Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

9th Circuit Rejects Appeal From Kate Steinle’s Parents, Can’t Sue San Francisco

9th Circuit Rejects Appeal From Kate Steinle’s Parents, Can’t Sue San Francisco

Unanimous ruling rejecting attempt to sue for failure to report release of daughter’s killer to ICE

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an appeal made by Kate Steinle’s parents, seeking to sue the sanctuary city of San Francisco for the city’s failure to report the release of their daughter’s killer, an illegal immigrant, to immigration officials.

NPR on the 9th Circuit’s ruling:

A federal appeals court in California ruled that the parents of Kate Steinle, a woman fatally shot by an unauthorized immigrant in July 2015, cannot sue the city of San Francisco for failing to notify immigration officials of his release from a local jail weeks before the killing.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, ruled that San Francisco’s then-sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, violated no federal, state or local laws when he released Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, also known as José Inez Garcia Zarate, on a minor marijuana charge without notifying Immigration and Custom Enforcement.

The ruling upholds a lower court in dismissing “a general negligence claim” against the city filed by Steinle’s parents. Their suit alleged that Mirkarimi drew up a memorandum instructing city employees to limit the information shared with federal officials about the release of unauthorized immigrants from the San Francisco jail.

“Our holding today makes no judgment as to whether or not the policy established by the Memo was wise or prudent. That is not our job,” the panel wrote.

The judges said city’s policy did not violate federal law and that Mirkarimi had a right to enforce the memo.

Garcia Zarate, an illegal immigrant who had been deported numerous times and had a rap sheet a mile long (including multiple felony convictions), was accused of fatally shooting Kate Steinle while she was walking along the pier with her father and a friend.

Zarate was acquitted in 2017.

Last year, Zarate sued the federal government for filing “vindictive and unfair” charges.

As Professor Jacobson wrote, “San Francisco was a sanctuary city, but not for Kate Steinle.”

Full decision here:

9th Circuit Denies Steinle Family Appeal by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

So, black robed Mullahs ruled against the Steinle family? No surprise. I used the Mullah reference for a reason. The Democrats have become the “Death to the Great Satan (the US) and death to the little Satan party.”

I recall during the farcical Iranian nuclear negotiations Sen Menendez asked a DoS official if his talking points were written in Tehran. I normally despise Menendez but I found myself nodding in agreement. He was exactly right. I’m told that during the P5+1 negotiations the other 4 permanent members of the security council plus Germany, particularly Britain and France, felt the US had switched sides and was negotiating on behalf of Iran.

Hard to find the city negligent, if the court has to accept the factual findings of the criminal jury — that he wasn’t a dangerous criminal who murdered a woman, but just a guy wandering around who found a gun on the street, a gun that went off by accident tragically hitting a random bystander. Hard to argue that the city or sheriff should have anticipated such a freakish sequence of events.

Or are they allowed to re-litigate the murder in this case?

States’ Rights…. but is California really a “state” anymore?

Subotai Bahadur | March 26, 2019 at 4:25 pm

California, especially San Francisco among other cities, is not part of our country anymore. Arminius mentioned Iran. Americans should not visit, spend money in, or invest in California any more than they would in Iran. Some places are just irredeemably hostile to Western Civilization.

Subotai Bahadur

It’s a sad case but they are wasting their time.

It is so disgusting that this piece of $h!t got off after murdering an American citizen

He should be deep within a prison, never to be heard of again, yet he’s suing America

Only in America can this appalling thing happen.

Four More Years.

Occasional Thinker | March 26, 2019 at 5:42 pm

In a way, I am happy to see this decision. Missouri has a law that is near passing (last I checked) that will make the state a second amendment sanctuary state where federal laws can not be applied if they are not in full, literal (not federal judicial interpretation) compliance with the Constitution. Seems the ninth circuit might have just helped them out.

It’s obviously the correct decision. There just aren’t any grounds for the suit. Once the guy’s marijuana sentence was done the city had no legal duty to hold him.

    clintack in reply to Milhouse. | March 26, 2019 at 8:28 pm

    Agreed, but if he’d had a past record of similar violent crimes, I think there might be an argument for negligence. (Maybe not a great one, but at least an argument.)

    Remember the issue isn’t holding him — it’s just informing ICE that he’s being released, so they can come get him for deportation if they (ICE) want to. The sheriff made a policy decision to put this guy back on the street — an entirely optional policy decision.

Close The Fed | March 26, 2019 at 8:48 pm

This is only a correct decision if the Constitution is a suicide pact.

When it comes to liberal sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Jack Benny’s joke, “Your Money of your Life” is what you really need to think about. Do you really want to live in a city with all that crime, garbage and disease for what you really make after all your expenses? Do you really want to live in a cramped apartment with high food prices?

Take it to the Supreme Court. We don’t call it the 9th Circus for nothing.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend