# A real constitutional crisis on the horizon? (immigration, sanctuary cities, and DHS) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 17, 2018, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810 "2018-01-17T07:37:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/301 "2018-01-25T20:34:38Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > And that’s what this law does. Sets up a HIPAA like protection on employment records. That the others are protected by law, and employment records are not is not relevant, when the entire point is that we are talking about a law that protects employee data. I am pointing out that there is precedent that there are times when information is sensitive, and should not be shared without due process. Ok, I see what you’re arguing here, and thank you for clarifying. I thought you were still talking about the point you made earlier, that your banks and so on have advised you that sharing personnel information is not a good idea, and therefore you assumed it was illegal. I see your point here that you support such information being protected generally, even though in this case it is a rather limited set of circumstances being dealt with. > [@](#): > > And if that reason is because ICE agents are coming by several times a week, asking to see those records, and saying that they will not stop until you turn them over? Then I would contact a lawyer. > [@](#): > > And after they leave and you turn on the news, you hear nothing about a serial killer being arrested. In digging a bit more, you find that your employee was arrested because he committed a minor traffic infraction. > > Ultimately, you find that your employee insulted the cop who pulled him over, and so the police lied to you, telling you that your employee had been arrested for murder, in order to get you to give them more information so that they can find dirt on him to charge him. > > That’s why I would ask for a warrant. Not because I’d need a warrant to turn over info on a serial killer, but because I’d need a warrant to believe the police that the person they are investigating is a serial killer. Oh, do we get to add on new facts to hypothetical scenarios? Then let’s say this employee who insulted the cop also raped my sister, and I believed my sister’s allegations. You still want to prohibit me from volunteering information to the police about someone who works for me, but I think raped my sister? > [@](#): > > If business owner C does not want to invite ICE into staff only areas, yet ICE does not tell him that cooperation is voluntary and insists that if he does not cooperate then ICE will escalate things and make things unpleasant for the business owner, I do not in any way find absurd to have a law that gives the business owner something to fall back on. The business owner can fall back on his property rights. > [@](#): > > I would support that. Too many people don’t know their rights, and “accidently” consent to searches, or are bullied or pressured into consenting to searches. > > It’s a slightly different scenario, as it is specifically your privacy that you are volunteering to give up, not other people’s. > > I suppose a better law would instead be to say that law enforcement, ICE et al., may not even request cooperation from private individuals without a warrant. I would definitely support that. Wow, well, okay. Thanks for your answer. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/302 "2018-01-25T20:36:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > IRS, BATFE, BLM, EPA, just off the top of my head. And these agencies that come in and ask for “voluntary” cooperation with their investigations? If that is the case, then I absolutely agree. If what they are doing is following the laws that the operate under, along with properly served warrants under due process, then what exactly are you looking to change? If cooperation is mandatory, as it is with the IRS, and I assume from what you said ATF, then are you saying that they should change it so that it no longer is? As far as BLM and EPA, I have no idea what their investigation system is, or how it operates, so I can offer no opinion, other than that if they operate largely under a “voluntary consent” system, then that should no longer be. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/303 "2018-01-25T20:36:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > IRS, BATFE, BLM, EPA, just off the top of my head. You need to be more specific. What specific actions of theirs currently require your voluntary cooperation, which you think other people should be prevented from providing? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/304 "2018-01-25T20:43:54Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Without a warrant or the law behind them, they are really very little different from “random people”. > > If the federal govt wants to make a law that says that ICE agent must be permitted to inspect any and all documents and spaces whenever they want, they can go ahead and do that. Same as they have a law that says that the you must turn certain info over to the IRS, even though they don’t need a warrant. If the govt says that cooperation with law enforcement is “voluntary” then it really isn’t, is it? You really can’t see any important differences between the actions of sworn law enforcement officers and just random members of the public? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/305 "2018-01-25T20:46:12Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You really can’t see any important differences between the actions of sworn law enforcement officers and just random members of the public? Yeah, sworn law enforcement officers can ruin people’s lives through their own ineptitude. I wouldn’t answer questions a federal agent asked me without my lawyer present, but I’d happily chat with some random guy on the street. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/306 "2018-01-25T20:46:17Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > You need to be more specific. What specific actions of theirs currently require your voluntary cooperation, which you think other people should be prevented from providing? Nothing “requires” voluntary cooperation. Nothing in California “required” voluntary cooperation either. It’s just that before AB450 it was _allowed_. I’m proposing that if California’s nutty scheme is allowed to stand, I’ll work to prohibit voluntary cooperation with various federal agencies in my state. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/307 "2018-01-25T20:49:19Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Nothing “requires” voluntary cooperation. Nothing in California “required” voluntary cooperation either. It’s just that before AB450 it was _allowed_. I’m proposing that if California’s nutty scheme is allowed to stand, I’ll work to prohibit voluntary cooperation with various federal agencies in my state. I bet you understood the question, which means you’re deliberately avoiding it. Which actually answers my question, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/308 "2018-01-25T20:58:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Ok, I see what you’re arguing here, and thank you for clarifying. I thought you were still talking about the point you made earlier, that your banks and so on have advised you that sharing personnel information is not a good idea, and therefore you assumed it was illegal. I see your point here that you support such information being protected generally, even though in this case it is a rather limited set of circumstances being dealt with. I am going to continue to assume that sharing it with “random people” is illegal. If I published my employee’s personal details on the internet, I’ve gotta be breaking some laws. If not, there should be some laws I am breaking. > [@](#): > > Then I would contact a lawyer. And what is a lawyer going to do? > [@](#): > > Oh, do we get to add on new facts to hypothetical scenarios? Then let’s say this employee who insulted the cop also raped my sister, and I believed my sister’s allegations. You still want to prohibit me from volunteering information to the police about someone who works for me, but I think raped my sister? You are welcome to divulge any information that you have about what you witnessed, what your sister told you, even what the employee may have said about it. What I would prohibit is that you give the police personal employment information without a warrant. You are raising the nature of the infraction from working without proper paperwork to a serial murderer or a rape of your sister in order to make an emotional plea. If someone raped my sister, and I could help the police, I would turn over whatever info I could, even if that was illegal and I ended up in jail. If you are trying to make this about emotional pleas, are you saying that fear of legal punishment would prevent you from helping LEO catch your sister’s rapist? > [@](#): > > The business owner can fall back on his property rights. Rights that the federal agents are coercing him into giving up. When they say “Why won’t you let us take a look around, if you have nothing to hide?” The response “Property rights.” is not going to get you anything. > [@](#): > > Wow, well, okay. Thanks for your answer. Well, I’d prefer that leo not pressure people into giving up their rights, but that’s a story for another thread. As long as they do, then yeah, some measures to protect the public from those who are supposed to protect the public is appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/309 "2018-01-25T20:59:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You really can’t see any important differences between the actions of sworn law enforcement officers and just random members of the public? Of course there is a difference. A LEO has a much easier time getting a warrant than a random member of the public. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/310 "2018-01-25T21:01:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think quite a few people in this thread are confused about what HIPAA allows. [Here is an HHS summary](https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/final_hipaa_guide_law_enforcement.pdf): Thanks for that. I see nothing in that summary that says anything similar to “Disclose PHI to ICE officials who ask for it” So, there are times when it is not legal for a doctor to disclose information to LE personnel. Are you against that as well? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/311 "2018-01-25T21:10:00Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I am going to continue to assume that sharing it with “random people” is illegal. If I published my employee’s personal details on the internet, I’ve gotta be breaking some laws. If not, there should be some laws I am breaking. You are perfectly free to assume that statutes require the application of common sense under penalty of law, but I do not make such an assumption. > [@](#): > > And what is a lawyer going to do? Do their magic law-talkin’ thing where they insist that if they want to talk to you, they must do it through your attorney. > [@](#): > > You are raising the nature of the infraction from working without proper paperwork to a serial murderer or a rape of your sister in order to make an emotional plea. You concocted a fanciful scenario as a Hail Mary to make a reasonable situation into an unreasonable one. _Now_ you complain that adding more “facts” to the scenario is unfair? I say, “HA!” Nay, I say “HA-HA-HA!” > [@](#): > > If someone raped my sister, and I could help the police, I would turn over whatever info I could, even if that was illegal and I ended up in jail. If you are trying to make this about emotional pleas, are you saying that fear of legal punishment would prevent you from helping LEO catch your sister’s rapist? I’m saying that you shouldn’t end up in jail for such things. See, I’m trying to save you from resorting to a life of crime. > [@](#): > > When they say “Why won’t you let us take a look around, if you have nothing to hide?” The response “Property rights.” is not going to get you anything. Yeah, it tells them to take a hike. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/312 "2018-01-25T21:22:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m saying that you shouldn’t end up in jail for such things. See, I’m trying to save you from resorting to a life of crime. Rest easy–AB450 doesn’t apply criminal penalties. If you’re that desperate to share other people’s personal information, then go ahead. Worst case, you’ll get a fine. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/313 "2018-01-25T21:24:29Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Thanks for that. I see nothing in that summary that says anything similar to “Disclose PHI to ICE officials who ask for it” Did you see the part about reporting evidence of a crime? > [@Slash1972](#): > > So, there are times when it is not legal for a doctor to disclose information to LE personnel. Are you against that as well? I don’t have a strong opinion about HIPAA. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/314 "2018-01-25T21:25:02Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Rest easy–AB450 doesn’t apply criminal penalties. If you’re that desperate to share other people’s personal information, then go ahead. Worst case, you’ll get a fine. I was referring to **k9bfriender** ’s stated willingness to go to jail if required to turn over certain evidence. It’s right there in the little quote box. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/315 "2018-01-25T21:32:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You are perfectly free to assume that statutes require the application of common sense under penalty of law, but I do not make such an assumption. If you say so. I will look into it later, but I am very surprised that publishing my employee’s name, address, phone number, email address, rate of pay, tax withholding statuses, insurance plans, SSN#, bank routing and account numbers to a public venue would be legal. > [@](#): > > Do their magic law-talkin’ thing where they insist that if they want to talk to you, they must do it through your attorney. You know that only works on TV shows, right? Harassment has very specific criteria (that do change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction), and as long as they are not visiting more often than the rules call for harassment (often it’s once every other day), your lawyer is just a very expensive was of hearing “There’s nothing I can do.” > [@](#): > > You concocted a fanciful scenario as a Hail Mary to make a reasonable situation into an unreasonable one. _Now_ you complain that adding more “facts” to the scenario is unfair? I say, “HA!” Nay, I say “HA-HA-HA!” No, you created a hypothetical. I did not concoct it. You scenario was that the police told you that your employee is a serial killer. It is not all that fanciful or unreasonable to say that they lie. Your hypothetical was quite unlikely in the first place. To be honest, it is far more likely that the cops are lying to you than that you know a serial killer. Your hypothetical was meant to invoke an emotional response. People working without proper documentation doesn’t really get the same visceral reaction as serial killer. And that’s because they are not the same thing at all. You are having to elevate a minor infraction into a capital crime. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that you shouldn’t end up in jail for such things. See, I’m trying to save you from resorting to a life of crime. If you think that your neighbor is a rapist, so you break into his house and find evidence of such, I think that you are morally on the right side, but legally not so much. Sometimes you have to decide between what is right and what is legal. > [@](#): > > Yeah, it tells them to take a hike. Have you not actually had any interaction with LEO? They don’t take “take a hike” well. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/316 "2018-01-25T21:36:58Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > No, you created a hypothetical. I did not concoct it. You scenario was that the police told you that your employee is a serial killer. It is not all that fanciful or unreasonable to say that they lie. > > Your hypothetical was quite unlikely in the first place. To be honest, it is far more likely that the cops are lying to you than that you know a serial killer. Have you heard the joke – I think it is Woody Allen’s – about the odds of a bomb being on a plane are a million to one… and the odds of two bombs being on a plane are a million times a million to one. So next time you fly, cut the odds and take a bomb. The odds of me employing a serial killer times the odds that the police are lying about it are the million time a million to one. So no, I don’t take any of your add-ons to my hypothetical seriously. More importantly, I take your scenario less seriously than you take mine, and that’s saying something. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/317 "2018-01-25T21:39:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Did you see the part about reporting evidence of a crime? No Could you point it out? > [@](#): > > Under what circumstances may a HIPAA covered entity disclose PHI to law enforcement? > … > To report PHI to a law enforcement official reasonably able to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public. > > To report PHI that the covered entity in good faith believes to be evidence of a crime that occurred on the premises of the covered entity. > … > When responding to an off-site medical emergency, as necessary to alert law enforcement to criminal activity. > … > To respond to a request for PHI for purposes of identifying or locating a suspect, fugitive, material witness or missing person, but the information must be limited to basic demographic and health information about the person. There is “covered entity in good faith believes to be evidence of a crime that occurred on the premises of the covered entity.” but that is only if the crime is against the health provider or premises, and the only evidence that is turned over is what is deemed in good faith to be evidence about that specific crime. A bit different and much more specific from “reporting evidence of a crime”. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/318 "2018-01-25T21:49:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I was referring to **k9bfriender** ’s stated willingness to go to jail if required to turn over certain evidence. It’s right there in the little quote box. Also in the quote box: you saying not to assume criminal penalties apply. Good news: AB450 doesn’t apply criminal penalties. (What with AB450 being the topic of discussion, that seems relevant). ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/319 "2018-01-25T21:50:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Have you heard the joke – I think it is Woody Allen’s – about the odds of a bomb being on a plane are a million to one… and the odds of two bombs being on a plane are a million times a million to one. So next time you fly, cut the odds and take a bomb. > > The odds of me employing a serial killer times the odds that the police are lying about it are the million time a million to one. So no, I don’t take any of your add-ons to my hypothetical seriously. More importantly, I take your scenario less seriously than you take mine, and that’s saying something. Well, you made your hypothetical so outlandish that it is hard to really deal with. I have been lied to by cops. A bunch of times. And they were lying specifically in order to get me to give up information on people or to incriminate myself. You are claiming that cops lying is as unlikely as employing a serial killer. You have far more faith in LEO than I do. I am not sure what you mean on the second part, the “odds of me employing a serial killer times the odds that the police are lying about it”, as we are not talking about you employing a serial killer, just that the police are lying about it. There is no multiplication there, it’s just, what are the odds that the police lie to me? A more reasonable scenario is that they come in accusing your employee of a much lessor crime. And it is still likely that they will lie to you. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/320 "2018-01-25T21:56:59Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I would support that. Too many people don’t know their rights, and “accidently” consent to searches, or are bullied or pressured into consenting to searches. > > It’s a slightly different scenario, as it is specifically your privacy that you are volunteering to give up, not other people’s. > > I suppose a better law would instead be to say that law enforcement, ICE et al., may not even request cooperation from private individuals without a warrant. I would definitely support that. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > You know that only works on TV shows, right? > > … > Have you not actually had any interaction with LEO? They don’t take “take a hike” well. I think your view of police and law enforcement is impacting your positions in a way that is unreasonable. You’re views on the 4th amendment and the law as it should be are not in line with current jurisprudence - not even close. You’re welcome to it of course, but it doesn’t match my experience at all. And beyond anecdote, refusal to cooperate or grant consent is pretty widely known bar for law enforcement. The entire jurisprudence around consent, search, fruit of the poisoned tree, etc. is the evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=17)