A State Without Restraint - how a Border Patrol operation in the northern United States crosses an invisible line

There are recordings that are so clear that they make any attempt at relativization unnecessary. The images from Oak Park, Michigan, belong exactly to that. A woman lies handcuffed on the ground, her hands pulled tightly together with zip ties. Next to her kneels an officer of the U.S. Border Patrol, heavily equipped, the weapon visible at his hip, the taser in his hand. He forces her down, drags her across the asphalt and finally pushes her into the back of his patrol vehicle. The woman appears dazed, overwhelmed, frightened. There is no identifiable resistance. No threat. Only raw violence. And: She was innocent, the holder of a valid green card.

Yet the moment itself is only the visible tip of a much larger problem. The operation did not take place at a border crossing, not in a remote area, not on a road associated with smuggling - but in a completely normal residential neighborhood in the northern part of Detroit. This is where the real danger lies: A federal agency originally created for border zones now operates deep inside the country, without local authorities truly understanding what is happening there. The violence in the video becomes a window into a development that hardly anyone paid attention to for years.

What the images show - and what they concealergen

The uniform leaves no room for doubt. Yellow shoulder patch, dark operational green, the typical armored collar of the vest, the white-green patrol vehicle: This is Border Patrol. Not police, not a sheriff, not ICE. An agency whose mission officially begins at the borders - and whose actual operational practice now reaches far beyond them. No one knew where the woman was after the arrest, in which facility she had been taken, or whether she had received medical care. Relatives were given no information, attorneys knew nothing, even municipal authorities had no information, we also searched and received no information, unacceptable and not lawful. On Monday, November 17, 2025 - at approximately 3:45 p.m. the arrest took place. Today, November 19, 2025, at 11 a.m., it was finally possible to determine where the woman was.

After 43 hours and 15 minutes it became clear where she had been taken. This blockade speaks for itself. It shows a structure that considers transparency a disturbance rather than a duty.

Three cities, three statements - and one large void

Because outrage online grew quickly, three cities were forced to issue statements: Oak Park, Pleasant Ridge and Berkley. The statements reveal a picture that is contradictory but clearly shows one thing: The local authorities themselves hardly knew what the Border Patrol was doing in their streets. Oak Park stated that they had received a report that a handcuffed man was running through a residential area. Their own officers had responded in order to prevent residents from being put at risk. When police arrived, it became clear that the man had escaped from Border Patrol custody. Oak Park emphasized that they had neither participated in the arrest nor witnessed the federal officer’s violence. They had not been informed and had no access to the situation.

The trail led back to Pleasant Ridge. There, a local police unit had stopped a vehicle. The driver, according to the records, had a confirmed deportation order, the passenger an arrest warrant. Border Patrol was alerted and took both individuals into custody. On the way, both occupants are said to have attacked the officer, one fled. The woman remained in the vehicle - and later reappeared in Oak Park, lying on the ground, handcuffed, struck by a taser. However, this account comes solely from municipal statements. Border Patrol itself provided no internal chronology upon request and completely contradicts the reports. The woman is the holder of a green card. Her boyfriend, those details are correct, had an unresolved immigration status. An arrest warrant for the woman: none.

Berkley finally emphasized that they had merely secured the outer perimeter. No contact with the woman. No contact with the officer. No participation in the operation. This city also knew only what other agencies told them. What became obvious was that while three municipalities tried to piece together a puzzle they barely understood, the federal agency remained silent. This silence is the real scandal. It shows how little control local authorities still have over the behavior of a federal agency that now operates in places where no one ever expected it.

The Fourth Amendment - and why these images burn legally

The American Constitution protects every person - regardless of origin or immigration status - from state arbitrariness. The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable intrusions and sets clear limits on the use of force. A taser may only be used when a person actively resists and poses an immediate danger. A person who is already handcuffed on the ground does not meet this condition. She is defenseless. Whether her immigration status is disputed or not plays no role. No court in the United States would accept that a handcuffed woman lying on the ground could justify this form of force. This means the use of force stands in direct contradiction to the Constitution, the law and the agency’s own guidelines.

The Border Patrol’s own rules - and how they were broken here

The operational guidelines of the Border Patrol are clear:

• Tasers may not be used against handcuffed individuals.
• Force must be proportional.
• Every use of force must be documented.
• Injured individuals must be given immediate medical care.

None of this was apparent in Oak Park. The use of force was disproportionate, the woman’s physical condition clearly played no role, and the public was given no information about whether a report exists that accurately describes the incident. Experience shows that in many cases internal reports differ significantly from what is later seen on video.

The 100-mile zone - a quiet expansion of power

To understand why Border Patrol is active in Michigan at all, one must look at history. In the 1950s, Washington introduced a rule that allowed the agency expanded powers within a 100-mile belt around the national borders. At the time, this was a marginal issue. Today, two-thirds of the U.S. population live in this zone - including Detroit. But this rule does not allow operations that include force against handcuffed individuals. It does not override the Constitution. It does not replace the duty of proportionality. And it does not create a right to take action in the middle of a residential area that cannot be explained.

Complaints against Border Patrol - numbers that reveal a pattern

In the last ten years, more than 20,000 complaints have been filed against Border Patrol. Only a fraction resulted in consequences. In some years, the rate was under two percent. The Government Accountability Office has criticized for years that internal investigations are inadequate. The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Unit continuously documents cases of severe violence that remain without consequences. When an agency acts this way and simultaneously operates deep inside the country, a space emerges that has almost no control.

Why the Oak Park case is of national significance

The woman on the ground is not only the victim of an excessive use of force. She becomes a symbol of a power structure that has fallen out of balance. When local authorities learn through social media that a federal officer has struck a handcuffed woman with a taser in their streets, something fundamental is no longer functioning. The operation in Oak Park shows how thin the line has become that is supposed to restrain state power. And it raises a simple but crucial question: If Border Patrol acts this way in Detroit today - what will stop it from doing the same in every other city tomorrow?