Police need a warrant to take you into custody.

[no_hypocrisy]

State Police need a warrant to take you into custody.

The FBI needs a warrant to take you into custody.

Unless you're violent or dangerous, a warrant is necessary to take you into custody for all three.

Why can ICE take you into custody without a warrant and without you being a danger?

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Because SCOTUS has enabled this administration to act extra-Constitutionally

with some sort of off-the-books federal nationalist constabulary force that has been granted powers that ignore the Bill of Rights.

You can debate the legality, merits, or practicality, but call it what it is.

[DaBronx]

2. I'll finish your sentence

…fascist America.

[sleroy49]

3. That's just not true....

Police can make an arrest and take you to jail based on probable cause that you committed a crime. Most arrests are made without a warrant. The severity of the crime usually doesn't matter.

[LymphocyteLover]

5. that's if they see you committing a crime and that's just not the case for almost all of these ICE

abductions!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. Since immigration violations are civil v. criminal...

...a judicial warrant is not required, per federal law.

[LymphocyteLover]

32. so illegal immigrants have committed a civil violation, but are treated like the most violent

criminals? Make it make sense.

[Farmer-Rick]

15. The police grab up perfectly peaceful protesters

All the time even during Obama's presidency.
Not sure if it happened under Biden too but seems throwing protesters in jail then figuring it out later is a norm.

[sleroy49]

23. No. The police don't have to witness the crime.

To be clear I'm not advocating any of ICE's actions.

[Solomon]

29. But what is the fucking crime? It's ignorance of your rights that allows this shit to continue.

When somebody rightfully complains, then here comes somebody like you telling people police can do this shit. Police cannot simply round people up and arrest them if they have no probable cause that a crime has been committed. Why you fighting so hard to tell people this shit?

[LymphocyteLover]

33. Ok, but there should be probable cause, right?

And clearly ICE doesn't give a shit about that

[infullview]

6. And being colored or Hispanic

doesn't rise to the threshold of being probable cause.

[Gimpyknee]

7. Tell that to the Supreme Court.

[Farmer-Rick]

16. The Supremes have given up on the US Constitution

They ignore it regularly. They don't care about the law they just want to advance their Nazi agenda. Our founding fathers and WWII military members who gave their life to stop the fascists Nazis would be so horrified.

[Martin Eden]

9. Except there was no probable cause in this case

Certainly not for every resident in that apartment building, including children yanked from their beds. This was unconstitutional search and seizure.

[Jack Valentino]

28. This was a CRIME, and all ICE officers involved ought to be arrested and

face state charges for illegal searches (breaking and entering), kidnapping, larceny,
possible charges related to 'organized crime',
and at the very least, "disorderly conduct" !

And I'll go further--- if any of the victims of their crimes had SHOT AND KILLED their attackers,
they should not even have been arrested for it,
as it would have very CLEARLY been a case of "self defense" against unidentified attackers!

[Martin Eden]

34. The BIGGEST CRIMINALS ordered this raid

THEY are most responsile, and MUST be held accountable. The Republican Party AND the Supreme Court are complicit.

[sop]

10. Police need a reasonably articulable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed to arrest or detain

suspects without a warrant. And breaking down someone's door to enter their home without a warrant is only allowed under exigent circumstances. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches, but courts have recognized that some emergencies require immediate action, and in such cases the warrant requirement is waived.

[LymphocyteLover]

4. Yes, I would really like some legal clarity on this

[Buckeyeblue]

11. And don't forget the 4th amendment. For the most part the government can't enter your home without a warrant

While some exceptions exist, I don't think fishing for illegal immigrants is one of them. At what point will states protect citizens from these bad actors?

[Trueblue Texan]

13. Well, if Prizker isn't the governor to protect these citizens...

...who is?

[Buckeyeblue]

18. Agreed. And giving sternly worded press conferences does nothing

He should create a group of peaceful disruptors called MELT. They would track ICE's movements across the city. Get in their way. Follow them with cameras. They should broadcast ICE's location. Maybe have warning sirens. Generally create legal chaos anywhere ICE is.

[Trueblue Texan]

25. You should send these suggestions to him. nt

[surfered]

12. How about breaking down a door to your apartment in the middle of the night?

[sop]

14. A warrant is always required to enter someone's home...except under "exigent circumstances."

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. However...

"Exigent circumstances, as defined in United States v. McConney are 'circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' "

"Exigent circumstances are essentially exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures."

"In Missouri v. McNeely (2013), the Supreme Court clarified, 'A variety of circumstances may give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including law enforcement's need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home . . . engage in 'hot pursuit' of a fleeing suspect . . . or enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause.' "

"Courts will typically look at the time when the officer makes the warrantless search or seizure to evaluate whether at that point in time a reasonable officer at the scene would believe it is urgent to act and impractical to secure a warrant. Courts may also consider whether the facts suggested that the suspect was armed and planning to escape, whether a reasonable police officer would believe their safety or others’ safety was threatened, and whether there was a serious crime involved."

"Exigent circumstances may also occur when the police is in hot pursuit of a suspect who is possibly involved in criminal activities and in the process of fleeing. (See Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2009))"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances

[surfered]

19. Has the Supreme Court ruled skin color to be an exigent circumstance ?

Asking for the residents of that Chicago apartment.

[sop]

20. Don't think they addressed exigency, but the SC's recent decision allows racial profiling during immigration raids.

'How the Supreme Court’s Latest Decision Clears the Way for Racial Profiling During Immigration Raids'

"This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that clears the way for racial profiling during immigration raids and sweeps."

"Now we could see the Trump administration rapidly expand the racially discriminatory ICE practices we have already seen terrorize families, workplaces, and communities around the country for months—and thanks to the Supreme Court, these raids are more likely to sweep in US citizens and people with lawful status."

"In a 6-3 vote in the case known as Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, the Supreme Court granted an emergency request from the Trump administration and temporarily halted a LA judge’s order that barred 'roving patrols' from snatching people off California streets and questioning them based on how they look, what language they speak, what work they do, or even where they happen to be. Both a Los Angeles federal court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that these actions amounted to illegal racial profiling."

"On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a brief, unsigned order that overturns those decisions. This gives immigration agents a 'green light' to once again stop anyone they guess to be here illegally—even if a central reason for the stop was race. This endorses ICE and Border Patrol targeting any Latinos they observe in Los Angeles speaking Spanish or working in low-income jobs, and then demanding their papers."

More at link:

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/supreme-courts-decision-racial-profiling-immigration-raids/

Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem was about allowing racial/ethnic profiling to stop and question suspects. What happened in that Chicago apartment building was a clear violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

[surfered]

21. Thank you. Do you believe the residents of that complex who are US citizens have a cause of action.

Especially the ones that had their doors broken in.

[sop]

22. Yes.

[surfered]

24. Thank you. Trump won't care, he's not going to pay any judgement. We will.

[yellow dahlia]

26. Has Ice decided they operate outside the Constitution and the Amendments?

[Deuxcents]

27. In a word, yes.

[spanone]

17. The fucker-in-chief has 'unleashed them'. Nazi style.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. The Supremes have suspended the Constitution,

apart from the 2nd clause of the 2nd Amendment. For now.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

31. No they don't and your statement is false. They need probable cause to detain and if you resist that's obstructing.

In many cases that only means "reasonable suspicion" which means if you're acting suspicious, that's probable cause.

ICE is doing a whole bunch of sheisty shit don't get me wrong, but your statements are outright false in every regard.

You should delete this.