On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Jerry Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > No, citizens don't have to produce papers. There is nothing here to require > that. You may be required to give your name, but that is nothing new, and is > required in most US states. But you are not required to produce documents.
Uh, Jerry, the purpose of requiring someone to produce papers is to see if they are a citizen (or legal immigrant) or not. If you already know that a person is legally here, there is no reason to ask. So of course people who are here legally will be required to produce papers, otherwise the rule would be meaningless. > And, if the police DO try to require that, I expect hundreds and thousands > of people, as a form of non-violent protest, to refuse. People have been gathering and forming non-violent protests, nationwide, for years around this subject. This sort of shit still happens and these laws still get passed. > Although Judah brought up Terry stops, many legal opinioners don't believe > Terry searches will apply here, since the court very specifically forbid > such searches to COLLECT EVIDENCE. I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will toss this law out on that basis. But you started out arguing the merits of the law. Are you now saying, instead, that it is blatantly unconstitutional? > "The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches > and seizures aimed at *gathering evidence*, not searches and seizures > for *other > purposes* (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police > officers)." > > So, stopping a person and frisking them, for the purpose of developing > reasonable suspicion that they are illegal, is not a valid stop. I cited you the exact wording of the law. It says "any lawful contact". All of the examples I've previously mentioned are lawful contacts. The health inspector, the school board, the parking enforcement. And they set the legal standard at that of "reasonable suspicion", not probable cause. So they have specifically set up a situation where any employee of any government institution in the state is entitled to consider reasonable suspicion. And if, in the school board members wisdom, there exists reasonable suspicion, they are *required* to investigate immigration status, or as you say, "gather evidence". Now, once again, do you consider that a reasonable law? Do you really disagree with my assessment of it as a hamfisted approach? You may hope that it is implemented in a reasonable fashion, but it sure as hell isn't written that way. And given the people who passed the law, I would say that your faith is rather misplaced. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:316712 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
