Wednesday, 2 August 2017

U.S. Citizen Who Was Held By ICE For 3 Years Denied Compensation By Appeals Court

quote [ Davino Watson was imprisoned as a deportable immigrant for 1,273 days, despite having U.S. citizenship. Now a court says he is not eligible for $82,500 in damages he was awarded...ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer. ]

The good old ICE/justice combo, arresting citizens for deportation, then refusing to compensate for their mistakes. But hey, since we didn't think he was a citizen, he didn't have a right to a lawyer!
[SFW] [politics] [+10 WTF]
[by mechavolt@5:15pmGMT]

Comments

robotroadkill said @ 1:01am GMT on 3rd Aug
I don't get how this works. Couldn't they argue that every day of being falsely imprisoned is another day of being wronged by the state? The statute of limitations clock should start ticking after the crime ends. Someone learn me up some laws please.
Nikan said @ 1:27am GMT on 3rd Aug
This precedent is scary. "Oops made a mistake. We better hide them for 3 years."
robotroadkill said @ 1:52am GMT on 3rd Aug [Score:1 Informative]
Seriously! or just continually commit any applicable crime for a long enough time (without getting caught)

Wikipedia says:

Continuing-violations doctrine[edit]
In tort law, if a defendant commits a series of illegal acts against another person (or in criminal law if someone commits a continuing crime) the limitation period may begin to run from the last act in the series. In the 8th Circuit case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc., the court explained that the continuing-violations doctrine "tolls [freezes] the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident ... occurred within the limitations period."[36] Whether the continuing-violations doctrine applies to a particular violation is subject to judicial discretion; it was ruled to apply to copyright infringement in Taylor v. Meirick (712 F.2d 1112, 1119; 7th Cir. 1983) but not in Stone v. Williams (970 F.2d 1043, 1049–50; 2d Cir. 1992).[37]
Nikan said @ 7:36am GMT on 3rd Aug
sweet reference. Thanks.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
If you got logged out, log back in.
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
arrowhen
lilmookieesquire
HoZay
XregnaR