For a look at how the Arizona law might work in practice, here’s a good case to consider: Estrada v. Rhode Island. The plaintiffs alleged a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights because Officer Thomas Chabot of the Rhode Island State Police asked about their immigration status during a traffic stop, then made an inquiry to ICE, and finally transported them to the Providence office of ICE.

Chabot pulled over a van full of people after it failed to signal a change of lanes. Chabot asked the driver for ID and registration. He complied. Then, Chabot walked over to the passenger side and asked the guy in the passenger seat if he had ID. Because he wasn’t as distinctly American as Mike Gerson, instead of shouting “Go to hell,” he said that he didn’t have any. Chabot counted 15 people inside the van, and asked for ID from all of them. They produced a gym card, two cards from the Guatemalan consulate, and a non-driver’s license ID from Rhode Island. By this point, unaccountably, Chabot had the sense something might not be right.

He asked if they had documents establishing their citizenship. None did. Eventually the passengers basically admitted they were illegal. (I’m told this happens more than you might think.) Chabot returned to his car and called ICE. He had to wait three minutes for a return call and instructions. Then, with back-up, he escorted the van to the ICE office where the passengers were detained.

Does this smack of near-fascism? I think it’ll strike most people as eminently reasonable.

The district court ruled that Chabot had reasonable suspicion to suspect immigration violations, and the First Circuit held that he had qualified immunity. It wrote of his inquiry into the immigration status of the passengers:

. . .by the time Officer Chabot asked about Plaintiffs’ immigration status, he knew that: (1) Plaintiffs were headed to work; (2) most were unable to produce any identification,and of the four who did, two could produce only identifications issued by the Guatemalan consulate; and (3) they spoke little English. Officer Chabot also testified that passengers, of whom he requests documentation as a matter of routine, are able to produce valid identification more than 99 percent of the time. All of these facts combined may well have sufficiently heightened his suspicions for him to believe that he could shift his inquiry from the traffic stop to investigating other potential criminal activity. See Chhien, 266 F.3d at 6 (“[W]hile an officer’s actions must bear some relation to the purpose of the original stop, he may shift his focus and increase the scope of his investigation by degrees if his suspicions mount during the course of the detention.”).

I’ve obviously left out details, but you can read all about it and get a sense of the state of the law here.