Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only a few people have the memo, they only verbally tell ICE agents about it, and it is in direct violation of DHS policies and the 4th Amendment

They are ChiCom Big Government criminals.

Important correction to your title, PP. They didn’t say no more warrants; they said no judicial warrants. That means no warrant signed by a judge which is the gold standard. They would still need a warrant but it would be issued by ICE so would have lower standards presumably.

A judicial warrant isn’t the “gold standard.” It’s the constitution. An “administrative warrant” is just a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat. It has no legal significance.

+1 An administrative warrant is from the executive branch telling ICE which is also part of the executive branch that something is permissible. The entire point of a judicial warrant is that another branch needs to weigh in. You know, checks and balances like most of us learned about in elementary school.

I'm not a lawyer but if this policy is allowed to stand, wouldn't the government be able to use it with citizens as well as non-citizens? I mean, if they open the door to allowing for the suspension of the practice of requiring a judicial warrant to enter someone's home, couldn't they suspend it for EVERYONE?

Police can already do this. If they go into a home without a warrant, the arrest will stand. Anything found in a search could be thrown at trial, but you cannot 'suppress the body.'

Indeed. Unfortunately, this Supreme Court (and its predecessors but especially this one) have nearly eliminated the remedy that was contemplated when the 4th amendment was adopted. That was suing agents of the government in their individual capacity for 4th amendment violations. However, Bivens and its progeny have pretty much eliminated that.

Anonymous wrote:Do police have to get a warrant to enter a private home to catch a fugitive?