Police Chiefs Against Immigration Enforcement: Time to Retire
Police chiefs who oppose Arizona’s tough new illegal immigration law have obviously become detached from the reality that their officers on the street face every day:
The Arizona Legislature on Monday passed Senate Bill 1070, which would, among other things, make it a state crime to be in the country illegally. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer has until the end of the day Saturday to sign the bill, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law…. The bill requires local law-enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted by federal law. It says that officers must make a reasonable attempt to determine an individual’s legal status "when practicable" if there is "reasonable suspicion" that he or she is in the U.S. illegally.
The Arizona Republic article quotes several chiefs who offer their reasons why first-line officers shouldn’t be given the authority to detain illegal aliens whom they encounter on the street.
As a former police officer who trained new recruits in the topics of detecting criminal activity and the legal standard of “reasonable suspicion,” I know that the top brass’s opposition to the new law is unfounded in reason. For example:
The article notes: “Police chiefs who oppose the bill have said these requirements will mean officers will have to make immigration enforcement their first priority over every other type of crime.”
This assertion is ludicrous. The law simply codifies the concept that being in the country illegally is a crime and recognizes the officers’ authority already recognized by federal law to enforce federal immigration law. The new law no more makes illegal immigration enforcement a top priority than the existence of a statute outlawing littering forces officers to spend all of their time looking for litterbugs.
“The chiefs also say the bill offers no additional funding to train officers in how to judge reasonable suspicion or otherwise enforce federal laws.”
Police officers are taught the principle of “reasonable suspicion” in the police academy. The concept applies to illegal immigration enforcement as equally as it does to murder, rape or robbery. If an officer has not already received training on the topic or on the variety of laws that he is authorized to enforce, he shouldn’t be on the road in the first place.
“Reasonable suspicion,” incidentally, is a level of proof that justifies a certain level of force on a suspect by a “reasonable officer.” If a police officer has a reasonable and articulable (meaning the officer can point to specific facts) suspicion that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity, the officer is authorized to detain that person for a reasonable period to either confirm or dispel the suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is more than a mere hunch, but less than “probable cause” which is the standard of proof required for arrests and search warrants. [More]
I have to talk to the chiefs for a minute… (you’re welcome to stick around but this isn’t going to be pretty.)
"This will further impact police departments already lacking the resources to do their basic job," said former Mesa Police Chief George Gascón, who now leads the San Francisco Police Department.
Chief Gascón, you are one more example of “the Peter Principle.” The existence of this law will no more impact your PD’s resources than does the existence of a law banning shoplifting. But consider this: if a city has a big problem with shoplifters, aren’t you going to devote a larger percentage of your department’s resources to ferreting them out and putting them away?
If your city has a big problem with those breaking the immigration laws, shouldn’t a commensurate portion of your department’s resources be dedicated to identifying the offenders? Don’t you enforce the laws that most need enforcing?
“Gascón said an officer might not intend to racially profile while enforcing the law, but that’s what will happen. ‘It will increase the risk that police officers, especially those who are untrained, will be placed in a situation where they will try to comply with the law and will be looking for characteristics to try to determine whether someone is here without authority,’ Gascón said. ‘People who appear to be of Hispanic descent, who speak with an accent, are going to be targeted.’"
Chief, if you have an officer who is not trained in the basic concept of reasonable suspicion, that’s your failure. If your officer has not been trained to identify the common characteristics of the illegal immigrant offender, that’s on you. If you hire a bigot, how does that make this law a bad idea?
“Colorado Springs Chief Richard Myers, who weighed in on the issue Wednesday, said Arizona residents may not like what that enforcement looks like. ‘If I have a shots-fired call or the potential to stop someone who might be checked for documented status, I’m going to do that before I respond to shots fired because I won’t get sued if don’t respond to shots fired,’ he said.”
First, Chief Myers, if this is how you would conduct yourself on the street, then you have outlived your usefulness. God help the first officer who arrives at the scene of a shooting, if you’re supposed to be his backup. Frankly, Chief, even the most mediocre officer will leave the suspected alien that he just stopped standing on the street corner to respond to a serious emergency.
The only semi-legitimate concern raised by the chiefs is the probability that illegal immigrant victims will be reluctant to report crimes against themselves and others. But this has always been a problem. For that reason, departments across the nation have developed policies to encourage the reporting of crime. More important for success in encouraging illegal aliens to report crimes, however, is the training and reasonableness of the officer on the street. The better officers know when to enforce the law and when to just take a report.
And that’s back on you, chiefs.
