When the Door Doesn’t Matter Anymore

When the Door Doesn’t Matter Anymore

On paper, the Fourth Amendment is simple: the home is sacred, and the government needs a warrant to enter it. In practice, that promise has been eroding for decades. - khs

By SDC News One, IFS News Writers

WASHINGTON [IFS] -- In a special episode of Unprecedented, host Dina Doll sits down with Melba Pearson—former prosecutor, civil rights attorney, and widely known as the Resident Legal Diva—to unpack a Supreme Court case that may accelerate that erosion even further. At issue is whether police can enter a home without a search warrant under increasingly flexible interpretations of “exigent circumstances,” a legal carve-out originally meant for emergencies like fires, active violence, or imminent destruction of evidence.

What’s different now is not just the case itself—but who may benefit from the ruling.

Pearson warns that immigration enforcement agencies, particularly ICE, are poised to take advantage of any expansion of warrantless entry authority. Unlike traditional police work, ICE operations often rely on administrative warrants, which do not require approval from a judge. A Supreme Court ruling that weakens the threshold protections of the home could, in effect, allow agents to sidestep judicial oversight entirely.

“The law draws a bright line at the front door,” Pearson explains. “Once that line fades, everything behind it becomes negotiable.”

That concern feels less theoretical in light of recent reports from Minnesota.

A Minneapolis-area police chief has publicly described multiple incidents in which off-duty officers—each a person of color—were aggressively stopped by ICE agents. These were trained law enforcement professionals, not suspects, and yet they were detained until they could prove who they were.

To critics, the incidents reflect more than overzealous enforcement. They point to a pattern.

Civil rights advocates have begun using the term “Kavanaugh Stops” to describe investigatory stops that rely heavily on officer intuition rather than clear probable cause—an approach they argue has gained legitimacy through recent Supreme Court decisions emphasizing deference to law enforcement judgment.

The term is controversial. But the concern behind it is not new.

From stop-and-frisk policies upheld and later walked back, to traffic stops justified by minor infractions, to “consensual encounters” that rarely feel consensual, American policing has repeatedly tested the elasticity of the Fourth Amendment—often at the expense of Black and brown communities.

What’s alarming, Pearson notes, is that even police officers of color are not exempt.

“When officers themselves are being treated as suspects based on appearance,” she says, “that tells you the standard has slipped dangerously low.”

The Supreme Court’s decision could formalize that slippage.

If warrantless entry becomes easier to justify, and if discretionary stops continue to expand, the legal framework protecting privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches may become increasingly symbolic rather than real.

This is not just a legal debate. It is a question of power—who holds it, who is protected by it, and who is subject to it.

As Unprecedented makes clear, the ruling will not simply define police procedure. It may determine whether the Constitution still meaningfully applies at the front door—and whether anyone, citizen or officer, is immune from suspicion once that door no longer matters.

- 30 -