SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
At least two Motel 6 locations in Phoenix, Arizona reported guest lists to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It was also rumored that ICE paid out $200 for every undocumented immigrant caught. A PR director from Motel 6's parent company confirmed that staff members at the locations were working with ICE without the approval of senior management:
At least two Motel 6 locations in Arizona are reporting their guest lists to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, which has resulted in at least 20 arrests, according to local media.
Phoenix New Times reported on Wednesday that two franchise locations of the motel chain are sending their guest lists to ICE agents "every morning," and possibly receiving $200 per undocumented immigrant caught in the sting.
"We send a report every morning to ICE — all the names of everybody that comes in," one front-desk clerk told the Times. "Every morning at about 5 o'clock, we do the audit and we push a button and it sends it to ICE."
Immigration attorney Denise Aguilar wrote The New Times in an email that some of her clients "have heard (no telling how valid the info is) that ICE is paying $200 per person for the front-desk clerk to report."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search hotel/motel registries.
Also at The Washington Post, NY Mag, and Vice.
[Ed. Addition] A follow-on story at Phoenix New Times After New Times Story, Motel 6 Says It Will Stop Sharing Guest Lists With ICE raises many interesting questions about the situation, and then was itself updated:
Update, 3:25 p.m.: Motel 6 has issued another statement in response to our story on their practice of sharing guest lists with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement:
"Over the past several days, it was brought to our attention that certain local Motel 6 properties in the Phoenix-area were voluntarily providing daily guest lists to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As previously stated, this was undertaken at the local level without the knowledge of senior management. When we became aware of it, it was discontinued.
Moving forward, to help ensure that this does not occur again, we will be issuing a directive to every one of our more than 1,400 locations nationwide, making clear that they are prohibited from voluntarily providing daily guest lists to ICE.
Additionally, to help ensure that our broader engagement with law enforcement is done in a manner that is respectful of our guests' rights, we will be undertaking a comprehensive review of our current practices and then issue updated, company-wide guidelines.
Protecting the privacy and security of our guests are core values of our company. Motel 6 apologizes for this incident and will continue to work to earn the trust and patronage of our millions of loyal guests."
Related: (Rhode Island) ACLU Statement On "Change" In Motel 6 Policy of Sharing Guest List (2015)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @10:53AM (60 children)
They can't force hotels to disclose their registry. Any information can obviously be volunteered if they so feel. In this case it looks like they were getting paid for each 'hit' so there was nothing remotely unlawful going on.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by VLM on Friday September 15 2017, @11:09AM (22 children)
Other than illegal immigration / invasion, of course.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by isostatic on Friday September 15 2017, @11:34AM (21 children)
So Joe Bogs, born and bred in Montanna, travels to Phoenix for work, stays in a Motel 6 with his floozy having an affair, and has his whereabouts is transmitted to the federal government, and that's somehow illegal immigration / invasion?
(Score: 5, Informative) by julian on Friday September 15 2017, @03:16PM (16 children)
There's almost no invasion of privacy or violation of rights some conservatives won't tolerate if it means catching illegal immigrants from South of the border. They have an unslakable lust for "rule of law" when it comes to brutalizing Hispanics. Strangely, they're not so concerned about the thousands of undocumented Europeans living here.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jdavidb on Friday September 15 2017, @05:39PM (13 children)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Friday September 15 2017, @05:41PM (1 child)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Saturday September 16 2017, @06:39PM
Or socialized healthcare for old white people.
Fun fact. the USA spends more per person on government funded healthcare (medicaid etc) than the UK does. Not per person covered, per citizen, than the UK.
The UK covers everyone. If you want better than basic you can get private healthcare, but it's not worth the extra £200 per person for most people.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @07:56PM (1 child)
Why are you focusing on Mexicans?
Illegal aliens can be of many different nationalities, races, and whatever other attributes you want to fixate on.
Those on the left, and especially the far left, like to portray this as a matter of "racism". That couldn't be any more wrong. "Mexican" isn't even a race; it's a nationality!
Should illegal aliens from Mexico be deported as soon as possible? Of course! But so should illegal aliens from anywhere else!
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday September 16 2017, @03:41PM
No, of course not. This law should not be enforced and should be repealed.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @11:29PM (8 children)
Because you're an idiot? Good, we don't need you.
We are against all illegal immigration. Since the vast majority of it is coming from Mexico, that puts most of the attention on Mexicans. You dipshits are so pro-immigration that you'll sue the President for not letting enough terrorists in.
You fucks have one thing. The race card, which you play over and over again. Luck for America it's not working so well anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @05:29AM
shhh. millions of mexicans, 0 foreign terrorists. must be that 'murkin failmathedumukayshun thang.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday September 16 2017, @03:42PM (6 children)
That's not any better as a position and is just as immoral.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @05:30PM (5 children)
I'd love to see you expound on your reasoning for that position. Do countries' governments have legitimate authority to control who crosses into the country across the borders? What about countries with governments that hand out freebies to people inside the country? What about invading armies?
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday September 16 2017, @07:29PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday September 16 2017, @07:52PM
No, government is only just when its actions are derived from the consent of the governed. So it is just for people to pay a service to keep people from entering their property, but it is not just for people to prevent others from entering someone else's property.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday September 16 2017, @07:57PM
There's nothing wrong with handing out freebies, but not if you paid for it with stolen funds. If people think the welfare system (or the war on drugs, or the war on terror, or whatever) is a trainwreck they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday September 16 2017, @07:58PM (1 child)
Of course, if a government does take money away from people to hand out freebies, that doesn't give them the right to start keeping people from entering other people's property, either. Two wrongs don't make a right.
People are certainly entitled to defend themselves, repelling force with force. They aren't entitled to use force against new neighbors that they just don't like or don't want to have to compete with.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @11:24PM
Thank you for breaking it down, jdavidb. (For the record, we seem to be largely on the same page regarding the source and limits of just governmental authority, the moral invalidity of the initiation of force, taxation at gunpoint being theft, etc.)
I'll attack what I see as your weakest front first: without restrictions on who or what can set foot on the land delineated as the United States of America (bear with me, even if you consider nation-states to be invalid), what's to stop some other nation from shipping tanks, troops, and other equipment over and building military bases throughout the entire USA with the vocal and stated aim that as soon as they feel confident in a sweeping victory, they will attack and conquer the lands and people of the USA by force of arms (or threatening that if they fail, to light off all the nukes/biological/chemical weapons they've built in said bases in a modern-day salting of the earth)?
Does your view change if the invading nation keeps silent about its intentions? If just troops and light arms are sent? Just troops? How about diseased civilians whose habits may be linked to an epidemic? [soylentnews.org]
Assuming you have a direct answer to all of that, how would your ethics handle a people-group buying up all of, say, Montana, and turning it into a giant gated community with their own list of arbitrary, and for sake of argument, politically-incorrect criteria (e.g. only Christians, only lighter-than-a-paper-bag whites, no homosexuals)? What about a similar private society buying a strip of six inches, six feet, or six miles of land that stretches all around the USA's current border?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 15 2017, @07:26PM
Yep, they've invented a whole new backdoor to the constitution.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @07:31PM
What is a few thousand when there are millions of others? A mere 0.1% is but a rounding error.
But yes, of course the illegals from Europe need to be deported. Heck, just shoot them. This has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It doesn't even really have anything to do with language -- we'd prefer the English-speaking people for our legal immigrants, but an English-speaking illegal alien still needs to go home or die.
I think wikipedia has a nice article on orders of magnitude somewhere. You should go find it.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday September 15 2017, @05:47PM (3 children)
The CC company knows. The Hotel megacorporation knows. The cops know because travel on the roads is a privilege not a right and they got cameras on the red lights etc so they know. The supermarket knows based on purchases. Amazon knows based on data mining and is suggesting gifts for the floozy. Isn't it kinda the point that everyone on the planet already knows except for his wife and/or the floozy's husband? Aside from wife and floozy-husband, is there anyone who doesn't already know? Heck even we know on SN, now.
Also immigration, having things to do, has zero interest in Joe Bogs the millisecond he (and his floozy) comes up as a citizen. Its kinda like saying supermarket clerks could be making a secret tracking list by pretending to card booze buyers for age purposes but secretly the reptilian aliens are making a list of future abductees. Nah its more likely the computer beeps and a green light flashes and "on your way".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Friday September 15 2017, @07:34PM (2 children)
Except the US government is vastly more than just immigration control. Now, the whole apparatus knows. Maybe the FBI will use this information to black list Mr. Bogs or his floozy years down the road. Maybe an intelligence agency will use this information to blackmail Mr. Bogs or his floozy. Maybe some religious nutcases will take over the US and imprison the pair for the crime of adultery. Maybe a competitor of Mr. Bog's employer will use this information to help sabotage a deal.
If the information isn't up for sale, then it can't be abused now or later.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday September 16 2017, @02:36PM (1 child)
My point is they already have that, global war on terror and anti-money laundering and all that ridiculous stuff.
The NSA/CIA/FBI already stingray the area to track cell phones and tap the phones and internet connections. The only religious nutcases likely to take over are fundamentalist progressives who would imprison them for being white or not interracially dating, perhaps, but they'll send them to camps because of who they are and what they do, not because they visited a hotel once. The competitor is an interesting case. If its a big international deal then the intel services (ours and theirs) are already involved...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday September 17 2017, @03:32AM
That ridiculous stuff includes motel staff ratting out their customers. There's no point to complaining about government overreach, when you allow it.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday September 15 2017, @11:10AM (14 children)
If you "volunteer" information that belongs to your employer, say, for $200, have you broken the law? Will you be fired when your employer finds out?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday September 15 2017, @11:21AM (8 children)
It should be *very* illegal to share *any* customer information without their consent. Although, apparently, their policy indicates that they make share data with government agencies.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday September 15 2017, @02:06PM (6 children)
These are illegals we're talking about here.
If I ran a motel I'd do it for free. Hell, if I taught at a school or college I'd do it for free.
Just 5 minutes ago those illegal scum were all for La Raza and La Reconquista, now they're crying because they have to return to MEH-HEE-COE.
Serves those bastid cucharachas right.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:17PM (4 children)
YES!!!
Don't get pissed at America for enforcing the law. Get pissed at your parents, coyotes, and everyone else involved in BREAKING THE LAW!! Dreamers, my ass.
Oh yeah, the dreamers are kinda special. They've been here five years, ten, twenty, maybe even thirty years. They've been educated in our school systems. They've learned how and why they should become citizens. Now, we have a president who actually gives a damn, he's gonna deport dreamers. Hey, guess what? If the damned dreamers had taken time off of dreaming, and gotten themselves NATURALIZED, The Orange One couldn't touch them!!
Cry me a river for those illegal aliens.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:24PM (3 children)
They cant be naturalized because they are illegals. Thats the catch twenty two here. They are considered illegal, through the fault of their parents. Due to that they cannot become a citizen unless they go to their home country for ten years.
Give them a path towards citizenship and we wont have this BS going on. Tell them if they join the military and serve honorably for four years they can become citizens. Maybe if they earn a merit based academic scholarship after they graduate they can become citizens, etc.
I mean as long as they pay taxes, commit no serious crimes (lets not count minor in possession or jaywalking or stuff ok?) and do something to better our country like serving in the military or earning a four year degree whats the issue with them becoming citizens? I can think of people born here who do much less for our country that we'd all be better off sending them somewhere else.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @03:56PM
Odd - it's been like - ohhhh - hell, it's six years now. Cesar was one of those dreamers. He was brought here as a baby, and he determined to get his citizenship. Really cool guy, about 24, was married to an anchor baby named Christina. Chris is a really smart girl, and she was helping Cesar get all his stuff in order. He and I would go over the citizenship test late at night when we worked together. That young man had his shit together. Hell, they both did.
I don't know all the legalities, but I know at least ONE dreamer who became a citizen.
I'm about to fall into bed, before I fall on the floor, but this link suggests there are at least 4 paths to citizenship for dreamers - https://citizenpath.com/paths-to-legal-status-undocumented/ [citizenpath.com]
I plan on reading it when I get up . . . .
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday September 15 2017, @11:24PM (1 child)
I'm not convinced that serving in the military is automatically good for the country; we are currently doing about seven different unjustifiable interventions in other countries, and becoming a part of that means you become a part of the problem.
Having a degree does not necessarily indicate that someone is educated. The only way you can conclude that would be by using the most pathetic standards imaginable. Evaluate someone by their concrete accomplishments, not by their supposed education level (with the incredibly low standards many schools have, getting a degree is hardly impressive by itself).
I disagree slightly with the details, but not the sentiment.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday September 16 2017, @02:41PM
Both are a proxy for not being completely financially mismanaged (main way to screw up a clearance in the military) and able to participate in society at a level high enough to accomplish some minor tasks without ending up in jail. Plenty of anti-social locals of the lower IQ strata can't pull that off. The really low IQ people with downs syndrome etc get government appointed and paid helpers to keep them in line, there's a donut hole from like 60 IQ up to 90 IQ where if the citizen doesn't have a good social game to fall back on, they're gonna end up in the criminal justice system. Whaddya do with an IQ 90 antisocial personality dude, to keep him out of trouble? As a country/civilization we don't have a plan for those folks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @08:03PM
> > It should be *very* illegal to share *any* customer information without their consent.
> These are illegals we're talking about here.
You don't know that until you give the database to the cops.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @05:52PM
> It should be *very* illegal to share *any* customer information without their consent.
Hey! I've got a mortgage to pay! Why are you trying to pop the tech bubble?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday September 15 2017, @04:29PM
Your question reminds me of this [ambians.com]. Thank you!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday September 15 2017, @05:51PM
They could NSL them, regardless if they can legally NSL or not. Also beat cops will lay down the law about interfering with investigations and stuff like that.
You also have to be realistic. Whats in it for me personally to help people break a law I agree with, vs helping the cops? "I luv illegals" is very online antifa but has very little public support. You'd have better luck convincing people not to rat out drug dealers or crooked politicians, which is not hyperbole.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 15 2017, @05:53PM
The practice will be stopped. I doubt there is grounds for firing anyone.
But the wording of Motel 6's corporate statement suggests that those involved may have been acting according to local management's directives. So no indication of theft of information.
And the fact that Motel 6 stated they will be tightening up their directives suggests the local management were operating within the scope of their local managerial discretion. It was an automated process.
In fact, I suspect it was an employee who blew the whistle on this whole process.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Friday September 15 2017, @06:48PM (1 child)
The folks manning the registration desk at a Motel 6 are barely above minimum wage. For them $200 is a lot of cash, the risk of being fired is small and another job at the same wage is easy enough, probably at the hotel across the intersection. The lede here is ICE has finally started doing something sensible and paying for intel. Something that should have been happening for decades, would have been happening if the Federal Government weren't playing a game with illegal immigration. It is the single most hopeful sign I have read since Trump was sworn in that we might actually be going to make a serious attempt at restoring the Rule of Law.
And Soylent is the first site I have seen even putting the bounties in the first paragraph of their coverage. So there is that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @10:41PM
Wonder how many "illegals" work at the Trump properties?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday September 15 2017, @11:32AM (11 children)
Exactly who were they that were paid?
TFS shows the management wasn't quite happy when they learned about the practice, which leads me to believe the money tiptoed into the pocket of the snitching receptionists. Dubious legality, don't you think?
Even more, in the process, all the other guests' identity was "leaked" without any warrant and without the guests' consent. Does this sound lawful to you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Spamalope on Friday September 15 2017, @12:11PM (3 children)
Motel 6 corp sells franchises to semi-independent operators (subject to franchise rules). Motel 6 corp feels this is a reputation problem and may have only learned about it when the story broke. The franchise holders at those specific locations may have done it, possibly one who owns all the affected locations. Hired managers or front desk employees may have done it, and talked to other Motel 6 employees who decided to do the same. Individual Motel 6 corp employees may have known. Participation may have been enticed (bounty paid) or coerced (lawful or unlawful threats). A tangled mix could be the truth.
I'd like to see it investigated, though of course those directly implicated have a motive to lie.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Friday September 15 2017, @01:45PM (1 child)
I'm guessing the corp has abundant grounds for a lawsuit against the franchise operators for damaging its brand.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:20PM
I would keep guessing. My guess is, there is no recourse against a franchise holder for helping to uphold the law. If there are any legitimate claims, those would be made by innocent people caught up in the dragnet.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday September 15 2017, @06:09PM
Quote Original Story From the Phoenix New Times: (follow first link, then follow first link found there).
It was The Hill article that suggested these were franchise locations. But that was wrong.
Not sure this makes a great deal of difference, other than a corporate owned location may actually be more interested in preserving the reputation of the brand and preventing the property from becoming another waypoint on the coyote railroad.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 15 2017, @01:48PM (5 children)
Even more, in the process, all the other guests' identity was "leaked" without any warrant and without the guests' consent. Does this sound lawful to you?
IANAL, but this sounds like a firing offense at most, but probably not unlawful. Privacy protections here in the US are abysmal, so I'd be surprised if this possible action (snitching receptionists divulging confidential company data without authorization from management) was actually unlawful. It should be; the Europeans definitely have the right idea on this issue.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Friday September 15 2017, @04:33PM (4 children)
Lawful, or unlawful, I will never sleep at a Motel 6 again. They give away ENTIRE FUCKING REGISTRIES on the mere possibility they may contain information about unlawful individuals staying in the hotel with me.
That does violate privacy. Maybe the law will not catch up with them, but many, many, many wallets have now closed shut forever.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday September 15 2017, @05:00PM (3 children)
That's a good position to take. If more people did this, then we'd have some real change in this country. Sadly, it's only a tiny, tiny minority that stand by their principles and vote with their feet like that.
Personally, I will not avoid a Motel 6 because of this. I never would stay at a Motel 6 in the first place; it's a crappy chain, and I'd have to be really desperate to stay at one. I think I'd rather sleep in my car. The last time I stayed at a slightly lower-priced hotel to save a few dollars (and this was a Clarion Inn, still more expensive than Motel 6), I felt like I was in gang territory or something. Now, I just assume anything decent is going to be at least $100/night, and make sure they have an indoor swimming pool, and of course, interior hallways. That seems to keep the riff-raff out. Motels can be dangerous places; I actually had to take some training when I started my last job which instructed us on what rooms to pick in a hotel, what kind of hotels to go to, etc.
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Friday September 15 2017, @06:14PM (2 children)
Well maybe that is exactly what Motel 6 was trying to avoid.
Just sayin.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 15 2017, @06:46PM
They won't succeed with that approach: most gang members and other criminals are citizens. The only way to avoid having riff-raff in your establishment is to have higher prices, and the only way to have higher prices and stay in business in a competitive environment is to offer better service (e.g., a nice building with indoor corridors and an indoor pool, not a crappy low-budget building with rooms accessible from the outside).
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday September 15 2017, @07:43PM
Oh, come on. I know you want to denigrate and make these people out to be diseased bellicose thieves and rapists, but that is just stupid. Not all gang bangers are illegal aliens you know. Some of them may actually be black. I've even seen movies, music videos, etc. that all show U.S citizens as gang bangers.
Most of the time illegal aliens are just families and migrant farm workers. People working long hours for shit pay, which puts them on equal footing with most of working America. Except they're not citizens. Yes, they're here illegally, but that's no justification to group them all in the violent offenders category. If that were really true, we'd be dealing with 11 million violent people committing crimes each day. You know the stats don't support that.
So try walking that statement back. It was bigoted and stupid. Not to mention, what you are really saying is that you are comfortable violating the privacy of U.S citizens in order to get at these "Deplorables" you hate so much. That to me is incredibly unAmerican, to ever give up your rights and freedoms.
There is no justification for the breach of trust and privacy, and your rabid White Nationalism here sure as hell isn't a good justification for screwing regular Americans out of their rights to privacy. At this point, those are just human rights, and no longer fought for as core rights of Free Americans.
I thought you were better than that, or more patriotic than that. I know that you are. Pull your head out of your butt and start fighting for *OUR* rights.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @05:13PM
It's 100% legal. Welcome to America. Your private information in the hands of private businesses has near 0 legal protections. If people only knew the sort of information companies were trading and selling about them.
The 'receptionists' will likely be fired, but given they were probably making 20-30 hours of pay per busted illegal - I doubt they'll have many regrets. Though one phenomenally interesting possibility is whether or not they'd actually be protected from firing dure to whistle blower laws. Those also tend to be pretty weak, so probably not - but it's a more interesting question than whether the act itself was legal or not. There's no ambiguity. I wish there were, but people are happy to let companies screw them until it hits the news. At which point they get upset and then forget about it the moment the next shocking headline comes down.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @04:53PM (4 children)
Exactly backwards.
If someone provides information on their own, it's all good.
If someone is acting as an agent of the state, though, they're bound by the same restrictions as the state itself, and such a warrantless search would be unlawful.
Getting paid for the information is one of the things the courts would look at in determining whether these clowns were acting as agents of the DEA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @05:08PM (2 children)
You are wrong. Any officer of the law (or anybody for that matter) is free to ask any individual, group, or organization to offer up what ever sort of information they'd like. The 'entity' being asked is free to say no. That's where warrants come in. Warrants are not required for voluntarily submitted information or searches. This is why a police officer might ask, "Hi, do you mind if I have look in your trunk?" They make it sound colloquial, but in reality it is a genuine and formal question and they will have no recourse (without a warrant) if you say no. However, if you say yes - they're free to use any and all information gleaned from said search in any applicable way.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Friday September 15 2017, @06:19PM (1 child)
Further, anybody is free to pay you for information. And baring any laws to the contrary you are free to exchange any information you might have in exchange for money.
Accepting a hundred bucks to in exchange for telling a cop where to find a wanted fugitive makes you a snitch, but doesn't make you a cop.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @09:08PM
The part where there's a preset rate of payment per actionable intel point? That part throws your "argument" in the trash.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @03:04AM
Assuming they are legally acting as agents of the state, where the fuck did you get "warrantless search" from? No-one is being searched here, information is simply passed on.
(Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Friday September 15 2017, @06:06PM (4 children)
Except that by paying, they made the clerk their agent and so attached the Constitutional limits to that agent's actions.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Friday September 15 2017, @06:31PM (2 children)
Bullshit.
You can't just handwaive these imaginary laws into existence sjames.
Just because someone sees something and tells the police about it in exchange for a reward doesn't make them a sworn officer of the law. It just means that information is hearsay, and can't be used in court.
You should maybe read your constitution some time. Your like to cite it, but you've clearly not read it in a long long time. You can get a free copy of the Constitution at a lot of local libraries or gun shows.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 15 2017, @07:11PM (1 child)
Funny, the matter in question (agency, work for hire, etc) isn't in the Constitution. No amount of reading it will enlighten on this matter. Perhaps you should attempt to gain an understanding of the rest of the law and it's basis. I'll give you a hint, it's the same reason that hiring a hit man makes you guilty of the murder even if you never met the victim in person.
I didn't say the payment made the clerks sworn officers, I said it makes them agents (in the legal sense, they don't get a licence to kill or a badge).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @11:30PM
Are you serious? Do you really think the government shouldn't just be able to hire thugs to do things that would be unconstitutional if it did them in order to bypass the Constitution? Are you insane!?
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Friday September 15 2017, @08:49PM
Perhaps not if it was once, or a few times.
But it sounds like these clerks were effectively working a second job for ICE, sending a bunch of records daily. That is quite different from occasionally reporting criminals for a potential reward.
Of course the government would just argue (probably successfully) that they were giving no direction to these clerks, and their actions were not based on an agreement, merely a hope for a possible reward. And without agreement about future terms, there is no agency.
That's bogus though, really. We all know that there was an agreement...it was just an implicit one. Just unstated enough so that everyone could testify later that there was no explicit agreement, if needed.