A federal judge has thrown out the criminal case against a TikTok creator who was shot by agents from ICE after finding that the government violated his constitutional rights in the aftermath of the incident. The dismissal came just days before the case was set to go to trial and was issued with prejudice, meaning prosecutors are barred from bringing the same charges again.
The case stems from an ICE enforcement action in Los Angeles during which agents attempted to stop the TikToker while he was in his vehicle. According to later-released body-camera footage, the man was stationary with his hands visible when agents broke his car window. During the confrontation, an ICE agent fired a weapon, striking the TikToker. A ricochet from the same shot also injured a federal officer at the scene. Despite the shooting, prosecutors charged the TikToker with assault on a federal officer, alleging he attempted to use his vehicle as a weapon an accusation he consistently denied.
As the case moved toward trial, serious problems emerged with how the government handled the detention and prosecution. The defense argued that authorities delayed the TikToker’s access to legal counsel while he was being held and failed to promptly turn over key evidence, including body-camera footage from the agents involved. That footage later became central to the defense’s argument that the government’s version of events was inconsistent with what actually happened.
In reviewing the record, the federal judge concluded that these actions violated the defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, which guarantee due process and the right to counsel. The court found that the delays and evidence issues were not minor procedural missteps but fundamental constitutional violations that undermined the fairness of the prosecution itself. Because the harm could not be remedied simply by continuing the case, the judge dismissed the indictment outright.
It’s not shocking, ICE has a long and well-documented history of violating people’s constitutional rights, particularly during enforcement actions where accountability is minimal and oversight is weak. The Constitution of the United States is not optional, and it does not apply selectively. Its protections extend to everyone on U.S. soil, citizens and non-citizens alike. When federal agencies act as though those rights are conditional or disposable, courts are often the only remaining check. This ruling is a reminder that constitutional protections still matter, even when law enforcement agencies behave as if they don’t.
Source