ICE took a man from SLO County Jail. His attorney scrambled to find him
When attorney Gerardo Agustin heard that his client was missing on Wednesday, he was surprised.
He and his client, Cristian Duvan Parado Tirado, had just had their first court hearing the day before, and they had a plan to meet and go over the case that day.
Parado Tirado’s wife called Agustin wondering where her husband was because he never returned home after she posted his $70,000 bail. Agustin went to the jail to see what was going on, but he was only told that his client posted bail about an hour and a half before he arrived.
Parado Tirado was charged with grand theft of more than $950 after being accused of stealing makeup products from Ulta in Paso Robles, Agustin said. Two other people had been charged in connection with the same crime, court records show, and at least one of them also disappeared after posting bail on Wednesday.
“My understanding is that the two of them bail out and they’ve subsequently disappeared,” Agustin said.
Parado Tirado was one of three people taken into ICE custody from the San Luis Obispo County Jail on Wednesday, the Tribune confirmed.
A witness saw ICE take two men into custody from the lobby of the San Luis Obispo County Jail on Wednesday. The jail also lifted its gate for an ICE vehicle, allowing it to drive through, the witness said.
The Sheriff’s Office appeared to have told ICE that Parado Tirado made bail and was going to be released, but did not inform Parado Tirado or his attorney that ICE was notified — a violation of California law.
The third SLO County Jail inmate was taken into custody on a federal warrant, the Sheriff’s Office said.
Under the TRUTH Act, which was signed into California law in 2016, if local law enforcement notifies ICE of an inmate’s release date and time in response to a detainer request, the agency must inform inmates and their attorneys of that notification to ICE. It also requires local agencies to provide inmates with a copy of ICE’s detainer or transfer requests and whether the agency intends to comply with it prior to their transfer to ICE.
As part of its Reality Check series, The Tribune investigated how and why Parado Tirado ended up in ICE custody.
ICE took a man from SLO County Jail. His attorney scrambled to find him
The police report of the case against Parado Tirado did not indicate any use of drugs, violence or gang affiliation, Agustin said.
“I don’t see why so many resources to this degree are being used on what I would otherwise classify as a nonviolent offender,” Agustin said.
Toward the end of the report, a statement claimed Parado Tirado’s activity was consistent with a known “South American Theft Group” activity, but it did not describe further what that group was.
The only information on “South American Theft Group” the Tribune could find from a reputable source online was a podcast posted by the FBI eight months ago with acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll. In the podcast, he describes the groups as people of South American descent “who enter the U.S. illegally or overstay their visas, and who commit crimes, including commercial and residential burglaries.”
Agustin said neither he nor his client’s wife were informed that his client was taken into ICE custody. Instead, he and his client’s wife scrambled to find him until his wife finally received a phone call from her husband confirming he was in ICE custody. ICE’s detainee locator shows he was at the Adelanto Detention Facility in San Bernardino County as of Friday afternoon.
Attorney Ginger Ortiz confirmed her client who was also charged in connection to the Ulta theft, Michael Fabian, had seemed to disappear after posting bail and did not have a previous criminal record. However, she could not confirm whether he was in ICE custody. The Tribune also could not independently confirm whether he was in ICE custody because it does not know Fabian’s country of origin.
The third defendant in the alleged Ulta theft, Milton Perico Ruiz, was not in jail custody as of Friday. Records show the jail did not transport him to court for his hearing on Wednesday because of medical reasons. Perico Ruiz was not yet assigned an attorney, and The Tribune could not confirm Perico Ruiz’s country of origin in order to confirm whether he was transferred to ICE custody.
Senate Bill 54, known as the California Values Act, prohibits local law enforcement from transferring inmates to ICE or detaining individuals at the request of ICE, but the law does have exceptions for individuals with qualifying prior convictions, current convictions or federal arrest warrants. Qualifying crimes include murder, sexual abuse, assault, unlawful possession of a firearm and other serious or violent felonies as classified under California’s Three Strikes Law.
Of the three defendants in the Ulta theft case, Parado Tirado is the only one with a previous qualifying conviction on his record: a first-degree burglary in Orange County in 2020.
Neither Fabian nor Perico Ruiz had a previous conviction, court records show.
Sheriff’s Office confirms inmate was not notified that ICE was coming for them
Sheriff’s spokesperson Grace Norris did not directly answer whether ICE was notified of the inmate’s release on bail, but she did say that the Sheriff’s Office provides release times to ICE when individuals have qualifying convictions. She also did not answer directly whether the Sheriff’s Office contacted ICE about all three individuals who were taken on Wednesday.
On Wednesday, when the three inmates were first taken into ICE custody, Norris said two individuals had ICE detainers “that met SB 54 requirements: one for prior qualifying charges and one for current charges” while the third had a federal warrant.
Then, at about 1:30 p.m. on Friday, Norris said only one of the three individuals had a qualifying conviction that allowed the Sheriff’s Office to notify ICE of their release.
Norris did not name Parado Tirado specifically, and she previously said she is not allowed to provide names or identifying information about inmates taken into federal custody.
She confirmed that the individual who had a qualifying conviction was not notified of the ICE request.
“The Sheriff’s Office is examining the time in which the ICE detainer was received, in correspondence to when the subject posted bail, as this may cause a delay in notification,” she said.
When asked to clarify the discrepancies between her Wednesday and Friday statements, Norris then said that neither of the two people taken by ICE from the jail lobby had charges that met the qualifications under California Law for the Sheriff’s Office to contact ICE.
One individual taken from the jail lobby had misdemeanor charges that did not qualify while the other was charged with felony grand theft, which would only qualify under California law if the person were to be convicted, Norris said. She added that both individuals did not have any prior convictions that would allow release to ICE. She did not state what misdemeanor charges the person was accused of.
The third person, who she previously said was taken on a federal warrant, had felony grand theft charges they were not yet convicted of, but they did have a previous felony conviction that met qualification for release to ICE. That person was turned over to ICE in a secured portion of the jail, she said.
When The Tribune asked Norris to clarify the differences between her Wednesday and Friday statements, she replied, “This concludes our responses regarding this matter. We don’t have any additional information to provide.”
This story was originally published October 28, 2025 at 10:00 AM.
