United States of America v. Arizona, State of, et al

Filing 6

LODGED Proposed Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof re: 5 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Motion for Leave to File Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Excess of the Page Limit. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed 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 Text of Proposed Order)(Chilakamarri, Varu)

Download PDF
United States of America v. Arizona, State of, et al Doc. 6 Att. 9 EXHIBIT 9 Dockets.Justia.com UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA THE ITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ct aI., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. -------------~) DECLARATION OF ROBERTO VILLASENOR Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I, ROB ERTO VILLASENOR declare and state as follow s: 1. I have been employed by the Tucson Police Department for almost 30 years and have been the Chief of Police for about I year and one month . The operations budget for the Tucson Police Department in fiscal year 200912010 was approximately $159 million. 2. As Chief of Police, I am responsible for protecting and ensuring the public safety ofal! people living and traveling in my jurisdiction, regardless of their immigration status. Tucs on is the 2 nd largest city in the state ofArizona and the 32nd largest city in the United States with a 2008 Census Bureau estimate population of 541 ,8 11. Hispanic or Latino population was estimated by the American Community urvey in 2005-7 3 Year Estimates to comprise approx imately 39 .5% of Tuc s o n ' popul ation . Tuc so n is located so me 60 miles from the U SMexico Border. The surrounding metropolitan population exceeds I million persons. 1 3. As Ch ie f of Poli ce, ram also responsi ble for establishing policies and priorities for the department and my o fficers . Th e d e part m ent is budge ted for 111 3 sw orn offic ers who eng age in a broad range of law en fo rce me nt act ivi t ies and ac tions, including but not limited to in ve st igatin g and solv ing serious and violent crimes, responding to domestic violence calls, taking and responding to complaints from the public, and working with the community to encourage reporting of crime and cooperation with police. Deterring, investigatin g and solving serious and violent crimes are the department's top priorities, and it is absolutely essential to the success of our mission that we have the coope ration an d supp o rt of a ll members of o ur community, whe ther they are here lawfully or not. 4. Arizona S.B. 1070 as amended by H.B. 2 16 2 ("SB 1070"), which becomes law July 29, 2010, mandates th at my officers determine the immigration sta t us of any person they lawfully stop, detain or arrest in every case in which there is reasonabl suspicion that the person is in the country unlawfully, rega rdle ss of the severity of the su sp ected or actual offense. T he new law remo ve my ability to provide guidance and direction to officers as to what is practicable during the course of prioritizing investigations involving an immigration compone nt. While I understand the impetus for legislation addre ss ing illegal immigration issues, with Arizona bearing the brunt of th e negativ e impact of ille gal immigration that pass es int o our nation throu gh this state, my concern is that these laws amount to an unfunded mandate that impose a Federal responsibility on local law enforcement. In an era of shrinking governmental budgets, local police authorities will be forced to assume a role not unlike that of at least two major Federal enforcement agencies, and with not an additional cent from the state to do so. The Tucson Polic e Department alread y cooperates with Federal immigration authorities when it can, and has acti vel y worked with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and 2 Border Protection when suspects are arrested and booked into j a il in order that their immigration status can be verified. The impact of illegal immigration on Arizona' s well-being cannot be denied. But to req uire local po lice to act a s immigra tio n age nts w he n a lack of local resources already makes enforcing criminal laws and ordinances a challenging proposition, is not realistic. Our community will suffer as a result, with a decrease in quality of life, and an increase in local mistrust of police. 5. The new law takes away my discretion as the Chief of Police to administer police resource s as I see fit for the prot ection an d betterm ent of the com m un ity, which is m y foremost duty. SB 1070 reprioritizes the regulation of imm igr atio n above almost every other enforcement effort that my department pursues. Tucson is currently plagued with home invasions, armed robberies, and violent gang activity, and is also subjected to some of the highest burglary and larceny rate s in th e cou ntry. Of the 4 states bord erin g Mex ico , law enfor ce men t a gents and officers in Arizona seized almost 44% of all illicit drugs brought over the border from Mexico in 2009. All of these local crime s no w ge t seco nd pr io rit y to t he s tate 's mandated enforce men t of immigrati on laws. Th is new law w ill take many o fficers fro m their p atro l an d en forceme nt d uties while they process and/or transport what will amount to thousands of individuals, at a time when due to budgetary constraints my department is losing both resources and officer positions that I cannot fill. 6. In addition , SB 1070 implements a vague standard from which my officers are expected to enforce thi s immi gration law. While my offi ce rs arc com fo rta bl e e stablishing th e existenc e o r non-exi stence of rea sonab le susp ic ion as to criminal co nduct , they are not at all familiar w it h reasonable suspicion as to immigration status, not being trained in Federal immigration law. Despite the exec utiv e ord er ofArizona Go verno r Jan Brewer to the contr ary, Arizo na Peace 3 Officer Standards and Training board has not been able to clearly define for Arizona's law enforcement officers what is reasonable suspicion regarding immigration status. Each police agency in this state will therefore develop its own definition, no doubt resulting in a patchw ork of policies and procedures, with obvious danger to both law enforcement agencies and their communities. The re lat ion shi p between law en forcement agenc ie s an d th eir co m mu nit ies wi ll be serio usly strained. Many community leaders now believe that their constituents will be unfairly targeted in the eyes of law enforcement. The concern is not over persons illegally present, but rather with legal c iti zens of th e Un ited States , who m ay, th ey b e lieve , ex p erie nce unnece ssary and prolo nged police co ntact bas ed on th e ir appearance of nat ion al ori g in o r et hn icity. They fear the legislation codifies racial profiling, despite its wording, and such fear could destroy the good relationships that currently exist between police and local communities that have taken years to build through our efforts in community policing. 7. The financial cost to our community will also be high when SB 1070 becomes law July 29, 20 I O. The law mandates that police officers shall verify the immigration status of all arrestees prior to their release. The re su lt wi ll be t he de tention and incarceration of vas t numbers of arre stees that up un ti l now have been simpl y c ited and re leased for va r io us offenses . In fisc al year 20091201 0, the Tucson Police Department cited and released 36,82 1 a rrc stee s , which is more than 100 persons a day. If each arrest were followed by only appro xima t ely 1 hour of mandated verification of immigration status, that amounts to over 36,000 hours of staff time, the equi valent o f a p p roxim ate ly 18 full -time o fficer 's yearl y work sc hedul e s! T hi s mand ate will be especially ta x ing at a t im e w hen m y de partme nt is curr entl y d o w n 11 9 office r posi tions from author ized strength (that cannot be filled due to the budget), and is expected to get close to 200 officer p osit io ns do wn by th e en d of t he ye a r. M ost taxing, how e ver, is if th e re ar e no Customs 4 and Border Protection agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees available to establish immigration status, these offenders who might otherwise have been cited and released, must be boo ked in the Pima County Ja il. T he Sher i f f of P ima Co unty ch arge s t he C ity $ 2 00 .38 for the first day an d $82 .03 for any subsequent day of j a il for misdemeanor an d petty o ffens e s. The City of Tucs on ' s budget is already set for next year, and additional monies for these costs simply do not exist. On an individual level, should a lawful resident ofArizona be cited for a misdemeanor criminal offense, the y m ight be inc a rce rated fo r wh o-kn ows how lon g in j ai l unt il Federal autho ritie s can verify their i mm igratio n sta t us . I have a realist ic ex pecta tion t hat C ustoms and Border Protection agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees will not be able to respond in a tim ely manne r, i f at all, to the tho usan ds o f ca lls they w ill be rece ivin g statewide from Ari zona 's law enforcement a gencies after thes e la w s go into effe ct July 29 , 20 I O . This law is a very expensive law not only in terms of financial costs, but also in human costs. 8. Another ex tremel y ex pensi ve and negati ve res ult o f SB 1070 may be t he potent ia l co st s d ue to lawsuits that can arise from another provision of the legislation. The law permits a legal resident o f Ariz on a to sue my departmen t if the y f ee l that I hav e implemented a po licy that limits or restricts the en forcement of Federal immigration law to t he less than the full ex tent permitted by Federal law. These suits may arise even if my policy is to investigate homicides, acts of terrorism, home invasions, armed robberies, sexual assaults and other violent offenses before my officers investigate suspected violations of Federal immi gratio n law ! As part of this absurdity, the law provides for court costs and attorneys fees on top of a fine of up to $5,000 per day from the filing of the lawsuit. Ar iz ona servic e o f pro ce ss ru les a llo w a litigant to serve a l aws u it up to 120 days after the filing of the suit. Therefore, a city could tally up $600,000 in fines from the 5 day o f fil ing if not serv ed until th e ] 20 day p e riod has ru n, an d not ev en know about it. I hardly need point out that a city racked by such lawsuits could easily be rendered bankrupt. 9. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and as a law enforcement officer and as Tuc so n ' s Ch ief of Po lice I have sworn to uphold that law. Immigration law is an exclusively Federal jurisdiction and is inherently intertwined with Federal foreign policy concerns. Since SB 1070 states that it is intended to regulate immigration, it is therefore contrary to the United States Constitution. Additionally, there is already a process for federal immigration agencies to contract with local law enforcement to carry out immigration enforcement. This arrangement is a voluntary and cooperative one. The procedure, known as "287(g) agreements ," includes extensive training oflocal officers by federal agencies and continued supervision of immigration enforcement by the Federal government. While S.B. 1070 recognizes the 287(g) program, this law will in fact make local police act as Federal immigration enforcement officers without the extensive training provided to 287(g) officers. The training is an important prerequisite of the 287(g) program that ensures local law enforcement have sufficient knowledge and ex perience in the comp le x area of Federa l imm igration law. The Arizona legislature has placed Arizona law enforcement officers in the awkward position of m andati ng that they enforce immigration laws that are the sole province of the Federal government witho ut the necessary 287(g) training. This is not consistent with Federal efforts to properly counter illegal immigration. This cannot be. 10. While I agree that something must absolutely be done to tackle the problems associated with i llega l imm igratio n into this co untry, the means of shift ing the burde n of immi gratio n enforcement and responsibility from Federal to local authorities cannot be justified nor sustained. We cannot bear the burden of the Federal government's financial and legal responsibiliti e s . We 6 canno t bear the dest ruc t io n of our relat ions hip s with o ur loca l co mm un it y tha t we so vitally need in order to be successful in our mission to protect the publ ic and make our City a better place to live with an excellent quality of life. I decl a re un de r pen alty of pe rj ur y that the foregoing is true an d co rrect to the be st of m y know led g and belief. ~ Executed the zs" day of J une, 20 10 in Tucson , Ariz ona . 7

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?