Undocumented Man Wrongfully Shot by Police Creates Legal Questions

In July of 2017, an undocumented immigrant was shot by police in Southaven, Mississippi. No criminal charges arose out of the incident. However, over two years later, lawyers representing the deceased man's widow and his estate are filing a civil rights lawsuit on the basis that the police mistakenly shot him. This claim is against suing both the city of Southaven and the police officer involved in the shooting.

In her lawsuit, the widow claims that her husband's constitutional rights were violated. Specifically, she claims her husband's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States, which include the right against unreasonable search and seizure and the right to equal protection, were violated. The atto ey for both the city of Southaven and the police officer responded to the lawsuit, arguing the wrongfully shot man has no constitutional rights due to his status as an undocumented immigrant. "Now, it is up to the court to decide what happens next," says immigration atto ey Mario Godoy of Godoy Law Office. "It has the Constitution and legal precedent as its guiding sources."

So, what does legal precedent and the Constitution of the United States say about the rights of undocumented immigrants? In 1886, the United States Supreme Court addressed the language of the Fourteenth Amendment as it pertained to Chinese immigrants in Yick Wo v. Hopkins. The Court read the equal protection language of the Fourteenth Amendment to include Chinese immigrants as people of the United States. As a result, the Chinese immigrants - although non-citizens of the United States - were entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Over 130 years later, courts continue to cite the holding in Yick Wo v. Hopkins regarding non-citizens' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly, courts applying the Fourth Amendment's right against unreasonable search and seizure shows a long history of protecting citizens and non-citizens alike. However, a major exception to this general rule is at the nation's borders.

Dating back to a law enacted by the very first Congress, border searches are not unreasonable due to the mere fact the search occurs at the nation's border. What defines the border, however, is less clear. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 further defined the nation's border, giving border patrol agents the authority to search for undocumented persons on any vessels in U.S. territorial waters, trains, aircraft, or other vehicles within a reasonable distance from the U.S. borders. In practice, what constitutes a reasonable distance from the nation's borders is the area within a 100-mile radius of any border.

Since Southaven, Mississippi, is more tha 100 miles from the nearest border point, this case deals with most undocumented immigrants' search rights. As such, the court may use this case to address the gray area in the law regarding undocumented resident police searches and due process.

Once this case is settled, United States law enforcement may find itself with a new set of guidelines for interacting with undocumented immigrants. This may include new protections or deportation standards. Although immigration is an on-going national debate, expect the courts to address undocumented immigrant rights in the near future, albeit with controversy.