It is illegal and unconstitutional in the U.S. for law enforcement to enter a person's home without a valid search warrant signed by a Judge.
- Thread starter Solitude
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Of course it's not illegal or unconstitutional.
Of course they better have darn good probable cause or their butt will be in a wringer after the fact.
Of course they better have darn good probable cause or their butt will be in a wringer after the fact.
Yes, generally, it is illegal and unconstitutional for U.S. law enforcement to enter a home without a judge-signed search warrant, as the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but there are key exceptions like consent, exigent circumstances (emergencies, hot pursuit, imminent destruction of evidence), and plain view, which allow for warrantless entry, so it's not absolute.
Core Constitutional Principle:
Fourth Amendment: This amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants based on probable cause for most searches, especially in private homes.
Key Exceptions (When Police Can Enter Without a Warrant):
Consent: If you or someone with authority over the property voluntarily lets them in.
Exigent Circumstances: Emergencies where there's immediate danger, a suspect fleeing (hot pursuit), or evidence about to be destroyed.
Plain View: If officers are lawfully present and see evidence of a crime in plain sight.
Community Caretaking: In some specific non-investigative community roles, though this is a narrow area.
Consequences of Illegal Entry:
Evidence found during an illegal, warrantless entry is often excluded from trial under the exclusionary rule, known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree".
In Summary:
A home is highly protected, and a judge's warrant is the standard.
Warrantless entry is unconstitutional unless one of the specific, legally recognized exceptions applies.
Core Constitutional Principle:
Fourth Amendment: This amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants based on probable cause for most searches, especially in private homes.
Key Exceptions (When Police Can Enter Without a Warrant):
Consent: If you or someone with authority over the property voluntarily lets them in.
Exigent Circumstances: Emergencies where there's immediate danger, a suspect fleeing (hot pursuit), or evidence about to be destroyed.
Plain View: If officers are lawfully present and see evidence of a crime in plain sight.
Community Caretaking: In some specific non-investigative community roles, though this is a narrow area.
Consequences of Illegal Entry:
Evidence found during an illegal, warrantless entry is often excluded from trial under the exclusionary rule, known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree".
In Summary:
A home is highly protected, and a judge's warrant is the standard.
Warrantless entry is unconstitutional unless one of the specific, legally recognized exceptions applies.
Generally it's illegal. There are one or two exceptions where it's allowed. What I haven't heard is ICE's legal rationale for busting down people's doors. If they have justification, let's hear it. So far, all we know is a secret memo was shown to a few people who were told not to reproduce it or talk about it. The only reason we know about it is because someone leaked it.
I've shared holidays with police, lawyers and judges who loved talking shop with me.
Here's a case where all of these guys in uniform are waaay beyond their authority. They have no more justified authority than a door to door salesman here.
They are pretending that they can justify walking into some family's house, threatening lives and shooting the beloved pet. All this loser has is service of process. That's absolutely nothing to go from someone's curtilage and through the boundary of any home. The guy should be crying to God in thanks that some armed homeowner did not confront the criminal with force.
Some public employees don't give a flip because they are used to covering up for each other as any other gang of criminals, Cripts/Bloods/Outlaw Hell's Angels, and getting away with it. I know a town that the state closed down, dismissed every employee and sought prosecution for stuff like this. I've talked to lawyers specializing in these cases. There are two BIG volumes of major cases on individuals prosecuted and sued individually for everything as well as in their own person. This means that the Bonding (like liability insurance) is Not going to cover them. They are blacklisted from jobs requiring a background check. They are mistaken if they think their towns insurance will cover the lawsuits. They must pay the victims out of their own pockets the rest of their lives. Every hour on the job, a big chunk is docked for their victims the rest of their lives. A lot of police know nothing about this and think their qualified immunity gives them a license to kill, harass, use Stingray listening devices. After all the feds provide all kinds of fun eavesdropping toys. Makes them feel like a James Bond voyeur!
This information is widely known but kept from the criminal element who go from "Officer Friendly" to targeting the wrong person in one foolish decision. Do you hear me @Fvvci ?
Below is a screenshot of the memo. The second paragraph says:
The following reply to Kristi Noem from Richard Blumenthal sums it up perfectly:
Immigration courts are civil courts, not unlike traffic courts. Unless an undocumented immigrant has committed some other crime, an order of removal is a civil warrant and cannot be used as justification for entering someone's home.
"Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHs) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying of administrative warrants for this purpose."
In other words, some lawyers at the DHS decided the Fourth Amendment isn't relevant when undocumented immigrants are involved. The following reply to Kristi Noem from Richard Blumenthal sums it up perfectly:
"Contrary to this assertion, Form I-205, Warrants of Removal, are not judicial warrants duly signed and executed by a judge but are instead administrative warrants for civil immigration infractions completed by immigration agents or deportation officers."
Immigration courts are civil courts, not unlike traffic courts. Unless an undocumented immigrant has committed some other crime, an order of removal is a civil warrant and cannot be used as justification for entering someone's home.
I was in law enforcement years ago. This was before illegal entry into the country was a priority like it is today, but yet a priority, at least in Texas. In that period I was also part of a team studying the procedures of dealing with illegal entry in European countries.
I was under the impression that those countries were soft on immigrants, but I was wrong. Over there most countries didn’t require any kind of warrant, the fact that a person was there illegally was a warrant per se. So they just busted in before dawn and dragged them out of where they were and sent them out.
I was under the impression that those countries were soft on immigrants, but I was wrong. Over there most countries didn’t require any kind of warrant, the fact that a person was there illegally was a warrant per se. So they just busted in before dawn and dragged them out of where they were and sent them out.
Please Note the context of my previous post. If you did not read it, please do so first.
It applies to established jurisprudence, federal and state constitutionally protected rights of every state born citizen. I taught this for years and hope that there may be something there that will encourage you.
My post applied to Americans.
The following is in regards to the issue of illegal aliens.
Illegals are an area of law that I am not up on.
There have always been laws in place to prevent the wholesale invasion that the states now have to deal with. I understand why people in horrible places want to come to America and I can empathize: However am against illegal entry as has happened by the millions under the direction of the previous administration.
I call this an invasion because:
A. It was initiated by the deep state bad actors represented by those who signed executive orders. It has been reported that Biden, Obama, Mrs Biden, and others used the autopen to illegally enact dictatorial, illegitimate, unconstitutional powers.
B. The exact numbers are unknown, but are in the tens of millions! This is equivalent to a large city. When strategically dispersed to key locations, they will change political control to their liking, Communist and socialist.
C. These people come from cultures that brought about demise and horrible conditions that drove the people out to establish the same in our own America culture. If this does not degrade values, what would?
Our ancestors were immigrants that adopted American culture and language.
D. The prisons were emptied in south/Central American countries and made to leave on their assignment to go to America. Our states now have millions of criminals that care not for rule of law or others. Violent Crimes have resulted.
E. The Communists are expansionists as are the Muslims.
Those major groups were harmful to those nations they populated.
Gang rapes and riots are now common in Europe. Once these people get a large enough population in other nations, they take over politically and eventually militarily as history proves.
F. There is a culture in India that has no regards for anyone except their own region. Once they entered, they bring all their relatives and people who take over certain strategic vocations. They exclude American born and monopolize those industries.
I have met them and the strange thing is that they have been the worst neighbors and students.
They bribe code enforcement and politicians. One has recently committed crimes and nearly harmed many people if I did not catch and stop his attempt to burn down my side of the neighborhood. I reported it and the sheriff's deputy did not do anything about it.
Indians have told me how proud they are for doing very horrible things. Not all from India are like this, but there is a culture where bribery, major crimes, harming others to get their way is normal and socially promoted.
I could continue, but break is over. Blessings to you believers and stay safe.
Law enforcement can generally enter a home without a warrant to arrest a fugitive if they have a reasonable belief the suspect is inside and there are exigent circumstances, such as hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, imminent danger, or destruction of evidence. However, a warrant is usually required for a third-party home.
Key Scenarios for Warrantless Entry:
- Hot Pursuit: Police are actively chasing a suspect who runs into a home.
- Exigent Circumstances: Immediate action is needed to prevent escape, protect safety, or stop destruction of evidence.
- Consent: The homeowner or resident voluntarily permits the entry.
- Reasonable Belief: Some courts, based on SCOTUSblog analysis of Pennington v. State of West Virginia, have ruled that an outstanding arrest warrant combined with a tip can justify entering a residence.
- Third-Party Homes: Police typically cannot enter a home that does not belong to the fugitive to arrest them without a separate search warrant for that home, unless they have consent or there is an emergency.
- Misdemeanors: According to Goldstein Mehta LLC, a warrantless entry is not automatically justified if the suspect is only fleeing from a minor offense (misdemeanor).
It's ironic that someone who so heavily promotes the law continually bears false witness against others.The law is not a false dichotomy.