Opinion ID: 767955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Interpretations of the Enforcement Authorities

Text: 112 Lastly we come upon the views of the enforcing authorities, that is, the ones that on a day to day basis are in the business of detaining and arresting persons, some of which are foreign nationals, and thus are charged with the practical implementation of Article 36 and Article 35. In this respect I should restate my view that once the pertinent treaty is ratified and thus incorporated into municipal law, the State Department should no longer be considered an enforcing authority. The principal federal governmental entities fitting this description are the Department of Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 9 precisely the two authorities directly involved in appellants' detention and arrest. Both have explicit regulations respecting the issue before us, see 28 C.F.R. § 50.5; 8 C.F.R. § 236.1, both of which regulations were ignored with apparent impunity, and now, with judicial blessing, will continue to be transgressed per saecula saeculorum. 113 The INS regulation specifically requires that [e]very detained alien shall be notified that he or she may communicate with the consular or diplomatic officers of the country of his or her nationality in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(e) (emphasis supplied). The Department of Justice's regulation also requires that [i]n every case in which a foreign national is arrested the arresting officer shall inform the foreign national that his consul will be advised of his arrest unless he does not wish such notification to be given. 10 28 C.F.R. § 50.5(1) (emphasis supplied). Notwithstanding these regulations and their conceded violation by the detaining authorities, it appears that the majority is willing to carve out an exception, where aliens are concerned, to the well-established rule which demands of the Government compliance with its own regulations. See, e.g., Fort Stewart Schs. v. FLRA, 495 U.S. 641, 654 (1990) (citing Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 547 (1959), and Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 388 (1957)).