Posted on 08/11/2013 1:17:00 PM PDT by lowbridge
A federal appeals court, in a strong rebuff to local law enforcement agencies that aggressively pursue people they suspect of being illegal immigrants, ruled Wednesday that the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office did not have the right to arrest Roxana Santos, a Salvadoran dishwasher who was seized while eating a sandwich outside her workplace in the fall of 2008 and jailed for the next 45 days.
The ruling, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, appeared to clarify and strengthen a somewhat ambiguous Supreme Court decision last year in Arizona v. United States
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.washingtonpost.com ...
A foreign invader doesn’t have the right to be arrested?
That judge needs to be removed from office.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Insanity.
Out national suicide has become a fait accompli.
Exactly how does a FOREIGN invader acquire protection provided by the US Constitution? The judge must be confused ....
Just another example of the judicial oligarchy doing their best to destroy The United States of America and its hated (by them) Constitution.
Santos, a mother of three who speaks little English, was released from federal custody while the court case was continuing, but she still could face deportation. The court found, however, that even though she is an illegal immigrant, her constitutional rights to protection from “unreasonable search and seizure” were violated.
BTTT!
Imagine doing that for U-boat captains during WWII. The judge would be tried for treason.
Confused? no.
More likely dementia or a sampling of the magic mulatto’s stash.
I’d bet this judge would have given local law enforcement a pat on the back if this suspect was aggressively pursued for being suspected of keeping one of those scary “arsenals” (i.e. a well balanced spread of pistols, rifles and shotguns with 5000 rounds for each) in their basement.
Wait a dog gone minute. If the person is NOT a citizen, how then could they enjoy constitutional rights?
Those documents were written for American citizens, not Messy-cans.
Since when does someone who’s here illegally have Constitutional rights? They do have the right to be arrested and deported though.
Well...a tough one to argue. The 4th amendment enjoins the government from unreasonable search and seizure. The fourth an fifth words of the 4th are "the people". The 14th amendment defines just who those people are. Like it or not, the word 'citizens' is a glaring omission from the 14th.
It’s not even that really—ponder this (and this merely is a hypothetical), what if she had been here legally (in some fashion)?
According to the 14th, there is no difference. More's the pity.
I understand the your point. My point is, if the cops had effed-up (as they do, sometimes) . . . it would be an even clearer Constitutional violation.
But what galls me is the the Constitution couldn't be clearer. Simple and direct. Yet those who wish to subvert it simply have to say, "Well, we don't know the intent of the framers", or words to that effect.
BS. Read the bloody thing. It really is written so an 8th grader could comprehend it.
</rant>
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.