On May 6, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Michael Oke, II wrote:
> The bar hasn't been lowered at all but, by all means, keep repeating
> that if it makes you feel better.
>
> You can be asked to produce ID even if you are just sitting in a public
> park, if the officer has a reasonable expectation that you are or have
> committed a crime.
The definition of 'reasonable' is the issue here. Police tend to bend
that definition to suit their biases.
Years ago I worked in northern NJ on the 2nd shift, and we would get
out at about 11pm or so. My friend and I lived near each other, so we took the
same roads to get home. He had a nicer car than I did and drove more
conservatively than I did, and yet he was pulled over several times on his trip
home from work by the police, while they never pulled me over. He was always
asked what he was doing driving through a "nice" neighborhood at that time of
night.
I suppose that somehow the duly sworn officers felt that they had
"reasonable expectation" that he had committed a crime, but I observed a few of
these stops, and he did nothing unusual before being pulled over. Except, of
course, for being black. And this was in NJ, hardly a redneck bastion of
bigotry.
> In Arizona, under this law, you won't be arrested but merely detained
Ah! I'm just being merely detained! Oh, that's so different!
If I cannot walk away without penalty, then whether you call it
'detained' or 'arrested' is irrelevant.
> until it can be ascertained that you are legally in the U.S.. Something
> that, whether you are aware of it or not, you can be detained for now
> and by the police of any state.
Yes, and if they cross the line of 'reasonableness', you can take
action against them. But in AZ, merely not having ID is now a priori
'reasonable' grounds.
It's so funny that the people such as yourself defending this law take
the position that it doesn't change anything. If so, then why have it in the
first place?
> You can pick on the words "duly sworn" if you chose and I know that
> there have been incidents of officers abusing their power and that is
> something that is very unlikely to change.
I grew up around cops. When my mom died, the police department gave her
the full funeral treatment, with officers in their dress blues saluting the
hearse as it passed the station. So I don't have any sort of innate hatred of
cops. But having known more than my share, I can tell you that the field
attracts more than a normal share of guys who get off on power, and who feel an
entitlement to use it whenever they like. You are correct that this is unlikely
to change, which is why changes to the law that give them even more unchecked
power should be examined very carefully.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
