ICE Agents’ Statements Contradicting In Minneapolis Shooting
ICE Agents’ Statements Contradicting In North Minneapolis Shooting
- Agents' sworn testimony contradicted by newly reviewed evidence, leading to charges dismissal
- Internal review found agents made untruthful statements, which could lead to severe consequences
- Pattern of federal agents making initial claims later contradicted by video evidence raises public trust issues
Two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are now on leave and under investigation after newly reviewed evidence contradicted their sworn statements. The statements in question? They are surrounding the recent January shooting in north Minneapolis, prompting federal prosecutors to move to dismiss charges tied to the case.
According to KSTP ABC News 5, the Jan. 14 incident initially led authorities to accuse two men, Julio Cesar Sosa Celis and Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, of assaulting ICE agents. However, after reviewing additional video footage and witness accounts, the U.S. Attorney’s Office asked a judge to drop the charges, citing newly discovered evidence that conflicted with officers’ testimony.
In a statement cited by KSTP, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons confirmed that an internal review conducted alongside the Department of Justice raised serious concerns about the officers’ credibility.
“Sworn testimony provided by two separate officers appears to have made untruthful statements,” Lyons said.
He added that the consequences could be severe, noting, “Lying under oath is a serious federal offense,” and confirming that “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is actively investigating these false statements.”
The two agents now face potential termination and possible criminal prosecution as the investigation continues.
Video And Witness Accounts Challenge Initial Self-Defense Claim
KSTP states that witness accounts and video evidence indicate that Sosa Celis and Aljorna ran inside a home while being pursued by ICE agents. Investigators believe one agent then fired through the door, allegedly striking Sosa Celis in the leg.
This version of events directly contradicts Homeland Security’s initial explanation. At the time, federal officials said the shooting happened after agents were attacked with household tools.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem previously stated, “Last night what we saw was three individuals weaponize shovels and brooms and attack an ICE officer that had to defend himself.”
Neighbors disputed that account almost immediately after the shooting, though charges were still filed against the men in the days that followed.
There Seems To Be A Pattern
Rachel Moran, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas, told KSTP, “We have seen a lot of claims by federal agents when they’ve engaged in violence where they say it’s justified and the evidence proves otherwise.”
Moran added bluntly, “This is really becoming a pattern.”
She also warned that repeated reversals between initial official statements and later video evidence could damage public trust.
“It’s hard to trust an agency that makes such quick, immediate pronouncements that are then somewhat routinely contradicted by evidence,” Moran said. “What it should do for public opinion is cause people to doubt what the agents are saying.”
Growing Scrutiny Around I.C.E
The Minneapolis case is not the only recent incident drawing questions about federal enforcement narratives.
KSTP referenced earlier situations in which strong initial claims from officials were later softened or reversed after additional footage emerged, including the Alex Pretti shooting and a Chicago case involving Miramar Martinez, where charges were eventually dropped after video evidence reportedly contradicted an agent’s account.
As the investigation into the Minneapolis shooting continues, the focus now shifts to whether prosecutors will pursue charges against the agents themselves.
For now, the dismissal request in the original assault case signals a major reversal and raises fresh questions about accountability, transparency, and the role of video evidence in shaping public understanding.
