PDA

View Full Version : Arizona police officer sues over immigration law


Spiritwalker
04-30-2010, 11:40 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T2



A police officer in Tucson, Arizona, asks that local law enforcement be exempt from enforcing the state's new immigration law in a lawsuit filed in federal court on Thursday.

Officer Martin H. Escobar claims in the suit that the law will "seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes." (1)

He also says there are no "race-neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States," including a person's proximity to the Mexican border, linguistic characteristics and capabilities, skin color, clothing worn or the type of vehicle driven.

The law, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, allows police to ask anyone for proof of legal U.S. residency. Brewer and others who support the law have said it does not involve racial profiling or any other illegal acts.

"Racial profiling is illegal," Brewer said after signing the bill. "It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona."

But Escobar's suit says the law "is the product of racial bias aimed specifically at Hispanics" (2)and places every Hispanic within the state at risk of losing his or her constitutional rights.

Brewer, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, the city of Tucson and Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall are named in the suit.


Escobar asks that local law enforcement be exempt "from engaging any immigration stops, questioning, detention, citing or any law enforcement activity reserved to the federal government." (3)

Escobar, 45, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Mexico and immigrated with his parents when he was 5 years old, attorney Richard M. Martinez said.

Tucson Police Department spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco declined to comment on the case because city policies prevent employees from discussing pending litigation. But he said Escobar has worked for the department since 1995 and patrols Tucson's south side.

Martinez said his client has spent years working to break down barriers between the Police Department and the predominantly Hispanic community.

"All this law does is put the barrier back up. ... It takes away trust and the rapport and relationships (3)," he said Thursday.

Spokespeople for Brewer and Goddard did not return requests for comment.

#1 (I don't want to enforce this law) or (I don't think that being here without documentation is against the law.)
#2 (just hispanics that are breaking the law)
#3 (I don't want to enforce laws I don't belive in) Hey.. he could quit...
#4 (taking away trust from the criminals)

Buzzard
04-30-2010, 03:53 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T2



A police officer in Tucson, Arizona, asks that local law enforcement be exempt from enforcing the state's new immigration law in a lawsuit filed in federal court on Thursday.

Officer Martin H. Escobar claims in the suit that the law will "seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes." (1)

He also says there are no "race-neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States," including a person's proximity to the Mexican border, linguistic characteristics and capabilities, skin color, clothing worn or the type of vehicle driven.

The law, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, allows police to ask anyone for proof of legal U.S. residency. Brewer and others who support the law have said it does not involve racial profiling or any other illegal acts.

"Racial profiling is illegal," Brewer said after signing the bill. "It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona."

But Escobar's suit says the law "is the product of racial bias aimed specifically at Hispanics" (2)and places every Hispanic within the state at risk of losing his or her constitutional rights.

Brewer, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, the city of Tucson and Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall are named in the suit.


Escobar asks that local law enforcement be exempt "from engaging any immigration stops, questioning, detention, citing or any law enforcement activity reserved to the federal government." (3)

Escobar, 45, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Mexico and immigrated with his parents when he was 5 years old, attorney Richard M. Martinez said.

Tucson Police Department spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco declined to comment on the case because city policies prevent employees from discussing pending litigation. But he said Escobar has worked for the department since 1995 and patrols Tucson's south side.

Martinez said his client has spent years working to break down barriers between the Police Department and the predominantly Hispanic community.

"All this law does is put the barrier back up. ... It takes away trust and the rapport and relationships (3)," he said Thursday.

Spokespeople for Brewer and Goddard did not return requests for comment.

#1 (I don't want to enforce this law) or (I don't think that being here without documentation is against the law.)
#2 (just hispanics that are breaking the law)
#3 (I don't want to enforce laws I don't belive in) Hey.. he could quit...
#4 (taking away trust from the criminals)

#3 I believe that ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement are the ones responsible for enforcing immigration laws, so I can see his argument as valid.

#4 I believe he means taking the trust of the Hispanic community in general.

Why don't we bring home our troops and spend the money that we spend on other countries and here at home and have our troops defend our borders in a way that they won't be breaking the Posse Comitatus Act?

Spiritwalker
04-30-2010, 04:38 PM
#3 I believe that ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement are the ones responsible for enforcing immigration laws, so I can see his argument as valid.

#4 I believe he means taking the trust of the Hispanic community in general.

Why don't we bring home our troops and spend the money that we spend on other countries and here at home and have our troops defend our borders in a way that they won't be breaking the Posse Comitatus Act?

#3 - It's a new law.. if he doesn't want to enforce it.. then he should be subject to his supierors. And ICE doesn't seem to be doing the job now as well as it should.. so get someone else.. like if this cop doesn't want to do his job.. "get someone else"

#4 - I don't. and EVEN if.. it's pretty clear how this will work. So if you are here legally.. then no one needs to worry...


An even better idea.. keep the troops in the field.. and HIRE more.. to build the wall along our boarders. And Electricians.. to keep the voltage floowing...

flo
04-30-2010, 05:03 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T2

Officer Martin H. Escobar claims in the suit that the law will "seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes."

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

Escobar, 45, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Mexico and immigrated with his parents when he was 5 years old, attorney Richard M. Martinez said.



Surprise, surprise.

(Not)

Spiritwalker
04-30-2010, 05:26 PM
Surprise, surprise.

(Not)



agreed.. I wonder if he will get carded :)

Spiritwalker
04-30-2010, 05:28 PM
#3 I believe that ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement are the ones responsible for enforcing immigration laws, so I can see his argument as valid.


I kinda think that when local police start arresting them.. and the jails start filling.. ICE will have to take stpes.. or the local jails will have to release them.. and that would be a HUGE publicity black eye..

J.B.
05-01-2010, 03:56 AM
#3 I believe that ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement are the ones responsible for enforcing immigration laws, so I can see his argument as valid.

#4 I believe he means taking the trust of the Hispanic community in general.



Thats easy for somebody who doesn't live here to say, but the fact is that ICE is not getting the job done.

This guys argument is dumb, just like everybody else who tries to argue against this law. The law specifically omits law enforcement officers from having to enforce it when it hinders an ongoing investigation. This guy KNOWS how bad it is in Tucson, he just doesn't WANT to do his job.

It's real simple, don't come to this country ILLEGALLY, and if you are NOT a citizen, then you should be carrying your proof of legal status at ALL times. Why is that so hard for some people to comprehend? Oh, thats right, it's all a political game, and if the conservative side gets something done in this mess, then the liberals and open-border nut-jobs have to scream "racism".

Why don't we bring home our troops and spend the money that we spend on other countries and here at home and have our troops defend our borders in a way that they won't be breaking the Posse Comitatus Act?

An easy way to work around that act would be for the federal government to buy, or even just seize under eminent domain, the land directly along the border.

donaldbreland
05-01-2010, 04:06 AM
I was fishing one day on the river. We got stopped by DNR and I had to show proof of my fishing license. Well I went to reach for my wallet and then I realized that it was in the truck at the landing. The DNR officer then asked if my father in law who was with me if he had his I.D. Thank God he did. Then my father in law had to sign a paper stating I was who I was then the officer told me that he could take me to jail if he wanted to. Not having your I.D is breaking the law. I am a U.S citizen and I didn't complain one bit. I had to pay $125.00 fine for this. I still didn't complain. All this happened in a matter of 4 minutes. Not too much time out of my day. The point I am trying to make is that this happens to all people no matter what their race is.

Buzzard
05-01-2010, 09:59 AM
I was fishing one day on the river. We got stopped by DNR and I had to show proof of my fishing license. Well I went to reach for my wallet and then I realized that it was in the truck at the landing. The DNR officer then asked if my father in law who was with me if he had his I.D. Thank God he did. Then my father in law had to sign a paper stating I was who I was then the officer told me that he could take me to jail if he wanted to. Not having your I.D is breaking the law. I am a U.S citizen and I didn't complain one bit. I had to pay $125.00 fine for this. I still didn't complain. All this happened in a matter of 4 minutes. Not too much time out of my day. The point I am trying to make is that this happens to all people no matter what their race is.

Difference. Can you show me the statute in your state where it states that you must carry I.D.? You were busted because you were fishing and are required to possess a valid license showing that you are permitted to fish in those waters. I'm assuming that you had visible fishing gear when you were stopped. I too have been stopped on the water and asked to show proper permits to fish. I always carry my fishing license when fishing, I don't carry it when I'm not. You weren't stopped because of your race, but because you were doing an activity which requires a valid license. If you weren't fishing and had no fishing gear in your boat, you wouldn't have been issued a ticket for fishing without a permit. You weren't targeted because of your race. While the Supreme Court has ruled that you can be stopped at DUI checkpoints, I still don't agree with them. Do you need a license to operate a motor driven boat in your state?

I'll address addition issues later on, it's late or early morning here and I need sleep.

J.B.
05-01-2010, 11:26 AM
While the Supreme Court has ruled that you can be stopped at DUI checkpoints, I still don't agree with them.

:rolleyes:

Who cares? Just follow the law, and you will be on your way.

The benefit of catching drunk drivers far outweighs the minor inconvenience that a law abiding citizen has to endure at a random checkpoint.

flo
05-01-2010, 04:38 PM
:rolleyes:

Who cares? Just follow the law, and you will be on your way.

The benefit of catching drunk drivers far outweighs the minor inconvenience that a law abiding citizen has to endure at a random checkpoint.

:happy0159:

Buzzard
05-01-2010, 07:29 PM
:rolleyes:

Who cares? Just follow the law, and you will be on your way.

The benefit of catching drunk drivers far outweighs the minor inconvenience that a law abiding citizen has to endure at a random checkpoint.

I care. I have been stopped at numerous DUI checkpoints while following the law and treated like crap by some of the officers. I hold dear my 4th amendment rights. Studies have shown that the checkpoints aren't catching that many, when the resources used could be used in a better more productive way.

According to a report in the Arizona Daily Star, the high cost of DUI checkpoints is unjustified by the low arrest rate. Consider these statistics, which were discovered by an investigation conducted by the Star.

* Between 2005 and 2007, more than 46,000 drivers were stopped. Less than 1% of these were arrested, and fewer than half of those were convicted.
* On July 4th, 2007, a DUI checkpoint arrested less than .1% of the more than 1,239 drivers who passed through the checkpoint.
* Statistics show that DUI arrest and conviction rates have shown no decrease since 2005. It seems the educational benefits of DUI checkpoints are minimal, if there's any.
* Conviction rates for DUI checkpoint arrests tend to be lower than regular DUI arrests because DUI lawyers often challenge the constitutionality of DUI checkpoint arrests.

Again, on this will also have to agree to disagree. A few interesting tidbits in regard to checkpoints. Interesting to me as these were some of the Supreme Courts dissenting opinions.

http://www.duicenter.com/checkpoints/checkpoint02.html

http://www.duicenter.com/checkpoints/checkpoint03.html

J.B.
05-01-2010, 07:58 PM
I care. I have been stopped at numerous DUI checkpoints while following the law and treated like crap by some of the officers. I hold dear my 4th amendment rights. Studies have shown that the checkpoints aren't catching that many, when the resources used could be used in a better more productive way.


You can get pulled over and treated like crap too...maybe we just shouldn't have cops at all? :Whistle::laugh:

I can post links too, and we can go around in circles all day. There is evidence that states have seen overall lower DUI rates since instituting random checkpoints. Also, let's not get it twisted, police departments don't always do these checkpoints constantly. They are typically done during holidays and events that draw a high amount of traffic, and most people in the community are given fair warning that checkpoints are going to be out.

I have been stopped at checkpoints and treated wonderfully, and I have been harassed for no reason plenty of times too. I get over it and go on with my life. I am all about 4th amendment rights too, but when you are operating a dangerous machine on a public roadway I don't see a problem with these kind of measures to help ensure safety.

Buzzard
05-01-2010, 08:24 PM
You can get pulled over and treated like crap too...maybe we just shouldn't have cops at all? :Whistle::laugh:

The last time I got pulled over for something I did was 11 years ago. The officer was cool during the stop and I was fine. I went to traffic court, paid my fine and and asked for traffic school. The judge and officer agreed because of my clean record. The good part is that after going to school, I needed surgery and forgot about turning in my paperwork to the courts. I panicked because I missed the deadline so I had my sister drive me to the court. I get in there, wait for my turn to speak to the teller and explain my situation that I had forgotten due to my surgery. I had visible proof of the surgery so she took my info and talked to the judge. She came back telling me it was my lucky day because the judge accepted my excuse and I was on my way.

I just thought I would relate a positive experience even though I received a ticket so you wouldn't think I'm just a hater for the sake of it.

I can post links too, and we can go around in circles all day. There is evidence that states have seen overall lower DUI rates since instituting random checkpoints. Also, let's not get it twisted, police departments don't always do these checkpoints constantly. They are typically done during holidays and events that draw a high amount of traffic, and most people in the community are given fair warning that checkpoints are going to be out.

I'm happy to read that information if you can provide it. If you can show a direct correlation between the lower DUI rates and the checkpoints even better.

I have been stopped at checkpoints and treated wonderfully, and I have been harassed for no reason plenty of times too. I get over it and go on with my life. I am all about 4th amendment rights too, but when you are operating a dangerous machine on a public roadway I don't see a problem with these kind of measures to help ensure safety.

Part of my problem with them is as follows. In one report I read, possibly one I linked to or on another page on that site, it told of one checkpoint that used 19 officers for a period of 1.5 hours and netted I believe nothing. I feel that the better use of the officers would have been on the streets patrolling for all crimes instead of being planted in one space limiting their exposure to possibly other criminal acts.

We again have differing opinions and I'm cool with that. It's nice to hear differing views and I'll take what you have said into consideration.

donaldbreland
05-01-2010, 08:27 PM
If just one life is saved by the cops arresting a drunk driver that is stopped at a road block then it has worked. How valuable is ones life? It works Buzzard I believe you get a kick out of arguing.

Buzzard
05-01-2010, 08:31 PM
If just one life is saved by the cops arresting a drunk driver that is stopped at a road block then it has worked. How valuable is ones life? It works Buzzard I believe you get a kick out of arguing.

I actually do like a good debate.

On that note, is it worth it if they saved the one life because of a DUI checkpoint but lost 2 lives because the officers weren't patrolling other areas and missed the drunk driver there?

donaldbreland
05-01-2010, 08:50 PM
I actually do like a good debate.

On that note, is it worth it if they saved the one life because of a DUI checkpoint but lost 2 lives because the officers weren't patrolling other areas and missed the drunk driver there?

actually a very good comeback. I think that check points do more good than bad though. Generally when you have check points in South Carolina you have probation officers helping out so cops can be patrolling. Generally the highway patrol are the ones doing the majority of the checkpoints anyway. The highway patrol don't go to homicides or domestic disputes. :)