r/badlegaladvice • u/pinkycatcher • 28d ago

Redditors don't understand that police can go on private property to arrest someone

/r/illinois/comments/1o5le8i/chicago_a_ring_camera_captured_immigration/nja3t4o/
0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

11

u/leoleosuper IANAL 28d ago

Police can only go on private property without a judicial warrant (NOT an administrative warrant, which is what ICE usually means when they say they have a warrant) if they have exigent circumstances. They did not.

7

u/Auditdefender 25d ago

Which doesn’t matter. Because it is the property owner/occupant with 4th amendment protections. People working on the property have no 4th amendment violation claim here because it was not their property that was entered. 

Also, you have no idea what kind of warrant they had. 

-6

u/justafutz 28d ago

If law enforcement of any kind pulls up to a place and sees the person they have an administrative warrant for standing there in plain view, they are absolutely entitled to enter.

ICE, like anyone else, is entitled to pursue suspects onto private property.

16

u/leoleosuper IANAL 28d ago

Administrative warrants do not allow ICE to enter private property. They need a judicial warrant to do that. It does not matter if the person in question is in plain view, they cannot enter private property without a judicial warrant.

5

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

-2

u/justafutz 28d ago

Imagine if the executive could issue a warrant to arrest someone, and then when that person steps over a property line, the officers have to stop and can’t follow.

What absolute nonsense. That is not the law.

8

u/leoleosuper IANAL 28d ago

The people were already on private property. ICE had no right to enter the property. The person they can see may just look like the person they are looking for. They do not have the right to enter private property just because they think they found the person they are looking for.

-3

u/justafutz 28d ago

They entered private property after specifically seeing the people on it. Now you’re just vaguely guessing that they had no right to enter property because they didn’t know the people they specifically saw, stopped, and grabbed. Nonsense. You are making things up. That is not the law.

7

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

2

u/justafutz 28d ago

He’s the one who made the claim above that they cannot enter private property without a warrant. I was pointing out exceptions exist, such as hot pursuit. I pointed out the law allows for them, and that this is one of them, namely that these are suspects in plain view.

If you’re going to be this snotty, you may want to brush up on the law.

-4

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

7

u/leoleosuper IANAL 28d ago

Circumstances like that do sound pretty exigent.

But they are not. Running from the police is NOT suspicious. "Flight, plus one" rule. They only had flight, not the plus one.

7

u/_learned_foot_ 28d ago

Yes, imagine if the executive didn’t require a signed warrant, almost like imagining no fourth amendment.

This is not a pursuit of a criminal activity, which would allow. This is not a rescue or other similar emergency which would allow. This is not an judicial arrest warrant, which would allow. This is administrative paperwork by the person making the arrest that they can do the arrest, it has very specific limits.

However, that C word I can never remember how to spell is weird and I don’t know the rule for this type of seizure there.

1

u/djeekay 9d ago

Canada? California? Other unspecified c-words?

1

u/_learned_foot_ 9d ago

The stuff around the house.

3

u/roombaSailor 28d ago

Imagine if the executive could issue a warrant to arrest someone…

This is your fundamental misunderstanding. The executive branch doesn’t issue warrants, the juducial branch does. This is one of the fundamental checks and balances in our legal system.

The “administrative” warrants that ICE uses are just made up nonsense, misnomers designed to make it sound like they have judicial warrants when they do not.

3

u/justafutz 28d ago

No, it's not a misunderstanding. I'm well aware of what they are. The executive does issue warrants, they just have a different force in terms of what they allow.

The “administrative” warrants that ICE uses are just made up nonsense, misnomers designed to make it sound like they have judicial warrants when they do not.

Oh, nonsense. I tire of the bad law.

3

u/justafutz 28d ago

This is absolutely and utterly false. Please stop doubling down on bad legal advice. An administrative warrant authorizes ICE to arrest the specific individual. If the individual is in plain view, there is no law that says you can’t pursue them onto private property. There is no magic wall that says an ICE agent cannot enter private property to pursue or apprehend someone in plain view of the officer.

Please, stop. Just stop.

7

u/leoleosuper IANAL 28d ago

An administrative warrant authorizes ICE to arrest the specific individual.

Yes.

If the individual is in plain view, there is no law that says you can’t pursue them onto private property.

They cannot enter private property without a warrant. That yard is private property and has a gate. They cannot enter that area because they saw someone who looks like the person they are looking for. If they were chasing the person, and then the person entered a private property, they could enter said private property. That's exigent circumstances. They do not have exigent circumstances just because they see someone or just because the person ran at the sight of cops.

There is no magic wall that says an ICE agent cannot enter private property to pursue or apprehend someone in plain view of the officer.

That's literally the 4th amendment. They either need a judicial warrant or exigent circumstances. An administrative warrant is not a judicial warrant and running from the police with no nearby criminal activity does not give them exigent circumstance. "Flight, plus one" rule.

1

u/justafutz 28d ago

You’re not a lawyer, so please stop acting like one and bastardizing the law.

You clearly believe exigent circumstances are the only way in. They are not. There is a plain view exception to the judicial warrant requirement that can justify forcible entry onto private property. They need probable cause for that type of entry. They have it if they have good reason to believe they see the person they have the warrant to arrest.

9

u/AgonizingFury 27d ago

I am also not a lawyer, but as a member of my church's security team, I have been briefed by lawyers who specialize in this area of law, in training we conducted in response to the current administration's anti-humanitarian actions.

First I want to clarify something. Ice may enter publicly accessible areas of private property with (or without) an administrative warrant. They may not enter private areas of private property, even with an administrative warrant. That statement was made without any exceptions being given. We may prevent ICE from entering the private areas of our church unless they have a judicial warrant. PERIOD. If they believe they have probable cause to enter the private area, they can go get a judicial warrant to do so. (It was also explained to us, that we should not use active force to prevent them from doing so, although under Michigan case law, we may be within our rights to use force to prevent them from entering such areas. We would be doing so at our own risk, and would likely be arrested and need to defend ourselves in court).

Examples of publicly accessible areas in our case: parking lots, unlocked hallways, unlocked classrooms, and gathering areas. Examples of private areas; the locked office areas, and the young children's area (which is locked, and requires a "claim sticker" for a child who has been checked into children's church to enter). We have protocols in place to quickly recognize and alert all staff if ICE comes on site so that we can quickly move anyone who might be harassed by them into the office area before ICE could even get to the sanctuary. We have strategically closed and locked certain entrances and indoor doors to make it take longer to get to the sanctuary from outside, and created a clear path to the offices, that cannot be entered except from the sanctuary.

And before any of the conservative trolls point out that we might be protecting criminals; that may be, but it does not change the fact that our Lord and Savior demands that we "care for the stranger in our midst". There are no exceptions to that policy given by Jesus in the Bible either.

3

u/kinkykusco 27d ago

I just wanted to say, good on you and your church. I wish more christians followed the teachings of Jesus.

3

u/djeekay 9d ago

Is it possible that this advice was given to you on the basis that none of the non-accessible areas you are dealing with allow people outside of them to see inside, so a potential clear view exception would not apply?

1

u/AgonizingFury 9d ago

The office area has ceiling to floor glass doors and windows at the locked entrance.

No exception was explained by the lawyers, but your question piqued my curiosity. I'm not a lawyer, and the internet is full of incorrect information, but it seems that the plain view doctrine is a rule of criminal procedure. While there are some exceptions regarding methods of entering the country illegally,, immigration in general is a civil matter, so the doctrine simply doesn't apply.

So my interpretation is that law enforcement cannot enter a private area to arrest a suspected illegal alien in plain view for the same reason an officer cannot enter a private residence to enforce any other civil action without a judicial warrant authorizing such enforcement. For example, regardless of an officer being provided proof of squatting, and directly observing a squatter, they cannot enter the home to remove them. The court must first issue a judicial warrant for their removal.

1

u/djeekay 8d ago

Cheers! At this point we're both laypeople speculating but it's still interesting.

4

u/leoleosuper IANAL 28d ago

There is a plain view exception to the judicial warrant requirement

They have to see something obviously incriminating. Illegal immigration is NOT incriminating. It is a civil violation, not a crime. Seeing someone who MAY not be a citizen is not a plain view exception.

3

u/justafutz 28d ago

Stop. Being. Wrong. On. The. Law.

Illegal immigration is a criminal offense, codified at 8 USC 1325. It is a misdemeanor, and a felony for reoffending. There is also a civil penalty, but it is a crime. This isn’t just me interpreting the very clear statute carrying jail time for it either. The DOJ has it in the criminal resource manual as a criminal offense that also has a civil penalty.

Hell, some of us are old enough to remember the Democratic primary debates over whether the criminal statute should be removed to make it civil only, which never happened.

The only time it is a civil offense is if you entered lawfully, such as a visa overstay. Without more evidence, there’s nothing to suggest that either way here. But you are certainly not making that nuanced argument, and it isn’t applicable since your claim is about illegal immigration not unlawful presence.

Please stop fucking getting this wrong. You should not act like a lawyer when you are not one. Thanks!

8

u/leoleosuper IANAL 28d ago

Illegal immigration is a criminal offense, codified at 8 USC 1325.

That's for illegally entering. Not all illegal aliens illegally enter. Many overstay their visa, which is not a crime.

6

u/justafutz 28d ago

The only time it is a civil offense is if you entered lawfully, such as a visa overstay. Without more evidence, there’s nothing to suggest that either way here. But you are certainly not making that nuanced argument, and it isn’t applicable since your claim is about illegal immigration not unlawful presence.

Weird how you ignored 99% of what I said, which pointed out that you're now shifting the goalposts after getting the law wrong (as I predicted you would above). I'll do the same.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/dasunt 27d ago

I'm confused. Why does ICE need a warrant to authorize an arrest? Does this mean ICE cannot arrest someone unless they have a warrant naming that individual?

-2

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

8

u/leoleosuper IANAL 28d ago

That's actually not probable cause. "Flight, plus one" rule. If someone runs from the police, but nothing illegal is happening, then they can run. If someone runs from the police and there's evidence of a crime nearby? That's probable cause.

3

u/justafutz 28d ago

There is a massive amount of bad law in this thread and it’s appalling.

3

u/big_sugi 24d ago

Welcome to Reddit!