SB 1070's "Papers Please" Section Now in Effect

Categories: SB1070
papers-please-storm-trooper.jpg
howrudeareyou.com
Police will also be dressing like Storm Troopers.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton has lifted the injunction on Senate Bill 1070's "papers please" provision, which allows cops to begin enforcing that section immediately.

This move was pretty much expected, as Bolton signaled her intent to release the injunction a few weeks ago, as she noted that the Supreme Court declared that the section might be constitutional.

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

The ACLU and other dissenters still tried to fight Bolton's dissolution of the injunction, but no dice on that. Police will be required to check the immigration status of anyone they've stopped, under the condition that they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person's in the country illegally.

While the law's proponents -- well, some of them -- have insisted that racial profiling would never be tolerated for an officer to develop this "reasonable suspicion," the other methods haven't really been made clear. As eloquently explained by the chief of the largest police department in the state, it's complicated. Spider-sense à la Spider-Man sounds plausible.

Of course, there's no guarantee that the "papers please" provision will live forever. Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion acknowledged that the law can still be challenged on other Constitutional grounds. Just as an example, we'll throw out the phrase "equal protection clause."

"[Arizona's police officers] bring their training and experience to this important task, as well as a solemn commitment to serving the public, protecting our citizens and upholding the law," Governor Jan Brewer says in a statement, responding to Bolton's lifting of the injunction. "That means all of our laws, including those barring racial profiling or discrimination."

She continued, "It is not enough that SB 1070 be enforced. It must be enforced efficiently, effectively and in harmony with the Constitution and civil rights. I have full faith and confidence that Arizona's State and local law enforcement officers are prepared for this task."

More information on this specific injunction can be found here.



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
46 comments
robert_graham
robert_graham

Not having a drivers license and insurance and lacking the ability to speak and understand English is probable cause to believe the person might be in this country illegally.  Just remember that if can ask everybody they stop whether they have been drinking or if they have illegal things in their car they can ask immigration status.

Kenizacunt
Kenizacunt

Round that shit up. Ship that shit back to Filthico.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

Nothing will change.  Puente is stirring up fear as a motivator for no other reason than to manipulate their base and continue elf promotion of their name.

chocobat
chocobat

Another reason why Paul Penzone needs to be our next sheriff!!! I trust him to be far more rational in the application of 1070 than Twithead...

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

I really have no problem with the ID section of the law, cops have always been able to ask these questions.

 

Now LEO's have the opportunity to prove that they are professionals who can do their job. I hope for everyones sake they do so.

 

Speaking as an ex LEO, I hope that current LEO's realize this and act appropriately. I also hope that the court does what it said it would and come down hard on anyone who does profile illegally.

 

Our legal system requires a victim in many instances to be able to act, which is why the parts of the law that stood were allowed to stand. Hopefully LEO's around the country will act professionally and not provide any victims.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

dammit!! if the sea hag says racial profiling is wrong and illegal, there is absolutely NO way it could possibly happen!!!  is she aware that killing unsentenced inmates is wrong and illegal too? yet MCSO seems to be doing that too. is she aware that looking the other way while rapes are being commited is wrong too? yet MCSO seems to be doing that too. is she aware that spending money recklessly while the county has you on a budgetary freeze is wrong too? yet MCSO did that too....and even spent over $500,000 on a bus that just sat for years.  get ready for the lawsuits, jan saying its wrong isnt going to prevent a single thing

yuri_orlov
yuri_orlov

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.

AllanC
AllanC

 @JoeArpaioFan

 If you are driving and get stopped you must show driver's license, insurance proof and automobile registration.  You are not required to answer about drinking, drugs, etc.  Passengers are not required to show ID even if asked.  The poilice are  asking you to VOLUNTEER the info.  We have the right not to answer.

 

If I am asked about my citizenship, I will refuse to answer.  I have that right and I will exercise it.

 

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @JoeArpaioFan as they drive by at 45 mph, how do you know they dont have a license, insurance or are limited in english? do they have a bumper sticker that says so? what was the reason the cop stopped them? it cant be for those reasons, because there is no way to know until after the stop is made

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @yourproductsucks Yes things are going to change.  What will now change is that our illegal alien population will shrink thanks to the law. Ha ha ha ha!!!!

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @yourproductsucks i dont normally agree with you, but in this case you are right, its the same procedures as before. the main difference is that now the police have a little protection from lawsuits or claims of racial profiling. (you may or may not agree that profiling is happening, but it is, just not everytime like some people claim). when they stop someone now, whether or not they are profiling, they are shielded from repercussions of the occasional false claim of it. however, in the actual cases of it, the victims will have a harder time proving it (and that is unfortunate for the real victims of it)

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @chocobat You think that if Penzone is sheriff things will change?  Nope!  If Penzone does become sheriff and he fails to enforce papers please, he will be fired for not following the law.  And he would be put to the test.

Kenizacunt
Kenizacunt

Nipples Penzone the wife beater will never be elected. Get over it.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

 @Flyer9753 

The passing of this provision will not change the way law enforcement conducts themselves; not one iota.  To suggest otherwise indicates you left prior to retirement and have been gone for some time.

fairymagic13
fairymagic13

 @yuri_orlov I called that number and the Sheriff's office said they can't do anything about the people in the restaurant I was at this afternoon that I just KNEW were Irish illegal immigrants.  One even said they were here illegally FROM IRELAND!

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @yuri_orlov 

 

Sheriff Joe will only do that IF the report is big enough that he can use it to get media attention, otherwise he will ignore it just like he ignores everything else that doesn't have a direct financial/media profit in it for him.

 

You would be better of calling ICE directly or AZ DPS or the local city law enforcement to get

 

Let me guess, JAF second account? Pretty sure since your post is pretty much a copy/paste of one of his crappy spammings

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @JoeArpaioFan  as long as they dont commit sexual crimes, joe will find them. if they do commit sexual offences, he wont even bother with them. he's proven that he feels that to be unworthy of investigation

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @danzigsdaddy  @yourproductsucks Your claim of racial profiling is baseless and without merit.  I'll tell you why with this scenario:

 

Deputies are parked along side the road looking for traffic violators such as speeders and drunk drivers when they notice a vehicle going past them exceeding the speed limit, running a red light or stop sign, so he decides to pull the car over like he has done a million times before.

 

Then, when the officer confronts the driver about the violation and asks to see a drivers license and insurance, the driver can't produce it nor can the driver speak English.

 

The cop is then allowed to ask the drivers legal status because probable cause exists to believe the driver just might be here illegally.  That is not racial profiling, it is called investigating a crime.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @yourproductsucks While in many respects I agree with you, I think your blanket statement is wrong. Not all cops are bad, regardless of your (and mine) experiences with the bad ones that stand out.

 

Yes I did leave prior to retirement and yes it was approx. 20 years ago.

 

Trust me I am aware of the changes since then and now since then I have had a lot of bad run ins with cops, since I know my rights and most of them do not (or just don't care) but have also met some very professional officers as well.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @Flyer9753 So you think that Hispanics deserve a free pass to break the laws of this country?  You think that police should not pull Hispanics over because they are Hispanic even if they violate the law?  Ain't gonna happen!

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

 @Flyer9753 You have faith in the DoJ?  

 

Their political agenda and ad hominem attacks on local law enforcement is atrocious.  It's only a matter of days before Judge Snow hands down the very embarrassing verdict (for the DoJ) reference their claims that MCSO was racially profiling. 

chocobat
chocobat

 @Flyer9753 Having just skimmed the article, I could've sworn I was reading about Twithead... er, the current sheriff, I mean...

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

   @JoeArpaioFan   i really dont think it could be explained in a simpler way. if he still cant see it, he never will. the sad thing about it is that even people who support SB1070 can understand that you cant eliminate the human variable (which would be the racist that slips through the cracks) who will take this as meaning free reign to commit racial profiling under the guise of law enforcement. granted it is NOT every cop, but there are a LOT. proof would be all the racial memo's and jokes recovered from MCSO emails and memo's.   

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @JoeArpaioFan  limited english is not a reason a reason to believe someone is here illegally, nor is not having a license. that belief alone is definately proof that you are a rascist though. my grandmother was irish and had a hard time with english, she was not illegal. are you trying to tell me rascism is non-existant? or are you trying to tell me that NO cop is physically capable of doing ANYTHING wrong or illegal? you are so stuck into your hate rant that you miss entirely what people are discussing or saying here. NOBODY is saying all illegals should be left alone. what we are pointing out is that the rascism of some is being left unchecked.  let me break it down in a way you will hopefully understand. 2 different cops are out on the road, cop A) see's a car drive by with a guy who is brown go by, the driver has a beer up to his mouth. he gets pulled over. a crime was commited, so as cop A) is talking to him, he asks "can i see your papers?". a crime WAS commited and cop A) is in the right to inquire. now, cop B) sees a car go by with a brown guy driving. cop B) did not see anything wrong but pulls him over and asks "can i see your papers?" the guy did nothing wrong, but asks what he did. cop B) says "you were driving erratically" or "your directional didnt work" that is not the reason cop B) pulled him over, and that is racial profiling. that is not a valid stop or reasonable cause, the driver was not breaking any laws. i quote the second example specifically, because i was in the car with my buddy when it happened. we checked the lights (he even checks them before he gets in, because this has happened 3 times to him) and there was nothing wrong with them. the cop only checked him for I.D. and never asked me for any I.D. (it was MCSO that did the stop). you see things like this can go unchecked because of people who are blinded by hate such as yourself. i have talked to many arpaio supporters, many stauffer supporters and many penzone supporters, and you are one of the very few who dont understand this. i have even met MCSO cops who will admit this happens, so why you cant see it is unreal. this is not the only reason people are against joe. they are even against him in his own party because he is too busy trying to find imaginary illegals under every rock instead of doing his entire job, which would also be investigating sex crimes. and that is something he is not doing 

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @Yourproductsucks blah blah blah blah

 

good, I will look forward to being served with court papers.

 

Good night MCSO Officer Troll (you are easy to peg too)

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

I know this because I have interacted with numerous clear channel employees and have seen the complaints that have been filed against them.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

@Flyer9753 @yourproductsucks Clear channel communications are unethical in their practices and any clear channel employee who is not directly involved in the unethical practices are, at the very least, complicit in allowing the unethical practices to continue unabated.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

@Flyer9753 @yourproductsucks No examples of malfeasance? You obviously have multiple stories to corroborate your claims. You made the argument, back it up with verifiable evidence.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

@Flyer9753 @yourproductsucks Yet I am neither. I pegged, however.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @yourproductsucks 

 

I disagree. If you think you are right, have Joe/MCSO sue the DOJ for slander - if you are so sure of this.

 

Your assertion about me I could care less about since you don't know anything about me and probably would not believe anything anyways even with ironclad proof.

 

I know what I saw at MCSO and in regards to MCSO and that is all that matters to me.

 

It's clear you are a Joe defender and that you like to judge others opinions and make your own attacks, it would not surprise me if you are a birther nut too, so this conversation now bores me.

 

Have a nice night.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @yourproductsucks 

 

I have lived in the Phx. Valley and Maricopa county for over 20 years and had a lot of contact with MCSO and it's officers since I used to also work as a production assistant at Clear channel Entertainment. MCSO Officers were at every event and concert.

 

I have meet and had interactions with Arpaio directly several times over the course of those work related events and personal interactions as well. I have also met and worked with most of the 'command' staff as well.

 

Will I name names here? No there is no need and it would prove nothing since I could just go over to the MCSO web site and gather a list of names. What would it prove? Nothing and that is exactly what I have to prove to you, nothing.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

 @Flyer9753 How many contacts have you had with MCSO deputies? Can you name names?  I will bet you can't.  You can't even provide anecdotal evidence to back your claim.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

 @Flyer9753 Slander occurred when the DoJ came out and said that MCSO has a culture of corruption and racial profiling yet they provided zero evidence to back their claims.  When taken to task (court) they failed to provide the evidence necessary (not for a conviction) but only had to meet the standard of a preponderance of evidence.  I know it's been a long time since you were in law enforcement but a preponderance of evidence means that the incident (in this case racially profiling) probably occurred.  They Couldn't Even meet that minute standard of proof.

 

Your assertion that the entire organization is corrupt is very telling.  Its even more obvious you have been out of the field for a long time and had very limited exposure to the job in the first place.   

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @yourproductsucks 

 

My apologies if I mis -read what you wrote, thanks for the correction.

 

I judge MCSO differently in this case because it is my firm belief after my own eye witness and first hand dealings with Joe Arpaio and MCSO officers, that Joe has created the problems/atmosphere in MCSO regarding race and abuses from the top down via policy, training and a systemic environment of both overt and covert reprisals.

 

This does not excuse those officers in any way shape or form, but it does change the dynamic since it is not a single officer or supervisor, but an entire department that participated, even if passively.

 

Basically, the corruption at MCSO is so overwhelmingly blatant that there is little or no excuse (IMHO) for an officer that might not have participated in the abuses/corruption, not taking action themselves (whistleblower/etc...) outside of MCSO's chain of command.

 

MCSO Officers that may not have participated in abuses knew of them and should have said something to someone somewhere, their silence violated (again IMHO) the oath they took to the public.

 

I do agree that the case that has been closed should have been closed. I do not agree that there was slander involved on the part of the DOJ due to the investigation, unless it were ackknowledged that ANY investigation by ANY LEA that does not result in a conviction is slanderous.

 

The act of investigating, which DOJ was legally obligated to do once the complaints were made to them, is not grounds for slander otherwise no LEA could conduct any investigation due to the risk of not getting a conviction and therefore opening themselves up to a slander suit.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

 @Flyer9753 Law Enforcement Officers by and large are upstanding individuals who do the oft times thankless job to help those who can not help themselves.  You assumed (wrongly) that I was being critical of Law Enforcement.  

 

Its curious you state I am making a blanket statement yet it's you who judge an entire agency (MCSO) as racial profilers.  The class action law suit was a severe disappointment to those who wanted so badly to throw egg in the face of Arpaio at the folly of the employees of MCSO.  Truth be told, melendres didn't show, the second witness for the DoJ admitted on the stand he was not racially profiled and the third witness for the DoJ stopped and initiated contact with MCSO, therefore could not have been racially profiled.  The case hinged on those three incidents.  It was blatantly obvious the DoJ were not prepared to back their bluff and when Arpaio called their bluff they should have folded.

 

What part of the Constitution gives a federal entity the authority to slander an entire group of people based on the perceived wrongs of a few?

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

 @Flyer9753 If you are right, then it should be easy for Judge Snow to condemn MCSO.  We shall soon see if you are correct.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @yourproductsucks 

 

The DOJ 'attacks' are in accordance with the constitution of the United States, a document it sounds like you need to read.

 

MCSO was racially profiling and still is. The case that has been closed is only 1 of several and no where near the worst of the lot.

 

As to whether or not I have faith in the DOJ - yes and no, since I don't judge an entire department made up of a lot of professionals and just like any organization, there are good people and bad.

fairymagic13
fairymagic13

 @Yourproductsucks  @fairymagic13 No, Really - there are a HUGE number if illegal Irish immigrants working all over the United States - they're under the radar because all the bigots are focusing on brown people but the economy in Ireland has tanked and 10s of 1000s of Irish people are coming here through Canada to work in fields and as busboys.  The Irish are the new Mexicans Dude.  In fact the influx of migrant workers from Mexico has slowed considerably but the increase in illegal immigrants from Europe has increased quite a bit.  Keep an eye out for the blarney in your bigotry.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...