Specifically, does a judge need to sign off on warrants to arrest the hundreds of undocumented that are actual violent criminals (not just accused of a violent crime but actually found guilty)? Are those warrants a public record?
Asked
Active
Viewed 398 times
2 Answers
2
does a judge need to sign off on warrants
For immigration enforcement, to some extent, yes. But in general it is much easier to arrest someone for a civil immigration violation than for a crime.
For example, to enter a private workplace to interrogate workers about their immigration status, the agents need a warrant unless they have permission from the business or unless the business is within 25 miles of the border and they only enter "private lands" but not "private dwellings." It is not clear where nonresidential buildings fall in that distinction. See 8 USC 1357(a).
But the title asks about "individual warrants." Once the agent has access to a suspected alien, a warrant naming that person is not required. The officer does need to have reason to believe that the person's presence in the US is unlawful and that the person is likely to flee if not arrested. 8 USC 1357(a)(1):
[Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant] to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States[.]
8 USC 1357(a)(2), in part:
[and shall have power without warrant] ... to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any [law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens] and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States[.]
One important point to consider is the consequence of a search or arrest without a properly executed warrant: in a criminal case, evidence resulting from such a search or arrest is typically excluded, often leading to charges being dropped. In a civil case, or at least in an immigration case, once the government learns something, it can't be unlearned. An illegal alien whose status came to light during an unlawful search or arrest would still be subject to deportation.
Similarly, with respect to an officer's "power...to interrogate," the fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination does allow one to refuse to answer the agent's questions, but because immigration enforcement is primarily a civil matter, the officer may draw an adverse inference from the refusal (unlike in criminal matters).
not just accused of a violent crime but actually found guilty.
If the person has been found guilty and is not in custody then either the sentence has been served or the person is on probation or the person is a fugitive from justice. In the first case, no arrest in relation to that crime is permissible (though the existence of the conviction has an impact on the enforcement of immigration law, for which see above). In the second and third cases, any arrest in connection with a probation violation or flight from justice would be governed by criminal law.
phoog
- 42,299
- 5
- 91
- 143
-2
Specifically does a judge need to sign off on warrants to arrest the hundreds of undocumented that are actual violent criminals
If they're arrested in relation to the crime then yes, unless the officers have a probable cause to arrest on the spot.
But immigration violations are not a criminal offense. The removal proceedings are not a punishment, it's an administrative process to restore proper status. As such the immigration process is entirely covered by the executive, and doesn't involve the judiciary (the "immigration judges" involved are actually DoJ employees), and no warrants are needed.
In the comments below people get very angry at the suggestion that IJs are part of the executive government, and claim that mere stating that fact is intended to claim that they're biased. That's not the intention. They're no more biased than the Attorney General and the US President who are the policy makers with executive authority over them.
It was also noted in the comments that the judicial (proper, Article III) review is possible, once the administrative process is exhausted. The administrative process includes the IJ decision, and a BIA appeal (also part of the DoJ), and the BIA decision can be appealed to a district court for a judicial review. Not a lot of people who go through this process can afford this though.
In any case, neither comment is relevant to the question, but worth mentioning since people seem to feel strongly about this.
littleadv
- 8,641
- 2
- 17
- 45