Can ice agents arrest people that are interfering with investigations?
Executive summary
Yes — federal immigration officers can arrest people who interfere with their operations, but who they can lawfully detain, under what authority, and whether those arrests withstand constitutional scrutiny depends on statutory powers, whether the conduct is a federal crime, agency designation and training, and Fourth Amendment limits (8 U.S.C. §1357/INA §287 and ICE guidance) [1] [2] [3].
1. Statutory backbone: administrative arrest powers and interrogations
Congress granted immigration officers express, warrantless powers to interrogate and arrest noncitizens under 8 U.S.C. §1357 (commonly cited as INA §287), which the agency and DHS repeatedly point to when describing authority to arrest aliens without a judicial warrant [1] [3] [2].
2. Arresting “interferers”: obstruction, assault and federal crimes
When interference crosses into federal crimes — for example assaulting an officer, obstructing official duties, or other federal offenses — ICE can arrest the perpetrator regardless of citizenship status under its criminal-law authority; ICE and legal commentators note that obstruction of an officer in the performance of duties is prosecutable and can justify arrest [4] [5] [6].
3. Different buckets of subjects: noncitizens versus U.S. citizens
ICE’s civil immigration arrest powers apply to aliens, but those powers do not authorize civil detention of U.S. citizens; if a person is a citizen, ICE lacks authority to detain them for immigration reasons but may arrest them if there is probable cause of a federal crime such as assaulting or obstructing an officer [1] [6] [7].
4. Constitutional and practical limits: warrants, private spaces, and “sensitive locations”
Administrative arrest warrants are not judicial warrants, and courts have sometimes found Fourth Amendment violations where ICE entered homes without a judicial warrant absent exigent circumstances or consent; DHS policy also limits enforcement at “sensitive locations” like hospitals and schools — all of which constrain how and where arrests for interference can lawfully occur [8] [9] [10] [11].
5. Agency structure, designation and training matter on the ground
Not all ICE employees have identical powers; statutes and agency rules require specific designation and training for officers to execute certain arrests or use force, and units like HSI (criminal investigators) have broader criminal authorities than some ERO personnel — meaning whether an officer can arrest someone for “interfering” depends on the agent’s statutory designation and certifications [8] [6] [1].
6. Operational claims versus civil‑liberties concerns and jurisdictional friction
ICE and DHS public materials stress that obstructing enforcement is illegal and reckless, a talking point used to discourage interference, while civil‑liberties advocates and some courts have pushed back — alleging overreach, unlawful entries, and use‑of‑force violations that spark parallel investigations and jurisdiction disputes between federal and state authorities — a dynamic visible in recent high‑profile incidents and reporting [2] [3] [12] [13].
7. Practical takeaway: arrest possible but fact‑dependent
In practice, agents can and do arrest people who physically interfere with or commit crimes during immigration operations, and they claim statutory authority to detain noncitizens without a judicial warrant; however, the legality of any particular arrest will turn on whether the officer was properly designated/certified, whether the conduct constituted a federal crime, whether the intrusion met Fourth Amendment exceptions, and whether DHS policies (e.g., sensitive‑location restrictions) were followed — available reporting and statutes establish the framework but do not resolve every contested arrest [1] [8] [10] [2].