{"id":11580,"date":"2010-05-25T13:14:20","date_gmt":"2010-05-25T13:14:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/05\/25\/another-round-with-reppert-on-az-sb-1070-reasonable-suspicion\/"},"modified":"2010-05-25T13:14:20","modified_gmt":"2010-05-25T13:14:20","slug":"another-round-with-reppert-on-az-sb-1070-reasonable-suspicion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/05\/25\/another-round-with-reppert-on-az-sb-1070-reasonable-suspicion\/","title":{"rendered":"Another Round with Reppert on AZ SB 1070: Reasonable Suspicion"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">In his <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/dangerousidea.blogspot.com\/2010\/05\/fifty-per-cent-solution.html\"><font face=\"Georgia\">most recent post<\/font><\/a><font face=\"Georgia\"> on this topic, Victor Reppert&#0160;tells us that his &quot;main concern is with the &#39;reasonable suspicion&#39; clause. That strikes me as horribly vague.&quot;&#0160; <a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2010\/05\/more-on-immigration-law-arizona-house-bill-2162-response-to-reppert.html\">Here<\/a> is the relevant SB 1070 passage as amended by HB 2162 which contains the clause in question:<\/font><\/p>\n<blockquote dir=\"ltr\">\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">For any lawful <span class=\"O\"><span style=\"COLOR: red\"><span style=\"text-decoration: line-through\">contact<\/span><\/span><\/span> <span class=\"UP\"><span style=\"COLOR: blue\">stop, detention or arrest<\/span><\/span> made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of&#0160;a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state <span class=\"UP\"><span style=\"COLOR: blue\">in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state<\/span><\/span> where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien <span class=\"O\"><span style=\"COLOR: red\"><span style=\"text-decoration: line-through\">who<\/span><\/span><\/span> <span class=\"UP\"><span style=\"COLOR: blue\">and <\/span><\/span>is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.&#0160; <\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p dir=\"ltr\" style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Reppert continues:<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: #bf00bf\">In our state, most illegals are Hispanics, but most Hispanics are not illegals. If you define your conception of what it takes to have reasonable suspicion, and on my blog I made an un-remarked-upon recommendation that <strong>we have reasonable suspicion just in case we have objective criteria leading to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the person is illegal<\/strong>, then you could at least eliminate the worst of the profiling problems. You can&#39;t just stop a Hispanic and make an immigration status inquiry, because being Hispanic is not sufficient for it to be more than 50% likely that the person is here illegally.<\/span> (Emphasis added)<\/font><\/p>\n<p dir=\"ltr\" style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">I believe Reppert is missing the point here.&#0160; I agree with the last quoted sentence.&#0160; But the&#0160; 1070 law does not mandate that Hispanics be stopped at random to have their status checked.&#0160; The law clearly states the conditions under which an immigration inquiry may proceed:<\/font><\/p>\n<p dir=\"ltr\" style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">1. &#0160;There must be a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.<\/font><\/p>\n<p dir=\"ltr\" style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">2. The stop, detention, or arrest must be made in the enforcement of a law other than 1070.<\/font><\/p>\n<p dir=\"ltr\" style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">3.&#0160; There must be reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.<\/font><\/p>\n<p dir=\"ltr\" style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">4.&#0160; The immigration inquiry must be practicable.<\/font><\/p>\n<p dir=\"ltr\" style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">5.&#0160; The immigration inquiry must not hinder or obstruct an investigation.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">I should think that Reppert&#39;s 50% rule is satisfied if all the conditions are observed.&#0160; For example, during a lawful traffic stop, the cop has the right to ask for a driver&#39;s license.&#0160; If the Hispanic driver has no license, no proof of insurance, no registration, has a campesino sticker on his bumper, is driving a junker, etc. &#0160;then the the chance that he is illegal is way over 50%.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">There is a distinction I made earlier which is very important and which Reppert may be ignoring, the distinction between a law and its enforcement.&#0160; If a law is reasonable and just, it is these things whether or not some cowboy of a cop oversteps his&#0160;legitimate &#0160;authority in its enforcement.&#0160; It would be absurd to argue that a particular law should be repealed because there may be abuses in its enforcement.&#0160; For any such argument would &#39;prove too much&#39;: it would prove that every law ought to be repealed.&#0160; For every law is such that an abuse can occur in its enforcement.<\/font><\/p>\n<p dir=\"ltr\" style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\"><\/p>\n<p><\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In his most recent post on this topic, Victor Reppert&#0160;tells us that his &quot;main concern is with the &#39;reasonable suspicion&#39; clause. That strikes me as horribly vague.&quot;&#0160; Here is the relevant SB 1070 passage as amended by HB 2162 which contains the clause in question: For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/05\/25\/another-round-with-reppert-on-az-sb-1070-reasonable-suspicion\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Another Round with Reppert on AZ SB 1070: Reasonable Suspicion&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[131,8,32,153,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arizona","category-crime-and-punishment","category-current-affairs","category-morality-and-legality","category-race"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11580","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}