Trump pardons Sheriff Joe

[2A_Tom]

You lawyers, Sheesh!

Terms Used In Indiana Code 9-30-2-2

• arrest: Taking physical custody of a person by lawful authority.

We underlings, commoners, proles and subhumans kinda like plain simple english.

ETA Cite:
https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/indiana/in-code/indiana_code_9-30-2-2

 

[Fargo]

You lawyers, Sheesh!

Terms Used In Indiana Code 9-30-2-2

• arrest: Taking physical custody of a person by lawful authority.

We underlings, commoners, proles and subhumans kinda like plain simple english.

ETA Cite:

http://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-30-2-2.html

9-30-2-2 is a statute defining the "lawful authority" of a police officer to make an arrest under title 9. Start with Davis v. State, 858 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). And work your way through the citations in it if you actually want to understand what I'm saying.

 

[Expat]

Is this lawsplaing?

 

[KLB]

Is this lawsplaing?

Is it any wonder that lawyers are ?

 

[2A_Tom]

9-30-2-2 is a statute defining the "lawful authority" of a police officer to make an arrest under title 9. Start with Davis v. State, 858 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). And work your way through the citations in it if you actually want to understand what I'm saying.

That was the law you cited. Goalposts? LAWYERS! SHEESH!

 

[HoughMade]

Is it any wonder that lawyers are ?

Not all the crazy people can be homeless.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What?

Please clarify.

You can not redefine words to suit your agenda.

ar·rest
əˈrest/
verb

• 1.
  seize (someone) by legal authority and take into custody.

False arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges he or she was held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

[/COLOR]

So you up to speed yet?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

And what do you think the police should be able to do near one of these "known illegal-immigrant day-labor site"?

Ask any Hispanic person for ID? Check everyone for ID?

Stop any car driven by a Hispanic to check for citizenship?

Grab anyone that tries to leave when the police show up, since they are probably illegal?

A large group gathered at Lowes/Home Depot, jumping into the back of trucks every morning is pretty good "reasonable suspicion" that hiring of illegals is going. So, asking for identification of everyone present is within the law. Some states, like Indiana, if not operating a motor vehicle only require verbally providing name, address and DOB, I don't know what Arizona's is.

Folks who slowly walk away should be detained only long enough to obtain ID information. Those who run then give probable cause for following and detaining to obtain ID information.

For good measure, I would recommend "planting" an undercover officer or CI in the crowd to verify what is going on... note that even beyond hiring illegals, paying cash, under the table, for labor may also violate laws, even if the laborer is legally present and allowed to work.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yeah, that incorrect. First, Melendres was in a vehicle that he was a passenger in, when it was stopped. The "reason" the vehicle was stopped was due to exceeding the speed limit. If you were correct that RS, to detain, existed simply by being at the location you indicated, then why is the traffic stop added for justification? You don't need several types of RS, one will do just fine. Magic question: Does LE have the right to compel a passenger of a legally stopped vehicle to identify himself? Further, according to the deputy that made the arrest due to the Melendes being at a "location known to be frequented by illegal-immigrant day workers," (which I can't source) his official court documented statement was "...some type of criminal activity could have been occurring out of that parking lot." "Could have," kinda indicates (at least to me), that he zero reasonable suspicion, and I'd love to see the judge who lets a "could have" meet the standards of RS or PC... coppers, lawyers?

I've never heard that LE or prosecutors have to limit themselves to ONE piece of evidence only. It's always been assumed that more is better, except here, for some inexplicable reason. Strange.

Anyhow, the fact that Melendres got into the truck dispels the notion that he was an "innocent bystander"... that he just went to Lowes (or wherever) to get a toilet plunger, and was chatting with a friend when he was taken into custody.

And further Joe Arpaio stated, publicly (also documented by the court), that his deputies could detain people based on their "speech, what they look like, if they look like they came from another country." So mea culpa. It isn't just about skin color.... if you have an accent, you can be detained too.

Here look at the documents yourself.
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document...-sanctions-regarding-adverse-inferences-trial

I haven't read this, but most "busts" are just reasonable suspicion detentions where the suspect voluntarily talks and basically confesses.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A large group gathered at Lowes/Home Depot, jumping into the back of trucks every morning is pretty good "reasonable suspicion" that hiring of illegals is going. So, asking for identification of everyone present is within the law. Some states, like Indiana, if not operating a motor vehicle only require verbally providing name, address and DOB, I don't know what Arizona's is.

Folks who slowly walk away should be detained only long enough to obtain ID information. Those who run then give probable cause for following and detaining to obtain ID information.

For good measure, I would recommend "planting" an undercover officer or CI in the crowd to verify what is going on... note that even beyond hiring illegals, paying cash, under the table, for labor may also violate laws, even if the laborer is legally present and allowed to work.

Lol, no it's not... well, not legally.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I've never heard that LE or prosecutors have to limit themselves to ONE piece of evidence only. It's always been assumed that more is better, except here, for some inexplicable reason. Strange.

Anyhow, the fact that Melendres got into the truck dispels the notion that he was an "innocent bystander"... that he just went to Lowes (or wherever) to get a toilet plunger, and was chatting with a friend when he was taken into custody.



I haven't read this, but most "busts" are just reasonable suspicion detentions where the suspect voluntarily talks and basically confesses.

Yep, nothing says great policing like having a reason to stop someone, who you think is a criminal, and then allowing them to enter a vehicle and it drive away because you want another reason to stop them. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Lol, no it's not... well, not legally.

You missed the point that the "employers" are also breaking the law by paying cash "under the table" avoiding taxes in addition to hiring illegals. And, an undercover cop or CI in the crowd to verify THAT is what is happening.

And, as a follow-up, although SCOTUS threw out much of Arizona SB 1070 they left Section 2 in place, which allowed Arizona officers to determine immigration status during an otherwise legitimate stop, detention, arrest.

 

[Fargo]

That was the law you cited. Goalposts? LAWYERS! SHEESH!

And the case I cited is one of the court's decision giving the definition of the words used...

If you don't have an interest in understanding legal definitions within varying contexts, maybe don't go telling other people that they are using the word wrong?

 

[Fargo]

You missed the point that the "employers" are also breaking the law by paying cash "under the table" avoiding taxes in addition to hiring illegals. And, an undercover cop or CI in the crowd to verify THAT is what is happening.

And, as a follow-up, although SCOTUS threw out much of Arizona SB 1070 they left Section 2 in place, which allowed Arizona officers to determine immigration status during an otherwise legitimate stop, detention, arrest.

No he didn't, he pointed out that what you thought was reasonable suspicion legally isn't. Also, you are dead wrong on Indiana's identification statute.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yep, nothing says great policing like having a reason to stop someone, who you think is a criminal, and then allowing them to enter a vehicle and it drive away because you want another reason to stop them. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Transporting illegal aliens for financial gain is a federal crime with harsh penalties... it's human trafficking, not immigration enforcement.

 

[Trigger Time]

So, you would throw out the Republic to save it?

Still within the law and I believe necessary. We have courts abusing power and overstepping their role and disobeying law. We have congress not doing their mandated job. We have presidents that ignore courts and Congress and sign secret executive orders which are not within the scope of the constitution. We have groups within our own country that falsely use freedom of speech to overthrow the government and perpetrate act of violence/Terror and politicians who are too scared to allow the police to enforce the law and do their jobs so they watch.
Yes I would do it to reset things.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

No he didn't, he pointed out that what you thought was reasonable suspicion legally isn't. Also, you are dead wrong on Indiana's identification statute.

You are both right, a CI in the crowd who tells the police that the employers are hiring and transporting illegals for labor, paying cash, no taxes, at an illegally low wage is PROBABLE CAUSE for the arrest of the "employer" for human trafficking. And, once the truck is stopped, the SCOTUS allowed section 2 of SB 1070 allows Arizona officers to determine immigration status, even without 287g powers.

 

[Trigger Time]

Is it any wonder that lawyers are ?

The law is whatever they argue it is

 

[Kutnupe14]

Transporting illegal aliens for financial gain is a federal crime with harsh penalties... it's human trafficking, not immigration enforcement.

Wut? Are you clear that workers involved in human trafficking aren't treated as criminals, but rather victims? Are you saying that the officer that arrested the legal resident, did so to save him because he though he was a victim? C'mon man.

 

[Trigger Time]

All I want to know is when will the government issue me my illegal immigrant hunting license. I'll handle rounding them up.
Should be allowed to just like a bounty hunter
Trump should go on tv, and swear in via tv every citizen that wants in on the action.