MINNEAPOLIS Minnesota A fatal shooting involving federal immigration officers is under growing legal scrutiny after a civil liberties attorney cited longstanding Supreme Court precedent to dispute claims that the use of deadly force was justified.
Jenin Younes a former criminal defense attorney and current civil liberties lawyer issued a detailed public statement Tuesday after reviewing video footage of the incident multiple times from different angles and at varying speeds. Younes said she has no political interest in the outcome and emphasized that her conclusions are based solely on the law and the available evidence. She also stated she remains open to revising her opinion should new information emerge.
According to Younes the video shows Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers instigating the confrontation with a woman who was later shot and killed. She said the woman initially attempted to wave the officers past her vehicle and did not engage in threatening behavior.
Younes argued that ICE officers lacked lawful authority to detain search or arrest the woman who was a United States citizen. She noted that under federal law ICE agents have limited jurisdiction and generally may not seize citizens absent probable cause of a federal crime. She said no such probable cause has been articulated in this case.
She further stated that when officers without lawful authority surround a civilian particularly while masked and armed that person retains the constitutional right to avoid or escape an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Addressing the shooting itself Younes said the video shows the woman attempting to drive away rather than toward officers. She pointed out that the steering wheel was turned to the right and that an officer positioned near the front of the vehicle had time to move aside and was not directly in the vehicles path when shots were fired.
Younes cited the Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v Garner which held that law enforcement officers may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm or death. She said that standard was not met based on the video evidence.
She also referenced Graham v Connor which established that claims of excessive force must be analyzed under an objective reasonableness standard considering the totality of the circumstances. Younes said that standard weighs heavily against the officers actions given the lack of legal authority the absence of an immediate threat and the availability of less lethal alternatives.
Younes further noted that lower federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the use of a vehicle to flee from officers does not by itself justify deadly force unless the vehicle is being deliberately used as a weapon and poses an imminent danger at the moment force is applied.
Even if the officers involved had been local police Younes said the shooting would likely violate constitutional limits on the use of force. She argued that the involvement of federal immigration agents without general policing authority makes the incident more serious from a civil rights standpoint.
Younes expressed sympathy for the victims family particularly her children and criticized public figures and commentators who defended the shooting based on political disagreements with the victim. She said celebrating or excusing a death because of ideology reflects a breakdown of legal and moral principle.
Federal officials have stated that the agent fired in self defense alleging the vehicle was used as a weapon. Local officials and civil rights advocates have challenged that account citing video evidence and are calling for an independent investigation.
The Department of Homeland Security has said the incident remains under review. No criminal charges have been announced as of Tuesday night.
No comments:
Post a Comment