13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions
A. It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
B. It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
C. It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.
D. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
E. In the enforcement of this section, an alien's immigration status may be determined by:
1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.
2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
F. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.
G. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Solicit" means verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed.
2. "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).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case:
United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010).
United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010).
· cites it 32× “§ 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(0, and Section 6 creating A.”
Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).
· cites it 3× “Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-2928 (C). Violations can be punished by a $2,500 fine and incarceration for up to six months.”
Friendly House v. Whiting, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (D. Ariz. 2012).
· cites it 64× “1070’s *1055 components, Section 5 added A.R.S. § 13-2928 to the Arizona Criminal Code.”
United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 4× “” Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(0 (2010). Violation of this provision is a class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a six month maximum term of imprisonment.”
Ortega-Melendres v. Arpaio, 836 F. Supp. 2d 959 (D. Ariz. 2011).
· cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B). These provisions have not been enjoined, but their status remains uncertain.”
Valle Del Sol v. State of Arizona, 709 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 3× “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2928(A)-(B) (Sections 5(A) and (B), collectively the day labor provisions).”
United States v. State of Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “at 2503 (quoting Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 13-2928(C)). The Court explained that Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub.”
Fuentes-Espinoza v. People, 2017 CO 98 (Colo. 2017).
· cites it 2× “at 403 (quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928 (C) (2017)); and (2) section 3 of the same Arizona statute, which prohibited the “willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document .”
Teltech Sys., Inc. v. Phil Bryan, 702 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012).
“Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(C). Although the Arizona statute advanced the same goal as IRCA — preventing hiring unauthorized aliens — the Court held the Arizona statute’s enforcement scheme conflicted with the federal regulatory system.”
United States v. Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (N.D. Ala. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Arizona, the United States challenged Section 5(C) of the Arizona Act, A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), which is similar to H.”
United States v. State, 813 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (N.D. Ala. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Arizona , the United States challenged Section 5(C) of the Arizona Act, A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), which is similar to H.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2928(A) — 4 cases
United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010).
“§ 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(0, and Section 6 creating A.”
Friendly House v. Whiting, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“1070’s *1055 components, Section 5 added A.R.S. § 13-2928 to the Arizona Criminal Code.”
Ortega-Melendres v. Arpaio, 836 F. Supp. 2d 959 (D. Ariz. 2011).
“A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B). These provisions have not been enjoined, but their status remains uncertain.”
Valle Del Sol v. State of Arizona, 709 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2013).
“See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2928(A)-(B) (Sections 5(A) and (B), collectively the day labor provisions).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2928(B) — 3 cases
United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010).
“§ 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(0, and Section 6 creating A.”
Ortega-Melendres v. Arpaio, 836 F. Supp. 2d 959 (D. Ariz. 2011).
“A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B). These provisions have not been enjoined, but their status remains uncertain.”
Friendly House v. Whiting, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“1070’s *1055 components, Section 5 added A.R.S. § 13-2928 to the Arizona Criminal Code.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2928(C) — 6 cases
United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010).
“§ 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(0, and Section 6 creating A.”
United States v. State of Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012).
“at 2503 (quoting Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 13-2928(C)). The Court explained that Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub.”
United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011).
“” Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(0 (2010). Violation of this provision is a class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a six month maximum term of imprisonment.”
Teltech Sys., Inc. v. Phil Bryan, 702 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012).
“Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(C). Although the Arizona statute advanced the same goal as IRCA — preventing hiring unauthorized aliens — the Court held the Arizona statute’s enforcement scheme conflicted with the federal regulatory system.”
United States v. Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (N.D. Ala. 2011).
“Arizona, the United States challenged Section 5(C) of the Arizona Act, A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), which is similar to H.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2928(F) — 3 cases
United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011).
“” Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(0 (2010). Violation of this provision is a class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a six month maximum term of imprisonment.”
United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010).
“§ 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(0, and Section 6 creating A.”
Valle Del Sol v. State of Arizona, 709 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2013).
“See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2928(A)-(B) (Sections 5(A) and (B), collectively the day labor provisions).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.