KNBC: Lawsuit Dismissed In LAPD Immigration Status Questions Case

It must be "**** the Country Day" at the ACLU

http://www.knbc.com/news/16708557/detail.html

A Los Angeles judge dismissed a taxpayer lawsuit Wednesday that sought to repeal a long-standing directive prohibiting Los Angeles police officers from asking arrestees about their immigration status.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu sided with the city and the American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed there were no triable issues raised in the suit. He heard arguments on the motion June 10 and had the case under submission since then.

Los Angeles resident Harold P. Sturgeon filed suit in May 2006 against police Chief William J. Bratton and members of the Police Commission, seeking to have Special Order 40 declared unlawful.

In court papers, Sturgeon's lawyers called Special Order 40 "essentially a 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy regarding illegal aliens."

Sturgeon asked for a permanent injunction preventing taxpayer money from being used to enforce it. He and other critics said the 28-year-old mandate from the Los Angeles City Council hampers the LAPD's ability to exchange information with federal immigration officials.

The order is intended to avoid discouraging illegal immigrants from reporting crimes and assisting police.

In their court papers, lawyers for the City Attorney's Office maintained the directive does not prevent the LAPD from working closely with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

"There is no evidence ... to show that ICE has ever complained that they have not had the assistance of LAPD, or that LAPD has not come when they are called," the city's court papers state.

In their court papers, ACLU lawyers maintained that Special Order 40 is consistent with federal law and not in conflict with it.

Paul J. Orfanedes of Judicial Watch Inc., one of Sturgeon's lawyers, maintains the order is a misapplication of his client's taxpayer dollars. He also contends the order is being applied in a broader way than the text of it allows.

"State and local governments can't restrict an officer's ability to communicate with federal officers about someone's immigration status. So we think that was a direct conflict," Orfanedes said.

Deputy City Attorney Vibiana M. Andrade said Sturgeon's lawyers have not shown any pattern of unconstitutional enforcement of Special Order 40.

Treu ruled in September 2006 that four groups that assist undocumented immigrants can intervene as defendants in the case. They are working with the City Attorney's Office to keep Special Order 40 on the books.

The ACLU of Southern California represents the four community groups: Break the Cycle; Los Jornaleros (The Day Laborers); El Comite de Jornaleros (The Committee of Day Laborers); and El Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de California (The Institute of Popular Education of Southern California).

ACLU attorney Hector O. Villagra said after the June 10 hearing that he was encouraged by the tenor of Treu's questions, many of which focused on conflicts in law and whether Sturgeon believes the order as a whole is unconstitutional, or only when applied in certain instances.

"Hopefully, this will put to rest any challenges to Special Order 40," Villagra said.

The lawsuit had been tentatively set to go to trial on Monday.

Last year, the Los Angeles City Council went on record against any future federal legislation that would force the Los Angeles Police Department to change its policy on identifying undocumented immigrants.

Debate over the issue was reignited earlier this year when Jamiel Shaw Jr., a high school football star, was killed -- allegedly by a reputed gang member who was in the country illegally. The suspect, Pedro Espinoza, had been released from county jail the day before the slaying.

Special Order 40 did not apply in that case because Espinoza's original arrest was outside the city of Los Angeles and he was housed in a Los Angeles County jail. However, the killing prompted Councilman Dennis Zine to introduce a motion to amend the policy, allowing police to investigate the immigration status of gang members they think may be in the country illegally, whether or not they are suspected of other crimes.

Los Angeles was the first major city to enact the Special Order 40 policy in 1979.

So, Sarge, what's your point in this one? "ACLU Bad"?

The Chief of Police has issued instructions to the officers under his command. And this citizen wants the court to order the Chief of Police not to issue commands to his officers? (And Judicial Watch thinks this is a good idea?)

And which law is it that they're claiming gives them this power?

Isn't this lawsuit simply a case of a citizen (and a lobbyist) looking for some judicial activism?

What a chicken**** country this has become.

IT'S A ****ING CRIME. YOU'RE A POLICE DEPARTMENT!!!

DO YOU NEED A PICTURE?!?!?!

What a chicken**** country this has become.

IT'S A ****ING CRIME. YOU'RE A POLICE DEPARTMENT!!!

DO YOU NEED A PICTURE?!?!?!

How about a law? You know, something that the Chief of Police is breaking? Something that would give a court the authority to tell the chief how to run his department?

(BTW, I don't approve of this policy. I think somebody needs to run for Chief of Police, under the slogan "If elected, then when my cops catch someone who's breaking the law, I'll enforce the law.")

(Although since this policy appears to be really, really, old, somehow I suspect that somebody has run on that platform. And he lost. Probably several someones.)

-----

BTW, where do you stand on the County Clerk who's decided that her department won't perform any weddings, because she doesn't want to perform any gay weddings? Does she have the authority to decide which procedures her department will or won't perform?

BTW, where do you stand on the County Clerk who's decided that her department won't perform any weddings, because she doesn't want to perform any gay weddings? Does she have the authority to decide which procedures her department will or won't perform?

No.

I said in that thread that if performing ceremonies is listed in her job requirements, she has to do it or resign. (And of course, I don't agree with that law either.)

It's just frustrating, Larry. We KNOW we've got an utterly massive illegal immigration problem. I've seen, directly, the criminal impact it has on even the smallest communities. We both know health care costs are being driven up by people sneaking in hear in droves, and going to ERs. (Often delivering anchor babies, and exacerbating the problem.)

I fail to understand why this is the only CRIME in America with widespread SUPPORT.

Now, sure. I think a police chief should be able to set the standards for his department; within reason. But I also KNOW that cops can be charged if they have reason to believe a crime is taking place in their presence and they don't take action.

It's a horrible idea to make neglecting one's duty the standard.

Also admiring the irony here: The ACLU is defending a Police Department from a frivolous lawsuit.

(And Sarge is complaining about it.)

No.

I said in that thread that if performing ceremonies is listed in her job requirements, she has to do it or resign. (And of course, I don't agree with that law either.)

And my position is the same as in that other one: IMO, the courts don't enforce "failure to do your job". Your boss does that. The penalty for failing to do your job is to get fired. If the boss won't fire him, then you go to his boss.

IMO, the correct way of solving this problem is a political solution.

(And I can see some logic to the opposing position, too. That if the cops begin arresting every illegal in LA, then illegals who are witnesses or victims of a crime will hide from the cops. I just disagree with the policy. IMO, the correct way of dealing with illegals should be the same way cops deal with other petty criminals: "Help me out with this case and I'll forget about the joint you threw out.")

So, Sarge, what's your point in this one? "ACLU Bad"?

The Chief of Police has issued instructions to the officers under his command. And this citizen wants the court to order the Chief of Police not to issue commands to his officers? (And Judicial Watch thinks this is a good idea?)

And which law is it that they're claiming gives them this power?

Isn't this lawsuit simply a case of a citizen (and a lobbyist) looking for some judicial activism?

I know this is hard, but theoretically cops enforce laws. Illegals, the day they step over the border, are lawbreakers.

Now, sure. I think a police chief should be able to set the standards for his department; within reason. But I also KNOW that cops can be charged if they have reason to believe a crime is taking place in their presence and they don't take action.

It's a horrible idea to make neglecting one's duty the standard.

Are state police officers required to act if they suspect that federal laws are being broken? They certainly wouldn't be allowed to get a warrant to investigate an immigration violation, and they wouldn't have authority to arrest or charge anyone ... even those local law enforcement agencies that do enforce immigration laws have to do so through an agreement with the federal government: http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm

In any case, that's not really the issue in this case. If a citizen is dissatisfied with the policies of their police department, the solution is not to sue; it's to vote or get laws passed that reflect their will. This is really a political question that should be left for the political branches rather than the courts.

I know this is hard, but theoretically cops enforce laws. Illegals, the day they step over the border, are lawbreakers.

And in your opinion, the Chief of Police doesn't have the authority to tell his officers to ignore what he considers to be a lesser crime, if he believes that doing so will make his job easier to enforce other laws?

Please, you be the judge, here. What law is the LAPD breaking? (In fact, let's just assume that they even have the authority to enforce Federal law.)

Isn't there a jurisdictional issue also?

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I didn't even think about that quite honestly. :doh:

I have to go with Larry on this one. The question is not one of immigration. The Department is not breaking the law and you should not be able to intervene in an internal policy of the police department.

If you have a problem have the City Counsel change the law.

On the issue itself, yes, immigration is getting out of hand. I don't see why the department should have such a policy.