Yesterday, Rick Sanchez of CNN hosted a discussion with Jonathan Turley of George Washington University and Jim Wallis of Sojourners about the new, tough anti-illegal immigration bill in Arizona. And, as could be expected, Sanchez lied. On the video at peekURL.com/vq761e3 Rick Sanchez refers to:

The part of the bill that says that anyone with darker skin [pats hand] or that police *believe* might be an illegal immigrant has a right to be stopped and searched. Is that constitutional?

The bill (House engrossed version here, might not be a permalink) makes clear that police aren't going to be just stopping and searching people for no reason; it has to be part of an unrelated police stop of some kind. And, of course, not only is there no "darker skin" provision, but the bill makes clear that any weight given to "race, color or national origin" must be in accordance with U.S. and Arizona law:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

Later it amends their current laws:

A. A peace officer may, without a warrant, may arrest a person if he the officer has probable cause to believe: ...4. A misdemeanor or a petty offense has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense... 5. The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States... B. A peace officer may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected violation of any traffic law committed in the officer's presence and may serve a copy of the traffic complaint for any alleged civil or criminal traffic violation. A peace officer who serves a copy of the traffic complaint shall do so within a reasonable time of the alleged criminal or civil traffic violation.

#5 might be, for example, the opposite of L.A.'s Special Order 40 and might be meant to apply in the case where a police officer knows that someone is a felon who was previously deported from the U.S.; some might consider that a bit broad although it's not exactly clear how that is meant to be applied.

In any case, none of these provisions have any even remotely close to Sanchez' "darker skin" claim.

Note also that Turley says, "I don't know how you could have reasonable suspicion, looking at two different people, I bet that one doesn't have papers." While a couple of the other things he says seem to imply that he did read the bill, that quote certainly does not. And, note also that he didn't call Sanchez on his outrageous lie.