"Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches."
"The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities."
"The shift comes as the Trump administration dramatically expands immigration arrests nationwide, deploying thousands of officers under a mass deportation campaign that is already reshaping enforcement tactics in cities such as Minneapolis."
"For years, immigrant advocates, legal aid groups and local governments have urged people not to open their doors to immigration agents unless they are shown a warrant signed by a judge. That guidance is rooted in Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering a home without judicial approval. The ICE directive directly undercuts that advice at a time when arrests are accelerating under the administration’s immigration crackdown."[1]
This is *exactly* the kind of things those of us protesting ICE for violating existing laws and the US Constitution are complaining about.
Looking forward to reading apologists' explanations on why the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to the US gov't anymore...
From Shipwreckedcrew: (This is a not a continuous quote. It has a lot of gaps and skips. I would not be comfortable copying any more but it demonstrates Shipley’s argument. Wish I could do better.)
“In 1914 the Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in Weeks v. United States. I’ll just cut to the chase — the Court held:
We therefore reach the conclusion that the letters in question were taken from the house of the accused by an official of the United States, acting under color of his office, in direct violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant; that, having made a seasonable application for their return … the court should have restored these letters to the accused. In holding them and permitting their use upon the trial, we think prejudicial error was committed.
Hence was created the modern “Exclusionary Rule” pursuant to which evidence that a Court finds to have been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in any subsequent criminal trial of the person whose rights were violated in the seizure of the evidence
As a court-made rule, it’s application is limited to situations where a criminal prosecution follows the illegal seizure, with the defendant’s liberty at stake and due process rights apply, and the prosecution intends to use illegally seized evidence. The Court abates the consequences of the illegal seizure by not allowing the evidence to be presented to the jury during the trial. This both safeguards the Because the only purpose of the search is to gain physical custody over the alien and not to search for or seize evidence, DHS’s legal argument is that DHS Officers may enter a residence when their only purpose for doing so is arrest the alien subject to a final Order of Removal. Because the alien has no further due process rights, is not being punished by imprisonment, and has no lawful right to remain in the country, Fourth Amendment considerations are moot.
Illinois and Frisbie v. Collins — states that a defendant who was taken into custody via an illegal arrest is not entitled to have the criminal case against him dismissed as a remedy. If the charges were validly brought, when the defendant appears before the Court the case must proceed. Any evidence seized in the course of an illegal arrest might be suppressed, but the defendant’s body cannot be similarly suppressed and the case goes forward.
In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, the Supreme Court applied Ker-Frisbie to immigration proceedings. But the Court’s Opinion in Lopez-Mendoza includes a significant number of passages that are relevant to the Administration’s aggressive enforcement of immigration law against the millions of illegal aliens allowed into the country by the Biden Administration’s “open borders” policy. I have edited these passages down to the greatest degree possible while leaving in the many distinctions recognized by the Court between civil deportation hearings and criminal trials.
A deportation proceeding is a purely civil action to determine eligibility to remain in this country, not to punish an unlawful entry, though entering or remaining unlawfully in this country is itself a crime…. The deportation hearing looks prospectively to the respondent’s right to remain in this country in the future.….….
The BIA correctly ruled that "[t]he mere fact of an illegal arrest has no bearing on a subsequent deportation proceeding."….
I’m not advocating anything. I’m simply providing a “lawsplainer” on what the law actually is as it is applied in courtrooms across the country on a daily basis. I point out and explain why some of the online and social media commentary by people who claim to know what they are talking about is really just nonsense being pushed out by poseurs.
For an illegal alien with a final Order of Removal, the only action left to take is to transport the alien out of the country, and the Supreme Court recognized in Lopez-Mendoza the societal costs that would be imposed if courts were to bring a halt to the process over a claimed violation of the Fourth”
You've excerpted enough for me to see the relevant cases cited. It seems like the question largely hinges on whether the US gov't KNOWS that a *specific* suspect is present in a house for the purposes of detention. If the gov't does not KNOW that a suspect is in the house, then the forceable entry becomes a search (and not a detention) which would trigger the Fourth Amendment protections that the gov't would then be violating (under these cases).
I'll be interested to dig into INS v. Lopez-Mendoza to see SCOTUS treats looking for a suspect in a place the same as detaining them (allowed) or a search (not allowed).
The Justia summary of INS v. Lopez-Mendoza[1] also includes "Third, the INS has its own comprehensive scheme for deterring Fourth Amendment violations by its agents." as a mitigating factor - I'll be interested to see if the ruling cites elements of that scheme and whether any cited elements remain active in this case 40 years later.
Found the details of the INS scheme in question (same Justia link as above):
"Third, and perhaps most important, the INS has its own comprehensive scheme for deterring Fourth Amendment violations by its officers. Most arrests of illegal aliens away from the border occur during farm, factory, or other workplace surveys. Large numbers of illegal aliens are often arrested at one time, and conditions are understandably chaotic. See Brief for Petitioner in INS v. Delgado, O.T. 1983, No. 82-1271, pp. 3-5. To safeguard the rights of those who are lawfully present at inspected workplaces the INS has developed rules restricting stop, interrogation, and arrest practices. Id. at 7, n. 7, 32-40, and n. 25. These regulations require that no one be detained without reasonable suspicion of illegal alienage, and that no one be arrested unless there is an admission of illegal alienage or other strong evidence thereof. New immigration officers receive instruction and examination in Fourth Amendment law, and others receive periodic refresher courses in law. Brief for Petitioner 39-40. Evidence seized through intentionally unlawful conduct is excluded by Department of Justice policy from the proceeding for which it was obtained. See Memorandum from Benjamin R. Civiletti to Heads of Offices, Boards, Bureaus and Divisions, Violations of Search and Seizure Law (Jan. 16, 1981). The INS also has in place a procedure for investigating and punishing immigration officers who commit Fourth Amendment violations. See Office of General Counsel, INS, U.S. Dept. of Justice, The Law of Arrest, Search, and Seizure for Immigration Officers 35 (Jan.1983). The INS's attention to Fourth Amendment interests cannot guarantee that constitutional violations will not occur, but it does reduce the likely deterrent value of the exclusionary rule. Deterrence must be measured at the margin."
(Blame SCOTUS for the wall of text.)
Curtis - did Bill Shipley go into any details about how the 1984 INS scheme to prevent Fourth Amendment violations lined up with the 2026 DHS scheme (if one actually exists)? It seems like 1984 SCOTUS justified their decision on policies and procedures that do not actually exist in 2026.
"We do not condone any violations of the Fourth Amendment that may have occurred in the arrests of respondents Lopez-Mendoza or Sandoval-Sanchez. Moreover, no challenge is raised here to the INS's own internal regulations. Cf. INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210 (1984). ***Our conclusions concerning the exclusionary rule's value might change if there developed good reason to believe that Fourth Amendment violations by INS officers were widespread.*** Cf. United States v. Leon, ante at 468 U. S. 928 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring). Finally, we do not deal here with egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness and undermine the probative value of the evidence obtained. [Footnote 5] Cf. Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952). At issue here is the exclusion of credible evidence gathered in connection with peaceful arrests by INS officers. We hold that evidence derived from such arrests need not be suppressed in an INS civil deportation hearing."
(Emphasis added.)
The question then becomes what is "widespread"? Assuming that we haven't crossed that threshold already, then how many no-warrant forced entries will we tolerate before we acknowledge widespread Fourth Amendment violations?
I find it interesting that Mr. Thornton characterizes the 2020 election as "Trump trying to steal" it, when he should have said that Biden ACTUALLY stole it.
It shouldn’t surprise you. That claim has been thoroughly debunked. There no more evidence of it after Trump has been office for a year than there was in 2020.
I’ll admit I didn’t read the full article. Your re-hashing of liberal talking points had me bored at best. I was unimpressed by your assumption that folks from Alabama would be unwelcoming to peaceful monks. Where does a person like you get that kind of mis-guided ideology?? The south is more welcoming than any place in the country. Try visiting it some time.
I think ill unfollow so you dont waste my time anymore
As you may have gathered from the fact that I saw the monks in Alabama, I have visited numerous times. In fact, I live on the border.
That observation wasn’t intended only for Alabama, but the entire route of the monks. I’ve lived my entire life in the south where they are walking. In fact, I’ve lived in six different southern states. I know of what I speak.
ICE treating the US Constitution as optional:
"Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches."
"The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities."
"The shift comes as the Trump administration dramatically expands immigration arrests nationwide, deploying thousands of officers under a mass deportation campaign that is already reshaping enforcement tactics in cities such as Minneapolis."
"For years, immigrant advocates, legal aid groups and local governments have urged people not to open their doors to immigration agents unless they are shown a warrant signed by a judge. That guidance is rooted in Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering a home without judicial approval. The ICE directive directly undercuts that advice at a time when arrests are accelerating under the administration’s immigration crackdown."[1]
This is *exactly* the kind of things those of us protesting ICE for violating existing laws and the US Constitution are complaining about.
Looking forward to reading apologists' explanations on why the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to the US gov't anymore...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d
The Supremes can rule their feelings at any time so it's no sure thing. Here's one knowledgeable argument that you claim to be looking forward to.
https://open.substack.com/pub/shipwreckedcrew/p/lawsplainer-warrantless-searches?r=d2084&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The argument's past the paywall for me - what's the gist of it?
From Shipwreckedcrew: (This is a not a continuous quote. It has a lot of gaps and skips. I would not be comfortable copying any more but it demonstrates Shipley’s argument. Wish I could do better.)
“In 1914 the Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in Weeks v. United States. I’ll just cut to the chase — the Court held:
We therefore reach the conclusion that the letters in question were taken from the house of the accused by an official of the United States, acting under color of his office, in direct violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant; that, having made a seasonable application for their return … the court should have restored these letters to the accused. In holding them and permitting their use upon the trial, we think prejudicial error was committed.
Hence was created the modern “Exclusionary Rule” pursuant to which evidence that a Court finds to have been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in any subsequent criminal trial of the person whose rights were violated in the seizure of the evidence
As a court-made rule, it’s application is limited to situations where a criminal prosecution follows the illegal seizure, with the defendant’s liberty at stake and due process rights apply, and the prosecution intends to use illegally seized evidence. The Court abates the consequences of the illegal seizure by not allowing the evidence to be presented to the jury during the trial. This both safeguards the Because the only purpose of the search is to gain physical custody over the alien and not to search for or seize evidence, DHS’s legal argument is that DHS Officers may enter a residence when their only purpose for doing so is arrest the alien subject to a final Order of Removal. Because the alien has no further due process rights, is not being punished by imprisonment, and has no lawful right to remain in the country, Fourth Amendment considerations are moot.
Illinois and Frisbie v. Collins — states that a defendant who was taken into custody via an illegal arrest is not entitled to have the criminal case against him dismissed as a remedy. If the charges were validly brought, when the defendant appears before the Court the case must proceed. Any evidence seized in the course of an illegal arrest might be suppressed, but the defendant’s body cannot be similarly suppressed and the case goes forward.
In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, the Supreme Court applied Ker-Frisbie to immigration proceedings. But the Court’s Opinion in Lopez-Mendoza includes a significant number of passages that are relevant to the Administration’s aggressive enforcement of immigration law against the millions of illegal aliens allowed into the country by the Biden Administration’s “open borders” policy. I have edited these passages down to the greatest degree possible while leaving in the many distinctions recognized by the Court between civil deportation hearings and criminal trials.
A deportation proceeding is a purely civil action to determine eligibility to remain in this country, not to punish an unlawful entry, though entering or remaining unlawfully in this country is itself a crime…. The deportation hearing looks prospectively to the respondent’s right to remain in this country in the future.….….
The BIA correctly ruled that "[t]he mere fact of an illegal arrest has no bearing on a subsequent deportation proceeding."….
I’m not advocating anything. I’m simply providing a “lawsplainer” on what the law actually is as it is applied in courtrooms across the country on a daily basis. I point out and explain why some of the online and social media commentary by people who claim to know what they are talking about is really just nonsense being pushed out by poseurs.
For an illegal alien with a final Order of Removal, the only action left to take is to transport the alien out of the country, and the Supreme Court recognized in Lopez-Mendoza the societal costs that would be imposed if courts were to bring a halt to the process over a claimed violation of the Fourth”
Much appreciated.
You've excerpted enough for me to see the relevant cases cited. It seems like the question largely hinges on whether the US gov't KNOWS that a *specific* suspect is present in a house for the purposes of detention. If the gov't does not KNOW that a suspect is in the house, then the forceable entry becomes a search (and not a detention) which would trigger the Fourth Amendment protections that the gov't would then be violating (under these cases).
I'll be interested to dig into INS v. Lopez-Mendoza to see SCOTUS treats looking for a suspect in a place the same as detaining them (allowed) or a search (not allowed).
The Justia summary of INS v. Lopez-Mendoza[1] also includes "Third, the INS has its own comprehensive scheme for deterring Fourth Amendment violations by its agents." as a mitigating factor - I'll be interested to see if the ruling cites elements of that scheme and whether any cited elements remain active in this case 40 years later.
[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/1032/
Found the details of the INS scheme in question (same Justia link as above):
"Third, and perhaps most important, the INS has its own comprehensive scheme for deterring Fourth Amendment violations by its officers. Most arrests of illegal aliens away from the border occur during farm, factory, or other workplace surveys. Large numbers of illegal aliens are often arrested at one time, and conditions are understandably chaotic. See Brief for Petitioner in INS v. Delgado, O.T. 1983, No. 82-1271, pp. 3-5. To safeguard the rights of those who are lawfully present at inspected workplaces the INS has developed rules restricting stop, interrogation, and arrest practices. Id. at 7, n. 7, 32-40, and n. 25. These regulations require that no one be detained without reasonable suspicion of illegal alienage, and that no one be arrested unless there is an admission of illegal alienage or other strong evidence thereof. New immigration officers receive instruction and examination in Fourth Amendment law, and others receive periodic refresher courses in law. Brief for Petitioner 39-40. Evidence seized through intentionally unlawful conduct is excluded by Department of Justice policy from the proceeding for which it was obtained. See Memorandum from Benjamin R. Civiletti to Heads of Offices, Boards, Bureaus and Divisions, Violations of Search and Seizure Law (Jan. 16, 1981). The INS also has in place a procedure for investigating and punishing immigration officers who commit Fourth Amendment violations. See Office of General Counsel, INS, U.S. Dept. of Justice, The Law of Arrest, Search, and Seizure for Immigration Officers 35 (Jan.1983). The INS's attention to Fourth Amendment interests cannot guarantee that constitutional violations will not occur, but it does reduce the likely deterrent value of the exclusionary rule. Deterrence must be measured at the margin."
(Blame SCOTUS for the wall of text.)
Curtis - did Bill Shipley go into any details about how the 1984 INS scheme to prevent Fourth Amendment violations lined up with the 2026 DHS scheme (if one actually exists)? It seems like 1984 SCOTUS justified their decision on policies and procedures that do not actually exist in 2026.
From the majority's conclusion:
"We do not condone any violations of the Fourth Amendment that may have occurred in the arrests of respondents Lopez-Mendoza or Sandoval-Sanchez. Moreover, no challenge is raised here to the INS's own internal regulations. Cf. INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210 (1984). ***Our conclusions concerning the exclusionary rule's value might change if there developed good reason to believe that Fourth Amendment violations by INS officers were widespread.*** Cf. United States v. Leon, ante at 468 U. S. 928 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring). Finally, we do not deal here with egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness and undermine the probative value of the evidence obtained. [Footnote 5] Cf. Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952). At issue here is the exclusion of credible evidence gathered in connection with peaceful arrests by INS officers. We hold that evidence derived from such arrests need not be suppressed in an INS civil deportation hearing."
(Emphasis added.)
The question then becomes what is "widespread"? Assuming that we haven't crossed that threshold already, then how many no-warrant forced entries will we tolerate before we acknowledge widespread Fourth Amendment violations?
Likely anything that sounds good enough to those that just want brown people gone from the US.
I find it interesting that Mr. Thornton characterizes the 2020 election as "Trump trying to steal" it, when he should have said that Biden ACTUALLY stole it.
Yeah, with the help of the lizard people that wear man masks.
Trump and and his conspirators had their days in court and couldn't stop losing over and over and over.
It shouldn’t surprise you. That claim has been thoroughly debunked. There no more evidence of it after Trump has been office for a year than there was in 2020.
But your mask has slip, I see.
I’ll admit I didn’t read the full article. Your re-hashing of liberal talking points had me bored at best. I was unimpressed by your assumption that folks from Alabama would be unwelcoming to peaceful monks. Where does a person like you get that kind of mis-guided ideology?? The south is more welcoming than any place in the country. Try visiting it some time.
I think ill unfollow so you dont waste my time anymore
As you may have gathered from the fact that I saw the monks in Alabama, I have visited numerous times. In fact, I live on the border.
That observation wasn’t intended only for Alabama, but the entire route of the monks. I’ve lived my entire life in the south where they are walking. In fact, I’ve lived in six different southern states. I know of what I speak.
Bye, Felicia.