Federal immigration agents are facing renewed backlash as high-profile arrests have raised questions about when officers can enter private property to make an arrest. The issue has taken on new urgency as the Trump administration intensifies immigration enforcement nationwide, including incidents that unfold at private homes and businesses and are captured on video. In Minneapolis, scrutiny sharpened after immigration law enforcement raided a private home following clashes with protesters.
At the center of the debate is a legal distinction largely unfamiliar to many people but central to immigration enforcement. Many immigration arrests, legal experts said, are carried out under administrative warrants issued within immigration authorities’ internal processes. Those warrants authorize arrest of a specific individual but generally do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes or other nonpublic spaces without consent.
Only criminal warrants signed by judges carry authority to enter private property. Legal experts said administrative warrants do not allow officers to forcibly enter private homes, which means people can legally refuse federal immigration agents entry into private property if the agents only have an administrative warrant. They said there are limited exceptions, including when someone is in immediate danger, an officer is actively chasing a suspect, or someone inside the residence is calling for help, but that those exceptions do not apply in routine immigration arrests.
The rules are tied to the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The article said all law enforcement operations, including those conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, are governed by the Fourth Amendment. That means law enforcement is required to have a warrant before searching private property or arresting someone, regardless of immigration status.
John Sandweg, a former ICE acting director, said officers are trained on what circumstances legally justify forced entry. He also warned that risks increase when officers are taken out of their normal operating environment and asked to perform tasks they have not been trained to do, saying that “Your risks of all of these types of incidents increase dramatically when you take officers out of their normal operating environment and ask them to do things that they have not been trained to do, because it’s not part of their core missions,” Sandweg said. He added that as ICE’s work expanded and more Border Patrol agents began conducting the work of ICE officers, there was a greater chance agents would misapply the rules.
The distinction between administrative and judicial authority came into focus in Minneapolis on Sunday, when immigration law enforcement raided a private home to make an arrest after clashing with protesters who confronted heavily armed agents. Documents reviewed by The Associated Press showed the agents had an administrative warrant and that there was no judge that authorized the raid on private property.
When asked about the raid, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin did not provide a legal justification for forced entry and arrest. She said the arrest was part of the administration’s efforts to arrest “the worst of the worst” and said the man had a criminal history including “robbery, drug possession with the intent to sell, possession of a deadly weapon, malicious destruction and theft.” The article said McLaughlin did not specify whether the man was convicted of any of those crimes or whether the arrest was related to criminal activity.
Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, said she couldn’t comment on the specific raid, but warned about the general consequences of officers entering homes without consent or permission. “That is not just an illegal arrest. It’s numerous illegal actions by the officer themselves that could open up liability, not just for being sued, but potential criminal actions under state law as well,” Altman said. She also said accountability avenues appear limited because the federal government would be responsible for investigating the breach: “There are layers of federal laws and regulations and policies prohibiting this kind of behavior. But then the second layer is: Is the federal government going to impose consequences?”
Altman said immigration proceedings can offer fewer ways to challenge what happens during an unlawful arrest or search because illegally obtained evidence can generally still be used in immigration court. She said the exclusionary rule would bar such evidence in criminal court but “most often that rule does not apply in immigration court,” and she argued that “As those legal challenges come and people are facing very, very quick detentions and deportations on the basis of these illegal arrests, there’s very little recourse in actual immigration court proceedings that allows people to have a judge disregard evidence or the actual arrest, even if it was done in this very violent, illegal manner.”
The article said ICE has long relied on “knock and talks” to make apprehensions, informally requesting residents to leave a home without indicating officers plan to make an immigration arrest. It said a 2020 lawsuit described officers telling targets to step outside to answer questions and gave an example in which they told a woman they were probation officers looking for her brother.
In response, activists, lawyers and local governments have launched “know-your-rights” campaigns aimed at educating people about constitutional protections in interactions with federal agents. The article said groups publish fact sheets and infographics and hold meetings that go over those rights, often advising immigrants to request to see a warrant before opening the door if an officer knocks and emphasizing that immigrants can refuse to open the door if law enforcement only has an administrative warrant.
The story was updated to make clear that the exclusionary rule can be applied in immigration court under certain circumstances.