"The head of Minnesota's investigation agencies says the U.S. Attorney's Office has essentially cut off the state investigation agencies' access to the investigation, the reporter said. What is the precedent for that, and why shouldn't the Minnesota officials on the ground have access to evidence to work on this investigation? Vance answered, The precedent is very simple: You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action that's a federal issue. He is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job."
"ICE officers have Supremacy Clause immunity that protects them from state criminal prosecution when they're carrying out their official duties, provided their actions are necessary and proper but they do not have absolute immunity. According to the State Democracy Research Initiative, the Supremacy Clause only applies when federal officials are reasonably acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties."
An assertion claimed that the ICE agent who shot and killed Minneapolis poet and mother Renee Good is protected by absolute immunity. The U.S. Attorney's Office has effectively cut off Minnesota state investigation agencies' access to the probe. ICE officers have Supremacy Clause immunity that protects them from state criminal prosecution only when they are reasonably acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties. Supremacy Clause immunity requires that actions be necessary and proper and does not confer absolute immunity. When federal officials act beyond the scope of their duties, violate federal law, or engage in egregious misconduct, state accountability can apply. Local investigators should have access to evidence when federal protections do not apply.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]