ARMY OF THUGS: ICE breaks into private home without a warrant assaults home owner (4th Amendment is trash)

[citygator]

 

[BackAgain]

There is not a claim that you cant remove people with an administrative warrant. THE CLAIM IS YOU CANT SEARCH A HOUSE FOR ANY REASON WITHOUT A JUDICIAL WARRANT. NONE. ZERO. NADA.

Case law is clear on that. There is no wavering on that. None. You are arguing something else. Something that isnt happening.

Ok. You’ve said so. Now try to support it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm glad that none of you assholes are my neighbors...

 

[citygator]

I know. That’s her claim, on video. Even you should grasp that her say so isn’t the same as actual evidence.

Yes. And? So what?

The officials were under no obligation to show any warrant assuming they had one.

ICE agents do not carry JUDICIAL warrants with them. They didnt have one which is why they didnt present one. Feel free to prove they did.

Making shit up again, eh?

Go ahead and try to support your baseless claim that they would have to show the warrant if they even had one.

Youre full of shit. Feel free to bookmark this and come back and show me the judicial warrant they had.

 

[Rawley]

There is not a claim that you cant remove people with an administrative warrant.

You seem confused. The Final Order of Removal is what gives the administration the power to send someone back to their home country.

An administrative warrant gives them the power to search private property for the person subject to the Final Order of Removal

THE CLAIM IS YOU CANT SEARCH A HOUSE FOR ANY REASON WITHOUT A JUDICIAL WARRANT. NONE. ZERO. NADA.

Case law is clear on that. There is no wavering on that. None.

Did you even read the cases you cited? Third time, none of them held that executing an administrative warrant pursuant to final order of removal is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[Zincwarrior]

You seem confused. The Final Order of Removal is what gives the administration the power to send someone back to their home country.

An administrative warrant gives them the power to search private property for the person subject to the Final Order of Removal

Did you even read the cases you cited? Third time, none of them held that executing an administrative warrant pursuant to final order of removal is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

That is what they are arguing anyway. I am sure it will be litigated shortly.

 

[BackAgain]

ICE agents do not carry JUDICIAL warrants with them.

No law enforcement official is obliged to show a warrant provided that the law enforcement agency itself has one.

They didnt have one which is why they didnt present one.

You still don’t know that.

Feel free to prove they did.

It’s your job to prove your own claims. So far, you haven’t come even close.

Youre full of shit.

Nope. I’m right. And that’s what has you shitting yourself. You cannot overcome my challenges to your silly claims.

Feel free to bookmark this and come back and show me the judicial warrant they had.

Again. Your burden. Meet your own burden.

Also, you’ve never supported you implicit claim that ICE must have a judicial warrant to detain an illegal alien.

By the way, since unlike you I choose to be honest, I will concede that an arrest warrant to enter a person’s home to arrest that individual is Constitutionally required.

However, that contemplates an arrest for a crime. When ICE is busy discharging its duties, their apprehension of an illegal alien isn’t a criminal law matter. It’s a civil/administrative matter. With that in mind, show us all that the law still demands an arrest warrant.

 

[citygator]

You seem confused. The Final Order of Removal is what gives the administration the power to send someone back to their home country.

An administrative warrant gives them the power to search private property for the person subject to the Final Order of Removal

Did you even read the cases you cited? Third time, none of them held that executing an administrative warrant pursuant to final order of removal is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

It does not. Camara v. Municipal Court makes clear that administrative enforcement does not override the Fourth Amendment, especially in the home. The Supreme Court held that even routine civil inspections require a warrant when entry is refused, and that warrant must be issued by a neutral judicial officer—not the enforcing agency itself. The decision reinforces the core purpose of the Fourth Amendment: to prevent executive officials from authorizing their own searches and to interpose independent judicial review before the government may enter a private residence. Civil purpose does not diminish constitutional protection.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Today's UNVETTED random video brought to you by cityHater.

.

Completely fake left cult theater.

.

 

[citygator]

Also, you’ve never supported you implicit claim that ICE must have a judicial warrant to detain an illegal alien.

No one claimed that. You confused ***** really struggle. It is illegal to have 10,000 lbs of cocaine in your basement. Law enforcement cannot come in your house and look for it without a judicial warrant. You may have 10,000 illegal aliens in your basement. Law enforcement cannot come in your house to find them without a judicial warrant. If you walk outside with 10,000 lbs of cocaine or illegal aliens, well then, they got you or them.

By the way, since unlike you I choose to be honest, I will concede that an arrest warrant to enter a person’s home to arrest that individual is Constitutionally required.

However, that contemplates an arrest for a crime. When ICE is busy discharging its duties, their apprehension of an illegal alien isn’t a criminal law matter. It’s a civil/administrative matter. With that in mind, show us all that the law still demands an arrest warrant.

Camara v. Municipal Court makes clear that administrative enforcement does not override the Fourth Amendment, especially in the home. The Supreme Court held that even routine civil inspections require a warrant when entry is refused, and that warrant must be issued by a neutral judicial officer—not the enforcing agency itself. The decision reinforces the core purpose of the Fourth Amendment: to prevent executive officials from authorizing their own searches and to interpose independent judicial review before the government may enter a private residence. Civil purpose does not diminish constitutional protection.

 

[Hollie]

If that was Joe Biden checking American citizens for their COVID shots you'd be storming the white house.

This was an American family that has Mexican heritage so they felt they had the right to violate their rights.

“…. because I say so”.

Fixed that fit ya’ darlin’.

 

[BackAgain]

No one claimed that. You confused ***** really struggle. It is illegal to have 10,000 lbs of cocaine in your basement. Law enforcement cannot come in your house and look for it without a judicial warrant. You may have 10,000 illegal aliens in your basement. Law enforcement cannot come in your house to find them without a judicial warrant.

Yes. We know that the Constitution requires (in most cases and with some exceptions) a search warrant in a criminal matter in order to lawfully search a person’s abode.

But that’s not the case here.

This wasn’t a criminal matter. That’s the part that confuses you shitlib imbeciles.

If you walk outside with 10,000 lbs of cocaine or illegal aliens, well then, they got you or them.

You’re a simpleton. That has nothing to do with this matter. You dork.

Camara v. Municipal Court makes clear that administrative enforcement does not override the Fourth Amendment, especially in the home. The Supreme Court held that even routine civil inspections require a warrant when entry is refused, and that warrant must be issued by a neutral judicial officer—not the enforcing agency itself. The decision reinforces the core purpose of the Fourth Amendment: to prevent executive officials from authorizing their own searches and to interpose independent judicial review before the government may enter a private residence. Civil purpose does not diminish constitutional protection.

You shouldn’t cite case law when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[Bitterhook]

"I want to tell y'all a story and I ask y'all to close your eyes ... "

 

[Zincwarrior]

Yes. We know that the Constitution requires (in most cases and with some exceptions) a search warrant in a criminal matter in order to lawfully search a person’s abode.

But that’s not the case here.

This wasn’t a criminal matter. That’s the part that confuses you shitlib imbeciles.


You’re a simpleton. That has nothing to do with this matter. You dork.

You shouldn’t cite case law when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The issue is concerning searching domiciles. Thats not permitted via Constitution.

 

[Rawley]

It does not. Camara v. Municipal Court makes clear that administrative enforcement does not override the Fourth Amendment, especially in the home.

No one has ever argued it does.

The Supreme Court held that even routine civil inspections require a warrant when entry is refused, and that warrant must be issued by a neutral judicial officer—not the enforcing agency itself. The decision reinforces the core purpose of the Fourth Amendment: to prevent executive officials from authorizing their own searches and to interpose independent judicial review before the government may enter a private residence. Civil purpose does not diminish constitutional protection.

The administrative warrant is a warrant. What Camara is saying that is that it can't be the administrative person in the field that makes the reasonableness determination. In the ICE cases, they are acting on a Final Order of Removal from an Immigration Judge. The "reasonable" standard of the 4th amendment has been met.

 

[Churchill]

Just listen to the magat apologists. All they do is defend the indefensible, excuse the inexcusable and expect to be taken seriously by normal society.

I'm just glad there are only 30 of these dingbats here, hardly a drop in he ocean.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No one has ever argued it does.

The administrative warrant is a warrant. What Camera is saying that is that it can't be the administrative person in the field that makes the reasonableness determination. In the ICE cases, they are acting on a Final Order of Removal from an Immigration Judge. The "reasonable" standard of the 4th amendment has been met.

No its not a warrant per the Constitution. Having said that we all are just talking out of our asses INCLUDING ME and it needs to be adjudicated.

 

[struth]

MarathonMike

If that was Joe Biden checking American citizens for their COVID shots you'd be storming the white house.

This was an American family that has Mexican heritage so they felt they had the right to violate their rights.

Violating their rights? They came to the door and tried to speak to them and got violently verbally assaulted for no reason

Police are allowed to knock on your door and ask you question. Yoh don’t have a right to verbally assault them

 

[Zincwarrior]

MarathonMike
Violating their rights? They came to the door and tried to speak to them and got violently verbally assaulted for no reason

Police are allowed to knock on your door and ask you question. Yoh don’t have a right to verbally assault them

You do have a right to tell them to **** off and not open the door

 

[struth]

No its not a warrant per the Constitution. Having said that we all are just talking out of our asses INCLUDING ME and it needs to be adjudicated.

The 4th amendment only requires a warrant for unreasonable searches and seizures

If there is already a deportation order for someone.m, seizing that person to deport them is more then reasonable