L
LOL I LIKE COCKS
Guest
She says exactly the opposite. Did you watch the video?
This is what Megyn Kelly cites
Muehler et al vs Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005)
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.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7971847631731056703&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrI've read through that whole thing a few times and it appears to me that the court says that reasonable suspicion was not needed in that particular case because Mena was already being detained. The court says that since she was already handcuffed and sitting in her garage, it was not a Fourth Amendment violation to question her immigration status because it did not prolong her detainment to do so.
I think Kelly might be wrong on this one.
This is what Megyn Kelly cites
Muehler et al vs Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005)
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.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7971847631731056703&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrI've read through that whole thing a few times and it appears to me that the court says that reasonable suspicion was not needed in that particular case because Mena was already being detained. The court says that since she was already handcuffed and sitting in her garage, it was not a Fourth Amendment violation to question her immigration status because it did not prolong her detainment to do so.
I think Kelly might be wrong on this one.