New York and Illinois have withdrawn from Homeland Security’s Secure Communities Program. Under the Secure Communities Program ICE, a division of Homeland Security has a direct computer connection to each county or state to check the immigration status of each person arrested. Its stated goal is to deport noncitizens convicted of serious offenses. But in reality it gives them the chance to deport any noncitizen who is arrested whether or not the person is charged or convicted of any offense.

In Illinois studies showed that 30 per cent of those deported under the program had never been convicted of any crime and only 20 percent had been convicted of a serious crime.

California and Massachusetts are also considering withdrawal from the program.

One problem from the point of view of law enforcement and the immigration community is that Secure Communities inhibits the reporting of crime within the immigrant community. For example, an undocumented immigrant is less likely to report domestic violence if they know that the perpetrator is likely to be deported. Yes, they want the domestic violence to end. Yes, they want the perpetrator to receive treatment. But they don’t want their loved one, who they often depend upon for financial support, to be deported.

San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey is refusing to turn over those charged with minor misdemeanors to Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit.

ICE through its Secure Communities Program obtains the fingerprints of everyone who is arrested and places a detainer on undocumented immigrants.

After former California Attorney General Jerry Brown agreed to join the Secure Communities Program, Sheriff Hennessey and the city of San Francisco attempted to opt out of the program but ICE refused to recognize local attempts to opt out.

While Secure Communities is supposed to provide a method to deport those charged with serious felonies many immigrants charged with misdemeanors and infraction have been deported under the program.

According to Sheriff Hennessey ICE detainers are not mandatory and he is free to ignore them. San Francisco is a Sanctuary City. As part of the Sanctuary City policy city officials are not supposed to cooperate with ICE in the deportation of those charged with misdemeanors. Sheriff Hennessey has developed a compromise between the Sanctuary City policy and ICE’s Secure Communities. He will not comply with the voluntary detainers in so far as they request those charged with minor misdemeanor such as petty theft, jay walking, or driving without a license, but he will comply with detainers when they are for those charged with major misdemeanors such as those dealing with violence, guns, or sex offenses.

It seems to me, that while Sheriff Hennessey is taking a step in the right direction, if the detainers are not mandatory, he has a duty to fully comply with the Sanctuary City policy and not turn over anyone charged with a misdemeanor to ICE.id

ICE claims to have definitively decided not to allow individual counties to opt out of its Secure Communities Program. A number of counties including California’s San Francisco and Santa Clara counties as well as Virginia’s Arlington County and Washington D. C. have requested to opt out of the program following the decision of the state Attorneys General to enroll the state in the program.

A community that signs up for Secure Communities electronically provides all fingerprints of those arrested and booked to Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement unit (ICE).

Theoretically, according to ICE, it only uses the information to deport the most serious violators of our laws. But, the truth of the matter is that the program has been used to deport numerous individuals who have no record or who have only infraction or misdemeanor records.

Furthermore, according to San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessy the program scares people into not reporting crimes. For example a mother may not report her husband for domestic violence if she is afraid that the father of her children and her only means of support will be deported. The same reasoning may prevent an elder person from reporting a child who is abusing her or a neighborhood kid who is writing graffiti on the walls.

San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessy requested that San Francisco opt out of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Secure Communities Program.

Secure Communities is a program under which the fingerprints of everyone arrested in a community are provided to ICE. However under San Francisco’s Sanctuary City ordinance only those immigrants who are charged with felonies, found to have a previous felony or ICE contact in their criminal history are reported. Initially ICE promised that only those charged with felonies would be subject to deportation.

As a study quoted in the New York Times shows nationwide twenty-six per cent of those deported under the program do not have criminal records. In some places the percentage is higher. In Maricopa County, Arizona the percentage is fifty-four per cent and in Travis County Texas it is eighty-two percent. By ICE’s own records seventy-nine percent of those deported either had no criminal record or convictions for minor offenses.

Prior to the June 8th implementation of Secure Communities in San Francisco, ICE and California Attorney General Jerry Brown told Hennessy that there was no way to opt out of the program. But in response to statistics showing that many of the people deported are innocent or are guilty of only minor offenses and ICE has agreed to make the plan voluntary. They have agreed to meet with Hennessy to discuss the city’s objections to the program. As Hennessy has pointed out in the past many immigrants are intimidated by the program and refuse to report criminal activity due to fear of deportation. A wife may not report domestic violence, for example if she knows that her husband may be deported. She want medical help for herself and treatment for her husband but she does not want him to be deported where he will not be able to support her and have contact with their children.

An El Salvadorean citizen residing in San Francisco was seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as an illegal alien after he was stopped for making an inadequate stop at a stop sign. When he was stopped the officer asked him for his driver’s license. He did not have one. (Of course it is hard if not impossible for an illegal alien to obtain a driver’s license.) He was then arrested for driving without a license. When his name was placed in the computer it was discovered that while he had no criminal record he had an immigration warrant and he was seized by ICE.

San Francisco is a sanctuary city. Under the Sanctuary Ordinance no city funds can be used to assist in the deportation of a non-citizen. Originally there was an exception for those convicted of a felony. Recently, after the Federal government threatened to arrest juvenile probation officers who were shielding juveniles from deportation the rule was amended to allow the deportation of anyone charged with a felony even if the charges were eventually dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor. But in any case making an improper stop is only a traffic infraction and driving without a license is at most a misdemeanor. Neither should result in a report to ICE or deportation. But someone, probably the police officer apparently violated the Sanctuary Ordinance and reported the poor man who had lived in the city for five years to ICE and he is now facing deportation.

Perhaps the ironic part of the incident is that it occurred on June 2nd. On the eighth ICE’s Secure Communities Program took effect in San Francisco giving it access to all fingerprints taken at the jail allowing for the deportation of any illegal alien even if the person is never charged with a crime or is only charged with an infraction or a misdemeanor.

San Francisco (along with a number of other cities including Austin, Baltimore, and New York) is a sanctuary city. A sanctuary city is one that is friendly to immigrants. It does not cooperate with the Federal government when the government wants to deport illegal aliens.

There are exceptions to the sanctuary policy. For example city employees will report suspected felons to ICE for deportation. Until July this exception did not apply to juveniles in San Francisco. The San Francisco Chronicle ran a series of articles about a group of Honduran juveniles. They were placed in a group home in Southern California after being detained on drug charges in order to avoid deportation. They walked away from the home without supervision. At approximately the same time Edwin Ramos was arrested and charged with the murder of a father and two sons in a road rage incident. Ramos was in this country illegally. He was arrested twice as a juvenile on crimes of violence but he had not been deported.

The US Attorney is investigating whether San Francisco officials violated Federal law. At that point San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is running for governor ordered city officials to report juveniles arrested on felony charges to ICE if they are suspected of being in this country illegally.

Tuesday the San Francisco Board of Supervisors by a veto proof margin of 8-2 voted to amend the policy to only deport those found to have committed a felony. The legislation was sponsored by by David Campos who originally came to this country as an illegal immigrant from Guatemala. Many juveniles are charged with felonies but due to plea bargaining or judicial orders the charges are either reduced to misdemeanors or dismissed. Newsom stated that he will not only veto the legislation but he will ignore it.

Newsom is supported by the City Attorney’s office which wrote a memo claiming that the Board of Supervisor amendment to the Sanctuary Policy is illegal and will adversely affect the city’s position in several current law suits including a wrongful death suit by the family of the alleged victims of Edwin Ramos. Newsom claims that if the amendment is enforced local authorities will be subject to Federal litigation for violating Federal law. But the City Attorney’s memo only says that the law is unsettled and that they do not know the results of any litigation resulting from the Supervisor’s amendment.

One of the hardest things for a criminal defense attorney to do is to deal with with non-citizen clients. Often they face deportation, exclusion, or denial of citizenship in addition to the normal punishment for a conviction. In the years I’ve been practicing I have represented numerous clients that immigrated to this country as young children with their families but have never become citizens. Many of them don’t even speak their “native” language. Many do not have any close family left in their “native” country. For many of these people the penalty of deportation is much greater than whatever time they are going to spend in jail or prison.

Of course I have other clients who after a brief period dealing with the criminal justice system tell me to get them back to their native country as fast as possible.

Then again I had a Mexican client. He plead guilty to a drug offense and the judge ordered that he be released on his own recognizance from jail at the time of his guilty plea. He was given a date for sentencing. But no one expected him to be there since he had an INS hold. I came to court on the day set for sentencing and he was not there. I asked the bailiff if he was in custody and I was told he had been released to INS. But as I was leaving the building–guess who walks in. He told me that he had been ordered back for sentencing on that date and he did not want a bench warrant. So he came back across the border and got to court only an hour late. He was sentenced. Pursuant to the plea agreement he did not do any more time in custody. Since he wasn’t in custody, the INS could not pick him up and he walked out the front door of the courthouse.

Generally ICE puts a hold on non-citizens when they are in custody. Americans know from watching too many police dramas on TV that anything you say to a peace officer can and will be used against you. Foreigners do not always know this and therefore many non-citizens make the fatal mistake of answering questions posed by ICE agents who meet them in the jail. By telling the agents their citizenship status or their place of birth they end up with an ICE hold. When this happens the jail must notify ICE when the foreign national is to be released. Then the jail or prison must hold the individual for five more days to allow ICE time to come and get him/her.

I had one client who was a French citizen. She was married to a US citizen and she could have become a US citizen is she tried. Despite (and perhaps because of) the fact that she was a drug addict and therefore subject to arrest and deportation, she never became a citizen. Eventually she was arrested with a significant amount of drugs on her. She was taken to jail and even though she was fairly smart she answered all of the questions posed by the ICE agent who put a hold on her. The ICE agents question foreign born prisoners before they are even arraigned and before they have a chance to talk to a lawyer and learn their right not to speak to the agent. My client was charged, convicted, and deported leaving her husband at least temporarily in this country.

What brings all of this up is a case out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Singh v. Holder the court held that a conviction for”wounding” under the laws of Virginia is an aggravated felony and a conviction for such resulted in this case in denial of citizenship.

Satbir Singh immigrated to this country in 1987. After he was here for a couple of months he was convicted of wounding in Virginia. Before he could be sentenced he returned to India. He was arrested when he reentered the country in 1998. After he was sentenced he applied for citizenship. It was denied on the basis of his conviction for an aggravated felony. He sued in the United State District Court. Summary judgment was granted to the defendants and he appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

An aggravated felony is inter alia “a crime of violence . . . for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.” It includes many other offenses including those involving drugs, theft and firearms. (See USC Title 8, section 1101.)Wounding, under Virginia law, is

(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person or property of
another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves
a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property
of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

The court did not have much trouble showing that wounding was an aggravated felony. But since the law took effect in 1990 a second question was raised in the appeal. Since the plea was before 1990 and the sentencing was after 1990 which date would be used. The Court did not have much trouble saying that the conviction date was the date of the sentence.

The Fifth Circuit upheld the summary judgment finding and he was correctly denied citizenship.

While this case does not involve deportation many do. Since denial of citizenship is an additional penalty, why should a non-citizen be punished more for the same criminal conduct that the citizen. This is particularly noticeable when the long term resident but non-citizen is deported. The penalty can be significantly more burdensome than the penalty for the same conduct committed by the citizen.

Probably as long as there has been a Fourth Amendment there has been a debate over whether to exclude evidence illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in 1914 in Weeks v. United States that illegally seized evidence should be excluded at trial. But to this day conservatives claim that the evidence should be admissible. After all it may have been seized illegally but its still credible evidence. The problem with this theory is, if you don’t exclude the evidence what is to stop government agents from consistently violating the Fourth Amendment to get evidence against individuals and organizations.

The right responds to this by suggesting that people can sue those who violate their rights in what is called a Bivens suit. But there are two problems with Bivens suits. First, if you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison as a result of illegally seized evidence no amount of money can pay you back for the time lost. Second, even if you are not charged and convicted a Bivens suit as shown in the recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Unus v. Kane et al is very difficult to win.

Unus v Kane et al involves a Muslim family living in the Eastern District of Virginia shortly after 9/11. Iqbal Unus, a U.S, citizen worked for the Islamic Institute of Islamic Thought and he had ties to several other Islamic organizations. David Kane, a special agent for ICE, working with Rita Katz, an expert on Islamic affairs wrote a 99 page affidavit as part of Operation Green Quest, which was a Federal effort to investigate domestic support of international terrorism, and presented it to a U. S. magistrate to search a number of places, one of which was the Unus residence to find evidence regarding support for terrorist organizations. The affidavit was based on the moving around of funds which may have gone to terrorist organizations. According to Kane’s affidavit a number of charities headquartered at 555 Grove Street in Herndon, Virginia moved large sums of money around but the government was unable to prove that any of it went to terrorist organizations. The most they could prove is that some of it ended up on the Isle of Man but they could not trace it beyond there. On this evidence the magistrate found probable cause to search twenty places including the Unus residence.

When the agents arrived at his home with the search warrant, Dr. Unus was not home but his wife and daughter were present. When the agents banged on the door his wife was afraid, seeing ununiformed individuals outside her house, at least one of whom had a gun. Thinking it was a home invasion robbery she went to get their daughter who called 911. The agents, seeing the mother run to the back of the house, broke the door down. They entered the house with guns drawn and they handcuffed both the mother and the daughter. They remained handcuffed for nearly four hours during most of the search of the residence. The Unuses are Muslim and they were allowed to say their afternoon prayers. But they were not allowed to do it outside the presence of men nor were they allowed to wear a head cover for the prayers and the agents insisted on taking their picture without the head cover.

Using the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) they sued the agents and the government for assault and false imprisonment as well as on Bivens counts for violation of their First and Fourth amendment rights. Despite the plaintiffs filing several amended complaints the trial court dismissed or granted the agents and the government summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Despite the fact that on appeal of a grant of summary judgment the appellate court reviews the evidence as it is most favorable to the plaintiffs, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court actions. Under the FTCA the Federal Courts look to the state law to define the various torts. The Court found that the agent’s knocking down the door, the exhibition of the weapon, and the use of the handcuffs in response to the door not being opened by the Unuses. Aysha Unus running to the back of the house and Hanaa Unus being on the telephone was reasonable. Therefore the charges of assault and false imprisonment were without support. After all it was a “terrorism-related warrant.”

The court upheld the dismissal of the Bivens claims since under the FTCA one cannot claim a violation of the FTCA and another law simultaneously. In any case the Court found Agent Kane’s behavior appropriate in the drafting of the affidavit.

Perhaps one could justify the court’s failure to find any support for the claims on the grounds of the mass hysteria that followed 9/11 but here it is eight years later and an appellate court with plenty of time to contemplate the briefs and the argument still finds that the trial court properly granted summary judgment.