ACLU: For national intake, you can file online via their civil liberties complaint form: American Civil Liberties Union You may also call their national office at (212) 549-2500 or toll-free at (888) 567-ACLU.
… and, that’s it! Nobody else has a phone number.
Well, other than if you want to call ICE or DHS or the DOJ and file a complaint with them, and ask them to investigate themselves.
Which is hopefully obviously laughably stupid.
There may be more local organizations with more local contact methods, I have no idea.
what? I was asking if there was a legal aid hotline they could call if their rights were being violated and you’re the one who jumps to can i call the government and starts going off the rails.
And for the record.
Law enforcement does not need any legal justification to approach someone.
While it is legal for authorities to target and approach a person based on their behavior, absent more, they cannot detain or search such individual without a warrant or probable cause.
She was blocking the roadway. He didn’t pull her vehicle over, she was already there, stopped. Ross then stopped his vehicle, and approached it. I don’t even think he even said a single word to her until the other officers arrived, nor did he try to stop her from leaving at first. There is nothing illegal about that.
The second ICE officers arrived, and then started barking orders, and tried to detain her by entering the vehicle. If they had no authority based on obstructing/impeding THIS is where anything illegal begins.
Florida vs Royer is a yardstick that measures the legitimacy of a detention, search, or seizure.
It does not broadly grant any extra jurisdictional powers.
Its irrelevant to ‘did ICE have legal authority to approach the vehicle.’
ICE do not have any legal justification to give a shit about a blocked roadway, unless it is specifically impeding a specifically authorized judicial warrant they are executing.
ICE, lately, generally doesn’t execute legitimately authorized judicial warrants.
They execute administrative warrants.
Which specifically only grant them legal abilities directly tied to the person or place they are investigating or apprehending.
Normally, they are screened/escorted by the local police, because things like random traffic impediments can happen, and that’s the local police’s jurisdiction to deal with.
But they weren’t.
They had no legal authority, from an administrative warrant, to approach her vehicle.
If you want to argue that they do, then you are arguing that ICE has the legal ability to approach and question anyone, anywhere within … an unknown radius of the specific area laid out in the administrative warrant.
Thats the definition of a police state.
The whole point of the trade off between a judicial and adnimistrative warrant is that an admin warrant can be issued more rapidly, only requires clearing a lower bar … but its limited in temporal and physical scope to where it applies, whereas a judicial warrant must clear a higher bar, but grants LEOs broader powers.
An officer may approach a citizen and have a consensual conversation and
ask questions without any level of suspicion—as long as no detention is involved.
An officer/citizen contact remains “voluntary” as long as the officer does not
restrict the freedom of the citizen, either by physical conduct or verbal direction.
Another question courts consider in assessing the voluntariness of an officer/citizen
contact is whether a reasonable person would feel free to turn and walk away
from the encounter. As long as a reasonable person believes that he or she can
“disregard the police and go about his or her business,” the encounter remains
voluntary.
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991). If a reasonable person in similar
circumstances would not feel free to leave, then the encounter has turned into a
“seizure.”
United States v. Ringold, 335 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2003),
cert. denied,
540 U.S. 1026 (2003). Simply asking a citizen for identification, without any
command or show of force, remains a voluntary encounter.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial
Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (“In the ordinary
course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating
the Fourth Amendment.”);
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002). “A
police officer does not have to inform the citizen they are free to disregard any
further questioning for the encounter to be consensual.”
United States v. Manjarrez,
348 F.3d 881 (10th Cir. 2003),
cert. denied, 541 U.S. 911 (2004).
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that mere questioning by police
does not create a detention.
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005). The Supreme
Court upheld the officers’ questioning of Mena, whom they were detaining while
officers executed a search warrant in her residence. Officers asked Mena questions
about her immigration status during a search for weapons and suspects connected
to a shooting. The lower court ruled that the officers were required to have
independent reasonable suspicion in order to question her about her immigration
status because her status was not related to the purpose of the search warrant. The
Supreme Court reversed, holding that “mere police questioning does not constitute
a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. “Even when officers have no basis for
suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that
individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to
search his or her luggage.” Though Mena was detained and handcuffed for
approximately three hours, the questioning about her immigration status did not
prolong her detention and did not create an additional seizure. Therefore, no
independent reasonable suspicion was required to support the questioning. The
Court relied on its decision in
Illinois v. Caballes, wherein the Court ruled that
conducting a drug detector dog sniff during a traffic stop does not violate the
Fourth Amendment if it does not extend the stop beyond the time normally required
to complete the purpose of the original detention.
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S.
405 (2005).
For example, an officer walks up to a group of high school students at a
football game, suspicious that some of the students may have been throwing
water balloons into the crowd. The officer greets the students and asks their names.
As long as the officer does not do anything such as block the exit path, give
nonverbal signals of detention, or use command language, the encounter remains
voluntary. The officer may ask the students if they were involved in the balloon
tossing or if they have any information, and still no detention will be created.
If the officer approaches the students and tells them not them not to move, or
waves them to stop or come toward him, the officer has exercised enough control
that the encounter may well be ruled a seizure. Thus, reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity will be required to make the detention lawful. The difference
between seizure and voluntary encounter, as well as the difference between
encouraging cooperation or generating hostility, often depends on the officer’s
tone and language. Remember: you can be perfectly tactically aware with a
smile on your face!
Oh, you mean to file a complaint after the crime has been committed, ok.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/know-your-rights-official-hotlines-to-report-ice-or-dhs-abuse/ar-AA1PWTg9
… and, that’s it! Nobody else has a phone number.
Well, other than if you want to call ICE or DHS or the DOJ and file a complaint with them, and ask them to investigate themselves.
Which is hopefully obviously laughably stupid.
There may be more local organizations with more local contact methods, I have no idea.
I meant during. Guess not.
Well maybe you can stop pretending to be some kind of legal and civics expert now…
Or are you still certain, as you were yesterday, that ICE was justified and acting legally when they uh, initiated the ‘traffic stop’ with Renee Good?
Am I gonna just have to keep correcting your misinformation, answering questions that can be solved by a web search in 30 seconds?
what? I was asking if there was a legal aid hotline they could call if their rights were being violated and you’re the one who jumps to can i call the government and starts going off the rails.
And for the record.
Law enforcement does not need any legal justification to approach someone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Royer
She was blocking the roadway. He didn’t pull her vehicle over, she was already there, stopped. Ross then stopped his vehicle, and approached it. I don’t even think he even said a single word to her until the other officers arrived, nor did he try to stop her from leaving at first. There is nothing illegal about that.
The second ICE officers arrived, and then started barking orders, and tried to detain her by entering the vehicle. If they had no authority based on obstructing/impeding THIS is where anything illegal begins.
Florida vs Royer is a yardstick that measures the legitimacy of a detention, search, or seizure.
It does not broadly grant any extra jurisdictional powers.
Its irrelevant to ‘did ICE have legal authority to approach the vehicle.’
ICE do not have any legal justification to give a shit about a blocked roadway, unless it is specifically impeding a specifically authorized judicial warrant they are executing.
ICE, lately, generally doesn’t execute legitimately authorized judicial warrants.
They execute administrative warrants.
Which specifically only grant them legal abilities directly tied to the person or place they are investigating or apprehending.
Normally, they are screened/escorted by the local police, because things like random traffic impediments can happen, and that’s the local police’s jurisdiction to deal with.
But they weren’t.
They had no legal authority, from an administrative warrant, to approach her vehicle.
If you want to argue that they do, then you are arguing that ICE has the legal ability to approach and question anyone, anywhere within … an unknown radius of the specific area laid out in the administrative warrant.
Thats the definition of a police state.
The whole point of the trade off between a judicial and adnimistrative warrant is that an admin warrant can be issued more rapidly, only requires clearing a lower bar … but its limited in temporal and physical scope to where it applies, whereas a judicial warrant must clear a higher bar, but grants LEOs broader powers.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba-cms-dotorg/products/inv/book/400713906/chapter-excerpt-5090173.pdf
Voluntary Encounters
Street contacts
An officer may approach a citizen and have a consensual conversation and ask questions without any level of suspicion—as long as no detention is involved. An officer/citizen contact remains “voluntary” as long as the officer does not restrict the freedom of the citizen, either by physical conduct or verbal direction. Another question courts consider in assessing the voluntariness of an officer/citizen contact is whether a reasonable person would feel free to turn and walk away from the encounter. As long as a reasonable person believes that he or she can “disregard the police and go about his or her business,” the encounter remains voluntary.
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991). If a reasonable person in similar circumstances would not feel free to leave, then the encounter has turned into a “seizure.” United States v. Ringold, 335 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1026 (2003). Simply asking a citizen for identification, without any command or show of force, remains a voluntary encounter. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (“In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.”); United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002). “A police officer does not have to inform the citizen they are free to disregard any further questioning for the encounter to be consensual.” United States v. Manjarrez, 348 F.3d 881 (10th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 911 (2004).
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that mere questioning by police does not create a detention. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005). The Supreme Court upheld the officers’ questioning of Mena, whom they were detaining while officers executed a search warrant in her residence. Officers asked Mena questions about her immigration status during a search for weapons and suspects connected to a shooting. The lower court ruled that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question her about her immigration status because her status was not related to the purpose of the search warrant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. “Even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.” Though Mena was detained and handcuffed for approximately three hours, the questioning about her immigration status did not prolong her detention and did not create an additional seizure. Therefore, no independent reasonable suspicion was required to support the questioning. The Court relied on its decision in Illinois v. Caballes, wherein the Court ruled that conducting a drug detector dog sniff during a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it does not extend the stop beyond the time normally required to complete the purpose of the original detention. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
For example, an officer walks up to a group of high school students at a football game, suspicious that some of the students may have been throwing water balloons into the crowd. The officer greets the students and asks their names. As long as the officer does not do anything such as block the exit path, give nonverbal signals of detention, or use command language, the encounter remains voluntary. The officer may ask the students if they were involved in the balloon tossing or if they have any information, and still no detention will be created.
If the officer approaches the students and tells them not them not to move, or waves them to stop or come toward him, the officer has exercised enough control that the encounter may well be ruled a seizure. Thus, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity will be required to make the detention lawful. The difference between seizure and voluntary encounter, as well as the difference between encouraging cooperation or generating hostility, often depends on the officer’s tone and language. Remember: you can be perfectly tactically aware with a smile on your face!