ACLU sues state police

[tjm8]

This is a perfict example of why the ACLU is a worthwhile organization. The police have their view of the law and their enforcement proceedures. The guys in the car have a different view. It will be settled in court. What is the alternative? Let the guys go? I don’t like that. The other alternative is to blindly accept the police’s view. I don’t like that either. Where are the checks and ballances? Look what GWB has gotten away with in the past six years without checks and balances.

 

[Richardols]

That’s all fine and good, but on what basis did they challenge these people on their immigration status? If they had no legitimate reason to do so, I think the “fruit of the poison tree” legal doctrine may apply. But then, I’m no lawyer.

Well, I am a lawyer, and it appears from the information in the article that there was no probable cause and that the “bad fruit” doctrine should apply.

 

[Karin]

Well, I am a lawyer, and it appears from the information in the article that there was no probable cause and that the “bad fruit” doctrine should apply.

what is the “bad fruit” doctrine?

 

[Richardols]

I think you are worrying a bit too much. You may get asked for documentation, if you are in a van with 14 Spanish-speaking immigrants. But a person speaking perfect American-accented English? I doubt it.

How would the police know that they are immigrants unless they demanded identification? There’d have to be some probable cause for that.

I often speak in Polish with my mother, even though we’re both native-born and speak perfect English. If a cop stopped me for some traffic violation while she was with me, and she continued to speak with me in Polish, that’s no reason for us to have to prove that we’re citizens.

Police aren’t stupid.

 

[Ituyu]

Why should some Americans or legal aliens have their rights violated because of racial profiling? Is that not what this suit by the ACLU is about?

“The citizenship status of the plaintiffs is really irrelevant to this lawsuit. These were individuals who were in a van that was stopped for a minor traffic violation. The question is whether police have a right to detain individuals for no other reason than the way they look …”

Said Brown, “The law generally prohibits racial profiling on the highways. It prohibits stopping or searching vehicles based on the person’s race or ethnicity, all of which we think were present in this case

The lawsuit alleges that Chabot first confirmed that Tamup’s license and registration were valid and that he had no criminal record.
“Chabot nonetheless proceeded to open the doors of the vehicle, and by utilizing Tamup as a translator, requested all the passengers to also provide identification,” according to an ACLU synopsis of the case. When some failed to do so, Chabot then asked them to produce documents “demonstrating their U.S. citizenship.”
The lawsuit alleges that Chabot first confirmed that Tamup’s license and registration were valid and that he had no criminal record.
“Chabot nonetheless proceeded to open the doors of the vehicle, and by utilizing Tamup as a translator, requested all the passengers to also provide identification,” according to an ACLU synopsis of the case. When some failed to do so, Chabot then asked them to produce documents “demonstrating their U.S. citizenship.”
The lawsuit alleges that Chabot first confirmed that Tamup’s license and registration were valid and that he had no criminal record.
“Chabot nonetheless proceeded to open the doors of the vehicle, and by utilizing Tamup as a translator, requested all the passengers to also provide identification,” according to an ACLU synopsis of the case. When some failed to do so, Chabot then asked them to produce documents “demonstrating their U.S. citizenship.”
Then, the lawsuit states, Chabot instructed Tamup, the driver, that he was responsible for the vehicle’s passengers, and that if any passenger attempted to escape from the van en route to Providence, that passenger would be “shot.”

The lawsuit argues that the actions by the state police “violated the state’s Racial Profiling Prevention Act, as well as the driver’s and passengers’ constitutional rights to be free from discrimination and from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

I’ve visited both New Port and Providence in Rhode Island. Though I was very careful to use my turn signals, it was mostly because I was in unfamiliar territory. However, many people did not use them at all. Why were these people singled out? Hopefully we will find out through this law suit.

Does the government have the right to break Civil Rights Laws, a serious crime, in order to seek to enforce other less serious laws? No it doesn’t!! Is that what happened here? Let’s find out.

 

[jc-servant]

How would the police know that they are immigrants unless they demanded identification? There’d have to be some probable cause for that.

I often speak in Polish with my mother, even though we’re both native-born and speak perfect English. If a cop stopped me for some traffic violation while she was with me, and she continued to speak with me in Polish, that’s no reason for us to have to prove that we’re citizens.

We don’t have the full facts from a mere news story, so we cannot judge if the officer had the goods or not.

If I had pulled you over for a traffic violation when I was an officer and you could not speak English, then I would have to wonder about your status in the country and whether or not you have a valid license. It does not matter what you had been speaking to your passenger if you could produce the appropriate documents (DL and insurance) and provide the info required for the citation. If you cannot provide the info or communicate sufficiently with the officer that they can ensure you are going to appear in court for the offense, then in some states they don’t have to allow you to drive away. Signing the citation is a promise to appear and basically using your signature as a personal bond. If you act like you don’t understand, then they may take you in and make you post an actual cash bond or appear before a magistrate before being released.

I had a number of people who went beserk over a citation or who actually said that they were going to throw it away and never show up. Guess who got to wear the shiny bracelets and take a ride in my patrol car. BTW, I figured out pretty fast that it was not worth messing with ICE about possible illegal people because they wouldn’t come get a nonviolent offender anyway.

 

[jc-servant]

I noticed that the news story did not say how many people the van was made to hold. Fourteen people could be in a 15 passenger van, but most vans are smaller and 14 people in them would certainly raise red flags with an officer even if they could not see it until after the initial stop was made. I used to stop people (of any color) who had too many passengers in their vehicle or any child who was unrestrained. I also had occasions where I could not see something wrong inside the vehicle until after the stop was made for something else.

I’m well aware that racial profiling does occur. I’m a black woman who worked as a police officer and then a prosecutor. I just wonder what actually went on in this case that it got the ACLU’s attention. I’ve noticed in recent years that they will take some questionable (IMO) cases that they would not have touched many years ago.

Until I’m given good reason to doubt them, I tend to give an officer the benefit of the doubt. I racked up literally 100 ridiculous and unfounded complaints from people I cited in my 1st year working in a tiny little wealthy city where I was the 1st racial minority officer and only the 3rd woman officer. I never lost my temper, cursed or beat anyone although at times it was tempting.

One man called me the Nazi police in a complaint letter because I cited him for doing 75 in a 20mph park zone where children were playing peewee soccer. I guess he didn’t know there were no black Nazis. People cursed, damaged the police car and did other crazy things and conveniently forgot their actions when complaining. I had to wear a body microphone for my own protection at all times (pre car video days). Knowing how many odd things happen during police contacts, I really like to have all the facts before judging.

 

[rlg94086]

They wouldn’t, of course.

I am not a lawyer or in law enforcement, and I also don’t know enough about the case to know what clued the officer into their potential illegal status. For example, did the van have out-of-state plates? This is not mentioned in the article, so I don’t know. If I pulled over a van full of spanish-speaking people with Texas plates in Rhode Island, that would be suspect.

Like I said, police are not stupid, so I don’t think they would treat an individual speaking Polish to their grandmother the same as a whole van full of non-English speakers.

Now, all that said, it is my personal opinion that they probably pulled them over with the intent to check documentation. Why? Because it is rare to pull someone over for failure to use a turn signal, unless they almost caused an accident. Again, maybe it is different in Rhode Island.

I think if the police thought the van was suspect, then there are probably more legal ways to handle the situation - follow them? Submit the license plate to INS for investigation? Etc.

How would the police know that they are immigrants unless they demanded identification? There’d have to be some probable cause for that.

I often speak in Polish with my mother, even though we’re both native-born and speak perfect English. If a cop stopped me for some traffic violation while she was with me, and she continued to speak with me in Polish, that’s no reason for us to have to prove that we’re citizens.

 

[TheGarg]

That’s all fine and good, but on what basis did they challenge these people on their immigration status? If they had no legitimate reason to do so, I think the “fruit of the poison tree” legal doctrine may apply. But then, I’m no lawyer.

I don’t think they need one, you are describing a fantasy world. I know the cops have pulled me over when they want to, and they will find a reason, like it or leave it.

the ACLU will burn in Hell hopefully one day…with it’s master, the Father of Lies

 

[Ituyu]

We don’t have the full facts from a mere news story, so we cannot judge if the officer had the goods or not.

If I had pulled you over for a traffic violation when I was an officer and you could not

 

[Jeffrey]

Oh brother

Another aclu lawsuit. Too bad they get to sue for overpriced attorney fees.

WanderAimlessly:

 

[Jeffrey]

Not even close… the aclu is pretty much worthless… esp considering all of the fiverlous(SP?) lawsuits… and trying remove Jesus from everything.

This is a perfict example of why the ACLU is a worthwhile organization. The police have their view of the law and their enforcement proceedures. The guys in the car have a different view. It will be settled in court. What is the alternative? Let the guys go? I don’t like that. The other alternative is to blindly accept the police’s view. I don’t like that either. Where are the checks and ballances? Look what GWB has gotten away with in the past six years without checks and balances.

 

[Digitonomy]

Not even close… the aclu is pretty much worthless… esp considering all of the fiverlous(SP?) lawsuits… and trying remove Jesus from everything.

Although you say you disagree with tjm8, you didn’t really contest any of the points he made.

 

[Ituyu]

I don’t always agree with the ACLU but one cannot deny that it has been involved in and won some very significant cases pertaining to racial discrimination and the Bill of Rights. Were those cases frivolous?

 

[thechrismyster]

what the heck is the ACLU doing???

ensuring that their funding from minority special interest groups doesn’t dry up anytime soon.

it’s never because of the morals, its ALWAYS because of the money.

sad, really.

 

[Richardols]

If I had pulled you over for a traffic violation when I was an officer and you could not speak English, then I would have to wonder about your status in the country and whether or not you have a valid license. It does not matter what you had been speaking to your passenger if you could produce the appropriate documents (DL and insurance) and provide the info required for the citation.

Yes, but the particular case goes beyond the basics of the traffic stop procedures you described.

And speaking English is not an impediment to getting a license. I know that in Illinois, you can take the driving exam and driving test in several languages. As an attorney, I had to defend a fellow in a DUI case where the court had to provide a Polish language interpreter. Someone recommended me as a defense attorney because I spoke the language. The fellow had a totally valid Illinois driving license and didn’t have to speak any English to get it.

 

[pnewton]

I bet the ACLU loses this one. Here is why. An internal review revealed that the officer acted in accord with policy. Most policies are already reviewed by attorneys to make sure that they are contstitutional. The procedure sounds similar to what ICE uses as criteriea for detention. I take the US Attorney General over the radical and wacky ACLU anyday. The AG tries to follow the law, while the ACLU is always trying to re-write our democracy.

A policeman may ask for ID. It 14 out of 14 people that spoke no English in a van all said they had no ID (not that they did not wish to present it, or they left it, they did not have ID), that would constitute PC for detention (not arrest).

Question, 14 people in a van. No one speaks english. No one has any form of ID. How many times would this scenario be because of some other reason than they were here illegally? One out of twenty? Less? Then PC exists.

 

[kesa82]

The AG tries to follow the law,

Which it strove mightly to overturn and change and succeeded in doing yesturday. Who has been trying to re-write the rules? I’ve read all about colonial America, and I don’t recall any internal passports then, or advocacy or justifieing of them then. I thought the truth needed no embellishment?

By the way, I don’t like the ACLU either, they are like the police and the unions, when somebody genuinely needs help, they never seem to be there.

 

[pnewton]

The AG tries to follow the law,

Which it strove mightly to overturn and change and succeeded in doing yesturday. Who has been trying to re-write the rules? I’ve read all about colonial America, and I don’t recall any internal passports then, or advocacy or justifieing of them then. I thought the truth needed no embellishment?

This is a new suit in which there was no decision. What are you talking about “yesterday”? If who are claiming I lied, then please specify where and cease the vague accusations. I was only addressing the PC issue.

 

[Ituyu]

A policeman may ask for ID. It 14 out of 14 people that spoke no English in a van all said they had no ID (not that they did not wish to present it, or they left it, they did not have ID), that would constitute PC for detention (not arrest).

Question, 14 people in a van. No one speaks english. No one has any form of ID. How many times would this scenario be because of some other reason than they were here illegally? One out of twenty? Less? Then PC exists.

Speaking Spanish is against no law. Speaking Spanish is also no indicator of “illegal” status. The infraction involved had nothing to do with them. So where is the PC? This officer went over and beyond in my opinion.