Being against biological men in women's sports is not a "campaign against trans people". It's about women's rights and fairness. The majority of Americans are on the side of reality. Trump just put that reality into action.
I have a question, regarding what you shared from the Washington Post discussing "What Is and Isn't Legal When ICE Officers Make an Immigration Arrest"...
In this section...
"Making arrests on private property: Private homes or restricted areas like kitchens need a judicial warrant unless the owner gives permission or the agent uses deception tactics."
What does it mean, they need a warrant unless "THE AGENT USES DECEPTION TACTICS"?
I imagine there's some reasonable explanation that I don't understand, but it sounds like "you need a warrant unless you lie"?
Great Catch. Its Lewis v. United States (1966): an undercover agent posed as a drug buyer and was invited into a suspect’s home. The Court said this did not violate the Constitution because the suspect voluntarily let the agent in—even if the suspect was deceived about who the agent really was. ICE sometimes does this AND ITS ALLOWED. (but, they say, discouraged) and If pressed on whether the ruse tactic was encouraged or discouraged the use of a RUSE EXPLANATION is also "discouraged." But for the ruse explanation of the ruse tactic there's no formal guidance.
Being against biological men in women's sports is not a "campaign against trans people". It's about women's rights and fairness. The majority of Americans are on the side of reality. Trump just put that reality into action.
Dear Mike,
Thanks for sharing as always.
I have a question, regarding what you shared from the Washington Post discussing "What Is and Isn't Legal When ICE Officers Make an Immigration Arrest"...
In this section...
"Making arrests on private property: Private homes or restricted areas like kitchens need a judicial warrant unless the owner gives permission or the agent uses deception tactics."
What does it mean, they need a warrant unless "THE AGENT USES DECEPTION TACTICS"?
I imagine there's some reasonable explanation that I don't understand, but it sounds like "you need a warrant unless you lie"?
Thanks for sharing as always
Love
Myq
Great Catch. Its Lewis v. United States (1966): an undercover agent posed as a drug buyer and was invited into a suspect’s home. The Court said this did not violate the Constitution because the suspect voluntarily let the agent in—even if the suspect was deceived about who the agent really was. ICE sometimes does this AND ITS ALLOWED. (but, they say, discouraged) and If pressed on whether the ruse tactic was encouraged or discouraged the use of a RUSE EXPLANATION is also "discouraged." But for the ruse explanation of the ruse tactic there's no formal guidance.
Thank you! The law is weird and fascinating!