Judge spanks DHS for sending officers to illegal immigrants’ homes

A federal judge delivered a rebuke to the Department of Homeland Security over deportation officers’ practice of approaching illegal immigrants at their homes, ruling that “knock and talk” violates the Constitution.

Judge Otis D. Wright II said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the Los Angeles area were using knock-and-talk as a pretext for arresting a target. He said that runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment.

“While ‘knock and talks’ — as defined by the United States Supreme Court — are considered constitutional, ‘knock and talks’ — as defined and executed by [ICE] — are not,” the judge 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.’”

Knock-and-talks have long been part of investigative police tactics. Judge Wright said they are legal as long as officers approach the resident to ask questions as any other citizen could do.

Residents are under no obligation to talk.

Judge Wright, appointed by President George W. Bush to the federal court in the Central District of California, said ICE officers are using the approach as a pretext to engage people they intend to arrest.

The judge noted that ICE officers used knock-and-talk approaches to lure targets outside their homes to make arrests.

The officers would be on firm footing if they had a criminal arrest warrant, but deportation is a civil matter. ICE officers usually have only an administrative arrest warrant, which Judge Wright said is insufficient justification for intruding on property.

He said ICE’s policies specifically describe knock-and-talks as one of the “primary methods of apprehension” and as an “arrest operation.”

Matthew J. O’Brien, a former immigration judge and ICE lawyer, said the judge bungled the law.

“It’s absurd to say that ICE can’t engage in investigative procedures,” said Mr. O’Brien, now director of research at the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

He said Judge Wright was applying the constitutional standards in criminal law to the civil enforcement context of immigration, “and on top of that, he’s incorrectly applying the criminal procedure.”

The Washington Times has reached out to ICE for comment.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, one of two groups that brought the lawsuit, said it expects ICE to scrap knock-and-talks nationally.

Giovanni Saarman Gonzalez, one of the lawyers involved in challenging ICE, called the ruling a “significant legal victory.”

“The order will curb ICE’s deceptive ‘knock and arrest’ practices and provide meaningful relief to the class and the broader Southern California community,” the lawyer said.

Although ICE can prosecute someone for jumping the border, merely being in the country without permission is a civil offense with deportation as punishment.

Evidence submitted in the case suggested that knock-and-talks accounted for 27% of ICE arrests at residences in 2022.

The judge’s ruling applies to ICE’s Los Angeles field office, which covers the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

ICE is struggling to find ways to carry out its mission under pressure from sanctuary cities, immigrant rights groups and the Biden administration.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has issued orders restricting where ICE can make arrests. Areas near schools, community centers, clinics and bus stops are off-limits.

Sanctuary cities block ICE from taking custody of migrants as they are released from prisons and jails.

ICE officials say the result is that they have to go into communities and arrest more people at their homes or jobs, which they say puts officers and the community in more danger.

Mr. O’Brien said Judge Wright’s ruling would deepen ICE’s struggles.

“This takes all the teeth out of an investigation,” he said. “This is part of the anti-border contingent’s ongoing effort to portray immigration enforcement as a civil rights violation.”