April 30, 2010, – Pilar Marrero – La Opinion

…

La gran discusión nacional en torno a la ley ha enfrentado a quienes argumentan que la cláusula que establece "un contacto legal" entre policía y cualquier persona, que requiere o permite a ese policía revisar el estatus migratorio del individuo, daría paso al uso del perfil racial y quienes afirman que no sería así.

Peter Berlin, abogado defensor en Los Ángeles, indica que técnicamente la ley de Arizona tiene un lenguaje tan vago que ofrece numerosas oportunidades a los policías para pedir papeles una vez que entran en contacto con cualquier persona, por cualquier razón.

"Me temo que donde haya policías con la intención de arrestar a la mayor cantidad de personas posibles, veremos muchas razones de ‘sospecha razonable’ y de ‘contacto legal’.Por ejemplo, alguien que cruza la calle por un lugar prohibido puede ser detenido y que se le pidan sus papeles. Hace años, antes que los tribunales lo detuvieran, había policías que separaban frente a los bares para buscar cualquier falla en las personas que salían o ver si se montaban en vehículos. Lo mismo podría ocurrir aquí", dijo Berlin.

…

For the entire article click here.

While it doesn’t seem that any criminal charges are forthcoming anytime soon, an interesting legal issue with respect to the Goldman case (and financial disclosure in general) will be for the SEC to prove that any misrepresentations made by Goldman were "material" in nature so that their investors would not otherwise have purchased these mortgage backed securities had they known the true facts.  In other words, if investors knew of the conflict (or potential conflict) with Goldman client John Paulson betting against them or selecting some of Goldman’s investments to begin with, would the investors have purchased from Goldman? 

Goldman’s investors were not your average run of the mill mom and pop investors. In fact, German state banks were the main investors. So it will be crucial for the SEC to establish that said misrepresentations were material or that the Goldman investors involved were unsophisticated and/or tricked and defrauded.

Police often manufacture "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" when they believe  (but cant prove or establish) that some sort of crime may have been committed. Take Driving Under the Influence, for example. Officers routinely create reports with buzz words such as “weaving” or “straddling” lanes of the highway to justify a stop and then question the driver for DUI. Often, there is no violation at all but those words and observations are good enough to stand up in court as a legitimate stop and, ultimately, a DUI charge.

Similarly, the Arizona bill creates bogus conduct and so called "reasonable suspicion" for police who merely want to check someone’s legal status. This will be based on trivial violations such as loitering or jaywalking as a basis to stop and detain the individuals law enforcement ultimately want.