http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.

A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.

His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

send the man a case of bullets and a bottle of black jack !

He has my support. I don't understand how they have any US civil rights if they are not citizens or here legally.

I think their chances for winning this one are pretty slim.

Sounds like a good case for the ACLU.

I don't know the whole story but if they did the damage this man says they did, he should win. He should have a right to protect his family and his property against anyone doing this, illegals or legals.

Well...first thing....they were TRESPASSING.

Second thing, they were trespassing during the commission of a crime. Namely, coming into this country illegally.

He probably would have been better off to just shoot the whole lot of them. Now he's probably gonna lose his ranch.

they were illegally trespassing on his proberty

the judge should be disbarred

he held them for the lawful authorities

it was a slap in the face to let it go to trial

In general, they should have basic civil & human rights! Regardless of legal status. But I don't see how their rights were violated. The only place he was wrong, it would seem (in this description) was kicking one of them.

So if they sue for damages for being kicked, maybe that money should go directly to the fines for their illegal activities, and then goverment can give him an award (completing the circle) for his volunteer services.

I'm in argeement with the other posters. be definition...they committed a crime by crossing illegally...not to mention trespassing. he didn't shoot them...he turned them over to the authorities. he did for free the border patrols job. the border patrol is over worked and under staffed at the border.

I couldn't find the actual law on tresspassing in AZ

To give a complete explanation, let’s identify the three types of trespassing in Arizona.

The least serious is Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree. A person commits this crime when they knowingly enter or remain unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over the property. It can also occur when someone enters the property after having been given reasonable notice of prohibited entry (a “no trespassing” sign). This is a class 3 misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500 and up to 30 days in jail.

The next level is Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree. This is basically the same as Third Degree Trespass, except that it refers to any non-residential structure or fenced commercial yard. This is a class 2 misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $750 and 4 months in jail.

The most serious is Criminal Trespass in the First Degree. A person commits Criminal Trespass in the First Degree when that person knowingly

1. Enters or remains unlawfully in or on a residential structure.

2. Enters or remains unlawfully on the property of another and burns, defaces, mutilates, or other wise desecrates a religious symbol or other religious property of another without the express permission of the property owner.

3. Enters or remains unlawfully in or on a critical public service facility.

Any of these first three are considered to be a Class 6 Felony and are punishable by up to 1.5 years in prison and up to $150,000 in fines.

There are three other things that are also considered to be Criminal Trespass in the First Degree, but these three are considered to be a Class 1 Misdemeanor. They are:

1. Entering or remaining unlawfully in a fenced residential yard.

2. Entering any residential yard and, without lawful authority, looking into the residential structure with reckless disregard for the inhabitant’s privacy (Peeping Tom)

3. Entering unlawfully on real property that is subject to a valid mineral claim or lease with the intent to hold, work, take or explore for minerals on the claim or lease.

A Class 1 Misdemeanor is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a maximum of a $2500 fine.


http://arizonaccwpermit.com/2008/06/01/penalty-for-trespassing/

adj...you found what I was looking for. do they have the law for the rights to protect the property...like the ones I posted about Texas?

this goes into a lot more detail


http://justmytruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/arizonas-constitution-vs-illegal-aliens-the-case-of-robert-barnett/

Arizona's constitution states:

35. Actions by illegal aliens prohibited
Section 35. A person who is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law
related to improper entry by an alien shall not be awarded punitive damages in any action
in any court in this state.

Pretty much the most ridiculous law suit ever. Minus the one where those girls tried suing McDonald's for making them fat.

Punitive damages are in criminal case this is a civil case.

it says "shall not be awarded punitive damages in any action
in any court in this state."

does that not include both criminal and civil?

I don't think so. I think punitive damages implies criminal court, but I could be wrong; I'm not a law expert.

thomas...I actually always thought the opposite....that they were only awarded in civil (like small claims court, etc)

Punitive damages are damages awarded in a lawsuit as a punishment and example to deter others from malicious, evil or particularly fraudulent acts. Plaintiff has the burden of proving that punitive damages should be awarded, and the amount, by a preponderance of the evidence. In order to succeed, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was malicious, or in reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights.

The relationship between the amount of punitive and compensatory damages awarded in any given case has been prominent in the policy debate, and some federal and state judiciaries and legislatures use the amount of compensatory damages awarded as one factor in judging the reasonableness of the punitive award. Because punitive damages are awarded in a fraction of all verdicts, they are less frequent, and thus less predictable, than compensatory awards.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/punitive-damages/

*********************************************************************

it doesn't say that it's only in criminal or civil.

did they not change the law where say...a guy gets hurt while breaking into someone's house can not then sue the home owner?

That piece of constitution doesn't specify criminal or civil, but in the case being discussed, they are suing for punitive damages.

"Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes."

So it does seem as though you can sue for punitive damages in a civil case, right? Because that's what this is? Or am I a complete moron here?