A federal judge in Minnesota ruled last Saturday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents breached the Fourth Amendment by forcibly entering a resident’s home without a judicial warrant. This judgment highlights ongoing concerns regarding ICE’s internal directives, which permit agents to enter homes with an administrative warrant, a policy that raises legal and constitutional questions.
The ruling was handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Bryan in response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. While the court did not challenge the legality of ICE’s internal guidance, it unequivocally stated that the actions taken by federal agents were unconstitutional. The agents entered the residence without consent and without the requisite judicial approval, a practice reportedly sanctioned by ICE’s leadership, according to allegations made in a complaint filed by the nonprofit legal group Whistleblower Aid.
In a sworn declaration, Garrison Gibson, a Liberian national residing in Minnesota under an ICE order of supervision, described an incident occurring on January 11. He recounted that ICE agents arrived at his home early in the morning while his family was asleep. When he refused to open the door and requested to see a judicial warrant, the agents initially departed but later returned with reinforcements, deploying pepper spray toward neighbors and forcing their way inside with a battering ram.
This declaration formed part of a broader lawsuit initiated on January 12 against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, challenging the federal government’s immigration enforcement tactics in the Twin Cities. Officials in Minnesota have characterized these operations as an unconstitutional “invasion” by ICE, stirring significant local unrest in Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
Despite the court’s finding, federal officials did not contest the habeas petition filed by Gibson. He alleges that agents entered his residence without presenting a warrant, even as his wife recorded the incident on video. She alerted the agents to the presence of children inside the home, yet five to six agents reportedly moved in as if they were entering a combat zone. After Gibson was handcuffed, he claims the agents finally displayed an administrative warrant to his wife.
The day following the judge’s order for Gibson’s release, ICE agents re-arrested him during a routine check-in at a local immigration office. His attorney, Marc Prokosch, described the chaotic scene that ensued when Gibson initially thought the court’s ruling had resolved his status. The re-arrest, while not infringing upon the court’s Fourth Amendment ruling regarding the initial entry, underscores ICE’s ongoing authority to detain individuals despite judicial findings against specific methods of arrest.
Court records indicate that Gibson’s criminal history includes only a single felony conviction from 2008, along with some minor traffic violations, which ICE cited in his removal order. However, this felony conviction was later dismissed by the courts, raising further questions about the justification for ICE’s actions.
This incident illustrates broader concerns about civil liberties, particularly the standards governing federal immigration enforcement practices. Business owners and professionals should remain vigilant about the implications of such actions, which not only impact individual rights but may also have ramifications for organizational policies concerning compliance and legal risks in relation to federal enforcement activities.
