United States of America v. Alabama, State of et al
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Reeves, C)
2011 Aug-01 PM 03:38
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Rosen Harwood. p, A,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
;QECLARATION OF BOBBY TIMMONS,
EXEUCTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ALABAMA SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
I) Bobby Timmons, declare and state as tallows!
1 serve as the executive director tor the Alabama Sheriffs' Association, a
§50l(c)(4) non-profit association which represents Alabama's sixty-seven elected sheriffs
and their offices, and which promotes the fair and efficient administration of criminal
justice throughout the state of Alabama.
I have served as the Executive Director of the Association since 1975.
One of the purposes for the Alabama Sheriffs' Association is to assist the
sheriffs of this state in developing training for the officers within their department, and to'
assist in raising the professionalism of law enforcement throughout the state.
The elected sheriffs of the state are among the law enforcement officers
mandated by the Act to investigate the immigration status of individuals and detain
persons who are believed to be unlawfully present in the United States.
Rosen Harwood, P. R.
With the Act scheduled to go into effect on September 1, 2011, sufficient
time is not available to develop, disseminate, and implement a training curriculum that
will educate Jaw enforcement offIcers on the details of the law and best practices for
Several sheriffs already participate in 287(g) agreements with the United
States Department of Homeland Security, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1357(g). The officers
who have been assigned to participate in .this program by their sheriffs are each required
to successfully complete an intensive four weck training course. An educational program
containing many of the elements of the DRS program should be developed to assist
Alabama oflicers in effectively and efficiently enforcing dIe provisions oftho ncw law.
The litigation currently before the Court challenges the constitutionality of
many ofthe provisions of the law. It would be a waste of incrcasing1y scarce resources 'to
devclop a training program that addressed the cnforcement of provisions which are
ultimately struck down.
Sheriffs face onerous personal civil penalties and the loss of state funding if
they do not enforce the Act to the "fullest extent permitted by law." On the other hand.
sheriffs face civil liabilIty if they enforce an unconstitutional law. While sheriffs may
ultimately be protected :from any judgments based upon their enforcement of the law,
their offices will still be faced with significant logal defense costs, at a time when their
budgets are already strained to the breaking point.
In addition to the training issues and the costs of defending potential
lawsuits, the law's requirement that individuals be held indefinitely until they prove they
Rosen Harwood. P. A.
are in the United States legally, will place additional burdens on crowded jails. The
inevitable increase in the; populations of the local jails will necessitate an increase in
staffing to thejails~ as well as possible health cost and incrcased gcncraljail expenses. In
the current economic climate, adding additional jail cost is not a. realistic option for any
of the members ofthe association.
While 'the Alabama. SheriffS' Association takes no position as to the
constitutionality of the provisions of the Act, it nonetheless supports the entIy of an
injunction on the enforcement ofthe law until the Court has resolved those issues.
I declare under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 that 'the
forgoing is true and COJ.Tect.
Executed this the 29th day of July, 2011, in Montgomcry~ Alabama.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?