Page 3


of your potential adversaries the Immigration and Naturalization Service. That agency’s efforts to prevent undocumented aliens from entering the United States and its searches of the business premises of employers willing to provide work for those without immigration papers may well bring you business. Although a warrant is required, INS agents unquestionably have authority to search commercial premises to find and interrogate aliens. A 1984 Supreme Court case, INS v. Delgado, illustrates the kind of search that can be expected from the INS. In Delgado, the INS agents appeared at a California clothing factory pursuant to a search warrant. Displaying badges, and carrying walkietalkies and guns, some of the agents stationed themselves at the exits, while others systematically interrogated each person in the building. Those persons suspected of being illegal aliens were handcuffed and removed in vans. The Supreme Court held that this procedure was not a search and seizure of the entire work force or any of the individual workers, adding the singular conclusion that those who were questioned could not be said to have had a reasonable fear that they could not continue working. Yet, the Supreme Court is not the only court to weaken the meaning of the term unlawful search or seizure; other federal courts appear to have joined in rendering the requirement of probable cause almost nugatory, making search warrants easier to get, and effectively impossible to contest after the fact.. In the District of Columbia Circuit, for example, it was recently held that the magistrate issuing a search warrant for a place of business does not even need to find probable cause to believe that illegal aliens are employed there at least not probable cause in the traditional sense. The warrant is sufficient, the court held, if it sets forth specifically the places to be searched and the time of the search, and is based on facially reliable affidavits in short, if the warrant serves to limit the discretion of the INS officer on the scene. These decisions signal to federal investigators that they may enter any place of business and question employees about their birthplace and work permits, so long as their so-called warrant identifies the factory or business that they enter. The virtual elimination of the probable cause requirement, coupled with the restrictive meaning of search and seizure, again illustrates that the federal courts are yielding their power to protect individuals from the abuse of over-reaching investigators in federal agencies. A final example in which the Supreme Court has augmented executive authority to the detriment of individuals is Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the law which requires young men applying for federal student loans to certify, and if necessary give proof, that they have registered for the draft. \(I should add, parenthetically, that I am in favor of young men obeying the law which requires them to register for military service within thirty days of their point out here, though, is that the method upheld in this case for forcing them to do so gives the executive branch an extremely versatile new means of coercion. In the Selective Service case, three unnamed students who had not registered for the draft and who wished to apply for student loans brought suit, claiming that the statute violated their Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. They argued that, by giving the information requested, they provided the government with all the evidence necessary to prosecute them for a crime completely unrelated to the loan application. The Supreme Court dismissed this contention, reasoning simply that the applicants are under no obligation to seek federally insured student loans, and therefore are not compelled to give the information on the loan request form. Because the Education Department dropped the requirement, the case should have no practical effect on young men seeking federal student aid. And I may be sounding a false alarm in predicting that the Selective Service case sets an ominous precedent for conditioning receipt of any government benefit on the recipient’s cooperation in furnishing the government with selfincriminating information and affidavits. Perhaps many persons already choose not to apply for government benefits out of fear that, even if they were found eligible, the information provided in their application would prompt a criminal prosecution against them. But it does seem to me that government agencies could cite the Selective Service case to support requirements for potentially incriminating statements. To illustrate, an employee injured on the job could be required to tell whether he or she has filed income tax returns in order to receive worker’s compensation; or a mother seeking Aid for Dependent Children for herself and her children could be required to state whether she or her children has used illegal drugs, as a condition to their receiving welfare benefits. Tool DEERINWATER By Jan Reid $15.95 cloth “Presents a complex yet always enthralling drama of an oil-rich Panhandle town.”Publishers Weekly “Reid has given us not only a thoroughly engrossing story but a novel without a slack sentence in it.” Dallas Morning News Jan Reid is a well-known Texas writer whose articles on music, sports, and popular culture have appeared in Esquire, Texas 114onthly, Inside Sports, and other magazines. * * * from Austin, Texas 78767 Texas residents add 5.125% tax DEER! ‘ 4 I TeXIISMOIlthi TYPreSS N WA11141 P -f\( -…,t …t , …..–..–….,, r–,…….._, “–,-,,,—-,—Novel by Jan Re * * Available P.O. Box 1569 Please add $2.00 shipping 12 JANUARY 10, 1986