You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
ACLU Travel Alert for the State of Arizona - includes "Bust Card" to assist illegal aliens
2010-07-17
Rather than risk infringement I'll just post the link and let you check it out. My how the ACLU is helping illegals cross the border and get away with it. Even includes a Bust Card to help them get away with it. I have no idea why it's in english. Attention wh0ring, maybe?
Posted by:gorb

#2  The Supreme Court has already ruled in Muehler, Darin v. Mena, Iris (03/22/2005).

The Court also concluded that the questioning of Mena about her immigration status also did not violate her 4th Amendment rights.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-07-17 13:17  

#1  Attention whoring. That they called it a "racial profiling" law shows that their information is not directed to illegals, but to agitators.

Amusingly, the advice they give is standard to anyone stopped by the police. However, it is out of date, based on subsequent legal decisions.

When "rules" are established, the police automatically look for ways to obey the rules and still do their job. So they come up with all sorts of "tricks" that eventually have to be adjudicated as to whether they are proper or not.

For instance, when someone asks "Am I being detained?", they don't answer "yes" or "no", but "we'll see" or "maybe, based on your answers".

And your ability to *not* answer questions is inhibited if they have not arrested you. Just because information may not be admissible against you, because you have not been read your rights, it may be very admissible against the person sitting next to you.

There has even been a major court case in which someone gave incriminating evidence during arrest, so it was not admissible, but the police released him from arrest, then used the information to get incriminating evidence, then rearrested him. Since he was not under arrest when they used his information, it was admissible.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-07-17 11:14  

00:00