Special Order 40 - Riordan Lies

Riordan Lied About Special Order 40

During the 1993 campaign for Mayor of Los Angeles. Glenn Spencer, president of Voice of Citizens Together., asked candidate Richard Riordan the following question:

"California Attorney General Dan Lungren has determined that Special Order 40 is unconstitutional. Do you believe that it should be rescinded?"

Riordan's answer: YES

(The question was asked at Riordan's campaign headquarters in Sherman Oaks. It was witnessed by Allan Bockal, Susu Levy's husband who signed a statement so testifying.).

Since then Riordan refused to respond to our requests that he take action to see that Special Order 40 was rescinded.

Glenn Spencer
Voice of Citizens Together
ALSO SEE THIS UNPUBLISHED LETTER TO THE L.A. TIMES FROM GLENN SPENCER (2/29/2000)

Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor
February 29, 2000

Re: Police Cooperation with INS

When Gray Davis killed Proposition 187 he killed a provision (Section 4) which would have required police to enforce our immigration laws. U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, the same judge who found Proposition 187 unconstitutional, ruled in a separate case that local police cannot enforce immigration laws. She was overturned by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals - a ruling that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court ("Vasquez") last year.

The people of the state of the California voted overwhelmingly to use their local police to enforce our immigration laws and the United States Supreme Court has approved.

The real crime here is not that the police worked with the INS to deport illegal aliens, it is that the power elite who run California have chosen deceit over the rule of law.

Glenn Spencer
Voice of Citizens Together

NOW LOOK AT PROPOSITION 187

PROPOSITION 187

SECTION 4. Law Enforcement Cooperation with INS. Section 834b is added to the Penal Code, to read:

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is
arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law
enforcement agency shall do the following

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the country illegally that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the W. District of Oklahoma (D.C. No.
98-CR-45-R) #

June E. Tyhurst, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant.

Sean Connelly, U.S. Department of Justice, Denver, Colorado, (Patrick M. Ryan, United States Attorney, W. District of Oklahoma, and Mark A. Yancey, Assistant United States Attorney, W. District of Oklahoma, with him on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee. #

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. MURPHY, Circuit Judge

INTRODUCTION

Ontoniel Vasquez-Alvarez ("Vasquez") was arrested by an Edmond, Oklahoma, police officer. The arrest was based solely on the fact that Vasquez was an illegal alien. After Vasquez's arrest, an agent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") discovered that Vasquez had a felony record and had previously been deported. Shortly thereafter, a federal grand jury handed down a one-count indictment charging Vasquez with illegally reentering the United States after a deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

In response to the indictment, Vasquez filed a motion to suppress his post-arrest statements, fingerprints, and identity. Vasquez claimed that 8 U.S.C. § 1252c limits the authority of state and local police officers, allowing such an officer to arrest an illegal alien only when the INS has confirmed, before the arrest, that the alien has previously been convicted of a felony and has, since that conviction, been deported or left the United States. Although the district court concluded that

Vasquez's arrest "appeared" not to comport with § 1252c, it denied Vasquez's suppression motion. According to the district court, suppression was not the appropriate remedy for a violation of § 1252c. Vasquez entered a conditional guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e), preserving his right to appeal the suppression issue. On appeal, Vasquez argues as follows: (1) his arrest did not comport with § 1252c; (2) § 1252c sets forth the only circumstances under which a state or local law enforcement official can arrest for violations of federal immigration laws; and (3) suppression is the appropriate remedy for violations of §1252c.

This court agrees that § 1252c did not authorize Vasquez's arrest. Nevertheless, we further conclude that § 1252c does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, § 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law. This conclusion moots the remaining issues raised by Vasquez on appeal. Accordingly, this court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the district court's denial of Vasquez's motion to suppress.