AZ SHERIFF SAYS HE WILL NOT ENFORCE NEW LAW

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Arizona has 500 deputies reporting to him and he has stated that neither he nor they will enforce what he has identified as a 'racist' law - Arizona SB 1070. There are multiple problems with his outburst, not the least of which is the position he's potentially putting all of his men in. Perhaps I'm naive but isn't it unlawful for a deputy to follow unlawful orders from his / her superior?

via the NY Daily News:

Come August, when his 500 deputies become responsible for busting illegals, the sheriff's actions will speak louder than any words: His men will look the other way.

"We are not immigration officials," Dupnick vowed Thursday. "We fight crime. The state put us in this position."

He may need to re-think how effective that strategy is going to be. After reading the law, I noticed a very interesting portion that almost anticipated this kind of response from sheriffs not necessarily pre-disposed to enforcing a law they disagree with.

I direct you to Section G. of the Law:

G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

If I'm reading that correctly, it says that any official of any Arizona state government or agency may be sued for not enforcing the law by actively limiting or restricting its implementation. Dupnik is outwardly saying he will defy it. Perhaps he should have kept that little outburst under wraps until after he read the bill. Then again, maybe he did read it and is making what he perceives to be a principled stand.

Either way, he's not going to be doing himself any favors by going to the mat. Why? I direct you to the very next subsection - H, which says that any penalties collected against agencies or officials who are found to have limited or restricted the law's effectiveness will go to the state treasury for the sole purpose of bolstering the law's effectiveness.

H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41‑1724.

So, again, if I understand this correctly, when Dupnik overtly refuses to enforce the law, Joe Six-pack can bring suit against him. When Dupnik loses, whatever penalties are ruled that his department pay will go directly to gaining further intelligence on illegal aliens and gangs. What about Dupnik personally? Would he be liable? Well, based on his going on the record defying the law, quite possibly. The Law states that no official will be required to incur costs or expenses, UNLESS it is determined that said official acted in "bad faith".

Subsection J, boys and girls:

J. EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A DEFENDANT BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

Maybe it's just me but outwardly expressing defiance of a law by accusing those who passed it as being racist might constitute a "bad faith" claim.

"This law, it's just irresponsible," he said. "It makes them [legislators] look like racists."

Dupnik has tipped his hand unwisely here. He's also obviously emotional about the issue. That said, if he'd have stayed quiet, he may have been able to fool some folks. Now that he's called out his state legislature as a bunch of racists, he's likely caused some unwanted attention and some scrutiny that won't be pleasant.

Frankly, it's about time people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio catch a break and folks like Dupnik start feeling the sting of justified accountability for a change.

h/t to Jawa