home

No Appeal From Dismissal of New Ipswich 'Trespass' Charges

by TChris

Loyal TalkLeft readers may recall this post about a New Ipswich police officer who decided that any undocumented alien who set foot in New Ipswich was “trespassing” on town property. New Hampshire’s attorney general has made the sensible decision not to appeal a judge’s dismissal of those foolish trespassing prosecutions.

“Having carefully examined the Court’s decision and the relevant case law, this office has determined that there is an insufficient basis for appeal,” Attorney General Kelly Ayotte wrote in a memo dated Aug. 15. “Accordingly, New Hampshire law enforcement officials should not make future arrests for criminal trespassing based solely on the defendant’s immigration status.”

This should deter other officers from following the lead of New Ipswich, incluing the chief of police in Hudson, NH, who has also arrested undocumented aliens for trespass.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Roberts: Conflict of Interest? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: No Appeal From Dismissal of New Ipswich 'Tresp (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    would this guy be considered an "activist police chief"?

    Re: No Appeal From Dismissal of New Ipswich 'Tresp (none / 0) (#2)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    Sounds about right. CP, yeah I suspect he would.

    Re: No Appeal From Dismissal of New Ipswich 'Tresp (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    Why would those officers who knowingly arrest or ticket people in contravention of the law, care about what the Judge or AG says? NYC's ex Mayor fascist Giuliani regularly told the police to arrest people even if they were not breaking the law as a pure harassment tactic. "Tell it to the Judge" is a common refrain I have heard many times from cops.

    Re: No Appeal From Dismissal of New Ipswich 'Tresp (none / 0) (#4)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    Why would those officers who knowingly arrest or ticket people in contravention of the law, care about what the Judge or AG says?
    Let's have a few cops charged with aggravated kidnapping after "arresting" people for non-crimes. Then they'll care.

    Great. Not only are the Feds not interested in enforcing our laws, niether are the courts. This local official should be applauded for find a novel solution to a problem that was pawned off on him by the federal government. Instead, he's labeled a racist and worse. God forbid we do anything to try and make the laws work for us. If it effects any person in any "minority" group, it must be evil.

    Whew! That's a relief! Now those illegal aliens can get back to driving down wages for low-wage Americans of Color and making money for corrupt employers. Just remember: New Hampshire was once Mexico's property, so those "illegal" aliens have every right to be there. They didn't cross the Massachusetts border, the Massachusetts border crossed them!

    Re: No Appeal From Dismissal of New Ipswich 'Tresp (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    hmosley, it wasn't a state matter, immigration issues fall squarely within the purview of the federal gov't. regardless of how you feel about what kind of job the feds are doing, local police and DA's have no authority in that area. there's a good reason for this: we would have literally thousands of different laws, with regard to the same issue, and locals taking over the job of the president and congress. what they should have done was publicly complain about the failure of the feds to do their job, not take it upon themselves. now, they do risk becoming a financial liability to their localities. a fact, i'm sure, that hasn't escaped the notice of their liability insuror.

    Re: No Appeal From Dismissal of New Ipswich 'Tresp (none / 0) (#8)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    what they should have done was publicly complain about the failure of the feds to do their job, not take it upon themselves.
    That's the problem with centralizing the government. Federal LE cant keep up with everything going on all the time. If they could they'd be way too large for their own good and would cost the fed govt and taxpayers too much money. Localized govt can control their area better b/c it's a smaller area. I feel that the framers of the const. realized this and intended for the fed govt to be there for support and to settle disputes between the states. That's all. The fed oversteps its bounds way too much. I am in no way saying that I agree with what this cop was doing, but I think local enforcement should be the first step in controlling the region and the fed jumps in only if they have to.