AZ: Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling

  • Thread starter Thread starter seventh circle
  • Start date Start date
You should post this in your other Arizona Bill. You know, the one where you're caught red handed (again), being a fucking hack.
 
I won't dignify this with a response except I will ask if you understand the nature of a discussion?
 
Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. If it is a violent crime (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officer's safety is paramount and have allowed for a "frisk" of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only. In the city of New York, once a person is released in a reasonable suspicion stop, a "stop, question and frisk report" is filled out and filed in the command that the stop occurs.
 
Not when you drive commercial. But driving commercial (near/across borders or otherwise) isn't a "right".
 
The constitution doesn't say that the Federal Government is to do it, and thus, anything not specifically spelled out by the Constitution for the Federal Government to do, is covered by the 10th Amendment, which means it is up to the individual states or the people to do.
 
Of course the cops opinion in this must be useless. No reason to put his/her side of this encounter on here.
 
Yes. The point is that people claimed that there would be automatic questioning for citizenship, which isn't true...it only depends if there is reasonable suspicion when questioned for another potential infraction of the law.

The second point is made in that people say it's "unamerican" to ask for identification. Which is just ridiculous, because asking for identification happens quite often.
 
Back
Top