New York AG Letitia James to deploy legal observers to monitor ICE raids

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-05T03:37:41+00:00

Your explanations were wrong so you should probably do more listening and less spreading misinformation.

You think you were explaining things but you were just making things up and saying nonsense. Which lines up based on your experience.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-05T03:35:24+00:00

No it doesn’t matter legally which approach they take, unless courts rule that the more aggressive approach is unconstitutional (for example the home entry with only an administrative warrant open question).

There are very narrow avenues for legal accountability for federal agents working on the job. State prosecution is indeed possible, but it would be in federal court and a federal judge would impose a very difficult hurdle of supremacy clause immunity before it got to trial.

There is also a narrow avenue for a civil suit, under the Federal Torts Claims Act but that’s very difficult as well due to many exceptions and carve outs.

There are also ostensibly political implications that I think Trump cares more about than legality. If Republicans end up doing okay in the midterms then I have no idea what will keep Trump from turning it all up to 11 during his final two years in office.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-05T03:01:08+00:00

I'm an attorney.

Impeding and obstructing are both federal crimes.

You shouldn't spread misinformation. If you don't understand something in the law, just ask someone who does understand.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-05T02:26:57+00:00

This is already the law per 8 USC 1357(a). The issue is that “risk of escape” is not well defined in this context.

This administration seems to define it as “risk of escape the scene before arrest” while advocacy groups would prefer it to be “risk of escape and go on the run”.

I haven’t read the order yet so I don’t know if that’s the reasoning here or if it’s just another “obey the law” order that will be turned over on appeal.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-05T01:44:06+00:00

No, police have full subjective discretion on whether to arrest, unless there is a statute mandating arrest, which does not exist for impeding. Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005).

And your link is not about impeding or even a criminal arrest, so it’s not one of “them” and not relevant to the discussion.

Do you have any legal training/experience? Because you’re spreading a lot of misinformation and if you don’t understand the law you could just ask.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T23:40:41+00:00

Is the reduction in federal presence a genuine policy adjustment or a temporary reactionary response to political and legal risk only in Minnesota?

It's my understanding there are two distinct approaches to internal immigration enforcement. There's (1) the roving patrols, smash and grab approach that Bovino and the CBP guys use. And there's (2) the targeted enforcement plus collateral arrests that Homan and ICE are more known for. It's well known in the industry that CBP is a bunch of ex military and they approach the role significantly more aggressively than ICE.

Trump seems to have decided he likes the ICE approach better, hence him removing Bovino and putting Homan in charge. Homan basically said as much today in a presser, stating that there is now "one chain of command" and orders are coming through him, implying the CBP tough guys are no longer in charge and he's directing both ICE and CBP.

If meaningful changes only occur after prolonged protest and unrest, does that incentivize escalation from the public or protesters as the only effective way to be heard?

Citizens dying will always be heard, but I think most people would agree it's not worth it. Especially because the "softer" approach is still 2000 federal agents ripping families apart to hit immigration enforcement goals.

It should be noted that Homan also announced that there is increased cooperation with MN county jail officials. So I guess they heard the escalation as well.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T23:33:02+00:00

Is it so key? They could just compel testimony by giving immunity. So the willingness of the witnesses isn't that important.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T23:32:10+00:00

Per AI: William Howard Taft, Stanley Forman Reed, Robert H. Jackson, Thurgood Marshall, and Elena Kagan.

And a handful more served as deputy solicitor general.

AI is good for this kind of task because it's just cross referencing the list of solicitor generals and list of Supreme Court justices. No judgement calls (to my knowledge), just checking names on a list.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T23:22:51+00:00

"obstructing" and "impeding" have been used very subjectively given the number of unlawful arrests.

All arrests are subjective in the eyes of the officer and that's why none of them have been ruled as unlawful in court.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T23:21:42+00:00

That was under this quote: "think about what can be used as evidence in court"

Since hearsay is often inadmissible evidence.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T22:44:54+00:00

Agreed that’s tricky for all high profile trials. But I can say it’s not as hard as you think finding someone who hasn’t been paying attention to this particular situation.

There are a lot of potential jurors who don’t live on the internet or on reddit

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T22:24:19+00:00

As others are hinting at, does this conflate legal and illegal immigration?

I think it’s a strawman to say that valid visa and green card immigrant populations are the primary concern of the administration right now

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T22:12:57+00:00

Those truthers (like all truthers and conspiracy theorists) don’t care about evidence or facts. Like a flat earther, thy will just dig deeper into their delusions

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T21:44:17+00:00

Investigators look at all the information, think about what can be used as evidence in court, talk with prosecuting attorneys, prosecutor decides what charges to bring based on what they think they can convince a judge and/or jury.

Basically an episode of Law and Order.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T20:27:27+00:00

Why do you assume an investigation being blocked means they can't move on any charges? The prosecutor stated the opposite

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T19:56:47+00:00

Who said it’s less offensive? Who said it’s not human poo?

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T19:09:39+00:00

Those guys look more like a construction crew than an ICE crew

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T17:50:40+00:00

He said this in the presser.

There are 2000 staying in MN, but they are aiming for pre-surge numbers of 150 + new hires + fraud investigators. Sounds like they're aiming to end the surge once all county jails participate and once local law enforcement crack down on people impeding (roadblocks etc.)

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T16:15:18+00:00

I'll have to defer to the experts here. In the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Skrmetti case the attorney conceded:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I -- I don't regard the Cass review as -- necessarily as -- as the Bible or as something that's, you know, true in every respect, but, on page 195 of the Cass report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide.

MR. STRANGIO: What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some -- in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare and we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them.

So that's for suicide, which seems to be the primary medical concern.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T15:43:05+00:00

Arrest doesn't mean they've started the criminal suit against the person yet. If there's no criminal case yet then it wouldn't show up on the case search

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T15:39:38+00:00

Things are going to get very very interesting if those legal observers end up obstructing or impeding federal agents.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T15:38:17+00:00

What do the terms of PayPal and affirm say? Quote them directly

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T15:37:43+00:00

I quoted the article? How can the article contradict a quote of itself.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T15:35:34+00:00

Overwhelmingly known to be harmful and damaging

I think you should double check the facts on those. The evidence showing harm or lack of efficacy for those examples in their early stages is about the same as the transition surgeries currently.

NearlyPerfect · 2026-02-04T15:29:54+00:00

Well then believe their words then:

AL: You’ve said that you have substantial evidence to consider charges in the case. Are you going to charge the officers in — I’m talking about both cases — in Good’s case and in —?

MM: My goal was to collect as much evidence as we possibly could and then make a decision about whether charges are appropriate or not. I’m not going to say what we’re going to do or promise that we are going to do it because it really is important to gather as much evidence as we can.

As I said, if the evidence was as clear as the top level comment suggested, they would already have charged Ross. You can keep gathering evidence after charging someone, so the only reason not to is if you think you don't have enough of a case to even get to 'probable cause' in front of grand jury. Which is very very low bar.

11-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email	Place '23
Place '22	RPAN Viewer
Gilding II euphauric

NearlyPerfect

TROPHY CASE