(no subject)

Date: 28/4/10 20:23 (UTC)
Well, based on my own interpretation of the law and the legal definition of "reasonable suspicion" -- no, it doesn't sound like you (for example) going on a morning run would be sufficient enough to justify a stop. So yes, they would first need to have a reasonable suspicion that you were breaking the law- not just a whim or hunch with nothing to back it up.

Stopping a vehicle in which there exists reasonable suspicion of concealing and transporting illegals across the border, however, might apply. Or stopping someone who has some reasonable suspicion of being connected to a gang or drug circle, etc. These are the kinds of situations I interpret from the law, and based on my own knowledge of countries who have similar laws and how they work in practice-- but in truth I can't really answer that until it starts being put into real practice.

What I actually think is going to happen, though, is that the federal government will oppose this law on the grounds that it is not the state's right. It may be overturned, and then we may see immigration reform being raised on a federal level. If I were to guess how this will play out, that would be it.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
26 272829 3031