I’m a Retired Cop. I Know What a Lawful Stop Looks Like. This Ain’t It.

In the body cam era, “show me your papers” tells you everything.

I’m a retired cop. I’ve done enough traffic stops to tell you the difference between lawful contact and a fishing expedition in the dark. In this age of body cameras, lawful contact expects the light. It gets recorded, logged, and reviewed. A lawful stop has a reason. It has a name, a badge, and a chain of accountability. “Show me your papers” is what happens when power stops caring whether it’s right.

Recent reports from Minnesota indicate that off-duty law enforcement officers, particularly officers of color, have been stopped, harassed, or subjected to improper enforcement by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Local police chiefs in the Twin Cities area have raised alarm about what they describe as unwarranted stops and civil rights violations against American citizens, including off-duty cops, by a contingent of federal agents[1][2]. These incidents have prompted public statements, legal action, and heightened tensions between local law enforcement and federal authorities. Below is a comprehensive overview of the verified incidents, the demographic profile of the targeted officers, official responses from both local and federal officials, legal/civil rights considerations, and analysis of how these events contribute to a climate of civil tension that some observers liken to a “proxy civil war.”

Reported Incidents of ICE Stopping Off-Duty Officers

• Brooklyn Park Incident (Minnesota): In one highly publicized case, an off-duty Brooklyn Park police officer (a female officer of color) was stopped and “boxed in” by ICE agents while driving home[1][2]. According to Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Bruley, the agents demanded “her paperwork” to prove legal status – even though she is a U.S. citizen and had no such documents on hand[1][2]. When the off-duty officer grew concerned about the agents’ aggressive behavior and began using her phone to record the encounter, one agent knocked the phone out of her hand[1][2]. The ICE agents reportedly had their guns drawn during the stop, escalating the fear and confusion[1][2]. Only after the woman identified herself as a Brooklyn Park police officer desperate to deescalate the situation did the agents stand down. Upon realizing she was law enforcement, the agents immediately left the scene without explanation or apology[1][2]. Chief Bruley emphasized that this was not an isolated incident, but one example of a pattern: “Many of the chiefs standing behind me have similar incidents with their off-duty officers,” he said[1].

• St. Paul Incidents (Minnesota): Similar reports emerged from the St. Paul Police Department. St. Paul Police Chief Axel Henry confirmed that at least two of his off-duty officers were pulled over by federal immigration agents in recent weeks[4][2]. In these encounters, agents made traffic stops “outside the bounds” of their legal authority, asking the off-duty officers for immigration papers without cause[3][2]. Fortunately, in the St. Paul cases the agents did not draw firearms, but they likewise only disengaged after the off-duty officers identified themselves as police[2]. A St. Paul police spokesperson confirmed that two officers experienced such stops, which ended once the federal agents realized they had stopped fellow law enforcement[2]. Chief Henry underscored that federal agents are not permitted to conduct random traffic stops absent reasonable suspicion of illegal status, implying these were clear violations of protocol[2].

• Other Reported Cases: Law enforcement leaders in the area suggest the issue is broader. Chief Bruley revealed that multiple officers from various departments have privately reported similar incidents in the past few weeks, describing a “flood” of complaints from both citizens and police[1][2]. In fact, more than two dozen Minnesota officers (through their police union attorneys) have come forward with concerns about federal agents’ conduct toward either themselves or community members[2]. These accounts all point to improper enforcement actionsby a subset of ICE or Border Patrol personnel operating in the Twin Cities region during a recent immigration crackdown. (In one separate case outside Minnesota, ICE agents even mistakenly detained a federal law officer – a deputy U.S. marshal in Arizona – after misidentifying him as their suspect. The marshal was quickly released once his identity was confirmed[8]. This illustrates how aggressive ICE operations have led to “friendly fire” incidents against law enforcement in multiple locales.)

Officers of Color Targeted in these Encounters

A striking commonality in the Minnesota incidents is that all the victimized off-duty officers were people of color. Chief Bruley explicitly noted that “every one of these individuals is a person of color who has had this happen to them”[1][5]. In the Brooklyn Park case, the chief said the female officer was “profiled because of her skin color” while simply driving down the road[2]. Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt likewise stated she is hearing about citizens being “stopped, harassed and questioned solely because of the color of their skin,” and that “the same discrimination is also spilling into the law enforcement community”[2][2]. These statements strongly suggest racial profiling i.e. agents allegedly making traffic stops based on the driver’s appearance or ethnicity rather than any valid cause[2][5]. The fact that veteran police officers of minority background fell under suspicion while off duty underscores the severity of the issue. As Bruley put it, “Our officers know what the Constitution is…they know when people are being targeted, and that’s what they were”[1]. The chiefs stressed that such profiling of minority officers is symptomatic of a wider patternaffecting countless community members of color who are also U.S. citizens[2][2]. These revelations raise red flags about bias in enforcement, suggesting some ICE personnel may be using race or appearance as a proxy for immigration status – a practice that would violate civil rights protections.

Local Law Enforcement Response and Public Outcry

Local police and city leaders have responded with unusual candor and unity in condemning the reported behavior of ICE agents. On January 20, 2026, police chiefs from across the Twin Cities area stood together at a press conference in St. Paul to demand accountability[3][3]. Brooklyn Park Chief Mark Bruley, flanked by St. Paul Chief Axel Henry and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt, delivered a blunt message: “These types of civil rights violations have to stop”[2][2]. All three emphasized that they do support lawful immigration enforcement, but they denounced the tactics of what Bruley called a “small group of agents” acting improperly[2]. Chief Henry noted that people are “afraid to go outside” not because they are undocumented, but because citizens are getting stopped “by the way that they look”, an erosion of public trust that local police find intolerable[4][4]. Sheriff Witt stressed that community trust already “fragile” after past police-community tensions is being damaged: “When one person in law enforcement does something wrong, we all pay the cost,” she said, making clear that federal actions were undermining the goodwill local agencies have been trying to rebuild since the George Floyd tragedy[2][1].

Local officials have taken concrete steps in response. Minnesota’s Attorney General and the cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to halt the ongoing federal “Operation Metro Surge” – arguing that the massive deployment of agents is endangering citizens and leading to constitutional violations[9][9]. Additionally, the ACLU of Minnesota has launched a class-action lawsuit on behalf of residents (including U.S. citizens) who say ICE and Border Patrol conducted “suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests and racial profiling,” violating their rights[7][7]. Community protests have also intensified. Ever since a U.S. citizen legal observer was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on January 7, public outrage has grown (protesters have been rallying under chants of “Get ICE out!”)[6][9]. This broader context of protests and legal challenges forms the backdrop for the police chiefs’ outcry: their collective stance is that no one is above the law, not even federal agents, and that heavy-handed tactics are “illegal” and unacceptable in their communities[3][2]. The chiefs called on federal leaders in Washington to rein in their operatives on the ground, demanding “more professionalism, more accountability, more humanity” from ICE and Border Patrol agents working in Minnesota[3][3].

ICE and Federal Agencies’ Response (or Lack Thereof)

Official federal responses to these specific incidents have been limited. As of the police chiefs’ public statements, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security had not issued any apology or detailed response regarding off-duty officers being stopped[3]. Local reporters who pressed for comment were largely rebuffed. When asked about the Brooklyn Park incident in which a gun was drawn on an off-duty cop, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino (a DHS official helping lead the surge) did not address the complaint directly – he simply stated that agents would “continue to conduct their legal Title 8 mission” of enforcing immigration law[1]. Bovino glossed over questions of racial profilingand promptly exited a press briefing without substantive comment on the allegations[3]. This non-answer suggests that, at least publicly, federal authorities are sidestepping the specific civil rights issues and focusing on the broader mission of the operation.

High-level Trump administration officials have instead emphasized the scale and goals of the enforcement surge. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem boasted on social media that in six weeks DHS agents arrested “3,000 criminal illegal aliens including vicious murderers, rapists… A HUGE victory for public safety.”[5]. Federal authorities claim over 10,000 arrests around Minneapolis since the crackdown began[5]. These statements frame the operation as targeting dangerous criminals, implicitly downplaying reports of detaining innocent citizens. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), meanwhile, has aggressively defended the legality of the surge. In responding to Minnesota’s lawsuit, DOJ lawyers called the claims “legally frivolous,” arguing that the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges had “not a shred of legal support”[9][9]. In fact, the DOJ is now investigating whether Minnesota officials conspired to impede federal immigration enforcement, issuing subpoenas to the Governor and mayors – a rare escalation that speaks to growing friction between the state and the Trump administration[9][9].

President Donald Trump’s own rhetoric underscores the federal stance. Trump has portrayed the situation in Minnesota as one of lawlessness on the part of local leaders and protesters, rather than misconduct by ICE. On January 20, he decried the “anti-ICE mayhem” and blasted “paid agitators and insurrectionists” for obstructing immigration agents[5]. In his view, local resistance to ICE is tantamount to an insurrection, and he has applauded the aggressive enforcement as necessary to restore order. This hardline federal posture – defending the operation’s legitimacy, refusing to censure agents, and even investigating those who object – stands in stark contrast to the conciliatory, rights-focused tone of local law enforcement. The result is a rare public rift between local police and federal agencies, with each side doubling down: local chiefs insist on constitutional policing, while ICE/DHS leaders insist the operation is lawful and vital (and have not acknowledged any specific wrongdoing by agents on the street).

Legal and Civil Rights Implications

The reported incidents raise significant legal and constitutional questions. Stopping a vehicle without reasonable suspicion or probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Chief Bruley and others note that ICE agents generally do not have authority to perform random traffic stops for something like a minor violation or mere suspicion of immigration status[2]. By allegedly stopping U.S. citizens “with no cause” and demanding proof of citizenship, the agents in question may have breached constitutional limits[1][2]. In the Brooklyn Park case, knocking the phone from the officer’s hand could be viewed as unlawful interference with a civilian’s right to record law enforcement. (Federal courts have recognized that citizens have a First Amendment right to film police in public.) Additionally, drawing a gun in a routine stop absent any threat could constitute an excessive use of force or even assault[1][2]. The off-duty officer’s account suggests she was effectively detained at gunpoint without cause, an action that is hard to reconcile with constitutional policing standards.

The central civil rights issue is racial profiling. If agents truly targeted individuals solely due to skin color or ethnic appearance (as alleged), it would violate the Equal Protection Clause and federal anti-discrimination laws. The ACLU’s lawsuit cites detentions based on “perceived ethnicity” as unlawful[7]. Notably, a recent Supreme Court development has alarmed civil rights advocates: in Perdomo v. Noem (2025), the Court reversed lower courts and appeared to give ICE more leeway, by removing certain constraints on immigration stops related to race or location[6]. Observers argue this emboldened some ICE agents to act with impunity. However, Minnesota’s officials are pushing back through the courts. Multiple lawsuits (by ACLU and the Minnesota Attorney General) seek injunctions or damages to curb what they call “unconstitutional policing” by ICE[2][7]. These suits argue that federal agents have exceeded their authority and trampled on citizens’ First, Fourth, and Tenth Amendment rights[9]. The Tenth Amendment aspect touches on state sovereignty – Minnesota asserts that unleashing 3,000 unaccountable federal agents jeopardizes public safety and infringes on the state’s ability to protect its residents[9][9].

Another legal concern is the lack of accountability mechanisms for these agents. Local chiefs pointed out that the ICE personnel involved were masked, not wearing name tags or body cameras[3]. This anonymity makes it nearly impossible for victims to identify officers and file formal complaints. “They like to give you a website to file a complaint,” Bruley said, *“but the complaint requires identity of the agents” – and with covered faces and no badges, *there’s no way to identify who violated your rights[3][3]. This accountability gap means potential misconduct can go unpunished, fueling concern that some agents feel “above the law”[1][2]. The situation has prompted calls for reforms such as requiring ICE agents to wear identifiable uniforms and body cameras (a bipartisan bill to that effect has been discussed in Congress)[4]. In sum, the legal implications center on constitutional violations (unlawful stops and profiling) and the challenge of enforcing the law when federal agents operate under secrecy and immunity. Minnesota’s efforts – from lawsuits to proposed oversight – highlight an ongoing struggle to impose checks on ICE’s enforcement tactics.

My Personal Experiences

I’m not writing this from theory. I’ve lived the switch.

I’ve been violently yelled at on a traffic stop until I said the words, “I’m off duty,” and I watched the temperature change from ICE to a warm sunny day (pun intended). Same road, same face, same hands on the wheel. Different universe. In that moment I learned something that still stings: the safest “papers” in America are not citizenship papers. They are professional papers.

And I’ve been on the receiving end of it more than once. I’ve been grilled, had my ID drilled, and then investigated after with no stone left unturned, all because I damn near ran out of gas in the wrong place down South. So I was Ssuspicious. I wasn’t doing anything wrong. But I could feel how fast “routine” becomes “interrogation” when your body walks into somebody else’s story.

That’s the part the public rarely hears. Black cops in America have always worked a double shift. You carry the same oath, the same training, the same exposure to danger. You also carry the extra burden of being read as a suspect first and a professional second. Sometimes you are forced to prove you belong in the uniform, and then prove you belong out of it.

So when a local chief stands up and says off-duty officers of color are being boxed in, demanded for paperwork, and only treated differently once they identify themselves as police, I don’t hear “news.” I hear a familiar rhythm getting louder[1][2]. This ICE deployment doesn’t create that old American reflex, it intensifies it. It takes the everyday suspicion Black officers have navigated for generations and turns it into a federal mission with tactical gear, secrecy, and very little accountability.

Rising Tensions and “Proxy Civil War” Concerns

These events have undeniably contributed to a climate of civil tension pitting local and state authorities against federal agents. Some commentators and officials have gone so far as to suggest we are witnessing the early stages of a “proxy civil war” on American soil – with immigration enforcement as the flashpoint. Progressive columnist Robert Kuttner wrote that the killing of an unarmed legal observer by an ICE agent in Minneapolis “brings America one step closer to a civil war between cities and states defending their citizens and a Trump administration [that is] using fascist-style tactics”[6]. Minnesota’s top leaders echo this war-like rhetoric. Governor Tim Walz blasted the federal deployment as “a war that’s being waged against Minnesota”[6]. He has even likened ICE’s behavior to that of “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo,” underscoring the depth of his outrage[6]. Walz, a former National Guard officer, reportedly began preparing to call up the Minnesota National Guard to protect citizens from ICE raids which is an extraordinary step that could lead to state troops literally blocking or confronting federal agents[6]. Such a scenario would be unprecedented and fraught with constitutional uncertainty, highlighting just how strained the relationship has become.

City leaders are equally vehement. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey reacted to DHS’s characterization of the fatal ICE shooting as self-defense by bluntly calling it “bullshit.” He told ICE agents, “Get the f--- out of Minneapolis. We do not want you here”[6][6]. This kind of incendiary language from a sitting mayor to federal law enforcement is almost unheard of in recent history, and it reflects a complete breakdown in comity. On the other side, President Trump and his allies portray Minnesota’s defiance as insurrectionary. Trump has labeled local protesters and even officials as “agitators” and implied they are betraying law and order[5]. The DOJ’s obstruction probe targeting Walz, Frey, and others further amps up the confrontation[9][9]. In effect, each side – federal vs. state/local – accuses the other of lawlessness.

Taken together, these dynamics resemble a proxy conflict between different levels of government within the U.S. The “war” is not fought with armies, but through competing law enforcement actions, legal battles, and dueling narratives. On the ground in Minnesota, it has manifested in scenes of armed federal agents in tactical gear facing off against angry citizens and even against off-duty local officers. Protesters with whistles and cameras shadow ICE teams to alert neighbors[6], while federal convoys patrol neighborhoods in a show of force. Each escalation (a controversial arrest, a protest turning chaotic, a harsh statement from either side) feeds into the next. Analysts worry that this erosion of cooperation between federal and local authorities “has evaporated any semblance of normal relations”[6]. The term “proxy civil war” has been used to describe how political conflicts which in this case is over immigration and federal power are increasingly playing out as physical confrontations in city streets[6]. While it has not reached anything near the scale of an actual civil war, the polarization and willingness to defy authority on both sides are deeply concerning. As one legal expert noted, “Any day that sees state National Guard troops potentially squaring off against federal agents is a day we’re in uncharted territory”[6].

Conclusion

In summary, multiple verified incidents in Minnesota show that off-duty police officers (all people of color) have been improperly stopped and harassed by ICE agents, presumably due to racial profiling and overzealous immigration enforcement[1][5]. These cases – alongside numerous civilian reports – have prompted a public reckoning, with local police chiefs condemning the federal agents’ conduct as unlawful and unacceptable[2][2]. Official responses have been starkly divided: Minnesota law enforcement and officials demand reforms and oversight, while ICE and Trump administration figures largely defend the crackdown and dismiss criticisms[1][5]. The incidents raise serious civil rights issues regarding unconstitutional stops and racial bias, now the subject of lawsuits and national debate[7][7]. Moreover, the fallout has inflamed an unprecedented conflict between local and federal authorities, contributing to what some describe as a “proxy civil war” atmosphere of political and social strife[6][6]. The situation in Minnesota illustrates the high stakes at the intersection of immigration policy, policing, and civil liberties where the actions of a few federal agents have triggered a broad crisis of trust and governance. As Chief Bruley declared on behalf of his peers and community, “If it’s happening to our officers, it pains me to think how many of our community members are falling victim… It has to stop”[2][2].

Support This Work

If this piece gave you a name for what you have been feeling, don’t let it end as a scroll.

I work for YOU. Not for a billionaire media outlet. Not for a party. Not for a donor class. I’m here, day and night, doing the unglamorous work of tracking receipts, translating legal smoke into plain language, and saying the part out loud that people with corporate bosses cannot say.

If you want more of this voice on this issue, make it real. Become a paid subscriber here:

Sources:

1. CBS Minnesota – WCCO News (Jan. 20, 2026): Report on off-duty officers targeted by ICE — https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/off-duty-twin-cities-officers-profiled-ice/ [1][1]

2. Sahan Journal (Jan. 20, 2026): Coverage of police chiefs’ press conference and incidents — https://sahanjournal.com/public-safety/minnesota-police-concerns-federal-immigration-agents/ [2][2]

3. KSTP 5 Eyewitness News (Jan. 20, 2026): “Local law enforcement calls for ICE accountability” — https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/local-law-enforcement-heads-share-concerns-about-federal-agents-conduct-in-twin-cities/ [3][3]

4. The Spokesman-Review/Pioneer Press (Jan. 20, 2026): Remarks by St. Paul Police Chief and others on ICE stops — https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jan/20/st-paul-police-chief-even-off-duty-cops-are-being-/ [4][4]

5. Fox News (Jan. 20, 2026): “Minnesota police chiefs allege ICE agents racially profiled citizens” — https://www.foxnews.com/us/minnesota-police-chiefs-allege-some-ice-agents-racially-profiled-us-citizens-including-off-duty-officers [5][5]

6. The American Prospect (Jan. 8, 2026): Robert Kuttner’s column on the ICE shooting and civil conflict — https://prospect.org/2026/01/08/ice-murder-broader-battle-minneapolis/ [6][6]

7. ACLU Minnesota – Press statements on class-action lawsuit (Dec. 2025) — https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-federal-government-to-end-ice-cbps-practice-of-suspicionless-stops-warrantless-arrests-and-racial-profiling-of-minnesotans [7][7]

8. Guardian (June 8, 2025): Report of ICE mistakenly detaining a U.S. marshal in Arizona — https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/08/ice-agents-mistakenly-detain-us-marshal-arizona [8][8]

9. Additional reporting by CBS/AP on legal actions and protests in Minnesota — https://apnews.com/article/minneapolis-immigration-operation-lawsuit-8805b301ff4a7bfb0058e085ffa8c034 ; https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/doj-appeal-ruling-limiting-ice-agents-tactics/ [9][9]