Former Minnesota state senator Matt Little says federal immigration agents led him directly to his own house while he was legally observing their activity in Dakota County last month.
Little told The Intercept that he had been following the agents’ vehicles when they turned onto a rural road that became increasingly familiar during a roughly 20-minute drive. Eventually, he realized the agents were heading toward his home. When he arrived at his driveway, two SUVs were already waiting.
According to Little, the agents blocked his car and claimed he had interfered with their investigation, warning that local police would be called. However, no additional officers arrived and Little was neither cited nor charged.
“The intent was clearly to intimidate us,” he said. “It’s stressful and a bit frightening. But I still believe it’s important to be out there monitoring what they’re doing.”
Interviews, sworn statements, and video reviewed by The Intercept suggest Little’s experience was not an isolated case. Across the Twin Cities area, immigration agents have reportedly identified legal observers by name and address and, in some instances, followed them back to their homes after they monitored immigration enforcement activities.
Observers say these encounters send a clear warning: federal authorities know exactly who they are and where they live.
The incidents come amid a rapid expansion of federal surveillance capabilities. Immigration authorities have significantly increased their use of mobile biometric technology in recent years. Officers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection can use the Mobile Fortify smartphone application to capture facial images or fingerprints in the field and compare them with federal biometric databases, according to a Department of Homeland Security inventory of artificial intelligence tools.
These technologies are part of a wider surveillance system that also includes automated license-plate readers, commercial data brokers, and facial recognition platforms. A 2022 report from Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology found that ICE has access to driver’s license data covering roughly three-quarters of adults in the United States, including photo databases that can be searched using facial recognition.
Civil liberties advocates argue that this expanding identification infrastructure allows federal agents to quickly determine the identities of people who monitor or protest their actions, potentially discouraging constitutionally protected activities under the First Amendment.
“We make sure to lock our doors now,” Little said. “I’m definitely more aware when I’m out there. It’s scary, but for me it’s even scarier to just stay home.”
Attorneys and community observers say similar concerns are spreading throughout the Twin Cities even as Operation Metro Surge is reportedly winding down.
Beth Jackson, a St. Paul resident and grandmother who volunteers as a legal observer, described an encounter that escalated rapidly. According to Jackson and a heavily redacted police report reviewed by The Intercept, local officers surrounded her vehicle with guns drawn after a federal agent claimed she had made violent threats. Jackson denies the allegation, and her attorney confirmed that no criminal charges were filed.
Jackson said agents never explained how they identified her. In previous encounters, she said, federal officers told her they had visited her home and knew where she lived — statements she interpreted as attempts at intimidation.
Days later, Jackson received notice that her TSA PreCheck status, which allows travelers to pass through airport security more quickly, would be revoked based on the same incident.
She was one of several legal observers in Minnesota who described feeling panic after federal agents demonstrated detailed knowledge of their personal identities.
“I live here. I drive these streets every day. I’m a grandmother of six and a mother of three,” Jackson said. “We should just be living our lives, but we can’t.”
Court filings reviewed by The Intercept describe similar incidents. The accounts appear in Tincher v. Noem, a federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of residents who say they were targeted for lawfully observing immigration enforcement.
In a sworn declaration, Edina resident Emily Beltz said she was following an unmarked federal vehicle in January when a masked woman in the passenger seat leaned out of an SUV window and shouted her name.
“Emily, Emily, we’re going to take you home,” the agent yelled, repeating her name and home address in what Beltz described as a mocking tone.
Beltz said the moment frightened her deeply. “I was freaked out,” she wrote, explaining that the agents’ message suggested they knew where she and her family lived and could approach them at any time.
The experience left her fearful about continuing her role as a legal observer.
In another declaration, Minneapolis resident Katherine Henly said agents abruptly stopped on her street while she was following suspected ICE vehicles and began photographing her house.
“This seemed like a clear attempt to intimidate me and my family,” Henly wrote. She said masked officers later exited their vehicles — one carrying a large firearm — and accused observers of interfering with enforcement operations, despite the observers maintaining a safe distance.
Henly said she feared the images of her home and car might be stored in government databases and that the incident left her extremely shaken and worried about the safety of her children.
Civil liberties advocates argue that the reported conduct raises serious constitutional concerns. According to ACLU attorney Byul Yoon, photographing observers, calling them by name, following them home, and claiming they are tracked in government databases can have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected activity.
Although many incidents involve surveillance and intimidation, some have escalated into dangerous confrontations.
Ed Higgins, a Marine Corps veteran and legal observer from Columbia Heights, said he has experienced situations where he feared for his life. On February 5, he said a group of federal agents chased him through the city and repeatedly attempted to force his vehicle off the road.
During the pursuit, Higgins called 911 and reported that the vehicles following him appeared to be immigration agents and were “trying to run into” his vehicle. Dispatchers instructed him to drive to the Columbia Heights Police Department.
Surveillance footage later showed Higgins’s van entering the police station parking lot at high speed while several SUVs followed closely behind and boxed him in. Video obtained by The Intercept shows agents surrounding his vehicle, shouting and striking his windows with firearms before a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension official intervened to calm the situation.
“I was panicking the entire time. I thought they were going to kill me,” Higgins said.
He was later taken to the Whipple Federal Building, where he said officers entered his Social Security number and other personal information into a Microsoft Teams chat labeled “agitator chat.” Higgins estimated the chat appeared to include hundreds of participants.
He was released the same day without charges.
Responding to questions about the incident, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said no policies had been violated and emphasized that obstructing or assaulting law enforcement is a federal crime.
Observers worry that federal monitoring will continue. Jackson said that the day after her detention, agents returned to her neighborhood and parked directly in front of her home.
She added that family members now worry her activism could bring immigration agents to their neighborhood.
“I used to deliver Meals on Wheels to elderly people every Tuesday,” Jackson said. “Now I can’t do that anymore.”
The lawsuit argues that federal immigration agents violated the First and Fourth Amendments by retaliating against people who were lawfully observing and documenting enforcement activity. Plaintiffs are seeking court orders to block such tactics and require policy changes while the case proceeds in federal court in Minnesota.