She Had A Restraining Order — He Had An AirTag.

police officers stand behind caution tape at a park scene
Photo: ezellhphotography / Shutterstock

A Sacramento woman spent eight months reporting the man who was following her, and on September 8 he shot her outside a Panera Bread.

Story Snapshot

  • Shalini Thakur, 38, was killed in Sacramento on September 8 after months of documented stalking.
  • She obtained a restraining order in May. The harassment continued into July.
  • Her stalker had entered the country illegally in August 2023 and was released after a border arrest.
  • Homeland Security said on September 11 that the killing was avoidable.

Eight Months Of Warnings

The stalking started in January. Rohit Rohit placed an AirTag under Shalini Thakur’s car so he could track where she went. He deflated her tires. He got hold of a key to her apartment and let himself in while she was asleep. In May she went to court and obtained a restraining order against him. The harassment did not stop. It carried on into July.

On September 8 he found her near a Panera Bread on Howe Avenue in Sacramento and shot her several times, including a fatal shot to the head. When police moved in on him, he shot and killed himself. Thakur was 38 years old. Every step of the pattern that ended in her death had been reported to somebody, in writing, months before it happened.

How He Came To Be Here

Rohit was an Indian national who crossed the border illegally from Mexico into Arizona in August 2023. Border Patrol arrested him at the time. He was then released into the country rather than held or removed. That release is the fact both sides of this argument are now fighting over.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement on September 11. A department spokesperson said the killing “would have been completely avoided if it weren’t for the Biden Administration RELEASING this killer into our country.” The department also faulted California officials, arguing that a state which limits cooperation with federal immigration agents left no path to take him into custody even after a judge had ordered him to stay away.

What California’s Rules Actually Do

California limits how far local police and jails can go in helping federal immigration enforcement. Under state law, local agencies generally cannot hold someone past the end of their local case just so federal agents can collect them, and they cannot share certain information, unless a judge has signed a warrant. Supporters say that rule exists because courts have found jails can be sued for holding people on a federal request alone.

Critics say the rule creates a gap. A restraining order is a civil court order, not a criminal conviction, and it does not by itself put someone in a jail cell where federal agents could take custody. So a person can be under a court order to stay away from someone, be actively violating it, and still never reach the point in the process where immigration status gets acted on. That is the gap Homeland Security is pointing at in this case.

The Argument Both Sides Are Having

People who want broader cooperation say cases like this one are the whole argument. The warning signs were documented for eight months. A tracking device, a stolen key, a court order, repeated violations. They ask why none of that was enough to trigger action by anyone, at any level of government.

People who defend the current rules say that sweeping cooperation pulls in large numbers of people who pose no danger, and makes immigrant crime victims and witnesses afraid to call police at all, which leaves everyone less safe. They argue the failure here was not immigration policy but the ordinary, familiar failure of a stalking case that nobody escalated.

The Question That Outlasts The Politics

Both explanations can be true at once, and that is the uncomfortable part. A stalking victim with a restraining order is one of the most clearly identified people in danger that any system encounters. She was not an anonymous risk. She had a name, a case number, and a documented pattern going back to January.

Whatever happens to the immigration argument, the practical question for any city is narrower and harder. When a stalking case escalates through tracking devices and unauthorized entry into a home, who is supposed to act, and what are they actually empowered to do? In Sacramento this month, the answer turned out to be nobody, and not much.

Sources:

pjmedia.com, californiaglobe.com

Latest United Voice News

© 2026 United Voice. All Rights Reserved.