Two or even three decades ago, I was reading a book about the FBI. One of the chapters described the FBI office in Barstow, California, a small town in the desert between LA and Las Vegas. Why did the FBI have an office in a place like Barstow? Well, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. If a car is stolen in one state and driven to another, the FBI becomes involved due to the interstate nature of the crime. Any car stolen in another state that is driven into California is very likely to pass through Barstow. Of course, any state or local cop in California or any other state who comes upon a suspicious car, can and will make appropriate checks to see if the car is stolen. Should they make an arrest, the FBI will be called in if another state is involved. So here is my question; what is the problem if a state or local official-in any state- legitimately investigates a car, especially one with out of state plates and comes across a car thief? Which leads to my next question; what is the problem with a local cop, when confronted with someone on the street, making further checks to see if the person is in the country illegally-then, if so, turning that person over to ICE?
As I understand it, the federal lawsuit against Arizona is based on the legal concept of federal supremacy. In other words, Arizona officials have no business enforcing a federal law. Let's set aside the arguments that Arizona now has a state law to enforce and the idea that the federal government is abrogating thie responsibility in that area. Of course, we know that if a state has a law that is in conflict with federal law, federal law takes precedence. The Arizona law is not in conflict with federal law; rather it mirrors federal law.
By the same token, if a bank is robbed, who will respond? The first responders will be the cops. The FBI will also get involved because robbing a bank is a federal crime. If the cops get there first, the FBI can still take over the prosecution.
Law enforcement should always be a cooperative endeavor. If state or local law enforcement comes across a federal crime in progress, they should take action then turn the case over to federal officials. If I, as a DEA agent, made an arrest for drugs and encountered illegal automatic weapons in the process, I would call in ATF. By the same token, if a federal agent comes across a state crime in progress (like a robbery or assault), they can take action and call in the local police to take over the case or arrestee.
So, in my view, if an Arizona cop comes into contact with a suspect or a legitimate car stop, they can merely follow the rules of reasonable suspicion if there is a basis to suspect the person is committing a crime-be it bank robbery, transporting a stolen car across state lines or being in the country illegally.
And a police officer in any state can always detain a person for violation of a federal law, so what exactly is the purpose of Arizona passing this law at all?
ReplyDeleteYes, but remember that the head of ICE implied that ICE might not cooperate and take custody of illegals arrested in AZ.
ReplyDeleteP.S. A Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel columnist called several county supervisors in Arizona to ask if they knew whether Wisconsin has a border with Canada. They all got that wrong -- the ones who didn't admit ignorance -- and one thanked him, because someday they might be asked in public and could have embarrassed themselves.
ReplyDeleteThere is no common border between Wisconsin and Canada.
An Arizona state law cannot COMPEL the ICE to take custody of anyone. So, once again, what is the Arizona law intended to do?
ReplyDeleteI really have some sympathy with Arizona wanting to send a message to Washington that the state is not being adequately protected. Vermont, while still an independent Republic, told the U.S., we'd like to join you, but if this jurisdictional dispute with New York prevents it, we have a common border with Canada, and insufficent resources to fight the British on our own, they'd love to sign a treaty with us as a separate state.
The point being, states do, among other things, rely on the common federal government to provide security and promote domestic tranquillity. I just don't think this law is a very well thought out way to accomplish the purpose.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. ICE is not complelled to take custody, but if we are talking about a known criminal who has gobe through the justice system, it is everybody's responsibility to see that he is deported.
Yesm Arizona is frustrated because the Feds will not do their duty.
I have yet to see one iota of evidence even insinuated that Arizona police have brought a person arrested for violation of the criminal code of Arizona, and confirmed to be in the country illegally, to ICE, and been told to let him or her go free.
ReplyDelete