Over and over, DHS goons descend on areas where immigrants congregate,
grab every non-white person they encounter,
and drag them away with little regard for their citizenship status.

Then they send out indignant liars like DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin to spew nonsense about how this is all perfectly legal.

“Our officials use reasonable suspicion,” McLaughlin claimed on Fox News,
explaining the standard federal law enforcement officers use to detain people.

“That's protected under the US Constitution 4th Amendment."

❌ But none of that is true.

Unreasonable, improbable, illegal

The Department of Homeland Security ⚠️deliberately confuses "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause"
in hopes that no one will notice that
💥ICE and CBP are making illegal arrests as standard operating procedure.

The #Fourth #Amendment guarantees that
the government cannot arrest a person without "probable cause to believe he or she committed a crime".

It requires a #warrant “supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.”

Law enforcement officers are, however,
allowed to arrest someone without a warrant -- if they witness a crime taking place or in exigent circumstances where the suspect might flee.

In the 1968 case
"Terry v. Ohio",
the Supreme Court granted police the power to
“stop and frisk” people on the street
based on "reasonable suspicion"
— a lower standard than "probable cause".

In #Terry, a police officer in Cleveland observed three men appearing to case a store with the intent to rob it.

He approached the men,
patted them down,
found guns in their coats,
and arrested them for carrying illegally concealed weapons.

One defendant,
John Terry,
challenged the arrest claiming that being patted down violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

In an 8-1 ruling,
the Court held that being stopped and frisked by an officer who has reasonable suspicion of a crime is a “minor inconvenience and petty indignity.”

Justice #William O. #Douglas,
the lone dissenter,
warned that
“to give the police greater power than a magistrate
is to take a long step down the totalitarian path.”

And he was right.

#Terry #stops,
as they came to be known,
were weaponized against Black and brown people,
who are routinely accosted on the street by racist police.

But as bad as
"US v. Terry" is,
👍🔸it didn’t change the requirement that law enforcement officers must have "probable cause" to believe that a specific crime has been committed
— not just "reasonable suspicion"
— for an arrest.

And while DHS agents can take undocumented citizens into custody without a warrant,
⚠️they cannot simply grab people off the street,
throw them in the back of an unmarked vehicle,
and check their citizenship status later.

🆘 But ICE and CBP goons are doing just that, all day, every day,

🔥so DHS has resorted to simply lying about the Constitution itself.

(1/3)
https://www.publicnotice.co/p/dhs-violating-fourth-amendment

Over and over, DHS goons descend on areas where immigrants congregate,
grab every non-white person they encounter,
and drag them away with little regard for their citizenship status.

Then they send out indignant liars like DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin to spew nonsense about how this is all perfectly legal.

“Our officials use reasonable suspicion,” McLaughlin claimed on Fox News,
explaining the standard federal law enforcement officers use to detain people.

“That's protected under the US Constitution 4th Amendment."

❌ But none of that is true.

Unreasonable, improbable, illegal

The Department of Homeland Security ⚠️deliberately confuses "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause"
in hopes that no one will notice that
💥ICE and CBP are making illegal arrests as standard operating procedure.

The #Fourth #Amendment guarantees that
the government cannot arrest a person without "probable cause to believe he or she committed a crime".

It requires a #warrant “supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.”

Law enforcement officers are, however,
allowed to arrest someone without a warrant -- if they witness a crime taking place or in exigent circumstances where the suspect might flee.

In the 1968 case
"Terry v. Ohio",
the Supreme Court granted police the power to
“stop and frisk” people on the street
based on "reasonable suspicion"
— a lower standard than "probable cause".

In #Terry, a police officer in Cleveland observed three men appearing to case a store with the intent to rob it.

He approached the men,
patted them down,
found guns in their coats,
and arrested them for carrying illegally concealed weapons.

One defendant,
John Terry,
challenged the arrest claiming that being patted down violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

In an 8-1 ruling,
the Court held that being stopped and frisked by an officer who has reasonable suspicion of a crime is a “minor inconvenience and petty indignity.”

Justice #William O. #Douglas,
the lone dissenter,
warned that
“to give the police greater power than a magistrate
is to take a long step down the totalitarian path.”

And he was right.

#Terry #stops,
as they came to be known,
were weaponized against Black and brown people,
who are routinely accosted on the street by racist police.

But as bad as
"US v. Terry" is,
👍🔸it didn’t change the requirement that law enforcement officers must have "probable cause" to believe that a specific crime has been committed
— not just "reasonable suspicion"
— for an arrest.

And while DHS agents can take undocumented citizens into custody without a warrant,
⚠️they cannot simply grab people off the street,
throw them in the back of an unmarked vehicle,
and check their citizenship status later.

🆘 But ICE and CBP goons are doing just that, all day, every day,

🔥so DHS has resorted to simply lying about the Constitution itself.

(1/3)
https://www.publicnotice.co/p/dhs-violating-fourth-amendment

Much of cancer’s biological power comes from the fact that to the body, it doesn’t always seem like a pathogen.

Because cancer arises from mutations in each patient’s own DNA, the disease complicates our immune system’s central task of differentiating between body and foreign object,
host and invader,
“self” and “not self.”

Physicians long hypothesized that there was a link between cancer and swelling
—a critical sign that the immune system “sees” an enemy to ward off.

In the 1890s #William #Coley,
now known as the father of #immunotherapy,

successfully spurred remission in patients with inoperable tumors by injecting them with bacteria like those that cause strep throat.

But the mechanisms behind Coley’s treatments were poorly understood,
and for decades after his discovery, researchers weren’t sure our immune systems could detect cancer at all.

Because doctors didn’t know exactly how the body perceives and responds to cancer,
early treatments were highly invasive and highly toxic:

The first tactic was major surgery on the organs where cancer was taking root.

That was followed in the 20th century by the development of systemic radiation and chemotherapy to attack cancer cells throughout the body.

Over time oncologists narrowed and refined these approaches incrementally,
using more precise surgery,
more focused radiation
and chemo that killed fewer normal cells as collateral.

Still, the dream was to harness immunotherapy,
which represented a dramatic departure from the usual tactics in seeking to use the human body’s own systems to go after cancer in a more targeted way.

As demand for COVID vaccines has slackened,
there has been a rush to apply mRNA technology to a long list of illnesses.

The first real proof that immune cells are capable of recognizing tumors didn’t come until the 1950s and 1960s.

Gradually, researchers came to understand that cancer deploys a host of tricks to suppress the immune response to growing tumors.

Some forms of cancer use fibrous tissue called #stroma to construct shields that make it difficult for immune cells to penetrate or attack tumors.

Other cancers take advantage of the balancing act our immune systems are always performing when they decide how heavily to invest the body’s defenses in warding off a given threat.

Some tumors produce proteins that can shut down key immune cells.

Tumors may even recruit immune cells to promote the growth of blood vessels that will supply them with oxygen and nutrients.

As scientists learned more about how cancer manipulates the immune system,
they started identifying ways to thwart it.

Inside our cells, proteins are constantly being chopped up into smaller sequences of amino acids,
some of which are then presented on the cell surface as part of what’s collectively known as
the major histocompatibility complex, or #MHC
—essentially the immune system’s tool for differentiating self and foreign molecules.

Much of cancer’s biological power comes from the fact that to the body, it doesn’t always seem like a pathogen.

Because cancer arises from mutations in each patient’s own DNA, the disease complicates our immune system’s central task of differentiating between body and foreign object,
host and invader,
“self” and “not self.”

Physicians long hypothesized that there was a link between cancer and swelling
—a critical sign that the immune system “sees” an enemy to ward off.

In the 1890s #William #Coley,
now known as the father of #immunotherapy,

successfully spurred remission in patients with inoperable tumors by injecting them with bacteria like those that cause strep throat.

But the mechanisms behind Coley’s treatments were poorly understood,
and for decades after his discovery, researchers weren’t sure our immune systems could detect cancer at all.

Because doctors didn’t know exactly how the body perceives and responds to cancer,
early treatments were highly invasive and highly toxic:

The first tactic was major surgery on the organs where cancer was taking root.

That was followed in the 20th century by the development of systemic radiation and chemotherapy to attack cancer cells throughout the body.

Over time oncologists narrowed and refined these approaches incrementally,
using more precise surgery,
more focused radiation
and chemo that killed fewer normal cells as collateral.

Still, the dream was to harness immunotherapy,
which represented a dramatic departure from the usual tactics in seeking to use the human body’s own systems to go after cancer in a more targeted way.

As demand for COVID vaccines has slackened,
there has been a rush to apply mRNA technology to a long list of illnesses.

The first real proof that immune cells are capable of recognizing tumors didn’t come until the 1950s and 1960s.

Gradually, researchers came to understand that cancer deploys a host of tricks to suppress the immune response to growing tumors.

Some forms of cancer use fibrous tissue called #stroma to construct shields that make it difficult for immune cells to penetrate or attack tumors.

Other cancers take advantage of the balancing act our immune systems are always performing when they decide how heavily to invest the body’s defenses in warding off a given threat.

Some tumors produce proteins that can shut down key immune cells.

Tumors may even recruit immune cells to promote the growth of blood vessels that will supply them with oxygen and nutrients.

As scientists learned more about how cancer manipulates the immune system,
they started identifying ways to thwart it.

Inside our cells, proteins are constantly being chopped up into smaller sequences of amino acids,
some of which are then presented on the cell surface as part of what’s collectively known as
the major histocompatibility complex, or #MHC
—essentially the immune system’s tool for differentiating self and foreign molecules.