AI Generated Image
Since July 31, 2026, ICE officers who shoot someone or use other deadly force have been required to stay on administrative leave until prosecutors decide whether to charge them, under a directive that was only recently made available online. Directive 19009.4, Firearms and Use of Force, took effect the day it was issued and is signed by David J. Venturella, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director. It is now posted in ICE’s FOIA library and supersedes Directive 19009.3, issued May 26, 2023, on the same topic.
Leave lasts through the criminal investigation
The most significant change concerns what happens to an officer after a shooting or other use of deadly force. Under the May 2023 directive, an officer who used deadly force was required to be placed on administrative leave for three days.
The July 2026 directive replaces that fixed period. When an officer uses deadly force or is the focus of an officer-involved shooting, the officer must be placed on administrative leave immediately following the incident and verbal report, and that leave “will remain in effect until the completion of the initial criminal investigation, and a determination is made regarding whether criminal charges will be pursued.”
The directive defines that endpoint as the point at which the investigating authority has made a formal decision about whether to pursue criminal charges related to the incident. Only then will agency leadership review the officer’s duty status, in consultation with the Office of Human Capital and the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor. The officer may then be moved to restricted duty or another appropriate status while any remaining administrative investigations are completed.
In practice, this means an officer’s return to duty is tied to the progress of an outside criminal inquiry rather than a set number of days, which could keep officers off duty for weeks or months.
Why the rule tightened
The stricter leave rule did not arrive in a vacuum. In mid-July, within a week, ICE officers shot and killed a motorist in Houston and Durán Guerrero in Maine, renewing criticism that had built since the Minneapolis shootings last winter. The administration ordered ICE to suspend most vehicle stops on July 14, then reversed course a day later after President Trump objected on Truth Social. The directive was signed about two weeks after that.
ICE did not announce the change. Reporting in August described the rule as quietly enacted, and noted that under the old rules supervisors could extend an officer’s leave, but an extension was often read internally as a sign of doubt about the officer’s account. Making extended leave automatic removes that signal. Administrative leave is also not discipline, and the directive adds no new penalties. Nor does the directive tighten the core force standards: deadly force is still governed by the February 2023 DHS policy, and officers still have no duty to retreat.
Deadly force is broader than shootings
The leave rule applies to any use of deadly force, not only firearm discharges. The directive’s five-level Use of Force Continuum places the following in the highest, “deadly force” category:
- Discharge of firearms against persons or animals
- Any use of impact weapons to strike the neck or head
- Any strangulation technique, including chokeholds and carotid restraints
- Any strike to the throat
- Use of any edged weapon
An officer who uses any of these techniques would, on the text of the directive, fall under the extended administrative leave requirement.
Core standards for using force
The directive keeps the familiar framework for evaluating force. Officers may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist, and only at the level that is objectively reasonable given the totality of the facts and circumstances at the time. A footnote clarifies that this standard does not impose a duty to retreat, a requirement to wait for an attack, or a checklist of alternatives that must be tried first.
Deadly force is authorized only when an officer reasonably believes the subject poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. It may not be used solely to prevent a suspect’s escape, or against someone whose actions threaten only themselves or property. Where feasible and safe, officers must give a verbal warning before using deadly force.
The factors listed for judging reasonableness include the seriousness of the offense, whether the subject poses an imminent threat or is resisting or fleeing, whether the situation is uncertain and rapidly evolving, the relative size, strength, training, and age of the officer and subject, the presence of bystanders, and environmental conditions.
Duties to de-escalate, intervene, and render aid
The directive also sets out several affirmative obligations:
- De-escalation. When feasible, officers must use communication or other techniques to reduce the intensity of a potentially violent encounter, so long as delay would not create a greater threat.
- Duty to intervene. Officers must intervene to prevent or stop another officer’s perceived use of excessive force when it is safe to do so, and report it to the Office of Professional Responsibility. Failure to intervene or report is treated as misconduct.
- Medical aid. After any use of force, and when safe, officers must seek medical assistance for anyone who appears or claims to be injured.
- Officer support. Supervisors must ensure that employees involved in a use of force incident receive psychological first aid as soon as possible.
- Training. Officers must be trained on the use of force policy at least annually, including scenario-based exercises, de-escalation, the prohibition on carotid restraints unless deadly force is legally justified, and the duties to render aid and intervene.
How it bears on cases we have covered
The directive’s text matters most in the shootings and deadly force cases Immigration Analytics has followed this year.
Maine. Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero was shot dead during a vehicle stop in Biddeford on July 13, 2026, 18 days before the directive was signed. As we reported, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey is weighing charges and the DHS Office of Inspector General is also investigating. ICE has not described the officer’s job status, and the directive does not say whether it reaches incidents that occurred before July 31. If it does, his return to duty would turn on Frey’s decision, which the family’s lawyer expects before Frey’s term ends in December.
Minneapolis. The officers who shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti in January acted under the 2023 rule. Hennepin County prosecutors still have not made a charging decision, and the Justice Department has paused evidence sharing with Minnesota. That dispute exposes a gap in the July 2026 text. Leave ends when “the investigating authority” makes a formal charging decision, but the directive does not say which authority counts when state and federal investigations run side by side.
Houston. The ICE officer whose SUV struck Miguel Parra-Hernandez on Oct. 10 was placed on administrative leave, and a Harris County grand jury later indicted him on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, his vehicle. The directive’s continuum does not list vehicles, but it defines deadly force as any force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Whether a vehicle strike counts will decide whether the extended leave rule applies to cases like this one. The crash came weeks after ICE’s Sept. 30 memo barring most vehicle chases.
Manhattan. Oscar Belgal was shot in the neck by an ICE agent on Oct. 8 while his 5-year-old son sat in the back seat. Homeland Security Investigations and the FBI are investigating. With only federal investigators involved, the agent’s leave would last until a federal charging decision.
Vetting and training. The directive bars officers from carrying ICE firearms until they qualify, and requires use-of-force training at least once a year. It does not address background investigations. That leaves untouched the problem raised by the Maine report and by The Washington Post’s finding of 19 red-flag hires: officers carrying guns while their full background checks are still pending.
What the directive does not cover
Much of the operational detail, including definitions and incident-reporting procedures, is contained in the separate ICE Firearms and Use of Force Handbook, dated August 2, 2024, which the directive incorporates by reference. As with prior versions, the directive states that it provides internal policy guidance only and does not create any right or benefit enforceable by any party in administrative, civil, or criminal matters.
Why it matters
For practitioners, the directive is the agency’s own statement of the standards its officers are expected to follow. It creates no enforceable rights, but it can serve as a benchmark in a complaint to the Office of Professional Responsibility or in a civil suit. One example is the $25 million Ontario, California case brought by a U.S. citizen shot by an ICE officer, which leans on the Federal Tort Claims Act as Bivens claims narrow. Whether an officer’s conduct matched the directive will often depend on video, which is why the inspector general’s review of ICE body camera compliance matters too.
About the Author
