Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: immigration agents in Border Patrol vests handcuffed a U.S. citizen who was working at a house in January 2026 and an agent told him after a facial recognition scan that he was born in Mexico City; a federal judge found he was detained solely because of his race or ethnicity, and a second scan confirmed his citizenship before release

In findings of fact filed on 9 March 2026 in Hussen v. Noem, a proposed class action over immigration stops during Operation Metro Surge, Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota found that a U.S. citizen working at a house in Brooklyn Center on 9 January 2026 was stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity. Two agents with 'border patrol' on their vests asked where he was born, said his REAL ID papers were fake and his driver's licence proved nothing, and handcuffed him. According to the findings, one agent conducted a facial recognition scan and told him he was born in Mexico City; in his sworn declaration the man says the agent also told him he was not a U.S. citizen and was under arrest. After about thirty minutes of driving, a different agent used a facial recognition scan that determined he was a citizen, and he was released. The government's declarations did not dispute his account. The judge denied a preliminary injunction for lack of a certainly impending future injury, and the plaintiffs later dismissed the suit. No source read names the facial recognition application. A complaint filed on 1 October 2026 over the killing of Renee Good restates the episode.

AI system
Unidentified facial recognition system
Occurred
9 Jan 2026
Reported
16 January 2026
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Made a claim about the person
Reported harm
Loss of Liberty
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Justice · Work
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution unclear · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts
8 claims: 6 documented, 2 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Facial recognition scans run by immigration agents during the stop: per the court's findings, one agent conducted a facial recognition scan and then told the man he was born in Mexico City, and a different agent later used a facial recognition scan that determined he was a U.S. citizen (the declarant says the second agent used 'another system'). No source read names either application.

What Happened

Hussen v. Noem was filed on 15 January 2026 by three named plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Minnesota and private firms, against DHS, ICE, CBP and Border Patrol officials over stops and arrests during Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota. The plaintiffs provided detailed accounts of several dozen stops and arrests; on 17 February 2026 the court held a four-hour evidentiary hearing at which the government cross-examined witnesses but offered none of its own. The government's declarations disputed four accounts, not this one. In its brief the government argued that the stop was justified because he was encountered at a construction work site; the court called this incorrect, since his declaration describes cleaning and property removal work and does not mention construction. The declarant, a self-employed U.S. citizen with a U.S. passport and a Minnesota driver's licence who had recently applied for a REAL ID, says he was moving his work truck at a house in Brooklyn Center on 9 January (his declaration gives the year as 2025, which the court treats as a typographical error for 2026) when two SUVs of agents whose vests said border patrol drove past, made a U-turn and came back. Two agents asked repeatedly where he was born; he said he was a U.S. citizen and showed his driver's licence and his REAL ID paperwork. They said the papers were fake and the licence proved nothing, arrested him and put him in an SUV. He says a man in the front seat seemed to take a picture of his face with a phone, which he believed was facial recognition software, then told him he was not a U.S. citizen, that he was born in Mexico City and that he was under arrest, and he was handcuffed. When he tried to show a photo of his passport on his phone, agents took the phone. After he was driven around for about thirty minutes, a different agent met them and used facial recognition 'with another system', which confirmed he was a citizen, and he was let go. In its findings the court recorded the first scan and the agent's Mexico City statement, using it to infer that at least one agent believed he appeared to be of Mexican descent, and recorded the second scan and the release. It found he was stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity and that the assertions about his papers were pretextual justifications for prolonging the detention. The court denied preliminary relief because the plaintiffs had not shown a certainly impending future injury after the operation was scaled back; the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case in June 2026. No source read names the facial recognition applications or establishes the man's birthplace.

Reported harm

A federal judge found the man, a U.S. citizen, was handcuffed and detained for about thirty minutes by immigration agents in Border Patrol vests, based solely on his race or ethnicity; he says an agent told him after a face scan that he was not a citizen and was under arrest.

Outcome

Resolved

The man's sworn declaration supported the preliminary-injunction motion in Hussen v. Noem (later captioned Hussen v. Mullin), D. Minn. No. 26-cv-324. On 9 March 2026 Judge Tostrud found that he was stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity, and found the government likely maintained unconstitutional policies, but denied the preliminary injunction and provisional class certification because the plaintiffs had not shown a certainly impending future injury after Operation Metro Surge was scaled back. CourtListener's docket lists a notice of voluntary dismissal by all plaintiffs on 11 June 2026 and an order dismissing the case on 18 June 2026. No claim by the man himself is reported. The episode is restated in Ganger v. Ross (D. Minn., filed 1 October 2026).

What remains unknown

  • Which facial recognition application each agent used; the declarant says the second agent used 'another system'.
  • What the first scan actually returned, and whether the birthplace the agent stated was wrong; the record establishes his U.S. citizenship but not his birthplace.
  • Whether the man has brought any claim of his own; he was a declarant, not a party, in Hussen v. Noem.
  • Any psychological, work or financial consequences beyond the detention itself; the declaration does not describe them.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The court's findings state that an agent conducted a facial recognition scan and then told the man he was born in Mexico City, and that a different agent later used a facial recognition scan to determine that he was a U.S. citizen, after which he was released. Both findings rest on his sworn declaration. For the first scan he says the agent 'seemed' to photograph his face and that he believed facial recognition software was used, and he says the agents had already arrested him and put him in an SUV before that photo. No source read names either application or says what the first scan returned; the record shows only that the agent made the Mexico City statement after it. The recorded AI output is the second scan's: the court says it was used to determine his citizenship and the declaration says 'it confirmed I was a citizen', after which the officers released him. The court attributes the stop and detention to race or ethnicity, so no scan is established as the reason he was detained.

8 claims: 6 documented, 2 reported. What the statuses mean

Documented In findings of fact filed on 9 March 2026 in Hussen v. Noem, a proposed class action over immigration stops during Operation Metro Surge, a federal judge in Minnesota found that a U.S. citizen was working at a house in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on 9 January 2026 when two immigration agents with 'border patrol' on their vests drove past, made a U-turn and asked where he was born; when he showed his driver's licence and REAL ID paperwork, they said the papers were fake and the licence proved nothing, and handcuffed him.

Causal attribution. Findings of the court, made on the declarant's sworn account; the government's declarations did not address this stop.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Paras 85-86, pages 30-31: 'and a U.S. citizen. ECF'; 'On January 9, 2026, Mr.'; 'was working at a house in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota'; 'Two immigration agents with “border patrol” on their vests drove past the house, made a U-turn'; 'license and REAL ID paperwork, but the agents asserted that the REAL ID papers were'; 'fake and that the driver’s license proved nothing, and they handcuffed him'. Caption: 'FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'; 'Dated: March 9, 2026'.
Documented The court's findings state that one of the agents who stopped him conducted a facial recognition scan and told him he was born in Mexico City; the judge cited this to infer that at least one agent believed he appeared to be of Mexican descent.

Causal attribution. The court's restatement of the declaration (Id. para 12); the order does not say what the scan returned beyond what the agent then told him, and does not say whether the birthplace was wrong.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Footnote 11, page 30: 'One of the agents who stopped him conducted a facial recognition scan and told'; 'was born in Mexico City'; 'At least one agent, then, believed that'; 'to be of Mexican descent'.
Documented The judge found that the agents drove him around for about thirty minutes and then met a different agent, who used a facial recognition scan to determine that he was a U.S. citizen, after which the officers released him.

Causal attribution. Findings of the court on the declarant's account.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Para 87, page 31: 'around for about thirty minutes, the agents met up with a different agent, who used a facial recognition scan to determine that'; 'was a U.S. citizen. Id.'; 'After that, the officers released'.
Documented The judge found that he was stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity, and that the agents' assertions that his papers were fake or proved nothing were unsupported, pretextual justifications for prolonging the detention; in its conclusions it rejected the government's argument that he was encountered at a construction worksite, because his declaration describes cleaning and property removal work and does not mention construction.

Causal attribution. Judicial finding made on the preliminary-injunction record, which the court notes 'are not binding at trial on the merits'; it attributes the stop and detention to race or ethnicity, not to the facial recognition scan.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Para 88, page 31: 'stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity. Without more, the assertions that'; 'are unsupported, pretextual justifications for prolonging the detention'; page 4: 'are not binding at trial on the merits'; page 80 (conclusions para 29): 'were encountered at construction worksites that'; 'traditionally indicate illegal aliens'; 'His declaration states he works in cleaning and property removal and does not mention construction'.
Reported In his sworn declaration, the man says that after he was put in an SUV a man in the front seat seemed to photograph his face with a phone, which he believed was facial recognition software, then told him he was not a U.S. citizen, that he was born in Mexico City and that he was under arrest, and he was handcuffed; agents took his phone when he tried to show a picture of his passport, drove him around for probably 30 minutes until a different agent used facial recognition 'with another system' that confirmed he was a citizen, and then let him go.

Causal attribution. The declarant's sworn first-person account; the identification of the first phone photo as facial recognition is his belief.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Paras 10-15: 'They put me in one of the SUVs.'; 'seemed to take a picture of my face with his phone. I believe he was using facial recognition software. He told me I was not a US citizen and that I was born in Mexico City. He told me I was under arrest. They put handcuffs on me.'; 'Instead, they just took my phone without letting me show the picture.'; 'They drove me around for probably 30 mins until a different agent met up with them. He used facial recognition with another system and it confirmed I was a citizen.'; 'They then let me go.'
Documented The court recorded that the government's declarations disputed four declarants' accounts, none of them this one, and that the government offered no witness testimony at the evidentiary hearing; it nonetheless denied the preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown a certainly impending future injury, while finding that the government likely maintained unconstitutional policies.

Causal attribution. The court's own record of the evidence and its ruling.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Pages 3, 7 (para 12) and 111: 'Defendants cross-examined Plaintiffs’ witnesses but offered no witness testimony'; 'Defendants submitted declarations disputing four accounts'; 'No. 84 (disputing account of Plaintiff Mubashir Hussen)'; 'provides brief accounts of the stops of Santiago Doe, Julio Doe,'; 'Plaintiffs’ motions will be denied.'; 'Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants likely maintained unconstitutional policies'; 'Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 25] is DENIED.'; 'Plaintiffs’ Motion for Provisional Class Certification and Appointment of'
Documented CourtListener's docket lists a notice of voluntary dismissal by all plaintiffs on 11 June 2026 and an order dismissing the case on 18 June 2026.

Causal attribution. Docket index entries; the dismissal notice and order were not read.

  • courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs'; 'Date Terminated:'; 'Order Dismissing Case'; entries 199 (Jun 11, 2026) and 200 (Jun 18, 2026).
Reported A federal complaint filed on 1 October 2026 over the killing of Renee Good (Ganger v. Ross) restates the episode among the Hussen court's findings, describing the first scan as one 'that told him he had been born in Mexico City' and saying a second scan confirmed his citizenship.

Causal attribution. The plaintiffs' restatement of the Hussen findings; the complaint's wording that the scan itself 'told him' the birthplace goes further than the order, which says the agent conducted a scan and told him.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Para 157(f), page 57: 'was working at a house in Brooklyn Center on January 9, 2026 when two Border Patrol agents'; 'ran a facial recognition scan that told him he had been born in Mexico City'; 'drove him around for about thirty minutes until a second scan confirmed his citizenship'.

Sources

4 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read on 2026-10-02 from the RECAP PDF (111 pages, text layer): Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Hussen v. Noem, D. Minn. No. 26-cv-324 (ECT/ECW), Doc. 191, filed 9 March 2026, Judge Eric C. Tostrud. Read in full for this episode (paras 85-88 and footnotes 11-12), the evidentiary posture (paras 11-12), the introduction and the order. The findings on this episode rest on the declarant's sworn declaration (s2), so the two are one evidentiary chain. Applies to s1.

Read in full on 2026-10-02 (3 pages): the detained man's sworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. 1746, signed 15 January 2026 and filed 16 January 2026 as Doc. 39 in support of the preliminary-injunction motion. It gives the event date as 'January 9, 2025'; the court treats 2025 as a typographical error. Applies to s2.

Read on 2026-10-02 (text layer, 149 pages; para 157(f) on page 57): complaint in Ganger v. Ross, D. Minn. No. 0:26-cv-04231, filed 1 October 2026, which concerns the killing of Renee Good and restates the Hussen court's findings on this episode. It derives from s1 and adds no independent account. Applies to s3.

Read on 2026-10-02: CourtListener docket page for Hussen v. Mullin (the caption CourtListener now shows), 0:26-cv-00324, last updated 13 September 2026; used only for the case's later procedural history. Applies to s4.

Event countries: United States. Affected-person countries: United States. Court countries: United States.

The stop happened at a house in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; the court found the man is a U.S. citizen who lives in Minnesota; the findings were made by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (s1).

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-02: Published as a contextual case from a federal court's findings of fact, made after an evidentiary hearing on a sworn declaration that the government's declarations did not dispute: a U.S. citizen was handcuffed and driven around by immigration agents with 'border patrol' on their vests, an agent told him after a facial recognition scan that he was born in Mexico City, and a second facial recognition scan established his citizenship before release. In findings on the preliminary-injunction record, the court found the stop and detention were based solely on race or ethnicity. The man is a private person and is not named here.

People described

A U.S. citizen who lives in Minnesota and works in cleaning and property removal; the court treated him as Hispanic. He was a declarant in Hussen v. Noem, not a party.

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person: the detained U.S. citizen (court findings paras 85-88; declaration). No one else is reported harmed in this stop.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#facial-recognition#immigration-enforcement#operation-metro-surge#minnesota#border-patrol#wrongful-detention#racial-profiling#justice

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: immigration agents in Border Patrol vests handcuffed a U.S. citizen who was working at a house in January 2026 and an agent told him after a facial recognition scan that he was born in Mexico City; a federal judge found he was detained solely because of his race or ethnicity, and a second scan confirmed his citizenship before release. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-brooklyn-center-border-patrol-facial-recognition-citizen-detention

BibTeX

@misc{2026_brooklyn_center_border_patrol_facial_recognition_citizen_detention,
  title = {Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: immigration agents in Border Patrol vests handcuffed a U.S. citizen who was working at a house in January 2026 and an agent told him after a facial recognition scan that he was born in Mexico City; a federal judge found he was detained solely because of his race or ethnicity, and a second scan confirmed his citizenship before release},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-brooklyn-center-border-patrol-facial-recognition-citizen-detention}
}

Related cases

High Unidentified facial recognition system

Jacksonville, Florida: a 38-year-old father was arrested at work in May 2025 and charged with soliciting a child after sheriff's investigators identified him, he says with facial-recognition tools, from photos an impostor had sent to an undercover officer; charges were dropped in August 2025 after the real sender confessed, and the family says the ordeal cost $45,000

The Florida Trib (28 September 2026, republished by the Florida Phoenix) reports that in May 2025, during the multi-agency sting Operation Rescue Our Children, a man using the Skout dating app sent an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old girl two photos of someone else: a former friend, a supermarket assistant manager and father of two whom the Trib calls 'Nick'. Investigators told him they relied on facial-recognition tools to identify him in the pictures, he recalled, and the Trib found no indication in court documents of other investigative work before his arrest. He was handcuffed at work, charged with soliciting a child via computer and unlawful use of a two-way communications device, spent a night in jail, wore an ankle monitor, was barred from contact with his two young children for a month and a half and could not live at home for nearly three months. The account's owner, a man with a prior conviction for the same offence, admitted on 31 July 2025 using the photos; charges against the father were dropped the next day and a judge ordered the case expunged on 4 August 2025, though the records stayed publicly online for more than a year. The family says the ordeal cost $45,000 in lost wages and legal fees and traumatised the children. The sheriff's office did not respond to the Trib's questions.

Medium Unidentified facial recognition system

New York: man misidentified through facial recognition in an indecent exposure case arrested and jailed two days

Reporting from August 2025 says an NYPD facial recognition search of images from a February 2025 indecent exposure in Manhattan's Union Square produced a possible match to a man who did not fit the described suspect. The man was placed in a photo lineup, arrested in April 2025 and jailed for two days. Prosecutors dismissed the case in July 2025 after his public defenders showed he was misidentified. The man says the process of becoming a correctional officer 'kind of' froze after the arrest. The NYPD says it never arrests solely on a facial recognition match.

High Unidentified facial recognition system

Maryland/Oklahoma: Kimberlee Williams, an Oklahoma woman who says she had never been to Maryland, was arrested in June 2021 and jailed about six months on bank-fraud charges in three Maryland counties after a facial-recognition search by an unknown CrimeDex respondent named her; all charges were dismissed by December 2021 and the ACLU filed complaints in April 2026

According to police and bank records reviewed by the Washington Post, in December 2019 a woman made fraudulent withdrawals at a SunTrust branch in Potomac, Maryland; branches in two other Maryland counties were also defrauded. A bank investigator posted the surveillance photos on CrimeDex, an online network of police and corporate investigators; an unknown respondent ran the image through facial-recognition software and returned Kimberlee Williams's name and photo, and the investigator told Montgomery County police that facial-recognition software had identified her. Police in Montgomery, Prince George's and Anne Arundel counties charged her in 2020 on the investigator's identification and their own visual comparison of photos (two departments also cited her old Oklahoma check-fraud convictions), without reported checks of her whereabouts; Montgomery County police did not disclose the facial-recognition search in the charging application, according to police records reviewed by the Washington Post and the ACLU. On 23 June 2021 she was arrested at the gate of Fort Sill near Lawton, Oklahoma, while accompanying her daughter on a DoorDash delivery, spent about three weeks in an Oklahoma jail, was flown to Maryland, and faced 16 charges including 12 felonies. The counties dismissed the charges one after another, in October and December 2021, after about six months in jail. Her daughter says she was depressed afterwards; the ACLU says the ordeal harmed her mental and physical health. On 14 April 2026 the ACLU and ACLU of Maryland sent complaint letters to the three departments seeking an apology and reforms.

Medium Unidentified facial recognition system

Southampton: Alvi Choudhury arrested at home on suspicion of a Milton Keynes burglary after a police retrospective facial recognition match, held nearly 10 hours, claiming damages

The Guardian, in a joint report with Liberty Investigates, reported on 25 February 2026 that Alvi Choudhury, a 26-year-old software engineer, was arrested at his home in Southampton in January 2026 on suspicion of a £3,000 burglary in Milton Keynes, about 100 miles away, and held in custody for nearly 10 hours. Thames Valley Police had used automated retrospective facial recognition software, which matched him with CCTV footage of the burglary suspect. Choudhury says the man in the footage looked about 10 years younger and had different features. Thames Valley Police wrote to him that the arrest may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology, and told the Guardian that the decision rested on the investigating officers’ own visual assessment and was not influenced by racial profiling. Choudhury is claiming damages from Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents