this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
540 points (98.7% liked)
Crazy Fucking Videos
7969 readers
465 users here now
Dive into the World of Insane Videos!
Rules
- No hate speech of any kind.
- Content warnings are required in post titles where applicable. Example: [CW: Injury]
- Use your best judgement and mark NSFW posts as such.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Alright, so only three of your cited cases even involve Federal LEOs, Drayton and Manjarrez amd Ringold.
But you're devoted to not understanding that difference, as you consistently conflate local, state and federal LEO as if they all play by exactly the same rules, have exactly the same jurisdictions.
You're also sticking to a framework mostly built around what constitutes a permissible search or seizure ... which... is not what we are talking about, we are talking about whether or not federal LEO can approach someone violating a local traffic law, who is otherwise not directly related to the law enforcement action they are presumably (we still don't actually know) undertaking.
And only Cabelles and Ringold, as best I can tell, involves an actual traffic stop, the general context of a check on someone currently in a vehicle.
Drayton? Everyone is already inside a bus. Not federal LEOs dismounting their vehicle with specific intent to approach a citizen in their own vehicle.
Manjarrez? They're detaining someone they suspect is themselves violating or had violated an immigration law, not some unrelated rando.
Ringold? Traffic stop by a federal LEO against a person suspected of violating federal law, not an unrelated rando violating a local traffic law.
Cabelles? No federal LEO involved.
So you're just throwing spaghetti at a wall and hoping some of it will stick.
What you'd have to do is argue that Terry or Hensley just generally apply to all federal LEO, anywhere, all the time, as well as all of the local traffic laws of wherever they currently happen to be.
... Which would functionally formally turn them into the Gestapo, able to stop anyone at any time for any kind of reasonable suspicion of violating any traffic law, potentially any local law, or that they had in the past violated basically any law, ever.
If you passed a bar exam, that's a terrifying indictment of whichever bar you passed.
Yes, any law enforcement officer, can have a consensual conversion with anyone, and both my links support that. That does not make it a Gestapo.
Here's another
"Leaving aside border checkpoints, immigration officers have power to consensually question anyone, just like a police officer does; but to detain someone even briefly they require individualized suspicion that the person is violating the immigration laws," UCLA's Arulanantham says. (Professor from Practice Faculty Co-Director, Center for Immigration Law & Policy)
He did not detain, search or initiate any seizure at first. Her car was already stopped and sitting there, (edit: he didn't pull her over). He did not order her to move or anything like that. She did not seem under the impression that she was detained in the short video we have (edit: and she even thought she was able to leave when she was being detained). He did not block her from leaving. I'm not even sure he said a single word to her at first given the video's we have.
It's only after the 2nd vehicle arrives ~30 seconds later that it becomes a detainment.
Edit: just in case you're going to try and continue this traffic stop stuff and no authority. THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC STOP AT THE START. SHE WAS NOT DETAINED AT THE START. THAT WAS A VOLUNTARY CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER AT THE START.