Why the AZ law will be held to be constitutional

[jimpeel]

Note the date of this decision. Pre-AZ law.

Identification Inquiry of Vehicle Passengers In Traffic Stop Upheld and Batson Claim Rejected
April 2, 2010 8:54 AM | No TrackBacks

The First Circuit decided two criminal cases today, one involving a defendant's Fourth Amendment violation claim and the other involving a defendant's Batson claim.

US v. Fernandez, No. 09-1058, concerned a defendant's challenge to the district court's denial of his motion to suppress a gun recovered from defendant following a traffic stop, in his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. In rejecting the defendant's argument that the district court erred in failing to find that his state law and Fourth Amendment rights were violated by a police officer's inquiry into his identification, the court held that a police officer may ask identifying information from passengers in a vehicle stopped for traffic violations without particularized suspicion that the passengers pose a safety risk or are violating a law.

US v. Charlton, No. 08-1797, involved a conviction of a defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm an given an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Defendant's two challenges to his conviction were a Batson claim, arguing that the empanelment of the jury was tained by racial discrimination against African-Americans, and a challenge to the imposition of an enhanced sentence under the ACCA.

In rejecting defendant's Batson claim, the court held that the district court did not commit an error in allowing the government's peremptory challenge against the juror at issue in finding that the government offered a race-neutral explanation that it did not want an attorney on the jury. In rejecting defendant's second claim, the court held that the district court did not err in sentencing the defendant as an armed career criminal as it was bound by the Supreme Court's ruling in Almendarez-Torres v. U.S. which held that a sentencing enhancement may be grounded on prior criminal convictions neither separately charged nor proven to a jury.

Related Resources:

* Full text of US v. Fernandez
* Full text of US v. Charlton

 

[jimpeel]

SOURCE

Can a State Make it a Crime to Refuse to Identify Yourself to the Police?
In a Narrow Ruling, the Supreme Court Says Yes
By MICHAEL C. DORF
Wednesday, Jun. 23, 2004

Earlier this week, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Larry Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel had violated a Nevada statute that requires persons temporarily detained on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to identify themselves to a police officer.

Hiibel--who claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply the victim of mistaken identity--believed he had no obligation to tell the officer his name. But the Court found that neither Hiibel's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, was violated.

In so doing, the Court took some liberties in construing its own past precedents, prompting four Justices to dissent. But despite its technical deficiencies, the Hiibel decision does not threaten civil liberties.

Nor does it, as some commentators have suggested, pave the way for a system of compulsory national identification cards. Moreover, even if it did, such a system would not necessarily be unwise or unconstitutional.

Background: Fourth Amendment Doctrine on Warrantless Search and Arrest

The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," and authorizes search and arrest warrants only upon a showing of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. This language has been construed by the Supreme Court to require that in most circumstances, the police must obtain a warrant for a search or an arrest.

But there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, including for "exigent circumstances": where an emergency prevents the police from obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate, they may perform a warrantless search or arrest--if the facts known to them establish probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

In addition, there is an exception to the "probable cause" requirement for a warrantless search or arrest. In the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, the Court held that police could "stop and frisk" a suspect on "reasonable suspicion" that he had already committed, or was about to commit, a crime. Such a pat-down search, of course, would be warrantless.

[more]

 

[spike]

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

And now neither are we.

 

[spike]

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

I am familiar with it. It doesn't contradict what I said. So point?

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

In your case there was a reason for the stop. So again, please link to the appropriate CA or federal law that says police can go up to anyone without cause and demand ID.

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".

Sorry no, my state does not have a law where I can be detained until I prove my legal status without committing any offense. I have the liberty, AZ does not.

 

[spike]

Note the date of this decision. Pre-AZ law.

Note the difference between identification and legal status.

 

[jimpeel]

SOURCE

New Border ID Rules Take Effect

Beginning today, American citizens entering the U.S. by land or sea are required to present a valid U.S. passport or similar proof of both identity and citizenship. The new rule applies to persons age 19 or older seeking entry into the U.S. at the borders. Identification documents must include a photo, name and date of birth. (See Document Options, from the Department of Homeland Security). Children ages 18 and under will only be required to present proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate. Before the new border identification requirements took effect today, upon entering the U.S. at a border entry point, an individual without documentation could verbally claim to be a U. S. citizen. The Associated Press reports that "officers at the ports will have latitude to admit people who are unaware of the changes once their identities are confirmed."

* Travel Document Requirements FAQ (Dept. of Homeland Security)
* Associated Press: Tighter U.S. Border ID Rules Begin
* New Passport and Border Entry Rules (FindLaw)
* Passport Information (U.S. Dept. of State)

 

[jimpeel]

Does liberty extend to foreign nationals, with no fealty to the United States, electing our government officials? No tickee, no vote.

SOURCE

Supreme Court OKs Voter ID Law

An Indiana law requiring voters to present government-issued photo identification has been upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.


The Indiana "Voter ID Law" requires citizens voting in person on election day -- or casting a ballot in person at the office of the circuit court clerk prior to election day -- to present photo identification issued by the government. A challenge to the law was brought by several groups, including nonprofit organizations representing elderly, disabled, poor, and minority voters. In Monday's 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law is valid and relevant to the state's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process, including the interest in preventing voter fraud. The New York Times reports that "ecause Indiana's law is considered the strictest in the country, similar laws in the other 20 or so states that have photo-identification rules would appear to have a good chance of surviving scrutiny." Indiana voters will cast their ballots in the presidential primary on Tuesday, May 6th.

* Read Monday's U.S. Supreme Court Decision (FindLaw)
* Supreme Court Upholds Voter Identification Law in Indiana (N.Y. Times)
* U.S. Supreme Court Center (FindLaw)
* Voters and Voting Rights (FindLaw)

 

[spike]

So what relevance does that article have to the conversation?

 

[MrBishop]

Does liberty extend to foreign nationals, with no fealty to the United States, electing our government officials? No tickee, no vote.

SOURCE

One step closer to the National ID card, eh. This ID requirement is for specific situations... when voting. It does not require ID on your person at all times nor show that you will be detained if you do not have ID on you, unlike the AZ law.

 

[MrBishop]

SOURCE

The Border ID piece dates back to 2007. It's not just for Americans returning to US soil, but also for anyone travelling into the USA by road, sea or air. A tightening of pre-existing rules which now demand strickter forms of ID at points of entry. Before this, entry by land and sea only asked for drivier's license as sufficient... now, that isn't enough.

Although interesting, it's not relevant to the topic. This rule applies at points of entry only, and not on street corners, nor does it demand that people carry their ID once within the country's borders.

 

[valkyrie]

The police can ask you anything they want. But you do not have to answer them unless you are a suspect in a crime. Even then, you have the right to a lawyer.

"Are you a legal citizen of the United States?"
<silence>

See how that works?

Now if you don't answer and they haul you in. Chaching! Lawsuit! Smell the money.

 

[valkyrie]

Federal judge blocks part of Arizona's immigration law...

The provisions that most angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

Read the rest from the link.

 

[Gonz]

Too bad. I'm sure the terrorists don't mind.

 

[spike]

Terrorists? LOL

 

[Gonz]

Open border. Police unable to question or ask for visitor pass. Hell yea.

 

[spike]

We don't have an open border. They ask you for documents at the border.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Yeah, and these criminals don't use the border checks point.

Let the militias handle the gaps until we can re-start that fence in 2013.

 

[spike]

The fence is a stupid waste of money.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Your right. Without a well armed patrol on it, its just a fence.

How much oxygen do you waste in a day?

 

[spike]

Your right. Without a well armed patrol on it, its just a fence.

Yep, it's just a big fucking waste of money that often is built on private land against the owners will.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=5915823

You must just want to needlessly change the country.

How much oxygen do you waste in a day?

More weak assed trolling and insult attempts. It's fucking pathetic lashing out like a little child when your argument doesn't go well.