It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.
In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If a cop comes across a white, blue eyed person who speaks English, there is ZERO chance that the copper will try and figure out if he is a naturalized citizen or a tourist or just a normal American . But if a copper comes across a BROWN person who speaks Spanish, they will and have and do begin the inquisition.
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by buddhasystem
Despite the problems with illegal immigration, trying to address the issue through racial profiling is extremely disturbing. If this law would be equally applied to everyone then it would be a non-issue. Since it will be selectively targeted toward a highly visible ethnic minority group based uponappearance"reasonable suspicion" it is oppressive in nature.
You are making things up that the law does Not say. No one is "selectively targeted" through racial profiling and according to what I read, this law IS applicable for everyone.
I challenge you to show me in this law where it says they will be racial profiling and selectively targeting people of a certain race or color. You cannot do it, it's Not in there.
You may personally fear that these things will happen, but you cannot say these things are written in this law.
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Your kidding right?
I read the above and there is NO racists statements in it.
They speak of people who they have a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal or committing other crimes.
This is the same as any cop already does for suspects.
It does not mention brown skin, Mexicans. or even illegal Mexicans..
It could be white Irish people who they suspect are in the country illegally and this law would still apply.
Racists? No, I don't see that at all.
Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
WHAT PRINCIPLES ARE THE OFFICERS USING TO DECIDE IF AN IMMIGRANT IS ILLEGAL OTHER THAN APPEARANCE AS IT CLEARLY STATES THERE.
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
If any person who is stopped by LEO ,and that person can not understand nor speak english and can not provide a legal ID, I really think that there is reasonable suspicion that person may be an illegal alien.
And it doesn't matter what color their skin is or what language they speak.
[edit on 27-7-2010 by OLD HIPPY DUDE]
Originally posted by jambatrumpet
'Displaced Person' is the phrase that we used to use.. now it is 'Illegal Alien'.... The Arizona law is simply a way to fund our privatized prison system...
Concerning the Arizona Govenor...
Two of her top advisers have close ties to Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). And CCA holds the federal contract for housing detainees in Arizona. CCA already receives 11 million a month in Arizona, and will make out like bandits if Arizona law passes...
current.com...
[edit on 27-7-2010 by jambatrumpet]
Originally posted by jambatrumpet
'Displaced Person' is the phrase that we used to use.. now it is 'Illegal Alien'.... The Arizona law is simply a way to fund our privatized prison system...
Concerning the Arizona Govenor...
Two of her top advisers have close ties to Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). And CCA holds the federal contract for housing detainees in Arizona. CCA already receives 11 million a month in Arizona, and will make out like bandits if Arizona law passes...
current.com...
[edit on 27-7-2010 by jambatrumpet]
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
If any person who is stopped by LEO ,and that person can not understand nor speak english and can not provide a legal ID, I really think that there is reasonable suspicion that person may be an illegal alien.
And it doesn't matter what color their skin is or what language they speak.
The opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."