In a recent legal development, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was dealt a significant setback when a federal judge declared the agency's "knock-and-talk" tactics unconstitutional
These tactics involve ICE agents engaging with illegal immigrants and other migrants who are subject to arrest.
The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II of California, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. Last week, he granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who was named in his official capacity.
The lawsuit, Kidd v. Mayorkas, stems from a 2018 incident involving an immigration agent and an immigrant named Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd, who was in the U.S. under temporary protective status. According to the Orange County Register, Kidd reported that the agent approached his home in the Los Angeles area with a photo allegedly of a "dangerous man out to get" them. However, by the end of the encounter, Kidd was arrested and transported to a detention facility in San Bernardino, California.
The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Kidd, the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, as reported by Lexis Nexis.
Judge Wright's ruling stated that ICE officers were infringing on the Fourth Amendment by using knock-and-talks as a strategy to coax individuals they intended to arrest out of their homes. He clarified that this tactic remains legal in situations involving criminal arrest warrants.
Wright concluded that since deportation orders are within the realm of civil jurisdiction, agents executing them do not possess the same authority to enter a suspect's property as officers carrying out a criminal arrest warrant.
In his ruling, Wright wrote, "Considering the policies and practices governing how ICE conducts its knock and talks, the more accurate title for certain law enforcement operations would be knock and arrests". He added, "This order serves to vacate those unlawful policies and practices."
Wright's judgment referenced an ICE handbook that states neither a "warrant for arrest of [an] alien nor a warrant of removal authorizes officers to enter the targets residence or anywhere else where the target has a reasonable expectation of privacy." He emphasized that officers must obtain clear, voluntary consent to enter a property where reasonable privacy is expected.
However, former immigration Judge Matthew O'Brien criticized the ruling, telling the Washington Times that Wright misinterpreted the law. "Its absurd to say that ICE cant engage in investigative procedures," O'Brien stated.
Login