Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KingofBrown" data-source="post: 749433" data-attributes="member: 28771">No, it isn't articulated in the text of the law. Reasonable Suspicion is a term commonly used in law enforcement and has somewhat binding meaning, yet is subjective on the officer's opinion, with stipulations. This is nothing new. What is new is that the term “Reasonable Suspicion” is used to determine the illegal status of a person.The real question is what criteria is to be used to determine "RS" and how will the LEO's be trained in aspects to this law. One private agency ( sorry I do not remember the name) that formulates education and training programs for law enforcement is working on a program specifically for SB 1070. Exactly what it will entail is not known at this time.I don't know what training Az LEOs go through, but I am sure all the agencies in Az have stringent programs. I do know that in our little sleepy city here, we have a Police Academy that trains all officers. I'm sure the training on "RS" is a very important part of the curriculum.  Wow, I never thought you could agree with me that a law that targets people doesn’t articulate the term “Reasonable Suspicion.” Then, you should now agree that it is a vague and ambiguous law. Cowboy, the training of an officer doesn’t matter much in a court if the law doesn’t articulate its meanings. Police officers have been trained for Reasonable Suspicion way before this law was written. I know that you trust in our officers, and believe they do their jobs correctly, and all that. But, what matters is what is written, not how you guess things will be done. Now, that you’re talking about the training and you seem to know much about it, can you tell me how the “Posse” are trained or how they will be trained. Or if the “Posse” will continue to target illegals at all? A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause" target="_blank">probable cause</a>, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk" target="_blank">stop and frisk</a>, but not a full <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/search" target="_blank">search</a>. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.   Now, with this definition, I’ll ask you once again, how you think this “Reasonable Suspicion” applies to “Reasonable Suspicion” to believe the individual is an illegal immigrant? As you’ve said the meaning is “somewhat” binding, and yet it is subjective on the officer’s opinion. Then, how in the world can you use it to determine the illegal status of a person? “Because the person didn’t show an ID.” “Because of the training of the officer” Don’t you think that a law that targets people must articulate its terms? Terms that are SUBJECTIVE like “Reasonable Suspicion” allow the officer to racial profile when determining the illegal status of a person. 13-2412.Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classificationA. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. </blockquote>

Verification