Robert C. Peck, a South Portland man, has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against two unnamed federal agents, alleging they violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights when they threatened to arrest him for observing immigration enforcement activity from public roads in Scarborough earlier this year.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, identifies the defendants as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, both described as federal agents acting under color of federal law. Peck alleges the agents approached his car on Jan. 22, accused him of violating 18 U.S.C. § 111, a federal statute that prohibits forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating or interfering with federal officers, and warned that he could be arrested if he continued following them.

Peck’s lawsuit says he was not obstructing the agents, touching them, blocking them, threatening them or interfering with an arrest. Instead, the complaint says, he was attempting to observe public government activity from a safe distance during a period of heightened immigration enforcement in Maine. The filing argues that using the federal obstruction statute to threaten a civilian observer was an effort to chill protected speech and deter scrutiny of immigration agents’ conduct.

The case is being brought under the Maine Civil Rights Act, which allows civil claims for interference with rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Peck alleges the agents violated the First Amendment by threatening him over protected observation and the Fourth Amendment by detaining or seizing him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The lawsuit demands a jury trial and seeks monetary relief against the two agents in their individual capacities.

According to The Maine Monitor, Peck filed the lawsuit Thursday and said the incident occurred after he observed Department of Homeland Security agents on the road in Scarborough. The outlet reported that Peck stopped his car on Milliken Road after seeing an immigration enforcement vehicle pull over, and that two masked agents came to his window and accused him of conduct they described as impeding federal officers. A video recorded by Peck captured part of the encounter, according to local reporting and the complaint.

Public Justice, one of the organizations representing Peck, said in a June 4 statement that the case is among the first in Maine seeking damages under state civil rights law against federal immigration agents for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of legal observers. The group said Peck, a retired counselor who worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs, was exercising a right to follow and monitor immigration agents in his neighborhood.

The lawsuit is tied to immigration enforcement activity in Maine that attorneys and local news outlets have described as part of “Operation Catch of the Day,” an enforcement surge that drew public concern from immigrant advocates, residents and local officials. Peck’s complaint portrays the January operation as part of a broader pattern of aggressive immigration enforcement, while the specific legal claims in the case focus on the conduct of the two agents who confronted him.

The complaint says Peck was born in Maine, lives in South Portland and retired after working for years as a licensed clinical social worker with the VA’s Vet Center in Portland. It alleges that on Jan. 22 he heard commotion near his home, became concerned about immigration enforcement activity and drove to observe what federal agents were doing in public. The filing says he followed at a safe distance and kept at least one vehicle between himself and the agents before the confrontation occurred.

Peck’s attorneys argue that merely observing or following federal agents in public, without force or interference, does not meet the legal threshold for the federal obstruction statute cited by the agents. The complaint says no reasonable officer could have believed Peck was committing that offense under the circumstances alleged. It further claims the agents’ warning caused Peck to stop observing immigration agents and to fear arrest or retaliation against himself or his family.

Bangor Daily News reported that Peck’s lawsuit says the agents eventually allowed him to leave, but that the encounter left him distressed and fearful. The outlet also reported that Peck alleged he had seen immigration agents in his neighborhood and followed them out of concern about enforcement tactics he believed could affect immigrant communities.

The lawsuit does not yet name the agents. Attorney David Webbert told The Maine Monitor that his firm had filed public records and direct requests seeking the agents’ identities but had not received a response. He said the legal team now hopes to identify them through discovery, the evidence-gathering phase of the lawsuit. The use of John Doe defendants is common when plaintiffs believe identifiable officials were involved but do not yet have their names.

Peck also filed a notice of claim earlier this year against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, according to The Maine Monitor and the complaint. That administrative step is generally required before certain damages claims can be brought against the federal government itself. The Monitor reported that the claim seeks $7.5 million in damages and that Peck could pursue related federal tort claims after the administrative period expires if there is no resolution.

No court determination has been made on Peck’s allegations. The two agents have not been publicly identified, and the federal government or the agents may dispute the factual and legal claims once the case proceeds. The complaint represents Peck’s side of the dispute, and the court will have to decide whether the alleged encounter amounted to a constitutional violation and whether state civil rights remedies can be applied to the conduct alleged.

The case arrives amid continuing legal and political scrutiny of immigration enforcement practices, particularly where federal agents operate in public settings and residents record or monitor arrests. Courts have recognized broad First Amendment protections for recording law enforcement in public, though cases often turn on whether the observer interfered with official duties, whether officers had a lawful basis to detain the person and whether qualified immunity or other defenses apply.

For Maine, the lawsuit could become an important test of accountability mechanisms when federal agents are accused of suppressing observation rather than responding to actual obstruction. For civil liberties advocates, the core issue is whether residents can safely document federal enforcement activity in their communities. For federal law enforcement, the case may raise operational questions about how agents distinguish lawful observation from conduct they believe impedes their duties.

The immediate next steps are procedural. Peck’s attorneys will need to identify and serve the two agents, and the defendants will have an opportunity to respond in court. If the case survives early motions, discovery could clarify what agency the agents belonged to, what instructions they were operating under, whether any body camera or agency records exist, and how federal officials interpreted Peck’s conduct at the time of the encounter.