drainbamage

You are forgetting (again) or just glossing over the probable cause issue. Obviously you want to ignore the fact that it is very vague. There were many, many illegal aliens coming into Arizona on a daily basis. According to the definition of probable cause below, the Sheriff had a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed....that they were ILLEGALLY HERE. Illegally coming to the United States is a CRIME. It was not "racial profiling" it was him doing his job. When he discovered that someone was illegally here, he referred them to ICE (a "competent authority" - see below), as was required BY LAW. Too bad, so sad they didn't like the holding place they had to be put in. There wasn't enough room in the jail because there were TOO MANY of them, so he created Tent City - a place that was far superior than those that our soldiers fighting for our freedom in the Middle East have to live in.

From the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University - Definition of Probable Cause:

DEFINITION

Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Although the Fourth Amendment states that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause", it does not specify what "probable cause" actually means. The Supreme Court has attempted to clarify the meaning of the term on several occasions, while recognizing that probable cause is a concept that is imprecise, fluid and very dependent on context. In Illinois v. Gates, the Court favored a flexible approach, viewing probable cause as a "practical, non-technical" standard that calls upon the "factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men [...] act". Courts often adopt a broader, more flexible view of probable cause when the alleged offenses are serious.

APPLICATION TO SEARCH WARRANTS

Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime being discovered. For a warrantless search, probable cause can be established by in-court testimony after the search. In the case of a warrant search, however, an affidavit or recorded testimony must support the warrant by indicating on what basis probable cause exists.

A judge may issue a search warrant if the affidavit in support of the warrant offers sufficient credible information to establish probable cause. There is a presumption that police officers are reliable sources of information, and affidavits in support of a warrant will often include their observations. When this is the case, the officers’ experience and training become relevant factors in assessing the existence of probable cause. Information from victims or witnesses, if included in an affidavit, may be important factors as well.

The good faith exception that applies to arrests also applies to search warrants: when a defect renders a warrant constitutionally invalid, the evidence does not have to be suppressed if the officers acted in good faith. Courts evaluate an officer’s good faith by looking at the nature of the error and how the warrant was executed.

Wrangler Loc: North Texas

Labor Day weekend, I was stopped by a police sobriety check. I don't know how many, if any, DUI's were issued. Did the police have probable cause to stop people who were not driving erratically?

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

let's see Labor Day weekend... and you live in Texas... I'd say there was a good chance you had been drinking... probability cause? j/k

Wrangler Loc: North Texas

Would that chance be about the same as an Hispanic in Arizona being undocumented/illegal?

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

good one! LOL

drainbamage

I wonder if they found any illegal aliens? Drunk ones??

Wrangler Loc: North Texas

That is an interesting question. They did ask for my drivers license.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

This man understands. This is a thoughtful response to denial and obfuscation.

Let me suggest a google search. Read informed articles--not right-wing screeds, but responsible, reputable journalism--about what this man did. The country paid 148 MILLION dollars in court suits he lost or that were settled because he was about to lose--$148,000,000!

Read up on what he did to innocent people, some US Citizens, people awaiting trial and thus innocent until proven guilty.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Not so vague as you imagine. Courts have ruled in specific instances, clarifying somewhat.

"A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true". Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public.

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar–Spinelli test.

In Brinegar v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court defines probable cause as “where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed.”

Above from Wikipedia.

Arresting people on the basis of ethnicity or language, or appearance of ethnicity is not probable cause.

Would you like to be arrested because of the color of your skin, or your use of a particular language?

If you were arrested on the basis of you eye color or hair color--perhaps the number of criminals arrested who had blue eyes--would you protest?

We had people arrested on their skin color, sent to 'the concentration camp' Before Trial, and thus innocent.

If you find that acceptable, you would have loved Germany in 1938.

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Maybe you should go on Pacer and read the actual rulings, you'd definitely come off as better informed, although your omnipresent rabid Lefty bias will surely still distort your reality.

The contempt charges were based on 3 violations:

1)the Sheriff's Office failed to turn over video evidence that was required before the trial.

2)officials continued to enforce immigration law after Snow barred the practice.

3)that the Sheriff failed to quietly collect evidence after the trial, as Snow had ordered him to do.

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

It's considered a "Terry Stop", and ruled legal by the SCOTUS decades ago.

Wrangler Loc: North Texas

I really don't have a problem with it. I haven't had any alcohol for 30 years, I don't do drugs, I am a legal citizen, my registration and insurance are up to date.

Why do they call it "Terry stop"?

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Speaking of "better informed," consider this, then apologiz:

On May 24, 2013, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law after conducting a bench trial in this matter. (Doc. 579.) The Court held that Defendants’ operations at issue violated the Plaintiff class’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Court permanently enjoined Defendants from the following:

(1) Detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization;

(2) Following or enforcing its “LEAR” policy, as currently written, against any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County;

3) Using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in determining whether to stop any vehicle;

(4) Using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in making law enforcement decisions with respect to whether any Latino occupant of a vehicle may be in the country without authorization;

(5) Detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of the vehicle’s occupants have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law;

(6) Detaining, holding, or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle for violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that the necessary elements of the crime are present; and

(7) Detaining, arresting, or holding persons who are occupants of motor vehicles based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act.

This is all withing quotes from the original court documents, found at

https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/785476/download

let me add point 18 from page 11, thus:

MCSO shall deliver police services consistent with the Constitution and laws of the
United States and State of Arizona, MCSO policy, and this Order, and with current
professional standards. In conducting its activities, MCSO shall ensure that members of
the public receive equal protection of the law, without discriminating based on actual or
perceived race or ethnicity, and in a manner that promotes public confidence.

28. The MCSO shall promulgate a new policy or policies, or will revise its existing policy or
policies, relating to the enforcement of Immigration-Related Laws to ensure that they, at
a minimum:

a. specify that unauthorized presence in the United States is not a crime and does not
itself constitute reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a person has
committed or is committing any crime;

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I would like to see Charles Blow sit down for a televised debate with this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esnfg4aSv9U

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Irrelevant, he was found guilty of contempt on the charges I posted, the actual charges are what matters, but then, even those are irrelevant since he was pardoned on all he was convicted of. And now, the DOJ has filed it's anticipated response, that any further litigation on the issue is a waste of court time since the matter has been rendered moot. Thanks for playing though.