ICE Agents Shoot Man in Vehicle During Northern California Operation

On the morning of April 7, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents surrounded a vehicle on State Route 130 near Interstate 5 in Patterson, California — a small city of about 25,000 people in Stanislaus County, roughly 90 miles south of Sacramento. Within moments, agents opened fire. The driver, Carlos Ivan Mendoza Hernandez, was struck multiple times and transported to a hospital in critical condition [1][2].

The shooting is the latest in a sharp escalation of armed immigration enforcement operations under the second Trump administration, which has produced at least 34 shootings by federal immigration agents since January 20, 2025, resulting in at least nine deaths [3][4]. The FBI has taken over the investigation [5], but the incident has already become a flashpoint in the intensifying debate over how ICE conducts field operations — and whether adequate safeguards exist to prevent excessive force.

What Happened in Patterson

According to Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, agents were conducting a "targeted traffic stop" to arrest Mendoza Hernandez, whom the agency described as an undocumented immigrant and member of the 18th Street Gang wanted in El Salvador for questioning in connection with a murder [1][6].

As agents approached the vehicle around 6:30 a.m., DHS officials said, Mendoza Hernandez "weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run an officer over." In a statement, Lyons said officers "fired defensive shots to protect themselves, their fellow agents, and the public" [1].

Dashcam footage obtained by KCRA and CNN tells a more ambiguous story. The video shows agents surrounding the car, which then reverses before accelerating forward and attempting to cross the highway divider. One agent is seen running out of the vehicle's path [2][7]. News helicopter footage showed extensive damage to the car, including multiple gunshot holes in the windshield [2].

Stanislaus County Sheriff Jeff Dirkse confirmed that his deputies responded to secure the scene and block roadways, while fire and paramedic personnel provided medical assistance [7]. FBI Special Agent Eugene Wu said the bureau is "conducting a thorough and methodical investigation to understand what transpired" [7].

Activist Joni Dickson Garcia challenged the agency's account, arguing that officers should "assume the risk" rather than resort to lethal force when confronting a vehicle [7].

The Legal Basis: Administrative Warrants vs. Judicial Orders

The Patterson operation raises a question central to the current enforcement debate: what legal authority justified this armed vehicle stop?

ICE enforcement actions generally fall under three categories of legal authority, each carrying different procedural protections. A criminal warrant, issued by a federal judge based on probable cause of a crime, authorizes the broadest range of enforcement actions, including entry into private residences [8]. An administrative removal warrant (Form I-205) is issued internally by ICE after an immigration judge orders removal; it authorizes arrest in public spaces but does not permit agents to enter a home without consent [8][9]. A civil immigration detainer (Form I-247A) is merely a request to another law enforcement agency to hold someone for up to 48 hours so ICE can take custody — it carries no judicial authorization at all [9].

DHS described Mendoza Hernandez as someone wanted for questioning about a murder in El Salvador, but the agency has not disclosed whether agents were operating under a criminal warrant or an administrative removal order [1]. This distinction matters: administrative warrants are signed by ICE supervisors, not judges, and do not require the same evidentiary threshold as criminal warrants [8]. Critics argue that conducting armed highway stops under administrative authority — without judicial review — blurs the line between civil immigration enforcement and criminal policing [10].

A Rising Pattern of Shootings

The Patterson incident fits into a documented escalation in the use of firearms by federal immigration agents.

Source: The Trace / Marshall Project / NBC News compilations

Data as of Apr 8, 2026CSV

Since President Trump's second inauguration on January 20, 2025, news organizations and advocacy groups have tracked at least 34 shooting incidents involving ICE and CBP agents [3][4]. The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom covering gun violence, identified 23 incidents in which immigration agents fired at people, with at least 13 involving officers shooting at or into civilian vehicles [11]. The Wall Street Journal documented at least eight gunshot wounds from vehicle-related incidents, two of them fatal [3].

Among the dead: Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, shot by an ICE agent during an enforcement operation in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026 [3][12]. Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and U.S. citizen, fatally shot by Border Patrol agents on January 24 [3]. Silverio Villegas González, a father originally from Mexico who worked as a cook, killed during a traffic stop in a Chicago suburb in September 2025 [3]. At least five of those shot during this period were U.S. citizens [3].

These numbers represent a marked increase from recent years. Between 2015 and 2021, ICE agents discharged firearms at least 59 times total, injuring 24 people and killing 23 [13]. The current pace far exceeds that baseline.

ICE's Use-of-Force Rules — and the Moving Vehicle Exception

ICE Directive 19009.3, the agency's firearms and use-of-force handbook, establishes that agents may use only force that is "objectively reasonable and necessary" to carry out law enforcement duties [14]. The directive explicitly prohibits excessive force.

On the specific question of shooting at vehicles, the policy states: "Firearms shall not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles, vessels, aircraft or other conveyances, except when deadly force is authorized" [14][15]. This mirrors Department of Justice and FBI guidelines, which permit shooting at moving vehicles only when occupants pose an "imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm" and no reasonable alternative exists [15].

A February 2023 GAO report found significant problems with how DHS collects and analyzes use-of-force data. The GAO reviewed four DHS law enforcement agencies — CBP, ICE, the Federal Protective Service, and the Secret Service — and found that ICE could not provide complete data on how many times its personnel had used force over a five-year period [16]. The report made multiple recommendations for strengthening data collection, many of which remained unimplemented as of early 2026 [16].

ICE requires agents to qualify with their weapons twice annually, but use-of-force refresher training consists primarily of reviewing written policy rather than hands-on scenario work [13]. Law enforcement experts have noted that shooting at moving vehicles carries elevated risks of ricochet and collateral harm to bystanders [15].

Accountability: A System Under Strain

No publicly accessible database of ICE use-of-force incidents exists [16]. The absence of comprehensive data makes independent analysis difficult and leaves oversight largely dependent on individual incident investigations.

Source: American Immigration Council / ICE FOIA data

Data as of Apr 8, 2026CSV

The primary oversight bodies for ICE use-of-force incidents include ICE's own Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), and — in cases involving potential civil rights violations — the FBI and the Department of Justice [17][18]. In the Patterson case, the FBI assumed investigative responsibility, a standard protocol when federal agents discharge firearms [5].

But the system has documented weaknesses. The DHS OIG lacks sufficient staff to investigate complaints promptly and often takes years to complete reviews [17]. An NPR investigation in December 2025 found that an ICE officer accused of excessive force was sent back to work despite an active probe into the allegations [18]. No shooting examined by news organizations during the current enforcement surge has resulted in an indictment [3].

Civil liability is equally constrained. The Supreme Court has narrowed the ability of individuals to sue federal officers for monetary damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), forcing plaintiffs to pursue claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act — a slower, more limited avenue [19]. As of 2023, ICE had paid out less than $1 million in total settlements despite numerous claims [19]. The Washington Post reported in February 2026 that the path to legal settlement with ICE remains difficult even in cases with strong evidence [20].

Enforcement in California: Sanctuary Policies and Federal Pushback

The Patterson shooting occurred in the Central Valley, a predominantly agricultural region that lies outside the "sanctuary" jurisdictions concentrated in the Bay Area and coastal urban centers. Cities including San Jose, Oakland, and Santa Clara have adopted ICE-free zone policies, and Alameda County has formally restricted cooperation with federal immigration authorities [21][22].

The second Trump administration has pushed back aggressively against these policies. DHS has placed more than 500 "sanctuary jurisdictions" — including numerous California cities and counties — on notice that the administration views them as obstructing immigration enforcement [22]. In San Diego, immigration arrests surged nearly 1,500% between May and October 2025, with agents arresting more than 4,500 people compared to fewer than 300 during the same period the prior year [23].

Vehicle stops have become an increasingly common tactic in California, particularly in areas where local law enforcement does not cooperate with ICE detainer requests. A January 2025 CBP operation in Kern County relied heavily on vehicle stops that civil liberties groups characterized as racial profiling [23]. When CBP agents conducted a one-day surge operation in the Bay Area in October 2025, they staged from U.S. Coast Guard property in Alameda — federal land exempt from local sanctuary ordinances [22].

The Case For and Against Armed Vehicle Stops

Defenders of armed vehicle operations argue they are sometimes the safest available option for apprehending high-priority targets. DHS has emphasized that vehicle stops allow agents to intercept subjects in controlled environments, away from residential neighborhoods where bystanders — including children — might be present [1]. In the Patterson case, ICE framed the operation as a targeted effort to arrest an alleged gang member wanted in connection with a foreign homicide, a category the agency classifies as a public safety priority [1][6].

Acting Director Lyons and other DHS officials have argued that agents face genuine danger when subjects attempt to flee in vehicles, and that the use of deadly force in such situations is consistent with established law enforcement protocols [1]. Some former federal law enforcement officials have noted that vehicle stops, while inherently risky, provide agents with more tactical options — including spike strips, vehicle blocks, and PIT maneuvers — than attempting arrests at residences or workplaces [15].

Critics counter that the frequency with which agents are firing at or into vehicles suggests a systemic problem rather than a series of isolated incidents. The ACLU and immigration advocacy organizations have argued that conducting armed enforcement operations using administrative warrants — which lack judicial authorization — creates conditions where escalation is predictable [10]. Community activists in multiple states have documented instances where officers pointed firearms at bystanders, including a pregnant woman, an Illinois state representative, and a combat veteran [3]. In at least one case, body-camera footage contradicted DHS claims about the severity of the threat agents faced, and assault charges against a shooting victim were ultimately dropped [3].

What Remains Unknown

Several facts about the Patterson shooting remain undetermined. The legal instrument authorizing the operation — whether a criminal warrant, an administrative removal warrant, or another authority — has not been publicly disclosed. The number of rounds fired, the number of agents who discharged weapons, and whether any agents were injured have not been confirmed. Mendoza Hernandez's current medical status beyond "critical condition" has not been updated [1][2].

More broadly, the absence of a centralized, publicly accessible database of ICE use-of-force incidents means that tracking patterns — whether by geography, target demographics, or legal authority — requires relying on incomplete compilations by journalists and advocacy organizations [16][3][11]. The GAO's 2023 recommendation that DHS strengthen use-of-force data collection has not been fully implemented [16].

The FBI investigation will determine whether the agents' use of force in Patterson was justified under federal law. But the broader questions — about the legal frameworks governing armed immigration enforcement, the adequacy of oversight mechanisms, and the human cost of an escalating enforcement posture — extend well beyond any single incident on a Central Valley highway.