this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
108 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19226 readers
2962 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MiddleWeigh 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most concerning to me, outside the obvious, is that anyone from these states driving in Florida can now be stopped for any reason at all and ran through the for profit legal system. Escalating from "driving without proper ID" to some misdemeanor charges or more is pretty easy to do.

[–] theyoyomaster 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

How would this work? They would still need a reason to stop and valid charges. Only IDs issued to those without legal status are invalid in FL.

[–] TechyDad 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Step 1: Police officer sees a car with an out of state license plate.

Step 2: Officer comes up with a reason to stop the car. Maybe the driver was doing 2mph over the speed limit or didn't stop 100% properly (in the officer's opinion) at a stop sign. Note that this can be completely made up. The officer can claim that they were going 50 in a 30 speed zone even if they were going 29mph.

Step 3: The officer asks for the driver's ID. The driver hands over their driver's license. The officer insists that they need VALID identification and the out of state driver's license doesn't count. (Bonus points if the officer confiscates the "illegal driver's license" and refuses to return it )

Step 4: The driver is arrested for driving without a valid license. If they are Latino (or just "look or sound foreign"), they are placed with some immigrants and threatened with deportation regardless of their actual citizenship status.

[–] aidan -5 points 1 year ago

If they wanted to make up a reason to stop people they don't need this law

[–] MiddleWeigh 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From my basic understanding, those states, you'd need a REAL ID to be a valid driver. I know I don't have one.

It would be used as pretense to stop those out of state plates, that will be in their own classification, and come up as a flag on officer computers, scanners etc. From there it's all discretion on the officers part on how they handle it. If their boss needs bodies, they'll be had, ime.

I won't be going to Florida anytime soon, for sure.

[–] theyoyomaster 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The news articles and posts about it are deliberately vague to generate outrage. The bill only applies to licenses exclusively issued to people without legal status.

http://laws.flrules.org/2023/40

[–] MiddleWeigh 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Thanks for clarification.

I am confused cause I found :

The law focuses on specific classes of driver’s licenses in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont. It doesn’t invalidate the licenses but rather classifications given to those without immigration status in the United States.

That includes licenses with classifications such as “Not For Federal Identification”, “Driving Privilege Only” and “Not Valid for Identification

"Not for federal indefication" is used for all non real id's, right?

So do these all now fall into their own classification regardless of legal status?

Im still still confused.

[–] Doomrabbit 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm guessing this is to catch commercial drivers with higher endorsements, possibly a semi or bus driver. States regularly have stricter licensing guidelines than each other, and Florida has added citizenship as a requirement. The listed states apparently do not check this.

[–] MiddleWeigh 3 points 1 year ago

Ah I think I grasp it now. So those states that don't check legal status are now, by default, all getting classified on FLs end? It seems like a rather unnecessary contact point for our legal system, and has potential to be abused, outside of illegal immigrants.

[–] aidan 2 points 1 year ago

From my understanding, non-real ID can still be used for federal identification- seeing as they can still be used to enter federal buildings and verify identity in other ways. It's just viewed as a less standardly secure form of federal identification.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

if youre hispanic and from california this could be a "valid" pretext for a stop. and then whatever is found in the stop is allowed to be used against the person. the person described above couldve been born here but with this law their rights are violated because of the way they look.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That's how I read it. What's vague about it?

[–] Lemmylefty 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A police officer can and will find anything to pull you over, so that’s not hard at all. And, of course, resisting arrest is a reason to arrest you.

[–] MiddleWeigh 1 points 1 year ago

They don't need a reason. They can make one up. If you have a public defender, your not making that argument in court. Your takin a plea.

I've witnessed the "resisting arrest" tactic in person. In police interactions, they drum up as many charges as they can so the little misdemeanors stick and you become more likely to plead out. Just my experience and opinion.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The would still need a reason to stop

The reason to stop comes up only if your lawyer brings it up. A public defender isn't going to bring it up because it requires being able to build enough doubt to have the judge inquiry. And a judge is going to be less favorable in giving a benefit of the doubt for a public defender. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you're less likely to afford the filing should the court go down that road of police inquiry.

This is why most people who go with public defenders just go with simple bench arranged plea deals. The vast majority of people pulled over aren't going to have the resources to challenge this. That's the entire point.

[–] MiddleWeigh 2 points 1 year ago

This is so true. I had a public defender. They did literally nothing, and would only have done so if I had done all the leg work and brought my case to them. If you don't have a good paid lawyer, your getting smoked. The cops can say absolutely anything in the report and in court and your guilty until proven innocent unless you've got a paid lawyer. Plea deals all day. It's messed up. I even had the strange inclination that my PD just straight up worked for the judge tbh. Wouldn't surprise me.

Tbf I've had more luck in blue cities with PDs. In rural red areas, forget it.

Too much contact with the legal system in my life. But now that it's behind me, I feel pretty strongly about removing any unnecessary police contact points, like this law, because I've seen good people get sailed down the river on some b.s.

This just seems ripe for corruption and misuse.

The cops can now just pull anyone over from these states just because of your plates. If they don't like the cut of your jib, your gonna get harassed.