immigration detainer report · 2019-12-31 · immigration detainers undermine public safety and...
TRANSCRIPT
Restoring TrustHow Immigration Detainers In Maryland Undermine Public Safety Through Unnecessary Enforcement
Issue Brief
American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland
MAIN OFFICE: 3600 Clipper Mill RoadSuite 350Baltimore, MD 21211
FIELD OFFICE:6930 Carroll AvenueSuite 610Takoma Park, MD 20912
Learn more and get involved: http://www.aclu-md.org/issues/immigrants_rights
This report has been a project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland.The report was researched and authored by ACLU of Maryland Immigrants’Rights Attorney and Arthur Liman Public Interest Fellow Sirine Shebaya. ACLU of Maryland staff Sara Love, Meredith Curtis, Toni Holness, and Peter Cimbolic as well as ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project staff Kate Desormeau provided invaluable review and feedback. Meredith Curtis created the layout.
Special thanks goes to ACLU of Maryland interns Alexandria Kim and AnnieStallman for their many hours of work on the data entry and analysis that wasso integral to the production of this report.
The report is dedicated to the hundreds of thousands of aspiring citizens whohave faced indescribable obstacles to live and work in the United States and whohave needlessly been detained, criminalized, deported, separated from theirfamilies, and treated without compassion or justice by a broken and inhumaneimmigration enforcement system.
Cover photo shows a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent arresting an immigrant (Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/).
Restoring TrustHow Immigration Detainers In Maryland Undermine Public Safety Through Unnecessary Enforcement
November 2013
4 Executive Summary
6 Background: Overzealous Enforcement of a Broken Immigration System
8 A Way Forward: How Local Jurisdictions Can Take Control of Their Entanglement With Immigration Enforcement
12 What the Numbers Show: Immigration Detainers Are Used Mostly Against Individuals Charged with Traffic Violations and Minor Offenses
15 Spotlight on Maryland: A Deeper Look at Local Immigration Detainer Practices
18 Costs: The Social, Public Safety, and Financial Costs of Immigration Detainers
20 Conclusion
21 Endnotes
27 Appendix I: Form I-247
30 Appendix II: Maryland Attorney General October 31 Letter of Advice to Senator Victor Ramirez Re: Immigration Detainers
36 Appendix III: County fact sheets
49 Appendix IV: Law enforcement speak out in support of limited detainer policies
50 Appendix V: ICE admissions that immigration detainers are voluntary
Table of Contents
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
3
Amid record numbers of deportations and a climate of stepped-up immigration enforcement thatreaches deep into the heart of Maryland communities, local law enforcement officials are unwittinglybeing transformed into proxy immigration enforcers through their responses to immigration detainerrequests. Immigration detainers shift the burden of immigration enforcement activities from the fed-eral government to local law enforcement agencies. This imposes substantial costs on those agenciesand undermines the trust the Maryland communities they serve have in them.
Immigration detainers, often referred to as “ICE holds” or “immigration holds,” are notices sent fromU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to local law enforcement agencies. Their purpose isto request that the local law enforcement agency continue to hold the person named in the detainerfor up to 48 hours (exclusive of weekends and holidays) past the date they are eligible for release onstate grounds. Immigration detainers are issued by a single administrative ICE officer, without anydue process or review, and often for no better reason than that ICE wishes to investigate whether theperson has committed a civil immigration violation. The local law enforcement agency is then askedto incur the expense of holding the person named in the detainer until ICE comes to pick him or herup, potentially adding someone who may only ever have been picked up for a traffic violation to therecord number of deportations that break apart families all over the United States.
However, more and more jurisdictions are refusing to act as surrogates in the current deportationfrenzy. Recently, the Maryland Attorney General joined a number of other state and county attorneys inrecognizing that complying with immigration detainers is discretionary. Maryland should join otherstates in deciding that complying with these requests is an inefficient use of our limited law enforce-ment resources and results only in destroying our communities.
Immigration detainers are not public safety tools. Their sole purpose is to further federal civil immi-gration enforcement efforts. Both in Maryland and nationwide, most immigration detainers are lodgedagainst individuals with no criminal record. In Maryland, most are lodged against individuals chargedonly with traffic violations or with misdemeanors. Only a very small percentage are lodged against in-dividuals with serious or felony charges. The effect of this is simply to prolong the detention of individ-uals who would otherwise have been released—not to enhance public safety or local policing effortsin any way.
Much confusion about the legal status of immigration detainers pervades state and local authorities’understanding of their obligation to respond to immigration detainers. As several state and county at-torneys, including the Maryland Attorney General, have now concluded, immigration detainers arepurely discretionary, and the federal government does not have the authority to mandate compliancewith such requests. Immigration detainers are not criminal warrants; they are not civil administrativewarrants; and they are not and bear almost no resemblance to criminal detainers. Immigration de-tainers are merely requests initiated at the sole discretion of a single administrative officer and withno review by a neutral magistrate or even by a supervising officer. Because of this, detention on thesole basis of an immigration detainer raises serious constitutional concerns under the Fourth and theFourteenth Amendments.
Immigration detainers also impose significant financial costs on state and local jurisdictions, whichdo not get reimbursed for the cost of responding to these requests. Every jurisdiction that has con-
Executive Summary
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
4
ducted a fiscal impact study has found the net result to be a significant strain on local budgets.
Immigration detainers undermine public safety and community trust in police by turning them intoimmigration enforcers; and they often catch victims and witnesses of crimes in their net. They also re-inforce perceptions of racial profiling. Both in Maryland and nationwide, they are used overwhelminglyagainst individuals of Latin American origin. In large part as a result of such disproportionate target-ing, studies have found a resulting fear and unwillingness among Latinos to report crimes or to other-wise cooperate with local law enforcement.
As a result, several states, counties, and cities, including most recently the State of California, haveenacted policies or laws that eliminate or strictly narrow the parameters of their responsiveness toimmigration detainers. Law enforcement officials around the country have spoken out in favor ofthese efforts, including former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano,who publicly stated that she supports legislation in California that will limit state and local collabora-tion with the very federal agency she herself once headed.
Because of the negative impacts of immigration detainers on public safety, victims of crime, and localbudgets, Maryland should take control of its own policies and procedures with regard to federal immi-gration enforcement. By declining to comply without scrutiny with every immigration detainer requestthat comes through the door, Maryland would eliminate a major source of fear within the Latino andimmigrant communities and would join the growing number of jurisdictions around the country thatare taking similar steps.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
5
Over the past few years, deportations from the United States have hit record highs. As of December2012, President Obama had deported 1.5 million individuals, reaching an unprecedented 409,849 de-portations in the 2012 fiscal year (up from 396,906 in the 2011 fiscal year).1 The number of immigrantsin detention has also grown exponentially: it now approaches half a million individuals annually andmore than 34,000 on any given day.2 Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including asylum seekers,victims of trafficking, families with small children, and the mentally disabled are routinely detained formonths or even years in connection with their civil immigration proceedings, even when their releasefrom detention would pose no danger or flight risk and even when they have a strong chance of pre-vailing in their civil immigration proceedings.3
In this climate of stepped-up enforcement, tens of thousands of working families have been caught inthe fray. Those deported include individuals who have been living and working peacefully in the UnitedStates, sometimes for years, and who come into contact with law enforcement through traffic stops orother routine matters—or even worse, as victims of domestic violence or other crimes.4 They includeparents with U.S. citizen children who have long-standing ties to the United States and no criminalrecords; veterans of the U.S. military with old, minor, or post-traumatic stress disorder related crimi-nal records;5 and unaccompanied children or mentally disabled individuals who appear in immigra-tion court without access to legal counsel. Even U.S. citizens have wrongfully been deported,6 as havelawful permanent residents who have known no home other than the United States since they werechildren, and many others who have valid claims to remaining in the U.S. but lack the expertise to nav-igate an unwieldy, complicated, and broken immigration system.
The Secure Communities program (S-Comm), a federal biometrics program launched in 2008 and op-erationalized in all Maryland jurisdictions by April 2011,7 has been a key tool in this enforcement effortthat has caught so many in its web. S-Comm has expanded the reach of immigration enforcementdeep into local communities in unprecedented ways. When an individual is fingerprinted at a local lawenforcement agency, the agency usually uploads the fingerprints to be checked against FBI criminaldatabases. Under S-Comm, those fingerprints are then automatically sent on to the Department ofHomeland Security (DHS), where they are checked against various databases that provide informationabout immigration status.
As a result of this program, even the most routine encounter with local law enforcement can become adirect pipeline into deportation proceedings. S-Comm is currently active in every jurisdiction in Mary-land and in most of the United States. Even localities that initially attempted to opt out of the program— for example, New York State8 — were forced back in when the federal government made “interop-erability” between FBI and DHS databases automatic, thereby effectively making the program manda-tory for any law enforcement agency that wishes to check fingerprints against FBI criminal databases.
Meanwhile, federal comprehensive immigration reform efforts, while still ongoing, are slow in coming,leaving states to bear the full brunt of a broken immigration system that cuts into the heart of commu-nities so integral to their social, economic, and cultural fabric. Responding to this pressure, more andmore states have begun to take action to mitigate the problems the federal immigration system hascreated. Over the past two years, numerous states have passed laws providing in-state tuition forDREAM-ers—undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children;9 expanding access to
Background: Overzealous Enforcement of a Broken Immigration System
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
6
driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants;10 and, most recently, strictly narrowing the parame-ters under which local law enforcement participate in federal immigration enforcement efforts.11
While Maryland now has an in-state tuition law and a driver’s license law that is set to take effect inJanuary 2014, we have yet to take any real action to disentangle state and local law enforcement agen-cies from immigration enforcement efforts. This lack of clear separation has detrimental effects onpublic safety. As the Major Cities Chiefs Association has stated, “[w]ithout assurances that contact withthe police would not result in purely civil immigration enforcement action, the hard won trust, commu-nication and cooperation from the immigrant community . . . disappear[s]. Such a divide between thelocal police and immigrant groups . . . result[s] in increased crimes against immigrants and in thebroader community, creating a class of silent victims and eliminat[ing] the potential for assistancefrom immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.”12 This effect is exacerbated bythe fact that, as the data presented in this report will show, the overwhelming majority of immigrationdetainers in Maryland (and nationwide) are lodged against individuals charged only with traffic viola-tions or minor offenses, with only a very small percentage lodged against individuals charged withfelonies or serious offenses.
Figure 1: How the Secure Communities Program WorksCredit: Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus and Center for Popular Democracy
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
7
Despite S-Comm, state and local jurisdictions have a clear avenue for taking control of whether andunder what circumstances they wish to be pulled into immigration enforcement efforts: since ICE doesnot reimburse localities for the costs of responding to these requests, the federal government lacksthe authority to mandate that state and local law enforcement agencies continue to respond to them.The most common way local law enforcement have — sometimes unwittingly — become proxy immi-gration enforcers is through their responses to ICE immigration detainer requests.
What Is an Immigration Detainer?
Immigration detainers or Form I-247, often referred to as “ICE holds” or “immigration holds,” are no-tices sent from ICE to local law enforcement agencies. Their purpose is to request that the local lawenforcement agency continue to hold the person named in the detainer for up to 48 hours (exclusive ofweekends and holidays) past the date he/she is eligible for release on state grounds. Eligibility for re-lease on state grounds can happen because an individual has posted bond, has been acquitted, hashad charges dismissed, or has otherwise received a final disposition or resolution of his or her statecharges. Thus, the most basic effect of an immigration detainer is to prolong the detention of individu-als in state or local custody past the time when they should otherwise be released.
This request for additional detention is made solely by ICE agents themselves, without any kind of re-view by a neutral magistrate, most often without so much as an underlying administrative warrant,and even when no immigration charges are pending, simply because ICE wants additional time to in-vestigate the person’s immigration status. It is worth stressing, as will be discussed more fully in thisreport, how astonishing and unique the looseness of this request is when compared to standard lawenforcement tools such as warrants and criminal detainers.
An immigration detainer is not a public safety tool. It is purely a means for ICE to take hold of individu-als who may be of interest to them in their civil immigration enforcement efforts. Immigration detain-ers do not substitute for state bail hearings, which are the proper avenue for determining whether anindividual poses a flight risk or a safety threat and whether he/she should be released or detained. In-deed, most immigration detainers, nationwide and in Maryland, are lodged against individuals with nocriminal record; and in Maryland, most are lodged against individuals with traffic charges only.14
An immigration detainer may be issued against an individual at any point during the criminal justiceprocess, from initial arrest to final resolution. ICE can issue an immigration detainer request duringthe initial police stop or arrest; at the point of booking into jail after an arrest; while the arrestee is injail (both before and after the bail hearing); at bail or custody hearings; anytime during the course ofthe arrestee’s state criminal proceedings; and during the post-conviction stage.
A Way Forward: How Local Jurisdictions Can Take Control of Their Entanglement With Immigration Enforcement
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
8
Figure 2: When An Immigration Detainer May Be IssuedCredit: Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus and Center for Popular Democracy
One damaging side effect is to unnecessarily prolong the pretrial detention of individuals with themost minor offenses who pose no safety threat or flight risk and who ordinarily would have been re-leased on minimal bond.15 This flies in the face of Maryland’s commitment to, in the recent words ofthe state’s Court of Appeals, “avoid whenever possible the pre-trial detention of accused persons.”16
And, again, immigration detainers do not — and cannot—substitute for state court determinations offlight risk or dangerousness in bond hearings.17 Instead, they merely prolong the detention of indi-viduals who for the most part should not be detained without any due process and for the sole pur-pose of aiding federal immigration enforcement efforts.
To better understand the anomalous nature of immigration detainer requests, consider how theycompare with three other familiar law enforcement tools with which they are sometimes confused:criminal warrants; administrative warrants; and criminal detainers.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
9
An immigration detainer is not a criminal warrant.
An immigration detainer differs from a criminal warrant in many ways. First, a criminal warrant mayonly be issued by a court. While ICE, just like any other law enforcement agency, can put in a warrantapplication to a court that results in the issuance of a criminal warrant, as an administrative agency, itcannot issue a criminal warrant on its own authority. Second, a criminal warrant of arrest must besupported by probable cause that the person named in the warrant has committed a crime and mustbe issued by a neutral magistrate. By contrast, immigration detainers issue at the sole discretion of asingle administrative official working for ICE, the law enforcement agency. They are not reviewed by ajudge or neutral magistrate, and there is no clear standard of proof or probable cause that governstheir issuance. For this reason, immigration detainers raise serious constitutional concerns under theFourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
An immigration detainer is not a civil administrative ICE warrant.
An immigration detainer is also not an administrative ICE warrant (Form I-200). An ICE warrant issuesagainst individuals who are suspected of civil immigration violations. While administrative ICE war-rants also lack the significant procedural and substantive safeguards applied to criminal warrants andcriminal detainers, they at least indicate that the person in question is facing civil immigrationcharges. Immigration detainers are frequently not based on an underlying immigration warrant anddo not even have the force of an ICE administrative warrant.18
An immigration detainer is not a criminal detainer.
Finally, an immigration detainer is not, and does not have the same legal force as, a criminal detainer.Criminal detainers do not call for additional detention time, and they are based on pending charges forwhich a trial will be held. Criminal detainers are also subject to extensive procedural safeguards, usu-ally including approval by a judge. By contrast, immigration detainers call for additional detentionwithout due process or an opportunity for a prompt hearing to contest the detention. As previouslynoted, they involve no meaningful substantive safeguards or procedural review.
For all these reasons, immigration detainers raise significant constitutional concerns under theFourth and Fourteenth Amendments that are not at issue for criminal warrants and criminal detain-ers, and that differ in substance and context from the constitutional concerns that arise with respect toadministrative ICE warrants.19 Indeed, the Major Cities Chiefs Association concluded long ago that“civil detainers do not fall within the clear criminal enforcement authority of local police agencies andin fact lay[] a trap for unwary officers who believe them to be valid criminal warrants or detainers.”20
Immigration detainers are discretionary
Immigration detainers are requests, not orders. Local jurisdictions have the discretion to determinehow, if at all, they wish to respond to them. As an initial matter, the revised immigration detainer formitself states, more than once, that immigration detainers are requests.21 Second, the regulation underwhich these forms are issued also states that immigration detainers are requests.22 Third, ICE offi-cials have stated, repeatedly and in a variety of contexts, that compliance with these requests is notmandatory.23 In recent litigation, ICE formally stated in a brief it submitted to the court that “ICE de-tainers issued pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 are voluntary requests” and that “[i]t does not conscriptstate or local law enforcement to take any action or administer any program.”24 Indeed, if immigrationdetainers were not discretionary, they would violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the Supreme
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
10
Court’s ruling in Printz v. United States,25 the federal government does not have the authority to com-mandeer state and local resources for its own purposes.26 Thus, the federal government does nothave the authority to mandate compliance with immigration detainers.
In fact, the Maryland Attorney General recently issued a letter of advice stating exactly that—that im-migration detainers are discretionary. This opinion is consistent with that of other state and county at-torneys across the country, including the California Attorney General and the Illinois Attorney General,who have concluded for similar reasons that immigration detainers are discretionary.27
Yet despite the fact that compliance with detainers is discretionary, most jurisdictions in Marylandtreat immigration detainers as though they were mandatory, and local law enforcement agencies ex-pend limited resources by responding to every immigration detainer request sent to their agencies.Indeed, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, some counties have explicitly taken the position thatsuch requests are mandatory. For example, in correspondence with the ACLU of Maryland, the CountyAttorney for Montgomery County stated that immigration detainers are “lawfully binding” requests andthat county officials are obligated to enforce them.28 This contradicts ICE’s own repeated statementsand would, if true, entail that immigration detainers violate the Tenth Amendment by commandeeringstate and local resources.
In effect, immigration detainers shift the burden of immigration enforcement activities from the fed-eral government to local law enforcement agencies. ICE does not assume responsibility or liability forinmates held by local facilities.29 This has led to significant indirect costs for jurisdictions that detainindividuals on the sole basis of an immigration detainer.30 ICE also does not reimburse for the director indirect costs of responding to immigration detainers.31
From this overview, the negative impacts of local compliance with immigration detainer requestsshould be clear. Immigration detainers are not public safety tools. They are purely civil immigrationenforcement tools and are issued indiscriminately and without due process or oversight. By entan-gling local law enforcement in immigration enforcement, they undermine public safety and commu-nity trust in local police and contribute to a culture of fear and suspicion. By shifting all the liability andall or most of the direct and indirect costs of additional time in detention to local jurisdictions, they im-pose significant financial costs. Thus, responding to immigration detainers comes at social, economic,and public safety costs to state and local jurisdictions.
Responding to these problems, a number of states, cities, and counties, including California, the Dis-trict of Columbia, Connecticut, New Orleans, LA, Newark, NJ, New York City, NY, and ChampaignCounty, IL have enacted laws or policies eliminating or strictly limiting their entanglement with ICE de-tainers.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
11
A number of myths pervade perceptions about immigration enforcement and recent ICE policies, in-cluding: that ICE is now targeting and deporting mostly criminals; that the subjects of immigration de-tainers are always undocumented or out-of-status individuals; that immigration enforcement has nonegative effects on U.S. citizens; and that immigration enforcement efforts are not based on race ornational or ethnic origin. Yet the numbers tell a very different story.
Most ICE detainers target non-criminals and minor offenders
While it is assumed that recent changes in ICE policy have resulted in more high-level criminals beingtargeted, the most recent national data shows otherwise. According to data gathered and analyzed bythe Syracuse Transactional Records Clearinghouse, six months after the new guidelines were issuedin December 2012,32 less than 11 percent of detainers were lodged against individuals who pose athreat to public safety or to national security. Only 38 percent were listed as having any criminal con-viction at all, including minor traffic violations. Indeed, if traffic offenses and marijuana possession arediscounted from that total, only 26 percent of individuals against whom detainers issued had criminalconvictions.33 For nearly half the individuals against whom detainers were lodged (47.7 percent), ICElisted no record of criminal convictions, not even for a traffic violation.34
This continues a long trend of enforcement that targets individuals without a criminal record or withonly low-level offenses. During a 50-month period from 2008 to 2012, more than two out of three de-tainers issued by ICE—over 77 percent—were against individuals who had no criminal record eitherat the time the detainer issued or subsequently. Of those who had a criminal record, only 8.6 percentwere classified as Level 1 (the category of offenses ICE considers most serious).35
These numbers are replicated throughout the immigration system, not just at the point of issuance ofimmigration detainers. Only 14 percent of recent immigration court filings over the past year werebased on any kind of criminal offense.36 Moreover, many of these were old offenses: almost half (49percent) of the most serious offenses occurred more than five years ago; about a quarter (23 percent)occurred more than 10 years ago; and a significant number occurred as long as 20 or 40 years ago.37
According to ICE’s own data, between October 27, 2008 and May 31, 2013, only 29 percent of deportedindividuals were convicted of Level 1 offenses; 49 percent of Level 2 and 3 offenses; and 22 percenthad no criminal conviction whatsoever.38
In Maryland, the rates are even starker: of 1475 deportations during that period, only 350 (24 percent)were for Level 1 offenses; 484 (33 percent) were for Level 2 or 3 offenses, which include traffic viola-tions and possession of marijuana; and fully 641 (43 percent) were individuals with no criminal of-fenses whatsoever.
What the Numbers Show: Immigration Detainers Are Used Mostly Against Individuals Charged with Traffic Violations and Minor Offenses
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
12
Figure 3: Deportations in MarylandChart created based on TRAC data
Immigration detainers are lodged against U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents
There is a common misperception that immigration detainers are lodged only against undocumentedindividuals. In reality, an immigration detainer does not mean that a person is not lawfully present inthe country. Indeed, over the same 50-month period covered in the TRAC data, ICE lodged at least 834detainers against U.S. citizens, 724 (almost 87 percent) of whom had no criminal convictions. At leastseven of those individuals, none with criminal convictions, were from Maryland, with at least 3 fromPrince George’s County. The real numbers are likely higher, since fully 263 of the U.S. citizens held onimmigration detainers were from unspecified locations,39 and data the ACLU of Maryland collected lo-cally shows at least 6 individuals from Puerto Rico who were mistakenly held on an immigration de-tainer.
Nationwide, 28,489 immigration detainers were lodged against lawful permanent residents, nearlythree quarters (20,281) of whom had no criminal convictions. At least 108 of those were from Mary-land, with only 21 (19.4 percent) recorded as being convicted of any crime.40
It is important to note that U.S. citizens are never properly the subjects of immigration detainers, andare never deportable, whether or not they are convicted of any crimes. Lawful permanent residentsare deportable only for very specific crimes and often have substantial defenses against deportation,none of which are taken into account in the issuance of immigration detainers. Thus, by respondingto immigration detainers, local jurisdictions are often wasting their resources and possibly exposingthemselves to liability for unlawful detention when they indiscriminately rely on immigration detainerrequests as sufficient legal grounds for continued detention.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
13
Immigration enforcement negatively affects U.S. citizens
According to a recent study by the Berkeley Warren Institute, more than one-third (39 percent) of indi-viduals arrested through Secure Communities report having a U.S. citizen spouse or child. This trans-lates to about 88,000 families with US citizens nationwide who are impacted by immigrationenforcement actions.41
Immigration enforcement disproportionately targets Latinos
The burden of overzealous immigration enforcement unquestionably falls most heavily on Latino andHispanic communities. The Warren Institute report concluded that 93 percent of those detainedthrough S-Comm are Latino, even though Latinos account only for about 77 percent of the total undoc-umented population in the US.42
The Maryland data, which will be laid out more fully in the next section, shows a similar trend of lop-sided enforcement against individuals of Latin American origin.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
14
In an effort to better understand how immigration detainers are used in Maryland, the ACLU of Mary-land sent a public records request to all state and local detention centers or departments of correc-tions seeking detailed information about detainer practices in each jurisdiction. Based on theresponses we received and our analysis of the data,43 we were able to draw some important conclu-sions about detainer practices in Maryland, at least for those counties that responded to our request.44
For those counties that did not respond to our request or supplied insufficient information, we supple-mented the data through information obtained in a nationwide ACLU Freedom of Information Act re-quest to ICE, from which we were able to isolate some data, at least about overall numbers andcountries of origin, for several counties in Maryland.45
From this data, we were able to draw three important conclusions about detainer practices in Mary-land:46 1) that they are lodged mostly against individuals with only traffic offenses; 2) that they arelodged mostly against individuals of Latin American origin; and 3) that most jurisdictions do not havespecific policies for dealing with immigration detainers but instead automatically respond to every re-quest that comes through their door.
Immigration detainers are lodged mostly for traffic offenses
First, immigration detainers in Maryland are used mostly against individuals with traffic violations ormisdemeanor charges, and only rarely against individuals with serious or felony charges. Note thatsince the data reflects only charges, not convictions, the results would likely be even starker with re-spect to the targeting of only minor offenders or persons with no criminal record once acquittals anddismissals are factored in. These results were true both overall and for each county for which we hadgood available information. The graphs below represent the totals for Anne Arundel County, BaltimoreCounty, Charles County, Frederick County, Kent County, St. Mary’s County, Talbot County, and Washing-ton County. Individual fact sheets for each of those counties are included in the Appendix to this report.
Spotlight on Maryland: A Deeper Look at Local Immigration Detainer Practices
Figure 4: Maryland immigration detainers by offense category
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
15
Immigration detainers are used overwhelmingly against people of Latin American origin
While the specific breakdown of the undocumented population in Maryland is unavailable, the overallproportion of foreign-born persons from Latin American countries in Maryland is approximately 37percent.47 Yet, enforcement patterns against individuals from Latin American countries are consis-tently in the 85 percent range. The “Maryland PIA” graphs represent totals from the Maryland PublicInformation Act request.48 The “Maryland FOIA” graphs represent totals from all Maryland countiesexcept Allegany, Carroll, Dorchester, and Washington.
Figures 5-7: Maryland immigration detainers by region of origin
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
16
Law enforcement in Maryland automatically respond to virtually every immigration detainer request
Almost no county in Maryland has policies specific to immigration detainer requests. Only one countyin Maryland, Talbot County, has its own limiting policy and does not respond to immigration detainerrequests against individuals with civil traffic violations. Neither any other county nor the State ofMaryland has any kind of policy limiting responsiveness to immigration detainer requests. Indeed,most jurisdictions do not even have written policies for procedures relating to immigration detainerrequests. By and large, neither the State of Maryland nor the counties distinguish between warrantsand immigration detainers, and most counties do not even keep records about their practices with re-spect to immigration detainer requests.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
17
Local law enforcement entanglement with immigration enforcement harms victims of crime. This isbest illustrated by stories of victims who call law enforcement for help and instead find themselves indeportation proceedings.
This is exactly what happened to Maria Bolanos Hernandez.49 One Christmas Eve a few years ago,she had a heated argument with the father of her two-year-old daughter. The argument turned vio-lent, and she called the police for help. To this day, she regrets having made that call. The PrinceGeorge’s County Police officers who responded to her call chose to later charge her with illegally sell-ing a $10 phone card—an allegation that was unsubstantiated and that the police later dropped. In themeantime, however, they had already run her fingerprints through the system. Because of S-Comm,her fingerprints were transferred automatically to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who sentan immigration detainer request to Prince George’s County Police, who detained her then turned herover to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to face immigration proceedings.
The only contact Ms. Bolanos had ever had with local law enforcement was the one phone call shemade to try to escape a domestic violence situation. Instead of helping her, police charged her with anunrelated minor offense, which was sufficient to route her into immigration proceedings.
Domestic violence victims, in fact, are a group particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of localentanglement with immigration enforcement efforts. Victims of domestic violence can get caught upwhen, as with Ms. Bolanos, police file unrelated charges against them. They can also get caught upwhen police arrive and arrest everyone on the scene.50 Sometimes, their assaulters file cross-charges against them after they complain to the police. Finally, domestic violence survivors often re-port not wanting to call the police because, while they would like their assaulter to be removed fromtheir presence, they do not wish to see him deported, for various complicated reasons sometimeshaving to do with their ability to generate sufficient income to support children they may have had withtheir abusers.
The public safety impacts of stories like this are significant. A recent study found that Latinos, bothnative-born and immigrants, often fear contacting the police, even when they are victims of crime,and are unwilling to cooperate with criminal investigations because of fears about racial profiling andimmigration consequences for themselves or their family members.51 Law enforcement officials alsoacknowledge these public safety effects, and a number of them have spoken out in favor of state andlocal measures that stop or significantly limit responses to immigration detainer requests or have en-acted such policies on their own.52
Significantly, former Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently endorsed the Cali-fornia TRUST Act, which will limit local collaboration with the federal agency she herself onceheaded.53 As previously noted, the Major Cities Chiefs Association has also long taken a positionagainst state and local enforcement of immigration laws.
In California, three of San Diego County’s top law enforcement officers also endorsed these limita-tions: San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne; Chula Vista Police Chief David Bejarano, and Na-tional City Police Chief Manuel Rodriguez. Each of them released a letter in support of Californialegislation limiting local responsiveness to immigration detainers.54
Costs: The Social, Public Safety, and Financial Costs of Immigration Detainers
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
18
In addition to these social and public safety costs, immigration detainers also impose financial costson state and local jurisdictions—costs that the federal government does not reimburse. In every local-ity where a study has been conducted, the finding has been that holding individuals on an immigrationdetainer imposes a significant financial burden on local agencies. As previously noted, the presenceof an immigration detainer has generally been found to result on average in doubling the amount oftime an individual spends in state or local detention, partly because of indirect effects such as the de-nial of bond or failure to post bond for fear of being transferred to ICE. In addition, because ICE doesnot assume any liability for individuals held in local custody based solely on an immigration detainerrequest, several counties have incurred costs defending and settling lawsuits. While the ACLU ofMaryland has not yet been able to obtain sufficient information to conduct a full estimate of the fiscalimpact of immigration detainers on Maryland’s state and local jurisdictions, there is every reason toexpect that those costs are significant.
Under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), some limited reimbursement may beavailable to local jurisdictions, but only for a fraction of the total cost and only if the person is undocu-mented, has been convicted of a felony or of multiple misdemeanors, and has spent more than fourdays in state or local detention. Most individuals held on an immigration detainer in Maryland do notmeet these criteria. In addition, SCAAP reimbursement only takes account of the costs for correc-tional officers, the number of “eligible” undocumented individuals and the number of days in deten-tion, and only reimburses for a fraction—usually well under 25 percent—of the total costs. Thus,SCAAP reimbursement does not cover the total costs of this additional detention and does not affectthe conclusion that responding to immigration detainers is a costly undertaking and a strain on localbudgets.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
19
Every day in Maryland, local resources are being wasted on immigration enforcement efforts. Locallaw enforcement are dragged into those efforts through ICE immigration detainer requests. Both inMaryland and nationwide, those requests are lodged mostly against individuals charged with trafficviolations or misdemeanors and do not serve any discernible local law enforcement public safetyfunction.
But state and local authorities can take back control of their entanglement in this broken system. Be-cause immigration detainer requests are discretionary, state and local jurisdictions can set their ownparameters for how they wish to respond to these requests. Those parameters should include safe-guards that address the significant due process and other constitutional concerns raised by immigra-tion detainers; safeguards that restore and help build community trust in law enforcement and thewillingness of local community members to seek help from and collaborate with police; and safe-guards that ensure that local jurisdictions are fully reimbursed for any expenses they incur in theprocess of responding to immigration detainer requests.
More and more states and local jurisdictions are acting to take control of their own policies and prac-tices with respect to immigration detainers. It is time for Maryland to do the same.
Conclusion
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
20
1 See ICE Total Removals, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/ero-removals1.pdf; ICE Re-moval Statistics (FY 2012), https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/. 2 See Nick Miroff, Controversial quota drives immigration detention boom, Washington Post, October13, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/controversial-quota-drives-immigration-detention-boom/2013/10/13/09bb689e-214c-11e3-ad1a-1a919f2ed890_story.html; Gretchen Gavett, Map: The U.S.Immigration Detention Boom, PBS Frontline, October 18, 2011, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front-line/race-multicultural/lost-in-detention/map-the-u-s-immigration-detention-boom/. 3 See Amnesty International, Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA (September2008), http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf; National Immigration Forum, TheMath of Immigration Detention (August 2013),http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/mathofimmigrationdetention.pdf. 4 See, e.g., Lee Romney & Paloma Esquivel, Noncriminals Swept Up in Federal Deportation Program,LA Times, April 25, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/25/local/la-me-secure-communities-20110425; Stephen Magnanini, Mexican couple’s deportation leaves behind two small children in Lodi,Sacramento Bee, November 2, 2010, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/02/103001/mexican-cou-ples-deportation-leaves.html. 5 See, e.g., Griselda Nevarez, Deported U.S. Veterans Want to Return Home, Many Find Safe HavenNear Mexican Border, Huffington Post, April 26, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/de-ported-veterans-want-to-return-home_n_3165406.html; Kevin Sullivan, Deported veterans: Banishedfor committing crimes after serving in the U.S. military, Washington Post, August 12, 2013, http://arti-cles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-12/politics/41333669_1_u-s-marine-u-s-citizens-immigration; Im-migrant Justice Network, Howard Dean Bailey,http://immigrantjusticenetwork.org/read-the-stories/infographic-howards-story/. 6 See, e.g., William Finnegan, The Deportation Machine, The New Yorker, April 29, 2013,http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/29/130429fa_fact_finnegan; Julia Preston, ImmigrationCrackdown Also Snares Americans, NY Times, December 13, 2011,http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/measures-to-capture-illegal-aliens-nab-citizens.html?page-wanted=all.7 See ICE, Activated Jursdictions, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/sc-activated.pdf.8 NYCLU Applauds Gov. Cuomo for Suspending Federal Deportation Program in New York State, June1, 2011, http://www.nyclu.org/news/nyclu-applauds-gov-cuomo-suspending-federal-deportation-program-new-york-state.9 To date, Texas, California, Utah, New York, Washington, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Wis-consin, Maryland, Connecticut, and Rhode Island provide in-state tuition to certain undocumented im-migrants brought to the U.S. as children.10 To date, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico,Nevada, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Utah, Vermont, and Washington State have enacted laws providing ac-cess to driver’s licenses for certain undocumented immigrants.11 To date, at least 18 jurisdictions have enacted policies or laws stopping or strictly restricting the cir-cumstances under which local law enforcement will respond to immigration detainers, including Cali-fornia, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New York City, NY, New Orleans, LA, and ChampaignCounty, IL. A number of other state and local jurisdictions are currently considering enacting suchmeasures.
Endnotes
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
21
12 Major Cities Chiefs Immigration Committee Recommendations For Enforcement of ImmigrationLaws By Local Police Agencies, Adopted by: Major Cities Chiefs Association, June 2006,http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/mcc_position.pdf, p. 6.13 ICE has stated that it “does not reimburse localities for detaining any individual until ICE has as-sumed actual custody of the individual.” Letter from David Venturella, Assistant Director of Immigra-tion and Customs Enforcement, to Mr. Miguel Marquez, County Counsel, County of Santa Clara, CA,http://media.sjbeez.org/files/2011/10/4-ICE-response-to-SCC.pdf. Thus, local jurisdictions pay thecost of holding people at ICE’s request. Every local jurisdiction that has conducted a fiscal impactstudy has found that holding individuals on immigration detainers imposes substantial costs. For ex-ample, a 2012 study found that Los Angeles County taxpayers spend over $26 million per year on ICEdetainers. See Judith A. Greene, The Cost of Responding to Immigration Detainers in California (Au-gust 2012), http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Justicestrategies.pdf.14 See below for nationwide and Maryland data to this effect.15 For example, responses to an ACLU of Maryland public records request under the Maryland PublicInformation Act revealed numerous instances of individuals spending a month or more, in somecases up to 4 or 5 months, in jail for very minor offenses such as traffic violations, making a falsestatement to a peace officer, and other very minor charges that would ordinarily not have resulted intime in detention. Similar effects have been found in other jurisdictions, where the presence of an im-migration detainer has generally been found to result on average in doubling the amount of time aperson would typically spend in detention. See, e.g., Andrea Guttin, The Criminal Alien Program: Im-migration Enforcement in Travis County, Texas, Immigration Policy Center (Feb. 2010); Aarti Shahani,New York City Enforcement of Immigration Detainers, Preliminary Findings, Justice Strategies (Oct.2010), http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/JusticeStrategies-DrugDeportations-Pre-limFindings_0.pdf; and Judith A. Greene, The Cost of Responding to Immigration Detainers in Califor-nia, Justice Strategies (Aug. 2012). 16 Big Louie Bail Bonds LLC v. State of Maryland, Md. C. A. No. 31, Sept. 2013 (argued Dec. 4, 2012; filedOct. 23, 2013) at *19.17 In this connection, ICE itself has stated that it does not view immigration detainers as relevant tobond determinations: “It is not ICE’s position that the existence of an immigration detainer shouldhave any particular consequence for bail or bond.” ICE Briefing Video, How to Respond to an Immigra-tion Detainer, available at http://www.ice.gov/news/galleries/videos/immigration_detainers_ad.htm(at 5:20).18 While ICE warrants problematically appear in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) data-base despite the fact that they merely indicate civil and not criminal charges, immigration detainersdo not appear in NCIC. 19 The Fourth Circuit recently held, in Orellana Santos v Frederick County, 725 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013),that local law enforcement do not have the authority to stop, arrest, or detain an individual basedsolely on a civil immigration warrant against that individual unless they have specifically been depu-tized to do so by federal authorities. The Santos court noted that the Supreme Court “has said thatlocal officers generally lack authority to arrest individuals suspected of civil immigration violations.”Id. at 464, citing Arizona v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2505 (2012). Neither the Fourth Circuit nor theSupreme Court have yet ruled on the constitutionality of detention based solely on immigration de-tainer requests. However, in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court emphasized that “[d]etainingindividuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.” 132 S.Ct.2492, 2509 (2012). Yet that is precisely what ICE asks local agencies to do when it issues an immigra-tion detainer. With respect to the constitutionality of immigration detainers, the key issues are thatthey result in detention in the absence of due process and probable cause.20 Major Cities Chiefs Immigration Committee Recommendations For Enforcement of ImmigrationLaws By Local Police Agencies, Adopted by: Major Cities Chiefs Association, June 2006,
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
22
http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/mcc_position.pdf, p. 8.21 See Appendix I, Form I-247 (immigration detainer request).22 See 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a) and § 287.7(d).23 For example, ICE has stated in internal documents that [a detainer] is a request. There is no penaltyif [local agencies] don’t comply.” http://altopolimigra.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ICE-FOIA-2674.017695.pdf. See also Appendix V, ICE admissions that immigration detainers are requests.24 Def. Mem. In Support of Mtn for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt # 107, Jimenez v. Morales,No. 11-CV-05452 (N.D. Il.) at 8-9. See also Def’s Resp. to Pl’s First Set of Requests For Admissions,Dkt. # , Jimenez v. Morales: “Request No. 16: Admit that ICE has no legal authority to require state orlocal law enforcement to detain an individual during the 48-hour detention period. Response to Re-quest No. 16: Defendants admit that ICE detainers . . . do not impose a requirement upon state or locallaw enforcement agencies.” 25 521 U.S. 898, 925-35 (1997).26 Note that in its brief cited in n.24, above, ICE itself acknowledged this point by arguing that detainersdo not violate the Tenth Amendment because they are voluntary. 27 See Appendix II, Letter of Advice from the Maryland Attorney General, Office of Counsel to the Gen-eral Assembly to the Honorable Victor R. Ramirez, State Senator, October 31, 2013.28 “For over twenty years, it has been the view of the Managing Officials of the Montgomery County De-partment of Correction (which view has been supported by legal counsel) that 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 requiresDOCR to maintain custody of inmates regarding whom DOCR receives INS detainers for a period of 48hours (pending the arrival of ICE agents), if the individual is not otherwise committed to custody. . . .The language of the ICE detainer, which is based upon the language of the federal regulation, consti-tutes a lawfully binding request that the County Department of Correction hold/detain the affected per-sons in custody.” Letter from David Stevenson, Assistant County Attorney for Montgomery County toSirine Shebaya, ACLU of Maryland, June 24, 2013 (on file with author). 29 See Letter from David Venturella, Assistant Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, toMr. Miguel Marquez, County Counsel, County of Santa Clara, CA,http://media.sjbeez.org/files/2011/10/4-ICE-response-to-SCC.pdf (stating that ICE does not reimbursefor the cost of detaining individuals and that ICE does not indemnify localities against liability).30 See, e.g., Quezada v. Mink, No. 10-879 (D. Colo.) (filed April 21, 2010) ($50,000 settlement); Harvey v.City of New York, No. 07-0343 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed June 12, 2009) ($145,000 settlement).31 For more on the costs of immigration detainers, see the final section of this report.32 See John Morton, December 21, 2012 Memorandum re: Civil Immigration Enforcement: Guidance onthe Use of Detainers, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/detainer-policy.pdf.33 Syracuse Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (hereinafter “TRAC”), “New ICE DetainerGuidelines Have Little Impact,” http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/333/.34 TRAC, “Few ICE Detainers Target Serious Criminals.” http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/330/. 35 TRAC, “Who Are the Targets of ICE Detainers?” http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/310/.36 TRAC, “Fewer Immigration Removal Filings Based on Criminal Activity,” http://trac.syr.edu/what-snew/email.131015.html.37 TRAC, “Few ICE Detainers Target Serious Criminals,” http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/330/.38 ICE, Secure Communities Monthly Statistics through May 31, 2013,http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/sc-stats/nationwide_interop_stats-fy2013-to-date.pdf.39 TRAC, “ICE Detainers Placed on U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents.”http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/311/.40 TRAC, “ICE Detainers Placed on U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents.”http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/311/.41 Berkeley Warren Institute Report, “Secure Communities by the Numbers”, http://www.law.berke-ley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
23
42 Berkeley Warren Institute Report, “Secure Communities by the Numbers”, http://www.law.berke-ley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf. 43 A note on methodology: Data provided in response to the ACLU of Maryland’s April 15, 2013 requestfor information on immigration detainer practices in Maryland under the Maryland Public InformationAct (PIA data) was analyzed in the following manner: raw data was entered into a spreadsheet, dupli-cates were eliminated, offenses were categorized by felony, misdemeanor, traffic, immigration, or un-clear/no charge; and countries of origin were grouped into regions. The data was verified throughdouble-entry and comparison. For the FOIA data reflected in some of the region of origin graphs,Maryland data was isolated from a national spreadsheet provided by ICE to the ACLU’s ImmigrantsRights Project. Because ICE included only the name of the detention facility and not the state in whichit was located, we did not include counties for which it was not possible to determine to a reasonabledegree of certainty that the detention facility was in Maryland (Allegany, Carroll, Dorchester, andWashington).44 We received thorough, helpful, and for the most part prompt responses from Anne Arundel County,Baltimore County, Charles County, Frederick County, Kent County, St. Mary’s County, Talbot County, andWashington County. Prince George’s County Detention Center and the Pretrial Division of the MarylandDepartment of Public Safety and Correctional Services, which runs the Baltimore City detention facili-ties, informed us that they do not have records available other than a snapshot of individuals currentlyin detention who had immigration detainers lodged against them. While they provided us with that in-formation and, in the case of Prince George’s County, with supplemental information we sought aboutdata on that list, the sample size in both cases was unfortunately too insignificant to allow us to drawany meaningful conclusions about detainer practices over time in those counties. Garrett County in-formed us via letter that they have not had experience with immigration detainers in the recent past.The remainder of the counties unfortunately—and unlawfully—either denied us the information wesought or wished to charge us exorbitant fees in order to provide it. Inexplicably, several of thosecounties asserted that the request for information did not qualify for a waiver of fees because the in-formation sought would not contribute to the public interest. We hope that this report will help dispeltheir confusion on that point. Montgomery County very surprisingly refused to provide us with any in-formation at all even though the records we sought are clearly public records covered by the MPIA.Part of their reasoning for the denial rested on confusion between immigration detainees held in ICEcustody or pursuant to a contractual agreement with ICE on the one hand, and individuals in local cus-tody but against whom an immigration detainer request had been lodged, held by and at the discre-tion of the local facility, on the other. By and large, one important takeaway from our experience withthis records request has been that most detention and correctional facilities across the State of Mary-land need to be more transparent and need to do a better job of keeping records relating to immigra-tion detainers, given the unique nature of this detention, the questions surrounding the legal basis forit, and the significant direct and indirect costs incurred as a result. 45 The FOIA data itself was incomplete in a number of important respects. For one thing, it provided noinformation about the substance of the charges and instead only indicated whether they were Level 1,2, or 3, which made it impossible to parse out the felonies from the misdemeanors from the traffic of-fenses. Second, the recordkeeping about levels of offenses was woefully incomplete, with only asmall fraction of the entries including even the level of the offense. Finally, because the FOIA data in-explicably failed to include the location of the named detention facility, in some cases it was not possi-bly to conclude to a reasonable certainty that the numbers we were looking at represented Marylandnumbers. For this reason, our information about Maryland totals usually represent only the countiesfor which we received complete responses to our MPIA request. The country of origin FOIA graphsrepresent totals not including Allegany, Carroll, Dorchester, and Washington counties. Note that theACLU of Maryland sent a separate FOIA request to ICE on April 15, 2013 (received on April 17, 2013)requesting Maryland-specific information. For reasons that remain mysterious, we never received an
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
24
acknowledgment or response to our request.46 Except for graphs based on FOIA data, aggregated data is based on results from the counties thatresponded to our PIA requests. However, we have every expectation, based on information from com-munity organizations, immigration lawyers and public defenders as well as patterns we have ob-served over time, that those conclusions would be confirmed and possibly even exacerbated by anyadditional data from the counties that failed to provide it. The more expansive FOIA data reinforcesthis conclusion.47 Department of Legislative Services 2011, International Immigration to Maryland: Demographic Pro-file of the State’s Immigrant Community at 6 (data source: US census bureau 2006-2008).48 “South or Central America” includes Mexico. “North America” includes only Canada.49 Shankar Vedantam, Call for help leads to possible deportation for Hyattsville mother, WashingtonPost, November 1, 2010, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti-cle/2010/11/01/AR2010110103073.html.50 This is what happened to Maria Perez-Rivera, who was arrested along with her boyfriend after a do-mestic violence call and was deported to Mexico, leaving two small U.S. citizen children behind,Stephen Magnanini, Sacramento Bee, November 2, 2010, available athttp://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/02/103001/mexican-couples-deportation-leaves.html; and toElena Cabrera, who was arrested along with her partner and turned over to ICE, Edward Sifuentes,North Country Times, October 19, 2011, http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/19/exclusive-es-condido-woman-turned-over-to/. 51 Nik Theodore, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration En-forcement, University of Illinois at Chicago (May 2013), http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci/docu-ments/1213/Insecure_Communities_Report_FINAL.pdf. 52 See Appendix IV, quotes from law enforcement in support of limited detainer policies.53 See Larry Gordon, UC student leaders meet with new system president Napolitano, LA Times, Octo-ber 1, 2013, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-napolitano-students-20131001,0,286409.story#axzz2jt6Ox6LY; and Elise Foley, Janet Napolitano Endorses Trust Act To LimitU.S. Agency She Headed, Huffington Post, October 2, 2013,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/janet-napolitano-trust-act_n_4032806.html. 54 See ACLU of San Diego, Three San Diego County Police Chiefs Back TRUST Act to Limit Deporta-tions, August 20, 2013, http://www.aclusandiego.org/breaking-news/three-san-diego-county-police-chiefs-back-trust-act-to-limit-deportations/.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
25
Appendix I: Form I-247
Appendix II: Maryland Attorney General October 31 Letter of Advice to Senator Victor Ramirez Re: Immigration Detainers
Appendix III: County fact sheets
Appendix IV: Law enforcement speak out in support of limited detainer policies
Appendix V: ICE admissions that immigration detainers are voluntary
Appendices
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
26
DHS Form I-247 (12/12) Page 1 of
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IMMIGRATION DETAINER - NOTICE OF ACTION
Subject ID: Event #:
File No: Date:
TO: (Name and Title of Institution - OR Any Subsequent Law Enforcement Agency)
FROM: (Department of Homeland Security Office Address)
MAINTAIN CUSTODY OF ALIEN FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 48 HOURS
Name of Alien: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Date of Birth: _________________________ Nationality: __________________________________ Sex: ____________ THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ACTION RELATED TO THE PERSON IDENTIFIED ABOVE, CURRENTLY IN YOUR CUSTODY:
Determined that there is reason to believe the individual is an alien subject to removal from the United States. The individual (checkall that apply):
has a prior a felony conviction or has been charged with a felony offense;
has been convicted of illegal entry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1325;
has three or more prior misdemeanor convictions; has a prior misdemeanor conviction or has been charged with a misdemeanor for an offense that involves violence, threats, or assaults; sexual abuse or exploitation; driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance; unlawful flight from the scene of an accident; the unlawful possession or use of a firearm or other deadly weapon, the distribution or trafficking of a controlled substance; or other significant threat to public safety;
has illegally re-entered the country after a previous removal or return;
has been found by an immigration officer or an immigration judge to have knowingly committed immigration fraud;
otherwise poses a significant risk to national security, border security, or public safety; and/or
other (specify): __________________________________.
Initiated removal proceedings and served a Notice to Appear or other charging document. A copy of the charging document is attached and was served on ______________________ (date).
Served a warrant of arrest for removal proceedings. A copy of the warrant is attached and was served on _________________ (date).
Obtained an order of deportation or removal from the United States for this person. This action does not limit your discretion to make decisions related to this person's custody classification, work, quarter assignments, or other matters. DHS discourages dismissing criminal charges based on the existence of a detainer.IT IS REQUESTED THAT YOU:
Maintain custody of the subject for a period NOT TO EXCEED 48 HOURS, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, beyond the time when the subject would have otherwise been released from your custody to allow DHS to take custody of the subject. Thisrequest derives from federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 287.7. For purposes of this immigration detainer, you are not authorized to hold the subject beyond these 48 hours. As early as possible prior to the time you otherwise would release the subject, please notify DHS by calling________________during business hours or_______________after hours or in an emergency. If you cannot reach a DHS Official at these numbers, please contact the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center in Burlington, Vermont at: (802) 872-6020.Provide a copy to the subject of this detainer.
Notify this office of the time of release at least 30 days prior to release or as far in advance as possible.
Notify this office in the event of the inmate's death, hospitalization or transfer to another institution.
Consider this request for a detainer operative only upon the subject's conviction.
Cancel the detainer previously placed by this Office on ____________________ (date).
(Name and title of Immigration Officer) (Signature of Immigration Officer)
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY CURRENTLY HOLDING THE SUBJECT OF THIS NOTICE:Please provide the information below, sign, and return to DHS using the envelope enclosed for your convenience or by faxing a copy to . You should maintain a copy for your own records so you may track the case and not hold the subject beyond the 48-hour period.
Local Booking/Inmate #: ___________ Latest criminal charge/conviction: ________ (date) Estimated release: __________(date)
Last criminal charge/conviction: _____________________________________________________________________________ Notice: Once in our custody, the subject of this detainer may be removed from the United States. If the individual may be the victim of a crime, or if you want this individual to remain in the United States for prosecution or other law enforcement purposes, including acting as a witness, please notify the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center at (802) 872-6020.
(Name and title of Officer) (Signature of Officer)
t ID: Subjec
IGRATION IMMDEPARTME
DETAINER - NOTICE IGRATION HOMELAND SECURITYT OF NDEPARTME
File No
ACTIONOF DETAINER - NOTICE HOMELAND SECURITY
Date of Birth: ____n: _____Name of Alie
encAgEnforcement of Title and (Name TO:
Event #: t ID: Subjec
_______________________________________n: ___________ Nationalit
_______________________n: _____
Y OF ALIEN FODSTOUCIN AMAINTMAINTA
)yencLabsequent SuyAnOR- ion utInstit
____________________________________________y: __________ Nationalit
__________________________
OT TO EXCENA PERIOD R Y OF ALIEN FO
(Department FROM:w La
S
Informatio
n Only
R
Informatio
n Only___ Sex: ___
Informatio
n Only____
Informatio
n Only____
Informatio
n Only________
Informatio
n Only______________________________________________________
OUD 48 HEOT TO EXCE
Office ySecuritland eHomof (Department
Date:: File No
Informatio
n Only
____
Informatio
n Only____
Informatio
n Only________
Informatio
n Only___
Informatio
n Only____
Informatio
n Only_______
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only___ Sex: ___
Informatio
n Only_
Informatio
n Only_
Informatio
n Only_____
Informatio
n Only_______
Informatio
n Only
Address)
Informatio
n Only
Date of Birth: ________
):plyall that apat there is reased thDetermin
NED IONSRE PETHPARTMETHE U.S. DE
____Date of Birth: ____
offense;y felon has a prior a
tnoc ar olohocl affob alauxe s;stluassa
r for an offense tonamisdememisdeme has a prior
has three or more prior mis
______ Nationalit_____________________________
wful
the indeievon to belat there is reasTLY INECURRABOVE, DTIFIECURIAND SENT OF HOMELPARTME
___ Nationalit__________________
chargeneeon or has bicti convy
flight from the fulwaance; unltsbu sdellortdn ugnivri d;noitatiolpx er oesube, threatsolenclves vihat invor for an offense t
n chargs beea or hnr convictioonamisdemeictions; vnanor codeme has three or more prior mis
ge to hav
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Onlyremoval from the United St to ecubjien salan ual is vidi
:YODTSCUURO YNTLY IN TH TAKEHAS)Y (DHSTTY (DHSCURI
________________________y: _______y: ____________ Nationalit
y felonth aiwd charge
flight from the ecneulfn ieh tred
or ,e, threatsth a iwed n charg
ictions; 5; 132
has been c
or return;gal has ille
judn found b has bee
other
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
ates.
Informatio
n Onlyt
Informatio
n Onlyremoval from the United S
Informatio
n OnlyACTION RE
Informatio
n Only___ Sex: ___
Informatio
n Onlyu
Informatio
n Only purs
Informatio
n Onlyy
Informatio
n Onlyentr
Informatio
n Onlynvicted of il
Informatio
n Only
after a previ
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
ed the
Informatio
n Only
re-enter
Informatio
n Only
e kno
Informatio
n Only
ge to hav
Informatio
n Only
n officer or an immi
Informatio
n Only
gratio
Informatio
n Only
immi
Informatio
n OnlyT
Informatio
n OnlyG
Informatio
n OnlyN
Informatio
n OnlyE FOLLOWI
Informatio
n OnlyN TH
Informatio
n Only___
Informatio
n Only______ Sex: ___
Informatio
n Only____
Informatio
n Only_______
Informatio
n Only____
Informatio
n Only________
Informatio
n Only___
Informatio
n Only_______
Informatio
n Only____
Informatio
n Only_______
Informatio
n Onlyl
Informatio
n Onlya
Informatio
n Onlyleg
Informatio
n Onlyo
Informatio
n Only has been c
Informatio
n Only
or return;
Informatio
n Only
countr
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
gal
Informatio
n Only
itted immigra
Informatio
n Only
m
Informatio
n Only
m
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
c
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
g
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
w
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
n found b
Informatio
n Only
ant risk to natio
Informatio
n Only
ific
Informatio
n Only
ses a sig
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
check
Informatio
n Onlyi
Informatio
n Onlyhe indiv
Informatio
n OnlyD TO
Informatio
n OnlyLATE
Informatio
n OnlyACTION RE
Informatio
n Only_
Informatio
n Only____
Informatio
n Only_____
Informatio
n Only___ Sex: ___
Informatio
n Only___ Sex: _______
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Onlya
Informatio
n Onlyu
Informatio
n Only (
Informatio
n Onlyal
Informatio
n Onlydu
Informatio
n OnlyT
Informatio
n Only____
Informatio
n Only________
Informatio
n Only§
Informatio
n Onlyt to 8 U.S.C.
Informatio
n Only
val ous remo after a previ
ion fraud;titted immigraon gratin officer or an immi
der , britnal sec
Informatio
n Only
tance; or other bsed sucontrollewy adlor other de
cident; the uacscene of an tnoc ar olohocl aff ao
REQUESTED IT ISehtth orr ots, oenmnassigttodoes ns actioniis actionhTTh
der of an ordObtaine
nt of rraawServed a s served oawand attached procl avoremInitiated
ficant threat to public safsignitance; or other n or trafficking of a stributioon, the diap
or use of a firearm nssioe posslufwlancident; the u flight from the fulwwfulaance; unltsbu sdellort
YOU:THAT es d
Informatio
n Only
agrraguscoiiscor matters. DHS dr matters. DHS diemake
Informatio
n Only
tonscretioiiscretio d dirr d limit youmorfl aon or removportatideder of
gs. A indel proceremovaarrest for nt of ______________________________________________ _ ____ns served o
tice oNa ed servand gs ineedproc
Informatio
n Only
,
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
securit
Informatio
n Only
se p
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
w
Informatio
n Only
other
Informatio
n Only
ch
Informatio
n Only
al
Informatio
n Only
crimin
Informatio
n Only
sin
Informatio
n Only
smis
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
ismis
Informatio
n Only
es d
Informatio
n Only
es di
Informatio
n Only
th
Informatio
n Only
to
Informatio
n Only
rela
Informatio
n Only
ecisi
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
p
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
f
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
St
Informatio
n Only
d
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
e Un
Informatio
n Only
nt is attached a
Informatio
n Only
rra
Informatio
n Only
the
Informatio
n Only
of
Informatio
n Only
cop
Informatio
n Only
at
Informatio
n Only
(d
Informatio
n Only
ng doc
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
other charg
Informatio
n Only
ear
Informatio
n Only
other (specif
Informatio
n Only
;
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
ficant threat to public saf
Informatio
n Only
n or trafficking of a
Informatio
n Only
or use of a firearm
Informatio
n Only
flight from the
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
es b
Informatio
n Only
arg
Informatio
n Only
g
Informatio
n Only
rso
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
p
Informatio
n Only
is
Informatio
n Only
ted
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
d
Informatio
n Only
h
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
h
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
w
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
gs. A
Informatio
n Only
e).
Informatio
n Only
_
Informatio
n Only
___
Informatio
n Only
____
Informatio
n Only
__
Informatio
n Only
_____
Informatio
n Only
or
Informatio
n Only
App
Informatio
n Only
to
Informatio
n Only
tice
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
or public safet
Informatio
n Only
ses a sig
Informatio
n Only
nt is attached a
Informatio
n Only
ume
Informatio
n Only
ng doc
Informatio
n Only
___
Informatio
n Only
other (specif
Informatio
n Only
; and/or yant risk to natioificn
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
se p
Informatio
n Only
a dfce oe existenthn odd oesaes b wo,nificatioclassyddystocus''snrso
.
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
________ __ ____nd orvees s
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
w
Informatio
n Only
d
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
ng dihargthe cof ycop
Informatio
n Only
t. A
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
___________________________________
Informatio
n Only
__________
Informatio
n Only
y): __
Informatio
n Only
y): _____
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
_______________________
______________________________
der ro, byritunal secant risk to natio
er.intaea darter qu, rkrk, wo
.)etad(_____________
ent is cumong d
. _________________
office in the ev
Informatio
n Only
office of
Informatio
n Only
of ydin custoMainta REQUESTED IT IS
this yNotif
this yNotif
the subject to ye a copProvidthese numDHS Official at_____gnilla cy bSHD
ondybet ubjecsthe from federal rsest derivereque suhen thwme e tith
Informatio
n Only
NOT TO EXCEED
Informatio
n Only
a period
Informatio
n Only
the inmate'
Informatio
n Only
ent of
Informatio
n Only
office in the ev
Informatio
n Only
e at
Informatio
n Only
releas
Informatio
n Only
the time of
Informatio
n Only
ner
Informatio
n Only
this detai
Informatio
n Only
of
Informatio
n Only
the subject
Informatio
n Only
t the ICE Law
Informatio
n Only
s, please contac
Informatio
n Only
hours or
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
b
Informatio
n Only
g
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
u
Informatio
n Only
__d
Informatio
n Only
rly as p
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
As
Informatio
n Only
.
Informatio
n Only
hours
Informatio
n Only
8 C.F
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
e be
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
w
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
he
Informatio
n Only
t for
Informatio
n Only
c
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
the subj
Informatio
n Only
of
Informatio
n Only
YOU:
Informatio
n Only
THAT
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
h, h
Informatio
n Only
deat
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
t 30 da
Informatio
n Only
as
Informatio
n Only
le
Informatio
n Only
office of
Informatio
n Only
.
Informatio
n Only
ber
Informatio
n Only
these num
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
u
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
_
Informatio
n Only
___d
Informatio
n Only
____
Informatio
n Only
_____
Informatio
n Only
____
Informatio
n Only
________
Informatio
n Only
_____
Informatio
n Only
_________
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
8
Informatio
n Only
e 4
Informatio
n Only
thes
Informatio
n Only
ond
Informatio
n Only
§
Informatio
n Only
R.
Informatio
n Only
.
Informatio
n Only
latio
Informatio
n Only
egu
Informatio
n Only
from federal r
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
ve
Informatio
n Only
d ha
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
ou
Informatio
n Only
w
Informatio
n Only
ect
Informatio
n Only
bj
Informatio
n Only
e su
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
HOURS
Informatio
n Only
48
Informatio
n Only
NOT TO EXCEED
Informatio
n Only
t the ICE Law
Informatio
n Only
le p
Informatio
n Only
ssib
Informatio
n Only
pur
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
F
Informatio
n Only
.
Informatio
n Only
7
Informatio
n Only
8
Informatio
n Only
2
Informatio
n Only
d fro
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
en rele
Informatio
n Only
e be
Informatio
n Only
udi, excl
Informatio
n Only
anothr to eation or transfzilspitaoh, h
in adva far se or areleas
Informatio
n Only
to
Informatio
n Only
ys prior
Informatio
n Only
t 30 da
Informatio
n Only
Enforcement Support Center
Informatio
n Only
hours or _after _____after _________
Informatio
n Only
_______
Informatio
n Only
_____
Informatio
n Only
___
Informatio
n Only
_____
Informatio
n Only
__
Informatio
n Only
_____
Informatio
n Only
hours or
Informatio
n Only
u otthe time yo
Informatio
n Only
ior to
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
rly as p
Informatio
n Only
mm ishi tff t osepos
Informatio
n Only
.
Informatio
n Only
7
Informatio
n Only
stody to curouym
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
d hols, anyads, Sunyrdaung Satudi
stitution. r ineanoth
e. bl as possiecnin adva
in Burlington, VermontEnforcement Support Center ou ca If y.ycneergin an emhours or ject, plee the subeasd relulowse iwher
atonerauoy,neraieton ditagrimfody custoke to taSHDwollastody to
yond ys, beaidd hol
(802) 872-6020. at: ot reach a nnou ca
y se notifaject, pledlo hotdezirohtusihTt. ceje sube subj thf
(Name Informatio
n Only
Cancel the detainer prevInformatio
n Only
equ
Informatio
n Only
der this r
Informatio
n Only
the informatioInformatio
n Only
eInformatio
n Only
dInformatio
n Only
e proviInformatio
n Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
anInformatio
n Only
Consi
Informatio
n Only
to Informatio
n Only
Pleas Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Inmate #: ___ng/ookiLocal B
the 48-hondyoect besubj Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
title Informatio
n Only
d Informatio
n Only
anInformatio
n Only
iouslyInformatio
n Only
Cancel the detainer prevInformatio
n Only
tainer o
Informatio
n Only
a de
Informatio
n Only
est for
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Officer)Immigration Informatio
n Only
of Informatio
n Only
Office is h t placed byInformatio
n Only
y uative onlper
ad mYou shoul. n, and return, sigInfo
rmation O
nly
wInformatio
n Only
oInformatio
n Only
belInformatio
n Only
nInformatio
n Only
the informatioInformatio
n Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT Informatio
n Only
est criminLatInmate #: ___
riod.ur pe the 48-hoInformatio
n Only
_______________________________________________on Office
ion.s convictect' the subjnopy u
cords so renwyour or o fypin a cointaaenclope velng the eS usinHD to n
NTLY HOLDI CURREAGENCYTO BE COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
/convictichargal est crimin
.)etad(_______
Officer)migration Imof(Signature
se and nthe ca track yayou mcords so or bence enivnyour coed for soencl
T OFCSUBJEG THE NNTLY HOLDI
Estimated rel
Officer)
d the t holose and nopyng a cfaxiyor b
THIS NOTICE:T OF
rm I-247 (12/12)oDHS F(Name
e notifeasltness, piwas a nt this indawuoycrime, or if
our custodnOnce itice: No/convictiel chargLast crimina
Inmate #: ___ng/ookiLocal B
________________________: ______
______________Inmate #: ____
rm I-247 (12/12)Officer)of title d an(Name
tnemecr Enfoww EnfoLa ICE eh tye notif in the Unnremail to duaviint this ind
nithis detaect of the subjy, our custod______________: ____no/convicti
est criminLat________Inmate #: ___
________________________________________________
on: _____
06-27 82)08(t aretne Ctroppu Sution or othcprosefor ates ted Sit in the Un
from the Unitedebe removyr maen__________________________
__on: ___/convictiechargal est crimin
________________________________________________
_____
cer)Offiof(Signature
.020es, int purposnforcemen eww elar eution or oth
ual madiindivthe If States. d from the Unite__________________________
ase: ___eEstimated reldate)(___ __
_______________________
__________ase: _____
Page 1 ofcer)
ngng acticludies, ina be the victim ofy ual ma
_____________
)etad(_______ase: ___
Appendix I Form I-247
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
27
DHS Form I-247 (12/12) Page 2 of
NOTICE TO THE DETAINEEThe Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed an immigration detainer on you. An immigration detainer is a notice from DHS informing law enforcement agencies that DHS intends to assume custody of you after you otherwise would be released from custody. DHS has requested that the law enforcement agency which is currently detaining you maintain custody of you for a period not to exceed 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) beyond the time when you would have been released by the state orlocal law enforcement authorities based on your criminal charges or convictions. If DHS does not take you into custody during that additional 48 hour period, not counting weekends or holidays, you should contact your custodian (the law enforcement agency or other entity that is holding you now) to inquire about your release from state or local custody. If you have a complaint regarding this detainer or related to violations of civil rights or civil liberties connected to DHS activities, please contact the ICE Joint Intake Center at 1-877-2INTAKE (877-246-8253). If you believe you are a United States citizen or the victim of a crime, pleaseadvise DHS by calling the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center toll free at (855) 448-6903.
NOTIFICACIÓN A LA PERSONA DETENIDAEl Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) de EE. UU. ha emitido una orden de detención inmigratoria en su contra. Mediante esta orden, se notifica a los organismos policiales que el DHS pretende arrestarlo cuando usted cumpla su reclusión actual. El DHS ha solicitado que el organismo policial local o estatal a cargo de su actual detención lo mantenga en custodia por un período no mayor a 48 horas (excluyendo sábados, domingos y días festivos) tras el cese de su reclusión penal. Si el DHS no procede con su arresto inmigratorio durante este período adicional de 48 horas, excluyendo los fines de semana o días festivos, usted debe comunicarse con la autoridad estatal o local que lo tiene detenido (el organismo policial u otra entidad a cargo de su custodia actual) para obtener mayores detalles sobre el cese de su reclusión. Si tiene alguna queja que se relacione con esta orden de detención o con posibles infracciones a los derechos o libertades civiles en conexión con las actividades del DHS, comuníquese con el Joint Intake Center (Centro de Admisión) del ICE (Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas) llamando al 1-877-2INTAKE (877-246-8253). Si usted cree que es ciudadano de los Estados Unidos o que ha sido víctima de un delito, infórmeselo al DHS llamando al Centro de Apoyo a los Organismos Policiales (Law Enforcement Support Center) del ICE, teléfono (855) 448-6903 (llamada gratuita).
Avis au détenuLe département de la Sécurité Intérieure [Department of Homeland Security (DHS)] a émis, à votre encontre, un ordre d'incarcération pour des raisons d'immigration. Un ordre d'incarcération pour des raisons d'immigration est un avis du DHS informant les agences des forces de l'ordre que le DHS a l'intention de vous détenir après la date normale de votre remise en liberté. Le DHS a requis quel'agence des forces de l'ordre, qui vous détient actuellement, vous garde en détention pour une période maximum de 48 heures (excluant les samedis, dimanches et jours fériés) au-delà de la période à la fin de laquelle vous auriez été remis en liberté par les autorités policières de l'État ou locales en fonction des inculpations ou condamnations pénales à votre encontre. Si le DHS ne vous détient pas durant cette période supplémentaire de 48 heures, sans compter les fins de semaines et les jours fériés, vous devez contacter votre gardien (l'agence des forces de l'ordre qui vous détient actuellement) pour vous renseigner à propos de votre libération par l'État ou l'autorité locale. Si vous avez une plainte à formuler au sujet de cet ordre d'incarcération ou en rapport avec des violations de vos droits civils liées à des activités du DHS, veuillez contacter le centre commun d'admissions du Service de l'Immigration et des Douanes [ICE - Immigration and Customs Enforcement] [ICE Joint Intake Center] au1-877-2INTAKE (877-246-8253). Si vous croyez être un citoyen des États-Unis ou la victime d'un crime, veuillez en aviser le DHS en appelant le centre d'assistance des forces de l'ordre de l'ICE [ICE Law Enforcement Support Center] au numéro gratuit (855) 448-6903.
AVISO AO DETENTOO Departamento de Segurança Nacional (DHS) emitiu uma ordem de custódia imigratória em seu nome. Este documento é um aviso enviado às agências de imposição da lei de que o DHS pretende assumir a custódia da sua pessoa, caso seja liberado. O DHS pediuque a agência de imposição da lei encarregada da sua atual detenção mantenha-o sob custódia durante, no máximo, 48 horas (excluindo-se sábados, domingos e feriados) após o período em que seria liberado pelas autoridades estaduais ou municipais de imposição da lei, de acordo com as respectivas acusações e penas criminais. Se o DHS não assumir a sua custódia durante essas48 horas adicionais, excluindo-se os fins de semana e feriados, você deverá entrar em contato com o seu custodiante (a agência de imposição da lei ou qualquer outra entidade que esteja detendo-o no momento) para obter informações sobre sua liberaçãoda custódia estadual ou municipal. Caso você tenha alguma reclamação a fazer sobre esta ordem de custódia imigratória ou relacionada a violações dos seus direitos ou liberdades civis decorrente das atividades do DHS, entre em contato com o Centro de Entrada Conjunta da Agencia de Controle de Imigração e Alfândega (ICE) pelo telefone 1-877-246-8253. Se você acreditar que é um cidadão dos EUA ou está sendo vítima de um crime, informe o DHS ligando para o Centro de Apoio à Imposição da Lei do ICE pelo telefone de ligação gratuita (855) 448-6903
ON
EENIATTAEDEHTO TECITO
gcallinyse DHS bivad7-2INT1-87at er tCentake In
relatedrr relateder otainedis thhois that ytitner eothor
pehour 84l andditioacement aenforwlalocal
xclue(ours h48deeexcto questhas reS H Dy. custodnewa lgnimorfn iSHDoHfontemtrapeDehT
t SuencemrfoEnwaLe ICE thgIf 3). 825-6-24778(E KA7-2INTs thrigil vcifosnatioloiv to related
bout aequirnito )wnou yognldihondsekeewingountct o, nriodpe
imir cruoyned oies bastthoriucement aanys, ndauSs, ySaturdangdixclu
forcement aenwlathe that ed questSHDtah tseicneg anteemcrofpsah)SDH(yitruceSd naelmoON
55) 4free at (8ll er totCent roppt SuitedUna e aruoyevlieebuoyIf
ectednncoerties libil v cirr cios lor state mfroe easrelur yobout
ontad choulsou , ysylidaohor fI.snoitcivno c orsegrah claniwtime the dnyobes) yadihold antaine dyrrentluh is cichwycnegforcement a
y of yocustodme ussao tdsnent iner detainoitargimminadecla
EENIATTAEDEHTO TECITO
m
Informatio
n Only
cti
Informatio
n Only
903.48-655) 4ive throcitizenStates ited
ease col, pstieivticDHS atocaevahuoyfI. ydcustol cao
w(the lanodiatsucour ytconta cotn iuoyeka tto nseodSHD
releneebevahuld owu yoen hwy of custodinintayou mag intain
uowise wreu othoy after uy of yoatednoiatgrimmiAn you. on
Informatio
n Only
(the lay
l
Informatio
n Only
p
Informatio
n Only
crim
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
m
Informatio
n Only
e ICE
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
eas
Informatio
n Only
e,
Informatio
n Only
f
Informatio
n Onlyo
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
J
Informatio
n Only
act th
Informatio
n Onlyt
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
ease co
Informatio
n Only
g
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
d
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
g
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
p
Informatio
n Onlym
Informatio
n Onlyo
Informatio
n Only
c
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
cent ag
Informatio
n Only
nrcemeofnetahtgnirudydotsu c
orstate e thybdasereleotd noriea p for uyoy of moed frleasbe red lumorfeciotnasirein
Informatio
n Only
yt ag
2INT1-877-llamando al el ncoese uqínmuco
posoncoón incetdetener mbopara actual)
la auncocarse inmucotenduraorio tinmigra
do sáyenulxcras (eo48 hnismo pe el orgado qusolicita
n, se notifica deoresta o de SetnrtameaEl Dep
usted 8253). Si (877-246-EKA2INTtro (Cenrr (Cenettake CenInt inJodeos l asoneiccarnfiselbiposee el cesbrles sos detalyoreatener meuqcal looatal estridadtola au
del onaiicdaríodo pee tseestsy días fengos s, domiodbado sá
l o estatal a cargo de al localicionismo pue qialesicpolismos ganora los
HS) de EE. al (Don Nacidadgurio de SeANOTIFIC
de
Informatio
n Only
udadano
Informatio
n Only
(Ser
Informatio
n Only
es cicree que usted ICE
Informatio
n Only
l ed)nmisiódAe dtros eileves cirtadbei o loshcerde
lguna aentieSi n. ió reclusu se deismo gan(el oroditenede tienloe filosendo ylucxe, shora8 4sluce ru sede s celesar t)sovit
ón lo matenciesu actual dl o estatal a cargo de urrestarlo c aedneHS pretDelue
n dordeuna do . ha emitiUUHS) de EE. T DEA PERSONAA LIÓN CA
Informatio
n Only
Estados
Informatio
n Only
los
Informatio
n Only
ació
Informatio
n Only
ci
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
v
Informatio
n Only
(Ser
Informatio
n Only
las acti
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
co
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
exió
Informatio
n Only
ione
Informatio
n Only
c
Informatio
n Only
la
Informatio
n Only
que
Informatio
n Only
ja
Informatio
n Only
ad
Informatio
n Only
l u
Informatio
n Only
ia
Informatio
n Only
polic
Informatio
n Onlys
Informatio
n Onlyo día
Informatio
n Only s
Informatio
n Onlyde
Informatio
n Onlyc
Informatio
n Only p
Informatio
n Onlyo
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Onlyl
Informatio
n Onlya
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Onlya por un pe
Informatio
n Onlya en custodi
Informatio
n Onlyeng
Informatio
n Onlyusió
Informatio
n Onlycl
Informatio
n Onlye
Informatio
n Onlyr
Informatio
n Only su
Informatio
n Onlya
Informatio
n Onlyl
Informatio
n Onlyp
Informatio
n Onlycum
Informatio
n Onlyd
Informatio
n Only uste
Informatio
n Onlya
Informatio
n Onlygratori
Informatio
n Onlyn inmi
Informatio
n Only
que
Informatio
n Only
Unidos o
Informatio
n Only
de
Informatio
n Only
Co
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
mig
Informatio
n Only
In
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
d
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
co
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
s e
Informatio
n Only
re
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
que
Informatio
n Only
queja
Informatio
n Only
lguna
Informatio
n Only
a car
Informatio
n Only
entid
Informatio
n Only
otra
Informatio
n Only
ismo
Informatio
n Onlys
Informatio
n Onlyfe
Informatio
n Onlyfes
Informatio
n Onlya
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Onlya
Informatio
n Onlym
Informatio
n Onlye
Informatio
n Onlys
Informatio
n Onlyne
Informatio
n Only fi
Informatio
n Onlyo
Informatio
n Onlyr
Informatio
n OnlyDHS
Informatio
n OnlySi el
Informatio
n Only.
Informatio
n Onlye
Informatio
n Only p
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Onlyó
Informatio
n Onlyi
Informatio
n Onlys
Informatio
n Onlynt
Informatio
n Onlyón lo ma
Informatio
n Onlyo
Informatio
n Onlyd
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Onlya
Informatio
n Onlyu
Informatio
n Only en s
Informatio
n Onlyió
Informatio
n Only detenc
Informatio
n Onlye
Informatio
n Onlyn d
Informatio
n OnlyNIDA
Informatio
n OnlyE
Informatio
n OnlyT
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Onlyt
Informatio
n Onlyd
Informatio
n Onlye
Informatio
n Onlyc
Informatio
n Onlya por un pe
Informatio
n Onlyactual. E
Informatio
n Onlye
Informatio
n Onlyt
Informatio
n Onlyan
Informatio
n Onlycontra. Med
Informatio
n Onlyu
Informatio
n Only
edctima ívsido ha )sanaud Aedl ortn Co
S,HDl ees daddivlas actide n ordeatson ec
aido custuo de sga carbe
Informatio
n Onlyde
Informatio
n Onlyd
Informatio
n Onlyte
Informatio
n Onlyus
Informatio
n Only, os
Informatio
n Onlyv
Informatio
n Onlys
Informatio
n Onlyesto
Informatio
n Only arr
Informatio
n Onlysu
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Onlyco
Informatio
n Onlye
Informatio
n Only a
Informatio
n Onlyor
Informatio
n Onlyy
Informatio
n Onlya
Informatio
n Onlyríodo no m
Informatio
n OnlyS ha
Informatio
n OnlyDH
Informatio
n Onlyl
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Onlyusió
Informatio
n Onlyi
Informatio
n Only en s
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
edres èicipolautorités s, dimanimedaant les slu(exc
s forces de l'ence dagel'e que lrordforces de l'
mimi' dnsosia res druopSécurla de tnpartemedéLe
(855) del ICE, teléfono o lermesóinfo, litun de
2INT1-877-llamando al
u
Informatio
n Only
des
Informatio
n Only
nonctioen fs elalocou État l'rs fériés) auojhes etcs, diman
tient actu
Informatio
n Only
éus de, qui vodrors forces de l' dsuo ven dintentio a l' DHSee que lation pcarcérni' derdr on U.noitagrminepartme[DeureIntérité iSécur
gratuita). (llamada 6903448-(855) ntro Celando malla DHS lao usted 8253). Si (877-246-EKA2INT
Informatio
n Only
c
Informatio
n Only
ations ou
Informatio
n Only
culp
Informatio
n Only
des
Informatio
n Only
à
Informatio
n Only
de
Informatio
n Only
rio
Informatio
n Only
de la p
Informatio
n Only
-de
Informatio
n Only
u
Informatio
n Only
rde en d
Informatio
n Only
vous ga
Informatio
n Only
ment,
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
ell
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
at
Informatio
n Only
ès
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
p
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
immigratio
Informatio
n Only
d'
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
on
Informatio
n Only
our des rais
Informatio
n Only
DHS)]
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
u
Informatio
n Only
Sec
Informatio
n Only
and
Informatio
n Only
mel
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
H
Informatio
n Only
nu
Informatio
n Only
déte
Informatio
n Only
is au
Informatio
n Only
os
Informatio
n Only
m
Informatio
n Only
nis
Informatio
n Only
de
Informatio
n Only
udadano
Informatio
n Only
amnati
Informatio
n Only
ond
Informatio
n Only
in
Informatio
n Only
de
Informatio
n Only
fin
Informatio
n Only
la
Informatio
n Only
é
Informatio
n Only
à
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
tenti
Informatio
n Only
é
Informatio
n Only
tient actu
Informatio
n Only
e d
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
m
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
d
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
ni
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
é
Informatio
n Only
d
Informatio
n Only
ation p
Informatio
n Only
(
Informatio
n Only
of
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
Av
Informatio
n Only
Orga
Informatio
n Only
los
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
y
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
p
Informatio
n Only
A
Informatio
n Only
de
Informatio
n Only
ntro
Informatio
n Only
es ci
Informatio
n Only
cree que
Informatio
n Only
usted
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
immigratio
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
DHS)]
Informatio
n Only
le
Informatio
n Only
ia
Informatio
n Only
Polic
Informatio
n Only
Estados
Informatio
n Only
los
Informatio
n Only
ontre. e encrvotà ales pénonsremis été ez riuavous euellaqlde
ximde marioée pur unon potentie L.étrebi lne esmie rerot vee d
DHS informanun avis du
Informatio
n Only
est
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
nuontre, cnetre o
Informatio
n Only
v
Informatio
n Only
à
Informatio
n Only
is,
Informatio
n Only
m
Informatio
n Only
é
Informatio
n Only
ent mercoEnfw(La
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
os
Informatio
n Only
que Unidos o de
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
us ovne Si le DHS s ar leperté libneremis
es eurm de 48 huximeu qsiuqe r aHS De
s dese les agenct DHS informanon tiacarcérnid'e ordr
nter) eCport Supent edctima ívsido ha
309-6844)558 (tiutragle appelant DHS en
(877-246-E KA1-877-2INTatiorl'Immigede icvSerde volations ivec des va
ouÉtat l'par n atiolibértreovretcontaz cedev
ect n duraspat ntiedéedres èicipolautorités
Informatio
n Only
gDHS en 1-877-2INTSeralibérdevdéautorités
s forces de
Informatio
n Only
assistance de
Informatio
n Only
être
Informatio
n Only
croyez
Informatio
n Only
ous
Informatio
n Only
v
Informatio
n Only
Si
Informatio
n Only
[ICE
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
u
Informatio
n Only
Do
Informatio
n Only
ées à des
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
ils
Informatio
n Only
v
Informatio
n Only
z
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
u
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
v
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
s forces de l'
Informatio
n Only
ire de
Informatio
n Only
ta
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
.
Informatio
n Only
3
Informatio
n Only
centre d'
Informatio
n Only
8253).
Informatio
n Only
(877-246-
Informatio
n Only
nes
Informatio
n Only
es
Informatio
n Only
d
Informatio
n Only
et
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
atio
Informatio
n Only
ci
Informatio
n Only
s droits
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
de v
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
v
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
S
Informatio
n Only
.
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
local
Informatio
n Only
é
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
autor
Informatio
n Only
'
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
e d
Informatio
n Only
agenc
Informatio
n Only
(l'
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
rdie
Informatio
n Only
ga
Informatio
n Only
tre
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
m
Informatio
n Only
upplé
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
tte période
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
des
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
onctio
Informatio
n Only
en f
Informatio
n Only
s
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
loc
Informatio
n Only
ou
Informatio
n Only
État
Informatio
n Only
l'
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
s forces de
Informatio
n Only
être
Informatio
n Only
mig
Informatio
n Only
Im
Informatio
n Only
acti
Informatio
n Only
ées à des
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
in
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
l
Informatio
n Only
p
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
u
Informatio
n Only
z
Informatio
n Only
u
Informatio
n Only
ordre q
Informatio
n Only
s forces de l'
Informatio
n Only
, sa
Informatio
n Only
ures
Informatio
n Only
he
Informatio
n Only
48
Informatio
n Only
ire de
Informatio
n Only
ations ou
Informatio
n Only
culp
Informatio
n Only
des
Informatio
n Only
OTENETDAVISO AO
l'ICE [ICE de
Informatio
n Only
re
Informatio
n Only
l'ord
Informatio
n Only
États-Unis des
Informatio
n Only
yen
Informatio
n Only
cito
Informatio
n Only
un
Informatio
n Only
s mstoCuand
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
io
Informatio
n Only
at
Informatio
n Only
r
Informatio
n Only
-
Informatio
n Only
uillez evDHS, tés du
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
v
Informatio
n Only
su arr aelumro f
Informatio
n Only
à
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
e
Informatio
n Only
nt actdétiei vous
Informatio
n Only
mpter les finso cnsamnationdcin
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Center] au ent Support EnforcemwLavcrime, un d'ctime ivla ouÉtats-Unis
t inJo[ICE t] rcemenfoEns commun tre cencontacter le uillez
arécranci' derdr otecedteujsgns renseiuoment) pour veuell
lest esainemesdempter les finsontre. e encrvotà ales pénons
numéroCenter] au le ser iavillez en uev
auer] tCentake Ind'admissions du commun
tropparn eu onoitatre os de voer à propusov, riésféurs jo lesus ovne Si le DHS
iInformatio
n Only
vInformatio
n Only
aInformatio
n Only
taduaInformatio
n Only
esInformatio
n Only
o Informatio
n Only
siçãInformatio
n Only
impInformatio
n Only
de Informatio
n Only
adicionais, Informatio
n Only
horas Informatio
n Only
eInformatio
n Only
da lInformatio
n Only
ão Informatio
n Only
imposiç Informatio
n Only
dos, Informatio
n Only
-se Informatio
n Only
o Informatio
n Only
lui Informatio
n Only
(exc Informatio
n Only
impInformatio
n Only
de Informatio
n Only
ênciInformatio
n Only
que Informatio
n Only
aInformatio
n Only
ênciInformatio
n Only
às agInformatio
n Only
Seg
Informatio
n Only
o de
Informatio
n Only
um cé que rrditaercaCadartnEedortneC
açõInformatio
n Only
lInformatio
n Only
oInformatio
n Only
a Informatio
n Only
d Informatio
n Only
a Informatio
n Only
n Informatio
n Only
relacio Informatio
n Only
oInformatio
n Only
l Informatio
n Only
a Informatio
n Only
stódi Informatio
n Only
u Informatio
n Only
c Informatio
n Only
da Informatio
n Only
dInformatio
n Only
oInformatio
n Only
ncia Informatio
n Only
agê Informatio
n Only
48 Informatio
n Only
acordInformatio
n Only
i, de Informatio
n Only
sábaInformatio
n Only
d Informatio
n Only
n Informatio
n Only
aInformatio
n Only
ag Informatio
n Only
a Informatio
n Only
s de imInformatio
n Only
ado Informatio
n Only
envi Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
Departame
Informatio
n Only
O
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
açõrelacioda agê48 imposiç(excque enviO
oInformatio
n Only
acordInformatio
n Only
ngosInformatio
n Only
domiInformatio
n Only
dos, Informatio
n Only
oInformatio
n Only
siçãInformatio
n Only
sição dInformatio
n Only
poInformatio
n Only
s de imInformatio
n Only
nal
Informatio
n Only
o
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
a Nac
Informatio
n Only
ç
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Only
ra
Informatio
n Only
Seg
Informatio
n Only
seátseu oAAEUdosdão ida um ctnoCeda icnegAadatnujno
libuosreitoi dsseuso desaçõhtencê ovasoCInfo
rmation O
nly
l. Informatio
n Only
icipaInformatio
n Only
numuode adentiaoutrquer Info
rmation O
nly
alInformatio
n Only
quInformatio
n Only
uInformatio
n Only
oInformatio
n Only
i Informatio
n Only
leInformatio
n Only
aInformatio
n Only
dInformatio
n Only
semana defins os Informatio
n Only
excluindo-se Informatio
n Only
vas acusaçõpecti com as resInformatio
n Only
oós ap) sodriaeInformatio
n Only
fInformatio
n Only
e Informatio
n Only
adda egaarrencInformatio
n Only
i Informatio
n Only
leInformatio
n Only
da Informatio
n Only
oInformatio
n Only
impInformatio
n Only
HS pr que o Di de leInformatio
n Only
aInformatio
n Only
HS) emiti (Du
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
informeimercum detimaívndo ednâflAeoãçargimIedelortas detrreneco dsivcides aerd
zerafa ãoaçeclamrma ualgahmoon-o odndeteestejaquede
rá evcê deovferiados, e semana DHS nSe onais. nas crimi e pesevas acusaçõ
beraliria ese quem ríodoeponha-manteoãençtedatual asua
r a custódiie assumetendHS prg imistódiaude cm ea ord umuHS) emiti
OTENETDAVISO AO
o rapando DHS ligao informe-778-1enofeletolep)ECI(age
treDHS, eno dseaddivatias stócuedm edrota see rbsozers eõformaçniter boa paro) entm
o com o contatem entrarrá stócua mir a suassuoã DHS n
ais dues estaadidautorlasepodberano te, nduraia dstósob cuonha-bera liaoa, caso sej sua pessa da
docme. Este o n seuria emratóg
àpoio Antro deCeê coveS.532846-2-
omcoatotn co emuoria ratóimiga idstó
çãoaberlia subre sos (acustodiante seu
saseste ranuda idstóedpaisnicimuuoais
as hor48 ximo, ámno uidDHS pedo. O bera
iso v aé umento mudoc
Io deiLa doãçsiopmI
um cé que rr que ditaerca
rm I-247 (12/12)oDHS F
goãçagile de nofeel toel pEC
seátseu oAA oEUdosdão ida um c
rm I-247 (12/12)
3096-844)558(atiutrag
informe,imercum detimaívndo
o rapando DHS ligao informe
àpoio Antro deCe
Page 2 of
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
28
DHS Form I-247 (12/12) Page 3 of
THÔNG BÁO CHO NG I B GIAM GI
B Qu c Phòng (DHS) ã có l nh giam gi quý v vì lý do di trú. L nh giam gi vì lý do di trú là thông báo c a DHS cho các c quan thi hành lu t pháp là DHS có ý nh t m gi quý v sau khi quý v c th . DHS ã yêu c u c quan thi hành lu t pháp hi n ang gi quý v ph i ti p t c t m gi quý v trong không quá 48 gi ng h (không k th B y, Chnh t, và các ngày ngh l ) ngoài th i gian mà l ra quý v s c c quan thi hành lu t pháp c a ti u bang ho c aph ng th ra d a trên các b n án và t i hình s c a quý v . N u DHS không t m giam quý v trong th i gian 48 gib sung ó, không tính các ngày cu i tu n ho c ngày l , quý v nên liên l c v i bên giam gi quý v (c quan thi hành lu t pháp ho c t ch c khác hi n ang giam gi quý v ) h i v vi c c quan a ph ng ho c liên bang th quý v ra. N u quý v có khi u n i v l nh giam gi này ho c liên quan t i các tr ng h p vi ph m dân quy n ho c tdo công dân liên quan t i các ho t ng c a DHS, vui lòng liên l c v i ICE Joint Intake Center t i s1-877-2INTAKE (877-246-8253). N u quý v tin r ng quý v là công dân Hoa K ho c n n nhân t i ph m, vui lòng báo cho DHS bi t b ng cách g i ICE Law Enforcement Support Center t i s i n tho i mi n phí (855) 448-6903.
NTHÔ
I GI BCHO NGOG BÁN
MAI
liên n công dâdo có vuýu qN.arv
c hop phát luhành không ó, sung b
trên a dra thng phngngày c cávà t, nhnihápt phluhành
hành thi n quacc cá(DHS) ng Phòc QuB
ng thocác i quan tgiam ginh li vu nkhicó
aiggnanhicáhkc chtc hn tui cungàyác ctính không shình i tvà án n bc cátrên
mà an gii thngoài) lhngtp tii phvý qung gia
ý có DHSlà pháp t luhành ý qugigiam nh lcó ã (DHS)
NTHÔ
liên lòng ui vDHS, a cng ciquan tliên c hoy nà
vivi h)vquý igmaliên nên vquý, lyngàc oh
không DHS uN.vquý a csuan qcc svquý ra l
khônongrtvý qum gic tqukhi sau vquý gim tnh
giam nh Lú.rtdio dýlìvvý
GII GI BCHO NGOG BÁN
dân qu
Informatio
n Only
c
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
ho
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyoint Intake
Informatio
n OnlyJICE i vc lliên
m
Informatio
n Onlyhp vi pg hnrtcá c
ng phan quacc quý
Informatio
n Only
gi
Informatio
n Only
giam bên i vc lliên trong vgiam quý m tkhông
tia cpháp t luh hànhi tuan ông(khhng gi8 4uá qg yêu ã DHS . thcvý qug thônlà trú di do lý vì gigiam
MAI
Informatio
n Only
pháp
Informatio
n Onlys
Informatio
n Onlyi
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyt
Informatio
n OnlyCen
Informatio
n Onlyc t
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyn ho
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyy
Informatio
n Onlydân qu
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
h
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
b
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Onlyiê
Informatio
n Only
c
Informatio
n Only
qu
Informatio
n Only
gian
Informatio
n Onlyer
Informatio
n Onlyt
Informatio
n Onlyoint Intake
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
quý
Informatio
n Only
g
Informatio
n Only
n
Informatio
n Onlyl
Informatio
n Only
hi
Informatio
n Only
t
Informatio
n Only
an
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
(c
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
v
Informatio
n Only
quý
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
gi
Informatio
n Only
48
Informatio
n Only
i
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyth
Informatio
n Only
trong
Informatio
n Only
a
Informatio
n Only
c
Informatio
n Only
hog
Informatio
n Only
banu tihy, C Bthkôngthin quacu cyêu
cho DHSa coábg
Informatio
n Only
g
t bbicho DHS báo (877AKE 7-2INT1-87
liên n công dâdo
forcEnwLaICE i gng cách t btin vuý qu N). -82536-24(877ng thocác i quan t
ter tort CenSuppement forcnâdgnôcàlvquý g nrtin
liên lòng ui vDHS, a cng
n phí (855)
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyi mi
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyt
Informatio
n Onlynhân
Informatio
n Onlyoint Intake
Informatio
n Onlyo
Informatio
n Onlyh
Informatio
n Only t
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyi
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyi s
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyt
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n Onlyc
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyho
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n OnlyK
Informatio
n Onlya
Informatio
n Onlyo
Informatio
n OnlyH
Informatio
n Onlyn
Informatio
n OnlyJ
Informatio
n OnlyICE
Informatio
n Onlyi
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyv
Informatio
n Onlyc
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyl
Informatio
n Onlyliên
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
69
Informatio
n Only-
Informatio
n Only48
Informatio
n Onlyn phí (855)
Informatio
n Onlyng
Informatio
n Onlym,
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlyph
Informatio
n Onlyi
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Onlys
Informatio
n Onlyi
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n OnlyCen
Informatio
n Only3.
Informatio
n Only0
Informatio
n Only4
Informatio
n Onlylò
Informatio
n Onlyi
Informatio
n Onlyu
Informatio
n Onlyv
Informatio
n Onlyt
Informatio
n Onlyer
Informatio
n Onlyt
Informatio
n Onlyoint Intake
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
Informatio
n Only
rm I-247 (12/12)oDHS F
rm I-247 (12/12)
Page 3 of
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
29
Appendix II Maryland Attorney General October 31 Letter of Advice to Senator Victor Ramirez
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
30
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
31
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
32
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
33
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
34
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
35
This Appendix provides more detailed facts and graphs on immigration detainers in each of the coun-ties for which we were able to obtain reliable data. The graphs are based on responses to an ACLU ofMaryland Public Information Act request to state and local detention facilities. Where such responseswere not provided, we were for the most part able to obtain some more limited information from a re-sponse to an ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project Freedom of Information Act request to ICE. We haveincluded this more elementary data for Montgomery County and Prince George’s County in this Ap-pendix. We were unable to obtain reliable information from either source for Allegany, Carroll, andDorchester counties.
For more detailed information and yearly breakdowns from the PIA data or for data and graphs fromthe FOIA data for other counties, please contact the ACLU of Maryland at (410) 889-8555 or [email protected].
Appendix IIICounty Facts and Graphs
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
36
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTYMPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 843 individuals were held on an immigration detainer. • More than 40 percent were charged only with traffic violations or held solely on the basis of civil immigration charges.
• More than 42 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• Over 90 percent were from Latin American countries.• At least 2 were U.S. citizens.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
37
BALTIMORE COUNTYMPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 815 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• More than 36 percent were charged only with traffic or immigration offenses.• More than 36 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• Almost 75% were from Latin American countries.• At least 3 were U.S. citizens.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
38
CHARLES COUNTYMPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 47 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• More than 42 percent were charged only with traffic or immigration offenses.• More than 25 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• Almost 62 percent were from Latin American countries.• At least 2 were U.S. citizens.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
39
FREDERICK COUNTYMPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 628 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• Almost 54 percent were charged only with traffic or immigration offenses.• More than 29 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• More than 86 percent were from Latin American countries.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
40
KENT COUNTYMPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 45 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• Almost 65 percent were charged only with traffic offenses.• Almost 29 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• Almost 98 percent were from Latin American countries.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
41
ST. MARY’S COUNTYMPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 44 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• Almost 55 percent were charged only with traffic offenses.• More than 34 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• More than 94 percent were from Latin American countries.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
42
TALBOT COUNTYMPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 44 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• More than 34 percent were charged only with traffic or immigration offenses.• 50 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• More than 94 percent were from Latin American countries.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
43
WASHINGTON COUNTYMPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 35 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• More than 31 percent were charged only with traffic or immigration offenses.• Almost 43 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• Almost 66 percent were from Latin American countries.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
44
MONTGOMERY COUNTYFOIA Data FY2011
• In FY2011, about 362 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• Almost 85 percent were of Latin American or Caribbean origin.
• More than 57 percent had no threat level indication. • At least 24 percent were charged only with Level 2 or 3 offenses, which include traffic, minormisdemeanor, and immigration offenses.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
45
MONTGOMERY COUNTYFOIA Data FY2012
• In FY2012, about 450 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• More than 80 percent were of Latin American or Caribbean origin.
• More than 59 percent had no threat level indication. • At least 20 percent were charged only with Level 2 or 3 offenses, which include traffic, minormisdemeanor, and immigration offenses.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
46
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTYFOIA Data FY2011
• In FY2011, about 710 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• More than 80 percent were of Latin American or Caribbean origin.
• More than 75 percent had no threat level indication. • Almost 14 percent were charged only with Level 2 or 3 offenses, which include traffic, minor misdemeanor, and immigration offenses.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
47
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTYFOIA Data FY2012
• In FY2012, about 597 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.• More than 85 percent were of Latin American or Caribbean origin.
• More than 66 percent had no threat level indication. • At least 16 percent were charged only with Level 2 or 3 offenses, which include traffic, minormisdemeanor, and immigration offenses.
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
48
“The ‘Secure’ Communities program has diminished trust in our immigrant communities of local lawenforcement. This has resulted in less cooperation and conflict for immigrant victims and witnessesof crime.”
“It is my opinion that the ‘Secure’ communities program has reduced the number of victims and wit-nesses in immigrant communities and thus made our communities less safe.”
“The Trust Act will ease the unfair budgetary burden which the program places on local govern-ments.”
William Lansdowne, Chief of Police, San Diego, CA: http://www.aclusandiego.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chief-Lansdowne-TRUST-Act-Support-letter.pdf
“[S-Comm has resulted in] documented and undocumented immigrants who are victims or witnessesto crime being fearful of cooperating with police, since any contact can potentially result in separationfrom their families and deportations.” For this reason, Chief Bejarano wrote a letter in support of theCalifornia TRUST Act.
David Bejarano, Chief of Police, Chula Vista, CA: http://www.aclusandiego.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chief-Bejarano-Support-Letter.pdf
“The excessively wide net cast by S-Comm undercuts community policing strategies and underminesthe ability of local law enforcement to build trust with immigrant communities they serve.”
Manuel Rodriguez, Chief of Police, National City, CA: http://www.aclusandiego.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chief-Rodriguez-ACLU-The-TRUST-Act-AB-4-Support.pdf
“[A]fter the point that someone is arrested for a minor violation and detained because of their immi-gration status, the message has already been sent to the immigrant community that police are to befeared.”
Arturo Venegas, Jr., retired Police Chief, Sacramento, CA
“She was a victim of domestic violence, she was taken to jail and she ended up getting turned over toICE. All because she sought help from the Escondido Police Department.”
Bill Flores, retired Assistant Sheriff, Escondido, CA (about the negative impact of S-Comm andimmigration detainers on domestic violence victims).
Appendix IVLaw enforcement speak out in support of limited detainer policies
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
49
Appendix VICE admissions that immigration detainers are voluntary
ICE det
ows AckntementatICE S
usre js aquester reniaICE det
: heet Sctct S FaLUACetE D ICthag tngiledow
hat ttus s. request
sequeste Rers Arniaet
ICE det
(emphasiartmentDep
enWh uses a foritit uses a for
usre js aquester reniaICE det
). edds ad(emphasi so l aSeeartment uesteqr
eq rrneaiets a dd senEC Im tha uses a for
DETSQUERE T
hat ttus s. request
r
al law enfor loc orteo a stauest teq
n custodaintai M YOU:TAHT Fai DetECI
uesteq 78§ 2
(LEagencycemental law enfor-247 a or fectect fj the sub of of the subyn custod
m I 742 2 Dec.edevis(r
(a) 7.
), A (LE247
) 110 2
neaietd
s A eral coedfniecogr
requestatmand
ublic,p
to . .es . servrne uesteqr that
tsrueral co , laral scholeg,edzni legaotre nLEAs a
srequest many LE,ertheless Nev.edefiten has bEC I.yorat
o av tries terallyerally tries ten gEC Iublic,
or Frneai DetECIesitebw
the thatthat the
s d an, val go locd antestaly wcompo d tquirey relleve thateli blyenks mistaA many LE
omr f fr dan cuoselypurpon on tositi pr a cleagink taoido av
m Ior - 742 2 Dec.edevis(r
synetor aternmentv e haver niaeth these dtily w
e ers arnaiet dEC Ieve thateve that Iedatvlti cu siononfu cthatthat c
tur naaryntoluhe von on t
) 110 2
e
sion. n Ie of tur
ectexp
hen p w,YetYet,trepea
examplea few
[s]ect steapcitian
rte inind an,desserhen pcknay edlt hatged tledows: example
urten Vid Davomr f frrteetLtaan Sounsel ofounsel of CountyC
s,mentocul dnar d DHnE aCIre merers aniaetE d IChathat IC
t Directoranssist AEC Iella,urianorfali Cyntntya Coular Cta
ve halsaciiffi of offSd DHstuesely reqre mer ere are jH.
zárqueel Migu to M,t Directort ), a010 2edatnd (uia
ust ere are j
,
taan Sounsel ofounsel of S CountyCgor.ezebsj.ia//med:http
agep
)110 2,6 2n.Ja&A ( QECIcoma.rolimig//altop:http
fdp.596710.4762t?uir
ianorfali C,yntntya Coular Cta4/0/1110/files/2g - ECI -r
q
596710.476 2AOI FEC I,)p/wcom - s/2/uploadntconte
er a rnaiet dEC Ian
t ), a010 2,edatnd (uiaonseespr -to- fdp.CCS e (se
neaiethether don wuestiq
,5ECI/2/1110s/2 - AOIF -
a uest oreqer a r
e s rne
st UpLa
t?emenuireqr
21 20,55, 2berber 2octted Odast Up
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIBER
TIES
UNION OF MARYLA
ND
50
ofginffinie Bremo Re: MECI,216020.476 2AOI FECI/1110s/2/uploadntconteare notes] agencicementcement agenciorfen
ic Caucanspl Hionaessiongr Cofof Cat a.rolimig//altop:http
EC/I2/1 - AIOF - 020.4762 to honoredat mandare notare not mand
010 2ct. (Ous staffus staff (Oic Caucp/wcom -fdp.216
om s ind an,rneaiet a d to honor
), 0
e om
/neovg.ice.ww//w:http
Qedsk Alyuenteqr FECI
meos/ialleries/vids/gw
atons,uesti Q
mig mhts.rneaietion_datr
m
/neovg.ice.ww//w:http
/aryrs/libw ds/sheetactffact
rneaietd - htms.aqffaq escr(d
ginibescr
st UpLa
21 20,55, 2berber 2octted Odast Up
AMER
ICAN CIVIL LIB
ERTIES UNION OF M
ARYLA
ND
51
www.aclu-md.org