Puente - Arizona - v. - Arpai Second Amended Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 5-1-15

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 179 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Anne Lai (admitted pro hac vice)

alai@law.uci.edu
Sameer Ashar (admitted pro hac vice)
sashar@law.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine School
of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic
401 E. Peltason Dr., Ste. 3500
Irvine, CA 92616-5479
Telephone: (949) 824-9894
Facsimile: (949) 824-2747
Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979)
dpochoda@acluaz.org
Joshua D. Bendor (SBA No. 031908)
jbendor@acluaz.org
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Jessica Karp Bansal (admitted pro hac

vice)
jbansal@ndlon.org
National Day Laborer Organizing
Network
675 S. Park View Street, Suite B
Los Angeles, California 90057
Telephone: (213) 380-2214
Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado

(SBA No. 027076)
rybarra@stanfordalumni.org
Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra
Maldonado, PLC
2637 North 16th Street, Unit 1
Phoenix, AZ 85006
Telephone: (602) 910-4040
Jessica Myers Vosburgh (admitted pro

hac vice)
jvosburgh@ndlon.org
Network
2104 Chapel Road
Hoover, AL 35216
Telephone: (205) 317-1481
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17
18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
19
20
Puente Arizona, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:14-cv-01356-DGC

LODGED:
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

alai@law.uci.edu
sashar@law.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine School
of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic
Irvine, CA 92616-5479
Telephone: (949) 824-9894
Facsimile: (949) 824-2747
Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979)
dpochoda@acluaz.org
Joshua D. Bendor (SBA No. 031908)
jbendor@acluaz.org
3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Jessica Karp Bansal (admitted pro hac

vice)
jbansal@ndlon.org
Network
675 S. Park View St., Ste. B
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Telephone: (213) 380-2214

(SBA No. 027076)
rybarra@stanfordalumni.org
Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra
Maldonado, PLC
2637 North 16th St., Unit 1
Phoenix, AZ 85006
Telephone: (602) 910-4040
Jessica Myers Vosburgh (admitted pro

hac vice)
jvosburgh@ndlon.org
Network
2104 Chapel Hill Road
Hoover, AL 35216
Telephone: (205) 317-1481

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Puente Arizona, Susan E. FrederickGray, Russell Andrew Burnette and Erin

Tamayo, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; Sara Cervantes
Arreola; and Elia Estrada Fernandez,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa
County, Arizona, in his official capacity;
Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County
Attorney, in his official capacity;
Maricopa County, Arizona; and the State
of Arizona,
Defendants.
No. 2:14-cv-01356-DGC
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
CLASS ACTION
INTRODUCTION
1
1.
This action challenges two state laws, Arizona House Bill 2779 (H.B.
2779), passed in 2007, and Arizona House Bill 2745 (H.B. 2745), passed in 2008,
which sought, in relevant part, to criminally punish individuals who do not have federal
authorization to work in the United States for the act of securing employment. Both
measures were promulgated as part of a broader platform favored by Arizona nativists to
make life so difficult for immigrants coming from Mexico and Latin America that they
would self-deport.
2.
Arizona entered uncharted territory as a state when it revised its identity
10
theft laws to achieve this aim. Specifically, H.B. 2779, also called the Legal Arizona
11
Workers Act, created a new offense of aggravated identity theft to use the information
12
of another person, including a real or fictitious person, with the intent to obtain
13
employment. A.R.S. 13-2009(A)(3). H.B. 2745 supplemented the Legal Arizona
14
Workers Act by defining the offense of identity theft to include use of anothers
15
information, real or fictitious, with the intent to obtain or continue employment. 13-
16
2008(A).
17
3.
The action also challenges the Maricopa County Sheriffs Offices (the
18
MCSOs) and the Maricopa County Attorneys Offices (the MCAOs) effort,
19
funded by Maricopa County, to use the above-described provisions in A.R.S. 13-
20
2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) (collectively referred to as the worker identity
21
provisions), together with Arizonas forgery statute, 13-2002, to carry out a campaign
22
to target undocumented immigrants in the workplace for arrest and prosecution.1

4.
23
The effect of these measures has been to turn individuals such as Plaintiff
24
Sara Cervantes Arreolawho worked for years at a grocery store on Phoenixs west
25
side to support her young soninto convicted felons. Ms. Cervantes Arreola was
26
27
28
Plaintiffs use the terms undocumented immigrant and undocumented worker in this
Complaint to refer to individuals who do not have federal authorization to work in the
United States. The only exception is that where materials quoted by Plaintiffs use a
different termsuch as illegal immigrants, illegal aliens, aliens and illegals
then Plaintiffs will use that terminology for purposes of faithfully reproducing the quote.
2
arrested at work in January 2013 for using identifying information of a fictitious person,
something she needed to do in order to get the job.
5.
MCSOs and MCAOs enforcement campaign has separated breadwinners
from their families, suppressed workers rights, eroded the social fabric of the
community, and ultimately harmed many U.S. citizens as well as immigrants. Taxpayer
funds have been improperly diverted from essential public services to jail and prosecute
workers. And organizations such as Plaintiff Puente Arizona have had to respond to the
fallout of enforcement operations by providing humanitarian and advocacy assistance to
affected families.
10
6.
Defendants effort to single out employment by undocumented workers
11
intrudes upon an area of exclusive federal control. It interferes and conflicts with federal
12
laws established by Congress and implemented by the executive branch regulating
13
immigration and employment, and thus violate the Supremacy Clause. The worker
14
identity provisions also discriminate on the basis of alienage in violation of the
15
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
16
7.
Plaintiffs bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to
17
prevent further unconstitutional arrests and prosecutions and an expungement of records
18
for the two Plaintiffs who have been improperly convicted.
19
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20
21
8.
This action arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the laws and Constitution of
22
the United States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331
23
and 1343. The Court has authority to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201
24
and 2202.
25
9.
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). All Defendants are sued in
26
their official capacity and their official places of business are located within this District.
27
A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this
28
District.
3
1
PARTIES
2
3
Plaintiffs
10.
Plaintiff Puente Arizona (Puente) is a grassroots membership
organization based in Phoenix. Its mission is to promote justice, human dignity, non-
violence and interdependence. It aims to develop, educate, and empower immigrant
communities, and to enhance the quality of life of immigrants. Puente provides free
English classes, media trainings, know-your-rights workshops, health and wellness
training, educational programs for children, and other services to the community. The
10
arrests and prosecutions of workers under A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-
11
2009(A)(3) have frustrated Puentes mission by creating a climate of fear and separating
12
parents, community leaders, and students from those who depend on them. Puente has
13
been forced to cut back on its services and divert scarce resources in order to assist
14
affected workers and their families. In addition, some members of Puente are currently
15
at risk of being investigated, arrested, detained and/or prosecuted under the worker
16
identity provisions and forgery statute.
17
11.
Plaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola is a resident of Glendale, Arizona and
18
mother of a 6-year-old son and a 5-month old baby. From 2007 to 2013, Ms. Cervantes
19
worked up to 14 hours a day, five days a week in the produce department at Lams
20
Supermarket to provide for her family. On January 17, 2013, she was arrested at work
21
by the MSCO during a workplace raid for using the identity of a fictitious person to
22
obtain employment. On March 18, 2013, she pled guilty to aggravated identity theft, a
23
Class 3 felony, under A.R.S. 13-2009.
24
12.
Plaintiff Elia Estrada Fernandez is a resident of Mesa, Arizona and the
25
mother of three young children. From 2013 to 2014, Ms. Estrada worked at Arbys in
26
Chandler Arizona to provide for her family. On September 22, 2014, she was arrested by
27
the Gilbert Police Department and charged with using a false identity to work. On
28
4
October 28, 2014, she pled guilty to one count of aggravated taking the identity of
another with intent to obtain employment under A.R.S. 13-2009, a Class 3 felony.
13.
Plaintiff Reverend Susan E. Frederick-Gray is the Lead Minister of the
Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Phoenix, Arizona. She works in, resides in,
owns property in and pays taxes to Defendant Maricopa County. Upon information and
belief, Maricopa County has been using taxes paid by Plaintiff Frederick-Gray to
enforce A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented
workers. Plaintiff Frederick-Gray is challenging the enforcement of these statutes as an
illegal expenditure of county taxpayer funds.
10
14.
Plaintiff Reverend Russell Andrew Burnette is the Senior Minister at
11
Valley Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Chandler, Arizona. He works in, resides
12
in, owns property in and pays taxes to Defendant Maricopa County. Upon information
13
and belief, Maricopa County has been using taxes paid by Plaintiff Burnette to enforce
14
A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers.
15
Plaintiff Burnette is challenging the enforcement of these statutes as an illegal
16
expenditure of county taxpayer funds.
17
15.
Plaintiff Reverend Erin Tamayo is a pastor of the Presbyterian Church
18
USA. She works in, resides in, owns property in and pays taxes to Defendant Maricopa
19
County. Upon information and belief, Maricopa County has been using taxes paid by
20
Reverend Tamayo to enforce A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) against
21
undocumented workers. Reverend Tamayo is challenging the enforcement of these
22
statutes as an illegal expenditure of county taxpayer funds.
23
Defendants
24
16.
Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (Arpaio) is the elected Sheriff of Maricopa
25
County, Arizona. He is the final policymaker for Maricopa County in the area of law
26
enforcement, and is responsible for setting the policies, practices and customs of the
27
MCSO, including those pertaining to the agencys enforcement of A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-
28
2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3). Defendant Arpaio is sued in his official capacity.

5
17.
Defendant Bill Montgomery (Montgomery) is the elected County
Attorney for Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendant Montgomery is the chief official
responsible for the enforcement and prosecution of felonies within Maricopa County,
including A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3), as well as misdemeanors
that occur in unincorporated areas. Defendant Montgomery is the final policymaker for
Maricopa County on matters of prosecution. He is sued in his official capacity.
18.
Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona, is a political subdivision formed and
designated as such pursuant to Title 11 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Maricopa County
is liable for the practices and policies of Defendants Arpaio. The County has also
10
acquiesced in and, through local tax revenues, financed the enforcement of A.R.S. 13-
11
2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) by MCSO and MCAO as described in this
12
Complaint.
13
19.
Defendant State of Arizona is a state in the United States. It includes the
14
Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), which is responsible for collecting,
15
storing and disseminating criminal history records and related criminal justice
16
information for the state of Arizona.
17
18
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
19
Exclusive Federal Control over Immigration and Employment Verification
20
20.
More than 20 years before Arizona sought to regulate the employment of
21
undocumented immigrants through H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, Congress enacted the
22
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub. L. 99-603, a
23
comprehensive framework for combatting the employment of illegal aliens. Arizona v.
24
United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2504 (2012) (internal quotation omitted).
25
21.
IRCA added to an already extensive system of federal laws addressing the
26
entry, expulsion and treatment of immigrants in the Immigration and Nationality Act
27
(INA). See 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.
28
6
22.
The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive, plenary power
over immigration matters, stating that the federal government may establish a uniform
Rule of Naturalization, U.S. Const. art. 1, 8, cl. 4, and regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, U.S. Const. art. I, 8, cl. 3.
5
6
7
23.
Congresss comprehensive system of federal laws governing immigration
generally leaves no room for supplemental or parallel state laws.

24.
In passing IRCA, Congress balanced numerous factors in settling on a
scheme for the regulation of immigration and employment that imposed a graduated
series of civil and criminal sanctions on employers for the knowing employment of
10
undocumented workers. Congress located this new scheme in the immigration statutes.
11
See 8 U.S.C. 1324a et seq.
12
25.
The comprehensive framework created by Congress does not impose
13
criminal sanctions on the employee side for unauthorized work. Proposals to make
14
seeking or engaging in unauthorized work a criminal offense were introduced and
15
debated. However, Congress decided not to adopt them.
16
26.
As the Supreme Court recently recognized, IRCA's framework reflects a
17
considered judgment that making criminals out of aliens engaged in unauthorized
18
workaliens who already face the possibility of employer exploitation because of their
19
removable statuswould be inconsistent with federal policy and objectives. Arizona,
20
132 S. Ct. 2492 at 2504.
21
27.
Committee reports accompanying IRCA confirmed Congresss view that
22
undocumented workers should not be treated as severely as the employers that hire
23
them. They recognized that there are severe economic push factors that lead aliens to
24
enter the country illegally and that many who enter illegally do so for the best of
25
motivesto seek a better life for themselves and their families. H.R. Rep. 99-682, part
26
1, at 46, 63; see also S. Rep. No. 99-132, at 3.
27
28
28.
Further, in IRCA, Congress established a detailed procedure by which
employers would have to verify prospective employees eligibility for employment. 8

7
U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1)(B). This procedure involves the inspection of certain documents to
confirm identity and employment eligibility and completion of a Form I-9, Employment
Eligibility Verification Form. Id.; see also 8 C.F.R. 274a.2.
29.
Anticipating that some might respond to the new verification system by
relying on false documents or making false statements, Congress also endowed federal
authorities with certain tools to combat document fraud.
30.
Section 103 of IRCA amended 18 U.S.C. 1546 pertaining to Fraud and
misuse of visas, permits, and other documents to impose a criminal penalty for the use
of a false identification document or making of a false attestation for purposes of
10
satisfying the employment verification requirement. 18 U.S.C. 1546(b). Section 103
11
also expanded the prohibition on selling, making or using fraudulent immigration
12
documents to include those documents used as evidence of authorized . . . employment
13
in the United States. 18 U.S.C. 1546(a).
14
31.
In addition to 18 U.S.C. 1546, Congress specifically designated several
15
existing federal criminal statutes that could be applied to fraud in the employment
16
verification process. See 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(5) (listing applicable statutes, consisting of
17
Title 18, Sections 1001 [false statements], 1028 [fraud in connection with identity
18
documents], 1546 and 1621 [perjury]).
19
32.
Congress has also created certain civil penalties for document fraud. 8
20
U.S.C. 1324c allows an administrative law judge to impose a fine, after a hearing, of
21
$250-$2,000 on any person or entity who knowingly forge[s], use[s] or attempt[s]
22
to use a document not belonging to the possessor to satisfy the requirements of the
23
INA, including for purposes of obtaining employment. 8 U.S.C. 1324c(a)(1)-(4),
24
1324c(d).
25
33.
Finally, immigration consequences can attach to document fraud in the
26
employment verification process. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(C)(i) (making an
27
alien who is the subject of a final order for violation of section 1324c of this title []
28
deportable); 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C) (making those who make false claims to

8
citizenship, including for purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1324a, inadmissible and thus ineligible
for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident). Conversely, federal
authorities may decide to forego sanctions, for example, in cases where a worker is the
victim of labor trafficking, other labor violations or could otherwise be helpful to a law
enforcement investigation. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T), 1101(a)(15)(U).
34.
Congress made a point to circumscribe punishment of fraud in the
employment verification process to enforcement of the immigration statutes and the
several criminal statutes listed in 8 U.S.C. 1324a. See 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(5)
(limiting use of the [Form I-9] attestation form . . . and any information contained in or
10
appended to such forms to enforcement of this chapter and sections 1001, 1028, 1546,
11
and 1621 of Title 18) and 1324a(d)(2)(F) (requiring that any changes to the
12
employment verification system continue to meet the requirement that it not be used for
13
law enforcement purposes, other than for enforcement of this chapter or sections 1001,
14
1028, 1546, and 1621 of Title 18). The limitation on the use of the attestation form
15
extends to copies or electronic images of documents . . . used to verify an individuals
16
identity or employment eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 274a.2(b)(4).
17
35.
Congress also included other language reinforcing the limitations on the
18
use of the employment verification system. It included sections titled Limited use of
19
system, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(d)(2)(C), Restrictions on use of new documents, 8 U.S.C.
20
1324a(d)(2)(G), and limited the Copying of documentation permitted. 8 U.S.C.
21
1324a(b)(4).
22
36.
In sum, in establishing the new employer sanctions regime in IRCA,
23
Congress made clear that the verification process created by the legislation and the
24
information employees submit to show their work status was to be used to enforce
25
federal law and not for any other purpose. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. 2492 at 2504.
26
37.
The federal governments creation of a pervasive, complex array of civil,
27
criminal and immigration tools to address fraud in the employment verification process
28
further manifests its purpose to preclude any state or local regulation on the same
9
subject. Congress has expressed much more than a peripheral concern with the issue,
De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 360 (1976); indeed, it has fully occupied the field.
Arizona Legislature Adopts Anti-Immigrant Agenda, Amends Identity Theft Laws
38.
Beginning in 2004, citizen groups in Arizona began to converge around a
platform of protecting against the perceived threats posed by the states immigrant
population.
39.
These nativist groups, such as the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, found
a sympathetic ear in then-Arizona House Representative Russell Pearce, among other
elected officials.
10
40.
In 2004, Pearce authored and championed for the passage of Proposition
11
200, a ballot initiative that would require proof of citizenship in voter registration and
12
limit immigrant families access to public benefits. He would go on to author many more
13
measures dealing with immigration over the following six years, first as a representative
14
and then later as a state senator, as part of a comprehensive strategy he called attrition
15
through enforcement.
16
41.
The goal of attrition through enforcement was to make life so difficult
17
for undocumented immigrants and their families that they would deport themselves.
18
For example, attrition through enforcement was the explicit aim of Pearces Senate
19
Bill 1070, an omnibus immigration measure passed in 2010, much of which has since
20
been found to be unconstitutional.
21
42.
According to an April 2006 Center for Immigration Studies article that
22
Pearce circulated to supporters, the attrition through enforcement strategy had
23
different components, such as the enactment of local regulation to discourage
24
immigrants from settling in a location and the aggressive expansion of the role of state
25
and local law enforcement agencies in the apprehension and detention of immigrants.
26
Another element focused on ending misuse of Social Security and IRS identification
27
numbers, which illegal immigrants use to secure jobs . . . . (emphasis added). A copy of
28
the email from Pearce is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.

10
43.
The Arizona Legislature incorporated this latter aspect of the attrition
through enforcement strategy in a Pearce-sponsored bill in 2006, House Bill 2577 (H.B.
2577).
44.
H.B. 2577, in relevant part, added a provision to the Arizona criminal code
that defined the offense of forgery to include the making or alteration of a written
instrument that is used to obtain employment in this state by a person who is not
authorized to work in the United States. The bill specifically made this type of forgery,
targeted at undocumented workers, a Class 3 felony, punishable by up to 7 years, A.R.S.
13-702(D), while all other types of forgery would remain Class 4 felonies under the
10
11
statute.
45.
To mobilize support for measures like H.B. 2577 in the Legislature, Pearce
12
encouraged and played on the fear and resentment his constituents felt towards
13
immigrants.
14
46.
For example, he forwarded a message from two residents of his home
15
district in Mesa advocating for passage of H.B. 2577 that included grievances about a
16
mass invasion of historic proportions by an Hispanic migrant army, members of
17
whom were corrupt[ing] our unifying national language while actively disrespecting
18
our culture, society and country. A copy of the email from Pearce is attached as Exhibit
19
2 to this Complaint.
20
21
22
47.
Pearce has himself discussed the threat he believes is posed by
immigration from Mexico.

48.
During a February 6, 2006 House Federal Mandates and Property Rights
23
Committee hearing, in which he was advocating for H.B. 2577, Pearce proclaimed,
24
incorrectly, that [Arizona is] number one in the nation in crime, number one! He
25
explained, [T]heres a clear reason for that, and thats that connection we have to open
26
borders and our failure to secure that border. Arizona Legislature recording of February
27
6, 2006 House Federal Mandates and Property Rights Committee hearing, at
28
approximately 8:07 of discussion on H.B. 2577.

11
49.
During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on April 19, 2006,
Pearce remarked that We have an illegal alien crisis and we all recognize that. Arizona
Legislature recording of April 19, 2006 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, at
approximately 11:15 of discussion on H.B. 2577. He further discussed the Mexican
government in their 12th edition of How to Break into America and Get Free Stuff. Id.
at approximately 14:55.
7
8
9
50.
Pearce specifically alerted supporters to the phenomenon of individuals
using false Social Security numbers to work.

51.
In 2006, he forwarded an article that presented the issue as one about,
10
among other things, illegals who smuggle [themselves] across the border and take a
11
job that lawfully belongs to an American. A copy of the email from Pearce is attached
12
as Exhibit 3 to this Complaint.
13
52.
In a 2007 email to a constituent who had advocated for classification of
14
certain illegals as domestic terrorists, Pearce discussed the rapidly growing crime
15
of illegal aliens stealing identities to get American jobs. A copy of the email from
16
Pearce is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Complaint.
17
53.
18
Governor.
19
54.
20
21
Although H.B. 2577 passed the Legislature in 2006, it was vetoed by the
Pearce made another attempt the next year. In 2007, he introduced H.B.
2779, a bill that would eventually come to be known the Legal Arizona Workers Act.
55.
Section 1 of H.B. 2779 amended Arizonas aggravated identity theft
22
statute to punish individuals for using the information of another person, including a
23
real or fictitious person, with the intent to obtain employment. A.R.S. 13-2009(A)(3).
24
Previously, an individual was only punishable under this statute if he or she had bought,
25
manufactured or used the identity of five or more persons, or caused the loss of $3,000
26
or more. H.B. 2779 expanded the grounds of this Class 3 felony to also include the use
27
of false information to work, whether or not the employee used the information of
28
additional persons or caused economic loss to any person or entity.

12
56.
By contrast, an individual under 21 years of age who uses false
identification to illegally obtain liquor was exempt under the statute and guilty only of a
Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months. A.R.S. 13-2009(C); 4-241(L),
13-707(A).
57.
Other aspects of H.B. 2779 required employers to use the basic pilot E-
Verify program and imposed sanctions in the form of license suspension on employers
found to have knowingly employed undocumented immigrants.2 The full text of the law,
as enacted, is attached as Exhibit 5 to this Complaint and is incorporated by reference.

58.
Legislators plainly understood that the purpose of H.B. 2779, including the
10
amendments to A.R.S. 13-2009, was to address the employment of undocumented
11
immigrants. Their contemporary statements and legislative fact sheets for the bill
12
reflected this purpose. They wanted to do so specifically because they were dissatisfied
13
with the federal governments handling of the issue.

59.
14
During a House Government Committee hearing on February 20, 2007 at
15
which he appeared to discuss H.B. 2779, Pearce urged members to not wait while we
16
watch the destruction of our country and the destruction of neighborhoods by illegal
17
aliens. Arizona Legislature recording of February 20, 2007 House Government
18
Committee hearing, at approximately 2:55:55. He declared that the feds have not done
19
their job to quell what he described as a national epidemic, and insisted that
20
[Arizona] need[s] to step up to the plate . . . . Id. at approximately 02:56:47 and
21
02:57:54.
22
60.
At a June 20, 2007 Conference Committee hearing, Pearce responded to a
23
proposal that the Legislature delay passage of the bill to resolve some outstanding
24
concerns by stating Its about time we do something. The publics tired of waiting . . .
25
The [corresponding ballot] initiative is out there because of the failure of both the federal
26
27
28
The sanctions on employers later were found permissible under an express savings
clause in 8 U.S.C. 1324. See Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968
(2011) (discussing 8 U.S.C. 1324(h)(2)). There is no savings clause allowing states to
impose penalties on employees.
13
government and the state government to do their job . . . and its sad that [Congress is]
working on [amnesty] . . . . This laws needed whether they do something or not and .
. . securing the borders is needed. Arizona Legislature recording of June 20, 2007
Conference Committee hearing at approximately 00:36:38, 00:38:35 and 00:38:55 of.
61.
Just two days before the Conference Committee hearing, Pearce had
forwarded the April 2006 Center for Immigration Studies article identifying
undocumented workers use of false Social Security numbers as a target for the attrition
through enforcement immigration strategy to supporters and, upon information and
belief, colleagues in the Legislature. A copy of the email from Pearce is attached as
10
11
12
13
Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.

62.
Other legislators also voiced their frustration with the perceived failures on
immigration at the federal level and the need to take the issue into their own hands.
63.
During a Senate Committee of the Whole hearing on May 23, 2007 Senator
14
Chuck Gray explained that he was supporting H.B. 2779 because it advances the cause
15
of protecting our citizens against something that the federal government wont do.
16
Arizona Legislature recording of May 23, 2007 Senate Committee of the Whole hearing,
17
at approximately 01:14:46.
18
64.
Proponents of the bill were committed to ensuring that workers under
19
would receive a harsh penalty under the measure, because of their undocumented status
20
and because the provision had to do with immigration.
21
65.
Though being unlawfully present is a civil offense under the immigration
22
laws, some legislators seemed to operate under the assumption that it is a crime. For
23
instance, while addressing a proposed amendment to H.B. 2779 during a House
24
Committee of the Whole hearing on March 15, 2007, Representative Bob Robson
25
emphasized, erroneously, that being in the country illegally is a criminal violation!
26
Arizona Legislature recording of March 15, 2007 House Committee of the Whole
27
hearing, at approximately 00:32:05.
28
14
66.
When one Representative, Jorge Luis Garcia, proposed that the bill be
amended to make the offense a Class 6 rather than a Class 3 felony during the May 23,
2007 Senate Committee of the Whole hearing, noting that theres a lot of issues out
there that certainly are much more serious crimes than working here illegally, co-
sponsor Senator Robert Burns, stated I guess the issue of the penalty, and whether the
penalty fits the crime is certainly a worthwhile debate; however, I think the timing on
this particular issue is really critical. At this point, were all aware of the turmoil that has
come out of the [immigration reform] proposal at the federal level. I believe this would
be viewed as a weakening of our opposition to illegal immigration and so for that reason
10
I would oppose the amendment. Arizona Legislature recording of May 23, 2007 Senate
11
Committee of the Whole hearing, at approximately 00:30:30 and 00:33:08.
12
67.
During the same hearing on May 23, 2007, Senator Tom OHalloran stated
13
his intent to make sure workers would be charged with a serious enough crime to
14
guarantee they stay in jail while the case is pending and then be immediately deported.
15
Arizona Legislature recording of May 23, 2007 Senate Committee of the Whole hearing,
16
at approximately 00:57:50. He erroneously believed they could be deported by the State
17
of Arizona. Id. at 00:57:20.
18
68.
The Legislature did not make any findings or conduct any studies
19
regarding the specific financial or other harm to individuals whose identities were used
20
as a result of this activity.
21
69.
Unlike other situations commonly understood as identify theft,
22
undocumented workers do not take money or make purchases in the name of the person
23
whose information they use. In many cases undocumented workers do not know if the
24
information they are using belongs to a real person, and often, the information does not
25
belong to a real person.
26
70.
The legislative proceedings demonstrate that the motivation for Section 1
27
in H.B. 2779 was related to legislators views regarding illegal immigration and not to
28
address identifiable criminal harms of identity theft.

15
71.
In signing H.B. 2779 into law, Governor Napolitano also identified the
measure as reflecting state frustration with the federal handling of immigration. She
stated, Immigration is a federal responsibility, but I signed House Bill 2779 because it is
abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive
immigration reforms our country needs. Letter from Janet Napolitano to Jim Weiers
(July 2, 2007), available at http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Chapter_Laws/2007/
48th_Legislature_1st_Regular_Session/CH_279.pdf.
72.
Napolitano was quoted in news sources as saying, about the bill, Were
dealing somewhat in uncharted territory right now . . . . The states will take the lead, and
10
Arizona will take the lead among the states. Matthew Benson, Governor OKs toughest
11
migrant-hire law in U.S., ARIZ. REPUBLIC, July 3, 2007.
12
73.
With the adoption of H.B. 2779, Arizona had appeased constituents who
13
had expressed hostility and bias against undocumented workers. Champions of the bill
14
included members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, United for a Sovereign
15
America and Protect Arizona NOW.
16
74.
In 2008, backers of H.B. 2779 faced a ballot initiative that they believed
17
would make Arizonas employer sanctions regime more lenient. In a message opposing
18
the initiative, then-Representative Pearce opened with #1 LURE IS JOBS AND
19
ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS; VIOLENT CRIME FOLLOWS ILLEGAL ALIEN
20
CROWD. He continued, IMMIGRANT GANG MEMBERS RARELY MAKE A
21
LIVING AS GANGSTERS, THEY ARE WORK[sic] CONSTRUCTION, AUTO
22
REPAIR, FARMING, LANDSCAPING, AND LOS[sic] SKILLED JOBS, DRUGS,
23
HOME INVASIONS, FALSE DOCUMENTS. A copy of the email is attached as
24
Exhibit 6 to this Complaint.
25
75.
Pearce also returned to the Legislature that year with another bill to amend
26
and supplement the Legal Arizona Workers Act, H.B. 2745. Section 1 of H.B. 2745
27
expanded the Class 4 identity theft statute to punish individuals for using the information
28
of another person, real or fictitious, with the intent to obtain or continue employment.
16
A.R.S. 13-2008. A Class 4 felony is punishable by up to 3 years. A.R.S. 13-702(D).
An individual under 21 years of age who uses false identification to illegally obtain
liquor was exempt under the statute. A.R.S. 13-2008(E), 4-241(L), 13-707(A).
76.
H.B. 2745 was passed by the Legislature and signed into law on May 1,
2008. The full text of the law, as enacted, is attached as Exhibit 7 to this Complaint and
is incorporated by reference.
7
8
9
Arizonas Worker Identity Provisions Intrude upon Federal Law

77.
Arizonas passage of laws to penalize undocumented workers use of false
or fictitious identities to obtain or continue employment directly intrudes upon the
10
federal governments exclusive authority in the (federally-created) employment
11
verification process.
12
78.
The scheme Congress created provides a full set of standards designed to
13
work as a harmonious whole. Valle del Sol v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1024-25 (9th
14
Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1876 (2014) (internal quotation omitted).
15
79.
Congresss consolidation of authority over fraud in the employment
16
verification process at the federal level allows authorities to select among available
17
enforcement tools to carry out (and balance) federal objectives. This flexibility is an
18
important feature of the federal scheme.
19
80.
If Arizonas worker identity provisions are allowed to stand, every state
20
could create an independent scheme of prosecution and judicial enforcement outside
21
the control of the federal government . . . . United States v. S. Carolina, 840 F. Supp.
22
2d 898, 926-27 (D.S.C. 2011) (invalidating provision making it a state offense to use a
23
fraudulent identification document for the purpose of establishing lawful presence in the
24
United States), aff'd, 720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2013). This would detract[] from the
25
integrated scheme of regulation created by Congress. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2502
26
(internal quotation omitted).
27
28
81.
Even complementary state regulation is impermissible. In this case,
Arizonas sanctions actually conflict with federal law.

17
82.
A.R.S. 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) impose different penalties than
federal law and, unlike federal law, fail to distinguish between different types of
fraudulent conduct in the employment verification process.
83.
Arizonas statutes therefore further stand as an obstacle to success of
Congresss chosen calibration of force in accomplishing its purposes and objectives.
Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 380 (2000).
84.
In addition to federal immigration law, A.R.S. 13-2008(A) and 13-
2009(A)(3) frustrate the goals of federal labor and employment law, which Congress
recognized was critical to the success of the employer sanctions regime.
10
85.
During congressional deliberations over IRCA, Congress was acutely
11
aware of the importance of vigorous enforcement of labor protections for workers.
12
Congress explicitly authorized funds for the U.S. Department of Labors (DOLs)
13
Wage and Hour Division to strengthen enforcement of employment standards laws for
14
undocumented workers in IRCA, recognizing that doing so would remove the
15
economic incentive for employers to exploit and use such aliens. IRCA 111(d).
16
17
18
86.
Federal labor and employment law protections apply regardless of
immigration status.
87.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the DOL have
19
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby DHS has agreed to refrain from
20
worksite enforcement in cases where employers may be manipulating enforcement
21
activities to gain leverage in a labor dispute. DHS/DOL Revised MOU Between DHS
22
and Labor Concerning Enforcement Activities at Worksites (Mar. 31, 2011).
23
88.
In Arizona, however, the threat of a felony arrest under the worker identity
24
provisions gives unscrupulous employers a hammer to hold over the head of workers
25
who would otherwise seek to enforce their labor rights.
26
27
89.
Arizonas worker identity provisions also contravene federal anti-
discrimination law.
28
18
1
2
3
90.
For example, the 1870 Civil Rights Act specifically sought to protect
foreign nationals from sub-federal discrimination.

91.
Codified today at 28 U.S.C. 1981, Section 16 of the 1870 Civil Rights
Act emphasized that all persons . . . shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties
. . . . 28 U.S.C. 1981 (emphasis added). Codified today at 18 U.S.C. 242, Section 17
of the Act prohibited any person under the color of [] law from subjecting any person
within a state to different punishments, pains or penalties, on account of such person
being an alien . . . . 18 U.S.C. 242 (emphasis added).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
92.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution also guarantees that
all persons receive equal protection of the laws.

93.
In recasting Arizonas identity theft statutes to target undocumented
workers, the Legislature acted in a discriminatory fashion.

94.
The language and history of Section 1 of H.B. 2779 and Section 1 of H.B.
2745 demonstrate the Legislatures intent to punish on the basis of alienage.

95.
As candidly acknowledged by their author and primary sponsor, the
16
purpose of these measures was to make conditions so unbearable for undocumented
17
workers that they would voluntarily self-deport.
18
19
20
21
22
96.
In passing these measures, the Arizona Legislature acted on a desire to
harm a politically unpopular group.

97.
The Legislature played on and gave effect to private fears and prejudice
against undocumented immigrants.

98.
Further, legislators refused to consider any lighter penalty for
23
undocumented workers because such a move would be viewed as a weakening of our
24
opposition to illegal immigration. Perception of Arizonas position on the federal issue
25
of illegal immigration is not a legitimate state interest that could justify differential
26
treatment on the basis of alienage.
27
28
99.
Arizonas worker identity provisions violate federal anti-discrimination
protections.
19
1
2
Maricopa County Defendants Campaign to Criminally Punish Undocumented

Workers
100.
Since 2008 or earlier, Defendants Arpaio, Montgomery and Maricopa
County (the Maricopa County Defendants) have had a policy, practice or custom of
enforcing the worker identity provisions and Arizonas forgery statute against
undocumented immigrants.
101.
The purpose and effect of the Maricopa County Defendants policy,
practice or custom has been to regulateindependent of federal policies and priorities
the use of false information or documents by undocumented immigrants to circumvent
the federal employment verification system.
10
102.
For example, in 2008, the MCSO began conducting worksite enforcement
11
operations based on the newly enacted worker identity provisions and Arizonas forgery
12
statute.
13
103.
MCSO conducted these worksite enforcement operations through a
14
specialized unit focused on illegal immigration, called the Human Smuggling Unit
15
(HSU).
16
104.
The HSU was created in or around 2006. In 2008, after the Legal Arizona
17
Workers Act was passed, MCSO tasked one of three HSU squads with enforcement of
18
illegal immigration laws in the workplace. The squad was originally called the Employer
19
Sanctions Unit. Its name was later changed to the Criminal Employment Squad and then
20
to the Criminal Employment Unit.
21
105.
The work of the Criminal Employment Unit and its predecessor units
22
involved investigating undocumented immigrants who used false information or
23
documents to show federal authorization to work.
24
106.
The MCSOs worksite operations were part of a larger campaign by the
25
Sheriffs Office to crack down on illegal immigration. In a March 15, 2008 news brief
26
from the MCSO announcing the arrest of an employee for identity theft and forgery, the
27
Sheriff stated, My Office will continue cracking down on illegal immigration[.]
28
20
Sheriffs deputies will continue to investigate crimes in the work place related to illegal
immigration . . . .
107.
In a December 10, 2011 news release announcing a raid on a Chandler
restaurant, Sheriff Arpaio stated that 100% of all suspects [of] identity theft to gain
employment in worksite operations to date had been illegal aliens. In a September 20,
2012 news release, he stated that he viewed arrests of illegal aliens using fake names
and false social security numbers as open[ing] up employment opportunities for those
who are in this country legally.
108.
Sheriff Arpaio had significant personal involvement in the work of the
10
Criminal Employment Unit and its predecessor units. He was briefed on and attended
11
most major operations, as well as some smaller operations.
12
109.
The operations were also publicized by the Sheriffs Office. Arpaios head
13
of media relations, Lisa Allen, has stated that for the MCSO, immigration enforcement
14
was an awful lot of, you know, identity theft and so forth. Allen Dep. 28:17-20, Mar.
15
31, 2014, in United States v. Maricopa County, No. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS (D. Ariz.).
16
110.
In a December 10, 2011 news release announcing a raid on a Chandler
17
restaurant, Sheriff Arpaio stated that 100% of all suspects [of] identity theft to gain
18
employment in worksite operations to date had been illegal aliens. In a September 20,
19
2012 news release, he stated that he viewed arrests of illegal aliens using fake names
20
and false social security numbers as open[ing] up employment opportunities for those
21
who are in this country legally.
22
111.
Sheriff Arpaio focused his agencys illegal immigration program on
23
immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. Anti-Hispanic sentiment had fueled his
24
constituents call to channel the agencys law enforcement resources towards the
25
immigration issue.
26
112.
27
Sheriff Arpaio set up an illegal immigration hotline for members of the
public to call and provide tips about suspected undocumented immigrants who were
28
21
working. He also applied for a 287(g) agreement with DHS to cross-certify 160 officers
to arrest individuals based on a suspected violation of the federal immigration laws.
3
4
5
113.
The MCAO, for its part, designated a specialized unit to prosecute cases of
employees using false information and documents to workthe Special Crimes Bureau.
114.
The Special Crimes Bureau worked closely with the MCSOs Criminal
Employment Unit and its predecessor units in a concerted effort to pursue cases against
undocumented workers. Members of the two units would meet regularly about MCSOs
worksite operations.
115.
The Special Crimes Bureau also prosecuted cases of undocumented
10
workers using false information and documents to work referred by other law
11
enforcement agencies.
12
116.
The MCAO has a separate unit called the Fraud and Identity Theft
13
Enforcement (FITE) Bureau, which was created to prosecute fraud, identity theft and
14
forgery. However, since approximately 2008, MCAO has handled identity theft and
15
forgery cases involving employment through the Special Crimes Bureau rather than the
16
FITE Bureau.
17
117.
The Special Crimes Bureau carries out the offices immigration-related
18
enforcement mission. The MCAO webpage for the Special Crimes Bureau states, in
19
relevant part, that it prosecutes, [i]llegal immigrant crimes, which involve illegal
20
immigrants accused of . . . the use of a stolen Social Security account or other
21
identification in order to get a job in the United States (Employment Identity Theft).
22
Maricopa County Attorneys Office, Special Crimes, available at
23
http://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/prosecuting-criminals/organized-crime/special-
24
crimes/.
25
118.
According to the longtime former chief of MCAOs Special Crimes
26
Bureau, Vicki Kratovil, prosecution of employees was part of the focus of the offices
27
enforcement of the Legal Arizona Workers Act because every unauthorized worker who
28
22
is working is committing state criminal offenses. Kratovil Dep. 51:15-24, Sept. 21,
2010, in Mora v. Arpaio, No. CV09-01719-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.).
119.
When MCSO began prosecuting cases of undocumented immigrants using
false information and documents in employment, the office was headed by former
County Attorney Andrew Thomas.
120.
While campaigning for his re-election in 2008, speaking about
immigration, Thomas assured voters that he would work tirelessly to protect our
neighborhoods from those who threaten us and violate our laws. Andrew Thomas,
County Attorney stands up for you, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Sept. 26, 2008 (emphasis added). He
10
11
declared, I will not treat illegal immigrants as a protected class . . . . Id.

121.
In 2010, there was a change in leadership at the MCAO. The interim
12
County Attorney Rick Romley decided to stop sharing state funds that Arizona had
13
allocated to Maricopa County for enforcement of the Legal Arizona Workers Act with
14
the MCSO.
15
122.
In response to Romleys decision, Sheriff Arpaio shifted funds from other
16
parts of his agencys budget in order to continue conducting worksite operations. He was
17
adamant that there be no change. That is when the MCSO changed the name of the unit to
18
the Criminal Employment Squad to focus explicitly on employees.
19
123.
While he was campaigning for office in 2010, now County Attorney Bill
20
Montgomery also signaled a commitment to making Maricopa County inhospitable to
21
undocumented immigrants and vowed to resume working with the MCSO on worksite
22
operations. Upon taking office in 2010, he restored the policy of systematically enforcing
23
the worker identity provisions and forgery statute against undocumented workers.
24
124.
In a 2013 interview, Montgomery stated that he would continue to enforce
25
the state identity theft and forgery laws as long as Arizonas border with Mexico remains
26
insecure. He continued, The federal government could take away all of my concerns
27
tomorrow, by simply securing the border and doing what they have a responsibility to do.
28
. . . I would be more than happy to deal with other offenses, and violations of other
23
statutes. But unless and until they do their job, I have to do mine. Jude Joffe-Block,
Police in Arizona crack down on identity theft by immigrants, KPCC, Jan. 7, 2013.
Details of Worker Identity and Forgery Investigations

125.
MCSOs worksite operations would typically begin with a citizen tip to the
Offices illegal immigration hotline that undocumented workers were employed at a
particular business. MCSO detectives would conduct an investigation, often obtaining
copies of wage reports that an employer files with the Arizona Department of Economic
Security (DES) containing names and Social Security numbers reported for employees
and comparing that information against information found in other databases.

126.
10
With the information from the DES reports and database checks, MCSO
11
would then contact the Social Security Administration (SSA) and ask that agency to
12
identify which employees names and Social Security numbers matched information SSA
13
had on file and which did not. With the information it received back from the SSA,
14
MCSO would obtain a search warrant for a business, alleging violations of A.R.S. 13-
15
2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3).

127.
16
MCSO executed search warrants with a show of force and regularly sent
17
hundreds of deputies and posse members, including tactical and K-9 units, to descend
18
upon a business. Workers were usually held incommunicado for hours while deputies
19
sorted through employee records and questioned them about their identity and
20
immigration status.
21
128.
Until October 2009, those workers who could not be charged criminally
22
were arrested by MCSO on administrative immigration charges and processed for
23
deportation.3
129.
24
25
Many workers, however, were arrested on state felony charges of identity
theft and forgery and prosecuted.
26
27
28
DHS terminated the MCSOs street-level 287(g) authority on October 16, 2009 after the
DOJ found that the agency was engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminatory
policing and other civil rights violations.
24
130.
Workers were given forgery charges for using false personal identifying
information on forms such as the Form I-9, as well as other employment documents.
Workers usually use a Social Security number on the Form I-9 to show eligibility for
employment and that same number will then be used on other forms for consistency.
Forgery charges were also brought against undocumented workers for presenting a false
drivers license or immigration documents during the employment verification process.

131.
MCSO would regularly arrest undocumented workers under the worker
identity provisions and forgery statute together. The Criminal Employment Unit kept a
single tally of the number of employees arrested under both charges and the Unit
10
generally did not have forgery cases other than those involving the use of false
11
information or documents in order to obtain employment. The MCAO would regularly
12
prosecute undocumented workers under both provisions as well.

132.
13
By charging undocumented workers under these statutes, MCSO and
14
MCAO could ensure that they would be categorically disqualified from pretrial bail
15
pursuant to another harsh Pearce immigration measure, Proposition 100.4

133.
16
Though there have been some changes to how MCSO and MCAO have
17
conducted these investigations in the intervening years, such as the source of tips and
18
how many workers are arrested at once, the basic goal of the operations remained the
19
sameto arrest and punish undocumented workers using false information or
20
documents for employment.

134.
21
Since 2008, the MCSO has conducted over 80 worksite operations,
22
arresting nearly 790 workers. The vast majority of these were arrested for identity theft
23
and forgery.
24
25
26
27
28
Proposition 100 and its implementing statutes prohibited Arizona courts from setting
pretrial bail for persons charged with a Class 1-4 felony who ha[ve] entered and
remained in the United States illegally. The measure was overturned as unconstitutional
on October 15, 2014. Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772 (9th Cir.) (en banc).
25
135.
In the same period, Maricopa County has brought only five actions against
employers. Three of those actions were civil, resulting in business license suspensions of
10 days or less, and two were criminal.
136.
MCSO and MCAOs method of enforcing A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A)
and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers has instilled great fear in the
immigrant community.
137.
Rather than being secondary to employer sanctions, Maricopa Countys
worksite enforcement strategy has been to almost exclusively target workers, detain
them without possibility of bail and pressure them into signing felony pleas.
10
11
12
138.
Maricopa Countys practices have given employers unchecked power over
workers.
139.
Sometimes, an employer is aware that a worker is undocumented and has
13
used false or fictitious information to obtain work; an employer may even provide the
14
information or fill it in for workers. Yet employers know it will likely be the worker who
15
is arrested if the discrepancy were to be discovered (or be reported by the employer).
16
140.
Volunteers and staff with Puente have observed what seems to be an
17
increase in labor abuse and greater hesitation on the part of workers to report labor
18
violations in Maricopa County.
19
Enforcement Practices Since Filing of This Lawsuit
20
141.
As recently as 2014, Sheriff Arpaio publicly announced his continuing
21
commitment to vigorous enforcement of the worker identity provisions and forgery
22
statute against undocumented workers.
23
142.
In March 2014, Arpaio stressed to a group of supporters, Now, theyre
24
clamping down, all these rulings from judges . . . But I still enforce the illegal
25
immigration laws by virtue of going into businesses and locking up the employees with
26
fake ID. He continued, confirming his understanding of the identity theft laws as an
27
immigration enforcement tool, [W]e do know that 99.9 percent are here illegally, we
28
know that, but they are not charged with that, they are stealing your ID. Statement of
26
Sheriff Joe Arpaio, MN Tea Party Special Event, March 6, 2014, available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFd-Xxrl5qw, at minute 51:04.
143.
When this lawsuit was filed, Sheriff Arpaio reiterated his commitment to
continuing enforcement so long as he was the Sheriff, stating, [T]here is no sanctuary in
Maricopa County. Megan Cassidy, Lawsuit challenges Arpaios workplace raids, ARIZ.
REPUBLIC, June 18, 2014.
144.
Defendant Arpaios notice did not address the MCSOs use of the forgery
statute against undocumented workers and it did not explain whether deputies outside of
the Criminal Employment Unit would continue to enforce the worker identity provisions.
10
Defendant Arpaio provided no indication of how long MCSOs voluntary change in
11
policy would last or whether it might be rescinded in the future
12
145.
After the preliminary injunction hearing in this lawsuit, and before the
13
Court issued a decision, the MCSO announced its apparent intention to disband the
14
Criminal Employment Unit in early 2015. Defendant Arpaio filed a notice with the Court
15
arguing that because the MCSO had voluntarily enjoined themselves from enforcing
16
the worker identity provisions, no preliminary injunction was necessary.
17
146.
In an official written statement issued by the MCSO on December 18,
18
2014, Sheriff Arpaio warned that notwithstanding disbandment of the Criminal
19
Employment Unit, ID theft and ID fraud remain[] . . . offenses under Arizona Revised
20
Statutes and that his deputies would continue to investigate these crimes.
21
147.
After this lawsuit was filed, and before the Court issued a decision on
22
Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, the MCAO issued a policy prohibiting
23
prosecutors from further using the Form I-9 as the basis for identity theft and forgery
24
charges. The new policy did not address any other information or documents submitted
25
by workers to circumvent the federal employment verification system.
26
27
148.
Since the Court issued its preliminary injunction barring Defendants from
enforcing the worker identity provisions, MCAO has begun withdrawing charges under
28
27
the worker identity provisions but, in many cases, has continued to prosecute the same
underlying conduct under Arizonas forgery statute.

149.
Montgomery and the MCAO have indicated an intention to vigorously
pursue forgery prosecutions against employees. For example, after a Maricopa County
Superior Court, relying on the reasoning of this Courts preliminary injunction,
dismissed forgery and identity theft charges against an employee who was alleged to
have submitted a fraudulent Arizona drivers license for employment, MCAO filed a
motion to reconsider arguing that it could constitutionally prosecute employees under
the forgery statute for the same conduct so long as it did not rely on the Form I-9. A
10
drivers license is one of the documents employees show to prove identity in the federal
11
employment verification system.

150.
12
MCAOs policy does not consider a persons immigration status or his or
13
her status as a victim of labor violations in determining whether or not to decline to
14
prosecute a case.
15
151.
The Maricopa County Defendants policies, practices and customs deprive
16
federal authorities of the exclusive power to prosecute (or decide not to criminally
17
prosecute) undocumented workers.

152.
18
Upon information and belief, the MCSO is continuing to detain
19
undocumented workers on forgery charges in the Maricopa County Jail. The Maricopa
20
County Defendants continue to expend local tax revenues on investigating, prosecuting
21
and incarcerating undocumented immigrants for using false information or documents to
22
work.
Impact on the Immigrant Community and Puentes Response
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Puente Arizona

153.
Puente is a grassroots organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, with
hundreds of members, the vast majority of whom are immigrants.

154.
Migrants, particularly undocumented immigrants and immigrants in mixed
status families, face significant stigma and barriers to social and economic integration.
28
To fulfill its mission of developing, educating and empowering immigrants to enhance
their quality of life, Puente provides a variety of services to the community, including
English classes, media trainings, know-your-rights workshops, health and wellness
training, and educational programs for children. Puente also offers cultural events,
including concerts, film screenings, and an annual Day of the Dead celebration.
155.
Puentes members play a central role in setting the organizations
direction, priorities, and activities. Primary decision-making happens at Puentes weekly
meetings, which are open to all members and program participants. In addition, Puente
holds membership retreats twice a year. As an organization, Puente represents its
10
11
members collective interests and expresses their collective views.

156.
The Maricopa County Defendants enforcement of Arizonas worker
12
identity provisions and forgery statute has heavily impacted Puentes work and
13
frustrated its mission.
14
157.
The climate of fear caused by enforcement directly interferes with
15
Puentes efforts to develop and empower the immigrant community. For example, many
16
workers who participate in Puentes know-your-rights trainings are reluctant to exercise
17
labor rights for fear of arrest and prosecution under Arizonas laws.
18
158.
The climate of fear created by the enforcement operations has also led
19
immigrants to retreat from public life. Some are even reluctant to leave their homes,
20
including to participate in Puente events and activities.
21
159.
The jailing of heads of familiesmany of whom play important roles in
22
local churches, schools, and community organizationshas also frayed the social fabric
23
and made it difficult for Puente to build a strong community. Families of arrested
24
individuals struggle to get by without their primary breadwinners, which lowers not just
25
their own capacity, but that of other community members to whom they are forced to
26
turn for support. The enforcement operations have affected community members of all
27
ages, from all walks of life.
28
29
160.
For example, in June 2009, then-9-year-old Katherine Figueroa was
playing at home when she overheard a TV news anchor announce that the carwash
where her parents worked had just been raided. She rushed to the TV and watched in
horror as MCSO deputies arrested her mother, Sandra Figueroa, and her father, Carlos
Figueroa. The MCSO charged her parents with using false documents to work and
incarcerated both of them in the County Jail for the next several months. Without her
parents, Katherine was forced to rely on extended family and friends for support.
8
9
161.
More recently, in January 2013, 22-year-old Noemi Romero was arrested
by MCSO deputies while working as a cashier at Lams Supermarket. Noemi, who grew
10
up in the United States, was working in order to raise money to pay the application fee
11
for the federal governments Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
12
program, which provides certain undocumented young people with work authorization
13
and a reprieve from deportation. Noemi dreamed of one day working in nursing or
14
cosmetology. Her dreams were shattered when MCSO raided Lams Supermarket just
15
days after shed finally managed to save enough money for the application, arrested her
16
and charged her with using a false identity to work. The identity information Noemi
17
used belonged to her mother. Noemis felony conviction now disqualifies her from the
18
DACA program. Unable to work or go to college, Noemi lives at home with her parents.
19
162.
63-year-old Marta Espinoza Lopez was arrested by MCSO deputies in
20
February 2013 while she was working as a seamstress at Sportex Apparel. Marta had
21
worked at Sportex for 12 years. She had used her earnings to support herself and to put
22
her children through college in Mexico. She was arrested during an MCSO raid on
23
Sportex for using a fictitious identity to work. She spent four months in County Jail and
24
was subsequently transferred to immigration detention. Upon her release, Marta found
25
she had nothing. When she hadnt returned home after the raid, her landlord sold all her
26
possessions and rented the apartment to someone else. Marta was forced to rely on
27
friends and community organizations, including Puente, for support.
28
30
163.
1
2
raid of Sportex.
164.
3
4
One of Puente's core organizers also had an uncle arrested in the MCSO
Seeing the impact that the Maricopa County Defendants practices were
having on the community with which Puente works, Puente was compelled to respond.
165.
Puente has provided affected workers and families with childcare,
temporary housing, emergency financial assistance, essential information about the
criminal process, access to legal services, and critical social and moral support.
Additionally, Puente brings family members to visit their loved ones in detention and
purchased a van for this purpose. Finally, Puente advocates on behalf of arrested
10
workers in order to try to secure their release and reunite them with their families.
166.
11
Because of the resources Puente diverted toward providing this assistance,
12
the organization had to cut back on its free English classes, health and wellness projects,
13
and other core services. Future enforcement actions will again require Puente to divert
14
scarce resources towards assisting affected workers and families.

167.
15
Puentes membership continues to include a significant number of
16
immigrants who are at risk of being investigated, arrested, detained and/or prosecuted by
17
the Maricopa County Defendants under A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-
18
2009(A)(3). Some undocumented Puente members are working to provide for themselves
19
and their families and have used false identity information and documents in order to
20
obtain or continue employment.

168.
21
Puente members who have used false identity information and documents
22
in order to obtain or continue employment live in constant fear that they may be arrested
23
and prosecuted under A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) at any time.
24
Many worry every morning when they leave for work that they may not come home that
25
night.
26
169.
Puente brings this suit on behalf of itself and on behalf of its members who
27
face a likelihood of future injury due to the Maricopa County Defendants practices.
28
Because Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and their claims are not dependent on detailed
31
facts unique to each individual, individual participation by Puente members is not
necessary. Given the climate of fear surrounding enforcement of A.R.S. 13-2001, 13-
2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3), it is unlikely any would come forward to assert their rights
if their individual participation were required.

170.
Puente has no relevant conflicts of interest with its individual members.
Puentes pursuit of this litigation is pertinent to the organizations mission of
developing, educating and empowering the local immigrant community.
Plaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola

171.
Sara Cervantes is a 27-year-old resident of Glendale, Arizona. She is the
10
mother of two young children, ages six and five months. Until January 2013, she worked
11
in the produce department at Lams Supermarket to support herself and her young son
12
and had never been charged with or convicted of any crime.

172.
13
On January 17, 2013, MCSO deputies conducted a worksite raid on Lams
14
Supermarket while Ms. Cervantes and others were working. Deputies cleared the store
15
of customers and then blocked the store exits, gathered all the workers together, and
16
demanded they produce identification. Deputies ultimately arrested Ms. Cervantes along
17
with approximately eight other Latino employees.

173.
18
Ms. Cervantes was charged with using a false identity to work. She was
19
detained at the County Jail and denied the opportunity for bail pursuant to Proposition
20
100.
21
174.
On March 18, 2013, after approximately two months in jail, Ms. Cervantes
22
pled guilty to one count of aggravated taking the identity of another with intent to obtain
23
employment under A.R.S. 13-2009, a Class 3 felony.
24
175.
Ms. Cervantes was sentenced on May 6, 2013. As the Superior Court
25
found, there [was] no victim in this case because Ms. Cervantes had used information
26
belonging to a fictitious person. The court sentenced her to 109 days in jail, with credit
27
for time served, and twelve months probation.
28
32
176.
On November 5, 2013, Ms. Cervantes was granted an early termination of
probation upon the recommendation of her Probation Officer and released from
probation. In total, following her guilty plea on March 18, 2013, Ms. Cervantes spent 59
days in jail and six months on probation.
5
6
7
177.
Ms. Cervantes length of incarceration and probation rendered federal
habeas relief unavailable to her.

178.
Upon information and belief, it takes the Arizona Court of Appeals,
Division One, approximately one year or longer from the date of filing to decide a
criminal appeal. It takes the Arizona Supreme Court approximately four to six months to
10
decide whether or not to hear a case following a Court of Appeals decision, and an
11
additional three to six months to decide the appeal.
12
179.
Given the length of the Arizona appellate process and the length of her
13
sentence, it was impossible for Plaintiff Cervantes to exhaust state remedies, much less
14
file and prevail on a federal habeas petition while she was in custody.
15
180.
Ms. Cervantes feels as if her felony conviction has marked her life forever.
16
She believes that people in her community now look at her differently. She worries that
17
the conviction will negatively impact her in the event she is ever stopped or detained by
18
police in the future, and may impact her chances for future immigration relief.
19
Plaintiff Elia Estrada Fernandez
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
181.
Plaintiff Elia Estrada is a resident of Mesa, Arizona. She has three young
children, ages 12, 4, and 8 months.

182.
From 2013 to 2014, Ms. Estrada worked at Arbys located in Chandler,
Arizona to support her family. She worked most of the time as a cook.
183.
On September 22, 2014, Ms. Estrada was arrested by the Gilbert Police
Department and charged with using a false identity to work.

184.
After her arrest, Ms. Estrada was detained at the Maricopa County Jail for
63 days, having been denied the opportunity for bail pursuant to Proposition 100.
28
33
185.
Ms. Estradas case was prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorneys
Office. On October 28, 2014, Ms. Estrada pled guilty to one count of aggravated taking
the identity of another with intent to obtain employment under A.R.S. 13-2009, a Class
3 felony.
5
6
7
8
9
186.
Ms. Estrada had never previously been charged with or convicted of any
187.
Ms. Estrada was sentenced on November 26, 2014. The court sentenced her
crime.
to six months of probation.

188.
In total, following her arrest on September 22, 2014, Ms. Estrada spent
10
approximately two months in jail and six months on probation. After her sentencing, she
11
did not serve any additional time in jail.
12
13
14
189.
Ms. Estradas length of incarceration and probation made federal habeas
relief unavailable to her.

190.
Upon information and belief, it takes the Arizona Court of Appeals,
15
Division One, approximately one year or longer from the date of filing to decide a
16
criminal appeal. It takes the Arizona Supreme Court approximately four to six months to
17
decide whether or not to hear a case following a Court of Appeals decision, and an
18
additional three to six months to decide the appeal.
19
191.
Given the length of the Arizona appellate process and the length of her
20
sentence, it was impossible for Plaintiff Estrada to exhaust state remedies, much less file
21
and prevail on a federal habeas petition while she was in custody.
22
192.
Ms. Estrada worries that her family and community will think of her as a
23
bad person because of her felony conviction for working to provide for her family. She
24
feels stigma and shame from the conviction. In addition, she believes that the conviction
25
will negatively impact her in the event she ever comes in contact with police in the
26
future, and may impact her chances for future immigration relief.
27
Plaintiff Reverend Susan Frederick-Gray
28
193.
Reverend Susan E. Frederick-Gray is a Maricopa County taxpayer.

34
1
2
3
194.
Rev. Frederick-Gray objects to the use of county taxpayer funds to enforce
A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers.

195.
Rev. Frederick-Gray is challenging the enforcement of A.R.S. 13-2002,
13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) by Maricopa County Defendants as an illegal
196.
She believes that the expenditure of taxpayer funds to punish individuals
who are working to provide for their families and not intending to harm other persons
does not serve the public good. Those funds could instead be spent on essential public
services.
10
11
12
13
Plaintiff Reverend Russell Andrew Burnette

197.
Reverend Russell Andrew Burnette is a resident of Phoenix, Arizona and a
Maricopa County taxpayer.

198.
Rev. Burnette objects to the use of county taxpayer funds to enforce A.R.S.
14
13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers. Among
15
other taxes, he pays property taxes to the County, as well as excise taxes and sales taxes
16
that help fund the operation of County jails.
17
199.
He believes that the expenditure of taxpayer funds to punish individuals
18
who are working to provide for their families and not intending to harm other persons
19
does not serve the public good.
20
200.
Rev. Burnette is challenging the Maricopa County Defendants
21
enforcement of A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) as an illegal
22
23
Plaintiff Reverend Erin Tamayo
24
201.
25
County taxpayer.
26
202.
27
Reverend Erin Tamayo is a resident of Mesa, Arizona and a Maricopa
Rev. Tamayo objects to the use of county taxpayer funds to enforce A.R.S.
13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers. Among
28
35
other taxes, she pays property taxes to the County, as well as excise taxes and sales taxes
that help fund the operation of County jails.
203.
Rev. Tamayo believes that the expenditure of taxpayer funds to punish
individuals who are working to provide for their families and not intending to harm other
persons does not serve the public good.
204.
Rev. Tamayo is challenging the Maricopa County Defendants enforcement
of A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) as an illegal expenditure of county
taxpayer funds.
9
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
10
11
205.
Plaintiffs Puente, Frederick-Gray, Tamayo, and Burnette bring this action
12
as a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil
13
Procedure 23(b)(2) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

a.
14
Plaintiff Puente seeks to represent a class of undocumented workers
15
who will be subject to arrest, detention or prosecution by the
16
Maricopa County Defendants under Arizonas worker identity
17
provisions and forgery statute (the worker class).

b.
18
Plaintiffs Frederick-Gray, Tamayo, and Burnette seek to represent a
19
class of all persons who pay taxes to Maricopa County and object to
20
the use of county tax funds to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute
21
individuals under Arizonas worker identity provisions and forgery
22
statute (the taxpayer class).
23
24
25
206.
The proposed classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable.
207.
There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed classes,
26
including (1) whether Arizonas worker identity provisions are preempted by federal
27
law; (2) whether Arizonas worker identity provisions deprive members of the worker
28
class of the equal protection of the laws within the meaning of the Fourteenth
36
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (3) whether the Maricopa County Defendants
policy, practice or custom of using the worker identity provisions and forgery statute to
regulate fraud by undocumented immigrants in employment is preempted by federal
law.
208.
5
6
claims and defenses of their respective classes.

209.
7
8
The claims and defenses of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the
The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the respective classes.

210.
Plaintiffs counsel are competent and experienced in class action litigation
10
of the type brought here. Plaintiffs are represented pro bono by the University of
11
California, Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic, the ACLU Foundation of
12
Arizona, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Law Office of Ray A.
13
Ybarra Maldonado PLC, who collectively have extensive experience with litigation,
14
including class action litigation, regarding the rights of immigrants and constitutional
15
law.
16
211.
Defendants in this case have acted and will continue to act in violation of
17
proposed class members rights, which are grounds generally applicable to the classes,
18
thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief
19
with respect to the classes as a whole.
20
REQUISITES FOR RELIEF
21
22
23
24
25
26
212.
As a result of the conduct of Defendants described above, Plaintiffs have
been denied their constitutional rights.

213.
In violating Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Defendants have and will
continue to act under color of law.

214.
An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and
27
Defendants as to their respective legal rights and duties. Defendants policies, practices,
28
conduct and acts alleged herein have resulted and will continue to result in irreparable
37
injury to Plaintiffs, including but not limited to further violations of their constitutional
rights.
215.
Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law to address the
wrongs described herein. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief restraining
Defendants from continuing to enforce and engage in the policies, practices and customs
described herein.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
First Claim For Relief
Supremacy Clause; 42 U.S.C. 1983

(Against All Defendants)
10
11
12
13
14
216.
set forth here.

217.
The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution
provides:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
15
16
17
The above paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully
218.
The Supremacy Clause mandates that federal law preempts state law in
18
any area over which Congress expressly or impliedly has reserved exclusive authority or
19
which is constitutionally reserved to the federal government, or where state law conflicts
20
or interferes with federal law.
21
219.
In enacting Section 1 of H.B. 2779 and Section 1 of H.B. 2745, amending
22
A.R.S. 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A), Arizona impermissibly intruded on the federal
23
governments exclusive authority to regulate immigration, legislating in a field occupied
24
by the federal government and imposing burdens and penalties on noncitizens not
25
authorized by and contrary to federal law and policy, all in violation of the Supremacy
26
Clause.
27
28
38
220.
1
2
Arizonas worker identity provisions are therefore facially preempted and
Defendants may not enforce them.

221.
The Maricopa County Defendants have a policy, practice and custom of
using Arizonas worker identity and forgery provisions to arrest and prosecute
undocumented workers for using false information to show federal authorization to work.
Such arrests and prosecutions intrude on the federal governments exclusive authority to
regulate immigration and disrupt a carefully aligned federal scheme of regulation of
immigration and employment, thus violating the Supremacy Clause in application.
Second Claim For Relief
10
Equal Protection, U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. 1983

(Against All Defendants)
11
222.
12
13
The above paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth here.

223.
14
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that [n]o
15
State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
16
laws.
17
224.
Section 1 of H.B. 2779 and Section 1 of H.B. 2745, amending A.R.S.
18
13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A), constitute impermissible discrimination against noncitizens
19
on the basis of alienage.
20
21
22
225.
Defendants cannot establish that Sections 1 of H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745
had any valid justification, including a rational basis.

226.
Arizonas worker identity provisions therefore violate the equal protection
23
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Defendants may not
24
enforce them.
25
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
26
27
28
227.
a.
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief:
Enter a judgment declaring that the portion of A.R.S. 13-2008(A) that
39
addresses actions committed with the intent to obtain or continue
employment and 13-2009(A)(3) violate the Supremacy Clause and the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution;
b.
Enter a judgment declaring that the Maricopa County Defendants
policy, practice or custom of using state statutes, including A.R.S. 13-
2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3), to independently regulate fraud
committed by undocumented immigrants to circumvent the federal
employment verification process violates the Supremacy Clause of the

United States Constitution;
10
11
c.
Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the Maricopa County
12
Defendants from further enforcing the portion of A.R.S. 13-2008(A)
13
that addresses actions committed with the intent to obtain or continue
14
employment and 13-2009(A)(3);
15
d.
Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the Maricopa County
16
Defendants from further using state statutes, including A.R.S. 13-
17
2002,
18
undocumented workers who submit false information or documents for
19
the purpose of showing federal authorization to work;
20
e.
13-2008(A)
and
13-2009(A)(3),
to
criminally
punish
Issue an injunction ordering Defendants to expunge from their records
21
the arrests and convictions of Plaintiffs Cervantes and Estrada under
22
A.R.S. 13-2009(A)(3), and to forward a copy of this order to any
23
person or agency that was notified of said arrests or convictions;
24
f.
U.S.C. 1988; and
25
26
Award attorneys fees and costs of suit, plus interest, pursuant to 42
g.
Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
27
28
DATED this 1st day of May, 2015.

40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
By
/s/ Anne Lai

University of California, Irvine School of
Law Immigrant Rights Clinic
Irvine, CA 92616-5479
Daniel J. Pochoda
Joshua D. Bendor
3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 205
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Jessica Karp Bansal (admitted pro hac vice)
National Day Labor Organizing Network
675 S. Park View St., Ste. B
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Jessica Myers Vosburgh (admitted pro hac
vice)
National Day Laborer Organizing Network
2104 Chapel Hill Road
Hoover, AL 35216
Telephone: (205) 317-1481
Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado, PLC
2637 North 16th St., Unit 1
Phoenix, AZ 85006
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Conference Engrossed
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-eighth Legislature
First Regular Session
2007
HOUSE BILL 2779

AN ACT
AMENDING SECTION 13-2009, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 23,
CHAPTER 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 2; MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS; RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
- i -

H.B. 2779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 13-2009, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
read:
13-2009. Aggravated taking identity of another person or
entity; classification
A. A person commits aggravated taking the identity of another person
or entity if the person knowingly takes, purchases, manufactures, records,
possesses or uses any personal identifying information or entity identifying
information of either:
1. Five THREE or more other persons or entities, including real or
fictitious persons or entities, without the consent of the other persons or
entities, with the intent to obtain or use the other persons' or entities'
identities for any unlawful purpose or to cause loss to the persons or
entities whether or not the persons or entities actually suffer any economic
loss.
2. Another person or entity, including a real or fictitious person or
entity, without the consent of that other person or entity, with the intent
to obtain or use the other person's or entity's identity for any unlawful
purpose and causes another person or entity to suffer an economic loss of
three thousand dollars or more.
3. ANOTHER PERSON, INCLUDING A REAL OR FICTITIOUS PERSON, WITH THE
INTENT TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT.
B. In an action for aggravated taking the identity of another person
or entity under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section, proof of
possession out of the regular course of business of the personal identifying
information or entity identifying information of five THREE or more other
persons or entities may give rise to an inference that the personal
identifying information or entity identifying information of the five THREE
or more other persons or entities was possessed for an unlawful purpose.
C. This section does not apply to a violation of section 4-241 by a
person who is under twenty-one years of age.
D. Aggravated taking the identity of another person or entity is a
class 3 felony.
Sec. 2. Title 23, chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
adding article 2, to read:
ARTICLE 2. EMPLOYMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS
23-211. Definitions
IN THIS ARTICLE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
1. "AGENCY" MEANS ANY AGENCY, DEPARTMENT, BOARD OR COMMISSION OF THIS
STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN THAT ISSUES A LICENSE FOR PURPOSES OF
OPERATING A BUSINESS IN THIS STATE.
2. "BASIC PILOT PROGRAM" MEANS THE BASIC EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION PILOT
PROGRAM AS JOINTLY ADMINISTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OR ITS SUCCESSOR PROGRAM.
- 1 -

H.B. 2779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
3. "EMPLOYEE" MEANS ANY PERSON WHO PERFORMS EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR AN

EMPLOYER PURSUANT TO AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE AND
EMPLOYER.
4. "EMPLOYER" MEANS ANY INDIVIDUAL OR TYPE OF ORGANIZATION THAT
TRANSACTS BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, THAT HAS A LICENSE ISSUED BY AN AGENCY IN
THIS STATE AND THAT EMPLOYS ONE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS WHO PERFORM EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES IN THIS STATE.
EMPLOYER INCLUDES THIS STATE, ANY POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AND SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS.
5. "INTENTIONALLY" HAS THE SAME MEANING PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-105.
6. "KNOWINGLY EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS THE ACTIONS
DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324A.
THIS TERM SHALL BE
INTERPRETED CONSISTENTLY WITH 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324A AND ANY
APPLICABLE FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS.
7. "LICENSE":
(a) MEANS ANY AGENCY PERMIT, CERTIFICATE, APPROVAL, REGISTRATION,
CHARTER OR SIMILAR FORM OF AUTHORIZATION THAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW AND THAT IS
ISSUED BY ANY AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSES OF OPERATING A BUSINESS IN THIS STATE.
(b) INCLUDES:
(i) ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION UNDER TITLE 10.
(ii) A CERTIFICATE OF PARTNERSHIP, A PARTNERSHIP REGISTRATION OR
ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION UNDER TITLE 29.
(iii) A GRANT OF AUTHORITY ISSUED UNDER TITLE 10, CHAPTER 15.
(iv) ANY TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX LICENSE.
(c) DOES NOT INCLUDE:
(i) ANY LICENSE ISSUED PURSUANT TO TITLE 45 OR 49 OR RULES ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO THOSE TITLES.
(ii) ANY PROFESSIONAL LICENSE.
8. "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL
RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS
DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3).
23-212. Employment of unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false
and frivolous complaints; violation; classification;
license suspension and revocation
A. AN EMPLOYER SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN OR
KNOWINGLY EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN.
B. ON RECEIPT OF A COMPLAINT THAT AN EMPLOYER ALLEGEDLY INTENTIONALLY
EMPLOYS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN OR KNOWINGLY EMPLOYS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY SHALL INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE EMPLOYER
HAS VIOLATED SUBSECTION A. WHEN INVESTIGATING A COMPLAINT, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY SHALL VERIFY THE WORK AUTHORIZATION OF THE ALLEGED
UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES
CODE SECTION 1373(c). A STATE, COUNTY OR LOCAL OFFICIAL SHALL NOT ATTEMPT TO
INDEPENDENTLY MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION ON WHETHER AN ALIEN IS AUTHORIZED TO
WORK IN THE UNITED STATES. AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS OR WORK
- 2 -

H.B. 2779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
AUTHORIZATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT

TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY FILES A
FALSE AND FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT UNDER THIS SUBSECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 3
MISDEMEANOR.
C. IF, AFTER AN INVESTIGATION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY
DETERMINES THAT THE COMPLAINT IS NOT FRIVOLOUS:
1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY SHALL NOTIFY THE UNITED
STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN.
2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY SHALL NOTIFY THE LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN.
3. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO BRING AN ACTION PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION D IF THE COMPLAINT WAS ORIGINALLY
FILED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
D. AN ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A SHALL BE BROUGHT AGAINST
THE EMPLOYER BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED
ALIEN EMPLOYEE IS EMPLOYED. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY SHALL NOT BRING AN ACTION
AGAINST ANY EMPLOYER FOR ANY VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A THAT OCCURS BEFORE
JANUARY 1, 2008. A SECOND VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE BASED ONLY ON
AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN WHO IS EMPLOYED BY THE EMPLOYER AFTER AN ACTION HAS
BEEN BROUGHT FOR A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A.
E. FOR ANY ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT UNDER THIS SECTION, THE COURT
SHALL EXPEDITE THE ACTION, INCLUDING ASSIGNING THE HEARING AT THE EARLIEST
PRACTICABLE DATE.
F. ON A FINDING OF A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A:
1. FOR A FIRST VIOLATION DURING A THREE YEAR PERIOD THAT IS A KNOWING
VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A, THE COURT:
(a) SHALL ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALL
UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.
(b) SHALL ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO BE SUBJECT TO A THREE YEAR
PROBATIONARY PERIOD. DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD THE EMPLOYER SHALL FILE
QUARTERLY REPORTS WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OF EACH NEW EMPLOYEE WHO IS HIRED
BY THE EMPLOYER AT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN
PERFORMED WORK.
(c) SHALL ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO FILE A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE ORDER IS ISSUED. THE
AFFIDAVIT SHALL STATE THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS TERMINATED THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALL
UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS AND THAT THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY
EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN. THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES
TO SUSPEND ALL LICENSES SUBJECT TO THIS SUBDIVISION THAT ARE HELD BY THE
EMPLOYER IF THE EMPLOYER FAILS TO FILE A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE ORDER IS ISSUED. ALL
LICENSES THAT ARE SUSPENDED UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL REMAIN SUSPENDED
UNTIL THE EMPLOYER FILES A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, ON FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT THE SUSPENDED
- 3 -

H.B. 2779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
LICENSES SHALL BE REINSTATED IMMEDIATELY BY THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR THE

PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, THE LICENSES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO SUSPENSION
UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION ARE ALL LICENSES THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER AND
THAT ARE NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS AT THE EMPLOYER'S
BUSINESS LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN PERFORMED WORK. IF A LICENSE
IS NOT NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS AT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION
WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN PERFORMED WORK, BUT A LICENSE IS NECESSARY TO
OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS IN GENERAL, THE LICENSES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO
SUSPENSION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION ARE ALL LICENSES THAT ARE HELD BY THE
EMPLOYER AT THE EMPLOYER'S PRIMARY PLACE OF BUSINESS. ON RECEIPT OF THE
COURT'S ORDER AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES
SHALL SUSPEND THE LICENSES ACCORDING TO THE COURT'S ORDER. THE COURT SHALL
SEND A COPY OF THE COURT'S ORDER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SHALL MAINTAIN THE COPY PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION G.
(d) MAY ORDER THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO SUSPEND ALL LICENSES
DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION (c) OF THIS PARAGRAPH THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER
FOR NOT TO EXCEED TEN BUSINESS DAYS. THE COURT SHALL BASE ITS DECISION TO
SUSPEND UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION ON ANY EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO IT
DURING THE ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SUBSECTION AND SHALL CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING FACTORS, IF RELEVANT:
(i) THE NUMBER OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS EMPLOYED BY THE EMPLOYER.
(ii) ANY PRIOR MISCONDUCT BY THE EMPLOYER.
(iii) THE DEGREE OF HARM RESULTING FROM THE VIOLATION.
(iv) WHETHER THE EMPLOYER MADE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH ANY
APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS.
(v) THE DURATION OF THE VIOLATION.
(vi) THE ROLE OF THE DIRECTORS, OFFICERS OR PRINCIPALS OF THE EMPLOYER
IN THE VIOLATION.
(vii) ANY OTHER FACTORS THE COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE.
2. FOR A FIRST VIOLATION DURING A FIVE YEAR PERIOD THAT IS AN
INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A, THE COURT SHALL:
(a) ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALL UNAUTHORIZED
ALIENS.
(b) ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO BE SUBJECT TO A FIVE YEAR PROBATIONARY
PERIOD. DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD THE EMPLOYER SHALL FILE QUARTERLY
REPORTS WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OF EACH NEW EMPLOYEE WHO IS HIRED BY THE
EMPLOYER AT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN PERFORMED
WORK.
(c) ORDER THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO SUSPEND ALL LICENSES, DESCRIBED
IN SUBDIVISION (d) OF THIS PARAGRAPH THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER FOR A
MINIMUM OF TEN DAYS. THE COURT SHALL BASE ITS DECISION ON THE LENGTH OF THE
SUSPENSION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION ON ANY EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO
IT DURING THE ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SUBSECTION AND SHALL CONSIDER
THE FOLLOWING FACTORS, IF RELEVANT:
- 4 -

H.B. 2779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

IN THE VIOLATION.
(d) ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO FILE A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY. THE AFFIDAVIT SHALL STATE THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS TERMINATED
THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALL UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS AND THAT THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT
INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN. ALL LICENSES THAT
ARE SUSPENDED UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL REMAIN SUSPENDED UNTIL THE
EMPLOYER FILES A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, THE LICENSES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO SUSPENSION
UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION ARE ALL LICENSES THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER AND
THAT ARE NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS AT THE EMPLOYER'S
BUSINESS LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN PERFORMED WORK. IF A LICENSE
IS NOT NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS AT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION
WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN PERFORMED WORK, BUT A LICENSE IS NECESSARY TO
OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS IN GENERAL, THE LICENSES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO
SUSPENSION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION ARE ALL LICENSES THAT ARE HELD BY THE
EMPLOYER AT THE EMPLOYER'S PRIMARY PLACE OF BUSINESS. ON RECEIPT OF THE
COURT'S ORDER AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES
SHALL SUSPEND THE LICENSES ACCORDING TO THE COURT'S ORDER. THE COURT SHALL
SEND A COPY OF THE COURT'S ORDER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SHALL MAINTAIN THE COPY PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION G.
3. FOR A SECOND VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A DURING THE PERIOD OF
PROBATION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO PERMANENTLY
REVOKE ALL LICENSES THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER AND THAT ARE NECESSARY TO
OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS AT THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS LOCATION WHERE THE
UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN PERFORMED WORK. IF A LICENSE IS NOT NECESSARY TO OPERATE
THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS AT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN
PERFORMED WORK, BUT A LICENSE IS NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS
IN GENERAL, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO PERMANENTLY
REVOKE ALL LICENSES THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER AT THE EMPLOYER'S PRIMARY
PLACE OF BUSINESS. ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER
LAW, THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES SHALL IMMEDIATELY REVOKE THE LICENSES.
G. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL MAINTAIN COPIES OF COURT ORDERS THAT ARE
RECEIVED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION F AND SHALL MAINTAIN A DATABASE OF THE
EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE A FIRST VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A AND MAKE THE COURT
ORDERS AVAILABLE ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WEBSITE.
- 5 -

H.B. 2779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
H. ON DETERMINING WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN, THE

COURT SHALL CONSIDER ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO
8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DETERMINATION
CREATES A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S LAWFUL STATUS. THE COURT
MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DETERMINATION AND MAY
REQUEST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE AUTOMATED OR TESTIMONIAL
VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
I. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, PROOF OF VERIFYING THE EMPLOYMENT
AUTHORIZATION OF AN EMPLOYEE THROUGH THE BASIC PILOT PROGRAM CREATES A
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT AN EMPLOYER DID NOT INTENTIONALLY EMPLOY AN
UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN OR KNOWINGLY EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN.
J. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, AN EMPLOYER WHO ESTABLISHES THAT
IT HAS COMPLIED IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE
SECTION 1324b ESTABLISHES AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THAT THE EMPLOYER DID NOT
INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN.
23-213. Employer actions; federal or state law compliance
THIS ARTICLE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO TAKE ANY
ACTION THAT THE EMPLOYER BELIEVES IN GOOD FAITH WOULD VIOLATE FEDERAL OR
STATE LAW.
23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; basic pilot
program
AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2007, EVERY EMPLOYER, AFTER HIRING AN EMPLOYEE,
SHALL VERIFY THE EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY OF THE EMPLOYEE THROUGH THE BASIC
PILOT PROGRAM.
Sec. 3. Employer notice
On or before October 1, 2007, the department of revenue shall provide a
notice to every employer that is required to withhold tax pursuant to title
43, chapter 4, Arizona Revised Statutes.
The notice shall explain the
requirements of title 23, chapter 2, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, as
added by this act, including the following:
1. A new state law prohibits employers from intentionally employing an
unauthorized alien or knowingly employing an unauthorized alien.
2. For a first violation of this new state law during a three year
period that is a knowing violation, the court will order the appropriate
licensing agencies to suspend all licenses held by the employer unless the
employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three
business days.
The filed affidavit must state that the employer has
terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens and that the employer
will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. A license
that is suspended will remain suspended until the employer files a signed
sworn affidavit with the county attorney. A copy of the court order will be
made available on the attorney generals website.
3. For a first violation of this new state law during a five year
period that is an intentional violation, the court will order the appropriate
- 6 -

H.B. 2779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
licensing agencies to suspend all licenses held by the employer for a minimum
of ten days. The employer must file a signed sworn affidavit with the county
attorney. The filed affidavit must state that the employer has terminated
the employment of all unauthorized aliens and that the employer will not
intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. A license that is
suspended will remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn
affidavit with the county attorney. A copy of the court order will be made
available on the attorney general's website.
4. For a second violation of this new state law, the court will order
the appropriate licensing agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that
are held by the employer.
5. Proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee
through the basic pilot program, as defined in section 23-211, Arizona
Revised Statutes, as added by this act, will create a rebuttable presumption
that an employer did not violate the new state law.
6. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee,
is required to verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the
basic pilot program, as defined in section 23-211, Arizona Revised Statutes,
as added by this act.
7. Instructions for the employer on how to enroll in the basic pilot
program, as defined in section 23-211, Arizona Revised Statutes, as added by
this act.
Sec. 4. Employer sanctions legislative study committee
A. The employer sanctions legislative study committee is established
consisting of the following members:
1. Three members of the senate who are appointed by the president of
the senate, not more than two of whom shall be members of the same political
party. The president of the senate shall designate one of these members to
co-chair the committee.
2. Three members of the house of representatives who are appointed by
the speaker of the house of representatives, not more than two of whom shall
be members of the same political party. The speaker of the house of
representatives shall designate one of these members to co-chair the
committee.
3. A citizen of Arizona appointed by the president of the senate who
owns a business in Arizona with no more than 30 employees.
4. A citizen of Arizona appointed by the speaker of the house of
representatives who owns a business in Arizona with more than 30 employees.
B. The Committee shall:
1. Examine the laws and regulations pertaining to employers sanctions
in Arizona.
2. Examine the effects of these laws and whether such laws are being
properly implemented.
- 7 -

H.B. 2779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
3. Examine if these laws are being applied to all businesses in

Arizona in a fair manner.
4. Examine if the complaint process is being implemented in a fair and
just manner.
5. Submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the
governor, the president of the senate and speaker of the house of
representatives on or before December 31, 2008 and submit a copy of its
report to the secretary of state and the director of the Arizona state,
library archives and public records.
C. Committee members are not eligible to receive compensation or
reimbursement of expenses.
Sec. 5. Severability
If any provision of this act or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions
or applications of this act that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are
severable.
Sec. 6. Short title
This act shall be known as and may be cited as the "Legal Arizona
Workers Act."
Sec. 7. Appropriation; attorney general enforcement; exemption
A. The sum of $100,000 is appropriated from the state general fund in
fiscal year 2007-2008 to the attorney general for the purpose of enforcing
any immigration related matters and section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes,
as added by this act.
B. The appropriation made in subsection A of this section is exempt
from the provisions of section 35-190, Arizona Revised Statutes, relating to
lapsing of appropriations.
Sec. 8. Appropriation; county attorney enforcement; department
of revenue; employer notice; exemption
A. The sum of $2,430,000 is appropriated from the state general fund
in fiscal year 2007-2008 to the department of administration to be
distributed to the county attorneys in this state for the purpose of
enforcing any immigration related matters and section 23-212, Arizona Revised
Statutes, as added by this act.
The department of administration shall
distribute these monies to each county attorney as follows:
1. $1,430,000 to each county attorney of a county in this state having
a population of one million five hundred thousand or more persons.
2. $500,000 to each county attorney of a county in this state having a
population of eight hundred thousand or more persons but less than one
million five hundred thousand persons.
- 8 -

H.B. 2779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
3. The remainder of monies to be distributed as equally as possible to

each county attorney of counties in this state having a population of less
than five hundred thousand persons.
B. The sum of $70,000 is appropriated from the state general fund in
fiscal year 2007-2008 to the department of revenue for the purposes
prescribed in section 3 of this act.
C. The appropriation made in subsection A of this section is exempt
from the provisions of section 35-190, Arizona Revised Statutes, relating to
lapsing of appropriations.
Sec. 9. Delayed repeal
Section 4 as added by this act is repealed from and after January 1,
2009.
- 9 -
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
House Engrossed
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-eighth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2008
HOUSE BILL 2745

AN ACT
AMENDING SECTIONS 13-2008, 13-2010, 23-211 AND 23-212, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 23, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES,
BY ADDING SECTION 23-212.01; AMENDING SECTION 23-214, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 23, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES,
BY ADDING SECTIONS 23-215 AND 23-216; AMENDING TITLE 23, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE
7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 23-361.01; AMENDING TITLE 41,
CHAPTER 6, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 7.2; AMENDING TITLE
41, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 44; RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT
OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
- i -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 13-2008, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
read:
13-2008. Taking or knowingly accepting identity of another
person or entity; classification
A. A person commits taking the identity of another person or entity if
the person knowingly takes, purchases, manufactures, records, possesses or
uses any personal identifying information or entity identifying information
of another person or entity, including a real or fictitious person or entity,
without the consent of that other person or entity, with the intent to obtain
or use the other person's or entity's identity for any unlawful purpose or to
cause loss to a person or entity whether or not the person or entity actually
suffers any economic loss as a result of the offense, OR WITH THE INTENT TO
OBTAIN OR CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT.
B. A PERSON COMMITS KNOWINGLY ACCEPTING THE IDENTITY OF ANOTHER PERSON
IF THE PERSON, IN HIRING AN EMPLOYEE, KNOWINGLY DOES BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. ACCEPTS ANY PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF ANOTHER PERSON FROM
AN INDIVIDUAL AND KNOWS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT THE ACTUAL PERSON
IDENTIFIED BY THAT INFORMATION.
2. USES THAT IDENTITY INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING
WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PRESENTED THAT IDENTITY INFORMATION HAS THE LEGAL
RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS
DESCRIBED AND DETERMINED UNDER THE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES UNDER 8 UNITED
STATES CODE SECTION 1324a.
B. C. On the request of a person or entity, a peace officer in any
jurisdiction in which an element of the AN offense UNDER THIS SECTION is
committed, a result of the AN offense UNDER THIS SECTION occurs or the person
or entity whose identity is taken OR ACCEPTED resides or is located shall
take a report. The peace officer may provide a copy of the report to any
other law enforcement agency that is located in a jurisdiction in which a
violation of this section occurred.
C. D. If a defendant is alleged to have committed multiple violations
of this section within the same county, the prosecutor may file a complaint
charging all of the violations and any related charges under other sections
that have not been previously filed in any precinct in which a violation is
alleged to have occurred. If a defendant is alleged to have committed
multiple violations of this section within the state, the prosecutor may file
a complaint charging all of the violations and any related charges under
other sections that have not been previously filed in any county in which a
violation is alleged to have occurred.
D. E. This section does not apply to a violation of section 4-241 by
a person who is under twenty-one years of age.
E. F. Taking the identity of another person or entity OR KNOWINGLY
ACCEPTING THE IDENTITY OF ANOTHER PERSON is a class 4 felony.
- 1 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Sec. 2. Section 13-2010, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-2010. Trafficking in the identity of another person or
entity; classification
A. A person commits trafficking in the identity of another person or
entity if the person knowingly sells, transfers or transmits any personal
identifying information or entity identifying information of another person
or entity, including a real or fictitious person or entity, without the
consent of the other person or entity for any unlawful purpose or to cause
loss to the person or entity whether or not the other person or entity
actually suffers any economic loss, OR ALLOWING ANOTHER PERSON TO OBTAIN OR
CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT.
B. This section does not apply to a violation of section 4-241 by a
person who is under twenty-one years of age.
C. Trafficking in the identity of another person or entity is a
class 2 felony.
23-211. Definitions
In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Agency" means any agency, department, board or commission of this
state or a county, city or town that issues a license for purposes of
operating a business in this state.
2. "EMPLOY" MEANS HIRING AN EMPLOYEE AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2007.
3. "Employee":
(a) Means any person who performs employment PROVIDES services OR
LABOR for an employer pursuant to an employment relationship between the
employee and employer IN THIS STATE FOR WAGES OR OTHER REMUNERATION.
(b) DOES NOT INCLUDE AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
4. "Employer" means any individual or type of organization that
transacts business in this state, that has a license issued by an agency in
this state and that employs one or more individuals who perform employment
services EMPLOYEES in this state. Employer includes this state, any
political subdivision of this state and self-employed persons. IN THE CASE
OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, EMPLOYER MEANS THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND
DOES NOT MEAN THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION THAT USES THE CONTRACT LABOR.
2. 5. "Basic pilot E-VERIFY program" means the basic employment
verification pilot program as jointly administered by the United States
department of homeland security and the social security administration or ANY
OF its successor program PROGRAMS.
6. "INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR" MEANS ANY INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY THAT
CARRIES ON AN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, THAT CONTRACTS TO DO A PIECE OF WORK
ACCORDING TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S OR ENTITY'S OWN MEANS AND METHODS AND THAT IS
SUBJECT TO CONTROL ONLY AS TO RESULTS. WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY IS AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IS DETERMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS THROUGH VARIOUS
FACTORS, INCLUDING WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY:
- 2 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
(a) SUPPLIES THE TOOLS OR MATERIALS.

(b) MAKES SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
(c) WORKS OR MAY WORK FOR A NUMBER OF CLIENTS AT THE SAME TIME.
(d) HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PROFIT OR LOSS AS A RESULT OF LABOR OR
SERVICE PROVIDED.
(e) INVESTS IN THE FACILITIES FOR WORK.
(f) DIRECTS THE ORDER OR SEQUENCE IN WHICH THE WORK IS COMPLETED.
(g) DETERMINES THE HOURS WHEN THE WORK IS COMPLETED.
5. 7. "Intentionally" has the same meaning prescribed in section
13-105.
6. 8. "Knowingly employ an unauthorized alien" means the actions
described in 8 United States Code section 1324a. This term shall be
interpreted consistently with 8 United States Code section 1324a and any
applicable federal rules and regulations.
7. 9. "License":
(a) Means any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration,
charter or similar form of authorization that is required by law and that is
issued by any agency for the purposes of operating a business in this state.
(b) Includes:
(i) Articles of incorporation under title 10.
(ii) A certificate of partnership, a partnership registration or
articles of organization under title 29.
(iii) A grant of authority issued under title 10, chapter 15.
(iv) Any transaction privilege tax license.
(c) Does not include:
(i) Any license issued pursuant to title 45 or 49 or rules adopted
pursuant to those titles.
(ii) Any professional license.
10. "SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER VERIFICATION SERVICE" MEANS THE PROGRAM
ADMINISTERED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OR ANY OF ITS SUCCESSOR
PROGRAMS.
8. 11. "Unauthorized alien" means an alien who does not have the
legal right or authorization under federal law to work in the United States
as described in 8 United States Code section 1324a(h)(3).
23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition;
false
and
frivolous
complaints;
violation;
classification; license suspension and revocation;
affirmative defense
A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien or
knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. IF, IN THE CASE WHEN AN EMPLOYER
USES A CONTRACT, SUBCONTRACT OR OTHER INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT TO
OBTAIN THE LABOR OF AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE, THE EMPLOYER KNOWINGLY CONTRACTS
WITH AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN OR WITH A PERSON WHO EMPLOYS OR CONTRACTS WITH AN
- 3 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO PERFORM THE LABOR, THE EMPLOYER VIOLATES THIS

SUBSECTION.
B. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL PRESCRIBE A COMPLAINT FORM FOR A PERSON
TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION. THE COMPLAINANT SHALL
NOT BE REQUIRED TO LIST THE COMPLAINANT'S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER ON THE
COMPLAINT FORM OR TO HAVE THE COMPLAINT FORM NOTARIZED. On receipt of a
complaint ON A PRESCRIBED COMPLAINT FORM that an employer allegedly
intentionally employs an unauthorized alien or knowingly employs an
unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate
whether the employer has violated subsection A OF THIS SECTION.
IF A
COMPLAINT IS RECEIVED BUT IS NOT SUBMITTED ON A PRESCRIBED COMPLAINT FORM,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY MAY INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE EMPLOYER
HAS VIOLATED SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION. THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT THE FILING OF ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS THAT ARE NOT
SUBMITTED ON A PRESCRIBED COMPLAINT FORM. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY
ATTORNEY SHALL NOT INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE BASED SOLELY ON RACE,
COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. A COMPLAINT THAT IS SUBMITTED TO A COUNTY ATTORNEY
SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE ALLEGED
UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN IS OR WAS EMPLOYED BY THE EMPLOYER. THE COUNTY SHERIFF OR
ANY OTHER LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY ASSIST IN INVESTIGATING A
COMPLAINT. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county
attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized
alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section
1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to
independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to
work in the United States. An alien's immigration status or work
authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant
to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a
false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3
misdemeanor.
C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney
determines that the complaint is not FALSE AND frivolous:
1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United
States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.
2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law
enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.
3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney
to bring an action pursuant to subsection D OF THIS SECTION if the complaint
was originally filed with the attorney general.
D. An action for a violation of subsection A OF THIS SECTION shall be
brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the
unauthorized alien employee is OR WAS employed BY THE EMPLOYER. The county
attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of
subsection A OF THIS SECTION that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second
- 4 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is

OR WAS employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a
violation of subsection A OF THIS SECTION OR SECTION 23-212.01, SUBSECTION A.
E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court
shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest
practicable date.
F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A OF THIS SECTION:
1. For a first violation during a three year period that is a knowing
violation of subsection A, AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS SUBSECTION,
the court:
(a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all
unauthorized aliens.
(b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year
probationary period FOR THE BUSINESS LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN
PERFORMED WORK.
During the probationary period the employer shall file
quarterly reports IN THE FORM PROVIDED IN SECTION 23-722.01 with the county
attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the specific
BUSINESS location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
(c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the
county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The
affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all
unauthorized aliens IN THIS STATE and that the employer will not
intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien IN THIS STATE. The
court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to
this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file
a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days
after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this
subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn
affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing
of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by
the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses
that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that
are held by the employer and that are necessary to operate the employer's
business at the employer's SPECIFIC TO THE business location where the
unauthorized alien performed work. If a license is not necessary to operate
the employer's business at THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT HOLD A LICENSE SPECIFIC TO
the specific BUSINESS location where the unauthorized alien performed work,
but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the
licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all
licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of
business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law,
the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's
order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney
- 5 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to
subsection G OF THIS SECTION.
(d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses
described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer
for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to
suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it
during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the
following factors, if relevant:
(i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
(ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
(iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
(iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any
applicable requirements.
(v) The duration of the violation.
(vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer
in the violation.
(vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
2. For a first violation during a five year period that is an
intentional violation of subsection A, the court shall:
(a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized
aliens.
(b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary
period. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly
reports with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the
employer at the specific location where the unauthorized alien performed
work.
(c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses, described
in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a
minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the
suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to
it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider
the following factors, if relevant:
(i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
(ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
(iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
(iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any
applicable requirements.
(v) The duration of the violation.
(vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer
in the violation.
(vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
(d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the
county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated
the employment of all unauthorized aliens and that the employer will not
- 6 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. All licenses that

are suspended under this subdivision shall remain suspended until the
employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. For the
purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension
under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer and
that are necessary to operate the employer's business at the employer's
business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If a license
is not necessary to operate the employer's business at the specific location
where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to
operate the employer's business in general, the licenses that are subject to
suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the
employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the
court's order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies
shall suspend the licenses according to the court's order. The court shall
send a copy of the court's order to the attorney general and the attorney
general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G.
3. 2. For a second violation of subsection A during the period of
probation, AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS SUBSECTION, the court shall
order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are
held by the employer and that are necessary to operate the employer's
business at the employer's SPECIFIC TO THE business location where the
unauthorized alien performed work. If a license is not necessary to operate
the employer's business at THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT HOLD A LICENSE SPECIFIC TO
the specific BUSINESS location where the unauthorized alien performed work,
but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the
court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses
that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business.
On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate
agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.
3. THE VIOLATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED:
(a) A FIRST VIOLATION BY AN EMPLOYER AT A BUSINESS LOCATION IF THE
VIOLATION DID NOT OCCUR DURING A PROBATIONARY PERIOD ORDERED BY THE COURT
UNDER THIS SUBSECTION OR SECTION 23-212.01, SUBSECTION F FOR THAT EMPLOYER'S
BUSINESS LOCATION.
(b) A SECOND VIOLATION BY AN EMPLOYER AT A BUSINESS LOCATION IF THE
VIOLATION OCCURRED DURING A PROBATIONARY PERIOD ORDERED BY THE COURT UNDER
THIS SUBSECTION OR SECTION 23-212.01, SUBSECTION F FOR THAT EMPLOYER'S
BUSINESS LOCATION.
G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are
received pursuant to subsection F OF THIS SECTION and shall maintain a
database of the employers who AND BUSINESS LOCATIONS THAT have a first
violation of subsection A OF THIS SECTION and make the court orders available
on the attorney general's website.
- 7 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the

court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to
8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination
creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court
may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may
request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial
verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment
authorization of an employee through the basic pilot E-VERIFY program creates
a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally employ an
unauthorized alien or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.
J. For the purposes of this section, an employer who THAT establishes
that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States
Code section 1324b 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the
employer did not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. AN
EMPLOYER IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 8 UNITED
STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(b), NOTWITHSTANDING AN ISOLATED, SPORADIC OR
ACCIDENTAL TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, IF THERE
IS A GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
Sec. 5. Title 23, chapter 2, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is
amended by adding section 23-212.01, to read:
23-212.01. Intentionally
employing
unauthorized
aliens;
prohibition; false and frivolous complaints;
violation; classification; license suspension and
revocation; affirmative defense
A. AN EMPLOYER SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN.
IF, IN THE CASE WHEN AN EMPLOYER USES A CONTRACT, SUBCONTRACT OR OTHER
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT TO OBTAIN THE LABOR OF AN ALIEN IN THIS
STATE, THE EMPLOYER INTENTIONALLY CONTRACTS WITH AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN OR
WITH A PERSON WHO EMPLOYS OR CONTRACTS WITH AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO PERFORM
THE LABOR, THE EMPLOYER VIOLATES THIS SUBSECTION.
B. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL PRESCRIBE A COMPLAINT FORM FOR A PERSON
TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION. THE COMPLAINANT SHALL
NOT BE REQUIRED TO LIST THE COMPLAINANT'S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER ON THE
COMPLAINT FORM OR TO HAVE THE COMPLAINT FORM NOTARIZED. ON RECEIPT OF A
COMPLAINT ON A PRESCRIBED COMPLAINT FORM THAT AN EMPLOYER ALLEGEDLY
INTENTIONALLY EMPLOYS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY
ATTORNEY SHALL INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE EMPLOYER HAS VIOLATED SUBSECTION A OF
THIS SECTION. IF A COMPLAINT IS RECEIVED BUT IS NOT SUBMITTED ON A
PRESCRIBED COMPLAINT FORM, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY MAY
INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE EMPLOYER HAS VIOLATED SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION.
THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT THE FILING OF ANONYMOUS
COMPLAINTS THAT ARE NOT SUBMITTED ON A PRESCRIBED COMPLAINT FORM.
THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY SHALL NOT INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE
- 8 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
BASED SOLELY ON RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. A COMPLAINT THAT IS

SUBMITTED TO A COUNTY ATTORNEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN
THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN IS OR WAS EMPLOYED BY THE
EMPLOYER. THE COUNTY SHERIFF OR ANY OTHER LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
ASSIST IN INVESTIGATING A COMPLAINT. WHEN INVESTIGATING A COMPLAINT, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY SHALL VERIFY THE WORK AUTHORIZATION OF
THE ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO
8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A STATE, COUNTY OR LOCAL OFFICIAL
SHALL NOT ATTEMPT TO INDEPENDENTLY MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION ON WHETHER AN
ALIEN IS AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES. AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION
STATUS OR WORK AUTHORIZATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A PERSON WHO
KNOWINGLY FILES A FALSE AND FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT UNDER THIS SUBSECTION IS
GUILTY OF A CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR.
C. IF, AFTER AN INVESTIGATION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY
DETERMINES THAT THE COMPLAINT IS NOT FALSE AND FRIVOLOUS:
1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY SHALL NOTIFY THE UNITED
STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN.
2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY SHALL NOTIFY THE LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN.
3. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO BRING AN ACTION PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION IF THE COMPLAINT
WAS ORIGINALLY FILED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
D. AN ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
BROUGHT AGAINST THE EMPLOYER BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE
UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN EMPLOYEE IS OR WAS EMPLOYED BY THE EMPLOYER. THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY SHALL NOT BRING AN ACTION AGAINST ANY EMPLOYER FOR ANY VIOLATION OF
SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION THAT OCCURS BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2008. A SECOND
VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE BASED ONLY ON AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN WHO IS
OR WAS EMPLOYED BY THE EMPLOYER AFTER AN ACTION HAS BEEN BROUGHT FOR A
VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION OR SECTION 23-212, SUBSECTION A.
E. FOR ANY ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT UNDER THIS SECTION, THE COURT
SHALL EXPEDITE THE ACTION, INCLUDING ASSIGNING THE HEARING AT THE EARLIEST
PRACTICABLE DATE.
F. ON A FINDING OF A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION:
1. FOR A FIRST VIOLATION, AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS
SUBSECTION, THE COURT SHALL:
(a) ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALL UNAUTHORIZED
ALIENS.
(b) ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO BE SUBJECT TO A FIVE YEAR PROBATIONARY
PERIOD FOR THE BUSINESS LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN PERFORMED WORK.
DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD THE EMPLOYER SHALL FILE QUARTERLY REPORTS IN
THE FORM PROVIDED IN SECTION 23-722.01 WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OF EACH NEW
- 9 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
EMPLOYEE WHO IS HIRED BY THE EMPLOYER AT THE BUSINESS LOCATION WHERE THE
UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN PERFORMED WORK.
(c) ORDER THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO SUSPEND ALL LICENSES DESCRIBED
IN SUBDIVISION (d) OF THIS PARAGRAPH THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER FOR A
MINIMUM OF TEN DAYS. THE COURT SHALL BASE ITS DECISION ON THE LENGTH OF THE
SUSPENSION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION ON ANY EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO
IT DURING THE ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SUBSECTION AND SHALL CONSIDER
THE FOLLOWING FACTORS, IF RELEVANT:
IN THE VIOLATION.
(d) ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO FILE A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY. THE AFFIDAVIT SHALL STATE THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS TERMINATED
THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALL UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS IN THIS STATE AND THAT THE EMPLOYER
WILL NOT INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN IN THIS
STATE. THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO SUSPEND ALL
LICENSES SUBJECT TO THIS SUBDIVISION THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER IF THE
EMPLOYER FAILS TO FILE A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE ORDER IS ISSUED. ALL LICENSES THAT ARE
SUSPENDED UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION FOR FAILING TO FILE A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT
SHALL REMAIN SUSPENDED UNTIL THE EMPLOYER FILES A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT WITH
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, THE LICENSES THAT
ARE SUBJECT TO SUSPENSION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION ARE ALL LICENSES THAT ARE
HELD BY THE EMPLOYER SPECIFIC TO THE BUSINESS LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED
ALIEN PERFORMED WORK. IF THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT HOLD A LICENSE SPECIFIC TO
THE BUSINESS LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN PERFORMED WORK, BUT A
LICENSE IS NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS IN GENERAL, THE
LICENSES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO SUSPENSION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION ARE ALL
LICENSES THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER AT THE EMPLOYER'S PRIMARY PLACE OF
BUSINESS. ON RECEIPT OF THE COURT'S ORDER AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW,
THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES SHALL SUSPEND THE LICENSES ACCORDING TO THE COURT'S
ORDER. THE COURT SHALL SEND A COPY OF THE COURT'S ORDER TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL MAINTAIN THE COPY PURSUANT TO
SUBSECTION G OF THIS SECTION.
2. FOR A SECOND VIOLATION, AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS
SUBSECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO PERMANENTLY
REVOKE ALL LICENSES THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER SPECIFIC TO THE BUSINESS
LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN PERFORMED WORK. IF THE EMPLOYER DOES
- 10 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
NOT HOLD A LICENSE SPECIFIC TO THE BUSINESS LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED
ALIEN PERFORMED WORK, BUT A LICENSE IS NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE EMPLOYER'S
BUSINESS IN GENERAL, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO
PERMANENTLY REVOKE ALL LICENSES THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER AT THE
EMPLOYER'S PRIMARY PLACE OF BUSINESS. ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER AND
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES SHALL IMMEDIATELY
REVOKE THE LICENSES.
3. THE VIOLATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED:
(a) A FIRST VIOLATION BY AN EMPLOYER AT A BUSINESS LOCATION IF THE
VIOLATION DID NOT OCCUR DURING A PROBATIONARY PERIOD ORDERED BY THE COURT
UNDER THIS SUBSECTION OR SECTION 23-212, SUBSECTION F FOR THAT EMPLOYER'S
BUSINESS LOCATION.
(b) A SECOND VIOLATION BY AN EMPLOYER AT A BUSINESS LOCATION IF THE
VIOLATION OCCURRED DURING A PROBATIONARY PERIOD ORDERED BY THE COURT UNDER
THIS SUBSECTION OR SECTION 23-212, SUBSECTION F FOR THAT EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS
LOCATION.
G. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL MAINTAIN COPIES OF COURT ORDERS THAT ARE
RECEIVED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION F OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL MAINTAIN A
DATABASE OF THE EMPLOYERS AND BUSINESS LOCATIONS THAT HAVE A FIRST VIOLATION
OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND MAKE THE COURT ORDERS AVAILABLE ON THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WEBSITE.
H. ON DETERMINING WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN, THE
COURT SHALL CONSIDER ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO
8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DETERMINATION
CREATES A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S LAWFUL STATUS. THE COURT
MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DETERMINATION AND MAY
REQUEST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE AUTOMATED OR TESTIMONIAL
VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
I. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, PROOF OF VERIFYING THE EMPLOYMENT
AUTHORIZATION OF AN EMPLOYEE THROUGH THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM CREATES A
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT AN EMPLOYER DID NOT INTENTIONALLY EMPLOY AN
UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN.
J. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, AN EMPLOYER THAT ESTABLISHES THAT
IT HAS COMPLIED IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE
SECTION 1324a(b) ESTABLISHES AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THAT THE EMPLOYER DID NOT
INTENTIONALLY EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN. AN EMPLOYER IS CONSIDERED TO
HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(b),
NOTWITHSTANDING AN ISOLATED, SPORADIC OR ACCIDENTAL TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL
FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, IF THERE IS A GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO COMPLY
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
- 11 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Sec. 6.
23-214.
Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

Verification of employment eligibility; E-verify
program; economic development incentives; list of
registered employers
A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee,
shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the basic
pilot E-VERIFY program.
B. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REQUIREMENT FOR AN EMPLOYER TO RECEIVE AN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE FROM A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, THE EMPLOYER SHALL
REGISTER WITH AND PARTICIPATE IN THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM. BEFORE RECEIVING THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE, THE EMPLOYER SHALL PROVIDE PROOF TO THE
GOVERNMENT ENTITY THAT THE EMPLOYER IS REGISTERED WITH AND IS PARTICIPATING
IN THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM. IF THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY DETERMINES THAT THE
EMPLOYER IS NOT COMPLYING WITH THIS SUBSECTION, THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY SHALL
NOTIFY THE EMPLOYER BY CERTIFIED MAIL OF THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY'S
DETERMINATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE AND THE EMPLOYER'S RIGHT TO APPEAL THE
DETERMINATION. ON A FINAL DETERMINATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE, THE EMPLOYER SHALL
REPAY ALL MONIES RECEIVED AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE TO THE
GOVERNMENT ENTITY WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION. FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION:
1. "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE" MEANS ANY GRANT, LOAN OR
PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVE FROM ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY THAT IS AWARDED AFTER
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY TAX
PROVISION UNDER TITLE 42 OR 43.
2. "GOVERNMENT ENTITY" MEANS THIS STATE AND ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
OF THIS STATE THAT RECEIVES AND USES TAX REVENUES.
C. EVERY THREE MONTHS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL REQUEST FROM THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY A LIST OF EMPLOYERS FROM THIS
STATE THAT ARE REGISTERED WITH THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM. ON RECEIPT OF THE LIST
OF EMPLOYERS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL MAKE THE LIST AVAILABLE ON THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WEBSITE.
amended by adding sections 23-215 and 23-216, to read:
23-215. Voluntary employer enhanced compliance program; program
termination
A. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL ESTABLISH THE VOLUNTARY EMPLOYER
ENHANCED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM IS VOLUNTARY AND AN EMPLOYER IS NOT
REQUIRED TO ENROLL IN THE PROGRAM.
B. AN EMPLOYER THAT IS ON PROBATION UNDER SECTION 23-212 OR 23-212.01
MAY NOT ENROLL IN THE VOLUNTARY EMPLOYER ENHANCED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM. A
COURT SHALL NOT CONSIDER NONENROLLMENT IN THE VOLUNTARY EMPLOYER ENHANCED
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM AS A FACTOR WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE
A LICENSE UNDER SECTION 23-212 OR 23-212.01.
- 12 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
C. TO ENROLL IN THE VOLUNTARY EMPLOYER ENHANCED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM, AN

EMPLOYER SHALL SUBMIT A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE
AFFIDAVIT SHALL STATE THAT THE EMPLOYER AGREES TO PERFORM ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING ACTIONS IN GOOD FAITH:
1. AFTER HIRING AN EMPLOYEE, THE EMPLOYER SHALL VERIFY THE EMPLOYMENT
ELIGIBILITY OF THE EMPLOYEE THROUGH THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM.
2. TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF REPORTING WAGES TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, THE EMPLOYER SHALL VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBERS THROUGH THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER VERIFICATION SERVICE FOR ANY
EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOT VERIFIED THROUGH THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM. WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS AFTER ENROLLING IN THE VOLUNTARY EMPLOYER ENHANCED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM,
THE EMPLOYER SHALL SUBMIT THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBER VERIFICATION SERVICE, INCLUDING THE FULL NAME, THE SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBER, THE DATE OF BIRTH AND THE GENDER OF EACH EMPLOYEE. ON RECEIPT OF A
FAILED VERIFICATION RESULT, THE EMPLOYER SHALL NOTIFY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE
DATE ON WHICH THE EMPLOYER RECEIVED THE FAILED RESULT AND INSTRUCT THE
EMPLOYEE TO RESOLVE THE DISCREPANCY WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THAT DATE. THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE SHALL RESOLVE
ANY FAILED RESULT WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE EMPLOYER
RECEIVED THE FAILED RESULT. IF THE FAILED RESULT IS NOT RESOLVED WITHIN THE
NINETY-DAY PERIOD BUT THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE ARE CONTINUING TO ACTIVELY
AND CONSISTENTLY WORK TOWARD RESOLVING THE FAILED RESULT WITH THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, THE NINETY-DAY PERIOD DOES NOT APPLY AS LONG AS THE
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE HAVE DOCUMENTED PROOF OF THESE ONGOING EFFORTS TO
RESOLVE THE FAILED RESULT IN GOOD FAITH AND HAVE PROVIDED THE DOCUMENTED
PROOF TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE EMPLOYER SHALL VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND RESOLVE ANY FAILED VERIFICATION RESULTS IN A
CONSISTENT MANNER FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.
3. IN RESPONSE TO A WRITTEN REQUEST BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY
ATTORNEY STATING THE NAME OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN
RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 23-212 OR 23-212.01, THE EMPLOYER SHALL PROVIDE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY THE DOCUMENTS INDICATING THAT THE
EMPLOYEE WAS VERIFIED THROUGH THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM OR THAT THE ACCURACY OF
THE EMPLOYEE'S WAGE REPORT WAS VERIFIED THROUGH THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
VERIFICATION SERVICE UNDER THIS SECTION.
D. AN EMPLOYER THAT IS ENROLLED IN THE VOLUNTARY EMPLOYER ENHANCED
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM SHALL NOT BE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 23-212, SUBSECTION A
OR SECTION 23-212.01, SUBSECTION A REGARDING AN EMPLOYEE NAMED IN A COMPLAINT
UNDER SECTION 23-212 OR 23-212.01 IF THE EMPLOYER HAS COMPLETED BOTH OF THE
FOLLOWING:
1. IN GOOD FAITH VERIFIED THE EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY OF THE EMPLOYEE
NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT THROUGH THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM OR IN GOOD FAITH VERIFIED
THE ACCURACY OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OF THE EMPLOYEE NAMED IN THE
- 13 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
COMPLAINT THROUGH THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER VERIFICATION SYSTEM AS REQUIRED

BY SUBSECTION C, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 OF THIS SECTION.
2. PROVIDED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR COUNTY ATTORNEY WITH THE
DOCUMENTS, AS REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION C, PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS SECTION,
INDICATING THAT THE EMPLOYER VERIFIED THE EMPLOYEE NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT.
E. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL MAINTAIN A LIST OF EMPLOYERS ENROLLED IN
THE VOLUNTARY EMPLOYER ENHANCED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM AND MAKE THE LIST
AVAILABLE ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WEBSITE.
F. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL DEVELOP A FORM OF RECOGNITION THAT AN
EMPLOYER MAY DISPLAY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR ENROLLING IN THE VOLUNTARY
EMPLOYER ENHANCED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.
G. IF AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT FULLY COMPLY WITH THIS SECTION, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL TERMINATE THE EMPLOYER'S ENROLLMENT IN THE VOLUNTARY
EMPLOYER ENHANCED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM. AT ANY TIME, AN EMPLOYER MAY
VOLUNTARILY WITHDRAW FROM THE VOLUNTARY EMPLOYER ENHANCED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
BY NOTIFYING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. BEGINNING ON THE DATE OF TERMINATION OR
WITHDRAWAL, SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION NO LONGER APPLIES TO THE EMPLOYER
AND THE EMPLOYER SHALL IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ANY FORM OF RECOGNITION FROM PUBLIC
DISPLAY THAT IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS SECTION.
H. THE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY THIS SECTION ENDS ON JULY 1, 2018
PURSUANT TO SECTION 41-3102.
23-216. Independent contractors; applicability
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS APPLIES
TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO PERFORMS SERVICES AND IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 3508 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.
amended by adding section 23-361.01, to read:
23-361.01. Employer requirements; cash payments; unlawful
practices; civil penalty
A. AN EMPLOYER THAT HAS TWO OR MORE EMPLOYEES AND PAYS HOURLY WAGES OR
SALARY BY CASH TO ANY EMPLOYEE SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. THE INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING LAWS PRESCRIBED IN TITLE 43, CHAPTER 4.
2. THE EMPLOYER REPORTING LAWS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 23-722.01.
3. THE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY LAWS PRESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 4 OF THIS TITLE.
4. THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAWS PRESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 6 OF THIS
TITLE.
B. FOR A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT AGAINST AN EMPLOYER. ON A
FINDING OF A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER
THE EMPLOYER TO PAY A CIVIL PENALTY THAT IS EQUAL TO TREBLE THE AMOUNT OF ALL
WITHHOLDINGS, PAYMENTS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR PREMIUMS THAT THE EMPLOYER FAILED TO
REMIT AS PRESCRIBED BY SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION OR FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
FOR EACH EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM A VIOLATION WAS COMMITTED, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
- 14 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
C. THE COURT SHALL TRANSMIT THE MONIES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO

SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION TO THE STATE TREASURER, AND THE STATE TREASURER
SHALL DEPOSIT THE MONIES IN THE STATE GENERAL FUND. MONIES DEPOSITED IN THE
STATE GENERAL FUND PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE EQUALLY APPROPRIATED
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE
PURPOSES OF OFFSETTING INCREASED COSTS TO THIS STATE BY UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.
D. THE CIVIL PENALTY UNDER THIS SECTION IS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER
PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BY LAW.
Sec. 9. Title 41, chapter 6, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
adding article 7.2, to read:
ARTICLE 7.2. LICENSING ELIGIBILITY
41-1080. Licensing
eligibility;
authorized
presence;
documentation; applicability; definitions
A. AFTER SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, AN AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
THIS STATE SHALL NOT ISSUE A LICENSE TO AN INDIVIDUAL IF THE INDIVIDUAL DOES
NOT PRESENT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS TO THE AGENCY OR POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION INDICATING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL'S PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES IS
AUTHORIZED UNDER FEDERAL LAW:
1. AN ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE ISSUED AFTER 1996 OR AN ARIZONA
NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
2. A DRIVER LICENSE ISSUED BY A STATE THAT VERIFIES LAWFUL PRESENCE IN
THE UNITED STATES.
3. A BIRTH CERTIFICATE OR DELAYED BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN ANY
STATE, TERRITORY OR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES.
4. A UNITED STATES CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH ABROAD.
5. A UNITED STATES PASSPORT.
6. A FOREIGN PASSPORT WITH A UNITED STATES VISA.
7. AN I-94 FORM WITH A PHOTOGRAPH.
8. A UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES EMPLOYMENT
AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT OR REFUGEE TRAVEL DOCUMENT.
9. A UNITED STATES CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION.
10. A UNITED STATES CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP.
11. A TRIBAL CERTIFICATE OF INDIAN BLOOD.
12. A TRIBAL OR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AFFIDAVIT OF BIRTH.
B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO AN INDIVIDUAL, IF ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING APPLY:
1. THE INDIVIDUAL IS A CITIZEN OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY OR, IF AT THE TIME
OF APPLICATION, THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDES IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
2. THE BENEFITS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE LICENSE DO NOT REQUIRE THE
INDIVIDUAL TO BE PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THOSE
BENEFITS.
- 15 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
C. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:

1. "AGENCY" MEANS ANY AGENCY, DEPARTMENT, BOARD OR COMMISSION OF THIS
STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ISSUES A LICENSE FOR
THE PURPOSES OF OPERATING A BUSINESS IN THIS STATE.
2. "LICENSE" MEANS ANY AGENCY PERMIT, CERTIFICATE, APPROVAL,
REGISTRATION, CHARTER OR SIMILAR FORM OF AUTHORIZATION THAT IS REQUIRED BY
LAW AND THAT IS ISSUED BY ANY AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSES OF OPERATING A BUSINESS
IN THIS STATE.
Sec. 10. Title 41, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding
chapter 44, to read:
CHAPTER 44
AUTHORIZED PRESENCE REQUIREMENTS
ARTICLE 1. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
41-4401. Government
procurement;
E-verify
requirement;
definitions
A. AFTER SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY SHALL NOT AWARD A
CONTRACT TO ANY CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR THAT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION
23-214, SUBSECTION A.
EVERY GOVERNMENT ENTITY SHALL ENSURE THAT EVERY
GOVERNMENT ENTITY CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR COMPLIES WITH THE FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT RELATE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES AND SECTION
23-214, SUBSECTION A.
EVERY GOVERNMENT ENTITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT EVERY
GOVERNMENT ENTITY CONTRACT INCLUDE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:
1. THAT EACH CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR WARRANTS THEIR COMPLIANCE
WITH ALL FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT RELATE TO THEIR
EMPLOYEES AND THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 23-214, SUBSECTION A.
2. THAT A BREACH OF A WARRANTY UNDER PARAGRAPH 1 SHALL BE DEEMED A
MATERIAL BREACH OF THE CONTRACT THAT IS SUBJECT TO PENALTIES UP TO AND
INCLUDING TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT.
3. THAT THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY RETAINS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO INSPECT THE
PAPERS OF ANY CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE WHO WORKS ON THE CONTRACT
TO ENSURE THAT THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR IS COMPLYING WITH THE WARRANTY
UNDER PARAGRAPH 1.
B. EVERY GOVERNMENT ENTITY THAT ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT SHALL ESTABLISH
PROCEDURES TO CONDUCT RANDOM VERIFICATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RECORDS OF
GOVERNMENT ENTITY CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS TO ENSURE THAT THE
CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS ARE COMPLYING WITH THEIR WARRANTIES.
C. A GOVERNMENT ENTITY SHALL NOT DEEM A GOVERNMENT ENTITY CONTRACTOR
OR SUBCONTRACTOR IN MATERIAL BREACH OF A CONTRACT IF THE CONTRACTOR OR
SUBCONTRACTOR ESTABLISHES THAT IT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE EMPLOYMENT
VERIFICATION PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY SECTIONS 274A AND 274B OF THE FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT AND THE E-VERIFY REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY
SECTION 23-214, SUBSECTION A.
- 16 -

H.B. 2745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:

1. "CONTRACT" MEANS ALL TYPES OF GOVERNMENT ENTITY AGREEMENTS,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MAY BE CALLED, FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES IN
THIS STATE.
2. "CONTRACTOR" MEANS ANY PERSON WHO HAS A CONTRACT WITH A GOVERNMENT
ENTITY.
3. "E-VERIFY PROGRAM" MEANS THE EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION PILOT PROGRAM
AS JOINTLY ADMINISTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OR ANY OF ITS SUCCESSOR PROGRAMS.
4. "GOVERNMENT ENTITY" MEANS THIS STATE AND ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
OF THIS STATE THAT RECEIVES AND USES TAX REVENUES.
5. "SERVICES" MEANS THE FURNISHING OF LABOR, TIME OR EFFORT IN THIS
STATE BY A CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR. SERVICES INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OR
MAINTENANCE OF ANY STRUCTURE, BUILDING OR TRANSPORTATION FACILITY OR
IMPROVEMENT OF REAL PROPERTY.
6. "SUBCONTRACTOR" MEANS A PERSON WHO CONTRACTS TO PERFORM WORK OR
RENDER SERVICE TO A CONTRACTOR OR TO ANOTHER SUBCONTRACTOR AS A PART OF A
CONTRACT WITH A GOVERNMENT ENTITY.
Sec. 11. Severability
If any provision of this act or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions
or applications of this act that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are
severable.
Sec. 12. Emergency
This act is an emergency measure that is necessary to preserve the
public peace, health or safety and is operative immediately as provided by
law.
- 17 -
Puente Arizona et al v. Arpaio et al, Docket No. 2:14-cv-01356 (D. Ariz. Jun 18, 2014), Court Docket
General Information
Court
United States District Court for the District of Arizona; United

States District Court for the District of Arizona
Federal Nature of Suit
Constitutionality of State Statutes[950]
Docket Number
2:14-cv-01356
2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service
// PAGE 123

Puente - Arizona - v. - Arpai Second Amended Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 5-1-15

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Puente - Arizona - v. - Arpai Second Amended Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 5-1-15

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 179 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 122

Anne Lai (admitted pro hac vice)

Jessica Karp Bansal (admitted pro hac

Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado

Jessica Myers Vosburgh (admitted pro

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Puente Arizona, et al.,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01356-DGC

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 179 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 122

Anne Lai (admitted pro hac vice)

Jessica Karp Bansal (admitted pro hac

Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado

Jessica Myers Vosburgh (admitted pro

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Puente Arizona, Susan E. FrederickGray, Russell Andrew Burnette and Erin

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 179 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 122

measures were promulgated as part of a broader platform favored by Arizona nativists to

Arizona entered uncharted territory as a state when it revised its identity

employment. A.R.S. 13-2009(A)(3). H.B. 2745 supplemented the Legal Arizona

funded by Maricopa County, to use the above-described provisions in A.R.S. 13-

2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) (collectively referred to as the worker identity

to target undocumented immigrants in the workplace for arrest and prosecution.1

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 179 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 122

something she needed to do in order to get the job.

MCSOs and MCAOs enforcement campaign has separated breadwinners

fallout of enforcement operations by providing humanitarian and advocacy assistance to

Defendants effort to single out employment by undocumented workers

laws established by Congress and implemented by the executive branch regulating

identity provisions also discriminate on the basis of alienage in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiffs bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to

prevent further unconstitutional arrests and prosecutions and an expungement of records

for the two Plaintiffs who have been improperly convicted.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). All Defendants are sued in

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 179 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 122

Plaintiff Puente Arizona (Puente) is a grassroots membership

violence and interdependence. It aims to develop, educate, and empower immigrant

English classes, media trainings, know-your-rights workshops, health and wellness

identity provisions and forgery statute.

Plaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola is a resident of Glendale, Arizona and

Class 3 felony, under A.R.S. 13-2009.

Plaintiff Elia Estrada Fernandez is a resident of Mesa, Arizona and the

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 179 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 122

Plaintiff Reverend Susan E. Frederick-Gray is the Lead Minister of the

enforce A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented

workers. Plaintiff Frederick-Gray is challenging the enforcement of these statutes as an

illegal expenditure of county taxpayer funds.

Plaintiff Reverend Russell Andrew Burnette is the Senior Minister at

Valley Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Chandler, Arizona. He works in, resides

A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers.

Plaintiff Burnette is challenging the enforcement of these statutes as an illegal

expenditure of county taxpayer funds.

Plaintiff Reverend Erin Tamayo is a pastor of the Presbyterian Church

Reverend Tamayo to enforce A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) against

undocumented workers. Reverend Tamayo is challenging the enforcement of these

statutes as an illegal expenditure of county taxpayer funds.

Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (Arpaio) is the elected Sheriff of Maricopa

2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3). Defendant Arpaio is sued in his official capacity.

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 179 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 122

Defendant Bill Montgomery (Montgomery) is the elected County

including A.R.S. 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3), as well as misdemeanors

Maricopa County on matters of prosecution. He is sued in his official capacity.