By Jukka Könönen

Notwithstanding claims about the emergence of ‘crimmigration’ systems, immigration law and criminal law entail two different sets of instruments for authorities to control foreign nationals. Drawing on an analysis of removal orders for foreign offenders in Finland, this article demonstrates that significant administrative powers in immigration enforcement are employed largely autonomously from the criminal justice system. Immigration law enables the police and immigration officials to issue removal orders based on fines or penal orders for (suspected) minor offences, without obtaining criminal convictions. In addition to disproportionate administrative sanctions for foreign nationals, removal orders involve a preventive rationale targeting future risks for the society based on the assumed continuation of criminal activities. While criminal courts adjudicate all severe offences, punitive application of immigration law enables authorities to bypass criminal justice procedures and safeguards, resulting in a distinct, administrative punitive system for visiting third-country nationals.

Theoretical Criminology Volume 28, Issue 1, February 2024, Pages 70-87

By the American Civil Liberties Associations of New Mexico and Texas

Vehicle pursuits make for exciting movie scenes and capture the interest of reality TV viewers, but police chases are dangerous and often deadly.1 Law enforcement agencies across the country are increasingly restricting when such pursuits may be undertaken. Many have issued policies authorizing chases only when the public faces immediate danger. 2 The United States Border Patrol, the largest law enforcement agency in the country, has taken no such steps. In fact, the agency is increasingly engaged in high-speed chases throughout the Southwest border region, with deadly results. The number of fatalities resulting from Border Patrol vehicle pursuits has skyrocketed in recent years, from just 2 deaths in 2019 to 22 in 2021. Despite this trend, Border Patrol does not provide statistics on the number of car chases conducted by its agents unless the agency itself deems it a “use of force” incident, such as when a Border Patrol unit intentionally collides with a vehicle to cause it to crash or agents deploy spike strips to stop a vehicle.3 Senator Dianne Feinstein demanded in 2019 that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reevaluate its vehicle pursuit policy, stating: “CBP’s pursuit policy does not follow the Justice Department guidelines for vehicle pursuits, but instead offers insufficient protection against possible injuries and fatalities, either to bystander members of the public or occupants of a pursued vehicle. This has led to catastrophic and unwarranted results.   

Albuquerque, NM: ACLU, 2022. 13p.

By The United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office Western District of Kentucky Civil Division

Following a comprehensive investigation, the Justice Department announced today that the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) and the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (Louisville Metro) engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law. The Department also announced that it has entered into an agreement in principle with Louisville Metro and LMPD, which have committed to resolving the department’s findings through a court-enforceable consent decree with an independent monitor, rather than contested litigation. Specifically, the Justice Department finds that LMPD:

• Uses excessive force, including unjustified neck restraints and the unreasonable use of police dogs and tasers;

• Conducts searches based on invalid warrants;

• Unlawfully executes search warrants without knocking and announcing;

• Unlawfully stops, searches, detains, and arrests people during street enforcement activities, including traffic and pedestrian stops;

• Unlawfully discriminates against Black people in its enforcement activities;

• Violates the rights of people engaged in protected free speech critical of policing; and

• Along with Louisville Metro, discriminates against people with behavioral health disabilities when responding to them in crisis.

The Department also identified deficiencies in LMPD’s response to and investigation of domestic violence and sexual assault, including its responses to allegations that LMPD officers engaged in sexual misconduct or domestic violence. Deficiencies in policies, training, supervision, and accountability contribute to LMPD and Louisville Metro’s unlawful conduct.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 2023. 90p.