*NEW*Portland update

[DemocratSinceBirth]

(CNN)A judge in Portland, Oregon, barred federal law enforcement officers from arresting or using physical force against journalists and legal observers mixed in with the crowds at nightly protests near a complex of government buildings there if they're not suspected of committing crimes.

Federal Judge Michael H. Simon issued the temporary restraining order Thursday evening ahead of another night of expected protests in the city's downtown. Videos taken by news crews there have captured harrowing moments -- like when the city's mayor was overcome by tear gas deployed to disperse a crowd on Wednesday -- and the American Civil Liberties Union had filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security and the US Marshals Service, which command the officers, detailing several examples of identified journalists allegedly being abused by the authorities.
The order, which Simon opened with a series of quotes about the importance of the free press, also says journalists can ignore dispersal orders issued by authorities.

...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/politics/portland-ruling-federal-officers-stop-arrests/index.html

[spanone]

1. K&R...

[Miguelito Loveless]

2. I am glad for the ruling, but

good luck enforcing the order. Portland PD are accomplices and coordinating with the Gestapo.

[BadgerMom]

20. If ever there was a police department in need of changing/reorganizing,

Portland is it.

[FBaggins]

3. There has to be more to it than that

I don't think a district judge can tell federal law enforcement that they can't arrest people.

On edit - Ok... more was added. It was a restriction on arresting journalists.

That's going to be interesting in an age where almost everyone live-streaming with their cell phone claims to be a journalist. (Second edit - the judge covered that. They have to be wearing credentials)

This really isn't something new. Law enforcement can only arrest people they believe are breaking the law... it's pretty clear that journalists' 1A rights trump things like curfews and evacuation orders.

[TruckFump]

6. A DC Feddie Judge can do just about anything he/she wants to do...

...until a higher court says, NO. This court is in the 9th cir. So far, the 9th is still a very liberal appeals court.

The consequences of disobeying a federal judge is something I would never do...no matter how much I disagreed with the order.

[FBaggins]

10. Not quite

Not something so clearly outside of their lane as the title alone implied.

Imagine a judge ordering the president to pardon or not pardon someone. It isn't true that the order stands until a higher court undoes the ruling. The higher court would of course do so for procedural reasons - as would even the 9th here. But it isn't true that judges can do anything unless/until a higher court tells them to stop.

A blanket ruling that law enforcement can't arrest people in a given jurisdiction is not within a court's powers.

The actual ruling (a 14-day TRO against arresting someone they know or should know is not breaking the law) in this case is well within them.

[TruckFump]

4. Thank gawd for the federal court...

...at least for the judges who were NOT appointed by the Orange Asshole.

[bamagal62]

5. But, can they really

Stop them?

[TruckFump]

8. They can give orders to stop them and if they don't stop, then..

..out go the federal marshals.

[FBaggins]

11. Out go the federal marshals?

Meaning what? They arrest themselves for failing to follow an order not to arrest someone else?

[TruckFump]

13. There are federal marshals under direct control of a Federal judge.

DHS are the bad actors in Portland. If there is a service of a court order on the DHS agent in charge in Portland of the cease and desist order, then the federal court can haul those who are in contempt of their order before the court.

Trust me, no one wants to piss off a federal judge by a direct violation of a direct order to cease and desist certain actions.

[FBaggins]

14. Untrue

US Marshals often enforce court orders... but they're part of the executive branch and answerable to presidential appointees. There is a "judicial security division"... but they aren't enforcement (other than the obvious)

More importantly... while I'm sure that DHS are bad actors here and are a target of the order. US Marshals are part of the federal law enforcement that the order pertains to. They were party to the ACLU's suit. You're still saying that the subjects of the order need to obey or else they'll arrest themselves. If they would obey the second order... then they wouldn't disobey the first one.

[TruckFump]

19. They can bring a contemptor before the court on a judge's order.

Are you stating that is untrue?

Please read the following UNITED STATES MARSHALS POLICY DIRECTIVES at bottom of page 15 and top of page 16 (this is a PDF file without a link). Google the title of the document and go to the pages I listed you will find the following:

Writ of Body Attachment:

1. Writ of Body Attachment: A writ of body attachment is a process the court issues directing the U.S. Marshal to bring a person who has been found in civil contempt before the court. The process may also be called an order of commitment for civil contempt or a warrant for civil arrest.

2. Territorial Limits: An order of civil commitment of a person held to be in contempt of a decree or injunction issued to enforce the laws of the United States may be served and enforced anywhere in the United States. An order of civil commitment of a person held to be in contempt of a decree or injunction not involving the enforcement of federal law may only be served at any place within the state in which the district court is located or at any place outside of the state that is within 100 miles of the courthouse.

3. Procedures:

a. Issued By: The writ is issued as an order of a U.S. District Court judge, U.S. magistrate judge or U.S. bankruptcy judge under the seal of the clerk of the court.

b. Served By: The writ is served by the U.S. Marshal or a Deputy U.S. Marshal.

c. Manner of Service: Service is accomplished by taking the named individual (the contemnor) into custody and bringing the individual before the court without undue delay. Because the writ is civil in nature, the U.S. Marshal generally should not forcibly enter a residence to execute the order unless the court has provided the U.S. Marshal with specific entry language in the order. Although the U.S. Marshal may have implicit authority to use reasonable force to execute the order, it is preferable for the U.S. Marshal to seek specific language in the order providing for the use of force.

d. Return: The individual who effects service will make proof of service to the court promptly according to district rules.

======


This is NOT law enforcement by a US Marshal, it is a body warrant pursuant the violation of a court order. Yes, it can happen and I have been in a Central District of Calif courtroom on an appearance in another case and I have seen it happen. The simple rule is: DO NOT DISOBEY A FEDERAL JUDGE. PERIOD.

[triron]

21. Thank you for your good responses. I tire of some here at DU who seem to want to always

throw water on many progressive democratic actions taken by various officials who seem to support these.

[TruckFump]

22. You are very welcome.

I am now retired, but I practiced law in California for a long time. I KNOW what a federal judge can do. There is NO WAY a U.S. Marshal in his or her right mind would disobey a direct order from a Federal Judge re a Body Warrant.

[FBaggins]

23. When they're the ones in contempt?

You seem to be dodging the core issue that you expected the US Marshals to deal with the US Marshals if the US Marshals fail to obey the court's TRO. That's a tough sell (that they'll enforce one order after refusing to enforce another). As is the claim that they are under the direct control of a federal judge when in fact they are part of the executive branch (DOJ) and their leadership is presidentially appointed.

The other issue you're ignoring is that they only enforce lawful orders by the court. There's no question that their leadership would not consider a blanket order like that implied in the title as one that was lawful.

This is NOT law enforcement by a US Marshal, it is a body warrant pursuant the violation of a court order.

You're saying they aren't enforcing 28 U.S. Code § 566 ?

[TruckFump]

29. I am saying the following quite simply:

THE CORE ISSUE: A FEDERAL JUDGE CAN ISSUE A BODY WARRANT AND HAVE SOMEONE PICKED UP FOR THE VIOLATION OF A CIVIL ORDER.

There are 4 elements in a civil contempt as follows:

1. A valid court order;

2. Actual knowledge of the order;

3. The ability to comply with the order; and

4. Willful disobedience of the order.

The issue is NOT a marshal dealing with a marshal -- it's the willful disobedience of a valid court order of which the person has actual knowledge and the ability to comply therewith. Your questioning seems to be under a mistaken impression, for example, that one officer in a department cannot arrest another for a criminal act or willful violation of a court order.

I am unsure in which Federal court you practiced that leads you to opine that a federal marshal can basically tell a Federal judge "NO" when directed to enforce a body warrant. Please let me and everyone else know how any officer of a court (that includes marshals, deputies, bailiffs and attorneys admitted to practice in the jurisdiction) can tell a judge to pound sand when given a direct order by a federal judge.

You must have been in your federal practice far more brave than I was if you told a federal judge - such as Mannie Real -- that you were not going to do what you were ordered to do. Let's say the following applies as I see it for disobeying a direct order of a federal judge: "Bend over and kiss your ass good-bye."

You appear to be intentionally missing the point -- it is NOT what a federal officer can do to another federal officer. It what a Federal Judge can ORDER an officer under his direction to do and...further...how he/she can enforce his/her order upon a disobedience.

Edit for type: Changed was to what.

[LeftInTX]

17. If they don't, they're in violation of the TRO

I believe the plaintiffs get a rush hearing.

It isn't unusual for law enforcement to skirt laws. Also arrests made by law enforcement while in violation of a TRO will be thrown out of court.

The main difference between this and some other cases is that the rent a cops are so freaking visible.

[hlthe2b]

7. This is the ACLU lawsuit that focuses only on journalists/legal observers released last night...

The broader lawsuit brought by the OR AG impacts the use of the storm troopers in general and has not yet yielded a decision. So don't celebrate too much yet.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. I Just heard a lawyer on CNN say federal officers are already forbidden from arrests and such...

involving local laws. They can assist with investigations, but the locals deal with enforcement.

This came up while discussing the extraordinary "rejailing" of Cohen. (The lawyer said he has appeared before the judge and he's as straight a shooter as they get.)

Oh, and the DOJ watchdogs are investigating the use of storm troopers:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/508737-doj-watchdog-to-probe-allegations-of-law-enforcements-use-of-force

Lessee how long that lasts before the firings start.

[FBaggins]

12. Not sure that's on point

Sure... they can't enforce local law. But they can enforce federal law. Many actions can be violations of both.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Of course-- he made that point, too. But crowd control isn't one of those.

[pnwmom]

25. But they've been arresting people not on Federal property who were just walking on Portland streets.

There's no Federal law against walking or even protesting on a city street.

[FBaggins]

30. Their jurisdiction is not limited to federal property

There have been some claims that people are just getting picked up randomly. That wouldn't be ok regardless of where it occurs.

But if someone is suspected of, say, vandalizing a federal courthouse? They don't have to catch them on federal property in order to arrest them. Police have limited authority to arrest someone outside of their county/state (there are sometimes agreements between neighboring counties)... but the US Marshals have the broadest arresting authority.

[Demsrule86]

33. Nope...no federal laws...grabbing people off buses who look peculiar in Seattle and kidnapping

protesters wearing a black hoodie does not enforce any federal law...and most of these bozos are private security sent to Iraq and Afghanistan and now being used by fuhrer Trump against Americans...I dispute they have any authority period.

[LeftInTX]

18. In Portland, they are arresting vandals of federal property

Some of the vandals are throwing fireworks on to federal property and flashing lasers at the troops. The troops then leave federal property to make arrests.

Do they have the right to make arrests in this manner? Vandalism is not a major crime.

They have been extremely heavy handed when they leave federal property. They have seem to be targeting all protesters at times.

[madville]

26. Destruction of Government Property can be a misdemeanor or felony

So say they break a window in the federal courthouse and its valued over $100, it's a felony.

If someone destroys federal property, Federal LE absolutely has the right to arrest that individual off of federal property, their jurisdiction is all 50 states and US territories.

[LeftInTX]

27. Did not know this..thx

[pnwmom]

32. And they've also been teargassing and attacking peaceful protesters on the streets

and they don't have the right to do that. Portland doesn't have a curfew and Portland and Oregon have not asked for the Feds help to patrol their own streets.

[Demsrule86]

34. I saw them attacking Moms...with no provacation...and these videos will be used against these

bozos eventually.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. Your headline is not accurate- the ruling was only for journalists and legal observers

Not all peaceful protestors.

[Mersky]

24. It's a good start

Especially, if legal observers includes anyone with a cell camera. Every other protestor has their phone out and filming.

[LizBeth]

28. People keep posting against peaceful protester. That is not true, misinformation. ONly against

reporters and observers. It has nothing to do with the peaceful protesters. Too big an error to keep doing.

[chowder66]

31. Please update your headline. It is for Journalists and Legal Observers, not peaceful protestors.