this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
481 points (98.8% liked)
Crazy Fucking Videos
7984 readers
223 users here now
Dive into the World of Insane Videos!
Rules
- No hate speech of any kind.
- Content warnings are required in post titles where applicable. Example: [CW: Injury]
- Use your best judgement and mark NSFW posts as such.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not what I meant. I meant like does the ACLU or other organization have some number you can call if you think something illegal is happening to you by the government.
Of course the Government wouldn't have anything.
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?
EDIT:
Context, for all the people who think I'm just making baseless assertions.
https://lemmy.world/comment/21485670
This user is playing a cute little game where I guess they just can't recall the comments they made within the last 48 hrs, untill they do.
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!
Alright, so only three of your cited cases even involve Federal LEOs, Drayton and Manjarrez amd Ringold.
But you're devoted to not understanding that difference, as you consistently conflate local, state and federal LEO as if they all play by exactly the same rules, have exactly the same jurisdictions.
You're also sticking to a framework mostly built around what constitutes a permissible search or seizure ... which... is not what we are talking about, we are talking about whether or not federal LEO can approach someone violating a local traffic law, who is otherwise not directly related to the law enforcement action they are presumably (we still don't actually know) undertaking.
And only Cabelles and Ringold, as best I can tell, involves an actual traffic stop, the general context of a check on someone currently in a vehicle.
Drayton? Everyone is already inside a bus. Not federal LEOs dismounting their vehicle with specific intent to approach a citizen in their own vehicle.
Manjarrez? They're detaining someone they suspect is themselves violating or had violated an immigration law, not some unrelated rando.
Ringold? Traffic stop by a federal LEO against a person suspected of violating federal law, not an unrelated rando violating a local traffic law.
Cabelles? No federal LEO involved.
So you're just throwing spaghetti at a wall and hoping some of it will stick.
What you'd have to do is argue that Terry or Hensley just generally apply to all federal LEO, anywhere, all the time, as well as all of the local traffic laws of wherever they currently happen to be.
... Which would functionally formally turn them into the Gestapo, able to stop anyone at any time for any kind of reasonable suspicion of violating any traffic law, potentially any local law, or that they had in the past violated basically any law, ever.
If you passed a bar exam, that's a terrifying indictment of whichever bar you passed.
Yes, any law enforcement officer, can have a consensual conversion with anyone, and both my links support that. That does not make it a Gestapo.
Here's another
"Leaving aside border checkpoints, immigration officers have power to consensually question anyone, just like a police officer does; but to detain someone even briefly they require individualized suspicion that the person is violating the immigration laws," UCLA's Arulanantham says. (Professor from Practice Faculty Co-Director, Center for Immigration Law & Policy)
He did not detain, search or initiate any seizure at first. Her car was already stopped and sitting there, (edit: he didn't pull her over). He did not order her to move or anything like that. She did not seem under the impression that she was detained in the short video we have (edit: and she even thought she was able to leave when she was being detained). He did not block her from leaving. I'm not even sure he said a single word to her at first given the video's we have.
It's only after the 2nd vehicle arrives ~30 seconds later that it becomes a detainment.
Edit: just in case you're going to try and continue this traffic stop stuff and no authority. THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC STOP AT THE START. SHE WAS NOT DETAINED AT THE START. THAT WAS A VOLUNTARY CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER AT THE START.