Did the ice agents any warrant the would allow them to enter ChongLy “Scott” Thao's home without permission?
Executive summary
The weight of contemporaneous reporting indicates ICE agents who detained ChongLy “Scott” Thao did not present a judge-signed warrant at his St. Paul home; family members and multiple news outlets say no warrant was shown [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, Department of Homeland Security materials and recent ICE guidance argue agents may rely on internal “administrative” warrants in certain immigration operations — a legal posture DHS defends even as civil‑liberties advocates call it constitutionally suspect [4] [5].
1. What witnesses and local reporting say about the encounter
Neighbors, family and independent video reviewed by multiple outlets record masked ICE agents forcing entry, pointing weapons, handcuffing Thao and leading him outside in minimal clothing while his family says no warrant was shown; those accounts are documented by the Associated Press, PBS, CBS Minnesota, NBC and other local outlets reporting the family’s claim that agents “didn’t show any warrant” before breaking in [2] [1] [6] [3]. The footage and family statements are the primary basis for the factual claim that officers did not present a judge‑signed warrant during the arrest [2] [1].
2. What federal authorities have said and what they have not confirmed
DHS and ICE have described the operation as a targeted enforcement action seeking two people identified as sex offenders at that address, but public DHS statements reviewed by reporters did not confirm that a judicial warrant was presented to Thao in his home; DHS said agents were investigating individuals at the residence without specifying whether any form of written warrant was produced on scene [7] [2]. Multiple reports note DHS did not answer earlier requests from the AP asking why agents believed they were present at Thao’s home, leaving a gap between family accounts and federal explanation [8] [2].
3. The administrative‑warrant claim and the policy context
A recently disclosed ICE memo — described in AP reporting and picked up by outlets including Common Dreams and CBS — asserts that ICE supervisors and the Office of the General Counsel consider administrative warrants sufficient in some arrests at residences, effectively allowing officers to rely on ICE‑issued administrative warrants rather than a judge‑signed criminal search warrant in immigration enforcement [4] [5]. DHS defends that position by saying recipients of administrative warrants have already had “full due process and a final order of removal,” and points to past judicial recognition of administrative warrants in immigration contexts — a legal view contested by civil‑liberties groups who say forcible home entry without a judicial warrant risks Fourth Amendment violations [4] [5].
4. How those two threads reconcile in Thao’s case
Putting the threads together, reporters document that Thao and his family say no warrant was shown and that video captures the forcible entry and detention without an on‑scene presentation of a judge‑signed warrant [2] [1]. Separately, public reporting of the ICE memo shows the agency believes administrative warrants can authorize such entries in immigration enforcement, but there is no published evidence in the reporting provided that ICE presented an administrative warrant to Thao at the door — and DHS did not confirm that an administrative or judicial warrant was shown in this specific operation [4] [7] [8].
5. Legal implications, competing narratives and implicit agendas
Legal analysts and immigrant‑rights advocates see a clear distinction between judge‑signed criminal warrants and ICE’s administrative warrants, warning that relying on internal orders to justify forcible home entry raises constitutional questions and civil‑rights exposure [4]. ICE and DHS, meanwhile, have a policy and operational interest in publicizing an interpretation that expands enforcement reach; reporting shows that interpretation is driving agency practice, which in turn fuels advocacy groups’ alarms and local political backlash [5] [4]. The available coverage therefore presents two competing narratives: family and local media documenting no warrant at the scene, and DHS/ICE asserting a broader legal authority to enter residences using administrative warrants — but the reporting does not provide verifiable documentation that such a warrant was presented to or shown to Thao during the incident [1] [4] [2].
Conclusion: based on the reporting assembled, ICE agents did not show a judge‑signed warrant to ChongLy “Scott” Thao when they entered his home, and there is no published evidence in these sources that an administrative warrant was produced to him on scene; DHS policy documents indicate ICE believes administrative warrants can authorize such entries, but the agency has not publicly confirmed that an administrative warrant was presented in this specific arrest [1] [4] [8].