DENVER (AP) — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that immigration officers in Colorado can only arrest individuals without a warrant if there is a reasonable belief that those individuals are likely to flee. U.S. District Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson issued this order following a legal challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, which represented four individuals, including asylum-seekers, who were arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without warrants earlier this year.
The lawsuit alleged that immigration officers were indiscriminately targeting Latinos to meet enforcement goals without proper legal justification. Judge Jackson emphasized that each plaintiff had significant ties to their communities, suggesting that no reasonable officer could conclude they were fugitives before obtaining a warrant.
Under federal law, immigration officers must establish probable cause not only regarding someone’s immigration status but also regarding the likelihood of that person fleeing before arrest can be made legally. Additionally, the judge mandated that immigration officers must document their reasons for making these arrests.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, dismissed the ruling as an 'activist ruling,' insisting that the department adheres to the law. She quickly rebuffed allegations of racial profiling by DHS law enforcement as 'disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE.'
This ruling draws parallels to a related case earlier in the year in California, where another chapter of the ACLU challenged the practices of Border Patrol agents regarding warrantless arrests, a decision the government intends to appeal. Furthermore, a recent restraining order was issued to prevent federal agents from making stops based solely on race or language due to indiscriminate practices.
McLaughlin indicated that the government would likely appeal this Colorado decision, expressing optimism following the Supreme Court's recent affirmations in similar matters. 'We look forward to further vindication in this case as well,' she asserted.
The lawsuit alleged that immigration officers were indiscriminately targeting Latinos to meet enforcement goals without proper legal justification. Judge Jackson emphasized that each plaintiff had significant ties to their communities, suggesting that no reasonable officer could conclude they were fugitives before obtaining a warrant.
Under federal law, immigration officers must establish probable cause not only regarding someone’s immigration status but also regarding the likelihood of that person fleeing before arrest can be made legally. Additionally, the judge mandated that immigration officers must document their reasons for making these arrests.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, dismissed the ruling as an 'activist ruling,' insisting that the department adheres to the law. She quickly rebuffed allegations of racial profiling by DHS law enforcement as 'disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE.'
This ruling draws parallels to a related case earlier in the year in California, where another chapter of the ACLU challenged the practices of Border Patrol agents regarding warrantless arrests, a decision the government intends to appeal. Furthermore, a recent restraining order was issued to prevent federal agents from making stops based solely on race or language due to indiscriminate practices.
McLaughlin indicated that the government would likely appeal this Colorado decision, expressing optimism following the Supreme Court's recent affirmations in similar matters. 'We look forward to further vindication in this case as well,' she asserted.
