Judge says search rules also protect illegal immigrants

[Car Knocker]

Price resident Ray Abel Atienzo was born in Mexico and has been living illegally in the United States, but he is one of "the People" protected by the Constitution, according to a federal judge.
U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell ruled Wednesday that the 26-year-old earned that protection by holding down a job as a miner, paying taxes, supporting three American citizen children and maintaining family ties in Utah - in other words, developing substantial connections to his adopted homeland.
Those factors, along with a record clear of any felony convictions, mean that Atienzo could invoke the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure in fighting drug charges, Cassell said.

(snip)

Atienzo also had keys that fit a Mustang parked in front of his trailer and police found incriminating evidence in the vehicle, court records say. In addition, the officers received consent to search Atienzo's trailer and allegedly found firearms, illegal drugs and large sums of cash.
Under Cassell's decision, made orally in July and put in writing this week, Atienzo challenged the searches as illegal. The judge threw out the evidence found in the search of the car but allowed items seized from the trailer to remain.

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3288968

If Mr. Atienzo has 4th Amendment rights because he's been here a long time and has a clean record, would he not have 2nd Amendment rights also and be immune from prosecution on weapons charges (assuming the weapons themselves are legal)?

 

[Biker]

Sometimes I think that we should take the blindfold off that Lady holding the scales. Blind is blind. I guess that this means that if a criminal avoids detection long enough, the crime doesn't exist, statutues (sp) of limitations aside.
Biker

 

[Standing Wolf]

...in other words, developing substantial connections to his adopted homeland.

Wrong! It's our land. He's an invader. He hasn't "adopted" America—unless, of course, cockroaches "adopt" houses.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Bad judges are just one of the four horsemen.

 

[c_yeager]

The fourth ammendment makes no destinction between citizens and non-citizens, some rights do make this distinction. We define the 4th ammendment as a "human right", not an "American Right" or a "Citizens Right". The right to vote is a citizen's right, the freedom from unlawful search and seizure is a human right. Illegal alliens are criminals, and they are not citizens, but they are humans, and that gets them all the protections afforded by the bill of rights.

 

[O.F.Fascist]

???? the war on drugs.

 

[rick_reno]

Fear not friends, President Bush is thinking of Mr. Atienzo and has a plan to make everything right. He's the best.

 

[Biker]

Fear not friends, President Bush is thinking of Mr. Atienzo and has a plan to make everything right. He's the best.

LMAO...Good God. I'll be damned if I ain't thinkin' of starting a rick reno fan club.
Maybe it's just my sick sense of humor...*still laughing*
Biker

 

[Art Eatman]

The fundamental theory of this country is that we are a government of laws, not of opinion polls. One's "niceness" or one's "desirability" does not affect the protections of the law and the Constitution. Nor does one's citizenship or lack thereof.

Art

 

[k_dawg]

good example of where the ruling was correct, but for all the wrong reasons! :banghead:

 

[insidious_calm]

I must respectfully disagree with some of you who think the constitution should apply to illegals. The constitution is more than an enumeration of human rights, it is a contract that allows for their enforcement. Illegals are not a party to the contract, and therefore should not be entitled to it's protections. Foreigners may indeed possess a god given right to life, liberty, and happiness, but only americans should be entitled bring the weight of the American government into action in order to enforce those rights. The judges got it wrong. Tell the illegals to get their own contract.


I.C.

 

[fourays2]

good example of where the ruling was correct, but for all the wrong reasons! :banghead:

I agree, however the judge should have deported him for being here illegally, since that crime effects other people. the gun and drug charges are BS since there were no victims involved in the mere possesion of those items.

 

[MechAg94]

I agree that illegals do have rights. Just because they are illegal doesn't mean we can trample over their rights.

If we want to deport illegals, by all means we should. However, if we are going to ignore their illegal status and not deport them, then we have to treat them as if they are legal with regards to other criminal laws.

 

[1911 guy]

Human rights vs. Constitutional rights

Anyone we deal with as a nation should be extended basic human rights. Food, medical treatment if urgent, don't let them go naked. But our constitution should apply to Americans. If you want the benefits of our country, take on some of the burden and become a citizen. Otherwise, VAMANOS!

 

[c_yeager]

But our constitution should apply to Americans. If you want the benefits of our country, take on some of the burden and become a citizen.

OK, why dont you show me what part of the constitution gives the government the authority to strip civil rights from non-citizens. Show me where it says that the 4th amendment applies only to citizens, and dont say that its an oversight because the authors had no problem making that disctinction regarding the right to vote. They knew the difference between a citizen and a non-citizen and chose NOT to make that distinction a prerequisite for 4th amendment protection.

Or is the constitution an out-dated anachronism? Should it be a "living document" that should be molded to fit our new circumstance?

 

[longeyes]

I must respectfully disagree with some of you who think the constitution should apply to illegals. The constitution is more than an enumeration of human rights, it is a contract that allows for their enforcement. Illegals are not a party to the contract, and therefore should not be entitled to it's protections. Foreigners may indeed possess a god given right to life, liberty, and happiness, but only americans should be entitled bring the weight of the American government into action in order to enforce those rights. The judges got it wrong. Tell the illegals to get their own contract.

+1

 

[Azrael256]

Foreigners may indeed possess a god given right to life, liberty, and happiness, but only americans should be entitled bring the weight of the American government into action in order to enforce those rights.

Damn straight! We should round up all the non-citizens around here and shoot 'em. Actually, maybe poison gas would be more efficient. Since they shouldn't have any standing in American courts, nobody can stop us!

Get real, guys. All men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. We protect those rights without regard to... well, anything. It's what makes us civilized.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

The Bill of Rights recognizes pre-existing basic human rights of all people, it does not grant any rights. So, the judge in the case was correct. If you take the position that the government through its basic charter grants you any rights, then the natural corrolary is that said government can revoke them.

That said, now that we have a known illegal immigrant in custody, toss his butt over the border.

 

[1911 guy]

Missed the point entirely.

You're looking for consistancy in a judges ruling, not finding it (surprise, surprise) and then saying that my argument, which is consistent, has a flaw. The founders did indeed spell out that only citizens could vote, and no, it is not an oversight that the specification is not made in the fourth. The first ten ammendments are historically considered to be a "top ten" list of basic rights that God, not Gov. grants to men. Following ammendments were made to facillitate the workings of the people with and in the government. So, voting is spelled out as a right of a citizen, unreasonable search and seizure a basic human right.

 

[k_dawg]

The Bill of Rights recognizes pre-existing basic human rights of all people, it does not grant any rights. So, the judge in the case was correct. .

No, then the judge is WRONG in his arguement. Do not confuse the final result, with how someone achieves it.

If they are pre-existing basic human rights, then holding down a job and paying taxes would be irrelevent/immaterial.

In this case, the _basis_ of his ruling is that he holds a job and pays taxes.

 

[Tory]

For all you Con Law scholars

"If you want the benefits of our country, take on some of the burden and become a citizen."

RTFD*. He DID "take on some of the burden." He held a job, paid taxes and supported his family. Indeed, he is far more productive than many of our erstwhile citizens.

And there is NOTHING inconsistent about this judge's ruling. If you are in the country, the Constitution applies. See US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S Ct. 1056 (1990). Note also the dicta about bearing arms being indicative of CITIZENSHIP - one of the reasons the Dred Scott court refused to grant a slave freedom upon crossing into a free state.

* RTFD: Read The Full Document

 

[LawDog]

Illegals are not a party to the contract, and therefore should not be entitled to it's protections.

When he paid his taxes to the State of Utah and the United States, he became a party to the contract:

holding down a job as a miner, paying taxes, supporting three American citizen children

LawDog

 

[pax]

Ahhhh, I see.

The Constitution gives and does not merely enumerate basic human rights.

Silly me. All this time, I thought I was born with certain inalienable rights, and that the founding documents of this country merely listed those rights.

pax

 

[El Tejon]

Tory nailed it.

 

[R.H. Lee]

The fourth ammendment makes no destinction between citizens and non-citizens, some rights do make this distinction. We define the 4th ammendment as a "human right", not an "American Right" or a "Citizens Right". The right to vote is a citizen's right, the freedom from unlawful search and seizure is a human right. Illegal alliens are criminals, and they are not citizens, but they are humans, and that gets them all the protections afforded by the bill of rights

I completely disagree. When the FF referred to "We, the People" in the DOI and the BOR, they meant the people of the United States of America; ie citizens. They did not comtemplate extending those constitutional guarantees to individuals whose allegiance remains with other jurisdictions; ie illegal 'immigrants'. You want constitutional protections? Become an American citizen.