As I understand it, the judge is saying that a prisoner can’t be legally held beyond the length of his sentence and if ICE wants someone then they have to be waiting at the cell door or catch him later.
This is a local judge and just affects Miami-Dade.
Is it a valid ruling? Will it be overturned by a higher court? Could it end up in the Federal courts?
Does this ruling come into play (in Miami-Dade) if ICE requests that local police take into custody someone not currently incarcerated? It seems to me that it would.
I can see this applying to lots of cases beyond immigration, though. Somebody gets arrested on a minor charge in one state and is subsequently identified as someone wanted by the federal government or another state. If the local charge is a night in jail or a fine and the other venue is not prepared to immediately take custody and/or arrange for extradition, how much “courtesy imprisonment” can the suspect be subjected to?
I would say that the local police are not in a position to interpret or carry out immigration enforcement or policies, nor should they absorb the cost of having to keep someone housed, or take on the continued responsibility for the prisoners well being.
Their duty ended when the prisoner served his time for the charges that are within their jurisdiction to prosecute.
if ICE wanted the person, they should have set up for custody to be taken of the person
on release, the person would have to go to their facilities, be detained in their facilities, and be tried through the proper channels.
it is not like Immigrations does not have tons of people on staff in florida, i don’t see why they have no one on hand to take custody of the person.
I am sure local police can detain a person for pickup by a federal agency, but they can only hold them for a certain time i would imagine, since they are not bringing charges.
They have already had this person beyond that time if he is already time served.
ICE’s ball and they dropped it, it sounds like.
It’s not like ICE just learned about the guy 72 hours ago right?
I (perhaps inartfully) was describing a case where you get picked up for some local crime and then they discover you’re wanted in another state or by the Feds, but they can’t take custody of you right away so after you serve your sentence for the local crime, what are the obligations of the local cops? What if you’re not specifically wanted but found to be in violation of Federal law or of another state’s law in some way? I’m trying to think of a case other than immigration where this might occur, but none come to mind offhand. Hypothetically, let’s say there’s an artifact which is only made in State A and State A has a specific law forbidding anyone from taking the artifact out of that state. One gets arrested on a minor charge in State B and during booking, is found to be in possession of that artifact. Is State B under any obligation to inform State A of a possible violation of its laws? Is State B under any obligation to hold you on behalf of State A after you’ve served your sentence for whatever got you arrested in State B?
As opposed to the local cops finding out that you have outstanding warrants from the Feds or another state.
ICE doesn’t have to be waiting at the cell door. Prisoners can be held beyond the length of their sentence if there is a warrant. There’s a reason these stories all refer to “requests” by the ICE - and the reason is because they are indeed requests, not warrants. ICE requests that the jail (it’s not a situation that usually happens with prisons) hold the prisoner for an additional 48 hours ( not including weekends and holidays) while ICE investigates and decides whether to attempt to obtain a warrant- an attempt which may not be successful and which may not even be made, because it’s not unheard of for ICE to make a request and discover that the subject is actually a citizen.I have not heard of a jail or prison that refused to honor an actual immigration warrant that was filed as a detainer prior to release.
These requests are basically the equivalent of the police in County A calling the jail in County B and saying " We think we might want to arrest Joe Smith. Hold on to him for a couple of days while we decide" The jail can’t hold Joe based on that- the police in County A have to either get a warrant or be waiting at the cell door - assuming they have enough evidence to arrest him.
How does it create a problem exactly? If you get picked up in Alabama for reckless driving, and New York cops think you maybe possibly had something to do with a robbery and would like Alabama to hold you while they investigate and possibly apply for a warrant but maybe not, there’s no problem with Alabama releasing you once you’ve finished your reckless driving charges. If New York cops actually know that you robbed an armored car and aren’t just fishing, they can go to a judge to get an arrest warrant for you and then Alabama won’t just release you after the reckless driving charge.
The whole point of the 4th amendment is that the government actually has to have things like warrants and probable cause to deprive you of your freedom, an agency can’t just ‘request’ that you be held because they feel like it. But that’s exactly what ICE is doing in these cases, they don’t have anything substantive enough for a warrant and are just fishing. While the constitution actually limits the US government and nowhere says it only applies to citizens, even if you argue that the constitution doesn’t grant due process protection to non-citizens it doesn’t work here, because in some cases ICE puts these requests in against American citizens who they think might be foreign.
Not any easier- the Governor of NY doesn’t send an extradition request, he issues a Governor’s warrant. Which requires that the subject of the warrant be “charged with crime or with escaping from confinement or breaking the terms of his bail, probation or parole in this state”. Which in this example, means the person must have been charged with stealing the armored car, and it will be much easier to get an arrest warrant from the judge - after all, the person could waive extradition at that point.
It probably matters based on a whole lot of issues- I know that when my agency extradites someone, we have five days from when we are notified that he is available (no local charges and waived extradition) to our warrant to serve him with documents, which means as a practical matter we will pick him up by day 6- but if he contests the extradition and we have to get a governor’s warrant , he may be held in the other jurisdiction for longer than 30 days. I believe ( although I could be wrong) that 30 days is the time limit for the wanting state to send the extradition warrant to the state that has custody , not a time limit for pickup.