Mediaboss Marketing

Posters by students in a U.S. History class at Flagler Palm Coast High School, posted in the hallway. The class required students to produce posters in line with what they had learned of the civil rights era and its protest movements. A student at the school found some of the posters offensive, and tore them down. A pair of school board members now want to revisit policies that address what may be displayed in hallways. ( FlaglerLive)

In response to one parents complaint about civil rights era-inspired posters by students, and to the the parents son vandalizing posters he found offensive at Flagler Palm Coast High School, School Board member Christy Chong has rallied to the side of the parent and the student and is seeking to revisit policies that address the display of student work in school hallways.

Board members Will Furry and Sally Hunt are joining Chong in seeking that discussion. Chong did not seem concerned with the vandalism of student work, or that the displays were a required part of their course of study.

It is the latest example of a a school board reassessing time-tested and long-standing academic practices through culture-war litmus tests. The sharp shift, which led to the boards firing of the superintendent last month, appears to have little to no connection to classroom goals. Rather, echoing similar shifts at the state Board of Education and the legislature, it ties into a reframing of classrooms and schools on ideological grounds, leaving administrators and faculty reeling from surprises such as the one Chong sprang on the board at the end of a workshop Tuesday.

Chong, who two months ago wanted a safe space sign removed from a classroom at Matanzas High, said she wanted to revisit the policy that controls advertising in schools. I wanted to look at updating and clarifying policy 904, she said. Ive had a lot of parents reaching out about signs that are in school, posters and that sort of thing, and whats allowed.

Actually, one parent emailed her on April 25 regarding one incident at Flagler Palm Coast High School. It had nothing to do with advertising. It had to do with posters produced by students as part of their history course work. The posters were displayed in hallways, as teachers routinely display student work in most schools in the district, in the state, and in the country.

Bobby Bossardet, the principal at FPC, had told Chong, as hed told the teacher responsible for the posters, that the project was appropriate for the US history class that he teaches.

The posters were developed as part of a unit on civil rights. The assignment was to focus on one aspect of civil rights history, leaving it to each student to decide for himself, herself or themselves, what to illustrate. Some chose womens rights. Some chose Black rights. Some chose Chicano rights (we will not be intimidated). Some chose LGBTQ rights, and some the anti-war movement. All themes had their roots in the civil rights era, which paralleled the Vietnam War.

The parents son was not happy with the LGBTQ posters. He vandalized them, a detail that appeared not to bother Chong: she made no issue of that.

The student was called into the deans office. His parents were contacted and he was given a warning, in accordance with the schools disciplinary matrix. Restitution is part of the disciplinary process too, but since the materials value in dollars was low, it could not be applied. (Last year, in contrast, students were suspended from Flagler Palm Coast High School for three days merely for waving pride flags.)

The students mother emailed Chong, telling her she was reaching out as a mom, resident, fellow christian, and a supporter of you both, referring as well to Will Furry. (She did not write the three other members of the school board, who are also moms and residents, and no less Christian, if not flauntingly so).

My son comes home daily feeling offended by the LGBTQ posters that are posted up throughout the Hallways at FPC, the parent wrote, with considerable exaggeration. If FPC is a small city, the posters occupied parts of a couple of streets, if that much, in otherwise cinder block-bare wall space.

I am not sure if theres anything we can do about this, but its upsetting and also influencing my 14 year old daughter. She came to me a few months ago and told me she might be gay and seemed proud as if she was finally accepted into a group of students who felt Love is Love.'

One of the posters in question included the phrase Love is Love. It isnt clear how or why the words are offensive. It lists in tiny print all possibilities, with straight and aromantic at the top, followed by non-binary, asexual, and so on.

Today I received a call from the Dean at FPC that my son had taken matters into his own hands and removed some of the LGBTQ posters and threw them into the Toilet, the parent wrote. (My son claimed he threw them next to the toilet but I have not confirmed that) He said he just wants to go to school without seeing what he finds offensive posters everywhere. The parent acknowledged that what her son did was wrong, but said he was frustrated and I think having his little sister tell him she may be gay did not help the situation.

The dean informed the parent that her son had carried out an act of vandalism, but that he would get my son in contact with Admin where he can have his voice heard in regards to this content.

She asked Chong whether anything can be done in regards to these posters or is this the new normal we have to accept and endure in our society? Some of the images she attached as examples of offensive posters included lines like Love is never wrong, no more war, Wars a bummer dude, and Peace Love Hippies, all of which, like repeated drawings of VW buses, radiated Vietnam War-era chants of the civil rights movement. Several posters paid tribute to the womens and environmental movements, some to a landmark Fourth Amendment decision, and one to disabilities.

Less than an hour after receiving the email, Chong, bypassing the superintendent, emailed Bossardet, the principal at FPC, asking him to look into this. (Elected officials are generally required not to meddle in administrative, operation matters and to channel their concerns through their employee: the superintendent. They do not have any more authority over a principal or a teacher than does a private citizen.) Chong told Bossardet she believed the display of posters was against school board policy 904.

It is not. Policy 904 controls advertising in school onlywhat may or may not be advertised, including a specific list of eight prohibitions, from slanderous or libelous advertising to advertising of tobacco and alcohol, illegal drugs, political advertising, Advertising that is harassing speech or expression sufficiently severe and pervasive as to create a hostile learning environment, and so on. (See the full policy, last revised in 2019, here.) It has nothing to do with students work or curricular-aligned displays.

After meeting with the U.S. History teacher, Bossardet replied with two pages of single-spaced explanations. He cited five specific Florida standards that teachers must meet within the parameters of that class curriculum. The students, the principal wrote, are asked to develop social activist posters. The lesson focuses on understanding the rise and continuing international influence of the United States as a world leader and the impact of contemporary social and political movements on American life, whether it has to do with feminism, the environmental movement, or historical movements related to Latino, American-Indian, and countercultural issues, among others.

The students pick a social movement of their choice and design a poster with supporting materials. The teachera Navy veteran whos been teaching at FPC since 2016 explained that several students asked him if they could pick the gay liberation movement. Bossardet explained to Chong that the movement unfolded in the 1960s and 70s. Because the topic was aligned with the standard and theme, the teacher agreed.

The gay-liberation movement is ingrained in the civil rights era, with the Stonewall Uprising of 1969 its turning point as gays and lesbians fought back against what had been routine and brutal police raids against gay bars in Manhattan. The events that would unfold over the next six days would fundamentally change the discourse surrounding LGBTQ+ activism in the United States, a summary by the U.S. Library of Congress states.

Bossardet was fully behind his teacher, telling him that his project was aligned to the appropriate standards outlined in the course description. He went further to address Chongs concern: Moving forward, Bossardet wrote the board member, we are asking all teachers at FPC to post the topics of the assignments, along with the appropriate standards the assignment covers. I explained my concern for having any of the work being displayed in our halls for extended periods of times, could be perceived as decor or advertisement. For example, if a poster were to stay up much longer than the unit that the teaching unit that generated it, it could take on a different projection.

Our expectation moving forward is that the work displayed in our hallways is expected to be relevant to what they are currently covering, or just completed, in the class at the time and should be rotated accordingly, Bossardet wrote Chong.

She agreed with the rotation idea and conceded the purpose of the work. These posters do cover current events, she wrote Bossardet last Monday, but could also make some students uncomfortable if displayed for extended periods of time as they support different agendas. I may ask the board to update our policy for more clarification.

The next day, she did.

What he said to me was that this was part of a school assignment, which I can totally understand, Chong told her fellow-board members about the postersnever mentioning the vandalism. But just to use it as an example. Say the kids did an assignment on U.S. presidents. You probably wouldnt hang Trump and Biden posters in the hallways, you know what I mean?

Actually, I think they did, Board member Colleen Conklin said. Im sure they did.

Board member Will Furry was immediately willing to have the discussion. It definitely is very vague and it leaves a lot of open interpretation, he said of Policy 904, whichperhaps unusually for school policiesis neither vague nor leaves much to interpretation.

Maybe we need a new policy, Chong said. Furry was supportive of that, too. With Board member Sally Hunt joining Furry and Chong, there was majority agreement to take up the matter at a subsequent workshop. (Hunt did not appear to know the background of the matter. She agreed to discuss the policy on the pretense that shes willing to reconsider any policy in principle.)

Chong an Furry are not acting in a vacuum, but as part of a growing trend pushing restrictions on what teachers may post or say in their classrooms, specifically regarding LGBTQ-themed materials: The state Board of Educations K-12 rule prohibiting classroom instruction to students in grades 4 through 12 on sexual orientation or gender identity unless its required by academic standards or health class (from which parents may opt out their children), or the just-voted bill in the Florida legislature prohibiting so much as asking a students preferred pronouns, at least in grades K through 8.

Link:
Board Member Rallies to Student Who Vandalized LGBTQ Posters - FlaglerLive.com

A federal appeals court has upheld a jurys $730,000 award to a Black Secret Service agent unconstitutionally detained by two white U.S. Park Police officers during a traffic stop as he waited to accompany a Cabinet secretarys motorcade in Maryland.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Gerald Ferreyra and Brian Phillips violated Nathaniel Hicks Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure, saying the officers acted without justification.

In its published 3-0 decision, the 4th Circuit said Ferreyra and Phillips did not have qualified immunity from suit because the unlawfulness of their detention of Hicks was clearly established at the time.

Qualified immunity does not apply to violations of the Fourth Amendment involving unjustified, warrantless searches and seizures by line officers performing routine criminal law enforcement duties, Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote for the 4th Circuit. The officers in the present case confronted nothing more than established principles of Fourth Amendment law with extensive judicial guidance regarding the right of individuals to be free from unjustified, warrantless seizures.

The officers appellate attorney, Ned Parent, called the 4th Circuits decision irreconcilable with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that federal officer liability should be left largely to Congress to determine.

We are considering all available options to continue this fight on behalf of officers Ferreyra and Phillips, including a request for en banc review by the 4th Circuit and a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, Parent stated via email.

Parent is with Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White in Baltimore.

Hicks appellate attorney, Yiyang Wu, stated via email that Nathaniel Hicks is pleased that the 4th Circuit affirmed (Senior U.S. District) Judge (Paul W.) Grimms decision and that the federal jurys finding that the defendants violated his constitutional rights was upheld.

Wu is with Relman Colfax PLLC in Washington.

In July 2015, Hicks was preparing to lead a motorcade through Maryland when the officers detained him on the shoulder of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. Ferreyra pointed his weapon at Hicks as he approached the agents parked vehicle and saw a gun on the front seat, Hicks stated in the lawsuit heard in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt.

Hicks alleged the officers singled him out because of his race and said he did nothing to justify being detained after the officers confirmed he was an on-duty Secret Service agent. Hicks claimed Ferreyra and Phillips yelled at him, talked to him in a degrading manner and would not let him leave even after he showed them his Secret Service credentials.

Hicks, now a retired 20-year veteran of the Secret Service, had been assigned to a protection motorcade for then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on the morning of July 11, 2015. The motorcade slowed to allow Hicks to join it, but the officers continued to detain the agent. One of them mockingly waved at the passing vehicles, according to Hicks counsel.

Phillips briefly stopped Hicks a second time allegedly for talking on a cellphone while driving erratically after he drove away from the spot along Interstate 295 in Maryland where the officers initially detained him. Phillips continued to talk to Hicks in a demeaning tone before throwing his identification and registration at him, the suit alleged.

The jury awarded Hicks $525,000 in punitive damages and $205,000 in compensatory damages.

The officers appealed to the 4th Circuit, challenging not only the denial of qualified immunity but what they called an excessive punitive damages award.

In affirming the award, the appellate court said the officers acted maliciously toward Hicks by detaining him unnecessarily and deliberately, using abusive language and demonstrating harassing behavior. In addition, the punitive damages at less than three times the compensatory damages awarded was well within the single-digit punitive-to-compensatory-damages ratio federal courts have upheld, the 4th Circuit held.

Keenan was joined in the decision by Senior Judge Diana Gribbon Motz and Judge Pamela A. Harris.

The 4th Circuit rendered its decision in Hicks v. Ferreyra, et al.(VLW 023-2-085).

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Go here to see the original:
4th Circuit upholds $730K award to Black Secret Service agent - Virginia Lawyers Weekly

IL file photo

Although he had used an alias to hide from law enforcement and rent a condo, law enforcement did not have the right to search a suspected drug dealers residence with only his landlords consent, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

Federal officials had suspected Michael Thomas of supplying large amounts of illegal drugs in Indiana. He was also wanted by state officials, and warrants had been issued for his arrest.

In order to keep a low profile, Thomas obtained fake identification documents, including one issued in North Carolina under the name Frieson Dewayne Alredius. Using that name, he was able to lease a condo in Atlanta.

From there, federal officials tracked Thomas and arrested him outside the condo building. With the landlords consent, they searched the condo and found drugs, drug paraphernalia and six cellphones.

After obtaining warrants to search the phones, federal officials found evidence that Thomas was trafficking methamphetamine. A grand jury subsequently indicted him for conspiracy to distribute meth.

Thomas filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the condo, arguing his landlord could not consent to the search of property he had leased. The government admitted the lease gave Thomas the expectation of privacy, but because he had used a fake identity to obtain the lease a crime in Georgia the expectation of privacy was unreasonable.

The Indiana Southern District Court agreed and denied the motion.

Thomas then pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression order. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Thomas then appealed the denial of the suppression order, and the 7th Circuit reversed and remanded.

The warrantless search of his condo violated the Fourth Amendment if he had a subjective expectation that his landlord could not invite the police to search his residence and society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). That Thomas had a subjective expectation of privacy is not in dispute. The question, then, is whether deceiving ones landlord to obtain a lease alters societys understanding that a landlord may not consent to a search on the tenants behalf.

The appellate court then cited Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961), which holds that a tenant can lawfully exclude others, including the police, even if the landlord consents to a search.

To be sure, some people may consent to a search even when they cannot evict a tenant, Easterbrook wrote. But Chapman holds that a landlord is not among them. Thomas landlord could not summarily terminate his protections without violating the Georgia Code, nor could she consent to a warrantless search of his condo.

Under the approach proposed by the United States, by contrast, a search may be deemed valid or invalid depending on facts discovered later, in the course of prosecution, Easterbrook continued. At the time of the search, law enforcement knew that Thomas was a fugitive but did not know whether he had shown a fake identity card to the landlord, whether the landlord ran background checks, and so on.

What the agents knew at the time of the search, the 7th Circuit concluded, was not enough to defeat Thomass expectation of privacy in the condo.

The case of United States of America v. Michael Thomas, 21-3169, was thus remanded for further proceedings.

Excerpt from:
Suspected drug dealer who used alias to rent condo wins reversal in ... - Indiana Lawyer

The right to privacy may sometimes be exaggerated, and it can certainly be abused. But that doesnt mean it is not real. Freedom from the constant, prying eyes of other people is essential to the development and maintenance of a sense of selfhood. If we do not recognize the claim other people have to be free of our scrutiny, then we treat them as objects for study, manipulation, and destructionnot as human beings equal in dignity to ourselves.

The sting distorts the relationship between the Catholics who fund and run it and the priests who fall within its ambitwhich was potentially all priests. The moral danger to the self-appointed members of the purity committee is substantial. How does it affect their own relationship to the Church to see its priests as guilty of sexual sin until proven innocent? How does it affect their relationship with Christ to see themselves not as fellow sinners in need of redemption (even if ones own sins are of a different sort), but as self-appointed police officers and judges?

There is also a moral danger to the priests, and to those who might wish to become priests. Will the fact that they live their lives in a context of pervasive suspicion and scrutiny, including electronic scrutiny, crush their spirits and erode their freedom in Christ? How will such priests interact with parishioners? Will they see them as fellow sinners in need of redemption, or as potential spies? How will they structure their lives? Will this lead them to avoid some sins (especially sexual ones) more than others (say, gluttony and waste)? Will an anxious obsession with not being suspected of committing sexual sin make them more likely to ignore sins of omission in their lives, including the duty to reach out to those at the margins?

The bishops need to act decisively. If they do not, their priests will become weapons and targets in the competing Panopticons of the culture wars. After all, if they put their minds to it, progressives can track and embarrass priests as easily as conservatives.

The bishops first task is to distinguish morally legitimate from morally illegitimate ways of obtaining compromising information. Stumbling upon a priest on Grindr is different from de-anonymizing data. Their second task will be deciding how to handle illegitimately obtained information, Here, in my view, is where the Church might helpfully borrow from the state. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It recognizes that unreasonable searches affect everyonenot just the guilty. But without enforcement, such a prohibition is no more than a paper tiger. Consequently, the provision is interpreted as preventing the government from introducing evidence obtained directly or indirectly from such a search into a criminal trial. The government is thereby dis-incentivized from conducting searches without a warrant, except in certain extreme circumstances. The bishops should adopt similar disincentives for lay sleuths. They should strongly condemn any violation of priestly privacy, and they should declare that they will not allow priests whose activities were discovered in an unethical manner to be targeted or punished. The only exception, in my view, should be activities involving minors.

Some might say that this approach goes too easy on priests who break their promises of celibacy. I disagreejust as I disagree with those who say the Fourth Amendment goes too easy on those who commit crimes. The point of the Fourth Amendment is not to say that committing crimes is okay. It is to say that in using its considerable power to chase criminals, the government must observe reasonable limits. If that is what members of a state bound together by earthy ties owe one another, consider how much stronger the obligations are among members of the body of Christ.

The rest is here:
Do Priests Have a Right to Privacy? - Commonweal

Theres a knock at your door. Its the police. They say they are investigating a crime and would like to ask a few questions. Its alarming, but you want to help, so you let them in.

But what if these officers are not who they say they are?

For years, agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have impersonated the police and used other deceptive tactics to gain warrantless entry into peoples homes, or lure them out a practice that the ACLU, in collaboration with others, has challenged in court as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

ICEs goal is to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants going about their daily lives working, commuting, and spending time at home with family. In pursuit of this goal, ICE has used racial profiling and intimidation tactics that instill fear and confusion in communities and stoke mistrust in the police.

Examples of ICEs ruses include:

The ACLU and co-counsel partners have filed lawsuits to challenge these practices in California and Illinois. Below, two of the clients share their experience being trapped by ICE, and the repercussions that continue today.

Alyssa

ICE knocked on Alyssas door at 8 a.m. and pretended to be inquiring about her car registration.

Tara Pixley

ICE ruses often take place early in the morning, when they can catch people as they are waking up or getting ready for work. They wear shirts or vests with the word POLICE emblazoned across, and often announce that they are police at the front door, without informing community members that they are ICE. Thats what happened to Alyssa Lazo,a prior DACA recipient who lives in Los Angeles. Alyssa spent 21 days in immigrant detention after ICE tricked her into thinking they were inquiring about her car registration. The effects of the incident last to this day, impacting decisions about who to trust and when to call for help.

Below, Alyssa describes what happened when ICE came to her door, and how its still impacting daily life.

Alyssas experience with ICE still impacts her decisions about who to trust and when to call for help.

Tara Pixley

But the fear stays with me. I feel like Im being watched and as if ICE could show up at any moment, disguised as the police again.

One morning, I woke up to the sound of banging on my front door. I was alarmed it was only 8 a.m. Through the peephole, I could see three people in dark clothing on the other side of the door. They said they were the police, and they were looking for me.

Are you Alyssa Lazo? they asked.

I had no idea how they knew my name or why they would be looking for me, but when they said it was about my car, I thought there might have been some issue with my registration. I had just been to the DMV a couple of weeks prior. Maybe I had done something wrong with the paperwork. They asked to see my car registration, and I indicated it was in my car. When I stepped outside my home to get my car registration documents, they stopped me and told me they were ICE not the police that I was here illegally, and that I was now in federal custody.

I was shocked, scared, and confused, because I was a DACA recipient. My lawyer never mentioned that this could be a possibility. Id seen it on TV people getting handcuffed and taken away but I never thought it could be a possibility for me because I was taking care of my paperwork. But they didnt care about that.

At that point, we were on the landing of my apartment building, and I could see my neighbor listening from inside his apartment while the ICE agents handcuffed me and took me away to the detention center. I was called an alien, a threat to society, and ended up spending 21 days in custody.

Ever since that day, Ive been afraid of talking to the police for anything. Not even when I really need help. Even if I was being abused, stalked, or just terrified, I still wouldnt call the police. I would call my sister instead.

But the fear stays with me. I feel like Im being watched and as if ICE could show up at any moment, disguised as the police again. That fear has slightly decreased under the Biden administration. But theres always the possibility that it could happen again. ICE should not be disguising themselves as the police. Now, every time I see the police, I wonder if they are undercover. But until the Biden administration does something to stop ICE from doing that, all we can do is be aware, be prepared, and know our rights. No one should have to face what I faced that day, and the fear that continues.

In 2020, the ACLU of Southern California, UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic, and the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kid, the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. ICE tried to get the case dismissed, but the court denied the motion in April 2021. Early this year, a federal court granted class certification recognizing that many people in Southern California share a similar claim against the deceptive practices by ICE.

Margarito

Margarito wants to share his story to help others who may find themselves targeted by ICE.

Alex Garcia

Within just six days in May 2018, ICE arrested and detained more than 100 people across the Chicago area in Operation Keep Safe. As part of the operation, ICE agents saturated known Hispanic areas of the city of Chicago and surrounding communities accosting anybody who looked undocumented, and used unmarked vehicles to feign routine traffic stops. The ACLU has received reports from across the country of ICE agents barricading cars with their vehicles, approaching people with rifles pointed, and threatening to shoot.

Margarito Castaon Nava is among those who were unlawfully apprehended by ICE under the guise of a traffic stop, and was detained for 44 days before being released on bond.

Margarito looks out of a window in his home.

Alex Garcia

The whole time I was in custody, I had very little information about when I would see a judge or what was going to happen to me. They never showed me an arrest warrant.

Margarito Castaon Nava

On my way home from work one evening, I noticed a black SUV behind me. It seemed to be following me. There were no lights and no siren, but its tinted windows made me think of the police.

Suddenly the SUV barricaded my truck on the side of the road, and three people stepped out. It seemed I was right: they were wearing vests that said POLICE in large letters across the front.

The officers were speaking mostly in English, so I couldnt understand what they were saying. My boss, who was with me in the passenger seat, translated for me. But there wasnt much information to translate, because they never gave a reason why we were pulled over. All they did was ask us where we worked, to see our drivers licenses, and to take our photos.

When I handed them my drivers license, they threw it on the dashboard, handcuffed me to the steering wheel, and took my thumbprints and my photo. I watched them return to the SUV through the rearview mirror. When they returned, they put me in their car and drove us away. The agents never said who they were or where they were taking us, or why. It was only when we arrived at the detention center that I found out they were not the police, but ICE.

The whole time I was in custody, I had very little information about when I would see a judge or what was going to happen to me. They never showed me an arrest warrant. I tried to call my wife, but she didnt pick up since she didnt recognize the number. I was worried that they were going to send me back to Mexico and I wouldnt be able to see my family again.

In the end, I was detained for about a month and a half. I missed my daughters quinceaera and my other two childrens last days of school. I still cant believe government agents are pretending to be the police and locking people in detention for no good reason. But thats what happened to me. The only reason I could think of is because my coworker and I appear Hispanic. ICE shouldnt be catching people just because of the color of their skin.

I think things are changing now that there is a new president. If President Biden really cares about immigrants, I would ask him to help us get our papers so we can be able to visit our families. I have a work permit now, but I havent seen my family in Mexico in 23 years. If we could get our legal documents, I would be very, very happy.

In 2018, Margarito joined a class action lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the National Immigrant Justice Center, along with other individuals swept up in Operation Keep Safe the immigrant rights organizations Organized Communities Against Deportation and Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. In 2022, the court approved a final settlement between the plaintiffs and DHS. Among other terms, the 3-year settlement requires ICE to adopt a nationwide policy barring many traffic stops and warrantless arrests, and allows ICE detainees to challenge detentions that violate the agreement in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas, and Kentucky.

After achieving this victory, Margarito wanted to share his story to help others who may find themselves in similar situations.

Immigration arrests rose under the Trump administration, as did ICEs use of ruses and its collaboration with police through the 287(g) program. The latter, while predating Trump, put more people under the threat of deportation by allowing local law enforcement to carry out duties normally reserved for federal ICE agents. That ICE itself is impersonating the police only foments confusion and fear of law enforcement in immigrant communities. As a result, many immigrants and their friends and family members are less likely to come forward as witnesses, provide crime tips, or seek police protection, even in emergencies.

Before taking office, President Biden pledged to roll back harmful immigration practices and hold law enforcement accountable for unlawful behavior. But ICE is still impersonating the police and misrepresenting its purpose and getting away with it. By allowing this practice to continue, the Biden administration is undermining its own efforts to repair Trump-era abuses.

The ACLU is urging Biden to reform ICE particularly to prevent a future anti-immigrant administration from resuming Trump administration efforts to make the United States a hostile, dangerous place for our immigrant neighbors and loved ones. Necessary reforms include strict limits on any street arrests, dismantling programs that use local law enforcement to help deport immigrants, like 287(g), and prohibiting federal agents from impersonating local police.

Necessary reforms include strict limits on any street arrests, prohibiting federal agents from impersonating local police, and stopping ICE from tapping local police to do its bidding, including through the 287(g) program.

In the meantime, people in immigrant communities can defend themselves by knowing their rights. Anybody confronted by law enforcement whether undocumented or not can and should do their best to verify the officers identity and purpose, document the encounter, and report what happened. More information in English and Spanish can be found here.

Continued here:
This Deceptive ICE Tactic Violates the Fourth Amendment - ACLU