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.
A federal judge in Minnesota ruled last Saturday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents violated the Fourth Amendment after they forcibly entered a Minnesota man’s home without a judicial warrant.
The conduct of the agents closely mirrors a previously undisclosed ICE directive that claims agents are permitted to enter people’s homes using an administrative warrant, rather than a warrant signed by a judge.
The ruling, issued by US District Court judge Jeffrey Bryan in response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 17, did not assess the legality of ICE’s internal guidance itself. But it squarely holds that federal agents violated the United States Constitution when they entered a residence without consent and without a judge-signed warrant—the same conditions ICE leadership has privately told officers is sufficient for home arrests, according to a complaint filed by Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal group representing whistleblowers from the public and private sector.
Supreme court reversal of this within 48 hours.
Anybody who still thinks these judicial rulings from lower courts mean anything at all haven’t been paying attention at all for the last year.
Fuck off with the negatively.
You misspelled “functional pattern recognition”
deleted by creator
Looking at how things have been handled over the past year and making an educated guess as to what will follow is not negativity, ita practicality.
While the positive part is that there was a ruling that adhered to the actual law of the US, being prepared for what comes next is the smart move.
Do not expect this to be enforced, expect it to be challenged in the farce that is the current Supreme Court, and prepare accordingly.
Keep pretending that it wasn’t time to start fighting two years ago.
It’ll be hilarious when someone turns it around and uses the precedent against the people responsible for this.
Except suddenly there would be contradicting judicial ruling and enforcement of the rule of law, and the dems in charge would “take the high road.”