Search for: "Individual Detention Detainers" Results 1521 - 1540 of 2,612
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Nov 2012, 3:57 pm by Steve Vladeck
So federal officers already have express statutory authority to arrest any of the individuals Senators Graham and Levin are worried about–and to detain until presentment, after (if not by) which the arrestee is no longer detained “without charge”. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 9:52 am by Charon QC
As a consequence, he will argue, for every minute of the three days he was detained he was subject to false imprisonment. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 9:52 am by Charon QC
As a consequence, he will argue, for every minute of the three days he was detained he was subject to false imprisonment. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 9:52 am by Charon QC
As a consequence, he will argue, for every minute of the three days he was detained he was subject to false imprisonment. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 2:54 am by Neil Ford
The ICO's announcement sets out best practice in ensuring anonymised data lives up to its name, ensuring that attempts to identify an individual from a public data-set will prove fruitless. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 5:34 pm
As described on the HRF website: The Dialogues convene experts, academics, policymakers, practitioners, advocates, and the private bar working in the immigration detention and corrections/criminal justice fields, as well as formerly detained individuals, to share knowledge, experiences, and best practices. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 1:30 am by 1 Crown Office Row
  Later remarks clarified that this did not refer to detention with a view to deportation (lawful under Article 5(1)(f)) but rather to detention of those we know we cannotdeport. [read post]
14 Nov 2012, 7:07 am by Charles Johnson
RELEASE OR DETENTION The first thing to worry about is whether you are going to be released while waiting for trial. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 5:20 am
A Preventative Detention Order permits detention of a person for a short period of time (up to forty-eight hours), while a Prohibited Contact Order prohibits the detained person from contacting individuals named in the order. [read post]
11 Nov 2012, 2:00 pm
In this particular case, the Petitioner 1) was never relased from criminal custody and 2) he certainly was not detained immediately: in fact, there was a ten year gap between his criminal case and detention. [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 9:13 pm by zshapiro
Sullivan’s statement that he was being detained and the relatively short (30 minutes) period of the detention provide additional reasons. [read post]
26 Sep 2012, 11:02 am by Matthew Kolken
Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) have conducted an investigation of more than a dozen immigration detention facilities and county jails that partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain immigrants awaiting removal from the United States. [read post]
19 Sep 2012, 12:05 pm
What we do know is that the two individuals who were arrested were not under any specific surveillance by police. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 7:58 am by Steve Vladeck
This proviso didn’t resolve the scope of the government’s authority to detain such individuals; it merely provided that the NDAA didn’t change that question in any meaningful way. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 7:35 am by Joe Palazzolo
A federal judge in Manhattan blocked a law passed last year providing the President with the authority to detain individuals indefinitely. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 6:04 am by Benjamin Wittes
Notably, § 1021(b)(2) does not require that the conduct which could subject an individual to detention be “knowing” or “purposeful. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 6:12 am by Gritsforbreakfast
Most were illegal immigrants who agreed to leave voluntarily after they were detained, rather than be removed by the authorities. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 10:00 pm
Upon entering the apartment the detective saw four individuals, two of whom he recognized as subjects of the investigation. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 7:58 am by Benjamin Wittes
While the Afghan government maintains that under this agreement U.S. detentions will end as of September 9, 2012, the United States wants to retain control over part of the detention facility, the DFIP, so that it can continue to capture, hold, and perhaps detain individuals there for the foreseeable future. [read post]