LAPD Protecting Campuses, Graduations…From ICE Raids
Not from violent rioters…from ICE.
Priorities!
After days of violent riots, including people looting stores and destroying property, the Los Angeles Police Department decided to protect schools and graduations.
But not from violent people.
The LAPD will set up safe zones around schools and graduations to protect people from ICE raids after the agency raided a Home Depot near Huntington Park High School.
The schools have been celebrating graduations this week and will continue through June 16.
I kid you not. From The Los Angeles Times:
“We stand strongly on the right side of law,” [Supt. Alberto] Carvalho said. “Every student in our community, every student across the country, has a constitutional right to a free public education of high quality, without threat. Every one of our students, independently of their immigration status, has a right to a free meal in our schools. Every one of our children, no questions asked, has a right to counseling, social emotional support, mental support.”
President Trump reversed a Biden administration policy that largely exempted schools and other potentially sensitive areas such as churches from immigration enforcement. In recent days, federal agents also have not targeted local schools. But in April federal agents were turned away by staff at two elementary schools.
California is a sanctuary state, and Los Angeles is a sanctuary city.
California Senate Bill 54 “prohibits local law enforcement from using resources for immigration enforcement.”
The state is pushing its luck. This part made me twitch:
Carvalho did not rule out the potential for a standoff involving school police if federal officers attempted to enter a school or an off-campus school event — such as a graduation ceremony — without a judicial warrant.
“I think that would be a preposterous condition,” Carvalho said. “But then again, we have seen preposterous actions taken recently by this administration. We are prepared for everything,” Carvalho said, adding that he’s in consultation on contingency plans with L.A. Mayor Karen Bass.
“I have a professional, moral responsibility to protect our kids, protect our workforce, ensure the sanctity, the protection of our buildings and their extension,” Carvalho said. “That means the school buses, the transportation of kids to school and graduation ceremonies. Nothing should interfere with that, and I will put my job on the line to protect a 5-year-old, an 11-year-old, an 11th grader or a soon-to-be graduate.”
Do you want a confrontation?
The Los Angeles Times included quotes from people, expressing fear for their lives and families.
I have an idea. How about you not be here illegally? Just a thought.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
proving that once again
the …
ve are just following z orders
is alive and well and the common usa citizen is at the mercy of the government
A standoff puts the officers well beyond Judge Hannah Dugan territory. I would not end well for the LAPD on the ground or school resource officers.
No, it doesn’t. If ICE shows up without a judicial warrant to arrest specific people, or to search for specific items, then LAPD has both the right and the duty to refuse them entry on to city property, just as any other property owner has that right. If you don’t have to let them into your home, the city doesn’t have to let them on campus, and state law imposes a duty on it not to consent to such entry.
If ICE come with a warrant, then the LAPD explicitly said they will let them in, as indeed they must.
This may depend on the extent of these zones. How much public property do they include around the areas of the schools? Do they extend around the private property of businesses that weren’t consulted? Will they forbid entry to sidewalks and roads?
All good questions. The “zones” are not specified.
Inherent in your screed is the misplaced and frankly insulting assumption that ICE Agents would be acting unlawfully.
Lawful entry into restricted public property can be made for many reasons including, an enforcement action involves a nation security threat, there is an imminent risk of death violence or physical harm to a person, the enforcement action involves the hot pursuit of and individual who poses a public safety threat, there is an imminent risk that evinced material to a criminal case will be lost, a safe alternative location does not exist. In addition there are Form I-200, Warrants for Arrest of Alien and Form I-205, Warrants of Removal/Deportation, The ICE Field Office Director absent a Court Order may make a determination as to the warrants enforceability on public land.
ICE Agents also possess the same right to enter upon public property as any member of the general public. So if a public area is open to members of the general public it is open to ICE Agents.
A public area is open to the general public only by the owner’s invitation. And that invitation can exclude certain people. Such as ICE, if the owner so wishes.
If the LAPD blocks ICE agents from enforcing federal law, who should be arrested for obstruction of justice? Should it be the officers who block the ICE agents, the individual who gave the order to block the ICE agents, or both?
Both.
Sounds like Conspiracy to commit obstruction and obstruction.
Neither, because the agents have no right to enter private property without a warrant. And if they have a warrant then LAPD said they will not block them.
A graduation held at a school or other government building is not on private property. And, as pointed out above, if these ceremonies do take place on private property and the event is open to the public, anyone can enter.
Yes, it is private property. The school belongs to the City of Los Angeles, in exactly the same way that your house (if you have one) belongs to you. The city has the same rights in respect of that school as you have in respect to your house. An event open to the public is so by the property owner’s permission, and the owner has every right to notify specific people that they are not included in the invitation. Think of churches and synagogues, which are open to the general public, but can notify people that they are not to enter.
A very interesting and somewhat unique take on public property. The Law Dictionary (Black’s Law online) defined public property as:
That entry doesn’t say for what purpose the term is being used. But any implication that property belonging to a government is “public” in the sense of ownerless is simply wrong.
The law applicable to government property owners and private property owners is exactly the same. Every government is a corporate entity, whether it’s a city, a county, a state, or the USA; and that corporation’s relationship to its property is exactly the same as that of any other property owner. It has the right to exclude people from its property at will. If it opens property to the public, it is under a license that can be withdrawn at any time, from everyone or from any individual.
This is basic, and if Blacks were to say otherwise Blacks would be wrong. But it doesn’t say otherwise.
Public schools are NOT private property.
What planet are you from, Democrat?
Your legal pretense is falling apart.
Go back to Hell, you demonic liar.
Yes, public schools are the property of the city, which is a corporate entity with exactly the same rights over its property as any other corporation or individual.
In that scenario… the side with the biggest Battalion.
but they didnt protect the jewish students from the blmplo
They only protect criminals. Law-abiding citizens have to fend for themselves.
I’m old enough to remember when states refused to abide federal law, that was called rebellion. In hindsight, Pennsylvania should have declared itself a sanctuary state for distillers, avoiding the Whisky Rebellion altogether. Jefferson Davis simply should have declared that the southern states were adopting sanctuary status for slave owners. We could have avoided the bloodiest war in US history.
Again, I know a little bit about insurgency. If Trump allows this kind of behavior to continue on the local level, he’s only inviting – begging – more of it. Today police are guarding graduations, tomorrow it will be Home Depots, sweatshops, meat cutting plants and who knows what else.
California is NOT refusing to abide by federal law. It is in full compliance with all federal laws. It is refusing to assist in the enforcement of federal law, as is its constitutional right.
Pennsylvania did declare itself a sanctuary state, and enacted exactly the same laws as it now has, against the Fugitive Slave Act and the federal slavecatchers. Slavecatchers were free to go about their lawful business, but it was illegal for any state or city officer to give them any assistance whatsoever, including letting them enter state or city property without a warrant. And the courts upheld it.
It was Jefferson Davis who was upset by this and wanted the slavecatchers to be able to commandeer state resources, just as you want ICE to be able to do. The answer is the same in both cases.
To avoid confusion, by “exactly the same laws as it now has” I obviously meant “exactly the same laws that California now has”. Pennsylvania, as far as I know, is not a sanctuary state, but some cities within it are sanctuary cities, with its consent.
How is blocking admission to property largely open to the public “refusing to assist in the enforcement”. That is actively resisting, not simply standing aside. You are better than this.
Granting ICE permission to enter private property without a warrant is assistance. State law prohibits the city from giving that assistance.
It is not actively resisting because ICE has no right to enter, but is requesting permission as a courtesy, which the property owner may freely grant or refuse.
The fact that the property is generally open to the public is irrelevant. Any property owner is entitled to grant admission to whom he likes and not to whom he doesn’t like.
Where did you get the impression that all (or even just most) of these events will be on private property?
Sanctuary city/state laws can only prevent cooperation by local LE. Local LE’s attempt to stop ICE agents from making arrests will exceed their authority under those laws, because they laws can’t call for any form of active obstruction. If they did, they’d be unconstitutional under the supremacy clause.
Of course they will be on private property. Where else could they possibly be held?
LAPD is not attempting to stop arrests. In the very same statement announcing these “safety zones” it said it will not prevent ICE from entering if they have a proper warrant. That’s as it should be. Police armed with a valid arrest warrant have the right to enter property where the fugitive can be found, without the owner’s permission.
What is the point of citizenship? You pay taxes to people who hate you and want you replaced and the money goes to criminals to get free housing and health care.
We are here to subsidize the next generation of “Americans”
In a twist, “The Constitution! It’s a cookbook!”
hakeem jeffreis actual approves of the violence as he only attacks kristi noem
If anyone is wondering where this is headed, it’s headed here…
https://x.com/ZavalaA/status/1932483200447631796
California seditionists posing as legislators are trying to sink a bipartisan bill that would make it easier to prosecute CHILD sex-offenders because prosecuting someone for having sex with a child might them more easily deportable. This bill would recriminalize something (as a felony) that was decriminalized precisely to protect illegal alien rapists from being deported. It’s impossible to overstate how dysfunctional California is.
thanks thats just more sad sh….
the left is pro criminal as we all know
so whats the solution other than
giving it to them so they cant promote criminal as heros
This is easy. Tell the officers that they will be arrested and put in general population, but they will receive a $5000 bonus if they provide ICE officers with their uniforms during the event. That will leak in a second and the event will be cancelled.
Arrested for what? If ICE agents try to break into private property without a warrant they are the criminals, and must be arrested and put into general population.
The true distinction is it ‘private’ or is it publicly accessible? Where the general public can enter then so can Federal LEO. If the school districts are actually limiting attendance at grad ceremonies to grads, their immediate family then fine. If they are letting in other members of the public unaffiliated with the graduation… like media or even IMO a photographer then they can’t block Federal LEO.
If ICE chooses to make a point they can ID a known fugitive say just someone with a removal order and follow them to the place and then enter without a warrant just like LEO do every day under one the exceptions to 4A. felon hot pursuit, sight/knowledge of crime in commission both of which are legit or by twisting the ‘welfare check’ which is a croc and not legit but still occurs till an agency gets sued.
Not so. It makes no difference whether property is “publicly accessible”. The general public is admitted onto the property by the owner’s permission, and the owner is entitled to exclude anyone it likes from that permission. Every time you enter a business you do so by the owner’s invitation, which he may revoke at will.
Yes, they can, just as they can block anyone else they don’t want.
Nope. Not in a publicly accessible area. Your expansive view would include public roads, public sidewalks, public parks. If it is open to the public then that absolutely includes Federal LEO.
Now if the locals want to deny entry to non publicly accessible areas of their buildings then sure they can do that. Of course the Feds could then choose to be a pain in the ass and escalate by detaining everyone as they exit the building. Look for warrants, bring Treasury and IRS to deal with potential unpaid taxes. Load everyone up on a bus to Federal detention facility and run them through the system and have each Federal agency conduct interviews. They can appear before a magistrate or be released 72 hours later. Maybe place these scoff laws onto the no fly list. Golly we see your Spouse applied for a PPP loan gonna need to follow up on it. Heck fire did you know you didn’t register with selective service? All sorts of fun and games to play if necessary.
Where on earth are you getting this? How could you possibly believe it? Every store is open to the public, at the owner’s invitation, but the owner can exclude anyone he likes, for any reason not specifically prohibited by law, or for no reason at all. If you are aware that you are not welcome on his property you are trespassing.
A school is city property. If it invites the public in for a graduation ceremony, that is its prerogative, and it can exclude anyone it likes from that invitation.
The same is true of a park; if the city likes it can ban anyone it likes from the park.
Sidewalks are different because even if they are technically city property the public has a right of way on them. I believe in many cities the sidewalk actually belongs to the owner of the adjoining property, but he can’t bar anyone from them. And of course no one can be barred from the public roads.
Not without individualized reasonable suspicion. The mere fact that someone attended a graduation does not give rise to a reasonable suspicion that that individual has committed an offense. And without that a person may not be detained, even for something as simple as a polite conversation, and certainly may not be loaded onto a bus or taken anywhere.
Milhouse,
The City or State can not restrict LEO from a publicly accessible area like a lobby of they could they block them from the courthouse lobby or a public library. I agree they are able to do so for non publicly accessible areas beyond the lobby. The City can’t tell LEO they can’t enter a school b/c usually that’s owned by the School District which is a separate legal entity. IOW the city ain’t the owner. The School District might be able to do it but there’s ways to deal with it. Require JROTC to receive federal Education $ as an example but make Federal support and recognition of an JROTC detachment contingent upon cooperation with federal LEO. Easy.
Rounding up Scoflaws doesn’t seem overly objectionable to me. Obstruction and/or interference with Federal LEO seems like a reasonable basis for an arrest to me. Then shake the tree and see what else comes out. How can we be certain these same folks who refuse reasonable interactions with one Federal LEO agency won’t also do the same in an Airport? Maybe they’ll also interfere with TSA or an Air Marshal. No fly list makes good sense.
The Feds have lots of ways to play dirty but legal if they want to do it. Here’s an example. Golly gee whiz the LAPD refuses to ‘cooperate with CBP? No problem now Homeland and all its agencies refuse to cooperate with the City of LA. Sucks about LAX not being able to screen passengers and being shut down. Same for the port due to zero required inspections performed by Customs and the closure of private and public marina b/c Coast Guard assets are redeployed elsewhere to a more cooperative location.
If I were running Homeland Security we’d arrest anyone who tried to block ICE from publicly accessible areas for obstruction along with anyone who tried to interfere in that arrest. Let it play out in Federal Court.
What is your source for this? Of course they can block them from those places. That they generally choose not to is irrelevant.
What’s the difference? In what way is the lobby less the city’s property than the rest of the building? Which areas of a building the public is invited into is entirely up to the owner.
Even in your own home, there is an implied license for any person to enter your property and make their way through your front yard, directly from the street entrance to your front door, either along a path if you have one, or in a straight line if you have not. But you are completely within your rights to exclude anyone you like from that license. You can put up a sign outside the street entrance saying “No admission for salesmen or missionaries”, or for anyone else you don’t like, including policemen, who must obey that sign unless they have a warrant.
Good point. I live in NYC, where the Department of Education is a division of the city government, but I see that in California that’s against the constitution, so the LA Unified School District is independent of the city. The same considerations apply, though. The school district, like the city, is a division of the state and thus subject to the state law requiring it not to give aid to immigration enforcement, which would include allowing ICE onto its property without a warrant.
People attending a school graduation are not scofflaws, and are neither obstructing nor interfering with anyone. Remember, that is what we are discussing. Your proposal to detain and search everyone leaving the graduation, on the premise that some of them will be here illegally, or will have some other offense on record.
What if the city responds by saying that if you abandon your post and refuse to inspect incoming passengers and cargo then they will simply land and leave the airport without any inspection. It’s not our job to stop them. We’re happy to let you do your jobs, but if you don’t want to then have it your way.
Time to cut liberalfo in off.
“Do you want a confrontation?
Yes, CrossRoads is reporting that there are large scale plans to spread these riots all over America. This must be put down. Dems lost the election, now they are attacking civil order to try to neutralize our MAGA agenda.
dont forget
obama sent in the troops against the tea party and any violence done against them was negated by the governments heavy hand in threatening the Tea Party members with ALSO being charged
SO THEN OBAMA *VIOLENTLY* SENT IN THE IRS AGAINST THE TEA PARTY MEMBERS
and we all know how they denied it
until the proof got too strong and they could no longer deny it
MEANWHILE LEFTY ONCE AGAIN
ignores the innocent citizens needs to be protected from violent people
allll b/c the violence is coming from their street armies
When did he do that?
No, he didn’t. There is no way that deliberately slow-walking or even outright denying an application for 501(c) status can be described as violence.
they , lefty , sets the terms (inology)
so *violence* is what it was
what it is
I’m thinking that some people don’t actually understand what a Constitutional Right is….
Apparently many commenters here don’t understand it, since they think the federal government has the right to invade private property without a warrant.
Government property (such as a school) is not private property. Restricting access to ceremonies that are being paid for with tax dollars would be problematic, at best.
People can be ejected from the public spaces of private property (such as a Walmart), but they must enter first before being trespassed. I’ve never heard of someone (not restrained by a court order) being trespassed before entering such an establishment. The best a trespass can do is prevent re-entry, but it can’t prevent the first entry. Making a rule “no federal LE are permitted entry” could be considered “obstruction,” even if it’s possible to prevent private citizens’ entry into the same public space. Anyone promulgating or enforcing the obstruction would likely be committing a crime.
Could Judge Duggan have ordered the ICE agents out of her courthouse?
If she could have done so, why didn’t she?
Yes, it is. It belongs to a corporate entity which is entitled to bar people from it, in exactly the same way that any other property owner is.
No, it wouldn’t. Everything that happens in a city-owned building is paid for by the city taxpayer, and yet even city taxpayers may be barred from them, let alone ICE, which is not a city taxpayer and has no more right to enter city property than you or I do (assuming we are not citizens of LA).
Where did you get such a bizarre idea?
That you haven’t heard of it is irrelevant. Obviously it’s not going to happen very often, because why would it? But I am aware of people who have never set foot on a property, but the owner, being made aware of their intention to visit, has informed them that they are not welcome and will be removed if they show up.
No, it cannot. You are not required to allow LE of any kind on your property if you don’t want to, unless they have a valid warrant. Government property is no different from your own home.
The courthouse is not her property, nor is she in charge of it. The chief judge might perhaps have that power, delegated to him by the state, or by whichever government entity it is that owns the courthouse. In any case, her crime was in directly assisting the fugitive to escape the agents. No one is entitled to do that.
Youth younger than age 18 account for 1 out of 14 arrests for violent crimes of murder, robbery, rape and car jacking. But they can’t be arrested at schools because school property is super special like a foreign embassy or something.
That’s bullshit. Of course they can be arrested at schools. Whoever told you they couldn’t? LAPD has full access to all schools, and can arrest anyone who has committed any of those crimes. It doesn’t even need a warrant to enter public schools, since the schools are city property and LAPD is the city.
ICE is not looking for juvenile offenders; it’s not interested in murder, robbery, rape, or carjacking, only being here illegally. It’s free to operate on the street, but it can’t enter private property without the owner’s permission unless it has a proper warrant.
An ICE agent who lays eyes on a person known to be in country illegally is witnessing a crime in progress. The agent can certainly follow that person into any building they might be seen to enter.
No, he is not. Illegal presence in the USA is not a crime. It’s a civil violation.
Those illegals don’t need no stinking diplomas.
Every police officer, city or school, who is not protecting citizens from being looted [it is happening to businesses now] is enabling that looting. The good news is that it should help convince productive people and businesses to get out of California.
Subotai Bahadur
That’s fair enough. If they don’t have a warrant, they have no right to enter anyone’s property without the owner’s permission, and that includes state and city property.
State law requires cities to refuse ICE permission to enter their property without a warrant, and for more than two centuries the courts have consistently upheld a state’s constitutional right to make such a law.
Of course if they have a warrant, specifically naming the person or people to be arrested, issued by an article 3 judge upon an oath or affirmation that there is probable cause to believe those people will be present (e.g. because their child is graduating), then the state and city have no more choice than any other property owner, and must let them in. As indeed the LAPD statement says they will.
This is confusing, do the police have a duty to protect or not?
Only a general duty to the public as a whole, not to any specific individual. Even if they personally witness a violent crime they can tell the victim “Sorry, I’m busy protecting the general public and can’t come to your rescue; the crime being committed against you is not a priority.”
That’s one reason the RKBA is so important.
I tell you what’s “preposterous”-the avowed willingness of a sworn law enforcement officer to prevent the execution of the law. Any sane city would fire such a police superintendent.
He is executing the law. The state law that forbids any government entity within California from offering any voluntary assistance to the enforcement of the federal immigration statutes. That is a valid law, protected by the tenth amendment. It’s also city policy and law, so the city would have been in its rights to fire him had he not made this announcement.
Note however that he specified that if ICE come with warrants they can go wherever they like.
Leave a Comment