ICE aren’t law enforcement and can’t legally effect traffic stops. Their orders to Good were not lawful as they had no PC related to immigration violations.
They’re customs enforcement. That’s distinct legally and practically from law enforcement. They have no legal right to effect traffic stops, for example. They can search people only insofar as the border proximity exemption is in effect; I would assume Minneapolis is outside of this range.
If the claim is that you can fight it in court then I want to know how you'd do that. Because from where I sit there are mountains of procedural barriers to actually doing this. A lot of people assume that you can just get some remedy in court, but this is often not true.
When an ICE agent shot and killed a kid their Bivens claim was still denied.
...many people get off because of police procedure problems.
I see it constantly in my courtroom youtube feeds. Judge: "And what was the probable cause?"
Prosecutor: "(some bullshit that's not legit PC)"
Judge: ::incredulous look:: "Mr. Criminal, I'm going to dismiss this case based on lack of probable cause. I suggest you take this opportunity to fix your problems and stay out of my courtroom...blah blah blah"
The smaller the crime (like obstruction, not exactly murder or anything), the more likely it works. I think because police often use small crimes as retaliation.
There's no mountain-sized barrier, you just have your attorney bring up probable cause with the judge.
This only works for excluding evidence acquired illegally. Cases are not dismissed based on lack of probable cause. You also cannot exclude the person even if the method of their arrest was illegal. Watching some court room feeds online doesn't actually teach you meaningful things here.
And what you describe only helps you avoid a conviction. It does not actually remedy the violation of your rights. If a federal agent just beats the shit out of you for no reason and then you are not charged then the mechanism of suing them is Bivens, which has been gutted by the courts.
> Cases are not dismissed based on lack of probable cause.
I must insist that they are.
"Police must have probable cause to arrest you, and when officers lack sufficient facts and circumstances to justify arrest, courts dismiss resulting charges. Arrests based on hunches, profiling, or insufficient information violate Fourth Amendment protections."
One of the first Google results for my search. Several others say the same.
4th amendment violates are cured by the exclusionary rule, which only applies to evidence. "Oopsey-doopsey your arrest was illegal" does not actually turn into a complete dismissal automatically.
And with Bivens basically dead you cannot sue the agent for violating your rights.
But what she was given was a lawful order. That's the one I'm talking about.
I'm not a trump voter.