Legislative Council and County Attorney agree: Not true that Sanctuary City bill SB1070 would open door to National ID

The Final passage of Senate Bill 1070 will be heard today.  SB1070 is the most comprehensive enforcement bill in the nation, it will remove all “illegal” sanctuary policies that limit or prevent law enforcement from performing their duties, and it will allow law enforcement the discretion to enforce our immigration laws as intended.  Other states are anxious to follow our lead.

Some concerned members of the community believe this legislation with result in a form of national ID.  NO ONE fights any harder for freedom and limited government than Senator Russell Pearce.  To ensure this would not be an unattended consequence of the legislation, Senator Pearce asked Legislative Council and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to provide their interpretation.

Both indicated the legislation does not allow for any kind of National ID nor does it expand ID requirements.  A letter is attached from the MCAO answering many of the questions and concerns expressed.  The official legal opinion from the Arizona Legislative Council is also included.

Governor Brewer – 602 542 4331

State Senators – http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=S



(Legal opinion); Second one in attachment.

A.R.S. section 11-1051, subsections B through E essentially empowers state agencies and employees with law enforcement authority to determine the status of illegal aliens, transfer aliens already determined to exist in the United States illegally to federal custody and arrest anyone believed to have engaged in an offense warranting legal removal from the United States. The bill section does not grant authority, either explicitly or implicitly, to detain a person indefinitely.

A.R.S. section 11-1051 states well established legal concept in the context of immigration enforcement; however, there are a few points worth noting. Subsection B allows a law enforcement entity, where reasonable suspicion exists, to presumably detain a suspected illegal alien for the purpose of determining immigration status. This is simply a restatement of the federal law already in place. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979); see also Ramirez v. Webb, 719 F.Supp. 610, 616 (W.D. Mich. 1989) (holding that law enforcement authorities “may detain an individual for a brief period of interrogation here the circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in illegal activity. In this case, the relevant illegal activity is that the individual is illegally present in this country.”). There is nothing in this subsection that would permit a law enforcement entity to go beyond this allowance and indefinitely detain someone.

Subsection E provides that a law enforcement officer “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.” Again, as with subsection B, this is simply a restatement of the established constitutional protections and does not go so far as to permit indefinite detention. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001) (holding that “[i]f an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.”).

Subsection C requires the immediate transfer of an illegal alien to federal custody once state sanctions expire. Subsection D allows a law enforcement agency to transport an illegal alien in the agency’s custody to a federal facility at other points in the process.

Neither subsection authorizes indefinite detention.

The other issue presented in this memorandum focuses on whether A.R.S. section 11-1051 functionally implements the REAL ID Act of 2005 (“RIDA”). The bill would not implement RIDA. RIDA states that “a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section.” Further, RIDA states that the Secretary of Homeland Security “may make grants to a State to assist the State in conforming to the minimum standards set forth in this title.” Other than allowing the Secretary to make grants to assist states in conforming to the minimum standards, it is an all or nothing policy: a state either conforms or it is in violation of the Act.

The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA in Arizona. Arizona, If a law enforcement entity did detain a person indefinitely, it would violate federal and constitutional law. There is nothing in A.R.S. section 11-1051 that attempts to override these federally mandated procedural protections.

Pursuant to federal and state law currently in place, could easy exchange information with any federal entity and maintain its “sovereignty” with regard to RIDA.

Finally, A.R.S. section 11-1051 narrowly restricts when a public agent can access status related information. Subsection F states four limiting “official purposes.” If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person’s information pursuant to subsections F’s official purposes, that agent would not find asylum in section 11-1051. This subsection is apparently causing some people confusion, because they are reading the paragraphs as a new requirement for governmental entities to seek information. SB 1070 does not create new mandates to seek information. These paragraphs must be read with the whole subsection. They limit the purposes for which immigration status information may be exchanged.


A.R.S. section 11-1051 does not allow for the indefinite detention of an individual. A.R.S. section 11-1051 is not a de facto implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005. A.R.S. section 11-1051 limits access to information to four narrowly constructed official purposes.



  1. Thanks for posting this. I suspected the previous post was a ruse by the open borders types to scare Republican legislators from supporting the bill.

  2. Please support SB1070. Please call Senators & your Governor to suppoet it.

  3. Thanks for the info!

    Will contact and spread the word!

  4. Any republican that doesn’t support this should be run out of the State. The whole country is watching to see if Arizona has the guts to do the right thing. Let pray we do.

  5. It passed!

  6. This is great. The bill passes and Mary Rose Wilcox is the first to comment to the press. She essentially admits to being a racist! She said something to the effect the now every Latino and Latina has to worry about getting arrested. I’m not sure exactly what she meant since the bill makes no reference to ethnicity.

    Do you think she meant all of them are here illegally or the they are the only one that are illegal.

    Get new parts for your brain Wilcox! Illegal is not a race, it’s a crime!!

  7. Blue Meanie says

    Veni, vidi, vici! Congratulations Arizona.

  8. EastValleyPC says

    Note that the letter has Andrew Thomas’ name on it. With Rick “the Rat” (short for the democRAT that he is) Romley holding the office until Bill Montgomery gets elected, there’s no way Russell gets this kind of support.

  9. EastValley – you have coined the phrase for Romley – Rick “the Rat.” Go Bill!

  10. Kudos to our legislators for having the courage to pass SB1070. Senator Pierce is truly an Arizona hero. I hope Governor Brewer will do the right thing and place her signature on the bill. However, I’m sure Grant Woods and McCain are advising her not to do so.

  11. We all know Bill Montgomery supports this bill and Rick the Rat will speak out against it that will lead to his second departure from the county attorney post. It will be a relief after August when we have a strong candidate to continue carrying the torch of enforcing all our laws whether the criminal is an illegal alien or a county board member. Go get them Bill, whoever they are.

  12. Arizona Luke says

    Bad law, plain n simple.

  13. I think that this law is stupid and unconstitutional. We cannot judge ppl by there race or color. United States is suppose to be a helping hand to other nations. Do u consider this a help?? I dont think so. Yes they should reenforce the borders because i as a christian understand that we have to respect laws but there should also be some kind of help offered so that those ppl can come legally and not having to break the law. Most of them just want something better for there families, like we all do. We cant judge anyone until we r in there shoes. Lets not be selfish and only think abt ourselves. lets think of how we all can unite and work together.

  14. SmartestOne says


  15. Hermanos, desistan de vivir en un lugar ilegalmente, que bajo esas condiciones de vida,se pierde poco a poco la dignidad y el derecho a necesidades basicas de todo ser humano. He sabido de conocidos que han muerto por no contar con un seguro medico, se del temor diario de encontrarse con retenes y de la tristeza de un familiar deportado. Vuelve a tu pais, trabaja con el mismo impetu como lo haces en U.S.A. y no te faltara techo ni comida, que es lo unico que en realidad necesitamos para vivir y te sobrara paz espiritual y el cariño de tu familia y amigos.

  16. Well if they cant help everyone then they shouldnt be known as a helping nation to others…. This law is not gonna help economically whatsoever, all its gonna do is make things worse because none of us would do the same work those immigrants do for a minimum pay. We are always asking for double of what they ask for. Put urself in there shoes. what would u do for ur fam? cause i personally would do ANYTHING for mine. I agree that there are some illegals that come here with nothing good to offer but that doesnt mean they r all the same! Touch ur heart and deep inside u know everything ive said is true. Respect human rights because they r humans not animals.

  17. Mike Allen says

    After reading the remarks here, many of you have proved one thing, that this state is controlled, and run, by a bigotted legislature.
    Of course, seeing as this state is Mormon cotrolled, the fact that their is a dislike, perhaps even a hatred of any human being with “dark” skin is not surprising.
    Thanks to all of you, beginning with the chief bigot, Russell Pierce, and the assistance he received from the bigot attorney Mr. Korbach, our state will now lose hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps billions, in revenue and will lose a lot, an awful lot more, in the coming days, months and years.

    And to our governor, who in her ignorance signed the bill, you reap what you sow governor. Hoppefully you won’t be governor for much longer. You are in way over your head and way beyond your educational level.

  18. Buena información. Lo que dices sirvió de mucho, muchísimas gracias!


  1. […] protestations such as in this post include playing word games…. The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, […]

Leave a Reply