Originally Posted by
PTravel
From a right-of-publicity perspective, probably true.
Please cite the law that permits the government to prohibit photography in public.
I believe Bart answered this one already in another thread.
All state actors, including administrative agencies, must comply with the Constitution. Saying otherwise suggests that you don't understand the nature of our Constitutional government. I've explained this here before, but I'll go through it one more time because "law dawg" suggests that you're a LEO and, if so, it's important that you understand.
So your position is that civil and criminal actions contain no substantive differences as regards to the Bill of Rights? I'd argue that, as most civil/administrative actions don't require things like Miranda rights, even when being served.
This limitation of power applies to every state actor, i.e. adminsitrative agencies, as well as LEOs.
Yes and no. It does, but under very different guidelines. Perhaps I was being imprecise earlier, but there are substantive differences.
Right on the exclusionary rule resulting from the 4th and 5th Amendment. Wrong on the rationale of the case: Per the Supremes (and I don't necessarily agree), deportation doesn't implicate any reserved right:
"A deportation proceeding is a purely civil action to determine eligibility to remain in this country, not to punish an unlawful entry. . . In many deportation cases the INS must show only identity and alienage; the burden then shifts to the respondent to prove the time, place, and manner of his entry. . .The "body" or identity of a defendant or respondent in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest, even if it is conceded that an unlawful arrest, search, or interrogation occurred. . .In short, a deportation hearing is intended to provide a streamlined determination of eligibility to remain in this country, nothing more. The purpose of deportation is not to punish past transgressions but rather to put an end to a continuing violation of the immigration laws."
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar...cId=5000544666
Think this is going to expand?
And,
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_491/
"On administrative appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the orders noting that deportation proceedings are civil actions and "
[t]he mere fact of an illegal arrest has no bearing on a subsequent deportation hearing." The BIA also found application of the exclusionary rule in a deportation proceeding inappropriate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed finding the respondents' arrests were illegal and the resulting admissions fruit of unlawful arrests.
Question
Do the strictures of the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule apply in deportation proceedings?
Conclusion
No."
Emphasis mine.