Arizona Immigration law

[James48843]

It's called specific and articulable facts (you just didn't bold it in your citation -- but I put it in red)... in other words, a law enforcement officer is allowed to do his job and to protect himself and the public using common sense (not hunches), training and experience -- plus, he still has to be prepared to have his judgment in every situation put under scrutiny.

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are not interchangeable terms -- don't confuse the issue.

Thanks- yes, that's what I meant to say.

 

[Frixxxx]

State of Oregon practiced DUI inspection roadblocks a couple years while I was in grad school. They publicized when they were in effect-usually around holidays. To avoid what I considered "unreasonable" and unwarranted stops, I just stayed home or drove the back roads since I knew I wouldn't blow a breathalyzer even if I were stopped. The whole idea just made me mad! They knocked off with the roadblocks within a year or 2 after starting. I think there were court cases that stopped the practice as unconsititional.

California does them ALL the time!

But then again, if you are on a road paid for by taxpayers, don't they have a right to "ensure" that people using the road are "legally" utilizing the resource?:laugh:

 

[James48843]

State of Oregon practiced DUI inspection roadblocks a couple years while I was in grad school. They publicized when they were in effect-usually around holidays. To avoid what I considered "unreasonable" and unwarranted stops, I just stayed home or drove the back roads since I knew I wouldn't blow a breathalyzer even if I were stopped. The whole idea just made me mad! They knocked off with the roadblocks within a year or 2 after starting. I think there were court cases that stopped the practice as unconsititional.

Source:
http://www.totaldui.com/breathalyzers/field-sobriety-tests/dui-checkpoints.aspx


DUI Checkpoint Controversy

Opponents of DUI checkpoints have cited the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, or searches and seizures that occur without probable cause, to support the argument that DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional.


In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the infringement of Fourth Amendment rights caused by DUI checkpoints is overshadowed by the potential public benefit of getting dangerous, impaired drivers off the road. The court added that DUI checkpoints must follow certain guidelines to be legal:

• Decisions must be made by supervisors, not arresting officers
• Vehicles must be stopped only according to a predetermined formula
• Public and officer safety are most important
• Locations must be selected by policymakers, based on drunk driving statistics
• Duration must be limited by concerns of effectiveness and intrusiveness
• Clearly visible warning lights and signs must be displayed telling drivers
• Drivers must be detained for the minimum amount of time possible
• Advance publication of the place and time is required to increase its deterrent effect and minimize intrusiveness

Every state that allows DUI checkpoints must determine which regulations apply. The following states have ruled that, even with the above regulations, DUI checkpoints remain unconstitutional (Please note that laws may have changed since our last update):

• Alaska
• Idaho
• Iowa
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Montana
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Texas
• Washington
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

 

[James48843]

Man Arrested for DUI While Driving Barbie Car

By Michael
When we say you can be arrested for DUI while driving any motorized vehicle, we mean: You can be arrested for DUI while driving any motorized vehicle.
Don’t believe us? Try this story on:
The Scottish Daily Record is reporting that a man was arrested for drunk driving while operating a toy Barbie car.
Paul Hutton, a 40-year-old resident of Clacton-on-Sea in Essex, was tearing down the road in a child’s motorized Barbie car. He was going the vehicle’s top speed of 4 miles per hour when police stopped him along the road at night.
Police administered a Breathalyzer test and booked Hutton for driving under the influence of alcohol. His blood-alcohol content was double the legal limit.
For his offense, Hutton was banned from driving a real car for three years. After the hearing where he learned of his fate, Hutton admitted that he was “a complete twit” for earning himself the driving ban.
“I was very surprised to get done for drink-driving,” he continued. “It is designed for three-to five-year-olds.”
Hutton had found the little pink electric car ten years previous, and had begun to customize it with his son only a few months ago, adding larger wheels to it. Still, he was candid that it was not the ideal vehicle for a full-sized adult.
“You have to be a contortionist to get in and then you can’t get out,” he said of the pint-sized pink ride. He had to drive it with his knees under his chin, and it moved more slowly than a mobility scooter, according to the article.
According to Hutton, he’d been drinking as he worked on the vehicle, and had not realized how much he’d had to drink.
“When it was done,” he said, “I couldn’t resist the temptation to take it out. I wanted to show my friend.”
Hutton had actually ignored a warning from the police. They told him not to drive the vehicle, but he went against their advice and drove it away from the scene, very slowly.
“I knew it was daft, but I didn’t realize it was a criminal thing to do,” he said.
His three year ban from driving was brought down because he had previously been convicted of DUI. Chairman of the bench in the case said “I’ve never seen the like of it in 15 years on the bench.”


View attachment 9123

 

[alevin]

DUI roadblocks to me are presumption of guilt. not everyone on the road at 1am on a weekend has gone over their limit, maybe not even most. I've pulled into my parents house at 12 midnight or 1 after spending 16 hours on the road in ugly weather getting there. I'm not liable to tolerate a DUI stop just because.....

 

[nnuut]

It's not a law. The Supreme Court can't change that one, Nnuut- you ought to know that one.

It's in the Constitution. Only a Constitutional Amendment can change that.

14th Amendment:

OH! Sorry I was wrong, but what I said is right! Nitpicker!:laugh:

 

[James48843]

News Flash:

Illegal Green Alien apprehended in field, picking vegetables.

View attachment 9124​

​

 

[nnuut]

Anyone wearing that outfit should be locked UP anyway!!

 

[Minnow]

Thanks- yes, that's what I meant to say.

Well then, do you care to retract the rant at post #25 of yours and the "news" story at post #11 purporting to back your position.

If your interpretation of the 4th amendment and the Supreme Court decision in Terry was wrong, then those supporting tangents are wrong as well (fruits of a poisonous tree, you know?).

 

[James48843]

Well then, do you care to retract the rant at post #25 of yours and the "news" story at post #11 purporting to back your position.

If your interpretation of the 4th amendment and the Supreme Court decision in Terry was wrong, then those supporting tangents are wrong as well (fruits of a poisonous tree, you know?).

Let me mull that over for a while.

I still think it's wrong to detain someone who is a U.S. citizen, and making them go get their birth certificate. I think the fact that he has a commerical driver's license, which he showed, should be enough to show identity.

I'll think about the Constitutional implications some more.

 

[WorkFE]

http://www.totaldui.com/blog/man-arrested-for-dui-while-driving-barbie-car/

This is obvious probable cause, at least in my book.

 

[72Zorad]

I don't think immigration or the lack if immigration is the problem or the solution.

Think about it. If we suddenly give all illegal aliens a path for immigration they come to America, bring their families, start picking strawberries or whatever. Then they get to pay taxes, social security, medicare.... Suddenly they find they can no longer afford to pick strawberries and support their families so they join the how many million already unemployed on the streets? So what happens, more illegal aliens, the work still needs done. The problem is these are the only people who can afford to work for these wages. They come here because of the dream of a better life, can't fault them for that. Unless you are 100% American Indian either you did the same or your ancestors. Even the Indians crossed the land bridge at some point looking for a better life but that's a different story.

The problem is at the current wage the only people who can take care of a family on these wages are the ones who don't have to pay taxes or for healthcare or whatever. I saw a show recently on sheep herders from South America. They legally come up here and spend months at a time, in the middle of nowhere, herding sheep then go back home. The show was on how they are underpaid. I don't know if it's true or not. For an American definitely but they never said what life costs in South America. That money isn't staying here. When I was in the Phillipines ('89) the average household income was just over $700/year. Imagine if it is the same in South America. This means they go back after 12 months with 12 times what the average person there makes in a year. We have a saying for that here. It's called hitting the lottery.
My point is more legal immigrants isn't going to change the fact that they need/want strawberry pickers for less than you can live on here and meet all of your societies obligations. It's the same problem with outsourcing manufacturing. We used to be one of the largest manufacturers in the world. Now we can pay someone in China $5.00/day and import it for less. Outsourcing is just 'illegal aliens' that never actually crossed the border. Don't think you aren't paying for their healthcare there. Just because that new hospital they built in China cost a fraction of what one here costs doesn't mean you didn't pay for it.
I do machining as a hobby. Try and find a really skilled machinist under the age of 60 in America. They are a dying breed. We now live in a society that produces nothing. Our entire countries economy is made up of the middle man who fills some non-vital role and skim from the profits so they can sit and chat on forums. I'll bet none of us are construction workers or plant workers....Can't type when you've got a nailgun or torque wrench in your hands.

 

[grandma]

I still think it's wrong to detain someone who is a U.S. citizen, and making them go get their birth certificate. I think the fact that he has a commerical driver's license, which he showed, should be enough to show identity.

In 2004 I was re-entering the US from British Columbia at Blaine, Washington, with my Driver's License ready, in hand. What ever the Border Officer had gone through before it was our turn, I don't know. I know he became quite irate that I did not have my passport in hand. He would not let me unwind myself in the seat so as to get the rest of my ID, the Fed employee badge, the Voter's registration card. My family members made sure I did not respond while - nor after- he delivered his rant - WHICH INCLUDED the fact the 9/11 folks had valid driver's licenses, that there had recently been a fellow arrested coming thru that check-point with the intention of more destruction, with a valid driver's license. The officer did eventually let us through, even without unloading the car, but I did sit through another near tongue-lashing by family for even attempting to speak!!
I have no doubt we were being profiled as he spoke, that none of us `fit the bill;' that the aforementioned fellow was arrested because of some degree of profiling; and that the Officer was remembering that NONE of the Airline Hijackers HAD been profiled...
Because of previous trips back & forth, it had not occurred to me I needed my passport, if only for ID, so it was still in Arkansas.

Yes, it is truly sad that the criminal elements have become so slick they
can produce most any ID they perceive is needed - even the birth certificate. I would say being a trucker would probably be one of the most suspect of all occupations if there is a suspicion of smuggling human cargo.

I still maintain, that young couple in Arizona need to get on the bandwagon to encourage the following of laws.
People that disagree with any of the Obama Administration policies are considered all sorts of worm derivatives, those protesters should be shut up, moved off the face of the earth - or least oo the USA.
But citizens of other countries can race through, destroying landowners properties, flaunt the laws of this same country with any degree of intensity and that is just fine: Have At It.
If this young couple doesn't agree with the latter, then they should stand up for the USA, it's laws. - or be considered part of the problem.

 

[Minnow]

Let me mull that over for a while.

I still think it's wrong to detain someone who is a U.S. citizen, and making them go get their birth certificate. I think the fact that he has a commerical driver's license, which he showed, should be enough to show identity.

I'll think about the Constitutional implications some more.

Yep, not really fair of me to put you on the spot like that.

If you've ever driven a truck, you know that only having your CDL is never enough when going through a weigh station or border patrol checkpoint (the "news" story doesn't make it terribly clear which one or if it was a "combined station" -- also the story was written in a definite anti-cop fashion -- big surprise). Your logs have to be maintained and your manifests, etc. have to jibe. Truck weights and drivers' time on the road are of commercial and safety interest to each state and they are of interest to law enforcement. Without getting into good crime fighting detail, showing a CDL and knowing your SSN just doesn't cut it when your logs and manifests are messed up. That would cause any reasonable cop to suspect something is up and probably put the driver in secondary (some checkpoints used to "secondary" every commercial vehicle). The article makes it seem as though his citizenship was in question. Well, just like in Terry when the cop was probably expecting implements of burglary and found a gun (could be construed as a burglary tool as well), when the cop suspicious of illegal activity with the truck suddenly found reason to doubt the driver's citizenship, that does not make the stop illegal or unconstitutional. By doing business, the company and the commercial driver consent to the weigh station and border patrol checkpoint stops. Not properly maintaining the logs is enough to rouse suspicion. Not having a secondary form of identification, or if the CDL was torn or appeared altered, etc., is enough to start a whole new line of questioning. Probably not enough to arrest the driver on, but enough to detain for further questioning. Who knows how it actually went down, but a person using common sense could see how this would happen in the real world and you can't really blame the station cop for doing his job.

There are enough laws on the books with regards to immigration, but not enough political willpower to let them be enforced as written. There are even municipalities that enacted statutes or make it unwritten "policy" to disallow officers to question persons about their citizenship (does that make sense?).

The Puerto Rican truck driver was lucky that they even accepted the birth certificate. There's a fairly extensive search to verify that (read expensive).

If you ever get pulled over by a veteran cop, I wouldn't recommend asking him what his probable cause for the stop was. If he's cool, he'll just chuckle... if he's not, well...

Bottom line: a cop doesn't have to have probable cause and, as long as he has articulable and reasonable facts to justify the "stop," is perfectly fine with the 4th amendment and the Supreme Court. Every citizen should be fine with that because that's what it takes to do the job right many, many times. Just like good cops know that not every citizen is up to something criminal.

 

[XL-entLady]

DUI roadblocks to me are presumption of guilt. not everyone on the road at 1am on a weekend has gone over their limit, maybe not even most. I've pulled into my parents house at 12 midnight or 1 after spending 16 hours on the road in ugly weather getting there. I'm not liable to tolerate a DUI stop just because.....

Utah is a state that still allows DUI roadblocks. I have an up-close and personal dislike for them. Picture this:

Spouse and I are travelling home from Salt Lake because I've just had heart surgery. It took hours longer than it should have to get the release paperwork done. So now it's after dark and there are deer and elk all over the road so what should have been a four hour trip is stretching out. It's not just my chest that's sore, it's all my appendages too because my IV kept blowing out. And everywhere that isn't bandaged is black and blue.

We top a hill out in the middle of nowhere and are greeted with a line of cars a half-mile long. It's a DUI roadblock. Spouse knows what kind of paperwork they are going to ask for and he has plenty of time to find it by the time we get up to where the highway patrolman is. Cop shines a flashlight in the drivers side of the car and starts his spiel about, "How are you tonight, sir, may I see your ...."

He get's that far before he shines the flashlight on me and says, "Holy sh!t!" Then he starts waving us around the rest of the cars that are still ahead of us in line. But that whole process added about an hour to a very uncomfortable ride.

Nope, I don't like DUI checks!

 

[XL-entLady]

...If you've ever driven a truck, you know that only having your CDL is never enough when going through a weigh station or border patrol checkpoint ...Your logs have to be maintained and your manifests, etc. have to jibe. Truck weights and drivers' time on the road are of commercial and safety interest to each state and they are of interest to law enforcement. ...Bottom line: a cop doesn't have to have probable cause and, as long as he has articulable and reasonable facts to justify the "stop," is perfectly fine with the 4th amendment and the Supreme Court. Every citizen should be fine with that because that's what it takes to do the job right many, many times. Just like good cops know that not every citizen is up to something criminal.

My spouse has a varied work history because he has chosen to follow me when I got transferred rather than doing it the "traditional" way. He has worked in a weigh station in two states and has serious law enforcement experience. He also has a CDL with all endorsements except passenger. That didn't help him when he met up with an officious person at a weigh station once.

He and a co-worker were hauling a piece of federal machinery as an overweight load interstate in a marked federal low-boy with federal plates. He'd got all the overweight permits ahead of time just to try to make the trip smoother, even though he wouldn't technically need them (federal stuff gets a pass). Well, because the weigh station person who wrote the permits had never done them for a federal vehicle before they weren't done exactly like the New Mexico weigh station person thought they should be. Spouse and co-worker were held for eight hours while the mess was sorted out. And wow, did that screw up their travel paperwork!

So a cop doesn't even have to have reasonable facts to justify stop and detainment stuff sometimes. :laugh:

 

[Minnow]

My spouse has a varied work history because he has chosen to follow me when I got transferred rather than doing it the "traditional" way. He has worked in a weigh station in two states and has serious law enforcement experience. He also has a CDL with all endorsements except passenger. That didn't help him when he met up with an officious person at a weigh station once.

He and a co-worker were hauling a piece of federal machinery as an overweight load interstate in a marked federal low-boy with federal plates. He'd got all the overweight permits ahead of time just to try to make the trip smoother, even though he wouldn't technically need them (federal stuff gets a pass). Well, because the weigh station person who wrote the permits had never done them for a federal vehicle before they weren't done exactly like the New Mexico weigh station person thought they should be. Spouse and co-worker were held for eight hours while the mess was sorted out. And wow, did that screw up their travel paperwork!

So a cop doesn't even have to have reasonable facts to justify stop and detainment stuff sometimes. :laugh:

You're right about that... sometimes those administrative "stops" are more arduous and take longer than the criminal stops. Sometimes that line between bureaucracy and law enforcement gets blurred on both sides.

 

[FAB1]

"Chicago Al" and Bloomberg are all upset that AZ want to enforce the LAW. what?

Look out AZ cuz vALdez eez coming! He is going to use a little civil disobedience to get AZ back in line. the clock is ticking, or is it the Glocks are clicking?

 

[XL-entLady]

AL[/B]dez eez coming! He is going to use a little civil disobedience to get AZ back in line. the clock is ticking, or is it the Glocks are clicking?

Oh that is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to start.:laugh:

 

[Buster]

So..DUI Roadblocks are a nuisance and a pain in the a$$ you say..right?

Well not to put any one's personal issues or problems down or disrespect them, but let's look at the other side of the coin for a moment...shall we?

Hypothetically speaking..

You are driving down a dark highway late in the night or early in the wee hours of the morning coming home from Grandmother's house...You have with you your beloved family, spouse, and a litter of kids sleeping in the backs seat with their seat belts on...Suddenly as you crest a hill unable to see the other side..a DRUNK SOB happens to be speeding towards your car in your lane at a 100 MPH and slams right smack dab into you and kills you and your beloved family in an instant of sparks and flames...Poof, all gone!...All because a normally posted Roadblock was taken down because people complained that they had to be stopped and checked out, wasting their precious few minutes and so motorist leaving a local saloon 3 miles up the road now drive home or to hell with no fear of being checked out for being full of barley pop...


No... I'll take the little inconvenience of being asked a few legal questions and producing proof of insurance and a drivers license out of a few minutes of my life..At least I'll feel assured this stretch of road will be free of drunks driving.


BTW..this was not made up..this did happened to some very dear friends of mine..Try going to a funeral set for 5, that would not have happened, had the DUI roadblock been left in place...