Just days before an anticipated Supreme Court ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union wants state officials to warn possible “rogue” officers from enforcing the state’s immigration law before they are legally entitled to do so.
In a letter to the Peace Officers Standards and Training Board on Thursday, Alessandra Meetze, executive director of the Arizona chapter, said even if the Supreme Court upholds part of SB 1070, that does not free officers to immediately start checking the immigration status of those they have stopped.
At the very least, she said, the high court would order U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton to dissolve the injunction she issued nearly two years ago barring the state from enforcing several key provisions while the legality of the law is debated. And that process could take some time.
But Meetze also reminded Lyle Mann, the AzPOST executive director, that there are other challenges to SB 1070 pending which are not linked to the current case before the Supreme Court — and not based on the arguments of the Obama administration that federal law preempts the state statute. And Meetze said her organization is considering “all options” if the court sides with Arizona, including seeking a new injunction based on its own claims that SB 1070 will automatically lead to illegal racial profiling.
Mann was out of state on Thursday and an aide said he would respond to Meetze’s letter today.
The letter comes days after Gov. Jan Brewer ordered Mann’s agency to update the training video and materials it had prepared in 2010 in anticipation of SB 1070 taking effect.
Much of that surrounded the section which requires officers who have stopped someone to verify if that person is in the country legally if there is reasonable suspicion that he or she is not. The law allows the use of the person’s race to be used as a factor in making that determination, though it cannot be the only factor.
Mann said at the time the information is designed to ensure that officers do not engage in racial profiling. The training materials include guidelines that Border Patrol officers use when determining who to question.
Meetze said she fears that these new materials, being sent out now, amount to an invitation for officers to start making these inquiries the moment the Supreme Court issues its ruling, assuming it upholds the legality of what foes of the law have called the “show me your papers” provision.
She also pointed out those other pending lawsuits raise significant claims, including not just racial discrimination but constitutional questions that touch on the First and Fourth Amendments.
“Any law enforcement agency that attempts to enforce the enjoined provisions of SB 1070 before those provisions are deemed legally enforceable would expose itself to considerable scrutiny,” she wrote to Mann.
Meetze was more blunt in a separate statement.
“Rogue police officers who take it upon themselves to demand people’s papers before any part of the law even goes into effect will inevitably leave their communities highly exposed to lawsuits brought on by victims of these discriminatory practices,” she said.
Meetze also said that the training materials themselves are flawed because they are based on what courts have said the Border Patrol is entitled to do. She said those rulings involve people near the border and have nothing to do with normal interactions that state and local police have with those they stop.
For example, those materials list a host of factors that can be considered in determining whether there is reasonable suspicion someone is in this country illegally, such a travelling in a group, being in an overloaded car or being unable to speak English. Meetze said there are many people who are in this country legally who might fall into those categories.
chatmandu002 posted at 8:41 pm on Thu, Jun 14, 2012.
I guess the ACLU believes that illegal immigrants are not subject to our laws.
Go Sheriff Joe, enforce all the laws all the time.
retired03 posted at 7:18 am on Fri, Jun 15, 2012.
couple things you need to face andu002, first, there a rogue officers out there, and two you had one thing right, ecouraging king joe to enforce all the laws. Up to the point that his detectives were found not to be investigating part one crimes such as rape etc, he was not.
I for one agree with the one that was approved, requiring ID before you vote but this has nothing to do with the most unprofessional law enforcement officer I know, joe arpaio.
chuckles3 posted at 10:31 am on Fri, Jun 15, 2012.
i guess i should file a challenge to any law I don't like, according to the ACLU then no one should enforce it until my challenge is addressed.
I love lawyers. Especially Communists and Trial Lawyers.
Juggernaut8000 posted at 1:09 pm on Fri, Jun 15, 2012.
The ACLU is against any person who is white, hard working and an American citizen. If you are this class, the ACLU is your enemy.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 10:47 pm on Sat, Jun 16, 2012.
So is the A.C.L.U. asserting that Arizona Law Enforcement could possibly have "rogue" officers or agents. Where is the proof? Where are the Court cases? Where are the "fililings"?
Are these "rogue" officers, deputies or agents......men or are there some women "rogue" officers too?
Are these allegations just that or is there emails, videoes, photographs, signed affadavits claiming that Arizona Law Enforcement has "rogue" personnel???
What really bothers me is why, the Reporter, Howard Fischer, even publish this story in the first place being that there are no facts about so-called "rogue" Arizona Law Enforcement officers, agents or deputies.............ONLY ASSERTIONS TO THAT EFFECT.
LET'S GET BACK TO ..."OLD-FASHIONED JOURNALISM"....YOU KNOW...THE ARTICLES WE USED TO READ IN THE PAPER THAT WERE SUPPORTED BY FACTS, DATES, NAMES, TIMES AND PLACES.....IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK IN THIS DAY OF .........LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE ...."GOTTCHA"...NEWS REPORTING ????[sad]
Juggernaut8000 posted at 12:52 pm on Thu, Jun 21, 2012.
Every member of the ACLU should be hanged.