You stopped me because I'm black is different than you asked if im an illegal because __________?

The problem is it's hard to fill in the blank without profiling. It depends on what the courts decide is fair game though.

Well, the pedestrian stops will be what they always have been, which is cops extracting information to build PC, the traffic stops will be pretty much "Oh, you have no drivers license? Papers please."

The way it goes down irl is groups of daylaborers getting harassed for "loitering", ID'd to cite for summons to appear, failing to produce ID, getting asked for papers, done.

The specifically states that if a person has identification, they are presumed to be legal.

The point is neither argument is a winner. Police need only clear a very low bar to stop someone.

Although this

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/ny...egal.html?_r=1

is somewhat interesting

non results oriented justice? noway

While some may think this post is a reaction of over sensitivity, I am posting anyway.

{@ 'neverfoldthe1outer' from post #4198}: quote "it's startling that you don't know that" is an example of arrogance and condescension, which permeates responses/comments on subjects under discussion. This type of response is facilitated by the anonymity of the internet environment and IMO is pure 'spew' {to use a poker term}. If a person has a comment or a correction, just state it sans any attempt to trumpet superiority about being correct/right and implying that others are incorrect/wrong and thus less intelligent/knowledgeable.

This reminds me of a cartoon I saw posted, about a person intending to remain at a computer terminal, while typing furiously on the keyboard, with a caption, "Wait, there is someone on the internet that is wrong!"

This thread is not the 2+2 Law Review, and I do not have the term Esquire printed on my business cards.
I started the post in question with the statement, "If I understand it correctly,". The phrase in question is, 'burden of proof'.

My use of the phrase was not intended to be a legal interpretation of a prosecutor's/plaintiff's requirement in a court of law, but as a description of what I thought would be a significant factor in a lawsuit focusing on alleged profiling.
Hypothetically, if a U.S. citizen of Hispanic ethnicity challenges the law on the basis of profiling, would her/his attorney attempt via the court proceedings to obtain records of police statistics/documentation indicating that profiling is not occurring?
Would this not basically mean that any statistical or documented records should show that the police department in question, has queried and recorded the immigration status of any/all persons arrested, or verification that any legal traffic stop and arrest for all individuals, was equitably performed?
IMO, this means that any person, regardless of ethnicity, will have to either produce a U.S. passport or a green card, after having an encounter with the police, which resulted in an arrest/charge.
To me this would be a burden for the police to overcome from a practical point of view, because the implication is that everyone regardless of ethnicity will have to just accept this new standard procedure and comply without making an issue of it, even if said person happened to be a Caucasian AZ conservative/liberal legislator, who hypothetically was arrested for solicitation/DUI, and found herself/himself in custody without a valid U.S. passport on hand.

My intent in utilizing the burden of proof phrase in a layman's manner was to emphasize that the police will have to institute procedures to document and statistically record any person's legal right to be in the U.S., regardless of ethnicity, and for any arrest/charge/traffic stop. Therefore, would AZ law enforcement not have to provide proof that they have adhered to the constitutionality of the law, when it is requested by the attorney of the plaintiff, via some sort of discovery motion approved by the court? Or, can AZ law enforcement agencies just say, "No, even if we have the records/documentation/statistics that we are complying with the profiling issue/contention, we are under no obligation to provide you with it"?
If AZ law enforcement is under no legal obligation (hypothetically, they have the records) to provide this, then my logic and analysis is incorrect. Even if it is, there is no need to add arrogance and condescension to {hypothetical} reply of, "I think that this will not be legally required/enforceable ...... 'it's startling that you don't know that.'"

While the majority of this post is a further explanation of what I was attempting to state previously, it is not about being correct/incorrect. It is more about the cloak of anonymity in relation to internet behavior and the tonality of responses, which excrete a sense of rudeness, arrogance, condescension, superiority, and the 'I am right, You are wrong, Don't be so stupid, etc.'.

This may be the incorrect thread to voice my opinion on this matter, but such is life, stuff happens, and you deal with it, just like not getting upset about bad behavior at the poker tables, or having to provide a 'birth certificate', when requested (via a court proceeding) to prove that 'I am a human and not a robot' {reference post #4198}, or legally entitled to be a presidential candidate, while the other candidates' legal citizenship goes unquestioned {What is good for the goose is good for the gander? If the citizens questioning the legality of the president's candidacy, are not asking the same of all candidates, to me it is a form of profiling and should be stopped.}.

End of rant!