4 ms·

Not illegal, sure, but the lack of warrant may (should) mean the information is inadmissible in court. It's no different than if they stole it.

matt4077 8y ago
That really depends on the data, doesn’t it? Say they used oogle Maps to get to your place of business. Fruit of the poisonous tree? What if they broke the license terms on some proprietary navigation software? It’s also relevant that ICE mostly deals in civil law, not criminal. While illegal entry is also a crime, deportation is a civil enforcement action. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn’t quite apply. There might be something similar though, and I’d love someone more knowledgeable to chime in.
gamblor956 8y ago
If the information was the type covered by an expectation of privacy, then the lack of a warrant likely would make it inadmissible...until ICE asks the judge for a warrant, for a date range covered by the specific enforcement action at issue, and comes back to court with the now lawfully-obtained information.
- tantalor 8y ago
  A backdated warrant? Surely that's not legal.
- shawnz 8y ago
  I assume that wouldn't retroactively exonerate Motel 6, right?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If the information was the type covered by an expectation of privacy, then the lack of a warrant likely would make it inadmissible In a criminal trial, of the person who had the legal expectation of privacy, which in most cases is the person with possession of the documents, etc., not the subject of the documents, where those are different. But, in any cases, not in most civil proceedings, and explicitly not in civil removal (deportation) proceedings, which is what ICE is mostly concerned with here, so the Constitution is essentially irrelevant as there is no practical remedy available for violations (which is one reason states have adopted rules against information sharing with immigration officials.)
ceejayoz 8y ago
> It's no different than if they stole it. It's extremely different. Law enforcement can ask to search in cases where they don't have a warrant or other legal reasons to insist on a search. If you say "yes", the results are admissible. People mess this up all the time when cops pull them over or knock on the door.
lamarpye 8y ago
Why does the fact that someone is staying in Motel 6 need to be admitted as evidence in court? People aren't being deported for the crime of booking a room at Motel 6.
mikeash 8y ago
In this case it would be immigration court, which is a civil proceeding where the standard of guilt is merely a preponderance of evidence and the defendant has no right to a lawyer if they can’t afford one. I doubt admissibility will actually come up much.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Not illegal, sure, but the lack of warrant may (should) mean the information is inadmissible in court No, getting evidence voluntarily from any party (or even involuntarily and illegally from a third party!) doesn't trigger the exclusionary rule. No rights triggering the rule are violated in the voluntary case, and if the government violated A’s rights but then use the evidence only against B, the rule doesn't apply either. And, of course, this is ICE, and the exclusionary rule only applies in criminal cases, not in deportation (civil removal) cases, so the question is largely moot, anyway, even if they were doing this for evidence rather than just to locate targets.

matt4077 8y ago

That really depends on the data, doesn’t it? Say they used oogle Maps to get to your place of business. Fruit of the poisonous tree? What if they broke the license terms on some proprietary navigation software? It’s also relevant that ICE mostly deals in civil law, not criminal. While illegal entry is also a crime, deportation is a civil enforcement action. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn’t quite apply. There might be something similar though, and I’d love someone more knowledgeable to chime in.

gamblor956 8y ago

If the information was the type covered by an expectation of privacy, then the lack of a warrant likely would make it inadmissible...until ICE asks the judge for a warrant, for a date range covered by the specific enforcement action at issue, and comes back to court with the now lawfully-obtained information.

tantalor 8y ago
A backdated warrant? Surely that's not legal.
shawnz 8y ago
I assume that wouldn't retroactively exonerate Motel 6, right?
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If the information was the type covered by an expectation of privacy, then the lack of a warrant likely would make it inadmissible In a criminal trial, of the person who had the legal expectation of privacy, which in most cases is the person with possession of the documents, etc., not the subject of the documents, where those are different. But, in any cases, not in most civil proceedings, and explicitly not in civil removal (deportation) proceedings, which is what ICE is mostly concerned with here, so the Constitution is essentially irrelevant as there is no practical remedy available for violations (which is one reason states have adopted rules against information sharing with immigration officials.)

ceejayoz 8y ago

> It's no different than if they stole it. It's extremely different. Law enforcement can ask to search in cases where they don't have a warrant or other legal reasons to insist on a search. If you say "yes", the results are admissible. People mess this up all the time when cops pull them over or knock on the door.

lamarpye 8y ago

Why does the fact that someone is staying in Motel 6 need to be admitted as evidence in court? People aren't being deported for the crime of booking a room at Motel 6.

mikeash 8y ago

In this case it would be immigration court, which is a civil proceeding where the standard of guilt is merely a preponderance of evidence and the defendant has no right to a lawyer if they can’t afford one. I doubt admissibility will actually come up much.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Not illegal, sure, but the lack of warrant may (should) mean the information is inadmissible in court No, getting evidence voluntarily from any party (or even involuntarily and illegally from a third party!) doesn't trigger the exclusionary rule. No rights triggering the rule are violated in the voluntary case, and if the government violated A’s rights but then use the evidence only against B, the rule doesn't apply either. And, of course, this is ICE, and the exclusionary rule only applies in criminal cases, not in deportation (civil removal) cases, so the question is largely moot, anyway, even if they were doing this for evidence rather than just to locate targets.