Legal Definitions - Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010

The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010, commonly known as S.B. 1070, was a highly controversial state law enacted in Arizona. Passed in 2010, the legislation was designed to address concerns within the state regarding undocumented immigration, which some believed contributed to rising crime rates. The Act introduced several stringent measures intended to empower state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws more aggressively.

However, many provisions of S.B. 1070 faced widespread criticism, particularly due to fears of racial profiling and concerns that the state was overstepping its authority into an area primarily governed by federal law. The legality of S.B. 1070 was challenged in the Supreme Court case Arizona v. United States. The Court ultimately struck down several key parts of the law, ruling that they were "preempted" by federal immigration law. This means that the federal government holds exclusive authority over certain aspects of immigration, preventing states from creating conflicting or overly broad laws in those areas. For example, the Supreme Court overturned provisions that would have made it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, to seek or engage in work, or that allowed state officers to arrest individuals without a warrant solely based on a suspicion of their immigration status. While one provision requiring officers to check immigration status during lawful stops was initially allowed to stand by the Supreme Court, it was later repealed by Arizona itself due to ongoing legal challenges and civil rights concerns.

Here are some examples illustrating the intent and impact of S.B. 1070's provisions:

• Imagine a scenario where a local police officer in Arizona pulls over a driver for a minor traffic violation, such as a broken taillight. During the stop, the officer notices the driver speaks with a non-native accent and, based on this observation alone, develops a "suspicion" that the driver might be an undocumented immigrant. Under the original, unchallenged Section 6 of S.B. 1070, the officer could have arrested the driver without a warrant, solely on this suspicion, to investigate their immigration status. This provision was later struck down by the Supreme Court, which affirmed that such broad arrest powers based on suspicion were preempted by federal law, which grants federal immigration officers discretion in such matters.

• Consider an undocumented individual working as a landscaper for a small business in Arizona. If Section 5(C) of S.B. 1070 had remained in effect, this individual could have been charged with a state-level criminal offense simply for holding a job. This provision aimed to criminalize the act of employment for undocumented immigrants at the state level. However, the Supreme Court invalidated this section, explaining that Congress had deliberately chosen not to make employment a criminal offense for undocumented immigrants under federal law, thus preempting Arizona from doing so.

• Picture a family driving through Arizona on vacation. They are pulled over for a minor speeding infraction. Under the original Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, the state police officer would have been required to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of everyone in the vehicle, even if there was no other reason to suspect an immigration violation. This provision, often dubbed the "show me your papers" clause, raised significant concerns about potential racial profiling and prolonged detentions for individuals who might struggle to immediately prove their legal status. Although the Supreme Court initially did not preempt this specific section, Arizona later repealed it in response to further legal challenges and public pressure.