Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

summary judgmentleasedomestic violencebail
summary judgmentleasedomestic violence

Related Cases

United Farm Workers of America v. Chao
View Case »
Guled v. Mukasey
View Case »
Tuffly v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons
View Case »
Green v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County

Facts

Maria Miranda-Olivares was arrested on March 14, 2012, for violating a domestic violence restraining order and booked into the Clackamas County Jail. The Jail received an immigration detainer from ICE the following day, which requested that they maintain custody of her for up to 48 hours. Despite being eligible for release after posting bail, the Jail held her due to the ICE detainer until March 30, 2012, when she was released to ICE custody.

Maria Miranda-Olivares was arrested on March 14, 2012, for violating a domestic violence restraining order and booked into the Clackamas County Jail. The Jail received an immigration detainer from ICE the following day, which requested that they maintain custody of her for up to 48 hours.

Issue

Did Clackamas County violate Miranda-Olivares's constitutional rights by detaining her based solely on an ICE detainer after she was eligible for release?

Did Clackamas County violate Miranda-Olivares's constitutional rights by detaining her based solely on an ICE detainer after she was eligible for release?

Rule

The court applied the principles of 42 USC 1983, which allows for claims against municipalities for constitutional violations committed under color of law, and examined the legality of the ICE detainer under the Fourth Amendment.

The court applied the principles of 42 USC 1983, which allows for claims against municipalities for constitutional violations committed under color of law, and examined the legality of the ICE detainer under the Fourth Amendment.

Analysis

The court found that the County's practice of detaining individuals based solely on ICE detainers, even after they were eligible for release, constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court determined that the ICE detainer did not impose a mandatory obligation on the County to detain Miranda-Olivares beyond her eligibility for release.

The court found that the County's practice of detaining individuals based solely on ICE detainers, even after they were eligible for release, constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Conclusion

The court granted summary judgment to Miranda-Olivares on her Fourth Amendment claim, concluding that her detention was unconstitutional, while granting summary judgment to the County on the other claims.

The court granted summary judgment to Miranda-Olivares on her Fourth Amendment claim, concluding that her detention was unconstitutional, while granting summary judgment to the County on the other claims.

Who won?

Maria Miranda-Olivares prevailed on her Fourth Amendment claim because the court found that her detention based on the ICE detainer violated her constitutional rights.

Maria Miranda-Olivares prevailed on her Fourth Amendment claim because the court found that her detention based on the ICE detainer violated her constitutional rights.

You must be