A federal judge in Minnesota has delivered a sharp rebuke to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ruling that agents violated the Fourth Amendment by forcibly entering a man’s home without a valid judicial warrant. The decision, issued on January 17, underscores a long-standing conflict between ICE policy and constitutional law regarding home arrests.
The Ruling and Its Implications
US District Court Judge Jeffrey Bryan found that ICE agents acted unconstitutionally when they entered Garrison Gibson’s residence without consent or a warrant signed by a judge. This mirrors an internal ICE directive, previously undisclosed, which instructs agents that administrative warrants—signed by ICE supervisors rather than judges—are sufficient for entering private homes to make arrests.
The core issue: The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Traditionally, this means law enforcement must obtain a warrant from a judge based on probable cause before entering a home. ICE’s policy, according to the ruling, circumvents this requirement.
The Case of Garrison Gibson
Garrison Gibson, a Liberian national living in Minnesota under ICE supervision, alleges that agents broke into his home early on January 11 after he refused to open the door. According to his sworn declaration, agents deployed pepper spray against neighbors who gathered outside and used a battering ram to force entry.
Gibson’s wife filmed the incident, capturing agents with rifles standing in their doorway. Despite her demands to see a warrant, agents entered without one and handcuffed Gibson before presenting an administrative warrant—a document signed by an ICE supervisor, not a judge.
Re-Arrest and Continued Detention
Despite the judge’s order for Gibson’s immediate release, ICE re-arrested him during a routine check-in, demonstrating the agency’s ability to detain individuals even after a court has found an arrest unconstitutional. This highlights a critical tension: federal agents can enforce immigration laws aggressively, even if those actions violate constitutional rights.
ICE’s Internal Guidance and Legal Debate
The ruling comes amid growing scrutiny of ICE’s internal guidance on Form I-205, an administrative document allowing agents to enter homes without judicial warrants. Whistleblower Aid, representing ICE whistleblowers, alleges that this memo instructs officers that an agency-signed warrant is sufficient for home arrests.
Legal scholars, including Fourth Amendment expert Orin Kerr, argue that this practice conflicts with constitutional limits. Kerr has warned that allowing executive-issued warrants undermines the judicial oversight intended by the Fourth Amendment.
The Larger Context
This case is part of a broader backlash against ICE enforcement in Minnesota. State officials have characterized federal operations as an unconstitutional “invasion,” particularly in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Protests and community outrage have grown as ICE aggressively pursues immigration enforcement.
Gibson’s arrest also included allegations of ICE agents taking “trophy” photos with detainees—a gesture he described as designed to humiliate those in custody.
Conclusion
The Minnesota judge’s ruling affirms that ICE agents cannot enter homes without judicial warrants. While the agency retains detention authority, the decision reinforces the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case raises critical questions about the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional rights, and whether ICE will modify its internal policies to comply with judicial precedent.
