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.
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.
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.