ALL-STAR PRO BONO LAWYER TEAM TO CHALLENGE ALLEGED ICE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

A team of lawyers from some of the San Francisco Bay area's top lawyers have teamed with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center to challenge Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) over alleged constitutional violations in the manner raids have been conducted. The San Francisco NBC affiliate reports

Andrew Thomases said Dechert LLP, which represents Yahoo, and the other law firms would represent undocumented immigrants for free."We do have the resources to help all our clients," Thomases said.

"All individuals have constitutional rights, and we want to make sure the rights are not violated, and the government is not violating the Fourth or Fifth Amendment when doing searches and seizures."

Eight lawyers from the international firm are on the list of high-powered attorneys who will go to court against ICE, Thomases said.

Thomases said lawyers would specifically tackle violations such as entering an apartment without a warrant or pushing an immigrant to answer questions when he refuses to talk.

Thanks to reader USC for the tip.

Comments

[Legal and no longer waiting]

Well, there is no doubt that immigrant rights is just the next step in the civil rights debate. I hope courts will be able to clarify the situation, and hopefully show people who think they can enter any house at any time and arrest anyone on a suspicion of a civilian violation their place.

[Greg Siskind]

>>Which is why I am trying to get Mr Siskind's opinion on the matter.<<

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I do know you need a warrant in civil as well as criminal investigations. I believe the process for getting a civil warrant is looser than a criminal warrant, but it is still needed. But I'll leave this discussion to those who think about these matters on a daily basis.

[USC]

"What is "serious" is up to ICE to decide."

That of course is the ICE position. IOW, On the pretext of looking for an illegal they are claiming that they have the right to conduct a warantless search of my home. The All-Star team is going to get this before a Judge and it remains to be seen if ICE can get a Judge to agree with them.

[USC]

To those interested in this issue supplied below is a link to the actual video of the story as it aired on NBC TV.

http://video.nbc11.com/player/?id=191587

To illustrate the thinking of a typical anti, I am citing the following comment from the above link:

"M. Gardner (December 4, 2007 05:29 PM)

I am sick and tired of attorneys in this country. Attorneys and the ACLU have ruined America. All you attorneys' that think you are doing something good are complete idiots. What is it that you don't understand about ILLEGAL ALIENS. My great grandparents came here legally so what makes the Mexicans so special? Really, what is it about them that is so much better than any other ethnicity?

ALL OF YOU BAY AREA ATTORNEYS SHOULD JUMP IN THE OCEAN."

[hmm]

As I understand it, 4th and 5th ammendments apply equally to all people in the US, regardless of immigration status. However they do not require ICE to have a warrant to arrest on enter someone's property provided ICE has a cause to believe something illegal and sufficiently serious is happening. What is "serious" is up to ICE to decide. For example, if you are a US citizen living with a spouse or a child who has no legal standing in the country, ICE could get naturally interested if they think this is a case of human trafficing or child exploitation, and if they decide you have commited immigration fraud by bringing someone in the country illegally, ICE could arrest you without any warrant no matter how many generations your family have lived in the state of Ohio. Likewise, if you show what looks like a fake ID, you can get arrested.. no kidding.

As a practical matter it is important to know your legal rights. If ICE knocks on your door at 6am and says they do not need any damn warrant to search your house, what do you do? Can they legally force their way inside? Can you ask them to come later after you get in touch with an attorney? Do you have to talk to them at all or can you remain silent? People who follow the news know all too well that this is not a theoretical discussion. This shit happens even to US citizens. Which is why I am trying to get Mr Siskind's opinion on the matter.

[USC]

"I think USC is wrong on this one both as a matter of law, and as a practical matter."

Of course you are right. The All-Star team is just doing this for the "money."

"I am not going to argue with him though as our notions of a rational discussion differ considearbly"

Yes, we agree on this one!

[hmm]

I think USC is wrong on this one both as a matter of law, and as a practical matter. I am not going to argue with him though as our notions of a rational discussion differ considearbly..

[USC]

"civil rather than the criminal code."

When you deprive someone of his liberty and toss him in prison and call him a detainee and say oh by the way since you are held under a civil violation you don't have a Fifth Amendment right. To me that is wrong.

"but why on earth they think they have a good case."

Clearly, these thugs don't have a right to bust into Greg's, RL's or my house and say we are here because we have received a "tip" that there is an illegal alien stumbling about your premises. And, oh, by the way what is your immigration status? Here's my passport. Oh, your passport looks like a fake we are taking you in.

[hmm]

I read the other day an article in a (I think) Boston paper where a prof from a law school there was saying that ICE need no warrant to enter someone's apartment because immigration violations are governed by the civil rather than the criminal code. According to him ICE must have a reasonable expectation to find some illegal immigration related activity in the house, but he was saying that ICE actions are perfectly legal. In fact, it was stated in the paper that nobody ever saw an ICE warrant. Of course nothing prevents people from taking this matter to courts, but why on earth they think they have a good case.

Oh, I found a similar article in NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14preston.html

Greg, could you comment on this? Do you think they have a good case?

[USC]

Thanks Greg. But I saw the story at your good friend Daniel Kowalski's site. In any event I think its great that these guys are taking the govie head on! Good for them!