Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963)

Re:Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963) by mothballed on Monday January 19, 2026 @04:14PM (#46684587)

I've been held ~24 hours by DHS under RAS, it is definitely a thing near the border where they don't need PC to jail you. They put me in jail but I was never under arrest, I later got my federal arrest record and there was nothing. Maybe that was what they were referring to?

Jailing citizens with no warrant nor PC was happening to me under Biden so it's not new either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963) by hn_throwaway_99 on Monday January 19, 2026 @04:19PM (#46684645)

What is RAS?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963) by mothballed on Monday January 19, 2026 @04:21PM (#46684669)

Reasonable articulable suspicion. In my case, an imaginary dog "alerted" an unnamed handler. So that gave them RAS to strip me naked, be jailed, and be made to poop in front of them to ensure there were no drugs that came out.

Contacted several lawyers, nothing to be done, no chance of fighting it. Girl that tried before me, lost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963) by ncr100 on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @02:35PM (#46696703)

Gross!

Seems like it's worthy of being publicized. Sincerely .. as a point of protest.

E.g. "Do you want your children to be forced to poop in front of grown men, as many times as they want her to, and for there to be No Law Against This? Democracy..use it." Or something better?

Accompanied by a video illustrating a naked person pooping in front of satisfied Federal agents, and then a scene with a lawyer saying, "there's nothing you can do to fight having that done to you, lady."

It feels like USA needs a re-think around concentration of power in the Federal side of our government.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963) by estearum on Monday January 19, 2026 @04:38PM (#46684848)

Correct you can be detained based on reasonable suspicion. You cannot be arrested on it. The difference might seem subtle, but 1) it's not, and 2) it certainly shouldn't be to actual DHS officials. It's literally in the text of the Constitution.

And yes, near the border has had shaky Constitutional protections for a long time. To suggest it's "not new" to expand that shakiness across the entire nation, eliminate time constraints on it, then scale up the "immigration" enforcement arm 100x is just laughable though. Of course it's new! It's new in scope, scale, and intensity. That makes it new!

[ Parent | on HN ]