Irrelevant to what? Whether a guy shot in the back by federal officers was disarmed first is pretty darn relevant to the concerns I have been raising about how a free society should be policed.
To tie in to policing, what about the memo that DHS says administrative warrants are fine for home searches. That destroys precedent. Is that the policing we want, is it the policing the founders wanted?
According to some on here, it's all part of the social contract. If authorities tell you to do something, or want to violate your Constitutional Rights, just comply and it will all be over so much quicker.Irrelevant to what? Whether a guy shot in the back by federal officers was disarmed first is pretty darn relevant to the concerns I have been raising about how a free society should be policed.
To tie in to policing, what about the memo that DHS says administrative warrants are fine for home searches. That destroys precedent. Is that the policing we want, is it the policing the founders wanted?
.
@arthur-dent I think this is more messy than you're representing. Admin orders have long been around. They don't give the right to entry without consent. HOWEVER, here they are claiming that if a judge provided a Final Order of Removal (i.e. the illegals rights have exhausted and cause was found) then they can enter. So they aren't entering on a fishing expedition with an admin warrant; they're entering with an address where a person is with a Final Order for Removal. That removal order would have been signed by a judge.
So messy legally I suspect. But again no offense to you but all of these stories from the media are always half stories. Like the five year old being detained that's published everywhere. It's because his dad ran. What else were they to do? Leave him?
Amongst the many failings in our country I hold the failure of media to follow their mission as number one.
@bulk-vh I think those Constitutional rights become more limited after your DP proceedings are exhausted, no Stay Order is in place, and you're under a Final Order of Removal.
fine for home searches.
No this isn't accurate. It's not a search like in criminal actions where the warrants describes what can be searched blah blah blah. This is to enter pursuant to an Order of Removal signed by a judge and remove the person. Not a search.
In some ways it's not any different than a Rent and Possession action/Unlawful Detainer. You don't leave your apartment eventually a Writ will be obtained and the Sheriff will bang down your door and drag you out.
I don’t know if you wrong, but you appear to be irrelevant
As you did with your Sam Harris post, you are basing your opinion upon information not known by the shooter. I don’t know if either shooting was a good shoot, but I do know the determination can only be based on information actually known by the officer who pulled the trigger.
Irrelevant to what? Whether a guy shot in the back by federal officers was disarmed first is pretty darn relevant to the concerns I have been raising about how a free society should be policed.
Anything to deflect from the fact that unaccountable marauding masked feds are killing civilians on the street.
No this isn't accurate. It's not a search like in criminal actions where the warrants describes what can be searched blah blah blah. This is to enter pursuant to an Order of Removal signed by a judge and remove the person. Not a search.
In some ways it's not any different than a Rent and Possession action/Unlawful Detainer. You don't leave your apartment eventually a Writ will be obtained and the Sheriff will bang down your door and drag you out.
Given how you stress you are a housewife with no job and no special training, care to provide links.
Lawfare has an article that this is probably a violation:
Newsmax's legal analyst really piles on the idea, Napolitano isn't known to be crazy left wing:
Your argument about removal. Isn't that complicated by the fact that the people being removed do not own, nor have legal right, to the home? If I own a property and need to evict someone, I am claiming my right as property owner. The sheriff could not show up and evict them without my approval, could they?
Fordham wrote about all this in 2008, so we can't claim it suffers from Trump Devotion Syndrome (such a popular phrase).
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2287&context=ulj
It has been policy that the 4th constrains ICE as much as anyone else. So that has been changed. If your assessment that it is not a search is accurate, what can ICE do to find people hiding in the home. Look in closets? Look under piles of laundry? Look for kids in washing machines and dryers? How is that not a search?
@arthur-dent As for a link here's the germane part of the memo.
Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has nothistorically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest alienssubject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHSOffice of General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. TheConstitution, the immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigrationregulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for thispurpose. Accordingly, in light of this legal determination, ICEimmigration officers may arrest and detain aliens subject to a finalorder of removal issued by an immigration judge, the Board ofImmigration Appeals (BIA), or a U.S. district court judge or magistratejudge in their place of residence. … ICE immigration officers shouldconsider all available enforcement mechanisms, including the use of theForm I-205 to arrest an alien in their place of residence, to achieve therequirements of E.O. 14159, in accordance with applicable law
As for your search bit you're kind of conflating things. A judicial search warrant is to search a person place car whatever for evidence of a crime. The items are set forth in the warrant. This is just to remove the person. It's different. And the argument is that his rights have already been exhausted and a judge has found cause for deportation so the warrant is damn near like a body attachment to drag him out pursuant to the Final Order of Removal.
And as I said before it is very messy. It'll be interesting to see how a judge handles it because it may be of first impression. I don't much care about whatever news outlets are interviewing lawyers. And yes I'm just a dirty old broad who finished shoveling the driveway and dragging kids up a monster hill on a sled: MAGA CHICKS ARE BUILT DIFFERENT. So I am out over my skis on the lawfulness of their actions. I don't know. I don't know enough about that stuff to know but I do know enough to know that these headlines and representations aren't accurate.
@sharinincarmel You read Lawfare, watched Judge Napolitano, and read Fordham pretty quickly.
@arthur-dent I don't need to. I went to a better school than Fordham with a better prof. Again I'm not saying what they are doing is lawful. I'm simply saying what they are doing is nothing like the media represents. The media is acting like they are just going from rando house to rando house kicking in doors. What they are doing is they have a name, Joe Blow, with his address as part of his court proceedings. Those proceedings terminated against him an and Order of Removal was signed by the judge. The ICE agent is taking the Warrant with the Order of Removal to go to Joe Blow's house with the address provided and executing the Removal.
The change is instead of hoping to catch them in public, on a traffic stop or whatever, they are now showing up at their house. Let's see if holds up. I don't know.
Irrelevant to prosecuting the shooter.
As far as the broad issues is concerned, you must know and acknowledge that successful policing is always a product of community efforts. We can’t have mobs whose purpose is to obstruct policing and then expect quality policing. The Minneapolis mob was so bad that even state and municipal cops gave up and abandoned areas to the “protesters”. This sad situation is awful and is obviously the responsibility of local political leadership who makes their mission to demonize ICE.
Whats wrong with administrative warrants? They are routinely used by all levels of governments for civil enforcement. How do you think the authorities gain entrance to restaurants to inspect food preparation?
In a criminal proceeding 4th amendment judicial warrants are required.
Deportations are a civil matter.
@co-hoosier Yeah but the 4th is what limits gov actions in those civil circumstances you noted COH, such as a restaurant inspection.
I don’t know that the agent who removed the gun from the guy made it clear and loud that the suspect was no longer armed.
If your point is that the ICE officers didn’t clearly communicate, blame all those assholes blowing the whistles. Their intent was to make communication difficult and they got their way.
Latest Post: Anyone remember La Bamba restaurant Our newest member: Doug Beder Recent Posts Unread Posts
