Are federal immigration agents held to same use-of-force rules as local police?

Federal immigration agents are governed by many of the same constitutional limits on use of force as local police. But they operate under different policies and face different accountability systems.

On Dec. 21, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fired two shots after being struck by an SUV while attempting to arrest a Cuban national in St. Paul, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The DHS said two ICE officers were injured and treated at a hospital, while the suspected undocumented immigrant escaped physical harm and was apprehended.

On Jan. 5, an indictment in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis was unsealed charging 54-year-old Juan Carlos Rodriguez Romero with three counts of assaulting an officer, with two of the counts classifying the vehicle as a dangerous weapon in connection with the stop near Westminster Street.

In a statement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office alleged that Rodriguez Romero twice sped toward ICE agents and struck one of them. After being captured, the statement continued, Rodriguez Romero bit one of the agents. The agents sustained minor injuries during the encounter, the statement added.

Rodriguez Romero remains in federal custody ahead of a court appearance Thursday.

The incident comes as ICE ramps up arrests across Minnesota as part of what the agency calls “Operation Metro Surge,” and as thousands of demonstrators have protested ICE activity in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Under the Fourth Amendment, courts evaluate police use of force, whether by city officers, state troopers or federal agents, under an “objective reasonableness” test.

That standard, established by the U.S. Supreme Court, asks whether a reasonable officer in the same situation would have believed the force used was necessary, based on factors such as the severity of the offense, whether the person posed an immediate threat and whether they were resisting or attempting to flee.

Deadly force, including the discharge of a firearm, is generally justified only when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.

“The Constitution is the Constitution,” said Mylan Masson, a retired Minneapolis police officer who previously directed police training programs in the state.

That principle holds regardless of whether an officer works for a city police department or a federal agency, Masson said.

“Whether you’re municipal, sheriff or federal, you should be receiving training on what the standards are for using force,” Noble said.

In the St. Paul incident, DHS said the suspect struck officers with a vehicle, rammed ICE vehicles and later resisted arrest, including biting an officer. DHS described the firearm discharge as defensive.

Courts have found that being struck by a vehicle — or facing an oncoming vehicle — can present a deadly force threat, depending on the circumstances, Masson said.

“Somebody using a car against a member of law enforcement, or anybody, is a use of force,” she said.

Noble said officers are trained to evaluate deadly force situations based on whether a person has the ability, opportunity and apparent intent to cause death or serious bodily harm — a framework used across law enforcement agencies.

In practical terms, Noble said, the legal standards governing use of force do not change based on whether an arrest is for an immigration violation or a criminal offense.

The difference between federal and local policing is not the Constitution itself, but the policies, training requirements and oversight systems that govern how force is used.

Noble said that when an officer discharges a firearm at a person, agencies typically examine the incident through both administrative and, in some cases, criminal lenses. Even when no one is injured, a firearm discharge is generally treated as a serious use-of-force incident and reviewed for compliance with policy and law.

Local police officers operate under Minnesota law and state Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) requirements. The Minneapolis Police Department’s and St. Paul Police Department’s policy manuals are publicly available.

ICE agents operate under the Department of Homeland Security use-of-force policy and ICE’s own internal firearms and use-of-force directives. Those policies require force to be necessary and reasonable and call for de-escalation when feasible.

The consequences of a use-of-force incident can also differ depending on whether an officer is local or federal.

Internal affairs units, civilian oversight bodies and county prosecutors can investigate local police officers. Federal agents are not licensed by Minnesota and are not subject to local civilian oversight. Investigations typically run through DHS or the Justice Department.

Federal officials note that use-of-force policies and review processes vary by agency. In a statement to the Minnesota Star Tribune, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said it relies on outside agencies, such as the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, to conduct primary investigations when ATF agents are involved in use-of-force incidents, alongside internal administrative reviews.