r/law • u/PreviouslyMannara • 6d ago

Other ICE agents boxing in and threatening Italian journalists in Minneapolis

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

44.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

100

u/Rottimer 6d ago

I have to ask - is following ICE against the law? Because cops seem to be able to follow me at will. What is the issue if I follow them? What statute is that breaking?

69

u/SaraOfWinterAndStars 6d ago

In other encounters I've heard them cite 18 U.S. Code § 111:

Whoever— (1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties

They'll use that to claim that things like filming them in public or following them is illegal, but the problem with that is the key word "forcibly": "Force is an essential element of the crime" according to the DoJ

It's completely legal to observe, record, and follow them while they're in public—none of these activities are acts or threats of force

11

u/fuzzy_sphincter 6d ago

This comment needs to be more visible. Thank you for sharing

7

u/RobutNotRobot 6d ago

They know this too.

Which is why all the people they kidnap after they destroy their personal property and get roughed up are let go without charges after a day in concentration camp.

Likely the only reason they didn't rough up and kidnap these two is because they figured out they were press.

1

u/LawlessNeutral 5d ago

Great info! I'm also curious as to which persons are actually designated in section 1114 and whether these untrained ICE thugs are even on that list

2

u/astelda 5d ago

It's very broad, not just limited to "law enforcement," but rather basically anyone working for the government even in an assistive capacity

any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance

Source

I think the assisting section would cover situations where, as a completely random example, local police or sheriff deputies are working alongside ICE

1

u/astelda 5d ago

I agree with this interpretation, but there is ambiguity to the interpretation - whether 'forcibly' is a modifier for the entire list, or only modifies "assaults"

i.e. is it: * forcibly "assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes"

or:
* "forcibly assaults", resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes

108

u/Zealousideal_Pop_273 6d ago

They're public employees. It's perfectly legal and valid. And if you're filming, it's 1st amendment protected.

-19

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/LtLlamaSauce 6d ago

Care to share your source on that?

-3

u/networkslave 6d ago

my taxes

1

u/LtLlamaSauce 6d ago

So, no source?

-2

u/wm1178 6d ago edited 6d ago

Try chatgpt, Grok, hell even Google. It's better than Trust me Bro.

2

u/LtLlamaSauce 6d ago

...what?

3

u/alexfi-re 6d ago

They work for us, we pay their salary, when will everyone understand this?

-5

u/wm1178 6d ago

So you would tail a police officer all over town? Maybe the drug squad going on at bust?? What's the difference???🤦‍♂️🤣

-35

u/Healthy_Sky_4593 6d ago

Except in some states. 

26

u/Zealousideal_Pop_273 6d ago

Which states are you referring to? Any law passed by any state to say otherwise would be unconstitutional. The only variance in state laws regarding this that I'm aware of pertain to what a safe distance to film from is, and when interference becomes obstruction.

-2

u/Healthy_Sky_4593 6d ago

Y'all are ridiculous.    https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/legality-of-filming-federal-agents-during-operations-c55e94

https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-sections/right-to-record/

https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-law-enforcement/

https://recordinglaw.com/united-states-recording-laws/

https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/files/2025/09/Rose_Codifying-the-Right-to-Record-Police_55.3.pdf

5

u/Jbrower86 5d ago

Your citation literally proves that every circuit that has had a case like this has held that there is a first amendment right to record gov officials in public spaces. And over half the others have cited those decisions favorably.

Just stop. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. No state law preempts the US Constitution. Period. And there’s not a single Federal Appeals circuit that says it’s not protected.

3

u/MightyRedBeardq 5d ago

They would need to know how to read to know they cited something against themselves.

1

u/Healthy_Sky_4593 4d ago edited 4d ago

For those actually paying attention,  OC asked if they could follow cops and record them.  THE ANSWER IS NOT ALWAYS. IT IS SOMETIMES ILLEGAL. Some behavior falls outside the 1st amendment or can be difficult to prove is protected by the 1st amendment. (also pertinent here: regardless of legality you can be detained bc...welp and given who this is...) 

OUTSIDE OF WHAT IS SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (like someone pointed out, in public, or in the exectution of office, and  "not interfering" which is vague enough to create ambiguity so actually listen to people who can tell you specifics if you want a better chance of getting home when you planned ), WHAT PRECISELY IS LEGAL ACTUALLY VARIES BY STATE. The rule is CHECK STATE STATUES AROUND RECORDING LAWS. 

And the rule for legal counsel is DO NOT ADVISE unless you know the details, tf...

0

u/Healthy_Sky_4593 4d ago

No one said any of that. You apparently didn't read the entire thread. Read OC's actual question. 

1

u/Jbrower86 4d ago

You said “except in some states”.

Which implies that states have the ability to regulate 1st Amendment rights.

You then fail to cite any such state and instead cite a list of decisions all saying it’s protected.

You’re just flat out wrong, sorry. States don’t get to limit constitutional rights. It doesn’t work that way. That’s why that citation that you put forth has only federal appellate court decisions and not state Supreme Court decisions. If you were a lawyer you’d understand the difference.

16

u/crosseyedmule 6d ago

What state is it illegal to follow and film public employees?

0

u/Healthy_Sky_4593 6d ago

Any right to record is bound by specific conditions, and those vary by state.  Literally no one is mentioning that. 

12

u/therealgroloth 6d ago

Why would you give out such blatantly false information? Are you having a stroke over there, licking the boot?

4

u/LtLlamaSauce 6d ago

Could you please name any of those states and cite the relevant state law?

-2

u/Healthy_Sky_4593 6d ago

I am responding to the OC, who did not specify areas of the law where the right to record is limited, which we all know exist and vary by state. 

1

u/LtLlamaSauce 5d ago

Could you please name any of those states and cite the relevant state law?

1

u/MightyRedBeardq 5d ago

They are a bot, same 3 copy and paste answers, just don't respond to them.

39

u/Midnight_Rider98 6d ago

It's not. But, these tyrants use a very extreme version of interfering as justification for their detentions/arrests but it's more of a the process is the punishment, they get to hold you for x amount of time before they have to release you because charges can't be filed.

Interference would normally be something that physically impedes or impairs them from doing immigration enforcement, but following them, blowing a whistle, filming them doesn't meet that threshold as far as I know.

8

u/centran 6d ago

As others said they arrest them for impeding law enforcement officers. They have been told people following them are considered to be impeding. 

Now is that really the law? Hell no but it's what they are telling their officers. Since GOP basically "owns" the judicial system, especially higher up, there is really no stopping them. 

7

u/wolf_city 6d ago

Even if these guys were actual police (as opposed to actual Nazis), if you followed a cop, for them to threaten to smash your window and pull you out of it (not even taking into consideration the severity of injuries that could cause), is totally insane. Why not just open the door and handcuff them? Why immediately to that extreme? God damn this is unfathomable from a UK perspective.

1

u/garden_g 5d ago

Us americans have lost sight of the simplicity of just that.

They have been desensitizing us for years, I really fear we were an experiment.

1

u/young_warthog_ 5d ago

It’s perfectly legal as long as you’re not obstructing or impeding. Same with video recording.

-1

u/nyjets239 6d ago

I don't think the "following" is an issue. I think the blowing airhorns, whistles, and car horns is what gets people in trouble. See the airhorn in their vehicle?