New Haven Independent

ICE Cases Melt Away

by Thomas MacMillan | June 8, 2009 7:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

A judge has dismissed a case against four immigrants caught up in a controversial Fair Haven raid, saying the feds trampled on their rights.

Judge Michael W. Straus of U.S. Immigration Court in Hartford threw out the cases against four immigrants swept up in the June 2007 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid. He ruled that government agents were in “egregious violation” of the immigrants’ Fourth Amendment rights.

For four individuals, the judge’s decisions marks an end to a two-year legal battle that began when Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents swept into Fair Haven, arresting 30 immigrants on charges of allegedly being in the country illegally. The raids prompted rallies and accusations from New Haven’s mayor on down that the feds were terrorizing the immigrant community and retaliating against the city for its immigrant-friendly policies, a charged the feds denied.

Attorneys from Yale Law School have been representing 17 of those 30 immigrants. The attorneys have argued that ICE agents violated their clients’ rights by entering their homes without permission and questioning them illegally. ICE has denied the allegations.

But Judge Straus agreed.

“In considering all the evidence in the record, this Court finds that the Respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights were egregiously violated,” he wrote.

Such a violation terminates the case by disqualifying any evidence or confessions that agents may have gathered in their raid, since it was conducted in violation of Constitutional rights.

Read two of the four rulings here and here.

In one decision, Straus wrote, “Here, the raid was conducted in the early morning hours while some of the occupants, including a young girl, were sleeping. Agents forcibly entered, without warrant or consent, into a private home and then into a private bedroom. The agents failed to ask preliminary questions that might demonstrate probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion. “

ICE agents told a different story of what had happened. They claimed that they had asked consent to enter, and followed appropriate procedures.

However, the agents submitted their testimony by affidavit only. Government lawyers refused to call them to the stand or make them available for cross-examination.

The government’s decision may have worked against ICE in the end, since Judge Straus found a number of “evidentiary omissions” in the affidavits.

The holes in the affidavits were ultimately less damning than the refusal to put the agents on the stand. “The deficiencies in the Government’s threadbare submission are exacerbated by their categorical and unexplained refusal to offer or make available agents to testify in open court.” wrote Straus.

The respondents were thus unable to confront and cross-examine their accusers. “This due process requires,” Straus wrote. “Functionally, the upshot is that the Court can give but scant, if any, weight to these [affidavit] submissions.”

Straus wrote that the “scant evidence” presented by the government amounted to “unsubstantianted hearsay, and, at points, hearsay upon hearsay.”

“We’re all very happy with the ruling,” Anant Saraswat, a recent Yale Law graduate who has been working on the case, said Sunday.

Yale pursued a difficult strategy in seeking to suppress evidence on the grounds that it was collected in violation of Constitutional rights. This is the first time that Judge Straus has issued a favorable ruling on such an argument, Saraswat said. “It’s pretty rare.”

Judge Straus’ decisions push the reset button for the four immigrants involved, explained Saraswat.

“Legally, it’s as if this never happened,” he said “They’re back to where they started on June fifth, 2007.”

However, the government may choose to appeal the decisions, Saraswat said. Such an appeal would be a lengthy and complicated process, he explained. The Yale attorneys are in the process of appealing Judge Straus’ previous decisions against others of their clients.

Judge Straus previously ruled against 10 of the 17 respondents, and granted asylum to one. Last week’s decisions were on four of the remaining six respondents.The final two decisions are expected shortly.

None of the 17 immigrants who chose to contest their charges have been incarcerated. They are all free to remain in the United States while their cases are being decided.

Reached by phone, ICE spokesman Michael Gilhooly said only that “ICE doesn’t comment on pending litigation.”

When reminded that the cases had been decided and were therefore no longer pending, Gilhooly said, “ICE doesn’t comment on pending litigation or on issues that are before a court.”

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: Rex | June 8, 2009 10:33 AM

And how many of these 17 illegal immigrants will show up for deportation if they ultimately lose this fight? ZERO. Once they know they've lost, they will move to North Carolina or Idaho or Nebraska. You'll never see them again. So, the bleeding heart liberal nut jobs in New Haven and specifically at Yale have achieved their objective - letting each and every one of these illegal immigrants stay in the USA. If only I had the power to send every illegal immigrant to New Haven, where they are loved and coddled and told they are heroes for coming to the US even though it was against the law.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | June 8, 2009 10:52 AM

The ruling does not mean that they were in this country LEGALLY at the time of the raid or now. Start removal proceedings.

Posted by: Bruce | June 8, 2009 11:19 AM

Rex,

Try to look at this case objectively. These agents entered homes they had no warrant for and no business entering. This could just as easily have been your home or mine. Regardless of how you feel about immigration, don't you agree with our constitutional protections from unwarranted illegal home invasions?

At the time of the raids, these people were merely suspected of being in the country illegally. I believe they were only targeting FIVE suspects, but grabbed everyone who crossed their path in the process -- 31 in all. Many of those picked up voluntarily left the country.

Posted by: mackinow | June 8, 2009 12:49 PM

My god ! ICE violated their civil rights. They're criminals, they're not US citizens. Give them ID cards so they can open banlk accounts !!! collect welfare !!! The american legal system has completly failed the american people. When judges look for loop holes to subvert our own laws - we're in BIG TROUBLE. And yes, when there are millions and millions of illegals,who have over run our country, sweeps are the only way to enforce our laws ... !!!
Any judge, politician, civil servant who supports criminal activity should be removed. Law abbiding americans - vote these people out of office. March on the court house - DEMAND judges enforce our laws !!!! Or have them disbarred, I'm madder than HELL !!!!!!! Ashamed of our political and legal system

signed
White male. what liberals and illegals call a racists or in the case of Sotomayor " inferior white male, inferior to latino women".

Posted by: ElmerFudd | June 8, 2009 3:55 PM

SOUND MORE AND MORE LIKE OUR WORTHLESS GOVERNMENT HAS DECLARED WAR ON IT'S CITIZENS!!!!

I AM OUTRAGED!!

Posted by: Virgil Wiebe | June 8, 2009 5:20 PM

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

US Constitution, 4th Amendment

Posted by: True New Havener | June 8, 2009 5:52 PM

Start the clock ticking.

tic
tic
tic
Independent writes article including word immigrant.
tic
tic
tic (3 seconds pass)
Nativists call every brown person a criminal.
tic
tic
tic
More nativists join the fray . . . argue that the Constitution does not stop illegal entry into a home.
tic
tic
tic
Rational people try to explain why we should all not want the government breaking into our homes without warrants.
tic
tic
tic
Nativists start making even crazier arguments but now use ONLY CAPITAL LETTERS.
tic
tic
tic
More rational people decide to never read the comments section again.

Posted by: DingDong | June 8, 2009 6:59 PM

That's right, Elmer Fudd. Run for the hills. And stay there.

Posted by: Rachel | June 8, 2009 7:23 PM

Bruce,

I greatly appreciate your well reasoned statements on this issue.

But do yourself a favor, and read the comments section under any story on immigration in any publication of your choice - liberal to conservative, from the New York Times to the Washington Times. You will find the "debate" primarily comes from the insanely myopic "What parta ILLEGAL don't they unnerstand!" crowd.

There's no point in engaging these individuals on any reasonable, humanitarian or rule of law conversation. Their fingers are on autopilot, typing meaningless, uninformed and often racist crap over and over again whenever they see immigration in a headline somewhere. They're like hamsters hitting the pellet bar over and over again - please, don't feed them extra pellets. They're already getting fat.

This strange phenomenon thankfully doesn't seem to have any real place at the table for negotiations over immigration reform or immigrants' rights. So, dear Bruce, please stay educated on the issues and don't listen to or worry about the rantings of the comments section crowd. They haven't been out of the house in a loooong time (sorry for my own ad hominem, but I just couldn't resist).

Yours Truly,

Rachel

Posted by: Bruce | June 8, 2009 10:27 PM

Hi Rachel, thanks for the advice. Even if I don't change anyone's opinion, I hope to learn for myself. I don't think the anti-immigrant community is crazy or evil, though some of them seem to be very angry. I want to understand why they are so angry. I try very hard to see the logic behind the emotions.

As a side-note, I am also curious why they only tend to respond to articles relating to Hispanic immigrants. A Canadian was recently caught trafficking hundreds of pounds of drugs through New haven but no one was calling for his head. No one even noticed. (please don't accuse me of pulling the racist card. I am just pointing out an obvious trend.)

Posted by: JLGhertner | June 9, 2009 6:40 PM

what is sad is that it took a Federal judge to uphold the Bill of Rights of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which the United States was an original signee, and the tenets of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The two secretaries of the DHS, our Congress, and our President have ignored the basic principles of our democracy: that the well off support the basic needs of the helpless.
No matter what side of the immigration debate you stand, you must realize that Constitutional rights are for everyone in our country. It is illegal to invade anyone's household without warrant, to detain someone for remaining silent, to horrify children who are US citizens by abusing their parents and removing them from their families.
We must also acknowledge that crossing the border without inspection is NOT criminal behavior by law.

ICE Cases Melt Away

Comments

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed