Legal experts: Feds' viral arrest in Portland violated the Fourth Amendment

[pknopp]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

DHS Official On Reports Of Federal Officers Detaining Protesters In Portland, Ore.

"Well I can't speak on that" is all he says. Obviously if he can't "speak on that" he can't say he was wearing all black and a black hood now can he?

 

[martybegan]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

DHS Official On Reports Of Federal Officers Detaining Protesters In Portland, Ore.

"Well I can't speak on that" is all he says. Obviously if he can't "speak on that" he can't say he was wearing all black and a black hood now can he?

 

[pknopp]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

DHS Official On Reports Of Federal Officers Detaining Protesters In Portland, Ore.

"Well I can't speak on that" is all he says. Obviously if he can't "speak on that" he can't say he was wearing all black and a black hood now can he?

Appears clearly labelled as "police". I have no idea where that pic came from.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

For fucks sake pknopp... who gives a rats ass???
People there were attacking FEDERAL PROPERTY.
The local authorities are not providing even the most basic protection of said properties.... so federal law enforcement was sent in. They have jurisdiction to do that.
Why is this hard to understand?

 

[Jitss617]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

I think a jury will side it Americans that want law and order

 

[pknopp]

For fucks sake pknopp... who gives a rats ass???
People there were attacking FEDERAL PROPERTY.
The local authorities are not providing even the most basic protection of said properties.... so federal law enforcement was sent in. They have jurisdiction to do that.
Why is this hard to understand?

A lot of people care.

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...overly-militarized-federal-agents-in-portland

Former Bush DHS secretary rips Trump for treating department like 'the president's personal militia'

Federal presence in Portland raises alarm over takeover of states

Whatever happened to the "rights" belief in state's rights?

 

[martybegan]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

DHS Official On Reports Of Federal Officers Detaining Protesters In Portland, Ore.

"Well I can't speak on that" is all he says. Obviously if he can't "speak on that" he can't say he was wearing all black and a black hood now can he?

Appears clearly labelled as "police". I have no idea where that pic came from.

The complaints have been that while they are labelled "police" it doesn't say what police they are.

Try to keep up.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

For fucks sake pknopp... who gives a rats ass???
People there were attacking FEDERAL PROPERTY.
The local authorities are not providing even the most basic protection of said properties.... so federal law enforcement was sent in. They have jurisdiction to do that.
Why is this hard to understand?

A lot of people care.

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...overly-militarized-federal-agents-in-portland

Former Bush DHS secretary rips Trump for treating department like 'the president's personal militia'

Federal presence in Portland raises alarm over takeover of states

Whatever happened to the "rights" belief in state's rights?

All you are showing is how the media in America has turned into a propaganda machine.
You claim to be able to filter through the bullshit... you should already know this

 

[pknopp]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

DHS Official On Reports Of Federal Officers Detaining Protesters In Portland, Ore.

"Well I can't speak on that" is all he says. Obviously if he can't "speak on that" he can't say he was wearing all black and a black hood now can he?

Appears clearly labelled as "police". I have no idea where that pic came from.

The complaints have been that while they are labelled "police" it doesn't say what police they are.

Try to keep up.

No it's not.

 

[pknopp]

For fucks sake pknopp... who gives a rats ass???
People there were attacking FEDERAL PROPERTY.
The local authorities are not providing even the most basic protection of said properties.... so federal law enforcement was sent in. They have jurisdiction to do that.
Why is this hard to understand?

A lot of people care.

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...overly-militarized-federal-agents-in-portland

Former Bush DHS secretary rips Trump for treating department like 'the president's personal militia'

Federal presence in Portland raises alarm over takeover of states

Whatever happened to the "rights" belief in state's rights?

All you are showing is how the media in America has turned into a propaganda machine.
You claim to be able to filter through the bullshit... you should already know this

I've never argued that the media is anything but. All the same it's not the media saying these things.

 

[martybegan]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

DHS Official On Reports Of Federal Officers Detaining Protesters In Portland, Ore.

"Well I can't speak on that" is all he says. Obviously if he can't "speak on that" he can't say he was wearing all black and a black hood now can he?

Appears clearly labelled as "police". I have no idea where that pic came from.

The complaints have been that while they are labelled "police" it doesn't say what police they are.

Try to keep up.

No it's not.

Reports: Camouflaged feds grabbing vandals -- and protesters? -- in Portland and carting them off in unmarked vans

The agents on the streets of Portland this week look like troops; they have a completely generic “POLICE” tag on their chests but otherwise they seem poised to deploy.

 

[pknopp]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

DHS Official On Reports Of Federal Officers Detaining Protesters In Portland, Ore.

"Well I can't speak on that" is all he says. Obviously if he can't "speak on that" he can't say he was wearing all black and a black hood now can he?

Appears clearly labelled as "police". I have no idea where that pic came from.

The complaints have been that while they are labelled "police" it doesn't say what police they are.

Try to keep up.

No it's not.

Reports: Camouflaged feds grabbing vandals -- and protesters? -- in Portland and carting them off in unmarked vans

The agents on the streets of Portland this week look like troops; they have a completely generic “POLICE” tag on their chests but otherwise they seem poised to deploy.

LOL, they are bringing their wives mini-vans to do this?

I laugh but it isn't funny. It's time for the people of Portland to arm themselves.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Yet... these people are not concerned that local officials are breaking their contract with American citizens to provide law enforcement and protection.
They have an elected duty to do so, and they are purposefully not doing it.
Because they are afraid they will be targeted by the anarchist. Who, in parts of the city are the ones in charge.

 

[martybegan]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

DHS Official On Reports Of Federal Officers Detaining Protesters In Portland, Ore.

"Well I can't speak on that" is all he says. Obviously if he can't "speak on that" he can't say he was wearing all black and a black hood now can he?

Appears clearly labelled as "police". I have no idea where that pic came from.

The complaints have been that while they are labelled "police" it doesn't say what police they are.

Try to keep up.

No it's not.

Reports: Camouflaged feds grabbing vandals -- and protesters? -- in Portland and carting them off in unmarked vans

The agents on the streets of Portland this week look like troops; they have a completely generic “POLICE” tag on their chests but otherwise they seem poised to deploy.

LOL, they are bringing their wives mini-vans to do this?

I laugh but it isn't funny. It's time for the people of Portland to arm themselves.

Dude, I have given you all the background info I used to make my determination, and you ignore and go off on a tangent

The "people" of Portland are probably just wishing the rioters go away, your SJW reach around partners on the other hand, if they want to arm themselves and go full revolution, I'm sure they would last 5 seconds against the federal cops.

 

[pknopp]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

DHS Official On Reports Of Federal Officers Detaining Protesters In Portland, Ore.

"Well I can't speak on that" is all he says. Obviously if he can't "speak on that" he can't say he was wearing all black and a black hood now can he?

Appears clearly labelled as "police". I have no idea where that pic came from.

The complaints have been that while they are labelled "police" it doesn't say what police they are.

Try to keep up.

No it's not.

Reports: Camouflaged feds grabbing vandals -- and protesters? -- in Portland and carting them off in unmarked vans

The agents on the streets of Portland this week look like troops; they have a completely generic “POLICE” tag on their chests but otherwise they seem poised to deploy.

LOL, they are bringing their wives mini-vans to do this?

I laugh but it isn't funny. It's time for the people of Portland to arm themselves.

Dude, I have given you all the background info I used to make my determination, and you ignore and go off on a tangent

The "people" of Portland are probably just wishing the rioters go away, your SJW reach around partners on the other hand, if they want to arm themselves and go full revolution, I'm sure they would last 5 seconds against the federal cops.

The solution is easy.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

Pretty sickening watching people get their panties in a bunch over Federal Law Enforcement do what local law enforcement is prevented from doing by mayors and governors: Protect citizens from looters, rioters, and disrupters.

All of the sudden, EVERY protestor in Portland is 100 percent “peaceful”. Bullshit. If that were the case then Federal peacekeepers would not need to be there. Further, I don’t no where people think ripping drivers from their cars is “peaceful”.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Leftists are as knowledgeable of the constitution as they are of economics. Plenty of feeeelllling, void of facts.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The Non-Duly Appointed Secretary of DHS Ken Cuccinelli has no legal authority to give any orders resulting in anyone's detainment. Those acting on his orders (or those of Non-Duly Appointed Chad Wolf) are acting in a non-constitutional capacity. If they act in any threatening manner, Oregonians have No Duty to Retreat.

What on earth are you babbling about?

I found what they said quiet clear.

Who are they?

 

[Dale Smith]

I vividly recall how leftards cheered on the Bureau of Land Management's draconian and fascist tactics against the Bundy family. How leftards cheered the shooting in the back of Lavoy Finicum. They reveled in the Fed's tactics against those protesting on behalf of the Hammond family. They sent dildos to the protesters.

Now look at these fucking whiners about the tactics used to stop the rioting and looting of spoiled little SJW snowflakes protesting the alleged death of thug George Floyd that happened 1,700 miles away. Suck it hard, leftards....you had it jammed right up your hypocritical asses.

So you have decided to be as bad as the people you condemn? And this makes sense to you somehow?

The Bundys didn't destroy anything, the protesters at the Wildlife refuge in Oregon didn't destroy anything or threaten anyone but your posse of snowflake commie pussies have been running amok for two months over the death of a thug that happened 1,700 miles away. You are probably too stupid to get the gist of what I am saying which is typical. Commie lives do not matter to me at all....and never will.

 

[pknopp]

The Non-Duly Appointed Secretary of DHS Ken Cuccinelli has no legal authority to give any orders resulting in anyone's detainment. Those acting on his orders (or those of Non-Duly Appointed Chad Wolf) are acting in a non-constitutional capacity. If they act in any threatening manner, Oregonians have No Duty to Retreat.

What on earth are you babbling about?

I found what they said quiet clear.

Who are they?

The statement is clear as to who they are. Those who Cuccinelli give his orders to. How is it you are unable to understand this?