I said outside an office building, not on a public street. Police have detained people for that for a long time now, its called suspicious activity and you don't have to be hispanic to be accused of it. I know its crazy right?
Ok. But for it to actually stand up in court, they MUST have "an articulable level of suspicion". Otherwise anything they did find gets thrown out.
"I saw him standing outside an office building" doesn't cut it.
"I saw him standing on a corner known to be used by drug dealers AND he looked suspicious in his mannerisms after he noticed me WHICH INCLUDED him walking so as to avoid me WHILE putting his hands in his pockets as if he had something he wanted to conceal inside AND having a general demeanor which can be described EXACTLY as such and such" is what it takes.
That link I posted about went "They were KNOWN to be drug dealers on a corner KNOWN to be a location for dealing drugs" and it was thrown out.
But I would like to point out that THAT REASONING IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT. They are arguing field preemption.
Well, at least we can have a rational discussion like adults about all of this without threatening to kill each other. I mean, all the thrustbucket con law warriors out there that love and cherish America and the Constitution at least understand the reasoning of the court, which is clearly in line with precedent. Right?
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton received hundreds of threats at her court offices within hours of her ruling last week on Arizona's tough and controversial immigration law.