I don't normally post twice in one week, but I just couldn't resist this delicious morsel of a story:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/10/16/20091016arpaio1016.html

So, here's the thing.  The only other area of law that I practice (other than immigration) is criminal defense.  I've been practicing criminal law for about 14 years now both as a prosecutor and for the last 11 years, as a defense attorney.  I've tried hundreds (and maybe thousands) of cases and dealt with countless numbers of different police officers.  While I OFTEN disagree with officers' interpretations of statutes, or the way in which those statutes are applied, we always agree on one thing:  that a particular statute exists.

A police officer, almost without exception in my experience, has an almost photographic memory on citing statutes.  Out of the blue ask a Phoenix Police officer what statute covers DUI (23-1381) or suspended license (28-3473) or no proof of insurance (28-4135c), etc., he/she will be able to tell you instantly as if it was stamped in his/her brain.   Which brings us to what is so amazing about this story.

NEVER, NOT ONCE has a police officer arrested one of my clients on a statute that doesn't exist.  That's because a police officer knows that it is his duty to enforce the law.  Maybe he'll try to finagle an incident into an existing statute, but at least, there is a statute.  So there must be a LAW which must be enforced.  That's the starting point, a law.  From there, the officer acts.  

However, here, Sheriff Joe stood before a news conference and boldly let the world know what we (both attorneys and non-attorneys) already knew:  that Sheriff Joe is just not up on the law.  For years, many of us personally know of anecdotal, if not actual cases, where people have been stopped for DWB (Driving While Brown).  Now we have proof, from the horse's mouth, as to why.  You see, Sheriff Joe feels (note how I still use the present tense despite his office's admission of the non-existence of the law), that a person's dress, speech, appearance or presence in an area known for a high concentration of undocumented immigrants is reason enough to detain that person. Of course even in those anecdotal cases, other reasons were cited for those stops (such inconsequential issues as broken windshields, white light to the rear, etc.).  Those deputies didn't put down on any report that they stopped the person because they had an accent, had salsa music playing on the radio, or wore a T-Shirt saying "Si Se Puede".  Obviously, they put alternate justifications for the stop because they KNEW and KNOW that racial profiling is illegal.

But Sheriff Joe doesn't.

However, the hilarity doesn't stop there.  Did an in-house counsel draw up a legal memorandum, supported by research and case law, and give it to Sheriff Joe?  After all, if he's going to present himself at a news conference, he would need to be prepared right?  Wrong.  According to the story, it was pulled "by a staff member from the internet".  Unfortunately there's no video of me writing this article, because otherwise you'd see me rolling on the floor laughing.  If it came from the internet, it must be true, right? [break while I recover from an uncontrollable laughing spell].

Wait, there's more.  When called on it, Sheriff Joe initially denied knowing which website it came from, but he later claimed it came from, wait for it....from the Cornell Law website.  Cornell Law is one of our bastions of legal knowledge, an Ivy League law school of the first order.  So, if it came from there, it must have legitimacy right?  One problem, it didn't come from there! [another laughing spell].  In fact, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr a teacher from Cornell stated that not only is that statute not on the Cornell website, it doesn't even exist.  [sorry, but more laughter now].

As it turns out, it came from a "legal" interpretation from FAIR, a group opposed to not only illegal, but legal immigration.  They have also been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Hate group or not, the credibility of any "legal" opinion from that group has to be judged within the context of their core ideals, that is, no immigration, legal or not. Of course, while they might wish their interpretation to be correct, that doesn't make it so.  In fact, their interpretation is so wrong that the Sheriff's office is now being sued for implementing the racial profiling justification for their stops.  They might, in their minds, have a good faith basis for a change in the law to justify such stops, but, well, it's obvious the slippery slope that would follow from that line of reasoning.  That is why racial profiling is ILLEGAL.

Thankfully Sheriff Joe gives us another point of hilarity in this story.  Even while acknowledging the non-existence of his "law", through a spokesman, Sheriff Joe still justifies his continued immigration enforcement with "Although the citation and language does not appear in the U.S. code, Title 8 does exist..."  Yes, Sheriff Joe you're right on both counts, however, you're so wrong on what your statement means.  First, yes, your citation and legal opinion on this issue does not exist.  It's like the mythical Phoenix Suns Championship Banner.  There's no such thing. You're right about that.  Second, again, yes, you're right.  Title 8 does exist.  Folks, Title 8 is otherwise known as the Immigration and Nationality Act.  You're right. There are immigration laws that govern this country.

However, nowhere in Title 8 does it justify what you did or what you will continue to do, no matter what FAIR says.  Suddenly, I no longer think this story is so funny....

@dballecer on Twitter.