|SNc Channels: About Salem-News.com
Salem-News.com is an Independent Online Newsgroup in the United States, setting the standard for the future of News.Publisher:
Marion County Sheriff Jason Myers Reacts to Recent ICE Court Ruling
A judge found that the practice of complying with ICE detainers by extending the duration of confinement is unlawful.
Marion County Sheriff Jason Myers co.marion.or.us
(SALEM) - In responses to media inquires Sheriff Jason Myers has issued the following statement regarding the Miranda-Olivares decisions set forth by the US District Court of Oregon.
Effective April 16, 2014, and consistent with the Miranda-Olivares decision, the Marion County Jail will no longer hold inmates pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer alone. ICE may issue or forward a federal judicial warrant or order authorizing a suspected alien's detention, and the Jail will honor such warrants and orders. Jail staff will continue to collect and submit information to ICE regarding foreign-born arrestees, but will not place holds upon such arrestees unless a judicial warrant or court order is received authorizing detention.
Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County, et al US District Court – District of Oregon
Case No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST
Summary of Judge Stewart’s Opinion and Order on Summary Judgment:
On April 11, 2014, US District Court Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart issued an Opinion and Order regarding Clackamas County’s practice of complying with federal immigration detainers, form I-247, issued by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE detainers”). Judge Stewart ruled that the County’s practice of complying with ICE detainers by holding inmates for a period of up to 48-hours, excluding weekends and holidays, beyond the time they otherwise would be released, is unconstitutional.
The Judge found that the practice of complying with ICE detainers by extending the duration of confinement constitutes an unlawful seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. In reaching this conclusion, the Judge determined that ICE detainers are not mandatory and are not sufficient grounds for continuing to hold an inmate. This is true despite the use of the term “shall” in 8 CFR §287.7(d), which is the federal law authorizing the ICE detainers.
This opinion comes in a lawsuit brought by an inmate who was lawfully arrested for violating a restraining order, completed her sentence on that charge, and was then held for an additional 19-hours pursuant to an ICE detainer. The decision is a result of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Thus, the Judge has found Clackamas County liable prior to holding a trial in the case. At this point our office is in the process of assessing how to move forward. There could still be a trial to determine the amount of damages owed to the plaintiff, and an appeal of the Judge’s decision is still being considered.
It should be noted that this case involves complying with an ICE detainer indicating only that ICE had “initiated an investigation to determine whether [the inmate] is subject to removal from the United States.” It is not clear that the result would be the same in other scenarios where ICE has already concluded the person is subject to removal or has issued a warrant.
In addition it should be noted that our practice is not to arrest or take individuals into custody based on an ICE detainer, but rather it is only to extend the duration of custody of a person who was initially apprehended on other grounds unrelated to immigration status.
Articles for April 16, 2014 | Articles for April 17, 2014 | Articles for April 18, 2014