On June 17, the Vanguard reported that, despite all of the attention that Arizona’s immigration laws were receiving, in our own neighborhood, in fact, similar tactics are being used.
A lawsuit has moved forward that charges the unlawful collaboration between the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department and the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to unlawfully target, arrest, and detain Latinos in Sonoma County.
According to a release from the ACLU, the lawsuit charges that “the Sonoma Sheriff’s department and its officers have collaborated with ICE to stop and search people who appear to be Latino, interrogate them about their immigration status based on their perceived race, and detain them in the County jail without lawful authority. The Sheriff’s Department and ICE have failed to notify individuals who they have targeted of their rights under the law and the charges against them, among other violations of due process.”
However, ICE is now apparently acknowledging the problems with the policies that led to the suit and has taken steps to prevent their repeat.
Through an interim policy released to the ACLU of Northern California on August 11, 2010, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has weighed in on a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Northern California against the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department and the federal immigration agency concerning the County’s participation in immigration enforcement.
“We hope this guidance will help stem widespread abuse of local jail authority to improperly detain immigrants, including those who are not even charged with a crime,” said ACLU-NC attorney Julia Harumi Mass.
An interim policy handed down by ICE, it now specifies that “only immigration officers may issue detainers.” A detainer is a notice “that ICE issues to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to inform the LEA that ICE intendeds to assume custody of an individual in the LEA’s custody.” This is typically referred to as an “ICE-hold.”
Moreover, the policy specifies that “immigration officers shall issue detainers only after an LEA has exercised its independent authority to arrest the alien for a criminal violation.” And only when an arrest has occurred, the policy stipulates that they “shall not issue detainers for aliens who have been temporarily detained by the LEA (i.e. roadside or Terry stops).”
Obviously, what these procedures would prevent is the purported practice where the local law enforcement agency itself was detaining individuals for the purposes of having ICE evaluate their immigration status.
According to the ACLU’s suit, “Since at least 2005, the Sonoma County Sheriff has been working in conjunction with local ICE agents to target Latino residents of Sonoma County for immigration enforcement through traffic stops.”
Further more they allege, “Many residents were subjected to unreasonable searches and even arrested without criminal charges.”
“Ignoring constitutional and statutory limits on warrantless arrests, the Sheriff and local ICE agents used something called an immigration “detainer” or “hold” to place arrestees in the County jail for four days before transferring them to ICE custody for immigration proceedings,” they continue. “During these four days, arrestees were held without notice of the charges against them, and were denied procedural rights normally afforded to immigration detainees.”
Based on these practices, “A local organization, the Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, objected to the Sheriff’s improper use of immigration detainers. Immigration detainers—as the interim policy released Wednesday affirms—are intended to be used by ICE only to request notification when individuals who are in local, state, or federal custody on criminal charges have completed their sentences or are otherwise due to be released.”
“When the County failed to heed our call, we worked with the ACLU of Northern California to challenge this unfair, improper practice in court,” said Richard Coshnear, spokesperson for the Committee. “While it does not resolve all of our concerns, Director Morton’s interim guidance confirms that immigration detainers are merely a request to be informed when inmates are released—not arrest warrants in their own right. We’re looking forward to working with the County to implement this guidance locally.”
The Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, represented by the ACLU and Latham & Watkins LLP, in a pro bono capacity, sued in September 2008, challenging the practice as beyond the authority of both ICE and the Sheriff, and as being intertwined with racial profiling against Latino residents of Sonoma County. For nearly two years, the Sonoma County Sheriff and attorneys for ICE have fought to defend the practice of using immigration detainers to avoid limits on warrantless arrests and place immigration detainees in the Sonoma County Sheriff’s custody without any criminal charges.
“It’s a great victory for the Committee and the taxpayers of Sonoma County that ICE’s Director has stepped in to confirm that the practices we challenged in court are not authorized,” said Julia Harumi Mass, staff attorney for the ACLU of Northern California. “The joint operations of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department and the local ICE office went far beyond the use of detainers authorized by law. It is to the public good that ICE has set the record straight.”
However, this interim policy does not resolve the claims against Sonoma County.
According to the suit, for three years sheriff deputies and ICE agents have stopped and searched people who appear to be Latino, interrogated them about their immigration status, and detained them in the county jail without lawful authority.
The lawsuit charges that the actions by the local sheriff and ICE violated constitutional guarantees of due process, equal protection, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the Sheriff’s Department acted beyond its authority in enforcing federal immigration law.
The suit challenges four specific polices and practices:
* Sheriff’s deputies and ICE agents using race as a motivating factor for traffic stops and other detentions, in violation of constitutional and statutory guarantees of equal protection;
* Sheriff’s deputies and ICE agents stopping, interrogating, searching, and arresting persons without adequate justification;
* Sheriff’s deputies arresting and holding individuals in the County jail without any lawful basis for detention; and
* Denial of due process to people arrested on suspected immigration violations and improperly held in the custody of the Sheriff.
“Public safety and crime fighting suffer when we overburden local and state law enforcement agencies with federal immigration authority,” said Richard Coshnear of the Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, a group devoted to educating the public about immigrants’ legal rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. “Instead of making our communities safer, the Sheriff’s actions distract deputies from their crime-fighting duties, create a climate of fear, and decrease the willingness of residents to report crimes.”
Federal law requires such protections for people arrested on immigration violations without a warrant.
In part the complaint charges, “On October 5, 2007, at a meeting with representatives of Plaintiff Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Defendant Sheriff Cogbill and other members of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, with counsel, confirmed that Defendant Sheriff’s Department had regularly engaged in joint patrols with ICE for the previous three years, had arrested individuals based on suspected immigration violations without a criminal basis for arrest outside the presence of ICE agents, and has adopted the policy and practice of holding individuals in the Sonoma County jail based on suspected civil immigration violations, and without any criminal basis for arrest, at the request of ICE agents.”
According to the Judge’s ruling from June that allowed the suit to go forward, “the basic allegation is that the County has admitted to ongoing and regular participation in the joint patrols with ICE that give rise to the arrests plaintiffs contend are unlawful for other reasons as well.”
The suit contends, “For at least the past four years, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department — under the direction of Sheriff Bill Cogbill — has been working with ICE and its officers to enforce civil immigration law against Latino persons in Sonoma County, in excess of local authority. This collaboration takes place in the field in two ways: (1) by Sheriff’s deputies participating in joint patrols with ICE agents that specifically target Latino residents of Sonoma County, and (2) by Sheriff’s deputies identifying and arresting persons suspected of being unauthorized noncitizens outside the presence of ICE officers, but with the agency’s approval.”
According to the suit, Sheriff Cogbill has created an multi-agency gang enforcement team known as MAGNET. “MAGNET’s purported primary goal is stop gang-related violence and associated criminal activity. However, MAGNET’s participants… do not limit their enforcement activities to such criminal activity.”
Instead the suit alleges that they target Latinos in Sonoma County who are not engaged in criminal activity. MAGNET patrols “areas of Sonoma County that have high Latino populations and target young Latino males or young males who appear to be Latino for traffic stops, often without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or traffic infraction. After stopping such individuals, Defendants interrogate and search them, even where there is no reasonable suspicion that such individuals are engaged in criminal activity or present a threat to safety.”
According to the suit, “Defendants have adopted the policy, practice and custom of relying on the impermissible factors of race, color and/or ethnicity to stop, detain, question and/or search persons who are or appear to be Latino and to prolong their initial stops to probe into their immigration status without reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime or are noncitizens without lawful immigration status.”
After these stops, the suit continues to allege that individuals are placed in the Sonoma County jail without criminal charges or actual criminal basis simply because they are suspected of violating civil immigration laws. Moreover, the Sheriff’s Department has taken to conduct this policy without the presence or even knowledge of ICE agents. Again, “These racially-motivated stops are frequently unsupported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the person or persons stopped have violated any criminal law.”
Furthermore, even where such stops may be supported by initial reasonable suspicion, they have “have adopted the policy, practice and custom of prolonging the initial stop to interrogate individuals about their immigration status and conducting searches of their persons and vehicles despite having neither any criminal basis to prolong the detention nor any investigatory or safety justification for the searches.”
Changes to the ICE policy will certainly clarify the role that LEAs can play in immigration stops and hopefully prevent continued abuse by local agencies such as the Sonoma County Sheriffs Department. However, the law suit certainly will proceed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The ACLU filed this lawsuit at least 6 months ago, long before Arizona had written its new law, let alone passed it through its legislature.
From the March 2, 2010 Press-Democrat: [quote] … a U.S. district judge today will hold a hearing in Oakland on a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Northern California that accuses the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office of acting beyond its authority to target, arrest and detain Latinos. The suit says the Sheriff’s Office routinely holds Latinos longer than the maximum 72 hours for immigration holds. [/quote] It seems to me the real test with enforcing immigration laws and determining who is and who is not violating those laws is an equal protection standard. That is, use the same procedure, ask the same questions, regardless of the race, ethnicity or appearance of the suspect.
From your reporting of the story–all from the ACLU’s side–it would seem they are discriminating.
Yet that does not jive with the program Sonoma County and ICE put in place earlier this year ([url]http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100302/NEWS/100309896[/url]). [quote]Sonoma County this week will become the first in the Bay Area in which anyone booked into the county jail automatically will have their immigration status checked.[/quote] That does say “anyone Latino.” It says anyone.
It is one thing to say the Sheriff is violating the federal law by holding someone more than 72 hours. It’s another to say that the Sheriff is only holding Latinos more than 72 hours, while processing all non-Latinos within the time allotted by federal law. [quote] Under the program announced Tuesday by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the fingerprints of those arrested will be electronically sent to the Department of Homeland Security for comparison with more than 100 million fingerprint records. Those with immigration records will be flagged for review by ICE agents.[/quote] How is that targetting Latinos? [quote] ICE and Sonoma County sheriff’s officials described the new program as an added tool to get repeat immigrant offenders off the street and out of the country. …
The new program will increase the number of people flagged to immigration authorities, although officials don’t yet know by how much, he said. [/quote] The program in Sonoma County is also being run in Sacramento County and quite a few other counties in California. It’s been in place with ICE for a few years. [quote] Since its start in late 2008, the program has identified more than 16,000 immigrants in 16 states charged with felonies, such as murder, rape and kidnapping, ICE reported. Of those, 3,400 were deported.
Ten California counties now participate in the program: Sacramento, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Diego, Imperial, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Solano, San Joaquin and Stanislaus. ICE officials expect the program to be used nationwide by 2013. …
The program puts undue pressure on sheriff’s offices, which must house people on immigration holds, said Arturo Venegas, who retired as Sacramento police chief in 2003 and now runs the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, a group aimed at adding a law enforcement perspective to the immigration debate. …
ICE officers must pick up an inmate detained on an immigration hold within 72 hours of an arrest, said Linda Savoy, Sonoma County’s assistant sheriff in charge of the jails. The county is only reimbursed for immigration holds if the inmate stays more than four days and is convicted of a crime, said Dennis Jaques, a Sheriff’s Office administrative services officer. [/quote] My guess is that the problem here is on the federal end. They likely cannot determine every inmate’s immigration status in less than 72 hours.
well what do you want David? They are here illegally, and while they are here, they are breaking the law…I know you want freedoms for crimininals to commit crimes, but we are a nation of laws.
I’m sick and tired of mexicans who break the law and then turn around and cry “discrimination” when they get caught.
They are like the right wing republican corporate mafia..
they want the rights to break laws and the rights to never be held accountable for their actions.
of course it would make sense though, that right wing corporate america and illegal immigrants think the same way..
the corporations hire illegal immigrants to increase the bottom line, and to also break environmental laws.
this is why farmers hire illegal immigrants.
first they get the illegals to work for cheap, then they get them to dump agricultural waste into our water ways.
i’ve seen illegal immigrants who work for Aereola’s landscaping, dump landscaping waste into the drains over here in davis.
frontier fertilizer which was behind the polluting of davis’ ground water also probably hired illegal immigrants to dump the waste into our water.
and it’s not like the workers are being forced to illegally dump the chemicals.
look at mexico and the rio grande, mexico city…the water is so bad there, it’s not even funny.
seriously, mexican cowboys and american cowboys are one in the same thing…just different races and languages, but the same thing. they don’t care about the environment, human dignity, animal rights, or the rule of law.
they care about doing whatever the hell they want and getting away with it.
and you DAVID are supporting them..in the name of ‘discrimination” or human rights..
you are being manipulated David.
wake up…it’s probably going to take you getting abused by a criminal to finallly wake up and recognize that standing up for the rights of criminals is like spitting in the face of the victims of crime.
I don;t even know why they are bothering with this waste of money and time…
if they want to find out where the illegal immigrants are, just go on down to you local welfare office..
do you know how many programs there are for undocumented immigrants?
they get welfare, food stamps, medical..housing, and education.
in addition to getting free cash money from the state, they get to work under the table for white and mexican farmers…
so i say, go after the farmers and go after the welfare fraud. and whatever you do, don’t deport them…they’ll just jump the fence again.
lock em up for a few years or atleast refuse the right to give them all this free benefits…
we can’t afford it.
we can’t even take care of ourselves..
the social services system is completely overburdened…everything from food stamps to health care, to child care, and education is being so diluted because we’re giving it away to everyone else.
in our desperate rush to help everyone else, americans are being left with losing out on their hard earned benefits..
right now there’s a commission trying to cut social security for seniors..
that same commission has members on it that WANTS illegal immigration for the “growth” factor..
Bill GROSS AND NEEL KASHKARI OF PIMCO —California’s pension plan (1.3 trillion dollars pension fund) –
these guys came on fox news and had the nerve to demand for more illegal immigration so that they can add more money to PIMCO..and in the same sentence called for cutting social security.
YOU PPL HAVE GOT TO OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!! LOOK WHO’S DOMINATING THE DISCOURSE. THE REPUBS DON’T CARE ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ANY MORE THAN THEY CARE ABOUT A LIVING WAGE.THEY’RE USING THE ISSUE OFILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AS A WEDGE ISSUE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT AMERICANS ARE ALL TOO AWARE OF THE DIRE SITUATION WE WILL FACE IF WE DON’T DEAL WILL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
BOTTOM LINE.
BILL GROSS OF PIMCO AND OTHER FORMER BUSHISTS CALL FOR MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION TO FEED THEIR GEEDY CALIFORNIA STATE PENSION BONUSES…
THEN THEY TURN AROUND AND CALL FOR CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY.
WOW….
SO YOU AMERICANS ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY CALL FOR CUTS TO YOUR OWN SOCIAL SERVICES JUST SO THE RICH CAN GET RICHER AND YOU CAN TRY AND PROVE THAT YOU’RE NOT RACIST????
IF WE GIVE AMNESTY TO ALL THE ILLEGALS WE’D HAVE TO GIVE THEM UNEMPLOYMENT AND OTHER BENEFITS THAT THEY DON’T QUALIFY FOR.. CAN WE REALLY AFFORD TO BE SO BENEVOLENT? AND IS IT FAIR TO SELL OUT THE ALREADY DESPERATE AND NEEDY AMERICANS, TO A COUPLE OF GREEDY REPUBLICAN PENSION FUND MANAGERS????????
WAKE UP PPL….OPEN YOUR EYES…WHO’S REALLY DOMINATING THE DISCOURSE HERE?
IF REPUBLICANS REALLY WANTED TO GET RID OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SO A LONG TIME AGO.
THEY JUST WANT MORE MONEY FOR THEIR STATE BUDGETS WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY EXTRA TAXES…
[quote]well what do you want David? They are here illegally, and while they are here, they are breaking the law…I know you want freedoms for crimininals to commit crimes, but we are a nation of laws. [/quote]
The people suing are people here legally who were arrested without cause and held for ICE.
[i]”The people suing are people here legally who were arrested without cause and held for ICE.”[/i]
That’s not what your story above says. The suit was brought by the ACLU of Northern California two years ago*. It was not brought by anyone who was arrested.
While it is the claim made by the ACLU that Latinos have been “arrested without cause,” I have yet to see any evidence of that. (I don’t know what you have seen. I think you should keep an open mind on this question.)
The Sonoma County Sheriff has said that no one has been arrested without cause**. The Sheriff said that everyone held in custody was brought in on other verifiable offenses, from traffic violations to serious felonies. An inquiry is then made on every inmate, white, black, yellow or brown, to determine his legal status. For those who don’t have a valid California ID, their fingerprints are sent to ICE and ICE informs Sonoma if the person is here legally.
It seems likely that ICE is not, for whatever reason, processing these inquiries within 72 hours. The result is that those who had no valid California ID are being held beyond that deadline. So the ACLU may have a valid case on that question. But to suggest that the Sonoma County Sheriff is driving around and rounding up Latinos willy-nilly–as you have done in this piece and with your comment–is probably a baseless charge. I believe it is made just to arouse resentment among Latinos who are here legally.
*There is some astro-turf group called the Committee for Immigrant Rights. It appears to be ACLU people who are trying to make it look like they have a larger support base. The CIR never existed before this lawsuit was brought, AFAICT. I am shocked that, given your hatred of astro-turfing, you have not knocked the ACLU for using this phony tactic.
**If someone who is a legal resident was actually “arrested” without cause, the ACLU would have produced this person and paraded him in public. AFAIK, the ACLU has produced no such individuals to back up this claim.