Latest news with #FourthAmendment
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Police are at my door. Do I need to answer? What to know if law enforcement knocks in Texas
Knock! Knock! Knock! There's a stranger at your doorstep. You rush to the peephole to see who's there. It's the police. They ask you to open the door. Your next move could be costly. Do you open the door, ask questions, or ignore them? Following what prosecutors have described as the "political assassination" of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband — part of an attack that also injured Sen. John Hoffman and his wife — many Americans are now questioning their legal and practical options in response to the incident. The suspect in the case, Vance Boelter, 57, was dressed in a police officer's attire, complete with a black tactical vest, and carried a flashlight, as an officer would, according to an affidavit filed in federal court and written by Special Agent Terry Getsch of the FBI. Boelter was also driving an SUV equipped with a fake "POLICE" license plate and "law enforcement-style emergency lights," the affidavit said. "This is the police. Open the door," Boelter shouted outside at around 2 a.m. on June 14, according to Hoffman's family members, Getsch wrote in the affidavit. Here's what to know about answering the door for law enforcement in Texas. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution offers safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, granting your home the greatest degree of protection. As a result, law enforcement officers cannot enter your residence without valid legal authority. If the police knock on your door, you're not obligated to answer or let them in. According to this tactic, known as a 'knock and talk,' is designed to begin a voluntary conversation, but your participation is entirely optional. Law enforcement knocking on your door can be intimidating. Most people's first inclination is to answer the door for them. However, that doesn't mean you have to. Here are five things to keep in mind if police officers knock on your door: You don't have to open the door unless they have a warrant. If officers don't present a search or arrest warrant, you're not legally obligated to let them in. Ask if they have a warrant — and see it. If they claim to have one, you can request to see it through a window or have them slide it under the door before opening up. Don't step outside your home or invite them in unless you want to. Once you open the door or step outside, you may unintentionally waive some of your Fourth Amendment protections. Stay calm and polite — but say little. You have the right to remain silent. You can simply say, 'I don't wish to speak without a lawyer,' and that's enough. If they don't have a warrant, they can't enter unless there's an emergency. This includes things like hearing screams, seeing someone in danger, or suspecting a crime is actively happening inside. According to the Texas Constitution Search & Seizures §9, the law says the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. According to Texas law, there are situations of "exigent circumstances," also known as warrantless search and seizure in Texas. Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the law authorizes officers to enter homes without a warrant in exigent circumstances. Examples of this include: Protection of life (first aid, extracting children who appear to be in danger, protecting an undercover officer or informant). Protection of property (such as extinguishing a fire or stopping a burglary). Preventing destruction of evidence. Pursuing a fleeing felon ('hot pursuit'). According to the Texas District & County Attorneys Association, exigent circumstances can justify an officer's initial entry into a residence, especially when the goal is to help someone in danger or ensure public safety. However, once the immediate emergency is under control, officers are no longer permitted to continue searching without legal authority. A warrant or another specific exception must be in place to allow further examination of the premises, though officers may secure the location while obtaining one. Notably, the exigent circumstances rule does not create a blanket exception for murder scenes that would permit unrestricted searches; entry is only permitted to assist victims or locate an attacker. -USA TODAY Network Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: If police knock on your door, do you need to open? What Texas law says
New York Post
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Long Island doubles down on anti-sanctuary stance, top cop pledges to work with ICE: ‘They have a job to do'
Long Island officials are doubling down on their anti-sanctuary stance and pledging to help federal immigration authorities — in stark contrast to several other municipalities across the country. Cops and elected officials pledged that Nassau and Suffolk counties aren't and wouldn't be sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, brushing off calls from activists pushing back on what they claim is overreach from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a massive crackdown on illegal immigration. 'They have a job to do, and we are going to support them the same way we support the DEA or the FBI chasing terrorists,' Nassau Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder told The Post. Advertisement 5 Nassau Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder told The Post that the county will support ICE during immigration raids. Dennis A. Clark 5 Federal agents seen at immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building in Manhattan on June 9, 2025. Getty Images Police in both counties said they would only assist ICE when directly called upon — which has not happened so far — but said they wouldn't hesitate to help, while vowing there would be no raids at schools, hospitals or churches. Advertisement President Trump has announced the national crackdown will target major cities and Democratic-controlled governments with sanctuary policies on the books. The comments come as activists have pushed back on the Trump administration's hardline stance on illegal immigration, and launched a series of protests against the crackdown. 'We have spoken to ICE and they're on board with us,' Ryder said. 'We will not go into a house of worship, we will not go into a school, and we will not go into a hospital. We also do not ask the immigration status of any victim or any witness, we don't do that, that's our policy in Nassau County.' 'Long Island is not a sanctuary county and will not become one,' a Suffolk County spokesperson said. Suffolk County officials said they're following the same protocols — and standing by them, despite a $60 million court ruling earlier this year tied to their past work with ICE. Advertisement 5 People protesting against the Trump administration's immigration policies in Manhattan on June 14, 2025. A judge ruled Suffolk violated state law and the Fourth Amendment by holding hundreds of immigrants past their release dates at ICE's request between 2016 and 2018. But Suffolk officials told The Post those suspected law breakers had been arrested on unrelated charges and were only identified as undocumented during routine booking. Many were held past their release dates because ICE failed to pick them up on time, they said. Tensions over ICE enforcement hit home earlier this month when Brentwood resident Elzon Lemus, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen, was briefly detained by ICE agents during a caught-on-video traffic stop in Westbury. Advertisement 5 Elzon Lemus at a press conference with his lawyer. FOX 5 New York Thousands protested at various locations over the weekend, from police headquarters in Mineola to the Hamptons. Nassau County Legislator Debra Mulé said Long Island families are being terrorized by 'indiscriminate ICE raids.' 'We all want safe communities, and no reasonable person would object to prosecuting and punishing those who endanger public safety — up to and including deportation after a case has been fully adjudicated — but that is not what is happening in Nassau County or our nation,' Mulé, a Democrat, said. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman (R) shot back that he was 'disturbed' that some 'would prefer to spend tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to prosecute and incarcerate illegal criminals who have an illegal immigration status when they can simply be removed from our county.' Blakeman said Nassau will continue to work with federal, state and local partners in an effort to 'keep all communities safe.' 5 Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman confirmed that the county will work with all types of law enforcement to 'keep all communities safe.' Brandon Cruz/NY Post But Lemus' encounter — along with the $60 million legal fight in Suffolk, Nassau's controversial program to eventually deputize 10 county detectives in partnership with ICE, and the wave of protests — has only deepened the divide over how far local governments should go in cooperating with ICE. 'They said they're looking for criminals, but in reality, they're the criminals,' Lemus told reporters. Advertisement The growing tension has also caught the attention of state officials, with Attorney General Letitia James now investigating probing Nassau's agreement with federal immigration authorities. 'We're just trying to do the right thing,' Ryder told The Post. ICE did not respond to a request for comment.
Arabian Post
4 days ago
- Business
- Arabian Post
Court's Digital Privacy Test: IRS Crypto Data Seizure
The United States Supreme Court has been asked to reconsider constitutional protections after the Internal Revenue Service obtained transaction records from more than 14,000 cryptocurrency users—including James Harper—without a warrant, under a sweeping 'John Doe' summons aimed at Coinbase data. At issue is whether the longstanding third‑party doctrine—under which individuals forfeit Fourth Amendment privacy protections by sharing data with third parties—remains valid in the digital age. James Harper, whose trading history dates back to 2013 and who reported all taxable gains, received notification in August 2019 that the IRS had secured his wallet and transaction data without any suspicion of wrongdoing. The agency extended its data collection to approximately 14,000 other users, sparking legal challenges in lower courts and culminating in the Supreme Court petition known as Harper v. Faulkender. Supporters of Harper argue that the third‑party doctrine originated in a pre‑digital era, designed for narrow investigations, not mass data collection. In briefs filed on 13 June, the New Civil Liberties Alliance and Supreme Court litigator Kannon Shanmugam contended that individuals do not relinquish property or privacy rights simply by using digital platforms, and that warrant requirements should be reinstated for data access. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in previous commentary, branded the doctrine 'ill‑suited to the digital age,' a view echoed by other federal judges in the Fifth and Ninth Circuits. ADVERTISEMENT In contrast, the IRS and its supporters argue that the doctrine is well‑established and necessary for effective tax enforcement, especially amid growing use of cryptocurrencies and concerns over under‑reporting. The agency says organisations like Coinbase have an obligation to furnish information when legal summonses are issued, even absent individual suspicion. Lower courts have upheld the doctrine, dismissing Harper's case. A district court in New Hampshire ruled that Harper lacked standing, while the First Circuit applied the third‑party doctrine in September 2024 to dismiss his Fourth Amendment claim. Now, the Supreme Court must decide whether to reverse these rulings. Analysts suggest that a Supreme Court hearing—and eventual decision—could set a transformative legal precedent regarding digital privacy. If justices mandate search warrants under the Fourth Amendment before agencies can collect personal data—even from third parties—it would broaden protections for online financial activity and reshape the investigative landscape. Conversely, a decision upholding the status quo would affirm broad government access to digital records without judicial oversight. The case aligns with broader judicial scrutiny over the balance between technological advancement and constitutional safeguards. As cryptocurrency adoption increases among individuals and businesses, questions loom over how traditional investigative powers should adapt. Critics fear that unchecked authority under the third‑party doctrine could pave the way for routine surveillance and erosion of civil liberties. At the same time, law enforcement officials maintain that revised legal thresholds could complicate investigations into financial crimes and tax fraud. They argue that agencies need efficient access to data held by third-party institutions to detect under‑reported crypto gains and illicit transactions swiftly. The Supreme Court's decision on certiorari is expected this autumn. Should the Court agree to hear the case, oral arguments may follow early next year, offering a watershed moment for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The outcome will be watched by constitutional scholars, digital‑rights activists, regulators and the cryptocurrency industry. As digital transactions become integral to everyday life, the Harper v. Faulkender decision may redefine the boundary between individual privacy and government authority. The Court's ruling could determine whether the act of sharing financial data with a platform like Coinbase is equivalent to voluntary disclosure, or if it remains protected under constitutional standards requiring judicial oversight.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
In NCLA Amicus Win, Supreme Court Revives Innocent Family's Suit over FBI's Wrong-House Raid
Curtrina Martin, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Washington, DC, June 13, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal of Martin v. United States, an Atlanta family's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit against the government for a wrong-house raid in 2017. FBI agents invaded the home of Trina Martin and her family, shackling her partner on the floor and holding a half-naked Ms. Martin at gunpoint, while she expressed concern for her seven-year-old son's safety elsewhere in the house. One big problem: the FBI SWAT team had knocked down the door of the wrong home, on the wrong street, because the agent in charge had failed to verify its clearly marked address. The Justices remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit for reconsideration. As NCLA's amicus curiae brief urged, the Eleventh Circuit should ultimately rule on remand that the FTCA does not shield the government from liability when federal law enforcement officers raid the wrong house. Ms. Martin and her family filed FTCA claims against the government for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, as well as Fourth Amendment claims against the individual FBI agents. The Eleventh Circuit below upheld the district court's dismissal of the case, concluding that the agents' actions violated no 'clearly established' law. It ruled that the family suffered harm resulting from an agent's 'discretionary act' (i.e., failing to check the house address), warranting total governmental immunity and no path to relief for the Martin family. The Eleventh Circuit also determined that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution could shield the FBI and its agents from FTCA suits. NCLA's amicus brief forcefully argued that the Eleventh Circuit's mode of inquiry—which departed from the analytical process employed by all sister circuits—was inconsistent with the language and intent of the FTCA. Congress amended the FTCA in 1974 expressly to ensure that innocent people subjected to wrong-house raids and similar abuses by federal law enforcement officers would have a cause of action to sue. By expanding the FTCA's discretionary-function exception to encompass wrong-house raids such as this one, the Eleventh Circuit's decision effectively nullified the 1974 law. As Justice Sotomayor underscored in her concurrence (joined by Justice Jackson), 'Courts … should not ignore the existence of the [1974 amendment], or the factual context that inspired its passage, when construing the discretionary-function exception. … [A]ny interpretation should allow for liability in the very cases Congress amended the FTCA to remedy.' Today's Supreme Court ruling does not decide whether the 'discretionary function' exception applies in this case, an issue that the Court ordered the Eleventh Circuit to resolve, but the Justices found that the Supremacy Clause is not a defense the government may invoke in FTCA lawsuits. Justice Gorsuch explained in his opinion for the Court: 'The FTCA is the 'supreme' federal law addressing the United States' liability for torts committed by its agents. It supplies the 'exclusive remedy' for damages claims arising out of federal employees' official conduct.' NCLA released the following statements: 'The Supreme Court rightly held that innocent civilians should not be stripped of any meaningful remedy when they suffer abuse at the hands of federal law enforcement. The Martin family deserves their day in court. On remand, NCLA trusts that the Eleventh Circuit will carefully evaluate what qualifies as 'reasonable' law enforcement—and recognize that a trained FBI agent who fails to check a clearly marked house number before commencing a raid because 'it was dark outside' does not qualify.'— Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'Law enforcement officers should not be able to evade accountability for entering the wrong house and terrorizing an innocent family in the middle of the night when Congress intentionally provided for redress in cases against the federal government in such circumstances. Thankfully, the Supreme Court's decision reaffirms that the Eleventh Circuit was wrong to preclude relief in this case and others like it.'— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'All too often, court-created doctrines are used to reduce the government's liability to people whose civil liberties it has violated. Congratulations to our friends at the Institute for Justice for convincing the Supreme Court to clip the wings of such a doctrine in this case—at least where Congress had explicitly created a cause of action to sue.'— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA For more information visit the page here. ABOUT NCLA NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans' fundamental rights. ### CONTACT: Joe Martyak New Civil Liberties Alliance 703-403-1111 in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California Immigration Raids Are Hurting American Citizens Too
The Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement policies are taking a toll on more than just the undocumented aliens they are targeting. On Sunday, Cary López Alvarado, an American citizen born in Los Angeles who is nine months pregnant, was hospitalized after being released from federal custody one week before her due date. López Alvarado said she started experiencing sharp pains in her abdomen after she lost her balance when agents "shoved her" while attempting to arrest her undocumented coworkers. "I crouched down and held my belly, because I was scared they would hurt me," she told Telemundo 52, NBC's sister station in Los Angeles. López Alvarado was detained after attempting to block two masked Border Patrol agents from entering her place of work without a warrant. While performing maintenance work in a building in Hawthorne, California, on Sunday, she and her cousin—also an American citizen—opened the parking gate to allow López Alvarado's partner, Brian Najera, and another co-worker to enter. Najera and the co-worker—who are both undocumented—had been followed in a marked U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicle. López Alvarado blocked the agents from entering the gated parking lot and captured her interactions with them on video while telling the agents: "I'm going to need you guys to leave. This is private property." Agents said the parking wasn't private property and asked López Alvarado to either show documentation that she owned the property or move out of the way. When she refused to move, the agents forced her out of the way, causing her to lose her balance. She, along with her husband, co-worker, and cousin, were subsequently arrested, during which time López Alvarado told agents her due date was June 17. "'OK, your baby is going to be born here, but you're from Mexico, right?' And I told them no," she said on NBC News. "I was born here." López Alvarado was released later that day and told by agents they would contact her at a later date about obstruction allegations. In an email sent to NBC News, Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, said, "Cary Lopez was arrested because she obstructed federal law enforcement by blocking access to a car that had two Guatemalan illegal aliens in it." She also noted that "ICE enforcement officers are facing a 413% increase in assaults," which McLaughlin says is "disgraceful." This incident illustrates how quickly interactions with federal agents can become complicated. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Whether a parking lot is considered private, and therefore requires either a valid warrant or permission for authorities to enter, depends on multiple factors. Although López Alvarado believed she was within her rights to deny federal immigration authorities entrance to a gated parking lot on private property without a judicial warrant, agents believed differently. Trump's onslaught of immigration enforcement has raised many questions regarding due process for undocumented people living in the United States. Now, the same questions are being raised for American citizens. The post California Immigration Raids Are Hurting American Citizens Too appeared first on
