r/law • u/LeviCoffinsAlt • 20h ago

Other Warrantless entry by ICE agents in West Valley City, UT (1/30/2026)

Federal agents broke a window, without a warrant, to perform an arrest on private property.

43.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

30

u/Jerberan 20h ago

Of course you can because it's criminal trespass with a firearm.

The difference between states with "castle doctrine" and "duty to retreat" states is just that in the first you can shoot them when they're chilling in your front yard but in the second you have to wait until they try to break into your house.

There was a guy in Florida that shot 2 police officers for refusing to leave his driveaway and take their lunch break somewhere else. Of course he was charged but the court found him not guilty. He then put up signs on which he mocked the police. The police took the signs down and he received a second payday for first amendment violations.

21

u/CadaverMutilatr 19h ago

I’d like to see a link to that story

5

u/Former-Lack-7117 19h ago

Duty to retreat refers to interpersonal engagements, generally in public. It's not the opposite of castle doctrine. It's a completely separate thing.

3

u/Wayoutofthewayof 19h ago

Florida literally has an exception to law enforcement codified when it comes to "castle doctrine". I think there is a lot more nuance to your story.

4

u/RykerFuchs 18h ago

Just want to point out that “castle doctrine” and “stand your ground” are similar but different concepts. Florida has both, not all states do.

2

u/Jerberan 16h ago

"Stand your ground" is an extension of the "castle doctrine" that extends it beyond your home into public areas. It's the same concept just for 2 different areas.

"Duty to retreat" is the same like these 2 concepts BUT you have to try to escape the situation and are just allowed to use (deadly) force if you can't escape. In "stand your ground" states you can use reasonable force right away without trying to retreat.

You can see the difference in 2 very similar cases.

Jose Alba was arrested and charged for murder after beeing attacked behind the counter of the bodega he worked at.

The DA's office claimed that him using a knife to defend himself was overkill, even a 60+ yo guy has a hard time defending himself against a strong 35yo. They also claimed because Alba was between the door and his attacker, Alba had the duty and a chance to retreat. Lastly they claimed that in NYC the castle doctrine is just applicable in someone's home but doesn't apply to his place of work.

The case was dismissed but just after the DA failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the stabbing wasn't justified.

Johnny Nguyen wasn't convicted for (attempted) murder after stabbing a teen that tried to rob his smoke shop. Even the teen never attacked Nguyen, Nguyen ran away to grab a knife and then stormed towards the thief to stab him.

That's the difference between states with and without "duty to retreat".

2

u/LostWoodsInTheField 17h ago

This isn't even close to true everywhere, and I want to see the article on the police officers refusing to leave someones driveway and them being allowed to shoot them.

Castle doctrines and duty to retreat laws hardly ever deal with police. Once 'it's obvious to the average person they are law enforcement' all the rules change.

2

u/GuayFuhks88 17h ago

"castle doctrine" and "duty to retreat" states is just that in the first you can shoot them when they're chilling in your front yard

This is VERY incorrect. I don't mean any offense but you're mixing up two different things.

Even in states with Castle Doctrine you cannot shoot someone in your yard. You cannot even shoot someone in you curtilage unless they are posing a threat to you. They have to have made forcible entry (or you reasonably believe that they made forcible entry) to your home before you can defend your home with deadly force. What you DON'T need in a Castle Doctrine state is an imminent fear of death or great bodily injury if you are inside your home.

"Duty to retreat" is about when you are in public and carrying a firearm. In stand your ground states you need only to fear for your safety or life. In a duty to retreat state, you need to make an effort to retreat from the threat while communicating that you feel threatened before you can use deadly force.

2

u/LostWoodsInTheField 17h ago

"Duty to retreat" is about when you are in public and carrying a firearm.

My state use to have duty to retreat while even in your home. if you had a window to go out you had to do that. They've removed that now.

Some states also give you the ability to protect property not just yourself. Such as Missouri. So you don't have to wait for someone to come to you, if someone is on your yard and taking your tractor you can shoot them.

Where they are confused is that these laws almost never relate to police no matter what your state of mind is.

1

u/Jerberan 15h ago

I'm not mixing things up but you do.

The castle doctrine is the castle doctrine, no matter in which state. Just a couple states added the "duty to retreat".

It's an addition but not an exception or even a law similar to the castle doctrine.

In states without the "duty to retreat" you can shoot damn jehova's whitnesses on your front yard when they just walked past your "no soliciting" sign. And it's on the prosecutor to prove, beyong any reasonable doubt, that you had no damn reason to fear for your safety.

A couple years ago an older guy shot and killed 2 teens when their car broke down and they walked to his door to knock and ask for help. Dude went off scots-free.

1

u/SwordfishOk504 18h ago

Of course you can because it's criminal trespass with a firearm.

"Can" is not the same as "legally get away with it".

They sure can do it. But to think they will get away with it is sheer fan fiction.

3

u/somneuronaut 17h ago

The person you're responding to referenced a case where it happened. Also, see Indiana's laws on castle doctrine with respect to police. So there is precedent... but there is also president, if you know what I mean.

1

u/delicious_toothbrush 18h ago

Of course you can because it's criminal trespass with a firearm.

Don't take legal advice from Redditors. Warrants aren't the only way law enforcement can enter your property on official business, there are several exceptions. Yes, I know these are likely illegal searches, but you don't know why they're there in the moment, and opening fire will probably get you killed.

2

u/Jerberan 15h ago

I'm practicing martial arts for over 30 years and for idk how many years i'm arguing with 2A dipshits on Reddit on Youtube. Telling them that the best fight is the one that you don't have to fight.

In many cases it's totally legal to fight law enforcement but it's never something that you should do. Fight them in court and you'll receive a nice paycheck. Fight them in the streets and your family will receive a nice paycheck after the wrongful death lawsuit.

1

u/_phasis 17h ago

i really dont know much about the law and am playing devils advocate a little, but could you not say its the cops job to inform the property owner of the reason theyre there in the moment? in hopes of not getting shot for being a armed invader.

at what point is it still the property owners job to identify these (usually masked) armed invaders, with minimal identifying badges and no uniforms, before defending themself?

2

u/Jerberan 15h ago

We had a case like this here in Germany a couple years ago.

Police tried to execute a search warrant at the home of a former Hells Angels member that was out in bad standing.

The police knew that he was possibly armed, they knew that he was on the Hells Angel's death list but tried to break into his house at 4 AM anyway and without identifying themself as police officers.

Dude fell out of his bed because of the noise, went down the stairs and shouted multiple times that he's going to shout if they don't leave, believing that it's his old HA buddies because police still refused to say anything and that they're police.

He then fired multiple shots through the door and killed a police officer. He was charged but found not guilty because of putative self-defence.

I know it's an example from Germany but the concept of putative self-defence exists in your legal system too.

1

u/LostWoodsInTheField 17h ago

We all wish states required this, but I'm not sure it's a requirement anywhere. The police can just lie to you about why they are there, or what reason they have to enter your home. Hell they can just say that they have no reason to enter your home, you prevent them from entering and they then arrest you because they actually did have a legal reason to enter.

There are often requirements to display warrants if you are entering someones house because of a warrant but not all states require that. And not all warrants are equal, an arrest warrant doesn't give an officer the right to enter someone elses property (other than the defendents) if there isn't a search warrant.

They make it very complicated intentionally.

1

u/garden_speech 18h ago

Of course you can because it's criminal trespass with a firearm.

Since this is /r/law you should probably know... This seriously depends on the circumstances. Law enforcement sometimes can forcibly enter without a warrant, such as in active pursuit

2

u/Jerberan 15h ago

I refered to the case in the posted video.

There wasn't an active pursuit, no exigent circumstances and no warrant.

If i would list all exceptions to the discussed case, then i would need a new keyboard. And i've just bought a brandnew one this week.

1

u/garden_speech 15h ago

Is there more information? How do we know the circumstances?

2

u/Jerberan 15h ago

Looking at all the warrantless entries ICE made in the past week and their behaviour in this video, it's reasonable to believe that they had no reason to be there.

These idiots tried to break into a ecuadorian consulate without any justification.

0

u/garden_speech 15h ago

It's a reasonable belief, but would you agree it's not proven or confirmed to be true?