|
Personally I think SB 1070 is unconstitutional because it forces people to prove they are not criminals. And it seems that is what these folks are focusing on.
SB 1070 foes renew effort to block most contentious provision by Michael Kiefer - Jul. 17, 2012 11:25 PM The Republic | azcentral.com A coalition of civil-rights groups filed motions in federal court Tuesday to prevent enforcement of the single contested provision of Arizona's immigration law that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The coalition, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund argues that statements by Arizona law-enforcement officers since the high court's ruling on June25 indicate the provision of Senate Bill1070 will be carried out in a way that lengthens the time people are detained by officers. That extended time, required to verify a person's immigration status, will violate the U.S. Constitution, the groups say. They want an injunction to stop the provision from taking effect or, in the short term, a temporary restraining order to give them time to block the provision permanently. In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a U.S. District Court's injunction on three of four contested sections of SB 1070. It reinstated one that requires an officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion the person is in the country illegally. This portion also requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of people arrested and hold them indefinitely until the status is determined. "We think that the inevitable extension of the stops will raise serious concerns both under the Fourth Amendment and because of pre-emption issues," said Dan Pochoda of the ACLU. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and the pre-emption argument maintains that federal immigration law trumps state law. The motions filed Tuesday had been expected for weeks and drew criticism from Matt Benson, a spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. "This latest legal challenge is unsurprising as opponents of SB 1070 have indicated they'll go to any length in order to block Arizona's implementation of this law. The Supreme Court has already spoken unanimously on the constitutionality of this provision," he said. "Governor Brewer is hopeful Arizona law enforcement will soon at long last be empowered to enforce SB 1070, showing that it can be done fairly, lawfully and in harmony with civil rights and the Constitution. "Ultimately, that's the only way that residents of this state will be able to put to rest the fear-mongering and outrageous allegations made by opponents of SB 1070." SB 1070 was challenged in court by several lawsuits, including one from the coalition that filed Tuesday's action. The Supreme Court's decision related to a separate lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department as to whether the Arizona law was pre-empted by federal immigration law. Initially, four parts of the controversial law were blocked by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton before they could go into effect in July2010. The injunction held through the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The high-court justices lifted the injunction on one section, known as Section 2B, which defines when an officer can lawfully inquire about immigration status during a stop or arrest. According to Tuesday's motions, also filed in Bolton's court, the Supreme Court justices invited challenges to their decision if it could be shown that authorities were unreasonably prolonging law-enforcement stops. The motions acknowledged that officers have a right to inquire about immigration status when they stop a person to determine if there is probable cause to think they committed another crime. But if the stop is extended only to determine citizenship or immigration status, it risks being an unreasonable seizure and comes close to infringing on the federal government's immigration pre-emption. According to the motions, these statements by law-enforcement officials since the Supreme Court ruling prove their point: Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villaseņor: "(I)f we cannot get immediate confirmation from federal officials of the immigration status of these suspects, we will have to extend their detentions in the field ... or book them into jail to await these results." Santa Cruz County Sheriff Antonio Estrada said the law "may result in the detention of people while citizenship is clarified." "Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever indicated that his agency will extend detentions for immigration purposes even as to people that 'ICE or Border Patrol won't come get,'" the motion said. None of the three officials could be reached for comment late Tuesday. "I think the statements we have from Arizona law enforcement demonstrate that if Section 2B goes into effect, it's going to extend people's detention because of the amount of time it will take to verify people's immigration status," said Linton Joaquin, general counsel for the National Immigration Law Center. The motions also contend that there is ample evidence to show that the law's provision would discriminate against Latinos. Section 2B is not expected to go into effect until at least Friday. After issuing its ruling, the Supreme Court sent a letter to the 9th Circuit saying it could not take up the issue for at least 25 days to give attorneys time to appeal. Once the 25 days is up on Friday, either Bolton or the appeals court can proceed with lifting the injunction against this section. |