POLICE CHIEFS CONCERNED ABOUT KEY ELEMENT OF ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW UPHELD BY SUPREME COURT

[Reca]

POLICE CHIEFS CONCERNED ABOUT KEY ELEMENT
OF ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW UPHELD BY SUPREME COURT

by Craig Fischer, Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)



(June 25, 2012, Washington, DC)—Police chiefs from Arizona and other states are concerned that the one major provision of the SB 1070 immigration law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court today will seriously undermine local law enforcement.

Section 2(B) of the law, which the Court upheld, at least for now, requires police to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person during traffic stops and other routine encounters if there is “reasonable suspicion” to believe that the person is unlawfully present in the United States.

“There is a body of case law defining what constitutes reasonable suspicion in other contexts, but no such guidance exists regarding illegal immigrants, and SB 1070 does not define the term,” said Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor. “Under the Supreme Court decision, police departments in Arizona must enforce Section 2(B), and no one respects the authority of the courts more than police chiefs, so we will do our best to enforce the law. But we are in uncharted territory on this issue.”

The difficulty in enforcing Section 2(B) is compounded by its provisions allowing anyone to sue the police for failing to enforce the law. So police and sheriffs’ departments in Arizona may be sued by people who believe they are not aggressive enough in enforcing the law—or by others who believe that police are being too aggressive or are engaging in racial profiling.

“We absolutely expect lawsuits on both sides of this issue,” Chief Villasenor said. “This will result in our officers being tied up in court rather than working on the streets to reduce crime.”

“Allowing people to sue over issues that are not defined clearly is a recipe for trouble,” said San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne. “This kind of provision could jam up the courts and cost police departments and cities a fortune. Police departments have been cutting their budgets since the economic crisis began in 2008, and even before that for some of us. We’ve got limited resources and are not equipped to spend time and money on this.”

[Captain America]

The Holder Justice Department has already set up a hotline to report alleged civil rights violations by local law enforcement.

[bayern]

We absolutely expect lawsuits on both sides of this issue,” Chief Villasenor said. “This will result in our officers being tied up in court rather than working on the streets to reduce crime.”

Police Chiefs always complain about something or other that impacts THEIR job. Be it gun control; why isn't your hat on in public, why isn't your car freshly washed, not enough traffic tickets (I remember this one verrrry well, etc. Officers are ALWAYS in court. Most patrol officers don't spend that much time in court on major felonies or high misdemeanors, but do spend a HUGE amount of time in court on traffic stuff instead of being on the street fighting crime. (traffic fines are more for the budget then traffic safety.) When dwas the last time, while writting a ticket, the offender asked why arn't you on the street catching crooks instead of writting me a ticket for something I didn't do.

Over the years I have arrested numerous illegals and did spend some time in court over the crime they were arrested, but never went to court over the illegal charge. Immigration took care of that while they were in prison.