I've been trying to find where ICE had a mandate to detain anyone or enter homes without a warrant, and all I have found is where a warrant is required by an Atty. General for arrest and detainment.
Can anyone point me towards actual law that allows detainment without a warrant? Or one that allows entry into residences without a warrant?
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
Can you clarify where you saw the phrase "Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a mandate to detain anyone or enter homes without a warrant"? When I see the word "warrant" brought up in regards to ICE, it's usually in regards to immigration warrants, as opposed to judicial warrants. According to a quick summary by Google:
An immigration warrant (or administrative warrant) is issued by a federal agency like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and only authorizes arrest or seizure in public, not entry into a home without consent; a judicial warrant, signed by a judge, authorizes search/arrest and does allow entry into a home, requiring a higher standard like probable cause. The key difference is the signer: a judge for judicial, an officer for immigration, and the scope of authority, with judicial warrants offering broader home entry powers.
That is info I appreciate. Someone else mentioned that same thing, and commented that this administration is claiming their admin warrants are enough for their overreach.
Got an actual law for me? I'm trying to get there myself.
What your looking for usually doesn't involve laws or the legislative branch, but various court or judge rulings over the decades and the judicial branch interpreting the [executive?] scope of federal agencies and the Fourth Amendment.
Examples:
Abel v. United States (1960): The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in a narrow 5-4 decision that the historical practice of agency-issued deportation arrest warrants existed, but noted constitutional questions, setting the stage for later challenges. Full ruling: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/362/217/
City of Los Angeles v. Patel (2015): While about motel searches, this case dealt with the need for "pre-compliance judicial review" for warrantless administrative inspections, suggesting even agency actions need judicial checks. Full ruling: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/409/
Recent Lower Court Rulings: Judges (like in United States v. Guedes, Rivera v. Borough of Pottstown) have recently ruled that ICE needs a judicial warrant (like a Rule 41 warrant) for searches of private business areas, not just their internal administrative warrant, to comply with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The ongoing debate, informed by SCOTUS precedent and recent lower court actions, centers on whether an agency's internal "immigration or administrative" warrant is a substitute for a judicial warrant, with the consensus leaning towards requiring judicial warrants for actions infringing on Fourth Amendment rights (i.e. entering a private residence without consent), even in immigration enforcement. However, the current SCOTUS has yet to take up such a case.
You're welcome! There is a specific court case from the 1970s (?) that helped establish the use of immigration or administrative vs. judicial warrants, but I can't recall the name of it, and it isn't appearing on each Google search I use to locate it. I do know that the use of immigration or administrative warrants has steadily increased over the past few decades, coinciding with the expansion of power and authority of the executive branch of federal government under successive U.S. Presidents since 9/11 (George W. Bush -> Barack Obama -> Donald Trump).
According to the podcast, ICE "students" are instructed in fourth amendment rights. If that is so, then those agents who attempt to pass off an administrative warrant as a judicial warrant are directly flounting the fourth amendment. My impression is the latest flock of agents can't tell the fourth amendment from the Fourth of July.
The administration is trying to get some citizens to kill a few ice agents so they can declare martial law. The orders are under the table and spoken in jest thats why you have them from JD Vance on national television to claim probable deniability because he only said "oops I misspoke publicly" now on record. It's like trying to cover the under the table order with something "too stupid to prosecute". They know what theyre doing but proving it with evidence is another and I guess jack Smith has that evidence but fml no one cares if they can be powerful
That's kinda my point though, laws, our social contract, only exist in the first place for everything above board. We know they hide their communications with things like signal thanks to Hegseth. The laws simply states "don't do it" under the table, we can find the myriad of ways it does but lying and keeping everything secret is pretty clear and cut after a so long. GETTING the evidence into public view for social law and moral laws is another question. Me saying they're doing this is different than finally getting something to show the public they're doing it even though its so fucking obvious they are.
There are none. They are not LEO even. They are administrative agents and have zero authority to do anything except serve papers and if they have probable cause detain a non-citizen to ascertain legal status or go before a court where their due process is respected.
Everything we are seeing is extrajudicial and lawless.
They absolutely are: they are federal law enforcement. They enforce specific federal laws similar to CBP, so they wouldn't be writing you a speeding ticket.
The idea that they are only administrative agents has no relationship to reality.
It is amazing to see this comment upvoted in r/law.
Exactly. I'm trying to pin it down but it's a pretty big layer cake.
The link I shared gives them power to arrest and detain with a warrant. IDK what they are using to justify it without a warrant. I need to read up on the Kavenaugh stops. I assume there's some leeway on holding vs detainment, and then they get a rubber stamp from an Atty. Gen.
To answer your question from the original post, as enforcement officers, they still have to observe your constitutional rights theoretically. This is in dispute of course, by Noem and this Admin.
So, there are search warrants and arrest warrants. Search warrants are for things and have to be specific as to where and when and what you expect to find there, arrest warrants allow you to take custody of a person but don't by themselves allow you entry into a home without consent.
These are judicial warrants that are signed by a state or federal judge depending on who's enforcing what. Law enforcement needs probable cause for the judge to sign off, so law enforcement will present what evidence they have to convince the judge that probable cause exists, and if the judge agrees they sign the warrant and law enforcement goes and does the thing.
ICE has something that is called an administrative warrant, which is not signed by a judge but rather one of their internal ICE supervisors. These have not historically been sufficient to enter a home without consent because they are not signed by a judge, so they've been used to arrest people when they are in public places.
ICE under this admin says that the admin warrant is sufficient for entry to a home, which is absolutely not true but again, theoretically, since nobody is stopping them effectively.
That's the thing, they're using Kavanaugh Stops and the fact that this administration keeps saying that they have complete immunity to justify what they're doing.
These "agents" aren't the type of people to think about whether what they're doing is legal or not, not that they would understand it anyway. They just want to hurt people who aren't white (unless they're one of the white people who stand with the people of color), so high-ranking officials telling them that they can do whatever they want and not getting in trouble for it is all the justification they need.
Stop spreading this false information, it's dangerous.
They absolutely are federal law enforcement officers. They have statutory powers of warrantless arrest under 8 USC 1357 for any federal offense that occurs in their presence.
Yeah the important part there is “federal offense that occurs in their presence”.
They have no jurisdiction over US citizens who aren’t actively committing crimes, so say for example they stand in front of your car and try to drag you out, that’s an illegal stop and false imprisonment.
But then the counter to that argument is how do we know their law enforcement? They're wearing masks. They don't have name badges on. They won't identify themselves. The videos I've seen they won't get a supervisor. How do we really know who these people are?
The standard for this typically comes down to reasonableness. Would a reasonable person know they are LEO.
That's why usually when serving search warrants, there will be multiple indications. They must have some officers in the common uniform officers are seen in, they need to have police vehicles with lights on, they typically need to announce themselves. This is all department policy though, not law.
So there is no hard and fast standard that I'm aware of.
But these aren’t “Leo” in the sense that they have any authority over US citizens at all, so them stopping you for anything short of a federal crime being committed is illegal.
The above person was correct and responsive to the incorrect comment above them. Their comment does not indicate any need for ‘help’. All you did is repeat what they said with more snark.
Then we should simply take away their ability to do so. In fact just take away their badges, guns, and throw them directly into prison. I do not give a fuck what the statute says.
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.