States and Localities That Limit Compliance with ICE Detainer Requests
(June 2014)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Obama Administration has removed a record number of individuals - 1.5 million during the first term
alone. Many deported immigrants come to the attention of ICE through its various partnerships with local
law enforcement agencies, including Secure Communities, the Criminal Alien Program, and 287(g).
Through these programs, ICE targets individuals who have come into contact with local and state law
enforcement. If ICE has reason to believe that an individual in criminal custody may be removable, it can
issue an immigration detainer asking the local law enforcement agency to continue to hold that individual
for up to 48 hours to give ICE a chance to place the person into immigration custody – regardless of
whether the person was ever convicted of a crime. Although immigration detainers are merely requests not mandatory – more often than not local law enforcement agents comply. The result is the deportation
of increasing numbers of often innocent immigrants. According to recently released data, only 14% of the
detainers ICE issued in FY 2012 and during the first four months of FY 2013 “target[ed] individuals who
pose a serious threat to public safety or national security” while approximately half implicated individuals
with “no record of criminal conviction, not even a minor traffic violation.”
Accompanying the increase in removals is an increase in the number of states and localities that are
refusing to do the federal government’s job of enforcing immigration laws. Among the concerns cited by
policymakers are burdens on limited local resources; the undermining of public safety; the destruction of
trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities; the separation of families; and the
questionable constitutionality of ICE detainers. Over the past several years, two states, the District of
Columbia, at least fifteen cities, and ninety six counties have officially restricted the extent to which law
enforcement may continue to detain individuals to hand over to ICE. These policies range from broad
limitations prohibiting local law enforcement from honoring any ICE detainer requests to more narrow
measures restricting compliance to cases in which the individual has been convicted of a certain felony or
other serious crime.
JURISDICTION
STATE LAWS1
California
Connecticut
CITY AND COUNTY POLICIES
California
Alameda County
City of Berkeley
Contra Costa County
City of East Palo Alto
City of Los Angeles
Los Angeles County
Marin County
1
ANTI-DETAINER LAW OR POLICY
DATE PASSED
“Transparency and Responsibility Using State Oct 5, 2013
Tools” (TRUST) Act
TRUST Act
Jul 19, 2013
Sheriff’s Office Order
City Council Policy
Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Policy
City Council Resolution
LA Police Department Policy
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Policy
Marin County Sheriff’s Policy
May 21, 2014
Oct 31, 2012
May 2014
Oct 2012
Dec 11, 2012
May 2014
May 2014
Similar legislation has been introduced in Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington but has not yet passed.
JURISDICTION
Mono County
Monterey County
Napa County
City of Richmond
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
City of San Francisco
San Francisco County
San Joaquin County
San Mateo County
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Solano County
Sonoma County
Tulare County
Colorado
Aurora County
Boulder County
Clear Creek County
Delta County
Denver County
Eagle County
Garfield County
Grand County
Jefferson County
La Plata County
Lake County
Mesa County
Otero County
Pitkin County
Pueblo County
Rio Blanco County
Routt County
Saguache County
San Juan County
San Miguel County
Yuma County
District of Columbia
Florida
Miami-Dade County
Illinois
Champaign County
ANTI-DETAINER LAW OR POLICY
Mono County Sheriff’s Policy
Sheriff’s Office General Order No: 14-01
Napa County Department of Corrections Policy
Police Department Policy 428
Riverside County Sheriff’s Policy
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Policy
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Policy
San Diego County Sheriff’s Policy
Board of Supervisors Due Process for All Ordinance
San Francisco Sheriff’s Policy
San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Policy
San Mateo Sheriff’s Policy
Board of Supervisors Policy
Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Policy
Solano County Sheriff’s Policy
Sonoma County Sheriff’s Policy
Tulare County Sheriff’s Policy
DATE PASSED
May 2014
May 9, 2014
June 2014
Aug 1, 2013
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 29, 2014
Oct 8, 2013
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
Oct 18, 2011
May 12, 2014
May 2014
Jul 20, 2011
May 2014
Municipal Policy
Boulder County Sheriff’s Policy
Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Policy
Delta County Sheriff’s Policy
Denver County Sheriff’s Policy
Eagle County Sheriff’s Policy
Garfield County Sheriff’s Policy
Grand County Sheriff’s Policy
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Policy
La Plata County Sheriff’s Policy
Lake County Sheriff’s Policy
Mesa County Sheriff’s Policy
Otero County Sheriff’s Policy
Pitkin County Sheriff’s Policy
Pueblo County Sheriff’s Policy
Rio Blanco County Sheriff’s Policy
Routt County Sheriff’s Policy
Saguache County Sheriff’s Policy
San Juan County Sheriff’s Policy
San Miguel County Sheriff’s Policy
Yuma County Sheriff’s Policy
D.C. Act 19-379
May 2014
April 2014
May 2014
May 2014
April 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
April 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
April 29, 2014
May 2014
Jun 15, 2012
Board of County Commissioners Resolution
Dec 3, 2013
Sheriff’s Office Policy
Mar 8, 2012
JURISDICTION
City of Chicago
Cook County
Kansas
Shawnee County
Sedgwick County
Louisiana
New Orleans Parish
Maryland
City of Baltimore
Massachusetts
Town of Amherst
City of Cambridge
City of Somerville
Minnesota
Hennepin County
New Jersey
City of Newark
New York
New York City
New Mexico
Town of Mesilla
San Miguel County
Taos County
Oregon
Baker County
Clackamas County
Clatsop County
Coos County
Crook County
Curry County
Deschutes County
Douglas County
Gilliam County
Grant County
Hood River County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Josephine County
Lane County
Lincoln County
Linn County
Malheur County
Marion County
ANTI-DETAINER LAW OR POLICY
City Council Ordinance
Cook County Ordinance 11-O-73
DATE PASSED
Sep 12, 2012
Sep 7, 2011
Department of Corrections Policy
Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Policy
May 2014
June 11, 2014
Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office Policy
Aug 14, 2013
Governor’s Policy for Baltimore City Detention April 18, 2014
Center
Town of Amherst Resolution
City Council Resolution
Mayor’s Executive Order
May 21, 2012
June 2, 2014
May 22, 2014
Hennepin County Sheriff’s Policy
June 11, 2014
Police Department Policy
Jul 24, 2013
Local Law No. 21
Mar 18, 2013
Board of Trustees Resolution
Detention Center Policies and Procedures
Adult Detention Center Policies and Procedures
Sep 9, 2013
Dec 10, 2010
Jan 4, 2011
Baker County Sheriff Policy
Clackamas County Sheriff Policy
Clatsop County Sheriff Policy
Coos County Sheriff Policy
Crook County Sheriff Policy
Curry County Sheriff Policy
Deschutes County Sheriff Policy
Douglas County Sheriff Policy
Gilliam County Sheriff Policy
Grant County Sheriff Policy
Hood River County Sheriff Policy
Jackson County Sheriff Policy
Jefferson County Sheriff Policy
Josephine County Sheriff Policy
Lane County Sheriff Policy
Lincoln County Sheriff Policy
Linn County Sheriff Policy
Malheur County Sheriff Policy
Marion County Sheriff Policy
May 2014
Apr 16, 2014
May 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 21, 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
JURISDICTION
Multnomah County
Polk County
Sherman County
City of Springfield
Tillamook County
Umatilla County
Union County
Wallowa County
Wasco County
Washington County
Wheeler County
Yamhill County
Pennsylvania
City of Philadelphia
Lehigh County
Washington
Benton County
Chelan County
Clallam County
Clark County
Franklin County
King County
Kitsap County
Pierce County
Skagit County
Spokane County
Snohomish County
Thurston County
Walla Walla County
Whatcom County
Yakima County
Wisconsin
Milwaukee County
ANTI-DETAINER LAW OR POLICY
Board of County Commissioners Resolution
Polk County Sheriff Policy
Sherman County Sheriff Policy
Springfield Police Department Policy
Tillamook County Sheriff Policy
Umatilla County Sheriff Policy
Union County Sheriff Policy
Wallowa County Sheriff Policy
Wasco County Sheriff Policy
Washington County Sheriff Policy
Wheeler County Sheriff Policy
Yamhill County Sheriff Policy
DATE PASSED
Apr 4, 2013
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 14, 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Mayor Nutter Executive Order No. 1-14
Board of Commissioners Resolution 2014-36
April 16, 2014
May 14, 2014
Benton County Sheriff Policy
Chelan County Sheriff Policy
Clallam County Sheriff Policy
Clark County Sheriff Policy
Franklin County Sheriff Policy
King County Council Ordinance 2013-0285
Kitsap County Sheriff Policy
Peirce County Sheriff Policy
Skagit County Sheriff Policy
Spokane County Sheriff Policy
Snohomish County Sheriff Policy
Thurston County Sheriff Policy
Sheriff’s Office Special Order 2014-002
Whatcom County Sheriff Policy
Yakima County Sheriff Policy
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
Dec 2, 2013
Apr 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
May 2014
Apr 2014
April 2014
Apr 2014
Apr 2014
Board of Supervisors Resolution
Jun 4, 2012
For an overview of collaboration between ICE and local law enforcement agencies through the Criminal
Alien Program, 287(g) partnerships, and Secure Communities and the use of ICE detainers to identify
potentially deportable individuals in state or local custody, please see the recording of CLINIC’s November
8, 2013 Webinar: Recent Trends in State and Local Immigration Enforcement. In addition, you can find
strategies to advocate against the implementation and continuation of these programs in your
community in CLINIC’s Toolkit for Communities to Advocate Against ICE Partnerships with Local Law
Enforcement Agencies. Finally, consult CLINIC’s Talking Points on Why States Should Separate Local
Policing From Immigration Enforcement.
This summary was updated in June 2014. It is for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. For
questions, please contact CLINIC’s State & Local Advocacy Attorney Jen Riddle at jriddle@cliniclegal.org or (301) 5654807.