Courts have previously held that heuristics based determinations are not sufficient to serve as probable cause. E.g. "predictive policing" technologies can be used for e.g. scheduling officers to different areas, but aren't valid to conduct a search.
If this feature is used to make an arrest, there's a good chance the case would be thrown out.
The case can be thrown out, but it's still going to cause you massive disruptions. Everything from just being arrested in the first place and being held in custody for some amount of time, to having to hire a lawyer, to the social consequences of your name being tied to being arrested. It's going to cost you time, money, stress, family and social relationships. And there's a non-zero chance that if your life starts being investigated after such an arrest, something could be found to still affect you or your family and friends.
And once you're on their radar, you're probably going to also end up being marked for extra scrutiny. You might find yourself being pulled over more often, or getting the SSSS on your airplane boarding pass.
“You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.”
or you know, more false bullshit leads to way more people talking about it, and less stigma about it
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/emiliano-s-agents-left-beh...
ICE are to a large extent above the law. Their entire purpose is to snatch people and move them to locations where they can be denied legal redress. A couple of high profile cases have only got redress due to very dedicated intervention by congresspeople, which does not scale.
I think people need to start reckoning with the underlying problem, which is that oppressive policing in America is popular provided it's happening to someone else.
Geez, East Germany's State Security, but with supremely better surveillance tech, and AI.
Curious how "Homeland Security" and "State Security" are equivalent names.
Looking forward to a "Report suspicious neighbors"-program next. Your neighbor made fun of Trump? Report this unamerican activity to Kristi Noem!
> Curious how "Homeland Security" and "State Security" are equivalent names.
Yes, but the unfortunate thing with names is that people get to pick them to sound however they want.
This is why the official name of the Berlin Wall translates as "anti-fascist protection barrier", along with all the examples that probably inspired 1984 (written in 48, so before the wall).
Minnesota implemented this during COVID…
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/coronavirus-in-minnes...
I’m sure there are also ways to anonymously report illegal immigrants to ICE as well. People are still free to criticize Trump all they want. The First Amendment is pretty clear on this.
American nationals whose parents are both Americans are safe. People in the US who are not full citizens are at significant risk. People who are American citizens by birthright are currently safe, but there are explicit plans to attack birthright citizenship.
> People are still free to criticize Trump all they want. The First Amendment is pretty clear on this.
I guess it depends on how you define "person."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_deportations_in_the_s...
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-deportation-g...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/09/nyregion/ice-arrests-pale...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/rumeysa-ozturk-tufts...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oRiQz7mOY6A
> People are still free to criticize Trump all they want. The First Amendment is pretty clear on this.
In theory.
No, in actuality. People criticize Trump daily without fear of repercussions.
He's not a king or a dictator. Much of his agenda is being put in check by the other two branches of government.
In theory, yes. In practice, he already has a long track record of leveraging his position, and the institutions it allows him to command, to enact personal vengeance upon his enemies. The examples are numerous, but one need look no further than Stephen Colbert.
Paramount paid $16 million to the Trump library fund to settle a meritless case, because of his ability to wield the FCC to squash their merger.
Colbert called this out on his show as rampant extortion by the Trump Administration, and they promptly cancelled his show.
Sure, you can argue that this wasn't a police/military act, and the government itself did not punish Colbert for his views and speech.
But in cronyism, especially under a regime actively trying to gut the federal government and allow private parties to assume it's functions, this becomes at best a nominal distinction. If you, in an official government capacity, can wield your power to enact vengeance on your opponents and dissidents, maybe even going as far as to diacriminate against entire states that vote against you (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-discriminati...), you have a mechanism with which you can quasi-legally (good luck fighting this one in court) punish Speech You Do Not Like.
For the average, or even exceptional person, this functionally amounts to a restriction on your speech. I am highly critical of Trump, but not under any avenue tied to my identity.
I am far from the only person who operates this way. The assertion that you can freely citizen the administration without fear of reprisal does not hold water.
Are you high lol
How much of the damage done was specifically by ICE agents and how much of it was done by illegal immigrants resisting arrest? I suspect that some of them went to hide in many of the spaces that were “torn up” by ICE agents. In many of these raids , people are not turning themselves over peacefully. If you harbor criminals you should not be surprised when law enforcement combs every inch of the building to find them.
There is also the option of being paid to self deport if you know that you are in the country illegally.
https://www.ice.gov/self-deportation
People have every right to resist with maximum force to being taken without due process to a camp where they will disappear off the grid and paperwork system.
Nations have every right to defend their sovereignty and to detain and deport people that are in the country illegally.
Also ignoring the large proportion of citizens getting swept up with no due process or legal rights. We even have cases of citizens ending up in foreign prisons and only getting returned after extensive legal battles lead by Congress members... The average poor us citizen with no PR or viral marketing .... is just disappeared
> large proportion of citizens getting swept up with no due process or legal rights
Can you give me a few examples of this? I can’t find evidence to support what you’re saying here.
> We even have cases of citizens ending up in foreign prisons and only getting returned after extensive legal battles lead by Congress members
Are you referring to the “Maryland man” here? Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not a US citizen.
Constitution seems to disagree in plainly self evident English ...
Which section of the Constitution are you referring to?
I'm not sure such cases would be thrown out. See "parallel construction" for examples of illegally obtained data the DEA was advised to build an evidence chain NOT based on the illegally obtained info, but based upon evidence gleaned after the fact but built to show discovery during the course of investigation.
Who says the feature will be used to make an arrest?
The heuristics are clearly about who to pull over, etc. Evidence for arrest/search will be determined afterwards. And, as far as search is concerned, it could be as simple as getting a dog to bark.
Why would the police even inform you that flock was used?
Why? Because the prosecutor doesn't want all their work to go to waste because they didn't disclose Brady evidence. Even if they successfully argue that Officer Flock's reporting isn't exculpatory, they still have to do extra work to respond to a Brady motion for a case that already got a conviction.
In cases of parallel construction of evidence, is the prosecution still obligated to disclose everything to the defense in discovery? Is the tree from which the Fruit is picked only obscured from the jury, or from the defense as well?
Any evidence the prosecutor uses that is potentially exculpatory must be disclosed to the defendant. So your questions raise why they wouldn't: they think the defense can't find out. And it's arguably likely that they won't. But if they do, it will not only invalidate that single case, it could potentially trigger retrials of hundreds of cases because now a bunch of people know that Officer Flock is on the Brady list.
And one final thing about this... the prosecutor (who has probably said some variation of "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" to try to get a conviction) can't claim ignorance as a defense to a Brady violation. Failing to disclose, whether they knew or not, is a Brady violation.
Hah, as an ex-Flock employee, their transparency report is utter garbage. "Agencies using Flock." In my immediate vicinity, three County Sheriffs use it, but they are not listed. Several city PDs in my county also use it, but they are not listed.
Discovery applies even in cases where the state is prosecuting you.
If this feature is used to make an arrest, there's a good chance the case would be thrown out.
They'll just parallel construct the crap out of it and get their arrest anyway.
But flock now has an Api for to Cause, the parallel construction AI. /s
So if they flock to the cause, all arrests are go. And there are always fallback crimes everyone in a modern society commits, that can be dragged in after a search .