Posted on 05/20/2010 6:43:29 PM PDT by Iraqs Inconvenient Truth.
Supreme Court Ruling Razes Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement
(Washington D.C.—April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena, a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.
The Fourth Amendment provides protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable search and seizure. Mena argued that by questioning her, and the illegal alien detainees about their immigration status during a lawful search, officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Mena further claimed that questions asked about her citizenship required officers to have had independent reasonable suspicion regarding the unlawfulness of her immigration status.
Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “faulty,” the Supreme Court held that “mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not constitute a seizure.” The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that “the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status.”
“Whatever legal fig leaf many police departments have been using to justify policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities, has been stripped away by this landmark Supreme Court decision,” stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “If local police are barred from cooperating with federal authorities in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws it is purely a political decision on the part of local politicians and police chiefs. There is no legal barrier to local police inquiring about a person’s immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather.”
Congress expressly intended for local law enforcement to act in cases in which officers have reason to believe that an individual is in the country illegally, even though immigration law enforcement is not their primary responsibility. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation that protects individual officers who act to enforce federal immigration laws, even if their departments have non-cooperation policies.
“In Muehler v. Mena the Court reinforced the clear intent of Congress in this matter,” said Stein. “Inquiring about an individual’s immigration status can and should be a routine part of ascertaining information, no different than asking questions about one’s name, or date and place of birth. Local police come into contact with people who are violating federal immigration laws on a daily basis. Freeing local police to inquire about an individual’s immigration status and allowing them to act is essential to curbing mass illegal immigration and protecting our homeland security."
That case was settled 9-0, overturning a 9th circuit opinion.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423
Funny, I haven’t heard this cited in the media. Then again, I must admit I don’t pay as much attention to broadcast and print news as I used to.
good stuff.
Megyn Kelly talked about this ruling on O’Reilly tonight. Quite a surprise, but if it clearly applies to all state and local jurisdictions, I wonder why a new Arizona law was even necessary?
It was necessary to send a message to the illegals that their status will be questioned when they break the law. They got the message and are either avoiding confrontations with AZ police or are avoiding AZ altogether. It was also necessary to send a message to the federal government that they need to protect our borders. Obama, who apparently doesn't comprehend English as well as the illegals, didn't understand and decided to act stupidly.
Good For “Megyn”...
I did not see the show tonight...just happen to come across This PR from 2005.
WHAT Could BE MORE CLEAR?
It is harsher than the AZ law...because it says they do NOT have to be stopped for something else, BEFORE being asked about their Immigration status...
And it looks like “Clinton” has the “Police Officers Backs”..
Which I think is GREAT....because I am sure if ask today he would say he ‘opposes’ the whole thing...
While the President of MEXICO Was BASHING the USA ALL Yesterday and Today....Why did NOT OBAMA STAND UP FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
And what a DISGRACE....when you have the President of Mexico up in front of Congress today “Bashing America”...
And OUR: HOME LAND SECURITY DOG>>>AND THE AG OF THE USA (HOLDER)...IS APPLAUDING HIM!
HERE IS MEXICO’S Immigration LAWS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWU01NIwGbg
We should trade Immigration laws with Mexico....LOL
____
Peace!
BTW: It is a LAW In California...That you have to produce Official PHOTO ID...at anytime when ask by a Law enforcement official!...that includes me and every other person in the state....
Peace!
____
http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/
Ping and pass it on!
You know, this Supreme Court decision opens a door for police officers in sanctuary cities to break their local rules and begin questioning people about their immigration status in the conduct of their ordinary business.
If any one of these police departments punishes any of these officers in any way, they’ll open themselves up to a nice fat lawsuit.
Hey LAPD... Go For It!
Heh... Of course they can - it is Federal Law!
Not really the point of my question. If, as Megyn Kelly and this article seem to be saying, that the authority for state and local governments to enforce immigration laws already exists, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court, then they could have been enforcing the law all along. (And Sheriff Joe has been doing that based on some existing law.)
I do wonder if there is some question of jurisdiction re: the SCOTUS decision referenced in this article.
All political...
good
she cited 3 conditions that must be met before a cop can ask for someone’s papers
1) reasonable suspicion to stop someone
2) reasonable suspicions that they are here illegally
3) race cannot be a consideration
she said this case addresses all 3 - i am not so sure it does - especially the first condition - in that case, the reason for the encounter was a search warrant
the central reason for the suit was that they handcuffed her while doing the search - the second reason was if they could ask her for her papers
this was a unanimous decision on this case
but i might be turning libtard on the arizona law - repeal it and remove the constraints on the cops - the law seems to add more restraints instead of make it easier
“Obama, who apparently doesn’t comprehend English as well as the illegals, didn’t understand and decided to act stupidly.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
He seems to be really good at that...acting stupidly, I mean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.