[gwopy]

SECTION 2B - FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY 20
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 21
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 22
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 23
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE 24
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 25
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

So, it seems that people are worried that LEOs will just be pulling over anyone who looks Latino. The language in that section is pretty fuzzy and could certainly allow for that type of thing to happen.

So, here's how you have "lawful contact" with a LEO.

1). They know you and are coming to collect the $20 you lost to them on the Cubs game.
2). They think you did something illegal. As long as the illegal thing they think you did isn't "[blank]ing while Latino", I don't see the profiling argument holding water here.
3). They think you might know something about something illegal that happened. This is a pretty fuzzy area. This will be a tough place for LEOs to balance the new law with their existing duties.

Thoughts on the two bolded phrases in Section 2B and their interplay with the three ways you have "lawful contact"?

 

[gwopy]

Wow, people on this forum sure know how to shy away from substantive discussions. The Law is right there in the previous post and nobody has the stones to address some very simple points.

Fail.

 

[SurvivalExpert209]

I have heard that it mirrors federal except for above post.

 

[cowboy56]

same as the fed law... not to different...

 

[desertprovender]

Really, I think the bigger of the issues this bill raises is the fact that LEOs are mandated to check for ID "where reasonable suspicion exists." If the bill empowered them to check, that's be fine, but if a LEO fails to check, and a citizen feels that reasonable suspicion was there, the LEO gets sued for failing to do his job. But then, with the new amendments, if a citizen being checked feels that race or ethnicity was a basis for the check, the LEO gets sued for racial profiling. It's a rock and a hard place law for the police.

 

[gwopy]

I have heard that it mirrors federal except for above post.

Yes...of course, the 2B Section is the point of contention.

same as the fed law... not to different...

The second part isn't English.

Really, I think the bigger of the issues this bill raises is the fact that LEOs are mandated to check for ID "where reasonable suspicion exists." If the bill empowered them to check, that's be fine, but if a LEO fails to check, and a citizen feels that reasonable suspicion was there, the LEO gets sued for failing to do his job. But then, with the new amendments, if a citizen being checked feels that race or ethnicity was a basis for the check, the LEO gets sued for racial profiling. It's a rock and a hard place law for the police.

Yeah, I don't think this is a fair position in which to put LEOs. I think the bill is political grandstanding at the expense of LEOs and ordinary citizens.