Federal Judge Slams ICE Evidence as “Fake” in Minneapolis Arrest Case

A federal judge in Minnesota dealt a sharp rebuke to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Tuesday, declaring the government’s evidence in a recent assault case against a local woman “fake” and unreliable. The case involves Gillian Suzanne Etherington, arrested on January 7 for allegedly assaulting federal agents near Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis during what ICE called a roving patrol.

U.S. District Judge David T. Schultz expressed serious doubts about the credibility of the affidavit written by Special Agent Richard Berger, which formed the basis for Etherington’s arrest warrant. Schultz told prosecutors he had encountered multiple affidavits from Berger during the so-called Operation Metro Surge and found them consistently lacking in veracity and personal knowledge of events.

“In all of them I became concerned with the veracity of his affidavits,” Schultz said bluntly. “That’s a fake affidavit.”

The government’s narrative claimed Etherington was driving erratically, swerving through traffic, and intentionally ramming ICE vehicles in an attempt to flee. But after reviewing video footage submitted by prosecutors, Schultz concluded the evidence did not support these claims. “I would not fairly describe the impact … as involving any ramming,” he stated.

Despite his harsh critique, Schultz is giving the government one last chance to prove its case. He has ordered an unusual evidentiary hearing and demanded that agents involved in the incident testify directly, rejecting any second-hand accounts. The prosecution has four weeks to prepare for this hearing.

The judge’s skepticism highlights a broader pattern of judicial frustration with ICE’s enforcement tactics and documentation during the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdowns. This case also underscores concerns about the quality and honesty of affidavits that ICE agents submit to justify arrests and prosecutions.

Adding to the turbulence, the prosecution team in this case has seen multiple turnovers since January, with the current attorney recently transferred from North Carolina to Minnesota. The judge’s pointed warning that his doubts “come as no surprise to the government” signals a judiciary increasingly unwilling to accept ICE’s word at face value.

This development is a clear reminder that ICE’s aggressive enforcement methods continue to face legal pushback, raising questions about accountability and transparency within the agency. As the evidentiary hearing approaches, all eyes will be on whether the government can substantiate its claims or if this case will become another example of overreach and misconduct in the name of immigration enforcement.