Legal authority to raid

F

Fred S

New member
Where does the federal government get its legal authority to conduct a raid and in the manner they did to get Elian?

Under what authority can the President order such a raid? Does he need a court order to do so? Does it have to be specific?

These are serious questions not rhetorical ones. I would like to know.

It seems to me if a city police chief decided to raid a home, he would have to go before a judge and request a warrant. Am I right?

Also, could the Sherriff of Dade county, in his capacity of chief law enforcement officer of the country, refused the INS and border patrol permission to conduct such a raid?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Fred

This is
 
The issue of receiving, rather not receiving, the county Sheriff's permission has been bothering me as well. I understand there was a PD officer present (unknown to the chief, I understand), but that's not the CLEO's representative. Wouldn't this be a violation of law and prosecutable, assuming you could pin the order to a single individual?
 
Gee, wasn't there a Federal Court Order ruling a couple of days ago that Elian was to stay in Miami with the relatives until the Superme Court heard the case?

If this was indeed so, on whose authority did they raid the Miami home against federal court orders ??

------------------
Remember, just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
 
That's the point I'm trying to make in the General forum. I thought we had a 4th Amendment which said something about people have the right not to have government agents break in to their homes and take things without at least a court order....

Let's see, ah yes, here it is:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[/quote]

Do I think Elian should have been returned to his dad? I'm not sure yet--I've seen so much conflicting information about the whole thing that I just don't know.

But this was illegal search-and-seizure at best, kidnapping at worst. It is both illegal and unconstitutional for this to have happened without a warrant. But then again, I'm not surprised. Clinton still thinks he's above the law.


------------------
"There's not much comfort in the fact that crime is down 6 percent. So instead of 100 criminals targeting you, now there are only 94. Whoop-dee-doo." -- Paxton Quigley
 
As I recall, the Libertarian Party sells a poster of the constitution with "VIOD WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW" stamped on it. Clinton has done everything he could to make this come true.
 
Is this another case of "no controlling legal authority" by the Clintonistas? Which means, We're the government, We make the Law of the Land at our whim (remember "stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool" from Paul Begala?), and if you don't like it, we've got a bunch of MP-5 totin' JBT's to ram it down your throat.



------------------
The ultimate purpose of gun control is to render people incapable of the ultimate form of protest and resistance to tyranny.
 
Raids/deadly force are covered under the 4th amendment, search and seizure. The legal authority was that this is an immigration issue, a straight federal matter. The state of florida has no say in any of this.

"Gee, wasn't there a Federal Court Order ruling a couple of days ago that Elian was to stay in Miami with the relatives until the Superme Court heard the case?
If this was indeed so, on whose authority did they raid the Miami home against federal court orders ??"

No, the order just said that there had to be a court hearing on the matter, and the boy could not leave the country until that time. It made no referance to the custody issue. Also the I think that the legal custody by the miami relatives had expired.

Jason
 
IIRC, the court order was that he stay in the states until his case is disposed of, didn't specify with whom he was to stay.

INS has administrative purview, and had ordered that the kid be returned to his father in the interrim.

The Miami relatives were in violation of the INS order and were obstructing the return of the kid. They brought it on themselves.

The INS was within it's juristiction to act, even if their tactics suck. M2
 
There is no legal authority to grant any power to any federal elected, agency or branch that is not articulated in the Constitution. No elected, appointed, or agency can legally nullify due process, or anything else, as articulated in the Constitution. Anything contrary to the Constitution is null and void.

I find nothing in the Constitution that authorizes any federal police force, nor a commando style raid on citizen's homes.

Article of Amendment #4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
* right (just or legal claim or title)
* people (the mass of ordinary persons; the populace)
* be secure (free from fear, care, doubt, or anxiety; not worried, troubled, or apprehensive)
* persons (living bodies of human beings)
* houses (places of residence)
* papers (collection of letters, diaries, and other writings, especially by one person. Commercial documents that represent value and can be transferred from owner to owner; negotiable instruments considered as a group.)
* effects (movable belongings; goods)
* unreasonable (not governed by reason)
* seizures (taken into custody; capture)
* violated (desecrated or defiled)
* Warrants (judicial writs authorizing an officer to make a search, a seizure, or an arrest or to execute a judgment)
* issue (go or come out)
* probable (likely to happen or to be true)
* cause (reason, ground for legal action)
* particularly (with particular reference or emphasis)

1.. The word definitions fully explain the intent of this amendment.
2.. Note: "John Doe" warrants and "Dynamic Entry" policies of federal, State, or local police agencies violate this Article of Amendment, as do seatbelt and sobriety checkpoints.
Prepared by Joanne Campbell

I have the entire Constitution as above and will send it to anyone who wants. I find Joanne did a good job and found nothing to disagree with in her work, ahampton@tcainternet.com

The truth in government/politics is the Constitution. Believe it, love it, sleep it, eat it, drink it, talk it, learn it or lose it.
 
"2.. Note: "John Doe" warrants and "Dynamic Entry" policies of federal, State, or local police agencies violate this Article of Amendment, as do seatbelt and sobriety checkpoints."

How do dynamic entry policies violate the 4th? Also what is a john doe warrant, I have never heard of this?

Jason
 
A john doe warrant is a warrant to arrest a person whose name is not known. The federal rules of criminal procedure, the last time I looked, allowed these if the person could be described "with reasonable certainty." (rule 4 c) I have no idea if they are constitutional or not, though to me they seem strikingly similar to the old "general warrants" used to attack authors of anonymous articles in England, declared illegal there in 1766. The fourth amendment requires some specificity about who or what is being arrested or seized.

I can't figure out how Reno gets around the requirement of a warrant. A policeman can search without a warrant in certain narrow circumstances, mainly about officer safety and protecting the accused's possessions, but you certainly can't enter a home where no one is being arrested without one unless a crime is going on right then.

[This message has been edited by RHC (edited April 23, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by RHC (edited April 23, 2000).]
 
Mike in VA -

You are confusing two different things. The child was certainly subject to INS seizure and custody - no Florida court has jurisdiction.

But that does not give the feds the right to break and enter a house without a warrant. It gives them the right to seize the child anywhere they can legally find him.

Apparently they did have a warrant, at least so they say now. On Saturday several administration spokesmen were saying they didn't need one and didn't have one. I guess someone up there read a law book sometime over the weekend.
 
Heavy handed tactics aside for the moment, my real concern is the existance of a warrant.

First we here that they didn't need a warrant. WRONG! The only circumstances in which a warrantless entry can be made into a home:

1. Resident (not landlord) gives permission.
2. Emergency situation requiring immediate action to avoid death or injury
3. Pursuant to "hot pursuit" of a felony suspect, in which pursuit is in place at the time the suspect enters a home, and there is no break in pursuit before entry is made.

If there are any more exceptions, I am unaware of them.

Now Justice Deprtment officials say they did have a warrant. Did they serve it? Do the Miami relatives possess a copy now? How could top JD officials be so incompetent as to not be aware of the existance of a warrant, or even be aware of the necessity of a warrant?

------------------
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" - Patrick Henry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top