By JACQUES BILLEAUD
Associated Press
PHOENIX (AP) - A forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on Arizona's controversial immigration law - which some experts believe could uphold the most controversial aspects of the measure - won't end legal disputes on the matter and instead is likely to ignite renewed assaults by the law's opponents.
The court is evaluating the 2010 law on only the question of whether Arizona's attempt to fix its border problems is trumped by federal law. That means that opponents could still ask the courts to block enforcement of the law on other legal grounds.
For example, the high court isn't considering the possibility that racial profiling may arise from the law - because the Obama administration's lawsuit didn't challenge it on those grounds. The administration focused instead on whether federal law supersedes the state law, an issue known as "pre-emption."
"All the court is going to decide is the pre-emption issue," said Linton Joaquin, general counsel for the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group for low-income immigrants that's part of a coalition of opponents that filed a separate challenge. "But we think this law basically requires racial profiling by mandating that officers detain and investigate people that they have reasonable suspicions of being unauthorized."
The case was argued before the high court in April, and a ruling is expected by the end of June. Based partly on skeptical questions posed by justices during the hearing, legal experts expect that the court likely will uphold Arizona's requirement that police check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons; that provision was put on hold by a judge in July 2010 and hasn't yet been enforced. Less controversial parts of the law were allowed to take effect.
A decision in favor of Arizona could clear the way for other states to enforce immigration-check requirements and create an opening for states to take a larger role in immigration enforcement after mostly staying out of it for decades and letting the federal government handle it alone.
Five others states - Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah - have enacted similar laws.
If Arizona wins at the Supreme Court, opponents say they likely would go back to lower courts to seek injunctions on other grounds before any provisions that win approval from the Supreme Court take effect. They also may ask the courts to block enforcement of the law's most controversial parts by arguing that the law requires police to extend the length of time of traffic stops beyond the permitted time.
"We are preparing for the next step in case of a bad decision," said Andre Segura, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which also is fighting the law in court.
Segura said it's unlikely that a Supreme Court decision that upholds the Arizona law would go into effect immediately. Instead, the case would probably be given back to lower courts to decide when it takes effect, though it's unclear how long it would take for the courts to decide when police can start enforcing the provision.
It's also unclear when similar laws in other states would take effect if the court rules in Arizona's favor. Those states will likely have to take up the issue in their respective courts to see how their laws - which have different provisions on the questioning of people's immigration status - square up with the Supreme Court's ruling, Segura said.
Lawyers who are fighting the law aren't the only opponents preparing themselves for a ruling that upholds the law.
Immigrant rights advocates plan to launch a public relations campaign in hopes of quelling fears about the law and hold public meetings across the state to explain the law. They also are planning protests and a bus tour across the country to protest Arizona-style immigration laws. And hotline run by a civil rights group will take questions about the law and document reports of abuses by police.
Meanwhile, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio - who, more than any other police boss in Arizona, has pushed the bounds of local immigration enforcement - said he has no plans to expand his immigration efforts if Arizona wins its appeal. "I really don't see any big change with me," Arpaio said, adding that his officers already ask people for their immigration status when they have a good reason to do so.
The U.S. Justice Department has accused Arpaio's office in a lawsuit of racially profiling Latinos in his trademark immigration patrols. The sheriff vigorously disputes the allegation.
Along the Arizona-Mexico border, Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada doubted his deputies will need to undergo special training to enforce the law's questioning requirement. He said his deputies, who now call the U.S. Border Patrol to pose such questions, would instead inquire about people's status and, if needed, call federal agents for assistance.
Estrada, who has 37 deputies to patrol a county that shares 50 miles of border with Mexico, said he will have to balance enforcement of the law with his limited manpower.
"We will enforce based on our resources and priorities," Estrada said. "In other words, I am not going to be sending a squad to do that. I don't have a squad to do that."
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Source: www.msnbc.msn.com
Law Talk: Do different signals mean different rules for turning right at red light? - MLive.com
Law Talk this week may be better termed “traffic talk,” a sister column on MLive.
But traffic laws are still laws, so here is this week’s question sent in via e-mail by reader Lynn Bakeman of Grand Rapids.
“Barton,
Here's one subject I'd like to see addressed in your column: Is a right turn on red allowed when the lane of traffic has a designated traffic signal? There are a couple of instances of this on highly traveled roads and I've always wondered about the law.
One example of this is at the interchange of 96 and 28th Street. Two lanes of traffic exit 96 south and are directed to turn right onto 28th Street west. Both lanes have a traffic light with RIGHT above them. If the light is red, does that mean you are able to turn right on red if traffic is clear, or does it mean that for traffic turning right, you have a solid red and may not turn. Everyone, of course turns right regardless of the light, but since there are only the two lanes turning right, why the extra light signage? I guess if it was restricted, there would be a NO TURN ON RED light like the one at Kraft and 28th.
Thanks for looking into this!”
The in-depth investigative journalism involved a call to the Michigan State Police and our usual go-to-guy Sgt. Mike Church. Turns out that Sgt. Church had enough of hearing the inane questions of reporters and decided to return to the streets, where he now covers the Jackson area.
Church did know who to call: Lansing-based Sgt. Jill Bennett, who is a member of the training division in the traffic services section of the MSP.
“The ‘turning on red’ law has not changed,” Bennett responded.
She included the brutally written section of the Michigan Vehicle Code that states: “traffic facing a steady red signal, after stopping before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or at a limit line when marked or, if there is no crosswalk or limit line, before entering the intersection, may make a right turn from a 1-way or 2-way street into a 2-way street or into a 1-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn...unless prohibited by sign, signal, marking, light, or other traffic control device. The vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.”
Those with an appetite for similarly pithy wording can read the entire section of the law here.
But Bennett can be thanked for translating MCL 257.612(1) (c) (ii) into something it doesn’t take a juris doctorate to understand.
“It makes no difference if the steady red signal is a ball or an arrow, or a ‘Right Turn Only’ light,” according to Bennett. “The only difference of the ‘Right Turn Only’ light is that it only applies to this lane and gives a green light to this lane at specific times when they would not be able to give the straight through or left turn lanes the green light.
“It does not prohibit a right turn on red,” she said. “The prohibitive sign, signal, etc., would have to state ‘No Turn on Red’ or something along those lines to make it clear.”
In other words, under “non-signaled” circumstances, the “turn on red” law means that a vehicle must come to a stop before making the turn. The green arrow means that no stop is necessary as long as the turn can be made without running into a pedestrian, another car or something else.
E-mail Barton Deiters: bdeiters@mlive.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/GRPBarton
Source: www.mlive.com
No comments:
Post a Comment