Skip to main content

View Diary: The Gestapo Comes to the Grand Canyon (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm tempted to say "let them pass it" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ben masel, mataliandy, dewtx, luckylizard

    so that the fallout forces them to backpedal and rescind it in a week's time.  They will be shamed when these tactics backfire in a myriad of ways.  And I bet courts will not uphold it either.

    Bartender, make mine a Markos Marxist Maoist Muslim Molato Moulitsas Mojito.

    by DontTaseMeBro on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:47:05 PM PDT

    •  Long settled law (6+ / 0-)

      Hiibel v Nevada allows for an officer to ask you to identify yourself, not necessarily via document, only when the reasonable articulable suspicion threshold of a Terry Stop has been met.

      "Do your taxpayers a favor, and leave him alone." (My State Assembly Rep, Marc Pocan, to Denver's City Atty before 2008 DNC)

      by ben masel on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:08:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Proof of Citizenship? (0+ / 0-)

        I doubt that it makes any prove their citizenship or be subject to detention if they can't.

      •  In English, please? (0+ / 0-)

        There are some of us who aren't well-versed in legalese :-)

        -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

        by luckylizard on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:28:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It might have helped... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...if I hadn't left a word out.

          A Terry Stop (named after a case) means that "a law enforcement officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed."

          Under the Arizona law, a police officer who makes a Terry Stop can also ask for proof of legal residency, including immigration papers. The problem is that

          1. They won't be asking that of white people
          1. American citizens don't carry proof of residency. A social security is not a photo i.d., and undocumented aliens can get driver's licenses. And if the stopped person doesn't have a license, so what? That's not a crime and neither is not having a passport. If enforced, it's inevitable that law-abiding citizens will be detained on the basis of their skin color.

          Hiibel v. Nevada upheld a state law requiring suspects to identify themselves during a police investigation. But, it's hard to believe that this means that it's legal to use skin color as a basis for detention.

          Suppose that a police officer requires identification from a potential suspect, that person is Hispanic, and that that person uses a driver's license as i.d. Can the officer then require immigration papers? What if that person doesn't have any because he/she is an American citizen? What if they don't have any identification at all, but state their name and address?

          There's no way around the reality that this law allows police to intimidate Hispanics. Innocent Americans will be detained and subject to the justice system because of their skin color. It's inevitable.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site