Posted on 07/18/2008 12:18:51 PM PDT by radar101
PHOENIX - People who hire "coyotes" to get them into this country can be prosecuted under a state law aimed at the smugglers, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
In the first decision of its kind in the state, the judges rebuffed even the comments of Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, one of the architects of the 2005 legislation, that it was never designed to go after the immigrants themselves. Judge Lawrence Winthrop, writing for the court, said it is possible that Paton may have intended that the migrants be considered the victims of the crime of human smuggling.
"This does not mean that either Rep. Paton or the Legislature intended to prevent the person smuggled from being punished for fueling the practice by paying to be smuggled, and thus engaging in a conspiracy to commit human smuggling,'' Winthrop wrote.
The appellate judges also rejected arguments that the state law is an unconstitutional infringement on the exclusive power of the federal government to regulate immigration.
Thursday's ruling is a significant victory for both Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas who have been using that 2005 law to prosecute not just the smugglers but their customers as part of a single conspiracy. And the decision, unless overturned, paves the way for other police agencies and prosecutors to follow suit.
The law makes it a crime to "intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or other commercial purposes.''
It further defines the terms to include transporting of individuals knowing or having reason to know those people "are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state.''
Paton told Capitol Media Services that it was always aimed at the "coyotes." And he said the appellate court, which apparently had access to the transcript of the debate before the House Judiciary Committee in 2005, clearly missed that point.
"I stated that explicitly ... when I was asked about it by (Reps.) Ted Downing and Ben Miranda,'' Paton said Thursday. "So I think my statements pretty much stand for themselves.''
But Winthrop said if lawmakers believed that some prosecutors were misinterpreting or misusing the law, they had the opportunity to correct that when they tinkered with the statute in 2006. In fact, a bill to spell out that only the smugglers could be prosecuted under the law was introduced that year by Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix.
Winthrop noted, though, the only change made to the law that year dealt with prosecutions when the people being smuggled were younger than 18.
The court did acknowledge that the power to regulate immigration rests exclusively with the federal government. But Winthrop said this law does not run afoul of that.
"Immigration regulations determine who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which the legal entrant may remain,'' the judge said. "Arizona's human smuggling statute does not make such determinations.''
He said it simply makes it illegal to transport illegal immigrants for profit. The fact that one element of the crime be that the person being transported is not in this country legally, Winthrop said, does not make the law an impermissible immigration regulation.
The judges also rebuffed a claim by Juan Barragan-Sierra, the defendant in this case, that the Arizona law is flawed because it does not establish standards to determine whether someone is in this country illegally. They said Barragan-Sierra has no standing to raise that issue because, by his own admission, he was in the United States illegally.
Court records show that Barragan-Sierra was arrested in 2006 after he was found under a piece of carpeting in the bed of a pickup truck stopped on State Route 85 in western Maricopa County. Most other occupants of the truck fled.
He later told a jail detention officer he contracted with an individual in San Luis Rio Colorado, Son., to bring him into the United States, agreeing to pay him $2,000 when he reached his destination in the state of Washington. He was led across the border on foot and picked up, first by a van and eventually by the truck which deputies stopped.
He was found guilty of conspiring to commit human smuggling. The judge suspended the two-year prison sentence on the condition that he leave this country and not return.
I think that it is dangerous to let judges take the unclear wording of the law and charge people with crimes who the legislators did not intend to be charged. The benefit of the doubt should always work against the government and prosecutors. Otherwise citizens may find themselves charged with a crime when their normal reading of the law would lead them to believe their actions were legal. The American tradition has always been to let the guilty go free rather than allow the government to easily convict the innocent.
“I think that it is dangerous to let judges take the unclear wording . . .”
This is reserved for the prosecutors.
Both have to go along in order to get a conviction.
In this case, only the Maricopa County prosecutor. The other AZ county prosecutors don't prosecute the coyote conspiracy. They prosecute actual coyotes.
How could anyone, even you, think that the actions of someone conspiring to enter the country through smuggling, believe their actions were legal?
Why was the guy hid under some carpet if he believed his actions were legal?
Why did his fellow passengers split if anyone involved thought they were legal?
Give me a break.
My point was that this establishes a precedent that can be used against citizens. If you would pay attention to the whole sentence instead of one little piece, taken out of context, you would not be asserting that I made any such point.
“Otherwise citizens may find themselves charged with a crime when their normal reading of the law would lead them to believe their actions were legal.”
The context of the article was an illegal alien being charged with a crime.
Where do you get the "context" that would mean anything to do with a "Citizen"?
Why do you think that because an Illegal Alien was charged, it could lead to a Citizen being charged?
Your whole supposition is "out of context" with the law and the article about an appeals court ruling.
Think about applying the same standard of going beyond the legislature’s intent when they wrote the law and then think of other laws the courts could use the same standard to interpret. Presto you have the court prosecuting citizens since most laws apply primarily to citizens.
When it comes down to the brass tacks,
Libertarians want to smoke pot.
All their arguments finally resolve to that one issue.
BTT
Important decision
Also in the news today:
Mexican National Sentenced For Role in Sex-Trafficking Ring in the Carolinas
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/mexican-national-sentenced-role-sex-trafficking-ring-carolinas/
Taking things out of context is when you say the sky is falling regarding citizens when the law and the article was in the context of the law regarding illegal aliens.
Of course when you are a Libertarian you don’t believe in laws, so there should not be such a thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.