Yes, Virginia. Yes we can!

[skidmark]

http://www.oag.state.va.us/OPINIONS/2010opns/10-047-Marshall.pdf

Virginia AG says Virginia law enforcement officers - but not zoning enforcement staff - may arrest for criminal violation of Federal immigration law, as well as inquire of immigration status of persons detained/arrested for other criminal acts.

Well written opinion. And a good example of how to ask the question in order to best assure getting the answer you hope for.*

stay safe.


* In the Virginia forum we have had a prolonged discussion about the interpretation of the state firearms preemption law and related issues. There has been some back-and-forth about if an AG's opinion should be sought on the matter, with certain individuals (your correspondent) cautioning that the question needs to be carefully crafted to best asssure getting the hoped-fopr response, as opposed to an Opinion that was not supportive of the OC movement/2A because of how it was worded.

 

[VFORVENDETTA]

Az tried it and they FAILED!

 

[skidmark]

Az tried it and they FAILED!

No. Arizona passed a specific law telling its cops what to do. Virginia's AG just opines that cops can do what cops are supposed do, and clarifies that zoning enforcement folks are not LEOs.

Big difference.

Federal judge told Arizona parts of its law were unconstitutional & entered an injunction telling them not to try to enforce those parts of the law. Since Virginia has no law on the books regarding this, it will take a whole different set of circumstances for a Federal judge to get involved and even moreso to decree that it is unconstitutional for cops to investigate crime.

stay safe.

 

[Metalhead47]

Az tried it and they FAILED!

That's one battle that ain't over yet... and just cuz a judge says it, don't mean it's right.

 

[tombrewster421]

We need to get ALL states to enact laws like this.

 

[Don Barnett]

The Democrats Are Creating a MESS!

We need to get ALL states to enact laws like this.

Can anyone see what is happening? More and more States are thinking of passing laws just like Arizona's. Why? To DARE the Feds to come after them.

Missouri voters overwhelmingly passed a Referendum against the purchasing requirements of Health Care; other States are doing the same...there are numerous State lawsuits already filed.

Citizens from around the country are contributing to Arizona's legal fund. Has anyone ever seen this before?

I predict a Constitutional Crisis sometime in the near future...the Feds have WAY overstepped their bounds...there HAS to be some type of RESET.

 

[Metalhead47]

Can anyone see what is happening? More and more States are thinking of passing laws just like Arizona's. Why? To DARE the Feds to come after them.

Missouri voters overwhelmingly passed a Referendum against the purchasing requirements of Health Care; other States are doing the same...there are numerous State lawsuits already filed.

Citizens from around the country are contributing to Arizona's legal fund. Has anyone ever seen this before?

I predict a Constitutional Crisis sometime in the near future...the Feds have WAY overstepped their bounds...there HAS to be some type of RESET.

I'd say we've been having a Constitutional crisis for a loooong time now. What we are heading for is a Constitutional resolution. One way or the other.

 

[nuc65]

I am surprised that no one (at least that I have seen) mentions the wording..."can ask" yes anybody can ask anything they want... but in order to assert the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT you must assert the right verbally, so they can ask all they want but one does not have to answer except to affirm exercise of the right to remain silent.

 

[eye95]

You don't even have to open your mouth to invoke your right not to self-incriminate. (The right to remain silent is a misnomer.) You can sit there silently while they pepper you with questions.

That, of course, would be annoying, and you'd want it to stop. If you want it to stop, don't open your mouth to assert your "right to remain silent." Open your mouth to request a lawyer. That's the only way to shut the cops up. If you have requested a lawyer, they may not question you out of his presence--no matter what you see them do on The Closer. The questioning must stop until your attorney gets there.

"...You have the right to an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning..."

If they continue to question you, theoretically, anything you say cannot and will not be used against you. I won't advise blabbing if they continue to question you without your attorney. But, if you did, the DA would be hard-pressed to prove that any evidence developed in the future was not developed due to your illegally elicited confession, was not "fruit of the poisonous tree." IANAL, but I'd bet that such a tactic would get otherwise admissible evidence tossed. Of course, the exclusion would be due to the misconduct of the officers, not to your conniving.

 

[simmonsjoe]

...no matter what you see them do on The Closer. ...

+1 lol.

TV law/cop dramas are horrible. You have to count the civil/constitutional rights violation in VPM (Violations per minute). You can't count the number of fake laws they spout without taking your shoes off.

 

[skidmark]

You don't even have to open your mouth to invoke your right not to self-incriminate. (The right to remain silent is a misnomer.) You can sit there silently while they pepper you with questions.

That, of course, would be annoying, and you'd want it to stop. If you want it to stop, don't open your mouth to assert your "right to remain silent." Open your mouth to request a lawyer. That's the only way to shut the cops up. If you have requested a lawyer, they may not question you out of his presence--no matter what you see them do on The Closer. The questioning must stop until your attorney gets there.

"...You have the right to an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning..."

If they continue to question you, theoretically, anything you say cannot and will not be used against you. I won't advise blabbing if they continue to question you without your attorney. But, if you did, the DA would be hard-pressed to prove that any evidence developed in the future was not developed due to your illegally elicited confession, was not "fruit of the poisonous tree." IANAL, but I'd bet that such a tactic would get otherwise admissible evidence tossed. Of course, the exclusion would be due to the misconduct of the officers, not to your conniving.

According to SCOTUS, as of a few weeks ago if you want to stop a custodial interrogation by "asserting" your Miranda rights you must actually open your mouth and say so. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf .

Now, if you just want to stay mute, you need do nothing but keep your mouth shut. But that does not mean the cops have to stop asking you questions whether a lawyer shows up or not.

Big difference between the two situations.

And guys, not that I want to be the citation police, but if you are going to throw opinions around it would be nice if you alluded to the case law that supports your opinion so the rest of us can decide to accept it as valid or not.

stay safe.

 

[eye95]

According to SCOTUS, as of a few weeks ago if you want to stop a custodial interrogation by "asserting" your Miranda rights you must actually open your mouth and say so. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf .

Now, if you just want to stay mute, you need do nothing but keep your mouth shut. But that does not mean the cops have to stop asking you questions whether a lawyer shows up or not.

Big difference between the two situations.

And guys, not that I want to be the citation police, but if you are going to throw opinions around it would be nice if you alluded to the case law that supports your opinion so the rest of us can decide to accept it as valid or not.

stay safe.

The point of my post bore that ruling in mind.

As I said in my post, your choices are to sit there and endure continued questioning (That is the only way to exert the mis-named "right to remain silent") or to ask for an attorney.

If you open your mouth, do not speak to say that you are not going to talk. Speak for the sole purpose of saying that you want an attorney. That is the only way to shut the cops up.

That is the point I was trying to make. And, that point bears in mind the SCOTUS ruling that some could not make sense of, but which was obviously correct once one accepts that there is no "right to remain silent." There is a right not to self-incriminate.

 

[1245A Defender]

i would lik to agree!!!

The point of my post bore that ruling in mind.

As I said in my post, your choices are to sit there and endure continued questioning (That is the only way to exert the mis-named "right to remain silent") or to ask for an attorney.

If you open your mouth, do not speak to say that you are not going to talk. Speak for the sole purpose of saying that you want an attorney. That is the only way to shut the cops up.

That is the point I was trying to make. And, that point bears in mind the SCOTUS ruling that some could not make sense of, but which was obviously correct once one accepts that there is no "right to remain silent." There is a right not to self-incriminate.

open your mouth long enough to say "i want my lawyer!"
this will not incriminate you!!