Its a bit strange why a single newsworthy incident with the ICE has GDM's attention in this manner? There has been no interaction between ICE and Google other than a single agent trying to enter and then leave.
> Google’s head of security and risk operations responded to [a message about an incident] to clarify what had happened. They noted that an “officer arrived at reception without notice” and that the agent was “not granted entry because they did not have a warrant and promptly left.”
This seems like a very reasonable way to handle it.
There was a recent secret internal ICE memo stating that they determined they were free to essentially engage in unconstitutional home invasions[1]. If they decided to batter down the doors at Google there is nothing stopping them.
The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.
> The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.
There are years of precedent and common practice that makes police and police like entities basically unreachable by law. Between qualified immunity, presumption of regularity and generally all the roadblock and convoluted technical rules supreme court placed between possible judgement and police ... courts can do only so much.
But you're wrong. The memo says they can use an administrative warrant - which is to say, a warrant signed by an immigration official, part of the executive branch - to enter a house and arrest someone. The executive branch is authorizing an executive branch official to enter a home, bypassing the judicial branch.
The CRUCIAL thing to note is that ICE gets stuff wrong. Their info is often stale or flat wrong - so even though they say "this is only for illegal immigrants, don't worry about it ;)", it can ABSOLUTELY affect citizens.
Note also that, since it's ICE and immigration officials (again: all executive branch) making these determinations, the executive is also deciding whether there's probable cause to think that an illegal immigrant is in a particular house. This damage to due process is ostensibly only aimed at immigrants, but it affects all of us.
I see the issue raised with the process owner being all Executive --but on the other hand due process frequently inadvertently affects non-criminals (i.e. not all suspects are the guilty party; however many suspects go through a process where they are finally eliminated as a suspect --but that sometimes can carry on for many years as in the Ramsey case and people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing).
Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.
> Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.
That makes sense. But that raises a separate unrelated question; how do bailbondsmen seem to be able to take their targets in, are they violating the law or are criminals gullible or something else?
Bail agents can usually enter the home of the subject without additional consent due to clauses in the contract of the bail bond, but not (without the owners consent) homes owned by third parties even if the target is present.
Criminals are also frequently gullible.
And bail agents are fairly notorious as a group for having a less than scrupulous attention to legal restrictions.
Why did he go there without a warranty in the first place? Was he following someone who entered the building? Would that be weird similar to the weird mustached guy from the 40s?
ICE has been going around without judicial, as opposed to administrative, warrants, relying on threats and coercion to be let in and to arrest people. That's what this probably is.
One single guy. What was he supposed to do after they let him in? Just start asking people about their legal status? I doubt Google has many illegal immigrants working there ... I doubt there's even one.
Then this guy finds them, allegedly, does he just arrests them and take them out the building? All by himself? With all the cameras and phones on the planet recording it? Inside Google, from all places?
It just doesn't make sense.
From the article:
>Google’s top brass—including CEO Sundar Pichai and DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis—have remained silent on Pretti’s killing even inside the company, sources say.
I think you are maybe approaching this from some rational place with some kind of assumption of good will. ICE on the other hand invaded Hyundai and arrested a bunch of people on various visas without knowing what was law enforcement and what was kidnapping. Big mistake maybe, for who? Met their quota. Only one guy? Can call others as soon as they have found a suspicion and then it is not reasonable to deny other enforcement. It is potentially as illegal as blocking backup to an active crime scene.
The thing is, they are required to have a warrant, but I don't believe they are required to show you the warrant. In which case what exactly should they do?
Not a lawyer, but I think this is common knowledge: They are required to not only show it but provide a copy of the warrant on request. Furthermore the warrants are scoped, if the warrant specifies searching for firearms and the search your hard drive it can't be used in court unless you verbally allow it. Don't resist, but don't consent.
Great job Sundar, way to stand on the wrong stage.
Its a bit strange why a single newsworthy incident with the ICE has GDM's attention in this manner? There has been no interaction between ICE and Google other than a single agent trying to enter and then leave.
> Google’s head of security and risk operations responded to [a message about an incident] to clarify what had happened. They noted that an “officer arrived at reception without notice” and that the agent was “not granted entry because they did not have a warrant and promptly left.”
This seems like a very reasonable way to handle it.
Edit: Disclosure: I'm not an American.
There was a recent secret internal ICE memo stating that they determined they were free to essentially engage in unconstitutional home invasions[1]. If they decided to batter down the doors at Google there is nothing stopping them.
The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...
"Immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says": https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...
Search and Seizure > United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
> The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.
There are years of precedent and common practice that makes police and police like entities basically unreachable by law. Between qualified immunity, presumption of regularity and generally all the roadblock and convoluted technical rules supreme court placed between possible judgement and police ... courts can do only so much.
That’s where they will use an “administrative warrant” to arrest someone with a final order of removal.
So not citizens’ houses but one where someone is in the country illegally with a final order of removal.
But you're wrong. The memo says they can use an administrative warrant - which is to say, a warrant signed by an immigration official, part of the executive branch - to enter a house and arrest someone. The executive branch is authorizing an executive branch official to enter a home, bypassing the judicial branch.
The CRUCIAL thing to note is that ICE gets stuff wrong. Their info is often stale or flat wrong - so even though they say "this is only for illegal immigrants, don't worry about it ;)", it can ABSOLUTELY affect citizens.
Note also that, since it's ICE and immigration officials (again: all executive branch) making these determinations, the executive is also deciding whether there's probable cause to think that an illegal immigrant is in a particular house. This damage to due process is ostensibly only aimed at immigrants, but it affects all of us.
I see the issue raised with the process owner being all Executive --but on the other hand due process frequently inadvertently affects non-criminals (i.e. not all suspects are the guilty party; however many suspects go through a process where they are finally eliminated as a suspect --but that sometimes can carry on for many years as in the Ramsey case and people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing).
Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.
> Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.
That makes sense. But that raises a separate unrelated question; how do bailbondsmen seem to be able to take their targets in, are they violating the law or are criminals gullible or something else?
Bail agents can usually enter the home of the subject without additional consent due to clauses in the contract of the bail bond, but not (without the owners consent) homes owned by third parties even if the target is present.
Criminals are also frequently gullible.
And bail agents are fairly notorious as a group for having a less than scrupulous attention to legal restrictions.
So, a mix of things, really.
A single paragraph in Taylor v. Taintor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor
Telling the police to come back with a warrant sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't.
And these guys aren't the police.
Why did he go there without a warranty in the first place? Was he following someone who entered the building? Would that be weird similar to the weird mustached guy from the 40s?
ICE has been going around without judicial, as opposed to administrative, warrants, relying on threats and coercion to be let in and to arrest people. That's what this probably is.
The story doesn't make sense, tbh ...
One single guy. What was he supposed to do after they let him in? Just start asking people about their legal status? I doubt Google has many illegal immigrants working there ... I doubt there's even one.
Then this guy finds them, allegedly, does he just arrests them and take them out the building? All by himself? With all the cameras and phones on the planet recording it? Inside Google, from all places?
It just doesn't make sense.
From the article:
>Google’s top brass—including CEO Sundar Pichai and DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis—have remained silent on Pretti’s killing even inside the company, sources say.
Why would they, though?
I think you are maybe approaching this from some rational place with some kind of assumption of good will. ICE on the other hand invaded Hyundai and arrested a bunch of people on various visas without knowing what was law enforcement and what was kidnapping. Big mistake maybe, for who? Met their quota. Only one guy? Can call others as soon as they have found a suspicion and then it is not reasonable to deny other enforcement. It is potentially as illegal as blocking backup to an active crime scene.
I agree, I don't need to hear my CEO's opinions on whatever controversy is big today. Run the company, focus on that.
I'd like to hear my CEO say that he won't allow goons into the building to drag me away to a concentration camp.
There's not much a CEO can do about that ... (nor it should).
CEO are among the few people who can actually do something about that.
I don't follow.
Do you have a concrete example?
But consider: they're all really fucking stupid.
The thing is, they are required to have a warrant, but I don't believe they are required to show you the warrant. In which case what exactly should they do?
Not a lawyer, but I think this is common knowledge: They are required to not only show it but provide a copy of the warrant on request. Furthermore the warrants are scoped, if the warrant specifies searching for firearms and the search your hard drive it can't be used in court unless you verbally allow it. Don't resist, but don't consent.
https://archive.is/GYoyc to get around the paywall
USA has turned into Iran and Israel. Murdering innocent people and lying about it.
100%
Yah like Ruby Ridge, Phila MOVE, Malheur, etc…
I don't believe Google would is hiring illegal immigrants.
The two people recently killed in Minneapolis were both US citizens.