United States V. Arizona

In: Social Issues

Submitted By cliu1508
Words 14328
Pages 58
United States v. Arizona: The Support Our Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods Act is Preempted and Discriminatory
Melissa Goolsarran
Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Perspective: Immigration, Discrimination, and Limitations on State Laws 3 III. Background: United States v. Arizona 9 A. S.B. 1070 and the Legislature’s Justification 10 B. The Decision: United States v. Arizona 18 IV. Analysis: S.B. 1070 is Preempted by Federal Immigration Law and Also Discriminatory 23 A. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Correctly found that S.B. 1070 is Preempted Because it Interferes with the Administration and Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws 24 B. S.B. 1070 Discriminates on the Basis of Race or National Origin 32 V. Comment and Conclusion: Effects of the Arizona Law 36

I. Introduction The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (“S.B. 1070”) has been the subject of many debates for both its potential impact on federal immigration laws and discrimination against citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin. The Arizona State Legislature passed S.B. 1070 to reduce the continuous rise in the number of illegal immigrants and alleged consequent rise in crime rates in the state. Among other provisions, the law requires officers to check a person's immigration status, criminalizes an alien’s failure to comply with federal registration laws and working without authorization, and authorizes warrantless arrests where there is probable cause to believe that the alien is removable. President Barak Obama, vehemently opposed to the bill, said that such legislation “undermines basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” Supporters reply that the law is constitutional and necessary to fight immigration concerns specific to the…...

Similar Documents

Case: United States of America V. Angevine [1], P. 1026

...Case: United States of America v. Angevine [1], p. 1026 Facts: Oklahoma State University provided Professor Eric Angevine with a computer linked to the university network, and through it to the Internet. Angevine used this computer to download over 3,000 pornographic images of young boys. After viewing the images and printing some of them, he deleted the files. Tipped off by Professor Angevine’s wife, police officers seized the computer and turned it over to a police computer expert who retrieved the pornographic files that the professor had deleted. The Oklahoma State University computer policy states that: • The contents of all storage media owned or stored on University computing facilities are the property of the University. • Employees cannot use University computers to access obscene material. • The University reserves the right to view or scan any file or software stored on a computer or passing through the network, and will do so periodically to audit the use of University resources. The University cannot guarantee confidentiality of stored data. • System administrators keep logs of file names, which may indicate why a particular data file is being erased, when it was erased, and what user identification has erased it. The trial court held that federal agents did not need a warrant to search Professor Angevine’s office computer because he had no expectation of privacy. The judge sentenced him to fifty-one......

Words: 711 - Pages: 3

United States V. Curlin

...Title UNITED STATES V. CURLIN Citation U.S. App. LEXIS 8426 (7th Cir. 2011 Unpub.) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, V. Marcus CURLIN, Appellant No. 10-3033 History Marcus CURLIN was ordered by the Small Claims Court judge to vacate the property due to failure to pay rent. At the time of the eviction the deputies observed firearms in the house and Curlin was charged with possession of firearms due to earlier felony convictions which bar him from owning firearms. The defendant attempted to suppress the evidence on the plain-view doctrine and the violation of privacy, under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, as the deputies entered his premises without a search warrant. The Seventh Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the trial court by denying the motion to suppress. Facts On October 17th, 2008, Curlin’s landlord filed a small claim action against Curlin, seeking possession of Curlin’s leased residence for failure to pay rent. The Notice of the Claim for possession of Real Estate and Summons were served on Curlin by mail and by delivery to his residence, however Curlin failed to appear before the Court as ordered. Due to Curlin’s failure to appear, he was the served with a second notice to appear before Court on the next date but he again failed to appear. Small claim court entered a judgment in favor of landlord. The clerk of the court based on the order issued an eviction order, ordering Curlin to vacate the property on or before 6:00 p.m. on Nov...

Words: 682 - Pages: 3

Arizona State and Constitution

...Arizona Statehood and Constitution Arizona and Federal Government November 18, 2012 Part 1: Arizona Statehood There are many events which impacted the process of Arizona becoming a state. Each of these events is not only historical, but they are what allowed the Arizona Constitution to be written in 1910 and to finally become a state in 1912. The Arizona Constitution, when first adopted, was seen as one of the most radical documents in the United States, and even today it still has many contrasts to the U.S. Constitution. Some of the events which helped to shape the Arizona Constitution, as well as make it an official state are the Pre-territorial Period, the Spanish Period, The Mexican Period, the U.S. Controlled Period, the Territorial Period and the impact of the Progressive movement on the creation of the Arizona constitution. First, the Pre-territorial Period is probably the most politically unknown because it is impossible to reconstruct how these prehistoric communities felt about politics and democracy. However, evidence shows that people inhabited Arizona for thousands of years before the Europeans. Indians were considered to be the “first citizens” established in Arizona, long before it became a state. There are three major cultures which lived in this state, which were the Apache, the Navajo, the Hohokam and Mogollon. The Hohokam disappeared around the mid 1400’s but historians do not know why. Each group was complex in their social......

Words: 2438 - Pages: 10

United States V. Wrw Corporation Business Law 531

...United States v. WRW Corporation 986 F.2d 138 (1983) United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit PECK, Circuit Judge             In 1985, civil penalties totaling $90,350 were assessed against WRW Corporation (WRW), a Kentucky corporation, for serious violations of safety standards under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (the Act) which resulted in the deaths of two miners.  Following the imposition of civil penalties, WRW liquidated its assets and went out of business.             Three individual defendants, who were the sole shareholders, officers, and directors of WRW, were later indicted and convicted for willful violations of mandatory health and safety standards under the Act.  Roger Richardson, Noah Woolum, and William Woolum each served prison sentences and paid criminal fines.  After his release from prison, Roger Richardson filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.             The United States (the Government) brought this action in May of 1988 against WRW and Roger Richardson, Noah Woolum, and William Woolum to recover the civil penalties previously imposed against WRW.  The district court denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss and granted summary judgment to the Government piercing the corporate veil under state law and holding the individual defendants liable for the civil penalties assessed against WRW.  For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm.             The district court held that it was appropriate to pierce......

Words: 1010 - Pages: 5

Korematsu V United States

...Christian Marble SECTION #:22230408 Date:11/12/13 Korematsu v. United States U.S. Supreme Court 1944 Facts: In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Executive Order 9066. This order allowed the United States military to section off parts of the US as military areas. In these areas they were trying to exclude specific groups of people from them. The group they were trying to exclude were the Japanese-Americans because they were believed to be acting as spies and sending signals to enemy submarines. The order requested that many Japanese-Americans leave their homes and business. However, many were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. Frank Korematsu, a US-born man of Japanese descent, knowingly resisted the order to be relocated. Korematsu was later arrested and convicted for remaining in a “Military Area.” His case went to the Supreme Court where it was decided that exclusion orders based on Executive Order 9066 were in fact constitutional. Therefore, his conviction was upheld. Issue: Does Congress and the Executive possess the power to exclude persons of racial minority groups from a areas in the United States? Rule: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Korematsu for violating the exclusion order forcing all persons of Japanese ancestry from designated military areas. The strict scrutiny test was applied here and the court found that the government's actions were valid. Application of......

Words: 392 - Pages: 2

Korematsu V. United States

...Christian Marble SECTION #:22230408 Date:11/12/13 Korematsu v. United States U.S. Supreme Court 1944 Facts: In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Executive Order 9066. This order allowed the United States military to section off parts of the US as military areas. In these areas they were trying to exclude specific groups of people from them. The group they were trying to exclude were the Japanese-Americans because they were believed to be acting as spies and sending signals to enemy submarines. The order requested that many Japanese-Americans leave their homes and business. However, many were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. Frank Korematsu, a US-born man of Japanese descent, knowingly resisted the order to be relocated. Korematsu was later arrested and convicted for remaining in a “Military Area.” His case went to the Supreme Court where it was decided that exclusion orders based on Executive Order 9066 were in fact constitutional. Therefore, his conviction was upheld. Issue: Does Congress and the Executive possess the power to exclude persons of racial minority groups from a areas in the United States? Rule: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Korematsu for violating the exclusion order forcing all persons of Japanese ancestry from designated military areas. The strict scrutiny test was applied here and the court found that the government's actions were valid. Application of......

Words: 392 - Pages: 2

United States V. Carroll Towing Co

...it was slowly sinking. The contents of the Anna C, which was flour owned by the United States, sunk in the incident at Pier 52. If any of the crew members had realized the condition of the barge, the Anna C could have been saved, along with the contents. The sinking of the barge results of two concurrent causes, as stated in the case: a misadjusted mooring line and an unattended barge. The question of the case concerns the responsibility for the sinking of the Anna C. The main question of this court case is, should the fault be blamed on Grace Line, the company that chartered the tug or the barge owner who left the barge unattended? Judge Hand proposed a rule for determining whether the barge owner was negligent. Judge Hand found that Grace Lines (the employer of the harbor master) was responsible for not correctly adjusting the lines causing the barges to break away from the dock. Grace Lines, therefore, was liable for the damages to the Anna C from the collision with the tanker’s propeller. The barge owner was held liable for the damages, only if he was negligent for leaving the barge unattended for an extended period of time. Judge Hand proposed an algebraic rule to the ruling of this case: “(1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions. Possibly it serves to bring this notion into relief to state it in algebraic terms: if the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the......

Words: 660 - Pages: 3

United States of America V. Angevine

...Case: United States of America v. Angevine `````````````````````````````````````````````` Question 1: How did the police find this illegal material? Professor Angevine’s wife tipped the authorities of her husband’s activities. Officers from the Stillwater, Oklahoma Police Department seized the computer and turned it over to a computer expert who used special technology to retrieve the data that had remained latent in the computer's memory despite Professor Angevine attempt to erase the pornographic files. Question 2: Did the police obtain a search warrant before conducting this search? Yes, with the cooperation of Professor Angevine's wife, officers from the Stillwater, Oklahoma Police Department obtained a search warrant to look for child pornography on his University computer. Question 3: Then why wasn’t this search illegal under the 4th Amendment? Why didn’t the court hold this evidence to be inadmissible under the exclusionary rule? The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. To establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment, however, a defendant must prove that he has "a legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place searched. This, in turn, requires defendant to show both that he has "a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched" and that "that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize." In analyzing......

Words: 902 - Pages: 4

Miranda V Arizona

...Miranda v. Arizona: Half a Century Later by: September 2nd, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION A. Executive Summary – In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated the case Miranda v. Arizona the most important aspect of due process and criminal procedure ever affecting law enforcement and prosecutorial conduct of an investigation. The main issues in this case were: * The admissibility of a defendant’s statements if such statements were made while the defendant was held in police custody or deprived of freedom of movement in a significant way; * What procedures were required to guarantee the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination according to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? This case is considered the summit of the criminal procedure evolution establishing specific procedures to safeguard the rights of defendants beyond the courtroom and onto the police station. The procedural details and the breadth of civil rights tangled in these four cases, made this decision the pinnacle case in the area of criminal procedure. Nowadays, this decision gave the name to what is widely known as the “Miranda Warnings” which include: 1. The suspect has the right to remain silent, 2. Anything he/she says may be used as evidence against him, 3. He/she has a right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, and 4. If indigent, he/she has a right to a lawyer selected for him without charge. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO THE...

Words: 1278 - Pages: 6

Tison V Arizona

...Tison v. Arizona Citation. 481 U.S. 137, 107 S. Ct. 1676,95 L. Ed. 2d 127, 1987 U.S. 1808 Fact.The Petitioners are the sons of Gary Tison (Tison). Gary Tison had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a guard whom he killed in the course of a prison escape. After spending a number of years in jail, Tison’s wife, their three sons, Tison’s brother and other relatives engineered a prison escape. The escape was executed such that no shots were fired at the prison. However, after the escape, the getaway car had a flat tire. The group elected to flag down a passing motorist and steal a car. A car occupied by John Lyons, his wife Donnelda, his two-year-old son Christopher and his 15-year-old niece, Theresa Tyson, pulled over to render aid. Gary Tison and his former cellmate Randy Greenawalt, intentionally shot and killed all four passengers. Several days later, the Tisons and Greenawalt were apprehended at a police roadblock. A firefight broke out. Donald Tison was killed at the scene; Gary Tison was wounded and escaped into the desert where he later died. The two remaining Tison brothers were tried individually for capital murder in the deaths of the Lyonses. The murder charges were predicated on Arizona's felony-murder statute, which provided that killings that occurred during a robbery or kidnapping were first-degree, death-eligible murder. The Tison brothers were convicted. At a separate sentencing hearing, three aggravating factors were proved: the Tisons had......

Words: 756 - Pages: 4

United States V Lopez

...Nick Kaplan Mr. Gowaskie Const. History of the US April 22, 2010 United States v. Lopez United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause? Alfonso Lopez Jr. was a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992, he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver and five cartridges into the school. When confronted by school authorities, Lopez admitted he had the weapon. He was then arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school property. This was dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with being in violation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This act forbids, “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone.” Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release. However, Lopez did not believe that this act was constitutional. He moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was, “unconstitutional because it was......

Words: 1812 - Pages: 8

U.S. Supreme Court United States V. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) 449 U.S. 411 United States V. Cortez Et Al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

...U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. CORTEZ, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) 449 U.S. 411 UNITED STATES v. CORTEZ ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 79-404. Argued December 1, 1980 Decided January 21, 1981 Based on their discovery of sets of distinctive human footprints in the desert, Border Patrol officers deduced that on a number of occasions groups of from 8 to 20 persons had been guided by a person, whom they designated "Chevron," from Mexico across an area of desert in Arizona, known to be heavily trafficked by aliens illegally entering the country. These groups of aliens proceeded to an isolated point on a road to be picked up by a vehicle; the officers deduced the vehicle probably approached from the east and returned to the east after the pickup. They also surmised, based on the times when the distinctive tracks were discovered, that "Chevron" generally traveled on clear nights during or near weekends, and arrived at the pickup point between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. On the basis of this information, the officers stationed themselves at a point east of the probable pickup point on a night when they believed there was a strong possibility that "Chevron" would be smuggling aliens. The officers observed a pickup truck with a camper shell suitable for carrying sizable groups pass them heading west and then observed the same vehicle return within the estimated time for making a round trip to the pickup point. The officers......

Words: 4188 - Pages: 17

Miranda V. Arizona

... Federal Government 2305 October 12, 2015 Miranda V. Arizona (1966) No. 759 In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of a 18 year old female although he confessed under police interrogation, he was never informed of his right to remain silent. Miranda was eventually convicted but appealed to the Supreme Court in 1966 claiming his confession was unconstitutional. In the case the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether or not law officials must inform a defendant of his or her rights prior to investigation. The court reviewed three other cases, in Vignera V. New York, Westover V. United States, and California V. Stewart in all these cases suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, and prosecuting attorneys in rooms that where cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. The case was argued between the days of Feb 28, Mar 1, & 2 (1966) on June 13, 1966 under Chief Justice Earl Warren who had presided over the landmark Brown V. Board of Education (1954). In a 5-4 decision the court overturned Miranda’s conviction because Miranda was not explicitly informed of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution thus to protect these rights in...

Words: 498 - Pages: 2

Rodriguez V. United States

...Rodriguez v. United States For a long time, Americans have been victims not only of torture but also unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by police officers. However, the status has changed after passing of a related legislation which has effected an alteration in the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has apparently changed the right of the American citizens’ protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. According to the document, individuals have a right to be or feel secured in houses against unreasonable captures and searches. The amendment limits the power of police to search people and seize their homes and property. The applications of the Fourth Amendment in reality, particularly in courts today, have even surprised those who drafted it. The judgment from the case Rodriguez v. the United States is primarily based on the provisions of the document to the Constitution. In this case, a k-9 officer, Morgan Struble, stopped Rodriguez on grounds of driving on the shoulder of a highway, which is a violation of the Nebraska law. The policeman then attended to everything connected with the stopping, including issuing a warning for dangerous driving checking the driving license of Rodriguez. The officer asked the permission to walk his dog around Rodriguez’s car, which was denied. He then ordered the offender to step out of his vehicle while waiting for backup to come. Once the other policemen had arrived at the...

Words: 687 - Pages: 3

United States V. Greber and United States V. Mcclatchey Case Questions

...Discuss the United States v. Greber and United States v. McClatchey case questions 1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes? Yes. I think Dr. Gerber is still responsible. Although the payments made had legitimate purposes, they could still be viewed as intent to induce referrals. And as long as one purpose among all was intended to induce referrals then a statute becomes violated. Secondly, the law views remuneration as anything that has monetary value. Therefore, I would agree the court would view that payment as a prohibited remuneration. 2. Suppose you were a lawyer or a compliance officer advising a hospital cardiology department. The department has a contract under the terms of which it will pay a certain cardiology group a fixed dollar amount for every electrocardiogram (ECG) interprets, and the hospital will bill Medicare accordingly. The dollar amount is equal to Medicare’s allowable charge for ECG’s (less $10 at this writing), and all readings are medically necessary. You ask why the hospital does not just let the doctors bill Medicare themselves, and the reply is, “ Oh, it’s such a hassle for them. We already have a billing department, and we can do it for them easily.” What is your response, and why? I would respond in......

Words: 647 - Pages: 3

Film-Highlight RomaInfos zum Film | Theories of communication - 998 Words | Justin Cener - Power Audiences Master Course