Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

No. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a "sanctuary city", but it doesn't matter. Cities are not responsible for injuries caused by their residents, regardless of the residents' legal status. Being an illegal immigrant is a civil violation, not a crime, so even if the city somehow "harbors" such people they are not criminals. Perhaps harming you made one of them a criminal, but the same would be true if she were a citizen.

I disagree with Mr. Hoffman to some extent. Entering the United States illegally is not a civil violation, it is a crime. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1325, crossing the border illegally is a crime�a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for the second and subsequent offenses. A lot of the statements that it is a civil matter stem from comments made by Janet Napolitano, the current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

The term "sanctuary city" does not have any legal meaning. It applies to cities that do not allow local law enforcement officials to inquire about a person's citizenship or immigration status. The purpose is to foster openness and cooperation with law enforcement. Contrary to popular belief, it does not prevent deportation or enforcement of immigration laws. The federal government can and does routinely conduct deportation of illegal aliens from "sanctuary cities."

Immigration matters are really the sole province of the federal government, not state and local governments. State and local laws that discriminate on the basis of immigration status are always suspect as unconstitutional. Those laws are always subject to strict scrutiny upon judicial review, in which a compelling state interest must be shown to justify disparate treatment.

With that said, any lawsuit you filed against a city for having a sanctuary policy based on your injury would lack merit. Your claim that having a sanctuary policy is not a sufficient cause, or foreseeable risk to you, and arguably, the criminal actions of an individual are an intervening and superseding cause of any injuries you sustained in a negligence cause of action against a city.

Mr. Roach makes a valid point, but in reality few illegal immigrants are charged under the statute he cites. Most are instead processed for civil violations. Bringing criminal charges would entitle the defendant to various protections that he is not entitled to have in a deportation case. These include the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to a trial before an Article III federal judge and a jury, appointment of counsel if the defendant is indigent, etc.

Another reason few are prosecuted is that it costs more to bring a criminal case than a deportation case. It also costs more to jail a convicted defender and then deport him than it does to simply deport him in the first instance. Unless there is reason to think a particular immigrant poses a danger to society, it usually makes more sense to simply deport him without bringing criminal charges.

What's more, the crime of illegal entry is subject to a five-year statute of limitations. The clock starts ticking at the time of entry. Illegal aliens who have been here longer than five years cannot be prosecuted under 8 U.S.C. 1325, but they can still be deported. Deportation proceedings are civil in nature, not criminal.

A minor correction. A moment ago I said that "few illegal immigrants are charged under" 8 U.S.C. 1325. That's true of defendants who have not previously been ordered deported. Repeat offenders are charged much more often than first-timers, and face more serious consequences.