Operation Creep in Minnesota was a sting operation like led to over a dozen arrests in an underage sex sting, including one federal ice agent (auditor) and a state agency staffer
Executive summary
Operation Creep was a multi‑agency undercover sting in Bloomington, Minnesota, that resulted in 16 arrests of men alleged to have sought sex from a decoy they believed to be a 17‑year‑old; local police named the three‑day operation “Operation Creep” and said it began Nov. 5 [1] [2]. Among those arrested were a civilian auditor who worked for the Department of Homeland Security/ICE and at least one state agency employee, according to multiple local outlets and police statements [3] [4] [5].
1. What happened: a coordinated undercover sting with 16 arrests
Bloomington police described a three‑day undercover operation that used online monitoring and decoy communications to identify people who allegedly attempted to solicit sex from someone they believed was a 17‑year‑old; the department said the sting ended with 16 men taken into custody [1] [2]. The effort involved Bloomington police along with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and several neighboring departments including Eden Prairie, Richfield, Roseville and the Minneapolis‑St. Paul Airport police, which officials cited at press events [1] [2].
2. Who was arrested: public names and notable employers reported
Local reporting and police comments identified a range of alleged suspects, and named employers for some: news outlets reported a civilian auditor employed by the Department of Homeland Security/ICE was arrested and later federally indicted on an attempted enticement charge, while other arrestees included a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency employee and a Metro Transit worker among the 16 people police said were detained [4] [6] [5]. Coverage noted that not all men had been charged at the time of reporting and some cases may be handled by federal prosecutors [1] [6].
3. The ICE employee: arrest, administrative leave, and federal charges
Bloomington police identified one arrestee as Alexander Steven Back, a 41‑year‑old civilian auditor who, according to the chief, said “I’m ICE” at arrest; ICE acknowledged placing him on administrative leave and said its Office of Professional Responsibility opened an inquiry, and subsequent reporting said he was federally indicted on one count of attempted enticement of a minor and also faces a county solicitation charge [4] [6]. Those are the developments documented in local and national outlets; the public record cited here does not include the outcome of prosecution beyond the indictment [4] [6].
4. Why police called it “Operation Creep” and context of repeat stings
Chief Booker Hodges publicly branded the operation “Operation Creep” and emphasized Bloomington’s periodic use of decoy stings — noting they run similar operations roughly twice a year — and framed the work as part of broader anti‑trafficking and solicitation enforcement using online decoys and surveillance techniques [2] [1]. Media accounts linked this sting to earlier operations in the metro that also produced arrests of public figures, underscoring a pattern of periodic decoy operations in the region [1] [2].
5. What’s confirmed, what’s not: limits of available reporting
Contemporaneous reporting is consistent that 16 people were arrested and that employees of ICE and a state agency were among those detained, but some outlets noted not all suspects had been formally charged and that agencies were conducting internal reviews, leaving gaps about final prosecutions and employment outcomes beyond administrative leave statements [1] [4] [2]. Where media cited police naming employers, those claims came from police press conferences; follow‑up official personnel actions or court dispositions were not fully reported in the provided sources [3] [5].
6. Competing narratives and stakes: public safety, trust, and institutional response
Police framed the sting as necessary to combat solicitation and trafficking and highlighted weapons and drugs recovered from some suspects, while civil‑liberties and disclosure concerns typically accompany undercover decoy operations — the supplied reporting, however, contains limited critique or defense from civil‑rights groups and does not document allegations of entrapment or procedural misconduct in this specific case, leaving that debate underreported in these sources [2] [1]. Agencies implicated by employee involvement have signaled cooperation and internal investigations, which raises institutional questions about oversight and public trust that remain active but unresolved in the reporting examined [4] [6].