I had a dream about John McCain

[Merko]

I had a dream where John McCain gets out for a walk to get some exercise. As he turns a corner into a minor road, a police car drives up and stops abruptly behind him. Two cops exit the car and the first one screams to McCain: Police! Stop running! Hands where I can see them!

As McCain complies, the cop walks up to him and asks: "Why were you running from the police?"
McCain answers: "I wasn't running! I was barely jogging. Just trying to get some exercise."
Policeman: "Sure looked like you were running away from us. Show me your id."
McCain: "I don't have my papers, I was just.. look, I'm Senator John McCain."
Policeman: "You don't look like that guy. Juan, does this look like Senator McCain?"
As the second policeman shrugs, the first one questions McCain: "Give me your date and location of birth."
McCain: "August 29, 1936, Panama."
Policeman: "Panama? And you've got no papers? I will have to place you under arrest for reasonable suspicion that you're committing a state crime by illegally staying in the country without documentation. Get in the car!"

As McCain is reluctantly dragged into the vehicle, his temper finally gets the best of him. "Stop this, you can't do this to me! This is not fair! Look at me, I'm not an illegal immigrant. Can't you see that? I mean, just look at me!"

 

[KingMerv00]

I had a dream where John McCain gets out for a walk to get some exercise. As he turns a corner into a minor road, a police car drives up and stops abruptly behind him. Two cops exit the car and the first one screams to McCain: Police! Stop running! Hands where I can see them!

As McCain complies, the cop walks up to him and asks: "Why were you running from the police?"
McCain answers: "I wasn't running! I was barely jogging. Just trying to get some exercise."
Policeman: "Sure looked like you were running away from us. Show me your id."
McCain: "I don't have my papers, I was just.. look, I'm Senator John McCain."
Policeman: "You don't look like that guy. Juan, does this look like Senator McCain?"
As the second policeman shrugs, the first one questions McCain: "Give me your date and location of birth."
McCain: "August 29, 1936, Panama."
Policeman: "Panama? And you've got no papers? I will have to place you under arrest for reasonable suspicion that you're committing a state crime by illegally staying in the country without documentation. Get in the car!"

As McCain is reluctantly dragged into the vehicle, his temper finally gets the best of him. "Stop this, you can't do this to me! This is not fair! Look at me, I'm not an illegal immigrant. Can't you see that? I mean, just look at me!"

Your dream is wrong. You need probable cause to arrest someone.

 

[Pardalis]

And then you ejaculated?

 

[Merko]

Your dream is wrong. You need probable cause to arrest someone.

Apparently running from the police(*), not having id and apparently admitting to being born south of the border(**) almost certainly qualifies as such. Here is a short piece by a law professor discussing these issues.

To make myself clear: a police officer behaving as outlined above may perhaps not be commended for excellent judgment, but I would say that the chance that the officer would be reprimanded is probably very nearly zero.


(*) In these circumstances, the policeman's understanding (even if erroneous) of the situation will be considered a reasonable grounds for further action.
(**) I know of course that McCain is technically considered to be born in the US, but once again a police officer may reasonably assume that a person born in Panama is likely to be an alien, which again is a ground for further action.

 

[KingMerv00]

Apparently running from the police(*), not having id and apparently admitting to being born south of the border(**) almost certainly qualifies as such. Here is a short piece by a law professor discussing these issues.

To make myself clear: a police officer behaving as outlined above may perhaps not be commended for excellent judgment, but I would say that the chance that the officer would be reprimanded is probably very nearly zero.


(*) In these circumstances, the policeman's understanding (even if erroneous) of the situation will be considered a reasonable grounds for further action.
(**) I know of course that McCain is technically considered to be born in the US, but once again a police officer may reasonably assume that a person born in Panama is likely to be an alien, which again is a ground for further action.

I was nitpicking the dream police's choice of words.

Your point is well taken though. Where do we draw the line between reasonable suspicion and probable cause? Woo boy. Christ if I (or anyone else) knows.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I was nitpicking the dream police's choice of words.

Your point is well taken though. Where do we draw the line between reasonable suspicion and probably cause? Woo boy. Christ if I (or anyone else) knows.

He failed to finish the dream. McCain ends up in jail. Makes his one phone call. To lawyer. Cops discover that they will have to wait a bit longer to pin on sergeant ...

DR

 

[Dorian Gray]

And then you ejaculated?

No, silly, it's INTERNET porn, not immigrant porn.

 

[Brainster]

I was nitpicking the dream police's choice of words.

Your point is well taken though. Where do we draw the line between reasonable suspicion and probable cause? Woo boy. Christ if I (or anyone else) knows.

What a shame there aren't hundreds of years of legal precedent on that issue.

Oh, wait!

 

[KingMerv00]

What a shame there aren't hundreds of years of legal precedent on that issue.

Oh, wait!

Then you must know the bright line rule that those precedents established.







(Hint: There is none.)

 

[drkitten]

Your dream is wrong. You need probable cause to arrest someone.

But under the new law, being illegal is a crime; the cops have probable cause as soon as you fail to produce your papers.

 

[KingMerv00]

But under the new law, being illegal is a crime; the cops have probable cause as soon as you fail to produce your papers.

If I understand the law correctly, it states that cops may temporarily detain someone if there is reasonable suspicion they are an illegal immigrant. The cop then takes reasonable measures to discover their citizenship. If probable cause is obtained, the suspect is arrested; if not they must be released.

Does the law specify a lack of papers is probable cause?

 

[Kopji]

McCain's would be white house west is a ranch just outside Cornville, somewhere south of Sedona and west of McGuireville (a town which was entirely for sale a few years ago but apparently went unsold).

I had a dream where John McCain gets out for a walk to get some exercise.

He and his entourage of armed bodyguards.

As he turns a corner into a minor road, a police car drives up and stops abruptly behind him. Two cops exit the car and the first one screams to McCain: Police! Stop running! Hands where I can see them!

Now stop. This is where is gets hard to believe. They are ALL minor roads here, the police would have a 4wd truck with a rifle rack in the rear window. One cop would be a hottie blond with very large.... guns. They'd pass by first, give a whoop an a holler, and look back. If it looked like John McCain, why they'd keep going - if he looked Mexican, they'd stop and share a joint.

As McCain complies, the cop walks up to him and asks: "Why were you running from the police?"
McCain answers: "I wasn't running! I was barely jogging. Just trying to get some exercise."

The bodyguard draws a bead on the blond cop with the large... guns, and says something tough like "whathashi"?

Policeman: "Sure looked like you were running away from us. Show me your id."
McCain: "I don't have my papers, I was just.. look, I'm Senator John McCain."
Policeman: "You don't look like that guy. Juan, does this look like Senator McCain?"
As the second policeman shrugs, the first one questions McCain: "Give me your date and location of birth."
McCain: "August 29, 1936, Panama."
Policeman: "Panama? And you've got no papers? I will have to place you under arrest for reasonable suspicion that you're committing a state crime by illegally staying in the country without documentation. Get in the car!"

So that'd never happen. He'd be on the cell with their supervisor even before they'd think to just back up over him.

 

[drkitten]

If I understand the law correctly, it states that cops may temporarily detain someone if there is reasonable suspicion they are an illegal immigrant. The cop then takes reasonable measures to discover their citizenship. If probable cause is obtained, the suspect is arrested; if not they must be released.

Does the law specify a lack of papers is probable cause?

It doesn't need to. Failure to answer questions to the officer's satisfaction during a Terry stop is already probable cause. Since the law has specifically been written to eliminate any discretion on the part of the officer conduction the stop (any jurisdiction that allows officers not to arrest under any circumstances short of conclusive proof of citizenship can be sued by any private citizen for failure to enforce), the effective answer is "yes, failure to produce papers is probable cause."

 

[KingMerv00]

It doesn't need to. Failure to answer questions to the officer's satisfaction during a Terry stop is already probable cause.

Failing to produce papers is not the same as failing to answer questions.

Since the law has specifically been written to eliminate any discretion on the part of the officer conduction the stop (any jurisdiction that allows officers not to arrest under any circumstances short of conclusive proof of citizenship can be sued by any private citizen for failure to enforce)...

Yes, the cop can be sued but I'm not sure about the complete elimination of discretion. Where did that come from?

 

[drkitten]

Failing to produce papers is not the same as failing to answer questions.

It is when the only way to answer the question is to produce a paper.

Yes, the cop can be sued but I'm not sure about the complete elimination of discretion. Where did that come from?

The text of the bill. The amount of discretion an officer is allowed is set by local policy. For example, a peace officer can't typically disregard an arrest warrant that shows up at a traffic stop; he can be disciplined or fired for that. Most jurisdictions require officers to make felony arrests but give them leeway to "let someone off with a warning" for simple infractions. Et cetera.

The text of the AZ law states :

NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

And further, that

A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

So the city of Flagstaff, for example, cannot implement a policy that allows local police to use any discretion about whether or not to bring someone in (under ambiguous circumstances). If they do, anyone who likes can sue the city of Flagstaff to challenge that policy.

 

[KingMerv00]

It is when the only way to answer the question is to produce a paper.

Failing to produce something I'm not required to carry in the first place is not probable cause. Simply failing to do as commanded is not automatically probable cause.

So the city of Flagstaff, for example, cannot implement a policy that allows local police to use any discretion about whether or not to bring someone in (under ambiguous circumstances). If they do, anyone who likes can sue the city of Flagstaff to challenge that policy.

A cop must act to the full extent of federal law. Bringing someone in without sufficient probable cause is a violation of the 4th amendent and exceeds federal law.

The cop MUST detain if reasonable suspicion is present but he does not (in fact he MAY not) bring them in unless "reasonable measures" reveal probable cause.

 

[KingMerv00]

I don't like this law for a number of reasons but many people are upset over the wrong things.

 

[drkitten]

Failing to produce something I'm not required to carry in the first place is not probable cause.

No, but failing to address the officer's questions to his satisfaction -- which of course is a matter of the amount of discretion he's granted -- is.

Since he's granted none (under law), you don't need to produce papers per se, but you must still produce what amounts to positive proof of citizenship. If there's any room for doubt in his mind as to whether or not you might be lying to him about your citizenship, for example,.... he must detain you.

 

[Kopji]

More contemplative...

I've done ride-alongs with the police and am not entirely naive about law enforcement. Maybe there is a tendency when you deal with dangerous people all the time - to view the innocent people as criminals too. But I also know that they are smart enough to be aware of that.

From my personal experience there seems a wide latitude about what laws, and how laws are enforced. That is always a concern. If there is to be respect for law it must be applied fairly if not evenly. That seems a core complaint against this law, no matter how good the intentions are it opens many doors for abuse of power.

The original Arizona law was badly written. The law's author has explained that the intent is to cause fear: That 'illegals' would leave the state on their own. This seems both naive and wrong headed. If you cause this kind of fear in part of a family, the innocent members are afraid too. The problem is not so easily defined or focused.

The new 'fixed' version of the law makes it mostly innocuous, but what is the value then? Telegraphing a political message to Washington? I think clearly the damage it has already done to the state far surpasses any value it could possibly have.

If this has not been brought up yet anywhere, Arizona is one of the few states (which include Alaska), that are specially regulated in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It is because Arizona did bad things with voting laws and can't be trusted to be fair without some federal judicial review. In my opinion, our desire to lecture the rest of the US should be somewhat moderated by this embarrassment, but is apparently not. http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/about.php

 

[quixotecoyote]

No, but failing to address the officer's questions to his satisfaction -- which of course is a matter of the amount of discretion he's granted -- is.

Since he's granted none (under law), you don't need to produce papers per se, but you must still produce what amounts to positive proof of citizenship. If there's any room for doubt in his mind as to whether or not you might be lying to him about your citizenship, for example,.... he must detain you.

Surely you mean "any room for reasonable suspicion."