Undocumented hit-and-run driver released...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    It's on ICE. Assuming the legal end concerning the the state charges have been addressed, the judge can't just arbitrarily hold a person, documented or not, until ICE gets it's **** in order. I know that's not what people want to hear, but that's the way it is.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,091
    77
    Southside Indy
    It's on ICE. Assuming the legal end concerning the the state charges have been addressed, the judge can't just arbitrarily hold a person, documented or not, until ICE gets it's **** in order. I know that's not what people want to hear, but that's the way it is.

    I understand, but couldn't the judge have set the bond high enough, or denied bond altogether given that, being undocumented, she posed a flight risk? Since she's now disappeared (gave a false address at the time of arrest), it seems to me that the flight risk was real. I agree that ICE should have had their act together, but failing that, holding her without bond, or with a high enough bond that she couldn't easily bond out would have allowed them (ICE) more time to get their ducks in a row. Almost like the judge went out of their way not to cooperate. Lots of places to point fingers here.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    I am with Kut, this is on ICE. There is currently a federal court order out of the Southern District requiring ICE to provide an actual warrant or PC before people can be detained by the MCSD. There is also a court order finding that every detainer coming out of the Chicago field office was facially defective as ICE was ignoring federal law.

    If memory serves, Marion County is now on a bond schedule so absent an extraordinary request, bond is no longer sent by a judge at rights, it is set according to the schedule.

    ICE has been repeatedly slapped around in federal court over this issue, and from where I sit this is just a bunch of whining on their part because of their own incompetence.

    Federal law says they must obtain an actual immigration warrant if possible, the court orders on the above mentioned cases say the same thing, it's not on anyone else that they decided not to bother to do so.
     

    Ziggidy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 7, 2018
    7,273
    113
    Ziggidyville
    Why do we allow the continued use of "undocumented" when the truth is "illegal alien"? Personally I believe it is an effort to soften the reality through indoctrination. Undocumented simply does not have the impact as "illegal".

    SO, the judge throws out a case because of a lack of paperwork by the American's protecting us and releases an individual who does't have any paperwork, making her "illegal"?

    What's wrong with that picture?
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Why do we allow the continued use of "undocumented" when the truth is "illegal alien"? Personally I believe it is an effort to soften the reality through indoctrination. Undocumented simply does not have the impact as "illegal".

    SO, the judge throws out a case because of a lack of paperwork by the American's protecting us and releases an individual who does't have any paperwork, making her "illegal"?

    What's wrong with that picture?

    Well, now the person has paperwork.
     

    KMaC

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 4, 2016
    1,535
    83
    Indianapolis
    Marion County's bond schedule doesn't consider immigration status? Seems like a flaw. Flight risk should be a major consideration in setting bond.
    The Sheriff's Office must be relieved that this time they can point at ICE. They have a pretty bad record of accidentally releasing people.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Marion County's bond schedule doesn't consider immigration status? Seems like a flaw. Flight risk should be a major consideration in setting bond.
    The Sheriff's Office must be relieved that this time they can point at ICE. They have a pretty bad record of accidentally releasing people.

    You think that state governments should hold people based on federal law violations, even after the feds are aware but haven't taken action? Now think about that for a moment, and how much of a headache that would be.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,091
    77
    Southside Indy
    I am with Kut, this is on ICE. There is currently a federal court order out of the Southern District requiring ICE to provide an actual warrant or PC before people can be detained by the MCSD. There is also a court order finding that every detainer coming out of the Chicago field office was facially defective as ICE was ignoring federal law.

    If memory serves, Marion County is now on a bond schedule so absent an extraordinary request, bond is no longer sent by a judge at rights, it is set according to the schedule.

    ICE has been repeatedly slapped around in federal court over this issue, and from where I sit this is just a bunch of whining on their part because of their own incompetence.

    Federal law says they must obtain an actual immigration warrant if possible, the court orders on the above mentioned cases say the same thing, it's not on anyone else that they decided not to bother to do so.

    I don't doubt that that's the case (Feds screwed up) and that the judge may have been following protocol, but my feeling is that the protocol is just flat out flawed. As far as the bond schedule goes, how does a judge determine that a defendant is a flight risk and deny bond? Because that happens at least occasionally, right? Or are you saying that in Marion County, it cannot happen because of the schedule? If the latter, I guess that wouldn't surprise me, given Marion County's revolving door policies.
     
    Top Bottom