What led to the ICE raid where a 1-year-old was pepper sprayed in 2018?

1. What the family and videos show — a chaotic encounter in a parking lot

Family members and bystanders recorded video and gave consistent accounts that a federal agent approached or passed the couple’s car in a Sam’s Club parking lot in Cicero and sprayed a chemical irritant through an open window, hitting father Rafael Veraza, his wife and their 1-year-old daughter; the child was described as “struggling to breathe” though she did not require hospitalization, and the father sought treatment for aggravated asthma ^{[3] [1] [2]}.

2. Federal response — categorical denial and a different framing

The Department of Homeland Security publicly disputed the family’s account, with DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin saying “there was no crowd control or pepper spray deployed in a Sam’s Club parking lot,” and stating agents had encountered a “hostile crowd” near the operation where paint cans and bricks were allegedly thrown at vehicles, a detail DHS uses to justify its tactics ^{[2] [3]}.

3. The operation’s context — enforcement action and local friction

Reporting situates the incident amid a broader ICE/CBP enforcement operation in the community; DHS said agents were conducting sweeps and encountered resistance during an operation in Little Village/Cicero, and local reporting connects this episode to clashes between federal agents and neighborhood residents during enforcement activity ^{[2] [1]}.

4. Conflicting narratives and the evidentiary core

The dispute hinges on video and eyewitness testimony versus DHS denials. News outlets and social posts circulated footage that appears to show spray entering the family’s vehicle ^{[3] [4]}. DHS’s denial does not, in the sources provided, point to video that absolves agents; instead DHS cites operational context (hostility toward agents) as a reason its personnel were in the area ^{[2] [3]}. Available sources do not mention any federal release of body‑camera footage that directly rebuts the viral clips.

5. Previous patterns and why advocates amplified the story

Reporters and advocates placed the incident in a pattern of confrontations between immigration agents and communities in Chicago — noting other episodes in which agents’ tactics affected bystanders, including claims of targeting rideshare drivers or using irritants near public gatherings — which helped propel rapid local and national attention to this case ^[1].

6. What is settled and what remains disputed

Settled facts in reporting: a family says they were sprayed, video exists and was widely shared, the father and child suffered immediate symptoms, and DHS publicly denied pepper spray was used in the parking lot ^{[3] [1] [2]}. Disputed: whether agents actually deployed crowd‑control spray at that precise location or whether another actor might have caused the spray; DHS’s account of a “hostile crowd” is presented as its justification but does not directly refute the family’s video in the sources reviewed ^{[2] [3]}.

7. Why this matters — legal and political stakes

If federal agents used chemical irritants on bystanders — including a citizen infant — it raises legal questions about use-of-force policy, accountability and the boundaries of immigration enforcement in public spaces; politically, the incident feeds broader debates about ICE tactics and municipal efforts to protect immigrant communities, and it has spurred contrasting official and community narratives ^{[1] [2]}.

Limitations: reporting cited here comes from contemporary news reports and social video; available sources do not mention the release of full federal footage, a formal DHS internal after‑action report made public, or a court filing that would definitively settle responsibility. Readers should note that the strongest immediate evidence presented publicly is the family’s video and testimony, while DHS’s rebuttal rests on a categorical denial and a description of a hostile operational environment ^{[3] [2]}.