Ninth Circuit Court to Review Arizona Law Denying Bail to Undocumented Immigrants

ninth-circuit.jpg
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today ordered a full-court "en banc" hearing of Arizona's voter-approved law that denies bail to undocumented immigrants accused of serious crimes.

Since the challenge to the 2006 law appeared settled after a Ninth Circuit 2-1 ruling in June, the new order is a good start to the new year for the plaintiffs of the lawsuit -- and likely trouble for the law.

See also:
- Bill Montgomery Is No Immigration Moderate

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Bill Montgomery didn't return requests for comment on the order.

Riding a crest of anti-immigrant sentiment in 2006, the initiative denying bail to suspected immigrant-criminals passed 78-22, spearhead by former State Senator Russell Pearce and former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

How times have changed: Pearce was recalled, Thomas lost the 2010 race for Attorney General to Tom Horne, then got disbarred. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer got re-elected after signing the anti-illegal-immigrant Senate Bill 1070 in 2010, but it was gutted in federal court. Brewer's now considered "back on her meds" by the leftie Wonkette blog. Sheriff Joe Arpaio's near-pogrom against undocumented residents has been reined in, mostly. He'll soon be appointed a federal monitor following the loss of a racial-profiling lawsuit and accusations by the U.S. Department of Justice that he led a police force that discriminated systemically against Hispanics. The U.S Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's voter-backed Proposition 200, which required people to show identification before filling out federal voter-registration forms. (The state's trying to get around that one by setting up two election booths, one for state and local issues and politicians, and a separate one for the non-ID-requiring feds.)

Now it's been ordered that another longtime staple of anti-immigrant fervor, the no-bail provision, is getting another look -- this time from the larger en banc court. New Times can tell you from experience that an en banc re-hearing might bode well for the appealing party. In June 2011, a three-member panel voted 2-1 in the case of New Times versus Sheriff Arpaio and Andrew Thomas that Arpaio and Thomas were immune from lawsuit in their capacity as public officials. But the court reversed itself following an en banc review by an 11-judge court, leading to the December settlement of $3.75 million in the case to New Times co-founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, who were the subjects of a false arrest.

So, this Proposition 100 review could be interesting.

Records show the Ninth Circuit plans to hold a re-hearing in the case sometime during the week of March 17, with a specific time and date to be announced.

The American Civil Liberties Union is representing two undocumented immigrants denied bail in the case, one arrested on suspicion of drug charges and other who was suspected of assault, kidnapping and aiding a criminal syndicate.

Click here to read the Ninth Circuit Court panel's 2-1 affirming and dissenting positions in the Prop 100 case from June 2013

Click here for the original civil complaint filed in 2008 on behalf of the immigrants by the ACLU.

Click here for today's en banc order on Arizona's Prop 100 law


Got a tip? Send it to: Ray Stern.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
70 comments
valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

When faced with a prison sentence, the fact that you have a history of having crossed a national border illegally seems like an pretty good indicator of flight risk to me.

Disagree?

 


robert_graham
robert_graham

Illegal aliens deserve no bail.  First they are here illegally and they did a crime that landed in jail. Why would they be entitled to be released???  ICE should be picking them up and sending them all back to Mexico or where ever the fuck they came from.

Cozz
Cozz topcommenter

I think I just heard Jaffys head exploding...

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

I can almost hear Joe, Monty and most Republicans in the legislature bellowing like wounded buffaloes when the law is struck down. Let them howl. See if anyone really cares.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

like anything involving bail in Maricopa ever made any sense anyways.............anybody remember a recent bail set at $10,000 for someone who no only threatened lives, but also got into a alcohol fueled barricade type situation involving pointing a gun at cops?

squash
squash

@valleynative I completely disagree. The whole law was made as a xenophobic response to people who have brown skin and/or don't speak English. It's really just another sad attempt to demonize and punish minorities and the undocumented.

marcy
marcy

@valleynative 

Do you understand that you can be in this country illegally and have never "crossed a national border illegally" much less have a "history of" having done so?


Flight risk is always something that is a factor in bail hearings.



robert_graham
robert_graham

@Cozz I can't wait until I hear your head explode when the pandering to illegal aliens begins to stop.  In fact, all you liberal fucktards heads will then start to pop one by one.

Cozz
Cozz topcommenter

@danzigsdaddy 

I remember when my bail was set at $452,000.00 for an accidental discharge of a firearm at a non residential structure. No one was hurt, except a door.

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

@danzigsdaddy Not to mention the Tempe cop who led his former colleagues on a high-speed chase, bailed himself out, then promptly led them on another alcohol-fueled high-speed chase. Whenever something like that happens, there should be an assistant county attorney waiting to say, "the people request remand, your honor." Just like on Law & Order.

downtownbrown
downtownbrown

@squashYou forgot to use the word "draconian".  Xenophobic? check!, Demonize?   check!

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@squash 

Pure crap.  Not everybody who doesn't support ILLEGALS is racist.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@marcy@valleynative 

What's your point?  The vast majority of illegals crossed the border illegally, and if you're in the country illegally, you are a flight risk

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@Cozz@danzigsdaddy 

You shot at a structure.  The fact that you claimed that it was an accident might not have been enough to convince them that you weren't a danger to the public.



danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@eric.nelson745 thats the one. (just the first chase is the one i am referring to...............no need to go into the 2nd chase, a different county addressed that bail, and did it correctly at a million bucks)


squash
squash

@downtownbrown@squash That really has nothing to do with the validity of my argument, but it's still funny, nonetheless.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@squash@valleynative@DonkeyHotay 

When I say that Joe may not be racist, I mean that I don't believe we know anything about what he really believes.  Everything he does or says in public is calculated to get votes.

The word "racist" is abused as a weapon in the context of illegals.  A racist hates all Hispanics.  Most (but not all, unfortunately) of us who oppose illegal immigration have no problem with those whose families arrived legally.   As a Valley native, throughout my entire life, many of my friends have always been Hispanic.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay@valleynative 

Do you want me to argue that fact?  Do you assume that if a person disagrees with you on one point, that they must disagree on all points?


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative ... too bad the Mexicans let Dogface the Bounty Hunter out on bail ... which he then skipped and fled like a coward back the the U$A.


Especially given his prior felony murder conviction.



valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay 

Actually, if you were paying attention, it's anybody, in any nation, who is arrested for a serious crime, and who is in that nation illegally.

The visa violation is what makes denying the bail for the serious crime reasonable, as in the case of this Arizona law.

These criminals weren't arrested for visa violations, you know, or for the color of their skin.

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative ... who would assume that a fascist like you would support granting bail for such low-level visa / residency violations?


Your support of DENIAL of BAIL to ALL U$ CITIZENS arrested abroad for visa / residency / employment violations is hereby noted ... or perhaps just those from the Hate State of Arizona.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative "I do oppose all illegals, regardless of race."


So you oppose ILLEGAL US CITIZENS as vehemently as you oppose undocumented residents?


And you support DENYING BAIL to U$ Citizens who are arrested abroad for visa / residency / unauthorized employment violations? ... like all those 1000s of US students who obtain ILLEGAL jobs to earn some $$ while traveling overseas on tourist visas?



valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay@valleynative 

You're just too stupid to carry on a discussion.

I do oppose all illegals, regardless of race.  I oppose all illegal aliens, whether they crossed legally and overstayed or crossed illegally (a distinction without a difference, since both suggest a flight risk).  You're looking for bigotry where it doesn't exist, which, interestingly, is a form of bigotry in itself


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative ... well bigot, there are Far More "Illegal Citizens" in the U$A than aliens -- documented or not -- so apply your purported "equal opposition" to them, you disingenuous piece of racist crap.



valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay@valleynative 

I didn't say or imply anything like that.  Opposing them equally has nothing at all to do with what I call them.  Where the hell does that silly idea come from?

Don't get so hung up on what things are called, anyway.  The name of the thing is not the thing.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative "I oppose all law-breakers equally. "


So you naturally refer to all US citizens who break laws -- including administrative, traffic and paperwork statutes -- as ILLEGAL RESIDENTS or ILLEGAL CITIZENS ... every fucking time you mention them, eh?


You fool no one you bigoted racist.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay@valleynative 

I don't know that Joe is racist.  I don't really think he gives people much thought at all, unless they're potential voters.   I'm not racist.  I oppose all law-breakers equally.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@squash 

It's not manufactured to demonize anybody.  The press uses the term "legal immigrants" all the time, so it's perfectly correct to call them "illegal immigrants", and it is the nature of language to shorten phrases of more than 4 syllables this way.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative ... that doesn't change the fact that Joe Arpaio is a racist ... as are you.



squash
squash

Just because the voters were fooled by Arizona's racist politicians doesn't mean the law isn't racist. Funny you use the term "illegals", a manufactured term that is used to demonize people of brown skin and the undocumented. I must say I'm not surprised coming from a neo-conservative such as yourself.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative 


A large number of illegal immigrants entered the United States legally using the Border Crossing Card, a card that authorizes border crossings into the U.S. for a set amount of time. 


Border Crossing Card entry accounts for the vast majority of all registered non-immigrant entry into the United States – 148 million out of 179 million total. 


The Pew Hispanic Center estimates the number who overstay unlawfully at around 250,000–500,000

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@squash 

I'd like to hear your theory.  You think they mostly crossed legally and overstayed, or something else?

squash
squash

Care to offer your proof that the vast majority of "illegals" crossed the border illegally? Or is it just another neoconservative "hunch" that you have?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative ""Law-abiding citizen" doesn't really mean a person who has never broken any law.  Language isn't concrete."


LOL! ... ugga bugga bugga, ugga ug ug!


From the GunTard / Teabagger Lexicon:


"law abiding citizen" = someone like us, whether they've broken any laws or not.


"bad guys" = everyone not like us


"ee-lee-gull ay-lee-uns" = any minority our bigoted racist lowlife ideology causes us to hate.



valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay"Law-abiding citizen" doesn't really mean a person who has never broken any law.  Language isn't concrete.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay@valleynative 

I'm not the one who made the statement.  I'm simply explaining what people mean by the phrase.  


And to be more clear, not everybody has been law-abiding up to the point where they actually get caught at something.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative ... well then, everyone is "law abiding"  ... right up to the moment they aren't.


You = tautology fail.



valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay@valleynative 

When a person cites a person in this context as a "law abiding gun owner", they typically mean that their behavior up until the time of the incident was law-abiding.

In this case he was, as far as we know, law-abiding up until he allowed his finger to inadvertently pull the trigger.

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative "Law-abiding, perhaps,"


So he was arrested and charged with "following" the law?


valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay@Cozz 

Law-abiding, perhaps, but not properly trained.  Responsible gun owners and gun rights organizations prefer that all gun owners be properly trained, although training may not, under our Constitution, be required, any more than we can require voters to undergo any sort of training to exercise that right.

squash
squash

@valleynative

Every "crime" that has ever been committed in the history of mankind is unique in its own right. The totality of ANY and EVERY case should be gathered and referenced (even by you) before deciding whether or not a bond is too steep, or, even better, that a whole case is an injustice. Instead, you chose to gauge the bail on the trumped up charges alone, without looking at the sum of all the evidence and information regarding the case. Had you've done a small amount of research before commenting, you would have realized that the case shouldn't have been brought, and subsequently, that there shouldn't have even been a bail. The whole debate regarding the trial's bond is voided by the fact that there should have been no trial in the first place. Cozz even disclosed to you that you had no clue what was going on, yet you chose to mockingly dismiss his assertion. Is every bail that is set in every case reasonable? And likewise, is everybody who is ever accused of a crime guilty? I'm assuming that you're either a LEO or an ex-LEO, and accordingly believe that every thing that the Righteous Noble Police do is acceptable and okay.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@squash@ValleyNative 

You're not looking at this in the proper context.  The original post tried to make the point that a large bail is unreasonable for shooting into a structure.   In that context, the back-story plays no part at all in determining whether or not it was reasonable.

You're also underplaying the seriousness of an "accidental" discharge.  Under Arizona law, that can be charged as a felony.

squash
squash

@ValleyNativeFor the same reason I brought up in my previous post(s) - because the whole case was a sham in the first place! He shouldn't have even been charged. Why should Cozz (or anybody for that matter) have to explain (even to you) why his bail was set too high considering the whole case hinged on bogus, trumped up charges that were brought against him by corrupt public officials (Joe Arpaio to be exact)? There should have been NO bail, NO charges, NO case, and he should have been released immediately, for free. Is that not, in and of itself, proof that the bail was set too high? Furthermore, when you read the article that Cozz posted and realized that you didn't know what you were talking about, you blamed Cozz for being arrogant and not providing you with enough information (even though he was a victim) instead of finding out the facts for yourself and forming an informed opinion before spouting off. You should know better than anyone that ignorance of the facts is not an excuse.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@squash@valleynative  

So why did you say "why should he have to explain to you why his bail was too high?"

I'm not the one saying that we shouldn't discuss it, you were.

squash
squash

@valleynative"His whole point was that the bail was too high.  That makes it a valid point for debate." 


No shit, VN.

squash
squash

@squash@ValleyNative@DonkeyHotay You said the bail was reasonable. If you didn't want me to bring up your position about Cozz's bail, perhaps you shouldn't have talked about it in the first place.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@squash@valleynative@DonkeyHotay 

If it seems conflicted, you're not understanding.

My position is based entirely on what was posted here prior to my stating that position.  Nothing at all to do with anything subsequently revealed in the article that was cited.

squash
squash

@squash@valleynative@DonkeyHotayJust to clarify: I didn't support George Zimmerman getting off. I thought he should have been charged. I'm just trying to figure out VN's standpoint because it seems a little conflicted to me.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@squash 

His whole point was that the bail was too high.  That makes it a valid point for debate.


valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@squash

The debate here actually has nothing at all to do with the case, beyond the information about it that was presented in the original post.

Sorry that you don't seem to be able to understand that.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@squash 


"accidental discharge" = too stupid to own a gun.


hth.

squash
squash

@valleynative Sorry I assumed that your were talking about the court. That said, why should he have to explain to you why his bail was too high? You had no control whatsoever on the outcome of the case. Who cares what your opinion of the bail was/is.

squash
squash

The victim being Cozz...

squash
squash

From what I read, Cozz was attempting to protect a women from being beaten (possible to death) by a large male. The gun accidentally discharged and no one was hurt. If he really was trying to protect a women from possible death, why do you support such a high bail? That's a far cry from your absolute support of George Zimmerman, who KILLED the "aggressor" in his case. If GZ's killing of TM was justified, wouldn't it stand to reason that Cozz's intervention, which didn't even kill anybody, was justified? If your answer is yes, again, I'm a bit confused as to why you would support such a high bail in Cozz's case.

squash
squash

The whole fucking case was ludicrous from the get-go. What don't you

understand?

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@squash 

You don't seem to be following the conversation.

Failing to provide info to US, the readers, to support the fact that he wasn't dangerous makes his claim that his bail was unreasonable ludicrous.


As it turns out, he was carrying a gun with his finger on the trigger, and so absolutely was a danger to society.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@Cozz@valleynative 

How incredibly arrogant to believe that everybody in the valley knows or cares about your personal problems.  Anybody who walks around with his finger on a trigger and so can accidentally fire a shot through a door is a risk to society.  The bail was reasonable.

 

squash
squash

@valleynative Cozz was a victim of political retribution at the hands of Joe Arpaio and his goons. How is it his fault that he failed to provide info that would prove he wasn't dangerous? The whole case was an injustice in the first place. Way to blame the victim, VN.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@Cozz 

How much more do we need to know than that you somehow managed to fire a deadly weapon into a building with a door, which fortunately wasn't occupied at the time.   That's enough to know that you should be considered dangerous to the public until there's solid reason to believe otherwise.


You raised the point as if it was clearly unreasonable to treat you as if you were dangerous.  If there was information that would support that interpretation, you failed to provide it.

Cozz
Cozz topcommenter

@valleynative@Cozz

You don't have a clue what went on, you'd be best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than keep opening it and remove all doubt.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@Cozz@valleynativeAfter you somehow convinced them that you weren't so dangerous.  (Or that you wouldn't be able to raise $15,000).

Cozz
Cozz topcommenter

@valleynative

Right, which is why it was lowered to 15,000.00 at the first hearing.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...