Law alien enemies act grants LEO permission to enter a home without a warrant.

[Whippy McGee]

Who's to say that people won't think it's a burglar breaking in, and then act accordingly. This kind of stuff is massive bullshit, though, sounds like an easy way for people to abuse their power. Start kicking in everyone's door, stealing from them, raping them, no way for them to prove anything because they won't be given due process.

It's been the law since 1976 per the SCOTUS. This is not something new.

 

[Daverisimo]

A very real chance they may be used against agents storming people's homes

That's what they're hoping for. The Trump regime is looking for any excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act.

 

[James Bomb]

Perhaps you guys should familiarize yourselves with United States v. Santana (1976), where the Supreme Court upheld this type of warrantless entry during a pursuit.

The Santana ruling hinged on the fact that officers already had probable cause before the pursuit even started and went inside the house. So "this sort of warrantless entry" is not supported by that caselaw.

Where is the probable cause in this scenario?

The whole point of this memo is to avoid due process.

 

[Whippy McGee]

The Santana ruling hinged on the fact that officers already had probable cause before the pursuit even started and went inside the house. So "this sort of warrantless entry" is not supported by that caselaw.

Where is the probable cause in this scenario?

The whole point of this memo is to avoid due process.

A LEO is not "in pursuit" unless they have probable cause.

The whole point of this memo is to protect U.S. Citizens from criminal illegal aliens.

The real question is... why doesn't the Left / Democrats want LEOs to enforce the law against criminals?

 

[James Bomb]

A LEO is not "in pursuit" unless they have probable cause.

That's the whole point, and why the precedent around hot pursuit does not offer support for the opinions included in this memo.

What's happening here is Bondi literally trying to establish "reasonable belief" by immigrations officers as the new standard for making arrests. Not the standard "probable cause" as defined by a judicial party with Article III power under the Constitution. And what was clearly required by the case you were citing previously.

And the memo sanctions warrantless searches and pursuits into homes if "circumstances render it impracticable". Both of which are likely 4th Amendment violations based on hundreds of years of clear and binding legal precedent.

The whole point of this memo is to protect U.S. Citizens from criminal illegal aliens.

The real question is... why doesn't the Left / Democrats want LEOs to enforce the law against criminals?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Anybody who openly defies it by following the opinions set forth in this memo is breaking the law themselves.

 

[Whippy McGee]

That's the whole point, and why the precedent around hot pursuit does not offer support for the opinions included in this memo.

What's happening here is Bondi literally trying to establish "reasonable belief" by immigrations officers as the new standard for making arrests. Not the standard "probable cause" as defined by a judicial party with Article III power under the Constitution. And what was clearly required by the case you were citing previously.

And the memo sanctions warrantless searches and pursuits into homes if "circumstances render it impracticable". Both of which are likely 4th Amendment violations based on hundreds of years of clear and binding legal precedent.


The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Anybody who openly defies it by following the opinions set forth in this memo is breaking the law themselves.

What the memo shares has been the law since 1976 per the SCOTUS. This is not something new.

How are you not getting this? There is nothing special about that memo. The thread title is a lie. I even shared with your the precedent.

 

[James Bomb]

What the memo shares has been the law since 1976 per the SCOTUS. This is not something new.

It's not "the law since 1976". The SCOTUS case you cited requires probable cause.

How are you not getting this? There is nothing special about that memo. The thread title is a lie. I even shared with your the precedent.

I'm definitely getting what you're saying... it's just that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Here is the Santana opinion that you're referencing, where it is literally called out in the very first part of the ruling

Held:

• 1. Santana, while standing in the doorway of her house, was in a "public place" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, since she was not in an area where she had any expectation of privacy and was not merely visible to the public but was exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her house. Thus, when the police, who concededly had probable cause to do so, sought to arrest her, they merely intended to make a warrantless arrest in a public place upon probable cause and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 . P. 42
  
  2. By retreating into a private place, Santana could not defeat an otherwise proper arrest that had been set in motion in a public place. Since there was a need to act quickly to prevent destruction of evidence, there was a true "hot pursuit," which need not be an extended hue and cry "in and about [the] public streets," and thus a warrantless entry to make the arrest was [427 U.S. 38, 39] justified, Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , as was the search incident to that arrest. Pp. 42-43.

When the Attorney General of the United States, who is basically the top law enforcement official for the entire country, advises federal agents that they can openly violate the Constitution to achieve Donald Trump's political goals, that is the definition of "something special".

 

[Whippy McGee]

It's not "the law since 1976". The SCOTUS case you cited requires probable cause.



I'm definitely getting what you're saying... it's just that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Here is the Santana opinion that you're referencing, where it is literally called out in the very first part of the ruling

Held:

• 1. Santana, while standing in the doorway of her house, was in a "public place" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, since she was not in an area where she had any expectation of privacy and was not merely visible to the public but was exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her house. Thus, when the police, who concededly had probable cause to do so, sought to arrest her, they merely intended to make a warrantless arrest in a public place upon probable cause and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 . P. 42
  
  2. By retreating into a private place, Santana could not defeat an otherwise proper arrest that had been set in motion in a public place. Since there was a need to act quickly to prevent destruction of evidence, there was a true "hot pursuit," which need not be an extended hue and cry "in and about [the] public streets," and thus a warrantless entry to make the arrest was [427 U.S. 38, 39] justified, Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , as was the search incident to that arrest. Pp. 42-43.

When the Attorney General of the United States, who is basically the top law enforcement official for the entire country, advises federal agents that they can openly violate the Constitution to achieve Donald Trump's political goals, that is the definition of "something special".

The ruling allows for pursuit into homes. You can dance all you want... it's straight forward.

Why is the Left opposed to protecting American Citizens from illegal alien criminals?

 

[Rod1]

This is the Left interpreting a memo for maximum outrage and getting it 100% wrong. This is what is actually says....

"Trump administration officials directed law enforcement nationwide to pursue suspected gang members into their homes..."

If you are in chase or hot pursuit of a suspected criminal you can follow them into their home without a warrant. That's the law and not a violation of the 4th Amendment according the to SCOTUS. You can do that to a citizen that committed crimes fleeing into their homes too. So what's the issue exactly?

The two scumbags, Nick Penzenstadler and Will Carless that wrote this anti-American propaganda piece should be fired for sucking at their jobs. USA Today ought to clarify and apologize.

You know there is a document there and you can always read it


After a supervisor issues a Warrant of Apprehension and Removal and deconfliction is
complete, officers shall use all available tools to immediately apprehend validated Alien Enemies
wherever they are found in the United States, including, but not limited to, inside Alien Enemies'
residences and workplaces. Prior to entering an Alien Enemy's residence to apprehend an Alien
Enemy, officers must have reason to believe the validated Alien Enemy is present inside the
residence.
To be clear, as outlined below in the section titled, "Apprehension and Removal Procedures
in Reactive Matters," it is not necessary to complete Forms AEA-21A and AEA-21B prior to
apprehending an Alien Enemy, where an officer has a reasonable belief that all four requirements
to be validated as an Alien Enemy are met. In such circumstances, officers are authorized to
apprehend the Alien Enemy and thereafter complete Forms AEA-21A and AEA-21B.

There is nothing there about a pursuit into a home, it literally says that after ICE decides someone is a Tren de Aragua "terrorist" based entirely on ICE criteria, they can enter a home without a warrant.

 

[Rod1]

The thread title is a lie and should be change. I suggest:

United States v. Santana grants LEOs permission to enter a home without a warrant when in pursuit... since 1976​

You know you can lie and shout and lie and deflect, it doesn't matters, once you can't lie you will say "Its not a big deal".

 

[Whippy McGee]

You know there is a document there and you can always read it


After a supervisor issues a Warrant of Apprehension and Removal and deconfliction is
complete, officers shall use all available tools to immediately apprehend validated Alien Enemies
wherever they are found in the United States, including, but not limited to, inside Alien Enemies'
residences and workplaces. Prior to entering an Alien Enemy's residence to apprehend an Alien
Enemy, officers must have reason to believe the validated Alien Enemy is present inside the
residence.
To be clear, as outlined below in the section titled, "Apprehension and Removal Procedures
in Reactive Matters," it is not necessary to complete Forms AEA-21A and AEA-21B prior to
apprehending an Alien Enemy, where an officer has a reasonable belief that all four requirements
to be validated as an Alien Enemy are met. In such circumstances, officers are authorized to
apprehend the Alien Enemy and thereafter complete Forms AEA-21A and AEA-21B.

There is nothing there about a pursuit into a home, it literally says that after ICE decides someone is a Tren de Aragua "terrorist" based entirely on ICE criteria, they can enter a home without a warrant.

You're just making shit up.

The law is that LEOs can pursue criminals into their homes. It's been precedent since 1976. Illegal Aliens don't get some special deal where they are not subject to our laws.

 

[Whippy McGee]

You know you can lie and shout and lie and deflect, it doesn't matters, once you can't lie you will say "Its not a big deal".

Lying?

Is it your argument that a LEO cannot pursue a criminal into a home?

 

[Rod1]

The ruling allows for pursuit into homes. You can dance all you want... it's straight forward.

Yup, and this isn't about pursuits, its about ICE having the authority to conduct warrantless searches with zero judicial oversight

 

[Rod1]

You're just making shit up.

The law is that LEOs can pursue criminals into their homes. It's been precedent since 1976. Illegal Aliens don't get some special deal where they are not subject to our laws.

1.- Its not a law its a memo

2.- The memo is linked by the OT, read it its not that hard, unless you are functionally illiterate which checks out.

 

[Rod1]

Is it your argument that a LEO cannot pursue a criminal into a home?

Nope, my argument is that the memo says nothing about "pursuit" or "pursue".

 

[Whippy McGee]

Yup, and this isn't about pursuits, its about ICE having the authority to conduct warrantless searches with zero judicial oversight

Nope. Now you're just making shit up. It clearly says in the memo...

"Trump administration officials directed law enforcement nationwide to pursue suspected gang members into their homes..."

... as they should since it's been the confirmed law of the land since 1976. Are you suggesting Illegal Alien criminals are not subject to U.S. laws?

 

[Rod1]

Nope. Now you're just making shit up. It clearly says in the memo...

"Trump administration officials directed law enforcement nationwide to pursue suspected gang members into their homes..."

... as they should since it's been the confirmed law of the land since 1976. Are you suggesting Illegal Alien criminals are not subject to U.S. laws?

Where in the memo? Wait... You think the news article is the memo? Lol.

 

[James Bomb]

The ruling allows for pursuit into homes. You can dance all you want... it's straight forward.

Why is the Left opposed to protecting American Citizens from illegal alien criminals?

How can I get this through your thick empty skull?

Pursuit into a private residence requires probable cause, under the precedent that you tried to cite and I posted. You literally just quoted it here.

The memo says that officers can "apprehend aliens" based on their “reasonable belief” they meet the definitions AND also enter private residences if “circumstances render it impracticable” to get a probable cause warrant.

Do you think that is the "same thing as before?"

It also says that "immigrants deemed 'Alien Enemies' are not entitled to a hearing, appeal or judicial review” which is also total dishonest bullshit.

In other words, this memo is advocating for violating the most important parts of Constitution to benefit political goals.

 

[James Bomb]

Where in the memo? Wait... You think the news article is the memo? Lol.

Dude must have brain worms

 

[Cid]

The ruling allows for pursuit into homes. You can dance all you want... it's straight forward.

Why is the Left opposed to protecting American Citizens from illegal alien criminals?

Why is it not obvious to you that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about?

Lack of self awareness?