In a significant development surrounding activism and immigration enforcement, two women were convicted for stalking a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent after they followed him to his home in Baldwin Park.
During a trial that lasted a week, Ashleigh Brown and Cynthia Raygoza were each found guilty of one count of stalking, while a third individual, Sandra Samane, was acquitted of all charges. The jury took approximately nine hours to deliberate before reaching their decision, which led to emotional reactions from supporters in the courtroom.
Background of the Incident
The charges date back to an incident that occurred on August 28, 2025, when the three women—active participants in protests against the Trump administration’s immigration policies—tracked an unmarked government vehicle departing from the federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles.
This case has drawn attention as it tests the boundaries of permissible protest actions. Traditionally, following ICE and Border Patrol agents to their operational sites has been a common tactic among activists, but confronting a federal employee at their personal residence marks a novel and concerning escalation.
Trial Proceedings and Outcomes
Under the direction of First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles have taken a rigorous approach to charging protesters engaged in disrupting ICE operations, noting that they have filed more than 100 cases, with this being the first to secure a conviction after going to trial.
Brown and Raygoza face up to five years in prison, with their sentencing scheduled for June 8. Video evidence presented in court showed the women trailing the ICE agent as he drove home, discussing potential immigration enforcement actions on their social media platform.
As the agent, identified as Rogelio Reyes Huitzilin, arrived at his residence, he encountered the women on his street while preparing a surprise for his family. Tensions escalated, culminating in a verbal confrontation where derogatory terms were exchanged. Huitzilin testified about the fear his family has faced since the incident, citing the need for a new living arrangement and changes to his children’s schooling.
The women’s defense lawyers argued that the government exaggerated the situation and that the defendants had no intention of causing harm or harassment. They claimed that no systematic stalking occurred, as the interaction with Huitzilin was limited to one occasion.
While Attorney Gregory Nicolaysen emphasized that the government failed to prove a pattern of behavior indicative of stalking, he vowed to appeal the verdict. Meanwhile, the case has ignited a broader conversation about the legal limits of political protest and free speech in the face of stringent immigration policies.
Though some officials express concern that publicizing personal details about ICE agents could lead to harassment, it’s rare for criminal charges to arise from such cases. Observers are watching closely to see the repercussions of this trial, which has inadvertently revealed more private information about Huitzilin than was initially alleged.
