By Mark Napier
This past week Sheriff Dupnik was on KGUN 9 news discussing SB1070. He once again blasted the law. This despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court upheld the provision he objects to and it survived yet another court review this past week. He states that this is a very dangerous law. In my 28 years of experience as a law enforcement officer, I never encountered danger from a law. I found criminals to constitute the danger to me and my fellow officers. He went on to say, “Police officers are taught to profile behavior, not people, and this kind of law forces us to profile people.”
A law deemed Constitutional by the highest Court in the land does not in any way force his officers engage in illegal and out of policy behavior; racial profiling. In fact, SB1070 and the training provided by AZ POST specifically prohibit racial profiling. Then he states, “They’ve made life a little difficult for us. It puts an officer in an impossible situation.” I am missing something here.
How can following a law reviewed by the Supreme Court and deemed Constitutional put an officer in an impossible situation? When will Pima County have enough of the political rhetoric, which is simple pandering to a single political constituency? Should not we reasonably expect our Sheriff to follow the law and to exercise leadership over his personnel to ensure that the Rights of all our citizens are protected?
Let’s be clear, this is not a “Show me your papers” law. A law enforcement officer must have a lawful reason to make contact with a person. A lawful reason is NOT the color of someone’s skin or his/her ethnicity. Then a law enforcement officer must have Reasonable Suspicion that the person is in this country illegally. Again, the test for Reasonable Suspicion would not be satisfied simply by the color of one’s skin, their native language or ethnicity.
Reasonable Suspicion is defined as: “Reasonable suspicion” is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’ of criminal activity.” (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 27 [20 L.Ed.2nd 889, 909].
We might expect our Sheriff to know that. If after a lawful stop and after satisfying the test of Reasonable Suspicion the officer believes the person is in this country illegally, and if it is practical to do so, the law enforcement officer shall inquire about citizenship. How is this onerous, dangerous or forcing an officer to engage in racial profiling?
We need a Sheriff who will simply enforce the law and demonstrate visible leadership in his agency to ensure that his officers are following the law. Much of the controversy surrounding this law is resulting from political rhetoric generated by our own Sheriff. Law enforcement officers have always risked civil litigation if they behaved in a manner contrary to the law or in discord with the Rights of our citizens. This is nothing new. What is unfortunately new is the fact that a law enforcement leader would become a political pundit ridiculing a law deemed by our Supreme Court as being Constitutional.
I would be happy to debate this issue with Sheriff Dupnik, but he has currently not made himself available. This is despite numerous attempts to secure a date. The public deserves to hear this and other issues discussed by the two men aspiring to be the top law enforcement official in our County. As your Sheriff, I will enforce the law and ensure that the department does so in a manner that protects the Rights of all citizens. This is what a Sheriff takes an oath to do.