DEAR EDITOR:

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s weekly (“weakly”) argued opinion in the Vindicator’s Sept. 27-28 edition again presented an articulation of erroneous procedural facts and substantive mischaracterization of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a recent Immigration case. He correctly characterizes the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to prohibit an unreasonable governmental search of a person’s papers, but accuracy ends there.

First: He demonstrates lack of understanding of the case he apparently references (Noem vs Perdomo) decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in September. He states it issued “an unsigned order without explanation” If he read the 10-page opinion it was clearly signed by a 6-to-3 majority and issued with expansive explanation he would not have referred to the court as having a “shadow docket”. The case was transparent, the decision signed and clearly explained — “without a shadow of doubt”.

Second: The Court did not decide the issue: Does briefly stop suspected illegal immigrants for questioning violate the Fourth Amendment? The Court merely temporary “stayed” (stopped) the District Courts order that prevented ICE from enforcing the law. After the Appellate Court hears the case, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely hear it and decide it on the merits of the issue.

The Fourth Amendment precludes unreasonable searches of a person’s papers among other things.

In the Noem vs. Perdomo case the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated what likely is a permissible search scenario. About 10% of the population in Los Angeles are illegal immigrants. The Government sometime makes brief investigative stops to check the immigration status of those who (1) gather in locations where people are hired for day jobs; (2) who work or appear to work in jobs such as construction, landscaping, agriculture, or car washes that often do not require paperwork and are attractive to illegal immigrants; and who do not speak much if any English.

The U.S. Criminal Code prohibits unauthorized entry into the cCountry.

The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes immigration officers to “interrogate any alien (noncitizen or national of a foreign Country) or person believed to be an a lien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States”.

If Napolitano’s weekly opinion space is limited, he should follow up with a better prepared sequel in a series on the same subject.

C. RAFOTH,

attorney, Boardman