ICE Arrested a U.S. Citizen—Twice—During Alabama Construction Site Raids. Now He's Suing.
“I got arrested twice for being a Latino working in construction,” says Leo Garcia Venegas, the lead plaintiff in a new lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice challenging warrantless ICE raids on construction sites.

An Alabama construction worker is challenging the Trump administration's warrantless construction site raids after he says he was arrested and detained by federal immigration agents—twice—despite being a U.S. citizen with a valid ID in his pocket.
In a federal civil rights lawsuit filed today in the Southern District of Alabama, Leo Garcia Venegas is seeking to stop "dragnet raids" that target Latinos like himself, without any probable cause besides their ethnicity.
"It feels like there is nothing I can do to stop immigration agents from arresting me whenever they want," Venegas said in a press release by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that filed the suit on his behalf. "I just want to work in peace. The Constitution protects my ability to do that."
Venegas and the Institute for Justice argue that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies allow immigration agents to illegally raid private construction sites, detain workers without reasonable suspicion, and continue detaining them even after they offer evidence of citizenship or legal status. All of this, they say, violates the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Armed and masked federal officers are raiding private construction sites in Alabama, detaining whoever they think looks undocumented, and ignoring proof of citizenship," Jared McClain, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, said in the press release. "That's unconstitutional, and this case seeks to bring that practice to an end."
Venegas was detained twice in May and June during raids on private construction sites where he was working. In both instances, the lawsuit says, masked immigration officers entered the private sites without a warrant and began detaining workers based solely on their apparent ethnicity.
On May 21, Venegas was working on a concrete crew at a construction site in Baldwin County, Alabama, when immigration officers hopped the fence into the site. According to the suit, "The officers ran right past the white and black workers without detaining them and went straight for the Latino workers."
The officers tackled Venegas' brother, who was also on the crew, and Venegas began filming the scene on his cell phone. One of the officers then approached Venegas and said, "You're making this more complicated than you want to."
Immediately after, the officer grabbed Venegas and began wrestling him to the ground. Another construction worker also took cell phone video of the two brothers' arrests, which shows the agent struggling with Venegas who repeatedly yells, "I'm a citizen."
Two other officers joined in to subdue Venegas, telling him to "Get on the fucking ground."
Watch the Institute Justice's video on the case, which includes footage of the arrest:
According to the suit, the officers retrieved Venegas' REAL ID from his pocket, but they called it fake, kept him handcuffed, and detained for more than an hour in the Alabama summer sun, until an officer agreed to run his social security number.
Then on June 12, Venegas was working in a nearly finished house when ICE agents cornered him in a bedroom and ordered him to come with them. Venegas was marched outside to the edge of the subdivision where he was working to have his immigration status checked. According to the lawsuit, two other U.S. citizens had been rounded up with him. Again, officers said his REAL ID could be fake and detained for 20 to 30 minutes before releasing him.
The Institute for Justice says in its lawsuit on Venegas' behalf that this sort of behavior is "no accident." It's explicit DHS policy.
"Under DHS's challenged policies, immigration officers are authorized to presume that construction workers on private property are undocumented based only on their demographic profile and occupation, and can disregard evidence to the contrary—like Leo's telling them he's a citizen and presenting a REAL ID."
The lawsuit asks the court to block enforcement of the policy and award damages to Venegas, as well as a proposed class of similar plaintiffs, for violations of Fourth Amendment rights.
Venegas is one of many documented cases of U.S. citizens being violently detained and arrested during indiscriminate federal immigration sweeps. The Institute for Justice is also representing George Retes, an Army veteran and U.S. citizen. Retes says he was pepper-sprayed, dragged out of his car and thrown on the ground during a July raid on a legal marijuana company in California. Despite being a citizen, he alleges he was detained by ICE for three days, during which he says he was kept in solitary confinement, not allowed a phone call or lawyer, and never presented before a judge.
On August 20, five U.S. citizens in Southern California filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security over their arrests by immigration agents. One of the plaintiffs, Cary Lopez Alvarado, was nine months pregnant when ICE and U.S. Border Protection agents arrested and shackled her. She alleges she went into labor prematurely as a result of her wrongful arrest and assault.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court gave its blessing to just this kind of racial profiling by immigration officers, overturning a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that found the Trump's administration was likely violating the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens by seizing them based solely on factors such as "apparent race or ethnicity."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh released a concurring opinion in which he waved away concerns that allowing such profiling would lead to citizens and legal residents being unduly harassed.
"As for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief," Kavanaugh wrote, "and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U. S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States."
Whatever world Kavanaugh is describing, it's not the one that Venegas lives in.
"The raids continue in the neighborhoods," Venegas says in the Institute for Justice video. "I live in fear every day that when I get to work it will happen again."
DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is Reason just a stenographer for lawsuits?
Would you rather such conduct by ICE not be reported? Silly question - you support these unlawful arrests, so of course you do.
What arrests? He was detained whike his legal status was determined and rejeased, both times in less than hour (if i remember correctly).
His lawyer complains about being detained for up to an hour in the "Alabama sun" - im sorry, but many construction workers spend up to 8 hour (or more) in the "Alabama sun" every day.
His ability to say "I am a citizen" isn't sufficient to exempt him from having his claim verified - please don't pretend it is...
You have to remember, shrike is pretty damn ignorant.
Detained... for 20 to 30 minutes? Surely this is the first time in history cops have detained an American for this little time. Detainment lottery winner. That time is buried quite far in the story.
Detainment times apparently vary by jurisdiction; when discussing this with mad.casual a cursory search found that twenty minutes to about an hour is how some states define “reasonable” time limit for detainment.
Terry stops tend to hold up in court as do detainment.
More fundamentally, the idea that cops, or even just authority figures, cannot remove people from a situation or otherwise compel behavior or action at virtually any level is utter, nihilist, narcissistic, antisocial, Antifa/ACAB idiotic villainy.
They don't want cops to show up to a domestic dispute and figure out if a crime was committed and someone needs arrested or if someone needs to cool off or get their personal belongings and vacate the premises voluntarily. They want the men arrested because they're always the aggressor and if the man has a knife in his back that his wife is still twisting when the cops show up, they can and will lie to you in order to stop the cops from intervening. You know this because Reason does this every other article.
Police no-shit arrest *citizens* without a pre-existing warrant all the time and while you have a right to a speedy trial you don't have nor want the "right" to instantaneous adjudication. Across the country for more than half a century the standard has been 36-72 hours held in custody without either a warrant or adjudication.
'The thing is never the thing the thing. It's just a distraction. The real thing is always the revolution.' They're not coy about it.
Edit: And I shouldn't and don't have to say that none of this exculpates nickel-rides for having a pocket knife across the street or shooting Philando Castille but, again, this is Reason [drink].
That doesn't matter. The question is whether a reasonable person in defendant's shoes would feel to simply terminate the encounter and leave. If not, they are not detained. They are under arrest.
What is the quantum of proof needed to arrest somebody without a warrant again? Oh Ya. Probable fkn cause. Which these warrantless roving patrols most certainly do NOT have.
It used to be the case that the courts would say that a warrantless non consensual search or seizure is per se unreasonable under the 4th amend. The war on [drugs, hippes, black people, civil rights, etc...] chiseled that away. Why isn't the sup ct originalist when it matters?? Kavanaugh's concurrence referenced in the OP is a total joke.
I guess you missed this:
"Earlier this month, the Supreme Court gave its blessing to just this kind of racial profiling by immigration officers"
And your definitions for arrest and detainment seem incorrect, this legal web page defines the differences between "arrest" and "detainment" - your argument seems more emotional than correct:
https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/detention-and-arrest
How did i miss what the sup ct did... when I referenced that specific thing in my own comment and disparaged it?
You guys are missing a crucial factual point. The ICE agents are not just chit chatting on the sidewalk, asking for papers, and leaving quickly. They are physically seizing people, removing them from wherever they encountered ICE and those people are being moved/put in vans/SUV's or whatever and are taken to buildings/offices/detention centers to be interrogated, and depending on the result of that, detained indefinitely or then let go. Sometimes the next day.
There is no precedent in the US, including that terrible shadow docket ruling, that says that can be done without a warrant, without probable cause and even without so much as reasonable suspicion *of a crime* being committed and be consistent with the 4th amendment as it exists now. It doesn't exist. And I am not going to pretend this is okay because it absolutely is not.
This just proves again youre not a lawyer.
When someone is detained, they are not free to leave. There are limits to how long that detainment can be/should be and vary by jurisdiction.
Probable cause is not needed for police to detain someone. There is a lower threshold called reasonable suspicion. The limit for detainment is relatively brief (perhaps upwards of an hour though some locations might be a half an hour or twenty minutes). When that reasonable time has expired, the police have a decision to make whether they have probable cause to charge the person, which could include arresting them, or allow them to be free to go. Or violate rights.
Actual lawyers advise clients to shut the fuck up (but be polite) when stopped, ask if they are being detained, and if detained revisit “Am I free to go.”
Detained... for 20 to 30 minutes?
Hour and a half total. Less than most people spend "detained" at TSA or at the border or in a traffic stops or at the DMV or having their background checked to buy a firearm... certainly less time than Otis spent "detained" by Andy Griffith... and Reason and The Institute of Justice repeats the 'arrested' lie based on the use of the 'arrestar' verb when they *know* that if they showed footage of ICE Agents saying, "You are under arrest." that aspect of their case would be made.
Once again and as always, they don't care about actual justice. They aren't out there pushing back against all the wait times for the millions of people of every sex, ethnicity, and nationality detained by TSA or subject to firearms background checks. They don't care if people are "detained" by BLM, Antifa, Gay Pride, or Climate Activist marches. They're only pushing back against the perceived injustices they think will get them more clout and power to further pursue their own agendas.
" and Reason and The Institute of Justice repeats the 'arrested' lie "
I'll ding Reason and the Institute on a lot of things, but calling it an 'arrest" when you're not free to go is not one of them.
According to Zeno's Paradox the government has conspired with the universe to place us all under perpetual arrest and Venegas citizenship doesn't exempt him.
Go ahead, tell me I'm being disingenuous. Tell me that I'm incorrectly trying to force Zeno's Paradox on you in order to refute or support the last 5 eons of policing. Tell me I'm the one futzing with the definition of the word 'arrest' when I say "The vaccine will arrest the spread of the virus."
Dumbass.
Brett is many things. A dumbass is absolutely not one. He is quite precise with his language and his statement is a definitely an arguable point.
Depends on the state. But holding people as an investigation occurs isnt an arrest.
Bullshit... the US Sup Ct sets the floor on what is or is not compliant with the 4th amendment [incorporated against the states via the 14th amend]. Some states can grant more protections than the federal constitution in the state constitution [see e.g, Alaska] but never less.
More proof youre not actually a lawyer.
Fuck off Jesse. What is your profession beside MAGA testicle juggling?
I'll ding Reason and the Institute on a lot of things, but calling it an 'arrest" when you're not free to go is not one of them.
Again, if the video showed officers saying, "You are under arrest." or Mirandizing him or otherwise cited the law showing that more than (e.g.) 30 min. of detention constitutes an arrest in the state of AL, this would be a moot point, and both Reason and the IoJ and any Tom, Dick, and Harry should and does know this. But they don't show or cite it and rely on what it quite viably lost in translation.
Seems they have stop and identify requirements in Alabama.
https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2006/14214/15-5-30.html
Does sporting a mullet exempt one from being stopped in Alabama?
Why do you think the ICE/fed agents care about the stop and identify law of Alabama? They are not there enforcing Alabama state laws.
Detainment ≠ arrest. There are appreciable differences between the two.
Arrest vs detainment, explained:
https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/detention-and-arrest
Detainment, by definition, does not offer the detainee to leave whenever they want - it just doesn't, it's a false claim, likely from watching too many cop shows on TV, that has no basis in the law.
20 to 30 minutes, sure that's nothing..... If the TSA detained me for that long I'd be very hard pressed to not be using language that even a marine crew would find extreme.
Supposition of his crime based on his skin color and occupation.
This Stasi BS needs to end immediately!
I get that there is a significant problem, but the spigot has been turned off (thanks on that to President Trump). While a presumption of innocence may not occur at the border, it sure is supposed to within the territory of the US... otherwise we might as well just pack it in and accept Charles III as king.
So you dont travel? Random screenings happen longer than this all the time. Especially for customs.
But argument from ignorance is a type of argument. Tulsi was pulled into extra screening due to quiet skies. 20 minutes is probably close to the average for when pulled over for speeding. Witnesses yo crimes are held longer than this.
But you do you.
I avoid travel precisely because I loathe everything the TSA stands for. It's a high price to pay, but it's my choice. We've thrown away our freedom based on the goading of a fanatic.
My two traffic stops both ran shorter than 5 minutes, both ending in warnings... in one case watch it on this road, we just had a fatality, and the other being to not be doing math in my head while driving.
Argument from ignorance confirmed. Thank you for your argument.
Did you whip out your camera, insist on recording it, while yelling "I'm a good driver! I'm a good driver!"?
Probably not - this guy felt insulted he was asked for identification, and he's further upset that he wasn't verified first and released immediately...
And recording the interaction guarantees it will have to increase as the filmer is, ALWAYS, quite antagonistic and will refuse to provide info.
Your voter ID checks are going to be "barely enough to change the outcome" if they include "Unless it inconveniences *anyone* for 20-30 minutes." waivers.
Your "failure to declare as a foreign national" arguments against emoluments or Russian hackers or Chinese spies becomes pretty toothless if it has firm "Unless it takes longer than 30 min." riders.
As indicated, this is Reason "Borders are a figment of imagination" Magazine saying "What if we divide it shorter than the Planck Length?" in response to "No, they're not."
Accepting Charles III sounds pretty bad, but it must not be very much of a Republic to you if it's not worth 90 min. of a cheap, immigrant laborers' time for you to keep it. How very Anglophilically post-modern.
Not sure what the first three statements have to do with my comments.
Re Charles III, you lost the argument with me when you suggested that one person's time is worth less than another's because he isn't charging much per hour, is doing manual labor, and wasn't born here. Pretty much the whole premise of the American experiment is that "all men are born equal".
Your argument is like when jeff said having to register to vote is an unconstitutional poll tax.
I'm sure you refuse to file taxes under your same principle.
Not sure what the first three statements have to do with my comments.
Your own comments are dishonest non-sequitur within themselves. Even verging on Tony-esque, within-the-same-sentence oxyomronic stupidity.
To wit, the whole premise of the American experiment is not that "all men are born equal" but that "no man is above the law." So, if you can raid Mar-A-Lago and take a former President and his wife's ID under no-shit false pretenses, detaining someone while you check their ID on a legit immigration enforcement action should be a slam dunk as the law doesn't play favorites one way or the other.
Dumbfuck.
In a federal civil rights lawsuit filed today in the Southern District of Alabama, Leo Garcia Venegas is seeking to stop "dragnet raids" that target Latinos like himself, without any probable cause besides their ethnicity.
...
On May 21, Venegas was working on a concrete crew... "The officers ran right past the white and black workers without detaining them and went straight for the Latino workers."
...
According to the lawsuit, two other U.S. citizens had been rounded up with him.
Can Venegas prove the "white and black" workers *weren't* Latino? Can he prove that the "two other US citizens" were or weren't? Otherwise, the racist crying "MUH ETHNICITY" has no standing, prima facie.
Also, as anyone whose been in a traffic stop or presented their ID at a border or airport can tell you detained =/= arrested no matter how much you coulda/woulda/shoulda otherwise.
Being handcuffed is an arrest. not merely a detention.
But it doesn't matter. 4A doesn't refer to an arrest but to a seizure, and whether you call it a detention or an arrest, the plaintiff in this case was unambiguously seized.
This remains false. Handcuffs can be used for detainment dumdum.
It's still a 4th amendment seizure. Just like all passengers in a car are 'seized' for 4th amendment purposes when the car is stopped because the driver committed a traffic offense. Its still subject to the 4th amendment's reasonableness requirement.
They can handcuff you simply because they feel threatened. Leeway is vast.
More proof youre not a lawyer.
Dip shit, I am only stating what the law is. You can dispute it and talk shit, but it doesn't change what the law is. Anybody/everybody in a motor vehicle stopped by police is 'seized' for 4th amendment purposes. This is US Sup ct precedent. Brendlin v California.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/fourth-amendment-activities/brendlin-v-california/facts-and-case-summary-brendlin-v-california
Why don't you educate yourself instead of shit posting.
He was handcuffed likely because he was belligerent, yelling "I'm a citizen!" - he was detained, he was cuffed as a safety precaution because he wasn't being compliant - if he was arrested, there'd be an arrest record - is there?
Now He's Suing.
But Michael Jordan is supposed to negotiate.
Did Reason finally find one? Are we going to get daily articles about Venegas for the next 6th months like we did for Maryland Man?
Because he's the only one they could find?
They had the arizona guy who told ICE he was an illegal and didnt have ID. The first time they tried this.
What would Jimmy Kimmel do?
Cry on TV saying he didnt say what he said?
I'm interested to know whether his brother and any of his other detained coworkers turned out to be illegal. He should be bitching to his employer for breaking the law.
"ICE Arrested a U.S. Citizen—Twice—During Alabama Construction Site Raids."
Not good, but some context please:
Slobbering Joe and that jackass Cackles opened the flood-gates for millions of illegals, and now Trump is trying to get a handle on it.
How about some true-positive/false-positive data. You don't have the option of perfection, you know.
Not good, but some context please:
Was he shot in the neck in front of his wife and kids? Shot while praying among his peers at school and mocked by Government figures for exercising freedom of religion? Kicked out of bars and Churches like more than 10 million other Americans that amnesty was extorted out of?
No? Then Reason can take their baseless, one-sided civil suit horseshit, glue it to a cinder block, dowse the whole thing in lighter fluid, light it, and *then* shove it up their ass.
i.e., Rason should only cover Mad.Casual's list of approved victims.
Quel fuckwit.
Poor shrike.
You should at least try to understand reality, asswipe squared.
"...The Institute for Justice says in its lawsuit on Venegas' behalf that this sort of behavior is "no accident."..."
This is the reason IJ gets an $0.05 annual contribution from me: FOCUS, dammit!
Back when grease-ball Newsom instituted the lockdowns, I asked Bullock if they were going to begin some legal action to keep Newsom from being that "King" we keep hearing about.
'Nope, we want to focus on the 'larger issues'.'
Yup the constitution allows for someone to sue because they were inconvenienced for a couple hours. Just like everyone has the right to not be offended and words are violence, also backed by the constitution.
When the officer says I asked him to put away his phone, he refused. When I said get on the ground, he refused. So I put him on the ground and handcuffed him so we could continue acting out the operation. Once we could get around to this individual we were able to discern he is an American Citizen and we let him go free without charge. Though he was on the verge of resisting a police officer.
There not suing for damages. They are suing to stop the practice.
Time to clean out MinnieSomalia, Minnesota:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/multiple-people-arrested-feds-uncover-massive-immigration-fraud/
First though, arrest Tampon Tim Walz and the mayor of Minniesomalia, Jacob Frey, Ilhan Omar and send all 82,000 Somalis that bath house Barry Soetoro smuggled in, back to the little shit hole they came from.
Dogs and cats will thank you.
So what? It shouldn't happen, but it inevitably will. In reality, it's little more than an inconvenience. This isn't what the regime bootlickers at Reason want it to be.
Is this one of those states where illegals get driver's licenses? Of course the ID can be fake. The SSN can be fake/stolen too.
Dude got a short break from work, sucks to be him. Maybe he should advocate for better border controls.
Dude got a short break from work, sucks to be him.
Entire job sites shut down for days, or even weeks because of code violations or pulled permits (to say nothing of retards gluing themselves to shit and Federales protecting the Eastern Northern Migratory Horned Snipe) and nobody says dick about taking or wrongful detention or obstruction. People routinely falsely accused or otherwise wrongfully detained with a "People like that should just be less deplorable." to boot, but a politically-expedient incident that gets punted deep into "*with* due compensation" territory by less than $200 (~2 hrs. total x ~$25/hr. for both him for wages and his employer for lost time/labor) and suddenly Western Civilization is going to collapse... again.
So he was asked to wait while they ran his ID.
Where's the 'arrest'?
He was handcuffed.
Tell me youre retarded without telling me.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/when-can-police-place-you-in-handcuffs/
Joe Biden has a couple soldiers onstage at a speech. Libertarians: "ZOMG FASCIST!!"
Trump puts troops on Main Street USA, has ICE violating 4th A rights. Libertarians: "meh"
First you need to be honest with yourself.
CCC, consider whether the people whom you are calling "libertarians" are actually American-style libertarians.
You should both consider if youre even informed on a topic before spouting off.
Detained or arrested?
There's a big difference.
Which is it?
Papers please
Brain cell, please,
Good to know that the invasive construct known as Real-ID is completely worthless to you the citizen. It's only use and function is government surveillance .
Better a million citizens be arbitrarily detained and arrested than one illegal go free.
Is arbitrary another word you dont understand? What about arbitrarily being shot?
"Venegas and the Institute for Justice argue that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies allow immigration agents to illegally raid private construction sites, detain workers without reasonable suspicion, and continue detaining them even after they offer evidence of citizenship or legal status. All of this, they say, violates the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures."
Does the law state how long law enforcement has to verify the documents provided for them and the person's background? The searches and seizures are reasonable since we have millions of illegal immigrants working illegally in the US and arresting them and deporting them is a priority. Nothing about this suggests anything done by law enforcement wasn't done with reasonable suspicion, regardless of that person being detained twice since it could be different law enforcement personnel verifying his documents and background.
Well now that being brown is probable cause to Kavanaugh , it isn't illegal.
Until they start "detaining" white men for vaguely justifiable circumstances, some of you will never see a problem. Imagine the whole "Me Too" craze y'all like to complain about... but with gov guns, random detainments, and smug jerks smirking about "what's a little inconvenience ? You'll be let go if you're innocent. You've got nothing to hide, right ? "
The gov'ts law enforcement 'priorities' are irrelevant. The inquiry under the 4th amend is an objective one [subjective motivations irrelevant...at least when police want to stop somebody of color]. To seize somebody requires at least reasonable suspicion of a crime. Last I knew, mere unlawful status + presence in the US is a civil violation. Regardless, the cops aren't stopping people they 'know' are here unlawfully or have removal orders or ICE warrants. They are stopping people who meet a profile that they themselves created and going about in the community and just detaining all who meet the profile and sorting the rest out later.
What kind of bullshit is this that you approve of? I don't think you understand what a terrible precedent this sets. It's already the case that the 4th amendment has too many exceptions, this is adding more. It is saying the cops don't need even reasonable suspicion of a crime to detain/arrest people. Now, it's people who fit ICE's profile for hispanic non-resident/illegal aliens. When all the scary brown people are gone, do you think the precedent that is set here is going to go away? What is going to be the next profile? Maybe it's going to be white christian MAGA extremists. Those ever present ugly red hats may be just what law enforcement needs to fuck your life up. Be careful which of your liberties you so easily dispose of for convenience to enforce a 'deportation priority.'
Yet more proof.
Maybe he is a tax attorney with no experience in criminal law. But doubtful.
He would still have had to take at least some course in criminal law. Hes getting basic long standing legal questions wrong.