2026-01-17 03:21:21

Someone claiming federal prosecution experience should probably brush up on their Fourth Amendment knowledge. Here's the issue: SCOTUS already settled this. The Fourth Amendment absolutely applies to immigration arrests—full stop.

Look at the precedent:

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) made this crystal clear. And these aren't even criminal arrests we're discussing—they're classified as civil arrests. That distinction matters legally, and missing it is... well, it's a gap for someone touting courtroom credentials.

The law is settled. The confusion isn't.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropHunter9000

· 5h ago

Damn, you're already bringing up cases from 1984, and there are still people pretending to be experts? The Fourth Amendment has already been settled conclusively. --- Claiming to have federal experience but can't even distinguish between civil and criminal arrests—really funny. --- The Lopez-Mendoza case has been clarified long ago; why are you still arguing about it? --- The Supreme Court has already ruled, and some people are still confidently talking nonsense—that's the real embarrassment. --- There are always people like this in the industry, bragging about their experience but not understanding basic law—ridiculous. --- The law is written in black and white; yet some insist on creating chaos here. It's really pointless. --- If this guy really worked in federal court, he shouldn't be this clueless about this, right?

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatedTwice

· 11h ago

Bragging without doing your homework, getting slapped in the face yourself is the funniest.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropGrandpa

· 22h ago

Bragging about federal experience and still can't tell the difference between civil and criminal arrests, that's really awkward --- Lopez-Mendoza was in 1984, and some people still pretend not to know the Fourth Amendment? That's hilarious --- The legal provisions are right here, why insist on arguing --- Can't tell the difference between civil and criminal arrests, I really can't trust such "lawyers" --- The Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and you're still arguing, that's truly unbelievable --- The Fourth Amendment has been settled long ago, yet some still pretend to be deaf and mute every day --- Having some federal experience and daring to speak, but you even got the basic concepts wrong --- Honestly, this legal logic has big loopholes, anyone can exploit them --- Stop talking, this is a basic mistake, no need to argue --- That INS case was over forty years ago, I really don't understand why some people are still hung up on it

View OriginalReply0

SandwichHunter

· 23h ago

Lawyers who boast the most are the most annoying; they don't even know the 1984 case law but still dare to brag.

View OriginalReply0

zkProofInThePudding

· 23h ago

Bragging about courtroom experience and still not understanding the Fourth Amendment—this is just ridiculous...

View OriginalReply0

SerumSquirter

· 23h ago

Bragging about courtroom experience, unable to distinguish between civil and criminal cases, I really can't hold it together anymore haha

View OriginalReply0

TopEscapeArtist

· 23h ago

Ha, this is a typical bottom-fishing mentality at a high level, holding outdated technical analysis and forcing it into the present. Once a head and shoulders pattern forms in the law, it's very difficult to reverse. The precedent from 1984 is right there, still looking bullish...

View OriginalReply0