Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Principi’s Plan Backfires

By Greg L | 30 April 2008 | Prince William County | 89 Comments

Woodbridge Supervisor Frank Principi wanted to ensure that illegal aliens would get a pass from local law enforcement as long as they didn’t commit an offense that they could be arrested for.  Not only did his attempt to gut the Rule of Law Resolution get not a single vote from his fellow supervisors, but the Board instead expanded the number of people whose immigration status will now be checked, which actually strengthens the Rule of Law Resolution.  Principi’s little stunt failed miserably under a barrage of angry emails, calls, and input from county residents who attended Citizens’ Time this evening, probably closing the debate on this subject for some time to come.

A motion to adopt at 98.7 cent-per-hundred tax rate, which would have included additional police officers and video cameras failed on a tie vote.  Frank Principi initially failed to get a second for his motion to gut the Rule of Law Resolution, but eventually got a second for purposes of discussion and ended up having his motion rejected by every one of the other Supervisors.  Then the Board passed the remaining non-controversial items on the agenda before returning to the tax rate item, which was pretty clearly deadlocked, prompting the Board to adjourn.

This set off some furious arm-twisting and bargaining, and what the Board eventually came back with was an agreement for a 97 cent tax rate, without cameras and additional officers.  A change in the enforcement policy for the Rule of Law Resolution was adopted to require all persons arrested to have their immigration status checked regardless of whether there is probable cause to do so, and leave immigration checks to the discretion of police officers for non-arrestable offenses.  The effect here is to increase the scope of immigration checks on those arrested, and pretty much leave the scope unchanged for those who aren’t.  This is anything but a weakening of the current policy.

The current policy requires that an officer establish probable cause in order to inquire about a suspect’s immigration status. This requirement limits the scope of those an officer might check, and under this standard there’s no effective requirement for an officer to conduct a check.  If an officer says there wasn’t probable cause, no one is going to question what is essentially a constrained judgment call and take him to task if he doesn’t check.  If he does want to check immigration status, he can only do so if he can explain how the suspect conformed to the probable cause standard, an effective limit to the officer’s discretion.  Saying that a check is “required” might sound nice, but in practical terms it isn’t required, and under the current policy there actually never was a requirement to perform a check.  It has always been up to the officer to make a determination as to whether it was the right thing to do, and the probable cause standard limited that choice.

Under this new policy, there is this requirement, as long as the suspect has committed an offense they could be arrested for.  Everyone gets checked, whether it seems like they might be an illegal alien or not.  All those suspects who might have escaped a probable cause standard before are now going to have their status checked, as long as they’re suspected of committing an arrestable offense.  Every one of them.  This is a huge scope expansion.

As for those who can’t be arrested, the probable cause standard seems to have been replaced by a looser use of officer discretion.  The probable cause standard in this case appears to have been replaced with something akin to “reasonable suspicion”, which is a much easier standard for an officer to establish.  Officers may check a suspect’s immigration status under what so far looks like an easier standard than they may now check immigration status under the probable cause standard that is currently required.  So instead of just letting all non-arrestable illegal aliens evade any consequences, as Frank Principi wanted to do, not only can they be checked for legal status, but they may well get checked more often than before because the bar is now lower.

This reduces the potential legal liability for the county by replacing the “probable cause” standard for arrestable offenses to an “everyone gets checked” policy.  Since the potential liability is low for those who will be released anyways with nothing more than the collection of information, giving officers more discretion won’t result in any additional legal liability.  A suspect can only sue for civil rights violations if he can prove harm, and it’s pretty hard to prove harm if all that happened was you got asked some questions, a check was done, some information got provided to the Department of Homeland Security and you were still sent on your merry way.  Given that, in-car cameras for police officers for the purposes of defending against racial profiling suits is pretty irrelevant, and it gave the Supervisors an opportunity to save residents an average of $60 per year off their tax bills.  Better law enforcement at a cheaper price is hard to argue with.

The official policy wasn’t released this evening, and the explanation given during the meeting was succinct to the point of being difficult to understand, which seems to have caused some confusion in the minds of some reporters who interpreted this change as being a weakening of the Rule of Law Resolution.  When it is released, I think those that were hoping for the Rule of Law Resolution to be weakened are going to be awfully disappointed and realize that their attempt here not only failed, but backfired tremendously. At the end of this drama more, not fewer suspected illegal aliens are going to be subjected to checks of their immigration status, and the notion that in-car cameras are somehow required for enforcement of the Rule of Law Resolution has been dismissed.  The first-year cost of enforcement that the illegal alien lobby was whining about so loudly has just been halved.

This is a big victory for proponents of the Rule of Law Resolution which will make it even harder for the illegal alien lobby to try to overturn this tremendous public policy initiative.  They tried to pull something here, and between some smart maneuvering by our elected officials and strong input from citizens who support this policy, that effort utterly failed.  Again.  At some point these folks are going to start getting tired of losing all the time, and that can’t come too soon for me.

We’re now four-for-zero, and every vote has been unanimous.  This will drive the illegal alien lobby absolutely nuts.

For more on this, there’s a Washington Times article that gets this right, and a Washington Post article that is terribly confused.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. manassascityresident said on 30 Apr 2008 at 4:43 am:
    Flag comment

    thanks, Greg!

  2. Line Breaker said on 30 Apr 2008 at 4:43 am:
    Flag comment

    Welcome to “The Third Battle of Manassas”

    The Citizens’ Time at the McCort BOS Meeting Tuesday evening was somewhat subdued compared to the major meeting there six months ago, when the Supervisors voted unanimous (again) for the Rule of Law. I am relieved that the Board fine-tuned the details, and trimmed the cost for the program. It made me proud to hear other Prince William County Residents speak out in support of the Rule of Law, practicing our freedom of speech. The positive effects since inception six months ago is the Proof in the Pudding.

    It’s Working!

    ps: I hope the Board was taking to heart the other issues discussed last night as well, i.e., the Manassas Senior DayCare, and the Girls and Boys Club/Teen Center funding.

  3. Maureen Wood said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:04 am:
    Flag comment

    Thank You all BOCS! Except of course Principi.

  4. manassascityresident said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:16 am:
    Flag comment

    The only problem I found with the Times article:
    “The vote followed more than six hours of testimony from about 100 people, who were split on the issue.”
    My ears heard a MAJORITY of the testimonies were FOR the Rule of Law. No way did I hear anything close to a “split”….
    Thank you to everyone who showed up, and spoke in favor of the rule of law!

  5. freedom said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:45 am:
    Flag comment

    Thank you Greg!! Thank you, fellow citizens!! and thank you, BOCS (save Hilda’s water-boy)!! (Principi’s proposal and this vote are things you should remember, Woodbridge District!!)

    Line Breaker, the testimony on those programs was heart-warming, that is true. I too would like to see them funded, but my only concern is that when working on the budget, there are so many items that are worthwhile and if ANYTHING is either reduced or eliminated, someone is going to be disappointed. So, what is the BOCS to do, fund ‘em all? Nope, can’t afford that.

    Now, as far as setting a tax rate is concerned, how a tax increase to support a pay raise for the Superintendent of Schools ($239K) and each of the nine Deputy/Assistant Superintendents (Avg of $150K). Oh, and how about a 6% increase for each of the teachers, regardless of whether their performance is good or bad. As far as I’m concerned, Quality teachers need a raise, poor performers (and you can bet your bippy there ARE some of those) should receive no increase.

  6. Mando said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:50 am:
    Flag comment

    Thanks Greg! I’m putting my tip in the jar!

  7. Advocator said on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:29 am:
    Flag comment

    As I prognosticated, Principi’s effort inured to our benefit.

  8. Dolph said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:22 am:
    Flag comment

    I guess it is a good day when everyone walks away feeling like they won.

    Being a skeptic, I am going to wait to see how this spins. I see very little practical difference in what was proposed by Mr. Principi and what actually happened. I guess I will wait to hear what county attorneys have to say.

    As for money for other things….unless we start printing our own, I am not sure what that will come from. It has been very touching to listen to those wanting to save senior day care, group homes, and conflict resolution programs. The supervisors rip through those items so fast it is hard to keep up or tell what is really happening. The schools are in very serious financial trouble.

  9. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:28 am:
    Flag comment

    As I said on the other thread, this is what Supervisor Stirrup originally introduced back in July. Everyone gets checked so that there is no potential lawsuit threat. I’m not surprised the Post got it wrong. They seem to have a track record of getting it wrong. I guess that they don’t go back and check their own reporting on the resolution that Supervisor Stirrup presented in July. Great job by the Washington Times.

    Thank you Greg! Thank you Board of County Supervisors!

  10. Woodbridge saved by other Supervisors said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:32 am:
    Flag comment

    just saw the potomac news article, Principi says those in Woodbridge that support the rule of law are full of “hogwash?” Isn’t he from New England? I don’t believe that is a New England term. Jeez, now Barg is channeling through him, too bizarre.

  11. Jeff said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Actually, the Post has it right–it’s a blow to anti-illegal-immigrant policy. Officers are told to check residency if and only if the suspect is arrested. Prior to this, they were supposed to check the legal status of ANYONE (even if they weren’t eventually arrested) they came into contact with if they were suspicious of their residency.

    So, fewer checks for illegal aliens, and now no need for the cameras. It’s a blow, for sure. But as long as it keeps my tax rate down, I’m all for it. I wish they would have slashed more across the board and brought the rate down further, in fact.

  12. zeezil said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:47 am:
    Flag comment

    Illegal aliens, their huggers, Principi and Mexicans Without Borders get spanked again. More of the same comin’ their way.

  13. anon said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:51 am:
    Flag comment

    But don’t the police have the discretion to ask now?

    I was T boned at an intersection about 3 years ago. Three guys in a truck ran a red light. There were beer cans in the truck cab and they had spilled beer on their shirts from the collision. They did not appear to be drunk. I’m guessing since it was about 5 pm on a Friday, they’d just ran to the 711, got the beer, popped one open and then wham!

    They did not speak english, although they did beg the passerby who stopped to help me and my children “no call the police, no papers”. The passerby spoke spanish and in talking to them to calm them down, they told him they were not legal. He assured him that everything would be fine and the police wouldn’t hurt them. He did relay to me their conversation, but did not tell the police.

    When the police arrived, not one of the men had a license and there was no insurance. They said it was a friend’s vehicle. The police gave them a ticket (although the names and addresses later turned out to be a bust) and they called a friend to pick them up from the scene. They were not detained or arrested.

    I was left to deal with the ambulance (no one was seriously hurt but since 4 small children were involved, they insisted we take them to the ER to get checked out. My insurance ended up paying for everything. And I had all the hassles of the paperwork, forms, phone calls to insurance.

    My understanding of the previous version of the resolution was that had it been in effect, these men would have been questioned due to probable cause and detained,the possibly deported.

    So with this new version of the resolution, if this happened again, would these men be on their merry way or would the police be able to use common sense and arrest them, or would he only be able to question and arrest the driver?

  14. JM said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:59 am:
    Flag comment

    This is indeed good news. I was watching NBC4 this morning, and the scroll at the bottom of the newscast led me to believe that the resolution had been gutted. It’s good to hear that isn’t the case at all.

    Here’s hoping that this episode ends Principi’s political career. After last night, I am left wondering who would vote for him. Certainly not the citizens who want to see our laws enforced! This may also hurt his standing with the pro-illegal crowd. Due to this clod’s inept bungling, he has actually made things tougher for the illegal residents he was trying to help.

    Then again, maybe it won’t hurt him. Competence in leadership has never been a requirement for the pro-illegal lobby.

  15. documented2 said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:00 am:
    Flag comment

    Principi is from California and not New England. He got his “head” handed to him on a platter by the entire Board. I don’t think they like him!!!!

  16. Joe said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:03 am:
    Flag comment

    I’m having trouble following this. It seems like we got hosed. The probable cause standard was dropped and now only people who get arrested get checked. Isn’t that what Principi and the other illegal-alien apologists wanted? If someone is stopped for speeding,because they don’t have an inspection sticker, because their tags are expired, or something like that, under the Rule of Law Resolution if there was probable cause (language issues, no driver’s license, etc.) the police would check their immigration status, right? If I understand what seems to have happened, now they can’t do that. Their “discretion” is about arresting someone for an “arrestable” offense, which is discretion the police have always had. If illegals don’t commit an arrestable offense then their immigration status can’t be checked. So we’re still going to have all these illegals driving around committing traffic violations, loitering at the 7-11, stuffing people into houses, without any police power to check their immigration status when they’re caught because you can’t be arrested for those things. Help me out Greg, am I misssing something? This looks like we’re back almost to square one.

  17. freedom said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, from all that I’ve read, it appears that with “…police officer discretion” to enquire as to legal status, it all boils down to the instruction that the police officers are given…and the grilling they face from the Chief, if they DO exercise this discretion and question status.

    So, it appears that what we’re REALLY left with is the “discretion” of the Police Chief, huh?

  18. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:06 am:
    Flag comment


    Sorry to disappoint you but Greg and the Washington Times got it right. If you would bother to do a little research you will see that this is what Supervisor Stirrup proposed back in July.

    Principi’s resolution was the one that would have gut the resolution. That one wasn’t even seconded until Supervisor May seconded so it would come under discussion and let the public know how the supervisors would have voted on it. Principi’s resolution failed. He was the only one who voted for it. Again the modification that passed will let officers ask everyone about their legal status. This is what Supervisor Stirrup proposed back in July. Do your research.

    Looks like even the liberal MJM got the facts reported correctly.

    You almost sound like the person who posted that John Stirrup lost the election back in November. He won by a landslide.

  19. Woodbridge saved by other Supervisors said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:06 am:
    Flag comment

    documented2: thanks.

    anon: you were the victim of a VA open-container law which did not comply with Federal law as well as the sanctuary policy. Sorry about your accident. Anyone know if our open container law(s) have been strengthened to comply with Federal standards? Without it, we loose road construction funds, as of 2006 we were still non-compliant.

    My read, if we haven’t strengthened the open container law and any of us gets t-boned again (and survives, therefore continuing to care about this issue) by an illegal alien, without a strengthened open container law, the police could still site and release at their “discretion.” Same thing would have occurred before last night, by the way, if the officer didn’t believe they had probable cause.

    Jackson, Scott, where are we on the open container laws in the Commonwealth?

  20. Woodbridge saved by other Supervisors said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:08 am:
    Flag comment

    CORRECTION: “cite” vs. “site.”

  21. freedom said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Oh, of course if an arrest is made ALL arrestees, regardless, will be questioned concerning status….and the “discretion” issue comes into play if it is NOT an arrestable offense. I believe that is the issue…and as stated previously, the Police Chief’s discretion is the big-swinger. :(

  22. Vigilant1 said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:13 am:
    Flag comment

    anon said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:51 am:
    So with this new version of the resolution, if this happened again, would these men be on their merry way or would the police be able to use common sense and arrest them, or would he only be able to question and arrest the driver?

    Good question. There is so much spin on the outcome of last night that I doubt if anyone know what was voted on. My assumption is that the vote left everything exactly as it was before the vote. At the end of the session it sounded like there had been some changes made (WHEN?) We need to know if and when changes were made AFTER the vote and who proposed them.

  23. Joe said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Anon 8:51:

    Your situation is what I’m talking about. That accident is not an arrestable offense, so I don’t think the police can now question those people about their immigration status like they could have under the Rule of Law Resolution. I can’t see how this outcome is good for us. From what I can tell it looks like Principi, Deane, and the rest of the illegal alien apologists got what they wanted without officially rescinding the resolution. The probable cause standard was the only tool we had for dealing with the hundred plus ways that illegal alien activity hurts our community. Now illegal aliens have to be arrested before they can even be questioned about their status. This stinks to high heavean. Now they can behave just as they did before the resolution. As long as they don’t get arrested we can’t touch them, whether they’re here illegally or not.

  24. Woodbridge saved by other Supervisors said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Didn’t Royce have a plan to require the police to show their loitering enforcement plan every week to him and the BOCS? They can’t set goals on arrests, but they most surely can plan to deploy “task forces” each week in different areas focussing solely on loiterers (this focussed approach by the way saves money as it brings a discipline to patrol planning not seen before and budget expenditure projections can be made quite easily; could be curtailed if another priority came along such as natural disaster, etc.), writing citations and if in the conduct of that investigation, at the officer’s discretion (much more latitude than “probably cause”) the detainees immigration status could be inquired upon. No one can deny the broken windows approach didn’t work in NY, well, except Principi.

  25. Joe said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:24 am:
    Flag comment

    I think the discretion pertains to making an arrest for an arrestable offense. If it’s for checking immigration status, that would be more subject to legal challenge than probable cause. Either way, I think Freedom’s right. This really means the Chief’s discretion, and we know what that means. We needed probable cause in the Rule of Law Resolution. Remember when we started this? We had everyone being checked and the power to sue the county if they provided services to illegal aliens. They took all that away from us. The probable cause standard was the last tool we were able to keep in the resolution to give it some teeth, and now Principi, Deane, and the illegal alien apologists seem to have taken even it away from us. I’m not happy about this. I think our resolution has been watered down to nothing.

  26. Anon said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Now it looks like people are finally starting to get it. The resolution took a serious hit last night. Greg’s spin that it’s actually an expansion is some of the most bizarre logic I’ve ever read. He can’t really believe it, so I assume he must just be trying to save face.

  27. Anonymous said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:41 am:
    Flag comment

    Has anyone seen anything in writing about this?

  28. dilly said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:47 am:
    Flag comment

    “Every single person who is arrested will have their immigration status checked,” Stewart announced, explaining that the county attorney has OK’d that plan as an alternative to cameras in police cars.”


  29. JM said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Joe, Anon, Anonymous, etc…

    Apparently this DOES stregthen the resolution. Did any of you read the MJM article that was linked in Greg’s post? Even the MJM reports this strengthens the resolution. If the resolution was gutted, you better believe the pro-illegal MYM would be crowing about it! From the article:

    “The motion, which was explained by Chairman Corey Stewart, R-at-large, following a lengthy board break about 9 p.m., carried with it a shift in illegal immigration enforcement policy.

    “Every single person who is arrested will have their immigration status checked,” he said, adding that “not every person who is arrested is brought to jail. The officer would continue to have the discretion to check immigration status of any person who’s detained.”

    Still, probable cause is not to be the standard for officers to use, Stewart continued.

    “Because we are checking the status of every single person who is arrested as opposed to just those people who we have probable cause … I actually believe this may increase the number of people whose immigration status is checked,” he said.”

    “Because we are checking the status of every single person who is arrested as opposed to just those people who we have probable cause…” SOOOO…before last night, only those who gave the officer’s probable cause were checked. Now ALL persons arrested will be checked. “Not every person who is arrested is brought to jail.” FYI, most jurisdictions consider issueing a citation to be a form of arrest. While I don’t know what PWC/VA considers to be an arrest, it is likely that an arrest results at least in a citation or something similar. If that’s the case, then persons who cause traffic accidents would have their status checked. “The officer would continue to have the discretion to check immigration status of any person who’s detained.” So arrest is not necessary in order for an officer to check immigration status. While it is true that Charlie could pressure his officers not to, it is unlikely that he would because he is still bruised over his last battle with the resolution, and since then has stated that he will comply with it. If he does not check the status of suspicious detainees, then last night’s vote should demonstrate that the BOCS will take further action to insure that detainees are checked.

  30. PWCHomeowner said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:57 am:
    Flag comment

    It seems we need the details of the enforcement plan, but it looks to me that the resolution took a serious hit here.

  31. Dolph said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:59 am:
    Flag comment

    People were not being arrested for loitering and they couldn’t be arrested for living too many in a house. Just a point of clarification.

    The Washington Post is saying the resolution was gutted and the Washington Times is saying it was strengthened.

    I suppose the real lesson here is…are we reading what we want to hear? I think that happens a great deal of the time. God forbid we actually read or listen to what is REALLY going on.

  32. Benton said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Someone explain how the liability is lower now - looks higher to me? I think this is a loss to the anti illegal groups. Now what?

  33. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:06 am:
    Flag comment

    JM said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:56 am:
    Joe, Anon, Anonymous, etc…

    “Apparently this DOES stregthen the resolution. Did any of you read the MJM article that was linked in Greg’s post? Even the MJM reports this strengthens the resolution.”

    Thanks JM. You got it right.

    As I have said over and over again this was what Supervisor Stirrup proposed in his original resolution back in July.

  34. Anonymous said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:08 am:
    Flag comment

    Dolph is wait, Principi won, his version was approved by the board essentially including Corey. Spin this how you want.

  35. Joe said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:08 am:
    Flag comment

    JM, I would like to believe you, but Stewart’s quotes sound like spin to me. Before the change the police had the ability to check the status of anyone they stopped if they had probable cause. Now they have to be arrested. I guess it’s possible that there would have been people arrested who are here illegally, but who would not have given probable cause to check their status. But how likely was that? If they didn’t have a driver’s license, spoke poor English, etc., there was probable cause and they were going to be checked, whether they were arrested or not. Now they have to be arrested first. Illegal aliens are out there committing a ton of violations that they cannot be arrested for, and now we can’t check into their status when they do those things. The police “discretion” thing is meaningless. They always had that. Sounds like we took a step backward to me. I think May and Covington bailed on us and that forced Stewart and Stirrup to spin this to save face.

  36. Anonymous said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:12 am:
    Flag comment

    Right Stirrup introduced it, and Corey needed it to get re-elected. John had Gainesville won before campaigning really even began. Think about that one for a minute.

  37. disgusted said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:19 am:
    Flag comment

    The policy change REDUCES the amount of people that will be questioned. Unless the person is ARRESTED, no checks will be completed. This means, persons that are just suspects and are questioned in an incident and are not physically arrested, no checks will be conducted. I am sure the police departments policy is being re-written and the police have been told already not to do any checks unless a person is under arrest. I am not sure how anyone can view this as anything but several steps backward.

  38. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:19 am:
    Flag comment


    Prinicipi lost big time. Even the tv news stations reported that. I watched the whole thing on TV. I suppose you were the one who thought John Stirrup lost the election back in November. It amazes me that people can’t recognize the truth. Even your beloved MJM reported the facts. Go ahead live in your dream or should I say nightmare world.

  39. Judy T. said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Dolph — you believe the WaPo?

  40. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:26 am:
    Flag comment


    Even with Probable Cause no one can be arrested for just being in the country illegally. Go back and read JM’s post.

  41. starryflights said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:27 am:
    Flag comment

    Maybe we don’t trust our elected officials and with good cause. I am very weary of what happened last night.

  42. JM said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:27 am:
    Flag comment


    You just aren’t getting it. No one has said that ONLY arrested persons status will be checked. Quite the opposite:

    According to Stewart, as quoted in the MJM, “The officer would continue to have the discretion to check immigration status of any person who’s detained.”

    In addition, they will be checking the status of EVERYONE who is arrested, whether they are brought to the jail or not. Before, the only checked status of arrestees when officer’s had probale cause to do so.

    MORE people will be checked.

  43. Advocator said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:29 am:
    Flag comment

    Dolph: You and I agree once again. The proof of this revised pudding will be in the application of discretion by the individual patrolmen (and women). Their actions will be largely dictated by the COP. We need to keep a close watch on this. Anecdotes like the one listed by Anon at 8:51 will be most telling and important. Keep posting them folks.

    Greg: Is there a way we could set up a separate link for postings where citizens have interactions with police and observe their actions regarding possible illegals?

    In the meantime, folks, the approaching summer and increased daylight gives us all the perfect opportunity to roam our neighborhoods and report unregistered vehicles, vehicles with no/improper parking and inspection stickers, code violations on houses, etc. Eternal vigilance is the price of a high standard of living. Keep up the good work. This is a war that will ultimately be won in the trenches, not in the BOCS chambers.

  44. Good Time Chalie said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:37 am:
    Flag comment

    Freedom at 9:05 regarding discretion

    You addressed the main issue of officer discretion perfectly. It doesn’t matter if the probable cause issues were dropped from the resolution. Once again I’ll explain how this works with Charlie Deane as your Chief of Police. He publically opposes any enforcement measures of the immigration resolution. If one of his departmental members makes it a habit to frequently enforce any measure of the resolution through pro-active police work, it will serve to have them regarded as a “loose cannon” (a phase SaveAmerica has used while defending Deane) and have a short career while at the PWCPD. In the eyes of Charlie Deane it would be a form of insubordination.

    Until Deane retires, not having the ability to enforce this measure by any means other than arrest processing procedures really amounts to nothing. It’s not like his officers were going to put their employment in jeopardy by enforcing immigration ordinances.

  45. Anonymous said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:45 am:
    Flag comment

    This is a victory for Principi, Deane and the illegals, not us.

  46. Anonymous said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:46 am:
    Flag comment

    Judy T

    I don’t know what to believe. I watched last night and ended up scratching my head in bewilderment.

    If everyone feels like they won, how can that be a bad thing. Totally amazing. I sure am not going to rock the boat with any faulty prognostication.

  47. Jeff said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:47 am:
    Flag comment

    JM, do you honestly believe that if they don’t HAVE TO, police are going to go out of their way to check the status of detained (or otherwise non-arrested) people? Especially when they’re so worried about the threat of lawsuits?

    This REDUCES the number of people whose residency status is checked.

    But I’m impressed that so many people have self-spun this, and actually believe it’s an increase!

  48. Woodbridge saved by other Supervisors said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:48 am:
    Flag comment

    All I know is, I had plenty of friends in college who were detained by the cops, cuffs and sometimes not, who spent a good part of their evening cooling their heels sitting on the curb while the police figured out what was going on and deciding who went downtown and who didn’t, not a one of them ever said they were never “under arrest.”

    I think disgusted is right however, we need to ensure another “secret” G.O. doesn’t get filed saying something like “officer discretion, when investigating illegal immigration, is only allowed at the Supervisor level” or something restrictive like that. In other words, “you young ‘uns still earning your stripes proving your loyalty to the big chief aren’t competent enough to make such hard decisions as if you have a possible terrorist in your midst, though they have no i.d., no plates on the car, don’t speak english and keep staring at the glovebox, so you’ll have to wait for someone I’ve promoted (a.k.a. owes me) to come out and make a decision based upon “discretion.”

  49. El Lobo said on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:05 am:
    Flag comment

    The main thing is that the resolution is still intact. The illegals in PWC are/have been on the run since the Resolution went into effect. The “details”, they don’t understand. They are VERY leary of the police and the possibility that their immigration status could be checked at anyrime. This , coupled by the recent ICE raid at CMC Concrete is enough to send them to Fairfax, Arlington, MD, or self-deport. The quality of life in PWC has improved over the past couple of weeks. Pressure MUST be kept on Deane to ENFORCE immigration law, and NOT try to impress others at PR gatherings wearing his uniform.

  50. Advocator said on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:24 am:
    Flag comment

    Wolf: How would you propose keeping the pressure on Sr. Deane?

  51. Tom Ridge said on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Advocator: the BOCS could most certainly benefit from an advisory committee on homeland security issues if for nothing else to ensure we’re getting our fair share of federal grants. It’s obvious with Chmn. Stewart’s discussion on that old government report that you should have cameras in the cars for officer safety that our boys in blue have been getting the shaft.

  52. anon said on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:30 am:
    Flag comment

    El Lobo makes a good point. If we are confused about this, the illegals will be confused as well. I can’t seem them moving back into the county in droves. Why take a chance on being deported when you have Fairfax and Arlington saying “you can do whatever you want and we’ll still let you stay”? Once a few move and say how wonderful it is in _____, all their buddies will pack up and move as well. I predict more migration to the east over the summer as kids finish school.

    Maybe the antibvbl people will now cool their heels thinking they had a partial victory and we can depend upon our beat cops to do what they think is best. Most of the ones I spoken to support the resolution absolutely, so I’ll trust them to do their job despite the leadership of Chief Deane.

    Also, with people like that Donna from Haymarket constantly keeping up the pressure on Chief Deane with all her wonderful facts and figures, I think the heat on Deane will be incredible.

  53. Dolph said on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:32 am:
    Flag comment

    Judy T,

    Sorry, that was dolph answering you. Cookies aren’t saved on my computer since it got out of the hospital. My moniker continually gets erased. GRRRRR

  54. JM said on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:35 am:
    Flag comment


    “JM, do you honestly believe that if they don’t HAVE TO, police are going to go out of their way to check the status of detained (or otherwise non-arrested) people?”

    Well, yes I do, because that’s what they are doing now. The officer only has to check now if there is probable cause, and probable cause is left to the officer’s discretion. So why wouldn’t I trust the officers will continue to check immigration status at their discretion?

  55. JM said on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:43 am:
    Flag comment

    Tom Ridge,

    “Advocator: the BOCS could most certainly benefit from an advisory committee on homeland security issues if for nothing else to ensure we’re getting our fair share of federal grants.”

    That’s a good point and one that I agree with. Patrol car cameras are useful for many situations, not just immigration checks. They provide valuable evidence that can be used in court, and protect officers who are doing their jobs.

    The truth is that Deane does NOT care about his officers. He never asked for cameras before the resolution, and has never wanted cameras. He only asked for them as part of the resolution to make drive up the cost of enforcement, in an effort to derail its passage.

    If Deane really wanted the cameras, HE would have pushed for the Homeland Security funds when the county couldn’t fund them. So far, he has not. The camera issue was just a red herring for him.

    For citizens who care about the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect us, patrol car cameras are more than a political football. We should push theBOCS to request federal funds for this.

  56. Dolph said on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:54 am:
    Flag comment


    What is SaveAmerica?

  57. Anchor Baby said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    If you look at the phrasing, it’s easy to understand.

    Police officers will continue to use thier judgment in asking questions, if they wish, to anyone that’s been stopped or detained. This is no difference in what currently exists in that a police officer can ASK you anything. However, the OBLIGATION to answer is different. Until you are ARRESTED you are not obligated to answer any questions. Once you’ve been arrested you are obligated to provide your name and address under Virginia Code. You don’t have to show your ID during an arrest but it makes things easier for the police officer.

    At a jailing facility you are asked to identify yourself, refusal to do so and you get listed as a Jane/John Doe, assigned a number and you wait until they figure out who you are.

    Obviously, a jail presents a more controlled enviroment to perform checks. Checks can also be applied to all arrested persons. This change in the resolution is a ‘blow’ in terms of those wanting to deport more people but it brings the resolution back in terms of compliance with state and federal law. The previous law couldn’t really be inforced because Virginia is not a ’stop and ID’ state.

    I’m not a ‘fan’ of the immigration resolution as I don’t see it as the business of the county to perform immigration enforcement. However, the adjusted resolution doesn’t violate civil liberties of legal and illegal persons like the old one. This one is ‘expanded’ in that it’s easier to defend in court now. From a person that advocated for stopping the resolution; this adjustment is adquate enough for me not to want to persuit this issue further.

  58. TDB said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Does anybody know how many cameras are needed? I ask because 3 million dollars would buy you 1,000 cameras.

  59. Dolph said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    I believe I read about 500, plus software, plus staffing to handle the media documents.

  60. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anchor Baby,

    JM said,

    “While I don’t know what PWC/VA considers to be an arrest, it is likely that an arrest results at least in a citation or something similar. If that’s the case, then persons who cause traffic accidents would have their status checked.”

    He is right. I was issued a citation for speeding and was required to give my ID. I know… been there and done it.

    The court has to know who you are so that if you don’t show up to court or pay your fine the Sheriff will come after you.

  61. starryflights said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg L., I think you have it wrong and the antibvbl is reporting this correctly. We were let down by our BOCS. There is no other way to look at this.

  62. Advocator said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM and Tom Ridge: I think such an advisory/reseach committee on Homeland Security for the BOCS is long overdue.

  63. Riley said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    If we have a Human Rights Commission, we should have a Homeland Security Commission. Human rights don’t mean squat if you’re dead.

  64. Anchor Baby said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Driving is a privledge and you have to show your ID as proof. However, standing in front of a 7-11 doesn’t rise to the level of requiring a person to identify themselves. That person can simply walk away.

    Citizens are the holders of power in our republic, not the police.

  65. anon said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    OT, but good news nonetheless:

    Fishing company operator sentenced to jail for hiring illegal immigrants

    By Tim McGlone
    The Virginian-Pilot
    April 30, 2008

    NORFOLK - The vice president of a Newport News fishing company was sentenced today to 90 days in prison on top of nearly $7 million in fines and forfeitures that she and her company have agreed to pay to settle charges that the company employed illegal immigrants on its vessels.

    Yvonne Michelle Peabody, who runs the day-to-day operations of the Peabody Corp., previously pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges and has cooperated with the government in several other criminal matters, including a drug case, a prosecutor said.

    U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson also sentenced her to 120 days of home detention with electronic monitoring after her release from custody and ordered her to pay a $50,000 fine.

    Her father and company founder, William F. Peabody, who is semi-retired, was sentenced as well today, but Jackson spared him jail time as he had a relatively minor role in the crimes. He was sentenced to 150 days of home confinement, three years of probation and a $100,000 fine.

    The company agreed to pay $6.75 million in fines and forfeitures, which represents the profits earned over a four-year period while employing more than 125 illegal immigrants to work their fishing vessels.

  66. Rick Bentley said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Is that chicken coop still there in Frank “Chicken Man” Principi’s district? Any truth to the rumor that he and the 9500 Liberty people had a “Cook Your Own Chicken” picnic over there this weekend? Or was it BYOC (bring your own chicken)?

  67. freedom said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    …but Patty, I don’t think they WILL be checking everyone….only those who are arrested, yes…..and those who are not arrested ONLY if the officer so chooses.

    Isn’t that correct?

  68. Greg L said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    The only difference here is that of those arrested, all will be checked. The probable cause standard actually reduced officer discretion, because unless they could explain their decision-making process in terms of the probable cause standard, they couldn’t check. Now they don’t have to justify their decision to such a high standard.

    Just look at the numbers. Of thousands arrested, how many non-arrestable suspects actually got their immigration status checked? About fifty.

  69. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:09 pm:
    Flag comment


    Check out Greg’s latest thread that will help you.

    Anchor Baby,

    There are still loitering laws on the books. It also looks like the General Assembly has strengthen those laws this past session.

  70. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anchor Baby,

    Did you say you are from Prince Georges County Maryland? Big difference between Maryland and Virginia.

  71. Anchor Baby said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:19 pm:
    Flag comment


    From Prince William County. I refuse to live in the Peoples Republik of Maryland nor will I work there.

    However, it’s uncomfortable to hear that so many people that claim to be ‘conservative’ are ok with the idea of the government or agents of the government (police) checking ID’s randomly. That flies in the face of what the Founders wanted for this nation.

  72. starryflights said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    We need to get a good hold on our crackdown on illegal immigration and then go after chain migration.

  73. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anchor Baby,

    Welcome to the changed world after 9/11. By the way, public safety was always paramount in the eyes of the Founding Fathers. Do you remember the amendment that gives us a right to bear arms?

    Also real ID will take effect real soon. All states have to comply. You will not be able to get into a government building unless you have a valid ID. Also the Supreme Court upheld Indianna law on voter ID.

    You would have to agree that not all people are honest and law abiding.

  74. Anchor Baby said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:35 pm:
    Flag comment


    The Founders believed that the right to be armed was because standing armies were seen as dangerous to a republic; for self-defense and preservation and to rebel against a government that went against the will of the people (the powers of the government granted by the consent of those governed).

    The SCOTUS ruling for the Indiana law has a negligle effect in Virginia since no ID is required to vote in Virginia. A person can Affirm thier identity and vote. An ID should not be required to perform all the various little things we do on a daily basis. We live in America not the Peoples Repulic of China.

    When people say that they WANT the police to have more powers or to require people to show IDs to do things as simple as enter a federal building (that building is owned by me, the taxpayer) they are giving up their rights and providing the government with more powers.

    I agree that we need to manage the immigration issue and do so in a way that doesn’t violate the law (federal and state) but doing so by losing rights or giving them up is unacceptible. As Americans we should fight against any attempt to have our law enforcement officers force persons to identify themselves. I say again, we live in the USA not Cold War Russia.

    Saying that not all people are honest are law abiding doesn’t really say anything. In our system of law, all persons are considered innocent until proven guilty.

    REAL ID is a smack across the face of every American. An ID card will never, ever stop an act of terrorism as that ID has to be interpreted by a person and that person can always make a mistake.

  75. disgusted said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    For those of you that have been sold the bill of goods that the policy has been enhanced, unfortunately you will only have to wait to see how the police department changes it rules in light of the changes made yesterday. You don’t seem to want to believe you have been misled. I understand that emotion. The reality is I hear parts of the current policy have already been verbally amended and officers will no longer make immigration inquiries of anyone unless they are under arrest. If you re-read the statistics from the police, you would see many of the people who were illegal were identified as such and that information was passed on to ICE, even though they were not arrested at that time. Now, that will no longer occur. If you go back to and review last year what policy the chief of police wanted the Board to adopt, it was that the checks only be run on people who are arrested and go to jail. Almost 100% of the people arrested and not immediately released go to the ADC.

  76. Greg L said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    If officers are being told they cannot inquire about the immigration status of a suspect, that would be a violation of Federal Law, namely 8 USC 1373. I kind of doubt the Chief is that dumb, but I’ll check on this.

  77. Anchor Baby said on 30 Apr 2008 at 4:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    PWC is in compliance with 8 USC 1373 if the jail provides the information to ICE. The County could also be seen as in compliance by saying that at the disgression of the officer, an officer can inquire into legal status.

    Since they’re saying legally to a LEO, we will not restrict you from asking if you feel that you need to or want to ask about legal status and you can report that to whomever but we will not require it.

    If they put in a resolution that directs a LEO to NOT ever ask that would be in violation. But, saying that it’s not required but we won’t stop you can be argued as being in full compliance.

  78. Greg L said on 30 Apr 2008 at 4:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    8 USC 1373(a):

    “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

    And this would not apply to a police officer in regards to an interaction with someone who might be an illegal alien? Nice try. Deane cannot legally tell his officers they may not check a suspects’ immigration status under any circumstances.

  79. Anchor Baby said on 30 Apr 2008 at 4:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    They aren’t being restricted. In fact, the wording suggests that the Board is bowing to the experience of the officer in question and trusting his judgement as to ask the question or not. There is no restriction or penalty on the officer as he can ask any question he wants to a person being held, detained or arrested.

    Now, I concede that if there is no rule that says an officer HAS to do something that he will - that’s human nature. We get by doing the minimum. But, in terms of how they wrote it, I don’t see 8 USC 1373 being used as a wedge.

    Either way, if a person is only being questioned (consenual encounter) the person can simply walk away without answering any questions. Which I would fight against changing as this impacts lawful gun owners in Virginia that choose to carry openly.

  80. Benton said on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    If he can’t legally tell all of them not to check, then what is the purpose of
    287(g) authority?

  81. Bryanna said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Number don’t lie, people do.

    Watch as the number of arrests and deportations decline over the next couple of months.

  82. Anonymous said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree the numbers will dwindle. I can’t wait to see how the spin goes and who/what will be to blame then.

  83. Bryanna said on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    They way I see it, we have implemented the 287g program, and nothing more.

    Just business as usual at the ‘ol PWPD, and the officers from the Illegal Criminal Alien unit got their old jobs back.

  84. Benton said on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s Criminal Alien Unit and those additional officers were funded. It was the other officers that weren’t - those for the Patrol Precints.

    The Criminal Alien Unit was staffed in October as part of the BIG resolution. The 09 budget includes a commentary on them, it funds them again in 09. When they were added in October it was only for this fiscal year which ends in June. To keep paying them, they had to add money for the future.

  85. Benton said on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not funded:
    Description -  e requested funding and
    positions for this enhancement to the Criminal
    Alien Unit for FY 09 includes 6 sworn FTE’s
    and 1 civilian FTE for FY 09 to support patrol
    time necessary for immigration investigations and
    coordination with ICE.
    Funding continued for Criminal Alien Unit:
    Description - As part of Res. No. 07-894, the Board
    of County Supervisors authorized the creation
    of seven (7) FTE’s in the Police Department to
    create the Criminal Alien Unit in FY 08.  is
    request provides full year funding for the originial
    seven positions created in FY 08 to support patrol
    time necessary for immigration investigations and
    coordination with ICE.  is requested funding
    also provides for training of staff , public education
    regarding the enforcement of this resolution and
    a two-phased tracking, evaluation and monitoring
    process. Quantifi able trends and statistics will
    also be maintained.

  86. dmg said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    I posted this some time back. If funding the resolution is an issue the county does have a way for us to actually help pay for the initiative. This info is from the county itself and a BOS member. If you ever said “send me the bill” then here it is.

    Monetary contributions should be sent to:
    Prince William CountyDirector of Finance1
    County Complex Court
    Woodbridge VA 22192

    Checks should be made payable to “Prince William County” and should
    clearly state that the donation is for legal expenditures and/or enforcement expenditures related to illegal immigration. Cash donations can be accepted, but we will need to provide the donor a receipt, which necessitates the donor coming into the McCoart Building. So checks are preferred. To this point, we have not had a business need to accept credit card donations, so at least in the short term a check is the most expedient method for us to deal with donations.

    The Finance Department will track all donations/contributions, including the donor’s name and address, and segregate the contributions in the accounting records. Donations must be formally accepted by the BOCS at a regular meeting. Obviously the frequency of BOCS action to accept donations depends on the number and dollar volume of contributions. Contact Steve Ferlotti at ext 7459 if you or your staff has anyquestions.

  87. Dave in PWC said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Did the COP give any stats for the number of arrests of illegals for the month of April last night?

    I think the illegals think they won, there were over 25 day laborers squatting and standing at the Coverstone 7-11 this morning at 7:30

  88. Judy T. said on 2 May 2008 at 2:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am so sick of the illegals hanging out of Route 1. I guess the shadows where they hide must mean the shadow cast by the building and trees. I certainly see them. Sort of makes me wish for a brake failure by a dump truck or garbage truck speeding down Route 1.

    Except our tax dollars would have to cover the medical bills and no doubt the injured would sue and take any settlement back to Mexico without paying their bills.

Comments are closed.

Views: 4316