Someone claiming federal prosecution experience should probably brush up on their Fourth Amendment knowledge. Here's the issue: SCOTUS already settled this. The Fourth Amendment absolutely applies to immigration arrests—full stop.
Look at the precedent:
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) made this crystal clear. And these aren't even criminal arrests we're discussing—they're classified as civil arrests. That distinction matters legally, and missing it is... well, it's a gap for someone touting courtroom credentials.
The law is settled. The confusion isn't.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
14 Likes
Reward
14
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
AirdropGrandpa
· 5h ago
Bragging about federal experience and still can't tell the difference between civil and criminal arrests, that's really awkward
---
Lopez-Mendoza was in 1984, and some people still pretend not to know the Fourth Amendment? That's hilarious
---
The legal provisions are right here, why insist on arguing
---
Can't tell the difference between civil and criminal arrests, I really can't trust such "lawyers"
---
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and you're still arguing, that's truly unbelievable
---
The Fourth Amendment has been settled long ago, yet some still pretend to be deaf and mute every day
---
Having some federal experience and daring to speak, but you even got the basic concepts wrong
---
Honestly, this legal logic has big loopholes, anyone can exploit them
---
Stop talking, this is a basic mistake, no need to argue
---
That INS case was over forty years ago, I really don't understand why some people are still hung up on it
View OriginalReply0
SandwichHunter
· 6h ago
Lawyers who boast the most are the most annoying; they don't even know the 1984 case law but still dare to brag.
View OriginalReply0
zkProofInThePudding
· 6h ago
Bragging about courtroom experience and still not understanding the Fourth Amendment—this is just ridiculous...
View OriginalReply0
SerumSquirter
· 6h ago
Bragging about courtroom experience, unable to distinguish between civil and criminal cases, I really can't hold it together anymore haha
View OriginalReply0
TopEscapeArtist
· 6h ago
Ha, this is a typical bottom-fishing mentality at a high level, holding outdated technical analysis and forcing it into the present. Once a head and shoulders pattern forms in the law, it's very difficult to reverse. The precedent from 1984 is right there, still looking bullish...
Someone claiming federal prosecution experience should probably brush up on their Fourth Amendment knowledge. Here's the issue: SCOTUS already settled this. The Fourth Amendment absolutely applies to immigration arrests—full stop.
Look at the precedent:
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) made this crystal clear. And these aren't even criminal arrests we're discussing—they're classified as civil arrests. That distinction matters legally, and missing it is... well, it's a gap for someone touting courtroom credentials.
The law is settled. The confusion isn't.