Arizona Sheriff Refuses To Enforce “Racist, Disgusting” Law

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Arizona, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who has been a cop for 52 years, says the controversial immigration law will definitely lead to racial profiling.

Steven Nunez and Forest Carr reporting.

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Pima County's top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls SB 1070 "racist," "disgusting," and "unnecessary."

Speaking Tuesday morning with KGUN9's Steve Nunez, Dupnik made it clear that while he will not comply with the provisions of the new law, nor will he let illegal immigrants go free. "We're going to keep doing what we've been doing all along," Dupnik said. "We're going to stop and detain these people for the Border Patrol."

The sheriff acknowledged that this course of action could get him hauled into court. SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn't comply with the law. But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. "So we're kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just a stupid law."

Dupnik had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. "If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they're going to do it. They'll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that's not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney."

But if Dupnik feels the law is stupid, its sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce of Mesa, has the same label for Dupnik. In an e-mail exchange with KGUN9 News, Pearce characterized Dupnik's comments as "the stupidest statement... someone who takes an oath to enforce the law has ever made."

Pearce insisted that SB 1070 prohibits racial profiling. He repeated a phrase he's used in the past, writing, "Illegal is a not a race, it is a crime." And he added, "I guess the 9 Sheriffs who support this bill are racist."

SB 1070 criminalizes illegal immigration. But it will be up to county attorneys to prosecute complaints. That raises an obvious question: will Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall also refuse to comply with the law? If she joins Dupnik's rebellion, then SB 1070 would be effectively DOA in Pima County.

http://www.kgun9.com....asp?s=12386648

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sheriff Joe, on the other hand, already has a hard-on over this one. Rumor has it, he already placed a large order on tents and pink undies.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sheriff Joe, on the other hand, already has a hard-on over this one. Rumor has it, he already placed a large order on tents and pink undies.

For a tax strapped state that is already releasing prisoners early.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For a tax strapped state that is already releasing prisoners early.

Brown one's?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The sheriff took an oath to uphold the law, state and federal, so he's vowing not to do his duty as a law enforcement officer.

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

April 29, 2010

Op-Ed Contributor

Why Arizona Drew a Line

By KRIS W. KOBACH Kansas City, Kan.

ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. It is any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Brown one's?

All kinds...the real criminals though. Arizona state is in a real pickle financially. This reactionary law is only going to hurt them in the pocket book even more. What a sad time this is for my home state. Reminds me when Gov. Ev Mecham refused to recognize MLK holiday. Eventually, enough Arizonans will come to their senses, but in the meantime there's going to be a lot of suffering.

[Heracles 417]

Incompetent bastards like that need to be imprisoned themselves. I'll send Arizona money for that.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Just as I thought, alot of cops didn't sign up for this and don't want any part of it.

[justashooter 430]

Just as I thought, alot of cops didn't sign up for this and don't want any part of it.

then they should resign post haste and allow someone who is willing to recognise the law to fill the shoes. if they don't they will be sued personally, and will lose, for sure.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

then they should resign post haste and allow someone who is willing to recognise the law to fill the shoes. if they don't they will be sued personally, and will lose, for sure.

1) Sheriffs are elected officials

2) Maybe a suit will bear out whether the law is constitutional (the mere fact that it passed doesn't make it so)

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

then they should resign post haste and allow someone who is willing to recognise the law to fill the shoes. if they don't they will be sued personally, and will lose, for sure.

Or they could get sued for racial profiling.... I feel so sorry for the police right now, stuck between a rock and a hard place. A crappy under appreciated job just got crappier.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Or they could get sued for racial profiling.... I feel so sorry for the police right now, stuck between a rock and a hard place. A crappy under appreciated job just got crappier.

Anyone caught by this law would have better luck with the "un-constitutional" tactic. Racial profiling is extremely difficult to prove in court.

I have no doubt there will be some racial profiling as a result of this law. The only way it could have been avoided is if the law did not contain the "reasonable suspicion" clause, and required cops to ask for proof of legal status from everyone they had lawful contact with. Otherwise, "reasonable suspicion" is going to be "He didn't have any identification, he spoke with a Mexican accent, and he was dressed like a Mexican." Pretty much the same standard the Border Patrol uses.

[SuperDuper! 230]

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Incompetent bastards like that need to be imprisoned themselves. I'll send Arizona money for that.

AZ needs all the help from wealthy blowhard's it can get! Go Booyah!

[Darnell 8,478]

52 years? oh my - time for retirement !