Appeals Court Affirms ICE Can’t Arrest People Just For Looking Latino; ICE Immediately Ignores Ruling
from the rogue-agency dept
Three weeks ago, California federal court judge Maame E. Frimpong issued an order blocking ICE from pretending looking a bit foreign was reasonably suspicious enough to justify stops, much less the mass arrests ICE officers have been carrying out regularly in the Los Angeles area.
The opinion had to spell out things that should have been immediately clear to ICE (or, indeed, any law enforcement agency, federal or local), like:
[T]he Court considers whether speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent could give rise to reasonable suspicion. There is no case law that supports that it could.
And:
[A]t least one news article reports that people were dragged out of bathrooms at a swap meet, which makes Defendants’ arguments that their stops and arrests are consensual unpersuasive.
The resulting restraining order forbade ICE from doing its usual ICE stuff, at least in the seven California counties overseen by this court.
Defendants may not rely solely on the factors below, alone or in combination, to form reasonable suspicion for a detentive stop, except as permitted by law:
i. Apparent race or ethnicity;
ii. Speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent;
iii. Presence at a particular location (e.g. bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc.) or;
iv. The type of work one does.
All of this was obviously unconstitutional. And all of this was the sort of thing ICE wanted to continue doing, especially since Trump and his administration officials were setting the floor at 3,000 arrests per day and stating this was the minimum expected of federal law enforcement officers, but especially those working for ICE.
The government appealed. But it fared no better during the second review of its racist actions. The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court ruled on August 1 that the restraining order blocking ICE’s “round up all the Mexicans!” efforts could remain in place. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)
As the ruling [PDF] points out, there’s plenty to indicate ICE’s actions aren’t supported by anything any reasonable person would consider to be reasonable suspicion. This citation may be anecdotal, but it’s one of several similar supporting statements made by those suing the government to force it to play by the constitutional rules:
To give just one example, Plaintiff Jason Brian Gavidia is a U.S. citizen who was born and raised in East Los Angeles and identifies as Latino. On the afternoon of June 12, he stepped onto the sidewalk outside of a tow yard in Montebello, California, where he saw agents carrying handguns and military-style rifles. One agent ordered him to “Stop right there” while another “ran towards [him].” The agents repeatedly asked Gavidia whether he is American—and they repeatedly ignored his answer: “I am an American.” The agents asked Gavidia what hospital he was born in—and he explained that he did not know which hospital. “The agents forcefully pushed [Gavidia] up against the metal gated fence, put [his] hands behind [his] back, and twisted [his] arm.” An agent asked again, “What hospital were you born in?” Gavidia again explained that he did not know which hospital and said “East L.A.” He then told the agents he could show them his Real ID. The agents took Gavidia’s ID and his phone and kept his phone for 20 minutes. They never returned his ID.
There’s plenty of reporting out there that backs up this single example of, apparently, many the Appeals Court could have cited. ICE officers are demanding identification and proof of citizenship (already incredibly problematic) from random (but always non-white) people and then ignoring the provided documents in order to move forward with a detention or arrest.
The court also notes it appears ICE is trying to meet a 3,000 arrests per day quota — another thing law enforcement agencies are pretty much universally not allowed to do. The DOJ’s lawyers, of course, claim no such quota exists:
In response to the Court’s inquiry at oral argument, DHS has confirmed that neither ICE leadership nor its field offices have been directed to meet any numerical quota or target for arrests, detentions, removals, field encounters, or any other operational activities that ICE or its components undertake in the course of enforcing federal immigration law.
Plaintiffs’ allegation that the government maintains a policy mandating 3,000 arrests per day appears to originate from media reports quoting a White House advisor who described that figure as a “goal” that the Administration was “looking to set.” That quotation may have been accurate, but no such goal has been set as a matter of policy, and no such directive has been issued to or by DHS or ICE.
I’m sure this is all very true. But it’s all equally as meaningless. Of course, no written policies or directives exist. Putting it on paper or incorporating it into existing polices would put ICE on the wrong side of the law as far as arrest quotas are concerned. That’s why none of these documents exist. But that doesn’t mean the expectation doesn’t exist and that ICE officials aren’t doing everything they can (short of leaving a paper trail) to push officers to meet this “goal.” Even if the paperwork doesn’t exist, the pressure and perverted incentives do. And that just makes Stephen Miller the only bigoted idiot stupid enough to say this sort of thing in public, when he just could have limited it to internal verbal communications with ICE and DHS officials.
But whatever, the end result is the same: the plaintiffs have shown enough evidence to support their claim that ICE is violating the Constitution by pretending having brown skin and (perhaps) an accent is all the legal justification it needs to detain or arrest people en masse.
That ruling was released August 1st. This is what happened one day later in one of the counties covered by two consecutive federal court rulings, as highlighted here in this Simple Justice post:
I’ll describe the video briefly, just in case you can’t see the embed or chose not to watch it. On August 2, while an existing restraining order was in place (issued July 14 and affirmed August 1), ICE agents wearing masks and camo drove a Penske rental truck into a Home Deport parking lot. Once parked, the back of the rental truck was opened and ICE officers poured into the parking lot and then moved outward to the surrounding neighborhood, grabbing anyone looking vaguely Hispanic. All of this was captured on video by onlookers.
As Scott Greenfield notes in his post, this certainly appears to be what it is: a direct violation of the restraining order that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit a day before this happened:
If you call the Home Depot parking lot “targeted,” then it was a targeted raid. Otherwise, it was just a roundup of random Hispanics without any basis to believe they were “illegal” other than the fact that they appeared Hispanic and were in the Home Depot parking lot. This was exactly what Judge Frimpong found to be unconstitutional racial profiling.
So, if you need another depressing data point about this administration, you can add this one: yet another example of federal government agencies ignoring court orders and practically daring the courts, Congressional reps, voters, and even the people who claim the Second Amendment protects the rest of the Constitution to do anything about it. So far, the courts are on their own, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious that holding the government in contempt is about as useless as issuing “strongly worded” memos. (And, of course, the government has already asked for an “emergency” review of this restraining order from Trump’s robed enablers…)
The repeated violation of court orders may give some plaintiffs a clearer road to victory in individual civil rights lawsuits, but it’s doing almost nothing to assure Americans that the current government won’t just pave over our rights and put up an M1 Abrams parking lot.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 9th circuit, biased policing, california, dhs, ice, mass deportation, racism, trump administration




Comments on “Appeals Court Affirms ICE Can’t Arrest People Just For Looking Latino; ICE Immediately Ignores Ruling”
Face, meet leopard.
It doesn’t excuse what happened, but at least he got what he voted for. https://www.thedailybeast.com/maga-supporter-regrets-trump-vote-after-ice-confrontation/
Language and skin color are simply the lowest hanging fruit in the fascist’s desire to eliminate anyone who isn’t exactly like them.
This is barely the beginning, they are not going to stop there. They are never going to stop unless we stop them before it’s too late.
The video looks more like a bunch of GI looking for Al-Qaïda terrorists in Afghanistan, but in a Fedex minivan instead of a tank (because of the tight budget of only $60B).
Maybe the theme of a future “Call of Duty: Home Depot Hell”?
I guess that theses cops have the glasses from Carpenter’s “They Live” which allow them to see aliens from other people. They already seem to see “Obey” billboard everywhere.
time to visit the beach
Would love to see this happen, esp on the east coast.
Fun fact: Many of those people and their ancestors have been in this country longer than you and your family, you ethnic cleansers.
Re: tHATS WHY
iTS CALLED sPIC AND sPAN..
Or Comet with Bleach.
Re: Re:
You’re a racist in the wrong place. I cant believe you’re just out here making racists jokes that include slurs and nobody wants to call you out.
Re: Re: Re: Because Im not
Cause Im an idiot, an Ah, a Dick(not a richard), A common person thats Old enough to remember the THINGS from when I was a kid.
I had the only 2 Black friends In my home town, until they moved out. And tried to look them up Years later in PTLD. Found 1 of them.
If you aare willing to pull a gun, in a knife fight, I suggest you check your ammo. And see if it FITS FIRST.
Re: Re: Re:2
Here in the UK, I grew up calling the local convenience store the ‘P### shop’. I don’t call it that now, and I certainly don’t excuse any use of the original phrase on that basis that I’m “a common person that’s old enough to remember the things from when I was a kid” (FYI, a memory like that comes with giftedness or hyperthymesia, not age).
Re: Re:
It’s actually spelled “spick and span” and doesn’t originate where you claim, you racist shit.
I am neither afraid to say it, nor afraid of the consequences of doing it:
If I see this shit happening, ICE agents will be assaulted until they present a valid warrant or put me down.
Fuck the US Gestapo.
Re:
What the hell are you talking about? That’s not assault, that’s defense of others.
Either bring down the gavel or admit your cowardice outright
If only there was some way to punish those that show such contempt for court orders, some way for judges to actually enforce their rulings rather than flail impotently when those rulings are ignored…
Only when judges grow a collective spine and stop ‘pretty please stop doing that’ asking and instead start issuing arrest warrants and jail time will the regime care what they say, until that time judges can issue all the rulings they want, they’re just bluffing and everyone knows it.
Re:
Minor detail:
The courts are terrified that they’ll start issuing orders like that – and the cops say, “No.”
Then what does the court do?
PS – all cops love this crap. They signed up to bust heads, not “protect civil rights”. You may argue “Not all cops, just a few bad apples” to which the only appropriate response is “A few bad apples SPOILS THE ENTIRE BARREL”.
Re: Re:
Fire the cops for refusal to perform their job of course. Don’t do the job, don’t get paid. That is literally how jobs are supposed to work.
it’s becoming increasingly obvious that holding the government in contempt is about as useless as issuing “strongly worded” memos.
Pre-emptively claiming that nothing can be done, therefore nothing should be done, is method numero uno in “how to quietly support the rise of authoritarian assholes.” Until the courts actually hold the government in contempt, they deserve no excuses from the media.
Your job is to look out the window and check if it’s raining, not assume that the courts would totally have told you about the rain if only those other parts of the government were being nicer to them.