Mediaboss Marketing

Part of a group of 13 Cuban migrants who were brought to Grand Bahama earlier this month after being detained by US Coast Guard officials near Cay Sal Bank.

By EARYEL BOWLEG

Tribune Staff Reporter

ebowleg@tribunemedia.net

ATTORNEY General Ryan Pinder said officials are seeing an influx of Cuban migrants into the country in higher numbers than before.

Mr Pinder made the revelation in the senate yesterday in response to Senator Maxine Seymours concern about an $800,000 allocation for rent/living accommodations for the Department of Immigration in the 2022/2023 Budget.

Senator Seymour said: Rent, living accommodations in general, I noticed that weve allocated $800,000. Last year wouldve been $270,000 actually spent and then before that $610,000.

Mr Pinder replied: As we see an increase in illegal migrants coming in, we would want to put immigration officers on-site. We would want to better operationalise officers based in Iguana for plans that we have in the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that the remote court facilities are adequate there to be able to have magistratescome in, but you do need immigration officers there.

He then quotedfrom The Miami Herald on Cuban migrants.

If youve noticed The Miami Herald actually a couple days ago, said the Cuban migrants coming into South Florida this last year is larger than the Mariel boat lift number. I think theyve had some 180,000 thousand Cubans.

Were seeing illegal migrants, he continued, Typically you would see them primarily leave from Haiti, but were seeing a significant amount of Cuban migrants coming in now and we think that we have to redeploy immigration officers throughout the archipelago to better fight this.

Our numbers of illegal migrants, seizures, and repatriations is through the roof, frankly and much higher than weve ever seen before and so this is an effort to try to mitigate that activity and in part of that you have to redeploy immigration officers throughout the archipelago and this is going to be the living expense to be able to house them.

Earlier this month, Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis expressed concern about Cubas absence from the 2022 Summit of the Americas, saying sanctions on the island nation have sparked desperation among residents posing an existential threat to the national security of The Bahamas.

The situation, Mr Davis said at the time, had left the country to grapple with irregular migrants from Cuba.

In May, The Tribune reported that the Royal Bahamas Defence Force had seen a marked increase in illegal migration activity over the last three months, with nearly 1,500 migrants arrestedin Bahamian waters within that time frame.

The statistics at the time showed there had been 1,892 migrants apprehended by local authorities since the beginning ofthe year, with most of those arreststaking place in March.

January and February saw 329 and 253 apprehensions. In March, 741 migrants wereapprehended, while 491 foreign nationals were arrested in April. So far in May, 78 migrants have been arrestedinBahamian waters.

Apprehensions of Haitians were the highest at 1,688 followed by Cubans at 192, Columbians and Ecuadorians at four each, three Hondurians and one African, according to the latest RBDF report. There were also 30 interdictions.

The Budget was passed in the Senate.

Read more here:
CUBAN MIGRANTS LEAD NEW WAVE OF REFUGEES: Pinder warns numbers now heading our way is 'through the roof' - Bahamas Tribune

TWO employees at a car wash were found to have been working in the UK 'illegally' after immigration officers carried out a raid.

Immigration enforcement officers visited the Shiny Hand Car Wash in Barrow following a tip-off.

Two men, from Iraq and Iran, were working illegally at the business in Roose Road, the Home Office said.

A spokeswoman said neither of them had permission to work in the UK.

The men have been releasedon immigration bail followingthe visit.

The car wash was served a referral notice by the Home Office and is now facing a fine of up to 40,000 if it cannot be proved the two men had the right to work in the UK.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "Immigration Enforcement visited Shiny Hand Car Wash on an intelligence-led visit on June 17.

"Two males, one Iraqi and one Iranian were encountered working illegally at the premises.

"Both males had no permission to work in the UK and were released on immigration bail.

"The business was served a referral noticed based on the two illegal workers, meaning a potential civil penalty fine of up to 40,000."

The spokeswoman added: The Government is tackling illegal immigration and the harm it causes by removing those with no right to be in the UK.

We continue to work with law enforcement agencies to tackle illegal migration in all its forms.

"Our New Plan for Immigrationwill fix the broken system; making it fair to those in genuine need and firm on those who seek to abuse it.

Eyewitnesses spotted the immigration enforcement van outside the car wash at around 6.30pm on Friday.

Bosses of the car wash were approached for comment and said they were awaiting the result of the referral.

Barrow MP Simon Fell said: "I know that the police have been doing some work on this recently, alerting local businesses to the risks of employing people with no right to work in the UK.

"What appears to be cheap labour that can be kept off the books can be very costly indeed."

Immigration officers were last witnessedin Barrow last yearwhen they visited a restaurant and takeaway.

Immigration enforcement officers and officers from the Cumbria police licensing team visited Barrow Indian Cuisine inOctober.

The restaurant was served with an illegal working referral notice for the employment of three members of staff Bangladeshi nationals who the Home Office saidhadno permission to work in the UK.

The business later closed and surrendered its licence to sell alcohol.

The rest is here:
Two men found working 'illegally' after immigration raid at car wash - The Mail

It didnt take long after the shooting in Uvalde, Texas for Americas neo-Marxist left to reignite their full-fledged assault on the Second Amendment.

Before the victims families could even lay their loved ones to rest, calls were being made by some of the countrys most notable Democrats to bar and confiscate certain types of firearms from the American public. Look no further than President Joe Biden, who, in addition to advocating for a ban on rifles like the AR-15, has repeatedly stated that the constitutional rights of Americans are not absolute.

They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body, he said last month. So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, theres simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting Remember, the Constitution was never absolute.

Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Ed Markey took his remarks a step further, arguing that his party should pack the Supreme Court in order to ensure that when [Democrats] put gun safety laws on the books they are not overrid[den].

Despite the glaringly obvious intentions to disarm the American citizenry through any means necessary, Senate Republican leadership was more than happy to jump in bed with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and his merry band of dystopian Democrats to negotiate a compromise on gun control legislation. Released on Tuesday, the bill provides increased funding to state mental health resources, as well as funding for states to implement red flag laws.

As previously noted by Federalist Senior Editor David Harsanyi, red flag laws are ripe for abuse, with authorities in states like California and Maryland able to confiscate weapons merely on the strength of an uncorroborated allegation by family members, coworkers, law enforcement officers, or others without any kind of genuine due process.

Senate Republicans have since faced well-deserved backlash from conservative voters since the frameworks release, with Texas Sen. John Cornynwho spearheaded the negotiations with Democratsgetting booed off the stage at the Texas GOP convention on Friday. In an attack on his own base, Cornyn proceeded to retweet a journalist that quoted the Texas senator as having referred to the upset crowd (many of whom likely voted for him in 2020) as a mob.

Youd think that with recent special election victories and polls indicating a red tsunami in the midterm elections, Republicans would be politically savvy enough to outright reject Democrats assault on Americans constitutional liberties. Such commonsense thinking, however, has always been absent from GOP leadership, who have routinely caved to the left on nearly every major policy issue and worked to stab their base in the back.

Take, for instance, the subject of immigration. In March of last year, when illegal immigration along the U.S. southern border was beginning to skyrocket, a group of congressional Republicans led by South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham and Florida Rep. Maria Salazar proposed legislation that wouldve provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens living in the country. As reported by Breitbart News, the plan would have provided green cards to illegal aliens enrolled and eligible for former President Obamas Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and gives work visas to the roughly 11 to 22 million illegal aliens in the U.S.

Specifically, the amnesty dubbed the Dignity Proposal would give legal resident status to anywhere from 1.5 to 3.5 million illegal aliens who are enrolled and eligible for DACA. Eventually, these illegal aliens can apply for green cards and obtain American citizenship, the Breitbart report reads.

Immigration is hardly the only issue where Republicans have ceded ground to Democrats. In recent years, the GOP has been complicit in helping Democrats raise the debt ceiling, fund the moronic Covid-19 lockdowns, and confirm Bidens radical, left-wing judicial nominees to the federal bench at a rate not seen since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Rather than put up a fight for their voters, many congressional Republicans have instead fallen in line with Democrats, thus helping the latter advance their neo-Marxist agenda and bid to exert greater control over the American populace.

Whether its our politics or our culture, many conservatives often wonder how America couldve reached the point where multi-trillion spending packages and choosing your sex have become normalized. What ever happened to that shining city on the hill that Reagan talked about? How has the left taken so much ground in such a short period of time?

The simple fact is that when only one side is playing to advance their values and ideology using the current framework, society tends to devolve pretty quickly. As a result of weak-kneed Republicans who have refused to fight for the ideals that have defined our country for generations, America has declined into the vapid and increasingly Godless state we find her in today.

Unlike President Bill Clinton, who declared that the era of big government is over after his party experienced tremendous losses in the 1994 midterms, dont expect todays Democrat Party to recant or move to the center on any major political or cultural issue when they get annihilated at the ballot box this November. For the left, election losses are seen as mere temporary setbacks. Democrats know that at the end of the day, the likelihood that Republicans will utilize any congressional majorities to advance or promote a pro-freedom agenda and reverse actions taken by their party is slim to none.

If conservatives wish to reverse this trend, it is incumbent upon voters to either consistently pressure elected Republicans into advancing our principles or throw them out of office if they dont. Any form of complacency will only continue this vicious cycle, wherein Democrats slowly destroy the country while Republicans just sit and watch.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

The rest is here:
America Won't Survive If Only The Left Is Playing To Win - The Federalist

Searches and Seizures under the Fourth Amendment

Brian T. Hobson

Introduction:

The United States Constitution is a document which aims to limit the power of the federal government. In order to achieve this goal, the Constitution limits what the federal government can do by establishing a base line of rights for all persons in the United States. In criminal law, one of the most important base line rights given to persons by the Constitution is found in the 4thamendment. The 4thamendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of the government. If evidence is obtained through a search or seizure that violates the 4thamendment then the exclusionary rule (discussed later) may prevent the evidence from being used by the government at trial.

Originally, the 4thamendment only applied to actions in federal court. However, in Wolf v. Colorado, the Supreme Court stated that the 14thamendment incorporates the 4thamendment as a tool to limit the powers of the state governments as well as the federal government. Under our current laws, the 4thamendment applies equally to searches and seizures regarding criminal cases in both state and federal courts. Due to this application in both courts, the state and federal courts of appeals have created parallel case law pertaining to a 4thamendment analysis. This case law differs in some areas, but the overarching standards are set by the Supreme Court of the United States in a long line of cases that analyze the scope and meaning of the 4thamendment and how the amendment should apply under certain fact situations.

In this article, we will go step by step in analyzing a 4thamendment challenge based on a search or seizure from law enforcement. We will focus largely on federal case law as stated by the Supreme Court, but will highlight important differences in Texas when necessary.

This article will be broken down in five parts:

PART ONE: THE PRELIMINARY HURDLES STATE ACTION AND STANDING

The first element that must be shown for a successful challenge under the 4thamendment is that the search or seizure involved state action. The 4thamendment is designed to protect a person from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government only. This means that a private person may enter your home illegally, find evidence, and turn it over to the police with no 4thamendment violation. This is commonly found when a private investigator is hired by a private individual for their services.

Usually, the state action element is obvious in a criminal case as the person that is obtaining the evidence is a FBI agent, state law enforcement officer, or someone else that is affiliated with the State or Federal government. However, this element becomes less clear when a private actor illegally obtains evidence while working for the government. The question is at what point does a private actor become a state actor for purposes of a 4thamendment analysis? The Courts have determined that a search or seizure by a private actor can meet the state action element if the private actor is operating as an instrument for law enforcement or other state entity. Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 662 (1980).

For example, if an officer tells a private citizen to search your car to obtain evidence, that evidence would still be subject to a 4thamendment analysis as the private actor was acting at the direction of the state. The State action prong would be met under those facts despite the fact that the evidence was obtained by a private individual. The government cannot hide behind the state action doctrine in this scenario to circumvent a 4thamendment challenge.

Noteworthy here is a caveat that occurs in Texas law under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 38.23. This section states that no evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of the United States Constitution, Texas Constitution, or Texas law shall be admitted against the accused in a criminal trial. The Texas law is more restrictive than the federal standard as state action is not a prerequisite to challenging the admission of illegally obtained evidence. The challenge would not be under the 4thamendment in this situation, but instead, a challenge under 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Standing

For a defendant to challenge a search or seizure under the 4thamendment, the defendant must have standing to do so. Standing is an idea found throughout Constitutional law that states that a person cannot challenge government action without a recognized personal injury. In the context of 4thamendment law, there are three separate ways that a defendant may have standing. One, the defendant was subject to a seizure of his person by a state action. Two, the defendant had an interest in the property seized. Three, the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched. Illinois v. Rakas, 439 U.S. 128 (1978). The first two means to obtain standing regard the prohibition against unreasonable seizures. Any seizure must be justified by the appropriate level of suspicion to be reasonable under the 4thamendment. Normally, whether the defendant was seized or detained is obvious from the facts. Likewise, determining whether a defendant had an interest in the property seized by a state actor is normally not a complex issue. Instead of standing, the main issue that stems from the legality of seizures revolves around having the appropriate level of suspicion to justify the seizure that takes place an arrest or detention. This will be discussed in detail in parts 2 and 3.

The most litigated topic for standing relates to the third means to obtain standing outlined above whether a defendant has the right to complain of an illegal search. For a defendant to have standing under a search, the issue can become quite complex. In Rakas, the Supreme Court pushed aside the longstanding rule that a defendant had standing to challenge a search if he was legitimately on the premises. In its place the Supreme Court gave life to the overarching theme for all standing issues involving a search whether the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched. To meet this standard the defendant must show that 1) the defendant manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the place searched and 2) that subjective expectation is one that society would deem reasonable.

In line with the legal test determined in Rakas the Supreme Court has issued case law that helps to determine standing in relation to some of the more common search issues that arise in criminal law.

1. Search of a Vehicle whether the defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in an automobile

Often times, criminal cases begin with the search of a vehicle that has been stopped by law enforcement. The Supreme Court has looked at two different types of defendants in these cases the driver/owner and the passengers. The Supreme Court has established a rule that passengers of a vehicle do not have standing to challenge the search of most compartments of a vehicle. In order to obtain standing to challenge a search of these compartments in a vehicle, the defendant must be the driver or the owner of that vehicle. This ruling is an outgrowth of the rule established in Rakas the Supreme Court will find that a passenger in a vehicle does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in most areas of an automobile. This includes the glove box, under the seats, the trunk, and most other compartments. This is true because an owner could peruse through these compartments as he wished or allow others into the car. The passenger does not have the same connection to, or control over, the vehicle as the driver/owner. A passenger is likely not able to exclude others from someone elses vehicle. Due to these assumptions, his expectation of privacy is not reasonable under the eyes of the law. The Supreme Courts findings make sense in this case. Most individuals in our society would not find it to be a personal intrusion on their expectation to privacy for an officer to go through another persons car that he is merely riding in.

The rule in Rakas does not preclude all passengers from challenging any search in an automobile. If an officer went through the personal belongings of the passenger (like a purse), then certainly the Supreme Court, and all other courts, would agree that the passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the thing searched. In an analysis, the ultimate question must always be the test in Rakas does the defendant have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the thing or place searched.

2. Search of Another Persons Home

Many of the same issues regarding standing in an automobile search apply to a defendants challenge to the search of another persons home. Lets say that a defendant is charged with possession of a controlled substance in state court. The controlled substance was obtained when officers entered the home of the defendants friend without a warrant and without probable cause. Without some established exigency, this would be an illegal search of the friends home. However, the defendant in this case would be unlikely to have standing unless he lived at that house or was more than a casual visitor. State case law dictates that an individual does not have the requisite expectation of privacy in anothers home if that individual is a visiting guest. The defendant here would have to show that he was living at his friends house or that he was at the very least an overnight guest to have a chance at meeting the standing prong in a 4thamendment challenge to the search. So even if the officers in this case violate the 4thamendment in obtaining the controlled substance, the defendant here will not have standing to challenge the search. He cannot suppress the evidence. The rightful person to suppress the controlled substance would be the defendants friend if he was charged. But even a successful challenge by the friend would not prohibit the State from admitting the controlled substance in the defendants trial as the 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches is considered a personal right. This right requires a personal injury to warrant the exclusion of the evidence at that defendants trial. A more detailed breakdown of the inability to suppress evidence in another persons trial will be discussed in detail in Part 5 exclusionary rule.

3.Conclusion

The two preliminary hurdles in a 4thamendment analysis are often forgotten by defense attorneys as well as prosecutors. While state action has lost its foothold in Texas case law, the standing doctrine is a tricky area that often finds itself as a central issue when challenging the legality of a search by law enforcement. The lynch pin to the standing analysis is to determine if the person is the owner, and then understand that the further removed you are from control over the area the more likely the Court is to find that your expectation of privacy is unreasonable in the eyes of society.

More here:
Analyzing Fourth Amendment Issues | Houston Criminal Defense Attorneys

I was away when news of the SCOTUS leak went viral. I hadnt watched TV for a week and barely signed onto social media, but when I did, I read astute and deeply troubling reactions to the policy document designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has been considered established law for 50 years.

The document, drafted by conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, was supported by four of his court colleagues, revealing that a majority of the court concurred with ending womens right to abortion. The timing of the leak was significant; it occurred when the court is scheduled to rule on the constitutionality of a Mississippi abortion law which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

If the court finds that the Mississippi law stands, it will have sanctioned ending Roe v. Wade, allowing states to make their own laws regarding abortion. Some states have already established draconian laws that include charging women with murder if they miscarry or have an abortion. Some have ruled that physicians who perform abortions can be charged with a felony crime and some have set up vigilante laws that could affect anyone who helps a woman get an abortion.

Essentially, the demise of the constitutional right to abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy will end womens right to abortion in more than half the states in this country. The implications are huge, not only for American women but for the future of the country, and they are abundantly clear.

Many analysts and pundits have written cogently and urgently about the legal, physical, economic and emotional consequences for women and others in this country, and for all of us with respect to our civil and human rights. As a womens health educator and advocate, I am all too familiar with those consequences. I have heard womens testimonials, read their memoirs, listened to their stories. I have helped them access abortion care, and as a doula, I have helped them give birth to much wanted babies.

After the Alito document was revealed (and during the last confirmation hearings), I thought about the great legal minds of the past who had served as Supreme Court Justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among them. Now, I mourn what has become of that institution, where several judges lied under oath to Congress regarding precedent, and where many are willing to ignore the Constitutions Fourth Amendment right of Americans to be secure in their persons and to not be violated or subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.

It pains and frightens me that faulty some might say puerile logic superficial, antiquated, cliched justifications, overt sexism and religious ideology are blatantly on display. (It is worth noting that seven of the current justices are Catholic and no Protestants are on the bench.)

Couple that with the less-than-stellar records and legal experience of several justices, the alleged sexual harassment conduct of two justices, the conflict of interest on the part of a justice whose wife actively supported the insurrection, along with the majoritys willing abrogation of civil and human rights, and one can question where liberty and justice for all has gone.

How, I ask myself in these traumatic judgment days, has this largely trusted American institution so quickly deteriorated into depravity? How did its majority come to rely on bumper sticker taglines, social media tropes, and arguments so weak and sloppy that they wouldnt pass muster in a law school? Where has compassionate consideration in difficult matters gone? Why have context, untoward consequences and the reality of peoples lives disappeared?

The fact is, the Supreme Court has become a political organization with its own dark agenda and its reputation will forever be tarnished, all because two men and one woman who should know better, appointed by a far-right, self-serving autocrat, are now seated for life on the highest court in the land, along with several hundred inappropriate federal judges.

The price well all pay for judicial travesties, individually and together, grows ever clearer and more threatening. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, womens lives will be destroyed. Precedent in other matters (gay and interracial marriage, LGBTG rights and more) will no longer be valid and revision of laws that wreak havoc because of ignorance and a taste for punishment, will return.

It is no stretch to say that we will become an even more divided and dangerous nation, two-tiered and binary in ways that we cant yet imagine. Violence is likely to flourish along with racism, antisemitism, sexism and increased marginalization. The elderly, young, disabled and ill will suffer even more profoundly. Murder charges, incarcerations and suicides will become commonplace. Poverty will prevail for those in the 99%, while corporations and billionaires flourish. Family structures will be deeply and sadly impacted. The planet will be at risk sooner than predicted.

This is not solely about womens rights, and it is not hyperbole. Its a harbinger of what is to come because of laws we must live with, who makes and enforces those laws, who adjudicates disputes, what national priorities are established and by whom. It is about the future, which now is in the hands of the Supreme Court a court plunged into decline that endangers us all.

Its a court that is beyond disappointing, a court with extraordinary power to shape our lives, and it grows ever more dangerous.

Elayne Clift lives in Brattleboro.

View post:
Clift: The demise of Fourth Amendment | Perspective | rutlandherald.com - Rutland Herald