mariaureaICE: NO LAW. Agents have appeared on America’s streets in recent months, & many of them have committed acts of aggression with seeming impunity. The ICE agents have detained suspected illegal immigrants without cause—including U.S. citizens & lawful residents. (Atl.)
ICE agents have kidnapped people & breaking into cars to make arrests. They have used tear gas & pepper spray on nonviolent protesters. They have refused to identify themselves, wearing masks, using unmarked cars, & switching license plates, presumably to avoid detection. (Atl.)
ICE agents have kept people in detention without access to lawyers. They have questioned people simply for appearing Latino, speaking Spanish, & being in areas believed to be frequented by illegal immigrants. (Atl.)
MANY OF THESE TACTICS OF ICE AGENTS ARE PLAINLY ILLEGAL. The Constitution incontestably applies to federal immigration officers: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES & SEIZURES & EXCESSIVE FORCE & REQUIRES A WARRANT TO SEARCH A PRIVATE HOME. (Atl.)
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES DUE PROCESS & BANS SELF-INCRIMINATION.
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT ESTABLISHES A PERSON'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
WHY THEN, ARE THEY GETTING AWAY WITH NOT FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION? (Atl.)
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT ESTABLISHES A PERSON'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
WHY THEN, ARE THEY GETTING AWAY WITH NOT FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION? (Atl.)
Their impunity traces back to two Supreme Court decisions that put far too much faith in ICE’s commitment to respecting people’s constitutional rights. As a result of these cases, people whose rights are violated by ICE agents have little to no recourse. (Atl.)
If a police officer kicks down your door & searches your home without a warrant, questions you without a Miranda warning, or illegally arrests you, a provision known as the exclusionary rule may prevent this evidence gathered from being admitted in your prosecution. (Atl.)
Besides, if you happen to be acquitted, you can sue for damages. BUT NONE OF THAT IS TRUE WHEN IT COMES TO ICE. (Atl.)
The first of these two cases is a 1984 decision, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, that freed ICE from the exclusionary rule. In a 5–4 opinion, Judge Sandra D. O’Connor rejected the exclusionary rule for immigration courts, favoring “a deliberately simple deportation hearing system.” (Atl.)
In a typical criminal case, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct—the idea being that the police will avoid such conduct if it risks undermining a conviction. But for ICE, the Court decided, such deterrence is not necessary. (Atl.)
Unless ICE conduct amounts to an “egregious” violation of the Fourth Amendment, the evidence that agents gather even through illegal means can be used in immigration courts. (Atl.)
Key to the Court’s decision was a presumption that Fourth Amendment violations by ICE officers were not “widespread” & that the Immigration & Naturalization Service “has already taken sensible & reasonable steps to deter Fourth Amendment violations by its officers.”(Atl.)
A second Court decision appears to have eliminated, or at least seriously limited, the possibility of lawsuits for damages after individuals are unlawfully detained, searched, or experience excessive force at the hands of ICE. (Atl.)
When the police engage in misconduct, the victim can sue the responsible officers for damages. Again, not so for ICE. (Atl.)
In the 2022 decision Egbert v. Boule, JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, ERITING FOR THE MAJORITY, DENIED THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFFS TO SUE BORDER PATROL AGENTS FOR EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE IN THE NAME OF "NATIONAL SECURITY.” (Atl.)
There is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would extend the rationale in Boule to shield ICE from liability as well. The Court would effectively be greenlighting ICE’s abusive tactics & insulating agents from damages. (Atl.)
As in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, the rationale in Boule relies on the agency’s purported ability to self-regulate; after all, Thomas suggested, Border Patrol “must investigate ‘alleged violations’ & accept grievances.” (Atl.)
Can anyone count on such care to come from Border Patrol under this administration? So, the faith in these institutions to self-regulate seems tragically misplaced. (Atl.)
The options for someone harmed by ICE are inadequate. An individual could file a lawsuit under the Federal Torts Claims Act against federal officers: A person must submit a detailed claim to the government & wait for a response before they can go to court.(Atl.)
That process can take years. An individual could also file a complaint with the DHS Office of Inspector General or the Office of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, which would launch an investigation, but under Trump, the chances of redress for misconduct are slim to none. (Atl.)
In the case of Gregory Bovino. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis found that he had lied to the court about whether he had used excessive force against protesters in Chicago. He was not punished, & went on to lead another immigration operation, this time in New Orleans.(Atl.)