Feds 'black-bagging people' in Portland

Ok. Without us getting into a fight…can someone tell me what laws are being broken? What Constitutional rights are being infringed?

Supposedly, the Feds are:

  1. Not identifying themselves
  2. Not carrying anything that identifies them as Feds or Officers of the law (False in some cases)
  3. Not reading rights
  4. Locking people up without charges

My response:

  1. Do they have to?
  2. Do they have to?
  3. Only required if they are questioning someone…and im not sure if it applies to Feds, Besides people will always have the right to remain silent
  4. Cant people be held for 48 hours without being charged?

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.

Do you think it’s okay if I just donned some camouflage, put a “Police” patch on it, and then grabbed you and put you into an SUV?

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.

Immaterial to my questions.

Also…US Marshals usually drive around in unmarked vehicles dressed in civvies* dont they??

*Yes, not the same as paramilitary gear. And far as i know they identify themselves.

Dude, your posts are moronic. Your argument is moronic.

There are people dressed in camouflage rounding up Americans and you want to debate what car they are using?

Again, I’d just like to point out that your debate is stupid.

Your insults are immaterial. I didnt make an argument. i asked questions. My questions have not been answered.

They wear badges and ID cards on a chain around their necks, and they have to announce “US Marshal” and show the badge when stopping anyone.

Yes, the Police do have to identify themselves as Police or which law enforcement org they belong to when detaining you.

The DHS and etc do have uniforms. They dont have to dress in weird camos and a lack of identifying info. Read the cite i provided.

That’s weird. I didn’t hear anyone say “US Marshal” in this.

Did you see them show a badge?

I’m not arguing is it a good idea. I’m asking are legal authorities compelled by law to identify themselves when exercising their police powers.

This would seem to say no they dont

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.

No they are not. Does that answer your question?

Thank you.

I dont understand your question.
I was replying to the OP.

I was saying what LEO’s are supposed to do.

Not what trumps brownshirts are actually doing.

Sorry, I thought you were describing what is going on now in the video I linked.

If you were just pointing out theoreticals, then you are right.

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."

What does “This is a special dispensation” mean?

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.

Also from my cite:

  • 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