Tucson Man Detained Thanks to "Papers Please" Provision of SB 1070; ACLU on the Case

Categories: News
no-1070-sign.jpg
Nevele Otseog via Flickr


A 23-year-old man was detained by South Tucson police this summer, and held for more than five hours so he could be questioned about his immigration status, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

The ACLU is getting involved in the case, as a challenge to section 2(b) of Senate Bill 1070, also known as the "papers please" provision.

See also:
-SB 1070's "Papers Please" Section Can Go Into Effect, Judge Rules

"Alex [Valenzuela], 23, was a passenger in a parked car on July 13 when South Tucson police officers detained him in order to question him about his citizenship," the ACLU of Arizona announced today. "Even though he provided multiple forms of identification and had not committed any crime, the officers unlawfully arrested and drove Alex to Border Patrol's Tucson Sector headquarters where he was detained for an additional five hours."

Section 2(b) of SB 1070 requires police to try to determine a person's immigration status if "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated multiple sections of SB 1070, but said it was "improper" for the lower court to enjoin section 2(b) "before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that enforcement of the provision in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives."

Since the section was challenged on the basis that it conflicts with federal immigration law, it could still be challenged on other grounds.

"This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Now, a bit more than a year after the "papers please" provision went into effect, the ACLU alleges Valenzuela's constitutional rights to freedom from unreasonable seizures and equal protection of the law were violated.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
41 comments
Keith Showalter
Keith Showalter

you should change your name to sir bitch-a lot. do you even have a job? or is trolling your job?

Francisco Cortez
Francisco Cortez

Repeal SB1070 already! this law does NOTHING to help curb illegal immigration.

enigma9000aa
enigma9000aa

SB 1070 will eventually disappear much as its creator has from the political scene!

Rudy Rodriguez
Rudy Rodriguez

↑↑↑Oh my. One Has to wonder why so much hate. Where does it come from? Then I see the name and I find myself speechless!

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

the article says this fella was eligible for the deferred action program, which is NOT the same as this person had applied and been granted deferred action. this person is an illegal alien who's detainment was acceptable. the length of detainment at ice has nothing to do with the length of time it took local officers to determine ice needed to be contacted. ice chose not to deport an illegal alien. it appears thru have that discretion.

TommyCollins
TommyCollins topcommenter

This shows a complete waste of law enforcement resources. The officers shouldn't be wasting time and their efforts with this type of stuff, when they could be working on hard criminal matters instead. Once he provided the documents he should have been released and then the officers could have moved on to do the job they are hired to do. Let ICE and Border Patrol do their jobs.

Marco Cruz
Marco Cruz

Wanna be here legally? Then deal with it like any other american would. But oh no, i forgot, theyre DREAMers, so they are an exception to the laws that govern this country. They are only american when it suits them.

uncledave
uncledave

Stupid case to pursue.  Valenzuela is in the country illegally, "Dreamer" status just means that deportation has been forestalled it does not provide immunity to detention. The bottom line here was the law enforcement folks were right.  If the ACLU wants a challenge to be taken seriously they need to find a US citizen that has been detained, not an illegal alien.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

Maybe now the most conservative Supreme Court since Taft will finally invalidate BS1070.

1959cutter
1959cutter

my dad warned of communist taking over,and you couldn't go from town to town without papers.......that was 1967 and he was a right wing conservative.

what is the difference today???....oh yeah,they are the communist!

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

only hard criminal matters warrant an officers time? have you digressed to the point where you believe the officer making the traffic stop for speeding

squash
squash

@uncledave and @yourproductsucks2 want us to believe that it is okay to lock up somebody for no fault of their own because it is an "emotional sentiment" not to lock them up. That makes absolutely no sense.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@uncledave 

Actually you are wrong. 

Intent is a large part of the law. Dreamer status is only for those people who were brought here prior to them being able to make a decision about coming here, i.e. children brought by their parents. 

The CHILD did nothing wrong, the parent did, which means the INTENT is missing.

The term you are looking for is DEFERRED not forestalled, and it is a normal legal concept that means that if they do what they are supposed to be to become a US Citizen they are NOT in violation of the law since there was no INTENT to break the law.

The police were wrong. He had the proper documents/id's, there was ZERO reason for them to detain him to verify his paperwork, unless that is the standard now for EVERYONE including you.... whereas I am sure if you were pulled over and jailed, even though you could show you are here legally, you would be screaming bloody murder.

If you want your arguments/posts/comments to be taken seriously, get a better understanding of the law.

TommyCollins
TommyCollins topcommenter

@1959cutter You're saying that in 1967 people in the United States couldn't go from town to town without papers? Where, exactly?

uncledave
uncledave

@Flyer9753 @uncledave

You are confusing emotional sentiment with law. And by your post it is clear you have no real grasp of the current federal or state law on the subject. There is no intent clause in any of the current immigration law.  I used the term forestalled because the deportations have been deferred until the current situation works it’s way through the courts.   Remember there is no DREAM act just a questionable legal executive order/soft amnesty. He has no legal paper work, what ID did he offer up? The only thing he could have offered up that was a valid document was proof he had been picked up before.   It sucks that the kids parents brought him in the country illegally, they made a bad choice, not his fault but feeling bad for him does not change his residency status.  Read the federal code for yourself, look at the court rulings, and you will find there is no waiver for intent, and pretty much every time he comes in contact with law enforcement he could and should expect to be detained/processed until he either returns to his country of birth or becomes a US citizen via the legal immigration path. 

1959cutter
1959cutter

@TommyCollins @1959cutter this was my dad talking to me in 1967(he was a bircher)I was 7 yrs old and being indoctrinated to the twisted political ideals of a crackpot! today they are teabaggers!

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

hyperbole is the best response you have to refute my argument? you whine about hair splitting but your segway in this thread is to argue about my statement regarding civil infraction of speeding,? hypocrite much, flyer,?

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

in simplest of terms... speeding is not criminal speeding, there in lies the difference.

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

you are the one who introduced the state website into the argument. speeding is defined in ars28-701 from the same state website you suggested I Google. if you understood civil and criminal code, you'd understand the difference.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks2 

ROFLMFAO!!!!!

Nice hair split - took you a while to come up with that one.

ARS 28-701 was never said. Speeding was the word used and Excessive Speed IS speeding, no matter how much you try to spin away from the fact you were wrong.

You are pathetic yippy.. truly pathetic.

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

speeding as defined in ars28-701 is a civil infraction 100% of the time. in order for it to become criminal, additional elements must be met which are not included in the speeding ars code. if I argued that assault is a misdemeanor (which it is 100% of the time) you can not introduce aggravated assault into the argument and state that I am wrong in identifying assault as a misdemeanor because aggravated assault is a felony. speeding by definition is not the same as criminal speed. criminal speed requires the existence of additional elements. it's too much for you to understand, I realize. perhaps if you understood criminal and civil code it would be easier to grasp.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks2

I meant to say:

"Google search it yourself. Plenty of info comes up, including the actual state web sites that confirm this."

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks2

Not always. Once again you have a half answer.

"Criminal speeding in Arizona is a class 3 misdemeanor and is an actual crime.  It is prosecuted in the criminal courts, by a real prosecutor, and comes with the possibility of jail and fines. Specifically, a person convicted of criminal or “excessive speeding” in Arizona can be sentenced to the following:

- 30 days in jail;

- $500 fine plus 84% surcharge; and

- 1 year probation.

Criminal speeding cases can be plead down to civil speeding tickets, but only if the prosecutor agrees to do so

http://flagstaff-lawyer.com/legal-services/traffic-offenses/criminal-speeding-civil-speeding-tickets/

Plenty of info comes up, including the actual state web sites that confirm this.

In Arizona, some speeding is a criminal matter, it depends on the circumstances and the amount of excess.

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

and the argument is the same nonsense, whether it comes from the recipient of a speeding ticket out an old man who hates the federal authorities who legally detain illegal aliens.

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

speeding is a civil matter... exactly like being in the country illegally

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

how many of those cases involved rape? how many involved child molest? you insinuate all of them did..I guess that means that any reported case make it a valid case. Does that include your cases, Coz?

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

tit for tat. I'm not above the mire that you libs toss at others who have opinions not congruent to your own. when you are an Asshole, expect that I will treat you like one.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks2

"maybe it's double shot Tuesday for you and in your drunken stupor you are incapable of escaping broad generalization and hyperbole"

and yet you accuse others of being the ones making unwarranted personal attacks... 

Hypocrite much yippy?

Rhetorical question, we all already know the answer is a resounding yes, so don't bother replying, it would be a waste of server space and bandwidth.

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

certainly I am disgusted with how the el mirage cases were mishandled. I am also very aware of the numerous sex cases that have led to successful prosecution within the same agency. I guess I'm not blinded by small mindedness when critiquing any police agency, including my own. maybe it's double shot Tuesday for you and in your drunken stupor you are incapable of escaping broad generalization and hyperbole

Cozz
Cozz topcommenter

@yourproductsucks2  

You should ask Arpaio that question, he lets child molesters and rapist run free, over 400 of them as a matter of fact,.


TommyCollins
TommyCollins topcommenter

@yourproductsucks2 I wouldn't have a clue. I never worked for GJPD... What does that have to do with anything? You keep spinning the MCSO stuff to other agencies. At one time someone from your agency actually said they were disgusted by the lack of action on the cases...

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

I guess any person from Phoenix police would fit the same pigeon hole you've created for all of mcso.

I know of a former grand junction officer who beat his wife... Does that make all grand junction officers wife beaters?

TommyCollins
TommyCollins topcommenter

@yourproductsucks2 It's odd that someone who purports to be a part of MCSO would use rapists running free as an example. I believe you may recall the incident of 432 cases that were incomplete or not handled at all.... sex assault cases.. many with known suspects.

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

informative, intelligent response. expect a barrage of personal attacks in response... oh look, they've already started.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@uncledave @Flyer9753 

There does not have to be an intent clause in specific laws, since it's a fundamental aspect of our legal system.

BTW - I have read the federal code as well as the judicial codes and procedural codes and you are wrong, plain and simple. Clearly you have not, which is not surprising.

If you think otherwise, go ask a lawyer or judge, they will tell you the exact same thing.

1959cutter
1959cutter

@TommyCollins @1959cutter but I was 5 when I saw barry goldwater speak at kiwanas ballpark in 64' and was immediately impressed with him.and watched his political views (YOUR RIGHTS END AT THE TIP OF MY NOSE) become twisted by the likes of jerry falwell(every good Christian should kick falwell in the ass!)

goldwater was the messiah of the right before that.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...