Do these shackles make me look guilty?
Sheriffs, Sen. Flake weigh in on Supreme Court case
Law-enforcement leaders in Arizona joined Sen. Jeff Flake in urging the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s restrictions on the use of physical restraints — such as shackles — on defendants appearing before a judge.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this year that the use of shackles in court violated detainees’ right to a presumption of innocence before their cases are decided. That ruling allowed restraints on an individual basis.
The case United States vs. Sanchez-Gomez originated in San Diego, but the circuit court’s decision also applies in Arizona and the other western states in the 9th Circuit.
That ruling, however, has been contradicted by two other appeals courts, setting up a Supreme Court showdown.
As a result, Arizona’s 15 sheriffs and Flake filed on Thursday an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit ruling, arguing that it infringes on long-standing courtroom practices. They were joined by the National Sheriffs Association for the Western States Sheriffs Association.
They argue that compliance with the ruling creates bureaucratic hurdles and unsafe situations for law enforcement, and presents particular challenges to border enforcement in southern Arizona. They cite instances of Arizona detainees charging at judges or assaulting deputies, or the potential for that to happen because detainees were not restrained.
“With this ruling it pretty much removes shackles from people taken to court,” Cochise County Sheriff Mark
Dannels said. “But there’s a reason they were arrested ... for an offense or law violation.”
Dannels heads the Arizona Sheriffs Association, which represents all 15 sheriffs in the state. Working with Flake, the group decided last week to publicly oppose the 9th Circuit’s ruling, he said.
“This ruling affects ... officers’ safety, our courtroom safety, and last but not least community safety,” Dannels said. “We wanted to nip this in the bud, and jump on this early and take a stance that, ‘Hey, this is a bad ruling.’ “
The brief notes Arizona has the third-busiest criminal docket in the country. So far this fiscal year, U.S. Marshals in the state, which handles transportation of detainees to federal courts, have transported some 80,000 detainees, and are “stretched to the bone,” according to the brief.
Compliance with the ruling means that “the Marshals’ time is spent on layer upon layer of administrative functions and not on assessing and avoiding actual security concerns,” the document states. “Their personnel and resources are stretched thin, and their safety is at greater risk.”
The U.S. Marshals, which is not a party to the brief, said in an emailed statement that they don’t comment on pending litigation.
In addition to challenges for the local and federal law-enforcement agencies, the sheriffs also argue it could negatively impact enforcement along Arizona’s border with Mexico. It says it specifically threatens Operation Streamline, which allows the government to criminally prosecute first-time bordercrossers and have large numbers of them appear before a judge at the same time.
Proponents claim this saves time and money in the notoriously backlogged immigration court system. Critics argue it denies due process to migrants unfamiliar with their rights.
Flake, who backs the program, called the circuit ruling “monumentally dangerous,” and expressed concern compliance would effectively put an end to Operation Streamline.
“With the huge docket — particularly with immigration cases that Arizona has — we simply can’t carry out justice with this ruling,” he said.
It’s the difference between being able to arraign 40 migrant defendants at a time or, “when you are complying with the court mandates in terms of individualized findings for restraint, you can only do six or seven at a time,” Flake said.
Proponents credit the program with a decisive decrease in illegal border crossings in the Yuma area since it went into effect in 2005. It’s still in use in certain areas along the U.S.-Mexico border, including Tucson. Under the current administration, which also holds very favorable views of the program, it could expand into other parts of the country.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security operates the program in conjunction with the Department of Justice.
Both federal agencies declined to comment. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency within DHS, also declined to comment.
Customs and Border Protection, another agency within DHS, said in a statement: “We are continuing to criminally prosecute undocumented immigrants for illegal entry and the 9th Circuit U.S. v. Sanchez-Gomez ruling does not affect how we conduct our operations in the field and our prosecutorial processes.”