ICE And The ICE Watchers

0:07In Minneapolis and across the country, people are showing up to watch ICE operations. They're filming, documenting, and alerting neighbors. Supporters say they're exercising their First Amendment rights. Federal officials say they're interfering and, in some cases, even calls them domestic terrorists. So where is the legal line? What actually happens when observers are charged? And what risks do people take by showing up? I'm Jen White. You're listening to the 1A Podcast. Our guests join us to take a look at those questions right after this. Stay with us.

0:42Let's dive into the conversation with our panel. Quinta Jurecic is a staff writer at The Atlantic, focusing on politics, democracy, and the rule of law. Quinta, thanks for being here. Thank you for having me. From Minneapolis, we have Will Stansel. He's a civil rights attorney and policy researcher. His sub-stack, Stansel Culture, is about politics and democratic strategy. Will, welcome back to the program. Thanks for having me. And also with us, Emilia Gonzalez-Avalos, executive director of Uninos Minnesota. That's a group that trains people to be observers, people who respond to observe federal immigration enforcement activities through rapid response networks.

1:16Amelia, it's great to have you. Thank you for having me. Quinta, you're following legal cases against ICE observers nationwide. What are people being charged with and on what grounds? The vast majority of the cases against people who are observing ICE and CBP activity, protesting, even people who are actually the targets of that enforcement, are under one single statute. So I have it right in front of me, and it prohibits, and I'm just going to read here from the language, forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering, and that's the end of the quote, with law enforcement activity.

1:56And so what you see is that the Justice Department in city after city where these sort of targeted immigration enforcement actions are taking place in L.A., Chicago, D.C., Memphis, Charlotte, now Minneapolis, you see on the court dockets in those jurisdictions just a flood of cases charged under this statute, Section 111. And sometimes it's, you know, someone actually did take an action that could reasonably be construed under the precedent as obstructing, impeding, assaulting a immigration officer. So, for example, in L.A., there were a few cases where people allegedly, you know, threw rocks at ICE officers, for example.

2:45Sometimes, though, it's an instance where an immigration officer was aggressive toward a protester or an observer. They, you know, scratched themselves up. So one woman was filming an arrest. She was pushed up against a wall by an agent. That agent scraped their hand in the course of pushing her up against the wall. This is in the allegation by the government. And that woman was charged with Section 111 on the grounds that she caused the hand scrape. So there's a pretty big gamut here between instances where people allegedly really did potentially violate the terms of the statute and instances where it actually seems like immigration officers were the aggressor.

3:30and the person charged, again, whether that's a protester, an observer, somebody who was actually arrested by ICE or CBP, even though they're kind of the victim of the aggression, they're the one charged. I just want to mention here that we did reach out to DHS for this program, but we didn't receive a response. Here's a message we got from a member of our tax club, Quinta. What I see are people clearly violating the law, shouting, screaming, doxing agents, standing in the road. So in the statute you shared with us, how clearly is impeding defined in the law? It's a great question, and I think it's something that we are learning the contours of right now.

4:13The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department clearly understand that pretty broadly. There was a case that I think listeners may have heard of out of Chicago where Democratic congressional candidate Kat Abu Ghazala, some other protesters stood in front of a vehicle, a government vehicle, as it was attempting to enter a detention center, sort of not blocking the car. The car was able to move forward, but they were slowing it down. They were charged with obstructing and impeding. That case is still moving forward. The defendants have pleaded not guilty. I think they will probably argue if it goes to trial, this does not actually constitute impeding or obstructing because the officials were in the end able to get inside.

4:58It just took a little longer. So what we have to understand, I think, is that, you know, the language of that statute can sound pretty broad, but people do have First Amendment rights. There is a First Amendment right to film. There's a First Amendment right to voice dissent. But we've also seen ICE and CBP officers explain the statute to observers, let's say, in language that is broader than I think could actually stand up in court. So there have been some videos, I believe in Minneapolis and I think elsewhere, of observers who have been told by immigration officers, you know, blowing a whistle to alert people to the presence of immigration enforcement.

5:39That constitutes impeding because, you know, somebody might know ISIS here and not go outside. I think it's very noteworthy. They have not charged any of those cases in court. And what that says to me is that it might be a good line to try to frighten someone out of blowing a whistle. But DHS and DOJ have a sense that if you brought that in front of a judge, a judge would probably not think that that met the terms of the statute. Will, what's been your experience observing ICE over the last few weeks? I have been pretty aggressively engaged in ICE observation, including car observation where we identify ICE vehicles and we follow them in our cars and basically alert people and neighbor to their presence.

6:22And what we have found is that, generally speaking, they're quick to threaten you with arrest. But they are not often, occasionally, not often actually making those arrests when you call the bluff. Just the other day, I was following an ICE vehicle, and they actually got out of the car and said, you are impeding a federal operation. We will arrest you if you continue to do this. And I said, I'm not impeding you physically. And they said, well, you're blocking traffic. traffic. And I said, well, you're blocking traffic. You stopped your car. And I said, I'll continue to follow you to a certain road at the boundary of the city.

7:00And they didn't arrest me. They just got back in their car and drove. And I followed them like I said I would, and nothing really happened. And I think that that has, by and large, been the experience of observers. With that said, there are obviously some instances where ICE has escalated, has detained people, of course. And of course, there's many instances of notable violence against observers. But in general, you do get a sense that they understand that they're on legal thin ground as long as you are not physically obstructing them in any way. Well, and as I mentioned earlier, you're a civil rights attorney.

7:31So when you're out observing, what do you understand the legal line to be? What do you do? What do you avoid doing? So personally, yeah, my legal line, the line that I try to adhere to is I don't want to physically get in their way in any way. If they are in a car, I will step out of the way. If the agents are coming through, I will step out of the way. I certainly would never lay a hand on them or make an aggressive action towards them. But beyond that, as long as you are making noise, as long as you are filming, as long as you are behind them, as long as you are communicating to people who are doing the same, you're not helping them get in front of them, I think that you're on pretty strong ground legally.

8:12Amelia, you train people to do this work. What are the first rules you give observers? The first rule we give folks is to not get in the way and to have a body. We began training constitutional observers in 2016, and we have seen how the environment on the operations has escalated and turned violent to regular people, including citizens and neighbors that are in the same area in which these operations are taking place. And so we advise people to not go by themselves, to bring with themselves a bag with notebooks, with their camera, charges, hand warmers, water, in case they are also gassed or chemicals are used against them.

9:01To not bring weapons or anything that looks like a weapon. Do not bring children if you're observing or any pets. Yes. Quinta, one of the things we've seen circulating on social media is people working to identify agents who may be masked or partially masked and then sharing those identities publicly. Can people be charged for naming agents? Now, I don't mean sharing addresses or personal information, just simply identifying who they are. I have not. So I will say, you know, it's hard to keep track of all of these cases. there's over 90 judicial districts in the United States and there is no easy way to search them.

9:40At least under this statute and under any other statute, I have not seen a single case charged that was charging someone for just naming someone, naming an immigration officer. I mean, these are public officials. They serve the public. There is at present no law that prohibits naming. Now, there have been, there's been conversation around, you know, should this be prohibited in some way? But at the moment, there is not. Now, if you took a step beyond that and you posted, you know, I've identified this agent, this is his name, this is his address, it would be terrible if something happened to his family, right?

10:24If you move beyond just identifying someone into actively threatening them, that is a threat and that can be charged and can be prosecuted. And the government has, in some instances, attempted to charge people for such actions, although in at least one case, I believe the case was dropped. We don't know why the Justice Department decided not to move forward with it. But there is no prohibition on simply sharing names of these officers. And I think the fact that so many of them are wearing masks in a way kind of underlines that. There's no prohibition against identifying them. And for that reason, you know, a mask is a very useful tool if you don't want to be identified and there's no legal prohibition on identifying you.

11:10You simply cover your face and try to make yourself as anonymous as possible. Now, ICE and DHS officials have called some observers domestic terrorists. And briefly, legally, what, if anything, does that label mean? Not very much. To be clear, it sounds bad. I think it is politically incendiary and dangerous in the sense that it is labeling political opposition as, you know, violence and potentially even encouraging violence against them. But it doesn't really have any significance. When we think of terrorism cases, we're usually thinking about international terrorism. So, you know, somebody who sends money to ISIS, for example.

11:59But international terrorism is kind of in a different legal category than what we might mean if we say, quote unquote, domestic terrorism. that is defined in the United States Code as political violence, but you can't charge someone with just domestic terrorism. There has to be an offense that goes along with it. So setting off a bomb, for example, can be charged as domestic terrorism, but none of these observers or protesters have set off bombs. They're, by and large, simply exercising their First Amendment rights. And when, again, when we look at the criminal cases that have been charged against these individuals, it is almost 100 percent under this heading of Section 111, this assaulting and impeding a federal officer.

12:46There's nothing that would fall even remotely under the heading of domestic terrorism. There's not even the language of domestic terrorism in these documents that are filed in front of a court. And I think that's telling because when lawyers go in front of the court, there is an obligation of candor. You can't simply sort of spout rhetoric and make statements with no factual basis in the same way that you can on television. And so it's telling that the Justice Department isn't willing to actually go that far when it has an obligation to tell the truth. Amelia and Will, I want to hear from both of you on this.

13:22What do you see as the purpose of having observers on the streets watching these ICE operations as they unfold? Amelia, I'll come to you first. Yeah, so we learned from this strategy in southern states after Hurricane Katrina, where there will be flocks of construction workers rebuilding the city, And bad actors, including corporation owners, company owners, will call eyes on these workers before the projects were done so they avoid payment. And we learn from other organizers in the area that constitutional observing is a guaranteed pattern that can provide some legal recourse for immigrants that perhaps have a legal case in front of a judge.

14:22The main purpose of us deploying this strategy was to only provide attorneys with more legal evidence, with more information about time of arrest. And so we get a lot of questions about, well, does legal observing make this worse? And our position is that it's actually the opposite. Well, I'd love to hear your thoughts. The way I see it, there are essentially three purposes here, and I think they align with the training that I've received as well. One is, first and foremost, ICE is here to detain people, to abduct them. I've seen these take place. Immigrants, they're often, whether or not they're documented isn't always clear.

15:01And they take place very suddenly. There's not any record of them. They will jump out of a car. They'll grab someone off the street, usually almost always a person of color, walking alone sometimes, put them in the back of an SUV and race off. There's no record. There's no way to know who that is. It happens in maybe under 90 seconds. If you're not there observing, you won't be able to get information on who that person is and will never be able to find out, get them attorney, find out where they are, if they've been shipped off to Texas or even out of the country. So first and foremost, you want to get information about people who've been abducted.

15:30Get their names. Second, I think it acts as a little bit of restraint on ICE and on some of these operations. I've seen many, many things that they've done here in Minneapolis that are just egregiously unlawful, that are unconstitutional. just reckless abuse of authority, brutalizing protesters, brutalizing detainees, observers. And that has to be documented. If they know if there's eyes on them, they're less likely to do it. As soon as they move in on someone, everyone swarms them and says, you're on camera. And then finally, and I think this is very important, it's overlooked sometimes, is that you're creating a record, and not just for legal purposes, but for the broader public.

16:07I think part of why we're seeing this backlash in Minnesota is there is so much media being produced of ICE abuses, and that is coming out of the observer network, and I think that's essential. I should add here that late last week, Tom Homan, the administration's boarder czar, said it was considering new guidelines for federal immigration officers in Minnesota, including plans to avoid engaging with what he called agitators and only focusing on immigrants with convictions or facing criminal charges. We reached out to ICE for comment on current guidance regarding engaging with the protesters and observers, but did not hear back.

16:40We'll be you right back.

16:46Let's get back to the conversation with this message we got from one of you. The hardest part is to not cross the line from observation to what would be interference. I have to be present in each moment and know that I may or may not like what I see. Amelia, you were sharing with us what you see as the purpose of having observers on the ground as these ICE operations are unfolding. You shared that part of it is to create a record for possible legal action. But what other purpose do you think this serves? Well, this constitutional observing action matters beyond immigration. History shows that when constitutional protections erode for one group, they erode for everyone.

17:28Today, it's immigrants. Tomorrow, it's protesters, journalists, or people simply standing nearby. Our network of constitutional observers, Monarca, exists because people believe the Constitution should apply in every neighborhood without exception. And constitutional observing is not a spontaneous protest. It's trained. It's disciplined. It's nonviolent. It is a deeper level of civic engagement where observers today in Minneapolis and St. Paul in Minnesota include parents, clergy, teachers, workers, elders, people rooted in their communities. And the guided principle is very simple. Our protection is our power.

18:08It's our relationships. That is the most important protection at this moment when people feel that local, municipal, and even a state government is inadequate to protect people when there's a federal enforcement with a lot of guns, a lot of agents, and a lot of vitriol. We got this question from Jay in Oklahoma. Over and over we hear about cases being dismissed for a lack of evidence and legal standing. Can judges hold ICE officers and prosecutors in contempt of court for bringing such obviously frivolous charges? Quinta, let's start with that first part. What are you seeing when cases against observers and protesters actually reach court?

18:48We're seeing a lot of them get thrown out at various stages. Sometimes what will happen is that the Justice Department will file a case, will file it in the form of what's known as a complaint that only requires a sworn affidavit from a law enforcement officer. If it's a felony, that needs to be charged by a grand jury. but sometimes they can't get a grand jury to indict. In Washington, D.C., we saw numerous cases where the Justice Department tried repeatedly. For instance, in the case of the man who threw a sandwich at a CBP officer, the grand jury refused to indict. That is extraordinarily rare.

19:30The standard is very low, and grand juries have refused. So sometimes cases get thrown out at that stage. sometimes a judge has dismissed a case at the request of a defense lawyer because the judge felt, you know, this simply won't hold up. There was a case in Texas, I think, where a man, an immigrant, was charged because a ICE officer had punched through the window in his car and the officer cut his hand while punching through the window. The man was then charged because of the cut on the hand, and a judge simply said, essentially, this is absurd. You know, you cannot possibly hold this person responsible for this.

20:13There are other instances where cases get thrown out because the Justice Department, for whatever reason, simply decides we're not going to pursue this anymore. We can only assume why that might be, but I think it's reasonable to expect that it's because of a lack of evidence, a lack of confidence. And then some cases go all the way to trial and a jury acquits. And so what about the second part of Jay's question? How are we seeing judges respond to these cases coming in front of them? Are they angry? Are they understanding? Are they giving some leeway around the prosecution? It varies from judge to judge.

20:55My sense is that judges are increasingly fed up with this. for a lot of different reasons. You know, the Justice Department isn't supposed to bring meritless cases. It clogs up the court system in D.C. I'm using that as an example because I'm based there. I'm most familiar with it. All these cases against observers really clogged up the court system and created serious bandwidth problems for judges who just had to grapple with all of these cases. We have not seen any example of judges threatening or judges holding prosecutors or ICE officers in contempt. But if the Justice Department were to, you know, potentially push something as far as it would go, to misrepresent something before a judge, something like that, I think you could very well, you know, see that threatened.

21:46And then the judge would have a decision to make about how far to go there. Well, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced yesterday that all ICE agents in Minnesota will be sent body cameras. and when funding becomes available, cameras will be sent to agents across the country. Will, to your mind, does that at all change the need for civilian observers? Absolutely not. I think that we have, I mean, as we've seen both killings of Renee Good and Alex Priddy were caught on camera, I think that the officer that shot Renee Good was actually filming as he shot her, in fact, on his phone. And what we've seen here in Minnesota is that many of these officers do have a sense that they are more or less above the law and that they, absent the most egregious of instances and maybe even beyond that, just won't be held to account for much of anything that they do.

22:46And so I think that one of the elements of having observers is that you are creating footage that is not just useful as a legal record, but you're creating this comprehensive record that shows from many different angles there are many people there directly observing you, which I think has a psychological effect. And I think that also the footage that is coming from observers is going to certainly end up in the media, in the press, in the political sphere, which in some ways right now is acting as a stronger accountability mechanism than the legal system for these ICE officers. And so I don't think any observer here in Minnesota would for one moment believe that body cameras on ICE officers is sufficient and is going to stop doing it because of that.

23:28Again, I want to mention here that we did reach out to ICE for this program. We did not hear back. Amelia, we're hearing about instances of escalation as observers are watching these ICE operations unfold. How do you prepare people to respond if they feel a situation is escalating? Well, constitutional observing is by nature a de-escalatory practice. The actual act of filming and documenting should not be a reason to escalate a situation for ICE officers. What we have seen is just a major shift in terms of enforcement, But also, constitutional observers are now witnessing the expansion of surveillance.

24:17Observers report being followed, photographed, and tracked after documenting ICE activity. Phones and digital devices have been targeted, and people are intimidated into stopping documentation. And this kind of surveillance has a chilling effect. How do you deescalate surveillance? I think this is bringing us a lot of questions for regulation and legislature in real time, as it's deeply concerning the growing use of artificial intelligence-driven tools in immigration enforcement. when ICE and CVP increasingly rely on data aggregation, facial recognition, license plate readers, and predictive systems that identify, track, and target people.

25:05I want to briefly mention here that we spent some time talking about the new tools being used to monitor people, including facial recognition, license plate readers, and you can find that conversation at the1a.org. Even though observing, as we heard there from Amelia, is viewed as a de-escalating tactic, we did get this from Jay Jones, who says, As a 24-year city police officer, we have been dealing with individuals who film us while we are doing our job. While it is annoying, it is not against the law. We get continuing training on verbal de-escalation. Also remember, many of the federal law enforcement are made up from various agencies, Bureau of Prisons, Border Patrol, and ICE.

25:50They are not trained in city policing. Quinta, what are we hearing about the training piece of this? How well these agents may be trained in knowing what is and isn't allowed constitutionally? This has been a subject of a lot of discussion. So we know that new agents, there's been some reporting from my colleague Nick Miroff at The Atlantic that new agents at ICE are receiving less training than previously, that they'd cut it down to, I think it was 47 days in honor of Trump as the 47th president. It was then cut to 42 days. It is worth noting, though, you know, that some of these agents and officers who are out there have been on the force for a long time.

26:40the officers who shot Renee Goodenough had been on the force for years. So I think that some of this issue is a problem of new officers not being adequately trained, but it's also a problem of people who have previously been in immigration enforcement not being adequately trained, in part because, as you were just saying, you know, these officers are not trained for, you know, acting as beat cops. They're not trained to de-escalate. They don't know how to patrol. They don't know, you know, what the normal procedures are for limiting use of force, for example, if somebody comes up and is filming you or even is, you know, trying to egg you on.

27:28So much of what we've seen in Minneapolis has been, you know, officers continually escalating a situation when what you would really want to see a trained law enforcement official do is de-escalate it. And some of that is just because until now, federal immigration enforcement has not involved acting in these kinds of roving patrols around cities. Now, I think you could also say, you know, maybe this kind of unregulated behavior is a goal of the Department of Homeland security, and that may well be the case. But the absence of adequate training is certainly a factor here. Stephen says if they don't want regular people to act as accountability chaperones, then maybe what we need is for every operation to have official trusted observers from unrelated agencies similar to voting watchers.