Bob Peck Sues ICE Agents Over Maine Arrest Threat

Robert “Bob” Peck, a 67-year-old retired VA counselor from South Portland, filed a federal lawsuit on June 4, 2026, against two Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents he says threatened to arrest him for watching and filming their activities from a parked car on a public road. Bob Peck’s lawsuit against the ICE agents, captioned Peck v. Doe, alleges violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights and seeks damages under the Maine Civil Rights Act.¹

What Happened on January 22, 2026

Peck noticed ICE activity near his South Portland apartment that morning and drove to an ICE field office in Scarborough to observe the agents. He followed an ICE vehicle as it left the parking lot, driving what the complaint describes as a “safe distance” behind it. When the ICE SUV pulled over on Milliken Road, a side street off Route 1, Peck stopped his car and began recording from inside the vehicle.¹

Two masked agents approached, directed him to lower his window, and told him he was “impeding federal law enforcement.” They cited 18 U.S.C. § 111, a federal statute that prohibits forcibly impeding or intimidating federal officers performing their duties, and warned Peck that if he continued to follow and observe them, he would be pulled from his car and arrested.²

Peck captured roughly 30 seconds of the encounter on video. On the recording, he tells the agents he believes observing them is his First Amendment right and that he is not harassing or impeding them. He later said he “tried in every way not to antagonize them or be confrontational.”³

What the Lawsuit Claims

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Maine, names the agents as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 because their identities have not been disclosed. Peck’s legal team says it filed a Freedom of Information Act request and a direct request to the government for the agents’ names and received no response to either.²

The suit alleges two categories of constitutional violation. On the First Amendment claim, it argues that the agents tried to “chill and punish protected free speech” by falsely treating peaceful observation of government activity as a crime, and that no reasonable officer could have concluded that driving on a public road and watching from a parked car amounted to “forcibly impeding” law enforcement under 18 U.S.C. § 111.⁴ On the Fourth Amendment claim, it alleges the agents unlawfully seized Peck by stopping and detaining him without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that he had committed any crime.²

The complaint also alleges the encounter caused Peck lasting emotional harm, including trouble sleeping, increased paranoia while driving, and a fear of arrest that has discouraged him from further observation of government activity.¹

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson responded to the filing by saying that “anyone who obstructs federal law enforcement is committing a federal crime.” DHS, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maine otherwise declined to comment.⁵

Damages and Where the Case Stands

In late January 2026, Peck filed a notice of claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act seeking $7.5 million in damages from the Department of Homeland Security.³ Under the FTCA, the federal government has six months to pay, counteroffer, or deny the claim. When the June lawsuit was filed, Peck’s attorneys reported no response from the government.²

For now, the June 4 lawsuit targets only the two individual agents. Lead attorney David Webbert has said he plans to amend the complaint to add the federal government as a defendant after the six-month FTCA waiting period expires on July 30, 2026. The legal team also intends to use discovery to identify the agents by name.¹ As of June 2026, no defense filings or rulings had been reported.

Why the Suit Uses a State Civil Rights Law

The choice to sue under the Maine Civil Rights Act, rather than directly under the Constitution, reflects a legal theory that has gained attention as federal courts have closed off other paths. People suing state or local officers for constitutional violations usually proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but that statute does not reach federal employees. The Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents created a parallel route against federal officers, but the Court has sharply narrowed Bivens in later rulings.⁶

The workaround, sometimes called a “converse 1983” suit, uses state civil rights statutes that apply to “any person” who violates constitutional rights, including federal officers. Maine’s statute is one of them. The open legal question is whether the Westfall Act of 1988, which generally shields federal employees from personal liability for actions within the scope of their employment, blocks these state-law claims. Supporters point to a Westfall Act carveout that preserves suits for constitutional violations. Federal courts are divided on how broadly that exception reaches, and the issue remains unsettled.⁷

Public Justice, the national advocacy group co-representing Peck, has described the case as the first in Maine to seek monetary damages against DHS agents for violating the constitutional rights of legal observers under state law, and one of the first such actions under any state civil rights act nationwide.⁴

The Larger Operation and Related Lawsuits

Peck’s encounter happened during a large-scale ICE enforcement push in Maine launched on January 20, 2026, called “Operation Catch of the Day.” The operation produced 206 arrests between January 20 and January 24. Reports of aggressive conduct toward civilian observers accumulated quickly. According to news accounts, agents followed observers to their homes, filmed observers’ faces and license plates, and in one instance fired paintball-like projectiles at an observer’s car. One agent reportedly told a female observer she was in an internal database and called her a “domestic terrorist.”⁸

Peck’s suit is one of at least three federal cases challenging agent conduct during the January operation. Hilton v. Noem, filed February 23, 2026, is a class action alleging that DHS used facial recognition and license plate readers to intimidate legal observers in violation of the First Amendment.⁹ Carvajal-Muñoz v. Ravencamp, filed April 14, 2026, was brought by the ACLU on behalf of a Portland resident with a valid visa who alleged that agents smashed his car window with a crowbar, dragged him out at taser-point, and detained him for 16 hours despite his lawful immigration status. That case also proceeds under the Maine Civil Rights Act and will test the same state-law theory as Peck’s.⁶

1
Portland Press Herald. South Portland Man Sues Federal Immigration Agents
2
The Maine Monitor. Lawsuit: Agents Violated Peck Constitutional Rights
3
WMTW. Maine ICE Encounter Lawsuit South Portland Man
4
Public Justice. U.S. Agents Sued for Damages Under Maine Civil Rights Act
5
Maine Public. Maine ICE Observer Sues Agents for Threatening to Arrest Him During January Surge
6
ACLU of Maine. ACLU of Maine and Other Advocates Sue Federal Officers for Violent Abduction of Lawful Immigrant During January ICE Crackdown
7
ACLU. Carvajal-Muñoz v. Ravencamp
8
The Maine Monitor. ICE Observers Intimidation Legal Action
9
Politico. DHS Accused of Using Surveillance Tech to Track Legal Observers in Maine