Alabama's immigration law

jrw1621 wrote: Back in 2000, Dudley Hiibel was forced in NV to produce ID for no given reason. See video in link. http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/index.html When taken to the Supreme Court in 2004 it was ruled that you must present papers (ID) to any officer when they request it. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/politics/22scotus.html?ex=1088481600&en=79fef2f16e6a9d39&ei=5062

First of all, he was asked to identifiy himself, which is what the court ruled on. He refused to even give his name. They most certainly DID NOT say you had to provide identification documents in the SCOTUS ruling.

Read the NY times link all the way thru that you posted to see this information cited.

So in a strict civil rights sense, this is unrelated...

They are related in the sense that they are both complete and total bullE36 M3.

When I come into power, I am going to deport all the lazy SOB who live off welfare while eating themselves to death or using drugs and replace them with people from south of the boarder who will do a hard days work.

93EXCivic wrote: When I come into power, I am going to deport all the lazy SOB who live off welfare while eating themselves to death or using drugs and replace them with people from south of the boarder who will do a hard days work.

Border, the word is border,as in south of. If you are a good solid cracksmokin collegegraduate you have my vote.

TRoglodyte wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: When I come into power, I am going to deport all the lazy SOB who live off welfare while eating themselves to death or using drugs and replace them with people from south of the boarder who will do a hard days work.

Border, the word is border,as in south of. If you are a good solid cracksmokin collegegraduate you have my vote.

I is engineer. What is spelling?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I don't know... maybe I woke up this AM thinking I didn't live in a police state.

You did. But you may not lay to sleep tonight with the same freedom.

Your papers please, sir.

First the terrorists nibble away at our freedom. Now the illegals. We're going to protect ourselves right out of any liberty we have left. And all brought to you by the people who want to keep government out of your life...

carguy123 wrote: If you don't have your ID they'll probably just give you a chance to go downtown later to prove you have one.

Could be. But all the same, there's something wrong with an America where walking down the street requires ID. I shouldn't have to show up downtown, produce ID for a policeman, or anything else. There's already way too much of that for my taste.

Here in Colorado, and I guess most states these days, it's illegal to drive without insurance. That's fine, and I support that law. What I do NOT support is an officer being able to pull you over and demand proof of insurance. Someone has an accident, doesn't have insurance, throw the book at them. But I shouldn't have to pro-actively prove that I complied with the law. I don't have to prove that I didn't kill anyone, or rob anyone. Innocent until proven guilty, unless it's car insurance, and now, your citizenship.

I got pulled over, didn't have an insurance card, though I did have insurance. Actually, I had the thing I printed out that showed I had insurance, just not the official documents. So the officer knew I had insurance, but wrote me the ticket anyway. I "just" had to take a vacation day from work, go downtown, wait three hours in the court house for my "case" to come up so I could show the card to the judge and be on my way.

What was I guilty of? Driving a funny looking old car through the town I live in and pay taxes in after midnight on a weekend with out of state plates. I hadn't had a drink, didn't violate any traffic laws, didn't do anything wrong. The officer just didn't like the look of that car in the neighborhood I happened to be driving though. So, no. I'm not a big fan of "officer discretion". Here's an idea, arrest people if you have some proof they've done something illegal, otherwise, stay the hell out of my life. I'll give you a call if I need you.

Really? We want to give our government permission to do more of that crap to us? I'm certainly smart enough not to do this, but we should live in a country where I can politely tell the officer "am I being charged with anything, because otherwise, I'll be on my way now".

Let freedom ring.

Just my luck - the conference center in my building is having a huge law enforcement convention. I figured this out when I came upon traffic that was backed up and saw a police car sitting at our intersection with its blue lights flashing. Apparently, the emergency is that cops might miss the turn.

I guess I'd better not so much as leave my desk without taking ID with me.

Otto Maddox wrote: Just my luck - the conference center in my building is having a huge law enforcement convention. I figured this out when I came upon traffic that was backed up and saw a police car sitting at our intersection with its blue lights flashing. Apparently, the emergency is that cops might miss the turn. I guess I'd better not so much as leave my desk without taking ID with me.

Me and a thousand ranking cops from all over America. Why not? Move confidently into their midst. --Raoule Duke

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

z31maniac wrote: GPS is just trying to protect his Honduran house keeper.

The damn grass ain't going to cut itself!

you should get EmoGrass.

ALA CODE § 32-6-9 : Alabama Code - Section 32-6-9: POSSESSION AND DISPLAY OF LICENSE

Every licensee shall have his license in his immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle and shall display the same, upon demand of a judge of any court, a peace officer or a state trooper. However, no person charged with violating this section shall be convicted if he produces in court or the office of the arresting officer a driver's license theretofore issued to him and valid at the time of his arrest.

So, basically, the law says you need it while you drive. It doesn't say you need it at other times.

FALSE ALARM! Though if you want indications that we're moving in that direction, you won't need to look far.

I'm pretty sure that you can be arrested for vagrancy in many areas if you don't have an ID and access to $20.

In reply to ppddppdd:

Well, except they are already arresting people that apparently were not in cars. That is real nice that you might not get convicted of a crime after they arrest you and haul you off to jail for no reason.

I don't like all the stories about the poor kids who didn't ask for this and now can't go to school. I am sympathetic to them, and hate to see children suffer, but allowing the parents to break the law because the involve their kids is just wrong. Can I rob a bank and then put my daughter on the news crying and hope to get away with it? No way!

So this whole thread was the result of a biased news report written by someone that doesn't understand the law?

That never happens on the internets...........

oldsaw wrote: So this whole thread was the result of a biased news report written by someone that doesn't understand the law? That never happens on the internets...........

Even more upsetting is that I dragged the friggin' 3rd Reich into it and STILL it did not flounder to oblivion. I think the internets have become desensitized.

oldsaw wrote: So this whole thread was the result of a biased news report written by someone that doesn't understand the law? That never happens on the internets...........

Well, I think you are right. This might just be a case of the police not understanding the law and exceeding their authority.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to ppddppdd: Well, except they are already arresting people that apparently were not in cars. That is real nice that you might not get convicted of a crime after they arrest you and haul you off to jail for no reason.

"Apparently" is the buzzword. The reporter who wrote that story never mentioned nor confirmed the circumstances of those 11 arrests. It's nice to have knowledge about heat before jumping into a fire.

Otto Maddox wrote:

oldsaw wrote: So this whole thread was the result of a biased news report written by someone that doesn't understand the law? That never happens on the internets...........

Well, I think you are right. This might just be a case of the police not understanding the law and exceeding their authority.

Is it not possible the police understand the law and the arrested are lacking the knowledge?

The point is that it works both ways. The report is so woefully incomplete on details, it allows and even encourages speculation.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

It isn't upsetting. If they were stopping people on the streets and asking for papers without any probably cause at all, it's cause for a direct comparison to a totalitarian police state.

I would have gone with Stalin, myself.

In reply to oldsaw:

"Police around Alabama are getting trained on how to enforce the state's new law dealing with illegal immigrants.

Attorney General Luther Strange's office has scheduled a law enforcement summit for Thursday in Birmingham that includes a session on the new law.

A spokeswoman for Strange's office says the lesson is closed to the public.

The meeting comes with police around the state already making some arrests under the law. Authorities in Decatur say four people there have been convicted following their arrests during traffic stops.

The head of the Alabama Association of Police Chiefs, Boaz Police Chief Terry Davis, says many law enforcement agencies are eager to receive training on the law since it's complicated and a federal judge allowed only certain parts to go into effect."

This is great. I'd bet you $10 that the enormous swarm of cops in my building are here for that training.

Brett_Murphy wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: I would have gone with Stalin, myself.

A good choice - but like Dennis Richie... nobody remembers what exactly he was responsible for ;)

ppddppdd wrote: ALA CODE § 32-6-9 : Alabama Code - Section 32-6-9: POSSESSION AND DISPLAY OF LICENSE

Every licensee shall have his license in his immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle and shall display the same, upon demand of a judge of any court, a peace officer or a state trooper. However, no person charged with violating this section shall be convicted if he produces in court or the office of the arresting officer a driver's license theretofore issued to him and valid at the time of his arrest.

So, basically, the law says you need it while you drive. It doesn't say you need it at other times. FALSE ALARM! Though if you want indications that we're moving in that direction, you won't need to look far.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that was already a law. Why does it need to be rewritten?

93EXCivic wrote: Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that was already a law. Why does it need to be rewritten?

Not that it's on topic, but I have a problem with that too. I bought and paid for a car. I bought and paid for a registration. I did what was required to get a license. If you suspect I do not have a license, it should be on you to prove it, not on me to prove I have complied with the law. Innocent until proven guilty.

And you guys thought I was so liberal. I have a big load of Libertarian ideas rattling around in my head. It's weird that everyone who calls themself a Libertarian shares so few of my views.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Not that it's on topic, but I have a problem with that too. I bought and paid for a car. I bought and paid for a registration. I did what was required to get a license. If you suspect I do not have a license, it should be on you to prove it, not on me to prove I have complied with the law. Innocent until proven guilty.

So, your tail light is busted or you're going 45 in a 35 zone. Cop pulls you over... You shouldn't have to produce your license? He should have to prove that you don't have one?

Now, a cop stopping someone walking down the street and they happen to not have their ID on them, you shouldn't get in trouble for. A cop should also not be allowed to stop your vehicle unless he notices or has reasonable suspicion that you are violating a law.

But, yeah, if you're operating a car, you should be able to produce License, Registration, and proof of Insurance, since you're required to have all those things. Just like if you run a business, you're required to have a business license and need to produce that if an inspector comes.

Operating a car is a privilege, not a right. Walking around freely is a right, not a privilege.