4 Responses to “Handcuffed and detained”

• #1

  Nullius in Verba

  June 17, 2025 at 12:55 pm

  This one feels less clear cut than some other instances. He’s allowed to ask questions, but I’m fairly sure he’s not allowed to interfere with an arrest, which is he’s visibly doing in the clip by refusing to release the man’s arm and trying to hold him in place.

  Not saying this isn’t improper/unlawful/unconstitutional behavior on the part of the ICE agents, just that it has a stronger odor of disruptive political theater than, say, the Padilla incident.
• #2

  Nullius in Verba

  June 17, 2025 at 12:58 pm

  *which is he’s –> which is what he’s

  Obviously.
• #3

  iknklast

  June 17, 2025 at 1:10 pm

  Nullius, maybe, but why are they arresting people who are leaving routine immigration hearings? The immigrants are working through the legal system, and I didn’t see anything in the reports to indicate the man they were trying to arrest was an illegal. Lander asked them for a warrant; they apparently were unwilling to show one, probably because they didn’t have one, in which case, they might be acting outside their jurisdiction, and Lander is right to challenge them.
• #4

  Nullius in Verba

  June 17, 2025 at 1:37 pm

  That’s why I’m not saying the ICE agents weren’t in the wrong. It’s not even clear whether the original intent was to arrest the immigrant or temporarily detain him, which is legally relevant, at least according to a quick AI summary (because I’m no lawyer):

  Me:

  Is the distinction relevant in this case? That is, does merely temporary detainment require “a judicial warrant”?

  Grok:

  In the case of Brad Lander’s arrest on June 17, 2025, the distinction between “detention” and “arrest” is relevant to the question of whether a judicial warrant was required, as the legal requirements for each can differ, particularly in the context of immigration enforcement.

  – Detention vs. Arrest: A detention is typically a temporary restriction of movement for investigative purposes, often requiring less stringent legal justification, such as reasonable suspicion. An arrest, however, involves taking someone into custody for a suspected crime or immigration violation, often requiring probable cause and, in some cases, a warrant. In immigration contexts, ICE may detain individuals for administrative purposes (e.g., immigration status checks) or arrest them for deportation proceedings, and the terminology can overlap.

  – Context of the Incident: Lander was arrested for allegedly obstructing ICE agents who were “attempting to detain” an individual after an immigration hearing at 26 Federal Plaza. The term “detain” used in reports likely refers to ICE’s attempt to take the individual into custody for immigration enforcement, which could be either a temporary detention or a full arrest for deportation proceedings. ICE’s authority in such cases often stems from administrative warrants (issued by ICE itself) rather than judicial warrants (issued by a court).

  – Judicial Warrant Requirement: Lander demanded to see a judicial warrant, which is significant because immigration enforcement actions often do not require a judicial warrant. Under U.S. law, ICE can detain or arrest non-citizens for immigration violations based on an administrative warrant, which is issued by ICE or the Department of Homeland Security, not a judge. A judicial warrant, signed by a neutral magistrate, is typically required for arrests involving U.S. citizens or for certain criminal matters, but not for most immigration detentions or arrests of non-citizens. If the individual in question was a non-citizen subject to immigration proceedings, ICE likely did not need a judicial warrant, and Lander’s demand may have been legally inaccurate or a deliberate challenge to ICE’s authority.

  – Relevance to the Case: The distinction matters because Lander’s actions—demanding a judicial warrant and physically linking arms with the individual—were interpreted by federal agents as obstructing their lawful attempt to detain or arrest the individual. If ICE was operating under a valid administrative warrant or statutory authority (e.g., Immigration and Nationality Act provisions), Lander’s interference could be seen as impeding a legal process, supporting the charges of assault and interference with federal officers. However, if the individual was a U.S. citizen or if ICE lacked proper authority, Lander’s demand for a judicial warrant could have been a valid objection, though this is unlikely based on available information indicating the context was an immigration hearing.

  In summary, the distinction between detention and arrest is relevant because it affects the legal basis for ICE’s actions and whether a judicial warrant was required. In this case, it’s likely that ICE was acting within its authority to detain a non-citizen without a judicial warrant, meaning Lander’s demand and physical interference escalated the situation, leading to his arrest. Without specific details about the individual’s status or the exact nature of ICE’s action, it’s probable that a judicial warrant was not required for the detention or arrest attempt Lander obstructed.