Judge in leftist-run state cuts bail from $5M to $100k for 7-times deported illegal immigrant who shot at police


MINNEAPOLIS, MN – In states governed by Democrats, it’s to be expected that officials refuse to stand with their police departments. It’s frustrating, nevertheless.

A recent example comes from Minnesota, where a man’s bail was cut from $5 million to $100,000 after shooting at police officers while drunkenly fleeing in a 100-mph car chase with his pregnant wife in the passenger seat. The suspect is an illegal alien who has been deported seven times.

Pablo Nava-Jaimes, 31, allegedly fired at least 10 rounds at police during a pursuit June 5 after leaving a barbecue where he had “8 or 9 beers,” according to a criminal complaint.

Despite the serious nature of his latest interaction with law enforcement, Ramsey County Judge Kellie Charles reduced Jaimes’ bail to $100,000 during his first court appearance. Charles was appointed to the bench in August 2020 by leftist Democrat Gov. Tim Walz so the drastic bail reduction is not a surprise.

Nava-Jaimes stated that he “didn’t know why he fired at officers” but was frustrated because he felt police hadn’t adequately responded to vandalism of his property.

He apparently owns property but is in the country illegally, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A spokesperson said:

“Pablo Nava-Jaimes, 31, is a citizen of Mexico and unlawfully present in the United States. Nava-Jaimes illegally entered the United States at an unknown date and at an unknown location.”


The spokesperson noted this is at least his eighth illegal entry into the U.S.:

“United States Border Patrol encountered and voluntarily removed Nava-Jaimes from the U.S. on at least seven occasions between 2008 and 2010.” 

He was arrested on serious charges in 2021 but was not deported. One arrest occurred in June “for domestic assault, first-degree assault, and drug charges,” and another in December for “fifth-degree drug possession and two counts of open container in a motor vehicle,” the ICE spokesperson said.

The criminal complaint for his latest arrest states Nava-Jaimes “took full responsibility” for the shooting after he was apprehended.

The pursuit began when a state trooper observed an Oldsmobile Cutlass “speeding and driving on the shoulder of Interstate 35E.” When the officer turned on his lights, the Cutlass “fled at speeds near 100 miles per hour” while “the driver fired a shot at [the] trooper.”


The vehicle exited the interstate and White Bear Lake police took over the chase while a State Patrol helicopter monitored from above. The vehicle then “slowed nearly to a stop and fired multiple shots” at White Bear Lake police, according to the complaint. It stated:

“The helicopter saw muzzle flashes that appeared to come from the driver’s side of the Cutlass … [and] officers later recovered 9 spent 5.56 caliber casings.”

The helicopter then observed two people fleeing from the vehicle as one threw a gun over a fence. Both people were apprehended quickly after and “both resisted arrest,” according to police.

Both suspects were taken to the hospital, Nava-Jaimes because he was bitten by a K9 and his wife because she complained of stomach pain and is pregnant.

Nava-Jaimes told police his wife had nothing to do with the violence and had actually “screamed at him to stop shooting.” He also “said he was sorry” and “acknowledged that he risked injuring or killing the officers when he shot at them.”

He said he did not “know how many times he shot at pursuing officers because he was drunk.” Police said:

“The defendant didn’t know why he fired at officers, but he said he was frustrated with law enforcement for not doing anything in the past when his property had been vandalized.”


For his most recent arrest, he will face three counts of first-degree assault, one count of using deadly force against a police officer, and two counts of using a dangerous weapon in a drive-by shooting, ICE said.

ICE confirmed it has “encountered Nava-Jaimes at the Ramsey County Jail” where he “remains in custody.” It said:

“[The agency] can place an immigration detainer on individuals who have been arrested on criminal charges and who ICE has probable cause to believe are removable.”

However, sometimes in sanctuary states, local law enforcement doesn’t honor the detainer, instead releasing illegal suspects into the community. The agency said:

“When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders onto the streets, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.”


As crime spirals out of control, Minnesota progressives push for even lighter prison sentences

January 16, 2022

The following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the author.

MINNESOTA- As we have seen over roughly the past twenty months, crime in the U.S. is increasing.

Anyone with two eyes and two ears can see and hear that, however Democrats continue to remain tone deaf about it if you listen to them talk.

Oh, once in a while you may see one here or there rail about crime, but when push comes to shove, actions speak louder than words. Such is the case in Minnesota.

One might think that as crime continues to be a “dinner table” issue for many Americans, with a number of polls showing crime is one of the leading concerns of the American people, that Democrats would “get it.”

After the George Floyd fiasco in Minneapolis in 2020, there was a clamor across the land that we needed “criminal justice reform.”

In most cases, that reform has been to harangue police and tie their hands, while going light on criminals through decriminalizing certain offenses and significantly restricting cash bail.

The result of those last two initiatives has led to the current spate of crime across the country. Yet despite all of that, Democrats want to go softer on crime. Seriously.

A blog post in Powerline raises the issues facing residents of Minnesota, where the writer, John Hinderaker notes that polls in that state show crime is the number one concern among voters.

Voters have said they want Gov. Tim Walz to focus on violent crime. That however isn’t what he’s doing.

According to Hinderaker, Minnesota has something called the “Sentencing Guidelines Commission,” which decides what criminal sentences should go with which crimes.

He notes that Walz has stacked this commission with a bunch of leftists, having appointed eight of eleven seats on the board.

In fact, one member is an ex-con who doesn’t’ believe criminals should be imprisoned over concerns they may be “retraumatized.” Never mind the trauma felt by crime victims, apparently.

As often happens in cases such as this, not a lot of people pay attention to what is going on until something bad happens or somebody happens to discover what is going on.

Such is the case in Minnesota, where the commission recently voted to move forward with proposed changes to the state’s sentencing guidelines by a vote of 6-4.

After the commission decided to move forward, they then opened up the proposal for public comments. Since the guidelines had been held close to the vest, it was likely that there would have been minimal public input into the proposed changes.

That was when someone in Hinderaker’s organization learned about the plan to soften the guidelines. That led Hinderaker to set up a web page for concerned citizens to comment on the plan and express any concerns. The page read:

Dear Sentencing Guidelines Commission:

I write to oppose the proposal to eliminate custody status points from consideration for felony sentences. This change will lower sentences across the board for convicted felons, especially sex offenders.

As the state deals with an unprecedented crime wave, the last thing we should be doing is letting violent offenders out of prison earlier. This proposal is contrary to the core mission of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, protecting public safety.

The fact that someone is on probation or parole (or even escaped) when they commit another crime certainly should factor into their sentence. It’s only common sense. Please reject this one-size-fits-all solution that will make our state more dangerous.

What was the response? Nearly 4,000 Minnesotans—3,800 to be exact—responded on the website in opposition to the commission’s proposals, while only 209 spoke in favor of the proposal.

Last week, the Commission decided to postpone consideration of changes to the sentencing guidelines. Hinderaker said those on the far-left of the commission were “bitter, with some denouncing the thousands of comments they received from the public.”

As Hinderaker notes, the reason liberals don’t like public comments is because they don’t want to hear from the public. They think they know best, which they typically do not.

After the vote, some started paying attention to the proposal, with the Minneapolis Star-Tribune leading with it on their website. Walz was bummed that the proposal didn’t go through.

According to the article, Walz had said the previous month “that he trusts the commission’s ‘vast swath of expertise.’”

“I think trying to tell Minnesotans that this [change] is somehow going to make them less safe is simply not true,” Walz said. “You can’t lock your way up and imprison your way out of some of these things, but you can be smart about making sure the most violent offenders are not out.”

Hinderaker notes that under the proposed sentencing guidelines, offenders such as murderers and “especially rapists” would be released early.

While liberals such as Walz, who stood by 20 months ago and let Minneapolis burn, live in a fantasy world, the reality is that many crimes are committed by recidivists, as we have seen recently in cities such as New York, Chicago, and others.

However Jeff Van Nest, a 20-year FBI agent and policy fellow at American Experiment wrote:

Minnesotans will be safer today because the Sentencing Guidelines Commission backed away from this misguided policy change.”

Hinderaker notes Minnesotans may have dodged a bullet, at least for now.

They have let Walz and the other leftists in Minnesota know loud and clear that they want government to take “effective action against crime, especially violent crime,” while noting that Democrats “want to move in the opposite direction.”

Hinderaker notes that possibly it will take something akin to what happened last year in Virginia to see what direction voters want their leaders to go.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First


Submit a Correction
Related Posts