Unconstitutional actions by fededal police in Portland?

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

So you suggest these unidentified gangs of armed men grabbing people off the street and bundling them into unmarked vehicles have probable cause to suspect their targets of federal crimes, but, on reflection, never enough to bring before a judge, so far as we know?

As far as we know? It is certainly an achievable standard. But the decision to release before a judge wouldn't have to be "never enough" evidence. They can have sufficient evidence and someone reach the conclusion pursuing it is not worth their resources.

I'm not aware of any case that makes doing it as a policy unconstitutional.

[Nova Land]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

These officers do not appear to be violating any laws.

Originally Posted by Craig4

If the officers aren't bringing the people they detain and arrest before a judge they are violating the law. If the USA in Portland doesn't know what they are doing and is asking for an investigation, clearly these officers aren't bringing they people before a judge. The US Attorney's Office plays rather a key role in the whole, bring someone before a judge thing. DHS is then depriving people of due process of law which is a crime called Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Authority. When I went to FLETC, the legal instructors were rather clear on this one.

Craig is correct. And that appears to be only one of numerous ways in which these these unidentified camouflage-suited people [UCPs for short] have been violating Oregon law.

Here's the section of Oregon law relating to what federal officers are permitted to do in regard to the kind of situations being reported on, section 133.245 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, as posted on the OregonLaws website.

First, here's section 1, which details when a federal officer may make an arrest in the state of Oregon:

Quote:

(1) A federal officer may arrest a person:

• (a) For any crime committed in the federal officer’s presence if the federal officer has probable cause to believe the person committed the crime.
  
• (b) For any felony or Class A misdemeanor if the federal officer has probable cause to believe the person committed the crime.
  
• (c) When rendering assistance to or at the request of a law enforcement officer, as defined in ORS 414.805 (Liability of individual for medical services received while in custody of law enforcement officer).
  
• (d) When the federal officer has received positive information in writing or by telephone, telegraph, teletype, radio, facsimile machine or other authoritative source that a peace officer holds a warrant for the person’s arrest.

None of those 4 appear to apply to the cases where UCPs picked people up off the street. There was no request for assistance by a law enforcement officer, there was no arrest warrant for these people (or reason to think there was), no crime occurred in the UCP's presence, and there was no probable cause to believe the people picked up had committed a felony or Class A misdemeanor.

Here's section 2, which specifies an important part of how an arrest by a federal officer is to be carried out:

Quote:

(2) The federal officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the federal officer’s authority and reason for the arrest.

This does not appear to have been done by the UCPs in any of the cases reported on so far.

Here's section 4, which confirms what Craig said:

Quote:

• (a) A federal officer making an arrest under this section without unnecessary delay shall take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested person to a peace officer.
  
• (b) The federal officer retains authority over the arrested person only until the person appears before a magistrate or until the law enforcement agency having general jurisdiction over the area in which the arrest took place assumes responsibility for the person.

The UCPs appear to be consistently violating that part of the law.

And lastly, here's section 6, which details another very important requirement federal officers operating in the state of Oregon are legally required to meet before making any arrests there:

Quote:

(6) A federal officer is authorized to make arrests under this section upon certification by the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training that the federal officer has received proper training to enable that officer to make arrests under this section.

The Department of Public Safety Standards and Training is located in Salem, Oregon, and is an important part of how Oregon promotes public safety. Unless these UPCs who are operating on the streets of Portland have received proper training and been certified by the state of Oregon to make arrests in Oregon, they are not authorized to do so. I strongly suspect that none of the UCPs engaging in the actions which have been reported on have received this training or this certification.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There's this little thing in the Constitution called the 4th Amendment:

Which these officers are likely in compliance with. You will never go broke betting that 4th amendment judicial decisions will go in favor of law enforcement.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Nova Land

Craig is correct. And that appears to be only one of numerous ways in which these these unidentified camouflage-suited people [UCPs for short] have been violating Oregon law.

Here's the section of Oregon law relating to what federal officers are permitted to do in regard to the kind of situations being reported on, section 133.245 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, as posted on the OregonLaws website.

First, here's section 1, which details when a federal officer may make an arrest in the state of Oregon:




None of those 4 appear to apply to the cases where UCPs picked people up off the street. There was no request for assistance by a law enforcement officer, there was no arrest warrant for these people (or reason to think there was), no crime occurred in the UCP's presence, and there was no probable cause to believe the people picked up had committed a felony or Class A misdemeanor.

Here's section 2, which specifies an important part of how an arrest by a federal officer is to be carried out:




This does not appear to have been done by the UCPs in any of the cases reported on so far.

Here's section 4, which confirms what Craig said:




The UCPs appear to be consistently violating that part of the law.

And lastly, here's section 6, which details another very important requirement federal officers operating in the state of Oregon are legally required to meet before making any arrests there:




The Department of Public Safety Standards and Training is located in Salem, Oregon, and is an important part of how Oregon promotes public safety. Unless these UPCs who are operating on the streets of Portland have received proper training and been certified by the state of Oregon to make arrests in Oregon, they are not authorized to do so. I strongly suspect that none of the UCPs engaging in the actions which have been reported on have received this training or this certification.

This applies to enforcement of state law. States cannot regulate enforcement of federal law. DHS appear to consistently discuss damage to federal property... something outside the applicability of the law you referenced.

[Nova Land]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

A) Federal agents do not need state permission to enforce federal law.

Oregon law says they do if that enforcement involves making arrests.

But getting that permission is not difficult. They simply need to get certified by the state of Oregon's Department of Public Safety after the department determines they have been adequately trained and do not pose a threat to the public safety of Oregon citizens.

Unfortunately the UCPs which Trumps sent into Oregon do not appear to have received that training. They are either unaware of the standards and procedures they need to follow when operating in Oregon or they are ignoring those standards and procedures. Either way puts them in violation of Oregon law.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

These officers do not appear to be violating any laws.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Seizing and detaining people, even if you later release then unharmed, sounds like kidnapping to me. They appear to have no authority from the state to do this. By what authority are they acting? Perhaps more immediately concerning, when they grab somebody, how do you or anyone else tell that they are "officers"?

For what it's worth... here's relevant state law for Oregon when it comes to procedure for Federal Officers. (ETA: Thanks for beating me to it, Nova Land.)

ORS 133.245 - Arrest by federal officer

Quote:

(1) A federal officer may arrest a person:

(a) For any crime committed in the federal officer’s presence if the federal officer has probable cause to believe the person committed the crime.

(b) For any felony or Class A misdemeanor if the federal officer has probable cause to believe the person committed the crime.

(c) When rendering assistance to or at the request of a law enforcement officer, as defined in ORS 414.805 (Liability of individual for medical services received while in custody of law enforcement officer).

(d) When the federal officer has received positive information in writing or by telephone, telegraph, teletype, radio, facsimile machine or other authoritative source that a peace officer holds a warrant for the person’s arrest.

(2) The federal officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the federal officer’s authority and reason for the arrest.

(3) In order to make an arrest, a federal officer may use physical force as is justifiable and authorized of a peace officer under ORS 161.235 (Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape), 161.239 (Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape) and 161.245 (“Reasonable belief” described).

(4)(a) A federal officer making an arrest under this section without unnecessary delay shall take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested person to a peace officer.

(b) The federal officer retains authority over the arrested person only until the person appears before a magistrate or until the law enforcement agency having general jurisdiction over the area in which the arrest took place assumes responsibility for the person.

(5) A federal officer when making an arrest for a nonfederal offense under the circumstances provided in this section shall have the same immunity from suit as a state or local law enforcement officer.

(6) A federal officer is authorized to make arrests under this section upon certification by the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training that the federal officer has received proper training to enable that officer to make arrests under this section. [1981 c.808 §3; 1993 c.254 §2; 1995 c.79 §48; 1997 c.853 §34]

They seem to be trying to claim that detaining/arresting people is not actually detaining/arresting them, as it is, to get around some of that, by the look of it, even when hauling them in accordance with 4a.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

A) Federal agents do not need state permission to enforce federal law.

And when they're NOT actually enforcing federal law? Further, even if they are enforcing federal law, that doesn't mean that they get to simply ignore relevant procedural state law.

Either way, this is just yet another example of why "States Rights" arguments from Republicans can be safely dismissed.


Related, it looks like the justification for the Feds staying in Portland even after being told to leave is... a bunch of "Violent anarchists graffitied X" claims.

No evidence for the "violent" or "anarchist" parts of that, of course, and the costs that are being incurred to deal with "graffiti" are definitely in the territory of the "cure" being worse than the disease.

[Nova Land]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

This applies to enforcement of state law. States cannot regulate enforcement of federal law.

Ah! You may be right about that.

But they would still need to specify what federal law the people they are arresting are believed to have broken and to have probable cause that the people they are arresting are the ones who committed the crime. That does not appear to be the case in any of the incidents being talked about.

A claim of probable cause is not a magic phrase that allows UCPs to pick people up off the streets and detain them. There must actually be probable cause for doing so. Being out in public on Oregon streets is not probable cause.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Nova Land

Oregon law says they do if that enforcement involves making arrests.

But getting that permission is not difficult. They simply need to get certified by the state of Oregon's Department of Public Safety after the department determines they have been adequately trained and do not pose a threat to the public safety of Oregon citizens.

Unfortunately the UCPs which Trumps sent into Oregon do not appear to have received that training. They are either unaware of the standards and procedures they need to follow when operating in Oregon or they are ignoring those standards and procedures. Either way puts them in violation of Oregon law.

From lawfare blog

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-hec...doing-portland

Quote:

Question 3: What authority do these federal officers have to detain and arrest individuals?

Insofar as federal law enforcement officers are enforcing federal law and/or state law on federal property, federal law also provides detention and arrest authorities. Of course, detention and arrest must still comport with the federal Constitution—under which warrantless arrests require probable cause to believe the individual has committed a crime.

Like most states, Oregon does authorize federal officers to enforce state law.

The feds can arrest you for violating federal law anywhere. They don't need permission.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So it's just fine because they were only detained?

OMG, is that what you meant? Or were you just saying they didn't actually disappear?

As usual your powers of reading comprehension are abysmal.

I'm just asking if anyone has information on their whereabouts, since we know of another who was later released.

No one's saying that it's fine. That's just making stuff up again. But if these people turn up afterwards, they weren't "dissapeared".

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Nova Land

Ah! You may be right about that.

But they would still need to specify what federal law the people they are arresting are believed to have broken and to have probable cause that the people they are arresting are the ones who committed the crime. That does not appear to be the case in any of the incidents being talked about.

A claim of probable cause is not a magic phrase that allows UCPs to pick people up off the streets and detain them. There must actually be probable cause for doing so. Being out in public on Oregon streets is not probable cause.

Until there is a habeas hearing or they are sued, or before a judge, they don't have to articulate the basis for probable cause.

Whether they had probable cause is unknown right now.

[Nova Land]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

This applies to enforcement of state law.

Can you show me where in the Oregon statutes it says that? It's possible you're right, but I am not able to find anywhere it says that and I am able to find a section which appears to be saying just the opposite.

Here's the entire OregonLaw page on chapter 133, which is the chapter on Arrest and Related Procedures and which is the chapter that the section I quoted comes from. It's long, so jump down about a fifth of the way to where it says General Provisions and starts defining terms:

Quote:

133.005 Definitions for ORS 133.005 to 133.400 and 133.410 to 133.450. As used in ORS 133.005 to 133.400 and 133.410 to 133.450, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1) “Arrest” means to place a person under actual or constructive restraint or to take a person into custody for the purpose of charging that person with an offense. A “stop” as authorized under ORS 131.605 to 131.625 is not an arrest.

(2) “Federal officer” means a special agent or law enforcement officer employed by a federal agency who is empowered to effect an arrest with or without a warrant for violations of the United States Code and who is authorized to carry firearms in the performance of duty.

That certainly appears to me that this is talking about federal officers making arrests for federal crimes when the officer is doing so in the state of Oregon. Please point me to where Oregon law says that the section on federal officers making arrests only applies to them making arrests for state crimes.

[dudalb]

It got ugly last nigiht in Portland, with the Portland police arresting several protestors after fireworks were launched against the Portland Civic center.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I live in Portland. What he is claiming is nonsense.

When a claim hinges on "people are saying" (or equivalent), that's an indicator that bs is being foisted.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Nova Land

Can you show me where in the Oregon statutes it says that? It's possible you're right, but I am not able to find anywhere it says that and I am able to find a section which appears to be saying just the opposite.

Here's the entire OregonLaw page on chapter 133, which is the chapter on Arrest and Related Procedures and which is the chapter that the section I quoted comes from. It's long, so jump down about a fifth of the way to where it says General Provisions and starts defining terms:




That certainly appears to me that this is talking about federal officers making arrests for federal crimes when the officer is doing so in the state of Oregon. Please point me to where Oregon law says that the section on federal officers making arrests only applies to them making arrests for state crimes.

Oregon law doesn't say it because they have no authority to make that choice and can only regulate the enforcement of their own laws. Your question is like asking me where in MLB regulations does it authorize a quarterback in the NFL to not use a bat. Federal law governs that actions of federal law enforcement.

This is why sanctuary cities can only ban state officials from assisting ICE and can't ban ice.

ETA: the issue is one of preemption law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pree...0constitutions.

federal law displaces, or preempts, state law, due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. VI., § 2. Preemption applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I remember reading a tweet where it was claimed the injured man had thrown the gas canister at the police and that's why he was shot. The video clearly shows that did not happen. The canister was thrown toward the protester which landed near him. He then rolled it back on the ground from the direction it came. It was directly after that he was shot with the rubber bullet and severely injured requiring face reconstructive surgery.

I'm surprised there's not nationwide outrage about this incident. From the link in post 17:

Quote:

He was standing with both arms in the air holding a large speaker across the street from the courthouse when he was hit.

[Nova Land]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

From lawfare blog...

Ah! Lawfare has a very good reputation, and they do appear to confirm that the section I quoted are requirements for federal officers when they are enforcing state laws rather than federal laws.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

ETA: the issue is one of preemption law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pree...0constitutions.

federal law displaces, or preempts, state law, due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. VI., § 2. Preemption applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions.

There's an important caveat in play here, though. To quote from your link -

Quote:

When state law and federal law conflict,

No conflict of law has been demonstrated, at this point. Where they do not conflict, state laws do remain fully applicable.

[jimbob]

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1284337917981274115

Quote:

Josh Marshall
@joshtpm
Deputy Secretary of DHS Ken Cuccinelli tells NPR not only are they not stopping the Portland tactics they're going to take them nationwide. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...-this-national
via
@TPM
DHS Under Boss: We're Taking This National
DHS Under Boss: We're Taking This National
talkingpointsmemo.com
5:03 AM · Jul 18, 2020·Twitter Web App

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Aridas

There's an important caveat in play here, though. To quote from your link -



No conflict of law has been demonstrated, at this point. Where they do not conflict, state laws do remain fully applicable.

The conflict is enforcement of federal law. Congress authorizes federal officers to enforce federal law. Some are arguing oregon law only allows the feds to enforce federal law under certain circumstances. That would be the alleged conflict and it resolves in favor of the federal government.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Until there is a habeas hearing or they are sued, or before a judge, they don't have to articulate the basis for probable cause.

Whether they had probable cause is unknown right now.

So they do need to have probable case, but there's no case yet come to light where they have been required to demonstrate that they did. Are they required to identify themselves to the arrestee and tell them for what federal crime they are being arrested?

I'm also curious about who detained the arrestees, and on what grounds they were detained and released; whether they were de-arrested or released without charge.

[3point14]

It would appear that Trump is going to avoid losing the election for POTUS by attempting to make sure there's no US left to not be POTUS of. Just leaving the S

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

So they do need to have probable case, but there's no case yet come to light where they have been required to demonstrate that they did. Are they required to identify themselves to the arrestee and tell them for what federal crime they are being arrested?

I'm also curious about who detained the arrestees, and on what grounds they were detained and released; whether they were de-arrested or released without charge.

Good questions. I will answer one. They do not appear to be required to identify themselves. A court could start laying the groundwork that it is a 4th amendment violation, but they haven't uet

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Not so idiotic then. There might be method in such madness. Raising the stakes and provoking more trouble gives him a bigger target to be seen to get tough with.

This depends on if Trump wants to make things worse (possible but it requires thinking ahead). Or whether he wants to claim he's fixing it like he said he would, thinking he can brag that he took care of those Portland anarchists (fits his pattern).

Pres. Trump on federal officers in Portland: 'we quelled it'

Quote:

President Trump spoke publicly on Monday and addressed the federal officers that were in Portland over the weekend.

"We've done a great job in Portland. Portland was totally out of control. They went in and I guess they have many people right now in jail. We very much quelled it. If it starts again, we'll quell it again, very easily. It's not hard to do," Pres. Trump said.

Choosing a blue west coast liberal city, he appears to be playing it in red Trumplandia. And notice he likely thought he was intervening after the protests had actually died down. That part could backfire. He stirred the protester hornets' nest instead of quelling it.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This depends on if Trump wants to make things worse (possible but it requires thinking ahead). Or whether he wants to claim he's fixing it like he said he would, thinking he can brag that he took care of those Portland anarchists (fits his pattern).

Pres. Trump on federal officers in Portland: 'we quelled it'

Choosing a blue west coast liberal city, he appears to be playing it in red Trumplandia. And notice he likely thought he was intervening after the protests had actually died down. That part could backfire. He stirred the protester hornets' nest instead of quelling it.

The good news is we now know very few are detained.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Oregon AG files lawsuit against federal agencies for violating Oregonians' civil rights
Oregon's attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, has filed a suit against several federal agencies.


SALEM, Ore. — Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marshals Service, the United States Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Protection Service and their agents.

The lawsuit alleges that agents from those federal agencies have engaged in "unlawful law enforcement in violation of the civil rights of Oregonians by seizing and detaining them without probable cause."


The lawsuit will be followed by a motion for a temporary restraining order regarding the forcible detainment of an Oregon resident named Mark Pettibone, who told Oregon Public Broadcasting federal officers grabbed him off the street and took him away in an unmarked van. If the order is granted, federal agents would no longer be able to unlawfully detain Oregonians.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/loc...7-8982f939117c

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

As usual your powers of reading comprehension are abysmal.

Stop it!!!! I read just fine. If you want to have this petty ad hominem discussion, maybe you should look at your communication skills.

For example, do you understand the meaning of asking for a clarification?

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'm just asking if anyone has information on their whereabouts, since we know of another who was later released.

No one's saying that it's fine. That's just making stuff up again. But if these people turn up afterwards, they weren't "dissapeared".

That's not what you 'just' asked.

This was the exchange:

Originally Posted by Belz

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

US seems to be in a 'Dirty War' with security forces disappearing people suspected of not being loyal to the regime.
How long before there are mass graves in secluded spots?

Er... do these people actually disappear or do they pop back up? The first one we heard about a month or two ago reappeared just fine."

My question was exactly right: "So it's just fine because they were only detained?"

And I politely gave you the benefit of the doubt but you got offended anyway.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/loc...7-8982f939117c

I don't understand the last sentence. Surely anyone can unlawfully detain Oregonians?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by varwoche

I'm surprised there's not nationwide outrage about this incident. From the link in post 17:

Hopefully the ball is now picking up steam.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The good news is we now know very few are detained.

Doesn't that depend on how you define "detained"? Trump said "many" people in jail, so what's the word on charges?

If this is pure harassment, or even if there's a germ of legal cover for the practice of stop, frisk and hold for a few hours, it still seems to me there should be a civil rights class-action lawsuit in the works for false imprisonment. Feds still need probable cause, right? Is being black considered probable cause? Maybe these answers are all covered in various articles, but I'm not seeing it on this thread.

In my experience, federal law enforcement is less transparent than state or local. Usually you can tell when someone's in jail and when they get an initial appearance before a judge. *None* of these are going to judges? To me that indicates bad faith, i.e., they know they don't have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed. One reason I asked if this could be related to the Patriot Act and rather broad authority to seize and hold people indefinitely.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

I don't understand the last sentence. Surely anyone can unlawfully detain Oregonians?

Are you being serious? I don't know whether to actually address your question or not.

[Minoosh]

It reminds me of Iran's morals police picking up women with allegedly bad hijab for purposes of sheer harassment. Most of these women were released, but they grew desensitized to the practice. They'd get scolded, held for a few hours or overnight and would be cut loose.

ETA: Also like in Iran, a federal contingent of thugs appears during civil unrest with pretty much zero accountability. So yay Trump. Using the IRGC playbook. So far in the U.S. they can't, say, just hold them and beat them to death, then say they died resisting arrest. But I'm sure Trump is eager to find out how far they can go.

Is it being challenged in court? Forgive me, sorry, I'm not terribly well-read on this issue but it seems like there are many unanswered questions.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Doesn't that depend on how you define "detained"? Trump said "many" people in jail, so what's the word on charges?.

Then let me clarify. It is good to know so few people are in jail.

[Minoosh]

The only time I tried to push federal officials to release names of the detained, I got a prompt that I needed to give a credit card number to make the request.

Local, state, you can see, often online, who's being held where on what charges. It might take a few hours for the data to upload but there's no question that it's treated as standard public record. But these are people actually booked which sets the appearance before a judge automatically within about 24 hours at the most.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The conflict is enforcement of federal law. Congress authorizes federal officers to enforce federal law. Some are arguing oregon law only allows the feds to enforce federal law under certain circumstances. That would be the alleged conflict and it resolves in favor of the federal government.

The applicable state laws have been cited. How about you cite the law that says federal agents can pick up citizens off the street for peacefully protesting?

We already saw that they violated the Constitution in DC when agents attacked peaceful protesters and the news media to clear the area for Trump's propaganda shoot.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Then let me clarify. It is good to know so few people are in jail.

If you're not free to go, you're detained, as far as I'm concerned.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The applicable state laws have been cited. How about you cite the law that says federal agents can pick up citizens off the street for peacefully protesting?

A) they are not being arrested for allegedly peaceful protesting. The feds are alleging vandalism and property damage.

B) here it is

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315

Quote:

(a)In General.—
To the extent provided for by transfers made pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to as the “Secretary”) shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government



40 U.S. Code § 1315.Law enforcement authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for protection of public property
U.S. Code
Notes
prev next
(a)In General.—
To the extent provided for by transfers made pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to as the “Secretary”) shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.
(b)Officers and Agents.—
(1)Designation.—
The Secretary may designate employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.
(2)Powers.—While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may—
(A)enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;
(B)carry firearms;
(C)make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of the officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony;

ETA: I thought it wouldn't even bother to specify that they can operate freely in the states, but there it is too

for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.

They preempted the hell out of that state law

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

If you're not free to go, you're detained, as far as I'm concerned.

That's exactly what it means. If detained, you are not free to leave even if you are not under arrest.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Stop it!!!! I read just fine.

No you didn't. You read "she reappeared just fine" which simply means she actually reappeared and was ok, with "The situation is fine because she reappeared". Those are two completely different things, but somehow you managed to misread it. Twice.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That's exactly what it means. If detained, you are not free to leave even if you are not under arrest.

I'm not even sure "under arrest" is a definite legal term. But it's generally associated with being read your rights and handcuffed. That was happening as far as I understand.

Someone apparently researched this to find a legal way to allow Trump to do what he wanted.

Knowing Bob is not a knee-jerk defender of police powers ... if his reading tells him this is constitutional I'm afraid he's correct. Trump got his goon squad and is pretty proud of it.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Then let me clarify. It is good to know so few people are in jail.

One is too many.

Arrest and detention without probable cause is a direct violation of US Citizens' 4th amendment rights except under some very limited exceptions... none of which exist here.