SB 1070

[Djarun]

2 years ago I started a new job driving a delivery truck and was trained by a man who was Latino. Once a week we were to go to Phoenix to pick up supplies and bring them back to our business location 3 hours away from Phoenix. The second week of my training we were in Phoenix and my trainer(lets call him Pedro) were stopped because Pedro "looked suspicious". We were not speeding, breaking the law or otherwise. There was the officer who stopped us, 3 motorcycle cops, 2 Suv's,and 2 more patrol cars for this traffic stop. It was 114 degrees outside and were not "allowed" to keep the truck running even for a/c.
Pedro was asked for his license and insurance and registration for the truck and handed them all over gladly. He was given his license and all other papers back. We wait, wait some more, wait a little more, and the officer comes back and asks Pedro for his license again. This happens several times. Out of this whole traffic stop I am NOT asked for my license or photo id even once. The cops were ONLY interested in Pedro. I was new to the state of AZ and did not know that we entered Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Crime Sweep. If this stop was not racial profiling I don't know what is.
Racial profiling will only get worse when this new law goes into effect. I have read the new law and there is no specific wording for racial profiling, mostly because the police already do that as standard operating procedure.

There are two things about SB 1070 that ALARM me:

1) A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

The new law allows for any law enforcement agent or agency or political subdivision operating in the state of Arizona to deem ANYONE "suspicious" without a warrant or any other probable cause. Absolutely NO ONE is even talking about this!!!!! I can't believe this is even a consideration for any part of a law in the United States of America.

2) The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement
pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle
without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph
does not apply to a person operating an employer's vehicle or the operation
of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28-1464.

Why would an "illegal" have an interlock device on their vehicle? If they were "illegal" and were arrested for a DUI and then released back onto the streets of Arizona and then re-arrested for being "illegal"? One would think that they would have been found to be "illegal" the first time with it being a DUI and all and then deported. But instead we arrest them for DUI, let them out, let them pay the fine, and then re-arrest them for being "illegal" and impound their cars for auction, make them pay even more fines for being arrested in the first place?!?!? WTF?

[coffee bean]

1. And you know Joe Arpaio and his band of D-Bags

would make the clowns who harassed you look like Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz.

[ConnecticutDan2]

2. SB1070 is bad for businesses.