crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Talks & Media

Utah v. Strieff and the Exclusionary Rule’s Future in Immigration Court – Part II

By Katie Tinto The availability of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for unconstitutional police conduct was recently further restricted by the Supreme Court in Utah v. Strieff, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 14-1373 (June 20, 2016). In a prior blog post, I warned of the potential of Strieff to seriously limit the availability of the suppression remedy in immigration court. Although the exclusionary rule in immigration court may not be directly impacted, the decision will likely have a detrimental effect on our immigrant communities and the manner in which they are policed. To quickly summarize the [...]

Posted by César on August 9, 2016 on 4:00 am Leave a Comment
Filed Under: 4th Amendment, guest blogger, motion to suppress, U.S. Supreme Court, Utah state court

Utah v. Strieff and the Exclusionary Rule’s Future in Immigration Court

By Katie Tinto Immigration scholars and practitioners should pay close attention to the outcome of Utah v. Strieff, a Fourth Amendment case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court two weeks ago. 357 P.3d 532 (Utah 2015), cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 27 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2015) (No. 14-1373). In this case, the police detained Mr. Strieff without reasonable suspicion, and then, after obtaining his identification, ran a routine warrant check on his name and discovered an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. During the search incident to arrest on the traffic warrant, the officer found [...]

Posted by César on March 10, 2016 on 4:00 am Leave a Comment
Filed Under: 4th Amendment, guest blogger, motion to suppress, U.S. Supreme Court, Utah state court

Revisiting the exclusionary rule’s role in immigration proceedings

By Lindsay Adkin Thirty years ago in its landmark decision, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should not apply to removal proceedings. Applying a cost-benefit analysis, the Court concluded that whatever benefit exclusion offered in immigration proceedings was outweighed by the cost of allowing removable immigrants to remain in the United States. Whether or not that was a proper assessment in 1984, the state of immigration law today—especially the rise of crimmigration law—leads to the opposite conclusion: the exclusionary rule [...]

Posted by César on September 9, 2014 on 4:00 am Leave a Comment
Filed Under: 287(g), commentaries, guest blogger, motion to suppress, Uncategorized

SCOTUS takes two criminal cases with potential crimmigration impact

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases with possible crimmigration law implications. Attesting to immigration law’s broad intersection with criminal procedure and criminal law, the first case concerns criminal procedure while the second concerns criminal law. Fourth Amendment: Heien v. North Carolina The first case, Heien v. North Carolina, No. 13-604, asks the Court to consider whether a police officer’s mistaken understanding of criminal law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop. The police officer pulled [...]

Posted by César on April 29, 2014 on 9:00 am Leave a Comment
Filed Under: 4th Amendment, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, aggravated felony, crime of violence, motion to suppress, U.S. Supreme Court

3 Cir: Exclusionary rules applies in removal proceedings

In an impressively articulated and groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the exclusionary rule can apply in removal proceedings when ICE agents engage in egregious or widespread constitutional violations. Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney General, No. 10-3849, slip op. (3d Cir. Nov. 16, 2011) (McKee, Rendell, and Ambro, JJ.). Judge McKee wrote the panel’s decision. The events that led up to this case being litigated read like a nightmare. At 4:30 in the morning armed ICE agents appeared at the apartment that Oliva-Ramos shared with his three sisters, nephew, [...]

Posted by César on October 2, 2012 on 9:00 am 13 Comments
Filed Under: 3d Circuit Court of Appeals, 4th Amendment, motion to suppress

8 Cir: Warrantless arrest isn’t egregious 4th Amend violation meriting suppression

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected a non-citizen’s attempt to exclude evidence of his identity obtained after a warrantless arrest. Garcia-Torres v. Holder, No. 10-2307, slip op. (8th Cir. 2011) (Loken, Colloton, and Nelson, JJ.). District Judge Nelson, sitting by designation on the Eighth Circuit, wrote the panel’s opinion. This case involved an entrant without inspection who was present at a Missouri restaurant that local police officers “acting on a tip that alcohol was being consumed in violation of a local ordinance” entered without a warrant. Garcia-Torres, No. [...]

Posted by César on January 31, 2012 on 9:00 am 19 Comments
Filed Under: 4th Amendment, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, local immigration policing, motion to suppress

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court says Biden can end MPP
  • Uvalde massacre & immigration law aid
  • Mistakes aren’t reviewable, Supreme Court says
  • ICE prosecutorial discretion guidance
  • Supreme Court again considers ICE’s detention powers
  • Troubled contractor gets $180 million to hold young migrants

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.