ILNews

Salinas: Senate Bill 590 is a step back for Indiana

March 2, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

 

Salinas-Jose Salinas

By Marion Superior Judge Jose Salinas

I believe that members of Indiana’s legal profession have a duty to voice their concerns when laws are proposed that could dramatically affect the civil liberties of individuals living in Indiana. Think about it, what if you could have voiced your opinion when laws imposing poll taxes or prohibitions against interracial marriages were being considered in some state legislatures. Would you have done it?

My opposition to Senate Bill 590 rests primarily on the provision that obligates local police to enforce federal immigration policy. The bill states that during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, if police have probable cause to believe a person is not in the United States lawfully, they must request verification of identity and citizenship or immigration status from the federal government. Note, the bill originally used reasonable suspicion as the standard to be applied.

SB 590 mirrors Arizona’s immigration law, which has been temporarily enjoined by Federal District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton. Judge Bolton cited the federal resources that would be diverted from their primary function and the potential burden the law would place on legally present aliens to routinely produce their documents as two reasons for issuing the injunction. In her decision, Judge Bolton did not address the issue of racial profiling. I will.

This ticking time bomb of legal analysis relies on the interpretation of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. It is unclear which legal standard the final version of the bill will use. However, the question remains, how do police get to the level of having reasonable suspicion/probable cause within the context of SB 590? Police, using their training, must rely on observations they make in any given situation in order to formulate reasonable suspicion/probable cause of criminal activity and proceed to the next level of action. These observations normally consist of physical actions on the part of the people they deal with.

In my view, SB 590 would allow police to articulate reasonable suspicion/probable cause from observations of a person’s attributes as opposed to conduct. This would give police the right to take into account someone’s skin color, accent, last name and ability to speak English in evaluating whether they believe someone is undocumented and whether the individual’s legal status needs to be verified. The subjective nature of evaluating someone’s attributes lends itself to human error. SB 590 would take Indiana back to the days when all police used for reasonable suspicion or probable cause was the color of a person’s skin.

For those who say such a prediction is unrealistic in today’s judicial system, remember what police will use in considering whether a person’s legal status needs to be verified. Police observations will consist of a person’s actions and attributes. I submit to you that a person’s actions would be inconclusive in determining citizenship. My fear is that how a person looks or talks will be the way that police get to the questions of “where are you from?” and “are you here legally?” The bill’s author, state Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, said he believes how a person speaks English will be an important factor for police in implementing this law.

Originally, SB 590 had reasonable suspicion as the level of constitutionality required for police to inquire as to an individual’s legal status, but that was changed in committee to the higher standard of probable cause. I am convinced that the legal standard was changed because committee members realized the problematic nature of the task they are asking of police. Under either standard, police will be using the same observational criteria to establish justification for their actions. In today’s courts, a person’s skin color, accent, or ability to speak a certain language should not be enough to establish the constitutional requisites needed to make an inquiry into a person’s legal status.

I ask you to consider the following: Who is an officer more likely to suspect as an illegal immigrant and thus required to prove he is in the U.S. legally, John Smith or Jose Salinas? Delph would like you to believe that all Hoosiers will be treated the same under this law. Unfortunately, history has shown us that the reality could be far more ominous. I am not saying that police should be blind to the immigration issue. But Hoosiers need to be careful in blindly giving police this type of unfettered discretion with our individual freedoms.

To me, being a member of the Indiana bar means voicing your opinions on bills that attack the very fabric of our U.S. and state constitutions. I invite you to do the same.•

__________

The Hon. Jose Salinas serves Marion Superior Court’s Criminal Division 14. Opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • double standard
    The comparison between John Smith and Jose Salinas is inapposite. The absolute number of illegal immigrants with English names versus Hispanic names is not knowable, but, we do know that there are millions more illegal immigrants here from Mexico and Latin America than there are from Great Britian. That is a factual reality and His Honor ignores it just as the rest of the illegal immigration apologists do. Nevertheless, it is a well written editorial and I have seen plenty worse, such as the NPR buffoon calling all Tea-Partiers and Republicans uneducated racists.

    Which reminds me. It was not so long ago that Mexico did not even allow ownership of land by foreigners. And I recall hearing more than once about human rights abuses by the Mexican federales on their southern border with Guatemala that shock the conscience and make American detention look pleasant and humane by comparison. I find it obnoxious that Mexican presidents come to this country and lecture Americans when their own record with Guatemalans is woefully bad.

    In short, there is a double standard that some people want to impose on Americans where immigration is concerned.

    PS how about all that democracy we are supposedly fighting for in Iraq and Afganistan? I wonder what they would think of the idea of the judiciary telling the legislature that the legislature cant pass immigration control laws. Some democracy!
  • I agree
    Well written and thoughtful. This commentary by Judge Salinas is right on point. SB 590 is bad policy. A person should be stopped, detained, and questioned based on his/her affirmative acts that reasonably may cause suspicion that a crime has been committed or is being committed. Not based on skin color, dialect, accent or last name.
    In this instance, too much subjective discretion leaves too much room for error and miscalculation.
    Good work Judge.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT