{"id":419,"date":"2026-05-04T10:33:06","date_gmt":"2026-05-04T10:33:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/?p=419"},"modified":"2026-05-04T10:33:06","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T10:33:06","slug":"your-house-their-rules-no-warrant-no-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/2026\/05\/your-house-their-rules-no-warrant-no-problem\/","title":{"rendered":"Your House, Their Rules: No Warrant, No Problem"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Fourth Amendment<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every individual has a constitutional right to Fourth Amendment<\/a> protection. To be exact, it is \u201c[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures<\/a> . . ..\u201d Searches and seizures are presumed to be unreasonable if conducted without a warrant<\/a>, subject to a few exceptions. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect individuals from unreasoned and capricious government intrusion<\/a>, and the protection is not limited to United States citizens.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza<\/em><\/a>, the court recognized that it is not a crime for a removable individual to remain in the United States, and that deportation is a civil matter rather than criminal. Congress has given Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the authority to make civil immigration arrests subject to an administrative warrant<\/a>. There is contention<\/a> as to whether these administrative warrants authorize agents to enter an individual\u2019s home; while discussing whether agents may enter an individual\u2019s hotel room, the Supreme Court implied that it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for agents to enter the home.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, ICE training documents and transcripts<\/a> explicitly state that an administrative warrant does not authorize agents to enter into a \u2018reasonable expectation of privacy\u2019 zone. In other words, agents are instructed not to enter the home; an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy<\/a> inside their home. When asked what would happen if the agent locates a removable individual in their home, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Senior Legal Instructor, John Seaman<\/a>, stated, \u201c[i]f the officer does not have consent to enter, even if the officer knows the person subject to the warrant is inside the home, the officer has no legal authority to enter the home pursuant to that removal warrant.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anonymous Whistleblower ICE Memo<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A memo<\/a> issued on May 12, 2025, to select individuals within the Department of Homeland Security was leaked by two anonymous government officials. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons<\/a> issued the memo, and stated that agents are able to forcibly enter into the homes of removable individuals without their consent, without an exigent circumstance, and most shockingly without a warrant. The memo<\/a> was addressed to \u201cAll ICE Personnel,\u201d but was never formally distributed to all personnel. The memo<\/a> directed the DHS officials to verbally brief this new policy, meanwhile their written training materials state the exact opposite.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A criminal warrant<\/a> has three requirements: there must be probable cause supported by oath or affirmation; there must be specificity and particularity describing the place to be searched or the person to be seized; and it must be granted by a detached, independent magistrate. The officer signing the administrative warrants<\/a> is not a detached, independent magistrate because their employer is the entity that requests, obtains, and executes the warrant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What This Means for Fourth Amendment Protections<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scholars<\/a> are voicing concern over what the leaked memo could mean for the future of the Fourth Amendment and what it means to have Fourth Amendment protections. The probable cause requirement under the Fourth Amendment is not a particularly high bar, which leaves scholars both confused and troubled<\/a> as to why the current administration is apparently electing to forgo the Constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The overwhelming majority of legal scholars<\/a> agree that there is no authority to enter a home with only an administrative warrant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has been widely encouraged<\/a> by advocates and organizations for individuals not to open their doors to an immigration agent unless they are shown a warrant that has been signed by a judge. This is no longer reliable advice<\/a> when agents are entering homes without a warrant or showing an administrative warrant and having occupants of the home believe that the administrative warrant is valid. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

DHS officials are pushing back<\/a> on the commentary, claiming that individuals served with an administrative warrant have already had the benefit of due process and a final order of removal. The DHS website<\/a> describes the prior process of arresting undocumented immigrants, which was for agents to wait outside with an administrative warrant until the immigrant stepped outside. DHS then claims<\/a> that undocumented immigrants would remain inside their homes and taunt agents by \u201cwaving through the window or passing notes under the door.\u201d The language used<\/a> by DHS paints undocumented immigrants as conniving and accuses them of \u201cmocking\u201d the country\u2019s laws and national security.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Impact on North Carolina<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the increased presence of ICE agents, the leaked memo is contributing to the facilitation of lawsuits<\/a> and the heightened fear and concern among the community. One lawsuit<\/a>, filed in February of 2026 in the Western District of North Carolina by five individual plaintiffs alleges that Customs and Border Protection agents and other DHS agents have unconstitutionally targeted, detained, and arrested predominantly Latino residents. The remedy sought after is legally putting a stop to the current DHS operations in cities like Charlotte, and the plaintiffs are asking for class-action status<\/a> so that individuals who have been stopped or arrested without a proper warrant can join. The suit<\/a> also seeks the expunction of the records of individuals arrested without a proper warrant. It is unclear as to the direction that the court will rule, as the case is still pending<\/a> and the government has not responded yet, but the lawsuit is bringing national attention to DHS\u2019s unconstitutional practices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, there is a\u00a0similar feeling<\/a>\u00a0across the country from immigrants and those who advocate for them\u2014fear. Undocumented individuals in Charlotte have expressed\u00a0their\u00a0feelings<\/a>\u00a0of being terrified to do something as simple as drive in their car to get to work.\u00a0Students are\u00a0frightened<\/a>\u00a0that agents will show up to their schools, and hard-working undocumented individuals are on edge at their places of employment. A community that lives in fear cannot prosper, but residents of\u00a0Charlotte<\/a>\u00a0and other cities in North Carolina have rallied together to protest the DHS presence in the state. Groups and activists are\u00a0mobilizing<\/a>\u00a0for the common goal of protecting their immigrant neighbors, which provides some light in uncertain times.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Celine Kordon<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Class of 2027, Staff Member <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Fourth Amendment  Every individual has a constitutional right to Fourth Amendment protection. To be exact, it is \u201c[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . ..\u201d Searches and seizures are presumed to be unreasonable if conducted without a warrant, subject to a few exceptions. The purpose of the …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/419"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=419"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/419\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":420,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/419\/revisions\/420"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}