Know Your Rights in Encounters with Law Enforcement and Military Troops

Washington, D.C. is in the middle of an emergency manufactured by President Donald Trump to expand his power and create fear in the nation’s capital.

On August 11, President Trump invoked a provision of the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 and temporarily placed the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under federal control for 30 days, saying he would allow the police to “do whatever the hell they want.” At the same time, he deployed nearly 1000 D.C. National Guard troops and almost as many federal law enforcement agents to patrol the streets. Since he declared this false emergency, Republican governors from six states have sent their National Guard troops to D.C. as well.

For the more than 700,000 people who call D.C. home — and the many more who visit the capital every day — the federal government’s militarized presence is impossible to ignore. Armed National Guard troops are stationed in metro stations, at parks, and on popular streets filled with bars and restaurants, costing taxpayers an estimated $1 million a day. Police checkpoints manned by unidentified federal agencies are popping up across the city, waiting to catch someone who doesn’t have a seatbelt on. Armored military vehicles run red lights and cause accidents in quiet neighborhoods, while heavily-armed, often masked federal agents violently arrest people who are immigrants, and people of color while refusing to identify themselves or provide any information to the bystanders trying to help.

Recently, The Washington Post reported that President Trump plans to deploy military troops and federal agents to Chicago this September, and he has threatened to do the same in Baltimore, New York City, Oakland, and San Francisco, disregarding state and local officials who have loudly proclaimed that this would be unwanted and unjustified.

At the ACLU, we are making clear to Congress that troops do not belong on our streets and urging Congress to pass the VISIBLE Act, which would ban federal agents from hiding their identities. We also know that no matter what agency someone is with—whether federal or local, law enforcement or the military—the Constitution constrains how government employees can treat us.

If you’re in a city where law enforcement or military troops are present, it’s important to know your rights. If you are stopped on the street, you may ask, “Am I free to go?” If the answer is “yes,” you are free to walk away. If arrested or detained, you have the right to remain silent. In certain circumstances, you can also refuse searches of your belongings or car. If you witness or document police or military activity, you generally have the right to record in public spaces as long as you do not interfere with law enforcement activity.

If asked about your immigration status, you can remain silent, though if you are not a U.S. citizen, the law may require you to carry with you and provide specific immigration documents for your specific immigration status when an immigration agent requests your immigration papers. If you do not have these papers or if you choose to remain silent regarding immigration or citizenship status, an immigration officer might detain you for longer to verify this information. There may also be immigration and other legal consequences if you make this choice. Never lie or present false documents.

The threats to our rights and safety are real, but so is our power and resilience. Knowing our rights is critical to how we hold power accountable. For a full list of your rights when stopped by law enforcement or military police in D.C., see our Know Your Rights resource or join us for a training on September 5.

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog