In a civil lawsuit over the fatal shooting of Ismael Lopez by police, an attorney for the city of Southaven argued Lopez lacks constitutional rights because of his prior criminal record and unauthorized immigration status - an argument that lawyers for the Lopez family reject as "insane."

"Ismael Lopez may have been a person on American soil but he was not one of the 'We, the People of the United States' entitled to the civil rights invoked in this lawsuit," wrote the attorney for the city, Katherine S. Kerby of Columbus, Mississippi. Kerby is also representing former Southaven police officer Zachary Durden, whom investigators concluded fired the fatal shot.

Ismael Lopez was shot and killed by Southaven police one night in July 2017 at his own home in a highly publicized case.

Courts have concluded that people living in the country illegally do, in fact, have various rights and protections. For instance, in 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case Plyler v. Doe that children have the right to a basic education, regardless of immigration status.

An attorney for the Lopez family, Aaron Neglia, called the city's argument, "the most insane thing I've ever heard."

He paraphrased the city's position: "And because he's an undocumented immigrant who has no constitutional protections, it's OK for the city of Southaven to kill him."

In a news conference, lawyers appeared alongside Claudia Linares, the widow of Lopez. "No hay palabras," she began in Spanish, which means "There are no words."

Reached Thursday morning, Kerby, the city's attorney, she said she wanted to keep her comments limited, as the case is still pending in federal court in Mississippi.

"I think that the constitutional rights to bring suit are being litigated but understand — I'm arguing existing law. Not new law," she said.

She said she believes the controlling law is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.

That case had to do with a suspected drug smuggler who lived in Mexico. According to a synopsis of the case, he was apprehended in Mexico by Mexican authorities and then handed over to U.S. officials, who searched his home in Mexico and found evidence.

The defendant later argued that the items seized should not be admitted as evidence, because they violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to foreigners in foreign territory or to international waters.

Kerby said she also relied on a 2011 case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Portillo-Munoz. That case had to do with a Mexican man who had entered the United States illegally and possessed a firearm, according to a synopsis. People in the country illegally are barred from owning guns, and Portillo-Munoz argued he had a Second Amendment right to bear arms. The appeals court ruled against him.

In a response to the court filings, Lopez's lawyers said Verdugo-Urquidez doesn't apply because it had to do with an arrest and search on foreign soil, not the United States.

And the attorneys for Lopez point to a separate paragraph from Portillo-Munoz decision, in which judges ruled that the decision did not impact Fourth Amendment protections against government abuse.

More broadly, the lawyers for the Lopez family argue constitutional protections apply to "all persons" in the United States, not just citizens.

The lawyers for Lopez's family also attacked other arguments that the city attorney had brought against Linares, the widow, including that she wasn't really married to Lopez: "Plaintiff Linares remains without credibility and has no standing as a common law spouse or bigamous paramour or partner by romantic affinity."

Lawyers for the Lopez family responded by filing a marriage certificate showing the couple was wed in Crittenden County, Arkansas.

The city also argued among other things that Linares lacks standing because she herself is an unauthorized immigrant.

Attorney Murray Wells says Linares' immigration status is irrelevant, because attorney Ed Autry is acting on behalf of the estate.

The family's attorneys argue that these arguments against Linares' character are so offensive that they should be sanctioned by the court.

Lopez was a well-known auto mechanic in his neighborhood and his shooting sparked immediate complaints and protests.

An investigative report from the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation includes witness statements that during a search for a domestic violence suspect suspect, police officers had gone to the wrong home. A dog ran out of the home and one of the Southaven officers shot at it. The other officer fired into the house, the investigation concluded.

A lawyer for the police officers involved has alleged that Lopez pointed a .22-caliber rifle at officers, and an MBI report reached the same conclusion. Lawyers for the family dispute this.

Lopez had a criminal record dating from the late 1990s in Washington state on charges of domestic violence and driving under the influence, according to the MBI report on the shooting. The report said he had been deported more than once to Mexico and returned without permission.

That same MBI investigative report says three police bullets passed through the home's front door and one hit Lopez in the back of the head, killing him. Investigators concluded the door was open about 1 ¼ inches when one bullet passed through, and that it was open about 3 inches when another bullet went through. The report says investigators weren't sure whether the door was open or closed during the fatal shot.

Investigative reporter Daniel Connolly welcomes tips and comments from the public. Reach him at 529-5296, daniel.connolly@commercialappeal.com, or on Twitter at @danielconnolly.