Dems lost their minds on Friday after White House Border Czar Tom Homan listed "physical appearance" as one -- one -- of the criteria ICE officers and Border Patrol agents can take into consideration when developing reasonable suspicion to briefly detain and question people, accusing Homan of saying that ICE officers and Border Patrol agents can and will detain people simply based on their appearance.
Here's what Homan actually said:
“Look, people need to understand, ICE officers and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them. They just need totality of the circumstances, right? They just go through the observation, get our typical facts — based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”
Homan appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday to explain slowly and meticulously (for the intellectually-challenged) how reasonable suspicion works and the factors (plural) taken into consideration before law enforcement officers stop or detain someone. Of course, they're not detaining/arresting people simply because of the color of their skin or where they work:
Well, first of all, let me be clear. Physical description can't be the sole factor to give you reasonable suspicion.
As I said in that interview, it's articulable facts, with an S. So appearance can be just one. For instance, if someone has an MS-13 tattoo on their face, that may be one factor to add to other factors to raise reasonable suspicion.
I want to be clear about that again, because my words were taken out of context. Physical description cannot be the sole reason to detain and question somebody. That can't be the sole reason to raise reasonable suspicion. It's a myriad of factors. And I could sit here for the next half-hour and give you all the factors.
So, every officer -- every situation is different. But I can tell you this, that every ICE officer goes through Fourth Amendment training every six months, and reminded what their authorities are for arrest, detention, and questioning. So, the officers are very well-trained.
As we've covered, a Biden-appointed federal judge in Los Angeles on Friday ruled in favor of the ACLU and other plaintiffs who alleged that agents are stopping and arresting people based on physical appearance and the language they speak, saying that "Roving patrols without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and denying access to lawyers violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution" and concluding that that's what federal immigration officers are doing.
The judge is correct in stating that "roving patrols without reasonable suspicion" are unconstitutional, but no reasonable person believes that federal immigration officers are doing that. In the hours since Homan's appearance, the administration has filed an appeal of that order; here's what Homan had to say about it:
So, I look forward to DOJ litigating this judge's decision, because I don't -- I think she is making a decision without knowing what that officer knows when they get out of that vehicle to question somebody.
. . .
Look, we're going to litigate that order, because I think the order's wrong.
I mean, she's assuming that the officers don't have reasonable suspicion. They don't need probable cause to briefly detain and question somebody. They just need reasonable suspicion. And that's based on many articulable facts.
So, unless she's in the officer's mind, I don't know if she would make that decision that, well, they're not using reasonable suspicion. How does she know that? I mean, every officer has to bring articulable facts to raise reasonable suspicion, and then they can briefly detain.
Watch Homan's appearance below: