why did this have to happen - we have to do better than this - why did it have to go down this way?

hey pokerplayersgohome - How do you explain the state laws regarding mandatory automobile liability coverage?

The expense of the program is universally hated. Why can't there be a counter protest movement against this absurd waste of tax dollars?

White Guilt pure and simple. Please wake me up when this is over so that we can begin to throw money at some other blighted area just because they belly ache the loudest.

The best commentary on this issue was the comment made a while back that we could lease a charter bus for 24 / 7 free transportation to anyone that lived in the area to get to shopping and dining in other parts of the valley at a fraction of the cost.

Rocky Hinds baby

does it make a hills of beans of a difference if the gun invilved was a shotgun - like the headlines reads "shotgun death" - why over sensationalize this?

Sorry that Ms. Greenspun Passed away. She seems like a very decent and hard working person that made Las Vegas a better place to live.

Hey Reasonrules, where you write, "The citation above to the "lawful contact" language is a red herring. Probably the poster incorporated an argument made by someone else at some other time, but it has no bearing on the current dispute." you are wrong - that was my original writing - but apparantly based on some previous version of the law as you note. . so I stand corrected but you are off base to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm ripping off other people's analysis. Moot point though.

here is why I think - In a nut shell this law is destined to fail under a fourth amendment analysis.
Look at the section B -

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

The term "Reasonable suspicion" is clearly derived from - Terry V. Ohio - where the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for a lesser standard for a stop and frisk to be conducted by law enforcement but only if there were articulable objective facts that give the indication that a crime had taken place, was to take place, or was about to take place - and then the stop and frisk was only for a short duration of time - and for officer safety issues as well. Only then if probable cause resulted to make an arrest or obtain a warrant an officer could do that subsequent. There was no violation of the 4th amendment under those circumstances.

It appears that the cases out there are all based upon one thing - An officer that sees something that someone is doing (something objective) that there is a crime. . . . I don't see how it is that there is any way you get around that requirement under this AZ law - period - Like, Where is the ability of an officer to even make contact with a person in the first place (make a stop or seize that person restraining the freedom to walk away) without there being facts leading up to a the terry stop - not a "mere hunch" Which is basically been rejected " 'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." -- quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)


So . . . I don't see it - - So then go to the text of the new AZ law - That means that the officer is in "LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL . . .[with] THAT THE PERSON" when he is spotting articulable facts that suggest a person is in the U.S. illegally. . . .i.e. committing a crime that he is then justifiably able to conduct the stop to investigate the immigration status of a person. This is where racial profiling comes in. . .there is no way for law enforcement to that with out using race based factors and or unlawfully stopping people. You need to wake up and stop cheerleading the erosion of our 4th amendment freedoms people. I thought conservatives wanted the cops out of people's business

Santa Fe Style? next thing you know we will be concerned with the closing of the parachute pants and breakdance gear store. . .good riddance.