When Citizens Are Caught in Immigration Enforcement: Seven Cases Raising Constitutional Violations

 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement operates under federal authority to enforce immigration law. However a series of documented cases involving United States citizens has raised serious constitutional concerns about how that authority is exercised particularly under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Below are seven cases in which American citizens were detained arrested or subjected to enforcement actions typically reserved for non citizens.

1. Chongly Scott Thao Warrantless Home Entry

In Saint Paul Minnesota Chongly Scott Thao a United States citizen reported that federal immigration agents forced entry into his home without presenting a judicial warrant. He was detained at gunpoint and escorted outside while minimally clothed.

Legal advocates argued this action raised Fourth Amendment concerns which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures and generally require a judge issued warrant to enter a private home.

The central constitutional issue was whether ICE can rely on administrative warrants rather than judicial warrants for home entry.

2. Peter Sean Brown Citizen Held for Deportation

Peter Sean Brown a natural born United States citizen in Florida was detained under immigration authority after a local sheriffs office cooperated with ICE. Despite being a citizen he was held as if subject to deportation.

A federal court later ruled that his detention violated his Fourth Amendment rights emphasizing that probable cause and proper verification of citizenship status are required before depriving someone of liberty.

3. George Retes Veteran Held Without Charges

George Retes a United States citizen and Iraq War veteran was detained during a federal farm raid in California. He reported being held for several days without charges without meaningful access to legal counsel and without immediate ability to contact family.

The constitutional questions raised in his case involved Fourth Amendment protections governing lawful detention standards and Fifth Amendment due process rights which guarantee fairness before the government deprives someone of liberty.

4. Julio Noriega Detained Despite Identification

In Chicago Julio Noriega a United States citizen was handcuffed and detained by ICE officers despite reportedly providing identification verifying his citizenship. He was held for several hours before being released.

This case raised questions about whether probable cause existed for detention and whether adequate verification steps were taken before restricting his freedom.

5. Adrian Martinez Citizen Held for Days

Adrian Martinez a United States citizen in California reported being detained by ICE after intervening in a situation involving an elderly man. Despite showing identification he was held for approximately three days before release.

He later stated that charges were dropped. His case drew attention to potential violations of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure and due process guarantees if citizenship verification is delayed.

6. Abel Orozco Ortega Mistaken Identity Arrest

Abel Orozco Ortega a United States citizen in Chicago was arrested when ICE agents allegedly confused him with his similarly named son.

Mistaken identity cases like this raise a core constitutional issue of whether enforcement officers exercised sufficient diligence before detaining someone and whether probable cause existed specific to that individual.

7. Broader Pattern Citizens Detained During Sweeps

Investigative reporting has documented dozens of cases where United States citizens were temporarily detained during immigration enforcement sweeps while agents attempted to verify status.

While some were released quickly others were held for hours or days.

The constitutional concerns in these broader cases include suspicionless stops detention without individualized probable cause delays in verifying citizenship and access to legal counsel during detention.

The Constitutional Framework

The cases above center on three primary constitutional protections.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and typically requires judicial warrants for home entry.

The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees that no person citizen or not can be deprived of liberty without fair legal procedures.

Equal protection principles raise concerns when enforcement appears based on race ethnicity or mistaken identity without individualized evidence.

Jake Lang’s Minnesota Arrest Wasn’t “Activism.” It Was Criminal Conduct.

Jake Lang wants the public to believe his latest arrest in Minnesota was about free speech.

It wasn’t.

It was about criminal vandalism, carried out deliberately, filmed intentionally, and bragged about afterward by a man with a documented history of political violence and lawlessness.

On Thursday, Lang—a far-right influencer and pardoned January 6 insurrectionist—was arrested in St. Paul after he destroyed a sculpture on the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol. The artwork, installed earlier that same day, displayed the words “Prosecute ICE” and was placed by U.S. military veterans engaged in a lawful political protest.

Lang didn’t debate the message.
He didn’t organize a counter-demonstration.
He didn’t seek a permit.

He kicked the sculpture until it broke—and uploaded the footage himself.

Intent Was Never in Question

This was not a misunderstanding or a moment of anger. Lang’s own social media posts remove any ambiguity. He filmed the vandalism, shared it publicly, and later claimed he caused $6,000 in damage.

That is intent.
That is admission.
That is evidence.

Minnesota State Patrol arrested Lang shortly after the incident near Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and University Avenue. He was booked into the Ramsey County Jail on suspicion of criminal damage to property—an arrest that followed the facts, not politics.

A Pattern, Not an Isolated Incident

Lang is not a Minnesotan. He is a Florida-based political agitator whose national profile comes from his participation in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol—an event that resulted in injuries, deaths, and lasting damage to American democratic institutions.

His presence in Minnesota follows a familiar pattern:
• Travel to a new city
• Provoke confrontation
• Film the chaos
• Monetize the outrage

Just weeks ago, Lang led an anti-Islam rally in Minneapolis that drew a heavy counter-protest response. Now he has escalated from rhetoric to physical destruction of public property.

This is not activism.
It is disruption by design.

Free Speech Does Not Include Vandalism

The veterans who installed the sculpture exercised protected speech.
Lang did not.

The First Amendment does not protect kicking public art.
It does not protect destroying property on Capitol grounds.
It does not protect filming a crime and uploading it for attention.

Lang has since claimed he plans to hold a rally inside the Minnesota State Capitol—despite officials stating he does not have a permit to do so. That statement alone signals a continued disregard for the law and the rules governing public space.

Pardoned Does Not Mean Untouchable

A presidential pardon for January 6 does not grant lifelong immunity.
It does not authorize new crimes.
And it does not entitle anyone to treat state capitols as personal stages for vandalism.

Minnesota’s response was appropriate, restrained, and lawful:
He committed a crime.
He was arrested.
He was booked.

No martyrdom narrative changes that.

If Lang wanted to make a political argument, he had lawful options.
He chose destruction instead.

And this time, the consequences followed.

Alex Pretti Was Killed: Medical Examiner Rules Homicide as Federal Agents’ Narrative Unravels

The death of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old Minneapolis ICU nurse, has now been formally ruled a homicide, a determination that places federal immigration agents at the center of a fatal use-of-force investigation and directly undermines their initial public claims.

Pretti was shot and killed on January 24, 2026, during a federal immigration enforcement operation in south Minneapolis. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner concluded that Pretti died from multiple gunshot wounds and classified the manner of death as homicide — a medical finding that confirms his death was caused by the actions of others, not by accident, misadventure, or self-defense.

This ruling strips away euphemisms. A civilian was killed by law enforcement.

A Scene That Was Not What Authorities First Claimed

Federal officials initially asserted that Pretti interfered with an arrest and posed a threat to officers. That assertion has not withstood scrutiny.

Video footage, eyewitness testimony, and subsequent reporting show Pretti holding a cell phone, not a firearm, moments before he was tackled by agents. He was not the subject of the immigration operation. He was a bystander reacting to a chaotic and aggressive federal action unfolding in a residential neighborhood.

No clear warning. No identifiable uniforms in early moments. No evidence that Pretti was informed he was dealing with federal agents before force was used.

What followed was a rapid escalation initiated by officers — not de-escalation.

Use of Lethal Force Without Clear Justification

Two federal agents fired the shots that killed Pretti. Both have since been placed on administrative leave.

Critically, video evidence shows an agent emerging from the struggle holding a firearm that authorities later attributed to Pretti — a detail that has raised serious questions about evidence handling, narrative construction, and credibility. At minimum, the footage contradicts claims that Pretti posed an immediate lethal threat before force was used.

Deadly force is legally justified only when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The available evidence raises the opposite inference: that Pretti was unarmed, confused, and overwhelmed when lethal force was deployed.

Homicide Ruling Forces Legal Accountability

In medical and legal terms, homicide means one thing: another person caused the death.

While the ruling does not assign criminal guilt, it establishes the foundational fact necessary for prosecution, civil liability, and constitutional review. It confirms that this was not a tragic accident or an unavoidable outcome — it was an act committed by law enforcement officers.

The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation to determine whether Pretti’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated through unreasonable seizure and excessive force, and whether due process protections were ignored in a federal operation carried out without sufficient safeguards.

Pattern, Not an Isolated Incident

Pretti’s killing did not occur in a vacuum. It comes amid mounting national concern over federal immigration agents operating with expanded authority, minimal transparency, and limited accountability — often without body cameras, local coordination, or clear identification.

When federal agents kill a U.S. citizen during an operation they were not the target of, the burden of proof shifts decisively to the government.

And so far, the government has failed to meet it.

The Central Question

This case now turns on a single, unavoidable question:

Why was lethal force used at all?

A homicide ruling demands answers — sworn testimony, forensic clarity, and accountability under law. Anything less is not justice. It is impunity.

Alex Pretti was a nurse. A civilian. A citizen.

He is dead.

And under the law, that death now stands as a homicide.

ICE Lied, Chased a U.S. Citizen, and Violated the Constitution — The Video Is the Evidence

A disturbing video circulating nationwide shows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents chasing down a U.S. citizen who had been observing and documenting federal activity, then forcibly pulling her from her vehicle at gunpoint — all while federal officials later claimed she committed multiple traffic violations and posed a danger to agents.

The problem for ICE is simple: the video does not support their story.

The woman was not suspected of an immigration violation. She was not under investigation for a crime. She was not shot, not armed, and not accused of being undocumented. She was a citizen exercising her rights, who did exactly what Americans are told to do when they feel unsafe — she called 911 for help.

ICE responded by escalating the situation into a violent detention.

---

The Government’s Claim vs. What the Video Shows

After the incident, ICE asserted that the woman:

• Ran stop signs

• Broke multiple traffic laws

• Attempted to run agents over

• Interfered with a federal operation

Yet the dashcam footage shows:

• A woman driving away calmly after observing agents

• No visible traffic violations in the captured footage

• ICE vehicles aggressively pursuing and cutting her off

• Federal agents drawing weapons and removing her from the car

• The woman repeatedly stating she is calling 911 and asking for help

If the video is accurate — and ICE has not disputed its authenticity — then the official narrative collapses under its own weight.

---

First Amendment Violation: Retaliation for Observation and Recording

The First Amendment protects the right of the public to observe, record, and document law enforcement in public spaces, so long as there is no physical interference.

Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed this right.

The woman’s only apparent “offense” was watching and documenting ICE activity, which is constitutionally protected speech and press activity.

If ICE pursued her because she was observing them, that is not law enforcement — that is retaliation, which is strictly prohibited under the First Amendment.

Law enforcement does not get to decide who is allowed to watch them.

---

Fourth Amendment Violation: Unlawful Seizure Without Probable Cause

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. To forcibly stop a vehicle and detain a person, law enforcement must have probable cause or, at minimum, reasonable suspicion of an actual crime.

Here, ICE claimed traffic violations — yet:

• No citation was issued for reckless driving

• No bodycam or dashcam footage shows the alleged violations

• Local police were not the initiating agency

• ICE is not a traffic enforcement agency

If ICE used post-hoc traffic accusations to justify a seizure that was actually motivated by retaliation, that constitutes an unlawful stop under the Fourth Amendment.

Pulling a citizen from her car at gunpoint without lawful justification is a textbook unreasonable seizure.

---

Fifth Amendment Violation: Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

This woman was:

• Detained by federal agents

• Removed from her vehicle

• Transported against her will

• Never charged with a crime by ICE

There was no warrant. No Miranda warning. No formal arrest basis presented at the scene.

Due process does not disappear because federal agents are involved. Citizenship does not become irrelevant because ICE is uncomfortable with being observed.

---

ICE Is Not Above the Constitution

This case matters because it shows something far more dangerous than a bad stop — it shows federal agents attempting to rewrite reality after the fact.

When video contradicts official statements, accountability is not optional.

When citizens are punished for observing government power, democracy itself is under threat.

And when an agency tasked with enforcing the law violates the Constitution, it is not just a policy failure — it is a civil rights crisis.

The Constitution does not contain an ICE exception.

Minnesota Police Leaders Condemn ICE After Off-Duty Brooklyn Park Officer Stopped

ST. PAUL, Minn.  — A growing rift between local law enforcement and federal immigration agents is drawing statewide attention in Minnesota after an off-duty Brooklyn Park police officer was stopped and questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an incident police leaders say reflects a broader pattern of troubling conduct.

At a press conference at the Minnesota State Capitol, police chiefs from several Twin Cities departments publicly criticized ICE operations in the region, saying aggressive enforcement tactics are leading to civil-rights concerns, dangerous encounters, and a breakdown of trust between agencies.

Off-Duty Officer Boxed In, Asked for Proof of Citizenship

According to Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Bruley, the off-duty officer was driving her personal vehicle when she was boxed in by unmarked federal vehicles and confronted by ICE agents. She was reportedly asked to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, despite being a citizen and sworn law-enforcement officer.

Bruley said agents had firearms drawn during the encounter and that when the officer attempted to record the interaction on her phone, an agent knocked the device out of her hand. The encounter ended only after she identified herself as a police officer, at which point the agents left without further explanation.

Local police leaders say the officer was not suspected of any crime and was not the target of an immigration investigation.

Police Chiefs Say Incident Is Not Isolated

Multiple law-enforcement officials stressed that the Brooklyn Park incident is not an outlier. Chiefs from St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Hennepin County say they have received a growing number of complaints from residents — and even from off-duty officers — describing similar stops by federal agents.

“These aren’t criminals being stopped,” Bruley said. “These are people going about their lives — including our own officers — being questioned and detained without clear cause.”

Officials warned that such encounters risk escalating into dangerous situations and undermine community trust in law enforcement overall.

Civil Rights and Safety Concerns

Police leaders emphasized that they are not opposed to lawful immigration enforcement but argue that federal agents must operate within constitutional limits and coordinate more effectively with local departments.

They expressed concern that aggressive stops, particularly those involving drawn weapons and demands for proof of citizenship, could violate civil rights and disproportionately impact people of color and U.S. citizens.

“If this is happening to trained officers who understand the law, imagine what it’s like for everyday residents,” one chief said.

Broader Tensions Over ICE Operations

The controversy comes amid an expanded federal immigration operation across Minnesota, part of a larger national enforcement push. The increased presence of ICE has already sparked protests, lawsuits, and political fallout following several high-profile incidents, including a fatal shooting involving an ICE agent earlier this month.

State and city leaders have called for clearer oversight and accountability, while federal authorities have defended their operations as lawful and necessary.

Calls for Accountability and Oversight

Local law-enforcement agencies are now documenting complaints and exploring legal and administrative options to address the situation. Police leaders are urging federal agencies to establish clearer rules of engagement and to respect constitutional protections during enforcement actions.

For now, Minnesota officials say the Brooklyn Park incident has become a turning point — raising uncomfortable questions about how federal immigration enforcement is being carried out and who is being caught in the middle.

Civil Liberties Attorney Cites Supreme Court Precedent in Condemning ICE Shooting in Minnesota

MINNEAPOLIS Minnesota A fatal shooting involving federal immigration officers is under growing legal scrutiny after a civil liberties attorney cited longstanding Supreme Court precedent to dispute claims that the use of deadly force was justified.

Jenin Younes a former criminal defense attorney and current civil liberties lawyer issued a detailed public statement Tuesday after reviewing video footage of the incident multiple times from different angles and at varying speeds. Younes said she has no political interest in the outcome and emphasized that her conclusions are based solely on the law and the available evidence. She also stated she remains open to revising her opinion should new information emerge.

According to Younes the video shows Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers instigating the confrontation with a woman who was later shot and killed. She said the woman initially attempted to wave the officers past her vehicle and did not engage in threatening behavior.

Younes argued that ICE officers lacked lawful authority to detain search or arrest the woman who was a United States citizen. She noted that under federal law ICE agents have limited jurisdiction and generally may not seize citizens absent probable cause of a federal crime. She said no such probable cause has been articulated in this case.

She further stated that when officers without lawful authority surround a civilian particularly while masked and armed that person retains the constitutional right to avoid or escape an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Addressing the shooting itself Younes said the video shows the woman attempting to drive away rather than toward officers. She pointed out that the steering wheel was turned to the right and that an officer positioned near the front of the vehicle had time to move aside and was not directly in the vehicles path when shots were fired.

Younes cited the Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v Garner which held that law enforcement officers may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm or death. She said that standard was not met based on the video evidence.

She also referenced Graham v Connor which established that claims of excessive force must be analyzed under an objective reasonableness standard considering the totality of the circumstances. Younes said that standard weighs heavily against the officers actions given the lack of legal authority the absence of an immediate threat and the availability of less lethal alternatives.

Younes further noted that lower federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the use of a vehicle to flee from officers does not by itself justify deadly force unless the vehicle is being deliberately used as a weapon and poses an imminent danger at the moment force is applied.

Even if the officers involved had been local police Younes said the shooting would likely violate constitutional limits on the use of force. She argued that the involvement of federal immigration agents without general policing authority makes the incident more serious from a civil rights standpoint.

Younes expressed sympathy for the victims family particularly her children and criticized public figures and commentators who defended the shooting based on political disagreements with the victim. She said celebrating or excusing a death because of ideology reflects a breakdown of legal and moral principle.

Federal officials have stated that the agent fired in self defense alleging the vehicle was used as a weapon. Local officials and civil rights advocates have challenged that account citing video evidence and are calling for an independent investigation.

The Department of Homeland Security has said the incident remains under review. No criminal charges have been announced as of Tuesday night.

---

Minneapolis Shooting: Officials’ Account and Video Evidence Tell Diverging Stories

KRISTI NOEM’S PRESS CONFERENCE CONFLICTS WITH REALITY

MINNEAPOLIS — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s description of the fatal shooting of a woman by a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis sparked immediate debate on Wednesday, with local officials and bystander video offering a starkly different account from the one presented at her press conference.

Noem, speaking at a press event in Texas, labeled the incident “an act of domestic terrorism,” saying federal agents were engaged in an enforcement action when their vehicle became stuck in snow and a woman in a nearby SUV “attacked them” and attempted to “run them over and ram them with her vehicle.” She said an ICE officer fired in self-defense to protect himself and other officers. Noem urged the Department of Justice to treat such incidents as terrorism and underscored her support for the actions of the agent involved. (FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth)

The fatal encounter occurred on a residential street in south Minneapolis on Wednesday morning during a large-scale federal immigration operation. Federal authorities described the woman as a threat to officers, asserting the use of deadly force was justified. President Donald Trump and Department of Homeland Security spokespeople echoed that narrative, saying the woman’s vehicle “attempted to kill law enforcement officers” and that the responding ICE agent acted defensively. (Reuters)

But local officials and independent video footage tell a different story. Multiple clips recorded by bystanders show ICE agents approaching the woman’s SUV as it sat partially blocking the street. In several angles shared and reported by local media, an officer opened the driver’s door and another officer fired at the vehicle as it began to move away. There is no clear visual indication in the publicly released video that the vehicle struck an agent prior to the shots being fired. (FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul)

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, after viewing video from the scene, openly rejected the federal self-defense narrative, calling it a “garbage narrative” and saying it did not match what he saw. He demanded that ICE leave the city and called the characterization of the incident misleading. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz also criticized the federal response and called for a thorough investigation. (FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul)

Eyewitnesses described the moments leading up to the shooting differently than the federal account. Some people on the scene said the woman attempted to drive away only after agents tried to open her car door, and that the shots were fired as the vehicle moved. Video appears to show an officer firing three times through the windshield and driver’s side window at close range as the SUV began to pull forward. (WBUR)

The woman, later identified as 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, was taken to a hospital where she was pronounced dead. Local law enforcement officials, including the police chief, noted that she was not the subject of an ICE investigation and that her presence in the street was not part of an enforcement action against her. (AP News)

The conflicting narratives have fueled public outrage and protests in Minneapolis, where residents and activists have criticized the federal operation and the use of force. Federal and state investigations have been launched to determine the facts of the case and whether the use of deadly force was justified.