Why Knowing Your Rights Isn't Enough

0:00After my daughter attended an ICE protest at her school, I found myself doing what I always do when things feel uncertain, going back to the law. Today, I walk through what immigration enforcement agents can legally do, how constitutional protections still apply, and how families and communities can prepare. Because knowing your rights is important, but sometimes it isn't enough. Welcome to the Death Readiness Podcast. This is not your dad's estate-plidden podcast. I'm Jill Mastriani, former state attorney, current realist, and your guide through wills, trusts, probate, and the conversations no one wants to have. If your Google search history includes, do I need a trust? What exactly is probate? And am I supposed to do something with mom's will? You're in the right place. During dinner last Friday night, my husband and I each received an automated call

1:00from our daughter's school, saying she had missed second period. So I asked April which class she had second period. Then I asked if she had gone to class that day. She hadn't. Instead, she told us she had attended an ICE protest organized by students at her school. I asked what exactly she was protesting. She said she and the other students wanted to make sure the students in her school were protected from ICE. Earlier that week, we had received an email from the superintendent explaining new district protocols for responding to federal immigration enforcement agents, including keeping agents outside school buildings while identification and purpose were verified, and directing immigration and customs enforcement, ICE, or customs and border protection agents to the district's central office, to meet with legal counsel and local law enforcement. If federal agents do not comply with these steps, the school will go into lockdown mode as if an intruder were trying to enter the building.

2:02My husband and I had been following the national conversation about immigration enforcement closely. But in that moment, I realized we hadn't actually talked with April about it in a meaningful way. So we sat down together as a family. My husband explained that she had engaged in an act of civil disobedience, intentionally and non-violently breaking the rule to protest something she believed was unjust, and to call attention to the need for change. The rules she broke was missing class. The change she wanted was to keep ICE out of her school. Later that night, we watched a Zoom presentation from a local organization about how community members respond to increase federal enforcement activity in our area. I left that presentation realizing something about myself. When issues feel emotionally charged and uncertain, I need to slow things down and understand the legal framework underneath them.

3:03Not because the moment isn't urgent, but because informed action requires understanding. That's what today's episode is about. I want to walk through the law carefully and methodically. So you can understand what rights like the right to protest or protect community members actually exist, where the uncertainty lies, and how to think about your own next steps based on your circumstances. I encourage you to seek more information beyond this podcast. My hope is that this episode gives you a grounded place to begin. I'm starting today's episode with the concern that led to April's act of civil disobedience. She wanted to keep ICE out of her school. That brings us to a basic question that turns out isn't so basic. Who is ICE? US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE is a federal law enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security.

4:04It is responsible for enforcing federal laws related to immigration, customs, trade, and border security. ICE was created as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. Customs and border protection existed in many forms throughout US history, but was reorganized as part of the Department of Homeland Security after the September 11th attacks. When I use the term ICE today, you can assume that I'm referring to both ICE and customs and border protection. But here's where things get confusing. ICE enforcement actions are not always carried out by federal agents alone, which brings me to another question. Can state and local governments be conscripted into service to enforce federal immigration law? No, they cannot. But they can choose to cooperate. That cooperation happens through Section 287G

5:06of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into agreements with ICE and perform certain immigration enforcement functions under federal supervision. The first 287G agreement was signed in 2002 with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The number of agreements grew during the Bush administration, continued during the Obama administration, expanded under the first Trump administration, and remained in place during the Biden administration, although no new agreements were created. Then, on January 20th, 2025, the first day of the second Trump administration, Trump signed an executive order that called for expanding 287G agreements nationwide. Since then, the federal government has made participation easier, creating templates for agreements and a public map of participating jurisdictions.

6:07Federal funding is also expected to reimburse local agencies for costs associated with detaining undocumented individuals. So, while the federal government cannot force local officers to enforce immigration law, it can make cooperation easier and more attractive. The idea that the federal government cannot commandeer state officials is rooted in constitutional federalism. In Prince V. United States, the Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot compel state officers to enforce federal law. In Prince, law enforcement officers in Montana and Arizona filed actions challenging the provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required the Attorney General to command law enforcement officers of each local jurisdiction to conduct background checks and perform related tasks on an interim basis until the national system became operative.

7:07The court held that this interim provision requiring local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks was unconstitutional because it violated the principle of state sovereignty by compelling state officers to administer a federal regulatory program. But what does that mean in practice? It means that even if federal authorities want to carry out enforcement actions related to protests or immigration, they cannot require state or local officers to participate. This rule limits federal enforcement capacity and serves as one form of protection for protesters and communities. Now that we understand who ICE is and who might be acting on ICE's behalf, let's get back to April's concern about ICE agents at her school. To understand that concern, we need to rewind a bit. Four decades, the Department of Homeland Security maintained guidance instructing ICE

8:07to avoid conducting enforcement actions in certain places. These were often called, quote, sensitive locations. In 2021, the Biden administration expanded that guidance. The list of sensitive locations included schools, hospitals, places of worship, playgrounds, social service organizations, disaster response sites, funerals, weddings, and even demonstrations and rallies. The guidance also discouraged enforcement actions near those protected places like sidewalks, entrances, and parking lots. The policy was designed to prevent immigration enforcement from creating barriers to basic services and community participation. In other words, there was a longstanding policy, not a law, but a policy, designed to keep immigration enforcement away from places where people gather for education, care, worship, and community life.

9:09Then, on January 20th, 2025, that policy changed. On that day, the second Trump administration revoked what had become known as the sensitive locations guidance. That meant ICE was no longer restricted by internal policy from conducting immigration enforcement actions in places like schools. The replacement directive was brief. It said officers should use, quote, discretion and, quote, a healthy dose of common sense. Later that year, in a September 9th, 2025 press release, the Department of Homeland Security said it was, quote, setting the record straight. Stating that quote, ICE does not raid or target schools, while also emphasizing that the new directive allows officers to enter those spaces if necessary to do their jobs. So where does that leave us? If agency guidance can change from one administration to the next, what legal protections actually remain?

10:11To answer that question, we have to go back much further than agency memos or presidential administrations. We have to go back to the Constitution. Specifically, the Bill of Rights. Today, we're going to walk through several amendments, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, the sixth amendment, and the second amendment. Normally, reading constitutional texts allowed on a podcast would feel a bit too dense. But today, I want us to start from the same foundation. So here's the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. And 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.

11:14So how does the fourth amendment apply to schools? The fourth amendment protects everyone from unreasonable searches and seizures. That protection doesn't disappear just because immigration enforcement is involved. I still need legal authority to enter private spaces. The fourth amendment protects areas where people have a, quote, reasonable expectation of privacy. In a school setting, areas open to the public, like parking lots, are generally considered publics. But classrooms, administrative offices, and areas marked private are different. Those are private spaces. To enter a private space, ICE typically needs consent or a valid judicial warrant signed by a judge. And that brings us to an important distinction. There are two different kinds of warrants you may hear about, judicial warrants, and administrative warrants. A judicial warrant is issued

12:15by a judicial court and signed by a judge or magistrate judge. Courts that issued judicial warrants are both state and federal courts, such as a superior court of California or a US district court. It can authorize a search, a seizure, or an arrest. An administrative warrant, by contrast, is issued by a federal agency, usually the Department of Homeland Security, and is signed by an immigration officer or immigration judge. Immigration judges are actually part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. And here's the crucial difference. An administrative warrant does not authorize a search or entry into private space. Let me say that again, because it matters. An administrative warrant does not allow ICE to enter your home, a classroom, or any private area without consent. It may allow an arrest in public, but it does not allow entry into private spaces.

13:17If you want to know how to tell the difference between a judicial warrant and an administrative warrant, I'll link two examples in the show notes from the National Immigration Law Center. But here are a few things to look for. A judicial warrant is issued by a judicial court, is signed by a state or federal judge or a magistrate judge, lists a specific address or location, and includes a time frame for execution. If any of those elements are missing, or if, for example, the address is incorrect or the time frame for execution has passed, the warrant is likely not valid. An administrative warrant is issued by DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, or another federal agency. It is signed by an immigration officer or immigration judge. It references immigration law, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act, rather than a court order. And if a document has those characteristics,

14:19it likely does not authorize entry into a private space. Without a valid judicial warrant, you may refuse consent and ask agents to leave. So what does this mean in simple terms? It means that ICE generally needs a judicial warrant or consent to enter your home or other private spaces. And then what are ICE's powers? ICE can enter public spaces like school parking lots without a warrant. But to enter private spaces like classrooms or offices, they need consent or a judicial warrant. So what can public schools do? Honestly, schools can do exactly what April school is doing. They can understand the difference between public and private areas, train staff on how to respond if ICE agents arrive, and designate one person, ideally legal counsel to review any warrants. Those steps don't prevent enforcement, but they ensure the school understands the law and responds appropriately.

15:19Now let's talk about something else that matters if ICE is present in a public space. Can agents stop anyone they choose? Not exactly. ICE like other law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion to stop someone. So what is reasonable suspicion? The Fourth Amendment allows officers to briefly stop and question someone if they have specific, articulable facts suggesting that the person is involved in illegal activity. It's more than a hunch, but less than probable cause. For example, if someone is pacing outside a closed door late at night and repeatedly looking into the windows, an officer might reasonably suspect a planned break-in and stop the person to ask questions. But reasonable suspicion alone does not allow a full search, unless there is a safety concern like reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. The principal comes from the Supreme Court's 1968 decision in Terry V. Ohio,

16:20which allows a limited stop and frisk when an officer reasonably believes someone may be armed or dangerous. But the meaning of reasonable suspicion is being actively debated right now. A recent case involving the Department of Homeland Security, known V. Perdomo, illustrates that tension. In July, a federal district court in California issued a temporary restraining order preventing federal officials from stopping people based on factors like apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish, or speaking English with an accent, being in certain locations, or working certain jobs. The Justice Department appealed. The case reached the United States Supreme Court, which issued a stay, meaning the restrictions on the Justice Department are paused while the case moves forward in the ninth circuit. That dispute raises a deeper constitutional question. What counts as a reasonable suspicion in immigration enforcement? Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in this case referenced a 1975 decision,

17:21allowing border patrol agents near the southwest border to consider, quote, Mexican appearance as one factor among many when determining reasonable suspicion. He said that officers may consider things like location, type of work, language ability, and apparent ethnicity when evaluating immigration violations. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence did not explain how agents would assess language ability or determine ethnicity during an encounter. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan and Jackson, strongly disagreed. Justice Sotomayor's descent warned that the court's order permits officials to target people who, quote, look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. That disagreement shows how complicated reasonable suspicion can be in practice, but stops are only part of the story. Arrest requires something more, probable cause.

18:22Ice may arrest someone with probable cause or with an administrative warrant. So what is probable cause? Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe that unlawful activity has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur. It's a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion allows a stop. Probable cause allows an arrest to warrant or sometimes a search. Here's a simple example. If an officer pulls someone over for running a red light and smells alcohol coming from the car and sees an open beer bottle in the passenger seat, that officer likely has probable cause to conduct sobriety testing and potentially make an arrest. Probable cause requires evidence, observations, physical proof, or reliable information, not just suspicion. And that raises another important question. Why does it sometimes look like people are being arrested without warrants or probable cause?

19:22On January 28th, 2026, Todd Mines, the Acting Director of ICE, issued a memorandum to ICE personnel addressing warrantless arrests under federal immigration law. That law allows agents to make arrests without a warrant, if they believe someone is undocumented and quote likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Historically, ICE interpreted likely to escape to mean someone who might not appear for immigration proceedings, essentially someone considered a flight risk, such as failing to appear for court hearings, but that understanding has been under strain. In recent months, ICE has arrested individuals at or near their own immigration hearings, moments when they are by definition showing up to comply with the legal process. The January 2026 memo significantly brought in the interpretation of likely to escape. Under the new guidance, a person may be considered likely to escape if an officer believes the person

20:22may not remain at the scene of the encounter long enough for an administrative warrant to be obtained. But the Fourth Amendment doesn't just regulate when someone can be arrested, it also regulates how arrests are carried out. That includes the use of force. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and courts treat physical force during an arrest as a type of seizure. So when does force become unreasonable or excessive? Force is considered excessive when it is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, not with hindsight. Courts typically look at these three factors. The severity of the suspected crime, whether the person poses an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether the person is resisting or attempting to flee. This analysis is objective.

21:23It focuses on what a reasonable officer would do in the same situation, not what a specific officer intended. And this isn't theoretical. On January 7th, 2026, Renee Good, age 37, was fatally shot in Minneapolis by an ICE agent. An independent autopsy commissioned by her family, found that she had been shot three times. In the head, the right side of her chest, and her forearm. Just over two weeks later, on January 24th, Alex Pretti, also age 37, was shot and killed in Minneapolis after federal agents fired ten times while he was on the ground and overpowered. His death was ruled a homicide by the County Medical Examiner. That's two fatal encounters with federal agents in the same city in the same month. Is this new? The frequency and location is new, but not the actions. A 1997 report from regional advisory committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

22:24documented a 1992 incident in Arizona in which a border patrol agent fired 12 shots at an unarmed man fleeing toward Mexico, striking him twice in the back. The man later died. Last spring, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concluded that the 2010 death of Anastasia Hernandez Rojas, who was beaten, kicked, and repeatedly tased by border patrol agents, violated his human rights. But years earlier, in a November 2015 press release, the Justice Department announced that federal prosecutors had determined there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal civil rights charges. So why did two fatal incidents happen so close together in Minneapolis? Daniel Altman, who led investigations for Customs and Border Protection's Office of Professional Responsibility between 2019 and 2025, has said that some of the most violent incidents occur when agents are placed in unfamiliar, chaotic situations.

23:24As he put it, situations can, quote, spin out of control and lead to bad outcomes. Concerns about accountability are not new either. A government accountability office report from the early 1990s found that understaffing and management problems with the immigration and naturalization service, which then included border patrol, made it difficult to investigate complaints against agents. Those accountability questions become even more complicated when force escalates in constitutional rights intercept. And that brings me back to Alex Prety and to another constitutional issue, the Second Amendment. One of the more striking responses to Prety's killing was the suggestion that the shooting was justified, or at least understandable because he had a firearm on his person. But multiple analyses concluded that Prety had been disarmed and never brandish the weapon or threatened officers with it. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized an individual's right

24:24to possess firearms under the Second Amendment, subject to certain limits that are not an issue here. That right does not disappear simply because a person is present at a protest. Mr. Prety had a permit. He was lawfully carrying the firearm. And if the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm, the federal government cannot claim the power to use lethal force simply because someone has a firearm on their person. The Fifth Amendment is also relevant here. It provides that no person shall quote be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That principle complements the Fourth Amendment, together they reflect a core constitutional principle. The government cannot take away someone's life or liberty without lawful process. If the government believes someone has committed a crime, the Constitution provides a path, investigation, arrest, charges, and trial. I have seen efforts to justify

25:24Mr. Prety's killing based on an earlier encounter with ICE officers 11 days before his death. Both 11 days prior to Mr. Prety's death and on the date of his death, the officers had the same legal tools available to them, arrest, charge, and prosecute. The Fifth Amendment exists precisely to prevent federal agents from acting as judge, jury, and executioner. So what can you do? Most of us think of the Fifth Amendment as the right to remain silent, the right not to incriminate ourselves. But another part of the Fifth Amendment matters here too. No person can be held to answer a very serious federal crime unless a grand jury issues an indictment. That safeguard still matters. In one recent case, federal prosecutors tried three separate times to obtain an indictment against Sydney Laurie Reed, a woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent during a protest against immigration officials in Washington, D.C.

26:24Each time, the grand jury refused to indict her for felony assault on a law enforcement officer. You might remember Sean Dunn, the former Justice Department paralegal, charged after throwing a wrapped subway sandwich at a federal officer in Washington, D.C. A federal grand jury rejected the felony assault on law enforcement charge, and when the case went to trial on a misdemeanor charge, the jury refused to convict. In something called jury nullification, jurors can decline to convict, even if they believe a law may technically have been broken because they believe the prosecution itself is unjust or disproportionate. And who serves on juries? We do. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a public trial before an impartial jury, along with the right to legal counsel. If the federal government charges a protester with a crime, it must persuade a jury of ordinary citizens. That's another constitutional safeguard, one that places the community

27:25directly into the justice process. But constitutional safeguards don't eliminate risk. They shape what happens after an encounter with the legal system begins. And those safeguards apply more broadly than many people realize. Constitutional protections like due process and equal protection apply to all persons, not just US citizens. That includes both documented and undocumented immigrants. If you are at risk of deportation, detention, or arrest, preparation matters, I'm going to include a link in the show notes to an immigration safety plan created by legal counsel for youth and children. It's a community resource designed to help parents plan for the care of their children if they are detained or deported. Make sure your important documents are organized and accessible. IDs, passports, birth certificates, marriage documents, medical records, immigration documents, including your A number, the letter A followed by eight or nine numbers,

28:26and powers of attorney. Make sure a trusted person knows where these documents are and can access them if necessary. Have a plan with that person in case of arrest, detention, or deportation. And if you have an attorney, memorize their phone number and make sure your trusted person has that contact information too. Preparation doesn't prevent difficult situations, especially when they're in a chaos when they happen. And moments like this often force people to ask a deeper question about what finally pushes a community to act. I want to circle back to Alex Predie's murder. Many of you might feel that Mr. Predie's killing was the last straw. Khalil Green, known as the Gen Z historian, wrote recently that there is no single last straw. He pointed to a long list of names, Rodney King, Amidu Diallo, Sean Bell, Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice,

29:26Walter Scott, Freddie Gray, Philando Castile, Brianna Taylor, George Floyd, Tyree Nichols, and Sonya Massey. Moments that were each supposed to be turning points. Green writes, quote, that the fight for accountability and the right to exist in violence is not a sprint. It's a marathon that may never have a finish line. I've given you a lot of information today. Being arrested or charged can carry enormous personal costs, even when the legal system ultimately clears someone's name. And the harms that occurred during confrontations with law enforcement can linger long after the headlines fade. But the Constitution still places limits on government power. Those limits are not enforced by courts alone. They are enforced by citizens, communities, and collective action. The government may not always follow the law, but the law still gives people

30:26a way to push back. Last Friday, my daughter Miss Second Period to protest something she believed was unjust. As her parent, I want her to be safe. As someone who believes in the Constitution, I also want her to understand it. Because knowing your rights doesn't eliminate risk, but understanding them helps you decide how to act and why. And sometimes that understanding is the difference between reacting and fear, and acting with purpose. Thanks for listening today. This is Death Readiness. Real, messy, and yours to own. I'm Jill Masteryani, and I'm here to help you sort through it, especially when you don't know where to start. Hi, I'm April Jill's daughter. Thanks for listening to the Death Readiness Podcast. While my mom isn't a attorney, she's not your attorney. The Death Readiness Podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. For legal guidance,

31:26Taylor Shireen needs situation, consult a license attorney in North State. To learn more about the services my mom offers, visit deathreadiness.com. Thanks for listening.