It's generally not illegal for ICE (or government more generally) to request information without a warrant (not having a warrant or other compulsory basis just means people are not legally compelled to acquiesce to the request), and the state consumer protection law at issue neither purports to, nor could it Constitutionally, apply to federal law enforcement agencies.
That baffles me. When a federal agent is in a state, they should be bound to the laws of that state. And additionally, it should be illegal for any government agent, federal, state, or local, to ask someone to do something illegal. How could that constitutionally be otherwise?
See recent attempt in New York by ICE agent that he had a legally enforceable warrant and that his goal of detaining a vehicle occupant was not simply a request. [1]
The ICE officer in this case even quotes a statute that implied the driver might face penalties for not complying with the officer's demands.
Given this behavior, I wonder what the Washington state ICE agents' conversations with the motel employees were like.
This is not the only concerning incident with ICE in Washington state, recently ICE officers boarded a Greyhound bus and demanded a Portland-based comedian and grantee of legal US asylum come off the bus and forced him to show papers. [2]
This one struck home for me because I had seen one of this comedian's performances (an act which includes discussion of race and nationalism issues) not far from where I live a week prior.
The pattern of behavior from ICE is deeply upsetting.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/29/an-activist...
[2] https://www.oregonlive.com/today/2019/01/portland-comedian-s...
But that's not what happened, and let's not pretend like that is what happened.
ICE asked nicely, expecting to be turned down by Motel 6 like most other hotel chains did. But Motel 6 went along with the request without any sort of coercion and in fact in violation of local consumer protection laws prohibiting such data release absent a countervailing legal requirement (such as a subpoena) requiring them to turn over such information.
https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Ano...
And it's a scary kind of coercion because they do have the force of the state backing them up, in a way that plays on our built-in desire to please authority, built-in desire to not rock the boat, and built-in fear of consequences of the crushing weight of the state pummeling down on us.
People generally regard law enforcement with a mix of fear and antipathy, because we know that, despite the checks and balances that exist, they can ruin lives and face no consequence for doing so.
So when ICE comes and asks, however nicely they may actually phrase it (though I don't expect they said "please" and "thank you,"), they're also coming at these hoteliers with a very big stick.
It's just shitty that the hoteliers did, in fact, cave and hand over this data.
If ICE had used any coecion at all to get the guest lists, Motel 6 wouldn't be in trouble with the state of Washington. Motel 6 is in trouble because they violated the law voluntarily.
ICE deals with businesses differently than they deal with individuals. You're all imagining scenarios which did not happen.
> 4.3 ICE's usual practice was to come to Motel 6's reception desk and request the guest list from the receptionist. The receptionist would print out the guest list and give it to the ICE agent, along with a "law enforcement acknowledgment form" for the agent to sign, acknowledging receipt of the guest list. The ICE agent would review the guest list and identify individuals of interest to ICE.
I just don't see any other reason why they might willingly endanger their business and customers for absolutely no benefit to themselves, besides governmental pressure.
Motel 6 didn't just go along with ICE's request, per the complaint, Motel6 actually trained their employees to turn over such information even before ICE came calling.
The reason? Motel 6 is owned by the Blackstone Group. Most of the directors and executives of the Blackstone Group are die-hard Trump supporters and have espoused hard-line views on immigration. The benefit to themselves was supporting their president's policies.
Interesting, well if that was the motive then I certainly can't have any sympathy for Motel 6 here. But I still believe that it is unfair for ICE to go without penalty, whether or not the law addresses this situation.
> per the complaint, Motel6 actually trained their employees to turn over such information even before ICE came calling.
It's not clear to me from the complaint that Motel 6 trained their employees as such prior to any communication from ICE. Your explanation regarding their republican alignment does make sense, but I'm not sure this specific point is accurate.
> Please do some more research before you keep throwing out hypothetical complaints about something that didn't happen.
This is a forum for discussion. It's not Snopes. I just want to share my layperson's opinions and also hear your (and others) expert feedback about them. By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments.
We know that Motel 6 didn't claim their staff were misled into a belief that they were legally compelled, which—even if it wasn't a legal defense, for PR reasons—you'd expect them to do if it was true.
On a related note...the owner of the Motel 6 chain is a die-hard supporter of President Trump and has very conservative views of immigration, which supports the theory that Motel 6 was in the wrong here and ICE was merely taking advantage of their corporate generosity.
(This means complying if they try to arrest you)
As defense attorneys say: you can't beat the ride, but you can beat the rap.
Because the truth is that requiring a warrant won't do the trick. If the cop-like says he doesn't need a warrant I'm going to listen to him. I should always comply in the moment or "we'll do things the hard way". Then afterwards maybe I can sue.
If a cop walks up to you, and says: "Could you do me a favor, and kill Bob for me?" - that's an entirely different thing.
Motel 6 was not coerced into breaking the law. It voluntarily broke the law.
No, because ICE agents are not agents of the State of Washington, and the prosecution was by the State for violations of State law. ICE agents are, in terms of entrapment, no different than ISIS agents would be in this case.
EDIT: Also no, because entrapment is a criminal defense, and this was a civil consumer protection case.
ICE agents have some degree of lawful authority legally vested in them at some level of American governance, so it stands to reason that individuals can make the claim they felt 'required by some law' to do as that agency apparently behoved of them.
Especially if ICE were making statements along the lines of 'you're legally required to do this or that', then there's an issue here.
If they were—which no account of this case I’ve seen has suggested—there is certainly an ethical issue, but not an issue that should negate Motel 6’s liability under the state law at issue here. In fact, if it's employees were not aware of the prohibition on turning the material over without a warrant, and this were susceptible to social engineering indicating that they should do so, that would seem squarely to be Motel 6’s responsibility.
That’s why it’s strange here: ICE are agents of the federal government, who aren’t subject to state laws in the performance of their duty — Washington can’t stop ICE from doing their job, so instead they punish people who cooperate.
An analogy might be that mom and dad are fighting, and now punishing the kids who listen to the other parent.
So someone can act unethically, reap the benefits of it, be caught red-handed, and suffer no consequences.
Sounds like a loophole in the justice system to me. More to the point, now that we've seen it happen once what has been done to prevent it from happening again?
> Sounds like a loophole in the justice system to me.
No, it's the fundamental distinction between what is illegal and what is unethical, which is a bit more than a “loophole”.
It may be that it should be illegal for ICE to ask for certain information outside of the circumstances where it has a warrant, and this may be in that category. Or perhaps ICE should be legally prohibited from asking without a warrant when there is, as here, a state law prohibition on the person they ask giving them the information.
Or maybe the law should just disband ICE.
But none of that is the law now.
ICE only enforce the laws that already exists.
So only two possible parties are at fault here:
1. Congress, if the current laws are bad.
2. Parents, if they are in violation of the law.
Motel 6 violated Washington law by giving information away without a warrant. ICE can ask nicely for data from anyone, but you only have to comply if they have a warrant or subpoena.
Why blame the cops for the arrest of a criminal?
Not saying that has to be the case here, but just because something is against the law doesn't mean breaking it is morally bad.
Also, the phrase "illegal alien" is extremely dehumanizing. These are just people.
plonk
Can I have your stuff? Why not?
"Illegal alien" is a precise legal term which is used to accurately define a legal status. It's like saying that "convicted murderer" is dehumanizing...
I am sure I can find a long list of murderers and rapists that ICE has deported from the country, does opposing ICE mean supporting murderers and rapists?
No, crossing the border illegally is the 'root cause' - not ICE. ICE's shenanigans are an artifact of that.
But yes, it seems weird that a private entity is in trouble for doing what a government agency 'required' of them.
These grey areas really need to be sorted out, it seems the laws are still unclear.
I think there are probably a ton of ways to sort the border out if there weren't so many extreme voices on all of this.
What? I'm pretty sure ICE's actions were what tore those families apart. Why aren't they being punished for illegally requesting the data without a warrant? Maybe the Motel 6 employees who wrongfully gave the data felt pressured, given that ICE is a government agency just like the DOJ?