ACLU sues state for arresting illegals!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do carry my passport, when I’m out of the country. Identification was asked for first.

And "proof of citizenship" was asked for second.


I do carry my passport, when I’m out of the country.

So you dont carry one in this country, which means that if you leave your driver's license at home you are OK with being sent to I.C.E. despite the fact that you werent actually operating a car?

I can see a chain of events occurring where the officer stopped the van for a minor traffic violation. He observed fourteen passengers in a vehicle some not wearing seat belts and upon questioning them realized they couldn’t understand him. This has to raise suspicion ( probable cause ? ) He then escalates and asks for ID. None can be provided. At this point what does he do? He suspects illegal aliens and takes them to ICE.

So the ACLU's account is questionable (I agree). So you just make up a scenario on your own, and that is supposed to hold more water? i dont think so.
 
So you dont carry one in this country, which means that if you leave your driver's license at home you are OK with being sent to I.C.E. despite the fact that you werent actually operating a car?

In this hypothetical situation that you present I think my understand of the common language and dialogue with the officer would not warrant being sent to ICE. ( probable cause ? )


At what point do you see ICE being involved in the situation in RI ?
 
Oh, and yes, I presented a hypothetical chain of event. I clearly stated that. Never claiming that it held more "water"
 
especially

01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, August 19, 2006

BY KAREN LEE ZINER
Journal Staff Writer


The Rhode Island State Police will review a trooper's actions during a July 11 traffic stop on Route 95 in Richmond, when he detained 14 people who he suspected were in the country illegally, a state police spokesman said.

The internal investigation stems from a complaint the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed this week, on behalf of 11 of the 14 people involved, said Maj. Steven O'Donnell.

The ACLU took the case after the driver and several passengers alleged during a Providence news conference last month that Trooper Thomas Chabot overstepped his authority by taking immigration enforcement into his own hands.

They also alleged that Chabot threatened to shoot anyone who tried to escape the van that morning as it was escorted to the Bureau of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement office in Providence.

The traffic stop occurred at 6:30 a.m. near Exit 4 south, where Chabot was posted at a speed checkpoint. Chabot's report states that he pulled the van's driver over for failing to signal a lane change.

After the driver provided a license and ID, Chabot asked the passengers for identification, his report states. When only a few could do so, he then "asked if any of them had immigration credentials proving their U.S. citizenship."

None did. Chabot contacted ICE authorities, and he and another trooper escorted the van to the ICE office on Dyer Avenue in Providence. The 14 were found to be in the country illegally, and they now face deportation.

Astrid and Wendy Cabrera, the complainants seeking the investigation, allege racial profiling by Chabot, whom they identify as "Trooper 19."

"We believe that our van was pulled over, at least in part, because of our ethnicity. As passengers, we also object that we were required to provide identification and asked about our immigration status, even though we had done nothing wrong. We do not think the trooper had any right to force us to go to ICE headquarters. We believe we were treated unfairly."

The Cabreras allege that Chabot told the driver he was responsible for making sure no one left the van on its way to ICE headquarters in Providence, "and that if anyone tried to escape, they would be shot at."

The ACLU is seeking the internal review "because we find the incident as described in the complaint quite troubling," said Steven Brown, executive director. Brown has also called the traffic stop "an egregious case of racial profiling, from beginning to end."

The complaint also seeks clarification of state police policies, particularly with regard to how that department cooperates or collaborates with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

O'Donnell said yesterday that a preliminary review of the matter did not corroborate the Cabreras' account of the incident, particularly with regard to Chabot's alleged threat to shoot anyone who tried to escape the van.

"You should know, we take any allegation, and I stress allegation, seriously but our preliminary investigation did not bear any fruit, particularly regarding these threats," O'Donnell said.

That was based in part on a review of the in-car video that was taped during the incident, O'Donnell said. He added, however, that some of the audio portion of that tape is inaudible, "and again, that's something we'll let the inspector look at and investigate."

State police will forward to the ACLU anything that is public record regarding the incident, but that does not include the videotape.

Under department policy, "tapes are not public record," O'Donnell said. "They are for law-enforcement purposes only."

An inspector with the professional standards unit will conduct the investigation. That will include an interview with the Cabreras, O'Donnell said.

Chabot remains on duty, he said.

"Anybody has a right to file a complaint; it doesn't mean it has merit. We don't react by disciplining someone where it's an allegation." That is different from, for example, situations where a trooper is suspended from duty pending investigation of a suspect's shooting, O'Donnell said.

O'Donnell said the investigation will be conducted "as quickly as possible."
_________________
 
I really can't believe this is an issue. I fully expect that the ACLU would make a big deal out of this, but not people here on THR.

Assuming the officer had a proper justification for pulling the van over (i.e. not signaling) I don't see how anyone here would be opposed to his actions. For once you have an officer going after the bad guys.

He didn't pull over a van full of 14 really tall guys with warm-ups and jerseys, he pulled over a van full of people who didn't speak english. According to reports on the news, when asked, the driver said he didn't know who the people were. Thats PC.

Like some have mentioned, you don't need to see the weed or the booze to search. Smelling it, or viewing intoxicating behavior qualifies.

I don't know how we plan to fix our problems if so many of you are going to put yet another restriction on our LEO's

As for the texas rangers of 100 years ago... its too bad we didn't have those guys when our federal officers were being over run by armed coyotes the other week. It simply amazes me how simple some things can be and yet how people will refuse to do what needs to be done.
 
Edit: Tired of arguing. ACLU may be disgusting for never defending the 2nd amendment, but they defend the rest for all races, religion, etc. I do place some trust in their account.
 
Looks like an obviously suspicious situation that the cop needed to investigate.

The ACLU has stepped in because it is a leftist organization and helping illegals gain leverage suits their aims.
 
The ACLU has stepped in because it is a leftist organization and helping illegals gain leverage suits their aims.

They probably stepped in because it's a high profile case that highlights rights infringment by cops. Illegals are a big deal right now.

If it was a white male they may still have stepped in, though probably not because it wouldn't be a high profile case. Cops do unreasonable search and seizure quite frequently. They don't have the resources to take all cases. Just like the NRA doesn't take all firearm/2nd amendment/self-defense cases.
 
I fully expect that the ACLU would make a big deal out of this, but not people here on THR.

Insofar as I view immigrants (legal or illegal) no differently from any other individual in the US (white, black, foreign or native), I don't know why I shouldn't be upset.

Fear of 'La Reconquista' ain't a requirement for enjoying firearms.
 
STAGE 2
Assuming the officer had a proper justification for pulling the van over (i.e. not signaling) I don't see how anyone here would be opposed to his actions. For once you have an officer going after the bad guys.
There are no immigration laws in Rhode Island. Therefore, there are no illegal immigrants, as far as the trooper is concerned. Do you really want the State Police arresting people for non-existent crimes?

Like some have mentioned, you don't need to see the weed or the booze to search.
You DO need a state crime, if the searcher is a State Trooper.
 
There are no immigration laws in Rhode Island. Therefore, there are no illegal immigrants, as far as the trooper is concerned. Do you really want the State Police arresting people for non-existent crimes?


What a load of crap. Absolutely wholeheartedly yes I want the state police arresting illegal aliens.

For years the federal government has run roughshod over state sovereignty. Its about time that the states started taking back some of that power. Immigration laws may be a federal crime, but it affects state resources and state residents.

Unless you plan on having ICE agents patrolling the streets, local police are the only people that are going to come into regular contact with illegals north of the border.

This isn't a suggestion for police and sheriffs to start enforcing immigration laws, however in situations like this where they fall into PD's lap, there is NO justification for letting these people go.

I can't believe doing the right thing is taking a back seat to fine print:banghead:
 
I can't believe doing the right thing is taking a back seat to fine print

The problem is the law is fine print. No such thing as "the right thing" in our legal system. Who determines what is the right thing or wrong thing, unless it is written down in law. If a cop can ignore this law, what say he won't ignore another, and another, until he is above the law.

If you want local police to be able to arbitrarily ask for citizenship papers or ID of passengers, then you will have to get the law changed. Probably a little difficult, since it's basically the 4th amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top