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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT