Judge: Immigration agents not immune to legal action for Elm City raid

New Haven Register (subscription) ^ | December 17, 2010 | Mary E. O’Leary

[moonshinner_09]

BRIDGEPORT — A federal court judge Thursday dismissed the government’s argument that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are essentially immune from suits that claim their actions violated constitutional standards.

The ruling advances a civil rights suit brought by 11 suspected illegal immigrants picked up by ICE agents in June 2007 in the Fair Haven section of New Haven, and is expected to have national implications, according to the lawyers for the men.

U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill refused to dismiss the charges against the ICE agents, as well as their supervisors, including Julie Myers, who headed the agency under President George W.Bush, and John Torres, director or acting director of ICE's Office of Detention and Removal Operations.

“The plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to indicate that defendents Julie Myers, John Torres, Bruce Chadbourne and Jim Martin had notice of constitutional violations under policies they created, implemented, or allowed to continue, and thus the motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claims against them is denied,” Underhill wrote.

“There is evidence to suggest that Myers and Torres should have been on notice of the unconstitutional practices of ICE officers,” Underhill ruled, referring to several lawsuits that preceded the Fair Haven raid.

[moonshinner_09]

The suit alleges the purpose of the raids was to show that New Haven was not a safe haven for illegal immigrants.The immigrants claim that agents entered their homes without warrants or probable cause; that they were not informed of their rights; that they were coerced to sign documents in English with no or minimal translation; and they did not feel free to leave..Illegals suing the gov, expecting to be cartered to and expecting some laws are not suppose to apply to them, they are suppose to feel safe,from being held accountable from the laws they break, It is a dark day.

[ViLaLuz]

“the motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claims against them is denied”

Yet Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights are violated daily by TSA. Illegals have more rights than the citizens.

[Grut]

I don’t know anything about this particular case, but holding government actors to be responsible for their actions has got to be a good thing, generally.

[montag813]

New Haven is a law-free zone

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I don’t know anything about this particular case, but holding government actors to be responsible for their actions has got to be a good thing, generally.

While we may moan about how this seems to benefit illegal aliens on the surface, this could have much deeper implications for other federal agents such as, you know, the TSA. Have them arrested for sexual assault.

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[sergeantdave]

“...holding government actors to be responsible for their actions has got to be a good thing, generally.”

That’s what I’m thinking, too. Lots of federal fascists in EPA, Interior and BLM need to be sued and thrown in prison.

If you see a better analysis of this court case, please ping me. This ruling may be building on a previous federal case in Utah back in the 1990s that smacked down federal fascists really hard. The media has buried that ruling. Thanks.

[dalereed]

Illegal aliens have no constitutional rights unless they are the ones in the country they came from!!

As far as i’m concerned there should be a bounty on them $100 alive, $500 dead!!

[RideForever]

This is exactly the reason why Arizona passed its law to enforce trespassing violations against illegal alien invaders.

What p*sses me off the most is that the judge who made up this skewed decision gets lifetime full retirement pay. There should be a way to tie such benefits to performance.