I’m not a lawyer or even that knowledgeable of the law, but my uninformed WAG on this is that they have to identify themselves, and they have to read rights if they are locking people up or arresting or even holding them. Whether you are a federal officer or local law enforcement the same laws and rules apply, even if we are talking about national security, as long as we are talking about US citizens or even those here on visas or green cards.
They sometimes have some sort of ID, as this article mentions,
but not always, and not in any way the same from officer to officer. Sure, Protect the Federal Courthouse, but driving around in unmarked vans, grabbing protestors- or anyone who LOOKs like a protestor- off the street is Brownshirt stuff.
So i still ask “What Constitutional rights are being violated as the ACLU claims”? Unreasonable search and seizure? Maybe…seems awfully early to make that claim though. I’d lean that way though if you held a gun to my head.
Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.
[I]nterviews conducted by OPB show officers are also detaining people on Portland streets who aren’t near federal property, nor is it clear that all of the people being arrested have engaged in criminal activity.
Read your cite again: "Similarly, a statement from the bureau that “[i]t is common for federal law enforcement agents to identify themselves to citizens simply as federal law enforcement.” However, the director of the bureau [said]… “I probably should have done a better job of marking them nationally as the agency.”
So, they are supposed to ID themselves as Federal agents, and in general, what agency. Only if you are detained, questioned or arrested do Federal agents have to give their names. The BoP officers dont wear nametags on their uniforms, this is a special dispensation.
Now in certain cases, plainclothes are not required by LAW to identify themselves at Officers, but they run a risk by doing so : A unanimous Seventh Circuit panel in Doornbos v. City of Chicago (2017) stated that, “[a]lthough some unusual circumstances may justify an officer’s failure to identify himself in rare cases, it is generally not reasonable for a plainclothes officer to fail to identify himself when conducting a stop.” Thus, there is some chance that an officer could be denied qualified immunity on the basis of a failure to identify if that failure was deemed unreasonable and precedents just discussed had “clearly established” a right to disclosure. Additionally, whether or not a law enforcement officer has identified himself or herself prior to effecting a stop or seizure has some influence on how a court interprets a criminal defendant’s subsequent actions."
In DC, those were special Bureau of Prisons riot police. Due to the extreme risk to their families and loved ones, they dont wear name tags. They still have to ID themselves as Federal Officers, however, etc.
Democratic Sens. Chris Murphy and Chuck Schumer have also announced that they are introducing legislation “requiring unidentified law enforcement officers and members of the Armed Forces to clearly identify themselves and their agency or service while they are engaged in crowd control or arresting individuals involved in civil disobedience or protests in the United States.”*
This seems like a REAL good idea. Cause despite our back and forth on this subject…I still think it needs some slam-dunk legislation