A federal judge ordered the release of a man who was taken into custody by immigration agents last month outside a Baltimore elementary school. The order to release 39-year-old Jesus Acevedo Sanchez by 11:59 p.m. Thursday followed another ruling last week to free his long-term partner, who was in the same vehicle and also detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement the morning of June 11. The judge said this case is a “stomach churner,” and ICE didn’t have probable cause to arrest Acevedo Sanchez outside of the school. The judge added that ICE officers didn’t follow the procedures put in place for due process.
What changed
Jesus Acevedo Sanchez and his partner, Adriana Gavilan Sanchez, were taken into custody by ICE agents while dropping off their daughter at Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School on June 11. The Baltimore couple’s attorneys said in court that the father drove off because the man who approached him did not identify himself as an immigration agent before he pulled out a gun. “He thought he was fleeing from a carjacker,” Girod told Rubin. Acevedo Sanchez then continued to the school, where bystander videos show agents taking him into custody while students were being dropped off.
Unpersuaded by a Department of Justice attorney’s explanation of what probable cause immigration authorities were relying on when they initiated the “targeted enforcement” operation, U.S. District Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin said release was the “proper and only appropriate remedy” for violating Acevedo Sanchez’s rights.
Why it matters
This ruling establishes that ICE agents cannot initiate a warrantless arrest based solely on speculation or investigation-as-interrogation. The couple’s attorneys said ICE did not issue an administrative warrant for Acevedo Sanchez until hours after his arrest, when he was taken to the Baltimore holding facility. Rubin prodded Justice Government attorney Beatrice C. Thomas, who argued that immigration laws allow agents to interrogate people regardless of “how they approach the individual” on why agents had reason to believe Acevedo Sanchez was illegally in the U.S. The judge rejected that reasoning, signaling that background database checks alone—even if negative—do not meet the probable cause threshold for detention.
Practitioners defending removal cases must document the exact facts on which agents relied at the moment of arrest, not post-hoc justifications offered later. The footage caused uproar among local officials, who said that schools are sensitive spaces where immigration enforcement should not occur. This decision reinforces that schools—already protected by state and local guidance against ICE activity—may also be protected as a matter of federal due process.
Way forward
- Demand warrant documentation: When your client is detained by ICE, immediately request the administrative warrant under which the arrest was made. If no warrant was issued before or at the moment of arrest, preserve evidence of that gap.
- Collect facts about probable cause timing: Get sworn declarations from witnesses (clients, family, bystanders) about exactly what agents said or did before initiating the stop. Query whether any database check, identification demand, or other step preceded the physical apprehension.
- Challenge in habeas proceedings: If your client is in ICE custody pending removal, consider a federal habeas petition emphasizing the lack of probable cause at the moment of arrest, not defenses developed later in detention.
- Coordinate with school districts: Work with school counsel to establish and enforce sanctuary protocols prohibiting ICE access to school grounds without a judicial warrant signed by a judge (not just an administrative warrant).
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola Editorial is a software company, not a law firm. You should not rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed immigration attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. Consult a qualified attorney before taking any action based on this information. Immigration policy and case law can change without notice, and you are responsible for verifying all information against the primary source documents linked above.