Army vet detained by ICE for 8 hours says he wasn't allowed to call an attorney

essentialsaltes · Jan 23, 2026

William Vermie, 39, said in an interview with ABC News that he was taken into custody earlier this month while standing with a crowd on a public sidewalk observing ICE agents detaining two young men in his neighborhood during an immigration enforcement activity dubbed by the government as Operation Metro Surge. He said he was driven to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, where he was detained in a cell.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement to ABC News that Vermie was arrested for allegedly assaulting a law enforcement officer.

Bystander video of Vermie's arrest does not clearly show whether Vermie assaulted an ICE agent, as DHS alleges, nor whether they attempted to trip Vermie, as he alleged.

At no time during his detention was he allowed to speak with an attorney, Vermie told ABC News, even though he said that he later learned that his wife had contacted one for him, who had been attempting to speak with him.

Vermie's account appears similar to complaints from multiple attorneys interviewed by ABC News who allege that some of the thousands of people arrested in ICE operations in Minneapolis in recent weeks have been denied their constitutional right to see an attorney.

Vermie, who said he was wounded by a mortar blast while deployed to Iraq in 2006 and 2007, stated that he is speaking out about his experience because it is his "civic duty."

The DHS spokesperson also said Vermie was not denied the right to speak with an attorney while he was held at the Whipple Federal Building.

But Vermie's attorney told ABC News that after he was contacted by Vermie's family, he immediately went to the Whipple Building and waited three hours to see his client, but was denied the opportunity, despite making multiple requests.

His lawyer told ABC News earlier this week that no charges had been filed against Vermie.

ThatRobGuy · Jan 23, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
Bystander video of Vermie's arrest does not clearly show whether Vermie assaulted an ICE agent, as DHS alleges, nor whether they attempted to trip Vermie, as he alleged.

At no time during his detention was he allowed to speak with an attorney, Vermie told ABC News, even though he said that he later learned that his wife had contacted one for him, who had been attempting to speak with him.

The fact that he was denied access to a lawyer is the major issue here...

The problem with the bystander videos is that they're often from fellow protestors, and they seem to have a pattern of only showing the 20 seconds that affirms their position. (which in and of itself is a tad conspicuous considering that everyone's got their phones out recording the entire thing in the digital age)

If any conservative influencers ever had the business savvy to do so, there's probably money to be made in pretending to be a protestor, and then releasing full unedited footage 3 or 4 days after the carefully selected ones get widely circulated.

Hans Blaster · Jan 23, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
The fact that he was denied access to a lawyer is the major issue here...

I agree.

ThatRobGuy said:
The problem with the bystander videos is that they're often from fellow protestors, and they seem to have a pattern of only showing the 20 seconds that affirms their position. (which in and of itself is a tad conspicuous considering that everyone's got their phones out recording the entire thing in the digital age)

The kind of encounters that could plausibly generate such charges/arrests tend to be short, no more than a minute or two. If it went on longer than that, ice would have *their* phones out too (assuming they weren't already filming to make some "content".)

ThatRobGuy said:
If any conservative influencers ever had the business savvy to do so, there's probably money to be made in pretending to be a protestor, and then releasing full unedited footage 3 or 4 days after the carefully selected ones get widely circulated.

Haven't we gotten enough of RW fake journalism? Between O'Keefe and that nitwit that helped start all of this, there are plenty of such "sources".

ThatRobGuy · Jan 23, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
Haven't we gotten enough of RW fake journalism? Between O'Keefe and that nitwit that helped start all of this, there are plenty of such "sources".

I wasn't referring to the Project Veritas "gotcha" style stuff that's intentionally setting up situations...

I was referring to waiting until mainstream media has been given enough rope to hang themselves by circulating the 20 second clip for days on end, and then someone releases the video with the full context and makes them look stupid. (like the Covington HS incident in 2019)

I suspect a lot of these recent ICE encounters would be low-hanging fruit in that regard, where the protestors who are recording conveniently leave out the part where the protestors do anything wrong, and the video clip conveniently starts and ends with just showing the officers using force.

BPPLEE · Jan 23, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
The fact that he was denied access to a lawyer is the major issue here...

The problem with the bystander videos is that they're often from fellow protestors, and they seem to have a pattern of only showing the 20 seconds that affirms their position. (which in and of itself is a tad conspicuous considering that everyone's got their phones out recording the entire thing in the digital age)

If any conservative influencers ever had the business savvy to do so, there's probably money to be made in pretending to be a protestor, and then releasing full unedited footage 3 or 4 days after the carefully selected ones get widely circulated.

Good idea

Hans Blaster · Jan 23, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
I wasn't referring to the Project Veritas "gotcha" style stuff that's intentionally setting up situations...

ThatRobGuy said:
I was referring to waiting until mainstream media has been given enough rope to hang themselves by circulating the 20 second clip for days on end, and then someone releases the video with the full context and makes them look stupid.

The problem with that plan is that they are currently flooding the zone with atrocities, so none is getting that level of attention. Sorry it won't work out for you.

ThatRobGuy said:
(like the Covington HS incident in 2019)

no idea what that is.

ThatRobGuy said:
I suspect a lot of these recent ICE encounters would be low-hanging fruit in that regard, where the protestors who are recording conveniently leave out the part where the protestors do anything wrong, and the video clip conveniently starts and ends with just showing the officers using force.

Aren't you the person I tried explaining "don't retaliate" to using hockey? This seem familiar...

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 9:24 AM

Hans Blaster said:
no idea what that is.

The Covington Catholic HS incident was the one where a group of kids from a catholic HS were on a field trip, and there was a 20-second clip that went viral that showed Nick Sandmann (an HS kid) appearing to be mockingly smirking at a Native American man (Nathan Phillips), and the media outlets had a field day with it for a few weeks. And the kids ended up getting doxxed.

When the fuller extent of the incident footage was released, what had actually happened was the kids were waiting for their bus after the field trip, and a group called "The Black Hebrew Israelites" were shouting pejoratives at them calling them "cracker incest babies" and "dirty crackers".

Nathan Phillips then marched up to the kids, and started doing a chant and playing a drum in their face (and Nick started smirking -- and that's the clip that went viral). Phillips then mischaracterized the incident in an interview with CNN and said "They were in the process of attacking these four black individuals.... These young men were beastly and these black individuals was (sic) their prey"

Long story short, CNN and NBC had egg on their face, and had to shell out multi-millions in defamation suits filed by the school and the students.

...that's the sort of thing I'm referring to. The "Project Veritas" stuff is dishonest editing in the other direction.

I'm referring to potential cases where protestors are assaulting officers, and then officers respond, but the viral clips only show the last part.

With regards to these protests and confrontations that are occurring, the 20-second one-sided clips are making it around the world twice before the full videos even get out of bed (to paraphrase an old quote).

Sort of like with the Renee Good case, and while people may not feel the full video or more extensive footage changes their mind about anything, they'd at least have to admit that the 20 second clip that initially went viral left out a whole bunch of context.

BPPLEE · Saturday at 9:33 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
The Covington Catholic HS incident was the one where a group of kids from a catholic HS were on a field trip, and there was a 20-second clip that went viral that showed Nick Sandmann (an HS kid) appearing to be mockingly smirking at a Native American man (Nathan Phillips), and the media outlets had a field day with it for a few weeks. And the kids ended up getting doxxed.

When the fuller extent of the incident footage was released, what had actually happened was the kids were waiting for their bus after the field trip, and a group called "The Black Hebrew Israelites" were shouting pejoratives at them calling them "cracker incest babies" and "dirty crackers".

Nathan Phillips then marched up to the kids, and started doing a chant and playing a drum in their face (and Nick started smirking -- and that's the clip that went viral). Phillips then mischaracterized the incident in an interview with CNN and said "They were in the process of attacking these four black individuals.... These young men were beastly and these black individuals was (sic) their prey"

Long story short, CNN and NBC had egg on their face, and had to shell out multi-millions in defamation suits filed by the school and the students.

...that's the sort of thing I'm referring to. The "Project Veritas" stuff is dishonest editing in the other direction.

I'm referring to potential cases where protestors are assaulting officers, and then officers respond, but the viral clips only show the last part.

With regards to these protests and confrontations that are occurring, the 20-second one-sided clips are making it around the world twice before the full videos even get out of bed (to paraphrase an old quote).

Sort of like with the Renee Good case, and while people may not feel the full video or more extensive footage changes their mind about anything, they'd at least have to admit that the 20 second clip that initially went viral left out a whole bunch of context.

Maybe a show like Myth Busters could do it

Hans Blaster · Saturday at 12:28 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
The Covington Catholic HS incident was the one where a group of kids from a catholic HS were on a field trip, and there was a 20-second clip that went viral that showed Nick Sandmann (an HS kid) appearing to be mockingly smirking at a Native American man (Nathan Phillips), and the media outlets had a field day with it for a few weeks. And the kids ended up getting doxxed.

When the fuller extent of the incident footage was released, what had actually happened was the kids were waiting for their bus after the field trip, and a group called "The Black Hebrew Israelites" were shouting pejoratives at them calling them "cracker incest babies" and "dirty crackers".

Nathan Phillips then marched up to the kids, and started doing a chant and playing a drum in their face (and Nick started smirking -- and that's the clip that went viral). Phillips then mischaracterized the incident in an interview with CNN and said "They were in the process of attacking these four black individuals.... These young men were beastly and these black individuals was (sic) their prey"

Long story short, CNN and NBC had egg on their face, and had to shell out multi-millions in defamation suits filed by the school and the students.

...that's the sort of thing I'm referring to. The "Project Veritas" stuff is dishonest editing in the other direction.

So, something not important.

ThatRobGuy said:
I'm referring to potential cases where protestors are assaulting officers, and then officers respond, but the viral clips only show the last part.

With regards to these protests and confrontations that are occurring, the 20-second one-sided clips are making it around the world twice before the full videos even get out of bed (to paraphrase an old quote).

Sort of like with the Renee Good case, and while people may not feel the full video or more extensive footage changes their mind about anything, they'd at least have to admit that the 20 second clip that initially went viral left out a whole bunch of context.

Servus · Saturday at 4:46 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
The fact that he was denied access to a lawyer is the major issue here...

What's supposed to be the time limit on that?
Seems to me coming up with an 8 hour detention being a big deal is pretty straw graspy.

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 5:35 PM

Hans Blaster said:
So, something not important.

As long as one doesn't have any concerns about the fact that the media has an established track record of having ability to leverage 20 second clips (to get ratings) to whip people into a frenzy with no means to calm them down after the rest of the info is made available as being important.....

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 5:43 PM

Servus said:
What's supposed to be the time limit on that?
Seems to me coming up with an 8 hour detention being a big deal is pretty straw graspy.

I don't know that there's a hard/fast time limit...as obviously there will be extenuating circumstances. (if a person's out in a rural part of town and got arrested at 11:30pm, getting a lawyer there before the next business day is going to be a challenge)

The key is whether they continued to question him, or offered up some sort of coercive "deal" (like "Hey, we can't get you a lawyer down here until Monday...but if you just answer these simple questions for us, we can get you on your way"), or just flat out said "no, we don't need to get lawyers involved"

How it's supposed to work is if someone invokes their right to legal council, officers have to stop interrogating pronto and ask no more questions about the matter at hand.

BPPLEE · Saturday at 5:57 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
I don't know that there's a hard/fast time limit...as obviously there will be extenuating circumstances. (if a person's out in a rural part of town and got arrested at 11:30pm, getting a lawyer there before the next business day is going to be a challenge)

The key is whether they continued to question him, or offered up some sort of coercive "deal" (like "Hey, we can't get you a lawyer down here until Monday...but if you just answer these simple questions for us, we can get you on your way"), or just flat out said "no, we don't need to get lawyers involved"

How it's supposed to work is if someone invokes their right to legal council, officers have to stop interrogating pronto and ask no more questions about the matter at hand.

If someone says “lawyer” it’s over.

Servus · Saturday at 6:08 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
I don't know that there's a hard/fast time limit...as obviously there will be extenuating circumstances. (if a person's out in a rural part of town and got arrested at 11:30pm, getting a lawyer there before the next business day is going to be a challenge)

The key is whether they continued to question him, or offered up some sort of coercive "deal" (like "Hey, we can't get you a lawyer down here until Monday...but if you just answer these simple questions for us, we can get you on your way"), or just flat out said "no, we don't need to get lawyers involved"

How it's supposed to work is if someone invokes their right to legal council, officers have to stop interrogating pronto and ask no more questions about the matter at hand.

Did I miss the part in the OP article that said he was interrogated? My guess they didn't get to that stage. Probably he just sat there until someone finally got around to reviewing the report and then said to release him.

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 6:24 PM

Servus said:
Did I miss the part in the OP article that said he was interrogated? My guess they didn't get to that stage. Probably he just sat there until someone finally got around to reviewing the report and then said to release him.

If they had no intent to question or interrogate him, then what would've been the purpose of bringing him in?

And it sounds like he already had a personal attorney, and was requesting to call them but was denied, so it's not a case of having to wait for a public defender to show up.

Given that ICE is already under a public magnifying glass, you'd think they'd want to avoid that sort of thing and just release him as quickly as possible, and do the paperwork later. (and I'm saying that a person who's defended ICE pertaining to some of these recent encounters)

Servus · Saturday at 6:30 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
If they had no intent to question or interrogate him, then what would've been the purpose of bringing him in?

And it sounds like he already had a personal attorney, and was requesting to call them but was denied, so it's not a case of having to wait for a public defender to show up.

Given that ICE is already under a public magnifying glass, you'd think they'd want to avoid that sort of thing and just release him as quickly as possible, and do the paperwork later. (and I'm saying that a person who's defended ICE pertaining to some of these recent encounters)

Maybe since he allegedly assaulted an agent, they decided to let him stew for a while. Or maybe he was so combative they decided to let him cool off for a few hours. I can see this being an issue if it was a day or two, but it was just 8 hours.

Hans Blaster · Sunday at 12:34 PM

BPPLEE said:
If someone says “lawyer” it’s over.

It's weird, like he's never even seen a "cop show" on TV. I guess this is what dedication to weaving your own narrative for everything gets you. Cheers.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN · Sunday at 1:45 PM

From the article, Vermie wasn't charged. Basically, he was detained by ICE. He was held against his will. For 8 hours. He was denied a lawyer. And they refuse to let the lawyer see him for 3 hours. After the lawyer got there. Of course the HHS is lying. ICE abusing their power. But that's okay in Trump's presidency.

Trogdor the Burninator · Sunday at 3:25 PM

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:
From the article, Vermie wasn't charged. Basically, he was detained by ICE. He was held against his will. For 8 hours. He was denied a lawyer. And they refuse to let the lawyer see him for 3 hours. After the lawyer got there. Of course the HHS is lying. ICE abusing their power. But that's okay in Trump's presidency.

And if the government won't play by the rules, why should anyone else?

RocksInMyHead · Sunday at 4:28 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
If they had no intent to question or interrogate him, then what would've been the purpose of bringing him in?

Intimidation.

ThatRobGuy said:
And it sounds like he already had a personal attorney, and was requesting to call them but was denied, so it's not a case of having to wait for a public defender to show up.

Given that ICE is already under a public magnifying glass, you'd think they'd want to avoid that sort of thing and just release him as quickly as possible, and do the paperwork later. (and I'm saying that a person who's defended ICE pertaining to some of these recent encounters)

You would think that, but, as we've been pointing out to you, ICE has not been acting reasonably or rationally with regards to protestors.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Army vet detained by ICE for 8 hours says he wasn't allowed to call an attorney

Fact-Based Lifeform

Part of the IT crowd

Area Meathead

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

<><

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

<><

Part of the IT crowd

<><

Area Meathead

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.

Senior Veteran

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Similar threads