Document: Invite

Comments:

Neighbors say warrant wasn’t clear during raid; DOJ says arrest was for threats

Author: KARE 11

KARE 11. (2026, February 5). Neighbors say warrant wasn’t clear during raid; DOJ says arrest was for threats Video. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5tJrMDLVAQ

Feb 5, 2026

MINNESOTA

Video of a federal arrest at a Minneapolis apartment building is drawing attention online. The Department of Justice says Kyle Wagner, 37, is accused of allegedly posting online statements calling for violence against federal immigration agents, including ICE. The case is also fueling debate about the First Amendment and what the Supreme Court calls a “true threat.” Three legal scholars explain why context and intent matter — and why online speech can be harder to evaluate in court. Wagner made his first appearance in federal court Thursday. Authorities have since confirmed agents had a warrant to enter his apartment, though neighbors and witnesses say it wasn’t made clear at the time. STREAM ANYTIME: https://tv.kare11.com/ LATEST VIDEOS: • Minnesota ICE surge: shootings, protests +... FULL COVERAGE: https://www.kare11.com/ice-agents-in-... #Minnesota #ICE #DOJ #FirstAmendment #FreeSpeec

DMU Timestamp: February 06, 2026 23:17

Paragraph 1 (Video 1) 0

No video-level conversations. Start one.

Whole Video 0

No video-level conversations. Start one.

00:09 0

Feb 11

Paul A Paul A (Feb 11 2026 4:09PM) : OMG. I can't believe the citizens watch guy is blowing his whistle like this with these combat troops with weapons out pushing by him.

00:11 0

Feb 11

Paul A Paul A (Feb 11 2026 4:11PM) : They had a warrant to make an arrest, but are there any rules about how they are allowed break in?

Feb 11

Paul A's Question Paul A and/or Thinking Partner (Feb 11 2026 4:12PM) : This is an absolutely real question. Are they allowed to break windows, and smash doors and push in like this -- given that they did have a warrant? more

Thinking Partner with Paul A's edits:

Having an arrest warrant does give police power to enter a home, but there are still limits on how they enter under the U.S. Constitution and state laws (see, for example, discussion of warrant execution standards in (Legal Information Institute, Fourth Amendment, n.d.)).
In general, officers are supposed to “knock and announce” (identify themselves and their purpose) before forcing entry, unless they have a justified reason to believe that doing so would be dangerous, futile, or lead to destruction of evidence, based on U.S. Supreme Court cases like Wilson v. Arkansas and Richards v. Wisconsin ((Oyez, Wilson v. Arkansas, 1995); (Oyez, Richards v. Wisconsin, 1997)).
If they reasonably think someone is armed, in danger, trying to escape, or destroying evidence, courts often allow more aggressive entry, including breaking doors or windows, but whether what happened in a specific case was lawful depends on detailed facts and local law ((U.S. Department of Justice, Search Warrants and Execution, 2002)).
Even with a valid warrant, if officers use force that is “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment (for example, more destructive or violent than needed to safely make the arrest), that can be challenged later in court, sometimes in a motion to suppress evidence or a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ((Legal Information Institute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, n.d.)).

If you’re comfortable saying, what country/state did this happen in and were you there when they came in, so we can think through what options (like talking to a local lawyer or filing a complaint) might make sense next—or would you rather click Continue with AI to talk more here, or head over to Create Document to start putting your own detailed account or questions into writing?

00:13 0

No conversations at 00:13. Start one.

00:34 0

Feb 11

Paul A Paul A (Feb 11 2026 4:16PM) : What is and isn't protected as free speech?

00:46 0

Feb 11

Paul A Paul A (Feb 11 2026 6:07PM) : To see this right after context is striking. I still can't get over what people in Minneapolis are feeling -- as expressed by this young man ineffectually, yet bravely blowing that whistle. This is the context that Wagner's speech must be understood in.

01:01 0

Feb 11

Paul A Paul A (Feb 11 2026 6:09PM) : Okay these are horrible, hateful, angry things to post on line, but they do not feel like true threats to me.

01:41 0

Feb 11

Paul A Paul A (Feb 11 2026 6:10PM) : I hadn't thought about this: posting something online is hard to prove is a true threat.

Feb 11

Paul A's Question Paul A and/or Thinking Partner (Feb 11 2026 6:11PM) : This would be true in Wagner's case, wouldn't it? more

Thinking Partner with Paul A's edits:

You’re noticing something important: for online speech, it’s not enough that the words look scary; the law also cares about context and intent (what the speaker meant and how a reasonable person would read it) ((Legal Information Institute, “True Threat,” n.d.)).
In a case like Wagner’s (or any online case), courts usually ask things like: who saw the post, what else was going on between the people, did the speaker have a history with violence, and did they seem serious or just venting or joking ((Elonis v. United States, 2015)).
That’s why “hard to prove” can be accurate: the government often has to show not just that the words could be scary, but that the speaker either meant them as a threat or knew others would reasonably take them as one ((Counterman v. Colorado, 2023)).
So if, in Wagner’s situation, the post was online, maybe angry or edgy, but there’s doubt about whether he actually meant to threaten or knew it would be taken that way, your statement about “hard to prove” could be exactly the point you’re making in your analysis.

If you had to write 2–3 sentences right now explaining why proving a “true threat” is tricky in Wagner’s online-post case, what would you say—then you can either click Continue with AI to keep talking it through here, or go to Create Document to start drafting or upload the assignment instructions?

01:50 0

Feb 11

Paul A Paul A (Feb 11 2026 6:14PM) : "Directly and immediately lead to world violence" If this is the standard Wagner's speech is clearly not a true threat.

02:23 0

Feb 11

Paul A Paul A (Feb 11 2026 6:16PM) : This subjective test or "recklessness" is really clear here. You have to know that your speech is a threat, and you still put it out there. Again, that would be/will be difficult to prove in Wagner's case.

02:50 0

Feb 11

Paul A Paul A (Feb 11 2026 6:20PM) : I think this is more evidence that they were more interested in creating a sensational arrest then they were/are in arraigning and taking Wagner to trial. The smashing of the glass, the 15 armed agents, the arrest was the punishment.

02:53 0

No conversations at 02:53. Start one.

Paragraph 2 0

No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 0

No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 3 0

No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 0

No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 0

No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 3, Sentence 3 0

No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 4 0

No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 4, Sentence 1 0

No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 4, Sentence 2 0

No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 4, Sentence 3 0

No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 4, Sentence 4 0

No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 4, Sentence 5 0

No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 4, Sentence 6 0

No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 4, Sentence 7 0

No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Whole Image 0

No whole image conversations. Start one.

Paragraph 4, Sentence 9 0

No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

General Document Comments 0

Image

0 comments, 0 areas

add area

add comment

change display

help

Video

add comment

help

Original

Resubmission