Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We need to have immigration patrol the street, and pull EVERYBODY over and check I.D.'s.
Not "SO CALLED" PROFILING - SIMPLY PULL EVERYONE OVER. If they did that then these pro illegal groups would have zero to complain about!
If they don't have any ID or refuse to give it. Then they need to go to a certain line for probing their identity further.
PERIOD.
They do nothing about this so NOTHING happens!
It's time to do something.
6 Months is all it would take.
I bet they'd find all kinds of rapscallions in this country.
There is a US Supreme Court ruling that police have no right to ask for ID unless you driving the car or you are within 100 miles from the border
so it won't work and there is no way US Congress will pass a law like that ACLU will have a field day suing federal govt
Yes it is a state issue but the feds will throw it out if it conflicts with the fourth. So that is a federal issue.
And the LEO must show it is related to the original stop and that he has a specific and articuable suspicion.
So you are in non-Terry with passengers. You can ask them anything you want but they need not answer and cannot be arrested for not answering.
As I pointed to earlier about Justice Ginsburg, Arizona vs Johnson:
Quote:
This case concerns the authority of police officers to “stop and frisk” a passenger in a motor vehicle temporarily seized upon police detection of a traffic infraction.... For the duration of a traffic stop, we recently confirmed, a police officer effectively seizes “everyone in the vehicle,” the driver and all passengers.Brendlin v. California, 551 U. S. 249, 255 (2007) . Accordingly, we hold that, in a traffic-stop setting, the first Terry condition—a lawful investigatory stop—is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation.The police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity.To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.
Passengers are not in a non-terry.
Quote:
It is true, the Court acknowledged, that in a lawful traffic stop, “[t]here is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense,” but “there is no such reason to stop or detain the passengers.” Ibid. On the other hand, the Court emphasized, the risk of a violent encounter in a traffic-stop setting “stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop.” Id., at 414. “[T]he motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime,” the Court stated, “is every bit as great as that of the driver.” Ibid. Moreover, the Court noted, “as a practical matter, the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle,”id., at 413–414, so “the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal,” id., at 415.
Again, as I stated, it all falls down to showing a "reasonable suspicion" for the passengers, and according to: That forecast, we now confirm, accurately captures the combined thrust of the Court’s decisions in Mimms, Wilson, and Brendlin.
There is a US Supreme Court ruling that police have no right to ask for ID unless you driving the car or you are within 100 miles from the border
so it won't work and there is no way US Congress will pass a law like that ACLU will have a field day suing federal govt
Here is a brief analysis of Hiibel and Shufflebeam for a risk management site...
Key Points from Hiibel:
•Decision would only have application in states where there is a statutory requirement that person(s) identify themselves during an investigative detention.ix
•The request for identity must be supported by a valid Terry stop.
•If the preceding elements are met, the officer may request that the person(s) identify themselves but the case does not allow for an arrest based on a failure to produce “credible and reliable” identification.
Key Points from Shufflebeam:
•The Unites States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, citing United States Supreme Court precedent concludes that it is not unconstitutional to merely ask for identification. Note, some states would consider this an expansion of the scope of the stop under state constitutions.
•The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, citing Hiibel concluded that arresting a passenger for refusing to identify himself/herself where the officer has no independent reasonable suspicion to believe that the passenger is involved in criminal activity does violate the Constitution.
Being a passenger in a traffic stop is very, very hard to escalate to a crime. And no you need not be identified at all....unless they have probable cause and get a warrant. That is in the Constitution. You remember the Constitution don't you?
Ok traffic stop I understand. But that is not always the case. It could be suspicion and reason such as drugs, and other things that could lead to questioning the passengers.
While Hibel (2004) and Stufflebeam (2008) are good cases, Arizona vs Johnson (2009) pretty much makes light of the following:
Quote:
A lawful roadside stop begins when a vehicle is pulledover for investigation of a traffic violation. The temporary seizure of driver and passengers ordinarily continues, and remains reasonable, for the duration of the stop. Normally, the stop ends when the police have no further need to control the scene, and inform the driver and passengers they are free to leave. See Brendlin, 551 U. S., at 258. An officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop, this Court has made plain, do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop. See Muehler v. Mena, 544 U. S. 93, 100–101 (2005).
In sum, as stated in Brendlin, a traffic stop of a car communicates to a reasonable passenger that he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will. See 551 U. S., at 257.
While Hibel (2004) and Stufflebeam (2008) are good cases, Arizona vs Johnson (2009) pretty much makes light of the following:
So a terry stop involves the driver and the car and the passengers. But the passengers are still not terry-stopped. They are under no obligation to identify themselves as there conduct did not merit a terry stop. The LEO has no specific articuable suspicion to make them Terry.
So no they can't leave. But no they do not have to identify themselves...
as the Officer observed...
Trevizo testified that Johnson could have refused to exit the vehicle and to submit to the patdown.
And I am not sure what your status would be if you attempted to open the door and leave. What statute is violtated? They could of course use force to stop you...but they then have trouble explaining what it is you did wrong.
Be interesting.
And the same message. Don't cooperate. Make them force you to do anything and tell them nothing. Always leads to the best outcome.
So a terry stop involves the driver and the car and the passengers. But the passengers are still not terry-stopped. They are under no obligation to identify themselves as there conduct did not merit a terry stop. The LEO has no specific articuable suspicion to make them Terry.
So no they can't leave. But no they do not have to identify themselves...
as the Officer observed...
Trevizo testified that Johnson could have refused to exit the vehicle and to submit to the patdown.
And I am not sure what your status would be if you attempted to open the door and leave. What statute is violtated? They could of course use force to stop you...but they then have trouble explaining what it is you did wrong.
Be interesting.
And the same message. Don't cooperate. Make them force you to do anything and tell them nothing. Always leads to the best outcome.
A terry stop involves all in the car as per Brendlin v. California, 551 U. S. 249, 255 (2007)
The portion you are using about Trevizo was part of the lower courts ruling that was overturned with Ginsburg agreeing with the dissent of the lower courts opinion with the following: “[T]he encounter . . . took place within minutes of the stop”; the pat down followed “within mere moments” of Johnson’s exit from the vehicle; beyond genuine debate, the point at which Johnson could have felt free to leave had not yet occurred. See 217 Ariz., at 66, 170 P. 3d, at 675.1
A lawful roadside stop begins when a vehicle is pulled over for investigation of a traffic violation. The temporary seizure of driver and passengers ordinarily continues, and remains reasonable, for the duration of the stop. Normally, the stop ends when the police have no further need to control the scene, and inform the driver and passengers they are free to leave. See Brendlin, 551 U. S., at 258.
And I am not sure what your status would be if you attempted to open the door and leave. What statute is violated? you ask, as I stated earlier, depends on the State, but looking at Ginsburgs opinion above, Brendlin appears to be the precedent.
Keep in mind in the time of our forefathers, driving on someone else's property would not have been a right. The whole American Revolution was based on an anti-tax sentiment and small federal government and giving foreigners flooding over the borders free health care, WIC coupons and food stamps was not something they would have gone along with at all.
Stating that a U.S. President typically can't be sued is not any commentary as to whether or why a particular President should or should not be sued...
Yes it is or you would not have mentioned it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
You betray a lack of understanding. There is immense controversy about the exact meaning of the phrase. And it will never actually be resolved.
True for you. As long as those like you continue to never accept any definition but you own narrow one, keep changing the definition to suit your own purposes, you will never accept an "exact meaning of the phrase".
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
To some degree we always have. Most of you are simply too religious to notice.
And you know this as a fact exactly how? Or is this just another unfounded statement made by you that you wish to be taken a fact?
BTW, extremely bigotted statement.
Last edited by Yac; 10-17-2011 at 01:29 AM..
Reason: 3 posts in a row merged
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
