THE DEATHS
How many people have been killed by ICE?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recorded 32 deaths in its custody, the highest annual total in more than two decades. As of January 22, 2026, at least 4 additional deaths have already occurred this year.
While some deaths are attributed to natural causes, a 2024 investigation by the ACLU and other human rights organizations found that 95% of deaths in ICE detention between 2017 and 2021 were likely preventable with adequate medical care.
Death Statistics and Trends (2020–2026)
Period
2026 (YTD)
Total Deaths Reported
4
Notable Context
Four deaths in the first 10 days of January.
Period
2025
Total Deaths Reported
32
Notable Context
Deadliest year since 2004; coincides with record detention levels.
Period
2024
Total Deaths Reported
12
Notable Context
More than double the figure from 2023.
Period
2021–2023
Total Deaths Reported
~23
Notable Context
Combined total for the first three years of the Biden administration.
Period
2020
Total Deaths Reported
21
Notable Context
Previous peak due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recent Fatal Use-of-Force Incidents
Beyond detention facility deaths, ICE agents have been involved in several fatal shootings during enforcement actions:
Renee Nicole Good: A 37-year-old U.S. citizen killed by an ICE officer in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026.
New Year’s Eve Shooting: An off-duty ICE official killed a man in an incident DHS described as an “active shooter situation”.
Traffic Stop Death: In late 2025, an agent killed a 38-year-old Mexican citizen during a traffic stop after the man allegedly resisted arrest.
Documented Causes of Death
Advocacy groups and government oversight reports identify several systemic failures contributing to fatalities:
Medical Neglect: Delayed or substandard care, including failure to provide medication or timely hospital transfers.
Mental Health Crisis: Suicides account for a portion of the deaths, often linked to the use of solitary confinement during mental health crises.
Physical Abuse: At least one 2026 death in a Texas facility was ruled a homicide, with reports suggesting a detainee was choked to death.
For current data and individual reports, you can access the ICE Detainee Death Reporting page, though advocacy groups like the American Immigration Council frequently report higher numbers than those officially listed on the agency’s website.”
ICE ACCOUNTABILITY
How can ICE be held accountable?
GoogleAI Mode: “Accountability for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) involves a combination of legal action, federal oversight, and legislative efforts. As of 2026, these mechanisms are under heightened scrutiny following a record number of deaths in custody and controversial enforcement tactics.
- Legal Action and Litigation
Lawsuits are a primary tool for families and advocacy groups to seek justice for individual or systemic harm.
Civil Rights Lawsuits (Bivens Suits): Individuals can sue federal agents directly for constitutional violations, such as excessive use of force or Fourth Amendment breaches.
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): Victims can seek financial damages from the federal government for negligence or wrongful acts by its employees.
Class Action Lawsuits: In January 2026, detainees filed a federal class-action suit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE, alleging pervasive medical neglect and “barbaric” conditions at the California City facility.
State-Level Challenges: Some states are passing legislation to allow residents to sue federal agents in state court for civil rights violations, though these are currently facing federal legal challenges.
- Federal Oversight Mechanisms
Internal and independent federal bodies are responsible for investigating misconduct.
DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG): The OIG conducts unannounced inspections and investigates serious allegations of misconduct, including deaths in custody. Complaints can be filed through the DHS OIG Hotline.
Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR): An internal ICE unit required to review all “critical incidents,” including fatal shootings or deaths in detention.
Whistleblower Reports: Internal government officials have recently shared memos with Congress to expose non-public policies, such as directives allowing agents to enter homes without judicial warrants.
- Congressional Oversight and Legislation
Congress uses its power to regulate funding and investigate agency practices.
Oversight Hearings: Committees in the House and Senate can summon ICE leadership to testify about medical standards and use-of-force policies.
Legislative Mandates: Recent proposed bills include:
TRACK ICE Act (2026): Aimed at preventing “ghost flights” by requiring transparency in the transportation of detainees.
DHS Use of Force Oversight Act: A bill to codify use-of-force policies and prohibit tactics like choke-holds.
Funding Conditions: Lawmakers may place “guardrails” on DHS appropriations, such as mandatory body cameras and increased funding for detention facility oversight.
- Transparency and Public Advocacy
Organizations like the ACLU and the American Immigration Council play a critical role by:
Filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to force the release of internal records.
Publishing independent research, such as the 2024 “Deadly Failures” report, which analyzed 52 deaths and recommended ending mass detention.
Engaging in public documentation of ICE activities to provide evidence for future litigation or prosecution.”
THE MOST UPSETTING DEATHS
Which death is the most upsetting to people?
GoogleAI Mode: “In January 2026, two specific deaths have caused significant public distress and nationwide protests due to the violent circumstances and conflicting accounts between federal agents and witnesses.
- Renée Nicole Good (Minneapolis, MN)
The fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renée Nicole Good on January 7, 2026, is widely considered the most upsetting and high-profile incident in recent years.
The Incident: Good, a U.S. citizen and mother of three, was shot by an ICE agent in a residential Minneapolis neighborhood.
The Conflict: ICE officials claimed the agent acted in self-defense because Good attempted to run them over. However, local leaders, including Mayor Jacob Frey and Governor Tim Walz, stated that bystander video showed her vehicle moving away from agents rather than toward them.
Public Outcry: Her death sparked “ICE Out For Good” protests in over 1,000 cities across the U.S.. In Minneapolis, thousands marched in freezing rain, and high-profile figures like Ellen DeGeneres publicly expressed anger and grief over the killing.
- Geraldo Lunas Campos (El Paso, TX)
The death of 55-year-old Geraldo Lunas Campos on January 3, 2026, has caused deep alarm because it was officially ruled a homicide while in detention.
The Incident: Lunas Campos died at Camp East Montana, a massive tent facility at Fort Bliss.
The Conflict: ICE initially reported he died of “medical distress” during a suicide attempt. However, an autopsy report released on January 21, 2026, ruled the death a homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and chest compression.
Witness Accounts: Detainees who witnessed the event alleged that at least five guards pinned a handcuffed Lunas Campos to the floor, with one guard squeezing his neck until he was unconscious.
Other Notable Deaths
Keith Porter (Northridge, CA): A father of two killed by an off-duty ICE agent on New Year’s Eve 2025. While the agent claimed Porter pointed a rifle at him, his family and community have held vigils calling the agent a “murderer”.
Parady La (Philadelphia, PA): A 46-year-old refugee who died on January 9, 2026, from drug withdrawal. His family is outraged that guards administered Narcan (used for overdoses) instead of treating his known withdrawal symptoms.”
HELPFUL STEPS TO HOLD ICE ACCOUNTABLE
What is the 5/5 solution to holding ICE accountable?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2026, the “5/5 solution” for holding ICE accountable typically refers to the 5Ds of Bystander Intervention, a framework promoted by advocacy groups like BeLuminous to empower witnesses to document and safely disrupt harmful immigration enforcement actions.
This community-led solution focuses on immediate, on-the-ground accountability through five specific tactics:
The 5Ds of ICE Accountability
Direct: Speak up to ICE agents in a firm, clear, and non-confrontational way. The goal is to let agents know they are being watched and to assert that the community is aware of the individual’s rights.
Delegate: Find someone else who can help, such as a legal observer, a community leader, or local faith-based rapid response teams.
Delay: Check in with the person being targeted after the incident has passed. Offer support, share any documentation you recorded, and help connect them to legal services.
Distract: Create a safe distraction to interrupt the escalation of the situation. This can involve starting a conversation with the agents or the person being targeted to shift the focus and potentially de-escalate the encounter.
Document: Record the encounter from a safe distance. High-quality documentation includes capturing agent badge numbers, vehicle license plates, and timestamps. In 2026, groups like the ICE Accountability Project encourage the submission of these videos to centralized, non-government platforms to serve as evidence for future litigation or prosecution.
Other Systematic “5-Point” Solutions
While the 5Ds are the most common community-facing solution, other organizations have proposed 5-point policy reforms to hold ICE accountable:
Contractual Oversight: Advocacy groups like the National Immigrant Justice Center advocate for a five-point plan focused on detention contracts: (1) Mandatory adherence to 2011 standards, (2) Terminating non-compliant contracts, (3) Ending indefinite contracts, (4) Ending “guaranteed bed” payments, and (5) Including non-governmental monitors in the inspection process.
Congressional Action: The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) provides a toolkit for members of Congress that emphasizes five key actions: (1) Use casework data for public reports, (2) File complaints with the DHS OPR, (3) Visit facilities unannounced, (4) Host public briefings, and (5) Submit misconduct data to the House Oversight Committee Dashboard.”
BARRIERS TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
What about criminal charges for homicide?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2026, the possibility of criminal homicide charges against ICE agents remains a central point of legal and political conflict. While medical examiners and local prosecutors may identify certain deaths as homicides, bringing criminal charges against federal agents involves significant legal hurdles.
Status of Current Homicide Investigations (January 2026)
Geraldo Lunas Campos (El Paso, TX): On January 21, 2026, the El Paso County Medical Examiner officially ruled the death of Lunas Campos as a homicide caused by “asphyxia due to neck and torso compression”. While the medical examiner identifies the manner of death as homicide, this is not an automatic criminal indictment. The FBI typically investigates homicides occurring on federal property, but it has not yet confirmed if criminal charges will be filed against the guards involved.
Renée Nicole Good (Minneapolis, MN): Despite the fatal shooting on January 7, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) stated on January 18 that it will not investigate the agent involved. The Trump administration maintains the agent acted in self-defense, while local prosecutors are currently exploring state-level charges, such as murder or manslaughter, though they face active obstruction from federal authorities refusing to share evidence.
Barriers to Criminal Prosecution
Legal experts highlight three primary obstacles that prevent ICE agents from being charged with homicide in state courts:
Supremacy Clause Immunity: Under the U.S. Constitution, federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution for acts performed as part of their official duties that they reasonably believe are “necessary and proper”. To overcome this, a state prosecutor must prove the agent overstepped their federal authority or acted with malice.
Federal Removal: Even if a local district attorney files homicide charges, federal law allows the case to be “removed” to federal court. This often leads to the charges being dismissed by a federal judge before the case ever reaches a local jury.
Lack of Federal Cooperation: In both the Good and Lunas Campos cases, federal agencies have been accused of “siloing” information. Local investigators often cannot access crucial evidence—such as surveillance video, internal witness statements, or unredacted reports—needed to build a criminal case.
Advocacy for “Equal Application” of State Law
Some legal scholars and local officials, such as Minneapolis Prosecutor Mary Moriarty and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, argue that federal agents do not have “universal immunity”. They contend that when an agent violates state laws—such as committing an assault or homicide that is not “necessary”—local law enforcement has the inherent power to make arrests and pursue state-level criminal proceedings.”
STATES POSSESS THE INHERENT AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE
When an agent violates state laws, do states have the inherent power to pursue them?
GoogleAI Mode: “States possess the inherent authority to investigate and prosecute federal agents for violating state criminal laws, but this power is significantly restricted by the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. While federal agents do not have “absolute immunity,” they are protected by Supremacy Clause immunity if their actions meet specific criteria.
The Legal Framework: In re Neagle Test
Under the landmark 1890 Supreme Court case In re Neagle, a federal agent is immune from state prosecution only if they satisfy a two-part test:
Authorized Act: Was the agent performing an act that federal law authorized them to perform?
Necessary and Proper: Were their actions “necessary and proper” to fulfilling their federal duties?
If an agent’s actions are deemed “egregious,” “unwarranted,” or beyond the scope of their lawful duties—such as committing an act of malice or a crime unrelated to their federal function—states can move forward with prosecution.
Practical Obstacles to State Prosecution
Despite having the inherent power to charge agents, states face major practical hurdles:
Federal Removal: Federal law allows agents to move state criminal cases to federal court. Once there, a federal judge determines if the agent is immune. If the judge grants immunity, the state charges are dismissed.
Evidence Obstruction: In 2026, federal authorities have reportedly refused to share critical evidence (e.g., surveillance video, witness statements) with state investigators in high-profile cases like the death of Renée Nicole Good.
Threats of Counter-Prosecution: As of late 2025 and early 2026, some federal officials have threatened to prosecute state and local authorities who attempt to arrest or charge federal agents.
2026 State-Level Counter-Measures
Some states are actively attempting to bypass these federal protections:
Accountability Commissions: In October 2025, Illinois created a commission to gather testimony and preserve evidence for potential state prosecutions, even in the face of federal non-cooperation.
New Legislation: Governors in New York and Illinois have proposed “converse-1983” laws to create a state-level equivalent to civil rights suits, allowing residents to sue federal agents in state court for violations of state law.
Compelled Evidence: Prosecutors like Mary Moriarty in Minneapolis are exploring legal avenues to compel federal agencies like the FBI to release evidence needed for state-level homicide trials.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
APPLYING THE NEAGLE TEST
Considering the available evidence, which deaths are likely to come under the Neagle test? Which should fail the test on its face?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2026, legal experts and state officials are testing the “In re Neagle” test against high-profile deaths involving ICE to determine if agents can be prosecuted in state courts for homicide.
The Neagle test grants federal agents immunity from state prosecution only if they satisfy two conditions:
Authorized Act: They were performing a duty authorized by federal law.
Necessary and Proper: They did no more than what was “necessary and proper” to fulfill that duty.
Deaths Likely to Face the Neagle Test
These cases involve actions that occurred during official duties, requiring a judge to decide if the specific level of force used was “necessary.”
Renée Nicole Good (Minneapolis, MN): This case is the most direct application of Neagle in 2026.
Evidence for Immunity: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleges the agent acted in self-defense after Good “weaponized” her vehicle to ram them.
Evidence Against: State officials and bystander video suggest her vehicle was moving away, making the use of deadly force potentially unnecessary and outside the “proper” scope of duty.
Portland and Minneapolis Shootings (January 2026): Multiple incidents in which ICE agents shot and wounded individuals during enforcement actions are currently under federal review. If state charges are filed, judges will apply the Neagle test to determine if the agents reasonably believed they were in danger.
Deaths That May “Fail on Its Face”
While Neagle is a broad shield, it is not absolute. Some 2026 cases involve actions that appear so far outside the bounds of “necessary and proper” duty that legal experts argue they should fail the test immediately.
Geraldo Lunas Campos (El Paso, TX): This case is the strongest candidate for failing the Neagle test.
The Findings: An official autopsy ruled the death a homicide caused by “asphyxia due to neck and torso compression.”
The Conflict: While subduing a non-compliant detainee is an authorized act, eyewitnesses allege guards used a lethal chokehold on a handcuffed man until he was unconscious. Legal scholars argue that such “egregious or unwarranted” behavior—specifically the use of force that leads to asphyxiation after a person is already restrained—fails the “necessary and proper” standard.
Off-Duty Shooting (Northridge, CA): A New Year’s Eve shooting by an off-duty ICE agent may fail because the agent was not engaged in a federally authorized act at the time. If the agent was not officially on duty or responding to a federal emergency, they may be treated as a private citizen subject to standard state criminal laws without Supremacy Clause protection.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
APPLYING THE NEAGLE TEST: GOOD
PART I
On a scale of 1 to 5, on its face, what is the likelihood that the agent involved in Good is not immune?
GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood that the agent involved in the death of Renée Nicole Good (Jonathan Ross) will ultimately be denied immunity under the In re Neagle test is currently a 2.
While compelling evidence—including 3D reconstructions and bystander video—suggests the agent was not in the vehicle’s path when he fired, several legal and political factors create a high threshold for overcoming federal immunity.
Analysis of the Neagle Test Application
Authorized Act (High Likelihood of Compliance): It is undisputed that Ross was engaged in a federally authorized immigration enforcement operation on January 7, 2026. This satisfies the first half of the test.
Necessary and Proper (The Point of Failure): To lose immunity, a state prosecutor must prove Ross did not “reasonably believe” his actions were necessary.
Evidence Against Immunity: A 3D analysis by the NGO Index and verified video analysis by ABC News show Good’s vehicle was turning away from the agent when shots were fired, and he was not struck by the car.
Evidence for Immunity: Federal officials, including the DHS Secretary and Vice President, maintain Ross acted in self-defense against a “weaponized” vehicle. Under the Neagle standard, an agent only needs an honest and reasonable belief in the necessity of their actions, even if that belief is later found to be mistaken.
Key Obstacles to Denial of Immunity
Federal Control of Evidence: The FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office have blocked the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from accessing scene evidence and case materials, severely hindering any independent state-level investigation.
Justice Department Stance: The DOJ has explicitly stated it will not investigate Ross, instead focusing on potential charges against Good’s widow for “impeding” federal officers.
Judicial Precedent: Recent Supreme Court decisions have historically favored federal agents, making “egregious or unwarranted” behavior extremely difficult to prove in a manner that strips immunity.
Scale Summary
1 (Extremely Low): Agent is granted immunity almost immediately; state charges are blocked by federal removal.
2 (Low): Current Status. Evidence suggests excessive force, but federal obstruction of investigations and the broad “reasonableness” standard under Neagle favor the agent.
3 (Moderate): State prosecutors successfully compel evidence and a federal judge allows a jury to decide the “reasonableness” of the agent’s fear.
4 (High): Evidence of malice or a non-federal motive is discovered, clearly placing the act outside of “necessary and proper” duties.
5 (Certainty): Immunity is denied; the case proceeds to a state criminal trial.”
PART II
What about just on its face, what is the likelihood without other considerations?
GoogleAI Mode: “On its face, focusing strictly on the forensic and visual evidence of the incident without considering procedural hurdles or federal obstruction, the likelihood that the agent involved in the death of Renée Nicole Good is not immune is a 4.
When stripped of external “considerations,” the core of the In re Neagle test rests on whether the agent’s actions were “necessary and proper.”
Prima Facie Evidence vs. the Neagle Test
The “Necessary” Prong: For an act to be “necessary,” the agent must have an honest and reasonable belief that they or others were in immediate danger. On its face, bystander video and 3D forensic reconstructions show Good’s vehicle moving away from the agent, not toward him. If the vehicle was not being used as a weapon against the agent at the moment of the shooting, the use of deadly force fails the “necessary” requirement.
The “Proper” Prong: Law enforcement standards generally prohibit firing at a fleeing vehicle that does not pose an immediate threat of death or serious injury. If the evidence confirms the agent was in no danger, the act is no longer “proper” under federal or state law.
Contradiction of Official Narrative: The initial federal claim that the vehicle was “weaponized” to ram the agent is the only basis for immunity. If that claim is proven false by the video evidence alone, the agent’s actions would fall outside the scope of “necessary and proper” duties, effectively stripping him of his Neagle protection.
Why not a 5?
Even “on its face,” the Neagle test allows for an “honest mistake.” If an agent can argue that—despite what the video shows—they perceived a threat in the heat of a chaotic moment, a judge might still find their belief “reasonable” enough to grant immunity. This subjective “reasonableness” standard makes a score of 5 (certainty) impossible to reach based on evidence alone.”
APPLYING THE NEAGLE TEST: CAMPOS
Similarly, what about Campos, on its face, without other considerations, what is the likelihood?
GoogleAI Mode: “On its face, focusing strictly on the medical findings and witness accounts without considering procedural hurdles, the likelihood that the agents involved in the death of Geraldo Lunas Campos are not immune under the In re Neagle test is a 5.
In the context of the Neagle test’s “necessary and proper” standard, the evidence in the Campos case is significantly more damning than the evidence in the Good case.
Prima Facie Evidence vs. the Neagle Test
Failure of the “Proper” Prong: The El Paso County Medical Examiner officially ruled the manner of death a homicide caused by “asphyxia due to neck and torso compression.” Under federal and state use-of-force policies, the application of lethal pressure to the neck or chest of a restrained individual is categorized as unauthorized and “improper” force. Unlike a split-second shooting, sustained asphyxiation is rarely viewed by courts as a “proper” exercise of federal duty.
Failure of the “Necessary” Prong: Eyewitness accounts from other detainees indicate that Lunas Campos was handcuffed and pinned to the floor by at least five guards at the time of the fatal compression. If a subject is already physically restrained, the continued application of lethal force (choking) cannot be argued as “necessary” to fulfill the authorized act of subduing a detainee.
Exclusion of “Honest Mistake”: While the Neagle test allows for an “honest mistake” in perception (as seen in the Good case), it does not typically protect agents who use prohibited tactics that result in death. The use of a chokehold on a prone, handcuffed individual is an egregious departure from authorized federal procedures, which on its face strips the action of its “necessary and proper” character.
Why this is a 5
While the Good case (a 4) involves a debate over the perception of a moving vehicle, the Campos case involves a forensic determination of homicide through a prohibited physical act on a restrained person. On its face, there is no legal argument where “asphyxiation of a handcuffed person” satisfies the requirement of being “proper” for a federal officer, making the denial of immunity a legal certainty if the facts are taken at face value.”
APPLYING THE NEAGLE TEST: PORTER
On its face without other considerations, on a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood of immunity for the Off-Duty Shooting (Northridge, CA)?
GoogleAI Mode: “On its face, without considering external procedural hurdles, the likelihood of the off-duty agent being granted immunity in the death of Keith Porter is a 3.
The score of 3 represents an “even split” in the likelihood of immunity because the two core requirements of the In re Neagle test are currently supported by contradictory but equally weighted claims.
- Authorized Act (Likelihood of Immunity: 2.5/5)
For immunity to apply, the agent must have been performing a duty authorized by federal law.
Argument for Immunity: ICE maintains that while off-duty, the agent responded to an “active shooter situation.” Federal agents are generally authorized to intervene in felony-level public safety emergencies to protect lives, even if the incident is outside their specific immigration mandate.
Argument against Immunity: The victim’s family argues the agent exceeded his authority by interjecting himself into a local noise/safety complaint (celebratory gunfire) that did not involve a federal crime or a direct threat to federal interests. If a judge determines he was acting as a “private citizen” rather than a “federal agent,” he would have zero immunity.
- Necessary and Proper (Likelihood of Immunity: 3.5/5)
If the act is deemed authorized, the agent must then prove the shooting was “necessary and proper.”
Argument for Immunity: The DHS narrative states Porter pointed a rifle and fired at the agent. Under the “Reasonableness” standard of Neagle, if an agent honestly believes they are facing a deadly threat, their actions are protected. Without video to the contrary, the agent’s testimony of a “life-or-death” confrontation provides a strong prima facie case for immunity.
Argument against Immunity: Witnesses and neighbors claim the agent’s account is inconsistent and that Porter did not threaten the agent. If forensic evidence eventually proves Porter never pointed the weapon or that the agent fired without provocation, the act would fail the “necessary and proper” test.
Why the Overall Score is a 3
The Porter case lacks the “smoking gun” evidence found in other 2026 cases:
Unlike the Campos case (Immunity Likelihood: 1/5), there is no medical ruling of a prohibited physical act like a chokehold.
Unlike the Good case (Immunity Likelihood: 2/5), there is no bystander video to immediately disprove the agent’s claim of self-defense.
Because the case currently rests on a “he-said, she-said” conflict between federal agents and community witnesses, a court cannot determine the “reasonableness” of the agent’s actions on its face. This makes the likelihood of immunity a 3—entirely dependent on which side’s version of the facts is eventually verified.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
APPLYING THE NEAGLE TEST: THE PORTLAND & MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS
On its face without other considerations, what is the likelihood, on a scale of 1 to 5, that the Portland and Minneapolis Shootings agents get immunity?
GoogleAI Mode: “On its face—focusing strictly on reported forensic details and eyewitness accounts while setting aside current federal obstruction and procedural hurdles—the likelihood that the agents in these cases are granted immunity under the In re Neagle test is as follows:
- Portland Border Patrol Shooting (Nino-Moncada)
Likelihood of Immunity: 4/5
On its face, this case aligns strongly with the “necessary and proper” requirements for immunity.
Authorized Act: The six Border Patrol agents were conducting a “targeted vehicle stop” as part of their official federal duties.
Necessary & Proper: The Department of Justice (DOJ) has already charged the victim, Luis Nino-Moncada, with aggravated assault of a federal officer for “violently striking” an agent’s vehicle. A federal judge recently denied him bail, citing evidence that he was a “danger to the community” who threatened officers with his truck.
The “Face” Analysis: Since the federal government is actively prosecuting the victim for assaulting the agents, the agents’ use of force is—on its face—presented as a necessary defensive act. Without video to contradict this, the legal presumption heavily favors immunity.
- Renee Nicole Good Shooting (Minneapolis)
Likelihood of Immunity: 2/5
On its face, the forensic and visual evidence strongly challenges the “necessary and proper” standard.
Authorized Act: The agent was part of a tactical unit conducting an authorized enforcement operation.
Necessary & Proper: While the DHS claims Good “weaponized” her vehicle, local leaders and witnesses cite video showing her vehicle was moving away from agents when the fatal shots were fired through her windshield.
The “Face” Analysis: If video confirms the vehicle was retreating and the agent was not in its path, the shooting fails the “necessary” prong of the Neagle test. Because this forensic evidence is public and widely cited by state prosecutors, the likelihood of a court granting immunity purely on the facts is low.
- Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis Shooting (Minneapolis)
Likelihood of Immunity: 2/5
This case involves a high likelihood of failing the Neagle test on its face due to reports of mistaken identity and unauthorized force.
Authorized Act: Agents were conducting a traffic stop, but family members and some reports state Sosa-Celis was not the target of the operation.
Necessary & Proper: DHS claims agents were “ambushed” with snow shovels and brooms. However, family and witness accounts state the agent shot Sosa-Celis in the leg while he was standing at his own front door.
The “Face” Analysis: Shooting an unarmed individual who is not the intended target—especially if they were not actively engaged in the alleged “ambush”—is unlikely to be ruled “proper” federal conduct. The conflicting forensic location (street vs. doorstep) creates a factual basis that, on its face, undermines the necessity of the shooting.
Summary Comparison (Immunity Likelihood)
Incident
Portland
4 / 5
Primary Reason
DOJ is currently prosecuting the victim for assaulting the agents.
Incident
Renee Good
Immunity Likelihood
2 / 5
Primary Reason
Video evidence reportedly shows the car moving away from the agent.
Incident
Sosa-Celis
Immunity Likelihood
2 / 5
Primary Reason
Claims of mistaken identity and shooting an unarmed man at his door.”
APPLYING THE NEAGLE TEST: PARADY LA
On its face without other considerations, what is the likelihood, on a scale of 1 to 5, that the agents/ guards involved in the death of Parady La (Philadelphia,
PA) get immunity?
GoogleAI Mode: “On its face, without considering the significant procedural barriers to suing federal entities, the likelihood that the agents/guards involved in the death of Parady La would be granted immunity under the In re Neagle test is a 1.
Analysis of the Neagle Test (On Its Face)
The Neagle test protects agents only if their actions were an “authorized act” and were “necessary and proper” to fulfill their federal duties.
Authorized Act (Compliance): The guards were performing the authorized act of detaining and providing care for a person in federal custody.
Necessary and Proper (Failure): This is where the case fails on its face. Parady La, a 46-year-old refugee, died on January 9, 2026, from complications related to severe drug withdrawal.
Improper Medical Response: According to family and witness reports, guards administered Narcan (a treatment for acute opioid overdose) despite the fact that La was exhibiting well-known symptoms of withdrawal, not an active overdose.
Medical Neglect: Advocacy groups and the family argue that the failure to provide medically supervised withdrawal treatment—and instead administering an ineffective and potentially traumatic intervention like Narcan—constitutes a “gross departure” from the “proper” medical care required by ICE’s own Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS).
Why the Score is a 1
A score of 1 indicates that, on the facts alone, immunity is highly unlikely to be granted because the actions taken were fundamentally improper:
Negligence vs. Duty: While Neagle protects “honest mistakes” in high-speed tactical situations (like a shooting), it rarely protects against sustained medical neglect or the misapplication of life-saving measures in a controlled detention environment.
Forensic Clarity: Unlike the “he-said, she-said” nature of the Northridge off-duty shooting (3/5) or the Portland vehicle stop (4/5), the medical records in the La case provide a clear forensic trail of the treatment (or lack thereof) provided.
Prohibited Conduct: Failing to provide necessary medical care to a person in state or federal custody is a violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. An act that violates the Constitution is, by definition, neither “necessary” nor “proper” for a federal agent to perform.
Summary of Immunity Likelihood (On Its Face)
Case
Parady La (PA)
Immunity Score
1 / 5
Reason for Score
Medical neglect and incorrect intervention in a controlled environment.
Case
Lunas Campos (TX)
Immunity Score
1 / 5
Reason for Score
Homicide by asphyxiation of a restrained person.
Case
Renee Good (MN)
Immunity Score
2 / 5
Reason for Score
Video evidence refutes the “necessary” use of force.
Case
Sosa-Celis (MN)
Immunity Score
2 / 5
Reason for Score
Mistaken identity and shooting of an unarmed fleeing man.
Case
Keith Porter (CA)
Immunity Score
3 / 5
Reason for Score
Conflicting testimonies with no forensic “smoking gun.”
Case
Nino-Moncada (OR)
Immunity Score
4 / 5
Reason for Score
Victim is being prosecuted for assaulting the agents.”
THE LESSONS
What are the lessons?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2026, the surge in fatalities involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has provided critical lessons regarding the limitations of federal oversight and the evolving role of state and local accountability.
- Forensic Evidence is the New “Supremacy Clause”
The most significant lesson of 2026 is that objective forensic evidence (video and autopsies) is the only effective counter to the In re Neagle immunity test.
The Contrast: In the Nino-Moncada (Portland) case, the absence of video allows the federal “self-defense” narrative to dominate (Immunity Likelihood: 4/5).
The Correction: In the Renee Nicole Good and Lunas Campos cases, bystander video and independent autopsies provided the “face-value” evidence needed for state prosecutors to challenge federal immunity. Without third-party documentation, federal accounts are rarely successfully contested in court.
- The Shift from Federal Oversight to State Resistance
With the Department of Justice (DOJ) explicitly refusing to investigate several 2026 fatalities, accountability has shifted from “internal reform” to “external resistance.”
The Lesson: Internal oversight bodies (like the DHS OIG) are often viewed as insufficient during periods of high enforcement. States like Minnesota, New York, and Illinois have learned that they must build their own “shadow” investigative infrastructures—such as state-level civil rights commissions—to preserve evidence that federal agencies might otherwise withhold.
- Medical Standards are a Matter of Life and Death
The deaths of Parady La and Geraldo Lunas Campos highlight a systemic failure to treat detention as a controlled environment with a “duty of care.”
The Lesson: Detention fatalities are increasingly tied to improper medical interventions (like misusing Narcan) or violent restraint techniques (asphyxiation). These cases (Immunity Likelihood: 1/5) suggest that “accountability” must focus on codifying medical standards into law rather than relying on agency “guidelines,” which are easily ignored without legal consequences.
- The Risk of “Mistaken Identity” in High-Tempo Operations
The shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis underscores the dangers of increased enforcement speed.
The Lesson: When agents operate under high-pressure “quotas” or rapid-deployment mandates, the risk of targeting U.S. citizens or non-targets increases. This creates a unique legal opening: immunity is much harder to maintain when an agent harms someone who was never the legal subject of a federal warrant or authorized operation.
- Transparency as a Deterrent
The “5/5 solution” (Bystander Intervention) has become a primary tool for community safety in 2026.
The Lesson: The presence of witnesses documenting an encounter often changes the behavior of agents on the ground. In cases where documentation was captured, it not only provided a path for litigation but also served to immediately correct initial agency press releases that were found to be forensically inaccurate.
For those looking to act on these lessons, organizations like the American Immigration Council and the ACLU provide toolkits for legal observation and documenting federal enforcement actions.”
PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION
What federal legislation could address Supremacy Clause immunity challenges?
GoogleAI Mode: “In early 2026, several federal bills have been introduced to reform the legal shields that often prevent federal agents from being held accountable in criminal and civil court. These proposals target two primary doctrines: Supremacy Clause immunity (which limits state criminal prosecution) and qualified immunity (which limits civil lawsuits).
- The Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026
Introduced on January 13, 2026, by Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Sen. Ed Markey, this bill is a direct response to the recent fatal shootings of Renee Good and Keith Porter.
Abolishing Immunity: The bill would strip the “judge-made doctrine” of qualified immunity for federal, state, and local law enforcement officers.
Civil Recourse: It grants victims and their families the explicit right to sue federal agents—including ICE officers—for constitutional violations.
Targeting “Egress”: Lawmakers argue that current immunity often shields agents even when they use excessive force or commit egregious misconduct.
- The ICE OUT Act
This proposed legislation aims to clarify the “authorized duty” aspect of the In re Neagle test that determines Supremacy Clause immunity.
Removing Criminal Defenses: If an officer acts outside their specific duties, the act would prevent them from claiming they “thought” they were performing their duties to avoid criminal charges.
Civil Liability: It specifies that agents could be held civilly liable for constitutional violations, essentially creating a statutory “Bivens” remedy that the Supreme Court has previously narrowed.
- The Stop Excessive Force in Immigration Act
Introduced in mid-January 2026, this bill focuses on field standards and transparency to prevent the “he-said, she-said” evidentiary gaps common in immunity cases.
Mandatory Body Cameras: It would require all federal immigration agents to wear body cameras and maintain footage for at least one year.
Standardized Training: The bill mandates annual training in de-escalation, use-of-force policies, and providing medical aid.
Identification Requirements: It requires agents to wear uniform identification to prevent “unidentified agent” scenarios.
- The Federal Law Enforcement Standards and Accountability (FLESA) Act
Part of a larger package of accountability measures, this bill seeks to codify use-of-force standards nationally.
Clear Boundaries: By defining “proper” use of force in federal law, it would make it easier for state prosecutors to argue that an agent’s violent actions were not “necessary and proper” under the Neagle test.
- Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act
Introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, this bill focuses on waiving sovereign immunity for federal agencies.
Suing the Agency: It would allow individuals to sue the federal agency itself (e.g., DHS/ICE) when its employees violate constitutional rights, regardless of whether a specific agency policy caused the harm.
Damages for Victims: It establishes a clear pathway for victims to seek financial damages for physical injury, trauma, or denial of medical care.
Summary of Legislative Impact
Proposed Bill
Qualified Immunity Abolition Act
Primary Goal
End civil immunity for federal/state/local agents
Status (Jan 2026)
Introduced/Pending
Proposed Bill
ICE OUT Act
Primary Goal
Remove “good faith” criminal defense for ICE agents
Status (Jan 2026)
Introduced
Proposed Bill
Stop Excessive Force in Immigration Act
Primary Goal
Mandate body cameras and de-escalation training
Status (Jan 2026)
Proposed
Proposed Bill
Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act
Primary Goal
Allow lawsuits against federal agencies for agent conduct
Status (Jan 2026)
Senate Judiciary review
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
THE SOLUTIONS
What are the solutions?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2026, legal and legislative solutions to hold federal agents accountable focus on bypassing “Supremacy Clause immunity” and “qualified immunity.” These solutions range from state-level civil rights laws to federal legislation that codifies use-of-force standards.
- State-Level Legislative Solutions
Because federal courts have historically shielded agents, several states have passed laws to provide residents with local legal recourse.
The Illinois Bivens Act: Signed in December 2025, this law creates a state-level “private cause of action,” allowing individuals to sue federal agents—including ICE—who violate state or federal constitutional rights during enforcement actions.
Universal Constitutional Remedies Act: Proposed in states like New York, California, and Maryland, this model legislation allows individuals to sue any official—federal, state, or local—for constitutional violations.
The No Vigilantes Act (California): Effective January 1, 2026, this law requires all federal agents to visibly display agency identification and badge numbers when performing duties in the state.
Evidence Gathering Tribunals: Minnesota and other states have established official tribunals to collect and preserve witness video and forensic records, bypassing federal attempts to withhold critical evidence from local prosecutors.
- Federal Legislative Solutions (119th Congress)
New federal bills aim to remove the legal barriers that prevent both criminal and civil accountability for ICE and other agencies.
Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act (S. 3470): Introduced in January 2026 by Senators Blumenthal and Padilla, this bill would waive sovereign immunity to allow lawsuits directly against federal agencies when their employees violate constitutional rights.
Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026: Introduced by Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Sen. Ed Markey following the Renee Good shooting, this bill would end the “judge-made doctrine” of qualified immunity for federal, state, and local law enforcement.
DHS Use of Force Oversight Act: Announced in January 2026, this bill would statutorily require the Department of Homeland Security to establish clear, enforceable policies on de-escalation and the use of force.
The FLESA Act: The Federal Law Enforcement Standards and Accountability Act aims to codify nationwide use-of-force standards, making it easier for state prosecutors to prove an agent’s actions were not “necessary and proper”.
- Legal and Judicial Solutions
Beyond legislation, legal scholars and advocacy groups are pushing for specific judicial reforms.
Fact-Finding Juries: A proposed legal framework suggests that disputed issues of fact in “Supremacy Clause immunity” cases—such as whether a shooting was truly “necessary”—should be decided by juries rather than judges during early dismissal motions.
The “Necessary and Proper” Challenge: Legal experts argue that protections under the In re Neagle test are narrower than assumed; if a state prosecutor can prove “egregious or unwarranted” behavior (such as shooting a fleeing non-target), immunity can be denied.
Bivens Act of 2025: A proposed federal law to include federal actors under Section 1983, which currently only applies to state and local officers, allowing for consistent private lawsuits across all levels of government.”
AI RESEARCH BELOW 👇 ADDED DATE: JANUARY 25, 2026
APPLYING THE NEAGLE TEST: ALEX PRETTI
Considering Alex Pretti, on a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood of no immunity?
GoogleAI Mode: “On its face, without considering the significant procedural barriers to state prosecution or federal evidence withholding, the likelihood that the agents involved in the death of Alex Pretti are not immune under the In re Neagle test is a 5.
The In re Neagle test grants immunity only if an agent’s actions were an “authorized act” and were “necessary and proper” for their duties. Evidence from the January 24, 2026, shooting indicates a fundamental failure of both prongs.
Analysis of the Neagle Test (On Its Face)
Authorized Act (Failure): While federal agents are authorized to conduct immigration operations, multiple reports and state records show that the target of the operation had no “significant criminal history” as claimed. Furthermore, Alex Pretti was a U.S. citizen and VA nurse observing the scene; multiple videos show he was acting to assist a bystander shoved by agents. There is no authorized federal duty to assault or kill non-target citizens who are legally observing or assisting others.
Necessary and Proper (Failure): The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims Pretti was armed and “violently resisted”. However, frame-by-frame video analysis by outlets like the Wall Street Journal and Reuters shows that an agent had already successfully removed a handgun from Pretti before he was shot.
Prohibited Force: At least ten shots were fired at Pretti within five seconds while he was pinned to the ground and disarmed.
No Immediate Threat: If a suspect is physically restrained and disarmed, the use of lethal force is—on its face—neither “necessary” nor “proper”.
Why the Score is a 5
A score of 5 indicates a certainty of non-immunity based strictly on the visible facts:
Video Verification: Unlike the “he-said, she-said” nature of the Keith Porter (3/5) case, there are at least four verified videos from multiple angles refuting the federal narrative.
Disarmed State: The evidence that Pretti was shot after being disarmed by agents removes any “necessary” justification for deadly force.
Mistaken Narrative: Federal claims of a “violent altercation” with an armed “gunman” are directly contradicted by forensic video showing him holding a cellphone.
Summary of Immunity Likelihood (On Its Face)
Case
Alex Pretti (MN)
Score
5 / 5
Primary Reason for Score
Video shows agents disarmed him before firing 10 shots into him while pinned.
Case
Lunas Campos (TX)
Score
5 / 5
Primary Reason for Score
Homicide by asphyxiation of a restrained/handcuffed person.
Case
Parady La (PA)
Score
5 / 5
Primary Reason for Score
Medical neglect and incorrect intervention in a controlled environment.
Case
Renee Good (MN)
Score
4 / 5
Primary Reason for Score
Video shows vehicle moving away from the agent when shots were fired.
Case
Sosa-Celis (MN)
Score
4 / 5
Primary Reason for Score
Mistaken identity and shooting of an unarmed fleeing subject.
Case
Keith Porter (CA)
Score
3 / 5
Primary Reason for Score
Conflicting testimonies with no forensic “smoking gun” yet.
Case
Nino-Moncada (OR)
Score
2 / 5
Primary Reason for Score
Victim is being prosecuted for assaulting the agents; no video to refute.”
The AI research 👇 Below was added on February 20, 2026.
RUBEN RAY MARTINEZ
PART I
What happened? Under the In re Neagle test, on a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood of the agents in the Ruben Ray Martinez shooting being granted immunity?
GoogleAI Mode: “The details of the Ruben Ray Martinez shooting only came to light on February 18–20, 2026, after internal records were obtained by the watchdog group American Oversight and reported by Newsweek.
What Happened
On March 15, 2025, Ruben Ray Martinez, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen, was shot and killed by an ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent on South Padre Island, Texas.
The Incident: HSI agents were assisting local police with traffic control near a car accident around 12:40 a.m..
The Confrontation: According to newly released internal HSI reports, agents ordered Martinez to stop his vehicle and exit. He reportedly failed to comply, then accelerated forward, striking an agent who “wound up on the hood”.
The Shooting: A supervisory special agent standing by the driver’s side window fired multiple times, killing Martinez.
The Disclosure: While reported locally at the time as an “officer-involved shooting,” the involvement of federal immigration agents was not disclosed for 11 months. Congressman Joaquin Castro has since called for a DOJ investigation into what he described as an “organized cover-up”.
In re Neagle Test Analysis
The In re Neagle test grants federal agents immunity from state prosecution if their actions were (1) authorized by federal law and (2) “necessary and proper” to fulfill their duties. On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood of the agents being granted immunity on the face of current evidence is a 2.
Factor
Authorized Act
Immunity Score
Likely
Reason for Score
Agents were performing a traffic control function in conjunction with local law enforcement, which is generally considered a federally authorized duty.
Factor
Necessary & Proper
Immunity Score
Uncertain
Reason for Score
While DHS claims Martinez “intentionally ran over” an agent, the Texas Rangers investigation found video evidence that reportedly contradicts the federal account.
Factor
Overall Likelihood
Immunity Score
2 / 5
Reason for Score
The score is low because the contradictory video evidence and the 11-month delay in disclosure create a strong “face-value” argument that the use of deadly force may have been neither necessary nor proper.
The investigation by the Texas Rangers was completed in October 2025, and the case is being presented to a grand jury for potential criminal charges.”
PART II
What does the contradictory video show?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2026, the Ruben Ray Martinez case is often compared to the Marimar Martinez case (a separate incident from October 2025 in Chicago) because both involve similar DHS claims of vehicles being used as weapons that were later challenged by video.
What the Contradictory Video Shows
While DHS initially claimed that Ruben Ray Martinez “intentionally ran over” an agent, internal records and statements from local investigators in early 2026 suggest that available video evidence (from surveillance and body cameras) paints a different picture:
No Intentional Ramming: Analysis of the footage reportedly shows that at no point did Martinez’s vehicle “ram” the agents’ SUV or “intentionally” strike an agent.
Agent’s Maneuver: The video shows an agent appearing to steer toward Martinez’s vehicle, effectively initiating the collision.
Open Path: While agents claimed they were “boxed in” and forced to fire, the footage shows they had an unobstructed path forward at the time the shots were fired.
Rapid Escalation: The audio from the body camera captures an agent saying, “Alright, it’s time to get aggressive,” just seconds before multiple shots were fired through the driver’s side window.
Immunity Likelihood (In re Neagle Test)
On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood of the agents being granted immunity for this shooting is a 2.
Factor
Authorized Act
Assessment
Likely Met: Agents were assisting with traffic control, which falls under a broadly defined federal public safety interest.
Factor
Necessary & Proper
Assessment
Likely Failed: The Neagle test requires the agent’s belief in danger to be “honest and reasonable.” Because the video suggests the agents created the collision and had a clear path to avoid the confrontation, the use of lethal force is likely to be ruled neither “necessary” nor “proper”.
Factor
Overall Likelihood
Assessment
2 / 5 (Low): The 11-month delay in disclosure and the existence of video that contradicts the “self-defense” narrative significantly weaken the case for federal immunity.
The case is currently being presented to a grand jury in Texas, and U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro has formally requested a Department of Justice probe into the incident.
MARIMAR MARTINEZ (SURVIVOR)
PART I: THE CASE
What happened in the Marimar Martinez case? Under the In re Neagle test, on a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood of the agents involved being granted immunity?
GoogleAI Mode: “In the case of Marimar Martinez, a 30-year-old Chicago Montessori teacher’s aide, the likelihood that the involved federal agents would be granted immunity under the In re Neagle test is currently a 1 (on a scale of 1 to 5).
This score, representing the lowest likelihood of immunity, is based on forensic evidence and unsealed government records that directly contradict the initial federal narrative.
What Happened
On October 4, 2025, Martinez was shot five times by Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood.
The Initial Claim: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) labeled Martinez a “domestic terrorist” and claimed she “ambushed” agents by intentionally ramming their unmarked SUV with her vehicle, forcing Exum to fire in self-defense.
The Rebuttal Evidence: After federal prosecutors were forced to drop all charges against Martinez in November 2025, a judge unsealed body camera and surveillance footage in February 2026.
Agent Aggression: Footage shows agents in their vehicle with weapons drawn, with one agent saying, “Do something, b—tch,” and another stating, “Time to get aggressive,” moments before the collision.
Intentional Collision: Video reveals that Exum steered his vehicle into Martinez’s car, effectively initiating the crash that was later used to justify the shooting.
The Shooting: Exum exited his vehicle and fired five rounds at Martinez as she was attempting to drive away.
Post-Incident Texts: Unsealed messages show Exum joked about the shooting, texting, “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book, boys,” and expressing a desire for another round of “f— around and find out.”
In re Neagle Test Analysis
The In re Neagle test protects federal agents only if their actions were (1) authorized by federal law and (2) “necessary and proper” to fulfill their duties.
Factor
Authorized Act
Assessment
Likely Failed
Reason for Score
While agents were on duty, evidence suggests they were engaged in “aggressive” maneuvers and potentially unauthorized surveillance of a U.S. citizen based on her social media posts.
Factor
Necessary & Proper
Assessment
Clearly Failed
Reason for Score
The Neagle test requires a “reasonable” belief in danger. Because video shows the agent created the threat by steering into Martinez and shooting her as she fled, the act was neither necessary nor proper.
Factor
Immunity Likelihood
Assessment
1 / 5
Reason for Score
The documented “fabrication of evidence” and the agent’s own text messages effectively strip the “good faith” defense required for immunity.
Despite the evidence, no criminal charges have been filed against Agent Exum as of February 2026, though Cook County has released new protocols for charging federal agents in such cases. Martinez has announced a major civil lawsuit against the federal government.”
PART II: THE FAFO MESSAGE
There are multiple songs titled around FAFO. Was Agent Exum’s message related to a song?
GoogleAI Mode: “In the case of Marimar Martinez, Agent Charles Exum’s use of the phrase “fuck around and find out” (FAFO) was not a musical reference, but a direct taunt aimed at Martinez in the aftermath of her shooting.
Exum used the phrase in a text message to colleagues one day after the shooting, stating he was “up for another round of f— around and find out”. This message, along with others boasting of his “shooting skills” (“I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes”), was unsealed by a federal judge in February 2026.
Exum’s Immunity Likelihood (On Its Face)
On its face, focusing strictly on the forensic details and unsealed evidence without considering procedural barriers, the likelihood that Agent Exum would be granted immunity under the In re Neagle test is a 1.
Factor
Authorized Act
Assessment
Likely Failed
Reason for Score
While agents were on duty, evidence suggests they were engaged in “aggressive” maneuvers and potentially unauthorized surveillance of a U.S. citizen.
Factor
Necessary & Proper
Assessment
Clearly Failed
Reason for Score
Video evidence shows Exum steered into Martinez to initiate the collision. Shooting a fleeing vehicle while taunting the victim (“Do something, b—tch”) is neither necessary nor proper under federal policy.
Factor
Overall Likelihood
Assessment
1 / 5
Reason for Score
The documented “fabrication of evidence” and Exum’s own hostile text messages effectively strip the “good faith” defense required for immunity.
The “FAFO” Context
While there are multiple songs with that title, the phrase has evolved into a common law enforcement and political slogan. In January 2026, the White House even used “FAFO” in a social media caption regarding the arrest and deportation of an individual for threatening the president. In Exum’s case, Martinez’s attorneys argued the phrase was part of a “culture of rewards” within Border Patrol, where agents were congratulated by leadership (including Chief Gregory Bovino) immediately following the shooting.”
World Peace 
Leave a comment