>ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant
Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?
Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?
They've come up with a memo saying that non-judicial warrants can let them break in. This has historically been very much not allowed.
Edit: As a quick explanation, this is more or less a separation-of-powers thing. The rule has been that for the executive to enter someone's home they need a warrant from a judge, a member of the judicial branch. They now say that an "administrative warrant" is enough, issued by an immigration judge -- but immigration judges are just executive branch employees, so this is saying that the executive can decide on its own when it wants to break into your house.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-mem...
The word for it is cherry-picking and it is better classified as a fallacy.
Most people… eh. I don't know about the rest of the world, and my experience was in the 90s, but for me GCSE triple science was a list of facts to regurgitate in exams, and although we did also have practical sessions those weren't scored by how well we did Popperian falsification (a thing I didn't even learn about it until my entirely optional chosen-for-fun A-level in Philosophy; I don't know if A-level sciences teaches that).
The people who replied to you provided the source: upvoted them.
Context and discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGr-yWEu0hc
The TL/DR: administrative warrant vs an actual "signed off by a judge" warrant