Part Of Texas’ Sanctuary Jurisdiction Law May Be Unconstitutional Or Something

Yeah, there’s a big “or something” in this article, in what is missing from the debate

Federal Judge Calls a Critical Part of Texas’ “Sanctuary Cities” Crackdown Unconstitutional

The same San Antonio federal court judge who will soon decide whether Texas can enforce its new law banning so-called “sanctuary cities” just explained in a separate ruling why a major portion of the law appears to be unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia ruled on Monday that the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure when jailers detained an undocumented immigrant for more than two months in 2016 after a misdemeanor charge against him was dismissed. Lawyers for the man had challenged the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office’s longstanding practice of granting so-called immigration “detainers,” routine requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for local jails to hold people suspected of federal immigration violations, even if their local charges have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Lawyers across the country have argued that such requests are often flawed, haphazard and fall well below the legal standard of a warrant or judge’s order.

This week, Judge Garcia concluded that the case of Julio Trujillo, who court records show was arrested and charged with the misdemeanor assault of his girlfriend in January 2016, is an example of how the detainer system can lead to warrantless, unconstitutional detention. Trujillo’s lawyers say he spent a total of 76 days in Bexar County lockup after his charge was dismissed because of a detainer request ICE had lodged with the county. In his Monday ruling, which was first reported by the Express-News, Garcia said the county had wrongly assumed that ICE detainers, which are usually over alleged civil immigration violations and not criminal matters, constitute probable cause. He wrote that the “routine detention of such individuals made it inevitable that it (the county) would engage in warrantless detention of individuals who were not suspected of any criminal offense.”

Lawyers challenging the state’s new immigration law, Senate Bill 4, say the ruling should prove useful as cities and counties across the state sue to block the law from going into effect on September 1. Under SB 4, local officials who don’t comply with all ICE detainers risk being booted out of office or even criminally charged.

The thrust of the article, and what supporters of illegal aliens are claiming (such as this Huffington Post article based on the above), is that the state forcing jurisdictions to comply with ICE detainers is now unconstitutional, based on this ruling.

What’s missing is that, while Bexar County was in the wrong and did violate the rights of the illegal alien in question, that in no way invalidates SB4 on requiring compliance with ICE detainers. Bexar was wrong to hold Trujillo that long. And, it was not actually in compliance with ICE detainer policy. Said policy requires a 48 hour hold. After that, if ICE has not picked up the illegal in question, well, that’s the fault of ICE, and the jurisdiction can, and should, release the illegal.

One could argue “hey, the illegal was being released from jail for rape/murder/violence!!!!” Yes. But, the burden is on ICE to do their job within the confines of the time period. If they’re placing the detainer, the onus is on them to do it in the allotted time. That’s the way it works, and should work. That Bexar County chose to hold the illegal in question for 76 days has nothing to do with SB4: it just shows that the County made a big, big mistake.

BTW, as both articles attempt to make the case that Trujillo was a model citizen who was charged with a misdemeanor that was dismissed, they let something slip through

Other than the misdemeanor charge that landed him in jail and was ultimately dismissed, records show no other criminal history. Court documents do, however, indicate that he was deported in late 2001 (it’s unclear when he re-entered the country).

Entering the country is a criminal act with a civil penalty. Entering the country after being deported is a criminal act with a criminal penalty. That makes Trujillo a, get this, criminal.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Part Of Texas’ Sanctuary Jurisdiction Law May Be Unconstitutional Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    The problem is that Mr Trujillo was held on detainer for 76 days. Had ICE taken him into custody promptly — promptly meaning a day or two — there would have been no issue.

  2. Bob M says:

    “U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia”

    Rules against outlawing safe havens for south of the border illegals.

    And who cannot see a problem here?|

    Senor Garcia should recuse himself because of his patently racial bias, or we Americans should kick his ass out.

    • Jeffery says:

      Garcia should recuse himself because of his patently racial bias

      This is the new standard for Cons. White Cons (redundant, we know) are terrified as their White Privilege slips away and want to institute White Conservative Sharia Law nationwide.

      Judge Garcia was born in Texas and got his law degree from the University of Texas.

  3. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: Entering the country is a criminal act with a civil penalty. Entering the country after being deported is a criminal act with a criminal penalty.

    Improper entry is a crime, a misdemeanor (8 U.S.C. § 1325) punishable by up to six months in prison, and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Reentry after having been deported is a crime, a felony (8 U.S.C. § 1326) punishable by up to two years in prison (twenty years if subsequent to an aggravating felony), and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Unlawful presence is not a crime, and is punishable only civilly, such as by deportation, and may have negative consequences for someone seeking permanent residency, depending on the circumstances.

    • gitarcarver says:

      We’ve been down this path before Zach. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

      Teach has it dead right. Being here illegally is a crime. The penalties are civil in nature.

      There are a myriad of ways of proving this, but none matter to you as you will simply repeat the same erroneous assertion.

      • Jeffery says:

        git,

        And we need to point out that legal experts disagree with you and TEACH. Would you call receiving a ticket for an expired parking meter a “crime”?

        myriad of ways of proving this

        It would help your argument if you could find legal experts to support your position.

        • Jeffery says:

          Did trump commit a crime when he cheated students of trump “University”? He paid $25 million to make it go away. If he had lost the civil suits in court instead of paying off the aggrieved, would that have made him a criminal?

        • gitarcarver says:

          I am not repeating the same arguments that I did the last time on this Jeffery. It is not my fault that you and Zach cannot or will not remember what was said and the proof offered.

          It would help your argument if you could find legal experts to support your position.

          Already did that the last time.

          It make no sense for us to repeat the same arguments that you won’t read, understand or admit your error. The second time we do it is is just an annoyance. The third time is a waste of my time.

      • Zachriel says:

        gitarcarver: Being here illegally is a crime.

        According to FindLaw, unlawful presence is generally not a crime. However, it’s a simple matter of pointing to the relevant statute, as we did above concerning improper entry.

  4. Jeffery says:

    We’ve been down this path before, git. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

    • gitarcarver says:

      We’ve been down this path before, git. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

      Somehow you put my name in place of yours.

      Its a typical mistake you often make when you make accusations against others for acts you have committed.

      • Zachriel says:

        We’ve been down this path before, git. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9459 access attempts in the last 7 days.