interesting california law, seems unconstitutional on the face of it

Post #422,285 by boxley 1/18/18 6:31:57 PM 1/18/18 6:31:57 PM Reply	interesting california law, seems unconstitutional on the face of it https://ntknetwork.com/california-ag-employers-who-cooperate-with-federal-immigration-raids-will-be-prosecuted/ Under AB 450, employers are prohibited from “providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter nonpublic areas of a place of labor unless the agent provides a judicial warrant, except as specified.” 1. forcing a private entity to perform a law enforcement action without recompense or authority 2. how does the state take authority over private property? Don't think this will stand a challenge "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #422,286 by drook 1/18/18 7:06:08 PM 1/18/18 7:06:08 PM Reply	Nope It's not directing them to perform an action that could reasonably require recompense. Saying "No" takes no longer than saying "Yes". If you're saying that the employer would have no authority to do what is directed, I can't even imagine how you could argue they don't. If you're saying the state doesn't have the authority, well I guess the courts will figure that one out. As for your second point, the state enforces numerous employee rights on private property already. How is this one fundamentally different? -- Drew
Post #422,288 by boxley 1/18/18 7:10:50 PM 1/18/18 7:10:50 PM Reply	I think that forcing an employer to refuse a lawful request of a law enforcement agency is deputizing them ad hoc. If the law said call local law enforcement immediately, that would be different. just a thought me personally I would prefer judicial warrants each and every time the law shows up but thats just me. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #422,289 by drook 1/18/18 7:38:44 PM 1/18/18 7:38:44 PM Reply	What about making employers check an applicant's I-9? What about making employers provide a safe working environment? We're already making them take a hand in enforcing the law. That doesn't deputize them in any way. As for "refusing a lawful request" you're conflating legal terms. A "lawful request" exists in the context of HIPPA disclosure, to indicate that the requesting party has the legal right to request such information that is otherwise protected by medical privacy laws. The term for an in-person LEO interaction is "lawful order". In that case, there are no bright lines defining what constitutes a lawful order, however the key point is that it is illegal to refuse to comply with what is deemed to be a lawful order. And in the case where an LEO is requesting entry to private property, without a warrant (or exigent circumstances that would otherwise allow their entry) there can not be a "lawful order" to grant access. Any other handwaving? -- Drew
Post #422,293 by mmoffitt 1/19/18 8:18:10 AM 1/19/18 8:18:10 AM Reply	That is exactly bass-ackwards. ...forcing an employer to refuse a lawful request of a law enforcement agency is deputizing them ad hoc. NO. There's supposed to be a little thing in the law about "unreasonable searches." Requiring employers to allow warrantless searches of their properties IS deputizing them by fiat for they are being required to participate in a law enforcement activity. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.

Welcome to IWETHEY!