The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that Arizona is not trying to punish and control illegal immigration by denying bail to illegal immigrants charged with a serious felony. The 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday that the 2006 voter-approved law known as Proposition 100 is meant to further “the legitimate goal of controlling flight risk,” and does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton granted the defendants summary judgment, and a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed Tuesday in a case that involved Angel Lopez-Valenzuela, who was denied bail for a drug-smuggling charge, and Isaac Castro-Armenta, who was denied bail for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and assisting a criminal syndicate.
The ACLU filed a complaint in 2007, claiming that the state violated their due-process rights set down in the Sixth, Eighth and 14th Amendments to prohibit bail for all suspected illegal immigrants charged with certain felonies.
The justices found that while illegal immigration was discussed in a March 2005 committee meeting about the bill that eventually became Prop. 100, “the record as a whole does not show that Proposition 100 was motivated by an improper punitive purpose.”
Senator Russell Pearce “mentioned flight risk and public safety as the primary reasons behind the Proposition 100 laws three different times” during the meeting, wrote Judge Tallman. “Thus, while it is clear from the record that Arizona lawmakers were concerned with the effects of illegal immigration when they were debating the Proposition 100 laws, a fair reading of the record does not support Plaintiffs-Appellants’ argument that Proposition 100’s primary purpose is to punish and deter immigration offenses,” he wrote.
The ACLU of Arizona is considering seeking en banc review of the ruling.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Raymond Fisher found that Pearce “…promoted the bill on the ground that ‘all illegal aliens in this country ought to be detained, debriefed and deported.'”
Voters approved the November 2, 2006, ballot measure by a margin of 78 percent to 22 percent. Prior to passage of Proposition 100, Article II, Section 22 set forth several exceptions to the general presumption that persons charged with crimes are entitled to bail. These exceptions were for particularly serious offenses such as murder or sexual abuse of children or other indicia of dangerousness.
“To ensure the defendant’s presence throughout his criminal prosecution,” Article II, Section 22 was amended to provide “that no bail maybe set “[f]or serious felony offenses as prescribed by the legislature if the person charged has entered or remained in the United States illegally and if the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge.”
The panel concluded that “…the Arizona Legislature and Arizona voters passed Proposition 100 and its implementing statute and rules to further the state’s legitimate and compelling interest in seeing that those accused of serious state-law crimes are brought to trial.”