Judge Orders ICE to Document Escape Risk Before Warrantless Arrests in Southern California
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong has ordered immigration officers in Southern California to stop making warrantless civil arrests unless they first determine, based on the “totality of the circumstances,” that the person is likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained, the standard set by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). The preliminary injunction was granted September 2, 2026, and unsealed September 16. Unlawful presence alone is not enough to justify a warrantless arrest.
The Ruling
Judge Frimpong denied the government's request to delay the order pending appeal. The ruling states that without an individualized escape-risk assessment, the government cannot establish that a warrantless civil arrest was proper.
Case Background
The order is part of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, filed in the summer of 2025 by counsel including the ACLU of Southern California and Public Counsel amid increased immigration enforcement across the region. The suit also challenged roving patrol stops based on factors such as apparent ethnicity, language, and occupation. A separate part of that dispute reached the Supreme Court, which stayed a lower-court order restricting those stops in September 2025.
This ruling addresses a different question: not who agents can stop, but what they must show before arresting someone without a warrant.
What the Court Found
Frimpong pointed to record evidence indicating that officers routinely skipped escape-risk assessments or based them solely on a person's unlawful status. In one case cited in the ruling, the government claimed a man was “running away” from agents, while video showed him walking at a normal pace and texting on his phone.
The government argued that there is no statutory requirement to document the assessment, citing a January 2026 ICE memo permitting “on-the-spot” determinations. Frimpong rejected that reasoning, finding that officers had not shown they made the assessment at all, whether written or otherwise.
What Changes
DHS did not respond to a request for comment, and whether it will appeal remains unclear.
What This Means for Immigrants
If you are concerned about your immigration status or possible enforcement action, understanding your available immigration options can be important. If you may qualify for a family- or employment-based green card, or you are a permanent resident who may be eligible to naturalize, an immigration attorney can review your circumstances and explain potential paths forward.
Source: Associated Press, Jaimie Ding
