Governor Questions Secret Arrests After Operation Catch of the Day Maine

Everyone in the United States—citizens and noncitizens alike—has core constitutional rights during encounters with immigration agents, including the right to remain silent, the right to refuse consent to a home search absent proper authority, and the right to speak with an attorney. Those rights matter in fast-moving enforcement surges like Operation Catch of the Day in Maine, where state leaders have raised concerns about secret arrests and access to basic documentation.

These protections come primarily from the U.S. Constitution (especially the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment), federal immigration statutes in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and implementing regulations in 8 C.F.R.

They also intersect with everyday realities: traffic stops, workplace questioning, jail transfers, and family members trying to locate someone quickly. What follows is a practical rights guide tied to what has been publicly reported and officially stated so far, with steps you can use immediately if you or a loved one is stopped, detained, or transferred.

1) Overview and Timeline of Operation Catch of the Day

Operation Catch of the Day is the name DHS and ICE have given to an immigration enforcement surge in Maine. DHS announced the operation on January 21, 2026, and enforcement activity began immediately, according to federal statements.

The geographic focus—Maine—became a flashpoint because large-scale federal “surge” tactics are less common in the state. Public attention intensified quickly after an arrest connected to the Cumberland County Jail, and after state officials questioned whether arrests and transfers were happening without timely disclosure.

Day-by-day arrest totals have been publicly discussed by officials. This guide summarizes those figures only at a high level, because the precise counts are best read directly in official releases and verified through detention records.

2) Official Statements and What They Claim (DHS/ICE)

DHS and ICE have framed the operation as a public safety effort focused on serious criminal conduct, while Maine officials have questioned transparency and process. DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin stated on January 21, 2026, that DHS launched the operation to target “the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens,” and criticized Maine leadership in strong terms.

That is an official quote and reflects DHS’s stated rationale. On January 23, 2026, ICE Deputy Assistant Director Patricia Hyde described enforcement goals and said ICE compiled a target list for Maine. She described categories of alleged offenses among targets.

That description is an official statement. It is not, by itself, proof that every person arrested has committed those crimes. In immigration enforcement, allegations and criminal convictions are different things.

Also on January 23, 2026, a DHS spokesperson discussed the arrest of a local recruit. The spokesperson alleged a particular immigration history and said DHS removed other detainees from Cumberland County Jail due to partnership concerns. Those are government allegations and explanations. They should be treated as claims unless independently verified by records.

Why that distinction matters: In immigration cases, status and removability are decided through legal processes. Public statements may shape perception, but they do not substitute for charging documents, custody paperwork, or court orders.

Official announcements and updates are posted by DHS and ICE.

3) Key Facts: Arrest Activity and the Cumberland County Jail Recruit Case

The most visible early incident involved the arrest of Emanuel Ludovic Mbuangi Landila, described as a corrections officer recruit at the Cumberland County Jail. According to local and federal accounts, ICE arrested him on January 21, 2026, in Portland.

Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce publicly described the recruit as having passed county vetting steps, including a background check and polygraph. The sheriff also said the recruit had valid work authorization for years into the future, and that the county relied on that authorization for hiring.

The sheriff and witnesses also criticized the arrest’s on-scene handling. They said the recruit’s vehicle was left running and unsecured on a public street. While that detail is not the legal basis for removability, it matters operationally.

It can affect public safety, property rights, and community trust.

How I-9 work authorization fits—and what it does not prove

Many people confuse “authorized to work” with “immune from immigration enforcement.” They are not the same.

• The Form I-9 process is an employment eligibility check required under federal law. Employers review identity and work authorization documents.
• A valid employment authorization document may show permission to work for a period of time.
• But work authorization does not automatically resolve questions about immigration status, prior orders, or whether DHS claims someone is removable under the INA. If ICE asserts a person is removable, the next legal questions usually include: what status the person has, whether DHS served proper charging paperwork, and whether the person has relief options.

Warning: Do not assume that showing an employment card or driver’s license will end an ICE encounter. Those documents may help in some contexts, but they are not a “shield” against arrest.

4) ‘Secret Arrests’ Allegation and What Transparency Can Look Like

Governor Janet Mills publicly challenged ICE on January 22, 2026, calling for judicial warrants and real-time data. She said, “If they have warrants, show the warrants. In America, we don’t believe in secret arrests or secret police.”

This dispute often turns on a key legal distinction: judicial warrants versus immigration administrative paperwork.

What documents may exist in different scenarios

• Judicial warrant (criminal): Signed by a judge. Often required for entry into a home in criminal contexts, and strongly associated with Fourth Amendment protections.
• ICE administrative warrant: Often refers to DHS/ICE documents authorizing immigration arrest. These are generally not signed by Article III judges. Their legal effect and practical consequences can differ from judicial warrants.
• Detainer request: A request to a jail to hold someone for ICE pickup for a limited period, under certain conditions. Detainer practice is legally and politically contested, and policies vary by jurisdiction.

Why transfers complicate verification

Even when an arrest is known, confirmation of where a person is held may lag. Transfers between facilities may happen quickly. That can delay attorney contact, family notification, and court preparation.

It can also create the perception of “secret arrests,” even when paperwork exists. If your family cannot locate someone promptly, treat it as urgent. Preservation of rights often depends on rapid action and documentation.

5) Context, Significance, and Community Impact in Maine

A surge operation in Maine carries outsized impact because the state has historically had a smaller immigration enforcement footprint than larger metro areas. That affects how quickly communities can locate counsel, language resources, and support networks after arrests.

Federal-local cooperation tensions can also change jail operations. When relationships break down, people may be moved out of state. Even transfers within New England can be disruptive. They may reduce access to a person’s preferred lawyer, make family visits harder, and complicate gathering documents.

Community groups in Portland and Lewiston have reported fear-driven behavior changes, including people avoiding school events, workplaces, and medical care. Advocacy hotlines have reported increased activity. Those reports are not the same as official statistics, but they are consistent with what communities often experience during rapid enforcement operations.

When people believe arrests are happening without clear information, the practical harms multiply:

• Missed court dates in unrelated matters.
• Lost wages and housing instability.
• Children left without caregivers.
• Delays in getting medications or retrieving property.

None of those outcomes are required by law. But they are common when detention is sudden and communication is limited.

Warning: If a loved one is detained and then transferred, time matters. Evidence, relief screening, and bond planning often begin immediately after arrest.

6) Official Government Sources and How to Verify What’s Happening

In a fast-developing enforcement push, verification is its own form of protection. Here is a documentation-focused checklist that relies on official channels.

Step 1: Confirm what DHS/ICE claims—using primary sources

Start with official DHS and ICE statements. Track the announcement date and stated scope, claimed arrest numbers and locations, and any named individuals or jail partnerships.

Step 2: Locate a detained person through official locator tools

If someone is in ICE custody, you can often check the official locator. ICE Online Detainee Locator System (ODLS) typically requires the person’s A-Number and country of birth, or biographical details.

If the locator shows no results, it does not always mean the person is free. Recent arrests, minors, or certain custody situations may not appear immediately.

Step 3: Ask for the paperwork that matters

For immigration custody and removal defense, families and counsel often seek the following documents: the Notice to Appear (NTA), which starts removal proceedings in Immigration Court (see INA § 239), custody documents and allegations supporting removability, and any prior orders, if DHS claims they exist.

Immigration Court case information is generally available through EOIR’s automated case system:

– EOIR information: [justice.gov/eoir](

Step 4: Know the baseline rights during questioning and arrest

Regardless of status, you generally have the right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment). You can say, “I am exercising my right to remain silent.”

You also generally have the right to refuse consent to a search in many situations (Fourth Amendment). You can say, “I do not consent to a search.”

You have the right to speak with an attorney before answering questions. Immigration is civil, and the government does not appoint counsel in removal proceedings, but you may hire one (see INA § 292).

These rights can be undermined by panic, informal conversation, or signing papers quickly.

Deadline warning: If you are placed in removal proceedings, deadlines for motions, bond requests, and relief applications can arrive fast. Ask for copies of all documents and contact counsel immediately.

Step 5: If rights are violated, document and get legal help

If you believe an arrest involved unlawful entry, coercion, or misinformation, write down names, badge numbers (if known), and agency identifiers. Record dates, times, addresses, and witnesses. Preserve videos, texts, and call logs.

Ask counsel about suppression arguments, custody review, and remedies. Immigration suppression law is fact-specific and varies by circuit. Courts have recognized suppression in limited scenarios, but it is not automatic. Seek counsel quickly.

How to Exercise Your Rights in Practice (Quick Scripts)

Use short, calm statements. Do not lie or present false documents.

• If questioned: “I will remain silent. I want to speak to a lawyer.”
• If asked to open your door: “Do you have a warrant signed by a judge? Please slide it under the door.”
• If asked to sign papers: “I will not sign anything until my attorney reviews it.”
• If you are stopped in public: Ask, “Am I free to leave?” If yes, leave calmly.

For noncitizens, small statements can have big consequences. Admissions about citizenship, entry, or prior removals can be used later.

Resources for legal help

– AILA Lawyer Referral: [aila.org/find-a-lawyer](

– EOIR (Immigration Court information): [justice.gov/eoir](

– ICE detainee locator:

– USCIS (benefits and case tools, when relevant): [uscis.gov](