Border Patrol Agent Shoots US Citizen Marimar Martinez in Chicago; Prosecution Collapses as Evidence Contradicts DHS

What happened

On October 4, 2025, in Chicago, Border Patrol agent Charles Exum fired five rounds at Marimar Martinez, a US citizen, in her car. She was wounded in the thigh, arm and leg, and survived (CBS News).

DHS said Martinez had "rammed" agents' vehicle while they were "boxed in by 10 cars," called her a "domestic terrorist," and later said she was "armed with a semi-automatic weapon"; Martinez says her licensed firearm remained holstered. Federal prosecutors charged her with assault and related offences (CBS News).

Surveillance footage obtained by her lawyer, Christopher Parente, shows "the agent's vehicle coming to a stop with no vehicles in front of it or on the left side." Body-camera audio records an agent saying "Do something" seconds before Exum fired. Exum later texted colleagues: "I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys" (CBS News).

On November 20, 2025 the US Attorney's office in Chicago dropped all charges (Chicago Sun-Times).

In February 2026, after Judge Georgia Alexakis gave Martinez permission to release it, the US Attorney's office itself released further evidence on February 10, despite having earlier objected to the disclosure of some of it, including the text messages (Chicago Sun-Times). Agents had drawn a diagram showing "three vehicles ahead of Exum's Chevrolet Tahoe"; Parente said those vehicles "don't exist" in the video. Exum had told the FBI that all five shots went through the front windshield; Parente said three rounds struck the passenger side, a fourth "kicks out the rear passenger window," and a fifth travelled "from the back of her car through the front passenger seat." In his texts, Exum wrote that support for him came from "Chief Bovino, Chief Banks, Sec Noem and El Jefe himself … according to Bovino," and he shared a message from another person reading: "You are a legend among agents." DHS has refused to withdraw the "domestic terrorist" label. CBP says Exum was placed on administrative leave but would not say when or whether it continues (Chicago Sun-Times).

Legal analysis

Use of force (Fourth Amendment; ICCPR Art. 6(1) and 9(1)).

• Potentially lethal force by a state agent: met. Five rounds fired into an occupied car.
• Necessity: reasonable basis to believe not met. The stated justification, that agents were boxed in and rammed, is contradicted by surveillance video showing open space around the agent's vehicle. Shot trajectories described by her lawyer, if accurate, suggest shots fired from the side and rear rather than at an oncoming vehicle. None of this has been adjudicated.

Prosecution on a disputed account (ICCPR Arts. 9 and 14; due process). Martinez was charged on the basis of an account that video contradicted and that rested in part on a diagram showing vehicles not seen on video. Prosecutors abandoned the case. A prosecution built on an inaccurate official record, combined with a public "domestic terrorist" label that remains in place, harms the victim's liberty and reputation and deters others from challenging official force.

Leadership endorsement. Exum's texts claim support from the Border Patrol chain of command, the DHS Secretary and "El Jefe himself," according to Bovino. These are the agent's own statements about what he was told, not proof of what those officials said, but they bear on whether the force was treated as conduct to be investigated or praised.

Not an international crime. Nobody was killed, there is no armed conflict, and the incident is not shown to be part of a widespread or systematic attack within Article 7.

Strongest defence argument. The government has not had a trial on the use of force, and dropping charges is not an admission that the agents' account was false. Agents in a tense enforcement operation may have perceived a threat. But the government chose not to defend its account in court once the video was available, and the specific justification it gave publicly ("boxed in by 10 cars") is contradicted by the footage.

Why this grade

Severe. The rubric's severe grade covers "use of excessive force by state agents" with concrete harm to an identifiable person. A US citizen was shot multiple times, prosecuted on an account the evidence contradicts, and publicly branded a terrorist, a label DHS still has not withdrawn. It is not critical because it is a single incident not shown here to be a structural violation. No international crime is plausibly in play, so no evidence classification is assigned.