Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
"Administrative warrant" is a bullshit term, they are not warrants (which requires an executive branch law enforcement officer to ask a judicial branch court for permission), they're fucking rubber stamps one ICE employee gives another
It's also no justification for aggressive stops like this, which you should only ever need for dangerous targets. Like ICE agents who kill people and walk away.
ICE aren't police, they're a torture and death squad.
They're warrants, but they're not judicial warrants.
Police are allowed to arrest someone actively committing a crime in public at any time. An warrant can allow specific individuals to be arrested/detained without having probable cause. But a judicial warrant is required to search, detain, arrest, etc in a manner that would otherwise violate civil liberties (e.g. entering private property to enforce the warrant).
An immigration court judge ha as "judge" in their title, but since immigration courts are part of the executive branch their warrants are administrative and not judicial. So they can allow someone on public property to be arrested, but they aren't supposed to enter homes or businesses without permission from the property owner.
A lot of the habeus cases that the admin has been losing have been based on the improper execution of administrative warrants.
The reason immigration courts with administrative warrants exist is because being in the country illegally isn't actually a crime, but a civil infraction. The reason for that (other than the obvious idea that existing in a place isn't a crime) is because if it were a crime they couldn't be deported. Criminal law seeks punishment and restitution for crimes. That essentially means you can imprison, fine, or execute someone for a crime.
Civil law seeks relief.
We'll look at 2 lesser examples. Speeding versus building a fence over your property line into the sidewalk. For speeding, there's no relief to be found. They can't undo the speeding. So they generally get a fine through criminal court. But for the sidewalk example, simply giving a fine doesn't fix the problem. Relief would be removing the fence and repairing any damage to the sidewalk, so the city would take the person who built the fence to civil court to get an order for its removal. But a judge won't give a warrant to arrest a person for having a fence encroaching on public property.
In the case of immigration, relief would be having the person leave the country voluntarily or through a deportation order, and since warrants usually granted for civil cases, the immigration courts are part of the executive branch.
An warrant can allow specific individuals to be arrested/detained without having probable cause. But a judicial warrant is required to search, detain, arrest, etc in a manner that would otherwise violate civil liberties (e.g. entering private property to enforce the warrant).
The language you used here is a bit confusing/misleading. Just want to clarify.
A) Detainment in the US does not require a warrant of any kind, ever. It doesn't even require probable cause. The bar for detainment is only reasonable suspicion of a crime or civil violation under their purview. They don't even have to see you do a specific action that could be criminal in itself.
Simply walking around in a high crime area at odd hours can be enough to detain you, alone. Generally matching the description of a suspect that could reasonably be you, even if you're doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary, is enough to detain you, too.
And they also don't have to share the reason for their suspicion with you, btw, so you may not even be aware of what they are trying to find evidence of, meaning you may be unable to either dissuade them of the suspicion or dispute in court that they even had reasonable suspicion or the grounds for it at the time. Reasonable suspicion is a pretty low bar and heavily in the favor of law enforcement.
But also detainment must be reasonably short, used only for the purposes of seeking evidence confirming or assuaging their suspicions, and otherwise not intruding upon the constitutional rights of the suspect (no searches or seizures of property without consent (barring civil forfeiture, which is a whole can of worms I'm not going to get into), no restrictions on or retaliation for speech, etc.)
B) An administrative warrant does not require probable cause, you're correct. But a judicial one does, just to be clear. A judicial warrant is issued when law enforcement demonstrates that they have enough evidence to meet the threshold of probable cuase of a crime without directly witnessing it themselves in the moment.
But then, yes, as you suggested, an administrative warrant, having a lower threshold to issuance and only pertaining to civil matters, also provides less authority to the agents holding it to intrude upon one's private property. They cannot overstep the bounds of the 4th amendment to enter a home, for example, without probable cause of a crime, either witnessed in progress, or granted by judicial warrant, or exigent circumstances.
C) Unfortunately, these legal protections have become less reliable under the Trump administration which continuously defies the law and judicial orders and review. ICE and Border Control have been given carte blanche by the Supreme Court to consider apparent race, language spoken, or other cultural identifiers as reasonable suspicion for violations of immigration policy or status. And their documented policies, erroneously, tell their agents that their administrative warrants grant them the power to enter private homes, offices and vehicles to execute arrests based on them.
Despite repeated judicial orders that tell them that this is illegal and to stop acting on this policy, they continue to do so with no apparent consequences apart from losing the occasional habeas case and releasing people they've illegally harassed, arrested and jailed for months. The fear and torment are part of the design, you see. So whatever the rules say, that doesn't stop fascists from doing what they want when no one actually stops them, turns out.
They're absolutely not warrants, and immigration judges are not judges. Nor is the idea that violently imprisoning and expelling people from the country is a mere civil relief that doesn't require the same legal protectections as a criminal case, despite using punishments similar to serious felonies in the criminal justice system.
Almost everything about the immigration enforcement system is an extralegal fabrication designed to evade the 4th amendment. And we just let it happen because we live in a racist country with racist institutions.
They're
There's a misunderstanding people have about criminal and civil law. With the exception of certain felonies, most people would much rather face the criminal process than the civil. Criminal convictions can make you pay a fine. Civil judgements can take your house, deny you access to your children, or worse.
When the government goes after you civily, it's even worse. I work in municipal development, and when fighting developers, we begin with criminal courts, and civil courts are the escalation.
That all being said, it should still go through a judicial process, but Congress does allow certain executive agencies to administer certain penalties and judgments without going through the judicial process. And mostbof the time it's not a big deal. If someone doesn't pay their taxes, a late fee shouldn't have to become a judicial process.
But it's bullshit that immigration courts are administrative. When someone's freedom can be taken away the judge/jury should not have the same boss as the prosecutor. It's vile.
Yeah I think we're in agreement. I'm aware that congress has authorized the current system I just think it's insane that the courts have deemed it constitutional to create a second parallel judicial system that isn't subject to the same protections we have in other circumstances. I can understand the civil court system for fines and things of that nature. But serious punishments like deportation should be part of the standard judicial system, not some "civil" process. And the same goes for arrest warrants that don't need to be signed by a real judge. The whole system is extremely legally dubious and I truly cannot understand what reasoning the courts have for ignoring common sense and the plain text of the bill of rights--other than racism.
The thing is - most civil stuff (that's not mediated or settled) also goes through the real courts.
Remember how there was that brief spike in convictions of cops planting evidence, for about six months until the cops figured out the body cam kept recording for about 30 seconds after pressing the off button? Then poof magically this spike disappeared after the cops learned this.
I remember.
For anything that happens when a cop's body cam is turned off, it should legally be assumed the cop is lying.
Spike in convictions? LMAO. You mean a spike in dropped drug charges. I'm betting all those cops are still on the force.
They should record for a random amount of time between 30 seconds and five minutes after being turned off
There should be no off switch, and massive penalties for not replacing dead batteries.
They should record from the moment they're taken off of a charger until they're put back on, I think. Makes their use even easier! Nothing to complain about, right, cops? Right, guys? Please?
Why does this headline sound like the congresswoman is "defending" vs "accusing"?
"You didn't mean to kill him? Oh, well that's okay then."
So those darn body cams were just too heavy? WTF?
As were any identifying marks on either them or their vehicle if the reports I read were accurate
Hey, we may kill you by accident, whoopsie. Also it'll be your fault and not the masked murderers.
"Another passenger had an administrative warrant and was the target," Joseph Guzman, a spokesperson for Garcia, told Houston Public Media.
Except they've already claimed that they let all of the passengers go.