Arizona’s “show me your papers” law, formally Senate Bill 1070, requires state and local police to check a person’s immigration status during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest when the officer has reasonable suspicion the person is in the country without authorization. Most of the original 2010 law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012, but the status-check requirement survived and is still enforceable. A 2016 Arizona Attorney General opinion added binding limits on how officers can use it.
What Section 2(B) Actually Requires
Section 2(B) is the only enforcement mechanism the Supreme Court allowed to take effect. It applies when an officer has already made a lawful stop, detention, or arrest for some other reason. If, during that encounter, reasonable suspicion arises that the person is unlawfully present, the officer must make a reasonable attempt to verify immigration status with the federal government.1Arizona Legislature. Senate Bill 1070 as Amended by HB 2162
The Court let this provision stand because, at the time, no state court had interpreted it and no one had shown it conflicted with federal law in practice. The opinion was explicit that future challenges remained open, and it warned that prolonging a detention solely to verify status would raise serious constitutional concerns.2Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Arizona v. United States
Anyone arrested for a state-law offense will have their immigration status checked before release. That check is mandatory and does not depend on the officer’s suspicion.3Arizona Attorney General. Informal Opinion No. I16-010
IDs That End the Inquiry
The law builds in a presumption of lawful presence. If you show any of the following, the officer has no basis to pursue verification further:4Arizona Legislature. Arizona HB 2162
- A valid Arizona driver license.
- A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license (the state ID card).
- A tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification from a federally recognized tribe.
- Any valid federal, state, or local government-issued ID, but only if the issuing agency requires proof of legal presence before issuing it.
Arizona already requires proof of legal presence to obtain a driver license or state ID, so those cards carry the presumption on their own. For most citizens and lawful residents who carry one, Section 2(B) has no practical effect. The people most exposed to the check are those without government-issued identification.
Limits on How Officers Can Use It
In 2016, Arizona’s Attorney General issued a formal opinion setting constitutional standards for Section 2(B) enforcement. The opinion resolved Valle del Sol v. Whiting and created binding guidelines:3Arizona Attorney General. Informal Opinion No. I16-010
- Officers may not consider race, color, or national origin in developing reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence, except as permitted by the U.S. and Arizona constitutions.
- Officers cannot stop someone solely to investigate immigration status. There has to be an independent legal reason for the stop.
- Officers cannot extend a stop past what the original reason requires just to run an immigration check.
- Officers cannot arrest someone simply because that person lacks documentation.
- Even with probable cause to believe someone committed a civil immigration violation, officers have no arrest authority and cannot prolong the detention.
- If checking status is not practical because of call volume, staffing, an emergency, or an inability to reach federal authorities, officers may decline to pursue the check.
Section 2(B) now functions as an add-on inquiry during an already-justified encounter, not a standalone authority to demand papers.
Your Rights During a Stop
You have the right to remain silent. You are not required to answer questions about where you were born, how long you have been in the country, or how you entered. Anything you say on those topics can be used against you in immigration proceedings.
If you have identification that triggers the presumption of lawful presence, showing it ends the immigration inquiry. If you are undocumented, do not present false documents and do not lie about your status. Both create separate criminal exposure.
The Fourth Amendment limits how long any stop can last. If you were pulled over for a traffic violation and the traffic matter is resolved, an officer cannot keep you on the roadside waiting for a response from federal immigration databases. The stop has to end when its original purpose ends. A detention prolonged solely for an immigration check may violate the Constitution.2Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Arizona v. United States
One caution on location. For years, federal policy treated schools, hospitals, and houses of worship as “sensitive locations” where ICE generally did not conduct operations. In January 2025, that policy was rescinded. SB 1070 itself never contained a sensitive-locations exception, so state and local officers making stops near those places carry the same Section 2(B) obligations they would anywhere else.
What the Supreme Court Struck Down
Three parts of the original bill are no longer enforceable. Knowing what fell helps you recognize when someone is describing the law as it was rather than the law as it is.
Failure to Carry Federal Registration Documents (Section 3)
Section 3 made it a state misdemeanor to fail to carry federal alien registration documents. The Court held that Congress had built a comprehensive federal registration system and intended to occupy the whole field, leaving Arizona no room to add its own penalties.2Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Arizona v. United States
State Crime for Unauthorized Work (Section 5(C))
Section 5(C) made it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized immigrant to apply for, solicit, or perform work. The Court found this conflicted with the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act, which deliberately chose to penalize employers rather than workers.5Cornell Law Institute. Arizona v. United States
Warrantless Arrest for Deportable Offenses (Section 6)
Section 6 let state and local officers arrest anyone without a warrant if the officer had probable cause to believe the person had committed an offense making them deportable. The Court struck it down because it gave state officers immigration-enforcement authority that federal law reserves to federal agents.2Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Arizona v. United States
Other Provisions Still on the Books
Two lesser-known parts of SB 1070 survived and remain enforceable.
The anti-sanctuary provision prohibits any state or local official or agency from adopting a policy that limits immigration enforcement below what federal law permits. Any Arizona resident can sue a local government in superior court for violating this ban. A court that finds a sanctuary-style policy must order the entity to pay the plaintiff’s court costs and attorney fees, plus a civil penalty of $1,000 to $5,000 for each day the policy stayed in effect after the lawsuit was filed.6Arizona Legislature. Arizona State Legislature SB 1070
Section 5 also created state penalties for transporting, concealing, or harboring someone the actor knows or should know is unlawfully present, when done in furtherance of that unlawful presence. It is a class 1 misdemeanor in most cases and escalates to a felony when ten or more people are involved. Vehicles used in the offense can be impounded and potentially forfeited.7Connecticut General Assembly. Summary of Arizona Immigration Legislation and Legislation in Other States Federal law already criminalizes the same conduct, so a single act can produce both state and federal charges.