Can someone explain this incredibly indecipherable paragraph to me:
US District Judge Alex Tostrud said he was lifting the emergency order he issued the day of Pretti’s shooting that barred various federal investigatory offices from destroying or altering any evidence related to the incident because he had gotten assurances from federal officials that evidence would be properly maintained.
It seems to say, “I withdraw my order to preserve all evidence, because someone told me that all evidence will be preserved anyway.” How can this be interpreted in any other way? Is this guy another Aileen Cannon?
“The temporary restraining order’s terms are not meaningfully different from defendants’ preservation policies,” the judge wrote. “An ongoing preservation order – and the contempt power that accompanies it – would overlay, not just defendants’ preservation polices, but any investigative measures that might alter evidence.”
All his order does is officially tell ICE not to destroy evidence. But their own policies say the same thing. So, if they are going to violate their own policies, they’re going to violate the restraining order as well. Either way, they are going against official orders. The restraining order is not magical and can’t force people to do anything. It’s redundant to have both.
In further news…
This is directly in response to the shootings, both of Pretti and Good.
But the department has faced bipartisan criticism and questions about its tactics since the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by two CBP agents in Minneapolis late last month, which came weeks after Renee Good was killed by an ICE agent.
The fact that we have had to rely on cameras from bystanders, or in one case an ICE agent’s iPhone camera that he dropped as he shot Good, that was pretty embarrassing for the country.
And for a bit of irony:
President Trump expressed support for the decision on Monday, saying body cameras “generally tend to be good for law enforcement because people can’t lie about what’s happening.”
I think you have proved personally that people can lie about what’s happening despite video evidence, sir.
It would be like if you have a sticky note reminder on something, and someone else puts their own sticky note with the same reminder on it on the same item. Does having it there twice make it twice as likely you will follow it?
I completely see the judge’s reasoning, if the judge’s order doesn’t have any more force than the policy does. And it seems like it doesn’t, based on what the judge has said.
I do think you are wrong that the judge’s ruling has a greater force than their internal policy. This isn’t like a no contact order for an abusive spouse who risks being thrown in jail if they violate it.
Here is what Cornell has to say about a TRO:
It seems to me the point of the TRO is to get the agency to agree to act a certain way, but if they already have a policy in place then that agreement is redundant. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like that is the point of this.
ICE doesn’t mean a word of it, which means the judge’s order does have more force. ICE’s policies mean nothing.
And, removing the order in practice amounts to implicit approval of destroying evidence. And encouraging more shootings, for that matter; it effectively gives the shootings a judicial seal of approval. It’s a judge outright saying to a bunch of already out of control ICE that he isn’t even going to try to hinder them.
I agree here. ISTM that if they get caught flouting the order than there is more evidence in the future to nail their evil, fascistic, violent, asses to the wall. The judge rescinding this order is a wink and a nod to their law breaking.
I understand someone disagreeing with the judge on this decision, but saying that removing this order is the same as approving murder is irresponsible. This is “you’re with us or against us” George W Bush level of argumentation.
Seriously, what does the order substantively do that won’t happen now? Can either of you answer that?
I don’t think the order will change what happens or doesn’t happen, but why rescind it? Let it stand. Let them disobey it. At least they will be breaking (another) law. Like I said if sanity gets control again it’s more grist for the mill. I want to see every single ice pos in prison for the garbage they’re put the country through. I do want to see all the heads cut off the ice snake, but I want to see the uncontrolled, vicious, lot of them to rot in prison. We need to catch and document every time they ignore judges, hurt and abuse people, deny people their rights.
I agree with you in spirit, but a TRO, to my understanding, is meant to be temporary (hence why they are “temporary” restraining orders). Many judges won’t ever issue them, and instead will have a hearing to determine if a preliminary injunction is necessary prior to trial. In this case, ICE showed that their policies already prevent them from destroying evidence, and it is also against the law to do it.
Federal TROs are subject to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I’d like an actual legal professional’s take on this, because I think people are overreacting, that the judge is now in the tank for ICE, but I don’t see that this indicates that. To me, the fact that a TRO was issued in the first place (which is an extraordinary action) shows that the judge does not trust them.
I thought you quoted the judge as referring to the “ongoing preservation order – and the contempt power that accompanies it”, which seems like it does.
Why? That’s exactly what people - especially ICE - are going to believe when they look at it. “The judge backed down and gave ICE the OK to destroy the evidence with a wink and a nod”.
This is about people being murdered in the street by ICE; there’s no “compromise position” on this.
Which the judge said has no more power than the policy in place. That’s the danger of selective quoting; you can sometimes present the opposite of what a person said.
“The temporary restraining order’s terms are not meaningfully different from defendants’ preservation policies,” the judge wrote. “An ongoing preservation order – and the contempt power that accompanies it – would overlay, not just defendants’ preservation polices, but any investigative measures that might alter evidence.”
Maybe the judge isn’t being truthful with this. I don’t know. As I said, I’m not a legal professional.
In addition, the judge imposed the order on the behalf of Minnesota’s law enforcement, who has said that they are close to an agreement with federal authorities. Maybe that was also a factor?
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension told CNN that talks with federal investigators on sharing evidence in the case are ongoing, adding that they are “hopeful” an agreement can be reached. Thus far, however, the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations have not shared information with local investigators.
If I were the judge, I’d probably want to keep it in place until the FBI and DHS actually started sharing the information, but I can’t say I know better than the judge or the nuances of the law.
What does “no compromise” mean here? Seriously, that if a judge doesn’t turn into an activist they are complicit in murder? It’s an emotional situation and I’m pissed off too, but this doesn’t sound like a reasonable argument.
I don’t know about that aspect of the law in regards to pardons. I don’t see why the judge can’t act against the federal government for destroying evidence after all of this, given that there is an agreement in place. The judge is not saying, “Oh, well, then I guess you can destroy evidence now.” He is saying the opposite, in fact.
Seriously, what does the judge do when they violate his order versus what he would do if they were to destroy evidence afterward? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I don’t really know. The judge is saying there isn’t a difference. Is he full of crap? It’s possible he is. But that’s why I am asking.
They know that doesn’t matter. They don’t want “evil liberals” to get hold of evidence that could get them in trouble for “shooting people who deserved it”.