In distress can anyone help? God bless you!

[TOM&Riz 4]

**FN31. James G. Connell, III & Rene L. Valladares, Search and Seizure Protections for Undocumented Aliens: The Territoriality and Voluntary Presence Principles in Fourth Amendment Law, 34 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1293, 1295 (1997) ( "[C]ourts have cited Verdugo-Urquidez for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment does not automatically protect undocumented aliens even if the challenged search and seizure took place in this country.").

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

**FN31. James G. Connell, III & Rene L. Valladares, Search and Seizure Protections for Undocumented Aliens: The Territoriality and Voluntary Presence Principles in Fourth Amendment Law, 34 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1293, 1295 (1997) ( "[C]ourts have cited Verdugo-Urquidez for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment does not automatically protect undocumented aliens even if the challenged search and seizure took place in this country.").

I see you still don't like to provide links...

The Supreme Court's decision in Lopez-Mendoza was whether an alleged illegal search should have rendered evidence inadmissible in an immigration court. They determined it did not, since an immigration court is a civil court. They never ruled on whether Lopez-Mendoza's arrest at his place of employment constituted an illegal search because it was a moot point. However, they did use the term "alleged illegal search" several times in their decision, implying that the search may indeed have been illegal, but they weren't ruling on that. I don't see how this constitutes a decision by the Supreme Court that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to federal immigration enforcement officers. What it does imply is that you can't use an alleged violation of the 4th amendment as a "defense" in an immigration court. The respondent in an immigration court is not being charged with a crime.

Can you point out a case where a court - ANY court - has ruled specifically that federal law enforcement officers are not required to obtain a warrant when enforcing immigration law?

[Boiler 45,525]

He has a non waiverable 5 year ban for missing the deportation hearing.

Might want to take some language lessons.

[justashooter 430]

Can you point out a case where a court - ANY court - has ruled specifically that federal law enforcement officers are not required to obtain a warrant when enforcing immigration law?

under the "plain view" principle, jim, any law enforcement officer with jurisdiction and appropriate powers can enter any private property without warrant for just about any offense. if this guy is seen in or going into or presumed to have gone into after being seen no warrant is necessary for entry.

[TOM&Riz 4]

Jim these links are on findlaw that requires a password, The real point is... the wording of the 4th, it says "The People" and who is covered under United States amendments and the constitution, are illegal foreigners covered under the US law ?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

under the "plain view" principle, jim, any law enforcement officer with jurisdiction and appropriate powers can enter any private property without warrant for just about any offense. if this guy is seen in or going into or presumed to have gone into after being seen no warrant is necessary for entry.

Sure, but that applies to any search, and not just immigration related searches. We've all seen those episodes of "Cops" where the perp jumps out of his car and runs through homes in the neighborhood, with cops following close behind.

My original statement was that the 4th amendment applied to federal immigrations the same way it applies to any law enforcement officer. In a situation where a local cop would be required to get a search warrant, an immigration enforcement officer is also required to get a search warrant.

The allegation was that illegal immigrants are not protected by the 4th amendment, implying that immigration enforcement officers don't need a search warrant. I've heard the 4th amendment claim before, but I've never heard anyone imply that this grants authority to federal law enforcement officers to make warrantless searches. The claim is based primarily on two Supreme Court cases. In the first case, the Court determined that the 4th amendment protections don't extend beyond the US borders for someone who is merely visiting the US, whether they are in the US legally or not. In the second case, the Court determined that evidence obtained in an alleged illegal search does not have to be suppressed in a civil court case. This would apply even if the respondent was a US citizen.

I'm looking for any court case that validates the allegation that immigration enforcement officers don't need to obtain a search warrant. I've googled dozens of cases where homes were raided by ICE, and in every case they either had a search warrant or were given permission to search by the person who answered the door.

[Boiler 45,525]

http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/pastor_tazed_beaten_by_border_patrol_in_warrantless_search

Horribly biased source, but quite amusing.

[TOM&Riz 4]

Sure, but that applies to any search, and not just immigration related searches. We've all seen those episodes of "Cops" where the perp jumps out of his car and runs through homes in the neighborhood, with cops following close behind.

My original statement was that the 4th amendment applied to federal immigrations the same way it applies to any law enforcement officer. In a situation where a local cop would be required to get a search warrant, an immigration enforcement officer is also required to get a search warrant.

The allegation was that illegal immigrants are not protected by the 4th amendment, implying that immigration enforcement officers don't need a search warrant. I've heard the 4th amendment claim before, but I've never heard anyone imply that this grants authority to federal law enforcement officers to make warrantless searches. The claim is based primarily on two Supreme Court cases. In the first case, the Court determined that the 4th amendment protections don't extend beyond the US borders for someone who is merely visiting the US, whether they are in the US legally or not. In the second case, the Court determined that evidence obtained in an alleged illegal search does not have to be suppressed in a civil court case. This would apply even if the respondent was a US citizen.

I'm looking for any court case that validates the allegation that immigration enforcement officers don't need to obtain a search warrant. I've googled dozens of cases where homes were raided by ICE, and in every case they either had a search warrant or were given permission to search by the person who answered the door.

Jim so are you implying that it just doesn't happen ? you and I both know better, the facts are that even if admissible evidence of an illegal raid was conducted and 4th amendment rights were violated, the point is moot because the complainant will be deported to a land that doesn't follow US law

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/pastor_tazed_beaten_by_border_patrol_in_warrantless_search

Horribly biased source, but quite amusing.

The lesson - Assert your rights and don't give consent, but if the law enforcement officers insist on proceeding, don't physically resist. If they order you out of the car, then get out of the car. If they order you to open your trunk, then open your trunk. Keep repeating that you are not consenting to what they are doing, but are doing so only because you are being ordered to by a law enforcement officer. If they ask you to do something, but it isn't clear whether it's a request or an order, then ask them to clarify. "Will you open the trunk for me?" is a request. "Open the trunk, please" is an order. The time to make the case that the search was illegal is in court. If you want to be a brick wall to a hard headed cop, you're going to get hurt.

There is no doubt that some cops are bullies. There is also no doubt that some cops will exceed their authority. When they do, you let them and then take your complaint to court. You may not win, but at least you won't be sitting in front of a video camera, bloody and bruised, telling your story.

Jim so are you implying that it just doesn't happen ? you and I both know better, the facts are that even if admissible evidence of an illegal raid was conducted and 4th amendment rights were violated, the point is moot because the complainant will be deported to a land that doesn't follow US law

Of course I'm not implying that. It happens all the time, and it isn't limited to illegal immigrants. I'd venture to guess that there is at least one illegal search every day in every state. In some states there are probably many many more.

The point is moot because the Federal Rules of Evidence are not applicable to a federal civil court, including an immigration court. The court will generally favor admissibility of evidence if they determine the evidence is probative and relevant. From the Immigration Judge Benchbook:

http://pards.org/IJ_Benchbook.pdf

Since the rules of evidence are not applicable and admissibility is favored,

the pertinent question regarding most evidence in immigration proceedings

is not whether it is admissible, but what weight the fact finder should

accord it in adjudicating the issues on which the evidence has been

submitted.

In the Lopez-Mendoza case, the Supreme Court's ruling seemed to imply that they were willing to accept that the warrantless search may have been illegal, but that fact did not make the evidence obtained inadmissible in an immigration court. Lopez-Mendoza certainly had a valid basis for a separate civil case against ICE for the warrantless search, but that would not have stopped his deportation. His employer also had a valid basis for a civil case against ICE. I don't know if he pursued it, but he should have.

I spent a fair amount of time looking for a court case that would back up the assertion that federal immigration enforcement has any sort of exemption from obtaining a warrant, and I couldn't find one. I did, however, find a lot of cases where ICE had conducted raids after obtaining a warrant.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I suspect it would be a fair conclusion to say that ICE would not bother to get warrants in any circumstance or for any case at all if illegal aliens were exempt from the 4th amendment - there would be no need. Since they do get warrants, that implies they, at least, believe they are required to get warrants, hence the 4th amendment is in effect for illegal aliens as well, except for in those circumstances which would also exempt US citizens from a warrant being required (as mentioned in previous posts).

Edited July 25, 2010 by Kathryn41

[NVC FAN :( 18]

I dont have any links or articles, but i can tell you a few years back in southern indiana. there was a raid that did not involve any warrants, reason is a knew one of the officers.

I dont believe the constitution applies to ppl here illegaly, rights are for citizens. If that statement is not true, then why become a citizen if just being here affords you the same rights as one?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

[quote name=NVC FAN ' date='25 July 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1280072069' post='4087150]

I dont have any links or articles, but i can tell you a few years back in southern indiana. there was a raid that did not involve any warrants, reason is a knew one of the officers.

I dont believe the constitution applies to ppl here illegaly, rights are for citizens. If that statement is not true, then why become a citizen if just being here affords you the same rights as one?

I'd have to know more about the case in Indiana before I could comment on whether the raid was lawful, and why a search warrant wasn't required. Perhaps they had performed an investigation and determined certain people were in the US illegally, and they witnessed the people entering the premises where they conducted the raid. That might have been covered under the "pursuit" exception.

The Constitution makes reference to both "citizens" and "people". There are five separate amendments that deal with the rights of "citizens" to vote. The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, speaks of the rights of "people". The Supreme Court has traditionally been very reluctant to allow the rights defined in the Bill of Rights to be denied to anyone under the jurisdiction of the US government, and has done so only in very selective cases.

In the case of Verdugo-Urquidez, the principle they applied was that a foreign national ceases to be under the jurisdiction of the US government whey they leave the United States, and therefore their property in a foreign country is not subject to 4th amendment protections. However, a US citizen or legal permanent resident remains subject to the jurisdiction of the US government when they leave the United States, so their property in a foreign country is protected by the 4th amendment, which means US law enforcement requires a warrant to search and/or seize their property abroad. Of course, 4th amendment protections apply only to the US government, and not to the government in the country where the property is held.

Obviously, being a US citizen affords substantial rights that an LPR or non-immigrant visitor does not have, especially where immigration law is concerned. These rights are inherent, meaning a citizen does not have to request these rights from the US government - they have them automatically unless they are specifically revoked. A US citizen may enter the United States. A non-citizen must seek permission to enter. A US citizen can remain abroad as long as they like with no adverse effects to their residency or citizenship. A legal permanent resident needs permission to remain abroad for more than a year without losing their residency status. A US citizen can be employed in the United States. A non-citizen must seek permission to be employed. A US citizen can petition for their immediate family members to immigrate to the United States without limitations. A legal permanent resident may petition for their immediate family members subject to annual and per-country limitations. A non-immigrant cannot petition for anyone. The list goes on...

[TBoneTX 45,304]

I suspect it would be a fair conclusion to say that ICE would not bother to get warrants in any circumstance or for any case at all if illegal aliens were exempt from the 4th amendment - there would be no need. Since they do get warrants, that implies they, at least, believe they are required to get warrants, hence the 4th amendment is in effect for illegal aliens as well, except for in those circumstances which would also exempt US citizens from a warrant being required (as mentioned in previous posts).

Or, maybe the warrants are procured because the property that ICE seeks to enter is owned or might be owned by USCs.

[TOM&Riz 4]

Or, maybe the warrants are procured because the property that ICE seeks to enter is owned or might be owned by USCs.

[Fandango 1,439]

My friend moved here when he was 5 went to school graduated went to college until one day he got arrested for evading arrest which was a few years ago he was 21 He only ran because he was scared. He got caught was detained in EP got released on bond and worked on dropping his felony they gave him for running to a misdemeanor because his lawyer told him with a felony on his record there is no way he can fight to stay in this country and would automatically be deported. So therefore he worked on doing that in the mean time he had trial for immigration which he went once his immigration lawyer asked for more time(drop the felony here in us to misdmor) and he got a letter a few months later he needed to show to this final one but couldn't because he stil had felony on his record so he didn't go. So now he finally got the felony dropped to a misdemeanor and then received a letter from immigration & customs that since he missed his last court date he needed to be deported:( after 4yrs of trying! He has no family in Mexico all his family is here he doesn't speak fluent Spanish. He's a good kid never got in trouble to shy wouldn't hurt a fly and now he has the BP after him. He doesn't know what to do and how to handle them when they come to look for him. He said the last time thy came his family didn't answer the door and they finally left. So I'm wondering as to what can the BP do as far as interrogation of family and searching? Are they violent? Can his family get in trouble for hiding him? I feel so helpless he is so depressed and miserable he can't work start a life/family here! His GF left him. Any help advice would help! God Bless You!

No offense, but all I hear is justifications for his bad choices. 'he only ran cos he was scared' 'he only didn't go because this, that the other'. It's this kind of mentality that upsets some people, such as myself, because all I hear is he wants the law to protect him, yet he clearly doesn't respect it nor adhere to it.

God Bless you too btw.