How does ICE’s internal firearms and use-of-force review process work and how often does it lead to criminal charges?
Executive summary
ICE’s firearms and use-of-force policy requires mandatory reporting and multilayered administrative review for any discharge or serious force incident, beginning with agency filings and potentially moving to DHS OIG, an ICE incident review committee, and ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for misconduct probes [1] [2] [3]. Publicly available records and watchdog audits show the system is complex and overlapping, but it produces very few criminal referrals that result in charges — and there is no comprehensive public dataset showing how often administrative reviews translate into criminal prosecutions [4] [3].
1. How the internal review process officially starts and what ICE policy requires
ICE directives and the Firearms and Use of Force Handbook mandate that every use-of-force incident and any discharge of an ICE firearm be reported and reviewed according to agency policy and reporting procedures, including initial field reports and documentation of circumstances, witness statements, and evidence collection [1] [2]. The handbook and directives govern training, reporting requirements, weapons maintenance and when force may be used, and they require supervisors to document and forward incidents for further review [1] [2].
2. Multiple layers of review: who looks at shootings and in what order
In practice, the internal path is layered: the responding ICE unit files the first report; if there are allegations of misconduct the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) has “right of first refusal” to investigate; all shootings also go to ICE’s Firearms and Use of Force Incident Review Committee; if that committee or the OIG finds potential policy violations the case is referred to ICE OPR for administrative investigation and possible discipline [3]. State or local law enforcement agencies sometimes perform the initial criminal-scene response and can conduct parallel criminal probes, and prosecutors at the county or U.S. Attorney level decide whether to pursue criminal charges [5] [6].
3. How federal standards shape decisions about deadly force
ICE’s internal rules are built on broader Department of Justice and DHS federal use-of-force standards that restrict firing at moving vehicles except when an imminent deadly threat exists and no reasonable alternative remains, and ICE training and policy mirror those federal limitations [7] [4]. The agency’s directives reiterate that deadly force is only justified where an officer reasonably believes there is imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm, placing the factual question of threat and reasonableness at the center of both administrative and criminal judgments [2] [6].
4. Transparency, oversight gaps and watchdog findings
Independent auditors and longtime ICE insiders describe the investigative pathway as convoluted and subject to dead ends: the GAO has concluded DHS components including ICE should strengthen use-of-force data collection and reporting, noting inconsistent practices across agencies and incomplete public data on outcomes [4]. Reporting by The Trace and other outlets documents that the process can stall or fragment — OIG involvement, parallel local probes, and internal committee reviews create multiple decision points that complicate public accounting of final outcomes [3] [8].
5. How often reviews lead to criminal charges — the available evidence and limits
There is no comprehensive public tally tying ICE use-of-force reviews to criminal prosecutions; watchdog reports and case studies suggest criminal charges are rare. Investigations noted in reporting have produced mixed prosecutorial outcomes — some local prosecutors declined to file charges after reviewing agent statements and evidence, while other incidents prompted no public criminal filing [3]. GAO’s call for better data underscores that ICE does not provide an accessible, consistent record showing how many shootings were administratively reviewed versus referred for criminal prosecution, so any precise rate cannot be calculated from available sources [4].
6. What this means in practice — accountability and politics
The layered process gives ICE multiple internal mechanisms to assess compliance with federal policy, but it also disperses responsibility in ways that make independent accountability difficult: OIG capacity and prosecutorial decisions vary by jurisdiction, and internal committees and OPR handle administrative outcomes that may not result in criminal referrals or public transparency [3] [9]. Critics argue that the complexity shields agents from external scrutiny in practice, while defenders say the system ensures both administrative discipline and deference to prosecutorial discretion on criminality [3] [5].