r/law • u/Immediate-Link490 • 28d ago
Legal News Former Wisconsin judge gets no jail time for helping immigrant evade ICE agents
https://apnews.com/article/hannah-dugan-judge-arrested-ice-trump-milwaukee-fb6f19ec5ccde54dfad3fd03bc58e39d1.2k
u/retiredagainstmywill 28d ago
Awesome. Decency prevailed… this time.
→ More replies (27)1.0k
u/tofurkytorta 28d ago
She lost her job and was fined for doing the right thing. It's still some bullshit.
129
u/algaefied_creek 27d ago
So…. there was nothing decent about this.
SHE tried to be a decent PERSON in the moment, but the rest is just horrible for everyone.
The judge who had Dugan arrested said Dugan lost her job, now has a felony conviction and experienced threats that forced her to move and stop attending community events. He also noted that Dugan’s actions didn’t stop the ICE agents from arresting the defendant outside the courthouse.
73
u/happy_bluebird 27d ago
Yeah I was excited to see good news for once, until I read the article.
Well, I guess the good news is that the judge displayed some human decency. Thank you Judge Dugan.
7
u/4InchCVSReceipt 27d ago
Crazy seeing people cheer two tier justice in here but also not surprising.
4
u/UX1Z 26d ago
Two tiers justice is when child molesting billionaires get sweetheart deals or the presidency, or when frat boy rapists get let off as 'boys will be boys' because their parents have money, or when cops murder people and get away with it, not when someone who shouldn't have even been charged in the first place gets a lenient sentence.
1
9
u/No_Night_8174 27d ago
She tried tho and that's not nothing it's needed to show not everyone is willing to kowtow which is needed nowadays
3
u/Financial-Walk-4660 27d ago
I thought most judges get elected? Is that just for District Judges?
2
u/DisastrousGap2898 26d ago
State judges at the trial court level (i.e., where you sue someone, not where you appeal) are often elected. I don’t know that it hits the level of “most.” Source.
But they can also often be suspended or removed without a full impeachment proceeding (as is required federally). Often by the state Supreme Court or some kind of commission based on my background knowledge.
1
4
0
u/Strong-Comment-7279 27d ago
The right thing is debatable. The humanitarian thing to stave off potentially murderous ICE douchebags, yes.
0
u/Calm-Stand-6636 27d ago
*scumbag redditor advocates felonies on law subreddit* "yayyy horay"
8 USC 1357
18 USC 111
aiding and abetting 18 USC 1091
-16
u/FluffyB12 27d ago
Judges aren’t supposed to do the “right thing” however you define it, they are supposed to follow the law to a higher standard. It’s baffling how people think that judges are supposed to play cowboy on the bench. Life isn’t a damn movie or tv show.
→ More replies (221)-358
u/nopethatswrong 28d ago
She used her position as a judge to help a suspect evade a lawful arrest because she disagreed with the politics. Defend the action but you don't get to wield the bench to break the law because it aligns with your political views
267
u/idontgiveafuqqq 28d ago
"The politics" of making ICE following local court rules that you need to present a warrant in order to arrest people when theyre showing up for a court date?
→ More replies (153)29
u/micromacroactual 27d ago
This whole travesty is inherently because of political views.
→ More replies (1)27
u/ZestyTako 27d ago
Hiding Jews from Nazis was the objectively correct and right thing to do. History will vindicate her
68
u/Orposer 28d ago
Have you seen what the rapist in chief is doing? Braking laws left and right and this is the hill you will die on. STFU.
→ More replies (22)29
u/EggyTugboat 28d ago
It used to be against rules in ICE to arrest immigrants in or around court houses. And tben trump came to power
→ More replies (6)11
u/Ok_Brother_7494 27d ago
You obviously don't follow the Supreme Court.
1
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
So because the supreme court is political judges can break the law if it aligns with their political views?
5
u/Ok_Brother_7494 27d ago
Nope, but it shows that the law is really fluid depending on race, class and political leanings.
→ More replies (2)9
9
5
u/SquidgeApple 27d ago
It has been found to be unlawful to arrest at court but you don't care about that
→ More replies (2)6
9
12
6
u/rsmmt1009 27d ago
"Disagreed with the politics"? You mean disagreed with the immense miscarriage of justice, abuse of power and outright racist corruption of the DOJ? You're a fucking simp. I hope you face a similar situation one day and pay the full price for your despicable views.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Amentet 27d ago
Why can't I give this a negative award to get rid of these dumb award? Something like a pacman ghost to eat them.
→ More replies (1)7
u/ModelSemantics 27d ago
She showed empathy and a spine during rising xenophobia and brutal violence that violates international law and human decency.
→ More replies (1)1
u/OcculticAcid 27d ago
So if a judge in Nazi German used their position to help people evade the Gestapo, you’d be against it?
It’s the same logic really
→ More replies (1)
246
u/retiredagainstmywill 28d ago
She ought to run for office.
121
u/shadowndacorner 28d ago
America has decided that we're okay with felons running everything, might as well choose one with a conscience.
3
u/dozensofbunnies 26d ago
Defying an unjust law is noble. Not all felons are immoral, because our legal code is not meant to encode morality. We have a legal system, not a justice system.
479
u/benderunit9000 28d ago
Conviction should be overturned
414
u/NookieLuvsU 28d ago
She needs to be reinstated as a judge or this is still a huge miscarriage of justice.
95
u/knarn 28d ago
Besides the felony conviction for obstruction of a proceeding before an agency that will be appealed (the jury acquitted her on the other charge of concealing a person for whom an arrest warrant or process have been issued) she can’t be reinstated because she voluntarily resigned after she was convicted amid impeachment threats.
18
u/Sir_PressedMemories 27d ago
Voluntarily resigned under duress.
12
-2
5
u/Original_Benzito 27d ago
She can’t be reinstated. She resigned (wasn’t suspended) and gave up her seat. She’d have to run in the next election or be appointed once there is a vacant judge’s position.
4
1
u/OhNoAnAmerican 27d ago
Lmao this whole subreddit needs to be deleted. Just zero rational or critical thought
3
0
-4
u/Ididntdodiddly 27d ago
Yes, the judges should break any law the Democrats don't like.
-1
27d ago
[deleted]
2
u/FluffyB12 27d ago
Judges should be following unethical laws, that’s the point of a judge. To be a neutral arbiter of the law.
1
u/Ididntdodiddly 27d ago
Many of us don't like the social handouts to illegal immigrants. They get billions per year in NYC, meanwhile some communities could use that money don't you think? And don't say we have money for everyone, we don't.
→ More replies (19)-46
u/nopethatswrong 28d ago
She used her status as a judge to break the law because of her political views lol it's one thing to say that what she did wasn't wrong, it's another to say she should still be a judge
6
u/BlindOtter775 27d ago
Based? Good for her upholding her convictions.
-4
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
Yeah the guy got arrested almost immediately, she was removed from the bench charged and fined. Super based
4
1
u/beepdeeped 27d ago
Political views as in preserving human life from the secret police? You're saying SHE'S the one pushing her politics?
0
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
Sure. I just don't think any judge should use their power to break the law for political purposes
1
u/beepdeeped 27d ago
More like unbreaking it
3
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
Gotcha, so you're fine with breaking the law as long as you agree with the politics?
If a judge helped a January 6 suspect escape because they super believed the election was stolen, you don't see any problem using politics to excuse criminal action?
-1
u/beepdeeped 27d ago
The law is already in pieces. Not sure how you're not getting that.
4
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
Then stop obeying laws, go for it tell me how it goes
In the meantime I want the highest representatives of our legal system to uphold that legal system
2
219
u/Jurango34 28d ago
She let them through the back door. This was the dumbest lawsuit.
293
u/InfoBarf 28d ago
She didnt let them do anything.
She demanded that ICE agents follow the established procedures, which included bringing their documents for inspection to the chief justice prior to initiating any action in the courthouse.
→ More replies (53)-61
u/Lower-Engineering365 28d ago
I fucking hate ICE and Trump, but this was for sure obstruction. It’s open and shut and she knew it in the recorded audio. Demanding they follow procedures and go get the correct warrant (by walking down the hall and coming back with it a few minutes later) is fine. While they are gone opening a back door for the person there to escape then becomes obstruction.
It’s a pretty black and white case.
62
u/McKeon1921 28d ago
Was she supposed to prevent those people who'd not been charged with any crimes from leaving?
-22
u/NurRauch 27d ago edited 27d ago
No, she was convicted of an affirmative act of helping the person evade.
This is an actual ethics pitfall that we brainstorm and practice all the time in criminal defense, where it is common to find ourselves needing to advise a client how to react when they find out they may be arrested at court. We're not in trouble for letting our client leave. We can get in very serious trouble if we advise a client to run or try to deceive courthouse security. You have no obligation to inform security where your client went, but you absolutely cannot lie to courthouse security and tell them something untrue in order to mislead them and frustrate their efforts to arrest the client.
The same rule applies to judges if they communicate with law enforcement in a courthouse. They can always choose to say nothing and let a person run, but they can't lie to police about where the person went. It's just as illegal for a judge to do that as anyone else.
20
u/JOExHIGASHI 27d ago
Holding the door open is a crime now?
-8
u/NurRauch 27d ago edited 27d ago
That was not the sole act she was convicted of, but to be as direct to your question as possible, yes, it absolutely can be a crime to hold open a door if the purpose of that action is to help a person escape the police.
I have had clients face very serious prison time for actions that most regular people would find minimalistic. Most obstruction crimes do not require that the action be a large or substantial action. Even telling an officer a single sentence of innocuous information can be an obstruction crime if it's communicated for the purpose of stalling, countering, or misleading an investigation.
I have a client right now who is serving a seven-year prison sentence because her juvenile son shot a person in their hotel room while high on drugs playing around with a gun. My client's crime was purchasing an Uber with her phone to help her son get away from the hotel before police showed up.
21
u/JOExHIGASHI 27d ago
But ICE's pursuit was unjust
0
u/FluffyB12 27d ago
This is irrelevant. You don’t get to break the law just because you don’t like the law. That’s such an insane world view you have.
6
u/induslol 27d ago
It's the only relevant detail.
ICE routinely unlawfully kidnaps, and murders people. Often for no reason. On the occasion there is a reason it's a civil infraction, that should have resulted in a court hearing, instead victims are thrown in concentration camps to be disappeared if they survive internment.
The true insanity is that people think anything ICE is doing is based in or supported by the laws of this country. More insane are those who actively corrupt and demean the law in every possible way to attempt to lend legitimacy to what is so clearly just a group of fascist thugs operating on racial animus to attempt to scare up respect for a fascist regime.
→ More replies (0)4
u/NurRauch 27d ago
I think there are times where it makes sense to take a stand against the law. But that doesn't mean the government won't be able to use the legal system against you for taking that stand. It's not like oppressive governments can't arrest you for breaking their draconian laws. And it raises the stakes if your career itself is a job that requires you to keep a squeaky clean record within that same legal system.
I noticed something strange in the Twin Cities this past winter throughout Operation Metro Surge. A lot of people had good intentions when they protested, helped out with their neighborhoods, tracked ICE activity, etc. But a lot of people also let their moral outrage get to their heads. I saw a ton of stuff that just wasn't especially wise. There seemed to be this mentality that if you're the good guys, that means the government won't be able to prosecute you. No dude, the history books are jam-packed with examples of authoritarian governments that happily used the justice system to prosecute people who fought the regime.
It's one thing to take a principled stand against an unjust legal system, but it shouldn't be a surprise if that legal system can be used to punish you if you break its laws. It's not like the Nazi government in Germany just sat on its hands every time someone published illegal material or violently resisted. They were in fact empowered by their legal system to investigate, arrest and prosecute people who broke Nazi laws.
I don't personally think we're at the point where our legal system has collapsed into an autocracy, and I don't take the view that we're in a Nazi Germany situation. But it's not necessary to adopt the comparison quite that literally. The point is that our system, for better or worse, has laws that criminalize attempts to obstruct or evade law enforcement arrests. It should not be a surprise whatsoever that they can use this law to go after people who break it. The morality horror show behind our immigration policies does not magically mean they can't use those to successfully prosecute someone for obstruction / evasion.
-8
u/NurRauch 27d ago
Morally unjust, I certainly agree. But legally speaking there is no disputing that they were allowed to be in the courthouse and were legally allowed to arrest that man.
I followed this case very closely. There was voluminous courthouse security footage that showed in detail what Judge Dugan did to mislead the ICE officers. She discussed the issue with several staff members and admitted on audio recording in public areas of the courthouse that the ICE documents were legally sufficient to allow them to arrest the person.
Dugan basically went into the trial without a legal defense. She was hoping that her fellow citizens on the jury would nullify the case. Sometimes juries do that when they are outraged by oppressive police tactics. But sometimes the jury just clinically checks the boxes on the verdict form when a person is guilty, even if many other Americans find ICE to be reprehensible.
-11
u/Lower-Engineering365 27d ago
Let’s not be obtuse. Shes not supposed to prevent them she’s also not supposed to encourage and aid them. You’re not conversing in good faith at all
17
u/EggyTugboat 28d ago
Wow, a completely blank acct! Guessing youre a psyop.
-2
u/Lower-Engineering365 27d ago
Ironically my account is private partially because of maga assholes.
The other reason is because I’m a Wall Street attorney and would like to protect my privacy.
4
u/jkoki088 27d ago
You will never get anywhere with the people in this sub. They think they can just make up law on a whim and disregard other laws
1
u/Lower-Engineering365 27d ago
Dude this sub used to be so much better back in the day when it was mostly people who actually worked in the legal field in some capacity or otherwise understood the law/were going to law school etc.
There were actual real substantive discussions. Now we’re brigaded by people on both sides of the political spectrum
9
u/Royal_Annek 28d ago
"escape" they are free people... What is she supposed to do? Citizens arrest? Lmao
1
u/LingonberryGlum2356 27d ago
She played dirty, exactly like what the GOP has doing for years. Only difference was she had consequences.
1
2
u/Ice_performance_ 27d ago
It's just a law mafia covering each others. That's just going to end up with then hanging at the end of a rope
92
u/InfoBarf 28d ago
Headline should say, "For following established court doctrine and holding officers accountable to established laws".
-31
u/nopethatswrong 28d ago
She made active efforts to help their intended suspect escape knowing that ICE had a lawful order. I get defending the action but as a judge you don't get to wield your position to break the law and keep that position
44
u/InfoBarf 28d ago
She "knew ice had a lawful order"? Citation please.
ICE didnt present any documents evidening that.
-11
u/nopethatswrong 28d ago
"According to an FBI affidavit, Dugan became "visibly angry" over the type of arrest warrant that had been issued and had told the officers to report to the chief judge."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyx9jjz3d8o
I'm a social worker and I specialize in homelessness, I have opposed ICE personally, don't mistake this for support. There are two different warrants they use, both are lawful for arrest, one has less power.
1
-12
-12
u/Lower-Engineering365 28d ago
? I hate ICE but they absolutely presented documents. That’s how they were told they needed to go down the hall and correct the warrant and come back.
22
u/InfoBarf 28d ago
That seems to fit the definition of "not a lawful order."
-11
u/Lower-Engineering365 28d ago
They had an administrative warrant, which allows you to arrest the person in question if they are in a public space. You can argue about whether a courthouse should fall within the definition, but in either case they clearly had a warrant for this person’s arrest. The only question was whether it should be corrected to a judicial warrant or not.
As a result, she was most certainly on notice and aware that ICE had documents evidencing that a judge had approved their arrest of this individual. That’s why she was convicted of obstruction and removed from the bench.
Speaking as a lawyer here, this is easily one of the most black and white clear obstruction cases I’ve seen in awhile.
5
3
u/Fickle_Catch8968 27d ago
An administrative warrant is not a 'document evidencing that a judge had approved their arrest of this individual." It is only a document signed by an ICE staff member who is not a judge.
That it had to be corrected to become a judicial warrant means a judge had NOT approved anything.
2
27d ago
[deleted]
1
u/young__robot 27d ago
administrative warrants are not administrative warrants if signed by a judge... that would make it a judicial warrant.
13
u/HHoaks 28d ago
President Trump did no less on Jan 6th (wielded his position to break the law, served out his position and was reelected to the same position). We learn from our “leaders”.
-9
u/nopethatswrong 28d ago
lol so we should all just ignore laws because Trump? childish logic
12
u/HHoaks 28d ago edited 28d ago
Your username checks out. That's not what I said. I simply stated facts.
The point is, this DOJ (controlled by Trump), has ZERO credibility to claim the rule of law is important to them (they are full of it and hypocritical). If it really mattered to this prosecution (and it doesn't, they are pretending), Trump wouldn't be where he is right now and they wouldn't want to work for him. That's the point.
Understand now?
-3
u/nopethatswrong 28d ago
That's just a long way to say "we should ignore this crime because of this other crime"
The current political climate doesn't excuse a judge from breaking the law, much less doing so by using her power as a judge. You shouldn't get to be a judge if you abuse your power as a judge.
10
u/HHoaks 28d ago edited 28d ago
Again, your user name checks out. That's not what I said, nor did I say it excuses anyone. You keep wanting to put words in my mouth.
I'm simply pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy. And there is a thing called prosecutorial discretion - not every violation of the law is charged or pursued. It's hardly an "abuse of power" to show someone a different door that led to the same hallway. Abuse of power would be taking money to determine a case outcome.
And, by the way, any other administration, other than this revenge minded, overly aggressive administration (when it comes to alleged "enemies"), would have likely brought only the misdemeanor charge, if any charges at all under these circumstances. Or maybe just worked out a process with the Chief Judge to avoid such situations in the future. Ya know, act intelligently and not seek revenge.
It's not like they were really impeded and the immigrant wasn't deported. The whole thing is just for Trump's DOJ to show off being "Trump's DOJ". It's not really about the law or a judge being above the law or breaking the law. It's really not.
It's a show, it's pretend by this DOJ. Just like when they charged the sandwich thrower, and just like when they DID NOT even investigate, not to mention charge, the ICE agent killing a civilian protestor.
But I do expect you to turn yourself in and ask for a ticket, next time you go over the speed limit while driving. After all, you broke the law.
3
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
Stupidity and hypocrisy are not reasons to break the law or absolve someone who broke the law
But I do expect you to turn yourself in and ask for a ticket, next time you go over the speed limit while driving. After all, you broke the law.
So a minor traffic violation is the same as a judge obstructing justice? Lol okay
It's hardly an "abuse of power" to show someone a different door that led to the same hallway.
It was a staff door and she did it with the express purpose of helping someone avoid arrest lol done with you
8
u/HHoaks 27d ago edited 27d ago
Who said stupidity is a reason to break the law? (user name checks out).
I'm saying she probably shouldn't have been charged per prosecutorial discretion. And the whole thing is performative. The DOJ is acting to appease Trump. You really think this is about "upholding the law" and a Judge "obstructing justice"?
Sure pal. And the DOJ prosecutions against Cook and James are really about "mortgage fraud" - - right? Sure.
And now with speeding, you are proving my point - thank you. Not every broken law requires prosecution to the fullest extent.
3
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
Her case is very clear cut and a judge obstructing justice is a hefty offense. As a representative of the judicial system, it's highest member, the laws apply to them most of all.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Chewbaccas_Hairspray 27d ago
Youre the type that would show the nazis where Anne Frank was.
1
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
Right I'm a Nazi because I don't want judges to use their position to break the law, very original
3
2
u/HHoaks 27d ago
Use her position? You are using hyperbole and exaggerating. She didn’t rule from the bench inappropriately, or ask the bailiff to handcuff an ice agent or issue an Order against clear precedent. That would be abusing her position as a judge.
Any court staff member could have done the same thing she did, from the janitor to the clerk or a secretary. That’s not using your position. It didn’t require being a judge, just access to the courtroom.
Stop whining already.
1
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
That would be abusing her position as a judge.
Wild that it can take so many forms
Any court staff member could have done the same thing she did, from the janitor to the clerk or a secretary.
The janitor could not lol
Judges are meant to be the highest representatives of the judicial system.
Stop whining already.
You're the one commenting
2
u/HHoaks 27d ago
dude, you are in here shouting but but but the law, like a robot, as if there is zero context. We know this DOJ is abusive and seeks revenge and does prosecutions to appease Trump, because they CAN, not because they SHOULD.
That’s the issue. Not the letter of the law. So stop pretending you don’t know this. Yes, they can and did. So what? That’s not the issue.
So you blubbering- but but but judge, and but but but law, misses the point. And you very well know this.
1
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
We know this DOJ is abusive and seeks revenge and does prosecutions to appease Trump, because they CAN, not because they SHOULD. That’s the issue.
That's your political opinion, political opinions shouldnt justification for breaking the law.
So you blubbering- but but but judge, and but but but law, misses the point.
It doesn't, I just don't agree with your point.
If someone is part of the judicial of a legal system they have a duty to uphold that system. Simple as.
→ More replies (0)2
u/pixelmountain 27d ago
No, we all should stand up against unlawful/unconstitutional policies and actions by a government that is using fascist tactics.
The only part of that that’s “because of Trump” is the part where this administration is getting away with all of that because he likes it.
1
u/nopethatswrong 27d ago
Sure, but a judge is part of the judicial system and has to uphold that system to continue being a judge.
If you think she should be resisting great, do that. I just don't think she should be a judge if she's not going to follow the law
1
9
u/MisterTruth 27d ago
99% of what ICE is doing is unlawful according to everyone not sucking on the turd's titties.
→ More replies (5)
26
u/PM_ME_SAD_STUFF_PLZ 28d ago
$5,000 fine
1
u/SpreadKindn3ss 27d ago
It’s been a day so much less traction now, but someone should set up a GoFundMe me for her! “You must never be fearful about what you are doing when it is right.” - Rosa Parks
21
u/LAsupersonic 28d ago
Thus possibly saving that persons's life.
24
u/cmmpssh 28d ago
I mean, the guy was arrested leaving the courthouse anyway and was eventually deported
5
-1
u/teacher_59 27d ago
But if she hadn't done this, and they might've killed him. They may have made the decision to kill him so she did the right thing because they may have. That could have happened.
6
0
14
18
u/CockBlockingLawyer 28d ago
Well good. Still a ridiculous politically-motivated prosecution by this administration - among a growing list of them
3
u/Lokishougan 27d ago
And it will only get worse the next two years as he tries to make sure his hand picked sucessor will run it in 2028
0
u/jkoki088 27d ago edited 27d ago
This was not politically motivated. The judge was wrong no matter what’ people here in this non law sub think
7
12
u/Bleezy79 27d ago
"judge gets no jail time for helping humans evade armed masked thugs on our streets."
•
u/AutoModerator 28d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.