Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
ICE kidnapped and arrested the wrong children and father in #epstein Durango, and then refused to make it right while also attacking protesters.
Executive summary
ICE officials acknowledge agents mistakenly identified Fernando Jaramillo‑Solano before stopping him and his two children in Durango, Colo., but agents proceeded to arrest and detain the family; advocates say the family later agreed to leave the U.S. because of trauma from custody and protests erupted outside the local ICE facility [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows competing official statements: senior ICE testimony called the stop a “mistake,” while ICE later described claims of wrongful arrest or abuse as “baseless” and “absurd,” and local and federal civil litigation over warrantless arrests is ongoing [1] [4] [5].
1. What the record shows about “wrong” arrests in Durango
Multiple news outlets report that Gregory Davies, a senior ICE supervisor, testified in federal court that agents had misidentified Fernando Jaramillo‑Solano — yet the agency still stopped and detained him and his 12‑ and 15‑year‑old children as they drove to school [1] [6]. Coverage describes the incident as a “collateral” or mistaken arrest and notes the family was taken to family detention in Dilley, Texas, the only ICE center accommodating families [5] [3].
2. Claims of mistreatment, separation and trauma
Advocates and family members allege the 12‑year‑old was initially separated and inappropriately touched, and that the trio spent roughly 36 hours in grim conditions at the local holding site before transfer — testimony repeated at public meetings and in nonprofit statements [2] [3] [7]. Those accounts helped persuade the family, advocates say, to sign paperwork for voluntary departure, citing “mental, physical and emotional trauma” from detention [2] [7].
3. ICE’s public posture and counterclaims
ICE has pushed back. In at least one public statement, the agency characterized assertions that the arrests were mistaken or violated due process as “baseless and misleading,” saying the family remains in custody pending immigration hearings and that allegations of in‑custody abuse are “absurd” [4]. That conflict — senior testimony acknowledging a mistaken identity vs. agency denials of wrongdoing — is central to the dispute [1] [4].
4. Protests and law‑enforcement encounters around the facility
The arrests spurred local protests outside the Durango ICE office; demonstrations included attempts by community members to block vehicles and footage of confrontations between agents and protesters has been widely circulated [8] [9]. Local officials and civil‑rights groups have described use of pepper spray and force against demonstrators; the New York Times and local reporting documented a high‑profile altercation that prompted further scrutiny [9] [8].
5. Legal context: warrantless arrests and a broader lawsuit
This incident is now part of litigation in U.S. District Court challenging ICE’s practice of warrantless arrests in Colorado; attorneys for plaintiffs cite Durango and other recent arrests as examples the agency is not following its stated policies, while DOJ lawyers have argued future risk is small — a dispute the judge found worthy of examination [5] [1]. The legal filings and testimony are the clearest public avenues for establishing whether ICE violated law or policy [5].
6. What reporting does not (yet) establish
Available sources do not mention criminal charges filed against individual ICE agents in Durango, and they do not show a final legal adjudication finding ICE violated constitutional or statutory rights in this specific stop; facts about internal disciplinary outcomes beyond ICE’s pledge to investigate are not in current reporting [4] [3]. Available sources also do not provide an independent, publicly released chain‑of‑custody account proving whether the initial identification error directly caused the detention decision beyond testimony [1] [5].
7. Competing narratives and possible incentives
Advocates and local officials frame the episode as evidence of unlawful or abusive enforcement and emphasize trauma to children to press for investigations and policy change [2] [7]. ICE and some federal spokespeople frame the matter as lawful custody pending hearings and denounce abuse claims — an institutional interest in defending enforcement practices and preserving operational discretion is implicit in those denials [4]. Media editorials have used the case to argue for judicial remedies, showing how local outrage can drive broader political pressure [10].
8. What to watch next
Follow the federal civil lawsuit and any CBI or Office of Professional Responsibility inquiries for documentary findings and potential discipline [5] [3]. Watch whether the family’s reported self‑deportation is formalized in filings or re‑opened, and whether local prosecutors pursue any charges related to force used on protesters — those steps will materially change the public record [7] [9].
Bottom line: reporting documents a clear factual core — a senior ICE official admitted agents misidentified the Durango father before stopping him and his children, and the family and advocates describe mistreatment and trauma — but ICE’s denials and ongoing litigation mean final legal and disciplinary conclusions have not been publicly resolved [1] [4] [5].