SB 1070's "Papers Please" Section Can Go Into Effect, Judge Rules

aclu777.jpg
The ACLU lost on section 2(b) today, but the war over SB 1070 is far from over


See also: The Supreme Court's 1070 Ruling Is No Win for Teabaggers
See also: SB 1070 Slugfest: Will Judge Susan Bolton Block 1070's "Papers Please" Section?
See also: SB 1070 Oral Arguments on "Papers Please" Section Scheduled for August 21
See also: ACLU Seeks New Injunction on "Papers Please" Portion of SB 1070
See also: SB 1070, SCOTUS, Friendly House, and a Ray of Hope

In a major disappointment to civil rights advocates, U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton today ruled that Senate Bill 1070's notorious "papers please" section cannot be further enjoined, allowing the provision to go into effect once she officially releases an earlier injunction against it.

The judge disagreed with a coalition of groups led by the ACLU, which had argued that section 2(b) of SB 1070 should be enjoined on the grounds it violates the Fourth and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Instead, in Valle del Sol v. Whiting, Bolton concluded that 2(b) could not be challenged on these grounds until it goes into effect and creates the adverse conditions civil rights organizations fear it will.

Bolton cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year, denying an injunction on the section, which requires cops to check the immigration status of those stopped, if there's reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in the country illegally.

In June, the Supremes decided that if the section is narrowly interpreted, it possibly could be applied in a constitutional manner.

So the high court reversed Bolton's 2010 injunction on the section, wherein she ruled that federal immigration law preempts that part of 1070.

"This Court will not ignore the clear direction in the Arizona opinion that Subsection 2(B) cannot be challenged further on its face before the law takes effect," Bolton declared in today's order.

"As the Supreme Court stated," she added, "plaintiffs and the United States may be able to challenge the provision on other preemption and constitutional grounds `as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.'"



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
60 comments
robert_graham
robert_graham

Hey everybody, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA - Now show the cops your papers!!!!!!

TruConserv
TruConserv

She made the right call, I am sad to conclude.

 

When the SCOTUS stated the law might be Constitutional depending on how it was actually applied, we all knew how tough it would be to enjoin.

 

I was counting on the brilliance of the Plaintiff's attorneys , or in the alternative, some judicial activism from Judge Bolton.

 

Neither came, and in the case of the absence of activism, that's how it is supposed to be.

 

Now we must wait for the inevitable.  Reckless law enforcement from Arpaio will lead to lawsuits, millions of taxpayer money will be spent and countless lives disrupted.

 

We all know these things will happen.  It's a train wreck we can all foretell, it's a story Lemons is can prep in advance.

 

A mature, fiscally responsible AZ legislature would repeal the law and save us all the Kabuki theater.  We all know that ain't going to happen.

 

 

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

I seriously think Judge Bolton made a mistake by allowing Section 2(B) of BS1070 to take effect.

 

Let's hope that if there are appearances of abuse that Judge Bolton will halt it.

 

I know Obama is desperate to win the Latino vote this year (he's gonna need it, especially taking on Mitt Romney) and with his stopping the abuse of power probe into the MCSO shurf and this bullshit, Obama may just be a one-term president.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

i love how brewer emphasizes "racial profiling is illegal" like that will stop it. if that were true, so is rape, drugs and murder, but that doesnt seem to stop the problem Jan. perjury is also illegal, that didnt stop Fox or Thomas. abuse of power is too, and that didnt stop henderschott. what you meant was "racial profiling is illegal if you get caught,arent a cop and as long as the DOJ isnt the one ruling on it" just because its illegal doesnt mean it doesnt happen. by saying you trained your officers, and then retrain them, means you found evidence of it. if they werent doing it, why did you have to retrain them?  

bigbrotherneedsyou
bigbrotherneedsyou

remember citizens, if you have any tips/info on illegal aliens, call Sheriff Joe's hotline at 602-876-4154. stay vigilant comrades, with your help, Sheriff Joe will rid maricopa county of the illegal alien scourge.

narizona
narizona

I can't remember a time when .if I was pulled over  that I wasn't asked for ID If I was driving My license what's wrong with that? That is the only ID I as an American citizen am required to carry on my person ..Big deal ..........when it gets sticky is when the law starts making assumptions without cause .I think a portable Fingerprinter on certain patrol cars would end the B S .just a thought    Peace!

mydogshavepapers
mydogshavepapers

you mexicans need to start carrying your identification when you leave the house. comprende?

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

The ACLU continue to show complete either complete indifference or complete ignorance of the law.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @TruConserv Arpaio does not practice reckless law enforcement.  It will be the frivolous lawsuits from illegal aliens instead that will lead to millions of dollars being stolen from the taxpayers.  I can see it now, every Mexican pulled over for having a broken taillight or for speeding will claim they were racially profiled for being pulled over but who are they trying to fool?  Do they actually think the deserve a free pass and should not get pulled over simply because they are Hispanic? Is it racial profiling for black cops to pull over white drivers?  Or if a Chinese cop pulls over a black woman can the woman claim she was racially profiled? I don't think so.  Or how about if a Mexican cop (and there are lots of them on the police force here) pulls over a Mexican, is that racial profiling too?  Keep in mind that false claims of racial profiling will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @MaskedMagician1967 Are you nuts? Judge Bolton did not make a mistake by allowing the provision to go into effect.  But she did make a mistake by not allowing the other provisions.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @MaskedMagician1967 No, Judge Bolton did not make a mistake.  I suppose you thing the Supreme Court made a mistake too?  If you are pulled over police can ask to see your drivers license and insurance card.  Truth is you are just a sore loser. But ha ha ha ha ha ha. Watch and see what is next you dumb idiot.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @danzigsdaddy Right.  When cops saturate a known black area looking for crack is that racial profiling too?  And if a black op pulls over a white driver for speeding is that racial profiling too?  Simple fact is that the claim about racial profiling is just another baseless attempt at playing the race card.

waltervanhorn
waltervanhorn

 @danzigsdaddy

 well look who our govenor is a dumb box of rocks women who listens to everyone of white skin tone and shits on the rest. she has no college education just a nursing degree but you all want her for govenor and the retraining of officers is her way of saying that we are dumb and don't know any better than to listen to her think about it the retraining is a way for police to profile with out getting caught but profiling been going on forever and they still will do it blatantly so open up them wallets because the lawsuits are going to happen. this is called legalized profiling nothing else.  

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

by Brewers reasoning of racial profiling being illegal so MCSO isnt doing it, illegal immigration is illegal too.........so nobody is doing that either. see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. way to put that one to rest sea hag

azweasel
azweasel

 @danzigsdaddy

That's all that old twat lips is concerned with. Every time i see that mug, it's a reminder to have the wife shave her taint. 

2and2makefive
2and2makefive

 @bigbrotherneedsyou Timely reminder comrade! With 2 million "hispanics" in arizona and 1/2 million illegal aliens, it's a good bet that every fourth mexican that one sees is an illegal alien. Just to be safe, it would be prudent to report any group of three or more mexicans who are hanging around where they don't belong.

azweasel
azweasel

 @bigbrotherneedsyou

 And we are winning the war on drugs. But a clue piss brain. The only solution is reform. Arpaio should be arrested for being a fraud.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @bigbrotherneedsyou is there a hot line for rape or child molestation victims? maybe you ought to put that number out there too. or does it just take a letter from someone in sun city saying the rapist was speaking spanish? can someone please tell joe rapists are a scourge too, so we would appreciate it if he gave getting rid of them some time..........any time.........any time at all joe.

Bnbk
Bnbk

 @bigbrotherneedsyou

 Yes,by all means.call the sheriff's hotline and report any and all suspected "illegal aliens". In the mean time, we should encourage all Latino American citizens to commence to speaking spanish (loudly) in public at every opportunity. As a matter of fact,they could listen to Ranchera music while driving their vehicles.Hell,they might even want to try wearing a Texano hat also,that is if they don't already. This should be interesting to see how long it takes for this be to litigated in court once again. Just think of all the monetary awards that could be dished out for racial profiling. Let the lawsuits begin !

waltervanhorn
waltervanhorn

 @narizona

 so what happens if an illegal forgets his papers do you think they are going to have someone come out and fingerprint them i don't think so. they would lock you up and make you prove that you are here legally. no one is safe with this law not even you. there is no quick fix to stop racial profiling if you look mexican and you driving not breaking the law they will find away to get you by making up that you broke the law i know i was arrested for driving brown and had not broke any law but was charged with a tail light out and none was out so you have got to watch yourself.

TruConserv
TruConserv

 @narizona That's the point.  The law requires extra background check if the officer should have reasonable suspicion that you are an illegal alien.  I use the word "should" deliberately because any officer that doesn't check enough backgrounds can be sued, in his/her individual capacity, by any one who thinks s/he isn't enforcing the law.

 

It will make millions for Pearce's buddies.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @narizona there is a van that does do that. i was out walking late one night and lost my ID. thay called the van out to verify that i had given them the right name and had no warrants

narizona
narizona

 @mydogshavepapers So ..your dogs shave and papers too ! must be worth a lot ....Are you on craigs list ?.HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

narizona
narizona

Yeah I comprende DOG LOVER .Are you on craigslist?

marcy
marcy

 @mydogshavepapers SB1070, other than one section that was struck down early on, does not require anyone to carry identification.

TaxpayingVoter
TaxpayingVoter

 @mydogshavepapers The shame is that the Americans of Mexican descent must do it, too.

 

If some Americans must do it, ALL Americans must do it.

GreenHornet
GreenHornet

 @Yourproductsucks Yeah, that's why 5 sections of the law have been stopped dead in their tracks, due to the DOJ and the ACLU. Eat that YPS.

bob_lablaw96
bob_lablaw96

 @JoeArpaioFan  @TruConserv There is no profiling if there is a law broken.  Every Mexican will not try to sue for such stuff.  Arpaio has enough legitimate lawsuits to pay out for him to worry about the nonsense ones filed just to tie up the system

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @JoeArpaioFan and the ignoring rapes and all other crimes besides immigration laws is not what he was elected to do. yet he does. that may not be an indicator of a problem to you, but it sure is to everyone else

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @azweasel at least she was partially sober this time when she did the press conference (as sober as the sea hag can be at least)

bob_lablaw96
bob_lablaw96

 @Bnbk  @bigbrotherneedsyou Who is going to pay those losses, amigo?  We surely do not need a bunch of chickenshit lawsuits, any more than we need that chickenshit Shurf.

 

The whole thing needs to be addressed and shaken out in a serious, mature fashion.  Whether MCSO is up to that scrutiny or not has yet to be determined.  If they are not, I hope Judge Bolton puts them in restraints as quickly as possible. 

 

Who knows?  That might do more to get rid of the Joke than if she had left the issue alone.

TruConserv
TruConserv

 @Bnbk  @bigbrotherneedsyou I have a beat-up mini-pickup I keep meaning to get fixed and registered.  I also have a law degree and a deep, deep tan.

 

Maybe I'll grab a Texano hat and do as you suggest. 

narizona
narizona

I think I'll start today I LIKE THAT IDEA !

TaxpayingVoter
TaxpayingVoter

 @Bnbk  @bigbrotherneedsyou I was thinking of dying my hair brown and dressing in traditional "illegal" clothing so I would appear to be an old Mexican woman.

 

Just to see what would happen, of course.

 

Brushing up on my Spanish, too.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @danzigsdaddy  @narizona 

 

Gets better than that now (being sarcastic with the 'better' there). Phx and several other valley cities, as well as DPS are testing and have already deployed several of the new portable biometric units.

 

About the size of a regular paperback book, it will do Facial ID as well as fingerprint  scans and verify them over a cell network link (wireless) right there in the field against the national databases.

 

Pinal county SO is also using them although they have not yet field deployed them. That is expected within 6 months.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @marcy  actually marcy, its a state law (may even be federal for all i know) that you have ID on you. they can hold you for like 48 or 72 hours i think just to verify who you are (i think that applies to no ID or questionable ID cases). out of state ID is not valid in arizona as identification, and in some cases a out of state drivers liscence is not acceptable either (alcohol, cigarrette purchases). the ID laws are pretty back and forth, but AZ does say you have to have it and present it upon request by law enforcement officials

bob_lablaw96
bob_lablaw96

 @TaxpayingVoter  @Yourproductsucks He actually has a better grasp of the laws than you, or most others here.  Those of you that speak from rumor or internet stories might want to listen to him as well. 

 

Yourproductsucks may not say what you want to hear, but he is right more often than the hystericals that post here so often.

waltervanhorn
waltervanhorn

 @TaxpayingVoter  @Bnbk  @bigbrotherneedsyou

 what are traditional illegal clithing. they dress in some nice clothes and wear expensive shoes since they don't pay taxes. the ones that i see own some pretty new trucks with expensive rims on them. so what do illegals dress like so i know. let us all know, i have been racially profiled by the sheriff office on more than one occasion and still i am an american with a japanese background so i don't like the show the papers law because the law is going to lead to alot of racial profiling lawsuits and stiil nothing will change other than you end up paying the tab again.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @marcy  @danzigsdaddy 

 

Correct on everything you are saying except one point, the recording.

 

Arizona is a one person state when it comes to recording, meaning that only 1 person need be aware of the recording. That one person is you.

 

Telling the cop you are recording has both benefits and drawback:

 

Benefit:

 

1. It might make him/her watch themselves and be sure they follow the law

 

Drawback:

 

1. It might make them confrontational

2. They might try the "I am giving you a lawful order to turn off the recorder" - bs and will not hold up in court but will give them the excuse on the spot to arrest for not following an LEO's order.

3. Could get the recorder confiscated and "accidentally" dropped/damaged

 

Whether or not you tell them really depends on the situation and the attitude of the cop during the initial contact (first 10 seconds)

 

I personally keep the recorder/phone in my pocket, unless I am doing video (which is also legal) and have a remote mic plugged in that is under a flap of a jacket or on my chest under the shirt.

 

I also recommend using an internet connected phone to do this and software (like Qik) that uploads the recording directly to the internet.

 

Also keep your phone LOCKED! If it is locked they cannot make you unlock it for them, which makes it harder for them to destroy evidence or go through your phone.

 

marcy
marcy

 @danzigsdaddy  @marcy Cops routinely lie.

 

ARS 13-2412 is Arizona's stop and identify statute

 

1) You must be lawfully detained,  First question to ask any cop who stops you should be "Am I being detained".   If the answer is no then you are not obligated to identify yourself.

 

2) You are informed that failure to state your true full name is unlawful.

 

My name is John Richard Smith would be sufficient to satisfy the statute if that is your true full name.  As the statute makes clear, you are under no legal obligation to provide ANY OTHER INFORMATION.  You don't have to tell them your address, what you are doing, your Social Security number, ...

 

And carry a recorder with you and notify the cop you are recording your interaction so they cop doesn't later lie and claim you failed to identify yourself.  Cops hate being taped, it really limits their ability to lie later.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @marcy im not doubting you, but, i do want to look up the exact law on it so i dont have to listen to some cop try to pull his bullshit on me when i dont have to take it. thank you for the heads up though

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @marcy so your telling me the cops lied? why am i not surprised in this county. i'll take your word for it. i should have known the cop was lying, he was mcso

marcy
marcy

Actually danzig, no there isn't and such state or federal law that requires people to "have ID on you".

 

You are confused.  There is a state law that requires you to "identify" yourself, but that only requires that you tell the police your name.  There is NO requirement to have "identification" on you.

 

If you disagree and insist there is such a law, find it.

 

Good luck

TaxpayingVoter
TaxpayingVoter

Except for the part that he actually got it completely wrong about the ACLU, you could have a point.   Or, more likely, you actually don't have a clue yourself.

 

 

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...