Arizona police ask: Now what?

A May 2010 file photo of a Tucson police officer responding to a report of a man with a gun in the city's predominately Hispanic south side. / Scott Olson/Getty Images

(AP) TUCSON, Ariz. - Arizona's police chiefs and county sheriffs hoped a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would settle their long-running debate on what role, if any, they should play in immigration enforcement. Instead, the justices' decision to uphold the state's "show me your papers" statute has left them with more questions than answers.

How long must officers wait for federal authorities to respond when they encounter someone illegal, especially given President Barack Obama's new policy to only deport dangerous criminals and repeat offenders? If they release a person too soon, are they exposing themselves to a lawsuit from residents who accuse them of failing to enforce the law?

How do they avoid being sued for racial profiling? Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he anticipated no change in how he does his job, but that comes from someone who was accused of racially profiling Latinos in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department.

"We're going to get sued if we do. We're going to get sued if we don't. That's a terrible position to put law enforcement officers in," said Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, whose territory covers much of southern Arizona and who has long argued against his state's requirement that local law enforcement be forced to ask about the legal status of anyone suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.

The justices on Monday unanimously approved the Arizona law's most-discussed provision requiring police to check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons. But it struck down provisions allowing local police to arrest people for federal immigration violations. They also warned against detaining people for any prolonged period merely for not having proper immigration papers.

Feds set up hotline for immigration concerns
What the Supreme Court's immigration ruling means for Arizonans
Immigration ruling leaves both parties scrambling
Supreme Court strikes down part of Ariz. law

The decision left police chiefs and sheriffs grappling with questions ranging from what justifies reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally to how long officers must wait when federal authorities are slow to respond to a question on someone's immigration status.

"It's uncharted territory," said Tony Estrada, sheriff of Santa Cruz County on the state's southern border with Mexico. "It's going to be challenging. It's a complicated issue, and it's not going to be solved by this particular decision."

Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor estimates the statute will result in 50,000 additional calls a year to federal immigration authorities in his city alone. That includes 36,000 arrests a year for suspects who are not booked into jail, typically for offenses like disorderly conduct, misdemeanor assault, shoplifting, vandalism and driving more than 25 mph over the speed limit.

Those suspects, who would normally be released with a citation, must be booked into custody if immigration authorities "don't answer the phone, they never call us back after we talk to them or whatever," Villasenor said.

An estimated 14,000 inquiries a year will be for people encountered on street patrol who are not arrested, Villasenor said. They may raise suspicion for their manner of dress, language or other characteristics outlined in guidelines issues to law enforcement agencies statewide.

"I'm not sure (the federal government is) set up to accommodate that workload right now. I hope I'm wrong," said Villasenor, who joined Dupnik and other law enforcement in voicing opposition to the 2010 law in a filing to the Supreme Court.

U.S. to stop deporting young illegal immigrants
Ariz. sheriff's lawyers respond to federal suit

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security acknowledged concern about a flood of inquiries but signaled it would only deport people who meet its enforcement priorities. Those priorities are repeat immigration violators, people who pose a public safety or national security threat and recent border crossers.

"The Supreme Court's decision raises the possibility of a significant increase in the number of inquiries, referrals and status verification inquiries from Arizona state authorities that will impact DHS's immigration enforcement operations," the department said Monday in a note to field offices.

Arpaio, the controversial Phoenix lawman known for his anti-immigration raids, said he was concerned whether federal agents will decline to pick up some illegal immigrants who are stopped by his deputies.

"I have my suspicions," he said.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[nancy_naive]

"Instead, the justices' decision to uphold the state's 'show me your papers' statute has left them with more questions than answers."

We have the MOST ignorant reporters in this country.

The law had 4 main provisions, two of which involved police activity:

1) The law gave police the authority to stop people they suspected of being in the country illegally to ask for proof of legal status, and

2) The law mandated that the police check the immigration status of any persons legally detained for OTHER crimes and violations.

The first is the "show me your papers" and was struck down. The second is one that was left standing, for now.

[reality_sanity]

by Ulgnud June 27, 2012 12:43 AM EDT
This entire debacle is caused byn the utter dereliction of duty bt tge Feds ...

----

For decades even before Bush and Obama the federal government provided state and locals the option to enforce immigration law. Arizona's legislators through SB1070 negated many Arizona's communities choice to enforce immigration law in conjunction with ICE under federal law INA 287g. Why do you insist on congratulating Arizona's legislators for creating a sanctuary state where no one is required to carry ID and the police have no means of checking even criminal's immigration status before releasing them.

[Ulgnud]

This entire debacle is caused byn the utter dereliction of duty bt tge Feds to remove those who are illegal and do not belong here. It has never been about fears of demographic changes. When Obama gave Amnesty to a select few for political gain he also stabbed every unemployed American in the back. As far as what to do with an invader they have caught goes. If the feds refuse to take them into custody simply release them... But south of the border. There would be a lot of uproar from the liberals but placing these people where they belong is really the only solution. Naturally if they return with genuine legal documents they will be welcomed.

[reality_sanity]

Arizona's legislature through SB1070 requires police officers to give up their state's ability to enforce immigration law under federal law INA 287g and access federal immigration information which takes enforcement several step backwards. The situation is considerably worse now in Arizona that it was before their legislature decided to become an amnesty state that could not assist ICE or directly enforce immigration law.

[reality_sanity]

Since Arizona has chosen to deny itself access to the federal immigration database and even the Supreme Court blocked requirements for people to carry their id papers at all times; How can any Arizona law enforcement officer credibly report any illegals to ICE for processing?

[occupy_cbs]

The larger meaning of Arizona v. United States is that whoever is president in 2013, there must be a revamping of federal immigration law in order to remove these questions by law enforcement and citizens.

The recent Obama directive to halt efforts to deport these young immigrants is a temporary expedient. Rather than a permanent policy change, it could be overturned in an instant by a president mitt romney without consulting congress or the courts. But romney, to be sure, has been studiously vague about what he would do if elected. His current mantra is that he favors a "long-term solution," which is about as tangible as richard nixon's so-called "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War.

[occupy_cbs]

There are easy explanations for the failure of immigration reform to make it through Congress for almost a decade. There is a segment of the electorate -- white, middle-aged and older -- who refuse to acknowledge that the ethnic makeup of America has changed since 1958. The political potency of attack-ad phrases like "amnesty for illegals" and "rewarding lawbreakers" compounds the problem for supporters of comprehensive immigration reform. The economic downturn has made millions of Americans feel beleaguered which cuts into their feelings of compassion for the illegal under-class.

And, yes, there is continuing concern about border security, even if a major part of the problem is foreigners arriving legally as tourists and then overstaying their visas, but that same segment of the electorate -- white, middle-aged and older -- think our only problem is on our southern Mexican border. It's not any longer!

[rightofwrong]

What about the immigration laws need reformed? Come here legally and you have not broken the law.

[occupy_cbs]

While one section of the get-tough Arizona law temporarily survived judicial review (depending on how it is implemented), the overall decision was a rebuke to states-rights forces that have attempted to enact immigration policy outside Washington. As Justice Anthony Kennedy unequivocally expressed it in the majority opinion, "Arizona may have understandable frustration with the problems caused by illegal immigration...but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."

Obviously, the justices' decision to uphold the state's "show me your papers" statute has left L.E. with more questions than answers.

[occupy_cbs]

The larger meaning of Arizona v. United States is that whoever is president in 2013, there must be a revamping of federal immigration law, which currently has more band-aids than an adventurous toddler. Yet it is hard to think of a topic, other than health care, that has been more of a 21st-century black hole for policymakers in both parties than immigration.

[infantryman1968]

Arizona police ask: Now what?


LOL!


Obama will continue to punish Americans that dont believe in him.

5 More months before we get a real President.

[deloprator20000]

There is another group that, if they exist, could also inadvertently be affected by this ruling. According to abduction researchers Budd Hopkins, John Mack, and David Jacobs, it is possible that human-alien hybrids are living among us. If these hybrids were not born on earth, yet are living here, and did not obtain legal residence, then according to human law they are "illegal aliens".

So law enforcement officers could also look out for these hybrids, with enough stops we might be able to find an actual human-alien hybrid and possibly be able to ask him/her/it to meet with their ET parents

[pedmel]

So you will obviously be running on the Republican ticket in what state?

[rightofwrong]

Foil hat alert.

[albertj829]

Ask your governor, Jan. She will tell you to do what ever you want to do and that it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says. She and Joe are a law unto themselves.

[rightofwrong]

Obama said the Constitution is just a hurdle that gets in the way.

[pedmel]

Going forward ALL Arizona State & Local Police are required to stop, frisk and cavity-search any man, woman or child that looks like they could or should be related to a very overfed, very partisan and very ignorant Italian named Antonin Gregory Scalia. God Help Us All!

[rightofwrong]

That was a very adult comment.

[robert1129]

In 2007, President Bush led a coalition of Republicans/Democrats in enacting comprehensive immigration reform that would have prevented situations like this. But right wing radio hosts and several radical right wing Senators like Cronyin of TX killed the effort. Rightfully, the 100% blame for our present mess belongs on their doorsteps.

[rightofwrong]

You give way too much credit to the talking heads on the radio. Mostly because they do not make the laws.