Days ahead of trial, a federal judge has dismissed an indictment against a TikTok streamer shot by ICE earlier this year, citing constitutional violations by the government.
In a Saturday order, U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin cited the deprivation of Carlitos Ricardo Parias’ access to counsel while held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention and the government’s failure to comply with discovery deadlines — including the timely release of body worn camera footage that captured the shooting.
Federal authorities had accused Parias, a well-known TikTok streamer of local breaking news, of ramming his car into agents’ vehicles after they boxed him in and tried to arrest him during an immigration enforcement operation in South L.A. in October. An ICE officer opened fire, striking Parias in the arm and injuring a deputy U.S. marshal with a ricochet bullet.
Ah. So, the case was dismissed because the government didn’t release the bodycam footage that would have shown the defendant using his car to ram officers’ vehicles.
Maybe because the bodycam footage, and I am wildly guessing, did not show the defendant using his car to ram officers’ vehicles, because (wild guess again!) they rammed his car instead?
Constitutional violations means loss of qualified immunity. Criminal charges for all of those responsible need to be forthcoming or this entire debacle is meaningless.
Criminal charges? That would be due process. I have been informed we no longer need that protection.
the goal is a fair system, and thanks for keeping our eyes on the ball.
that said, this is not only the best outcome this defendant could get-- it’s hopeful of future judgements (and jurists) recognizing the systemic failures of Trumpian “justice” in the most effective ways.
Maybe meaningless to others, but I’m sure the guy who was shot and had charges against him probably feels it had some meaning
It’s never over until SCOTUS gets their rubber stamp out.
The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning prosecutors cannot refile the same charges.
You know, unless SCOTUS gets rid of the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment. Which, looking at the actual text, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised if someone tried
nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb
Sounds just as settled at Roe v. Wade
Wouldn’t be double jeopardy, because there wouldn’t be a refiling of charges. It would be appealing the existing case to the next level up, until that rubber stamp comes out. Appealing on what grounds? Doesn’t matter, they’ll have Todd Blanche write some bullshit and send it.
