Well, now... if we are going to start talking about HOW law enforcement establishes suspicion, let's look at the legality of it. I'll reference the Hester Law Group website which seems to have it down pat: Reasonable suspicion is a fundamental legal concept that plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system. It is a standard of proof that allows law enforcement officers to stop, question, and, in certain situations, conduct searches of individuals. This blog post aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of what reasonable suspicion is, its legal framework, and its significance in law enforcement. What is Reasonable Suspicion? Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that falls between mere speculation or hunch and probable cause, which is a higher standard. It is a subjective assessment made by law enforcement officers that is based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts. These facts may lead an officer to suspect that an individual is, has been, or is about to be involved in criminal activity. Key Elements of Reasonable Suspicion Specific, Articulable Facts: To establish reasonable suspicion, law enforcement officers must rely on concrete facts, not just vague suspicions, or general hunches. These facts can be obtained through observations, information from informants, or other credible sources. Reasonable Inferences: Officers should be able to draw reasonable inferences from the facts presented. This means that the officer's suspicion must be grounded in logic and supported by the available evidence. Criminal Activity: The suspicion should be based on a belief that the individual is, has been, or will be involved in criminal activity. It cannot be based on lawful, innocent behavior. https://www.hesterlawgroup.com/blog/2023/october/what-is-reasonable-suspicion-/#:~:text=Specific, Articulable Facts: To establish,informants, or other credible sources.
Well technically, not speaking English (or speaking poor or broken English) is not probable cause because there are no laws or regulations that require it. It would actually fall under reasonable suspicion and, especially in the context of immigration enforcement, it would allow detainment to verify identity.
US citizens are required to have Identification if they drive, 2 forms to open a Post Office Box, open a bank account, the list goes on and on. If you don’t carry an ID it’s foolish. Non- Us individuals that are here legally are required to have identification on or with them.
ID alone isn't proof of citizenship. There has to be other evidence. It can't be speaking non-english + not giving ID. That's why we have a bunch of US citizens being inadvertently rounded up by ICE. Foolish or not, it's their rights being violated. Think there might be a law or maybe amendnent against the effective criminalization of speaking non-english in public?
Obviously you must have a reading comprehension problem. You quoted what I posted but didn’t understand for some reason. Liberal bias? [QUOTE="GeneWright, post: There has to be other evidence. It can't be speaking non-english + not giving ID. That's why we have a bunch of US citizens being inadvertently rounded up by ICE. Foolish or not, it's their rights being violated. Think there might be a law or maybe amendnent against the effective criminalization of speaking non-english in public?[/QUOTE] Look, as I stated before it’s not a violation of law to not speak English. Just exactly how many people have been arrested, it takes probable cause to arrest someone. Reliable sources of large numbers? If you are driving with a tag light out then a law enforcement officer has reasonable cause to pull you over (detain you). If you don’t have your state issued driver’s license and they cannot confirm your identity, insurance status, or legal status to drive a vehicle they can arrest you and impound your vehicle. It happens everyday to American PWG’s just driving to and from work.
It's not nearly as complicated as you make it out to be. Inconvenient, yes. Complicated? No. All non-citizens are obligated to carry identification on them. Moreover, there are 7 states in which all persons must carry identification, including US citizens. I have Real ID, but a lot of Americans still do not. All states issue Real ID compliant driver's licenses, but not all states require Real ID as yet. Even if I didn't have Real ID, I could rattle off various accounts / businesses that could be checked to establish my citizenship easily enough . . . SSAN, Banks, my accountant, the DMV, the Municipal Tax Office, etc. All states issue Real ID compliant driver's licenses, but it will take some time for the balance of the population to get on board. If any American citizen is concerned about being questioned about their identity for whatever reason, I wholeheartedly suggest getting one. Besides, it streamlines slow procedures in other areas of one's life . . . air travel in particular. Someone with my name used to be on a no-fly list, which was inconvenient for me, and I couldn't wait to get mine. In the USA, you are one of 3 things: A US citizen, with identification, tax history, verifiable accounts, etc. I imagine the number of US citizens who do not speak English scarcely outnumbering those having three eyes and farts that don't smell. A foreign visitor / worker carrying government-issued documentation that they were granted legal entry. Some foreigners speak English, and some do not. A foreign national who crossed our border illegally, and cannot produce such documentation. Again, some foreigners speak English, and some do not. Those who do might more easily slip through the cracks, or take longer to catch. Since those who would cut the line to enter our country apparently do so because they lack the patience and resolve to do things the right way, I think using spoken-English is not only legal, but the most applicable way of establishing probable cause. In cases where someone claims to have such documentation, but forgot it, maybe officers should be empowered to attach GPS monitors to suspects until the documentation is produced and found satisfactory.
Shadup! The left doesn’t want facts, they want feel good speech. Maybe this is why they oppose voter ID??? Heck, for those who served, where did you carry your ID?
Possibly, but you can't check those on the fly, which you seem to understand based on: It's a bit dehumanizing though. I'd rather put the burden of evidence on the officer making the arrest than random citizens be punished for their hunches. First amendment says no
Care to debate? I have already explained to you the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Dehumanizing has nothing to do with the law, It’s Made up crap by leftist that haven’t been subjected to crimes.
An officer can indeed call in and check on such information real-time, much as he can stop a car and run its plates, check for outstanding warrants, confirm insurance coverage, etc. Of course you would . . . Anything to afford illegals another opportunity to slip between the fingers of justice. You obviously fail to grasp the intent of The First Amendment.
For the last time! Probable cause and reasonable suspicion is not the same. Drive a vehicle in the US without your Drivers license and tell how that works out.
