The ruling in federal court in Minnesota lands as Immigration and Customs Enforcement faces scrutiny over an internal memo claiming judge-signed warrants aren’t needed to enter homes without consent.
Did a judge have to rule on it? It’s in the constitution:
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.
I mean their whole operation is in brazen violation and has been for decades. This breaking into houses is a new extreme but a plain reading should clearly indicate judicial warrants are necessary for all arrests, not just those in the home. No one is talking about this and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
As far as ICE goes, absolutely. They are abusing the carve-out for arrests made during the commission of a crime in order to arrest people on the street who present no danger, by treating someone’s immigration status as being on par with e.g. finding a murder in progress, where immediate arrest is “reasonable” under 4A.
That’s not the legal justification they typically use though (although yes, they do that too). I’m saying so-called administrative “warrants” are constitutionally illegitimate because they authorize a 4th amendment seizure without judicial approval. So even when they were more or less following the rules, they were still violating the constitution. But since the courts OK’d it, no one cares.
Did a judge have to rule on it? It’s in the constitution:
I mean their whole operation is in brazen violation and has been for decades. This breaking into houses is a new extreme but a plain reading should clearly indicate judicial warrants are necessary for all arrests, not just those in the home. No one is talking about this and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
As far as ICE goes, absolutely. They are abusing the carve-out for arrests made during the commission of a crime in order to arrest people on the street who present no danger, by treating someone’s immigration status as being on par with e.g. finding a murder in progress, where immediate arrest is “reasonable” under 4A.
That’s not the legal justification they typically use though (although yes, they do that too). I’m saying so-called administrative “warrants” are constitutionally illegitimate because they authorize a 4th amendment seizure without judicial approval. So even when they were more or less following the rules, they were still violating the constitution. But since the courts OK’d it, no one cares.
Yeah, absolutely.