Illegals suing the gov, expecting to be catered to, expecting laws are not supposed to apply to them, that they are safe from being held accountable from the laws they break,
Judge: Immigration agents not immune to legal action for Elm City raid
Friday, December 17, 2010 by Mary E. O’Leary, Register Topics Editor,
nhregister.com
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 immigrant 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.
As for Chadbourne and Martin, Underhill found that they are “potentially liable for creating a policy of conducting large-scale raids without adequately training raid officers.”
The suit was brought by student law interns and their supervisors at the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at the Yale Law School.
“This is an enormous victory for the plaintiffs. I think it’s the most sweeping decision holding the actions of ICE officials to the constitutional standards that other law enforcement officials are held to,” said Muneer Ahmad, clinical professor of law at the school.
The immigrants claim the raid, which took place over three days and involved 32 people, was the forseeable result of policies put in place by ICE officials, particularly Torres. The National Fugitive Operations Program originally was designed to arrest dangerous criminal fugitives.
In 2006, Torres instituted a quota system, approved by Myers, under which ICE agents were required to make 1,000 arrests per year. Torres later said at least half could come from “collateral” arrests, or the arrest of bystanders present as agents searched for fugitives.
The suit charges that the quota system “incentivized” the arrest of bystanders, and led agents to violate the immigrants' constitutional rights in order to meet that quota. It also claims that the one-time three-week training program for agents, was “grossly inadequate,” and that supervisors were aware of this.
Underhill also refused to dismiss Fifth Amendment equal protection claims, ruling the immigrants “have sufficiently alleged a discriminatory motive on the part of the defendants” and there is not sufficient evidence at this point to grant them qualified immunity.
The suit charges that the raid was planned and executed to punish New Haven for policies friendly to illegal immigrants. It took place shortly after the city Board of Aldermen voted to approve resident ID cards, which would allow illegal immigrants to obtain bank accounts. The suit alleges the purpose of the raids was to show that New Haven was not a safe haven for illegal immigrants.
Underhill dismissed some of the claims by lawyers for the immigrants, but upheld the major claims brought by the plaintiffs. “It’s a important decision against the government,” Ahmed said. “It wasn’t even a close call.”
Ahmad said at this point it is “quite possible” that Myers will be called to testify in the case. Ross Feinstein, spokesman for ICE, in an e-mail, said, “ICE does not comment on pending litigation.”
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.
Underhill dismissed claims against supervisor George Sullivan and ICE personnel Stephen Riccardi and Edgar Vasquez. At this point in the proceedings, in answer to the government’s motion to dismiss the case, the claims against the agents have to be seen as “plausible,” as opposed to “probable.”
Underhill also ruled that the immigrants, who are seeking damages, are in the right jurisdiction, as this could not have been granted by the immigration courts.
Underhill made several references to rulings that federal officers cannot behave unconstitutionally in carrying out their duties.
“This is potentially a wakeup call to ICE,” Ahmad said. “This is a very important juncture in this case.” He said ICE’s claims of immunity in civil suits are unique and are not advanced by other law enforcement agencies, such as the IRS, ATF and the FBI.
In a separate case, ICE has not set a date for the deportation of Washington Colala, one of the defendants. Appeals on deportation of the remaining defendants are progressing through the courts.
The law school clinic is asking that ICE allow Colala to stay until he can testify in this civil action. Underhill has told the government that a jury will not look favorably on its actions, if it appears they are moving on deportation now to prevent his testimony, which prompted an immigration judge to suppress evidence ICE gathered against Colala’s housemate, who was also picked up in the raid.
...........................................................
Muneer I. Ahmad
Clinical Professor of Law
Muneer Ahmad is a Clinical Professor of Law at Yale Law School. A graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard College, Professor Ahmad concentrates his teaching on immigration law and international human rights. He serves as an Advisory Board Member to the District of Columbia Community Legal Interpreter Project and as Board Vice-President for the Global Workers Justice Alliance. |
