SB 1070 grants law enforcement officers the power to determine the immigration status of an individual, who they suspect to be an illegal alien, when there is “reasonable suspicion”. It requires individuals to carry immigration papers and declares that it is a crime if they do have these required documents when needed. SB 1070 grants law enforcement officers the ability to transfer suspected aliens to federal custody. The law also prohibits local police agencies from passing policies that limit or restrict enforcement of federal immigration laws. Legal residents of Arizona are granted the option to sue if they feel a local agency’s policies interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration law.
The law requires Arizona police officers to question any one they reasonably suspect of being an illegal alien. Police officers would have the legal right to stop and question anyone who they suspected was an illegal alien and ask for their immigration status. Officers would have the legal right to detain individuals who cannot provide proof of their legal status. It will also be considered a state misdemeanor for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying their required documents. President Obama criticized the bill shortly before Ms.
April 2010, Arizona enacted two laws addressing immigration, SB 1070 and HB 2162. These laws added new state requirements, crimes and penalties related to enforcement of immigration laws and were to become effective on July 29, 2010. Before the laws could go into effect, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit asking for an injunction against these laws arguing that they are unconstitutional. On July 28, Judge Bolton granted the request for injunction in part and enjoined those provisions related to state law officers determining immigration status during any lawful stop; the requirement to carry alien registration documents; the prohibition on applying for work if unauthorized; and permission for warrantless arrests if there is probable cause the offense would make the person is removable from the United States. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer appealed the injunction and arguments were heard by the 9th U.S.
In April 2010, Arizona adopted the nation's toughest law on illegal immigration, provoking a nationwide debate and a Justice Department lawsuit. On July 28, one day before the law was to take effect, a federal district court judge struck down its most controversial provisions, including sections that called for officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times. In April 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the State of Arizona and let stand the lower court's decision. The law, known locally as SB1070 or Senate Bill 1070, was aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from entering or remaining in the state. It coincided with economic anxiety and followed
The fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, unless probable clause can be provided. The Arizona Immigration Law says that law enforcement officers only need a reasonable suspicion of a person to be an undocumented immigrant. Citizens of America (legal immigrants), are subjected to embarrassing and uneccassary searches if considered to “look” like an undocumented immigrant and may have some properties taken away from them since it may look like a threat to the government. The 14th Amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property based on race, ethnicity, or gender. This law should not have been passed in the first place, since it violates citizen’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
There was not any evidence that the suspect even knew he was being followed. Decision: King entered a conditional guilty plea with his right to appeal to get the evidence suppressed based on it being an illegal search. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction stating
Subsequent to the prosecution putting on the total of its evidence, the defense attorney will customarily ask for a dismissal of the charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. It is the prosecutor’s job to present sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the crime. The court does not
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
If you are acquitted, it cannot come back for a second bite. (Fitzpatrick) The jury only has one shot at successfully prosecuting the accused person, so the prosecutors must be sure about their case before it even begins. If the police are almost positive that a person committed a crime, but do not have all the evidence to find them guilty, they could waste valuable time trying to gather more evidence. While they try and figure this out, the person could leave the country, or even commit additional crimes. In many cases, people have been free from conviction because the evidence was not strong enough to convict them.
1) Pro-Arrest: Laws give authority for arrest without a warrant as the preferred, but not required, action in cases involving domestic partners. An officer who fails to make an arrest may be required to file a written incident report justifying why no arrest was made. 2) Mandatory Arrest: Requires a police officer to arrest a person without a warrant, based on probable