US Supreme Court Has Less Immigration “Friendly” Standards Than AZ Law
Thanks to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, appearing on today’s O’Reilly Factor, I was alerted to a 2005 Supreme Court Case – Muehler v. Mena, where the court speaks to the right of law enforcement officers to ask for an immigrant’s immigration papers.
Not being a lawyer, I’m not sure I’m interpreting the case correctly, but I’m fairly certain this is the pertinent paragraph:
“The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena’s Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F.3d, at 1264—1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.” Bostick, supra, at 434—435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.”
Read the full decision (which, incidentally, was unanimous) here.
It appears that the AZ law actually places much stricter guidelines on law enforcement officers than does the Supreme Court, as Ms. Kelly correctly pointed out on The Factor today.
ACLU/Liberal Media/Left Wing Propagandists – The ball’s in your court. Who ya gonna boycott now?