Today I read an article about the “warrants” used by some members of the federal government to arrest immigrants: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/21/politics/ice-memo-enter-homes-without-judges-wa...
"The Fourth Amendment says the government isn’t allowed to “seize” (arrest) you without a warrant"
That's not actually what it says. The Fourth Amendment says the government isn't allowed to "seize" (arrest) you "[unreasonably]". It ALSO says that no warrants shall be issued withouth probable cause. It does not say that a warrant is required to seize (arrest) you. This is an important distinction - as such a requirement would be patently absured in many scenarios where arrest is obviously justified on the spot.
In short, only probable cause is needed for arrest. Obtaining a *judicial* warrant beforehand just preemptively settles the question of reasonableness. Alternatively, the reasonableness of any non-judicial warrant is inherently still at risk of later being overruled by a court - potentially, if egregious enough, leading to a wrongful arrest lawsuit.
That's not actually what it says. The Fourth Amendment says the government isn't allowed to "seize" (arrest) you "[unreasonably]". It ALSO says that no warrants shall be issued withouth probable cause. It does not say that a warrant is required to seize (arrest) you. This is an important distinction - as such a requirement would be patently absured in many scenarios where arrest is obviously justified on the spot.
In short, only probable cause is needed for arrest. Obtaining a *judicial* warrant beforehand just preemptively settles the question of reasonableness. Alternatively, the reasonableness of any non-judicial warrant is inherently still at risk of later being overruled by a court - potentially, if egregious enough, leading to a wrongful arrest lawsuit.