It’s not my particular place to lay out the details in this case. I suspect there are other people who are much better suited but my interpretation is they had paperwork to arrest in a public venue. The court was not said venue. The Judge then purposefully directed him to leave using an alternative exit to prevent his arrest. The legality of that action is what’s in question.
Here’s a similar case from last year, if you’re asking for court precedents. ICE was arresting people using an administrative warrant and not an arrest warrant, and it was ruled unconstitutional.
Yes? The whole point is that they had the wrong paperwork and were not legally allowed to arrest the guy whose case the judge was presiding over.
It’s not my particular place to lay out the details in this case. I suspect there are other people who are much better suited but my interpretation is they had paperwork to arrest in a public venue. The court was not said venue. The Judge then purposefully directed him to leave using an alternative exit to prevent his arrest. The legality of that action is what’s in question.
Incorrect. An administrative warrant gives no grounds for an arrest, it authorizes fact-finding only.
What law do you think allows ICE to dictate what exits to use?
I’ll wait till I see the supreme court weigh in. I don’t think you’re wrong but that’s where we are at.
If you don’t think I’m wrong, why are you defending ICE here?
I’m not. I’m trying to be measured and not let the GOP control the news cycle.
Your entire argument has been “lets not get angry, maybe ICE is allowed to do this”. That’s not being measured, that’s defending ICE.
Ok, who is fighting ICE in the courts?
Here’s a similar case from last year, if you’re asking for court precedents. ICE was arresting people using an administrative warrant and not an arrest warrant, and it was ruled unconstitutional.
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/court-rules-against-ice-knock-and-arrests