Last June, two investigators employed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) showed up at David Streever’s house in Rochester, New York. Streever was not home, so they left him a note.
That note, presented as an official warning from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is at the center of a First Amendment lawsuit that Streever filed last month, alleging that ICE agents investigated and threatened him based on his constitutionally protected criticism of their boss. This month, the government responded to Streever’s lawsuit, confirming his allegations while attempting to rebut them.
For more information, either visit the article directly or view the post with quotes in [email protected]
This month, the government responded to Streever’s lawsuit, confirming his allegations while attempting to rebut them.
My God, these DOJ lawyers are bad these days.
Our “rights” don’t mean shit if nobody ever gets held accountable for this.
While the actions of ICE are predictably henious, the article is missing the point in favor of the more shocking headline.
Seeking dismissal of Streever’s lawsuit, the government’s lawyers concede his email to Lyons “put words to his disagreements with a current administration official.” In other words, they admit he was investigated because of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Almost everything you say is protected speech. “I did it, I stabbed him, it was me, muahahaha” is absolutely protected by the 1st amendment and you can shout it all you want, but when you’re shouting it outside a daycare it’s also a totally valid justification for someone taking a quick peek at what you’ve got stashed in your freezer. Or the less hyperbolic example of someone bragging about their crimes on facebook - totally 100% protected speech, the cops can’t prevent you from saying that, but the cops can use it as a reason to investigate you.
The issue isn’t that he was investigated for 1st amendment protected speech, the issue is that they made crystal clear that they considered the investigation spurious and it was intended only to intimidate him by dropping it after they encountered the slightest difficulty. Unfortunately, that might be very difficult for him to prove. But hopefully he has even a middling decent lawyer as these chucklefucks haven’t got what I’d call a “great” track record of successfully defending themselves in court, so fingers crossed.
Your examples are entirely off topic. To arrest or search you, they need probable cause, under the 4th amendment. Unquestionable admission of a crime, like “I stabbed him”, hands them that probable cause. That has nothing to do with 1st amendment protections. Also whether or not they have the authority to search your freezer would be entirely dependent on if they can get a judge to agree that there is probable cause to think there is a body on your property and sign a warrant. They can’t just search your freezer because they heard you say, generally, that you stabbed someone.
They can unintrusively investigate anything that is publically available to them to find suspicious activity that may indicate a crime has occurred or may occur. That’s all fine. But anything done without legal cause to chill protected speech by the government that is not due to basic time, place, and manner restrictions applied in a content-neutral way is a violation of the constitution.
The investigation is not the problem so long as they didn’t violate his 4th amendment rights in the process. But coming to his home to tell him that he was being investigated due to the criticisms he’d voiced is a clear attempt at intimidation to quell future speech. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
They can unintrusively investigate anything that is publically available to them to find suspicious activity that may indicate a crime has occurred or may occur.
Say, perhaps like… something you’ve posted on facebook? Is that the kind of unobtrusive investigation of publicly available information you mean?
(Everything else broadly seems to be restating what I’ve already said, so I’m not super sure what your goal is in bringing this up was. Yes, what we know of the investigation likely was not a violation of the 4th amendment (or any other statute) except in that it was clearly done to intimidate - something that is unfortunately fairly difficult to prove.)
You were the one equating the investigation of someone admitting to murder by looking in their freezer with the investigation of Facebook posts.
And the intimidation is not hard to prove. If the effect of their conduct is chilling protected speech for a reasonable person, then it’s unconstitutional. Intent is not necessary.
Yes, I sure was! Because, while both describe different avenues for protected speech to be investigated, both are the result of protected speech being investigated. There is no functional legal difference between either example of speech - both are constitutionally protected, and unless you were violating other laws (say something super legit, like ‘disturbing the peace’, anti-harassment orders, the list is long) it would be illegal for the police to prevent you from saying it.
That is what protected speech entails - it does not absolve you of potential consequences of that speech (the classic example is “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater”, but my above examples of confessing to a murder/crime apply as well), it just means you cannot be prevented from speaking it
And the intimidation is not hard to prove.
Are you sure about that? It’s really quite a high standard of evidence in a biased court system to demonstrate police harassment or intimidation or what have you at the federal level. There are far harder things to prove sure, but it’s solidly not on the “Easy” end of the spectrum.
The lawyer wins, and he gets paid mainly by you and other Democrats because Blue states contribute the most to the federal government.
It’s win win for ICE. They get to intimidate anyone and if found in the wrong, they make you pay for it.
This won’t change until jail time is the penalty instead of the government (you) only giving money to the injured.
