California Penal Code Section 834b

[chutem 0]

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/834b.html

I'm not a lawyer so I'm probably missing something here, should California be boycotting itself?

James

[Gawain 0]

Quote

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/834b.html

I'm not a lawyer so I'm probably missing something here, should California be boycotting itself?

James

California is already boycotting itself...note the tangle in politicians/debt/and exodus of 3000 people per week....

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/834b.html

I'm not a lawyer so I'm probably missing something here, should California be boycotting itself?

James

California is already boycotting itself...note the tangle in politicians/debt/and exodus of 3000 people per week....

I see now why it is upset - they were embarrassed that they hadn't been following their OWN laws regarding illegal immigration.

I wonder if you can sue the municipalities for not enforcing the laws that they ratified.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Not exactly.

The California law applies to anyone arrested. The cops are supposed to verify the status of anyone they throw in jail.

The Arizona law as originally written applied to anyone Law Enforcement came into contact with during their normal duties. They had to verify the status of anyone they suspected of being illegal no matter what the reason for the contact.

Similar, but Arizona goes quite a bit further.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Not exactly.

The California law applies to anyone arrested. The cops are supposed to verify the status of anyone they throw in jail.

The Arizona law as originally written applied to anyone Law Enforcement came into contact with during their normal duties. They had to verify the status of anyone they suspected of being illegal no matter what the reason for the contact.

Similar, but Arizona goes quite a bit further.

When you are pulled over for speeding or some minor traffic infraction, you are technically under a state of arrest until released at the officer's discretion.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Not exactly.

The California law applies to anyone arrested. The cops are supposed to verify the status of anyone they throw in jail.

The Arizona law as originally written applied to anyone Law Enforcement came into contact with during their normal duties. They had to verify the status of anyone they suspected of being illegal no matter what the reason for the contact.

Similar, but Arizona goes quite a bit further.

i just finished reading the law again - rather the bill as it was - and it seemed to me that a peace officer had the right to stop and question :

Quote

E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.

I don't know if this is the latest version though.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

No. You are then being detained while they conduct their investigation. (or write the ticket)

Arrest is a different thing.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

No. You are then being detained while they conduct their investigation. (or write the ticket)

Arrest is a different thing.

I'm not able to find that definition anywhere - for or against - can you cite where that information can be found?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Here is the "Free Dictionary" definition of Detention.

And that of Arrest

Basically detention means you can't leave.

Arrest means you are going with them. And usually involves being booked into a jail (or similar facility).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Here is the "Free Dictionary" definition of Detention.

And that of Arrest

Basically detention means you can't leave.

Arrest means you are going with them. And usually involves being booked into a jail (or similar facility).

You and I both know that the definitions that the DOT uses in different states differs.
It may very well be that you are in a "State" of arrest without being arrested. Detained, to me, is like incarcerated, or is like " being detained in the county jail."

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[BIGUN 1,486]

Quote

It may very well be that you are in a "State" of arrest without being arrested.

You're thinking about Banesanura and the handcuffs again.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[chutem 0]

I'll agree that the AZ law goes further.

Lets go back to 834b.

Is this law enforced?

Should this law be enforced?

James

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

I'll agree that the AZ law goes further.

Lets go back to 834b.

Is this law enforced?

Should this law be enforced?

James

I think the law enforcement agencies should be federally fined if they DO NOT enforce the law.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Shotgun 1]

Los Angeles has Special Order 40, which seems to prevent the police from enforcing any immigration laws. (And is perhaps in contradiction to the California Penal Code?)

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I'll agree that the AZ law goes further.

Lets go back to 834b.

Is this law enforced?

Should this law be enforced?

James

It is not being enforced. I personally know of people who have been released from police custody in CA who were (and still are not) legal immigrants from MX.

I believe anyone incarcerated who has been shown to not be a legal citizen should be handed over to ICE. I know of one such person who was released because ICE didn't show up the day he was released from jail. State law prevented them from holding him past his release date, and ICE not showing up meant they had to release him.

I'm still undecided on the issue of "when" to release them to ICE. I hate that while in prison my tax dollars are paying to care for them, but I don't want them just released and not punished for their crime.

--
Rob

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I'll agree that the AZ law goes further.

Lets go back to 834b.

Is this law enforced?

Should this law be enforced?

James

It is not being enforced. I personally know of people who have been released from police custody in CA who were (and still are not) legal immigrants from MX.

I believe anyone incarcerated who has been shown to not be a legal citizen should be handed over to ICE. I know of one such person who was released because ICE didn't show up the day he was released from jail. State law prevented them from holding him past his release date, and ICE not showing up meant they had to release him.

I'm still undecided on the issue of "when" to release them to ICE. I hate that while in prison my tax dollars are paying to care for them, but I don't want them just released and not punished for their crime.

I believe there was a suit filed against San Fransisco regarding non enforcement . . .
Cant seem to locate it today though.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I'll agree that the AZ law goes further.

Lets go back to 834b.

Is this law enforced?

Should this law be enforced?

James

I think the law enforcement agencies should be federally fined if they DO NOT enforce the law.

But......gah.....

Perhaps you meant agencies that are federally funded to enforce federal laws should have those funds withheld if they don't enforce said laws?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll agree that the AZ law goes further.

Lets go back to 834b.

Is this law enforced?

Should this law be enforced?

I think the law enforcement agencies should be federally fined if they DO NOT enforce the law.

But......gah.....

Perhaps you meant agencies that are federally funded to enforce federal laws should have those funds withheld if they don't enforce said laws?

I find that claims that they are fined are unfounded if found unfunded. Which is fine.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll agree that the AZ law goes further.

Lets go back to 834b.

Is this law enforced?

Should this law be enforced?

James

I think the law enforcement agencies should be federally fined if they DO NOT enforce the law.

But......gah.....

Perhaps you meant agencies that are federally funded to enforce federal laws should have those funds withheld if they don't enforce said laws?

Blues,
Dave

Yes, that - and more . . .
It has gotten to a point where drastic action is necessary.

If it is the requirement of the law ((a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.)to assist, then you better damn well assist, and not impede,(Special Order 40) or you should be penalized in some way.

I never thought that a city code could supercede state law. Just enforce what is already in place!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll agree that the AZ law goes further.

Lets go back to 834b.

Is this law enforced?

Should this law be enforced?

James

I think the law enforcement agencies should be federally fined if they DO NOT enforce the law.

But......gah.....

Perhaps you meant agencies that are federally funded to enforce federal laws should have those funds withheld if they don't enforce said laws?

Blues,
Dave

Yes, that - and more . . .
It has gotten to a point where drastic action is necessary.

If it is the requirement of the law ((a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.)to assist, then you better damn well assist, and not impede,(Special Order 40) or you should be penalized in some way.

I never thought that a city code could supercede state law. Just enforce what is already in place!

On what authority would the federal government fine a non-federal agency for failure to comply with a non-federal law?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

On what authority would the federal government fine a non-federal agency for failure to comply with a non-federal law?

Blues,
Dave

None yet.

Give that autority to the NIS and see I bet things change, and the INS would have more capital to spend enforcing the laws already in place.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

On what authority would the federal government fine a non-federal agency for failure to comply with a non-federal law?

Blues,
Dave

None yet.

Give that autority to the NIS and see I bet things change, and the INS would have more capital to spend enforcing the laws already in place.

Couldn't California simply repeal the law in question to prevent being fined for failure to comply with it?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

On what authority would the federal government fine a non-federal agency for failure to comply with a non-federal law?

Blues,
Dave

None yet.

Give that autority to the NIS and see I bet things change, and the INS would have more capital to spend enforcing the laws already in place.

Couldn't California simply repeal the law in question to prevent being fined for failure to comply with it?

Blues,
Dave

Anything is possible. Imean they created a special code that violates that law specifically, so why not.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

On what authority would the federal government fine a non-federal agency for failure to comply with a non-federal law?

Blues,
Dave

None yet.

Give that autority to the NIS and see I bet things change, and the INS would have more capital to spend enforcing the laws already in place.

Couldn't California simply repeal the law in question to prevent being fined for failure to comply with it?

Blues,
Dave

Anything is possible. Imean they created a special code that violates that law specifically, so why not.

No, they didn't.

The City of Los Angeles law says they may not initiate police action for the purpose of verifying immigration status.

The state law says that they will verify the immigration status of arrestees whom they suspect of being in violation of immigration law, and cooperate with the INS as appropriate.

These laws are not contradictory.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The state law says that they will verify the immigration status of arrestees whom they suspect of being in violation of immigration law, and cooperate with the INS as appropriate. These laws are not contradictory.

Correct. The CA law requires an arrest first. The AZ law does not; it only requires "suspicion".

Put another way, in CA, it's "check the immigration status of the guy in jail". In AZ, it's "stop & check the immigration status of the brown guy with the leaf-blower."