FBI Director Under Fire for Posting Photo of Arrested Wisconsin Judge, Raising Questions About DOJ Policy Violation

FBI Director Kash Patel is facing widespread criticism after posting on X (formerly Twitter) a photo of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan in handcuffs, being escorted by law enforcement officers. The judge was arrested on Friday, April 25, accused of obstructing federal immigration agents and allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade arrest.

Controversial Social Media Post

The image shared by Director Patel does not show Judge Dugan’s face but clearly depicts her in handcuffs, flanked by three officers as she is led to a vehicle—a classic example of the so-called “perp walk.” The caption accompanying the post read, “No one is above the law,” a statement that many see as an attempt to highlight the seriousness of the charges and reinforce the message of accountability, regardless of status or position.

Potential Violation of DOJ Policy

This public display, however, has raised serious concerns about adherence to Justice Department policies. According to the DOJ’s Confidentiality and Media Contacts Policy, department personnel are generally prohibited from voluntarily releasing photographs of defendants unless the images serve a specific law enforcement function or are already part of the public record. The policy, which was strengthened during previous administrations, aims to protect the privacy and legal rights of individuals accused of crimes, and to avoid prejudicing public opinion before trial.

Legal experts and former officials have pointed out that Patel’s post appears to violate these guidelines. The intent behind the policy is to prevent the unnecessary public shaming of defendants and to ensure that law enforcement does not use its platform to intimidate or influence ongoing legal proceedings.

Criticism from Legal Community

Craig Mastantuono, the attorney representing Judge Dugan, criticized the FBI’s approach. He stated that the arrest and the subsequent public posting of the photo were unnecessary and punitive, especially since there was no threat to public safety. “It’s a clear departure from policy. She was not afforded the opportunity to come in voluntarily and offer her side of the story,” Mastantuono remarked, emphasizing that the judge could have responded to a summons rather than being publicly arrested and displayed.

Former officials echoed these concerns, suggesting that the social media post was intended more to maximize public embarrassment and intimidation than to serve any legitimate law enforcement purpose.

Unclear DOJ Response

As of now, it remains uncertain whether current DOJ leadership has altered the conduct policy regarding the release of photographs of defendants. The FBI has declined to comment on Director Patel’s actions or clarify whether any internal review is underway.

Details of the Arrest

Judge Hannah Dugan was taken into custody by FBI agents on Friday and faces two federal charges: obstruction of justice and concealing an individual from arrest. She appeared in court on the same day and was released from detention following her initial hearing. The case has drawn national attention, not only because of the high-profile nature of the defendant but also due to the methods used by law enforcement in handling the case.

Broader Implications

The incident has reignited debates about due process, the presumption of innocence, and the role of law enforcement in the digital age. Critics argue that sharing arrest photos on social media can unfairly influence public perception, potentially undermining the fairness of future legal proceedings.

As the situation develops, legal experts and civil rights advocates are calling for greater transparency and accountability from federal law enforcement agencies, and for a reaffirmation of policies that protect the rights and reputations of those accused but not yet convicted of crimes. The Department of Justice has not yet issued an official statement regarding the controversy or any potential disciplinary action against Director Patel.