Federal Jurisdiction in Portland.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blnt4rcetrauma said:
The fourth amendment protects citizens from
Illegal searches or seizures.

One of the clauses in the fifth amendment gives protection against punishment with out due process

The sixth amendment gives us the right to a trial with a jury of our peers.

so yes the arresting officers do have to answer to us the citizens and tell us why we are being arrested.
Click to expand...

You really need to at least try actually reading the Constitution and the case law interpreting the Constitution and applying it.

  1. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. There's a substantial body of case law regarding the question of reasonableness.

    And whether or not a particular seizure (or search) is reasonable is largely fact dependent. News stories in media never include all material facts. It is impossible to make a solid determination of whether a particular seizure (or search) is or is not reasonable based on the limited information available in the news media.

  2. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have also been the subject of considerable litigation. Due process under different circumstances is also fact dependent.

  3. The Sixth Amendment says absolutely nothing about a jury of your peers. It says, "an impartial jury."
 
Discussing the Portland situation without more verifiable, credible information is pointless. Things will no doubt be hashed out in court. The time to try to make sense of everything will be when the process starts and we can see actual court documents.

What we can fruitfully discuss would be the scope and extent of investigative and arrest powers of federal agents. As always, any such discussion needs to be based on legal authority -- not new reports or personal anecdotes.
 
danez71 said:
That link doesn't explain or support what you're saying in this post. Rick does however, explain the difference and it's significant and not just a nice way if saying it as you portray.
Click to expand...

Rick glossed over a significant difference between what he was describing and what happened in Portland.

Rick was describing “stops”. His examples were people pulled over for traffic violations and being told to wait in place. He glosses over a significant detail: the issue in Portland wasn’t stops. It was people being taken into custody and transported to a jail cell.

Following the link Rick provided, you can see where even driving a suspect 2 miles to facilitate a drug search was considered an unreasonable seizure.

United States v. Virden, 488 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2007)

The police stopped the defendant’s car after watching it leave the location where a search was about to occur. Because a drug dog was not available at that location, the police put the defendant in a police car in handcuffs and brought the car to a location two miles away where the dog was located. The Eleventh Circuit held that this exceeded the bounds of a Terry stop and amounted to a seizure requiring probable cause. Because there was no probable cause, the search of the car was unlawful.

That articles headline doesn't mention arrest. It's this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, not headline, but the name. The article’s name mentions arrests:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/


Rick is using examples that don’t match the case at hand and hoping you don’t recognize the difference between being told to stay in place while a search is conducted and taken away against your will, Mirandized, and placed in a jail cell.

What was happening in Portland went far beyond the scope of terry stops, and terry stops are what he is using to carve out a “detention but not arrest” category.
 
Although case law has been mentioned, it is possible that these detentions are occurring under provisions of the Patriot Act which expanded federal powers for arrest and detention of domestic terrorism suspects including citizens.

However, I believe it is more of a safety issue.

Law enforcement officers have been subject to protest violence when trying to interview suspects or making arrests. Moving any suspects or material witnesses away from potentially violent protesters reduces that possibility. Unmarked vehicles also make sense in view of recent events in which dozens of law enforcement vehicles have been damaged or destroyed by protesters. Finally, the lack of name badges could be in response to some protesters using law enforcement names to subsequently target them or their families.

Based on these issues, I think the DOJ could convince reasonable judges that these were not illegal stops, just prudent precautions to protect law enforcement personnel and potential suspects or material witnesses.
 
Ed Ames said:
...what happened in Portland....
Click to expand...

Actually, you (and the rest of us) know very little about what happened in Portland. You are basing everything on the one Washington Post article you've been linking to, and the "facts" in that article come largely from self-serving statements of protesters.

It is impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about the legal character of the federal actions from such meager information.

Ed Ames said:
... Yeah, sorry, not headline, but the name. The article’s name mentions arrests:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/....
Click to expand...

Holy non-sequitur, Batman. Your starting point is the name assigned to the digital file included in the url to the on-line version of the story?

This bickering about whether these were arrests or detentions stops now. That question will be decided in court based on a great deal more information than available to us and with each side on the question having the opportunity to fully argue related issues of law.
 
Ed Ames said:
Rick glossed over a significant difference between what he was describing and what happened in Portland.

Rick was describing “stops”. His examples were people pulled over for traffic violations and being told to wait in place. He glosses over a significant detail: the issue in Portland wasn’t stops. It was people being taken into custody and transported to a jail cell.
Click to expand...

Ed,

I wasn't "glossing over" anything. I was replying to Shoobe01's posting in which he asked the following question:

"First, can someone outline the difference between long detentions (restrained, transported to a building for hours and hours) and arrests? I've never seen a non-arrest police detention in the US that lasted past the scene. Transport always first means arrest. Can they just "detain" you for... ever?"
​
I have to think that my reply to his question was both on point, and supported by the cited case law, including the Virden case that you also cited to. I wasn't talking about Portland in that post, I was seeking to give Shoobe01 a direct answer to his question. It was an excellent question, and deserved a thorough treatment.

If we're going to shift over to Portland, it's important to remember that we have no way of knowing if the involved folks were "detained" or "arrested." Without having that knowledge, we really can't have a meaningful debate about Portland. That's why I stuck to the legal basics involved in detentions and arrests.

Frank makes a really good point about us having a lack of such information. I'm really curious about what is developing and I want to be a good student as to the law involved in the actions there. But as to Portland, we've gotta wait for the facts to come out.

Threads like this always seem to get closed when the discussion goes downhill. This is a really good topic for discussion, although it doesn't directly relate to firearms, it very much relates to the ability of folks to be protected from crime, and that's the reason that many of us possess firearms. Let's please not invite closure of the thread by venturing into unknown territory.

Let's watch carefully for the facts as they develop, report them as we learn them, and let's all learn from the experience.
 
I don't know how many times I've read posts on this forum about a media report of an incident and how they were criticized on the accuracy of the information provided and the lack of facts about the incident. Especially when the medial account relates to guns and gun owners. One report from a very biased newspaper on this "violation" of civil rights and many are taking it as gospel based on one side of the story and that from a person whose credibility is questionable.
 
George Dickel said:
I don't know how many times I've read posts on this forum about a media report of an incident and how they were criticized on the accuracy of the information provided and the lack of facts about the incident. Especially when the medial account relates to guns and gun owners. One report from a very biased newspaper on this "violation" of civil rights and many are taking it as gospel based on one side of the story and that from a person whose credibility is questionable.
Click to expand...

This is a pernicious human trait. It's called "confirmation bias." Basically people will believe what they want to hear and disbelieve what they don't want to hear. Anyone who values facts and truth must be aware of this tendency and guard against falling into its trap.
 
Not to divert but it's been shown that this is almost impossible for most to do. Any issue loaded social media will demonstrate this. Kahneman demonstrated that even trained professional fall victim to his well research cognitive errors and think emotionally first.

Most of the current hot issues: masks, Portland, St. Louis lawyers, etc. are usually worthless as the debaters can't see this.

Sorry, Frank to move off a straight legal issue.
 
George Dickel said:
I don't know how many times I've read posts on this forum about a media report of an incident and how they were criticized on the accuracy of the information provided and the lack of facts about the incident. Especially when the medial account relates to guns and gun owners. One report from a very biased newspaper on this "violation" of civil rights and many are taking it as gospel based on one side of the story and that from a person whose credibility is questionable.
Click to expand...

The problem is, if you discount first hand accounts from the people involved, you are left with no credible sources at all. All you have is confirmation bias...if you think that the protestors are obviously wrong then anything that confirms that bias will seem right to you.

That cuts both ways.
 
Last edited:
Ed Ames said:
The problem is, if you discount first hand accounts from the people involved, you are left with no credible sources at all. ....
Click to expand...

However, eyewitness testimony is well know to not be especially credible:

  1. Why Eyewitnesses Fail:
    Eyewitness identifications play an important role in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, but it is well known that eyewitnesses make mistakes, often with serious consequences....
    Click to expand...

  2. Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts:
    .... Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony.....
    Click to expand...

  3. Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence:
    ...being convincing isn’t the same as being accurate. Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume....
    Click to expand...

  4. Furthermore, an account of someone in whose interest it is to be believed to be a victim of a civil rights violation is hardly unbiased.

A lack of better evidence doesn't improve poor evidence. A dearth of good evidence doesn't support certainty based on whatever sort of evidence is left.
 
Frank Ettin said:
However, eyewitness testimony is well know to not be especially credible...

...
A lack of better evidence doesn't improve poor evidence. A dearth of good evidence doesn't support certainty based on whatever sort of evidence is left.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Which is why it is fortunate when disinterested parties (which by necessity means civilians) can provide videos and other evidence. Without that, and other evidence from disinterested sources (such as commercial records) we have no chance of developing an objective picture of events.
 
Ed Ames said:
Indeed. Which is why it is fortunate when disinterested parties (which by necessity means civilians) can provide videos and other evidence. Without that, and other evidence from disinterested sources (such as commercial records) we have no chance of developing an objective picture of events.
Click to expand...

You're making a lot of assumptions, and, like assumptions generally, they must be tested. They are not automatically valid.

  1. You're assuming that "civilians" are disinterested. Some might be, but with regard polarizing issues some might not be.

  2. You're assuming that videos are necessarily good evidence. Again, sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not. A biased videographer can do a lot to present a scene in a way that furthers his interests.

    But even in the case of a unbiased videographer a video shows only one two dimensional perspective of a three dimensional scene. A video of the same scene taken from a different observation point might tell a different story. Things not shown in one video because view of the action is blocked by things or people in the foreground, might be visible in another video taken from a different perspective.

    A video captures only a limited field of view. Things taking place outside the limited frame of the video could be material to understanding what is going on within the frame shown.

  3. You're assuming that commercial sources are disinterested. That is by no means a foregone conclusion.

The value of the adversarial process followed in court is that it encourages the production of all relevant evidence and the widest opportunity for the interpretation and credibility of that evidence to be examined and challenged.
 
Ed Ames said:
The problem is, if you discount first hand accounts from the people involved, you are left with no credible sources at all. All you have is confirmation bias...if you think that the protestors are obviously wrong then anything that confirms that bias will seem right to you.

That cuts both ways.
Click to expand...

In deed it does. As evidenced by your quote here.

The article you linked doesn't really support what you said.


The article has quotes from people involved in the arrest, not just observers. It’s worth reading.

The main thing that raises questions about the basis of the arrest is releasing the person they arrested without any explanation or paperwork.
Click to expand...
 
I thought if a person was arrested, they would be Mirandized.
Were any of the detainees actually read their rights? It seems they weren't told anything, so were they actually arrested??
 
The OPs original post wording using the words, "Does the Constitution allow for the feds to make those arrests off of federal property if the criminal committed his or her crime on federal property?" Leaves me wondering just where in Constitution it mentions any law and/or wordage regarding individuals committing crimes on federal property. The Constitution is a doctrine giving citizens certain inalienable rights as humans of this country. It does not protect individuals from the consequences of committing crimes.
 
valvestem said:
The OPs original post wording using the words, "Does the Constitution allow for the feds to make those arrests off of federal property if the criminal committed his or her crime on federal property?" Leaves me wondering just where in Constitution it mentions any law and/or wordage regarding individuals committing crimes on federal property. The Constitution is a doctrine giving citizens certain inalienable rights as humans of this country. It does not protect individuals from the consequences of committing crimes.
Click to expand...

Doesn't post 5 pretty much answer that?
 
deadin said:
I thought if a person was arrested, they would be Mirandized.
Were any of the detainees actually read their rights? It seems they weren't told anything, so were they actually arrested??
Click to expand...

I want to keep this out of the Portland context, because we don't know the facts.

But the idea that a person is read their "Miranda Rights" as a product of an arrest is downright false. The Miranda Admonishment is required only when a person is questioned in a custodial environment. As a guideline, I usually only gave the admonishment to about 5% of the folks I arrested.

At the same time, there are circumstances where the Miranda Admonishment may be appropriate while a subject is under a Terry Detention and not yet under arrest.

Bottom line is that you can't use the Miranda Admonishment to judge whether a person has been arrested.
 
valvestem said:
...Leaves me wondering just where in Constitution it mentions any law and/or wordage regarding individuals committing crimes on federal property. The Constitution is a doctrine giving citizens certain inalienable rights as humans of this country. It does not protect individuals from the consequences of committing crimes.
Click to expand...

Well, to be technical, and we are supposed to be technical when dealing with matters of law, the Constitution is the basic organizational document for the United States. In addition to describing the branches of the federal government, the powers of those branches, how they are to operate, regulating certain relationships among States, it also protects certain, individual rights.

The Constitution gives the legislative branch, Congress, certain powers to enact laws regarding the subjects enumerated in Section 8 of Article I, subject to the limitations set out in Section 9 or Article I and the protections afforded certain individual rights.

The Constitution gives the President the executive power of the federal government. This has generally been interpreted to broadly including enforcing and executing federal law.

So Congress, among other things, has enacted laws making various acts federal crimes. The Executive Branch includes several law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing federal criminal law, including investigating crimes and arresting suspected violators. All that is of course subject to the individual rights protected by the Constitution.

Since the Constitution and federal law is the "Supreme law of the land", federal law enforcement agents have the power to enforce federal criminal law anywhere in the United States, and States have no power to prevent or limit that.

Yes, I said essentially this in post 5.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Well, to be technical, and we are supposed to be technical when dealing with matters of law, the Constitution is the basic organizational document for the United States. In addition to describing the branches of the federal government, the powers of those branches, how they are to operate, regulating certain relationships among States, it also protects certain, individual rights.

The Constitution gives the legislative branch, Congress, certain powers to enact laws regarding the subjects enumerated in Section 8 of Article I, subject to the limitations set out in Section 9 or Article I and the protections afforded certain individual rights.

The Constitution gives the President the executive power of the federal government. This has generally been interpreted to broadly including enforcing and executing federal law.

So Congress, among other things, has enacted laws making various acts federal crimes. The Executive Branch includes several law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing federal criminal law, including investigating crimes and arresting suspected violators. All that is of course subject to the individual rights protected by the Constitution.

Since the Constitution and federal law is the "Supreme law of the land", federal law enforcement agents have the power to enforce federal criminal law anywhere in the United States, and States have no power to prevent or limit that.

Yes, I said essentially this in post 5.
Click to expand...

My Sheriff and Undersheriff got into a pissing contest with the local FBI office over a jurisdictional issue. When the dust settled, the Sheriff got three years in federal prison, and the Undersheriff got five years.

The 1890 U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Neagle gave very specific guidance on the relation of federal officers to state officers.

In re Neagle is also nicely complemented by Idaho v Horichi which placed limits on the reach of In re Neagle.

Had my two executives taken the time to read those two cases, and apply their holdings, they wouldn't be working for the feds right now.
 
[QUOTE="
Since the Constitution and federal law is the "Supreme law of the land", federal law enforcement agents have the power to enforce federal criminal law anywhere in the United States, and States have no power to prevent or limit that. [/QUOTE]

Completely true from both a legal and theoretical perspective. However, from a practical perspective, States can limit (or try to) Federal agents in a variety of ways. One way would be to actively sue the Feds (in a Federal court of course) to limit their activities. Just like the Feds, and unlike you or I, States have very large legal budgets to pursue cases that they think are important.

An alternate way is to deny the federal agencies the support they need to deal with large numbers of violators. Two obvious areas are immigration and legalized at the state level marijuana. Picking CA as an example, the FBI can certainly bust someone for marijuana possession. However, given the very large numbers of people that partake, and the limited FBI staffing for this purpose, most CA residents are effectively not at risk of arrest for possession. Sure, if you have have exceptionally large quantities or are unlucky (have possession combined with another federal violation) there is risk. But for the general CA resident it is almost zero risk. And no, I do not live in CA or partake - just noting the practical aspects.
 
Kawamax said:
"Since the Constitution and federal law is the "Supreme law of the land", federal law enforcement agents have the power to enforce federal criminal law anywhere in the United States, and States have no power to prevent or limit that."

Completely true from both a legal and theoretical perspective.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's only half-true. The Constitution is the "Supreme law of the land", but federal law is so, only to the extent that it reflects a power given to the federal government in the Constitution. Your statement ignores the highlighted content from the Supremacy Clause - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." A federal law, not made in pursuance of the Constitution, does not supersede state law. Please refer to the civil case of Printz v United States for an example.

The limitations of the Supremacy Clause are further clarified by the Tenth Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The concept of the Supremacy Clause being limited has taken quite a beating in the courts. Justice Thomas gave a great summary of this in his dissent in Gonzales v Raich.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
ny-nj fopa
Replies
1
Views
529
AirForceShooter
AirForceShooter
D
  • Locked
ATF team to target Atlanta's violence
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
TheEgg
T
P
  • Locked
Question for the legal minds: Jurisdiction
Replies
6
Views
599
Black Knight
B
C
  • Locked
What federal law enforcement do we actually need?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
another okie
A
A
  • Locked
So, what if US wins US vs. AZ? What about other laws?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Sebastian the Ibis
Sebastian the Ibis
Back
Top