Holy shit….
“They had us all surrounded,” López Alvarado told NBC Los Angeles on Monday.
LĂłpez Alvarado captured her interactions with immigration enforcement agents on video.
In one video, she tells the agents: “I’m gonna need you guys to leave. This is private property.”
As the agents “were trying to forcefully open” the gates, López Alvarado said, she “was blocking the door,” and "I told them they were in private property.”
In another video, one of the agents responds: “Excuse me, ma’am. You are interfering with my arrest. I’m doing my job. … Can you please move away?”
“I’m not moving away,” López Alvarado tells the agent.
López Alvarado said agents told her the parking wasn’t private property and arrested her alongside her partner, her cousin and her co-worker.
So she decided to interfere, break the law, and put herself inbetween the officers and the detainee? She basically wanted this to happen? Is that what I’m reading?
Yea- sorry. That’s on her.
I generally agree with GSC here. If someone gets in the way of law enforcement, getting arrested is a natural result.
Now it’s possible she was in the moral right, or committing a form of peaceful protest. It’s probable she believed to be getting in the way of abusive authority and she was taking a stand. But when you do that you also pretty much plan on getting arrested.
False. They were Customs and Border Patrol according to their uniforms. They entered the gated private parking without a warrant. They either needed consent or a warrant. Fourth Amendment protections apply even within CBP’s “100-mile zone.” U.S. citizens cannot be detained or arrested without reasonable suspicion (for stops) or probable cause (for arrests) of a crime. CBP checkpoints and roving patrols are allowed within this zone; but stops must be based on specific, articulable facts—ethnicity or location alone doesn’t suffice. In private spaces, such as a workplace or parking lot, agents generally cannot enter without a warrant or explicit consent, especially if it’s a dwelling or non-federal property
It’s illegal to physically prevent a lawful arrest or detention. However, that requires the arrest or detention to be lawful in the first place. If agents did not have legal grounds to detain or arrest—i.e., no reasonable suspicion or probable cause—then physically blocking them may not be obstruction legally.
Blocking an unlawful arrest isn’t obstructing. They entered without a warrant, on suspicion based upon nothing but the color or one’s skin. The agents lacked lawful authority for the initial arrest, so she appears to have significant grounds to challenge the arrest, file complaints, and seek legal remedy.
And this is a clear cut reason why habeas corpus exists!
You mean Habeas Corpus that the Sec of Homeland Security doesn’t know about?
I meant to post that as soon as that happened. I learned about this in Jr High School. She apparently had never learned it.
The California penal code also makes it illegal to obstruct an arrest that later proves illegal though.
The bottom line is that the SAFEST option is always to comply with law enforcement. If the argument is legality, then you let the LEGAL SYSTEM deal with it, ie. lawyers, after the fact.
And even if you later prove the initial arrest was unlawful, and that you did nothing wrong attempting to obstruct it, the officers are still well within their rights to arrest you at the time and they likely won’t get in trouble even after all that.
Just to restate, this isn’t true according to California law (and most states for that matter).
-
Demonstrate the parking was private property.
-
Demonstrate the ICE officers didn’t have jurisdiction.
Show me the warrant and/or probable cause beyond the color of his skin
Neither of those are public record.
The questions I asked are.
That’s a viable point. Okay. I don’t know 1/10th of the legal jargon you regularly show, so I’ll have to look it up. Btw, why are you so familiar with the legal system? It’s weird