Dodge County sheriff sues Skokie woman over alleged ICE detention hoax, citing hotel records and messages
Dodge County Sheriff Dale Schmidt has filed a federal lawsuit against Sundas “Sunny” Naqvi, alleging she fabricated a 40-hour ICE detention across Illinois and Wisconsin; investigators cite hotel folios, CBP logs and messages that contradict her account.
Key takeaways
- No local booking found: Sheriff Schmidt says his office’s probe found no record that Naqvi was booked, detained or released in Dodge County — a key claim disputed by investigators and officials (Dodge County Sheriff lawsuit; Sunny Naqvi ICE claims).
- CBP timeline: U.S. Customs and Border Protection records show Naqvi entered secondary inspection at O’Hare at ~10:46 a.m. March 5 and was released about 11:42 a.m., with no documented transfer to custody (CBP inspection records).
- Hotel folios and messages: A Hampton Inn & Suites folio logs a March 5 check-in at 1:17 p.m. and charges through March 8, while WhatsApp messages place Naqvi actively communicating from the hotel during the alleged detention period (hotel folio and messages).
What the sheriff’s lawsuit says
Sheriff Dale Schmidt announced a federal complaint after investigators compiled records from multiple agencies. The complaint lays out a timeline officials say is “not physically possible” to reconcile with Naqvi’s detention story. Schmidt told reporters he pursued the suit to present fact versus fiction after the allegations gained wide attention without verified proof (source).
Local records and custody findings
The Dodge County sheriff’s office reported no booking, detention or release record involving Naqvi at the county jail. Sheriff Schmidt said there was no coordination between local officials and any federal or out-of-state agency that would have placed Naqvi in Dodge County custody (public statement).
Timeline and evidence investigators cite
Investigators relied on documentary evidence to build their timeline and challenge Naqvi’s account. Key items include:
- CBP inspection records: Records indicate Naqvi was processed at O’Hare and released within about an hour, with no record of federal detention or transfer after that release (CBP inspection records).
- Hotel folio and transactions: Hampton Inn & Suites in Rosemont shows a March 5 check-in at 1:17 p.m. and folio charges through March 8, placing Naqvi at the hotel during the hours she later said she was detained (hotel folio).
- Digital messages: WhatsApp messages show Naqvi communicating about food, work and payments while at the hotel; investigators say some messages referenced “spa services” that the sheriff said were not available at the locations where she claimed detention (WhatsApp evidence).
- Lack of local records: Dodge County found no booking, video, documentation or witness testimony to support Naqvi’s account; claimed phone location data did not match the verified timeline (investigative findings).
Public amplification and reaction
The story spread quickly online. The X account Libs of Chicago compared the case to the Jussie Smollett matter and other users amplified similar comparisons. Cook County Commissioner Kevin Morrison publicly alleged Naqvi and five others were transported across state lines by immigration agents and accused Dodge County of a cover-up — claims the sheriff’s complaint disputes (public allegations).
“We pursued this suit to set the record straight,” Sheriff Schmidt said, emphasizing the choice to use a civil lawsuit to respond publicly to what his office says are demonstrably false claims.
Investigation status and interagency contact
The sheriff’s office shared its findings with the FBI, Illinois State Police and other agencies; the investigation remains active. The Department of Homeland Security previously told reporters Naqvi’s claims were false, the sheriff’s office said (DHS comment).
Prior law enforcement contacts
The complaint and public statements note prior law enforcement inquiries involving Naqvi, including an earlier sexual assault report that the sheriff’s office said was found unsubstantiated. Those prior contacts informed the decision to pursue a civil suit after the recent allegations drew public attention (official records).
Why the sheriff called it a hoax
Sheriff Schmidt and investigators point to the chain of records — CBP logs, hotel folios and message timestamps — as evidence that Naqvi’s story could not have occurred as claimed. Schmidt specifically noted messages referencing a “spa lady”, saying his staff had no record of such services at the Dodge County Jail and that a “spa lady” is not part of custody operations (sheriff’s explanation).
Implications for Paso Robles, California
Economic impact: False claims that gain national attention can divert local resources — overtime, administrative time and legal costs — with taxpayers ultimately covering expenses (analysis).
Political consequences: The case is a reminder to public officials and citizens in Paso Robles to verify facts before amplifying allegations; unverified statements can escalate into broader political clashes and calls for accountability (context).
Social effects: Exaggerated or false stories can erode trust between communities and law enforcement. Clear communication and verified facts help protect real victims and keep public safety work focused (implications).
Practical applications: Local agencies should review documentation and public-release protocols. When social media or public figures allege incidents involving local jurisdictions, coordinated, verified responses reduce confusion and reputational harm (recommendation).
Reporting notes and sources
This article is based on the Dodge County sheriff’s public statements and the lawsuit as summarized in local reporting. Key public reporting used for this story includes Fox News coverage. Additional references and public discussion links cited below:
The sheriff’s office said it shared its findings with the FBI and Illinois State Police and that the inquiry remains active; the Department of Homeland Security has previously said Naqvi’s claims were false (Dodge County statement).
