Federal Judge Imposes New Warrantless Arrest Rules on Immigration Agents Across Socal

Federal immigration agents operating across Los Angeles and its surrounding counties now face new requirements for making civil arrests without a warrant, following an order from a U.S. District Judge in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong has ruled that agents must first determine if a person is likely to escape before conducting a warrantless arrest. The judge found that the government "is regularly abstaining from conducting a likelihood of escape analysis at all" when such arrests are made.

This preliminary injunction applies to the Central District of California, encompassing a significant portion of Southern California, including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties. The order was filed under seal on September 2 and appeared on the public docket last Wednesday.

Under the new ruling, federal immigration agents must consider all known circumstances before arresting someone without a warrant. Judge Frimpong specified that merely being in the United States in violation of immigration law is not enough to conclude that someone is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. When making an arrest, agents must document "specific, particularized facts" that demonstrate probable cause, prior to the arrest, that the individual would likely escape.

The Department of Homeland Security spokesperson responded to the order, stating that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "has authority for lawful arrests" and uses "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" consistent with federal statute and the Fourth Amendment. The spokesperson added that the Supreme Court has already upheld these practices. The government sought a 14-day stay on the order to consider an appeal, which Judge Frimpong denied.

The judge's ruling stems from a lawsuit filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Public Counsel, and other legal groups. The suit aimed to end unlawful stops and arrests and to protect due process and access to counsel rights for those in immigration detention. In a June motion, the plaintiffs' lawyers argued that agents continued to make arrests without federal law's required steps.

Mayra Joachín, an attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, described the ruling as "one of the most important decisions to date" in efforts to end what she termed "cruel and illegal practice[s]" by the federal government. She anticipates the court order will prevent "hundreds — if not more — of unlawful arrests" throughout the region. Mohammad Tajsar, also an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, noted that while the order does not explicitly require agents to consider a person's community ties in their escape risk analysis, he believes it is "impossible to do this analysis without community ties," citing factors like U.S. citizen children, employment, or a spouse in the area.

Similar injunctions limiting warrantless immigration arrests have been issued by federal judges in other areas, including Portland, Colorado, Washington, D.C., and the Eastern District of California. Tajsar observed that following the preliminary injunction in D.C., warrantless arrests "essentially dried up almost completely," though agents sometimes adapt by using field warrants they can sign immediately. He indicated that if such practices emerge in the Central District, they "will fight back."

Last month, during a hearing on the motion, Daniel Mummolo, an attorney with the Department of Justice, argued against the injunction, asserting that a warrantless arrest policy "does not exist either in written or unwritten form." He maintained that most arrest records included discussions of flight risk, but agents were "not required to document that."

However, Judge Frimpong cited evidence that contradicted the government's claims. A review of arrest narratives produced by the government showed that 89 out of 113 cases, nearly 80%, contained "either no escape risk assessment whatsoever ... or generally follow an escape risk template narrative." The judge also referenced video footage of arrests, including one instance where agents appeared to pursue and arrest an individual without questioning them. In another case, agents claimed a car wash worker was likely to escape due to "his flight from law enforcement," but video evidence showed the man "standing in the same place" throughout the interaction, never fleeing.

Judge Frimpong clarified that this is a preliminary injunction and not a final decision on whether the government's policies are illegal, noting that will be decided later in the ongoing case.