Thank you so much for this video. I’ve heard about ICE and CPB in Chicago, and now I understand what ordinary citizens are experiencing. I’m sure the regime is trying to make an example of your beautiful city, but the citizens are the peaceful people, and gov’t agencies the aggressors.
I plan on going to my first protest since the 60s on Saturday. I’m disabled, and I finally found a place I can attend without having to walk very far. I will remember what they are doing in Chicago, and hopefully remain safe. If not, I’ve lived a long life (85) and I will be doing something I value and enjoy.
Excellent discussion. Thank you. I think the initial reason Trump picked Chicago is because President Obama was from there. His jealousy of Obama knows no bounds. Even in Trumps first term and campaign he would always single out Chicago. Hope the courts can stop the deployment of the military as this is against the Constitution.
Add to that something I’m not sure it is a coincidence that he started in CA then to IL. Both Newsom and Pritzker are also talked about as potential presidential candidates. He would love to cow them or just make their large Dem states smoking ruins & see the rest of us wilt. (It ain’t happening.)
Please STOP trying distinguishing "arrest" and "detain." Detaining without allowing freedom to leave IS arrest. It's part of the definition of arrest. Being in cuffs outside your building is ARREST.
arrest isn't simply taking someone to jail. The usage should be "around 400 people were arrested during the action, with only about 37 taken away for further processing and the rest released without charges.
I'm pretty sure the tear gas is for the photo opp. WaPo had a picture labeled "ICE clashes with Protestors" Everyone was just standing there. Not even yelling. Later, a picture wreathed with smoke or gas. The only thing violent was the way the smoke swirled.
As for Chicago Tribune. I at least got a 3 month offer for $1.00 a month. I took it. The day before the expiration I went through the cancellation process. At the end, it asked if I wanted another 3 months for $1.00 a month. So I took it. This might be only if your ISP is way far away from Chicago.
I do think there is a difference between detaining & arresting. When journalists distinguish between them it is to be accurate. It may seem picky but it matters. As I understand it:
• Arrests are made on probable cause, evidence of committing a crime. Miranda rights apply. If a report states someone was arrested, it should mean there is evidence they committed a crime. (It may be fake evidence these day especially)
• Detentions are for short periods of time & made based on suspicion. Typically beyond identifying yourself you don’t have to answer questions. Advocacy groups advise asking if you are being detained or arrested.
• Miranda rights do NOT apply if you are detained. Only if you are arrested.
Customs & Border Protection (CBP) were and probably are still involved in these raids. All the targeted cities are in the “Border Zone”. ICE can go anywhere. Federal agents are another piece.
Pritzker has talked about how being in the zone is affecting Chicago. I’m thinking all these agencies being used as some sort of combined units is intentional to give legal cover & cause confusion to residents. It means whatever authority one agency doesn’t have, one of its buddies may. Masked, nameless & in tactical costumes it’s an almost impossible situation for their victims to know what they are dealing with.
The Border Zone gives the feds more latitude. CBP etc. is discussed in this article.
Actually no. Journalists are making a distinction long made before it mattered much, because "detentions" were, in fact, usually brief. But the actual definition of arrest INCLUDES detention for more than a brief period of time--in that, Kavanaugh was following the distinction but ignoring the "brief" part. And for a detention longer than a few minutes, probable cause IS in fact needed.
Most earlier detentions, I think, were mostly in pursuit of information--did you witness X or Y--and people generally said yes or no and were either happy to help or, if resistant, just said no. And they were on their way. There could be a brief detention if you were under "suspicion" but there had to be probable cause to HAVE that suspicion. Maintaining the detention comes arrest and needs a warrant except in a few types of cases.
The key is if you are free to leave. Advocacy groups should be advising that if "detained" you should ask if you are free to leave. If not, it is an arrest. Even a "stop and frisk" (a Terry Stop) requires probable cause. You can be detained without a warrant if "exigent circumstances" exist--you are caught doing the deed or there is probable cause to think you DID do the deed and will run away if not stopped. But a warrant thereafter has to be obtained to keep you.
We need to keep this in mind today because a lot of arrests in this sense are both NOT "brief detention" and are without what is usually understood to be probable cause. The Extremes have muddied the latter because Kavanaugh suggested that probable cause could include things that most of the world thinks could be sheer coincidence: being non white and in a Home Depot lot. (being non-white and a laborer certainly isn't coincidence , but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fishing for evidence). That wasn't a holding. It was Kavanaugh ignoring the facts on the ground.
Nowadays, it is important for an audience to understand what is going on. "Detention" seems sort of benign (as once it often was). There is nothing benign about what happened to those folks in the apartment house.
What happened to them WOULD be grounds for unlawful arrest were it not for the difficulty of finding someone to SUE. Immunities for law enforcement could stop a damages suit even if you had the money to pursue it. And which court you can go to is complicated in the case of the feds. If you are actually CHARGED a wrongful arrest, particularly without a Miranda warning, leads to inability of prosecutors to use evidence they obtained during that arrest. For damages when you are not charged, it is much tougher. Check out Steve Vladek for the problems:
If we don't keep pointing this out, we are normalizing the idea that detentions are no big deal. Lord KNOWS what the Extremes will come up with when they actually have to face defining probable cause--but it can't be good for the rights of all of us under the 4th Amendment if probable cause gets as loosey goosey as Kavanaugh wants it to be. Will my wearing my Aunt Tifa t-shirt on Saturday be "probable cause" to say I am a member of a terrorist group?
As far as Kavanaugh's definition of probable cause goes, it is going to be VERY hard to show that it exists because of the "connection" of living in an apartment house of 400 people that happens to have (it turns out) ONE Tren d'Aragua member staying in it and being black (and far less likely to be an undocumented immigrant than brown) and being poor.
If we want people to understand how far down the slope we are, we HAVE to start calling being held with zip ties with zippo probable cause that you did something AN ARREST.
I know Kavanaugh wrote that the detentions were ‘brief.’ It looks good on the record but I doubt he cares whether it means a few minutes or several hours or days. Supposedly when held by CBP “briefly” it is not to be over 72 hours (then release or transfer to another agency). Citizens do have their rights in CBP custody & there are TED guidelines. No penalties for violating the guidelines. Who will enforce them? CBP has long been allowed to behave lawlessly. Trump added gasoline to the fire.
Which leads to the apartment raid. DHS said the building was “known to be frequented by Tren de Aragua and their associates.” That’s the justification. Even in the Border Zone, ICE and CPB don’t have authority to break into private dwellings without a warrant. (CPB can enter private property but not dwellings within 25 miles of the border.) No warrants were provided to residents who asked. THIS is a key question & the act that came first. More clear cut than detaining/arresting. The Dems on House Judiciary are asking that & other questions. https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/judiciary-and-homeland-security-committees-launch-investigation-into-violent-chicago-immigration-raid
What you provided from Cornell was about arrest. This is on being detained.
“There is no bright light line between a detention and an arrest — courts will often look to a variety of factors in determining whether either has occurred during an interaction with police. While reasonable suspicion is required for detention of an individual by law enforcement, probable cause is a prerequisite for an arrest.”
I will grant you the free to leave part, though the question is still for how long? (I don’t think the CPB timeline addresses this issue: it just addresses how long after arrest they have to decide what to do with you). Part of the problem is that we haven’t had to DEAL with this distinction before now, given that ICE has so often NEITHER a “reasonable suspicion” nor probable cause. So while the link you cite has good advice, it is in the context of normal policing.
Think about it. The POINT of detention is to develop information (or fail to) leading either to arrest or release. First, if a cop has a “reasonable suspicion” but you exercise your right to be silent, how does he develop that info? In WA at least a cop can only “detain” you until he has confirmed or dispelled the suspicion.
One scenario in the usual criminal case might involve reasonable suspicion that you are the lookout for a burglary. YOU may stay silent, but if the cops are hot after the actual burglars, they might be able to detain you to see if said burglars ID you as connected with the theft. The length of time there might be longer than if the cop just saw you walking down the street in the vicinity.
But zip tying someone and leaving him in back of a building while you do other things? I suspect the time would be very short—about as long as it takes for ICE to walk away without questioning. And in the case of someone just sleeping in their apartment, the reasonable suspicion is zippo. I would HOPE that if there is not even reasonable suspicion, ANY detention morphs into arrest—wrongful arrest, but arrest just the same. Probably no case law on that in any quantity, but I’d hope some would develop. I’d hope that even WITH reasonable suspicion, a detention where no information can be developed further would morph quickly, too.
I still think we need to publicly use the term “arrest” rather than “detain” in the circumstances like the apartment invasion and many other similar events. And in the immigration context, “detaining” you till you provide proof you are a citizen should be considered arrest, as you have NO obligation to “show your papers'“—at least not yet.
It certainly can’t HURT to use this vocabulary for longer stops. Because ICE is constantly pushing the distinction to total lack of meaning.
The main “rights” distinction of course is whether or not Miranda is required, but I suspect ICE thinks, based on the ethnicity of the name, that Miranda was an “illegal alien” and can be ignored.
Of course, if when all the litigation regarding ICE’s actions reaches the Extremes, they might rethink their recent holding that even undocumented folk have 4th Amendment rights. Then all hell will break even looser than it already has. Until then, I agree completely with you on the topic of warrants. There simply is no such thing as a warrant for an entire building. Though trump will probably issue an “executive order” that warrants can cover anyone in a parking lot.
Non-citizens are required to carry ID. Some are now being fined (a long dormant law) for not doing so. US citizens can be detained until citizenship is verified. A big problem is the feds say ID is not ‘real’.
The ACLU makes a distinction between detention & arrest. I’m going to leave it at that. It could be years before the abuses are fully litigated. With this SCOTUS I wouldn’t make a bet on the results either way.
Immigration law & how it is applied is not like state laws. Plus, they can deputize state / local officers & National Guard.
Yes, the core problem remains mushiness of the detention time period & that too much is set in policy not law. State laws may say no handcuffs. I don’t believe there is such a federal law. Where there is law CBP has been allowed for eons to violate them with impunity. The courts usually sided with them. That is how we got a 100 mile Border Zone. The law said ‘reasonable distance.’ That’s how within 25 miles of the border there are fewer rights.
Typically the feds can enter public or common areas in a private building like the lobby. I have no idea whether a court would agree to a warrant allowing entry to all the apartments. Emil Bove would & perhaps others recently appointed after Thune worked around the Dems filibuster. I think how the raid happened indicates no warrant & that it was a made for publication event. Perhaps the first full scale ‘training’ of rapid deployment units. Aside from Noem cameras filming, One America News was the only network notified. (OAN also is the only network not refusing to sign new Pentagon reporting requirements.)
Again this has been happening for quite a while but not on this scale. What should be was eroded in the 1946 giving federal law enforcement more authority in a ‘reasonable distance’ from the border. Then in 1953, DOJ declared 100 mile zone was “reasonable” distance and put into federal regulations. No one has policed the “police” in these areas. Not even when they killed a teen on the Mexican side of the border for touching the US side & running back and forth.
I don’t have any problem with distinguishing detention from arrest in normal circumstances. All I am trying to say is that when the detention amounts to an arrest for whatever reason, we should CALL it an arrest.
One incident that seared me was a video of a guy who was stopped on the sidewalk. He was calmly answering the questions; another officer checked on her phone and said “he’s OK, he’s legal.” And the other agents bundled him into a van.
Yes, non-citizens with papers are required to carry them; those I know always have and certainly do now. Sometimes ICE doesn’t seem to know what “papers” are. I have a friend with a court order allowing him to stay. Certified copy, whole nine yards. Far as I know he hasn’t been stopped (he’s white) but I can easily see how ICE goons wouldn’t know a court order from a milkshake.
Yes, ICE can enter public spaces of a private business but they still need a warrant (which can be administrative) to arrest someone. The warrant has to name the individual or provide a specific description sufficient to identify the individual. In the words of the 4th Amendment, “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In Kavanaugh’s view, “brown” seems to be as close to particular as you need to be, of course.
Remember that K’s opinion is not a holding. It is a concurrence to a shadow docket ruling with no explanation from the majority.
And I just saw a headline about how red states are calling out their national guard to “deal with” No Kings day. Presumption of guilt before the event even starts. Also an admission that their own cops can’t deal with crowd control.
I remember that teen ager shooting case. Shame on the Obama Administration for not allowing extradition. And don’t get me started on the state of “standing” before this group of Extremes. It means apparently we can use it to allow or deny whatever politically we want to find.
It is very uplifting for me to see such solidarity of support against this barbarism. Not only with fellow Americans, but from Persons of Good Will around the world. For the Truths we Honor go well beyond any man-made border. They run deep and it’s this Kindred Spirit that will rise and become one. I am Hopeful!
The regime is using violence and mayhem on the streets of our cities in order to generate escalating violence in response. Let's not be in any doubt: Trump's goal is to assume plenary power under the pretext of an emergency of his creation. His next step will be to impose martial law. We are burying our heads in the sand if we think we are going to see fair elections next year. Next year?... November 2026 is a whole year away. What about the untold cruelty that he will unleash upon innocents in the meantime?
Yes, we will be out on the streets on Saturday in our multimillions. But let's also call upon unions to declare general strikes in support. What will it take, for example, for air traffic controllers to walk out en masse. We have to bring the country to a grinding halt if we intend to reverse course.
Thank you so much for this video. I’ve heard about ICE and CPB in Chicago, and now I understand what ordinary citizens are experiencing. I’m sure the regime is trying to make an example of your beautiful city, but the citizens are the peaceful people, and gov’t agencies the aggressors.
I plan on going to my first protest since the 60s on Saturday. I’m disabled, and I finally found a place I can attend without having to walk very far. I will remember what they are doing in Chicago, and hopefully remain safe. If not, I’ve lived a long life (85) and I will be doing something I value and enjoy.
Excellent discussion. Thank you. I think the initial reason Trump picked Chicago is because President Obama was from there. His jealousy of Obama knows no bounds. Even in Trumps first term and campaign he would always single out Chicago. Hope the courts can stop the deployment of the military as this is against the Constitution.
Add to that something I’m not sure it is a coincidence that he started in CA then to IL. Both Newsom and Pritzker are also talked about as potential presidential candidates. He would love to cow them or just make their large Dem states smoking ruins & see the rest of us wilt. (It ain’t happening.)
Please STOP trying distinguishing "arrest" and "detain." Detaining without allowing freedom to leave IS arrest. It's part of the definition of arrest. Being in cuffs outside your building is ARREST.
arrest isn't simply taking someone to jail. The usage should be "around 400 people were arrested during the action, with only about 37 taken away for further processing and the rest released without charges.
I'm pretty sure the tear gas is for the photo opp. WaPo had a picture labeled "ICE clashes with Protestors" Everyone was just standing there. Not even yelling. Later, a picture wreathed with smoke or gas. The only thing violent was the way the smoke swirled.
As for Chicago Tribune. I at least got a 3 month offer for $1.00 a month. I took it. The day before the expiration I went through the cancellation process. At the end, it asked if I wanted another 3 months for $1.00 a month. So I took it. This might be only if your ISP is way far away from Chicago.
I do think there is a difference between detaining & arresting. When journalists distinguish between them it is to be accurate. It may seem picky but it matters. As I understand it:
• Arrests are made on probable cause, evidence of committing a crime. Miranda rights apply. If a report states someone was arrested, it should mean there is evidence they committed a crime. (It may be fake evidence these day especially)
• Detentions are for short periods of time & made based on suspicion. Typically beyond identifying yourself you don’t have to answer questions. Advocacy groups advise asking if you are being detained or arrested.
• Miranda rights do NOT apply if you are detained. Only if you are arrested.
Customs & Border Protection (CBP) were and probably are still involved in these raids. All the targeted cities are in the “Border Zone”. ICE can go anywhere. Federal agents are another piece.
Pritzker has talked about how being in the zone is affecting Chicago. I’m thinking all these agencies being used as some sort of combined units is intentional to give legal cover & cause confusion to residents. It means whatever authority one agency doesn’t have, one of its buddies may. Masked, nameless & in tactical costumes it’s an almost impossible situation for their victims to know what they are dealing with.
The Border Zone gives the feds more latitude. CBP etc. is discussed in this article.
About 2/3 of the US population live in the border zone. https://www.southernborder.org/100_mile_border_enforcement_zone
Actually no. Journalists are making a distinction long made before it mattered much, because "detentions" were, in fact, usually brief. But the actual definition of arrest INCLUDES detention for more than a brief period of time--in that, Kavanaugh was following the distinction but ignoring the "brief" part. And for a detention longer than a few minutes, probable cause IS in fact needed.
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest
Most earlier detentions, I think, were mostly in pursuit of information--did you witness X or Y--and people generally said yes or no and were either happy to help or, if resistant, just said no. And they were on their way. There could be a brief detention if you were under "suspicion" but there had to be probable cause to HAVE that suspicion. Maintaining the detention comes arrest and needs a warrant except in a few types of cases.
The key is if you are free to leave. Advocacy groups should be advising that if "detained" you should ask if you are free to leave. If not, it is an arrest. Even a "stop and frisk" (a Terry Stop) requires probable cause. You can be detained without a warrant if "exigent circumstances" exist--you are caught doing the deed or there is probable cause to think you DID do the deed and will run away if not stopped. But a warrant thereafter has to be obtained to keep you.
We need to keep this in mind today because a lot of arrests in this sense are both NOT "brief detention" and are without what is usually understood to be probable cause. The Extremes have muddied the latter because Kavanaugh suggested that probable cause could include things that most of the world thinks could be sheer coincidence: being non white and in a Home Depot lot. (being non-white and a laborer certainly isn't coincidence , but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fishing for evidence). That wasn't a holding. It was Kavanaugh ignoring the facts on the ground.
Nowadays, it is important for an audience to understand what is going on. "Detention" seems sort of benign (as once it often was). There is nothing benign about what happened to those folks in the apartment house.
What happened to them WOULD be grounds for unlawful arrest were it not for the difficulty of finding someone to SUE. Immunities for law enforcement could stop a damages suit even if you had the money to pursue it. And which court you can go to is complicated in the case of the feds. If you are actually CHARGED a wrongful arrest, particularly without a Miranda warning, leads to inability of prosecutors to use evidence they obtained during that arrest. For damages when you are not charged, it is much tougher. Check out Steve Vladek for the problems:
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-182-damages-as-a-missing-deterrent
If we don't keep pointing this out, we are normalizing the idea that detentions are no big deal. Lord KNOWS what the Extremes will come up with when they actually have to face defining probable cause--but it can't be good for the rights of all of us under the 4th Amendment if probable cause gets as loosey goosey as Kavanaugh wants it to be. Will my wearing my Aunt Tifa t-shirt on Saturday be "probable cause" to say I am a member of a terrorist group?
As far as Kavanaugh's definition of probable cause goes, it is going to be VERY hard to show that it exists because of the "connection" of living in an apartment house of 400 people that happens to have (it turns out) ONE Tren d'Aragua member staying in it and being black (and far less likely to be an undocumented immigrant than brown) and being poor.
If we want people to understand how far down the slope we are, we HAVE to start calling being held with zip ties with zippo probable cause that you did something AN ARREST.
I know Kavanaugh wrote that the detentions were ‘brief.’ It looks good on the record but I doubt he cares whether it means a few minutes or several hours or days. Supposedly when held by CBP “briefly” it is not to be over 72 hours (then release or transfer to another agency). Citizens do have their rights in CBP custody & there are TED guidelines. No penalties for violating the guidelines. Who will enforce them? CBP has long been allowed to behave lawlessly. Trump added gasoline to the fire.
Which leads to the apartment raid. DHS said the building was “known to be frequented by Tren de Aragua and their associates.” That’s the justification. Even in the Border Zone, ICE and CPB don’t have authority to break into private dwellings without a warrant. (CPB can enter private property but not dwellings within 25 miles of the border.) No warrants were provided to residents who asked. THIS is a key question & the act that came first. More clear cut than detaining/arresting. The Dems on House Judiciary are asking that & other questions. https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/judiciary-and-homeland-security-committees-launch-investigation-into-violent-chicago-immigration-raid
What you provided from Cornell was about arrest. This is on being detained.
“There is no bright light line between a detention and an arrest — courts will often look to a variety of factors in determining whether either has occurred during an interaction with police. While reasonable suspicion is required for detention of an individual by law enforcement, probable cause is a prerequisite for an arrest.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/detain
Here is a law office that provides guidance on the difference between being arrested and detained. I suspect the state laws vary on the specifics.
https://www.bryanlawyer.com/blog/2024/september/how-to-tell-if-youre-under-arrested-or-being-det/
I will grant you the free to leave part, though the question is still for how long? (I don’t think the CPB timeline addresses this issue: it just addresses how long after arrest they have to decide what to do with you). Part of the problem is that we haven’t had to DEAL with this distinction before now, given that ICE has so often NEITHER a “reasonable suspicion” nor probable cause. So while the link you cite has good advice, it is in the context of normal policing.
Think about it. The POINT of detention is to develop information (or fail to) leading either to arrest or release. First, if a cop has a “reasonable suspicion” but you exercise your right to be silent, how does he develop that info? In WA at least a cop can only “detain” you until he has confirmed or dispelled the suspicion.
One scenario in the usual criminal case might involve reasonable suspicion that you are the lookout for a burglary. YOU may stay silent, but if the cops are hot after the actual burglars, they might be able to detain you to see if said burglars ID you as connected with the theft. The length of time there might be longer than if the cop just saw you walking down the street in the vicinity.
But zip tying someone and leaving him in back of a building while you do other things? I suspect the time would be very short—about as long as it takes for ICE to walk away without questioning. And in the case of someone just sleeping in their apartment, the reasonable suspicion is zippo. I would HOPE that if there is not even reasonable suspicion, ANY detention morphs into arrest—wrongful arrest, but arrest just the same. Probably no case law on that in any quantity, but I’d hope some would develop. I’d hope that even WITH reasonable suspicion, a detention where no information can be developed further would morph quickly, too.
I still think we need to publicly use the term “arrest” rather than “detain” in the circumstances like the apartment invasion and many other similar events. And in the immigration context, “detaining” you till you provide proof you are a citizen should be considered arrest, as you have NO obligation to “show your papers'“—at least not yet.
It certainly can’t HURT to use this vocabulary for longer stops. Because ICE is constantly pushing the distinction to total lack of meaning.
The main “rights” distinction of course is whether or not Miranda is required, but I suspect ICE thinks, based on the ethnicity of the name, that Miranda was an “illegal alien” and can be ignored.
Of course, if when all the litigation regarding ICE’s actions reaches the Extremes, they might rethink their recent holding that even undocumented folk have 4th Amendment rights. Then all hell will break even looser than it already has. Until then, I agree completely with you on the topic of warrants. There simply is no such thing as a warrant for an entire building. Though trump will probably issue an “executive order” that warrants can cover anyone in a parking lot.
Non-citizens are required to carry ID. Some are now being fined (a long dormant law) for not doing so. US citizens can be detained until citizenship is verified. A big problem is the feds say ID is not ‘real’.
The ACLU makes a distinction between detention & arrest. I’m going to leave it at that. It could be years before the abuses are fully litigated. With this SCOTUS I wouldn’t make a bet on the results either way.
Immigration law & how it is applied is not like state laws. Plus, they can deputize state / local officers & National Guard.
Yes, the core problem remains mushiness of the detention time period & that too much is set in policy not law. State laws may say no handcuffs. I don’t believe there is such a federal law. Where there is law CBP has been allowed for eons to violate them with impunity. The courts usually sided with them. That is how we got a 100 mile Border Zone. The law said ‘reasonable distance.’ That’s how within 25 miles of the border there are fewer rights.
Typically the feds can enter public or common areas in a private building like the lobby. I have no idea whether a court would agree to a warrant allowing entry to all the apartments. Emil Bove would & perhaps others recently appointed after Thune worked around the Dems filibuster. I think how the raid happened indicates no warrant & that it was a made for publication event. Perhaps the first full scale ‘training’ of rapid deployment units. Aside from Noem cameras filming, One America News was the only network notified. (OAN also is the only network not refusing to sign new Pentagon reporting requirements.)
Again this has been happening for quite a while but not on this scale. What should be was eroded in the 1946 giving federal law enforcement more authority in a ‘reasonable distance’ from the border. Then in 1953, DOJ declared 100 mile zone was “reasonable” distance and put into federal regulations. No one has policed the “police” in these areas. Not even when they killed a teen on the Mexican side of the border for touching the US side & running back and forth.
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/25/809401334/supreme-court-rules-border-patrol-agents-who-shoot-foreign-nationals-cant-be-sue#:~:text=Supreme%20Court%20Rules%20Border%20Patrol%20Agents%20Who,to%20sue%20for%20damages%20in%20U.S.%20courts.
I don’t have any problem with distinguishing detention from arrest in normal circumstances. All I am trying to say is that when the detention amounts to an arrest for whatever reason, we should CALL it an arrest.
One incident that seared me was a video of a guy who was stopped on the sidewalk. He was calmly answering the questions; another officer checked on her phone and said “he’s OK, he’s legal.” And the other agents bundled him into a van.
Yes, non-citizens with papers are required to carry them; those I know always have and certainly do now. Sometimes ICE doesn’t seem to know what “papers” are. I have a friend with a court order allowing him to stay. Certified copy, whole nine yards. Far as I know he hasn’t been stopped (he’s white) but I can easily see how ICE goons wouldn’t know a court order from a milkshake.
Yes, ICE can enter public spaces of a private business but they still need a warrant (which can be administrative) to arrest someone. The warrant has to name the individual or provide a specific description sufficient to identify the individual. In the words of the 4th Amendment, “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In Kavanaugh’s view, “brown” seems to be as close to particular as you need to be, of course.
Remember that K’s opinion is not a holding. It is a concurrence to a shadow docket ruling with no explanation from the majority.
Interesting new report from Pro Publica
https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-detained-against-will
And I just saw a headline about how red states are calling out their national guard to “deal with” No Kings day. Presumption of guilt before the event even starts. Also an admission that their own cops can’t deal with crowd control.
I remember that teen ager shooting case. Shame on the Obama Administration for not allowing extradition. And don’t get me started on the state of “standing” before this group of Extremes. It means apparently we can use it to allow or deny whatever politically we want to find.
Thank you, Steven and Mark, for your insights.
It is very uplifting for me to see such solidarity of support against this barbarism. Not only with fellow Americans, but from Persons of Good Will around the world. For the Truths we Honor go well beyond any man-made border. They run deep and it’s this Kindred Spirit that will rise and become one. I am Hopeful!
Thank you so much for this, Steven and Mark.
The regime is using violence and mayhem on the streets of our cities in order to generate escalating violence in response. Let's not be in any doubt: Trump's goal is to assume plenary power under the pretext of an emergency of his creation. His next step will be to impose martial law. We are burying our heads in the sand if we think we are going to see fair elections next year. Next year?... November 2026 is a whole year away. What about the untold cruelty that he will unleash upon innocents in the meantime?
Yes, we will be out on the streets on Saturday in our multimillions. But let's also call upon unions to declare general strikes in support. What will it take, for example, for air traffic controllers to walk out en masse. We have to bring the country to a grinding halt if we intend to reverse course.
Exactly, Ann! Well said on both counts.
The government being shut down is the perfect time for a general strike.
If I see one more big response to the solution being a ‘peaceful divorce’ separating blue and red states I may puke.
YOUR VOICE — Use it or Lose it!
Ann Telnaes says to use her cartoons for signs on October 18th. She offered a few sample suggestions. ♥️
https://substack.com/home/post/p-176102547
Republicans openly flaunting swastika and destruction of minorities