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

What The Changes Actually Mean

By Greg L | 30 April 2008 | Prince William County | 82 Comments

The discussion about what the change in the enforcement plan for the Rule of Law Resolution actually means has generated a lot of conflicting commentary in the press and in the blogs.  Given that confusion, it’s probably useful to walk through the differences in the enforcement policy as I understand them so readers can get a clearer picture of what this all means.  This is how the new enforcement policy sorts out:

Situation Current Policy New Policy Change
Arrestable Violation
(sent to ADC)
Suspect checked by officer if probable cause present, sent to ADC and subject to 287(g) screening Suspect checked by officer, sent to ADC and subject to 287(g) screening No effective change
Arrestable Violation
(not sent to ADC)
Suspect checked by officer if probable cause present, held in police lockup, no 287(g) screening Suspect checked by officer, held in police lockup, no 287(g) screening More illegals checked
Non-Arrestable Violation Suspect checked by officer if probable cause present, given ticket Suspect checked by officer at his discretion, given ticket Likely more illegals checked

The first case here is one most people are pretty familiar with.  Someone is suspected of committing a crime that they can be arrested for, and the end up being held at the Prince William County Adult Detention Center where they would be screened under the Section 287(g) Program, which is more thorough than the screening that a patrol officer would conduct.  Under current policy, a police officer would check immigration status at the discretion of the officer and only if the suspect met the probable cause standard.  The new policy removes the probable cause and discretion, and requires the police to conduct this check for all persons arrested. This could catch some additional illegal aliens because the discretion is removed here, and in some cases it is possible that a suspect could have evaded the probable cause standard under the current policy and not be screened at the ADC, but that number is probably minimal.

The second case is one that most folks don’t know about.  Just because a suspect is arrested doesn’t mean they end up at the ADC.  In some cases a suspect is arrested and hauled in front of a magistrate, and then released on bond.  Under current policy a suspect would have their immigration checked at the discretion of the officer and only if the probable cause standard is met.  Under the new policy, all arrestees are checked, period.  This could make a pretty significant difference, and will increase the number of persons checked for immigration status.

The third case, where a suspect is released with a ticket, warning, or nothing at all is where most of the confusion lies. Under the current policy, we again have immigration checks done at the discretion of an officer, subject to probable cause.  The change here is that the probable cause requirement here seems to have been removed.  Officers will still check immigration status of those detained for non-arrestable offenses (it can’t be prohibited under 8 U.S.C. 1373) at their discretion, but aren’t required to vault the probable cause hurdle.  My understanding here is that since a suspect isn’t being subjected to detention, the opportunity for a successful civil rights lawsuit is either absent or tremendously low.  Whether this increases or decreases the number of immigration checks that will be performed remains to be seen, but since it’s easier for an officer to conduct these checks, it’s pretty likely that more checks will be performed.

This third case potentially accounts for the majority of officer interactions with suspected illegal aliens.  There are thousands of officer interactions with potential suspects each month.  During the first month of enforcement, the number of immigration checks actually performed on persons not subject to arrest was about fifty.  Officers I’ve talked to tell me that the proportion of likely illegal aliens they encounter in the course of their duties is a lot higher than the tiny percentage of persons we actually do see checked for immigration status now, so I am pretty sure that this change will account for a dramatic rise in the number of immigration status checks that will be performed.

Just watch what happens to the number of immigration status checks that the police will conduct in the coming months.  Anyone hoping that the Rule of Law Resolution would be weakened is going to see that the number of immigration status checks will actually increase, and end up bitterly disappointed that their efforts actually resulted in an expansion of the enforcement program for the Rule of Law Resolution.

UPDATE: Riley at Virginia Virtucon has more on this.

UPDATE 2: Corey Stewart sent our an email to explain what happened as well:

As reported in today’s edition of the Washington Times, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted unanimously last night to strengthen and expand its crackdown on illegal immigration. See the story here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080430/METRO/823602705/1004. Prior to this change, our police officers could check the immigration status of only those people for whom the officer had probable cause to believe were illegal immigrants. Now, police MUST check the immigration status of ALL people who are arrested (including those arrested for less serious crimes and released on summons). Also, the Board retained the officers’ discretion to check immigration status of those detained for any purpose, even minor infractions. As a result of these actions, our police will be checking the immigration status of more people committing crimes in the County. I know that there was some confusion by other news sources concerning the effects of the Board’s action last evening, and I have been contacting those sources today asking them to correct their stories.



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.

82 Comments

  1. starryflights said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I hope you are correct. I will wait and see.

  2. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    Thank you!!!!

    But I’m sure there will be some who don’t get it.

  3. freedom said on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Thanks Greg….my only concern is that the Chief will too heavily influence “officer discretion.” :( …but I guess that was true before also, with the “probable cause” caveat.

  4. Anonguy said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patty,

    Most who don’t get it are the people who don’t want to get it. They wanted a victory. They wanted the resolution rescinded. Failing that, they are claiming victory here. They claim to be moderate voices who oppose the resolution on fiscal grounds. They are liars all. Kate Gotthardt, Alanna Almeda, the 9500 libs and that Schlossberg lady are NOT opposed to this on fiscal grounds. They are just smart enough to know that in public, perception is everything. Gotthardt is advocating for the North American Union, is a committed leftest who feigns ignorance over MWB’s non-recognition of US Borders. Almeda constantly portrays professional law enforcement officers as closet racists who can’t wait to profile her hispanic spouse, claims to be a republican (no record of her ever voting in a primary or participating in a convention), Schlossberg is a blog troll who goes after Greg for comments left on his blog, some I suspect written by her own hand, and the 9500 crew are just lying sacks of crap who claim to be “neutral documentarians” but have demonstrated time and again that they have picked a side.

    Yep, this is who the other side is. Now that MWB powerbase has moved to Fairfax, these people have taken up the fight. The marxists call these people “useful idiots”, and I think the name fits.

  5. Mom said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Whether this increases or decreases the number of immigration checks that will be performed remains to be seen, but since it’s easier for an officer to conduct these checks, it’s pretty likely that more checks will be performed.”

    Dream On Spin-Boy, no chance in hell patrol officers will go that route, they have other things to do (and besides theres all that additional paperwork and trip to the ADC, not going to happen near change of shift)

    Mom

  6. k. o'toole said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    mom is back! Any critque of what citizens wore at yesterday’s hearings, you fashionista, you!?

  7. manassascityresident said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonguy said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:04 pm:

    You left out “MOM”

  8. ProudVirginiaCitizen said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    aww is “mom” angry she and her illegal friends once again failed?

  9. Jeff said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow. What an amazingly epic fail on your part. For all intents and purposes, the “screening a patrol office would conduct” is IDENTICAL to the 287(g) screening–the patrol officer would just call the information in. So the second row is really “no change.”

    As for the third row, it’s clear that the whole reason for the change is to eliminate the REQUIREMENT for screening upon non-arrestable detainment, with probable cause, to screening at DISCRETION. It’s got nothing to do with probably cause–it’s all about removing the REQUIREMENT to do so. The chief obviously doesn’t want his officers doing this at all, so removing the requirement, and then discouraging them from ever doing this is the clear way to go. So the third row should be “many fewer,” since there’s far more non-arrestable detainments than arrests.

    You’d see that too, Greg, if you’d take a minute and pull your head out of Cory Stewart’s butt.

  10. starryflights said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    As a side note: The lady that showed the burnt house at last nights meeting must be very happy today. I just drove by and the roof is now totally off of the house and new wood is laying on the front lawn. ;-)

  11. Mando said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ace if the resolution was or wasn’t changed. It’s all about perception. If illegals and those that employ them continue to perceive that the gravy train is over, they’re going to continue to jump ship. Between ICE’s raids and the notoriety PWC is getting, resolution or not, the illegals are moving on.

    We must continue to fight and be vocal. I feel that neither side gained anything here but don’t let yourself get into a false sense of security. The battle is far from over.

  12. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonguy,

    You left out Jeff too.

  13. Anonymous said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    You are dreaming if you think it is more likely more illegals will be checked under this new policy. Corey Stewart doesn’t want to admit he was outwitted by Charlie Deane and his supporters on the board.

  14. Greg L said on 30 Apr 2008 at 1:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jeff, do you really believe there was no discretion before? You’ve got to be kidding me. Your so-called “requirement” yielded a whopping fifty out of several thousand people being checked, which hardly sounds like there was no officer discretion.

    You effectively cannot require a police officer to do anything unless that applies to every interaction, if you don’t babysit him with a supervisor all day long. Whether an officer “believed” probable cause was there to ask about immigration status is nothing but a judgment call, or discretion. If an officer didn’t want to check immigration status, all he had to do is say there was no probable cause, and no one is going to question that.

    As far as the second row in the table, the change between the probable cause standard and checking everyone is particularly significant. Before, only a fraction of those arrested but not taken to the ADC were checked, now ALL of them will be. To say this makes no difference is utterly ridiculous.

  15. Jeff said on 30 Apr 2008 at 2:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I certainly do believe there was no discretion before. The Chief’s position–as I understand it–is that the cameras are crucial, so they don’t get sued. So, given that it’s a new program, just getting started, and the fact that they don’t have the cameras yet, AND the fact that they knew this still hadn’t been locked into the budget, no–it in no way surprises me that there were so few checks. Why would you check, knowing that there had been all this talk about the possibility of the department getting sued? If I were an officer, I wouldn’t think about exercising that discretion unless I already was pretty sure what the outcome would be. It just wouldn’t be worth it–that’s why there’ve been so very few discretionary-non-arrestable-detainment-checks.

    And now, they’ve been given the green light to pretty much assure there’ll be even fewer checks.

    You’re missing my point on the second row. The “check done by an officer” and the 287(g) check are functionally the same. The “officer on the beat” is just going to call a bunch of information in and let someone else run it through the databases. So that line is a no change.

  16. k. o'toole said on 30 Apr 2008 at 2:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    I still don’t know what to thank the BOCS for in my email to them.:=(

  17. Greg L said on 30 Apr 2008 at 2:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jeff, the 287(g) screening is far more rigorous than what regular patrol officers can do. The 287(g) program employs personnel given five weeks of training by ICE in how to conduct interviews with foreign nationals in order to detect false information, and allows them access to internal ICE resources with dedicated terminals at the ADC.

    The check by officers goes to the Law Enforcement Support Center operated in Vermont by ICE where they check to see if the name provided by the suspect matches the name of an individual who absconded after being ordered deported, failed to appear at a deportation hearing, overstayed a visa, or was previously deported. Patrol officers cannot determine whether someone entered the country without passing through an inspection station, but personnel trained under the Section 287(g) Program often can.

    If you really believe there was no discretion on the part of officers before, you must also then believe that less than 1% of all officer interactions were with potential illegal aliens during the first month of enforcement. I’d suggest you talk to an officer the next time you can about how often they actually encounter foreign nationals. For a policy which you believe offered no discretion to officers, they sure seemed to be asking a surprisingly small number of people about their immigration status.

  18. Advocator said on 30 Apr 2008 at 2:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    As I learned in the Army, all the regulations in the world don’t amount to a pile of dog doo if the they’re not implemented by the boots on the ground. We’ve got to monitor the police implementation of this closely. Failure to exercise “discretion” will be an implicit invitation to the Invader Community that it’s back to business as usual.

    I think the individual patrolman is well aware that his/her job will get easier if illegal aliens leave the County. Unless pressure comes from the top not to exercise discretion, we’ll see them using this discretion to accomplish our goals. It’s in their own personal interest to do so.

  19. Jeff said on 30 Apr 2008 at 2:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, what’s the difference between the “internal ICE resources with dedicated terminals at the ADC” and the “LESC operated in Vermont by ICE”? Aren’t the internal ICE resources just a link to the same databases operated at the LESC in Vermont?

    As for the rest of it, I don’t necessarily buy that five weeks is enough time to teach superb interview skills. Being able to detect an illegal alien just by questioning* is more likely a skill learned from lots of experience than taught in a course. I’d expect older cops to better than younger ones at it.

    As for the 1% of interactions point, what I’m suggesting is that I think they had a very high bar set for what constitutes “probable cause” to check status. If you were afraid of being sued, and believed that having cameras was a panacea for this, wouldn’t you be reluctant to declare “probable cause”? My point is that they would have most likely lowered the bar later, once they had cameras. Then, there would be a lot more checks. Now, it’s completely left to their “discretion” and with no cameras, the bar is going to remain very high for the level of discretion needed to check status.

    *Suggestion: Ask the suspect what the capital of Texas is. If they say Dallas or Houston, they’re American. If they answer Austin, they’re a foreigner. (Yes, I’m joking.)

  20. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    If the officers can ask everyone about legal status then they can not be sued for racial profiling. Its simple and made the cameras unnecessary for preventing lawsuits.

  21. Greg L said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    In addition to direct access to the databases, jail personnel are given a lot of training in how to conduct interrogations to determine whether a foreign national is providing false information, or false documents. A query to LESC is just a name check, but 287(g) trained personnel can check to make sure the whole story of a suspect holds up.

    Say a foreign national claims he’s Cuban, which is what some of these folks were trying to pull at the beginning of the 287(g) Program to evade deportation. Trained personnel can determine whether the suspect actually knows about Cuba, and can get information to verify their story about where they lived, what the culture is like, and whether they’re familiar with some of the cultural idiosyncrasies of a particular place. These folks blew apart this cover story pretty quickly and actually figured out where these people were from. An LESC check would not have gotten a “hit” under this scenario, but 287(g) trained personnel figured out what the real deal was and got these folks in the deportation process as a result.

  22. ProudVirginiaCitizen said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have received an e-mail from Chairman Stewart explaining what happened last night, I believe this e-mail was sent to all he has been in contact with. See below….

    “As reported in today’s edition of the Washington Times, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted unanimously last night to strengthen and expand its crackdown on illegal immigration. See the story here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080430/METRO/823602705/1004. Prior to this change, our police officers could check the immigration status of only those people for whom the officer had probable cause to believe were illegal immigrants. Now, police MUST check the immigration status of ALL people who are arrested (including those arrested for less serious crimes and released on summons). Also, the Board retained the officers’ discretion to check immigration status of those detained for any purpose, even minor infractions. As a result of these actions, our police will be checking the immigration status of more people committing crimes in the County. I know that there was some confusion by other news sources concerning the effects of the Board’s action last evening, and I have been contacting those sources today asking them to correct their stories.

    Also, I want to thank those of you who sent emails or attended the Board meeting yesterday. There is no question that your input helped save our illegal immigration policy from being repealed.

    – Corey”

  23. anon said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    “If the officers can ask everyone about legal status then they can not be sued for racial profiling.”

    Absolutely FALSE declaration.

    In fact, being ABLE to ask everyone and choosing only some people is what will GET you a lawsuit.

  24. me-n-u said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh, happy days are here again…………….
    Maybe they’ll ALL clear out.

  25. anon2 said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    From Corey’s email which says that the police MUST check these folks:

    “including those arrested for less serious crimes and released on summons”

    I’d like to ask, what falls under the umbrella of “less serious crimes and released on summons”?

    Is that a traffic ticket? Disturbing the peace? What kind of things can one do which releases one on summons? Having never gotten so much as a speeding ticket (knock on wood), I’m not sure of all of this lingo.

  26. Riley said on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    You are correct in those assumptions, anon2.

  27. Advocator said on 30 Apr 2008 at 4:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon2 and Riley: That is exactly why I originally drafted the Resolution to provide that every police officer, in every stop of every person, would inquire into legal residence status. Such a policy would obviate the need for cameras, probable cause determinations, and all the rest of that black hole of litigation. Why it got changed, who changed it, and why are a big mystery that’s never been adequately explained.

  28. legal2 said on 30 Apr 2008 at 4:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Advocator, does this mean that the Resolution is back to its original intent, in letter and spirit?

  29. El Lobo said on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonguy and Mando are ABSLUTELY right on i! The “other side” consists of Marxsist socialist malcontent agenda pushing apologists. The REAL winners of last nite’s vote are the authors/implementors, defenders, and supporters of The Rule of Law Resolution. The Illegals and their misguided followers were looking for the Resolution to be rescinded. They FAILED. The illegals’ “savior”, Ricky Juarez, faiiled them. All this past week Spanish radio talk show hosts have been imploring all Hispanics to contact the BOCS asking them to rescind. These people don’t understand “probable cause” or “officer discretion”. What they DO understand is that the purpose of the Resolution is to enforce anti-illegal immigration. The thing the illegals wanted MOST to hear was that the Resolution was rescinded. Last nite’s events settled that.

  30. Maureen Wood said on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Advocator, If you will remember, Nohe took FULL credit for rewriting the resolution.

    legal2, If I’m not mistaking thats exactly what happened.

  31. Benton said on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    I still don’t understand if the liability is now decreased why you think there will be more checks. Isn’t one the opposite of the other?

  32. Bryanna said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    MIRANDA RIGHTS

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

    Before a law enforcement officer may question you regarding the possible commission of a crime, he or she must read you your Miranda Rights. He or She must also make sure that you understand them.

    Only AFTER the police officer has read the person his/her Miranda Rights, will the jail under 287g will investigate legal status.

    How do you figure MORE people will be arrested? AND, the Illegal Alien Unit is Kaput. We have weakened the Rule of Law resolution, not strengthened it.

  33. starryflights said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    The spin from both sides is making me dizzy.

  34. BattleCat said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    I saw Steinbach on Channel 4 crying about the “palor cast over the county”. It’s so funny because the only palor cast is from HIM and those like him. They make up this “damaged reputation” and spread it as far and wide as they can, then come back and blame it on the resolution. What I totally cannot comprehend is how everyone can’t see that!

  35. El Lobo said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    BattleCat, they are in a perpetual state of denial; they cannot comprehend or see reality. They wallow in their own liberal mush.

  36. starryflights said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    I would like to know why our BOCS are allowed to go behind closed doors without the public knowing what is being said. Is a transcript available of what went on in there? I think this should be a matter of public record and I would like to see it.

  37. Benton said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Good point. They said they had nothing for closed session earlier……..

  38. starryflights said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    My DH said that in the town he grew up in (in CA), that ANY correspondence, any words exchanged, etc. by their local government, was to be a matter of public record. This meant that they avoided each other, unless they were in an official meeting.

  39. anon2 said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Channel 4 news reports that NOW someone can only have status checked after they are arrested. And they stated that previously the officers could check status prior to or without an arrest.

    So, is Channel 4 wrong, too?

    I certainly would like to see something in writing, because at this point I don’t believe anyone about anything.

  40. starryflights said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think it is time that the citizens of PWC start a petition to put the following question on the ballot. “Should ALL words (both spoken and written) and any other form of communication between our BOCS be a matter of public record?” or “Should ALL forms of communication between the PWC BOCS be a matter of public record and be published on the PWC BOCS formal website within 24 hours?”

  41. manassascityresident said on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    anon2 said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:45 pm:
    So, is Channel 4 wrong, too?

    I think they are. They were wrong this AM as well. Corey’s email said that “he has been contacting those sources today asking them to correct their stories. “

  42. Colonial83 said on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    I would like to be optimistic here. At least criminal illegal aliens seem to have a better shot at being deported. But all of the reports are like night and day.

    I am still concerned about the “discretion” aspect, and worry that it will give Deane a great deal of control over his officers, who might possibly face some sort of retaliation from him if they use “discretion” too much.

    And what about the camera issue? Is that dead? I do think those should have been funded right from the beginning, not just to protect officers from lawsuits but also hopefully as a deterrent to protect their personal safety.

    Thank you, Greg, for all of your hard work and your efforts.

  43. Advocator said on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Legal2: No, this does not mean the Resolution is back to its original letter, as I had drafted it and presented to Mr. Stirrup. That version would have required every police officer to question every person stopped for any suspected offense about their legal residence. Now it’s up to the officer’s “discretion,” whatever that means. Any time an officer has discretion, his/her use of that discretion is subject to scrutiny for unconstitutional (i.e., racial) bias. Consequently, the possibility of lawsuits for abusing that discretion is still there.

    I believe the amended policy is still stronger than what we had, since all arrestees will be checked for legal residence.

  44. Bryanna said on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    “BattleCat said on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:21 pm:
    I saw Steinbach on Channel 4 crying about the “palor cast over the county”. It’s so funny because the only palor cast is from HIM and those like him. They make up this “damaged reputation” and spread it as far and wide as they can, then come back and blame it on the resolution. What I totally cannot comprehend is how everyone can’t see that!”
    ————————————————————————–
    Because Mr. Nohe said so, therefore it must be true!

    PW has been battling image problems forever. Remember the Bumpkin article in the Wash Post last year BEFORE the illegal alien resolution?

    Economic Development and the Visitors Bureau need to do their job and launch an ad campaign to attract visitors and business to PWC.

  45. Bryanna said on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Does anyone know if the BOCS officially went in to closed session last night?

    Supervisors said they were taking a 15 minute break, went of their air and off line, and 95 minutes later came back and had reached a concensus.

  46. Greg L said on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    No Ari, they recessed. There was no closed session last night.

  47. Rudy said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wonder what tactic the DPV will make Principi try next? I bet he thought he’d go back snd say “I tried, sorry, no mas…” Not that I have a problem with Democrats, but it has become more than apparent that the party does not like enforcing immigration laws at the local level; look how Puller voted last year on immigration issues, all no and all along party lines…I bet big daddy Connolly gave him a good talking to today…

  48. Woodbridge saved by other Supervisors said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Rudy,

    Given public response in the past and that they knew it would be overwhelmingly strong in support of killing his resolution again, I wonder if this entire thing was crafted by DPV to challenge Chairmen Stewarts leadership and to try and push the budget into further discussion. If he hadn’t rallied the crew last night and got a compromise in place that retained the ROLR and kept ‘ol Huckleberry Hound Jenkins (remember when he picked his teeth and looked up at Stewart when he said he’d go to 98.7 to protect officers and Jenkins said “‘ya go to a dollar?”) away from the opportunity to tax us into oblivion by adjourning that session without a budget, folks, we’d have some REAL problems in this county. Could you imagine if they could have pushed this “debate” to right before July 1st, everything could have been unraveled. Stewert did a good job last night, those in the military knows sometimes it sucks being the leader…especially when you’re not sure those you’re negotiating with is “with you or against you”…Principi’s move was much more nefarious than it appeared….

  49. JM said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    NBC4 changed their story at 5 PM, and it’s much more accurate now than it was this morning. Washington Post has not posted a corrected story online.

    [Ed note: the updated story is here]

  50. dmg said on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    I posted this some time back as well as in another thread today. 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.

  51. anon2 said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    “NBC4 changed their story at 5 PM, and it’s much more accurate now than it was this morning. Washington Post has not posted a corrected story online.”

    NBC 4 at 5:00 still said that status would be checked ONLY upon arrest and at no other time. I certainly hope THAT is not considered to be accurate.

  52. Daniel said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    “probable cause” or “officer discretion”.

    before the officer had to have probable cause to ask about immigration status, if no answer he could make the arrest of the suspect under the suspicion of being in the country as an illegal.

    now its at the officers discretion, they drafted it like that not because they are giving more power to police, but because there’s a federal law that prohibits local goverments from restricting local police to cooperate with federal laws and federal agents.

    now…the officer needs only his discretion to ask for immigration status, but if the suspects chooses not to answer he can’t make the arrest unless the suspect has commited and arrestable offense.

    once in ADC a suspect can refuse to talk ( since he’s under arrest ) has the right to remain silent…so you be the judge. who won this recent encounter???Legals or Illegals????..is Corey Stewart making false statements on his recent E-mail?????

  53. Daniel said on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    it has been pwc policy at the ADC to check the legal status of all the suspects of been in the country illegally, since the early part of 2007. so why do we need police asking around….make the arrest and everyone will get their status checked at the ADC.

  54. anon2 said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Newschannel 8 just reported that PWC relaxed the Rule of Law Resolution.

  55. Dolph said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Wills,

    I think they passed the decal fee at $24. Isn’t that what we have been paying? Too bad they make it a fee rather than a tax. Does anyone know the reason for this?

    Mr. Wills, I hear you are going to be running for president. I know of one person who is votiing for you. I think she is serious.

  56. Riley said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Advocator — “Why it got changed, who changed it, and why are a big mystery that’s never been adequately explained.”

    I understand that Mike May is the one who introduced the “probable cause” standard.

  57. Patty said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    anon2,

    I think the Times has it right. I think 4 and 8 are playing off the Washington Post. I received and e-mail from Chairman Stewart’s office that explains everything. He indicated that the story in the Washington Times is accurate. There is to be a press release hopefully tomorrow that will clear things up. Still looks like a pro resolution victory to me. It is like the orginial resolution that John Stirrup introduced back in July. Remember is was Supervisor Nohe that changed it to probable cause. I guess everyone has a short memory these days (me included).

  58. anon said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I think they passed the decal fee at $24. Isn’t that what we have been paying? Too bad they make it a fee rather than a tax. Does anyone know the reason for this?”

    Yes, they passed it at $24 - the same as now.

    IMO, the reason it is a fee and not a tax is so that politicians can claim not to have raised taxes. It’s not a “tax” if it is a fee (in the mind of the dishonest politicians and gullible citizens).

  59. Bryanna said on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Marty Nohe was the resolution’s author, and he would never participate in anything that could possible make Stewart and Stirrup look good.

    Nohe promoted awareness of the probable cause and probably at the advice of his best friend and former PW Chairman Connaughton. He then fed Principi the info. Nohe is a bottom feeder.

    Anyone catch Channel 7 news tonight at 11:00 stating we weakened the illegal immigration efforts and the hispanics intereviewed now hope things can go back to the way the were.

    Thanks Marty and Frank!

  60. Dolph said on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon,

    Thanks for clarifying. If it was a tax we could also deduct it off state and fed taxes. Every little bit helps. Does state law prevent that from happening for is it purely local option that labels the fee?

    Mike,

    So far I have heard of 3 different people who people say authored the resolution. The only person who actually says THEY did it is Advocator. I guess I tend to believe him. Were there co-authors? Maybe Advocator will weigh in here with an answer tomorrow.

    I have heard so much tossed around this week it has all become mush. Advocator, I am going to defer to you.

  61. Bob Wills said on 1 May 2008 at 12:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Dolph said on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:37 pm:
    Mr. Wills,

    I think they passed the decal fee at $24. Isn’t that what we have been paying? Too bad they make it a fee rather than a tax. Does anyone know the reason for this?

    Mr. Wills, I hear you are going to be running for president. I know of one person who is votiing for you. I think she is serious.

    No they raised the decal fee for cars to 34.00 so that they would have another 4 million for the CIP but the public will not catch on until the PP bills are sent out.

    You also heard that the 800 million bond issue would not cause an increase in taxes but that was a lie as well. Of course they will not issue the 800 million in bonds for years because they can not pay debt service in excess of 10 % of the general revenue of the county for debt service and we are just about taped out on that.

    Not running for anything and wouldn’t get elected anyways :)))

    anon is complete right is saying the politicians are calling it a fee so that they will not have to claim it is a tax. This is what May and Jenkins think and say. No different then the Proffers which is a tax but the home owner pays for it in the cost of the house but does not get to deduct it. Why do the public keep electing those who lie the best???

  62. Greg L said on 1 May 2008 at 12:22 am:
    Flag comment

    I saw that the proposal to raise the decal fee failed, and another proposal to keep it at $24 passed. That was also reported in the MJM, I believe.

  63. Bob Wills said on 1 May 2008 at 1:13 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg L said on 1 May 2008 at 12:22 am:
    I saw that the proposal to raise the decal fee failed, and another proposal to keep it at $24 passed. That was also reported in the MJM, I believe.

    Always a possibility to be wrong but I thought that Nohe’s motion to raise the fee to 34.00 was passed. The reason was that they needed 4 million in funds for the CIP. this was done later in the night and a couple of different motions did fail including the one by Stewart who wanted to increase the RE Tax to cover this fee which would have given the citizens a tax deduction and a savings of about 20 % which is the amount of non residentional taxable tax base in the county but that failed as well.

    Greg you are believing what is reported in the MJM ?????:))))))))

  64. The Dude said on 1 May 2008 at 1:41 am:
    Flag comment

    Latest WaPo take on it:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003492.html

    If Mexicans Without Borders doesn’t really like the changes, it can’t be all that bad after all:

    “Nancy Lyall, a coordinator for Mexicans Without Borders, said the changes only complicate police enforcement without offering the county any protection from legal action.

    “It seems there are a lot of loopholes in this resolution, so that the police have the ability to question people’s status at will,” Lyall said. “That’s certainly not going to prevent racial profiling. . . . It seems it’s just as ripe as it was before.”

  65. Bob Wills said on 1 May 2008 at 1:51 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg you and the MJM are correct there was no increase in the Decal Fee for this year. Just watched the rerun tonight :)))

  66. Advocator said on 1 May 2008 at 7:16 am:
    Flag comment

    I saw two pickup trucks with mattresses in my neighborhood last night. They were UNloading them.

    Perception is everything. Regardless of what got passed or unpassed Tuesday night, the perception among the Illegal Community is that PWC is back to business as usual.

    It’s not time yet to storm the castle, but sharpen up your pitchforks and clean off the shovels.

  67. Herndon Bob said on 1 May 2008 at 7:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Probable cause is not used in the Herndon 287g program. My understanding is that Herndon uses a reasonable suspicion standard. Since probable cause is subject to dispute, officers may be reluctant to exercise that authority in marginal circumstances. From what I have seen, officers will document their causes in case the issue comes up when the case is brought before a judge.

    Not being a lawyer, I do not know what the difference is between reasonable suspicion and officer discretion. Officer discretion is a lower standard which typically is not challenged. For example an officer has the discretion in certain instances of issuing a ticket or a warning. The problem I see with the discretion policy as it relates to immigration checks is the policy that the chief will establish on its use. That policy will determine under what circumstances discretion applies and what option the officer has. How well the Rule of Law Resolution works is now in the complete control of the chief. Hopefully someone will be able to review that policy before it is implemented.

    The Arizona Republic has an interesting article this morning on Racial Profiling and probable cause.

    “Proving racial profiling requires showing not only police discrimination but also that the discrimination was intentional.”

    “We do have a right if you do have probable cause to question them about citizenship. One of them is speech,” he said. “Maybe they don’t speak English.”

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0501profiling0501.html

  68. NoVA Scout said on 1 May 2008 at 8:38 am:
    Flag comment

    I’ve been chuckling at this thread for nearly 24 hours now and it just keeps going. Life can be great sometimes. The last comment is a doozie where some yob in Arizona opines that “probable cause” to test “citizenship” (are their some sort of “citizenship cops” in Arizona?) is ability to speak English. Get your toothbrush, Henry Kissinger, we’re taking you downtown.

    A third column that would have been interesting in Greg’s chart is what the situation was two years ago on immigration status checks once a suspect was committed to the prison system (whether at the local or the state level). The fact of the matter is that the Board has put you guys back to what was essentially happening before any of this. All the intervening sound and fury (ultimately signifying very little) simply means that you probably have ensured that status checks will be more routinized for the prison population (although, despite sillly buggers talk about “catch-and-release” there was never a big problem of perps serving time without their immigration status being determined during their incarceration. But it made for great political theater to talk as though that were a real problem)

    The BOCS significantly cut back on the breadth of the immigration check requirements being imposed on PWC’s police by ensuring that status inquiries occur after someone suspected of a fairly serious offense (serious enough to warrant taking them into custody) is locked up. What the BOCS took away was the idea that the police would check status of everyone at point of contact (since looking at someone or listening to their accent provides no probable cause for being out-of-status or illegal entry, the only way the Elect Stewart Resolution (ESR) could be administered without ensuring huge, costly legal problems for the County was to check everyone, including WASPy native types like me who couldn’t prove my citizenship at curbside any more than I could write a choral prelude with organ accompaniment). It really was the only option available to them and I guess it’s in the nature of pols to claim victory no matter how much they abjectly retreat. They saved the police force from ruin as a local law enforcement organization, and they significantly cut back the reckless financial risk that had been imposed on the County.

    You’re all vastly better off with this policy. For one meeting Nohe and the others outmaneuvered Stewart in a manner reminscent of what used to happen almost every meeting during the Connaughton days. They can’t crow about it, because you guys will melt their servers with nasty e-mails. So they describe this as if it’s a little tweak. Stewart can’t fess up to being completely bamboozled for obvious reasons. So we’ll all pretend nothing happened - or better yet, pretend that this makes the regime even more oppressive, to con the more dark-spirited among you.

    The only folks I worry about are those who really believe this “strengthened” the ESR. The folks who are pretending for sake of appearances I understand. Those of you who really need to believe in fairy tales - please be careful out in the real world. You’re very vulnerable.

  69. Patty said on 1 May 2008 at 9:16 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout,

    I think you should read the article in today’s Post. Looks like Nancy Lyall finally gets it.

  70. Advocator said on 1 May 2008 at 9:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Get some sleep, Scout.

  71. AWCheney said on 1 May 2008 at 11:56 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA, you’re an attorney, so correct me if I’m wrong: As I understand “probable cause,” it is a legal term which sets a bar which can be defined as sufficient cause to procure a warrant, if time allowed. Now, that being the case, I would say that the PWCBOS LOWERED the bar to check legal residency status in its inaction with the public to “officer discretion.” The key to this bar is, granted, Chief Deane…but I submit that, should he intimidate the officers into a “don’t see, don’t tell” stance, he is NOT doing the job that the citizens of Prince William County, with whom he should be concerned, are demanding. I’d call that grounds for immediate retirement, and I’d be extremely disappointed in our Board if they weren’t already trolling for resumes nationwide.

  72. manassascityresident said on 1 May 2008 at 12:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    “…..and I’d be extremely disappointed in our Board if they weren’t already trolling for resumes nationwide.”

    God, I hope so.

  73. AWCheney said on 1 May 2008 at 12:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sorry Herndon Bob…I just noticed your comment at 7:30 am where you practically said the same thing. I would have hoped that NoVA would have offered a counterpoint from a legal perspective rather than a political one.

  74. Bob Wills said on 1 May 2008 at 1:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    What is not being talked about is why the zoning laws are either not being enforced or for some reason can not be enforced to keep over crowding. Such violations which are the real root of why the problem of illegals became what it was. Rather then county government doing something positive to stop the blight it has been turned over to the police department to enforce what government does not or can not do.

    What will it take to get the zoning office to clean up their part of the problem which is not an actual breaking of police laws?

    Why do county employees have to accept when someone says the 10 or more people in this house are all related? Why can they not make them prove this point no matter how hard it may be for non citizens without american birth certificates. Why can they not demand finger prints of all the occupants to see if they can verify who they really are. Biometrics is greatly expanding and is a very quick way to find out if this print matches another one in the files.

    The county certainly seems to be able to enforce thier soning laws on property owners other then over crowding issues.

  75. Advocator said on 1 May 2008 at 2:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bob Wills:

    Good points. Why not call the zoning office and ask and report back to us?

  76. The Dude said on 1 May 2008 at 3:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree. Overcrowding is really what go this issue to a boiling point. How can you not be angry over 20+ males up all hours of the night and peeing on the lawn, stuffed into a nice suburban neighborhood right next to your 5 year old daughter.

    Ridiculous that they don’t enforce that. So the only response is to kick all of the illegals out of the county if they don’t at least kick out the troublemakers.

  77. NoVA Scout said on 1 May 2008 at 11:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patty (0916): The Post article was fairly uninformative. I don’t put much as much stock as you do in Nancy Lyall’s comments. She has to keep her spotlight and fundraising capability through alarmist rhetoric from her perspective just as much as Greg et al. do from their side. Just as Stewart and Greg can’t acknowledge that we’re back at the status quo ante all this mindless hysteria, she can’t either. The fact is, the BOCS took a giant step back from the abyss of destroying your police department and turning it into a tinhorn, unconstitutional, litigation-prone, ineffectual ICE.

    AWC: good question. I may have a law degree, but criminal procedure is not my regular stomping ground. I’ll give it my best shot, though. “Probable Cause” is a constitutional mandate that all of us conservative patriots think very highly of. No podunk local government (or even a local government of great majesty such as that of PWC) can make it disappear in favor of “officer discretion.” As I read the resolution, no immigration status inquiry will occur until a suspect is in custody at ADC. That means there was some independent cause for arrest other than suspicions about immigration status. I don’t see anything in the resolution about “officer discretion” and I very much doubt that your theory that Probable Cause has been dispensed with in favor of a looser standard is accurate, quite aside from the fact that if it were, it would be a nasty attack on a fundamental constitutional component (that’s one of the reason that I regard so much of this stuff as essentially left-wing, anti-American assaults on the basic liberties of the citizens). That leaves your police force mercifully more or less where it was pre-nervous breakdown - a local law enforcement organization that will interact with the citizenry on a constitutional basis. If there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed (e.g., drunk driving, vehicular homicide, bank robbery, rape, murder, burglary, etc. , not federal civil violations like uninspected entry), the officer can halt, arrest, and place in custody a suspect. When in custody, inquiries can be made about immigration status. This would happen in the normal course even before all this goofy hoopla, but now it’s very clear that it can continue to happen. This should mitigate the public safety hit you were taking by your legal and illegal immigrant community distrusting the police force and coming to regard them as enemies, rather than keepers of the peace.

    What your Board avoided by their revisions is the all-or-nothing dilemma of having to check you and me and every single other person for citizenship everytime they pulled us over for failing to come to a complete stop or a busted tail light. That would be the only way that they could beat the allegation that they were being arbitrary in who they checked for citizenship or legal residency. By going back to where they were a couple of years ago, you can be reasonably sure that any criminal committed to the penal system will be vetted at some point during his stay for immigration status checks (as had been the case previously) but that you won’t have your officers on the beat spending all their time trying to deal with people like me who don’t normally carry evidence of citizenship.

    So great progress was made in stepping back from disaster (although great damage has already been done). Folks will spin, spin, spin, hoping that the bulk of their audience is too ignorant, or too emotionally overwrought to notice what really happened, and, as can be seen from some of the comments, pols can fool some of the people all of the time. Those are the ones I worry about when they cross the street, take baths, or other mundane activities that most folks can undertake without great personal danger.

  78. AWCheney said on 2 May 2008 at 12:31 am:
    Flag comment

    “What your Board avoided by their revisions is the all-or-nothing dilemma of having to check you and me and every single other person for citizenship everytime they pulled us over for failing to come to a complete stop or a busted tail light”…which is the way that the Resolution was originally written, before amended at the first vote.

  79. The Real Advocator said on 2 May 2008 at 4:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    And it was a work of art, AW.

  80. NoVA Scout said on 3 May 2008 at 7:04 am:
    Flag comment

    My recollection was that the first version of the resolution was even worse from a violence to the Constitution standpoint, AW. What you’ve gone back to now is not the first draft, but rather to where you were before this hoopla got all ginned up. You’ve come full circle to pre-2007. The difference is (and this may be a positive difference) is that there has been so much furor over this thatthe chances of the rare case of a convict not being checked early in his incarceration is very small. I don’t think that ever was a significant problem, and to the extent it was it could have been fixed rather easily without undermining the local law enforcement functions of the county police .

  81. Rebel of Woodbridge said on 4 May 2008 at 4:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    I heard a strange rumor about the new immigration proposal. That Principi guy put forward two proposals to the Board. The first was knocked out 7-1 and it was really a rouse to get it out there. The second one, which was also, Principi’s was the one he knew our Corey and the Board would have to support—-and they did. Has anyone heard any information about the proposal that was unanimously accepted? Is it final? What can we do as team to change this direction?

  82. Greg L said on 4 May 2008 at 7:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Rebel, that proposal was written by county attorney Ross Horton. Principi had no role in drafting it to my knowledge.

Comments are closed.


Views: 3087