PHOENIX, ARIZONA (BNO NEWS) – A Yuma, Arizona Marine Major turned himself in to authorities in response to an arrest warrant on charges he illegally deposited thousands of dollars in to bank accounts, prosecutors announced on Monday.
Richard Fuller, 42, was charged with a 22-count indictment mainly related to structuring financial transactions through a domestic financial institution. Fuller is a Marine Major who was deployed to Iraq from February to September 2005. Fuller served as a Project Purchasing Officer for the Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP), and he was assigned to the 5th Civil Affairs Group, Camp Fallujah, Iraq.
Major Fuller tasks were to identify and select reconstruction projects, to award reconstruction projects to Iraqi contractors, to negotiate contract term, and to verify the completion of projects. CERP funds were distributed to the Iraqi contractors in the form of brand new $100 U.S. Currency notes.
After returning from Iraq, Fuller allegedly began making cash deposits using brand new $100 U.S. Currency notes. Fuller made a total of 91 deposits from October 2005 to April 2006. He deposited over $440,000 into bank accounts with Bank of America, Chase Bank and the Navy Federal Credit Union. Fuller also allegedly made multiple deposits under $10,000 into various bank accounts for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements under Federal Law.
The investigation was conducted by the Internal Revenue Service -Criminal Investigations, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction.
Fuller faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for structuring financial transactions. However, the actual sentence will be determined by the judge based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide the appropriate sentencing ranges.
Source
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Arizona's immigration law may survive
Opponents of Arizona's draconian immigration enforcement law are hoping that federal courts will rule the measure unconstitutional, heading off a spate of "copycat" legislation elsewhere.
If only it were so simple.
In fact, a growing number of state immigration laws are being upheld by federal courts – and as improbable as it sounds – Arizona's dangerous new law could survive also.
What makes opponents so confident that laws like Arizona's are unconstitutional? It can all be summed up in a single word: "pre-emption".
That's the legal principle that appears to reserve sole authority for immigration policy to the federal government, and that "pre-empts" state laws that run counter to that authority.
But therein lies the rub.
Many states, including Arizona, aren't claiming to exercise an "inherent" state authority on immigration policy. Instead, they're claiming to be upholding existing federal law. And they're even citing past supreme court precedents – like the famous De Canas decision of 1976 – to suggest that their law-making is expressly permitted by the constitution.
In fact, Arizona passed an immigration enforcement law in 2007 that most legal observers at the time assumed would be overturned – but it wasn't. Despite legal challenges, federal courts twice upheld that law, and it remains on the books today.
What happened in 2008 is instructive. Current employer sanctions law, passed as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, penalises businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants with monetary fines. But many states are dissatisfied with the law, because the fines are nominal and because employers are not really required to verify that a worker is in the country legally.
So Arizona decided to write a law that would penalise Arizona's businesses that hired illegal workers with something far more severe – a suspension of their business licence. It also required that employers use a voluntary federal programme known as "E-Verify" to determine whether prospective workers were in the country legally.
Critics howled that Arizona had no right to pass its own employer sanctions law because the feds had "pre-empted" states from doing so. Moreover, since E-Verify was still in development, and not yet officially the law of the land, Arizona was exceeding its authority to mandate that E-Verify be used in Arizona.
But two federal courts, including the 9th circuit court of appeals, ruled that Arizona did have that right. According to the court, the 1986 IRCA law, while specifically pre-empting state laws that would fine businesses, had not extended that same authority to licensing, since, as the court noted, states, not the federal government, typically have responsibility for this area.
The 9th circuit court also defended Arizona's use of E-Verify, noting that while Congress hadn't mandated its use, "that does not, in and of itself, indicate that Congress intended to prevent states from making participation mandatory". In other words, unless Congress explicitly pre-empted it, Arizona could tailor E-Verify to suit its own needs.
The 9th circuit court precedent is not the only cause for concern. There's also a little-noticed Bush administration legal finding from 2002 that overturns past executive branch policy on the question of a state's "inherent authority" to make immigration policy. The Bush-era finding is not the law of the land, and many legal observers consider it tendentious, and indeed, at odds with the constitution.
Source
If only it were so simple.
In fact, a growing number of state immigration laws are being upheld by federal courts – and as improbable as it sounds – Arizona's dangerous new law could survive also.
What makes opponents so confident that laws like Arizona's are unconstitutional? It can all be summed up in a single word: "pre-emption".
That's the legal principle that appears to reserve sole authority for immigration policy to the federal government, and that "pre-empts" state laws that run counter to that authority.
But therein lies the rub.
Many states, including Arizona, aren't claiming to exercise an "inherent" state authority on immigration policy. Instead, they're claiming to be upholding existing federal law. And they're even citing past supreme court precedents – like the famous De Canas decision of 1976 – to suggest that their law-making is expressly permitted by the constitution.
In fact, Arizona passed an immigration enforcement law in 2007 that most legal observers at the time assumed would be overturned – but it wasn't. Despite legal challenges, federal courts twice upheld that law, and it remains on the books today.
What happened in 2008 is instructive. Current employer sanctions law, passed as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, penalises businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants with monetary fines. But many states are dissatisfied with the law, because the fines are nominal and because employers are not really required to verify that a worker is in the country legally.
So Arizona decided to write a law that would penalise Arizona's businesses that hired illegal workers with something far more severe – a suspension of their business licence. It also required that employers use a voluntary federal programme known as "E-Verify" to determine whether prospective workers were in the country legally.
Critics howled that Arizona had no right to pass its own employer sanctions law because the feds had "pre-empted" states from doing so. Moreover, since E-Verify was still in development, and not yet officially the law of the land, Arizona was exceeding its authority to mandate that E-Verify be used in Arizona.
But two federal courts, including the 9th circuit court of appeals, ruled that Arizona did have that right. According to the court, the 1986 IRCA law, while specifically pre-empting state laws that would fine businesses, had not extended that same authority to licensing, since, as the court noted, states, not the federal government, typically have responsibility for this area.
The 9th circuit court also defended Arizona's use of E-Verify, noting that while Congress hadn't mandated its use, "that does not, in and of itself, indicate that Congress intended to prevent states from making participation mandatory". In other words, unless Congress explicitly pre-empted it, Arizona could tailor E-Verify to suit its own needs.
The 9th circuit court precedent is not the only cause for concern. There's also a little-noticed Bush administration legal finding from 2002 that overturns past executive branch policy on the question of a state's "inherent authority" to make immigration policy. The Bush-era finding is not the law of the land, and many legal observers consider it tendentious, and indeed, at odds with the constitution.
Source
Monday, June 28, 2010
DUI sweep nabs 54 in Southern Arizona
The Southern Arizona DUI Task Force made 54 drunk-driving arrests over the weekend during a two-day deployment targeting local graduation celebrations.
Only two of the citations issued were for felony DUI, but 14 of them were for individuals whose blood-alcohol content was 0.15 or above, according to figures provided by the task force.
The legal limit in Arizona is 0.08.
Six citations were for drunk-drivers under the age of 21 and three arrests involved people with previous DUI charges.
Police also cited 94 people for underage drinking.
A total of 530 people were contacted during the Friday and Saturday deployments, with an additional 459 citations issued for various moving and non-moving violations such as not wearing a seatbelt or not having a child properly restrained.
Source
Only two of the citations issued were for felony DUI, but 14 of them were for individuals whose blood-alcohol content was 0.15 or above, according to figures provided by the task force.
The legal limit in Arizona is 0.08.
Six citations were for drunk-drivers under the age of 21 and three arrests involved people with previous DUI charges.
Police also cited 94 people for underage drinking.
A total of 530 people were contacted during the Friday and Saturday deployments, with an additional 459 citations issued for various moving and non-moving violations such as not wearing a seatbelt or not having a child properly restrained.
Source
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Arizona attorney general lauds Obama's decision to send National Guard
As the White House announced that another 1,200 National Guard troops would be sent to the Southwest border, Arizona's Democratic attorney general hailed the move and said he had been calling on the federal government to help the state respond to violence for years.
Atty. Gen. Terry Goddard, who is running for governor, said President Obama's commitment to send troops and pledge to ask Congress for an extra $500 million indicated the administration recognized that drug and human smuggling were a problem not just for Arizona but for the nation.
“I believe it is an important commitment of national attention to the real problem that we are facing here in Arizona and throughout the Southwest, and that is the violent crime fomented by the criminal drug cartels,” Goddard said at a news conference in downtown Phoenix, flanked by signs that read “Protecting Arizona.”
Goddard said the troops would be “boots on the ground” to help the Border Patrol with communication, coordination and backup. “The Guard is there to allow the Border Patrol to do their job better,” he said.
Goddard added, however, that he would like to see the Guard take more of an active role in stopping border crossers and criminals.
If Congress approves the appropriation, Goddard said, he hoped the money would be spent on improved technology and surveillance systems. “We are losing the technology game,” he said.
Last month, Goddard sent a letter to Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano describing the impact of the cartels on Arizona and saying that “much more must be done to secure our border.”
In the letter, Goddard urged the federal government to strengthen the nation’s laws against illegal entry and to adopt more effective employer sanctions. He also asked for additional Border Patrol agents and more federal help incarcerating illegal immigrants, and said that state and local law enforcement must have sufficient resources to prosecute border-related crimes.
“Because cartel violence knows no boundaries, without a comprehensive plan to shut the cartels down, Arizonans and other Americans along the border will never experience the border security we deserve,” Goddard wrote in the letter, dated April 20.
During Tuesday's news conference, Goddard said he believed that Arizona's new immigration law may have played a role in Obama’s commitment to ask Congress for the appropriation.
“It showed how serious Arizona is taking this issue,” he said.
But Goddard said that enhanced troops and technology would better address border crime than SB 1070, which requires that police check the immigration status of those they stop and suspect to be illegal.
He said the law, signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, tries to “address a serious question with the wrong answer.”
Goddard said he hoped that this was just the beginning in terms of federal commitment to the border.
“I will take what we can get,” he said. “Clearly we have the focus of the administration, the attention of the administration. Half a billion dollars … is not an inconsequential commitment.”
Source
Atty. Gen. Terry Goddard, who is running for governor, said President Obama's commitment to send troops and pledge to ask Congress for an extra $500 million indicated the administration recognized that drug and human smuggling were a problem not just for Arizona but for the nation.
“I believe it is an important commitment of national attention to the real problem that we are facing here in Arizona and throughout the Southwest, and that is the violent crime fomented by the criminal drug cartels,” Goddard said at a news conference in downtown Phoenix, flanked by signs that read “Protecting Arizona.”
Goddard said the troops would be “boots on the ground” to help the Border Patrol with communication, coordination and backup. “The Guard is there to allow the Border Patrol to do their job better,” he said.
Goddard added, however, that he would like to see the Guard take more of an active role in stopping border crossers and criminals.
If Congress approves the appropriation, Goddard said, he hoped the money would be spent on improved technology and surveillance systems. “We are losing the technology game,” he said.
Last month, Goddard sent a letter to Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano describing the impact of the cartels on Arizona and saying that “much more must be done to secure our border.”
In the letter, Goddard urged the federal government to strengthen the nation’s laws against illegal entry and to adopt more effective employer sanctions. He also asked for additional Border Patrol agents and more federal help incarcerating illegal immigrants, and said that state and local law enforcement must have sufficient resources to prosecute border-related crimes.
“Because cartel violence knows no boundaries, without a comprehensive plan to shut the cartels down, Arizonans and other Americans along the border will never experience the border security we deserve,” Goddard wrote in the letter, dated April 20.
During Tuesday's news conference, Goddard said he believed that Arizona's new immigration law may have played a role in Obama’s commitment to ask Congress for the appropriation.
“It showed how serious Arizona is taking this issue,” he said.
But Goddard said that enhanced troops and technology would better address border crime than SB 1070, which requires that police check the immigration status of those they stop and suspect to be illegal.
He said the law, signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, tries to “address a serious question with the wrong answer.”
Goddard said he hoped that this was just the beginning in terms of federal commitment to the border.
“I will take what we can get,” he said. “Clearly we have the focus of the administration, the attention of the administration. Half a billion dollars … is not an inconsequential commitment.”
Source
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Police get grant to fight DUI drivers
Flagstaff police received a $30,000 grant from the Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety to enforce DUI laws.
According to information from the Flagstaff Police Department, the grant is meant to help staff enforcement and educational activities throughout the year. Officers will be devoted to work DUI details during times and days when DUI driving is highest -- holidays, homecoming, prom and graduation weekends. The grant will also help officers make educational presentations in schools and community events.
Between 2006 and 2008, Flagstaff police have made nearly 3,000 DUI arrests. During that period, 3 percent of the non-injury crashes reported in the city were alcohol-related. Year to date between 2008 and 2009, the city has experienced a 40 percent reduction in alcohol-related collisions -- a figure police officials believe correlates directly with pulling impaired drivers off the roads.
Source
According to information from the Flagstaff Police Department, the grant is meant to help staff enforcement and educational activities throughout the year. Officers will be devoted to work DUI details during times and days when DUI driving is highest -- holidays, homecoming, prom and graduation weekends. The grant will also help officers make educational presentations in schools and community events.
Between 2006 and 2008, Flagstaff police have made nearly 3,000 DUI arrests. During that period, 3 percent of the non-injury crashes reported in the city were alcohol-related. Year to date between 2008 and 2009, the city has experienced a 40 percent reduction in alcohol-related collisions -- a figure police officials believe correlates directly with pulling impaired drivers off the roads.
Source
Monday, March 15, 2010
Arizona targets young DUI drivers
Arizona, known for its hard-edge approach to drunken driving, has issued grants to Pima County and Nogales to combat underage drinking and DUI.
Pima County received over $180,000 to focus on placing DUI checkpoints, track down outstanding DUI arrest warrants and operate liquor license sweeps. Nogales received about $70,000 to do the same.
As part of the enforcement, the local police officers will attempt to step up patrols in residential areas where underage drinking often takes place. They will specifically target young drinkers who are returning from Mexico, where 18 is the legal drinking age but IDs are rarely required for patrons even younger than that. Even the US State Department warns the drinking age is not enforced in Mexico uniformly.
The problem of underage drinking across the border affects Arizona, Texas and New Mexico commonly. A further concern today is the escalating danger of a trip to Mexico due to local drug wars that have lead to an increase in crime including homicide.
Police officers along the Southern border of the US are concerned for the safety of young people who venture to border towns, notably Tijuana, Tecate, Mexicali and Juarez to enjoy a night out with friends. Patrols will set checkpoints and engage in more traffic stops along routes popular when returning from these areas.
Source
Pima County received over $180,000 to focus on placing DUI checkpoints, track down outstanding DUI arrest warrants and operate liquor license sweeps. Nogales received about $70,000 to do the same.
As part of the enforcement, the local police officers will attempt to step up patrols in residential areas where underage drinking often takes place. They will specifically target young drinkers who are returning from Mexico, where 18 is the legal drinking age but IDs are rarely required for patrons even younger than that. Even the US State Department warns the drinking age is not enforced in Mexico uniformly.
The problem of underage drinking across the border affects Arizona, Texas and New Mexico commonly. A further concern today is the escalating danger of a trip to Mexico due to local drug wars that have lead to an increase in crime including homicide.
Police officers along the Southern border of the US are concerned for the safety of young people who venture to border towns, notably Tijuana, Tecate, Mexicali and Juarez to enjoy a night out with friends. Patrols will set checkpoints and engage in more traffic stops along routes popular when returning from these areas.
Source
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Proposed law would impound DUI vehicles
Last spring, Washington state and Whatcom County were held liable for damages of more than $5 million in a DUI case. In case you have forgotten I will help you to remember: A woman was arrested for DUI, she was supposed to have an ignition interlock device in her car but did not. Due to overcrowding at the jail she was not booked and due to overturned impound cases at the Whatcom County District Court level her car was not impounded.
So as a possible solution to the problem, the arresting trooper drove her a distance of approximately nine miles to her home and told her to stay there until she sobered up. Being a repeat offender, this individual immediately got a ride back to her car from someone and drove drunk for the second time in one night. This time she hit someone head on and almost killed that person. That person was Hailey French.
There is currently no law in Washington state that requires the impoundment or hold of a vehicle after a DUI arrest. There are jails all over Washington state that are too crowded to book and hold people arrested for DUI's so what some of these people do is go right back to their car and drive it home. That is a threat to public safety.After the judgment last spring, I started working with State Rep. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale. We have written and proposed a bill to Olympia that will help prevent these occurrences from happening. It is House Bill 2565, "Hailey's Law."
The bill simply states that if you are arrested for a DUI then the vehicle you are driving will be impounded. If you are the vehicle owner then the vehicle will be held for 12 hours.
Why a 12-hour hold? Most DUI's occur in the middle of the night therefore making the vehicle available in the middle of the day during normal business hours. In addition, picking up any vehicle during normal business hours saves the vehicle owner money in "after hours" fees.
Why is the hold only for the vehicle owner? Under current state law only the vehicle owner may redeem an impounded vehicle therefore if you don't own the car there is not a threat of you redeeming it.
Why am I so involved? Yes, I am the owner of a towing company in Bellingham, but more importantly I have lived here since I was 6 years old. I went to school in the county and I am involved with many groups locally. My biggest fear as a tow operator is responding to an accident where I know the victim, let alone could have done something to help prevent it.
Must we wait until we know a victim before we work on resolve?
Please support HB 2565 "Hailey's Law' and do your part to keep Whatcom County safe.
Source
So as a possible solution to the problem, the arresting trooper drove her a distance of approximately nine miles to her home and told her to stay there until she sobered up. Being a repeat offender, this individual immediately got a ride back to her car from someone and drove drunk for the second time in one night. This time she hit someone head on and almost killed that person. That person was Hailey French.
There is currently no law in Washington state that requires the impoundment or hold of a vehicle after a DUI arrest. There are jails all over Washington state that are too crowded to book and hold people arrested for DUI's so what some of these people do is go right back to their car and drive it home. That is a threat to public safety.After the judgment last spring, I started working with State Rep. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale. We have written and proposed a bill to Olympia that will help prevent these occurrences from happening. It is House Bill 2565, "Hailey's Law."
The bill simply states that if you are arrested for a DUI then the vehicle you are driving will be impounded. If you are the vehicle owner then the vehicle will be held for 12 hours.
Why a 12-hour hold? Most DUI's occur in the middle of the night therefore making the vehicle available in the middle of the day during normal business hours. In addition, picking up any vehicle during normal business hours saves the vehicle owner money in "after hours" fees.
Why is the hold only for the vehicle owner? Under current state law only the vehicle owner may redeem an impounded vehicle therefore if you don't own the car there is not a threat of you redeeming it.
Why am I so involved? Yes, I am the owner of a towing company in Bellingham, but more importantly I have lived here since I was 6 years old. I went to school in the county and I am involved with many groups locally. My biggest fear as a tow operator is responding to an accident where I know the victim, let alone could have done something to help prevent it.
Must we wait until we know a victim before we work on resolve?
Please support HB 2565 "Hailey's Law' and do your part to keep Whatcom County safe.
Source
Monday, February 15, 2010
Hailey's Law would impound Washington DUI vehicles
A bill proposed to the Washington state legislature would provide for the immediate impounding of a vehicle involved in a DUI arrest.
This is not the first such provision attempted in any state. New Mexico cities use the option at their discretion, and some cities in Arizona do the same. Utah uses a mandatory vehicle impound law called the "Not a Drop" law.
The suggested bill in Washington is named after Hailey French, who suffered life threatening injuries in a DUI accident last year. The situation is unique because French was injured by a driver who had been arrested for DUI just hours before that same evening. The driver was supposed to have an ignition interlock in her car from a previous conviction, but she did not have one.
The driver should have been taken to jail, but, since jails were overcrowded, the trooper instead had to deliver the driver to her home and ask she remain there for the evening. The driver did not follow this order, getting back into her car and eventually hitting French in a second DUI offense that night.
State Rep. Doug Erickson, R-Ferndale, is behind Hailey's Law. This law requires the vehicle of a DUI driver to be impounded for 12 hours, if the driver owns the vehicle. If the vehicle belongs to another owner, the owner may come pick up the car.
This bill aims to prevent a situation where a DUI driver could get back on the road hours after an arrest. Instead, the driver will have to wait until the next day at least to pick up the car. The fee to pick up the car can be high, which may serve as a deterrent to driving under the influence. Further, impound fees in other areas go toward combatting drunk driving through law enforcement funding.
Source
This is not the first such provision attempted in any state. New Mexico cities use the option at their discretion, and some cities in Arizona do the same. Utah uses a mandatory vehicle impound law called the "Not a Drop" law.
The suggested bill in Washington is named after Hailey French, who suffered life threatening injuries in a DUI accident last year. The situation is unique because French was injured by a driver who had been arrested for DUI just hours before that same evening. The driver was supposed to have an ignition interlock in her car from a previous conviction, but she did not have one.
The driver should have been taken to jail, but, since jails were overcrowded, the trooper instead had to deliver the driver to her home and ask she remain there for the evening. The driver did not follow this order, getting back into her car and eventually hitting French in a second DUI offense that night.
State Rep. Doug Erickson, R-Ferndale, is behind Hailey's Law. This law requires the vehicle of a DUI driver to be impounded for 12 hours, if the driver owns the vehicle. If the vehicle belongs to another owner, the owner may come pick up the car.
This bill aims to prevent a situation where a DUI driver could get back on the road hours after an arrest. Instead, the driver will have to wait until the next day at least to pick up the car. The fee to pick up the car can be high, which may serve as a deterrent to driving under the influence. Further, impound fees in other areas go toward combatting drunk driving through law enforcement funding.
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)