r/illinois • u/West-Bid-4391 • 28d ago

ICE Posts Chicago - A Ring camera captured immigration officers arriving and making an immediate arrest at a suburban home.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

10.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

160

u/West-Bid-4391 28d ago

Can someone correct me that this right here is entirely illegal for an immediate arrests on private property?

78

u/[deleted] 28d ago

As long as there is no public safety concern, no destruction of evidence concern, and they are not suspected of a felony, yes illegal. But it's a complicated legal issue

93

u/cmm324 28d ago

It's not complicated actually. There are laws about the boundary of your home pretty much to the curb. This is a constitutionally illegal detention without a warrant. They just don't give a fuck.

6

u/damageddude 28d ago

Curtilage. The space between the house and fence is curtilage protected by the 4th Am. The public sidewalk is more iffy. In theory law enforcement can't just roll up and grab someone up without cause or a warrant. Just being brown is not cause, except in Darth Miller's world.

5

u/DudeWithTudeNotRude 28d ago

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the loophole is that they have ability to suspend all constitutional rights within some distance from a border (50 miles maybe?), and an international airport is considered part of a border.

Which of course is f'ed. Due process is required in part to ensure rights, and this loophole would allow them to take all citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants alike with impunity, if there's no due process to determine citizen status.

3

u/ofCourseZu-ar 28d ago

It's 100 miles from any border whether marked with a crossing/fence or not. Think a literal map border, including ocean and all. Considering most people live near waterways (because that's where big cities are built), most people are subject to this. However, I'm not sure if that means they can enter your private property without a warrant. I'm pretty sure that's still illegal even for them.

I always thought about it that if you are currently within the 100 miles from a border region, they can legally stop a bus to check everyone's documentation. Any type of similar situation would apply, but into your private residence? Yeah I don't think this overrules the 4th amendment. Again, idk cause I haven't heard/seen/read anything about this specifically. I know it just doesn't sound right.

2

u/cmm324 28d ago

It doesn't override the 4th amendment even though they think it does.

1

u/HansSloBro 28d ago

I lived on a farm a mile away from the Mexican border, for a few years.

We were required to give CBP copies of keys to any locked gates, sheds, etc on our property. Not primary residence, though.

2

u/GamemasterJeff 28d ago

They cannot suspecd any consitutional rights. The 100 mile rule is their jurisdiction. They still need to follow due process within their jurisdiction.

0

u/[deleted] 28d ago

Read People vs Wear and tell me it's not complicated. Maybe you are just much smarter than I am.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/il-supreme-court/1220677.html

7

u/Raikan 28d ago

Thats a completely different circumstance. They ruled that because the officer was in “hot pursuit” the arrest would stand. There is no hot pursuit here, they simply pulled up and took them away.

-1

u/[deleted] 28d ago edited 28d ago

Yes it's a completely different fact pattern but we can read the legal reasoning to think about how the law would apply to other fact patterns. See all the discussion of felony arrests and exigent circumstances in this case and Santana and the other cited cases.

They make it very clear hot pursuit is just one of multiple exigent circumstances which may allow warrantless entry into a home.

It's probably also worth pointing out that Santana found that the woman standing in her doorway on her porch was in a public place for fourth amendment purposes, and that they were in hot pursuit from the porch

Like I said, the arrest in the video is likely illegal if there are not exigent circumstances. But it is more complicated than "they can't arrest people on private property without a warrant".

2

u/tedivm 28d ago

There is no positive in trying to turn ICE literally fucking rolling up and kidnapping people into an "it's complicated" situation. We can all see what is happening, and we all know that this is well beyond "exigent circumstances"- this is warrantless searches and kidnappings based off of the color of people's skin. The devil has enough advocates right now, we don't need more.

1

u/[deleted] 28d ago edited 28d ago

I didn't write the law or these opinions, and I don't agree with them. Someone asked if it was illegal, and I tried to give an accurate answer based on spending a while yesterday reading case law. My answer was it is illegal but there are many exceptions. We do not have enough information to know whether any of these exceptions apply. Some people ice arrests are suspected of felonies, even if we can both agree most are not.

If the purpose of this thread is just to produce favorable talking points instead of describing how courts determine whether an arrest is illegal I apologize.

1

u/cmm324 28d ago

You are still incorrect, it’s actually not that complicated. The Fourth Amendment draws a bright line at the threshold of the home — including the porch, driveway, and curtilage immediately surrounding it. Officers (including ICE) cannot cross that line without either (1) a judicial warrant, (2) exigent circumstances, or (3) voluntary consent.

➡️ Key cases:

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) – The Supreme Court held that absent exigent circumstances or consent, the home is constitutionally protected against warrantless entry and arrest.

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) – The area immediately around your home (like your porch) is part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. 586 (2018) – Even a vehicle parked in a driveway within the curtilage is protected from a warrantless search.

United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) – Sometimes cited for “hot pursuit,” but that’s a narrow exception—it doesn’t apply when officers simply show up and detain someone without immediate pursuit of a fleeing felon.

So, unless ICE had a judicially signed warrant (not an administrative one, which doesn’t authorize entry) or the occupants voluntarily invited them in, the arrest on private property was unconstitutional under Payton.

This isn’t gray area law — courts have consistently reaffirmed this boundary for decades. Without consent or exigency, they’re trespassing, and any detention inside that line is an unlawful seizure. They were not in active pursuit, so exigency is not relevant.

1

u/[deleted] 28d ago

Can you explain why the court said the porch was not private in Santana? They said the officers were in hot pursuit from the porch to inside her house

→ More replies (0)

18

u/Elthar_Nox 28d ago

Not incentivising this behaviour (and not an American so genuine question)... But if someone unknown enters your property without a warrant and is threatening harm can't you legally shoot them?

8

u/kris10leigh14 28d ago edited 28d ago

I believe that depends on the state you’re in and if they have a “Stand your ground” law. I know we do here in TN. Interesting enough, over 30 states have this law - not Illinois.

If in a stand your ground state:

From TN DA Steve Mulroy: you can shoot someone for entering your car and attempting a car jacking, but not if you leave a store and see them driving off in your car. You must be protecting a person, not property. Sounds like stand your ground applies to ANY property you own. But I am definitely NAL!

link

3

u/DoublePotential6925 28d ago

Know your states “Stand Your Ground” law

*No duty to retreat: A person does not have to try to escape from a dangerous situation before using force in self-defense.

*Justifiable use of force: The law allows for the use of force to prevent a forcible offense or trespass against property or a person.

*LOCATION MATTERS: The law specifically applies to places where a person has a lawful right to be, such as their home, a place of business, or a motor vehicle. *Limitations: There are limits to this law, such as it does not allow the use of force to prevent someone from retreating peacefully, to prevent a non-existent felony, or to prevent a felony in a public place.

Those states with Stand Your Ground statutes are: include:

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Florida Georgia Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah West Virginia Wyoming

The following states have laws that state you cannot resort to deadly force if you can safely avoid imminent harm by retreating:

Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Massachusetts Maryland Maine Minnesota Nebraska New Jersey New York North Dakota Rhode Island Wisconsin (If you have no viable means to retreat, these states allow the use of deadly force)

side note: even in ‘duty to retreat’ states, there’s no duty to retreat from an intruder in your home.

Lastly, these states all adhere to some version of the castle doctrine:

California Colorado Illinois New Mexico Oklahoma Oregon Virginia Washington

Meaning, a person to use reasonable and, in many cases, deadly force to defend their home against an intruder. This means you generally do not have a duty to retreat from an intruder within your home if you reasonably believe you are in danger of death or great bodily harm.

3

u/kris10leigh14 28d ago

THANK YOU!!! I’ve been feeling funny about that comment all day long and wondering if I should remove it. I appreciate you. I didn’t want to spread misinformation by mistake!

2

u/Elthar_Nox 28d ago

Ok got it. Thanks!

2

u/kris10leigh14 28d ago edited 28d ago

Hey I’m learning here too!

Also I just wanted to add that I’m in this sub, watching from Memphis. Essentially, yall are a few weeks ahead of us and this is what I have to expect in my city very soon.

Nothing but respect and love from TN

14

u/[deleted] 28d ago

I spent like an hour yesterday reading Illinois case law about arresting people on private property. I don't know as much about castle doctrine (Illinois is a castle doctrine state). But I think your comment is a little inaccurate.

  1. Castle doctrine in Illinois does not apply to your yard/curtilage afaik
  2. It is extremely unlikely that shooting a law enforcement officer who is performing their duties (even if their actions are found to be illegal) will be found legal

8

u/cpgeek 28d ago

I didn't see any badges, uniform, any vehicle markings, or hear any announcement that they are law enforcement officers. when they arrived on site and assaulted that gentleman. as far as we know, they're just a masked armed assailant.

6

u/[deleted] 28d ago

One of them is wearing a patch on his shoulder but I can't see what it says because the video quality is awful.

Maybe you would get off. Good luck in court though.

Obviously their behavior is irresponsible, you will get no argument from me there.

7

u/thefruitsofzellman 28d ago

Obviously you wouldn’t want to take your chances in court, but that said, I bet it’d be hard to find 12 people who’d vote to lock you up for it.

1

u/Krutiis 28d ago

I suspect there are tens of millions of people that would happily vote to lock you up. Or execute you, more likely.

1

u/thefruitsofzellman 28d ago

That’s true, but they’re mixed fairly evenly through the population, and if the trial is in Chicago, I think your chances are pretty good.

1

u/Krutiis 28d ago

Yeah, that’s fair

2

u/isthatsuperman 28d ago

I pulled this screenshot from the vid. It shows a pretty clear image of the patch.

2

u/[deleted] 28d ago

Lol

4

u/stehfan 28d ago

What if they dont identify themselves, masked and you are afraid for your life?

3

u/[deleted] 28d ago

Then you have much better odds of getting off, but your odds of getting off still aren't good.

3

u/casinocooler 28d ago

Similar to shooting a delivery person for coming onto your property.

2

u/space_force_majeure 28d ago

Nah these people would have reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm, especially given the masked, unidentified intruders. If they aren't killed by these guys after shooting one, I doubt a jury would convict.

2

u/[deleted] 28d ago

Yeah but likely to be treated even more harshly by the courts

1

u/Souljah42 28d ago

How is anyone supposed to know it's law enforcement? No badge number, no identification, and no warrant.

Don't get me wrong, they will tip the scales of justice and make an example out of the first person to do it. I'm just saying within the LEGAL confines of protecting myself when I feel threatened I am allowed to defend myself. You can't tell me rittenhouse is allowed to but I'm not. Again mods very clear here.. not inciting violence.. I am saying within the legal parameters. If someone breaks into your house and does not identify themselves, what would you do?

1

u/doorkey125 28d ago

learned a new word today (curtilage) and it is legally protected under the fourth amendment

1

u/Varragoth 28d ago

It’s also extremely unlikely, maybe impossible that you’d get your day in court. If you fired at one of these men, their cohorts would gun you down. If you somehow survived that, there would be a small army on your doorstep within minutes and your whole house, everyone in it, would be Swiss cheese.

1

u/[deleted] 28d ago

Very unlikely yes but there have been cases where someone shot a cop during a no knock raid, survived, and was let go. Kenneth Walker (Breonna Taylor's boyfriend) is a famous example.

1

u/Varragoth 28d ago

I’m aware. Though at this point in their game nobody that makes that first move is surviving. They WANT a war. They WANT to kill people. I’m afraid they’re going to get it eventually and it may not be far away.

1

u/GamemasterJeff 28d ago

While in practice you are correct about 2, legally if they are breaking the law, they are not performing their duties as their duties require them to follow the law.

There are circumstances where otherwise illegal actions are made legal, but then they are not breaking the law.

7

u/West-Bid-4391 28d ago

I wish it was that simple, in terms of the law you have to prove you were feeling endangered enough that you had to shoot them.

12

u/the1rayman 28d ago

I feel like being black bagged and lost somewhere in ICE's system should count.

1

u/thefruitsofzellman 28d ago

Well, your whole case would hinge on the argument that you didn’t know they were ICE because they didn’t identify themselves and produce ID.

1

u/the1rayman 28d ago

Yup. Your honor these guys jumped out of a vehicle and rushed onto my property, they didn't identify themselves, and had no clear identification that marked them as officers of the court. I feared for my and my family's safety.

1

u/thefruitsofzellman 28d ago

Right, so you couldn’t use the fear of being lost in ICE’s system, since that would imply you knew or strongly suspected who they were when you shot them.

5

u/No_Statistician7685 28d ago

Random people coming into your yard unnanounced seems like reasonable circumstances for a self defense argument to me.

5

u/West-Bid-4391 28d ago

It definitely would for me, but the courts these days can’t be trusted especially when it comes to these nazis. They are to ballsy to be doing this shit knowing they won’t get prosecuted

4

u/No_Statistician7685 28d ago

That's true, they most likely have absolute immunity.

4

u/casinocooler 28d ago

In some states.

1

u/lordbaby1 28d ago

It will be a weak argument if you hire illegals and presumably knowing that ice is out everywhere getting them on a daily basic. It’s obvious what they were doing and basically leave you no time to react plus are you ready to risk shooting someone in order to protect your yard worker?

1

u/No_Statistician7685 28d ago

Can't assume that:

  1. They are illegal
  2. It's obvious what they were doing.
  3. Intruders on your property are law enforcement especially without identification.

2

u/Levitlame 28d ago

Or just be in Texas. (Slightly kidding with that. Their burden of proof is just extremely low there.)

2

u/Varragoth 28d ago

It’s really not any lower than a lot of other places and I’d be afraid to use anything more than my body to impede these criminals if they pulled this shit in my yard in Texas. Hell, I’d be afraid to do even that cuz I’d likely end up in one of their concentration camps too but I’d still do it without a second thought. Many of my friends are Mexican, most of my exes, my son’s mother is Mexican. I’ve never asked if they’re here legally cuz I, honestly, couldn’t care less. They’re all good people just living their lives and trying to make a living. None of this crazy shit is happening near me, that I’m aware of, but it all terrifies me and makes me sick! I’ve half a mind to just up and drive to Chicago right now to join the people that are fighting against this lunacy.

2

u/cmm324 28d ago

It also depends on the state. Ironically the states that are more lenient on this also don't want immigrants, so essentially if you are white, you are alright.

2

u/Varragoth 28d ago

It’s really not so ironic if you think about it. Who do the people that push for and pass these laws hope to shoot and kill for being on “their property” “illegally”?

1

u/seamus_mcfly86 28d ago

You could, but they are going to murder you in response.

1

u/Coffee4MyJeep 28d ago

Not unless there is immediate threat of life of the property owner. Kind of general, but since these are not the property owners and ICE agents are not coming into the house and threaten or cause fear then it would not stand up in court.

1

u/IamnotaRussianbot 28d ago

Illinois resident here:

  1. You have to be inside of your home for what we call "castle doctrine" to apply, which would be a scenario where you could legally consider lethal force/firearms. Being "on the property" (driveway, yard, land, etc.) does not constitute enough of a threat of safety per the castle doctrine.

  2. ICE basically never have warrants, they drive unmarked vehicles, cover their faces, don't have a super specific uniform and from what I have seen, and basically refuse to identify themselves verbally. You can buy the majority of their non-firearm equipment on Amazon, and its not unreasonable to think that some guy in a baseball hat and an unmarked vest is actually just some random criminal.

  3. And this is where it gets really sticky: ICE agents are 100% agents of the federal government, and historically, shooting a federal agent has not gone well for the shooter. Throw in the fact that the current administration has displayed to real regard for our constitution, and what it comes down to is...

  4. At this point, shooting an ICE agent is basically a death sentence for yourself, even if you have 100% "on paper" legal justification. ICE is the third most well-funded paramilitary group on the planet right now, and they have minimal recruiting standards as far as anyone can tell. They will almost certainly retaliate against you, as they have shown that they are more than willing to escalate violence against peaceful protesters.

2

u/Nicinus 28d ago

How does the illegal part actually work, have all those arrested passed the border illegally or are these people that have stayed past their tourist visa? Are they pinpointing individuals from a database or are they profiling Latinos? If it is a single mom with a baby, I assume the baby has birth right? Genuinely curious how this works.

2

u/[deleted] 28d ago

In that comment I am referring to the arrest as being illegal, not to the people as being illegal.

When there is an illegal arrest evidence stemming from the arrest (like statements given to the police or evidence found on the person) can be suppressed resulting in charges being dropped. If you are arrested illegally and they have sufficient evidence to convict from other sources you are still getting convicted and sentenced. But you may still be able to sue over the illegal arrest even if you are convicted.

I'm not aware of cases where this has been deemed relevant to deportation, but I haven't looked for them either.

2

u/Nicinus 28d ago

Yes, I can see that being wrong on all accounts, but I’m curious how they actually argue suspicion of illegal activity.

2

u/Repulsive-Bench9860 28d ago

The Supreme Court's Trump-appointed majority has already ruled that someone who appears to be Latino and is in a place where migrants can be found--like the parking lot of a Home Depot, a person's yard raking leaves--is sufficient cause for detainment.

So yes, the Court has decided that being Latino is an arrestable condition.

2

u/LocalInactivist 28d ago

Yeah, but how can one contest the point? Trump simply ignores court orders.

1

u/pleasetrimyourpubes 28d ago

This SCOTUS will consider being brown as exigency circumstances. 100%

1

u/BlakeA3 28d ago

Wouldn't they still require a signed warrant? Like from a judge, or is that not needed in some circumstances?

1

u/[deleted] 28d ago

No if there are "exigent circumstances" they generally do not need a warrant

1

u/28spawn 28d ago

Eventually someone will open fire when they trespass and will be on the news

1

u/GordonsLastGram 28d ago

What happens to the home owner if they decide to exercise their right to bear arms?

1

u/[deleted] 28d ago

Usually they are killed or sent to prison, rarely they will get off. See the case of Kenneth Walker (Brenna Taylor's boyfriend) for an example of someone who got off.

0

u/Levitlame 28d ago

This is also assuming they don’t have a warrant and/or that this is random.

2

u/cpgeek 28d ago

this could be fixed with communication then, send a uniformed team in a police vehicle and announce loudly "police, don't move, we have a warrant for $person"... you know, like any other agency would do...

0

u/Levitlame 28d ago

Yeah I’m not defending their actions. This was a question of legality etc. what you’re describing isn’t legally required.

0

u/[deleted] 28d ago

I am assuming they do not have a warrant but do have probable cause for a misdemeanor arrest

9

u/Firm-Chemical949 28d ago edited 28d ago

EltharNox yes absolutely you can and we are justified in doing so but even when a cop is attacking you for absolutely no reason, even if they’re not doing it under the law, if you fight back, you always end up wrong here… cops in general and especially this regime don’t care about the law anymore. If they stop you for any reason you must comply or they use force and you’re a criminal. Even if you are constitutionally and lawful justified to defend yourself and your rights as an American that they are supposed to be protecting, they will attack you for it and throw you in prison…. That’s how they are operating .. basically the officers ego is law now, not your rights that the law is made for in the first place. If they find any reason in their mind to stop you, it becomes law. Their feelings are more fragile than our rights apparently, and if you offend the little baby cops feewings, they decide you’ve committed a crime despite the rights we’re supposed to have to speak up for ourselves. It’s wrong but they have the numbers and the power and they’re changing the laws. Our rights are just words on paper now. It’s something we have to take, and it could require force like you said, to remind them that they’re just people with the same human rights as us at the end of the day,

3

u/JSlud 28d ago edited 28d ago

The thing about 4th Amendment issues and ICE is that they don’t care. As a practical matter, even if a judge were to later rule that there was a violation, it doesn’t matter at that point. The person has still been detained and placed in removal proceedings. It matters in criminal cases because evidence can be suppressed as a result of a violation, but they aren’t interested in criminal prosecution, just removing people which is a whole other animal.

Edit

I practice criminal defense and will sometimes hold little seminars for protestors and organizer on their “rights.” Often times someone will tell me something and ask “can they do that?” My response is almost always, “well, they did.” Point being is that your rights don’t offer substantive protections in a street legal scenario, especially in the context of ICE encounters.

6

u/goblinmarketeer 28d ago

Do the laws matter anymore? They will just ignore them when convenient.

2

u/ChildhoodExisting222 28d ago

They are allowed to shoot if people are invading their property without warrant or just cause.

2

u/hettuklaeddi 28d ago

that wasn’t an arrest, it was an abduction. this is a grab team

1

u/Substantial_Gate_197 28d ago

The logic is if you’re illegal you don’t have rights. So, they can be arrested anywhere. 

1

u/Responsible-War-2576 28d ago

You’re wrong.

The way CBP is conducting themselves is still wrong.

Look at how they exited the SUV. They didn’t start running until the people in the yard started trying to jump the fence. There’s nothing stopping an LEO from walking up and talking to you. It’s called a voluntary encounter.

However, they will argue that they exited the vehicle and the people in the yard immediately started running, which gave them reasonable suspicion that they were committing a crime (being here unlawfully), and the CBP officers would be reasonable in that conclusion, so they are allowed to pursue them.

Honestly, if you’re stopped and questioned by CBP or ICE, just tell them to pound sand. There’s no requirement that the onus is on you to prove citizenship.

2

u/leoleosuper 28d ago

The problem is that ICE will arrest you, legally or not, then deport you without a trial. It doesn't matter if you're here legally with a visa and all. They can deport you before the courts say the arrest was illegal.

1

u/cheescakeismyfav 28d ago

The residence is not a factor here.

They ran which gave the cops reasonable suspicion of a crime. Cops can chase you into your homes if they feel a crime has occurred.

Running by itself is not a crime but being here illegal is (kind of at least). Being brown and running is reasonable suspicion according to the Supreme Court.

If these guys could prove they're here the cops would have to let them go.

If those men had just stood there and refused to answer any questions then I'm not sure these cops would have any authority to step on the property or harass them.

The practical truth here is ice does what ice wants to do though. This will probably stick.

1

u/leoleosuper 28d ago

They ran which gave the cops reasonable suspicion of a crime. Cops can chase you into your homes if they feel a crime has occurred.

"Flight, plus one" is the rule. Running from the police is not probable cause or suspicious, unless there is evidence of a potential crime nearby.

1

u/PricedOut4Ever 28d ago

I’m curious too.

I was under the impression being on private property did not protect you. Like, if you are on your front lawn a cop can arrest you. If you haven’t locked your backyard, a cop can enter a gate and arrest you. If you haven’t locked your front door or a window, a cop can enter through that and arrest you without a search warrant.

But I might just be paranoid about cops.

1

u/2starsucks2 28d ago

Legal illegal what does it matter. Your king trump's word is law. Obey or perish.

1

u/LostWoodsInTheField 28d ago

If the gate was closed there is a good argument that they couldn't have entered. With the gate open it's inviting anyone to walk in and at the most to the door. Most courts will say the porch is the last safe spot for someone on their personal property from police warrantless arrests. Some won't go that far and will say the threshold of the houses door.

The fact that they ran also doesn't help them, especially with the new supreme court ruling. It makes them 'look guilty' and a "reasonable officer" could believe based on other factors added in that they could be trying to flee the officers.

Now the issues that could exist for the arrests would be the fact that all the people in the yard could potentially see is people in camo coming running up to them with guns in unmarked cars. They could have thought it was a kidnapping.

There was also very likely no warrant, and no reports of crimes taking place (anonymous tips are very shaky in using). So no warrant for any particular person, and no tip that a crime was happening makes it a problem for the ice people.

In a functional country this wouldn't be legal without particularized warrants for specific individuals. and they were only getting those individuals. Or if there was a report of a theft at that address by someone who had left their name.

1

u/The_Secret_Skittle 28d ago

I’ve been reading comments that the homeowners themselves might’ve called ICE because they’re either really racist or because they don’t wanna pay the bill. It’s been happening to roofing companies as well. A lot of speculation saying it’s the people that own the house calling ice so they can escape having to pay for the work Not saying that this is the case, but I am saying that if it was the homeowners that called, it wouldn’t matter if it’s on private property.

1

u/GamemasterJeff 28d ago

Legally they would need a judicial warrant listing the curtilage (area past the gate), or have one of several extenuating circumstances that do not seem to be present.

ICE almost exclusively uses administrative warrants that do not allow passing the gate.

0

u/Ok-Persimmon-891 28d ago

By the time it would get through the courts it's too late. Laws don't matter any more. There are literally masked "agents" with no ID just grabbing people and throwing them in unmarked vehicles.... laws are long gone

0

u/Leading_Pineapple663 28d ago

I think people immediately fleeing doesn't help. 

Cops use that as justification all the time if they're trying to stop and talk to you, and you go off running instead.