News

Cross-border shootings and a border-agent immunity: the Supreme court in a final decision?

The two examples illustrate how the Federal courts disagree on whether Federal government should have agents legal immunity to the border – and whether foreign nationals are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The cases could end up making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Copyright 2018, The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

9. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that the mother can sue shot by a teenager and killed in Mexico by a Border Patrol agent in Arizona, for damages, and that the agent is not about immunity.

But only five months earlier, in March, of the 5. Circuit Court of Appeals, the family of another dead teenager, shot by an agent in America during the teen was in Mexico, I can’t complain.

The two examples illustrate how the Federal courts disagree on whether Federal government should have agents legal immunity to the border – and whether foreign nationals are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The cases could end up making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Those who believe that border agents should be no immunity trumpeted this week the government party, not to say law enforcement agencies are above the law.

“The court has made it clear that the Constitution stop at the border and that the agents should have no constitutional immunity against the deadly shooting of Mexican teenagers on the other side of the border, the fence,” Lee wants to be learned, Deputy Director of the ACLU immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Both dishes had agents different interpretations of the 1971 case, Bivens V. Six Unknown Named -.

Bivens actions allow it to track individuals, the damages, if a violation of the Constitution of the United States by federal officers acting in the color of Federal authority, according to the Cornell Law School.

According to the 5. Circuit, the Bivens decision, new territory, by the admission of such suit for Fourth Amendment violations by federal law enforcement officers who handcuffed and arrested a Person in his own home without probable cause. In the case of Rodriguez vs. Swartz, heard by a panel of judges in the 9th Circuit, alleged agent, Lonnie Swartz, shot a teenager, identified only as J. A., without warning or provocation.

“It is inconceivable that any reasonable officer would have thought that he or she could kill, J. A. without a reason. So, (Agent), Swartz lacks qualified immunity,” wrote judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld in the 9. Circuit’s Opinion.

The 5. The circuit belongs to, Hernandez vs. Mesa, by all the judges on the court, after the Supreme court sent it back to you for review. In 2010 agent Jesus Mesa shot and killed a 15-year-old Sergio Hernandez. Mesa, however, said he acted in self-defense because Hernandez threw stones at him.

The self-defense argument worked, in Mesa’s favor, but ultimately, the court ruled that Hernandez will have the right to sue, because he is not a US citizen.

The 5. The circuit wrote that there is no Federal law allows you to collect foreigners, the damage, if you were that would be violated by a Federal agent on foreign soil, the Hernandez family is the only way to receive damages if the judge grants a Bivens claim.

The Supreme Court ended up remanding the case, instructing the court to special considerations. That included Ziglar vs. Abbasi, a case that raised in the high court of the 2. Circuit’s decision and a Bivens refused to claim against the policy-making officials involved in the terror suspect arrests after 9/11.

With Abassi as a guide, the 5. Circuit found that the Hernandez case “new context” for Bivens judgment.

“Because Hernandez was a Mexican citizen with no connections to this country, and his death occurred on Mexican soil, the existence of a “constitutional” right to benefit him raises novel and controversial issues,” wrote judge Edith H. Jones, author of the Fifth circuit is the opinion of the majority. Until today, the Supreme Court has refused to extend the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the foreign citizen, residing in the United States against the American law enforcement agents, ” search of premises in Mexico.”

The court was also concerned that a Bivens claim may be to undermine the Border Patrol the ability to carry out its tasks. The court expressed concern that could affect the justice, foreign Affairs, diplomacy and how an officer should react in certain situations.

“What is the meaning of a private right of action for damages in this TRANS-national context increases the probability that the Border Patrol hesitate-agents, and make a fraction of a second to make decisions,” the judge wrote.

This is where these two cases, most of the delay. In Hernandez vs. Mesa, Mesa said he acted in self-defense because Hernandez threw stones at him. But in Rodriguez vs. Swartz, J. A. a threat to Swartz safety has not.

“Although Swartz was written in the United States when he was shot, J. A.,” the Ninth circuit. “Mexico has both sovereignty and practical control of the road, where J. A. was taken. Nevertheless, we conclude that J. A. had a Fourth Amendment right to be free from the unreasonable use of such deadly force.”

Ray Bogan is a Fox-News-multimedia reporter based in El Paso, Texas. Follow him on twitter: @RayBogan

 

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular