SUPREME COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
NOTE: Immigrant Defense Project adapted this model briefing from materials shared with us by Brooklyn Defender Services. The information contained herein does not constitute legal advice and attorneys should conduct their own research as they deem necessary. Further questions about this letter should be directed to Lee Wang, lwang@.
|SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | |
|COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME] | |
| |WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS |
|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | |
|Ex Rel: [ATTORNEY'S NAME] |Docket No.: |
|on Behalf of: [CLIENT'S NAME] | |
| |NYSID No.: |
|-against- |DOB: |
| |B&C: |
|JOSEPH PONTE, Commissioner, | |
|Department of Correction, |INCARCERATED AT: |
|Respondent. |[FACILITY] CORRECTIONAL CENTER |
| | |
| |[SP# or Index No:] |
TO: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
WE COMMAND YOU, that you have and produce forthwith the body of [CLIENT'S NAME], imprisoned and detained by you at [FACILITY] Correctional Center and currently being in your custody at the [NAME OF COURT] as it is said together with the time and cause of such imprisonment and detention by whatsoever name the said [CLIENT'S NAME] is called or charged before the Justice presiding at a _________ Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Part ___. _______County at the _________ Courthouse, [ADDRESS OF COURT], New York, on the ___________ day of [MONTH], 2014 at [INSERT TIME] to do and receive what shall then and there be considered concerning the said [CLIENT'S NAME] and have you then and there this Writ.
ORDERED, that the Department of Correction shall not notify federal immigration authorities of this Writ or of such individual’s release.
ORDERED, that personal service of a copy of this Order together with the petition upon which it is based on the [COUNTY] District Attorney and the New York City Department of Corrections at Bulova Corporate Center 75-20 Astoria Blvd, East Elmhurst, New York, 11370 and the [COUNTY] Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, _________ Term, on or before the _________________, 2014 shall be deemed sufficient service.
WITNESS, Honorable _________________________, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, State of New York on the ____th DAY OF [MONTH], 2014.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE FOR [CLIENT'S NAME] IS NOT WAIVED.
By the Court Clerk: The above Writ allowed this _____ day of _______________, 2014.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
|SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
|COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME] |
|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | |
|Ex Rel: [DEFENSE ATTORNEY, ESQ.] |VERIFIED PETITION IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF |
|on Behalf of: [CLIENT] |HABEAS CORPUS |
| | |
|-against- |Docket No.: |
| | |
|JOSEPH PONTE, Commissioner, |NYSID No.: |
|Department of Correction, |DOB: |
|Respondent. |B&C: |
| | |
| |INCARCERATED AT: |
| |[FACILITY] CORRECTIONAL CENTER |
| | |
| |[SP No. or Index No:] |
State of New York ) Affidavit of [ATTORNEY's NAME]
) ss.: No.
County of Kings )
[ATTORNEY'S NAME], an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York affirms and says:
I am the attorney for the above named Defendant, [CLIENT], and make this affidavit in support of [CLIENT]'s release despite an immigration hold at the disposition and termination of sentence of [HIS/HER] criminal case.
A COURT OR JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO ORDER[CLIENT]’s RELEASE. CPLR § 7002(c)(3).
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME RELIEF IS BEING SOUGHT IN THIS MANNER FOR [CLIENT]. CPLR § 7002(c)(6).
[CLIENT] – [if applicable, who has no criminal record] – was arrested on [DATE] and arraigned on the charges of Penal Law § [CODE] and related charges.
On [DATE OF DISPOSITION], in Part [NUMBER], [CLIENT] plead guilty to [DISPOSITION] with a promised sentence of [SENTENCE]. Therefore, [CLIENT] who has [if applicable, no criminal record], and no other pending criminal warrants, should now be entitled to release from Department of Correction’s custody.
Upon information and belief, the Department of Correction, a local law enforcement agency, has informed me that they will retain custody of [CLIENT] solely based on a civil immigration detainer regardless of the disposition of [HIS/HER] criminal case or the custody decision made by the judge in her criminal case. The civil immigration detainer in no way confers or transfers authority for such detention. Such detention of [CLIENT] violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution, as explained below.
Neither the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) or the New York Administrative Code confer authority upon the Department of Corrections, a local law enforcement agency, to hold [CLIENT] beyond the completion of [HIS/HER] case based on a civil immigration detainer.
The Department of Correction’s continued detention of [CLIENT] following the completion of this case violates the Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process clause.
As set forth below, the Department of Corrections’ continued detention of [CLIENT] in the absence of a securing order solely based on a civil immigration detainer is illegal.
[INSERT JURISDICTION ARGUMENT...choose relevant argument below]
[IF PETITIONING IN COUNTY WHERE CLIENT IS DETAINED... ]This Court has jurisdiction over this matter in that CPLR 7002(b)(1), (3), and (5) authorizes the filing of a Writ of Habeas with this Court. Under CPLR § 7002(b)(1) the Writ of Habeas “shall be made to: 1. the supreme court in the judicial district in which the person is detained . . . .” [CLIENT] is presently detained by the Department of Corrections in [INSERT COUNTY] and is petitioning a writ in the Supreme Court, [INSERT COUNTY].
[IF PETITIONING IN COUNTY WHERE CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE BROUGHT...] Under CPLR 7002(b)(3) “a petition for a writ shall be made to . . . 3. any justice of the Supreme Court . . . .” Whereas this petition for a writ is made to Judge [JUDGE'S NAME], a Justice of the Supreme Court, [INSERT COUNTY], this Court has jurisdiction over [CLIENT]’s petition for a writ. Finally, under CPLR § 7002(b)(5), “a petition for a writ shall be made to . . . 5. in a city having a population of one million or more inhabitants, a person held as a trial inmate in a city detention institution shall petition for a writ to the supreme court in the county in which the charge for which the inmate is being detained is pending.” Whereas [CLIENT] is a person held as a trial inmate in a city detention institution, namely, the New York City Department of Corrections, in a city having a million or more inhabitants, and whereas [CLIENT] is being detained after [CLIENT'S] case was disposed with [INSERT DISPOSITION] in [INSERT COUNTY], [HE/SHE] may petition for a writ to the Supreme Court, [INSERT COUNTY].
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. Statement of Facts
[CLIENT] is a __ year old [INSERT RELEVANT EQUITIES...mother, father, long-term resident] who is currently being held, illegally, by the New York City Department of Corrections (hereinafter “DOC”). DOC has informed [HIS/HER] attorneys that they will not release [CLIENT] even if [HE/SHE] is ordered released by the criminal court judge solely based on a civil immigration detainer (hereinafter “detainer”).
[OPTIONAL: INSERT ADDITIONAL EQUITIES... e.g. parent of USC children, long-time taxpayer, medical or mental health issues]
On [DATE], the New York City Police Department arrested [CLIENT] on charges of violating [LIST CHARGES]. On [DATE], at arraignment for these offenses, [CLIENT]’s criminal defense attorney,[ATTORNEY'S NAME], learned of a civil immigration detainer lodged against [CLIENT]. The detainer, dated [MONTH, DAY], 2014, Subject ID: , indicates that the Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter “DHS”) believes [INSERT DETAINER DETAILS-- what box is checked off?].. In the experience of [ATTORNEY'S NAME], individuals alleged to have [SPECIFY WHY CLIENT IS INELIGIBLE UNDER CURRENT DETAINER LAW...e.g. an order of deportation] are not considered entitled to release under the local law by DOC.
[ATTORNEY'S NAME] proceeded to contact [INSERT NAME OF DOC ATTORNEY YOU EMAILED/CALLED], an employee of DOC’s Legal Unit, to determine if DOC would consider releasing [CLIENT] to the community in light of the fact [INSERT EQUITIES]. [DOC ATTORNEY] responded that [INSERT DOC'S RESPONSE]. Consequently, [ATTORNEY'S NAME] now submits a Writ of Habeas Corpus in order to petition for [CLIENT]'s release.
II. The Department of Correction's continued detention of [CLIENT] violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution.
The United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution prohibit warrantless arrests and detention absent a determination of probable cause. U.S. Const. amend. IV; N.Y. Const. art. I, § 12; see Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 115-17 (1975); Cnty. of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56-57 (1991). Despite this well-settled principle of constitutional law, ICE routinely issues detainers that fall short of establishing probable cause, and the Department of Corrections has demonstrated a custom and practice of honoring these unconstitutional detainers by holding individuals, including [CLIENT], after they are entitled to pretrial release and after the resolution of their criminal cases.
Both federal and state courts have held that ICE detainers do not meet the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States or Article 1, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution. In a recent decision from Kings County Supreme Court, Judge Parker observed that “there is no language in the federal statute or regulation that requires a local law enforcement agency to detain anyone based on a federal detainer,” See People ex rel. Swenson v. Ponte, 2014 NY Slip Op. 24304 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 15, 2014), citing Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Cnty., 2014 WL 1414305 (D. Ore. Apr. 11. 2014). Thus, when an ICE detainer is issued on the basis that the DHS has “[d]etermined that there is reason to believe the individual is an alien subject to removal from the United States,” an ICE detainer provides insufficient probable cause for detention. Id.
People ex rel. Swenson builds on a landmark decision from the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon, which held that a county's continued detention of the plaintiff following the conclusion of her criminal case violated the Fourth Amendment and subjected the county to civil liability. See Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Cnty., 2014 WL 1414305 (D. Ore. Apr. 11. 2014). The Federal District Court first determined that ICE detainers are voluntary requests, not mandatory holds, id. at *7-14, citing 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a) (stating that the purpose of a detainer is “to advise another law enforcement agency” that the DHS seeks custody and that a detainer is “a request” to advise DHS “prior to release of the alien.”); accord Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634, 642 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[D]etainers are not mandatory.”), and concluded that “the Jail was at liberty to refuse ICE’s request to detain [the plaintiff] if that detention violated her constitutional rights,” id. at *8. The court next determined that the detention of the plaintiff during two distinct periods – after [HE/SHE] was entitled to pretrial release and after her criminal case was resolved – constituted a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 10. Because the ICE detainer did not itself establish probable cause to detain the plaintiff, the court held that the law enforcement agency had violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights and was liable for civil damages. Id. at *11.
Following the decision in Miranda-Olivares, counties and cities across the country have ceased honoring ICE detainers, as doing so constitutes a violation of the detainees Fourth Amendment rights.[1] Indeed, at least 134 jurisdictions in the nation – from California to Minnesota to New York – have declared they will no longer honor detainers.[2] As noted above, this includes at least nine sheriffs in the State of New York. [3] Id. Chief Counsel for the New York State Sheriffs’ Association has stated that “ICE detainers are requests, not mandates. As such, jail inmates who are held in custody solely by virtue of an ICE detainer are being held illegally, in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights protecting them from unreasonable search and seizure.” [4] In line with this national trend, the New York City Council passed legislation on October 22, 2014 which would require ICE to provide a warrant signed by an federal judge as a prerequisite to complying with a detainer request[5].
Here, upon information and belief, [CLIENT] will be held absent probable cause, based solely on the voluntary request form issued by ICE stating that there is [INSERT DETAINER DETAILS-- what box is checked off?]. The detainer is signed by an administrative officer and not a judge.
DOC’s legal authority to maintain custody of [CLIENT] ends on [DATE], when the [COUNTY] Criminal Court orders [HIS/HER] release from custody. DOC’s continued detention of [CLIENT] constitutes the equivalent of a new arrest. In light of this, and the fact that immigration detainers are not warrants issued upon probable cause, respondent DOC is violating [CLIENT]'s Fourth Amendment rights.
III. The Department of Correction's continued detention of [CLIENT] violates [HIS/HER] Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights.
By detaining [CLIENT] after [HIS/HER] judicially authorized release, the Department of Correction has violated [HIS/HER] fundamental interest in due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) (“[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”).
Freedom from physical restraint is a liberty interest that is protected by substantive due process. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). Indeed, “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. Where the state deprives an individual of his liberty, it must have “a constitutionally adequate purpose for the confinement.” Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 361 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). ICE not only lacks a “constitutionally adequate purpose,” but it has no statutory authority whatsoever. Where detention exceeds statutory authorization, the government actor clearly cannot meet the “constitutionally adequate purpose” test and the deprivation of liberty violates due process of law. See, e.g., Benham v. Edwards, 678 F.2d 511, 531 (5th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, Ledbetter v. Benham, 463 U.S. 1222 (1983) (“The continued detention of such an acquittee, in the absence of statutory authorization for such restraint, would violate due process of law.”). Such a fundamental deprivation arising out of a statutory violation is grounds for termination.
To the extent that the Department of Correction is holding [CLIENT] based on ICE’s assertion that it has “[O]btained an order of deportation or removal from the United States for this person,” that basis is also constitutionally inadequate. Procedural due process requires that the government be constrained before it acts in a way that deprives individuals of liberty interests protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976). The Due Process Clause protects against the deprivation of liberty interests without due process of law and requires that the person being deprived receive both notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the deprivation, as well as a method by which to challenge the deprivation. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976).
[CLIENT] is currently being detained by the Department of Correction, based solely on a request by ICE that [HE/SHE] be held. Detainers issued by ICE purport to have state and local law enforcement officials hold individuals in custody without any basis in state law, standards guiding their issuance, or any judicial review, solely as a means of enforcing federal civil immigration statutes for up to 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. See 8 CFR 287.7. Importantly, [CLIENT] has not been provided with notice of the allegations against [HIS/HER] by ICE. Even if the detainer request constitutes notice, [CLIENT] has not received an opportunity to be heard on any allegations of removability. The risk that [CLIENT] will be deprived of [HIS/HER] liberty erroneously and in violation of the U.S. and state Constitution is high, due to the fact that no court of law has adjudicated the lawfulness of [HIS/HER] continued detention beyond the termination of [HIS/HER] case. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 (stating the balancing test for determining whether procedures are constitutionally sufficient). The Department of Correction’s interest dovetails with [CLIENT]: releasing [CLIENT]costs the Department of Corrections no money, reduces the number of people being held by it, and nullifies the risk of civil liability accruing from an unconstitutional act.
In light of the above, detaining [CLIENT] pursuant to a request from ICE and without any form of judicial review violates the procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Wherefore, __________ respectfully prays that an order for [CLIENT]'s release.
_______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[ORGANIZATION/FIRM]
Attorney for Petitioner
VERIFICATION
THE STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME])
[ATTORNEY'S NAME], duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York, does hereby affirm, that I have read the foregoing petition and the same it is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
DATED: [COUNTY], NEW YORK
[DATE]
__________________________
[ATTORNEY'S NAME]
-----------------------
[1] Jennifer Medina. “Fearing Lawsuits, Sheriffs Balk at U.S. Request to Hold Noncitizens for Extra Time,” New York Times (July 5, 2014).
[2] Kirk Semple. “New York State Sheriffs Shying Away From Immigration Detention,” New York Times (July 30, 2014).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] See New York City Council Int. No. Int. 0486-2014, A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to persons not to be detained by the department of correction and Int. 0487-2014, A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to persons not to be detained by the police department; Erin Durkin, “City Council passes bill to stop NYC from detaining immigrants for the feds,” New York Daily News (October 22, 2014).
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- records retention and disposition schedule
- new york state courts electronic filing nyscef
- new york state courts electronic filing nyscef system
- new york state unified court system
- finding records briefs for new york state
- application for index number fee 210
- index number formats
- new york state department of state
- local arresting agencies nys division of criminal
- supreme court of the city of new york
Related searches
- city of new york benefits
- city of new york employee benefits program
- employees retirement system of the city of baltimore annual report
- city of new york health benefits program
- school district of the city of york
- city of new york payroll
- city of new york retiree health benefits
- city of new york employment verification
- city of new york health insurance
- the city of new orleans
- city of new york jobs portal
- city of new york employee discounts