Comments on: Arizona is wrong and right…here is why… http://jaykersting.com/blog/2010/04/30/arizona-is-wrong-and-right-here-is-why/ The unfiltered goodness that you have come to expect from Jay Kersting. Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:53:39 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Topher Kersting http://jaykersting.com/blog/2010/04/30/arizona-is-wrong-and-right-here-is-why/comment-page-1/#comment-565 Topher Kersting Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:12:08 +0000 http://jaykersting.com/blog/?p=398#comment-565 You're not exactly right on this one. Arizona does have a "stop and identify" law requiring suspects to identify themselves to police. Frankly, a Hispanic standing on a street corner in the morning might reasonably be seen to be looking for day labor, thus, a police officer has the right to "stop and identify." SB1070 (http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf Page 1, Line 20) allows any lawfully detained person, and a "stop and identify" suspect *may* fall into that category, to be detained until immigration status is verified. The question is really about how Arizona handles the combination of "stop and identify" and SB1070--and I don't have much optimism that they won't use "stop and identify" as an excuse to implement SB1070 on a wider range of people than restricting it to obvious criminals alone would do. You’re not exactly right on this one. Arizona does have a “stop and identify” law requiring suspects to identify themselves to police. Frankly, a Hispanic standing on a street corner in the morning might reasonably be seen to be looking for day labor, thus, a police officer has the right to “stop and identify.” SB1070 (http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf Page 1, Line 20) allows any lawfully detained person, and a “stop and identify” suspect *may* fall into that category, to be detained until immigration status is verified.

The question is really about how Arizona handles the combination of “stop and identify” and SB1070–and I don’t have much optimism that they won’t use “stop and identify” as an excuse to implement SB1070 on a wider range of people than restricting it to obvious criminals alone would do.

]]>