13:13
i heard the group interview is really chill and I'm kinda excited to do it
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza
Read a random definition: nunc pro tunc amendment
A quick definition of I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza:
In I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, the Supreme Court decided that deportation hearings are civil proceedings, not criminal trials. This means that the defendant does not have the same protections as in a criminal trial, and the government only needs to show "reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence" to deport someone. The Court also ruled that the exclusionary rule, which suppresses evidence obtained through an unlawful search, does not apply to deportation hearings. This is because the government is trying to prevent an ongoing crime, not punish past crimes. The Court decided that the costs of applying the exclusionary rule would be too high, and it would not have the usual deterrent effect on immigration agents. Therefore, the Court reversed the appellate courts and reinstated the orders for deportation.A more thorough explanation:
Definition: I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that deportation hearings are civil proceedings, and the defendant cannot suppress their identity even if subject to an unlawful arrest. The exclusionary rule does not apply to deportation hearings. The case featured two respondents, Lopez-Mendoza and Sandoval-Sanchez. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) arrested Lopez-Mendoza and Sandoval-Sanchez during a warrantless search of their work. An immigration judge ordered both of them deported. On appeal, the Supreme Court consolidated their cases.
Example: Lopez-Mendoza sought to reverse his deportation because the immigration judge held a hearing after an unlawful arrest. However, the majority declared that because deportation hearings are not adjudicating past conduct, the lawfulness of the arrest or subsequent interrogations are immaterial. This means the government is trying to prevent an ongoing crime, which is different from punishing previous crimes. If a crime is in progress, immigration agents have the ability to arrest the immigrant.
Explanation: The example illustrates that the lawfulness of the arrest or subsequent interrogations are immaterial in deportation hearings. The government is trying to prevent an ongoing crime, which is different from punishing previous crimes. If a crime is in progress, immigration agents have the ability to arrest the immigrant.
Example: Sandoval-Sanchez sought to exclude the evidence obtained upon his arrest from use at the trial. However, the Court had yet to decide its application in deportation hearings. The Court decided to apply a balancing test to determine the application of the exclusionary rule. The Court balanced the social benefits of the exclusionary rule against the costs.
Explanation: The example illustrates that the Court applied a balancing test to determine the application of the exclusionary rule. The Court balanced the social benefits of the exclusionary rule against the costs.
Example: The majority believed the exclusionary rule would not have the usual deterrent effect on INS agents. The value of the rule is greater in criminal proceedings, while the INS usually arrests for a civil deportation hearing.
Explanation: The example illustrates that the majority believed the exclusionary rule would not have the usual deterrent effect on INS agents. The value of the rule is greater in criminal proceedings, while the INS usually arrests for a civil deportation hearing.