Judicial gymnastics and the SB 1070 ruling - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

lutherf · #1 (**permalink**) 07-28-2010

Maybe it's just me but if the court is considering Section 2(B) of ARS 11-1051 which says:

Quote:

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by [an Arizona] law enforcement official or . . . law enforcement agency . . . in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and 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.

why would the judge decide this:

Quote:

The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. Before the passage of H.B. 2162, the first sentence of Section 2(B) of the original S.B. 1070 began, “For any lawful contact” rather than “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest.” (Compare original S.B. 1070 § 2(B) with H.B. 2162 § 3(B).) The second sentence was identical in the original version and as modified by H.B. 2162. It is not a logical interpretation of the Arizona Legislature’s intent to state that it originally intended the first two sentences of Section 2(B) to be read as dependent on one another. As initially written, the first sentence of Section 2(B) did not contain the word “arrest,” such that the second sentence could be read as modifying or explicating the first sentence. In S.B. 1070 as originally enacted, the first two sentences of
Section 2(B) are clearly independent of one another. Therefore, it does not follow logically that by changing “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the first sentence, the Arizona Legislature intended to alter the meaning of the second sentence in any way. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could easily have modified the second sentence accordingly.

First off, why is the court concerned with what happened before HB 2162? HB 2162 modified SB 1070 specifically because there was a concern about the original wording of the statute and when SB 1070 becomes effective so will the modified verbiage.

Second...

Quote:

Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked. Given the large number of people who are technically “arrested” but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law
enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended during an immigration status verification. (See Escobar, et al. v. City of Tucson, et al., No. CV 10-249-TUC-SRB, Doc. 9, City of Tucson’s Answer & Cross-cl., ¶ 38 (stating that during fiscal year 2009, Tucson used the cite-and-release procedure provided by A.R.S. § 13-3903 to “arrest” and immediately release 36,821 people).) Under Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, all arrestees will be required to prove their immigration status to the satisfaction of state authorities, thus increasing the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally-present aliens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up by this requirement.6

...would be great concern for the court to have in a case where "all arrestees" were going to be subject to immigration status review but that isn't what the statute says. The statute says that only those arrestees where there is a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally need to be checked out.

Judge Bolton seems to have made some truly remarkable leaps in this decision. Beyond those noted above she has also agreed with the DOJ that DHS would be "unduly burdened" by processing additional requests to verify immigration status....even though that is part of their job.

Quote:

"Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c), DHS is required to “respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status . . . for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.”

tsquare · #2 (**permalink**) 07-28-2010

Indeed...

This very well could be the worse decisions since 'because I said so! That's why!'

Rude Boy · #3 (**permalink**) 07-28-2010

A victory against totalitarianism. Definitely a victory against such a draconian measure.

Rude Boy · #4 (**permalink**) 07-28-2010

Oh, by the way, lutherf, mind citing a link? It's the right thing to do.

tsquare · #5 (**permalink**) 07-28-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

...such a draconian measure.

Which is exactly like the federal law.

Keep plugging Rude Boy.

SLClemens · #6 (**permalink**) 07-28-2010

The judge is a meathead. I don't expect much more from the 9th Circuit. The SC would likely rule in favor of the AZ law, however, and I'm wondering if there is any way AZ could bypass the 9th Circuit? Gov. Brewer said they were making application for an expedited ruling at the 9th tomorrow (July 29), so perhaps bypassing it is not allowed.

lutherf · #7 (**permalink**) 07-28-2010

It's interesting that Bolton gave no consideration to Gonzalez v City of Peoria in her ruling. The Gonzalez decision, by the 9th circuit, held that...

Quote:

To summarize, nothing in federal law precluded Peoria police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Arizona law authorizes local officers to arrest for violations of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325 where there is probable cause to believe the arrestee has illegally entered the United States. However, enforcement procedures must distinguish illegal entry from illegal presence and must comply with all arrest requirements imposed by the federal Constitution.

I'm no lawyer but this sure looks like precedent to me. More on this here.

Oh yeah, since Rude Boy couldn't figure out how to find the ruling by Bolton it's here.

lutherf · #8 (**permalink**) 07-29-2010

I know that it's all sour grapes now but here's more on this ridiculous ruling:

Detaining Arizona

and here:

An Abominable Decision

skeptic1 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-29-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutherf

It's interesting that Bolton gave no consideration to Gonzalez v City of Peoria in her ruling. The Gonzalez decision, by the 9th circuit, held that...

I'm no lawyer but this sure looks like precedent to me. More on this here.

Oh yeah, since Rude Boy couldn't figure out how to find the ruling by Bolton it's here.

The key words are "probable cause" and arrest or not.IMO.

Was the Gozalez case appealed to a higher court ?

It seems clear to me only the Fed's can write and enforce immigration laws unless permission is givern to another authority.

skeptic1 · #10 (**permalink**) 07-29-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutherf

Maybe it's just me but if the court is considering Section 2(B) of ARS 11-1051 which says:

why would the judge decide this:

First off, why is the court concerned with what happened before HB 2162? HB 2162 modified SB 1070 specifically because there was a concern about the original wording of the statute and when SB 1070 becomes effective so will the modified verbiage.

Second...

...would be great concern for the court to have in a case where "all arrestees" were going to be subject to immigration status review but that isn't what the statute says. The statute says that only those arrestees where there is a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally need to be checked out.

Judge Bolton seems to have made some truly remarkable leaps in this decision. Beyond those noted above she has also agreed with the DOJ that DHS would be "unduly burdened" by processing additional requests to verify immigration status....even though that is part of their job.

What would be a reasonable suspicion ?

Accent?

Skin color?

Large black mustache?

lutherf · #11 (**permalink**) 07-29-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic1

The key words are "probable cause" and arrest or not.IMO.

Was the Gozalez case appealed to a higher court ?

It seems clear to me only the Fed's can write and enforce immigration laws unless permission is givern to another authority.

The decision I linked to was a 9th circuit decision and, to the best of my knowledge, that's where the case ended.

lutherf · #12 (**permalink**) 07-29-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic1

What would be a reasonable suspicion ?

Accent?

Skin color?

Large black mustache?

There is a training video that is being used but which I have yet to look for. In essence, there are several factors which might indicate a detainee is also an illegal immigrant. Lack of identification or only a "matricula consular" for ID would be an indication. Identification which has been altered or where the picture doesn't match the holder would be an indication. The circumstances related to where one was detained might be an indication (for example, 15 guys without ID all sitting under a tree along I-10).

---------------------------

The training tapes can be viewed here.

reality · #13 (**permalink**) 07-29-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic1

What would be a reasonable suspicion ?

Accent?

Skin color?

Large black mustache?

Perhaps the lack of a drivers license? Or knowledge of said licenses number? (ive memorized mine). Perhaps the lack of a SS number? Lack of a green card? No way to provide valid ID basically.

that would be reason enough to run them through the system and see if anything pops up that says "this person is here legally". Without that its pretty safe to assume they aint legal.

Rude Boy · #14 (**permalink**) 07-29-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutherf

It's interesting that Bolton gave no consideration to Gonzalez v City of Peoria in her ruling. The Gonzalez decision, by the 9th circuit, held that...

I'm no lawyer but this sure looks like precedent to me. More on this here.

Oh yeah, since Rude Boy couldn't figure out how to find the ruling by Bolton it's here.

Oh, I could figure it out, but it's generally a rule that when you cite something, you provide a link to the source.

Today's lesson is on me.

EricOKC · #15 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

My real question is this:

Art. 3, Sec. 2, p. 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Emphasis mine.

With the emphasized section in mind, how exactly did Bolton have any legal authority to hear this case, let alone rule on it?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode