The arrestee alleges she was assaulted and beaten by a Federal agent; the magistrate, before he will let her post bail, wants her to recant her allegations as a condition of bail.
This seems to me clearly unconstitutional: It’s an order compelling speech, on threat of imprisonment, which would itself normally be a First Amendment violation; but on top of that, it was issued without a trial, and thus without any final factual findings supporting its validity.
I’m aware that, once someone is convicted, courts have considerable latitude to impose speech restrictions as a condition of parole or probation, and might even be able to impose speech compulsions. But that is after someone’s guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. The defendant here hasn’t been convicted of anything; she continues to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Here's a little more, from a different article:
One agent, realizing they did not have a warrant for that address, directed other agents to leave the premises. Then, according to Branson, another agent, the one who allegedly choked Arielle Lipsen, told Branson he had to leave. At that point, Branson asked to see a warrant.
“He said, ’I don’t need to show you a F-----g warrant.’"
Branson said, "I need to see a warrant, based on the fourth amendment…"
"The agent answered ‘Oh you’re a F-----g lawyer now. We can do this the easy way or the hard way and put his finger on the trigger of his M16. That’s when I just backed up,” Branson said.
According to Branson the alleged assault to Lipsen happened in plain view, on the sidewalk in front of a residence.
“It happened outside on the sidewalk, " stated Branson, "She wasn’t even on the property. She was standing on the sidewalk.”
It only gets worse from there. Via Bold witness to alleged abuse by federal agents comes forward.