Latest news with #FourthAmendment
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iowa attorney general to end lawsuit against a sheriff over his immigration post
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa's attorney general on Friday said she will withdraw her lawsuit accusing a sheriff of discouraging compliance with federal immigration law, ending a monthslong public dispute between the two Republicans days after the sheriff's northeast Iowa constituents rallied in his defense. Attorney General Brenna Bird sued Winneshiek County Dan Marx in March over his Facebook post saying his department doesn't always need to detain people at the request of federal immigration authorities. Bird sued even though Marx deleted the post and an investigation from her office showed that Marx fully complied with each of the nearly two dozen requests he had received from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold someone suspected of immigration violations. Marx had declined to post a conciliatory message the attorney general's office had scripted. Bird alleged the original post violated state law by impeding and discouraging cooperation with federal immigration officers. The lawsuit jeopardized state funding to the county. As President Donald Trump took office and initiated his campaign of mass deportations, Marx told constituents on Feb. 4 that he shares some of their 'mistrust and many of your concerns with the legitimacy of how these federal agents conduct business' and that requests to hold individuals without a court order are 'violations' of constitutional rights. At the same time, there was a legislative push in states across the country to support Trump's immigration efforts and curtail ' sanctuary cities ' that generally limit cooperation with immigration authorities. The Trump administration had also begun taking legal action against governments that have adopted policies inhibiting ICE arrests and deportations. Marx said in a statement Friday that he met with Bird in person and explained it was 'never my intent to discourage immigration enforcement.' Marx also thanked his constituents for their patience and 'outpouring of support through this situation,' he said. When Bird visited the county Monday, dozens of people showed up to support Marx and criticize the lawsuit as a bullying tactic, television station KGAN reported. Bird said Friday she intended to dismiss the case because the county has 'now fully complied.' 'Winneshiek County and Sheriff Marx are in compliance with 27A," she said in a statement, referencing the chapter in Iowa code that ensures cities and counties fully comply with federal immigration law. "They have committed to continue to honor ICE detainers and cooperate with federal immigration authorities.' Marx's February post echoed critiques of what are known as ICE 'detainer' requests that ask local or state law enforcement agencies to hold individuals until they can be taken into custody by federal authorities. Marx said those requests often clash with the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bars against unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals without a warrant based on probable cause. If federal agents' 'actions or paperwork are not within constitutional parameters,' he wrote, 'then we will make every effort to block, interfere and interrupt their actions from moving forward.' Solve the daily Crossword
Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Iowa attorney general to end lawsuit against a sheriff over his immigration post
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa's attorney general on Friday said she will withdraw her lawsuit accusing a sheriff of discouraging compliance with federal immigration law, ending a monthslong public dispute between the two Republicans days after the sheriff's northeast Iowa constituents rallied in his defense. Attorney General Brenna Bird sued Winneshiek County Dan Marx in March over his Facebook post saying his department doesn't always need to detain people at the request of federal immigration authorities. Bird sued even though Marx deleted the post and an investigation from her office showed that Marx fully complied with each of the nearly two dozen requests he had received from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold someone suspected of immigration violations. Marx had declined to post a conciliatory message the attorney general's office had scripted. Bird alleged the original post violated state law by impeding and discouraging cooperation with federal immigration officers. The lawsuit jeopardized state funding to the county. As President Donald Trump took office and initiated his campaign of mass deportations, Marx told constituents on Feb. 4 that he shares some of their 'mistrust and many of your concerns with the legitimacy of how these federal agents conduct business' and that requests to hold individuals without a court order are 'violations' of constitutional rights. At the same time, there was a legislative push in states across the country to support Trump's immigration efforts and curtail ' sanctuary cities ' that generally limit cooperation with immigration authorities. The Trump administration had also begun taking legal action against governments that have adopted policies inhibiting ICE arrests and deportations. Marx said in a statement Friday that he met with Bird in person and explained it was 'never my intent to discourage immigration enforcement.' Marx also thanked his constituents for their patience and 'outpouring of support through this situation,' he said. When Bird visited the county Monday, dozens of people showed up to support Marx and criticize the lawsuit as a bullying tactic, television station KGAN reported. Bird said Friday she intended to dismiss the case because the county has 'now fully complied.' 'Winneshiek County and Sheriff Marx are in compliance with 27A,' she said in a statement, referencing the chapter in Iowa code that ensures cities and counties fully comply with federal immigration law. 'They have committed to continue to honor ICE detainers and cooperate with federal immigration authorities.' Marx's February post echoed critiques of what are known as ICE 'detainer' requests that ask local or state law enforcement agencies to hold individuals until they can be taken into custody by federal authorities. Marx said those requests often clash with the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bars against unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals without a warrant based on probable cause. If federal agents' 'actions or paperwork are not within constitutional parameters,' he wrote, 'then we will make every effort to block, interfere and interrupt their actions from moving forward.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Iowa attorney general to end lawsuit against a sheriff over his immigration post
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa's attorney general on Friday said she will withdraw her lawsuit accusing a sheriff of discouraging compliance with federal immigration law, ending a monthslong public dispute between the two Republicans days after the sheriff's northeast Iowa constituents rallied in his defense. Attorney General Brenna Bird sued Winneshiek County Dan Marx in March over his Facebook post saying his department doesn't always need to detain people at the request of federal immigration authorities. Bird sued even though Marx deleted the post and an investigation from her office showed that Marx fully complied with each of the nearly two dozen requests he had received from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold someone suspected of immigration violations. Marx had declined to post a conciliatory message the attorney general's office had scripted. Bird alleged the original post violated state law by impeding and discouraging cooperation with federal immigration officers. The lawsuit jeopardized state funding to the county. As President Donald Trump took office and initiated his campaign of mass deportations, Marx told constituents on Feb. 4 that he shares some of their 'mistrust and many of your concerns with the legitimacy of how these federal agents conduct business' and that requests to hold individuals without a court order are 'violations' of constitutional rights. At the same time, there was a legislative push in states across the country to support Trump's immigration efforts and curtail ' sanctuary cities ' that generally limit cooperation with immigration authorities. The Trump administration had also begun taking legal action against governments that have adopted policies inhibiting ICE arrests and deportations. Marx said in a statement Friday that he met with Bird in person and explained it was 'never my intent to discourage immigration enforcement.' Marx also thanked his constituents for their patience and 'outpouring of support through this situation,' he said. When Bird visited the county Monday, dozens of people showed up to support Marx and criticize the lawsuit as a bullying tactic, television station KGAN reported. Bird said Friday she intended to dismiss the case because the county has 'now fully complied.' 'Winneshiek County and Sheriff Marx are in compliance with 27A,' she said in a statement, referencing the chapter in Iowa code that ensures cities and counties fully comply with federal immigration law. 'They have committed to continue to honor ICE detainers and cooperate with federal immigration authorities.' Marx's February post echoed critiques of what are known as ICE 'detainer' requests that ask local or state law enforcement agencies to hold individuals until they can be taken into custody by federal authorities. Marx said those requests often clash with the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bars against unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals without a warrant based on probable cause. If federal agents' 'actions or paperwork are not within constitutional parameters,' he wrote, 'then we will make every effort to block, interfere and interrupt their actions from moving forward.'
UPI
3 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
DOJ recommends one day in jail for ex-cop in Breonna Taylor raid
In 2020, protesters in Los Angeles march with an effigy of Breonna Taylor during a demonstration held to demand justice for her death after the results of a grand jury indictment of former Louisville police officer Brett Hankison. Today, the Department of Justice filed a memo requesting a sentence of one day in jail for Hankison, who was convicted of violating Taylor's civil rights. File Photo by Kyle Grillot/EPA July 17 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Justice filed a memo on Thursday recommending one day in jail for former Louisville, Ky., police detective Brett Hankison, who shot into Breonna Taylor's apartment 10 times but didn't injure anyone. Breonna Taylor, an emergency room technician, was awakened from sleep March 13, 2020, by police with a falsified "no-knock warrant." Her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, thought the officers were intruders and shot at them. The police opened fire, and another officer shot and killed Taylor. Hankison was outside the apartment and shot into the window 10 times. Hankison was convicted of deprivation of rights under color of law in November. He faces up to life in prison. Prosecutors wrote in the filing they were unaware of another case "in which a police officer has been charged with depriving the rights of another person under the Fourth Amendment for returning fire and not injuring anyone." A pre-sentence report from the U.S. Probation Office recommended a sentence between 11.25 and 14 years, USA Today reported. The DOJ says that range was incorrectly calculated and "excessive." It recommends the court "grant a significant downward departure." The memo was signed by Robert J. Keenum, senior counsel for the DOJ's civil rights division, and Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general for the department. Neither was involved with the case. The memo prompted a strong response. "The fact that Donald Trump's DOJ thinks Breonna Taylor's life is worth just a one-day jail sentence is morally reprehensible and deeply insulting. This is a dark day for our entire city," Rep. Morgan McGarvey, D-Ky., said in a statement. McGarvey represents Louisville. Former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said the police did knock and announce themselves. But Taylor's neighbors and her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, said they heard no knock or announcement. Walker has since gotten a $2 million settlement against the city. Hankison is white, and he was the first convicted in the case. The other officers were not convicted. Hankison was previously acquitted on a state charge. The memo said that Hankison's suffered enough. "Here, multiple prosecutions against defendant Hankison were brought, and only one of three juries -- the last one -- found him guilty on these facts, and then only on one charge," the memo says. "The government respects the jury's verdict, which will almost certainly ensure that defendant Hankison never serves as a law enforcement officer again and will also likely ensure that he never legally possesses a firearm again." But others disagreed with DOJ's request. Hankison's shots "missed a sleeping baby by about two feet," said former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official Samatha Trepel on LinkedIn. She believes the court will see the request as "transparent, last minute political interference into a case that was tried by non-political, longtime career prosecutors who obtained this conviction in front of an all-white jury of Kentucky citizens before a Trump-appointed judge."
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
DOJ asks for 1-day sentence for ex-officer in Breonna Taylor shooting
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking a one-day prison sentence, already served, for a Louisville police officer convicted in connection with the raid that resulted in Breonna Taylor's death. Ex-Louisville Metro Police Department Detective Brett Hankison was convicted last year of violating Taylor's civil rights by blindly firing shots into a window and door during the haywire raid. In an atypical sentencing memorandum, submitted Thursday by DOJ civil rights chief Harmeet Dhillon and a senior counselor in the division, the government said that, but for the jury verdict, it 'might proceed differently' in the case. 'Indeed, reasonable minds might disagree as to whether defendant Hankison's conduct constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment in the first place,' said Dhillon and senior counsel Robert Keenan, neither of whom is part of the initial prosecution team. 'And reasonable minds certainly might disagree whether, even if Defendant Hankison's conduct did constitute a seizure, a prosecution under this statute should have been brought under these circumstances at all.' Though Hankison faces a maximum sentence of life in prison, the government suggested a sentence of time served — the day he spent being booked and making his initial appearance before a judge — and three years of supervised release would suffice. His sentencing is scheduled for next week. It marks a stunning departure from the Biden administration's efforts to force accountability for the role of racial discrimination in police misconduct. Taylor, who was shot and killed by other officers during the raid, became a face of the Black Lives Matter movement that ignited in 2020 following her death and the police killing of George Floyd. At trial, prosecutors said Hankison acted recklessly and 'violated one of the most fundamental rules of deadly force: If they cannot see the person they're shooting at, they cannot pull the trigger.' The Justice Department argued in its memorandum that federal sentencing guidelines do not fairly apply to Hankison's conviction given the 'unique facts and circumstances' of the case, namely that the ex-detective was convicted on just one count following two other trials. Hankison was acquitted on all three counts he faced during a 2022 trial in Kentucky state court. The first federal trial he faced, in 2023, resulted in a mistrial on both charges against him. And he was convicted on one of those two counts in the subsequent retrial in 2024.
