(07-25-2025 07:03 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  He's still applying the same precedents for trial cases for U.S. citizens in cases for illegal aliens.

Nope.

Quote:When an alien goes before an immigration judge sometimes classified information is required. A single district judge has no authority to determine what factors immigration enforcement agents can use to determine whether someone is in the U.S. illegally or compel DOJ or DHS to provide this information.

Your sentence above is kind of a mishmash.

And hate to tell you, Federal District judges have every right to opine and determine whether detentions or Terry-style stops are in violation of the 4th. Federal courts have done this for about as long as I have been alive. That is, any Federal court has every amount of subject matter jurisdiction to determine violations of rights guaranteed under the 4th Amendment.

Here is a quick list of those cases ---

Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) (noting that “[d]etaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns,”

Cotzojay v. Holder, 725 F.3d 172, 181 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[/I]t is uncontroversial that the
Fourth Amendment applies to aliens and citizens alike.”);

Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 694 F.3d 259, (3d Cir. 2012) (reaffirming that a civil immigration enforcement actions must be “consistent with the limitations imposed by the Fourth Amendment”);

Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying Fourth Amendment to immigration arrests);

Au Yi Lau v. INS, 445 F.2d 217, (D.C. Cir. 1971) (“We agree with the Government that the [INA’s] arrest provision must be read in light of constitutional standards,” such that arrests must be supported by “probable cause”).

Specifically for Terry stops --
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)
(immigration agents may make “brief” Terry-style vehicle stops for questioning based, but must be based on reasonable particularized suspicion)

Finally, you misstate the question as bolded. You are correct that Federal judges typically do not have the power to 'determine whether an individual is in the US illegally.' That isnt the question at the forefront.

The question isnt on the end result of the matter as you type above -- the question is 'when does ICE have legally proper manner to detain someone *for* such determination'.

You are also correct that a Federal Court cannot compel DOJ or ICE to provide information. I never said that. Nor has any court. Ever.

What I did say is that when an immigration case having an issue under the the 4th amendment makes it to a Federal court -- when the Govt does not, or can not show such particularized bases for detainers aside from what they showed recently in SD, there is no 'the govt can make a broad assertion and it passes the test.'

If ICE has such particularized information in those circumstances, when it *chooses* to not cite anything more than 'brown guy, at a car wash, working at the car wash' -- that simply doesnt meet the 4th amendment *requirements* for probable cause.

Quote:This is why this ruling will be eviscerated on appeal. The ruling which prohibits agents from stopping and detaining individuals solely based on factors like race, ethnicity, language, accent, location, or occupation is already law.

Im glad we agree on that. Unfortunately, that is *all* the government showed the judge in the issue. and even in the pleadings following the TRO (for the preliminary injunction), the Govt *still* hasnt laid out any factual bases aside or beyond the italicized above. If it did, it may very well meet the burden. They have not. Since we both agree that the above italicized is already the law, what do you think the result will be when the government only sets oiut the italicized?

Quote:But the enactment of this specific injunction allows ACLU to claim every single arrest in this area that is 90% latino is automatically a violation of the judges ruling.

Only when the government cannot, or will not, show factors above the italicized. And if they show factors and information above the italicized, it isnt a violation of the judge's ruling. Again, ICE has to show its work. It has to show a predicate above and beyond the italicized above.

And if ICE wishes to do Fallujah style raids, then those that they detain have every opportunity to force ICE to show the above. No one told ICE to engage in high profile mass detention activities. Boo fing hoo that when ICE does that, they will be called to task to provide that they are operating within the legal parameters of the Bill of Rights. How horrible, I guess.

Quote:Want the proof this is f'n stupidity on steroids? If what tanq and this judge is saying is happening hundreds even thousands of American citizens would be getting arrested every day. But shockingly it's not happening.

Huh? That is quite the leap of logic. My only statement is that ICE *has* to show the legal prerequisites for its detentions. If ICE *chooses* to elevate those actions to big raids in convoys with people decked out like they are going to Fallujah -- then I am sorry that ICE *chooses* to operate like that, as that public impact those have absolutely lead to activities in the court. And when ICE does not show bases beyond the italicized, you get rulings like just happened in SD.

The funny thing is that yo say there is a lot more detail that isnt / wasnt disclosed to the judge. And then you state, when the facts in the court are *solely* based on race, place, type of work, accented English, speaking Spanish -- kind of go on a rager abouut the judge shredding the Constitution and various items about 'rogue judges' and the like. Nope -- the judge made a ruling on the facts in front of her. And literally limited to the issues you say are already prohibited.

Quote:How can than be if agents are just riding around indiscriminate rolling up people they think "looks like an illegal."? Obvious answer is obvious. Except for tanq

I can cite you at least 12 different lawsuits from citizens being rounded up, simply because they were brown, and in the wrong place.

If you extend that to Terry-style stops, there are magnitudes more.

Yes, I think the high public impact of the current sweeps is having multitudes of effects. More mistakes are being made, and it readily appears to having much more arbitrary 'show ups' happening. And the backlash is prompting a lot more judicial activity in the area.

And the big increases of facially improper 4th amendment suits are indicative of that. As are the other dramatic increases in lawsuits based on full detention of citizens in the actions. Literally from zero more than a handful at this point. Thats very disturbing.

What is your response to Leonardo Garcia Venegas that 'all is copacetic, nothing to see here, move along'?

I can name literally a dozen other instances like that.

(07-25-2025 09:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If ICE has such particularized information in those circumstances, when it *chooses* to not cite anything more than 'brown guy, at a car wash, working at the car wash' -- that simply doesnt meet the 4th amendment *requirements* for probable cause.

I'm going to distill this down. This is the basis of your entire argument and its false. You were not in the court room and you do not know what was provided in the court room. So, you do not know that the information provided - in any other district in American - would suffice. Again, there was a reason ACLU filed this a multiple times in Calif and didn't pursue them until they got this specific judge. ICE agents are allowed to make biometric confirmation (i.e. recognize) of a known illegal alien and arrest. The judge is basically making that condition now unconstitutional. That's just one example that's flawed.

The factors considered to establish probable cause for an immigration arrest might include the likelihood of the individual absconding. This "likely to escape" component is part of the "reason to believe" standard for warrantless immigration arrests and can be based on factors like where the individual lives, family ties, associations, or employment in the community. Again, the judge is attempting to manipulate the Constitution to fit her narrative by saying this going forward is a violation of her court ruling.

(07-25-2025 10:17 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 09:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If ICE has such particularized information in those circumstances, when it *chooses* to not cite anything more than 'brown guy, at a car wash, working at the car wash' -- that simply doesnt meet the 4th amendment *requirements* for probable cause.

I'm going to distill this down. This is the basis of your entire argument and its false.

Im all ears.

Quote:You were not in the court room and you do not know what was provided in the court room. So, you do not know that the information provided - in any other district in American - would suffice.

Transcripts.

And the transcripts parallel the items that the judge cited in her ruling.

Also the Govt has submitted a filing opposing the preliminary injunction. They are not making any effort to change the issue to that ICE includes other items aside from the 4.

Quote:Again, there was a reason ACLU filed this a multiple times in Calif and didn't pursue them until they got this specific judge.

Funny, you just made the comment above how '[/I] was not in the court room' and thus 'do not know what was said' (unfortunately transcripts.... but I digress).

Now you go on a wild supposition right above -- *exactly* in the manner you tried to deflate my point above.

Perhaps prove that point above. Ive shown you how I can state what was presented to the judge.

What other lawsuits did the ACLU file and promptly dismiss? How do you know *why* other lawsuits (if any) were dismissed?

Unless you are part if the ACLU litigation team, you simply do not know. Id like to see this listing of 'fishing lawsuits' you allege to have happened, since I know unequivocally that you do not have any first hand or verifiable information on ACLU filing strategy (if any).

Quote:ICE agents are allowed to make biometric confirmation (i.e. recognize) of a known illegal alien and arrest.

Absolutely. When any LE recognizes *any* person via specific data, that is absolutely allowable.

Quote:The judge is basically making that condition now unconstitutional.

Nope. Not in the slightest. Nothing in the TRO (nor in the proposed preliminary injunction) hamper that in the slightest.

There is vast gulf between 'we know this guy, thats the guy' and the actions prohibited in the order itself. The former is absolutely allowable under any and all aspects of the 4th. I dont see anything in the order that would short circuit that.

But, for simple arguments' sake, lets assume your thesis that the judge's order makes that specific and individualized assessment unconstitutional. What language in her order gives rise to that allegation you make above?

Quote:The factors considered to establish probable cause for an immigration arrest might include the likelihood of the individual absconding. This "likely to escape" component is part of the "reason to believe" standard for warrantless immigration arrests and can be based on factors like where the individual lives, family ties, associations, or employment in the community. Again, the judge is attempting to manipulate the Constitution to fit her narrative by saying this going forward is a violation of her court ruling.

Her ruling notes 4 'bad areas' that cannot be used for general purposes to sustain a proper 4th amendment detention or related Terry-stop. If a stop or detention is made *solely* on one of those 4 -- cant do it. If a stop or detention is made on a combination of issues which are limited *solely* to those 4 -- cant do it.

Every item you note above brings LE *out* of that order. On its face. Doesnt mean that additional item or items is/are dispositive -- but it brings it explicitly out of the scope of her order.

And, LE (including ICE) has the burden of evidence and the burden of moving forward on sufficiency of the items to underlie a proper 4th amendment stop/ detention. If ICE limits itself to any one of the 4 bad areas -- it is enjoined. If ICE limits itself to a combination of *solely* those items in the 4 bad areas -- again it is enjoined. When ICE brings in *anything* in conjunction with the 4 bad areas -- that falls explicitly out of the order.

I dont see anything in the order and ruling *but* the paragraph above. Seriously, in your view, how does the order impact *anything* that is italicized above?

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
Butane in my veins and I'm out to cut the junkie
With the plastic eyeballs, spray-paint the vegetables
Dog food stalls with the beefcake pantyhose

Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Stock car flamin' with a loser and the cruise control
Baby's in Reno with the vitamin D
Got a couple of couches, sleep on the love-seat

Someone came in sayin' I'm insane to complain
About a shotgun wedding and a stain on my shirt
Don't believe everything that you breathe
You get a parking violation and a maggot on your sleeve
So shave your face with some mace in the dark
Savin' all your food stamps and burnin' down the trailer park
Yo, cut it

Soy un perdedor
Tanq's a loser baby, so why don't you kill me?
(Double-barrel buckshot)
Soy un perdedor

(07-25-2025 10:17 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 09:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If ICE has such particularized information in those circumstances, when it *chooses* to not cite anything more than 'brown guy, at a car wash, working at the car wash' -- that simply doesnt meet the 4th amendment *requirements* for probable cause.

I'm going to distill this down. This is the basis of your entire argument and its false. You were not in the court room and you do not know what was provided in the court room. So, you do not know that the information provided - in any other district in American - would suffice. Again, there was a reason ACLU filed this a multiple times in Calif and didn't pursue them until they got this specific judge. ICE agents are allowed to make biometric confirmation (i.e. recognize) of a known illegal alien and arrest. The judge is basically making that condition now unconstitutional. That's just one example that's flawed.

The factors considered to establish probable cause for an immigration arrest might include the likelihood of the individual absconding. This "likely to escape" component is part of the "reason to believe" standard for warrantless immigration arrests and can be based on factors like where the individual lives, family ties, associations, or employment in the community. Again,




the judge is attempting to manipulate the Constitution to fit her narrative by saying this going forward is a violation of her court ruling.

This is the prog filth playbook. Muh due process. Muh equal protection

Idiots

(07-25-2025 10:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Seriously, in your view, how does the order impact *anything* that is italicized above?

Hypothetical vignette below...

Let's say tanq becomes an ICE agent where he's spent the past 20 years working enforcement. He clocks in, attends meeting for agenda for the day, and gets his daily intelligence briefing on what the latest trends are regarding illegal alien movements particularly those attempting to evade detection on their movements and whereabouts.

Using your keen skills of investigation, subject matter expertise, and prowess as an enforcement officer, you know that when criminal aliens previously convicted of major crimes are trying to avoid detection typically transition from the Figeroa bus stop to the Wilmington & Anaheim stop because there's less heat.

You decide to ride with your team, because you're looking for a specific felon who was released by LA County jail on sanctuary policy and you know this is his MO. You roll up on the bus station and sure enough he's there. And five others who were with him. All six are taken down.

The judges ruling says this is prohibited and can't be carried out because it would meet her prohibition of arrests or detentions predicated on presence at certain locations. This is where the overstep occurs. This is where I believe there is a little bit of difference in how the 4th amendment is applied, interpreted, or whatever you want to call it for illegal persons vs. a legal fishing expedition. The rub here is what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Trying to make a criminal arrest or even an administrative detention on a hunch is bit different than dealing with this.

Let me explain that last bit another way. If a murderer named Bob goes to and hangs out at club x and only murderers hang out at club x, I can't arrest Bob because he's a club x and suspect he's a murderer because I'm not basing it on any evidence. But Jay is an illegal alien and goes to club y and only illegal aliens are allowed to hang out at club y, the reasonable suspicion standard has already been met. When I encounter him I confirm he's not in the country legally. It's a different outcome to the same event or activity.

My gosh, is tanq STILL getting humiliated?

(07-25-2025 01:24 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  My gosh, is tanq STILL getting humiliated?

His o-fer record broke the machine.

What is it now, like 216-0?

Why do democrats love criminals is my question? They didn't love them when Oblunder and Clinton were presidents. I never heard a peep out of them when they were getting deported.

They're evil, I tell you.

Of course they are.

(07-25-2025 01:30 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why do democrats love criminals is my question? They didn't love them when Oblunder and Clinton were presidents. I never heard a peep out of them when they were getting deported.

They're evil, I tell you.

Democrats feel that as long as liberals are in charge, their actions and inactions are noble. If a Republican is in charge, the motives are not good. In their idea world, government works best and. the WH is comprised of a bunch of fast-talking, well-credentialed liberals like on the old TV show “West Wing.”

(07-25-2025 01:12 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 10:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Seriously, in your view, how does the order impact *anything* that is italicized above?

Hypothetical vignette below...

Let's say tanq becomes an ICE agent where he's spent the past 20 years working enforcement. He clocks in, attends meeting for agenda for the day, and gets his daily intelligence briefing on what the latest trends are regarding illegal alien movements particularly those attempting to evade detection on their movements and whereabouts.

Using your keen skills of investigation, subject matter expertise, and prowess as an enforcement officer, you know that when criminal aliens previously convicted of major crimes are trying to avoid detection typically transition from the Figeroa bus stop to the Wilmington & Anaheim stop because there's less heat.

You decide to ride with your team, because you're looking for a specific felon who was released by LA County jail on sanctuary policy and you know this is his MO. You roll up on the bus station and sure enough he's there. And five others who were with him. All six are taken down.

The judges ruling says this is prohibited and can't be carried out because it would meet her prohibition of arrests or detentions predicated on presence at certain locations.

Hypothetical response ---

Because rookie ICE agent tanq knows 4th Amendment, IO tanq is very cognizant that the takedown of specific felon is absolutely kosher -- since he is known by sight ostensibly because his mug shot was accessed on the phone and reviewed to ensure IO tanq *knew* who specific felon is, and identified him.

Because IO tanq also knows the bounds of 4A, while the information *plus* identity of Specific Felon makes the 'I have a gut feeling you go to X bus stop a perfectly valid stop, Terry stop, detention, *and* arrest'.

As to the five others, you are absolutely correct that the stop, detention, and arrest of the others is not permissible -- absent any particular knowledge of any particular infraction. However, if prior to the move in on the bus stop, if any of the other 5 can be, and in fact *are* identified as illegals before they are detained and questions -- then they are simply in a bad place at a bad time (for them and their freedom in this country).

Nothing prevents ICE from trying to talk with the 5, and if they refuse, that is also not any indicia of anything 4A-wise. It they do talk, then you have their consent to being questioned -- then ICE is free to question, but not detain. If the talk reveals other information particular to them that implicates their being in the country illegally, you meet both the Terry threshold, and the detainment threshold. And maybe the 'scoop them up threshold'.

But simply intelligence that a particular place is where some illegals congregate doesnt rise to the particular and individualized reasonable suspicion for any individual, absent any other issue.

Quote:Let me explain that last bit another way. If a murderer named Bob goes to and hangs out at club x and only murderers hang out at club x, I can't arrest Bob because he's a club x and suspect he's a murderer because I'm not basing it on any evidence.

Correct.

Quote:But Jay is an illegal alien and goes to club y and only illegal aliens are allowed to hang out at club y, the reasonable suspicion standard has already been met.

Im going to nitpick your comment above, and allow you to rephrase.

You are correct, but *only* because you have formulated the to hypo that (emphasis added) "ONLY illegal aliens are allowed."

If instead the intelligence or observable is "part, or most of the people, in the club are illegal aliens" -- note the different formulation.

If the intelligence *clearly* shows that *ONLY* illegal aliens are in the club, then that is an additional bit of intelligence that does not lean on a *generalized* notion of *some or most* people who are at a place are illegals. And that is additional intelligence that brings that outside the proscriptions of the order.

And if the issue falls short of always, say even 85%, then the reasonable suspicion isnt meant when you use *only* the information of the location to base the target on.

In terms of my neck of the woods these days, 2 miles down the dead end dirt road is a big barn on 17 acres -- and on *many* weekends the trucks in and out of there are numerous. In fact (a fact, since my neighbor invited me one weekend) there are illegal cockfights on Saturday nights there, about 70% of the time. Another 20% there is simply a fiesta. In conjunction with the cockfights, there is a wide presence of el emme with various pharmaceuticals.

The problem for the sheriff is that because only 70% of the time there is an illegal event, they cannot simply swarm in on any Saturday and scoop up the baddies. They cant make the presumption of even a Terry stop on any given Saturday.

Once there is specific articulable bit of information that on a specific Saturday there is a an illegal cockfight occurring - then the door is open. But they cannot simply say '70% of the time there is a problem, and 70% of the time there are opioids being sold there' to simply head in on *any* given Saturday night.

Edited to alter -- they could, simply to 'douse the party', but any arrest on that basis would be critically injured at the get go.

Thanks for the context.

I think that this portion of your example is where the issue occurs. You said:

Quote:you know that when criminal aliens previously convicted of major crimes are trying to avoid detection typically transition from the Figeroa bus stop to the Wilmington & Anaheim stop because there's less heat.

I think the issue you present above is literally reversed from a normal 4A analysis. Lets assume the above is absolutely true -- heck lets increase it to ALL criminal aliens convicted of major crimes do that.

The issue under the 4th Amend isnt "if ALL criminal aliens convicted of major crimes do that", the result is one of the population of the riders of that bus. In that context, only a *portion* of the riders of the bus are such illegal persons. And the information, even when applied to ALL criminal aliens convicted of major crimes do that, becomes only a generalized hunch when casting the gaze to the total population of riders on that bus line.

Identical premise to how 4th is applied in all other situations. Therein lies the difference in how I view there. There is a difference however small in how reasonable suspicion is determined/applied for illegal presence in the US.

Tanq, I hope you have talk to text.

Firing attorneys who answer truthfully to direct questions

Direct quote from Tanq

One of the biggest whoppers of the year

Pinocchio proud

(07-24-2025 12:17 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Someone has been drinking tonight,

More like snorting

(07-24-2025 01:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 12:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:31 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 08:24 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  You're still losing and you still didn't answer the question.

I guess you didn’t understand, my friend. In *this* cause of action re: Abrego, they have not. As opposed to at least them doing so in three other causes of action *just* regarding Abrego.

Capiche?

Quote:Your attempts to project and attribute positions or statements to me that I have not declared are weak and morally bankrupt and roll off me like beads of water.

I guess you failed to note your attempts to project inaccurate positions to me. Imagine that.

The rest of my post simply stands as a stark counterpoint to your thin complaints about judges ripping the Constitution. I’m sorry they *apply* the Constitution to your employer. Bummer for your employer.

Your support for activist judges who rule on the basis of their personal advocacy and not the law or Constitution is duly noted. And your losses continue to stack up.

Coming from the guy who railed that an order simply detailing the basic prohibitions of the 4th amendment was such a 'rogue judge shredding the Constitution' (twice now, in fact), Ill take your statement of them 'rul[ing] on the basis of their personal advocacy' as just more of your thin rhetoric.

My support os for judges who apply the rule of law. End of story. As opposed to your continuous railing on any decision going against your employer's means of law enforcement as just more of that typical broad (and thin) rhetoric you employ. As much as you even do right above.

Yeah, terrible that one has to actually articulate a specific rationale on an individualized basis for a detention. As opposed 'he was a brown dude walking along'. The sheer horror. Its a miracle how such horrendous viewpoints could ever emanate from the bench.

You say the same lies, accusations, and innuendo that's already been fried into oblivion. Seems like one would get bored and tired.

Activism behind the bench is the exact 180 degree opposite of rule of law. LMAO. You would think you would know that. You say one thing out of one side of your mouth and advocate for the opposite on the other side. No one is fooled. Your shtick is lame and old and withering.

Tanq always talks out of the side of his neck when he can no longer stand sound arguments against his propaganda biased arguments where he attempts to use legalese to support his gross misinterpretations

(07-26-2025 12:16 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Firing attorneys who answer truthfully to direct questions

Direct quote from Tanq

One of the biggest whoppers of the year

Pinocchio proud

Erez Reuveni

Perhaps discuss why he was placed on leave and later fired for answering Boasberg's direct question.

(07-25-2025 11:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq, I hope you have talk to text.

Sorry I violated your 'no more than 8 words having 3 syllables or more limit' there, my friend.

Some items require more than your 'heh, Ill just blindly post this here Twitter tweet without no bother' effort. Apologies for broaching that limit as well.

feel better now?