Living in Laughlin part of the year, I drive up to Vegas a lot. Over the course of 20 years, I have been stopped by THREE different agencies on US 95, 1) Nevada Highway Patrol, 2) 2) Clark County Sheriffs & 3) Vegas Metro Police.
The CCS asked me for my DL & then asked my GF for hers. She didn't have it. They asked for her SS#. She said she didn't want to give it. They said by law anyone in a vehicle had to have an ID & show it. I told him it wasn't true & he said it was. She gave him the SS#. They told me they pulled me over cause I was in a van with tinted windows with Florida plates. Seemed completely arbitrary.
Later I was pulled over by NHP for doing 75 in a 65, (I got a warning as the Interstates there ARE 75). I asked him about needed to give the CCS my GF's SS. He said that that was BS.
The Metro guy pulled me over for having a light out. He didn't even ask my GF for anything. Gave me a fix it ticket.
So it seems that each dept or maybe even each officer has a different interpretation of the law. Hopefully the AZ will keep it real simple like the books say.
the AZ law doesn't increase the chance of that happening. How do I know this? See my above posts. IT ALREADY HAPPENS NOW & I am as white looking as they come. Nevada is the land of the paranoid evidently as anything unusual gets looked at. I even had my own van orange-stickered for removal as it "hadn't moved in a long time" & it had out of state plates.
In Florida, 30% of the plates ARE out of state. No cares or thinks twice about it.
The Patroit Act made people unnecessarily paranoid I think. The AZ IM Law I think is different as there was Fed law NO ONE was enforcing. To call someone racist, just because they want to enforce a law locally that no one is enforcing Federally is just INSANE.
If there are abuses because of the AZ IM Law, I would be one of the 1st to point this out.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
However, let me clarify. Remember I retired a few years ago from an agency in California. While some of this conversation is specific to Arizona some of it is general in nature so that's pretty much where I fit in.
Notwithstanding several exceptions, in general terms the passengers of a car stopped for a motor vehicle violation are not detained. However the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled clearly, due to the inherent dangers of a motor vehicle stop, officers may take reasonable steps to control the area surrounding the stop for officer safety purposes. Therefore an officer has some latitude to place some restrictions on passengers.
If I do not have a reasonable suspicion to detain a passenger I might have some difficulty in finding cause to 'demand' ID. But I can always request it. The ID does not always have to be hard copy, it can be verbal and I usually try to verify it with some paperwork in their pocket or by interviewing the other occupants. If the name the passenger gives does not match the name others in the car say is his name---then we might very will be headed into a detention and it gives me more authority to investigate further.
Now if a passenger flat out refuses to identify himself/herself the situation will dictate what I can or can not do. I've let people go (two Hells Angels in one specific case) because I did not have enough to pursue a more intrusive investigation. I know in my heart of hearts those HA's were dirty but I didn't cross the line to dirty search them (interesting subject though).
Now I know this will be controversial, but I get the impression that many posts here are from people who don't have a firm grip of reality. I didn't work Mayberry RFD nor do most cops we're talking about. The highest percentage of stops and contacts I made were with dangerous and risky people. Only a few of my calls dealt with true 'victims' but unfortunately most contacts were adversarial from the start. And honestly, it isn't because of an over-officious nature of the investigating officer. Most of my victims were my suspects yesterday or tomorrow. For example a dirtbag slinging dope on the corner gets jacked and shot, a residential drive-by victim is because he and his girl (who are both probably on parole or probation) for not paying their dope bill or for eye-f--cking the wrong people, or plain gang bangers cruising for trouble and get car-jacked or ambushed at an intersection. (We actually had to close a sub-station in a crime ridden neighborhood because the thugs were doing drive-bys on us and it was just too fricking dangerous to be there. A Savings and Loan on my beat actually stopped carry cash and only dealt with documents. If a customer wanted to deposit or withdraw they had to use the ATM which was located in the alley BEHIND the S&L!)
Most of the cops are doing their job and doing the best they can to protect their self and partner. They ID people so they know who, why and where they talked to someone (competing an FI card) because who knows that in the next hour or next day you find out a shooting happened earlier and the car (and occupants) were involved. By the way, this is very similar to how the gangsters were caught for murder after shooting up the 'thug-wanna-be' Tupoc's rap concert.
Anyway, there are a lot of law abiding citizens who are treated respectfully and properly by the cops. Some here have pointed out the AZ law is actually more restrictive than the federal laws and that's even the analysis I've heard too. I realize many posters are worried about that dreaded slippery slope but I just don't see it realistically playing out that way...partially because of my own bias of having walked a few miles in my own shoes. But I do understand the genuine concern.
One of America's national organizations fighting against illegal immigration is announcing that 17 states are now filing versions of Arizona's SB 1070 law which is designed to help local police enforce America's existing immigration laws.
Numerous national and local polls indicated that 60-81% of Americans support local police enforcing immigration laws.
"Our national network of activists have been working overtime trying to help the state of Arizona and the brave Arizonans who have passed this bill," said William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC. "Arizona no longer stands alone and we have now documented state lawmakers filing, or announcing they will file, versions of the Arizona bill in seventeen states! We will not stop until all states are protected from invasion as required by the US Constitution."
ALIPAC has documented the following 17 states are following Arizona's lead in response to citizen pressure.
ARKANSAS, IDAHO, INDIANA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) has helped to pass some form of immigration enforcement legislation in over 30 states, while the group has also gained a national reputation for defeating legislation designed to give licenses, in-state tuition, and other taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens in 20 states.
ALIPAC's President, William Gheen is a former campaign consultant, Legislative Assistant, state lobbyist, and Assistant Sgt-At-Arms staffer in North Carolina who has turned his local experiences into a political battle plan by driving the national operations of ALIPAC.
"The Federal government has been hijacked by special interests that are neglectful of their duties and even hostile towards the rightful citizens of America," said William Gheen. "It is incumbent upon our states to protect American lives, property, jobs, wages, security, and health, when the Executive Branch fails to honor its Constitutional responsibility to do so by enforcing our existing border and immigration laws."
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC lobbied state lawmakers and AZ Governor Jan Brewer to pass SB 1070, which strictly prohibits racial profiling while empowering local police officers to enforce immigration laws.
ALIPAC's activists have been working for almost four weeks now to encourage state lawmakers across the nation to file versions of SB 1070, to help alleviate boycotts and other political antagonism towards Arizona. Citizen activist are being asked to call, e-mail, visit, and fax their state lawmakers to encourage them to support existing SB 1070 type bills or to file them as soon as possible.