From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 17:31:40 +0800
To: Mark <mark@lochard.com.au>
Subject: Re: Mandatory ID in California?
In-Reply-To: <199510260643.AA26567@junkers.lochard.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.951026020632.27266W-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Mark wrote:

> >"States may not authorize arrest...for failing to produce identification..."
> >       Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
> >
> >"...may not compel an answer and they must allow the person to leave 
> >after a reasonable brief period of time...."  - - ibid
> 
> How about INS coming into the equation?  Do they have additional powers 
> which let them put your butt in a bad imitation of a farday cage?

The powers of the INS have been the subject of much litigation. I used to
study immigration law and policy, but that part of my brain has fallen
into disuse in the last five years. I could probably dig up some
references from old papers, though. I believe the INS has its own special
definitions of probable cause. 

Section 10 of Proposition 187, which was passed by the ever-so-enlightened
people of California last November, empowers the police to incarcerate
without charge anyone who can not produce the two forms of identification
required to prove legal residence. Fortunately, 187 is so Unconstitutional
on its face that multiple injunctions against the enforcement of every one
of provisions were ordered within 30 minutes of 187's receiving the
Governor's signature. 

Today, many jurisdictions in California prohibit state & local officials
from turning people over to the INS. It's not good for public health and
safety for the alleged illegal people to be afraid to call the cops, or a
doctor. 

-rich