Judge Temporarily Blocks Border Patrol From Arresting Illegal Aliens Without Reasonable Suspicion
I repeat myself: READ THE ENTIRE OPINION.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the Eastern District of California issued a temporary injunction, blocking border patrol from arresting illegal aliens without reasonable suspicion.
The ruling only applies to people in the Eastern District.
Now I must stress this. Thurston’s ruling does not ban border patrol agents from arresting illegal aliens. She said they need a warrant to arrest them, or the agents must have probable cause. The skin color does not matter.
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 15) is GRANTED, as follows:
a. Border Patrol is enjoined from conducting detentive stops in this District unless, pre-stop, the detaining agent has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is a noncitizen who is present within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law, as required by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
b. Border Patrol is enjoined from effecting warrantless arrests in this District unless, pre-arrest, the arresting agent has probable cause to believe that the noncitizen being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2).
c. Any Border Patrol agent who conducts a detentive stop in this District SHALL, as soon as practicable, document the facts and circumstances surrounding the stop in a narrative form. This documentation SHALL include the specific, particularized facts that supported the agent’s reasonable suspicion, which was formed in advance of the stop, that: (i) for vehicle stops, the vehicle contained a noncitizen present within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law; and (ii) for stops on foot, the person stopped was a noncitizen within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law. The documentation SHALL include the date and time that the agent completed the detentive stop and the date and time the agent completed the documentation.
d. Any Border Patrol agent who conducts a warrantless arrest in this District SHALL comply with all requirements set forth in DHS’s “Broadcast Statement of Policy” on compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), including but not limited to the requirement that as soon as practicable after an arrest, agents SHALL document in writing “the facts and circumstances surrounding the warrantless arrest” and the “specific, particularized facts supporting the conclusion that the [individual] was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained.”
It does sound like the agents rounded up people based on their skin color. Thurston’s opinion just reminds the agents that they must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Now I’ll get into the details of the opinion.
The plaintiffs wanted the court to stop the defendants from “(1) detentive stops without regard to reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is in the country unlawfully, and (2) warrantless arrests without regard to probable cause that the person arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”
The ACLU claimed “border patrol agents spent nearly a week unconstitutionally detaining people who ‘appeared to be farmworkers or day laborers, regardless of their actual immigration status or individual circumstances.'”
The organization said the people “were bussed to the border, held without any way to contact family or attorneys, and coerced into signing papers that said they had waived their right to see an immigration judge and voluntarily agreed to leave the country.”
Thurston wrote:
As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ anecdotal evidence establishes a pattern and practice of agents performing detentive stops without reasonable suspicion in this District. In addition, the evidence shows a pattern and practice of warrantless arrests without Border Patrol agents performing individualized flight risk assessments to have probable cause for the arrest as required. This evidence of the identified patterns and practices also shows a likelihood of success on the merits for the claims of the Suspicionless Stop Class and Warrantless Arrest Class.
Thurston cited a Ninth Circuit ruling that said “if a plaintiff who brings a claim for a constitutional violation shows a likelihood of success on the merits, ‘that showing will almost always demonstrate he is suffering irreparable harm as well.'”
“Consequently, violations of the Fourth Amendment show an irreparable harm that supports a request for injunctive relief,” concluded Thurston.
Thurston justified the decision because the El Centro Sector kept expressing “an intent to perform additional operations in the Eastern District of California, including Bakersfield, Fresno, and Sacramento.”
“These statements show Border Patrol agents from the El Centro Sector do not intend to comply with the requirements to perform flight risk assessments for probable cause in the forthcoming operations—including in this District— but to perform warrantless arrests without probable cause,” wrote Thurston. “Consequently, Plaintiffs have shown imminent, irreparable harm to the Warrantless Arrest Class.”
The defendants could also not claim the lawsuit is moot due to new guidance issued by the border patrol known as a Muster.
Thurston said the Muster does not count because it is not broad in scope. Instead, the Muster has a narrow scope and only applies to the local sector.
It also did not help that the “Border Patrol issued the Muster a single business day before the deadline for Defendants to oppose the pending request for a preliminary injunction.”
But Thurston pointed out that “policies in existence for months do not support a finding of mootness.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
How the hell do you determine whether someone is an illegal unless you stop them and request they identify themselves?
Most of the cases the last couple months have been people they knew were both illegal and criminals.
I guess you would be fine with men in black trench coats stopping you and saying. “Show me your papers”? Does that bring back memories of another regimen?
Are you worrying about those 85,000 IRS Agents? They’re gone now.
No, I’m worried about Americans doing what the Germans did in 1939, allowing this to happen here. We have a Constitution, and it isn’t canceled because of popular opinion.
Yes, it does remind me of another regime. One where people were arrested for being present at a protest. Except those people were in Washington, DC, protesting. Virtually all peacefully, and having committed the crime of entering an area “unlawfully”.
You want to tell me what you think the willingness of this judge would be to issue similar warrants under similar circumstances?
What does that have to do with showing ID? What do 87.000 IRS agents have to do with showing ID? Are you guys drinking and blogging?
No but I would be fine with them stopping you,
The question I asked is a legitimate one. Do you have an answer to it?
The answer is that in a free country the police can’t stop someone without reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offense. There has historically been an exception for the Border Patrol; now this judge has temporarily suspended that exception, within this district, because of reports that it’s being abused. Congress should get rid of that exception altogether, nationwide and permanently, but the judge didn’t do that.
Well we are not a free country. There are rules. Some of these rules vary state to state. Reasonable suspicion always seems to be required but that begs the question what exactly is reasonable. Requesting ID can always be done but the requirement to show it varies from state to state. In some state you must always show it. In others you must show it only in certain circumstances.
It’s a silly thing called the law. Thank God you didn’t help write the Constitution!
Yeah I’d be about 280 now,
Your answer is no answer.
Police already do that. “I need to see some ID! to some hapless person sitting at a park picnic table. Their excuse is always the ever popular “we received a phone call…”.
BS! You do not have to show any ID unless you are a witness to an incident or crime. Just standing on the street, minding your own business, does not require showing anything. If the cops demand to see ID without probable, they are wrong and many people have gotten richer because of their illegal actions.
Where did I say one had to? I’m talking about what cops do. “Papers!” you’re damn right I’m not gonna show them papers.
Border patrol is already authorized by law, to stop everyone and request ID within 100 miles of the border. Were you aware of that long standing law?
And now in this district they temporarily can’t. That seems reasonable.
I may be wrong, but I believe they have to have reasonable suspicion. Seeing a man and a child in an area where there are no homes or roads would be probable suspicion.
Yeah, if you fit the description of the suspect, then why not,..cops do it to US citizens daily
There wasn’t a “suspect” in these cases.
It brings back memories of Europe before the EU. It was never considered necessary here .., until now.
Has your car ever been stopped at a State Patrol DUI “safety checkpoint”? Did you scream “Nazi s!!” at that time?
You can’t, this is another gross abuse of judicial authority by the federal courts, A particularly stupid one. No valid class exists under federal law. This order is, at best, an improper injunction requiring federal agencies generally to obey the law, at worst, it’s another attempt by a federal judge to craft federal law enforcement policy. It is frustrating but it will not stand. I wish Congress would get more proactive with judicial reform but I frankly don’t know what the @#$ they’re doing, if anything.
No valid class exists under federal law.
Huh?
an improper injunction requiring federal agencies generally to obey the law
How is an injunction to follow the law improper?
Okay my response to my question. I would build a database if illegals and use facial recognition to call them out. Of course the progressives hate facial recognition and here is where they wave their hands about the same underrepresented groups they don’t want to be stopped and deported.
Where would I get the pictures from? From cameras installed at the borders, from the self-deport app, from the immigration processing center, from the courts, etc….
Of course the other way of doing it is build a database of US citizens and call out those that aren;t in it.
Actually, lots of conservatives hate facial recognition, too. For good reason.
It’s my understanding that it’s the cartels that control access to the border. I don’t think they’re sending illegals through the check-points. So exactly how you plan on protecting your cameras from the cartels escapes me. Maybe satellites???
The same as any other offense. Police cannot stop you and demand ID without reasonable suspicion. Why should ICE be any different?
reasonable suspicion is such a vague standard,..not speaking English, for example, is reason to believe that you are not indigenous
You wouldn’t know about limited English proficiency until after you initiated a stop so that can’t be a factor to explain reasonable suspicion for the stop.
This is like a LEO grabbing someone up at random then ‘finding’ a bag of cocaine or more than $1,000 in cash and a pocket knife then using the presence of the cocaine or the $ to justify the stop. Gotta have something reasonable to justify the stop in the first place. These CBP guys didn’t articulate any reasonable basis for these stops to justify their decision to make a stop.
Since, to be naturalized, you have to speak and read/write English, and anyone born here (absent weird circumstances) would speak English by the time they’re an adult, it’s actually a pretty good first-blush discriminator for legal presence.
English language proficiency would be an excellent indicator of Citizenship status….where it is applied incidentally within the context of a lawful stop/encounter for a separate reason. A traffic stop for running a red light as an example but not in the context of CBP just flashing lights at someone to get them to stop for no other reason.
When State/Local LEO are unable to cooperate with immigration officers by policy it creates a gap. IMO the way to close that gap is by the Executive requiring all ‘Joint TF’ members to be deputized Federally as ICE instead of US Marshals. Now they have a duty to act or if the State/Local Gov’t declines then no Federal Joint TF cooperation.
Hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans disagree.
And for the first 150 years or so of the USA’s existence there was something like 10% of the population that spoke only German. Until a wave of anti-German bigotry during WW1 made it dangerous to speak German in public.
There are also many people today, born in the USA, who live in insular communities where the spoken language is not English, and who therefore barely speak it.
In any case, lack of English can’t be the predicate for stopping someone, because when you decide to stop them you have no idea what languages they speak.
Another garbage ruling from a garbage “judge.”
Using a reasonable basis for a stop. A checkpoint is one simple and effective way b/c it is universal. Using investigation of workplaces and govt benefits for fraud. In Red States getting cooperation from State/Local.LEO to run them through the database,.call CPB, and hold them briefly in jail while immigration gets there to take them into custody. They ran a multi agency operation in Colorado Springs and nabbed 100+ illegal Aliens at an underground nightclub.
for those who took the time to give thoughtful answers – thank you.
for those who wasted their time insulting me – newscom off and die painfully, you are part of the problem and will never be part of the solution if there is one.
Remember. BUILD THE WALL! LOCK HER UP! I PROMISE TO END THE RUSSIA/UKRAINE WAR WITHIN 24 HOURS! It’s all a lie. Nobody believes anything Trump says anymore, even his serious followers.
If you were a serious person possessing a scintilla of intellectual honesty, you could choose to fairly praise the massive reduction in illegal alien entries and “encounters” at the southern border that have been achieved by #47, relative to the wretched and intentionally derelict Biden-Harris regime.
That this reduction has come from robust law enforcement and not a physical wall, matters not to rational minds. Instead, you choose to perpetually wallow in your infantile and myopic anti-Trump fanaticism.
Your antics and rhetoric are exceedingly lame.
Someone call JR and ambulance and warn the burns unit they have an incoming patient suffering 10th degree BURNS! 😂😂
Ex-cellent!
Ok. “hey! JR! You’re an ambulance!
/had to
More like call the “Whaaaambulance.”
So now you claim to speak for everyone. A blowhard if there ever was one.
TDS
Find the cure
Not sure that he wants that. The only cure I know of is high velocity lead
Actually, nobody expected the wall to have been completed at this point, and . . .
Actually, this is in reference to illegals already in the country, and . . .
Actually, illegal crossings since Trump took office are down greatly, and . . .
Actually, while Trump was not able to negotiate an end to the Russia/Ukraine War within 24 hours, the parties have at least been communicating, and an end has become far more likely than we had while Biden was still in office, and . . .
Actually, your anti-Trump bias continues, and you are obviously unwilling to be objective or to give Trump any credit whatsoever for any of his accomplishments, thus displaying your idiocy to everyone else in this particular forum.
Oh shut the f*ck up you feckless c*nt.
You two bit, brainless disgrace! Using the worst word ever to call a woman. How insulting. How juvenile. I strongly object to your language, Strongly.
Well, I don’t object, and I’ve been a woman probably a lot longer than you. Untwist your panties, sweetie.
Both men and women can be c*nts, as well a d*cks and pr*cks; not to mention m-fers. Its called vulgar language and you don’t get to police it basesd on your gender. Unless of course you want to include words like “brainless juvenile disgrace” in that prohibition.
“Nobody believes anything Trump says anymore, even his serious followers.”
LOL. Yeah right, dipstick.
You’re a full diaper.
Get the hell out of here.
You take Trump literally but not seriously. We take him seriously but not literally.
Don’t feed the trolls! This is what they live for. The more negative votes and negative feedback, the happier they are.
So if they were coerced to sign papers…. did those papers actually appear in court?
I mean far be it for the ACLU to lie about such a detail.
Dates are interesting:
“Morales Cisneros asserts “Border Patrol agents stopped him” on January 7, 2025”
“Wilder Munguia Esquivel reports that on January 7, 2025…”
“Yolanda Aguilera Martinez” Jan 8th
The others I read , all similar dates.
… well now hmmm, who was President, and in charge of ICE Jan 7th? If you said Jill Biden, you might even be correct.
The dates these occurred to me are the most interesting aspect…
Very much so.
Did anyone happen to mention to this un-elected, activist judge (lowercase “j” deliberate) that if these incidents took place Jan 7th, 8th, 9th of 2025 then they occurred under the Biden regime due to the fact that Trump was not sworn in as president until Jan. 20th?
6 claimed encounters on Jan 7th
2 claimed encounters on Jan 8th
1 claimed encounter on Jan 9th
Trump sworn in as President January 20, 2025.
All well before Trump was even sworn in as president. So now he can be enjoined from doing things even though he wasn’t in charge at the time? Amazing. No, not amazing but absolutely incredible. Just more proof that the Republic is dead and the country is now being run by the un-elected, activist judicial branch of government.
Yes, he can be enjoined. He can’t be blamed.
It’s the POTUS who is being enjoined. The POTUS who committed the act was Biden. The court is telling the POTUS “Don’t do that again.” It just happens that Trump is the POTUS receiving that message.. By law, POTUS Biden and POTUS Trump are the same entity. The respondent to the suit was probably identified as “President Joe Biden,” meaning Biden or any successor who occupies the office when the suit is decided.
Please quote and link to said law that makes Pres. Biden and Pres. Trump the same “entity”. Thank you very much.
The Constitution, silly.
You’ve got major Category Error going on here, confusing the individual for the office and vice versa.
1. The president is not being enjoined. The Border Patrol is. And it’s the same Border Patrol now as it was then.
2. The law you’re looking for (“said law that makes Pres. Biden and Pres. Trump the same entity”) is the US constitution. When there’s a new president, all lawsuits against the old president in his official capacity automatically change title to become suits against the new president. On Jan-20-2025, all suits of the form John Doe v Joseph Biden became John Doe v Donald Trump. That is how it works. It’s how it has always worked.
Ok Milhouse, quote exactly in the U.S. Constitution where it says that “any lawsuits against the old president in his official capacity automatically change title to become suits against the new president”. Because I’ve read through the Constitution a couple of times trying to find such a clause but it doesn’t look as if it actually exists where you claim it does. In the Constitution.
AND, it’s how Trump can drop prosecutions and lawsuits the Executive branch brought against people (like the Mauds, in South Dakota) under Biden.
Who is in charge is actually pretty irrelevant when our system is working properly. You enjoin the action (as he did here), not the person.
And, nothing within the order enjoins Trump – it enjoins the Border Patrol.
if they has legitimate reason for being here they would come through ports of entry, the fact they don’t should be a good reason to detain them
And by federal definition if you don’t enter the United States through an official established port of entry you are de facto an illegal alien residing illegally in the United States.
And if I remember correctly, that also applies to citizens who did not enter legally at a point of entry. Which means that you are special only if you are an invader.
Huh?! How on earth do you know they didn’t come in through a port of entry. How do you know they came in at all, and weren’t here all along? Without reasonable suspicion you can’t stop them and ask any questions, so you can’t know. And reasonable suspicion must be articulable, and individualized.
I don’t agree with you very often Millhouse, but you are correct about stopping and requiring proof of identity. I am amazed that so many here are willing to give away a right that so many died to preserve.
Incase you and Milhouse have forgotten, SCOTUS has determined that Border Patrol can set up check points within 200 miles of our border to stop all and question their citizenship.
Only because they are stopping EVERYBODY.
And that’s not what this lawsuit was about.
Revisit the job sites with the Employers Sanctions Unit. It’s been neglected too long.
Judges need to be slapped down. This is getting ridiculous.
Not getting, IS
SCOTUS refused to do so not too long ago.
Here’s a couple suggestions. We need some sort of standard ID issued by Immigration for different classes of Alien. Each of those should have an expiration date of no longer than 90 days. That’s four times per year for renewal of the ID describing their status; DACA, asylum claim pending, Green card holder, and so on. It should also designate permission to work in the USA.
Aliens would be required to carry at all times and present it to LEO, ICE, CPB, any agency they seek benefits from including education and employers. Failure to do so violates their permission to remain in the USA and immediately brings forward their removal.
Next…these were ham handed tactics that were unnecessary. Set up immigration check points within 100 miles of the borders (includes Gulf,.Atlantic and Pacific). Anyone attempting to.evade the checkpoint treat the same as someone evading a DUI checkpoint. Check the ID, ask the basic questions looking for clues Are you a Citizen? If strong accent or limited English ask about immigration status. It isn’t that hard. If homeboy is driving or riding in an obvious work truck with tools and his ID.card doesn’t authorize work then jam him up, detain him and run his info. Question him and validate his responses. Everyone else goes on their way.
Use workplace enforcement as another option. These random vehicle stops ain’t gonna fly. There’s no probable cause for a vehicle stop by BPD or ICE for random folks just driving around. The dates and ham handed nature of this seems ‘off’ like it was created on purpose to achieve the result of an injuction and a class.certification.
Since people can be bussed into the interior after being “processed” at the border, having checkpoints at 100 miles won’t work. Note that Bakersfield and the whole area in question is well beyond 100 miles from the border.
Yes it will work and Bakersfield is only 73 miles from the Pacific Coast which is well inside the 100 miles.
1. The vast majority of the US population resides within 100 miles of the coastal boundaries, Canadian border and Mexican border. Don’t forget the coastal boundaries count as well.
2. In areas not covered by that 100 miles the answer is to target workplace enforcement, criminal gangs, and those with removal orders and/or criminal warrants. Just like the raid in Colorado of the underground nightclub last week which captured 100+ illegal Aliens.
Nationwide a database search aligning SSA, IRS, INS and other Federal data will show where many/most are located. Especially when combined with requiring to obtain the ID, carry the ID, present the ID and renew the ID each quarter to maintain permission to remain in the USA. These sorts of basic processes and minimal requirements will ferret out those who refuse to ‘work hard, play by the rules’ for arrest and deportation.
The idea that LEO including CBP may simply pull over someone without any reasonable suspicion of a crime is not a good one. There must be reasonable suspicion to initiate a stop. A checkpoint is a separate animal b/c it hits everyone and doesn’t rely on subjective BS.
And when they have set up checkpoints that do filter via subjective rules, the judiciary comes down on them for it.
Lot harder to prevent usual and customary procedures in place for decades. Plus the requirements to carry, present and maintain an ID card for Aliens describing their particular category, the location they are permitted to be in and whether they are allowed to work.
A checkpoint is universal and doesn’t begin with any profiling it gathers everyone on a particular route to speak with a CBP agent and information gathered, observations made in that lawful encounter can lead to further investigation,.detention and arrest.
these were ham handed tactics that were unnecessary
This. If you actually read the accusations, they appeared to be nabbing people because they looked Mestizo. And, while a lot of folks here might think “Border Patrol always good guys” that isn’t a good assumption (especially since a great many here also think cops should be assumed to be the enemy of our rights).
Yep. These guys were out of line, way way out. Can’t just base a stop for folks b/c they ‘look like an Alien’. That won’t and shouldn’t fly. Ever.
Who knew that even I had a say if Illegals could get stopped?
Guess the No Borders Marxists get to rule .
In practice they never need a warrant to arrest for immigration purposes because the person is always a flight risk.
“It does sound like the agents rounded up people based on their skin color.”
Yeah, that’s the same BS they lodged against Sheriff Joe.
Guess Republicans need to learn that collectivist judgements made on skin color are valid ONLY against white people.
Democrats don’t even hide it. Ibram Kendi put it on paper.
Most illegal aliens are NOT white
That’s a fact jack
Well…, not Lilly white like Steve Martin white.
Although the legal immigration allotments limit legal immigration from nations most likely to be culturally similar in favor of 3rd world legal immigration – so you do get some European illegal immigrants like Irish or such who come over to be with friends or family or overstayed a visa when they couldn’t get long-term status.
About 40 years ago the major illegal alien issue in the North East were Irish illegals. A lot of them were strong supporters of the Provos (Provisional Wing of the IRA). They should have been bounced on their heads back across the Atlantic to Ireland.
True. Though Visa over stays from folks granted work, student or tourist visa account for 1/3 ish of illegal Alien population and many of these are European. Let in ‘legally’ via permission for set period of time for a.specific purpose but when the clock strikes midnight on the final day of that permission their visa turns into a pumpkin. Way more common than many realize.
I wish I understood the law
The Judge says:
“…Plaintiffs’ anecdotal evidence establishes a pattern and practice…
I was under the foolish belief that anecdotes were NOT evidence…
Anecdotes aren’t used in science. But witness testimony before a court can be “anecdote.” That is, it can be an unverifiable story, the specifics of which can’t be reproduced so as to establish the story’s veracity – the exact reason why anecdotes aren’t scientifically admissible.
in a Kritarchy, evidence is what any judge says it is
Not a lawyer. But, isn’t this already settled law (United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, for instance). And, I believe that case was expanded upon in subsequent cases that implemented/recognized a ‘100-mile’ rule, where stops are even more permissive because of the proximity to the border.
Bakersfield is several hundred miles from the border, at least 200 by any route, so the extra ability to stop does not exist there. What does US v. Brignoni-Ponce say?
That law enforcement (specifically Border Patrol) can’t stop someone based purely on their appearance (outside that 100-mile zone). BUT, so long as they have ‘articulatable facts’ that create ‘reasonable suspicion,’ they can initiate a traffic stop. Other cases had already established that only ‘probable cause’ was necessary for effecting arrest. So, if they have reasonable suspicion to stop someone and that stop then produces ‘probable cause,’ they’re allowed under existing SCOTUS precedent to effect arrest. This judge, while correct in her assessment that traffic stops can’t be initiated on the basis of appearance alone, she’s ignoring controlling SCOTUS opinion when she then orders that arrest can only be effected with a warrant.
But she didn’t say that. She said, and I quote:
Everything after “unless” says otherwise. And I guarantee they are being “detained” until they’re arrested in those circumstances.
Bakersfield is 73 miles from the Pacific Coast. The 100 miles also applies from the Oceans and Gulf and it doesn’t matter the land route it is ‘as the crow flies’.
I read just enough of the “opinion” to realize it was eighty-eight pages of horse hockey and reading any further would be a pointless waste of my time. Thank-you very much.
It shows in your comments, IMO.
Why does LE need a warrant to arrest an illegal in the country? LE can arrest anyone they observe committing a crime. An illegal alien’s presence in the country is an ongoing crime. Whenever LE observes a person illegally in the country, LE is observing a crime in progress.
Yeah, this seems just to require more paperwork, the individualized risk assessment can be “the person was in a group of people who didn’t speak any English and would not provide a local address.”
The answer is they don’t. There’s a specific set aside in the law that says that you can arrest them even without a warrant if you believe that they are a flight risk. They are all flight risks when it comes to immigration.
First of all, illegal presence in the country is not a crime, it’s merely a civil violation. Illegal entry is a crime, but the border patrol did not observe that.
Second and more importantly, you’re begging the question. We’re talking about stopping someone without reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally. Police can’t do that, so why should Border Patrol be allowed to?
It is. And illegal aliens have no right to be here, at all, and can be deported the minute they are found to be here illegally, regardless of what insane, America-hating judges and people like you say. They have no right to be here and no right to argue that they deserve to be here. They can do all that to the US embassy in their home country where any rights they may have as humans are secured and protected by their own governments. We have no obligations to illegal aliens, at all. NONE.
Hold on. The basis for the initial stop is what? No reasonable basis for a stop means it is an unlawful stop and unlawful detention. These guys weren’t local LEO pulling over traffic infractions and in the course of that lawful stop determined these folks were illegal Aliens.
Instead of that scenario these were CBP flashing lights and stopping random folks without any reasonable basis. That’s not lawful. The days of LEO able to harass and intimidate to ‘roust’ folks are well behind us. No reasonable basis for a stop means the stop and everything from it is tainted.
Hold on. The basis for the initial stop is what?
To find and deport illegal aliens.
That’s what ICE does. It’s their job. It’s why they exist.
You can’t do that without talking to people.
This idea that we have to wait until these illegals commit ANOTHER crime, until a warrant is requested, obtained and sworn to do anything about them is absolutely insane.
They are invaders in our country. They do not get treated like legal residents.
That won’t fly. Gotta have another infraction or reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed.
What you propose has no limiting principle. It would allow a Nationwide sweep sounding up everyone and if they couldn’t prove Citizenship right there on the street would lead to their arrest and deportation. That’s not gonna work. Go read the 4th Amendment and see what it says about making an arrest.
That won’t fly. Gotta have another infraction or reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed.
The crime IS BEING committed.
It’s called ‘being in the US illegally.
What is the reason you think they need to be committing ANOTHER crime before you can stop them committing the first crime?
Judge, “Yes, I understand they appeared to be murdering someone, but you couldn’t be sure so looking like the murderer wasn’t sufficient reason to stop them. Case dismissed.”
Replying to Azathoth:
You can’t just stop everyone* and ask, “Are you a citizen?” And you certainly can’t stop people based on a perceived national origin or ethnicity and say, “Prove to me you’re here legally.”
But they’re not saying you have to wait for another crime to occur. You have to have either 1) something (a warrant) that says you already have evidence this person should be deported, or 2) probable cause to stop them. If you have probable cause, and you deem the person a flight risk, you can arrest them right there; otherwise you detain them and get a warrant before you arrest them.
It’s true they shouldn’t get treated like legal residents and citizens, but you still need to treat them properly so you can make sure they aren’t. Then you toss ’em on a bus to the Catapult Return station at the border.
(* Within 100 miles of a border, yes. But you then have to stop literally everyone.)
Replying to CommoChief below (above?):
Gotta have another infraction or reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed.
Not necessarily. You could have probable cause to think they’re illegal aliens. You’re walking into Home Depot and you see several guys crawl out of a dingy van, none of whom appear to speak English and who stand around without going into the store to buy things and return to the van – that could be probably cause from an immigration perspective.
But that’s still way different from “That guy looks Mestizo, so I’m going to arrest him and then sort it out.”
Azathoth,
I don’t disagree about illegal entry or illegally being present in the USA. The trouble is how do you know?
Harassing and hassling everyone who doesn’t look ‘American’ is not.gonna work. Firstly b/c US Citizens come in all flavors and as much as some may wish it to be easy to tell the difference at a glance it is not. There’s no way any LEO can tell with 100% certainty whether individuals are or are not US Citizens if they are in a US plated vehicle driving down the road.
Secondly we don’t have a system that requires or allows LEO to stop folks at random looking for illegal Aliens. A checkpoint is different, it is universal. A workplace inspection is different, they inspect everyone on site for proper paperwork, IN, payroll docs,.tax info.
It may be frustrating to you and to some LEO but rounding up lots of folks b/c they ‘look foreign’ isn’t legal. We don’t want it to be legal b/c it would erode our Constitutional Rights.
All it takes to get into a lawful encounter to have a face to conversation, to make observations to see reactions when questioned is a lawful predicate for the stop. Not hard, LEO do it every day. Tragic stop for a taillight infraction can lead to catching a fugitive for murder.
The actions of CBP described here and very importantly not contested by the Gov’t show clear violations of rights. Can’t have a dragnet that has US Citizens rounded up and that’s what happened at least once in the actions.
A better use of resources would be temporary immigration checkpoint. Gets a lawful basis for encounter and routine questions,.observations and further investigation or detention if they find probable cause. Observe the entry to the checkpoint and anyone who attempts to evade it is demonstrating at minimum they have a.reason not to want to get.face.to face with CBP which is itself a reasonable basis to pull them in for initial questioning.
I’d suppose it’s to protect American citizens.
Meh. Keep your pants on, people. This is very localized weak tea from this judge. ‘Probable cause’ has always allowed A LOT of leeway for LEO; similar to a D.A. indicting a ham sandwich. It happens, but there are no consequences for the abusers.
Plus, the slow and fine grind of dem wheels provides more billable hours for the lawyers, and Judge Jenny get to fly her TDS freak flag to certify her bona fides.
Translation: Judge Jenny is running for higher office.
Actually, Judge Jenny isn’t flying a freak flag, at all.
Paul Simon’s Trailways bus
The border patrol outside of Tucson boarded the bus
Any aliens here? You better check with us
How about you son?
You look like you got spanish blood
Do you habla ingles, am i understood?
Yes, i am an alien, from mars
I come to earth from outer space
And if i traveled my whole life
You guys would still be on my case
You guys would still be on my case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRAzf-OM_wQ
If all the illegals in a certain area are brown, and they seem like people you’ve seen before that don’t speak any English, then that should be probable cause (51% likelihood) that they’re illegally present. Even if all the people you arrest are brown.
Note that you are not arresting every brown person you find, just those who meet the other criteria.
To require a report for each stop is beyond silly. Stops that result in arrests are different because they can be challenged. She is doing what they did to the border patrol under Biden, throwing huge obstacles in the way. Part of deterrence is allowing a margin of appreciation which will be chilled and one day it will cost limb or life.
If the local Border Patrol has a pattern of stopping people without reasonable suspicion, then it’s completely reasonable to demand that they file a report for each stop. Otherwise what reason do they have to start complying with the law and stop abusing people?
No it isn’t. The requirement would create a sort of ‘batting average’ for these stops. LEO are prone to claiming their training and experience lends them some sort special ability or intuition about whether someone is a criminal. Putting onto paper a record of the # of times their intuition was wrong/right helps flesh out how reliable or not their claimed intuitive ability actually is.
Selecting folks at random to stop based upon appearance which is what happened here is not acceptable. Use a damn checkpoint and you can talk to the drivers and occupants with a lawful basis. Anyone seeking to evade the checkpoint can be reasonably assumed to have some reason they don’t want to talk to LEO so those vehicles can be stopped as well for further investigation.
There’s legitimate ways to have CBP officers able to talk to folks face to face but pulling over random folks based on appearance alone isn’t one of them.
which is what happened here
Which is what is claimed happened here.
But, otherwise, yes.
The gov’t didn’t dispute the facts alleged by plaintiffs so they accepted them to be true.
OK, point accepted.
An area or location where a high percentage of the people are illegals (and everyone knows many, many such places and businesses and areas) the likelihood of a random person being an illegal is such a large percentage that, under any reasonable sober analysis, qualifies as “reasonable suspicion”.
Also, the lack of ability to speak the language of the country is one of the best indicators that a person is not only not native to the country but, given other circumstances, an illegal alien.
I would hope that the judge would have also come to the conclusion that states that illegally issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens would be bound to indicate on the licenses that the holder is an illegal alien, and also to keep records of all the illegal aliens who had licenses issued to them and to send copies of these records to ICE.
But, as we all know, states illegally issued license to illegals and then committed worse crimes by intentionally deleting the information about illegals who got licenses so that on a change of party government officials could not go through the licensing information to quickly and efficiently locate illegals.
Cops stopping anyone in da ‘hood just because it IS da ‘hood and full of gangs is considered a violation of the 4th Amendment. Your reasoning would get the same treatment, I think.
If they have other articulable reasons for the stop, the judge is insisting they get those on record.
That seems reasonable to me.
Funny … all these same judges who allowed the lockdowns, and shuttering of businesses and forcing American citizens to take part in medical experiments (though illegal aliens were never forced!!) have now, all of a sudden, come to find all sorts of procedural “rights” for people who have no right to be here, at all, and can be thrown out at our whim, no matter anything else. They allowed arbitrary house arrests for wide swaths of the citizenry but are standing up for the non-existent rights of illegal aliens. (And this has nothing to do with American citizens being caught up in any of this, though it was firmly established by this same judiciary through COVID that American citizens have basically no rights, whatsoever.)
Amazing. A church being silenced is just okey doke with these judges but obvious illegals being stopped by border patrol is some sort of Constitutional violation. It would be funny if it weren’t so insane.
If you were making these statements based on race, you would rightly be called a racist.
“All these same judges” – do you have any evidence this judge made those sorts of judgments? Or are we just going with AJAB instead of ACAB today?
(ACAB is “All Cops Are Bast***s. J would be for Judges.)
Some of y’all should have heeded Mary’s warning to READ. And, put aside your outrage before doing so. Heck, I figured out this was a non-outragey thing just from the headline, which basically says “Judge orders Border Patrol to do their job correctly.” And, come to find out the judge added that they needed to document their work – what was their reasonable suspicion and what evidence did they have.
Yes, forcing people to write twelve million reports for some soft brained leftist judge is absolutely reasonable.
When 99.9999% of the illegals in an area are latin american, LOOKING latin american is enough reason to ask a question or two.
IF and only IF there’s another action serving as the basis for the encounter. A traffic stop as an example. We don’t have and DO NOT want a system where people are harassed by LEO/CBP based on appearance.
Driving/Walking while (insert ethnicity/race) is NOT allowed as the lawful basis for a stop.
You’ve clearly never been stopped because you ‘fit the description’.
Because that IS a lawful basis for a stop..
Believe me, I know, having been stopped several times and having gotten so pissed that I looked into it. Deeply.
Leftists have made it a questionable practice because they act as if including someones race in the description makes the whole process racist.
But if you’re looking for a white guy, you don’t randomly question black guys just to make it non-racist
Wait–reverse the races there, and when you do, then yes, you DO randomly question white guys when you’re looking for a black guy.
Otherwise some shite for brains ‘judge’ will deem your actions racist –like this ‘brown people’ thing.
What you are advocating for is stopping every Hispanic, every Asian, every Pacific Islanders, every Middle Eastern …basically everyone who wouldn’t fit in at an Aryan Nation rally …to then question them in searching for potential illegal Aliens.
Nope. That’s not legal nor constitutional. To initiate a stop there must be some lawful basis. Could be as simple as littering, could be a dude with a crowbar scurrying around in the dark near a residential window. In one s you have an infraction and the other meets the test of ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a crime either has been, is being or dis about to be committed by this person.
Since there’s no way to know if the guy you wanna stop b/c he doesn’t look like what you think an ‘American’ is supposed to and might be an illegal Alien…that’s not enough. You haven’t met the basic test. You gotta be able to articulate what this PARTICULAR dude had done, was doing or about to do that is a crime. It isn’t he ‘looks suspicious’ it is I suspect he is committing X crime based on factors A, B, C that are individualized to him.
Walking or driving while (insert race/ethnicity) isn’t gonna fly. It is totally unconstitutional as the.basis for a.stop.
FWIW I have been profiled. Not due to race, I’m shockingly Caucasian to steal a line from Bill Burr. I was constantly harassed by local LEO b/c my Dad was an Attorney who didn’t play the good old boy game with local small town power structure. The Sheriff, his brother the Chief of Police, their brother the probate Judge, their cousin the County Commission President and his cousin the local District Judge ran this place with an iron fist like Hazzard Country if Boss Hogg was competent and ruthless.
I was squeaky clean, purer than Ceasar’s wife not by choice mind you I wanted to raise hell, drink beer under age and chase tail as much as any other red blooded young HS student. But I knew I’d get jammed up on any flimsy pretext…so I was a good boy and delayed my hell raising till I was in the Army and College then back in the Army. Made up for it for dang sure.
What you are advocating for is stopping every Hispanic, every Asian, every Pacific Islanders, every Middle Eastern …basically everyone who wouldn’t fit in at an Aryan Nation rally
What I am saying is that it is not unreasonable or racist that the border patrol on the southern border would be stopping more latin americans than anything else.
And if the border patrol does that, at the border–or in places where there are concentrations of illegals then the crime they’re looking for is illegal entry and people that fit the description are not being ‘targeted’.
It is not unconstitutional, it is the law–this weird screeching for a ‘due process’ that does not apply is what’s unconstitutional.
There is no court hearing for an illegal alien. There is a hearing for a refugee or asylee. There is a hearing for someone who has overstayed their visa or had it revoked.
The due process for an illegal is verifying that they are not legal and then expedited removal. No judge. No court. Just ICE.
Also, this weird thing you all are doing where you attempt to spread this out to ALL LE and the whole of the population is a textbook tactic of the left. Stop it.
LOOKING latin american is enough reason to ask a question or two.
No. It is not.
And forcing government agents to document their evidence and suspicions is NOT unreasonable.
And, again, you’ve provided NO evidence this judge is leftist or soft-brained. You’ve simply asserted it as a sort of AJAB.
Leave a Comment