Arizona police face questions after court ruling
Photo
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer leaves a news conference responding to the United States Supreme Court decision regarding Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB1070, coming down at the Arizona Capitol Monday, June 25, 2012, in Phoenix. The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona’s crackdown on immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion on checking suspects’ status could go forward.
TUCSON, Ariz. — Arizona's police chiefs and county sheriffs hoped a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would settle their long-running debate on what role, if any, they should play in immigration enforcement. Instead, the justices' decision to uphold the state's "show me your papers" statute has left them with more questions than answers.
How long must officers wait for federal authorities to respond when they encounter someone illegal, especially given President Barack Obama's new policy to only deport dangerous criminals and repeat offenders? If they release a person too soon, are they exposing themselves to a lawsuit from residents who accuse them of failing to enforce the law?
How do they avoid being sued for racial profiling? Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he anticipated no change in how he does his job but that comes from someone who was accused of racially profiling Latinos in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department.
"We're going to get sued if we do. We're going to get sued if we don't. That's a terrible position to put law enforcement officers in," said Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, whose territory covers much of southern Arizona and who has long argued against his state's requirement that local law enforcement be forced to ask about the legal status of anyone suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.
The justices on Monday unanimously approved the Arizona law's most-discussed provision requiring police to check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons. But it struck down provisions allowing local police to arrest people for federal immigration violations. They also warned against detaining people for any prolonged period merely for not having proper immigration papers.
The decision left police chiefs and sheriffs grappling with questions ranging from what justifies reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally to how long officers must wait when federal authorities are slow to respond to a question on someone's immigration status.
"It's uncharted territory," said Tony Estrada, sheriff of Santa Cruz County on the state's southern border with Mexico. "It's going to be challenging. It's a complicated issue, and it's not going to be solved by this particular decision."
Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor estimates the statute will result in 50,000 additional calls a year to federal immigration authorities in his city alone. That includes 36,000 arrests a year for suspects who are not booked into jail, typically for offenses like disorderly conduct, misdemeanor assault, shoplifting, vandalism and driving more than 25 mph over the speed limit.
Those suspects, who would normally be released with a citation, must be booked into custody if immigration authorities "don't answer the phone, they never call us back after we talk to them or whatever," Villasenor said.
An estimated 14,000 inquiries a year will be for people encountered on street patrol who are not arrested, Villasenor said. They may raise suspicion for their manner of dress, language or other characteristics outlined in guidelines issues to law enforcement agencies statewide.
"I'm not sure (the federal government is) set up to accommodate that workload right now. I hope I'm wrong," said Villasenor, who joined Dupnik and other law enforcement in voicing opposition to the 2010 law in a filing to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security acknowledged concern about a flood of inquiries but signaled it would only deport people who meet its enforcement priorities. Those priorities are repeat immigration violators, people who pose a public safety or national security threat and recent border crossers.
"The Supreme Court's decision raises the possibility of a significant increase in the number of inquiries, referrals and status verification inquiries from Arizona state authorities that will impact DHS's immigration enforcement operations," the department said Monday in a note to field offices.
Arpaio, the controversial Phoenix lawman known for his anti-immigration raids, said he was concerned whether federal agents will decline to pick up some illegal immigrants who are stopped by his deputies.
"I have my suspicions," he said.
Arpaio asked a federal judge earlier this month to dismiss a lawsuit that claims his office discriminated against Latinos in the sheriff's trademark immigration patrols and had a culture of disregard for basic constitutional rights.
Hours after Monday's ruling, the Department of Homeland Security canceled agreements with seven Arizona police departments that deputized officers to arrest people on immigration violations while on street patrol.
Phoenix Police Chief Daniel Garcia declined to detail how the statute will play out but anticipates it won't be much of a departure from what officers already do.
"It's much too early to try to speculate on these issues of law," he said.
If federal agents decline to pick up immigrants, the state doesn't have any way to force federal authorities to pick them up and will likely have to let them go unless they're suspected of committing a crime that would require them to be brought to jail, said Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who specializes in immigration law.
In that sense, the law is symbolic, Spiro said. The questioning requirement "is useful to the extent that it allows states to give notice of hostilities to undocumented immigrants," Spiro said. "It allows for a formal expression of the state's hostilities toward undocumented immigrants."
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called the decision a victory for all Americans, but said she expected lawsuits to challenge the implementation of the law.
"It's certainly not the end of our journey," she said.
Responding to criticism that the law would lead to racial profiling, Brewer said that any officer who violates a person's civil rights will be held accountable. Even while upholding the provision, the justices said the status check could be challenged.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a written statement that the Supreme Court's ruling will make her agency's work more challenging, but she was pleased that the court ruled state laws can't dictate the federal government's immigration enforcement priorities.
Immigration rights groups said they were surprised and disappointed by the court's decision, and planned to ask the lower courts to block the law.
"The opinion invites the challenges that we are bringing. It's going to cause racial profiling. It will cause prolonged detentions," said Linton Joaquin of the National Immigration Law Center, one of the groups pushing a separate challenge to the law.
Arizona passed the law in 2010, with lawmakers arguing that that federal government wasn't adequately preventing illegal immigration. The Obama administration sued to block it, saying that enforcing immigration laws was a federal responsibility.
___
Associated Press writers Jacques Billeaud, Terry Tang and Felicia Fonseca in Phoenix contributed to this report.
Jun 27, 2012 at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
But Romney will get your vote all the same, Ezoner. People often say they're voting for the lesser of two evils, but that's never necessary.
As a progressive populist, your characterization of Obama as a far left, socialist makes me almost sick to my stomach. You either don't understand what "far left" means and what socialism is, or you don't understand Obama's positions. He is just another run of the mill economic elitist, just like Romney. Neither will get my support in 2012. Evil is evil.
Jun 27, 2012 at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Poo -- if you have read some of my earlier posts -- I do not particularly care for Romney. I feel I am forced to vote for the lessor of 2 evils. A far left , solcialist president, or a middle of the road progressive republican. Romney will only get my vote on his business experience and less government intrusion. He is not what I would like to see.
Jun 27, 2012 at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Poobah said "
The people Arizonans need to fear are the tea party patriots like Brewer." No what the people of Arizona have to fear are the illegals that cross their borders daily. Some of Arizona's beautiful state parks are closed because they are unsafe. What will happen when one of these illegals (who were let go) kills someone? This will happen. Will Obama claim executive priveledge and not let the facts of the case come out?
Jun 27, 2012 at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
And what do you make of Willard Mitt Romney's inability to articulate his latest position on immigration, Ezoner? Arizona Republicans are becoming increasingly and publicly upset with Romney's sudden failure to support the hardline immigration stances he took during the earlier primaries. Pandering to the Latino vote? A moderate progressive? Not a partisan Republican? Yeah, that's Romney.
The people Arizonans need to fear are the tea party patriots like Brewer.
Jun 27, 2012 at 8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Poo -- I feel sorry for the residents of Arizona (the legal citizens of the US) and law enforcement. ALl in Arizona and other states are now in danger and all will see are hard earned money spent on illegal aliens recieving benefits and wages that should be going to legal US citizens. Simply because our president sees the illegals as a means or path to re-election. Its too bad that Obama and the dems USE these people and those in need as pawns for being elected instead of doing the right thing. Illegal means illegal...
Jun 26, 2012 at 8:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kid I liked up in smoke better.
Jun 26, 2012 at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Great decision on the part of our Federal government to not cooperate with the racial profiling in Arizona. I only feel sorry for people, like Pima County Sheriff Dupnik who fought racial profiling in Arizona, that are now being forced between a rock and a hard place by the short-sightedness of Brewer.
Jun 26, 2012 at 3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
why-think -- this president doesnt want anything to come out of congress. He threatens that if its not exactly what he wants he will veto, the denate will not take to a vote bills passed by congress because they are dems lead. The president then has sufficient cause in his own mind to unilaterally make up rules as he goes along. What a joke.... Get real -- if you think that the admin isnt getting exactly what they want. They are the ones guiding this whole mess.
Jun 26, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
'Those here legally have no reason to fear anything'
Have you not seen the documentary, 'Born in East L.A.??
Jun 26, 2012 at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0107/D...
Jun 26, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
So a fillibuster is a political tool like going to Illinois, right?
Jun 26, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gandolf....been deported because they didn't have the right papers? You've got to be kidding! Stopped, yes, but deported. Can't happen! They don't just stop someone and if they don't have papers on them, whisk them off to the border. There is due process and they are given a chance to produce their papers.
Jun 26, 2012 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
I get it a filibuster is bad but not bringing legislation to the floor for a vote, like a budget, is good. Okay, thanks for clearing that up.
Jun 26, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoner,
You make me laugh. The right honestly admits that their NUMBER ONE goal is to male him a one term pres., countless bills traditionally passed are not, filibuster over used, bills written by and with Republicansupport fail, etc...
.
Yet our president is divisive. Ugh!
Jun 26, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoner,
You make me laugh. The right honestly admits that their NUMBER ONE goal is to male him a one term pres., countless bills traditionally passed are not, filibuster over used, bills written by and with Republicansupport fail, etc...
.
Yet our president is divisive. Ugh!
Jun 26, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
" Working with people in Arizona who live daily in fear of deportation "
-
Those here legally have no reason to fear anything. Those living here against our laws are criminals.
Jun 26, 2012 at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
ohh -- and just so you know -- I would have voted for Hillary -- but I knew this guy was trouble from day 1.
Jun 26, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why -think and the other far left. I just do not understand why Obama cannot work with congress and republicans. His extreme divisive tactics have made passage of any bill next to impossible, which in my opinion is exactly what he wants. Then he can stand back , blame others and by - pass congress. He has manufactured the entire senario and then wants credit for not meeting promises of working across the isle. This guy is the worst thing that has evert happened to the US and the presidency. We will not see progress until he is literally thrown out of office.
Jun 26, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
He changed his priorities after becoming president... Ending Iraq, Afghanistan, bin laden, healthcare, automotive industry, etc...
Our president has done more to stop illegal immigration and deport illegal immigrants without a bill. However the dream act was filibustered by the cowards.
Call it a broken promise, I call it being smart.
BTW, stop all the filibusters and maybe 1 branch won't be forced to do the work of 2. Let those elected vote on the bills instead of obstructing.
Pass the transportation bill and stop the student loan increase. Let there be a vote so the people can make informed decisions in November.
Jun 26, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
He changed his priorities after becoming president... Ending Iraq, Afghanistan, bin laden, healthcare, automotive industry, etc...
Our president has done more to stop illegal immigration and deport illegal immigrants without a bill. However the dream act was filibustered by the cowards.
Call it a broken promise, I call it being smart.
BTW, stop all the filibusters and maybe 1 branch won't be forced to do the work of 2. Let those elected vote on the bills instead of obstructing.
Pass the transportation bill and stop the student loan increase. Let there be a vote so the people can make informed decisions in November.
Jun 26, 2012 at 8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
NV?..maybe the desert dust got in your brain! I noted the promise to pass an immigration bill. Did he even put one together? Empty promise.
Jun 26, 2012 at 7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
The president who rules by executive order and goes around congress, now proclaims we will not do anything with the illegals that Arizona does arrest goes around the ruling of the Supreme Court. Last I knew there were 3 branches of Government so that anyone does not have too much power. Just like I asked John Eyester in another article is this not an overreach of the presidential power.
Jun 26, 2012 at 6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
And donnaw....While you were sleeping, the President has DONE more to secure the border than Bush ever ATTEMPTED! There are far, far more boots on the ground and by all objective analysis people are no longer getting in illegally. Do the research if you don't believe this. The righties are simply lying when they scream that nothing has been done by this President!!
Jun 26, 2012 at 6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
I wonder what part of the decision Brewer believes is a victory? Working with people in Arizona who live daily in fear of deportation, I think "Crazy Jan" is grasping at straws.
Jun 26, 2012 at 5:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
When campaigning Obama promised vigorously to have an immigration bill passed his first year in office and he could have as both the house and the senate were democratic. But he didn't keep his promise and instead advanced his socialism goal by pushing thru the healthcare bill. now he needs the Latino and Hispanic vote so behold, the federal govt will not support any state's efforts to handle their illegal immigration problem. "Sorry fellas, you're on your own but we will tie your hands behind your back. Let the illegals flood in we don't care."
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.