[prepend]

Oh, I’m certainly not endorsing the arrest of the judge.

But wouldn’t the bailiff hold the person?

Is it typical for the FBI to lose a suspect in this manner? If so, this seems dysfunctional as if someone is in the court system then jurisdictions need to coordinate to just operate efficiently. It needs fixing so if ICE wants someone and a local courthouse has them in custody that ICE can pick them up.

But arresting judging is not going to help fix this bureaucratic silliness.

[epistasis]

On what grounds would the bailiff hold the person?

I'm not sure why the courthouse should hold someone for ICE, it wasn't even necessary here they still got the person. All they had to do was stay where they were.

[prepend]

That theres a federal warrant for his detention.

I don't think this would be to hold them indefinitely. Just that they would have the suspect sit there and wait for the agents to return.

[epistasis]

What federal warrant was there? I don't see any mention of one but the best that ICE could issue is not a judicial warrant and does not meet most of the requirements under the 4th amendment for detainment of a person.

[nradov]

Generally state and local law enforcement and courts have no legal requirement to enforce most federal arrest warrants. This is due to our dual sovereignty system. Of course they also can't actively interfere with federal law enforcement or lie to federal officers, but it doesn't seem like that's what happened in this incident.

[ClumsyPilot]

No one is obligated to do ICE’s dirty work for them. Even most totalitarian countries don’t go that far.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

> local courthouse has them in custody

I think this is the disconnect you're seeing. He was not in custody: he was appearing before a judge.

[prepend]

Oh, thanks. I assumed he was appearing before the judge as a defendant and was in custody.