Arizona should have been, or should be, notified…

posted by Bill Arnett @ 11:55 AM Permalink

…that their reliance on the new law they have enacted regarding the forcing of citizens to "present their papers" on demand based on their appearance is very likely going to be ruled unconstitutional.

Long ago in California there was a man named Edward C. Lawson, a man of color who wore Rastafarian-like braided dreadlocks and who enjoyed taking late night walks in enclaves reserved for the wealthy and "elite" of society, and whom was arrested fifteen times for failing to provide identification upon demand of a peace officer in accordance with California Penal Code Section 647(e).

Edward didn't like that and took his case through various courts which upheld that the rights of a citizen exceeded those of a peace officer arresting a person for merely failing to show identification. It was held, within the framework of that legal term of art, that this was unconstitutional:

A California statute requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer. The California Court of Appeal has construed the statute to require a person to provide "credible and reliable" identification when requested by a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 . The California court has defined "credible and reliable" identification as "carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." Appellee, who had been arrested and convicted under the statute, brought an action in Federal District Court challenging the statute's constitutionality. The District Court held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.…

The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest.…

JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court…

Individual who had been arrested and convicted for violating a California statute requiring persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification and to account for their presence when requested by a police officer, brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the statute's constitutionality. The District Court held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 658 F.2d 1362, affirmed and California officials appealed. The Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor, held that the statute was unconstitutionally vague by failing to clarify what was contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. Affirmed.

Justice Brennan filed a concurring opinion.…

Merely to facilitate the general law enforcement objectives of investigating and preventing unspecified crimes, States may not authorize the arrest and criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to produce identification or further information on demand by a police officer.…

"a person who is stopped on less than probable cause cannot be punished for failing to identify himself."
-- Lawson v. Kolender, 658 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1981)…

In Lawson v. Kolender, for example, the plaintiff had been arrested 15 times under a California vagrancy statute which "require[d] a person to provide reliable identification when requested by a police officer who has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity . . . ." 658 F.2d at 1366. The Ninth Circuit concluded that such a statute violates the Fourth Amendment because it "subverts the probable cause requirement" in that it "authorizes arrest and conviction for conduct that is no more than suspicious." Id. at 1367, quoting in part Powell v. Stone, 507 F.2d 93, 96 (9th Cir. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). As the court explained, "as a result of the demand for identification, the statutes bootstrap the authority to arrest on less than probable cause, and the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification may provide a link leading to arrest." Lawson, 658 F.2d at 1366-1367.Edward Lawson

It should be noted that Mr. Lawson himself, in Pro Per, [generally speaking this means he brought this action himself, without benefit of an attorney. Bill] spit right in the eye of California and had its Penal Code Section 647(e) ruled unconstitutional, and that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld all decisions to that effect in lower courts.

So to the people and right [or is it left?] thinking citizens footing the bill for their state legislators bigotry and ignorance, we folks here in California say, "Been there. Done that." It's a shame that your state will further exhaust the limited funds of your taxes, suffer the humiliation and indignity of having many, many large corporations withdrawing from Arizona or changing their minds about entering into Arizona, and suffer the derision of people who recognize bigotry, bias, and prejudice when they see it.

But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

Ciao, bella âmi.

Labels: arizona, bad laws, bad politicians, big brother, constitution, fear mongering, human rights, lazy uncaring legislators, prejudice, racism, SCOTUS