Just days after violent protests overwhelmed downtown Los Angeles and the military was called in to support an already overburdened law enforcement system, LA City Councilmember Imelda Padilla did the unthinkable.
In a June 10th LA City council meeting — on public record and captured on video — Padilla urged LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell to “find a creative way” to tip off the immigrant community ahead of upcoming ICE enforcement actions. But it wasn’t just a vague suggestion. She proposed the use of AI-powered surveillance systems to help undocumented immigrants avoid federal raids. The moment was stunning, brazen, and chilling in its implications.
A HIGH-DEFINITION BLUEPRINT FOR OBSTRUCTION
Padilla didn’t merely question the raids or critique ICE policy — she laid out a strategy to interfere with federal law enforcement. By proposing the use of surveillance tech, she wasn’t asking LAPD to sit out federal operations — she was asking them to sabotage them.
This wasn’t a gaffe. This wasn’t a miscommunication. It was a sitting council member, on the record, asking police to violate federal law in the middle of a crisis that had already pushed public safety resources to the brink.
THE LAW, LOUD AND CLEAR
Chief McDonnell responded with unmistakable clarity: such a request would be illegal. Under California Penal Code Section 148(a), obstructing, delaying, or interfering with a peace officer in the performance of their duties is a crime. And when that interference involves federal immigration operations, the consequences are even more serious.
Padilla wasn’t lobbying for compassion — she was lobbying for obstruction. She was asking law enforcement to break the very laws she swore to uphold.
IMAGINE IF IT WERE DRUG DEALERS
Swap immigration for narcotics, and this would be front-page national news. If a city council member had asked LAPD to warn drug traffickers about an incoming raid, the outrage would be deafening. But because Padilla cloaked her request in the language of social justice, she and her defenders are now scrambling to spin this as harmless advocacy.
It wasn’t harmless. It was a clear attempt to interfere with law enforcement — and it played out just days after violence had already overwhelmed the city.
Padilla’s willingness to make such an irresponsible, illegal request in a public meeting raises serious doubts about her fitness for office. If she doesn’t understand that law enforcement cannot legally sabotage a federal operation, what other ethical boundaries is she willing to cross? What other public systems is she willing to hijack for political gain?
LEGAL FALLOUT INCOMING
Her remarks are already drawing attention from legal and political experts. Potential consequences include federal scrutiny from the Department of Justice, a state ethics investigation, and growing calls from the public for censure or even removal. And should any operational decisions have been influenced by her comments? Lawsuits and subpoenas may follow.
Padilla’s push to involve AI makes this even more dangerous. This isn’t about empathy — it’s about exploiting public safety infrastructure to serve a partisan agenda. The fact that she saw no issue suggesting the use of surveillance tools — built for crime prevention — to obstruct federal immigration agents is a terrifying glimpse into the mindset of a politician who sees no line she won’t cross.
Which begs the question. What else is happening behind closed doors?
If Padilla felt confident saying this into a microphone, who else on the City Council is willing to trade the rule of law for political expediency? This wasn’t just a one-off — it was a glimpse into a much deeper problem at City Hall.
THIS ISN’T ADVOCAY, IT’S SABOTAGE
Let’s be crystal clear. This is not about whether someone supports or opposes ICE. This is about whether elected officials can decide which laws they want enforced — and which ones they want obstructed. Padilla tried to weaponize city systems against federal enforcement. That’s not advocacy. That’s sabotage.
Council member Imelda Padilla’s reckless behavior wasn’t just a scandal — it was a public invitation to obstruct justice. She didn’t whisper it. She didn’t hide it. She said it out loud, with confidence, in the middle of a public safety crisis. And now she’s hoping no one will notice.
But we did. We noticed an elected official treat the law like it was a suggestion.
Follow Us