We are a group of Fullerton parents who are deeply concerned about what occurred in our community this morning January 22, 2026. What it appeared to be—plainly and unmistakably—was the Fullerton Police Department assisting ICE, potentially in violation of California law, while failing to protect a neighborhood and its children from an armed individual.

According to the Fullerton Police Department, at approximately 6:44 am police communications received a call from a “reporting party” describing a man with a handgun jumping fences in the Woodcrest neighborhood, directly adjacent to Woodcrest Elementary School. Officers then state they were “flagged down” by an ICE agent, who claimed ICE was pursuing an armed suspect. Fullerton PD asserts it set up a perimeter while ICE searched the area and then cleared once additional federal resources arrived.

FPD’s account does not align with what the community witnessed, what video evidence documents, or what basic public-safety protocol requires.

And we want answers.

If there was truly an armed individual loose near an elementary school, Fullerton PD did not act as police typically do during an active gun threat. There were no bullhorn announcements instructing residents to shelter in place. There were no helicopters canvassing the area, no drones deployed. There were no emergency alerts issued to nearby residents. And most alarmingly, Woodcrest Elementary School and Fullerton Elementary School District were not notified, and the elementary school was not placed on lockdown.

This is profoundly concerning to us as parents with children in our elementary schools.

When a Woodcrest staff member approached officers to determine whether students arriving and those already on campus were at risk, they were allegedly told that police could not provide any information. They were not told there was a shooter at large. They were not instructed to initiate a lockdown. Children, families, and school staff were left exposed while critical safety information was withheld by FPD. This is unacceptable.

What is more, instead of the urgency that typically accompanies an active gunman, residents documented officers calmly facilitating an ICE operation: opening secured fire gates to allow ICE into a private apartment complex, establishing perimeters for federal agents, and standing by as ICE slowly walked the grounds. This is not what a response to an armed suspect looks like. This looks like FPD cooperating with ICE. That contradiction is at the center of our concern.

Fullerton PD’s own written statement raises further red flags.

The department statement describes a suspect in a white shirt, yet officers stopped and threatened to detain a young Latino man walking his dog because he was wearing a grey hoodie—explicitly stating they were searching for someone in a grey hoodie in contradiction to the description in their statement. The FPD statement also omits that officers opened secured gates to allow ICE into private property, raising serious questions about whether a valid judicial warrant was reviewed by FPD, as required under California law.

While FPD claims it cleared the scene, video shows Fullerton PD officers remaining present after ICE disengaged. Another curious fact is that ICE was removed from the complex by the apartment manager. Video shows ICE officers exiting without urgency—an odd behavior if there were truly an active shooter posing an immediate threat.

• If this were a real and immediate danger of a gunman, why wasn’t it treated like one?
• Why were school staff and the school district not informed?
• Why were NO OTHER schools notified that a gunman was on the loose in our city?
• Why were parents not notified?
• Why wasn’t Woodcrest locked down?
• Why was the public not warned—or later informed that the threat had been neutralized?
• If there was truly a gunman, why didn’t Fullerton PD act like it?
• And if there wasn’t, why was ICE allowed to operate under that pretext?

Just one day earlier, Fullerton High School went on lockdown due to a nonviolent concern involving an unhoused individual. Yet an alleged armed suspect near an elementary school triggered no comparable response. Not a peep. That disparity is indefensible. It doesn’t add up to us.

Fullerton PD asserted that assisting ICE was permissible due to an “immediate public-safety threat.” That justification collapses under scrutiny. You cannot claim exigent danger while failing to deploy the most basic tools to protect our community when a person with a gun is at large.

If the department’s account is accurate, then it represents a failure on the part of FPD to be transparent and to protect children and the surrounding community. Many of us are deeply unsettled by what could have happened in our schools and to our children if this threat were legitimate. Was it? 

This moment requires leadership—not deference.

In a time when ICE is operating aggressively and testing the limits of local law, our Police Chief must be firm with ICE, not passive. If there is a genuine risk in our city and ICE is present, the Chief must demand full information. The department must be fully accountable and fully transparent. “We don’t know” and “we can’t disclose” are not acceptable responses when public safety, our children, and trust are at stake.

Local law enforcement answers to the people who live here—not to federal agencies operating without transparency. This is not about politics. It is about trust.

In immigrant communities, when police appear aligned with ICE, people stop calling for help. Crimes go unreported. Emergencies escalate. That erosion of trust makes every person in our city less safe and deepens harmful “us versus them” divisions.

If Fullerton PD violated state law and assisted ICE this morning, there is a formal accountability process—and the community will pursue it. But accountability should not require escalation. It should begin with honesty.

Fullerton deserves clear answers, firm leadership, and a police department that chooses the community—especially the safety of children—first.

—Concerned Parents of Fullerton