SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Motel 6 to Pay $10 Million for Sharing Guest Data With ICE
Motel 6 has agreed to pay $10 million to settle claims with former guests targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents for deportation because of their "Latino-sounding names."
The deal is an amended settlement to resolve a case filed on behalf of unidentified victims of ICE interrogation and deportation after Motel 6 shared its guest lists with federal agents. Some of the 1,400 branches of the discount hotel chain allowed ICE agents to bang on doors during early morning hours to question and detain guests.
A November deal to resolve the litigation was panned by an Arizona federal judge in January who questioned whether either side could plausibly identify any of the victims, some of whom may be undocumented immigrants. Among U.S. District Judge David Campbell's concerns was whether unnamed plaintiffs would be willing to identify themselves to collect damages as low as $50.
[...] The new settlement increases minimum compensation to $75 while increasing maximum damages to $200,000 from $100,000 for those victims enduring deportation proceedings. Should the parties fail to identify the John and Jane Does represented in the case, unclaimed damages will be awarded to one of four non-profit organizations which offer legal aid to Latino residents in the U.S.
Minimum compensation ought to be at least $200 (see previous story).
Also at Reuters.
Previously: Two Motel 6 Locations in Phoenix, AZ Reported Guests to U.S. ICE [Updated]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @04:56AM
Your hole's have become loose...!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @05:17AM (7 children)
The police come, ask for a guest list to find criminals, then arrest the criminals. Where exactly did something wrong happen? How exactly were they found at fault?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @05:19AM (5 children)
RTFA dummy!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday July 01 2019, @05:33AM (4 children)
Parent asked what is wrong, not what happened.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ilPapa on Monday July 01 2019, @07:03AM (3 children)
Here's what's wrong:
I hope I don't have to explain why that's wrong.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday July 01 2019, @03:02PM (1 child)
While I agree with you on that point, I'm confused a bit about what that point has to do with Motel 6. If I read TFA (and previous article) correctly, Motel 6 voluntarily provided COMPLETE guest lists to ICE. ICE apparently was the organization who made the stupid determination that it would investigate people solely on the basis of Latino-sounding names, rather than maybe doing some further background checks first or whatever.
ICE is the one doing the profiling here. Motel 6 might be in the wrong for violating customers' privacy by giving up names without a warrant (an action that is probably not illegal, though it may be against their implicit or explicit promises to customers), but I am missing something from TFA?
Motel 6 may be held liable for violating their customers privacy, I suppose. (In a reasonable world, releasing customer data without explicit approval should be a criminal offense, but it isn't in the U.S.) But is Motel 6 liable for ICE's decision to profile in a ridiculous manner?
This may be a minor point, but it's important to delineate who did what wrong.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ilPapa on Monday July 01 2019, @03:22PM
No, Motel 6 is liable for making the very poor decision to give up information on guests without a warrant to ICE thugs.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @11:25PM
That most ICE agents are Latino, and know who the problem democrafic is first hand?
At Motel 6 the ICE should start with the people that work there!
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday July 01 2019, @04:10PM
How exactly was who found to be at fault? If you're talking about ICE, well if you don't see the harm that any law enforcement agency anywhere should be able to go to any business anywhere and decided to investigate someone because their last name sounds like it just might be from a foreign country, you've got a larger problem than SN can solve. But so far nobody has blamed ICE for this via court, just found the practice morally reprehensible. If you're talking about Motel 6, first consider that this is a settlement and thus no parties are admitting to fault in anything. But if you don't see the potential harm to a business who is seen to just turn over information to law enforcement just because they ask with no warrant in tow, and now publicly wanting desperately not to be painted that way, again SN can't help you. But maybe it'll be your information that is next turned over to them and you can be questioned for your Papers please, Mein Herr. Bitte!
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Bot on Monday July 01 2019, @05:32AM
Interesting to see that even on your side of the ocean the criminals can sue the ordinary ones for reason connected to their crime. Here the burglars have been able to sue the homeowners if they got hurt. Now the government tried to put a stop on this, I dunno if they can manage it as the judges feel quite independent, for practical political side issues.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ilPapa on Monday July 01 2019, @07:01AM (11 children)
ICE is the real "Deep State". They are the only police force in the US that is not under the jurisdiction of any court. They are completely without accountability.
Looking for people with "Latino-sounding names" is about as unconstitutional as it gets. If this was any other law enforcement group, there would be 4th Amendment civil rights cases filed at every level. But because it's ICE, they are not required to follow the Constitution.
That is what the Patriot Act gave us in 2003. That is why we live in a post-Constitutional era.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @10:35AM (6 children)
Illegal aliens do not have the rights of citizens.
The Constitution only applies to legitimate American citizens.
There was no violation, constitutional or otherwise.
This is a ridiculous ruling and it smacks of political activism.
(Score: 1) by Sabriel on Monday July 01 2019, @12:52PM (3 children)
"The Constitution only applies to legitimate American citizens."
1. That's so stupidly wrong I'm actually surprised anyone would even be capable of posting it. And if the constitution did only apply to citizens, then by definition there couldn't be _illegal_ aliens.
2. The clause "no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized" of the Fourth Amendment is a requirement that must be met by the police requesting the warrant and the judge granting it, i.e. legitimate citizens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @01:29PM (2 children)
Less than 5 minutes on google says maybe not so stupidly wrong:
"Justice Rehnquist concluded that Verdugo had not established "substantial connections" with the United States such that he could claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment: aliens in the United States only "receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country."
So maybe only *partially* wrong thanks to that pesky 14th amendment.
Either way, precedent says the ruling should get reversed.
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=faculty_scholarship [byu.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @05:04PM (1 child)
Are you saying a traveler, let's say from the UK, who visits the US on vacation is not protected by any rights contained in the US Constitution? No right to free speech, no right to remain silent, no right to be represented by counsel, no rights against cruel and unusual punishment, no right to a speedy trial or a jury trial, no rights against double jeopardy, just to name a few?
This is good to know, because without that pesky 13th Amendment I can turn that vacationer into a legal slave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @06:49PM
And more recently, we have been opening internment camps (specifically the ones used on Japanese-Americans during WW2) in order to help house illegal brownskins coming in over the southern border.
Quite frankly if America really wanted to solve this issue, it would simply explain to the Mexicans how Texas defected from being a Mexican territory to being an American one, and as Mexican counties beg to be included in America, slowly annex them, not unlike how we conquered/annexed central and southern California from the Mexicans during the Mexican-American war. But the advantage of nearby cheap or nearly slave labor is too lucrative for America to give minimum wage and other rights to Mexicans willing to defect their states to America in order to see improvements in their local economies, infrastructure, and law enforcement.
American: fuck you, we got ours and a selection of yours too.
(Score: 2) by G-forze on Tuesday July 02 2019, @11:17AM
Even if that were true, the ICE cannot know who is and isn't an illegal alien based only on what their name sounds like.
If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @02:24PM
Somehow the dumbest people always think they have something smart to share.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @11:30PM
What can I say, the fine people at ICE do the jobs other Americans are unwilling to do. We need people doing those jobs or the economy will grind to a halt under the tsunami of fucking criminals.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday July 02 2019, @07:11AM (2 children)
ICE exists, operates, and is paid to enforce laws. Isn't the root cause of this problem the laws themselves or at least the charter/leeway ICE has in enforcing them?
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Tuesday July 02 2019, @05:13PM (1 child)
No, I don't think so. I think it's much more important that there is a law enforcement agency that is not under the jurisdiction of any court and cannot be held accountable. So, I guess you can say the Patriot Act is the "root problem" here. Yeah, I can agree to that.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday July 02 2019, @05:48PM
That's a little on the nose -- I've seen 'patriot' used in at least a few historical and fictional contexts to describe violent vigilante/armed militia "us-vs-them" groups. I think you nailed it.