HR Bill 875 is currently pending in Congress, aimed at amending the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to categorize driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while impaired (DWI) as grounds both for denying entry to non‑citizens (“inadmissibility”) and for deportation (“removability”).

Here's a quick summary of what you need to know:

Why is the bill before Congress?

• Public safety: Advocates point to DUI-drivers potential for risk to public safety, claiming that alcohol‑impaired driving accounted for approximately 31% of crash fatalities (10,850 annual deaths,) 2012–2021. 
• Immigration gap: Due to varied state DUI classifications—some being misdemeanors—DUI convictions currently don’t consistently trigger removal, creating a "loophole" in federal immigration law.  This law would affect all non‑citizens, including Permanent Residents (green card holders), visa holders (e.g., H‑1B, B‑1), and applicants. Those in the country on a Visa could face troubles renewing. 
• Zero-Tolerance: The bill treats all DUIs uniformly, regardless of misdemeanor/felony status, aiming to ensure that any DUI-convicted non‑citizen can be denied entry or removed. As the legislation does not differentiate between misdemeanor- and felony-level DUI, critics argue this risks overly harsh deportation for low-level offenses. Unfortunately, during committee review, a proposed amendment (led by Rep. Jayapal, D‑WA) to allow consideration of mitigating factors (e.g., remorse, time since offense, family ties) was rejected .

What could this mean for non-citizens?
Under current law, various criminal convictions (e.g., controlled-substance offenses, crimes involving moral turpitude) already make non‑citizens inadmissible. H.R. 875 adds DUI/DWI to this list:

• Applies to any non‑citizen (“alien”) convicted of, admitting to, or admitting actions that meet the legal definition of DUI/DWI in the jurisdiction where the offense occurred.
• Covers alcohol‑ or drug‑related impairment.
• Applies regardless of whether the conviction is a misdemeanor or felony under federal, state, tribal, or local law.

In addition to inadmissibility, the bill establishes DUI/DWI conviction as a removal ground:

• Any non‑citizen convicted of DUI/DWI becomes subject to deportation procedures.
• Again, no distinction is drawn between misdemeanors and felonies.
• The trigger is conviction only—the individual must have been formally convicted (as opposed to simply admitting to the conduct).

​The Law Office of Devina Douglas will keep you up to date on the progress of this bill.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, contains several fundamental protections for individuals involved in the criminal justice system and has been central to numerous landmark Supreme Court decisions that have shaped criminal procedure and constitutional law. Cases such as Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established the requirement for law enforcement to inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights (Miranda rights) before custodial interrogation, have had profound implications for law enforcement practices and protections against coerced confessions.

The Fifth Amendment is composed of several key clauses:

1. Grand Jury Requirement: The Fifth Amendment mandates that serious federal criminal charges must be initiated by a grand jury, except in cases arising from military or naval forces during wartime or in cases of impeachment. A grand jury is a panel of citizens that reviews evidence presented by prosecutors to determine whether there is sufficient probable cause to indict a defendant and bring them to trial. This requirement serves as a check on governmental power and helps ensure that criminal prosecutions are based on credible evidence rather than arbitrary accusations.

2. Protection Against Double Jeopardy: The Fifth Amendment prohibits individuals from being tried twice for the same offense ("double jeopardy"). This principle prevents the government from subjecting defendants to repeated trials and punishments for the same conduct, protecting against potential harassment and abuse by prosecutors. Once a defendant has been acquitted or convicted of a particular offense, they cannot be retried for that same offense, regardless of new evidence that may emerge.

3. Protection Against Self-Incrimination: The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves in a criminal case. This protection against self-incrimination ensures that individuals cannot be forced to provide testimony or evidence that could potentially lead to their own prosecution. The famous phrase "taking the Fifth" refers to invoking this right to refuse to answer questions or provide testimony that may incriminate oneself.

4. Due Process of Law: The Fifth Amendment includes a due process clause that requires the government to follow fair and established legal procedures when depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property. This ensures that individuals have access to a fair trial, legal representation, and the opportunity to confront witnesses and evidence against them. Due process guarantees are fundamental to protecting individual rights and ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted fairly and transparently.

5. Just Compensation for Eminent Domain: The Fifth Amendment also includes a provision regarding eminent domain, stating that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. This means that if the government exercises its power of eminent domain to seize private property for purposes such as building roads or public facilities, the property owner must receive fair compensation for the value of the property taken.

Contemporary Issues: In contemporary debates, the Fifth Amendment continues to be relevant in discussions about police interrogation practices, the use of evidence in criminal trials, and the balance between individual rights and law enforcement interests. Issues such as the application of Miranda rights in digital communication contexts and the scope of protections against self-incrimination in the face of advancing technology highlight ongoing challenges in interpreting and applying Fifth Amendment principles in modern society.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, providing essential protections for individuals involved in the criminal justice system. Its provisions ensure fairness, protect against government overreach, and uphold fundamental rights such as due process, protection against self-incrimination, and just compensation for property rights. As society evolves and legal challenges emerge, the Fifth Amendment remains a critical safeguard of individual liberties and a bulwark against arbitrary state power.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, is a crucial safeguard of individual privacy and protection against unreasonable government intrusion, and had broad implications for criminal defense. It reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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."

The Fourth Amendment arose from the Founding Fathers' concerns about British colonial practices, such as general warrants and writs of assistance, which allowed officials to conduct searches without specific suspicion or evidence. These practices were deeply resented by colonists and were seen as emblematic of arbitrary state power.

During the debates over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there was a consensus among the framers that protecting individual privacy and property from unwarranted government intrusion was essential to safeguarding liberty. The Fourth Amendment reflects a commitment to limiting the scope of governmental authority to conduct searches and seizures, ensuring that such actions are based on probable cause and subject to judicial oversight.

Core principles of the 4th Amendment include:

1. Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: The Fourth Amendment guarantees that individuals have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This protection extends to both physical searches (such as entering a home or searching a vehicle) and non-physical intrusions (such as wiretapping or electronic surveillance).
2. Requirement of Probable Cause: To conduct a search or seizure, law enforcement officials must demonstrate probable cause, which means they must have a reasonable belief, based on specific facts, that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched or the person to be seized.
3. Warrant Requirement: The Fourth Amendment generally requires that searches and seizures be conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. The warrant must be supported by probable cause and must specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. This requirement ensures that searches are conducted in a targeted and limited manner, minimizing the potential for abuse of governmental power.
4. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: While warrants are generally required, there are several well-established exceptions where law enforcement may conduct searches and seizures without a warrant. These exceptions include:

• Exigent Circumstances: When there is an immediate threat to public safety or the potential destruction of evidence.
• Search Incident to Arrest: When a person is lawfully arrested, police may search the person and the area within their immediate control to ensure officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence.
• Consent: When an individual voluntarily consents to a search without coercion or duress.
• Plain View: When contraband or evidence of a crime is in plain view of law enforcement officers.

The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has evolved through landmark Supreme Court decisions that have shaped its application in modern contexts. Key cases include:

• Katz v. United States (1967): The Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places, extending the amendment's protections to electronic surveillance and requiring warrants for wiretaps.
• Terry v. Ohio (1968): Established the "stop and frisk" exception, allowing law enforcement officers to conduct brief searches of individuals they reasonably suspect of criminal activity, even without probable cause for arrest.
• United States v. Jones (2012): Addressed the use of GPS tracking devices, ruling that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and monitoring its movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant.

These cases illustrate the Court's ongoing efforts to balance individual privacy rights with the needs of law enforcement to maintain public safety and enforce the law effectively.

In contemporary society, the Fourth Amendment remains at the center of debates surrounding technology, surveillance, and national security. Issues such as warrantless electronic surveillance, the use of drones for surveillance purposes, and the collection of digital data by government agencies raise significant questions about the scope of Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age.

Recent developments, such as the Edward Snowden revelations about mass surveillance programs, have sparked renewed scrutiny of government practices and calls for reforms to ensure that electronic communications and data are adequately protected from warrantless searches and seizures. Additionally, concerns about racial profiling, police misconduct, and the use of excessive force have prompted discussions about how Fourth Amendment protections can be strengthened to prevent abuses of power and promote accountability within law enforcement agencies.

In conclusion, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution stands as a fundamental safeguard of individual privacy and liberty against unreasonable governmental searches and seizures. It reflects the Founding Fathers' commitment to limiting the powers of the state and ensuring that law enforcement actions are conducted with respect for due process and judicial oversight. Through landmark Supreme Court decisions and ongoing legal debates, the Fourth Amendment continues to evolve to address new challenges posed by technological advancements and changing societal norms. Its enduring principles underscore the importance of balancing governmental authority with individual rights, ensuring that the rights of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects remain protected in a modern and dynamic society