What ICE internal policies (Policy Number 11014 or similar) say verbatim about vehicle stops and use of force?

1. What the DHS/ICE standard says about deadly force—verbatim phrases available in reporting

DHS guidance quoted in multiple outlets states that federal officers “may use deadly force only when necessary” and only when they reasonably believe the subject “poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” to the officer or another person; the policy adds that “discharging a firearm against a person constitutes the use of deadly force and shall be done only with the intent of preventing or stopping the threatening behavior that justifies the use of deadly force” ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting also captures the policy language that forces officers to apply an “objectively reasonable” standard before using force ^[4].

2. The vehicle-specific carveouts the policy records in reporting

Multiple analyses of the DHS/DOJ framework note a clear prohibition against using deadly force solely to prevent escape and a prohibition on firing solely to disable a moving vehicle; federal guidelines allow discharge at a moving vehicle only when a person in that vehicle is “threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle,” or when the vehicle itself is being operated in a way that “threatens to cause death or serious physical injury” and “no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist” ^{[3] [5]}. Local reporting summarized the policy as “generally prohibited” to fire at moving vehicles but with an exception when agents feel someone is “threatening deadly force” and “no other objectively reasonable means of defense is available” ^[6].

3. What the rules say about vehicle stops and arrests (probable cause/ reasonable suspicion limits)

Reporting on settlements and legal guides indicates ICE may stop a vehicle only when agents have “reasonable suspicion—based on specific, articulable facts—that a person inside the vehicle does not have lawful status,” and that new policies limit warrantless vehicle stops and forbid misrepresenting the stop as a traffic enforcement action ^[7]. Separate coverage reiterates that Fourth Amendment limits and the automobile exception constrain warrantless searches and that federal agents need specific probable cause to search a car without a warrant ^[8].

4. How policy language plays out in controversies and investigations

The Minneapolis case and similar incidents show tension between policy text and practice: administration officials defended agents’ actions as self-defense, citing vehicle-ramming incidents, while critics pointed to bystander video and argued the encounter violated best practices—observers note ICE policy lacks an explicit instruction to move out of a vehicle’s path where feasible, a recommendation many police departments include ^{[9] [5]}. Federal and state investigators have opened probes into high-profile shootings, underscoring that internal DHS standards trigger additional criminal and administrative reviews ^{[4] [10]}.

5. Limits of available reporting and implicit agendas to watch for

None of the provided sources reproduces a complete internal policy document by policy number (for example, “11014” is not shown verbatim in these articles), so claims about exact wording beyond the quoted phrases must be treated as partial; reporting often selects phrases that serve a narrative—administration sources emphasize officer safety and vehicle-ramming threats, while civil-society and academic sources emphasize human-life protections and omissions in tactical guidance ^{[9] [5] [10]}. Readers should note those competing agendas when assessing whether an agency acted within its own written rules or in tension with best-practice policing standards ^{[3] [4]}.