ACLU Wins $200,000 Settlement from Maricopa County Sheriff for Illegal Detention of Citizen and LPR

68-year old Julian Mora and his son were driving in their truck when they were pulled over by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department. They had not violated any traffic laws, but were nonetheless ordered out of the truck, zip-tied, and transported to a nearby work-site immigration raid that was being conducted. After being transported to the raid, they were detained for three hours by the police.

After three hours, they were given the chance to prove that they were lawfully in the U.S. Because Julian Mora is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in this country for over 30 years and his son is a U.S. citizen, they were easily able to do so.

The American Civl Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona brought suit on behalf of Mora against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department and yesterday a settlement was reached for $200,000.

New state laws seeking to further involve local police in immigration enforcement will make these scenarios more and more common. Law enforcement officers in states with new "papers please" laws will inevitably detain U.S. citizens and some of these detentions will end up being for far more than three hours. Imagine the case where a U.S. citizen speaks with an accent and does not have ready access to his birth certificate or passport. Where the citizen is mentally disabled and is unable to explain his situation to the police. There are infinite complications that can and will cause people to be unable to prove their legal status at the drop of a hat. With time, these "papers please" laws will result in more and longer detentions by local police officers of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who can't prove their status on the spot. And when that happens, the taxpayers will be on the hook for more expensive lawsuits and settlements.

See the ACLU press release here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Legal Costs to Defend Arizona’s Immigration Law to top $1 Million

USA Today reports that defending the state of Arizona against lawsuits related to its new immigration law could cost more than $1 million. To date, more than $440,000 have been paid in legal fees; and these fees only account for charges incurred through the end of June. Legal costs related to the lawsuit filed in July by the U.S. Department of Justice have not yet been calculated.

Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, has a legal defense fund, which is used to fund the state’s legal expenses. Taking in to account all of the current outstanding bills, expenses could top $1 million or more.

Since Arizona’s immigration law took effect on July 29, seven federal lawsuits have been filed.

To read more, please visit: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-03-arizona-lawsuits_N.htm

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Department of Justice sues Arizona over new immigration law

Yesterday, July 6, 2010, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona, seeking to block Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070, from taking effect. The law is scheduled to go into effect on July 29th.

The DOJ suit challenges the law as unconstitutional. It states, “The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

Not surprisingly, many people were upset to see the U.S. Government suing one of the states. But the DOJ made clear that the suit was not politically-motivated. A senior DOJ official explained, “We’re charged not with doing what’s popular or partisan or political, but doing what we think is right.”

The lawsuit proceeds on the legal theory of “preemption,” which is based on the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. It argues that because the Federal government has “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters,” SB 1070 should be struck down. It also argues that SB 1070 would unduly burden the Federal agencies that regulate immigration, since Arizona would be referring certain immigrants to those agencies. The concern is that unduly burdened agencies would be distracted from its higher priorities, such as immigrants involved in terrorism. The suit also claims SB 1070 would make local law enforcement more difficult, as it would create a divisive line between immigrant communities and local police forces. Victims and witnesses will likely be too afraid to come forward with information about crimes occurring in their communities. Several local law enforcement officials provided declarations in support of the lawsuit.

The nation will anxiously await the court’s decision. It is likely that this challenge will reach the Supreme Court. According to Professor Peter Spiro of Temple University, the DOJ makes a “strong argument,” but that the case “could go either way,” since “there is precedent on both sides of the question.”

For more information, please visit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html

http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/newsroom/release/united-states-v-arizona-drawing-clear-line-between-federal-and-state-immigration-au

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•