Two women have been found guilty of stalking an ICE agent after following him to his home in California and livestreaming the incident on Instagram, a US federal court has ruled.
A jury in Los Angeles convicted Cynthia Raygoza, 38, from Riverside, and Ashleigh Brown, 38, from Aurora, Colorado, on Friday over the August 2025 incident.
Prosecutors said the pair tracked the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from his Los Angeles field office to his private residence, broadcasting the pursuit live and urging viewers to share it online.
The verdict matters because it draws a sharp legal line between protest and personal intimidation, a debate that also resonates in the UK, where livestream activism continues to grow.
What happened in the ICE agent stalking case?
According to federal prosecutors, Brown and Raygoza began livestreaming as they followed the ICE agent from his workplace to his home in August 2025.
During the broadcast, they allegedly:
- Gave real-time directions to viewers
- Encouraged followers to repost and share the stream
- Identified the officer’s residential address
- Shouted phrases such as “ICE lives on your street”
Court documents state that once they arrived, the women exited their vehicle wearing masks and began shouting at neighbours. Prosecutors said they also directed racial abuse at the officer’s wife. The officer’s children were present and witnessed the confrontation.
The First Assistant US Attorney for the Central District of California said after the verdict: “Peaceful protests are protected by the Constitution, political violence and unlawful intimidation are not.”
GUILTY: A Los Angeles federal jury just returned guilty verdicts against two defendants for stalking an ICE deportation officer.
Cynthia Raygoza, 38, of Riverside, and Ashleigh Brown, 38, of Aurora, Colorado, were found guilty today of stalking.
On August 28, 2025, Raygoza and… pic.twitter.com/4LkNkXmqDv
— F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) February 28, 2026
Both women now face up to five years in federal prison. Sentencing is scheduled for 8 June.
Why does this case matter beyond the United States?
While the case centres on a US ICE agent, the wider issue, activists targeting individuals at their private homes, carries global relevance.
In the UK, similar behaviour could fall under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which makes stalking and harassment criminal offences.
If individuals publish a home address with the intent to intimidate, they could also face charges under public order legislation or even civil action for harassment.
British courts have consistently ruled that protest rights do not extend to threatening conduct at private residences. The legal principle is clear: people have a right to protest policy, but not to endanger families.
Have attacks against immigration officers increased?
US authorities say violence against immigration officers has risen sharply in recent years.
At the time of the incident, the US Department of Homeland Security reported a 1,000% increase in assaults against ICE officers, compared with previous reporting periods. Prosecutors referenced other serious incidents, including:
- A September shooting outside a Dallas ICE facility
- A bomb threat at the same building a month earlier
Although those cases are separate from the stalking verdict, they formed part of the broader context presented by prosecutors about officer safety.
In the UK, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has previously warned about rising hostility towards officers during high-profile protests, particularly when online campaigns escalate tensions.
Where does protest end and intimidation begin?
The ICE agent case raises a simple but serious question: when does activism cross into criminal behaviour?
Legal experts generally point to three factors:
- Targeting a specific private individual
- Revealing or amplifying a home address
- Encouraging others to attend or escalate the situation
In this case, prosecutors argued that the defendants deliberately followed the officer home, revealed his location and encouraged online viewers to amplify the broadcast. The jury agreed this met the threshold for stalking under federal law.
The ruling reinforces a core democratic principle: peaceful protest enjoys legal protection, but harassment does not.
What role did social media play?
Instagram’s livestream function allowed the pursuit to unfold in real time. Prosecutors said the defendants actively encouraged viewers to spread the content, increasing its reach.
The case highlights growing concerns about “doxxing”, publishing someone’s private address online, and the rapid amplification that social media enables.
In the UK, the Online Safety Act 2023 places new duties on major platforms to tackle harmful content and reduce the risk of online abuse leading to real-world harm. While the legal systems differ, the underlying challenge remains similar on both sides of the Atlantic.
