DPS director discusses impacts of SB 1070 decision

by JJ Hensley on Jul. 02, 2012, under Arizona Republic News

Seven law-enforcement agencies in Arizona operated under agreements with the federal government that gave specially trained officers the authority to act as immigration agents. President Barack Obama’s administration rescinded those agreements on June 25, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a key piece of Arizona’s immigration-enforcement law could take effect. Agreements that extended that authority to jails and prisons in the state remain in place.

Though pundits and politicians have decried the decision, the Arizona Department of Public Safety is the only agency to have used that authority — known as the 287(g) program — to detain immigrants since 2010. DPS Director Robert Halliday said the decision could have an impact on his agency, but many of the larger ramifications of the Senate Bill 1070 ruling are still unknown.

The Arizona Republic asked Halliday about how his department will respond to the ruling and the loss of immigration authority.

Question: What’s the latest you’ve heard from legal advisers?

Answer: We’re finding out we’ve got kind of a moratorium on doing anything until at least July 20, and who knows what will happen between now and then. Everybody now is engaged in, “What do we do?” Our agency is going to continue to do what we’ve always done. We’re not on hold; we’re just not implementing anything new with our agency at this point.

Q: When you do implement something, what kind of impact will it have?

A: I don’t know. We’re different than a municipality because we’ve got people spread out all over the state. When you have something that occurs an hour from nowhere, and to take those people and require them to go to a telephone or someplace where they can get an immigration confirmation, we’re talking about vacating that area for a period of time — and essentially having no enforcement out there. And if you have somebody in an accident or otherwise, I’m not willing to accept that responsibility

Q: Does that mean it may be harder for officers in rural areas to find it practicable to inquire about immigration status?

A: “Practicable” takes on a different meaning for us than maybe it would a municipality. We want to make sure that our people understand that we have a responsibility to provide service to the people and traverse the highways of this state. I don’t want them to do anything different, and I don’t want them to back away from something because of their fear of not understanding what’s going on right now. I want them to make sure that our service levels are maintained throughout the state and we do the same things we always have.

Q: How do you overcome any motivation officers in rural areas might have to avoid developing reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally?

A: Training. Our officers have to have confidence in the direction that they’re going, and that comes through training. One thing you’re hearing a lot of right now is racial profiling. One of the things we’ve done here is reiterate our racial-profiling policy that’s been in place for years now. We’re not going to detain people for hours waiting for a return call from ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) or Border Patrol. I can’t tie somebody up. Even in the metro Phoenix freeways, can I really tie somebody up when there are accidents?

Q: Is it harder for the DPS to take a one-size-fits-all approach?

A: There’s an expectation for the Arizona Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol to react differently in the Phoenix metropolitan area than in it would in rural Arizona. We’ve got places in Arizona where our patrol cars and the radios they’re equipped with can’t even get out to a dispatcher until they get out of the dead zone they’re in. It’s not like a municipality, where you can have roll call at the beginning of shifts. In this agency, it’s a lot more difficult to do that. We’ve got people in certain parts of the state who sometimes don’t see their supervisor for a week.

Q: What did you think when you heard your 287(g) authority was being removed?

A: I thought that it would be problematic for us. It just makes things a little more difficult to try to find out if somebody is here illegally. I’ve heard, and it’s been rumored, that ICE isn’t going to answer their phones. But I will say this: Matt Allen is the ICE special agent in charge here. He is a fantastic guy; we have a great relationship. He will try to help us through this in any way we can. But he has a boss — we all do — and he has to do what’s mandated by his boss.

Q: Will this damage your relationship with ICE?

A: I don’t think so. If there’s ways Matt Allen can help us through this, he will help us do it, and if not, he’ll tell us that. I was very candid with them when this thing happened. He said, “It is what it is,” and there’s nothing he can really do about it. I don’t think it will hurt our relationship at all. We’ve just got to figure out how to get through this thing.

Q: That makes this sound temporary, not permanent.

A: With something this new, my experience tells me this is going to take on a lot of different lives in the next two to three months or even years. What we try to do is figure out exactly what’s expected of us and live within that. The political impact, that concerns my chair — but the people out on the road, that shouldn’t impact them at all.

Q: Have your officers contacted ICE since the Supreme Court decision was released?

A: If there had been a call, I think I would have heard about it. Right now, especially from IIMPACT (an illegal-immigration enforcement unit), and something happened and they said we can’t get ICE out, I’m sure I would have heard about that. There are places in Arizona (where) to ask an ICE person to even come to that location is just difficult to do when you’ve got two to three hours of travel time to get there, and you’ve got the concern people have of being detained too long. Sometimes, I understand that ICE can’t get out in the middle of nowhere. But this is not that. What we’re hearing is there’s not going to be any response. We have not seen that yet.

Q: You mentioned bosses. How big an influence has your boss, Gov. Jan Brewer, had?

A: None. I’ve been asked to brief the governor and the governor’s staff on what our agency’s doing and what our plans are. She hasn’t made any inference that she wants it one way or the other, she doesn’t do that. She’s concerned about this, obviously, but as far as her telling me how to do this, I think she understands that it’s very complex. She just wants to know, “What are you doing? How are you managing things? What do you anticipate?” But as far as mandating what we do, that has not happened.

DPS director discusses impacts of SB 1070 decision - News from The Arizona Republic