United States v. Delgado, 2026 WL 591551 (5th Cir. 2026)
Most use-of-force cases that we discuss in Xiphos are civil. This one is criminal and the defendant was a federal agent.
In United States v. Delgado, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer for depriving two men of their Fourth Amendment rights under color of law and for falsifying a report after one of the incidents. The opinion is a reminder that not every bad force case stays in the world of internal discipline or civil liability. When force is willful, clearly excessive, and followed by a cover story, federal criminal exposure becomes real.
Officer Miguel Delgado, Jr., was convicted after a bench trial on two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 242 and one count under 18 U.S.C. § 1519. The facts involved two separate encounters at the border.
In the first, Tomas Espinosa crossed from Mexico into the United States in October 2019 using the Bridge of Americas Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas. There was some suggestion that Espinosa had consumed alcohol, but the record did not indicate a violent or dangerous subject. Espinosa became upset with another officer in a waiting area. Delgado was not the primary officer handling him, but Delgado stepped in, put hands on Espinosa, took him to the ground after Espinosa shifted his stance, and handcuffed him. Delgado then escorted Espinosa to another area. There, according to the evidence credited by the trial court, Espinosa was “redirected” into a door even though he was no longer resisting. Espinosa reported dizziness, ringing in the ears, confusion, and pain. His injuries were undisputed.
“Violating your force training does not just create policy trouble. It can be used to prove willfulness.”
The important part of this first incident was not just the force. It was the testimony about the force. Delgado’s own supervisor said Delgado acted aggressively and testified he would have intervened to stop the exchange. The government’s expert testified he saw no criminal conduct by Espinosa that justified excessive force, no indication of resistance at the point where Espinosa hit the door, and signs that Delgado intended to slam him into it. Both the supervisor and the expert agreed the force used by Delgado was unreasonable.
The second incident was even worse. In June 2020, Ricardo Estrada returned from Mexico and was referred to secondary inspection. He and Delgado exchanged words. Estrada questioned why another officer had yelled at him. Delgado responded, “This is my house” and “You are not the boss here.” He ordered Estrada to sit down “like a scolded little child” and to put away his phone. Estrada complied and sat silently.
Delgado kept talking. He told Estrada he would lose every time he crossed the border. Estrada replied in Spanish that this may be Delgado’s house but outside would be a different story. Delgado treated that as a threat, though Estrada immediately said he was not threatening him. Delgado then opened a locked door into a secure area and called Estrada over. That point mattered. If Delgado truly believed Estrada posed a serious threat, his later conduct made little sense. He brought Estrada into a secure area without waiting for backup and without first checking him for weapons.
Once Estrada approached, Delgado grabbed him from behind, pushed him forward, twisted his arm, pressed his face into some chairs, and “shouted at him as … Estrada cried out in pain.” Estrada suffered a nose laceration and bleeding. Another officer arrived and saw Delgado yelling. That officer did not hear Estrada threaten anyone and instead heard him apologizing. Delgado’s supervisor later testified that the force was unnecessary, unbecoming, and not how officers are trained to restrain someone. Another federal agent likewise testified the force did not appear reasonable or necessary. The government’s expert witness said he saw no threatening behavior from Estrada and Delgado’s force appeared excessive based on the threat level shown on video.
To convict under 18 U.S.C. § 242, the government had to prove that Delgado, acting under color of law, willfully deprived another person of a constitutional right. The constitutional right here was the Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. The “under color of law” part was easy. Delgado was on duty, in uniform, and acting as a federal officer.
On appeal, the argument centered on two issues: willfulness and whether the force was excessive and objectively unreasonable. The 5th Circuit found sufficient evidence of willfulness for three reasons. First, Delgado violated his training by using force to obtain compliance from someone who was not resisting (or had stopped resisting). Federal agents are certainly not trained to slam someone into a door, drive their face into chairs, or crank their arm upward until the subject cries out in pain. The court noted obvious departures from use-of-force training can support an inference of criminal willfulness.
Second, Delgado’s demeanor mattered. Witnesses described him as yelling, cursing, and banging objects around while inside a secure government facility. That kind of behavior supported the inference that he was not simply trying to maintain order. He was angry, personal, and escalating.
Third, the cover-up mattered. After the Estrada incident, Delgado gave his supervisor a false verbal account. He then wrote a false report that said Estrada was upright in a chair when Delgado forcefully restrained him, but the government’s expert testified the video showed Estrada on his knees with his head against the chairs and wall. The report claimed Estrada was pushing back, but the expert saw no movement suggesting resistance. The 5th Circuit treated those falsehoods as evidence not only supporting the 18 U.S.C. § 1519 conviction but also showing guilty knowledge and willfulness under 18 U.S.C. § 242.
That is an important lesson. In federal civil-rights prosecutions, the force itself is one part of the case. The aftermath can be the other part. A false report can turn a questionable use of force into a much stronger criminal case.
The court also had little difficulty with the excessive-force analysis. As to Espinosa, the record supported a finding that he was not resisting at the moment Delgado slammed him into the door. As to Estrada, even if he had been verbally disrespectful, the credited evidence showed that he complied by sitting down and keeping quiet. He later approached Delgado only because the officer ordered him into the secure area, and then was assaulted and injured despite not posing the kind of threat that would justify that level of force.
This was not a case of split-second uncertainty with an armed suspect. It was a case the prosecution framed — and the court evidently accepted — of officer-instigated escalation.
The third conviction, under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 and relating to the cover-up, is also worth officers’ attention. That statute punishes knowingly falsifying a record with intent to impede or influence a federal investigation. The 5th Circuit made clear the government did not need to prove Delgado knew an investigation was already underway. It was enough that he acted in contemplation of one. Officers were trained to document excessive force before the end of a shift. A rational fact finder could therefore conclude Delgado knew a use-of-force review might occur and wrote the report with that in mind.
That is a practical point. When force is used in a federal facility, or by a federal officer, the possibility of later review is not abstract. It is built into the system. Writing a false report in that setting is not just bad paperwork. It can be obstruction.
Timely legal analysis on law enforcement-related cases: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
Here are some practical takeaways:
- Rudeness is not resistance. A subject can be argumentative, sarcastic, or disrespectful without presenting the kind of threat that justifies significant force.
- Once resistance stops, the force must stop. The appellate court repeatedly emphasized evidence that neither man was actively resisting at the moment force was used.
- In criminal cases, training matters. Violating your force training does not just create policy trouble. It can be used to prove willfulness under 18 U.S.C. § 242.
- Your demeanor becomes evidence. Yelling, cursing, personal insults, and ego-driven escalation make it easier for a prosecutor to argue force was punitive rather than professional.
- The report can become its own felony. If the force is bad, a false report does not fix it. It compounds it.
The bottom line is simple. United States v. Delgado is what happens when an officer turns a controllable encounter into a personal one, uses force beyond what the situation requires, and then tries to paper it over afterward. The Constitution does not criminalize every bad judgment call. But when force becomes willful, unnecessary, and dishonest, the case can move out of civil court and into federal criminal court very quickly.
- Blog Articles
