Category Archives: Uncategorized

Whatcom County Approves New Criminal Justice Sales Tax

WHATCOM — The Whatcom County Council considered and ultimately approved a new 0.1% sales and use tax for criminal justice purposes after a public hearing held on April 14.

A preliminary discussion was first held with the county council during the Feb. 24 meeting, with an understanding that the county executive would bring forth an ordinance at a later meeting.

According to a staff memo, rising costs within the criminal justice system are creating pressures on the 2027-2028 biennium budget. Existing revenue sources are unable to keep up with labor costs and inflation, as revenues sources are projected to grow more slowly.

“Further, the county has already initiated critical services — most notably expanded jail medical services — without a designated, sustainable revenue source,” the staff memo states. “This revenue is needed, not to launch new programs, but to sustain obligations already underway and prevent a more rapid deterioration of the general fund trajectory.”

The sales tax is expected to bring in about $6.5 million to $7 million and could be used to offset operating obligations, such as jail health and food services, sheriff’s office lease and criminal justice labor costs across several departments. Revenue collection can begin July 1.

The public hearing came with mixed feelings, with some saying it should help a broader range of services and that the tax is needed to fund various programs while others said they don’t trust the government to not squander the funds and that it should not be threatening cuts to the sheriff’s department should the tax not pass.

After holding public comment, council voted 5-2 to approve the new tax, with council members Mark Stremler and Ben Elenbaas voting against it. Stremler and Elenbaas then voted on a separate ordinance to instead send the tax increase to the voters. That ordinance did not pass, as the five other council members voted against it.

However, the county’s attorney advised that the council does not have the authority to put the tax on the ballot in this specific instance. Elenbaas and Stremler said they disagreed with the interpretation.

“We want to have the voters of Whatcom County decide if they want to pay this or  do they not want to pay this tax,” Stremler said. “That’s the bottom line.”

According to a presentation from Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler, had the tax not passed the county would need to cut millions of dollars across all county departments. Even with the tax, some modest cuts will still need to be made.

Here are key takeaways:

• What it costs you: The tax adds 10 cents to every $100 purchase, amounting to about $25 to $45 annually for the average Whatcom County family.

• When it starts: The tax takes effect July 1 and could raise $6.5 to $7 million annually for the county.

• Why the county says it’s needed: County Executive Satpal Sidhu called the tax a “crucial step toward fixing the structural imbalance in the county’s annual budget.” Without it, the county faces a $12 million deficit by 2028 and potential cuts to the Sheriff’s Office, courts and Prosecutor’s Office.

• No public vote — for now: A companion advisory referendum failed 2-5. A voter referendum under state law isn’t allowed until 2028, according to Deputy Prosecutor Kimberly Thulin.

• Where the money goes: Funds will pay for health and food services at the county jail, a lease on a new Sheriff’s Office building and labor costs.

My opinion? Criminal justice sales taxes (often known as public safety sales taxes) are a specialized tax, such as the 0.1% increase recently implemented in several Washington state jurisdictions. Whether they are considered “good” or “bad” depends largely on whether the need for immediate funding outweighs concerns about equity and tax fairness.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Marijuana Arrests Decrease

The Marijuana Policy Project just released a new report on weed-related arrests in the United States. Based on FBI Crime Explorer data, the report examines cannabis arrest data in all 50 states, including a state-by-state breakdown of arrest data. In short, the report shows that states have turned to more pragmatic regulation and legalization of cannabis. The era of mass arrests is decreasing.

“Cannabis legalization across 24 states has driven a historic decline in cannabis arrests nationwide, from a high of nearly 900,000 to over 200,000 annually. That is still an alarmingly high number, with each of those arrests representing an actual person whose current reality and future prospects may well be derailed by a criminal record. Across half of our country, hundreds of thousands of Americans are still being funneled into the criminal justice system every year for a victimless ‘crime’ that is very likely legal in the next state over.” ~Marijuana Policy Project Executive Director Adam J. Smith

THE NUMBERS

The report found that annual cannabis arrests in the United States dropped from a peak of over 870,000 in 2007 to 211,104 in 2025. The findings show that cannabis arrest rates have dropped 85.53%, with possession arrests dropping by an average of 84.61% and sales arrests decreasing by an average of 80.39%.

In 2025, law enforcement agencies in states that have legalized marijuana reported 22,357 cannabis arrests, while states that continue to prohibit pot reported 186,581 cannabis arrests. The 24 states with legal cannabis made a total of 222,261 fewer cannabis arrests in 2025 compared to the year prior to their legalization of cannabis. Prohibition states made more than eight times as many cannabis arrests than legalization states in 2025, although they have a smaller total population.

My opinion? We’ve come a long way since nearly 900,000 annual arrests. Nevertheless, 200,000 Americans arrested every year for cannabis is still a human rights disaster that must end. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

FBI Crime Data Shows Washington Is The Second-Most Dangerous State

FBI crime data

Most Dangerous States to Raise a Family. SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Crime Data Explorer

Washington has landed in the top five of a new list ranking the most dangerous states for neighborhood safety. Oregon came in at number four. The study, conducted by the Omega Law Group, placed Washington 5th overall after analyzing crime rates in residential areas and public parks across the country.

THE DATA

The study utilized crime data from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to create two metrics: ‘violent crimes’ and ‘property crimes’. The metrics include data from eight different types of crime: homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.

In Washington, there were roughly 2,126 home-related crimes for every 100,000 residents. When it comes to parks, the study found about 76 crimes per 100,000 people. Although Washington is 5th overall, it actually has a higher home crime rate than Oregon and Utah, which ranked just above the state on the total index.

Meanwhile, in Oregon, there were 1,601 home-related crimes for every 100,000 residents, with a park crime rate of nearly 97, the highest park crime rate of any state in the top ten, according to the research.

HOW DOES WA STATE COMPARE TO THE REST OF THE WEST?

The West Coast and Rocky Mountain regions dominated the top of the list. New Mexico took the number one spot as the most dangerous state by a wide margin, followed by Colorado, Delaware, and Utah. Apparently, the Northeast appears to be the safest region in America. New Jersey was ranked as the safest state for neighborhoods, followed closely by Maine and West Virginia.

While the Northeast consistently stays at the bottom of the rankings due to different policing strategies and community investments, states in the West continue to struggle with higher rates of residential and park-related incidents.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Mutually Violating No-Contact Orders With Protected Parties

In State v. Veith, the WA Court of Appeals held that Washington’s second-degree burglary statute does not require a “nexus” between the unlawful entry and the crime the defendant intends to commit in the building.  Here, the defendant committed second degree burglary by (1) unlawfully entering a grocery store in violation of a trespass order, and (2) with the intent to commit the crime of violating a Domestic Violence No Contact Order, the defendant entered the store together with a protected person.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 17, 2023, a grocery store trespassed Mr. Veith from its premises. Ten days later, on August 27, Veith went to the store and bought groceries with his ex-spouse. The store’s loss prevention officer observed Veith grocery shopping on surveillance video and called the police. Later, police contacted Mr. Veith and his ex-spouse inside a van in the store parking lot. It was determined there was a no-contact order (NCO) prohibiting Veith from being in the presence of his ex-spouse. The State charged Veith with felony violation of a protection order—domestic violence and second degree burglary. At trial, the jury found Veith guilty as charged.

On appeal, Veith argued that the second degree burglary statute should be read as requiring a “nexus” between the unlawful entry into a building and the intent to commit a crime therein. However, the Court of Appeals (COA) disagreed.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

First the COA explained that the second degree burglary statute sets forth the elements of second degree burglary: (1) entering or remaining unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or dwelling, and (2) with the intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein. Next, the COA raised and dismissed Veith’s arguments that a “nexus” must exist:

“Nothing in the plain language of the second degree burglary statute requires a nexus between the unlawful entry and the crime being committed within the building and we cannot add words to the otherwise unambiguous plain language of the burglary statute.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

With that, the COA affirmed Mr. Veith’s conviction.

My opinion? This case reveals how seriously our courts consider cases involving DV and No-Contact Orders. It’s generally known that violating a no-contact or restraining order would result in a burglary charge if you unlawfully enter a protected person’s home or premises with the intent to commit a crime, such as assault or harassment. Nowadays, simply being in a public place with a protected party who mutually consents to violating the NCO right along with you can result in burglary charges.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Burglary, Domestic Violence or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

“Velocity Renormalization” Is Making You Drive Too Fast

The majority of households in North America own at least one car and driving is a daily activity for most people. In fact, driving is so normal that it becomes a routine performed with minimal concentration. And that can lead to all sorts of dangerous actions behind the wheel, like texting, eating, daydreaming. But amid these well-known concerns lies a relatively overlooked phenomenon: velocity renormalization.

WHAT IS “VELOCITY RENORMALIZATION?”

Velocity renormalization, or velocitization, is when your brain adapts to a certain driving speed (like highway speeds) and misjudges other speeds. This makes slower traffic seem extremely slow or makes you feel like you’re crawling when you slow down. The perceptual shift that can affect speed judgment and lead to errors like unintentional speeding or over-braking after exiting a freeway. It’s an adaptation effect where your internal “normal” changes, affecting how you perceive your own speed and that of others, highlighting the need to regularly check your speedometer. 

When drivers leave a highway and have to merge with slower traffic, their perception of normal speed is altered and they often unconsciously misjudge their own speed. This also works in reverse. Someone who was moving slower can perceive a faster speed limit as being higher than it actually is.

THE SCIENCE 

George Mather, a Professor of Vision Science at the University of Lincoln, led a study into this subject, concentrating on the adaptation effect. The study looked into a person’s perceived norms of how fast something goes or should go after having experienced short periods of exposure to different speeds. After watching a slowed-down video of human movement, participants in the experiment were then shown normal speeds, which they perceived to be unnaturally fast. They required the natural-speed video to be slowed down for it to appear “normal”.

THE EFFECT ON DRIVERS

Velocity Renormalization is exactly what happens to a driver’s brain after they drive at a certain speed. In short, they will be prone to misjudging their velocity and, for example, approaching a highway exit ramp too fast. It can take time to mentally make the transition from faster to slower zones (or vice versa). Therefore, it’s important for drivers to double-check their speed when moving from one speed limit to another.

Because driving is so routine and natural for most people, it’s sometimes easy to forget that it’s a dangerous activity involving thousands of pounds of metal moving at high speeds. As Professor Mather’s research shows, drivers are also affected by a variety of effects that can alter their perception. All those factors add up and over 37,000 people die in car crashes in America every year—that’s over 100 a day.

Driving 35 mph, especially after you’ve been on the freeway, feels slow, while 35 mph on a bicycle feels like a bullet train. In a modern luxury car, even 70 mph can feel tedious. There are a few things going on here. Our eyes and our ears provide input for our perception of speed. On the freeway everything is far away, compared to city driving. The shoulders are wide, the road signs are set back, the closest trees might be 50 feet from the edge of the road, the other traffic nearly matches our speed. We don’t have any nearby markers to indicate how fast the world is zipping by. Compare that to when you’ve encountered a freeway work zone with concrete barriers at the edge of your lane. The lane width hasn’t gotten any narrower, but now you’re zooming past objects right next to you, and suddenly it feels too fast.

CAN YOU BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED FOR DRIVING TOO FAST?

Yes. Driving significantly over the limit (often 20-30 mph or more) or too fast for conditions (rain, fog, ice) can elevate a speeding ticket to criminal charges like Reckless Driving. Being convicted of this charge can lead to potential jail time, hefty fines, and license suspension.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Reckless Driving or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

ACLU Maps Out Washington’s Anti-Homeless Criminal Laws By County

The Washington chapter of the ACLU gathered data on how many anti-homeless ordinances exist in Washington state, and how many unsheltered people are subjected to them across each county. They also tracked how many shelter beds are available in these counties. The information is very insightful on how cities and counties in WA state criminalize the homeless.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

In its findings, the ACLU concluded that Washington is facing a severe housing and homelessness crisis. The problem is a direct result of decades of policy failure, housing disinvestment, and growing inequality. Thousands of our neighbors are pushed into homelessness. Rather than addressing root causes, cities are doubling down on punishment. Local governments often respond to visible homelessness by enacting and enforcing laws that criminalize the basic act of existing in public — sleeping, sitting or trying to stay warm.

THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE

In 2024’s City of Grants Pass v. Johnson the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the legality of an Oregon city ordinance that issued tickets to people sleeping in public when there were not enough available shelter beds. The court ruled that cities may punish people for sleeping in public, even when no shelter is available. The decision opened the door to further criminalization of people experiencing homelessness for unavoidable behavior tied directly to their life circumstances— signaling that survival itself can be punished. The case is criticized as undermining human dignity.

MAPPING THE CRISIS

Since this ruling, cities have become further emboldened in criminalizing people experiencing homelessness.

The issue of homelessness is incredibly complex, and the data we collected cannot fully represent the lived experience of those forced to live outside. While numbers are at times reductive and don’t show the whole story, they are a powerful visual tool to help build shared understanding of the pervasiveness of these laws and the crisis we are facing.

DATA GATHERING

The ACLU gathered three main data points:

  1. The Number of Anti-Homeless Ordinances In Each County.
  2. The Number of Unhoused Individuals In Each County.
  3. The Number of Low-Barrier Shelter Beds In Each County.

FINDINGS

Based on its data, the ACLU made the following conclusions:

  1. Access to Shelter And Other Services Varies Widely.
  2. Urban and Rural Counties Experience Similar Rates of Homelesness.
  3. Deep Funding Gaps In The State’s Housing Systems.
  4. Shelter Bed Availability Varies Darmatically By County.
  5. Counties Continue to Pass Anti-Homelessness Laws

CONCLUSION

The ACLU’s findings illustrate how uneven and disconnected Washington state’s homeless response has become. Whether someone can find a shelter bed, or simply exist outside without the threat of punishment, often depends entirely on where they live. Across the state, a clear pattern emerges. Instead of a coordinated, statewide response, Washington has developed a confusing patchwork of local laws that criminalize homelessness and punish people for being poor.

My opinion? Excellent work by the ACLU. Public safety concerns aside, we must remain committed to building a future where all Washingtonians – regardless of their housing status – are treated with dignity, fairness, and humanity. To this end, the ACLU is advocating for a bill which would set a clear and consistent statewide standards for criminal charges levied against houseless population.

The legislation is based on the premise that local governments should not be allowed to adopt or enforce laws that punish people for basic, life-sustaining activities on public property, such as sleeping or resting, unless adequate alternative shelter space is actually available. People should not face punishment simply because they have nowhere else to go. To learn more about the bill and ways to get involved, follow this link.

And please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

City of Bellingham Implements Tax To Fund Public Safety

Bellingham City Council members approved a measure authorizing a sales tax for public safety. Such a tax would cost Bellingham shoppers about 10 cents on a $100 purchase. It’s estimated to raise about $3.9 million for a range of public safety services in 2026.

“If we do not implement this tax, we will have to come up with another way to close that gap,” Deputy City Administrator Forrest Longman told the council during a committee discussion Monday afternoon. “We’ve picked all the low-hanging fruit already.”

HOUSE BILL 2015 

House Bill 2015 is a statewide public safety funding law that allows qualifying cities and counties to impose a new 0.1% sales and use tax option to fund certain public safety efforts.  The legislation also creates a $100 million grant program that is available only to local and tribal law enforcement agencies that can demonstrate compliance with state law.

Sales tax must be used for criminal justice purposes, while the grant can be used for supporting hiring, training, and retaining officers, as well as community-based criminal justice programs in partnership with law enforcement agencies. Jurisdictions that want to impose the 0.1% sales and use tax must meet the grant criteria.

Whether a jurisdiction adopts the sales tax, applies for the grant, or does both, the eligibility criteria are the same. Law enforcement agencies must meet specific policy, training, and data reporting standards outlined in HB 2015 before funding is approved.

DOES THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM QUALIFY TO IMPOSE THE TAX?

Yes, Bellingham is on track to meet all the requirements for imposing the tax by Oct. 3rd. That’s when enough police officers will have completed training in de-escalation techniques, which is among the requirements under the state law that allows cities to impose the tax.

My opinion? Imposing the tax is a step in the right direction. The tax can be used for several programs that fall under the label of public safety. Examples of other programs include domestic violence, public defenders, re-entry work for offenders and crime-reduction measures.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

WA Court Dismisses Criminal Conviction Due To Overbroad Search Warrant

In State v. Hampton, the WA Court of Appeals held a Search Warrant was overbroad because it allows the seizure of evidence related to crimes for which there was no probable cause; in this case, sex crimes.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Law enforcement investigated Mr. Hampton for trafficking in stolen property and controlled substances. During the investigation, officers seized Hampton’s brown briefcase, which contained electronic storage devices. Thereafter, a search warrant authorized law enforcement to search the electronic storage devices and all contents that showed possession of trafficking in stolen property or drugs.

The search requested search and seizure for the following:

“Any data that may be kept on any of the seized digital devices in any format to include but not limited to intact files, deleted files, deleted file fragments or remnants related to the purchase, possession, receipt and distribution of controlled substances and or stolen property.”

When reviewing files from the storage device, law enforcement viewed ten-year-old videos of Hampton engaging in sexual intercourse with his girlfriend, while she was incapacitated. The superior court refused to suppress the videos. A jury convicted Hampton of numerous Sex Offenses. On appeal, Mr. Hampton argued the search warrant was invalid because of its overbreadth.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

In short, the Court of Appeals (COA) agreed with Mr. Hampton that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress. First, the warrant authorized an overbroad and unfettered search of electronic storage devices found in the briefcase. Second, law enforcement exceeded the scope of the authorized search when viewing movie files stored on computer drives without regard to their date or connection to the crimes being investigated.

The COA emphasized that the Fourth Amendment demands in part that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Furthermore, the latter part of this clause requires specificity in a search warrant.  Also, Article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution states, “No person shall be disturbed in their private affairs or have their home invaded without authority of law.”

The COA also analyzed that the particularity requirement of search warrants provides important protection against governmental invasion of privacy. This is because the demand renders general searches impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. The particularity requirement also ensures judicial oversight of the scope of a law enforcement search such that the executing officer lacks unlimited discretion when executing the warrant. The warrant must be based on probable cause of criminal activity and must limit the scope of the search to the probable cause determination.

“Specificity consists of two components: particularity and breadth,” said the COA. “Particularity demands that the warrant clearly state what is sought. Breadth requires the scope of the warrant be limited by the probable cause on which the warrant is based.”

The COA reasoned that the search of Mr. Hampton’s electronic storage devices conducted by Detective Travis Frizzell verifies the impermissible breadth of the search warrant. The police’s search warrant affidavit established probable cause to believe Timothy Hampton and Robert Rogers engaged in a criminal conspiracy to purchase and sell narcotics in 2020, not almost a decade earlier.

“By viewing videos from 2013, Detective Frizzell stepped inside a time machine and outside the confines of probable cause. The State’s argument that the warrant sanctioned Frizzell’s view of the 2013 files defeats its defense of the constitutionality of the warrant. If we ruled that the search warrant limited the search to evidence of possessing stolen property or controlled substances and thereby upheld the validity of the warrant, we would need to rule that Detective Frizzell’s search exceeded the scope of the warrant.” ~WA Court of Appeals

The COA concluded that a court must suppress evidence seized due to an overly broad search warrant. It remanded Mr. Hampton’s case to the superior court for vacation of his convictions and for dismissal of the charges.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving search & seizure issues. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Nitazene: More Potent Than Fentanyl

Nitazenes, a class of synthetic opioids with no approved medical use, are emerging as a serious concern in the United States due to their extreme potency and association with overdose deaths.

WHAT ARE NITAZENES?

Nitazenes (benzimidazole-opioids) are a class of extremely potent novel synthetic opioids. First developed in the 1950s by researchers in Switzerland as an opioid analgesic alternative to morphine, nitazenes were never approved for medical use.

Beginning in 2019, nitazenes emerged more widely on the illicit drug market in Europe. Since then, nitazenes have been identified on nearly every continent, including North America, South America, Asia, and Oceania. Due to their recent emergence, comprehensive data on the spread of nitazenes are not available. Limited data described in this report suggest that nitazene use is a growing trend in North America and that availability is likely spreading across the Americas. As they have emerged across the globe, illicit manufacturers have continuously synthesized new and chemically distinct types of nitazenes. Today, at least 13 different types of nitazenes have been identified.

WHY AND HOW DO PEOPLE USE NITAZENES?

People may use nitazenes for the same reasons that they use other opioids. Nitazene use may be motivated by self-treatment for physical, mental, or emotional disorders. They are also used to experience opioid effects, such as feelings of euphoria, relaxation, sleepiness, and reduced pain. Nitazenes are frequently mixed with or counterfeited as other drugs (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, benzodiazepines, or other synthetic drugs) to increase potency and cut costs. Nitazenes are available in many forms, including pills, powders, and sprays – both in “pure” form and mixed with other drugs.

DANGERS OF NITAZENES

Nitazenes are highly addictive and continued use can lead to dependency. Although studies about nitazene dependence and withdrawal are limited, nitazene withdrawal has a high potential to be severe and painful. Nitazenes can also cause dizziness, nausea, vomiting, disorientation, loss of consciousness, and seizures.

Like other opioids, nitazenes present a high risk of central nervous system or respiratory depression, as well as cardiac arrest. Nitazenes present an especially high risk for overdose and overdose mortality, due to their high potency. Nitazene potency varies significantly, but all nitazenes are much more potent than natural (non-synthetic) opioids, such as morphine.

OVERDOSE STATISTICS

At least 2,000 deaths have been associated with nitazenes nationwide since 2019. For example, Tennessee saw a four-fold increase in nitazene-involved overdose deaths between 2020 and 2021.

NITAZENES IN THE AMERICAS

Regional trends in the opioid epidemic are often first identified in the United States and Canada, including the prior emergence of fentanyl and xylazine. Both countries are recognized as the global epicenters of the opioid epidemic and support robust substance use surveillance systems. Nitazenes were first identified in the street drug supplies of both countries in late 2019 and early 2020. Since then, other findings indicate that nitazene use is continuing to spread on the continent.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

The “Ruse” Tactics of ICE May Violate Constitutional Rights

During the first 100 days of President Donald J. Trump’s second term, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested and deported thousands of illegal aliens. The undocumented immigrants are broadly labelled as criminals who threaten public safety and national security.

Although some undocuments immigrants are criminals, many of them are not. They are  hardworking individuals simply going about their daily lives — working, commuting, and spending time at home with families.

Unfortunately, ICE has used racial profiling and intimidation tactics that instill fear and confusion in communities and stoke mistrust in the police. ICE deploys “ruse” tactics to gain warrantless entry into people’s homes or lure them out. Ruses are a tactic used frequently by ICE in investigating and arresting non-citizens. Since 2013, hundreds of reported raids include those involving ICE’s use of ruses.

WHAT IS AN “ICE RUSE?”

    • Impersonating local law enforcement: ICE agents frequently pose as local police officers, detectives, or probation officers to gain trust or induce individuals to open their doors or cooperate. They might wear plain clothes, wear uniforms labeled “POLICE,” or even vests that resemble local law enforcement uniforms, while concealing any ICE identification.
    • Fabricating investigations: Agents might claim to be investigating a fake crime or a fake crime suspect to identify and locate the targeted individual. They could show a picture of a “suspect” and use a name that matches someone in the household to trick residents into revealing information or letting them inside.
    • Misrepresenting purpose: Agents may request to “take a quick look around” or “come in to talk,” without explicitly stating they are ICE or seeking to make an arrest. This tactic aims to obtain consent to enter the home without the individual realizing they have the right to refuse entry.
    • Using phone ruses: ICE agents may also employ ruses over the phone to locate targets. These could include pretending to be local police asking questions, asking the person to meet them regarding a fake criminal case, claiming to have found a lost ID and needing to arrange a pickup, or contacting them about a court date or updated contact information. 
WHY DO SOME RUSE TACTICS VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
Under the law, police officers, including ICE, can sometimes employ deceptive tactics in investigations, According to the Harvard Law Review, however, these ruses must generally be within legal boundaries and not violate constitutional rights. For instance, without a judicial warrant, ICE agents cannot force entry into a home and rely on trickery or deception to obtain consent, which raises questions about the voluntariness of that consent.
WHAT CAN PEOPLE IN IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES DO TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND DEPORTATION?

In the meantime, people in immigrant communities can defend themselves by knowing their rights. Anybody confronted by law enforcement — whether undocumented or not — can and should do their best to verify the officers’ identity and purpose, document the encounter, and report what happened. Community members who know their rights can lawfully prevent ICE from entering their homes and protect themselves and their loved ones from such deceptive practices. More information in English and Spanish can be found here.

Please review my Search & Seizure Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.