
they have a perverse one the aclu sent a black lawyer down here to defend a guy for burning a cross. got him off too
they have a perverse one the aclu sent a black lawyer down here to defend a guy for burning a cross. got him off too
ETCss Phil McCrackin
Member
It appears that I will be in the minority of this group, but, I see it that the officer had reasonable cause (crappy/no story, few english speakers, and few ID's) to suspect that a crime was in process. They were not detained because they were a specific race, but because there were several checks in the blocks of the "something stinks here checklist". A van full of hispanic people, speaking at least decent english, with a couple of ID's and at least a plausable story however, (these are my cousins; Jose, Esmiralda, Juan, Maria, etc....) is not a situation I believe a reasonable cop would interpret as a crime in progress. Cops gotta have some leeway in order to even make a dent in crime.
I see it as the classic citizen catch-22 of, "Cops are incompetent because they cant catch the obvious criminals?" then "Cops are evil when they do anything to arrest the obvious criminals."
Sorry, I just don't see the oppressive government boot in this situation.
I see it as the classic citizen catch-22 of, "Cops are incompetent because they cant catch the obvious criminals?" then "Cops are evil when they do anything to arrest the obvious criminals."
Sorry, I just don't see the oppressive government boot in this situation.
Doesn't that sound like effect and not cause?
The cause is "they have brown skin" (or she was just having a bad day).
The effect is "I'll ask them for ID, open the van door, and arrest them because they can't produce ID or speak english or have legal residency papers".
The cops can't search your car without your permission, find your cocaine stash, then say that their probable cause is the cocaine stash. That's what they found after the illegal search.
- Status
