Immigration Detainer Report · 2019-12-31 · Immigration detainers undermine public safety and community trust in police by turning them into immigration enforcers; and they often

Page 1

Restoring TrustHow Immigration Detainers In Maryland Undermine Public Safety Through Unnecessary Enforcement

Issue Brief

Page 2

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

Page 3

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

Page 4

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

Page 5

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

Page 6

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

Page 7

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

Page 8

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

Page 9

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

Page 10

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

Page 11

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

Page 12

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

Page 13

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

Page 14

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

Page 15

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

Page 16

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

Page 17

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

Page 18

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

Page 19

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

Page 20

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

Page 21

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

Page 22

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

Page 23

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

Page 24

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

Page 25

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

Page 26

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

Page 27

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

Page 28

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

Page 29

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

Page 30

Appendix II Maryland Attorney General October 31 Letter of Advice to Senator Victor Ramirez

AMER

ICAN CIVIL LIBER

TIES

UNION OF MARYLA

ND

30

Page 31

AMER

ICAN CIVIL LIB

ERTIES UNION OF M

ARYLA

ND

31

Page 32

AMER

ICAN CIVIL LIBER

TIES

UNION OF MARYLA

ND

32

Page 33

AMER

ICAN CIVIL LIB

ERTIES UNION OF M

ARYLA

ND

33

Page 34

AMER

ICAN CIVIL LIBER

TIES

UNION OF MARYLA

ND

34

Page 35

AMER

ICAN CIVIL LIB

ERTIES UNION OF M

ARYLA

ND

35

Page 36

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

Page 37

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

Page 38

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

Page 39

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

Page 40

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

Page 41

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

Page 42

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

Page 43

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

Page 44

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

Page 45

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

Page 46

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

Page 47

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

Page 48

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

Page 49

“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

Page 50

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

Page 51

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

Page 52

www.aclu-md.org