Thread: AZ: Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling

You should post this in your other Arizona Bill. You know, the one where you're caught red handed (again), being a fucking hack.

I won't dignify this with a response except I will ask if you understand the nature of a discussion?

Frivolous lawsuits prove conservatives wrong?

He didn't own shit

He provided more than enough ID.

That wasn't the point of the cartoon.

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. If it is a violent crime (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officer's safety is paramount and have allowed for a "frisk" of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only. In the city of New York, once a person is released in a reasonable suspicion stop, a "stop, question and frisk report" is filled out and filed in the command that the stop occurs.

Not for that reason, no.

Not when you drive commercial. But driving commercial (near/across borders or otherwise) isn't a "right".

This is what the court deemed to be "reasonable suspicion"