fbpx

Court: Border Patrol violating rights of detainees

This September 2015 image made from U.S. Border Patrol surveillance video shows a child crawling on the concrete floor   near the bathroom area of a holding cell, and a woman and children wrapped in Mylar sheets at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection station in Douglas, Ariz. On Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2016, this and other images were filed as evidence in a lawsuit against the U.S. Border Patrol citing poor conditions in Arizona holding facilities. (U.S. Border Patrol via AP)
This September 2015 image made from U.S. Border Patrol surveillance video shows a child crawling on the concrete floor near the bathroom area of a holding cell, and a woman and children wrapped in Mylar sheets at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection station in Douglas, Ariz. On Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2016, this and other images were filed as evidence in a lawsuit against the U.S. Border Patrol citing poor conditions in Arizona holding facilities. (U.S. Border Patrol via AP)

A federal judge has concluded that Customs and Border Protection is detaining people in a way that violates their rights.

In a 40-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge David Bury concluded that those who are being held for more than 48 hours at several agency facilities face conditions which are “substantially worse” than not just other places where those suspected of breaking immigration laws are being held but even that criminal detention facilities like jails and prisons.

“The court finds that conditions of detention in CBP holding cells, especially those that preclude sleep over several nights, are presumptively punitive and violate the Constitution,” he wrote.

Bury acknowledged that there can be exceptions from constitutional violations for “exigent circumstances.” That, he said, could include things like a civil disturbance that might delay the time for processing.

“But this is a narrow exception and overcrowding or regular classification considerations do not constitute exigent circumstances that would justify floor-sleeping,” the judge wrote. “The periodic surges occurring along the border is a chronic condition and not an exigent exception to justify unconstitutional conditions of confinement.”

The bottom line is that Bury issued an order telling the agency that those whose processing has been completed cannot be held more than 48 hours unless it provides “conditions of confinement that meet basic human needs for sleeping in a bed.” And his order covers not just blankets but “food that meets acceptable dietary standards, potable water, and medical assessments performed by a medical professional.”

“We think this is fantastic,” said attorney Mary Kenney of the American Immigration Council, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit.

She acknowledged there are still some questions about the conditions of confinement for the first 48 hours, conditions that are not covered in Bury’s order. But what the ruling covers, Kenney said, is crucial.

“This is a very significant ruling for the court to be saying this is unconstitutional to keep an individual longer than that time without providing a bed, without providing adequate food and water, without providing a medical assessment or a medical professional, or that shower,” she said.

The ruling comes in a 2015 lawsuit where immigrant rights groups alleged “inhumane and punitive conditions” at Arizona facilities.

That lawsuit was filed on behalf of three individuals whose attorneys said were denied food, adequate clothing and sleep. But Kenney charged at the time that what they experienced is not unique.

“They have been packed into overcrowded and filthy holding cells with the lights glaring day and night; stripped of outer layers of clothing and forced to suffer in brutally cold temperatures; deprived of beds, bedding and sleep; denied adequate food, water, medicine and medical care,” the lawsuit charged. It also said there was a lack of “basic sanitation and hygiene items” like soap, toilet paper and sanitary napkins.

Bury, in his ruling, found much of that to be verified.

“Surveillance video reveals overcrowding so severe that, at time, detainees had no place to sit, much less lie down on mats,” he wrote.

“Detainees (including children) sleep in toilet stalls for lack of space,” Bury continued. “Detainees (including mothers holding children) are forced to climb over benches to reach toilets and drinking water; and detainees are forced to sleep sitting up.”

All that, he said, he found problematic.

“Floor sleeping in toilet areas is humiliating to both the detainee sleeping there and any detainee needing to use the toilet,” the judge wrote. “It also poses a risk to a detainee of infection or contamination with fecal matter and other bodily fluids.”

A lot of this overcrowding, the judge suggested, is due to federal agents holding people longer than is necessary to process.

That processing, Bury explained, involves determining the individual’s identity and immigration and criminal history. That then determined whether the person should be repatriated to the country of origin, transferred to the custody of another agency, referred for prosecution, “or, in rare circumstances, released on his or her own recognizance.”

But Bury found that during the most recent fiscal year the average time spent by an individual in custody in the Tucson sector was nearly 54 hours, including more than 12,000 people held for more than 72 hours. And he said time in custody has increased over previous years.

“There is no basis on which CBP can accurately predict on any given day whether tens or thousands of individuals will show up at a specific location or at a specific time along the border,” Bury said. And he said that the number of individuals in any given holding room is never intended to create discomfort or challenges but rather determined by “operational concerns.”

But he said there is no “legitimate custodial governmental interest” in overcrowding due to people being held after processing is complete. And he said the reasonable time for completing that is 48 hours.

The judge also brushed aside any potential claim that the agency can justify the conditions due to lack of resources. He pointed out that his order is prospective, governing what happens from now on.

“And the government may be compelled to expand the pool of resources to remedy a constitutional violation.”

Sierra Vista man in long fight with border crossers, U.S. government

Glenn Spencer stands beside one of his drones on his ranch south of Sierra Vista that butts up against the U.S./Mexican border. (PHOTO BY ERIK KOLSRUD/ARIZONA SONORA NEWS)
Glenn Spencer stands beside one of his drones on his ranch south of Sierra Vista that butts up against the U.S./Mexican border. (Photo by Erik Kolsrud/Arizona Sonora News)

SIERRA VISTA – Glenn Spencer is a general fighting a one-man war that, according to him, the American government doesn’t want to wage.

His battlefield is the border and his soldiers are drones, guided by seismographs and an almost-fanatical drive to develop a cheaper, more-secure system to “lock down” the U.S./Mexican borderland.

Spencer’s enemies are elusive, wily, and to him, alien. They are Latino border crossers, and whether children fleeing conflict, families seeking a better life, or suspected drug smugglers makes no difference. Spencer believes they constitute a threat large enough to warrant years of his life struggling to combat it.

After 15 years on the project, Spencer has finally built a drone system capable of locating crossers and tracking them down. His combative stance and skepticism over government has supposedly alienated the United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Enforcement, and his local congresswoman.

That might have something to do with the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists Spencer as an extremist and the group he formed, American Border Patrol, as a hate group.

“I am fighting for my country and they call me a racist for it,” Spencer said. “It’s been effective. Nobody wants to talk to a racist.”

That fight, Spencer claims, has been a nonviolent one. His drone system (called SEIDARM) uses seismographs to listen for the seismic tremors of human movement, then dispatches a drone to scan the landscape while a human operator works to identify the person moving. Spencer doesn’t chase or confront anyone he finds crossing the border – and he doesn’t report them to Border Patrol, either.

“We won’t report to the Border Patrol, we report to the people,” Spencer said.

By that, he means that he takes photos and videos of the suspected border crossers and uploads them to YouTube and his website, in an effort to demonstrate the supposed ineffectiveness of the U.S. Border Patrol.

Drones belonging to Glenn Spencer rest on a landing pad on his ranch south of Sierra Vista. (PHOTO BY ERIK KOLSRUD/ARIZONA SONORA NEWS)
Drones belonging to Glenn Spencer rest on a landing pad on his ranch south of Sierra Vista. (Photo by Erik Kolsrud/Arizona Sonora News)

“We are a threat to (the Border Patrol’s) system, their entire operation, their big money bags. We are at war with their management.”

This front is but one part of Spencer’s larger conflict. He believes that the Border Patrol’s “digital border” of Integrated Fixed Towers – giant radar/thermal/camera towers that watch the southern border – are overpriced at best and a scam at worst.

The Border Patrol disagrees. The towers have been part of an ongoing effort to modernize the border, and include a system of unmanned aircraft as well. On the issue, the Border Patrol released a statement saying it listens to all citizen concerns and that its tower system remains effective in Arizona.

Spencer said he believes that the feud with Border Patrol has led to a media blackout against him, quashing any sort of coverage of SEIDARM or the issues that he feels are important to the border and how it is managed. One such issue was Operation B.E.E.F. in 2009, an effort to document the types of barriers on the U.S./Mexican border and provide photos of what it looks like in the more remote sections of the border.

He’s also tried to demonstrate the uselessness of the Integrated Fixed Towers system by flying drones up to the cameras on the towers, to no response from the Border Patrol. He asserts that a number of the towers in southern Arizona don’t actually work. He claims that repeated calls to the Border Patrol about this issue have been met with silence.

“I feel an obligation to have covered this,” Spencer said. “I am a pain in the ass to the Border Patrol management. Who likes a watchdog?”

This antagonistic relationship has soured the chances of Spencer selling the SEIDARM system to the United States Border Patrol, which has been his end goal for the entirety of his project. The SEIDARM system is an alternative to a large, physical wall – or so he claims. He said he has personally spent more than $1 million on American Border Patrol and the technologies he has developed. Otherwise, the entire operation is funded from donations.

“The only customer we have is the U.S. government,” Spencer said. “Thus far, they’ve expressed no interest. We’re on a barebones budget.”

That’s because the results of the 2016 election have slowed donations by 60 percent, according to Spencer. With calls to build a wall, he feels that potential donors no longer feel his work is crucial. Spencer disagrees.

“My idea on the border has been right,” Spencer said. “CBP has been wrong this whole time. They are wasting taxpayer money and leaving the country unsafe.”

It’s this idea of a “locked down” versus “unsafe” border that pervades every element of what Spencer – and, by extension, American Border Patrol – does. It is the crux of a national argument that has pitted those calling for tougher borders against those who would label the former racists.

“The idea that I would treat people differently because of their skin is wrong, there’s no evidence of that,” Spencer said.

However, there is plenty of online evidence that says otherwise. Spencer is an outspoken proponent of the theory of the Aztlan Reconquista – a conspiracy that claims Mexican migrants are the foot soldiers of a secret invasion of the American Southwest. Allegedly, this is done as a means of retaking the territories México lost during the Mexican-American War. Part of this issue, according to Spencer, is that Latinos are a monolithic voting bloc that will swing elections at the behest of the Mexican state.

“This is demographic warfare,” Spencer said. “Nobody wants to talk about it. They will vote how they’re told to vote.”

He has produced a documentary on the subject called “Conquest of Aztlan,” using quotes from government officials on both sides of the border to show that the U.S. government is complicit as well. The secrecy needed to conceal such a movement also has an explanation. While unwilling to commit to outright saying it, Spencer suggested that part of the foundation of Hispanic culture was a reliance on deceit.

“I won’t say anything more: lying in Hispanic culture,” Spencer said. “That’s it, Google it.

Doing so leads to pages of blog posts and anecdotal evidence on lying in Hispanic – typically Mexican – culture. Despite a lack of evidence, every hit on the first page makes a point of mentioning how lying is done to avoid difficult conversations, not maliciously – and certainly not for a secret Mexican invasion.

This imaginary threat is thin justification for Glenn Spencer’s crusade, but that doesn’t phase him. In the meantime, he will continue to do what he’s done for over a decade: keep fighting his war, one drone – one Latino “suspect” at a time.

“We need to be more creative, more inventive,” Spencer said. “But first, we need to secure the border.”