Why the AZ law will be held to be constitutional

[jimpeel]

The AZ law, while a mirror of the federal law, affords greater protections than the federal law.

In MUEHLER et al. v. MENA the SCotUS ruled that the police are not required to have probable cause to question a suspect about their immigration status. The AZ law does contain such a requirement. Pursuant to the federal law, any officer could at any time walk up to any individual and demand for them to prove their immigration status. If AZ were to repeal their state law and enact the federal law, those protections built into the AZ law would disappear and anyone would be fair game for questioning their immigration status.

2. The officers' questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit's holding to the contrary appears premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to so question Mena. However, this Court has "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 434. Because Mena's initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena's immigration status was required. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. ___ , ___ (slip op., at 2-4). Pp. 7-8.

The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena's Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F. 3d, at 1264-1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage." Bostick, supra, at 434-435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.

 

[spike]

Pursuant to the federal law, any officer could at any time walk up to any individual and demand for them to prove their immigration status.

That isn't what it says at all. Would you really be ok with giving up that much freedom though?

You missed part of what you quoted "Because Mena's initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning"

And point 3 I don't see anything in what you quoted that required her to prove her legal status. Just that it was ok for the cops to ask her questions.

 

[catocom]

Would you really be ok with giving up that much freedom though?

we already have, and more.
Through the patriot act, that the pres made "PERMANENT!"
By the Feds...ANYONE can now be detained without maranda, just on suspicion...
indefinitely.

 

[jimpeel]

That isn't what it says at all. Would you really be ok with giving up that much freedom though?

The Ninth Circuit tried to establish that the police needed probable cause to ask about her immigration status -- which, by the way, she was legal -- and the SCotUS ruled that they did not need any probable cause to make that inquiry.

You missed part of what you quoted "Because Mena's initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning"

It was not germane to the discussion. She insisted that the detention in handcuffs was not lawful because they kept her in handcuffs for ~3 hours while the search was conducted. The detention in handcuffs was for the protection of the officers and they did find a loaded firearm and ammunition in the home. They were there because there was a drive by shooting earlier.

And point 3 I don't see anything in what you quoted that required her to prove her legal status. Just that it was ok for the cops to ask her questions.

The cops did not, as determined by the Ninth Circuit, need any probable cause to make immigration status inquiries.

Perhaps you need to read INS v Delgado.

 

[spike]

The Ninth Circuit tried to establish that the police needed probable cause to ask about her immigration status -- which, by the way, she was legal -- and the SCotUS ruled that they did not need any probable cause to make that inquiry.

Yes, because she was already detained and it did not increase the length of her detention the cops could ask questions. It does not say she was obligated to answer or prove anything.

It was not germane to the discussion.

It was definitely germane because it disproves your theory "any officer could at any time walk up to any individual and demand for them to prove their immigration status" because this ruling was based on her already being detained and that they did not "demand proof". They just asked questions.

Again I ask, would you really want to give up that much freedom where police could walk up to people at random and demand that they prove things?

The cops did not, as determined by the Ninth Circuit, need any probable cause to make immigration status inquiries.

Again asking questions much different than "demanding proof".

 

[jimpeel]

Yes, because she was already detained and it did not increase the length of her detention the cops could ask questions. It does not say she was obligated to answer or prove anything.

Federal law requires that all legal aliens carry proof of their lawful immigration status and are to surrender same upon demand. The law requires that she answer and prove that status.

It was definitely germane because it disproves your theory "any officer could at any time walk up to any individual and demand for them to prove their immigration status" because this ruling was based on her already being detained and that they did not "demand proof". They just asked questions.

Again I ask, would you really want to give up that much freedom where police could walk up to people at random and demand that they prove things?

I guess you are missing the point I am trying to make which is lauding the fact that the AZ law provides greater protection than the federal law.

Again asking questions much different than "demanding proof".

You need to read the instructions and guidelines issued to resident legal aliens by the federal immigration department.

 

[Gonz]

What does any of it matter anyway? If we don't give them away, they're taken from us.

DETROIT—Borders are becoming increasingly problematic places through which to pass for those who travel with laptops or other electronic devices, which is pretty much everyone these days. Travelers entering Australia are now likely to be asked if they are carrying any pornography, and those entering the Unites States can have their devices searched for contraband such as child pornography, as well. This week, a federal judge ruled that Customs agents also can seize a computer if they don’t have the ability to inspect it immediately, but only if they have sufficient suspicion

source

 

[spike]

Federal law requires that all legal aliens carry proof of their lawful immigration status and are to surrender same upon demand. The law requires that she answer and prove that status.

If she was an alien at the time she could be required to produce her papers. Different than the AZ law where any person, alien or citizen, can face detainment until they produce their papers.

I guess you are missing the point I am trying to make which is lauding the fact that the AZ law provides greater protection than the federal law.

The AZ law provides less protection than federal law but after reading the details of Mena's case I agree that the officers certainly abused their power.

For the 3rd time I'm asking, would you really want to give up that much freedom where police could walk up to people at random and demand that they prove things?

You need to read the instructions and guidelines issued to resident legal aliens by the federal immigration department.

If she was a legal alien she could be required to prove her status. If she was a citizen then no. Again, much different then the AZ law.

 

[Gonz]

For the 3rd time I'm asking, would you really want to give up that much freedom where police could walk up to people at random and demand that they prove things?

They can now. Oh, sure , they must have a reason...likes that hard to fabricate.

 

[jimpeel]

If she was an alien at the time she could be required to produce her papers. Different than the AZ law where any person, alien or citizen, can face detainment until they produce their papers.

This is becoming a circular argument. You have obviously not actually read the AZ law as you have no knowledge of its content. The police MUST have a reasonable cause to stop or detain in the first place. The presentation of a legal AZ drivers is considered prima facie evidence of lawful resident status or citizenship. The police cannot simply walk up and ask for a person's papers based upon nothing more than a hunch.

Here are the changes to existing law. I'll be damned if I'm going to format it for you as well. It says what it says and it is glaringly clear.

SENATE BILL 1070
AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8;
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION
13-1509; AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE
13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND
13-2929; AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA
REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS.

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.
4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.
23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G
24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN
25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND
26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.
38 Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
39 adding section 13-1509, to read:
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.
4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.
23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G
24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN
25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND
26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.
38 Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
39 adding section 13-1509, to read:
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN
2 ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED
6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER
7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
8 C. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE
9 FOR SUSPENSION OR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OR RELEASE ON ANY BASIS UNTIL THE
10 SENTENCE IMPOSED IS SERVED.
11 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.
15 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE
16 PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
17 E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF
18 THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
19 WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT
20 ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT
21 MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO
22 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION
23 ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL
24 IMMIGRATION.
25 F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION
26 FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
27 G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
31 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
32 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
33 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
34 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
35 13-105.
36 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF
37 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.
38 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:
39 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
40 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
41 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS
42 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED
43 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.

20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.

6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED
7 ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP
8 PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR
9 IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
10 B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS
11 STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT
12 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF
13 THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
14 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED
15 STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT
16 WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT
17 CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.
18 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.
19 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A
21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE
22 EMPLOYED.
23 2. "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL
24 RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS
25 DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3).
26 13-2929. Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring
27 or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle
28 impoundment; classification
29 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
30 OFFENSE TO:
31 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS
32 STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY
33 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE
34 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
35 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD
36 AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR
37 ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE
38 FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES
39 IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
40 3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE IF
41 THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO,
42 ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
43 B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
44 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR
45 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.

1 C. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1
2 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT
3 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS
4 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND
5 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.

27 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
28 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER
29 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL
30 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS
31 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:
32 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
33 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.
34 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE
35 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
36 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE
37 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO
38 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
39 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS
40 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
41 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
42 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR
43 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT
44 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
45 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.

18 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
19 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER
20 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL
21 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS
22 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:
23 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
24 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.
25 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE
26 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
27 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE
28 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO
29 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
30 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS
31 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
32 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
33 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR
34 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT
35 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
36 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.
37 Sec. 8. Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
38 23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; e-verify
39 program; economic development incentives; list of
40 registered employers
41 A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee,
42 shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify
43 program AND SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF THE VERIFICATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE
44 EMPLOYEE'S EMPLOYMENT OR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER.

41 4. THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IS
42 TRANSPORTING, MOVING, CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO
43 TRANSPORT, MOVE, CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A
44 VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN
45 HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

8 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS
9 ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND
10 MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE
11 FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL
12 BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL
13 REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

The AZ law provides less protection than federal law but after reading the details of Mena's case I agree that the officers certainly abused their power.

The federal law has been ruled upon by the SCotUSW and obviously contains fewer protections against profiling than the AZ law. In fact, the AZ law contains provisions against profiling for which an officer doing so may be arrested and prosecuted.

For the 3rd time I'm asking, would you really want to give up that much freedom where police could walk up to people at random and demand that they prove things?

Asked and answered. I have stated that my preferences lie with the law which affords the greatest protection.

If she was a legal alien she could be required to prove her status. If she was a citizen then no. Again, much different then the AZ law.

She was not a citizen. She was a legal alien. That was stated quite clearly in the SCotUS ruling.

Aware that the West Side Locos gang was composed primarily of illegal immigrants, the officers had notified the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that they would be conducting the search, and an INS officer accompanied the officers executing the warrant. During their detention in the garage, an officer asked for each detainee's name, date of birth, place of birth, and immigration status. The INS officer later asked the detainees for their immigration documentation. Mena's status as a permanent resident was confirmed by her papers.

I give links for a reason. I should not be the one who is posting and reposting the pertinent information readily contained in the link.

 

[jimpeel]

By the by, here is the link to the official AZ State webpage which posts the entire contents of the bill. Please do not be like Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama, and Eric Holder and fail to read a simple 17 page bill while denouncing it due to lack of knowledge.

CLICK HERE

 

[spike]

This is becoming a circular argument. You have obviously not actually read the AZ law as you have no knowledge of its content.

I have read it and am very familiar with the content.

The police MUST have a reasonable cause to stop or detain in the first place. The presentation of a legal AZ drivers is considered prima facie evidence of lawful resident status or citizenship. The police cannot simply walk up and ask for a person's papers based upon nothing more than a hunch.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. Not sure what you are misunderstanding. What I said was "Different than the AZ law where any person, alien or citizen, can face detainment until they produce their papers".

Of course there has to be a reason for the stop. Point being that any person of AZ could be required to provide their papers not just aliens.

The federal law has been ruled upon by the SCotUSW and obviously contains fewer protections against profiling than the AZ law. In fact, the AZ law contains provisions against profiling for which an officer doing so may be arrested and prosecuted.

I don't know why you're talking about profiling now. The fact is the AZ law has fewer protections than the federal law. Under the AZ law any person of Arizona could face a lengthy detainment if they don't have their papers even when they have committed no offense.

Asked and answered. I have stated that my preferences lie with the law which affords the greatest protection.

You have not answered and this answer is not clear. By "greatest protection" do you mean protecting people from undue harassment by the police? In which case you'd be firmly against police being able to "walk up to people at random and demand that they prove things"?

She was not a citizen. She was a legal alien.

Great, that further distance the ruling from the AZ law where even citizens may face detainment without their papers.

By the by, here is the link to the official AZ State webpage which posts the entire contents of the bill.

I read it awhile back. Looks like you still haven't. I'd suggest you check it out. A lot of people who haven't read it are actually supporting this attack on liberty.

 

[jimpeel]

I have read it and am very familiar with the content.

Me too. We apparently differ in the interpretation.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. Not sure what you are misunderstanding. What I said was "Different than the AZ law where any person, alien or citizen, can face detainment until they produce their papers".

The SCotUS ruled years ago that any person must present ID upon demand and if they cannot the police can detain them until they can ascertain their identity. That applies in every state in the union including yours and mine. You have merely chosen to single out AZ when your own state has the same power.

Of course there has to be a reason for the stop. Point being that any person of AZ could be required to provide their papers not just aliens.

Please read above.

I don't know why you're talking about profiling now. The fact is the AZ law has fewer protections than the federal law. Under the AZ law any person of Arizona could face a lengthy detainment if they don't have their papers even when they have committed no offense.

Please read above.

You have not answered and this answer is not clear. By "greatest protection" do you mean protecting people from undue harassment by the police? In which case you'd be firmly against police being able to "walk up to people at random and demand that they prove things"?

I thought that was quite clear but since it is apparently not let me say yes, yes, and hell yes. The part you miss is the fact that the police in every city, county, and state in the nation can already do exactly that.

Great, that further distance the ruling from the AZ law where even citizens may face detainment without their papers.

Please read above.

I read it awhile back. Looks like you still haven't. I'd suggest you check it out. A lot of people who haven't read it are actually supporting this attack on liberty.

So do you believe that liberty includes the liberty to simply walk across the border of any country that anyone desires? Mexicans can simply exercise their liberty by marching north? Are you okay with Vietnamese simply flying into JFK, Newark, Reagan Int'l deplaning and blending into the populace? How about Chinese? Armenians? Turks? Palestinians? Syrians? Brits? Aussies? Ugandans? Congolese? Germans? Italians? Irish? Should they be able to simply exercise their liberty to enter this country en masse, without documentation, and without being recorded as having come here?

 

[spike]

The SCotUS ruled years ago that any person must present ID upon demand and if they cannot the police can detain them until they can ascertain their identity. That applies in every state in the union including yours and mine. You have merely chosen to single out AZ when your own state has the same power.

Since ID is entirely different than proof of legal status I'm not sure where you're going with this. If I drove through AZ my CA license would not be considered proof of legal status and I could be detained until I could get someone to mail my birth certificate.

Also, please link to the appropriate CA or federal law that says police can go up to anyone without cause and demand ID.

I thought that was quite clear but since it is apparently not let me say yes, yes, and hell yes. The part you miss is the fact that the police in every city, county, and state in the nation can already do exactly that.

Please read above.

So do you believe that liberty includes the liberty to simply walk across the border of any country that anyone desires? Mexicans can simply exercise their liberty by marching north? Are you okay with Vietnamese simply flying into JFK, Newark, Reagan Int'l deplaning and blending into the populace? How about Chinese? Armenians? Turks? Palestinians? Syrians? Brits? Aussies? Ugandans? Congolese? Germans? Italians? Irish? Should they be able to simply exercise their liberty to enter this country en masse, without documentation, and without being recorded as having come here?

I can't imagine why you would think or ask that since I never said anything similar. We were talking about the people of AZ losing their liberty.

 

[jimpeel]

This might interest you. It seems that Mexico's immigration laws make AZ law look tame yet they claim that the AZ law is bad law. They should get their own act together before they criticize us.

SOURCE

Activists blast Mexico's immigration law

By Chris Hawley, USA TODAY

May 25, 2010

TULTITLN, Mexico — Arizona's new law forcing local police to take a greater role in enforcing immigration law has caused a lot of criticism from Mexico, the largest single source of illegal immigrants in the United States.

But in Mexico, illegal immigrants receive terrible treatment from corrupt Mexican authorities, say people involved in the system.

And Mexico has a law that is no different from Arizona's that empowers local police to check the immigration documents of people suspected of not being in the country legally.

"There (in the United States), they'll deport you," Hector Vázquez, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, said as he rested in a makeshift camp with other migrants under a highway bridge in Tultitlán. "In Mexico they'll probably let you go, but they'll beat you up and steal everything you've got first."

Mexican authorities have harshly criticized Arizona's SB1070, a law that requires local police to check the status of persons suspected of being illegal immigrants. The law provides that a check be done in connection with another law enforcement event, such as a traffic stop, and also permits Arizona citizens to file lawsuits against local authorities for not fully enforcing immigration laws.

Mexico's Foreign Ministry said the law "violates inalienable human rights" and Democrats in Congress applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderón's criticisms of the law in a speech he gave on Capitol Hill last week.

Yet Mexico's Arizona-style law requires local police to check IDs. And Mexican police freely engage in racial profiling and routinely harass Central American migrants, say immigration activists.

"The Mexican government should probably clean up its own house before looking at someone else's," said Melissa Vertíz, spokeswoman for the Fray Matías de Córdova Human Rights Center in Tapachula, Mexico.

In one six-month period from September 2008 through February 2009, at least 9,758 migrants were kidnapped and held for ransom in Mexico — 91 of them with the direct participation of Mexican police, a report by the National Human Rights Commission said. Other migrants are routinely stopped and shaken down for bribes, it said.

A separate survey conducted during one month in 2008 at 10 migrant shelters showed Mexican authorities were behind migrant attacks in 35 of 240 cases, or 15%.

Most migrants in Mexico are Central Americans who are simply passing through on their way to the United States, human rights groups say. Others are Guatemalans who live and work along Mexico's southern border, mainly as farm workers, as maids, or in bars and restaurants.

The Central American migrants headed to the United States travel mainly on freight trains, stopping to rest and beg for food at rail crossings like the one in Tultitlán, an industrial suburb of Mexico City.

On a recent afternoon, Victor Manuel Beltrán Rodríguez of Managua, Nicaragua, trudged between the cars at a stop light, his hand outstretched.

"Can you give me a peso? I'm from Nicaragua," he said. Every 10 cars or so, a motorist would roll down the window and hand him a few coins. In a half-hour he had collected 10 pesos, about 80 U.S. cents, enough for a taco.

Beltrán Rodríguez had arrived in Mexico with 950 pesos, about $76, enough to last him to the U.S. border. But near Tierra Blanca, Veracruz, he says municipal police had detained him, driven him to a deserted road and taken his money. He had been surviving since then by begging.

Abuses by Mexican authorities have persisted even as Mexico has relaxed its rules against illegal immigrants in recent years, according to the National Human Rights Commission.

In 2008, Mexico softened the punishment for illegal immigrants, from a maximum 10 years in prison to a maximum fine of $461. Most detainees are taken to detention centers and put on buses for home.

Mexican law calls for six to 12 years of prison and up to $46,000 in fines for anyone who shelters or transports illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the law applies only to people who do it for money.

For years, the Mexican government has allowed charity groups to openly operate migrant shelters, where travelers can rest for a few days on their journey north. The government also has a special unit of immigration agents, known as Grupo Beta, who patrol the countryside in orange pickups, helping immigrants who are in trouble.

At the same time, Article 67 of Mexico's immigration law requires that all authorities "whether federal, local or municipal" demand to see visas if approached by a foreigner and to hand over migrants to immigration authorities.

"In effect, this means that migrants who suffer crimes, including kidnapping, prefer not to report them to avoid … being detained by immigration authorities and returned to their country," the National Human Rights Commission said in a report last year.

As a result, the clause has strengthened gangs who abuse migrants, rights activists say.

"That Article 67 is an obstacle that urgently has to be removed," said Alberto Herrera, executive director of Amnesty International Mexico. "It has worsened this vicious cycle of abuse and impunity, and the same thing could happen (in Arizona)."

A bill passed by the Mexican Senate on Oct. 6 would eliminate the ID requirement in Article 67 and replace it with language saying "No attention in matters of human rights or the provision of justice shall be denied or restricted on any level (of government) to foreigners who require it, regardless of their migration status."

The Mexican House of Representatives approved a similar measure on March 16, but added a clause requiring the government to set aside funds to take care of foreigners during times of disaster. The revised bill has been stuck in the Senate's Population and Development Committee since then.

To discourage migrants from speaking out about abuse, Mexican authorities often tell detainees they will have to stay longer in detention centers if they file a complaint, Vertíz said.

A March 2007 order allows Mexican immigration agents to give "humanitarian visas" to migrants who have suffered crimes in Mexico. But the amnesty is not automatic, and most migrants don't know to ask for it, the commission said.

Hawley is Latin America correspondent for USA TODAY and The Arizona Republic

 

[spike]

This might interest you. It seems that Mexico's immigration laws make AZ law look tame yet they claim that the AZ law is bad law. They should get their own act together before they criticize us.

That does nothing to justify the AZ law.

Maybe read that CS Lewis quote in your sig?

 

[Gonz]

That does nothing to justify the AZ law.

This does

Our illegal immigration numbers are based on an estimated twenty million illegal aliens having been present in our nation as of January 1, 2004.

 

[spike]

This does

No it doesn't. Having an immigration problem does not justify giving up freedoms.

 

[Gonz]

Since they've broken our laws, they are not entitled to our freedom.

 

[jimpeel]

Since ID is entirely different than proof of legal status I'm not sure where you're going with this. If I drove through AZ my CA license would not be considered proof of legal status and I could be detained until I could get someone to mail my birth certificate.

You obviously have no familiarity with the full faith and credit section of the Constitution. You really need to familiarize yourself with that.

Also, please link to the appropriate CA or federal law that says police can go up to anyone without cause and demand ID.

HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.

certiorari to the supreme court of nevada

No. 03-5554. Argued March 22, 2004--Decided June 21, 2004

Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada's "stop and identify" statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel's argument that the state law's application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.

Held: Petitioner's conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination. Pp. 3-13.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

I can't imagine why you would think or ask that since I never said anything similar. We were talking about the people of AZ losing their liberty.

You keep concentrating on one state and you refuse to consider that these laws are nationwide. AZ is 1/50 of the United States. The other 49/50 have similar laws yet AZ is the only state where the people of the state are "losing their liberty".