So - which part of “a request … to notify them when he would be released” do you think asks the local authorities to illegally detain someone?
Hows that phone call supposed to go -
Hey - ICE agent - just letting you know, per your request, that Jose is being processed for release today.
ICE Agent - “uh - can you hold him till we get there”?
(hint - there’s your detaining)
You really don’t quite get it - do you? What was going to be the result of the “heads up” phone call? (which has already been explained to you as being against the local regulations).
What would change, if anything, had that 'heads up phone call" been made?
That would be the 1989 “sanctuary city” ordinance, which apparently has never been challenged as “violating federal law” until you alleged such.
Obviously, the authorities know quite a bit ahead of time when Jose is being released. It doesn’t happen overnight.
So: “Hey - ICE agent - just letting you know, per your request, that Jose is going to be released a month from now.”
ICE agent: “Thanks, we will come pick him up.”
You’re not answering my question, are you?
Which part of “a request … to notify them when he would be released” do you think asks the local authorities to illegally detain someone?
You think it takes a month to release some one? While I am certainly not an expert on the process - I’m under the impression that its going to be within hours - not days or weeks.
Got a cite that it was going to take a month to process his release? or “is not overnite” ?
Especailly in this case when the charges that SF was holding him on were dropped?
I did. The city ordinances prevent them from illegally detaining someone or responding to requests for information regarding release.
Still funny how SF has been a “sanctuary city” for nearly 30 years with no problems until now.
When you have no doubts about other people’s motives and thought process, then it’s time to take a step away from the issue.
Considering that no one has ever been prosecuted for what you claim is a violation of the law, I’m entirely unconvinced that not making a phone call in the circumstances violates the law.
If someone is in prison, his release date is set way in advance. If someone is in jail awaiting a hearing, that hearing is set way in advance and if he may be released during that hearing, ICE can be notified of when the hearing is.
Do you have a cite that people are suddenly released, with no advance warning? How exactly would that happen?
By the way, for those asking why the Feds sent him to SF - it is because SF asked them to transfer him to SF for prosecution:
San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has deflected blame in the release of a Mexican national now facing murder charges in the Pier 14 slaying by demanding to know why federal authorities returned him to San Francisco to face a 20-year-old marijuana charge in the first place.
The answer, it turns out, is that the Sheriff’s Department asked federal officials to do so.
Mirkarimi’s agency requested custody of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez as he was completing a 46-month stint in federal prison in March in San Bernardino County, according to a Sheriff’s Department letter obtained by The Chronicle.
It took three weeks to release Lopez-Sanchez.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lee-slams-Mirkarimi-for-not-talking-to-6373929.php
“For the next three weeks, sources with knowledge of the matter told The Chronicle, sheriff’s deputies sought clarification from the department’s legal division on whether to hold Lopez-Sanchez so Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials could pick him up for possible deportation.”
Three weeks during which they could have picked up the phone and called ICE.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lee-slams-Mirkarimi-for-not-talking-to-6373929.php
“But the mayor said the sheriff’s office could have satisfied both city and state law by simply picking up the phone and asking immigration agents to come over and pick up Lopez-Sanchez before the “serious, repeat” felon was set loose.”
…
“I’ve sent that message over to the Sheriff’s Department regarding communications with the federal authorities,” Lee said at a news conference. “Do we need to educate somebody on how to pick up the phone?”
So now, ICE is supposed to be notified of upcoming hearings where the individual may/may not be released? You realize all of that is publicly available information, right? It’s called the ‘docket’ and its avaialble (as a rule) on this thing called an ‘internet’ that you might be familiar with - and I am certain that law enforcement types have even more ways to find out if cases are pending/forthcoming.
And since any hearing might end up with the individual being released (on bail, etc) - these things happen daily - and I can be certain - without even needig to look it up - that they streamline the process whenever possible to get defendants released as quickly as possible when the situation warrants it.
Dropping 20 year old charges certainly would warrant an expedited release - and I have yet to see any cite that this individual was in anything more than a county/city lockup situation - he certainly wasn’t “in prison”.
He was held before release for three weeks. 21 days during which a phone could be picked up and ICE notified.
Which means that they determined that they had no duty to report it to ICE and were specifically forbidden to do so (per earlier cites) .
So - by your own cite there - they did the due diligence to see how to proceed in this specific situation.
Not according to the mayor, as I cited above. And you were claiming that they didn’t KNOW they were releasing him until just a short time beforehand, so they could not have notified ICE. Obviously that is incorrect.
Failure to notify ICE about the release of the alien into the general population in advance of the release is a clear and unequivocal “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.” Which is a violation of the federal law I cited, according to court cases I cited as well. City ordinance, even if it required not notifying ICE (and according to the mayor, that’s not the case) does not override the federal law.
Ya kinda left out some important details from your cite - here, let me add them in for you -
[QUOTE=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lee-slams-Mirkarimi-for-not-talking-to-6373929.php]
For the next three weeks, sources with knowledge of the matter told The Chronicle, sheriff’s deputies sought clarification from the department’s legal division on whether to hold Lopez-Sanchez so Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials could pick him up for possible deportation. ICE had requested that the city detain Lopez-Sanchez.
In the end, the legal division told deputies they had no basis to hold Lopez-Sanchez, and he was released April 15. He was arrested last week in the July 1 shooting death of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on San Francisco’s waterfront, and has pleaded not guilty to murder charges.
[/QUOTE]
(Bolding Mine)
So - there’s you’re request to detain and a legal response that they couldn’t.
The request from ICE to notify them in advance of the release is not mentioned in this article (except in mayor’s response to it) but it was in numerous other articles.
Where is the “legal response” that they couldn’t call ICE? Did calling ICE violate the Constitution?
bullshit as already explained multiple times to you.
Secondly -
How long they held him prior to release has absolutely nothing with how logn it took to process the release once it was deemed he was to be released - nor does it say that they know he would be released on X.
Plain reading of the article says they were told to release him on the 15th and they did so.
They KNEW they were going to release him for three weeks. During those three weeks they could have picked up the phone and called ICE. As the mayor (quoted in the cite I gave) clearly says.