United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 78

REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Xavier Becerra, Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr, State of California in Support of 77 Motion to Dismiss and 74 Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sherman, Lee) Modified on 5/7/2018 (Fabillaran, J).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
THOMAS PATTERSON
Senior Assistant Attorney General
MICHAEL NEWMAN
SATOSHI YANAI
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
CHRISTINE CHUANG
ANTHONY HAKL
CHEROKEE MELTON
LEE I. SHERMAN
Deputy Attorneys General
State Bar No. 272271
300 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
Case No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN

16

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

17

Plaintiff, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
v.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND DEFENDANTS’
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND MOTION TO DISMISS
GERALD BROWN JR., Governor of
California, in his official capacity; and
Date:
June 20, 2018 [Preliminary
XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of
Injunction Hearing]
California, in his official capacity,
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 6
Defendants. Judge:
The Honorable John A.
Mendez
Trial Date:
None set
Action Filed: March 6, 2018

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

RJN in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. and Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

Defendants the State of California, Edmund Gerald Brown Jr., Governor of California, in

2

his official capacity, and Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, in his official capacity

3

(collectively, “Defendants”), hereby request, under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,

4

that the Court take judicial notice of the following items in connection with Defendants’

5

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss:

6

1.

Exhibit A: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detainer Policy

7

effective April 2, 2017, available at

8

https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2017/10074-2.pdf

9

2.

Exhibit B: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-247A, Immigration

10

Detainer—Notice of Action, available at

11

https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2017/I-247A.pdf

12

3.

Exhibit C: DHS Memorandum dated February 20, 2017 entitled “Enforcement of the

13

Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest,” available at

14

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0220_S1_Enforcement-of-

15

the-Immigration-Laws-to-Serve-the-National-Interest.pdf

16

4.

Exhibit D: DHS Privacy Policy 2017-1 Questions and Answers, available at

17

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Privacy%20Policy%20Questions

18

%20%20Answers%2C%2020170427%2C%20Final.pdf

19

5.

Exhibit E: Fiscal Year 2017 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report,

20

available at

21

https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2017/iceEndOfYearFY201

22

7.pdf

23

6.

24

Exhibit F: Senate Committee Public Safety, Analysis of Senate Bill 54 (SB 54),
January 31, 2017

25

7.

Exhibit G: SB 54, Assembly Committee on Judiciary, Analysis of SB 54, July 5, 2017

26

8.

Exhibit H: California Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement,

27
28

Information Bulletin dated March 28, 2018, No. DLE-2018-01, “Responsibilities of
1
RJN in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. and Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

Law Enforcement Agencies Under the California Values Act, California TRUST Act,

2

and the California TRUTH Act”

3
4
5
6
7

9.

Exhibit I: Assembly Committee on Appropriations, Analysis of Assembly Bill (AB
450), May 17, 2017

10. Exhibit J: Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations, Analysis of AB 450,
June 28, 2017
11. Exhibit K: Office of Inspector General, Management Alert on Issues Requiring

8

Immediate Action at the Theo Lacy Facility in Orange, California, OIG-17-43-MA,

9

March 6, 2017, available at

10
11
12

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Mga/2017/oig-mga-030617.pdf
12. Exhibit L:
•

News article from NBC San Diego dated April 27, 2017, entitled “Advocacy

13

Group: If you’re Abused in Immigration Detention the Government Doesn’t

14

Care,” available at

15

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Advocacy-Group-If-Youre-Abused-

16

in-Immigration-Detention-the-Government-Doesnt-Care-420666314.html

17

•

News article from The Sacramento Bee dated March 4, 2017, entitled “High

18

levels of lead found in county correctional facility water,” available at

19

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article136502123.html

20

•

News article from the Los Angeles Times dated March 24, 2017, entitled

21

“Mexican man’s widow sues, says immigration detention facility staff ignored

22

pleas for help,” available at

23

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-detention-lawsuit-20170324-

24

story.html

25

•

New article from KQED News dated July, 5, 2017, entitled “Hunger Strike at

26

California’s Biggest Immigration Detention Center,” available at

27

https://www.kqed.org/news/11549587/hunger-strike-at-californias-biggest-

28

immigration-detention-center

2

RJN in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. and Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

Facts subject to judicial notice include those that “can be accurately and readily determined

2

from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). The

3

Court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary

4

information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2). Information made publicly available by government

5

entities is subject to judicial notice. See Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99

6

(9th Cir. 2010); Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 676 n.6 (9th Cir. 2017). Exhibits A,

7

B, C, D, E, H, and K are documents made available to the public by the United States Department

8

of Homeland Security and the California Department of Justice.

9

In addition, “[l]egislative history is properly the subject of judicial notice.” Anderson v.

10

Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1094 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012). Exhibits F, G, I, and J are legislative history

11

reports made available by the California Legislature. Lastly, courts take judicial notice of news

12

articles “to indicate what was in the public realm at the time,” Von Saher v. Norton Simon

13

Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), and “adjudicative facts appearing

14

in newspapers.” Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480, 1491 n.10 (9th Cir. 1996) (taking judicial

15

notice of reports of data in newspapers); see also Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454, 458-

16

59 (9th Cir. 1995) (judicial notice of widespread layoffs at company based on news article).

17

Exhibit L contains news articles from 2017 that indicate the reporting by newspapers of

18

conditions in immigration detention facilities in California and information in the public realm

19

concerning those facilities.

20

///

21

///

22

///

23
24
25
26
27
28

3
RJN in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. and Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

Thus, because the above items meet the requirements of Rule 201(b)(2) of the Federal

2

Rules of Evidence, the Court must take judicial notice of them pursuant to Rule 201(c)(2) of the

3

Federal Rules of Evidence.

4

Dated: May 4, 2018

Respectfully Submitted,

5

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California

6
7

/s/ Lee Sherman
Lee Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
RJN in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. and Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

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

FROM: (Department of Homeland Security Office Address)

Enforcement Agency)

Name of Alien:
Date of Birth:

Citizenship:

Sex:

1. DHS HAS DETERMINED THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS THAT THE SUBJECT IS A REMOVABLE ALIEN. THIS
DETERMINATION IS BASED ON (complete box 1 or 2).
A final order of removal against the alien;
The pendency of ongoing removal proceedings against the alien;
Biometric confirmation of the alien’s identity and a records check of federal databases that affirmatively indicate, by themselves
or in addition to other reliable information, that the alien either lacks immigration status or notwithstanding such status is
removable under U.S. immigration law; and/or
Statements made by the alien to an immigration officer and/or other reliable evidence that affirmatively indicate the alien either
lacks immigration status or notwithstanding such status is removable under U.S. immigration law.
2. DHS TRANSFERRED THE ALIEN TO YOUR CUSTODY FOR A PROCEEDING OR INVESTIGATION (complete box 1 or 2).
Upon completion of the proceeding or investigation for which the alien was transferred to your custody, DHS intends to resume
custody of the alien to complete processing and/or make an admissibility determination.
IT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT YOU:

• Notify DHS as early as practicable (at least 48 hours, if possible) before the alien is released from your custody.

Please notify
DHS by calling
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at
. If you cannot reach an official at the number(s) provided, please contact the Law Enforcement Support
Center at: [phone].
• Maintain custody of the alien for a period NOT TO EXCEED 48 HOURS beyond the time when he/she would otherwise have
been released from your custody to allow DHS to assume custody. The alien must be served with a copy of this form for the
detainer to take effect. This detainer arises from DHS authorities and should not impact decisions about the alien’s bail,
rehabilitation, parole, release, diversion, custody classification, work, quarter assignments, or other matters
• Relay this detainer to any other law enforcement agency to which you transfer custody of the alien.
• Notify this office in the event of the alien's death, hospitalization or transfer to another institution.
If checked: please cancel the detainer related to this alien previously submitted to you on

(Name and title of Immigration Officer)

(date).

(Signature of Immigration Officer) (Sign in ink)

Notice: If the alien may be the victim of a crime or you want the alien to remain in the United States for a law enforcement purpose,
notify the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center at [phone]. You may also call this number if you have any other questions or
concerns about this matter.
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY CURRENTLY HOLDING THE ALIEN WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS
NOTICE:
Please provide the information below, sign, and return to DHS by mailing, emailing or faxing a copy to
Local Booking/Inmate #:

Estimated release date/time:

Date of latest criminal charge/conviction:
This form was served upon the alien on
in person

by inmate mail delivery
(Name and title of Officer)

DHS Form I-247A (3/17)

.

Last offense charged/conviction:
, in the following manner:
other (please specify):
(Signature of Officer) (Sign in ink)

Page 1 of 3

NOTICE TO THE DETAINEE
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed an immigration detainer on you. An immigration detainer is a
notice to a law enforcement agency that DHS intends to assume custody of you (after you otherwise would be released
from custody) because there is probable cause that you are subject to removal from the United States under federal
immigration law. DHS has requested that the law enforcement agency that is currently detaining you maintain custody of
you for a period not to exceed 48 hours beyond the time when you would have been released based on your criminal
charges or convictions. If DHS does not take you into custody during this additional 48 hour period, you should
contact your custodian (the agency that is holding you now) to inquire about your release. If you believe you are a
United States citizen or the victim of a crime, please advise DHS by calling the ICE Law Enforcement Support
Center toll free at [phone].
NOTIFICACIÓN A LA PERSONA DETENIDA
El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) le ha puesto una retención de inmigración. Una retención de inmigración
es un aviso a una agencia de la ley que DHS tiene la intención de asumir la custodia de usted (después de lo contrario,
usted sería puesto en libertad de la custodia) porque hay causa probable que usted está sujeto a que lo expulsen de los
Estados Unidos bajo la ley de inmigración federal. DHS ha solicitado que la agencia de la ley que le tiene detenido
actualmente mantenga custodia de usted por un periodo de tiempo que no exceda de 48 horas más del tiempo original
que habría sido puesto en libertad en base a los cargos judiciales o a sus antecedentes penales. Si DHS no le pone en
custodia durante este periodo adicional de 48 horas, usted debe de contactarse con su custodio (la agencia que
le tiene detenido en este momento) para preguntar acerca de su liberación. Si usted cree que es un ciudadano de los
Estados Unidos o la víctima de un crimen, por favor avise al DHS llamando gratuitamente al Centro de Apoyo a la
Aplicación de la Ley ICE al [phone].
AVIS AU DETENU OU À LA DÉTENUE
Le Département de la Sécurité Intérieure (DHS) a placé un dépositaire d'immigration sur vous. Un dépositaire
d'immigration est un avis à une agence de force de l'ordre que le DHS a l'intention de vous prendre en garde à vue
(après celà vous pourrez par ailleurs être remis en liberté) parce qu'il y a une cause probable que vous soyez sujet à
expulsion des États-Unis en vertu de la loi fédérale sur l'immigration. Le DHS a demandé que l'agence de force de
l'ordre qui vous détient actuellement puisse vous maintenir en garde pendant une période ne devant pas dépasser 48
heures au-delà du temps après lequel vous auriez été libéré en se basant sur vos accusations criminelles ou
condamnations. Si le DHS ne vous prenne pas en garde à vue au cours de cette période supplémentaire de 48
heures, vous devez contacter votre gardien (ne) (l'agence qui vous détient maintenant) pour vous renseigner sur
votre libération. Si vous croyez que vous êtes un citoyen ou une citoyenne des États-Unis ou une victime d'un
crime, s'il vous plaît aviser le DHS en appelant gratuitement le centre d'assistance de force de l'ordre de l'ICE au
[phone]

NOTIFICAÇÃO AO DETENTO
O Departamento de Segurança Nacional (DHS) expediu um mandado de detenção migratória contra você. Um mandado
de detenção migratória é uma notificação feita à uma agência de segurança pública que o DHS tem a intenção de
assumir a sua custódia (após a qual você, caso contrário, seria liberado da custódia) porque existe causa provável que
você está sujeito a ser removido dos Estados Unidos de acordo com a lei federal de imigração. ODHS solicitou à agência
de segurança pública onde você está atualmente detido para manter a sua guarda por um período de no máximo 48
horas além do tempo que você teria sido liberado com base nas suas acusações ou condenações criminais. Se o DHS
não leva-lo sob custódia durante este período adicional de 48 horas, você deve entrar em contato com quem
tiver a sua custódia (a agência onde você está atualmente detido) para perguntar a respeito da sua liberação. Se você
acredita ser um cidadão dos Estados Unidos ou a vítima de um crime, por favor informe ao DHS através de uma
ligação gratuita ao Centro de Suporte de Segurança Pública do Serviço de Imigração e Alfândega (ICE) pelo
telefone [phone].

DHS Form I-247A (3/17)

Page 2 of 3

THÔNG BÁO CHO NGƯỜI BỊ GIAM
Bộ Nội An (DHS) đã ra lệnh giam giữ di trú đối với quý vị. Giam giữ di trú là một thông báo cho cơ quan công lực
rằng Bộ Nội An sẽ đảm đương việc lưu giữ quý vị (sau khi quý vị được thả ra) bởi có lý do khả tín quý vị là đối
tượng bị trục xuất khỏi Hoa Kỳ theo luật di trú liên bang. Sau khi quý vị đã thi hành đầy đủ thời gian của bản án
dựa trên các tội phạm hay các kết án, thay vì được thả tự do, Bộ Nội An đã yêu cầu cơ quan công lực giữ quý vị
lại thêm không quá 48 tiếng đồng hồ nữa. Nếu Bộ Nội An không đến bắt quý vị sau 48 tiếng đồng hồ phụ trội đó,
quý vị cần liên lạc với cơ quan hiện đang giam giữ quý vị dể tham khảo về việc trả tự do cho quý vị. Nếu quý vị là
công dân Hoa Kỳ hay tin rằng mình là nạn nhân của một tội ác, xin vui lòng báo cho Bộ Nội An bằng cách gọi số
điện thoại miễn phí 1(855) 448-6903 cho Trung Tâm Hỗ Trợ Cơ Quan Công Lực Di Trú.

(Department of Homeland Security
DHS
)
DHS
DHS
(Law Enforcement Support Center)

DHS Form I-247A (3/17)

DHS)

(

(
DHS

ICE
[phone]

)

Page 3 of 3

EXHIBIT C

Si::cretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Homeland
Security

February 20, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR:

Kevin McAleenan
Acting Commissioner
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Thomas D. Homan
Acting Director
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Lori Scialabba
Acting Director
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Joseph B. Maher
Acting General Counsel
Dimple Shah
Acting Assistant Secretary for International Affairs
Chip Fulghum
Acting Undersecretary for Management

FROM:

John Kelly
Secretary

SUBJECT:

Enforcemen of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National
Interest

This memorandum implements the Executive Order entitled "Enhancing Public Safety in
the Interior of the United States," issued by the President on January 25, 2017. It constitutes
guidance for all Department personnel regarding the enforcement of the immigration laws of the
United States, and is applicable to the activities of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS). As such, it should inform enforcement and removal activities, detention
decisions, administrative litigation, budget requests and execution, and strategic planning.

www.dhs.gov

With the exception of the June 15, 2012, memorandum entitled "Exercising Prosecutorial
Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children," and the
November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to
Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals
Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents," 1 all existing conflicting
directives, memoranda, or field guidance regarding the enforcement of our immigration laws and
priorities for removal are hereby immediately rescinded- to the extent of the conflict-including,
but not limited to, the November 20, 2014, memoranda entitled "Policies for the Apprehension,
Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants," and "Secure Communities."
A. The Department's Enforcement Priorities
Congress has defined the Department's role and responsibilities regarding the enforcement
of the immigration laws of the United States. Effective immediately, and consistent with Article
II , Section 3 of the United States Constitution and Section 3331 of Title 5, United States Code,
Department personnel shall faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States against
all removable aliens.
Except as specifically noted above, the Department no longer will exempt classes or
categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. In faithfully executing the
immigration laws, Department personnel should take enforcement actions in accordance with
applicable law. In order to achieve this goal, as noted below, I have directed ICE to hire 10,000
officers and agents expeditiously, subject to available resources, and to take enforcement actions
consistent with available resources. However, in order to maximize the benefit to public safety, to
stem unlawful migration and to prevent fraud and misrepresentation, Department personnel
should prioritize for removal those aliens described by Congress in Sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and
(a)(6)(C), 235(b) and (c), and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Additionally, regardless of the basis of removability, Department personnel should
prioritize removable aliens who: (I) have been convicted of any criminal offense; (2) have been
charged with any criminal offense that has not been resolved; (3) have committed acts which
constitute a chargeable criminal offense; (4) have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in
connection with any official matter before a governmental agency; (5) have abused any program
related to receipt of public benefits; (6) are subject to a final order ofremoval but have not
complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or (7) in the judgment of an
immigration officer, otheiwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. The Director of
ICE, the Commissioner of CBP, and the Director of USCIS may, as they determine is appropriate,
issue further guidance to allocate appropriate resources to prioritize enforcement activities within
these categories-for example, by prioritizing enforcement activities against removable aliens
who are convicted felons or who are involved in gang activity or drug trafficking.

1

The November 20, 2014, memorandum will be addressed in future guidance.

2

B. Strengthening Programs to Facilitate the Efficient and Faithful Execution of the
Immigration Laws of the United States
Facilitating the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United
States-and prioritizing the Department's resources-requires the use of all available systems and
enforcement tools by Department personnel.
Through passage of the immigration laws, Congress established a comprehensive statutory
regime to remove aliens expeditiously from the United States in accordance with all applicable
due process of law. I determine that the faithfol execution of our immigration laws is best
achieved by using all these statutory authorities to the greatest extent practicable. Accordingly,
Department personnel shall make full use of these authorities.
Criminal aliens have demonstrated their disregard for the rule of law and pose a threat to
persons residing in the United States. As such, criminal aliens are a priority for removal. The
Priority Enforcement Program failed to achieve its stated objectives, added an unnecessary layer
of uncertainty for the Department' s personnel, and hampered the Department's enforcement of the
immigration laws in the interior of the United States. Effective immediately, the Priority
Enforcement Program is terminated and the Secure Communities Program shall be restored. To
protect our communities and better facilitate the identification, detention, and removal of criminal
aliens within constitutional and statutory parameters, the Department shall eliminate the existing
Forms I-247D, I-247N, and I-247X, and replace them with a new form to more effectively
communicate with recipient law enforcement agencies. However, until such forms are updated
they may be used as an interim measure to ensure that detainers may still be issued, as
appropriate.
ICE's Criminal Alien Program is an effective tool to facilitate the removal of criminal
aliens from the United States, while also protecting our communities and conserving the
Department's detention resources. Accordingly, ICE should devote available resources to
expanding the use of the Criminal Alien Program in any willing jurisdiction in the United States.
To the maximum extent possible, in coordination with the Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR), removal proceedings shall be initiated against aliens incarcerated in federal,
state, and local correctional facilities under the Institutional Hearing and Removal Program
pursuant to section 238(a) of the INA, and administrative removal processes, such as those under
section 238(b) of the INA, shall be used in all eligible cases.
The INA § 287(g) Program has been a highly successful force multiplier that allows a
qualified state or local law enforcement officer to be designated as an "immigration officer" for
purposes of enforcing federal immigration law. Such officers have the authority to perform all law
enforcement functions specified in section 287(a) of the INA, including the authority to
investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, and conduct searches authorized under the INA,
under the direction and supervision of the Department.
There are currently 32 law enforcement agencies in 16 states participating in the 287(g)
3

Program. In previous years, there were significantly more law enforcement agencies participating
in the 287(g) Program. To the greatest extent practicable, the Director of ICE and Commissioner
of CBP shall expand the 287(g) Program to include all qualified law enforcement agencies that
request to participate and meet all program requirements. In furtherance of this direction and the
guidance memorandum, " Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration
Enforcement Improvements Policies" (Feb. 20, 2017), the Commissioner of CBP is authorized, in
addition to the Director ofICE, to accept State services and take other actions as appropriate to
carry out immigration enforcement pursuant to section 287(g) of the INA.

C. Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion
Unless otherwise directed, Department personnel may initiate enforcement actions against
removable aliens encountered during the performance of their official duties and should act
consistently with the President's enforcement priorities identified in his Executive Order and any
further guidance issued pursuant to this memorandum. Department personnel have full authority
to arrest or apprehend an alien whom an immigration officer has probable cause to believe is in
violation of the immigration laws. They also have full authority to initiate removal proceedings
against any alien who is subject to removal under any provision of the INA, and to refer
appropriate cases for criminal prosecution. The Department shall prioritize aliens described in the
Department's Enforcement Priorities (Section A) for arrest and removal. This is not intended to
remove the individual, case-by-case decisions of immigration officers.
The exercise of prosecutorial discretion with regard to any alien who is subject to arrest,
criminal prosecution, or removal in accordance with law shall be made on a case-by-case basis in
consultation with the head of the field office component, where appropriate, of CBP, ICE, or
USCIS that initiated or will initiate the enforcement action, regardless of which entity actually
files any applicable charging documents: CBP Chief Patrol Agent, CBP Director of Field
Operations, ICE Field Office Director, lCE Special Agent-in-Charge, or the USCIS Field Office
Director, Asylum Office Director or Service Center Director.
Except as specifically provided in this memorandum, prosecutorial discretion shall not be
exercised in a manner that exempts or excludes a specified class or category of aliens from
enforcement of the immigration laws. The General Counsel shall issue guidance consistent with
these principles to all attorneys involved in immigration proceedings.

D. Establishing the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office
Criminal aliens routinely victimize Americans and other legal residents. Often, these
victims are not provided adequate information about the offender, the offender's immigration
status, or any enforcement action taken by ICE against the offender. Efforts by ICE to engage
these victims have been hampered by prior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy
extending certain Privacy Act protections to persons other than U.S. citizens and lawful
permanent residents, leaving victims feeling marginalized and without a voice. Accordingly, I am
establishing the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office within the Office of
4

the Director of ICE, which will create a programmatic liaison between ICE and the known victims
of crimes committed by removable aliens. The liaison will facilitate engagement with the victims
and their families to ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that they are provided information
about the offender, including the offender's immigration status and custody status, and that their
questions and concerns regarding immigration enforcement efforts are addressed.
To that end, I direct the Director of ICE to immediately reallocate any and all resources
that are currently used to advocate on behalf of illegal aliens (except as necessary to comply with
a judicial order) to the new VOICE Office, and to immediately terminate the provision of such
outreach or advocacy services to illegal aliens.
Nothing herein may be construed to authorize disclosures that are prohibited by law or
may relate to information that is Classified, Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU), Law Enforcement
Sensitive (LES), For Official Use Only (FOUO), or similarly designated information that may
relate to national security, law enforcement, or intelligence programs or operations, or disclosures
that are reasonably likely to cause harm to any person.

E. Hiring Additional ICE Officers and Agents
To enforce the immigration laws effectively in the interior of the United States in
accordance with the President's directives, additional ICE agents and officers are necessary. The
Director of ICE shall-while ensuring consistency in training and standards- take all appropriate
action to expeditiously hire 10,000 agents and officers, as well as additional operational and
mission support and legal staff necessary to hire and support their activities. Human Capital
leadership in CBP and ICE, in coordination with the Under Secretary for Management and the
Chief Human Capital Officer, shall develop hiring plans that balance growth and interagency
attrition by integrating workforce shaping and career paths for incumbents and new hires.

F. Establishment of Programs to Collect Authorized Civil Fines and Penalties
As soon as practicable, the Director ofICE, the Commissioner of CBP, and the Director of
users shall issue guidance and promulgate regulations, where required by law, to ensure the
assessment and collection of all fines and penalties which the Department is authorized under the
law to assess and collect from aliens and from those who facilitate their unlawful presence in the
United States.

G. Aligning the Department's Privacy Policies With the Law
The Department will no longer afford Privacy Act rights and protections to persons who
are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The DHS Privacy Office will rescind the
DHS Privacy Policy Guidance memorandum, dated January 7, 2009, which implemented the
OHS "mixed systems" policy of administratively treating all personal information contained in
DHS record systems as being subject to the Privacy Act regardless of the subject' s immigration
status. The DHS Privacy Office, with the assistance of the Office of the General Counsel, will
5

develop new guidance specifying the appropriate treatment of personal information DHS
maintains in its record systems.

H. Collecting and Reporting Data on Alien Apprehensions and Releases
The collection of data regarding aliens apprehended by ICE and the disposition of their
cases will assist in the development of agency performance metrics and provide transparency in
the immigration enforcement mission. Accordingly, to the extent permitted by law, the Director of
ICE shall develop a standardized method of reporting statistical data regarding aliens apprehended
by ICE and, at the earliest practicable time, provide monthly reports of such data to the public
without charge.
The reporting method shall include uniform terminology and shall utilize a format that is
easily understandable by the public and a medium that can be readily accessed. At a minimum, in
addition to statistical information currently being publicly reported regarding apprehended aliens,
the following categories of information must be included: country of citizenship, convicted
criminals and the nature of their offenses, gang members, prior immigration violators, custody
status of aliens and, if released, the reason for release and location of their release, aliens ordered
removed, and aliens physically removed or returned.
The ICE Director shall also develop and provide a weekly report to the public, utilizing a
medium that can be readily accessed without charge, of non-Federal jurisdictions that release
aliens from their custody, notwithstanding that such aliens are subject to a detainer or similar
request for custody issued by ICE to that jurisdiction. In addition to other relevant information, to
the extent that such information is readily available, the report shall reflect the name of the
jurisdiction, the citizenship and immigration status of the alien, the arrest, charge, or conviction
for which each alien was in the custody of that jurisdiction, the date on which the ICE detainer or
similar request for custody was served on the jurisdiction by ICE, the date of the alien's release
from the custody of that jurisdiction and the reason for the release, an explanation concerning why
the detainer or similar request for custody was not honored, and all arrests, charges, or convictions
occurring after the alien' s release from the custody of that jurisdiction.
I. No Private Right of Action

This document provides only internal DHS policy guidance, which may be modified,
rescinded, or superseded at any time without notice. This guidance is not intended to, does not,
and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Likewise, no limitations are
placed by this guidance on the otherwise lawful enforcement or litigation prerogatives of DHS.
In implementing these policies, I direct DHS Components to consult with legal counsel to
ensure compliance with all applicable laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act.

6

EXHIBIT D

April 27, 2017

Privacy Policy 2017-01
Questions & Answers
U.S. Citizen Definitions
Who is a U.S. citizen?
A person may become a U.S. citizen at birth, if:
i. He or she was born in the United States or certain territories or outlying
possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States; or
ii. She or he had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your
birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements.
A person may become a U.S. citizen after birth, if:
i. She or he applies for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship
through parents, or
ii. He or she applies for naturalization.
Who is a lawful permanent resident?
A person is a lawful permanent resident if he or she enjoys the status accorded to
an individual who has been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing
permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with immigration
laws, and that status has not changed.
Who is an immigrant?
A person who is an alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under
specific non-immigrant categories as discussed below in response to question 14.
Additionally, a person who has entered without inspection, an illegal alien, is also
considered an immigrant.
Who is a non-immigrant?
A person who is an alien seeking temporary entry to the United States for a
specific purpose. The alien must have a permanent residence abroad (for most
classes of admission) and qualify for the nonimmigrant classification sought. The
nonimmigrant classifications include: foreign government officials, visitors for
business and for pleasure, aliens in transit through the United States, treaty traders
and investors, students, international representatives, temporary workers and
trainees, representatives of foreign information media, exchange visitors,
fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens, intracompany transferees, NATO officials, religious
1

April 27, 2017

workers, and some others. Most nonimmigrants can be accompanied or joined by
spouses and unmarried minor (or dependent) children.
1. Why is the Policy changing?
a. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is changing its policy regarding
the extension of Privacy Act protections to all persons as directed by section
14 of Executive Order 13768, which states, that “[a]gencies shall, to the extent
consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude
persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from
the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable
information.” Previously, DHS had provided the administrative protections of
the Privacy Act to all persons, as permitted by regulatory guidance from the
Office of Management and Budget. The policy of the current Administration
is to grant Privacy Act protections only to those explicitly covered by the
Privacy Act.
2. What changes result from the new Policy?
a. Generally, the new policy clarifies that immigrants and non-immigrants may
only obtain access to their records through the Freedom of Information Act
and may not be granted amendment of their records upon request. The
Executive Order limits the rights and protections of the Privacy Act, subject to
applicable law, to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. The new
policy requires that decisions regarding the collection, maintenance, use,
disclosure, retention, and disposal of information being held by DHS conform
to an analysis consistent with the Fair Information Practice Principles, see
questions 7 and 8.
3. What changes to the analysis of records and information disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act result from the new Policy?
a. The new Policy does not change the analysis of records and information
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), an applicable law.
Decisions to withhold information requested by third parties about immigrants
and non-immigrants will be analyzed in accordance the FOIA exemptions at 5
U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) or (b)(7)(C), which balance the public’s right to know
about government operations against the personal privacy interests of the
subject. With respect to FOIA requests about oneself, an immigrant or nonimmigrant will receive those records that are not exempt under the FOIA, just
like any other person.

2

April 27, 2017

4. What is the impact of the new Policy on the Judicial Redress Act?
a. The new Policy has no effect upon the Judicial Redress Act, an applicable
law. The Judicial Redress Act provides that “covered persons,” who are
citizens of covered foreign states, will have both administrative and judicial
Privacy Act rights with respect to their information contained in “covered
records,” which are law enforcement in nature. This means that certain foreign
nationals, currently citizens of the majority of European Union states, may
seek access or amendment of their covered records held and covered by a
DHS System of Records Notice (SORN), or pursue judicial redress for access,
amendment, or wrongful disclosure of such records. For more information
see, https://www.justice.gov/opcl/judicial-redress-act-2015.
5. What changes to the sharing or disclosure of information with the Congress
result from the new Policy?
a. The new Policy does not change the requirements for sharing information in
full in response to a request from the Chairperson of Congressional
Committee asking upon behalf of the Committee regarding a matter within the
jurisdiction of the Committee. Such a response is normally confidential for
use in support of the Committee’s business and not a public disclosure.
Similarly, the new Policy does not change how we respond to Congressional
requests on behalf of constituents, who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent
residents, in that it is treated as a first-party Privacy Act request by consent of
the constituent; nor does it change how we respond to Congressional requests
on behalf of immigrants, non-immigrants, or other third parties (such as, state
and local government, or the Congressperson asking in a personal capacity),
in that it is treated as a Freedom of Information Act request.
6. What changes to the sharing or disclosure of information with federal, state, and
local law enforcement result from the new Policy?
a. The new Policy, subject to the Judicial Redress Act or confidentiality
provisions provided by statute or regulation, permits the sharing of
information about immigrants and non-immigrants with federal, state, and
local law enforcement. The Policy requires that such sharing conform to an
analysis based upon the Fair Information Practice Principles that demonstrates
a consistent relationship between the purpose for collection of the information
and intended use.

3

April 27, 2017

7. What are the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)?
a. The Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) are principles that were first
promulgated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1973
and have guided federal government information practices going forward. The
concepts are integral to many privacy laws, including both the Privacy Act of
1974 and to the E-Government Act of 2002, which also governs agency use of
new technology. The eight foundational principles are: Transparency,
Individual Participation, Purpose Specification, Data Minimization, Use
Limitation, Data Quality and Integrity, Security, and Accountability and
Auditing. For a discussion see question 8.
8. How do the FIPPs inform the use and protection of information by DHS?
a. The FIPPs inform the use and protection of information by DHS as follows:
i. Transparency requires that DHS give public notice to its actions to
collect information (e.g., System of Records Notices and Privacy Impact
Assessments, which are located on the DHS Privacy Office Website,
and signage [see, www.dhs.gov/privacy.]);
ii. Individual Participation requires that, when appropriate, DHS involve
the person in the decision whether or not to provide personal
information to DHS (i.e., make a choice);
iii. Purpose Specification requires that DHS inform the public of its
authority to collect the information that it seeks—in other words, say
what information is sought, why it is being sought, and whether or not
it’s submission is voluntary;
iv. Data Minimization requires that DHS only seek to collect the
information that it needs, based upon its authority and based upon the
mission or operation that requires the information;
v. Use Limitation requires that DHS use the information that it collects in
a manner compatible with the purpose and authority that permit the
collection;
vi. Data Quality and Integrity require that DHS has means to ensure the
accuracy of the information it collects, provides measures to maintain
the data free from corruption, and allow for corrections to data that
become inaccurate or stale;
vii. Security requires that DHS ensure its data systems are protected against
intrusion, that user access is determined by mission assignments, and
that remedial procedures exist to address the possibility of breach or
data spills;
viii. Accountability and Auditing require that DHS maintains the integrity
of its systems such that it may find, use, and report upon the data
4

April 27, 2017

residing in those systems, and so that it may allow for independent
audits to verify the accuracy of its reporting and its satisfaction of the
prior seven principles.
9. What access to records is available to immigrants and non-immigrants?
a. Immigrants and non-immigrants may access their records through the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Any person, irrespective of immigration
status, may file a FOIA request with DHS for information about him or herself
that DHS has in its possession and systems; he or she is entitled to a response
that details the search for information about the person and informs him or her
whether or not the records about them are released in full, released with
certain portions masked in accordance with exemptions under the FOIA, or
withheld in full.
10. May immigrants and non-immigrants amend their records, which are held by
DHS?
a. Immigrants and non-immigrants may not request amendment of their records
in accordance with the Privacy Act. DHS, however, as a matter of efficiency
and accurate recordkeeping strives to keep all information in its possession
current. When DHS becomes aware and is able to confirm that information in
its possession is inaccurate or no longer relevant it may choose to update or
dispose of such information in accordance with the terms of the Federal
Records Act records disposition schedules that apply to the particular records
under review.
11. What impact does the new Policy have on immigrants and non-immigrants
access to redress through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Process (DHS
TRIP)?
a. The new Policy has no impact upon an immigrant or non-immigrant’s access
to Redress through DHS TRIP. DHS TRIP provides traveler redress to all
persons irrespective of immigration status. Individuals, including foreign
nationals, or persons who believe they have been improperly denied entry,
refused boarding for transportation, or identified for additional screening by
DHS may submit a redress request through DHS TRIP. DHS TRIP is a single
point of contact for persons who have inquiries or seek resolution regarding
difficulties they experienced during their travel screening at transportation
hubs such as airports, seaports and train stations, or at U.S. land borders. For
more information see, www.dhs.gov/trip.

5

EXHIBIT E

Fiscal Year 2017 ICE Enforcement
and Removal Operations Report
Overview
This report summarizes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO) activities in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. ERO identifies, arrests, and removes aliens who
present a danger to national security or a threat to public safety, or who otherwise undermine border
control and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system. ICE shares responsibility for administering and
enforcing the nation’s immigration laws with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
On January 25, 2017, the President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13,768, Enhancing Public
Safety in the Interior of the United States (EO), which set forth the Administration’s immigration
enforcement and removal priorities. The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) February 20, 2017
memorandum, Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (implementation
memorandum) provided direction for the implementation of the policies set forth in the EO. The EO and
implementation memorandum expanded ICE’s enforcement focus to include removable aliens who (1)
have been convicted of any criminal offense; (2) have been charged with any criminal offense that has not
been resolved; (3) have committed acts which constitute a chargeable criminal offense; (4) have engaged
in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter before a governmental agency;
(5) have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; (6) are subject to a final order of
removal but have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or (7) in the
judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. The
Department has directed that classes or categories of removable aliens are no longer exempted from
potential enforcement.
The EO and implementation memorandum highlight the critical importance of interior enforcement in
protecting national security and public safety and upholding the rule of law. This report presents and
analyzes ICE ERO’s FY2017 year-end statistics and illustrates how ICE ERO successfully fulfilled its
mission in furthering the policies set forth in the EO and implementation memorandum.
FY2017 Enforcement and Removal Statistics
As directed in the EO and implementation memorandum, ICE no longer exempts classes or categories of
removable aliens from potential enforcement. This policy change is reflected in ERO’s FY2017
enforcement statistics, which show increases in the following enforcement actions: (1) ICE ERO
administrative arrests; (2) book-ins of aliens to ICE detention facilities resulting from ICE arrests; and (3)
ICE ERO removals of aliens as a result of ICE’s interior enforcement. The trend of increased enforcement
actions began shortly after the change in administration on January 20, 2017, and this date is used
throughout the report for the purposes of data reporting. In each of the aforementioned areas, there was a
net increase over the prior fiscal year.

1

ICE ERO Administrative Arrests
An administrative arrest is the arrest of an alien for a civil violation of the immigration laws, which is
subsequently adjudicated by an immigration judge or through other administrative processes. With
143,470 administrative arrests in FY2017, ICE ERO recorded its greatest number of administrative arrests
as compared with the past three fiscal years. 1 There were 33,366 more administrative arrests in FY2017
than in FY2016, representing a 30 percent increase, as seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. FY2015 – FY2017 ERO Administrative Arrests

Administrative arrests began to increase after January 25, 2017, when the EO was issued, as shown in
Figure 2. The analysis of administrative arrests conducted per week shows an elevated level of
enforcement as compared with FY2016, beginning just after the new Administration took office during
FY2017. This illustrates ERO’s prompt response to the direction set forth by the EO.
Figure 2. FY2016 and FY2017 ERO Administrative Arrests per week Comparison

The increase in ERO administrative arrests following the EO accounts for the increase in total ERO
FY2017 arrests. Figure 3 shows the total ERO arrests from the start of the new Administration to the end
of FY2017 compared to the same timeframe in FY2016; the number of administrative arrests rose from
77,806 to 110,568, a 42 percent increase. In fact, ERO arrested more aliens in FY2017 over this period
than in all of FY2016. According to ICE’s system of record, of the 110,568 ERO administrative arrests

1

ERO administrative arrests include all ERO programs. All statistics are attributed to the current program of the processing
officer of an enforcement action.

2

from January 20 to September 30, 2017, 92 percent had a criminal conviction, a pending criminal charge,
were an ICE fugitive, or were processed with a reinstated final order. 2
Figure 3. FY2016 and FY2017 ERO Administrative Arrests from January 20 to End of FY

Administrative Arrests of Criminal vs. Non-Criminal Aliens
An administrative arrest of a criminal alien is the arrest of an alien with a known criminal conviction. ICE
remains committed to targeting such aliens for arrest and removal. ERO arrested 105,736 criminal aliens
in FY2017, resulting in a 12 percent (10,985) increase over FY2016, as seen in Figure 4.
Figure 4. FY2015 – FY2017 ERO Administrative Arrests of Criminal Aliens

Table 1 provides a breakdown of total administrative arrests for FY2017, by those with known criminal
convictions, those without a known conviction and with criminal charges pending final disposition, and
those without a known criminal conviction or pending charges. An alien with both criminal convictions
and pending criminal charges is only counted in the criminal conviction category. The vast majority of
ERO’s arrests were of convicted criminals or aliens with criminal charges. A relatively small percentage
(11 percent) of the arrested alien population had no known criminal convictions or charges. These results
clearly reflect ERO’s success in expanding its efforts to address all illegal aliens encountered in the course
2

ICE ERO defines “fugitive” as any alien who has failed to depart the United States following the issuance of a final order of
removal, deportation or exclusion, or who has failed to report to ICE after receiving notice to do so.

3

of its operations, while still prioritizing its enforcement resources on those who pose a known threat to
national security and public safety.
Table 2 shows the criminal background of arrested aliens and includes criminal charges and convictions
in ICE’s system of record for those administratively arrested in FY2017. Only criminal charge categories
with at least 1,000 total convictions and charges are included in this table. Because this was a new area of
focus and a new measure in FY2017, comparison to previous fiscal years is not possible at this time.
Table 1. FY2017 ERO Administrative Arrests by Criminality
ERO Administrative Arrests by Criminality
Criminality
Arrests
% of Total
Criminal Convictions
105,736
73.7%
Pending Criminal Charges
22,256
15.5%
No Known Criminal Charges
or Convictions
15,478
10.8%
Total Arrests
143,470
100.0%

Table 2. FY2017 Total ERO Administrative Arrests Criminal Charges and Convictions 3

Criminal Charge Category
Traffic Offenses - DUI
Dangerous Drugs
Immigration
Traffic Offenses
Assault
Larceny
Obstructing Judiciary, Congress, Legislature, Etc.
General Crimes
Burglary
Obstructing the Police
Fraudulent Activities
Weapon Offenses
Public Peace
Sex Offenses (Not Involving Assault or Commercialized Sex)
Invasion of Privacy
Stolen Vehicle
Robbery
Family Offenses
Forgery
Sexual Assault
Stolen Property

3

Criminal Convictions
59,985
57,438
52,128
43,908
31,919
15,918
11,655
10,702
10,262
9,976
8,922
8,260
7,336
5,033
4,830
4,678
4,595
3,934
3,768
3,705
3,176

Total
80,547
76,503
62,517
68,346
48,454
20,356
21,278
17,325
12,836
14,616
12,398
11,173
10,928
6,664
6,734
6,174
5,615
5,919
5,210
5,118
4,344

1,421
937
1,675
539
355
710
577
495

Damage Property
Flight / Escape
Liquor
Health / Safety
Homicide
Kidnapping
Commercialized Sexual Offenses
Threat

Criminal Charges
20,562
19,065
10,389
24,438
16,535
4,438
9,623
6,623
2,574
4,640
3,476
2,913
3,592
1,631
1,904
1,496
1,020
1,985
1,442
1,413
1,168

2,681
2,319
2,313
1,548
1,531
1,317
995
847

4,102
3,256
3,988
2,087
1,886
2,027
1,572
1,342

The criminality displayed includes all criminal charges and convictions for FY2017 ERO administrative arrests entered into
ICE’s system of record at the time of the data run. An alien may have more than one criminal charge or criminal conviction in
a fiscal year, and all relevant charges and convictions for each arrest are included. As such, the total number of criminal
charges and convictions is greater than the total number of aliens administratively arrested.

4

Notes: Immigration crimes include “illegal entry,” “illegal reentry,” “false claim to U.S. citizenship,” and “alien smuggling.”
“Obstructing Judiciary& Congress& Legislature& Etc.” refers to several related offenses including, but not limited to: Perjury;
Contempt; Obstructing Justice; Misconduct; Parole and Probation Violations; and Failure to Appear. “General Crimes”
include the following National Crime Information Center (NCIC) charges: Conspiracy, Crimes Against Person, Licensing
Violation, Money Laundering, Morals - Decency Crimes, Property Crimes, Public Order Crimes, Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and Structuring.

Administrative arrests of non-criminals (i.e., those aliens without a criminal conviction on record at the
time of arrest) comprised 26 percent of total ICE ERO administrative arrests in FY2017. Table 3 shows a
breakdown of non-criminal arrests with and without criminal charges. A total of 59 percent of noncriminal arrests during FY2017 had unresolved criminal charges at the time of their arrest. Table 4
illustrates that the percentage of non-criminal arrests with unresolved charges was higher (62 percent) in
the time period after the EO was issued. Of non-criminal aliens arrested in FY2017, 57 percent were
processed with a notice to appear, and 23 percent were ICE fugitives or subjects who had been previously
removed and served an order of reinstatement.
Table 3. FY2017 ERO Administrative Non-Criminal Arrests by Arrest Type
ERO Administrative Arrest Type
Total Non-Criminal Arrests
Criminal Charges/No Conviction
Data Available
Notice to Appear
Fugitives
Reinstatement
Other
No Criminal Arrests/Charges
Notice to Appear
Fugitives
Reinstatement
Other

37,734

% of Non-Criminal
Arrests
100.0%

22,256
13,860
1,808
2,994
3,594
15,478
7,643
2,350
1,695
3,790

59.0%
36.7%
4.8%
7.9%
9.5%
41.0%
20.3%
6.2%
4.5%
10.0%

FY2017

Table 4. FY2017 ERO Administrative Non-Criminal Arrests by Arrest Type
from January 20, 2017 to End of FY
ERO Administrative Arrest Type
Total Non-Criminal Arrests
Criminal Charges/No Conviction
Data Available
Notice to Appear
Fugitives
Reinstatement
Other
No Criminal Arrests/Charges
Notice to Appear
Fugitives
Reinstatement
Other

At-Large Arrests

5

FY2017
01/20/17 - 09/30/17
31,888

% of Non-Criminal
Arrests
100.0%

19,757
12,622
1,585
2,572
2,978
12,131
5,927
2,072
1,440
2,692

62.0%
39.6%
5.0%
8.1%
9.3%
38.0%
18.6%
6.5%
4.5%
8.4%

An ERO at-large arrest is conducted in the community, as opposed to in a custodial setting such as a
prison or jail. 4 The total number of at-large arrests increased after the EO was issued, particularly in those
areas that do not honor ICE detainers or limit or restrict ICE’s access to their jail population. Figure 5
shows that total at-large arrests in FY2017 increased to 40,066 from 30,348 in FY2016. Figure 6 shows
the increase in at-large arrests in the time period after January 20 for both FY2016 and FY2017. In this
time frame, ICE ERO conducted 31,663 at-large arrests in FY2017 as compared to 22,094 in FY2016.
Figure 5. FY2015 – FY2017 ERO At-Large Administrative Arrests

4

ERO administrative arrests reported as “at-large” include records from all ERO Programs with Arrest Methods of Located,
Non-Custodial Arrest, or Probation and Parole.

6

Figure 6. FY2016 and FY2017 ERO Administrative At-Large Arrests, from January 20 to End of FY

Table 5. FY2016 and FY2017 ERO Administrative At-Large Arrests by Criminality
FY2016-2017 ERO At Large Administrative Arrests by Criminality
Criminality
FY2016
FY2017
Convicted Criminal
24,850
26,466
Non-Criminal Immigration Violators
5,498
13,600
Total
30,348
40,066

Detainers
A detainer is a request that the receiving law enforcement agency both notify DHS as early as practicable,
at least 48 hours, if possible, before a removable alien is released from criminal custody, and also
maintain custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours beyond the time the alien would
otherwise have been released to allow DHS to assume custody for removal purposes. ICE issues detainers
to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies only after establishing probable cause to believe that
the subject is an alien who is removable from the United States and to provide notice of ICE’s intent to
assume custody of a subject detained in that law enforcement agency’s custody. The detainer facilitates
the custodial transfer of an alien to ICE from another law enforcement agency. This process helps avoid
the potential risk of danger to ICE officers and to the general public by allowing arrests to be made in a
controlled, custodial setting as opposed to at-large arrests in the community.
The cooperation ICE receives from other law enforcement agencies is critical to its ability to identify and
arrest aliens who pose a risk to public safety or national security. While some jurisdictions do not
cooperate with ICE as a matter of policy, others agree that increasing cooperation is beneficial, but
decline to do so based upon litigation concerns. Although not legally required, as a matter of policy, all
detainers issued by ICE must be accompanied by either: (1) a properly completed Form I-200 (Warrant
7

for Arrest of Alien) signed by a legally authorized immigration officer; or (2) a properly completed Form
I-205 (Warrant of Removal/Deportation) signed by a legally authorized immigration officer. These forms
help to mitigate future litigation risk and will further ICE’s efforts to ensure that our law enforcement
partners can honor detainers.
Issued Detainers
The number of detainers issued by ERO officers substantially increased following the EO. Figure 8 shows
that ERO issued 112,493 detainers in the time period beginning with the new Administration, as opposed
to 62,192 during the same time period from the previous fiscal year, an 81 percent increase. Figure 7
shows the number of detainers issued over the past three fiscal years. In FY2017, ERO issued 142,356
detainers, up 65 percent from 86,026 in FY2016, which demonstrates ERO’s commitment to taking
enforcement action on all illegal aliens it encounters, as directed by the EO. The rise in detainers issued
shows a more active approach to interior enforcement, particularly for those aliens involved in criminal
activity, despite continued opposition from some state and local jurisdictions.
Figure 7. FY2015 – FY2017 ERO Detainers Issued

8

Figure 8. FY2016 and FY2017 ERO Detainers Issued from January 20 to End of FY

Declined Detainers
ICE records a detainer as declined when a law enforcement agency fails to maintain custody of an alien
for up to 48 hours, as requested on Form I-247A (Immigration Detainer – Notice of Action), and instead
releases the alien into the community. ERO is working to ensure that these aliens, many of whom may
reoffend, are not released from custody. For example, in a new approach, DHS and ICE, in coordination
with the Department of Justice, have taken actions to support our state and local partners when they face
legal challenges for lawfully cooperating with ICE detainers, including by filing statements of interest and
amicus briefs before the courts.
In FY2017, law enforcement agencies declined 8,170 ERO detainers, as compared with 3,623 in FY2016,
as seen in Table 5. This is the greatest number of declined detainers over the last three fiscal years.
Despite intensified efforts to locate and arrest these aliens—many of whom are convicted criminals—
ERO was only able to arrest 6 percent of them in FY17. While this is a 67 percent increase over FY2016,
this further illustrates the public safety threat posed by those sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to
cooperate with ICE’s enforcement efforts, as 7,710 illegal and criminal aliens remain at-large as a direct
result of these policies.
Table 5. FY2015 – FY2017 Declined Detainers and Subsequent ERO Administrative Arrests
 Time Frame

Declined Detainers

Individuals with a Declined
Detainer and a Later Arrest

FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Between 1/20/2016 and 9/30/2016
Between 1/20/2017 and 9/30/2017

7,369
3,623
8,170
2,267
7,232

1,045
275
460
181
376

9

Initial Book-ins to ICE Custody
An initial book-in is the first book-in to an ICE detention facility to begin a new detention stay. This
population includes aliens initially arrested by CBP and transferred to ICE for removal. While overall
ICE initial book-ins declined in FY2017, the proportion of those book-ins resulting from ICE’s interior
enforcement efforts increased in FY2017, as seen in Figure 9. ICE book-ins since the new Administration
were 42 percent higher in FY2017 than during the same time period in FY2016, rising from 75,946 to
108,077, as seen in Figure 10.
Figure 9. FY2015 - FY2017 Initial Book-ins from ICE Interior Programs

Figure 10. FY2016 and FY2017 Initial Book-ins from ICE Interior Programs for January 20 to End of FY

Figure 11 shows the number of book-ins resulting from interior and border enforcement efforts across the
past three fiscal years. 5 Border enforcement book-ins dropped 25 percent in FY2017 compared to
FY2016, while book-ins from ICE arrests increased 29 percent over that time.

5

Border enforcement efforts represent records that were processed by Border Patrol, Inspections, Inspections-Air, InspectionsLand, and Inspections-Sea.

10

Figure 11. FY2015 – FY2017 Initial Book-ins to ICE Detention by Arresting Agency
300,000
244,510

250,000

150,000

184,038

193,951

200,000

139,553
113,391

ICE
CBP

108,372

100,000
50,000
0

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

Removals
A removal is the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the
United States based on an order of removal. 6 Similar to the trends of ERO administrative arrests and
book-ins, removals tied to ICE arrests increased during FY2017, especially from the start of the new
Administration. Figure 12 shows a 37 percent increase in removals tied to interior ERO arrests when
comparing January 20, 2016 through end of FY2016 with the same time period in FY2017.
Figure 12. FY2016 and FY2017 ICE Interior Removals for January 20 to End of FY

6

ICE removals include removals and returns where aliens were turned over to ICE for removal efforts. This includes aliens
processed for Expedited Removal (ER) or Voluntary Return (VR) that are turned over to ICE for detention. Aliens processed
for ER and not detained by ERO or VR after June 1st, 2013 and not detained by ICE are primarily processed by the U.S.
Border Patrol. CBP should be contacted for those statistics.

11

Figure 13 shows the removals over the past three fiscal years as a result of an ICE arrest. While total
removals declined from 240,255 in FY2016 to 226,119 in FY2017, the proportion resulting from ICE
arrests increased from 65,332, or 27 percent of total removals in FY2016 to 81,603, or 36 percent of total
removals in FY2017. Despite the 6 percent decline in overall removals as shown in Figure 14, ICE
removed 25 percent more aliens arrested during interior enforcement activities in FY2017 compared to
the previous year. This surge in interior removals nearly offset the 17 percent decline in border removals,
which mirrored the trend of fewer book-ins of border apprehensions.
The decrease in ICE’s overall removal numbers from FY2016 to FY2017 was primarily due to the decline
in border apprehensions in 2017. Many fewer aliens were apprehended at the border in FY2017 than in
FY2016—possibly reflecting an increased deterrent effect from ICE’s stronger interior enforcement
efforts. The drop in border apprehensions contributed to a decrease in total ICE-ERO removal numbers,
as the majority of aliens arriving at the border are processed under the provisions of expedited removal
and are removed quickly, while aliens arrested in the interior are more likely to have protracted
immigration proceedings and appeals, which delays the issuance of an executable final order of removal.
These cases also frequently require a more complex and lengthy process to obtain travel documents,
further delaying the process.
Figure 13. FY2015 – FY2017 ICE Interior Removals

Figure 14. FY2015 – FY2017 ICE Removals

12

Figure 15 provides a summary of ICE-ERO removals for the past three fiscal years, broken down by
interior versus border arrests, as well as criminals versus non-criminals. The drop in border apprehensions
offers important public safety benefits, as there was a 24 percent (18,511) decrease in criminal border
removals from FY2016 to FY2017. At the same time, the renewed commitment to interior enforcement
resulted in a 10 percent increase in ICE criminal removals from FY2016 to FY2017, with 53 percent of
criminal removals resulting from ICE interior arrests.
Figure 15. FY2015 – FY2017 Interior vs. Border Program Removals by Criminality

Conclusion
The FY2017 statistics clearly demonstrate ICE’s continued commitment to identifying, arresting, and
removing aliens who are in violation of U.S. law, particularly those posing a public safety or national
security threat, while restoring fidelity to the rule of law. In FY2017, ICE ERO conducted 143,470 overall
administrative arrests, which is the highest number of administrative arrests over the past three fiscal
years. Of these arrests, 92 percent had a criminal conviction, a pending criminal charge, were an ICE
fugitive or were processed with a reinstated final order. In FY2017, ICE conducted 226,119 removals.
While this is a slight overall decrease from the prior fiscal year, the proportion of removals resulting from
ICE arrests increased from 65,332, or 27 percent of total removals in FY2016 to 81,603, or 36 percent of
total removals, in FY2017. These results clearly demonstrate profound, positive impact of the EO. The
17 percent decrease in border removals shows the deterrent effect of strong interior enforcement, while
the increase in interior removals restores the integrity of our nation’s immigration system and enhances
the safety and security of the United States.

13

Appendix A: Methodology
Data Source:
Data used to report ICE statistics are obtained through the ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) system
data warehouse.
Data Run Dates:
FY2017: IIDSv1.28 run date 10/09/2017; ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) as of 10/07/2017
FY2016: IIDSv1.22.1 run date 10/04/2016; ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) as of 10/02/2016
FY2015: IIDSv1.19 run date 10/04/2015; ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) as of 10/02/2015
Removals
ICE Removals include removals and returns initiated by ICE and those initiated by other agencies in
which aliens were turned over to ICE for repatriation efforts. Returns include Voluntary Returns,
Voluntary Departures, and Withdrawals Under Docket Control. Any voluntary return recorded on or after
June 1, 2013 without an ICE intake case is not recorded as an ICE removal.
Removals data are historical and remain static. In FY2009, ICE began to “lock” removal statistics on
October 5 at the end of each fiscal year, and counted only aliens whose removal or return was already
confirmed. Aliens removed or returned in that fiscal year but not confirmed until after October 5 were
excluded from the locked data, and thus from ICE statistics. To ensure an accurate and complete
representation of all removals and returns, ICE will count removals and returns confirmed after October 5
toward the next fiscal year. FY2016 removals, excluding FY2015 “lag,” were 235,524. The number of
removals in FY2017, excluding the “lag” from FY2016, was 220,649.
ICE Removals include aliens processed for Expedited Removal (ER) and turned over to ERO for
detention. Aliens processed for ER and not detained by ERO are primarily processed by Border Patrol.
CBP should be contacted for those statistics.
Criminality
Criminality is determined by the existence of a criminal conviction in the ICE system of record.

14

Appendix B: FY2016 and FY2017 Removals by Country of Citizenship 7
FY2016 and FY2017 ICE Removals by Country of Citizenship
Country of Citizenship
FY2016
FY2017

Mexico
Guatemala
Honduras
El Salvador
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Brazil
Ecuador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Jamaica
China, People's Republic Of
Somalia
India
Peru
Canada
Nigeria
Ghana
Romania
Venezuela
Bangladesh
Senegal
Philippines
Pakistan
Spain
Cuba
Costa Rica
United Kingdom
Saudi Arabia
Guyana
Chile
Trinidad and Tobago
Russia
Poland
Italy
Hungary
South Korea
Micronesia, Federated States Of
Liberia
Kenya
Argentina
Jordan
Bahamas
Turkey
Guinea
Ukraine
Belize
France
Israel
Bolivia
Germany

149,821
33,940
21,994
20,538
310
1,981
1,095
1,099
1,156
795
787
398
198
353
406
417
242
94
176
182
128
21
183
79
101
64
157
160
106
93
75
128
94
115
55
30
77
63
27
63
76
78
99
50
16
69
120
59
53
56
72

7

128,765
33,570
22,381
18,838
5,578
1,986
1,413
1,152
1,082
832
782
525
521
460
458
353
312
305
292
248
203
197
182
177
172
160
151
151
139
137
129
128
127
120
117
116
113
110
107
103
102
98
95
93
88
86
82
82
81
76
75

Country of citizenship is reported as it appears in ICE’s system of record at the time data is pulled, but may be updated as
additional information is discovered or verified.

15

FY2016 and FY2017 ICE Removals by Country of Citizenship
Country of Citizenship
FY2016
FY2017

Vietnam
Panama
Indonesia
Morocco
Portugal
Iraq
Cameroon
Egypt
Gambia
Albania
Afghanistan
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Ethiopia
Nepal
Korea
Sierra Leone
Eritrea
Sri Lanka
Netherlands
Uruguay
Lebanon
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ireland
Mali
Moldova
Thailand
Burkina Faso
Czech Republic
Cambodia
Cape Verde
Algeria
Taiwan
Uzbekistan
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Unknown
Armenia
Mongolia
South Africa
St. Lucia
Australia
Georgia
Iran
Marshall Islands
Greece
Niger
Slovakia
Antigua-Barbuda
Barbados
Latvia
Sudan
Sweden
Togo
Serbia
Kyrgyzstan
New Zealand
St. Kitts-Nevis
Grenada

35
64
31
22
44
48
29
44
2
32
14
49
37
25
46
18
13
35
25
22
36
16
26
7
15
22
8
19
74
11
12
25
15
17
17
15
21
6
18
15
24
22
16
35
15
2
9
14
14
8
3
18
4
16
10
16
9
10

16

71
69
68
67
65
61
58
57
56
55
48
47
46
45
44
44
41
41
40
38
35
34
34
34
34
33
31
30
29
29
28
28
28
26
26
26
24
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
18
17
16
16
15

FY2016 and FY2017 ICE Removals by Country of Citizenship
Country of Citizenship
FY2016
FY2017

Palau
Kazakhstan
Fiji
Ivory Coast
Japan
Samoa
Tanzania
Tonga
Estonia
Kuwait
Zimbabwe
Uganda
Belarus
Burma
Dominica
Kosovo
Macedonia
Rwanda
St. Vincent-Grenadines
Yemen
Zambia
Belgium
Hong Kong
Libya
Montenegro
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Azerbaijan
Benin
Malaysia
Mauritania
Angola
Austria
Chad
Suriname
Tunisia
Burundi
Czechoslovakia
Congo
Croatia
Denmark
Laos
Paraguay
Switzerland
Guinea-Bissau
Malawi
Norway
Qatar
Singapore
Turks and Caicos Islands
Yugoslavia
Bermuda
Botswana
British Virgin Islands
Finland
Gabon
Oman
United Arab Emirates

10
19
12
16
21
3
16
22
9
13
6
6
8
3
10
14
7
4
13
8
8
7
5
3
5
8
5
1
1
12
10
6
8
3
2
9
3
3
2
7
4
0
8
11
2
4
6
2
7
4
6
1
1
5
2
2
2
1

17

15
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

FY2016 and FY2017 ICE Removals by Country of Citizenship
Country of Citizenship
FY2016
FY2017

Cayman Islands
Equatorial Guinea
Mozambique
Netherlands Antilles
Serbia and Montenegro
South Sudan
Syria
Andorra
Aruba
Bahrain
Central African Republic
Cyprus
Djibouti
French Guiana
Iceland
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Mauritius
Namibia
Papua New Guinea
San Marino
Slovenia
Swaziland
Anguilla
Guadeloupe
Lesotho
Macau
Montserrat
Seychelles
Total

1
5
0
0
1
1
9
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
240,255

18

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
226,119

EXHIBIT F

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No:
Author:
Version:
Urgency:
Consultant:

SB 54
De León
January 24, 2017
Yes
MK

Hearing Date: January 31, 2017
Fiscal:

Yes

Subject: Law Enforcement: sharing data
HISTORY
Source:

Author

Prior Legislation:

Support:

AB 2792 (Bonta) – Chapter 768, Stats. 2016
AB 4 (Ammiano) – Chapter 570, Stats. 2013
AB 524 (Mullin) – Chapter 572, Stats. 2013

Abriendo Puerta/Opening Doors; Alliance for Boys and Men of Color; Alliance
San Diego; American Academy of Pediatrics, California; American Civil
Liberties Union; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-California; Asian American
Criminal Trial Lawyers Association; Asian Law Alliance; ASPIRE; Bill Wilson
Center; California Adolescent Health Collaborative; California Association for
Bilingual Education; California Central Valley Journey for Justice; California
College and University Police Chiefs Associaiton; California Federation of
Teachers (CFT), AFL-CIO; California La Raza Lawyers Association; California
Partnership to End Domestic Violence; Californians for Justice Education Fund;
Californians Together Coalition; Center for Gender and Refugee Studies; Central
American Resource Center-Los Angeles; Centro Laboral de Graton; Children’s
Defense Fund-CA; Courage Campaign; CREDO; Equality California; Esperanza
Immigrant Rights Project of Catholic Charities of Los Angeles; Evergreen
Teachers Association; Faith in the Valley; Filipino Youth Coalition; Friends
Committee on Legislation of California; Immigrant Legal Resource Center;
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice; Inland Empire Immigrant Youth
Coalition; Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance; La Raza Roundtable de
California; Latino and Latina Roundtable; Latino Coalition for a Healthy
California; Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic; Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund; Mi Familia Vota; Mixteco/Indigena Community
Organizing Project; Monument Impact; Muslim Student Association West;
National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles; North County Immigration Task Force of
San Diego; National Council of Jewish Women California; National Day Laborer
Organizing Network; National Immigration Law Center; Nikkei for Civil Rights
and Redress; Nikkei Progressives; Orange County Immigrant Youth United; Our
Family Coalition; Pangea Legal Services; PolicyLink; RISE San Luis Obispo; San
Diego Dream Team; San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium; San Diego La
Raza Lawyers Association; San Joaquin Immigrant Youth Collective; Santa Cruz
County Immigration Project; Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education
Network; SEIU California; SEIU Local 1021; Somos Mayfair; South Asian

SB 54 (De León )

Page 2 of 9

Network; Tongan American Youth Foundation; The Children’s Partnership;
Training Occupational Development Educating Communities Legal Center;
UNITE HERE; UPLIFT; Village Connect, Inc.; Voices for Progress Education
Fund; Warehouse Worker Resource Center; Western Center on Law And
Poverty; YWCA Glendale; one individual
Opposition:

California State Sheriffs’ Association
PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to limit state and local law enforcement agencies involvement in
immigration enforcement and to ensure that eligible individuals are able to seek services from
and engage with state agencies without regard to their immigration status.
Existing federal law provides that any authorized immigration officer may at any time issue
Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action, to any other federal, state, or local law enforcement
agency. A detainer serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for
the purpose of arresting and removing the alien. The detainer is a request that such agency advise
the DHS, prior to release of the alien, in order for the DHS to arrange to assume custody, in
situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible. (8
CFR Section 287.7(a).)
Existing federal law states that upon a determination by the DHS to issue a detainer for an alien
not otherwise detained by a criminal justice agency, such agency shall maintain custody of the
alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays in order to
permit assumption of custody by the DHS. (8 CFR Section 287.7(d).)
Existing federal law authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security under the 287(g) program to
enter into agreements that delegate immigration powers to local police. The negotiated
agreements between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the local police are
documented in memorandum of agreements (MOAs). (8 U.S.C. Section 1357(g).)
Existing federal law states that notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local
law, a Federal, State or local government entity or offic ial may not prohibit, or in any way
restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or
unlawful of any individual. (8 US Code §1373(a))
Existing federal law states that notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local
law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from
sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding
the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. (8US Code § 1644)
Existing federal law provides that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (U.S. Const. 14th Amend.)

SB 54 (De León )

Page 3 of 9

Existing law defines "immigration hold" as "an immigration detainer issued by an authorized
immigration officer, pursuant to specified regulations, that requests that the law enforcement
official to maintain custody of the individual for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and to advise the authorized immigration officer prior to the
release of that individual." (Government Code, § 7282 (c).)
Existing law provides that a law enforcement official have the discretion to cooperate with
federal immigration officials by detaining an individual on the basis of an immigration hold after
that individual becomes eligible for release from custody only in if the continued detention of the
individual on the basis of the immigration hold would not violate any federal, state, or local law,
or any local policy and only under specified circumstances. (Government Code § 7282.5)
Existing law provides that before any interview between ICE and an individual in local law
enforcement custody regarding civil violations law enforcement must provide the individual with
specified information and requires specified notification to the individual if law enforcement
intends to comply with an ICE hold or notify ICE that the individual is being released.
(Government Code § 7283.1)
Existing law provides that where there is reason to believe that a person arrested for specified
controlled substance related offenses may not be a citizen of the United Stated, the arresting
agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation
matters. (Health and Safety Code § 11369)
This bill repeals Health and Safety Code § 11369.
This bill prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies and school police and security
departments from using agency or department money, facility, property, equipment or personnel
to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes,
including but not limited to any of the following:
 Inquiring into or collecting information about an individual’s immigration status.
 Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.
 Responding to notification or transfer requests.
 Providing, or responding to requests for, nonpublicly available personal information
about an individual, including, but not limited to, information about the person’s release
date, home address, or work address for immigration enforcement purposes.
 Making arrests based on civil immigration warrants.
 Giving federal immigration authorities access to interview individuals in agency or
department custody for immigration enforcement purposes.
 Assisting federal immigration in conducting a search of a vehicle without a warrant.
 Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether formal or informal.
This bill prohibits any state local law enforcement agencies and school police and security
departments from making agency or department databases, including databases maintained for
the agency or department by private vendors, or the information therein other than information
regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status, available to anyone or any entity for
the purpose of immigration enforcement. It further provides that any agreements in place on the
effective date of this bill that are in conflict with the bill shall be terminated on the effective date
of the bill. Any person or entity provided access to agency or department databases must certify
in writing that the database will not be used for the prohibited purposes.

SB 54 (De León )

Page 4 of 9

This bill prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies and school police and security
department from placing peace officers under the supervision of a federal agencies or employing
peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies except to the extent
those peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the
polices of the employing agency.
This bill provides that nothing in this section shall prevent the department or any state or local
law enforcement agency, including school police or security departments, from responding to a
request from federal immigration authorities for information about a specific person’s previous
criminal arrests or convictions where otherwise permitted by state law.
This bill provides that notwithstanding any other law, in no event shall state or local law
enforcement agencies or school police or security departments transfer an individual to federal
immigration authorities for the purposes of immigration enforcement or detain an individual at
the request of federal immigration authorities for the purposes of immigration enforcement
absent a judicial warrant.
This bill provides that in order to ensure that eligible individuals are not deterred from seeking
services or engaging with state agencies, within six month of the effective date of this bill, all
state agencies shall review their confidentiality polices and identify any changes necessary to
ensure that information collected from individuals is necessary to perform agency duties and is
not used or disclosed for any other purpose.
This bill provides that within three months after this bill goes into effect, the Attorney General
shall publish model contractual provisions for all state agencies that partner with private vendors
for data collection purposes to ensure that such vendors comply with the confidentiality policies
established pursuant to this bill.
This bill provides that within three months after this bill goes into effect, the Attorney General, in
consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, shall publish model policies limiting immigration
enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools,
health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, and
shelters to ensure that they remain safe and accessible to all California residents regardless of
immigration status.
This bill provides that all public schools, health facilities operated by the state, and courthouses
shall implement the model policy or an equivalent policy.
This bill provides that all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical
or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of
California are encouraged to adopt the model policy.
This bill provides that nothing in the bill prohibits or restricts any state government entity or
official from sending to, or receiving from federal immigration authorities information regarding
the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful.
This bill provides that provisions of the act are severable.
This bill makes Legislative findings and declarations.

SB 54 (De León )

Page 5 of 9

This bill defines terms for the purpose of the Chapter created by this bill.
This bill provides that the Chapter it creates shall be known as the California Values Act.
1. Need for the Bill

COMMENTS

According to the author:
The purpose of this bill is to protect the safety and well-being of all Californians
by ensuring that state and local resources are not used to fuel mass deportations,
separate families, and ultimately hurt California’s economy.
The President has stated publicly that he will order the increased deportation of
a broad category of immigrants and that doing so will be a top priority. Any
expansion of federal deportation efforts will have a significant effect on
California’s economy and society.
A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant residents and our state
and local agencies, including police, schools, and hospitals, is essential to
carrying out basic state and local functions. That trust is threatened when state
and local agencies are involved in immigration enforcement.
According to the President Obama’s Taskforce on 21 st Century Policing,
“immigrants often fear approaching police officers when they are victims of and
witnesses to crimes and when local police are entangled with federal
immigration enforcement. At all levels of government, it is important that laws,
policies, and practices not hinder the ability of local law enforcement to build
the strong relationships necessary to public safety and community well-being. It
is the view of this task force that whenever possible, state and local law
enforcement should not be involved in immigration enforcement.”1 A study
conducted by the University of Illinois similarly found that 44 percent of Latinos
are less likely to contact police officers if they have been the victim of a crime
because they fear that police officers will use this interaction as an opportunit y
to inquire about their immigration status or that of people they know. 2
California is already familiar with the harmful effects of entangling local law
enforcement agencies with immigration enforcement. Prior to its termination,
the discredited “Secure Communities” program (S-Comm) operated in
California as an indiscriminate mass deportation program at great cost to
California both financially and otherwise. According to a report prepared by
Justice Strategies in 2012, when the Secure Communities program was still
active, California taxpayers spent an estimated $65 million annually to detain
people for ICE.3

1

Final Report of the President’s Taskforce on 21 st Century Policing (May 2016).
Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement, Nik Theodore, Dep’t of Urban Planning and
Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago (May 2013)
3
See Judith Greene, “The Cost of Responding to Immigration Detainers in California,” Justice Strategies Report, August 22, 2012.
2

SB 54 (De León )

Page 6 of 9

For that reason, it is necessary to evaluate the appropriate use of state and local
resources for immigration enforcement purposes and recognize the devastating
impact deportations have on a state with thousands of mixed status families, and
a heavily immigrant workforce.
2. Prohibition on use of Property, Equipment etc. to Assist in Immigration Enforcement
This bill prohibits state and local agencies and school police and security departments from using
money, facilities, property, equipment or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect or
arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes. The prohibited actions include: inquiring
into or collecting information about an individual’s immigrations status; detaining an individual
on the basis of an immigration hold; responding to notification or transfer requests; providing or
responding to requests, for personal information that is not otherwise public; making arrest based
on civil immigration warrants; giving federal immigration authorities to access to interview
individuals in agency or department custody for immigration enforcement purposes; and,
performing the functions of an immigration officer.
3. No Sharing of Databases
This bill prohibits any state or local law enforcement agency and school police and security
departments from making any databases or the information therein other than information
regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status, available to anyone or any entity for
the purpose of immigration enforcement. This includes any databases maintained by private
vendors.
The bill also provides that any agreements that a local agency may have to share such
information in conflict with these provisions will be terminated on the effective date of that
section. This appears consistent with California Civil Code Section 1441 which provides “[a]
condition in a contract, the fulfillment of which is impossible or unlawful, within the meaning of
the article on the object of contracts, or which is repugnant to the nature of the interest created by
the contract, is void.”
4. No Peace Officer Working for Federal Agencies
This bill further prohibits state or local law enforcement from placing peace officers from
placing peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employing peace officers
deputized as special federal officer or special federal deputies except to the extent those peace
officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the polices of
the employing agency.
Should this provision be limited to situations when the purpose is immigration enforcement?
Are there potentially other areas where it would be helpful for California peace officers to be
loaned to a federal agency?

SB 54 (De León )

Page 7 of 9

5. No Transfer to Federal Authority without Warrant
This bill prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies or school police or security
departments from transferring an individual to federal immigration authorities for the purpose of
immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant.
6. Permits specific requests about arrests and convictions
This bill clarifies that it is not intended to prevent any state or local law enforcement agency
from responding to a request from federal immigration authorities for information about a
specific person’s previous criminal arrests or convictions where otherwise permitted by state
law.
7. No Longer Requires Notification to ICE when a Person is Charged with Controlled
Substance Offense
Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of
one of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States the
arresting agency shall notify ICE. This bill would delete that provision.
8. Confidentiality Policies
This bill requires, within six months of the effective date of this bill, all state agencies to review
and edit their confidentiality policies to ensure that eligible individuals are not deterred form
seeking services or engaging with state agencies. The policies shall ensure that information
collected from individuals is limited to that necessary to perform the agencies duties and is not
used or disclosed or any other purpose.
To assist with the adoption of polices the bill requires, within three months of the effective date
of this bill, the Attorney General to publish a model contractual provisions for all state agencies
that partner with private vendors for data collection purposes to ensure those vendors comply
with the confidentiality policies.
The bill also requires the Attorney General, within three months after the effective date, in
consultation with appropriate stakeholders, shall publish model policies for limiting immigration
enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools,
state operated health facilities, courthouses and shelters to ensure they remains safe and
accessible to all California residents regardless of immigration status. All public schools, state
operated health facilities, and courthouses shall implement the model policy and other
organizations providing physical or mental health, education or accesses to justice are
encouraged to adopt the model policy.
9. Federal Preemption
This bill provides that nothing in this chapter prohibits or restricts any government entity or
official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities information regarding
the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful of an individual under federal law.
Do any provisions of this bill conflict with this provision?

SB 54 (De León )

Page 8 of 9

10. Support
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color supports this bill stating:
California is already familiar with the harmful effects of entangling local law
enforcement agencies with immigration enforcement. Prior to its termination, the
discredited “Secure Communities” program (S-Comm) operated in California as an
indiscriminate mass deportation program at great cost to California both financially
and otherwise. According to a report prepared by Justice Strategies in 2012, under
S-Comm, California taxpayers spent an estimated $65 million annually to detain
people for ICE.1 Continuing to tangle state and local public safety resources with
the dirty business of deportations threatens the civil rights and safety of all who
reside in California. Such actions foster racial profiling, police mistreatment, and
wrongful arrests, which further undermine trust between local communities and law
enforcement.
The American Academy of Pediatrics supports this bill stating:
It is our strongly held belief that all children should be afforded the right to attend
school, visit a doctor’s office, or approach a police officer for help without fearing
for their safety. Parents should be able to attend school events and parent-teacher
conferences, seek medical care, and request police assistance for themselves and
their children without concern that their families will be torn apart as a result.
Subjecting California families to programs and policies that threaten these central
functions of parenting could pose innumerable, grave consequences to the social,
psychological, and physical well-being of children.
SB 54 (de León) would dramatically advance the health of California children by
assuring that no child or parent need fear detention, separation, or deportation as a
result of seeking an education or medical care. It would help to reduce the toxic
burden of fear that many children across our state live with every day, in a time
when that fear has grown substantially more severe. And it would affirm our
commitment to doing right by each and every child in our diverse communities, no
matter who they are or the circumstances that brought them here.
11. Opposition
The California State Sheriffs Association opposes stating:
We understand and appreciate the sensitivity of this issue and stand ready to
continue to discuss it further. Unfortunately, this bill restricts local agencies from
working with our federal partners. SB 54 prohibits law enforcement from
responding to federal requests for notification when a jail houses someone who
might be the subject of an immigration enforcement action. State law, the TRUST
Act, already governs when and how a local entity may detain a person subject to an
immigration hold. That said, we believe it is inappropriate for the state to tell a

SB 54 (De León )

Page 9 of 9

local agency that it cannot respond to a request for information from the federal
government.
Additionally, by prohibiting law enforcement agencies from giving federal
immigration authorities access to interview individuals in agency custody for
immigration enforcement purposes, this bill creates a hurdle between governmental
agencies that are all trying to fulfill their duties and obligations. This is not a
comment on any particular policy, but rather relates to the desire and need for law
enforcement to be able to work together at all levels of government.
Further, despite the bill’s language that nothing prohibits law enforcement from
sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities information
regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status, we are concerned that
the bill’s provisions restricting communication and interaction with federal
authorities could be construed in such a way that vital federal funding could be
jeopardized.
-- END –

EXHIBIT G

SB 54
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 5, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
SB 54 (De León) – As Amended June 19, 2017
SENATE VOTE: 27-12
SUBJECT: LAW ENFORCEMENT: SHARING DATA
KEY ISSUES:
1) SHOULD STATE LAW PRIORITIZE THE USE OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES FOR STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
PURPOSES BY LIMITING THE USE OF THOSE PUBLIC RESOURCES FOR
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES?
2) SHOULD REPORTS ABOUT STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
PARTICIPATION IN JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE OPERATIONS,
WHERE STATE OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MAY INCIDENTALLY
PARTICIPATE IN IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, BE SUBJECT TO THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT?
SYNOPSIS
It is a fundamental principle of federalism that state governments—as partners with the federal
government in the system of “dual sovereignty” created by the U.S. Constitution in order to
“reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse” (Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991) 501 U.S. 452, 457-58)--may
allocate their public resources as they see fit. As a result, states may prioritize the use of such
resources on activities which serve the greatest need and further the most pressing interests of
the state and its residents. The federal government cannot force states to further its priorities in
place of the state’s. In fact, case law makes it clear that the federal government cannot do either
of the following: (1) "commandeer" local officials by making them enforce federal laws (Printz v.
U.S. (1997) 521 U.S. 898); or (2) force participation in a federal program by threatening to cut
off federal funds, unless the funds are directly earmarked for that program. (NFIB v. Sibelius
(2012) 132 S. Ct. 2566 (federal government cannot cut off all Medicaid funding for refusal to
participate in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act).)
Nevertheless, as candidate for U.S. President, Donald Trump pledged to strip “all federal
funding to sanctuary cities.” On January 25, 2017, the president issued an Executive Order that
makes sweeping changes to immigration enforcement in the interior of the United States,
significantly broadening the categories of unauthorized immigrants who are priorities for
removal, reviving the controversial Secure Communities program, and reinvigorating a federallocal partnership under which state and local law enforcement agencies can sign agreements
and enforce certain aspects of federal immigration law. Whereas prior administrations had
authorized immigration authorities to focus on priority groups (such as those with serious
criminal histories), the present administration has directed federal authorities to employ “all
lawful means” to enforce immigration laws against “all removable aliens.” In a statement made
on March 27, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions condemned cities that refuse to honor

SB 54
Page 2
detainer requests and warned that such jurisdictions are “at risk of losing valuable federal
dollars.”
In response to such threats to both the state and its residents, this bill seeks to further the
priorities of the State of California by prohibiting public resources, specifically law enforcement
resources, from being used to further the federal government’s recently heightened interest in
more widespread and indiscriminate immigration enforcement. Specifically, this bill would
prohibit state and local law enforcement (including school security) from doing any of the
following: (1) using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for
immigration enforcement purposes that are specified in the bill, including entering into
agreements authorized by federal law to delegate immigration powers to local police, and
accepting designation as "immigration officers" pursuant to federal law; (2) making agency or
department databases, including databases maintained for the agency or department by private
vendors, or the information therein other than information within those databases regarding an
individual’s citizenship or immigration status, available to anyone or any entity for the purpose
of immigration enforcement; (3) placing peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies
or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies; (4)
using federal immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to
individuals in agency or department custody; and (5) transferring an individual to federal
immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause
determination.
This bill does not appear to run afoul of federal law. Federal law provides that a state law “may
not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or
receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the
citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” (8 U.S.C. 1373.) It
does not interfere with or obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration programs by federal
law enforcement officers. Nothing in federal law requires state and local law enforcement
officials to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts, or prohibits state and local officials
from refusing to do so. Given that federal law only authorizes, but does not require, state and
local officers to act as immigration officers, SB 54 does not conflict with federal law and can
appropriately determine that such cooperation is not in the state’s best interests. Finally, the bill
is not otherwise preempted by federal immigration law.
The author proposes a number of amendments, most of which are technical and clarifying. As
proposed to be amended, the bill would retain current law that provides public access to public
records and remove confusing language about the California Public Records Act. Other
amendments do the following: (1) ensure that confidential information in state databases
remains confidential; and (2) clarify that all actions of law enforcement agencies relating to
immigration which are specifically authorized under the bill must comply with local laws and
policies of the jurisdiction in which an agency operates. These amendments are reflected and
discussed in this analysis. The bill, which is author-sponsored, is supported by a very long list of
immigrant and civil rights advocates; health organizations; labor unions; local governments;
victim advocacy organizations; and elected officials. It is opposed by a number of local
governments; a number of county sheriffs; and law enforcement organizations, including the
California State Sheriffs Association and the California Police Chiefs Association. It was
previously approved by the Public Safety Committee and, should it pass this Committee, it will
be referred to the Appropriations Committee.

SB 54
Page 3
SUMMARY: Prioritizes the use of public resources by law enforcement agencies in California
for the enforcement of state laws by limiting the use of those resources for purposes of
immigration enforcement. Specifically, this bill:
1) States that law enforcement agencies shall not do any of the following:
a) Use agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to
investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement
purposes, including, but not limited to, doing any of the following:
i) Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status;
ii) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request;
iii) Responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other
information unless that information is available to the public;
iv) Providing information regarding a person’s release date unless that information is
available to the public;
v) Providing personal information about an individual, including, but not limited to, the
individual’s home address or work address unless that information is available to the
public;
vi) Making, assisting, or participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants;
vii) Giving federal immigration authorities access to interview an individual in agency or
department custody, except pursuant to a judicial warrant, and in accordance with this
bill;
viii) Assisting federal immigration authorities in the specified activities allowed under
federal immigration law; and
ix) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, as specified, whether formal or
informal.
b) Make agency or department databases, including databases maintained for the agency or
department by private vendors, or the information within those databases regarding an
individual’s citizenship or immigration status, available to anyone or any entity for the
purpose of immigration enforcement.
c) Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers
deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies except to the extent those
peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and
the policies of the employing agency.
d) Use federal immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating
to individuals in agency or department custody.
e) Transfer an individual to federal immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial
warrant, or for a violation of the federal crime of illegal reentry after removal subsequent

SB 54
Page 4
to conviction of an aggravated felony if the individual has been previously convicted of a
specified violent felony.
2) Makes void any agreements in existence on the operative date of this chapter that conflict
with the terms of this bill and requires all persons and entities provided access to agency or
department databases to certify in writing that the database will be kept confidential and will
not be used for the immigration purposes prohibited by this bill.
3) Specifies that this bill does not prevent any California law enforcement agency from doing
any of the following that does not violate any local law or policy of the jurisdiction in which
the agency is operating:
a) Responding to a request from federal immigration authorities for information about a
specific person’s criminal history, including previous criminal arrests, convictions, and
similar criminal history information accessed through the California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted by state law;
b) Participating in a joint law enforcement task force, so long as the primary purpose of the
joint law enforcement task force is not immigration enforcement;
c) Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an individual who has been
identified as a potential crime or trafficking victim for a T or U Visa, as specified, or to
comply with specified federal laws regarding sale of firearms to non-citizens; or
d) Responding to a notification request from federal immigration authorities for a person
who is serving a term for the conviction of a misdemeanor or felony offense and has a
current or prior conviction for a violent felony, as specified, or a serious felony.
4) Requires a California law enforcement agency that chooses to participate in a joint law
enforcement task force, to submit a report every six months to the Department of Justice, as
specified by the Attorney General, detailing each task force operation, the purpose of the task
force, the federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies involved, the number of
California law enforcement agency personnel involved, a description of arrests made for any
federal and state crimes, and a description of the number of people arrested for immigration
enforcement purposes.
5) Clarifies that all records described in 4), above, are public records for purposes of the
California Public Records Act, including the exemptions provided by that act and, as
permitted under that act, allows personal identifying information to be redacted prior to
public disclosure.
6) Requires the Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and twice a year thereafter, to report on
the types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces; requires the report to include a
list of all California law enforcement agencies that participate in joint law enforcement task
forces, a list of joint law enforcement task forces operating in the state and their purposes, the
number of arrests made associated with joint law enforcement task forces for the violation of
federal or state crimes, and the number of arrests made associated with joint law enforcement
task forces for the purpose of immigration enforcement by all task force participants,
including federal law enforcement agencies; and requires the Attorney General to post the
reports required by this bill on the Attorney General’s Internet Web site.

SB 54
Page 5
7) Specifies that to the extent disclosure of a particular item of information reported to the
Attorney General in the report described in 6), above, would endanger the safety of a person
involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation
or a related investigation, that information shall not be included in the Attorney General’s
report.
8) States that notwithstanding any other law, in no event shall a California law enforcement
agency transfer an individual to federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration
enforcement or detain an individual at the request of federal immigration authorities for
purposes of immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant, except as specified in the
bill.
9) States that this bill does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from
sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the
citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual pursuant to specified
federal law.
10) States that the Attorney General shall publish model policies limiting assistance with
immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at
public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political
subdivision of the state, courthouses, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement facilities, and
shelters, and ensuring that they remain safe and accessible to all California residents,
regardless of immigration status.
11) Requires all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of
the state, and courthouses to implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy.
12) Encourages all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or
mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of
California, to adopt the model policy.
13) Repeals existing law which required law enforcement to notify federal authorities when a
person has been arrested for specified drug related offenses, and there is reason to believe the
arrestee may not be a U.S. Citizen.
14) Defines “California law enforcement agency” as “a state or local law enforcement agency,
including school police or security departments.”
15) Defines “Civil immigration warrant” as “any warrant for a violation of federal civil
immigration law, and includes civil immigration warrants entered in the National Crime
Information Center database.”
16) Defines “Federal immigration authority” as any officer, employee, or person otherwise paid
by or acting as an agent of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United
States Customs and Border Protection, or any division thereof, or any other officer,
employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of the United States Department
of Homeland Security who is charged with immigration enforcement.
17) States that “Hold request,” “notification request,” “transfer request,” and “local law
enforcement agency” have the same meaning as provided in elsewhere in this bill.

SB 54
Page 6
18) Specifies that hold, notification, and transfer requests include requests issued by United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United States Customs and Border
Protection as well as any other federal immigration authorities.
19) Specifies that “Immigration enforcement” includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce,
or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also
includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or
enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in,
entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.
20) States that “Immigration enforcement” does not include either of the following:
a) Efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of a violation
of the federal crime of illegal reentry to the U.S. and that is detected during an unrelated
law enforcement activity; or
b) Transferring an individual to federal immigration authorities for a violation of the federal
crime of illegal reentry after removal subsequent to conviction of an aggravated felony if
the individual has been previously convicted of a specified violent felony.
21) Defines “Joint law enforcement task force” as “at least one California law enforcement
agency collaborating, engaging, or partnering with at least one federal law enforcement
agency in investigating federal or state crimes.”
22) Defines “Judicial warrant” as “a warrant based on probable cause and issued by a federal
judge or a federal magistrate judge that authorizes federal immigration authorities to take into
custody the person who is the subject of the warrant.”
23) Specifies that “School police and security departments” includes “police and security
departments of the California State University, the California Community Colleges, charter
schools, county offices of education, schools, and school districts.”
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW:
1) Provides that any authorized immigration officer may at any time issue Immigration
Detainer-Notice of Action, to any other federal, state, or local law enforcement agency. A
detainer serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the
purpose of arresting and removing the alien. The detainer is a request that such agency
advise the DHS, prior to release of the alien, in order for the DHS to arrange to assume
custody, in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or
impossible. (8 CFR Section 287.7(a).)
2) States that upon a determination by the DHS to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise
detained by a criminal justice agency, such agency shall maintain custody of the alien for a
period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays in order to permit
assumption of custody by the DHS. (8 CFR Section 287.7(d).)
3) Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security under the 287(g) program to enter into
agreements that delegate immigration powers to local police. The negotiated agreements

SB 54
Page 7
between ICE and the local police are documented in memorandum of agreements (MOAs).
(8 U.S.C. Section 1357(g).)
4) States that notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal,
State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any
government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or
unlawful, of any individual. (8 U.S.C. 1373(a).)
5) States that notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or
local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or
receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. (8 U.S.C. 1644.)
EXISTING STATE LAW:
1) Defines "immigration hold" as "an immigration detainer issued by an authorized immigration
officer, pursuant to specified regulations, that requests that the law enforcement official to
maintain custody of the individual for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, and holidays, and to advise the authorized immigration officer prior to the release
of that individual." (Government Code Section 7282 (c).)
2) Defines "Notification request" as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement request that a
local law enforcement agency inform ICE of the release date and time in advance of the
public of an individual in its custody and includes, but is not limited to, DHS Form I-247N.
(Government Code Section 7283 (f).)
3) Defines "Transfer request" as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement request that a local
law enforcement agency facilitate the transfer of an individual in its custody to ICE, and
includes, but is not limited to, DHS Form I-247X. (Government Code Section 7283 (f).)
4) States that a law enforcement official shall have discretion to cooperate with federal
immigration officials by detaining an individual on the basis of an immigration hold after that
individual becomes eligible for release from custody only if the continued detention of the
individual on the basis of the immigration hold would not violate any federal, state, or local
law, or any local policy, and only under the following circumstances:
a) The individual has been convicted of a serious or violent felony;
b) The individual has been convicted of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison;
c) The individual has been convicted within the past five years of a misdemeanor for a
crime that is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony, or has been convicted at any
time of a specified felony;
d) The individual is a current registrant on the California Sex and Arson Registry;
e) The individual is arrested and taken before a magistrate on a charge involving a serious
or violent felony, a felony punishable by imprisonment in state prison, or other specified

SB 54
Page 8
felonies, and the magistrate makes a finding of probable cause as to that charge after a
preliminary hearing; and
The individual has been convicted of a federal crime that meets the definition of an
aggravated felony as specified, or is identified by the United States Department of
Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement as the subject of an
outstanding federal felony arrest warrant. (Government Code Section 7282.5 (a).)
5) States that if none of the conditions listed above is satisfied, an individual shall not be
detained on the basis of an immigration hold after the individual becomes eligible for release
from custody. (Government Code Section 7282.5 (b).)
6) Requires that upon receiving any ICE hold, notification, or transfer request, the law
enforcement agency must provide a copy of the request to the individual and inform him or
her whether the law enforcement agency intends to comply with the request. (Government
Code Section 7283.1 (b).)
7) States that if a local law enforcement agency provides ICE with notification that an
individual is being, or will be, released on a certain date, the local law enforcement agency
must promptly provide the same notification in writing to the individual and to his or her
attorney or to one additional person who the individual shall be permitted to designate.
(Government Code Section 7283.1 (b).)
8) Makes all records relating to ICE access provided by local law enforcement agencies,
including all communication with ICE, public records for purposes of the California Public
Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250)), including the exemptions
provided by that act and, as permitted under that act, personal identifying information may be
redacted prior to public disclosure. (Government Code Section 7283.1 (c).)
9) Clarifies that records relating to ICE access include, but are not limited to, data maintained
by the local law enforcement agency regarding the number and demographic characteristics
of individuals to whom the agency has provided ICE access, the date ICE access was
provided, and whether the ICE access was provided through a hold, transfer, or notification
request or through other means. (Ibid.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: It is a fundamental principle of federalism that state governments—as partners
with the federal government in the system of “dual sovereignty” created by the U.S. Constitution
in order to “reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse” (Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991) 501 U.S. 452,
457-58)--may allocate their public resources as they see fit. As a result, states are allowed to
prioritize the use of such resources on activities which serve the greatest need and further the
most pressing interests of the state and its residents. The federal government cannot force states
to further its priorities in place of the state’s. In fact, case law makes it clear that the federal
government cannot do either of the following: (1) "commandeer" local officials by making them
enforce federal laws (Printz v. U.S. (1997) 521 U.S. 898); or (2) force participation in a federal
program by threatening to cut off federal funds, unless the funds are directly earmarked for that
program. (NFIB v. Sibelius (2012) 132 S. Ct. 2566 (federal government cannot cut off all
Medicaid funding for refusal to participate in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care
Act).)

SB 54
Page 9
Nevertheless, as candidate for U.S. President, Donald Trump pledged to strip “all federal funding
to sanctuary cities.” As president, he signed three executive orders the week of January 23, 2017
that threaten the rights of immigrants and refugees both in the United States and globally. On
January 25th , at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Trump signed executive orders on
border security and interior enforcement. On January 27 th , he signed an executive order at the
Pentagon on refugees and visa holders from designated nations.
Executive Order 13768 (E.O. 13768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799), entitled Enhancing Public Safety in the
Interior of the United States and signed on the 25th of January, makes sweeping changes to
immigration enforcement in the interior of the United States, significantly broadening the
categories of unauthorized immigrants who are priorities for removal, reviving the controversial
Secure Communities program, and reinvigorating a federal-local partnership under which state
and local law enforcement agencies can sign agreements and enforce certain aspects of federal
immigration law. Whereas prior administrations had authorized immigration authorities to focus
on priority groups (such as those with serious criminal histories), the present administration has
directed federal authorities to employ “all lawful means” to enforce immigration laws against
“all removable aliens.” The Order also declared “sanctuary jurisdictions” that “willfully refuse
to comply” with federal immigration enforcement efforts would be ineligible to receive federal
grants at the discretion of the Attorney General or Secretary of the United States Department of
Homeland Security:
[J]urisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary
jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for
law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has
the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a
jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate
enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a
statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.
A February 25, 2017 story in The New York Times reported that government agents report that
they are “thrilled” and having “fun” in their jobs since, as press secretary Sean Spicer said,
Trump has “taken the shackles off.” Officers told reporters how ecstatic they were to be free to
deport any undocumented immigrant they come across:
[F]or those with ICE badges, perhaps the biggest change was the erasing of the Obama
administration’s hierarchy of priorities, which forced agents to concentrate on deporting
gang members and other violent and serious criminals, and mostly leave everyone else
alone. (Kulish, Nicholas, New York Times, February 25, 2017, available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportationstrump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=storyheading&module=first-column-region&region=top- news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)
Reports of parents being arrested at their children’s schools; restaurant operators having to bring
meals in “to go” containers to customers in the parking lots who are too afraid of arrest to get out
of their cars; and ICE agents trolling halls of courthouses have created fear and apprehension
among those in the country without legal status, as well as their friends, families, and employers.
In a statement made on March 27, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions condemned cities that
refuse to honor detainer requests and warned that such jurisdictions are “at risk of losing
valuable federal dollars.” Furthermore, he threatened that “The Department of Justice will also

SB 54
Page 10
take all lawful steps to claw-back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates
Section 1373.” (Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Jurisdictions,
Washington, DC, Monday, March 27, 2017, available at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney- general-jeff-sessions-delivers-remarks-sanctuaryjurisdictions.)
Need for the bill. According to the author:
When local police enforce immigration laws, they rapidly lose the trust of the
undocumented community. Crimes go unreported for fear of deportation. The
perpetrators roam free to strike again. Our communities become less – not more – safe.
...
Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, will prevent state and local law enforcement
agencies from acting as agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Instead, it will
keep them focused on community policing, rather than rounding up hardworking, honest
immigrants who in many instances assist police in solving crimes rather than committing
them.
This bill seeks to further the priorities of the State of California by prohibiting public resources,
specifically law enforcement resources, from being used to further the federal government’s
recently heightened interest in more widespread and indiscriminate immigration enforcement.
Specifically, this bill would prohibit state and local law enforcement (including school security)
from doing any of the following: (1) using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or
arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes that are specified in the bill, including
entering into agreements authorized by federal law to delegate immigration powers to local
police, and accepting designation as "immigration officers" pursuant to federal law; (2) making
agency or department databases, including databases maintained for the agency or department by
private vendors, or the information therein other than information within those databases
regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status, available to anyone or any entity for
the purpose of immigration enforcement; (3) placing peace officers under the supervision of
federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal
deputies; (4) using federal immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters
relating to individuals in agency or department custody; and (5) transferring an individual to
federal immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause
determination.
This bill does not appear to run afoul of federal law. Federal law provides that a state law
“may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or
receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship
or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” (8 U.S.C. 1373.) Section 1373
does not require an agency to voluntarily share information about anyone’s citizenship or
immigration status with federal authorities. Nor does it prohibit laws of general application that
protect personal information, which could include information about immigration status and
nationality, from public disclosure. Section 1373 does not require California, or any state, to
collect information about an individual’s immigration status, to arrest individuals who are
present in violation of immigration laws, or to hold individuals in custody based on requests
from federal immigration officials. Most importantly, it does not prohibit a state from
determining that state and local law enforcement engagement in such acts is not in the best
interests of the state.

SB 54
Page 11
Section 1357 of Title 8 of the United States Code addresses the “performance of immigration
officer functions by state officers and employees” and authorizes state and local officials to
perform such functions, subject to a host of restrictions, upon approval of federal authorities. (8
U.S.C. Section 1357(g).) For example, Section 1357(g)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to
“enter into a written agreement with a State” or political subdivision, under which its employees
“may carry out [the] function” of “an immigration officer in relation to the investigation,
apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States,” if the Attorney General determines that
the particular employee is qualified. (8 U.S.C. Section 1357(g)(1).) Furthermore, such authority
may only be exercised “to the extent consistent with State and local law,” implying that state and
local laws can prohibit such conduct and reiterating that the authority is purely voluntary on the
part of the state or local entity and under the ultimate control and authority of the federal
government. (Ibid.)
This bill does not interfere with or obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration programs by
federal law enforcement officers. One of this bill’s most important (and controversial)
provisions prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from “making any database that
contains information about an individual's citizenship or immigration status available to any
person or entity for the purpose of immigration enforcement.” At first blush this provision may
appear to violate Section 1373. But such a conclusion would be erroneous. Federal law only
prevents a state or local government from prohibiting its agencies or officials from “sending to”
federal immigration authorities information about an individual's immigration or citizenship
status. This bill, on the other hand, limits agencies from granting access to state databases. The
bill would not prevent an agency or official from sending information to the federal immigration
authorities upon request, but those authorities could not have direct access to the state database
itself. In fact, the bill specifically states that its provisions do “not prohibit or restrict any
government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities,
information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual
pursuant to specified federal law.”
Nothing in federal law requires state and local law enforcement officials to assist federal
immigration enforcement efforts, or prohibits state and local officials from refusing to do so. As
explained above, federal law authorizes states to perform immigration officer functions upon
approval of federal authorities. Performing such functions is not required, however. Section
1357(g)(9) states that, “Nothing shall be construed to require any State . . . to enter into an
agreement” with the federal government to have its officers perform immigration officer
functions. Nor are states or local governments required by federal law to perform immigration
enforcement functions, such as detaining immigrants upon the request of federal immigration
authorities, collecting immigration information, or affirmatively sharing immigration information
with federal authorities. A recent guidance from the United States Department of Justice
explained to state and local government recipients of Department of Justice funding that “Section
1373 does not impose on states and localities the affirmative obligation to collect information
from private individuals regarding their immigration status, nor does it require that states and
localities take specific actions upon obtaining such information.” (Dep’t of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Guidance Regarding Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, available at
https://www.bja.gov/funding/8uscsection1373.pdf.)
Given that federal law only authorizes, but does not require, state and local officers to act as
immigration officers, SB 54 does not conflict with federal law and can appropriately determine
that such cooperation is not in the state’s best interests. According to the author:

SB 54
Page 12
California is familiar with the harmful effects of entangling local law enforcement
agencies with immigration enforcement. Prior to its termination, the discredited “Secure
Communities” program (S-Comm) operated in California as an indiscriminate mass
deportation program at great cost to California both financially and otherwise. According
to a report prepared by Justice Strategies in 2012, when the Secure Communities program
was still active, California taxpayers spent an estimated $65 million annually to detain
people for ICE. (See Judith Greene, “The Cost of Responding to Immigration Detainers
in California,” Justice Strategies Report, August 22, 2012.)
The federal government has limited ability to withhold funds to, or otherwise financially punish,
sanctuary jurisdictions. Despite Attorney General Session’s threat to “claw back” all federal
funds paid to “sanctuary jurisdictions,” the federal government has limited ability to punish state
and local governments for non-cooperation and generally cannot withhold or withdraw federal
funds as long as a state or local government is not in violation of the law. Significantly, a district
court recently granted a nationwide injunction against the Executive Order 13768, supra, on the
ground that it purported to condition all federal funds on compliance with Section 1373. (See
Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump; City and Cty. of San Francisco v. Trump, 2017 WL 1459081 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 25, 2017).) In that case, the federal district court ruled that plaintiffs were likely to
succeed on their claims that the Order violated the Separation of Powers, Spending Clause, Tenth
Amendment, and Fifth Amendment. (Ibid.) Following that preliminary injunction, the United
States Attorney General issued a memorandum, which clarifies that compliance with Section
1373 is tied “solely to federal grants administered by the Department of Justice or the
Department of Homeland Security, and not to other sources of federal funding.”
(Implementation of Executive Order 13768, Memo. from U.S. Att’y General to All Department
Grant-Making Components (May 22, 2017), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pressrelease/file/968146/download.) Even more importantly, the memorandum clarified that “for
purposes of enforcing the Executive Order, the term "sanctuary jurisdiction" will refer only to
jurisdictions that "willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373." A jurisdiction that does not
willfully refuse to comply with section 1373 is not a "sanctuary jurisdiction." (Ibid.) Under SB
54, there is no reason to think that California would meet the definition of a “sanctuary
jurisdiction.”
The bill is not otherwise preempted by federal immigration law. When Congress acts under its
constitutional powers, it may preempt state law through (1) an express preemption provision that
“withdraw[s] specified powers from the States”; (2) by “preclud[ing] [States] from regulating
conduct in a field that Congress . . . has determined must be regulated by its exclusive
governance”; or (3) through conflict preemption when “compliance with both federal and state
regulations is a physical impossibility,” or the “state law stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” (Arizona v.
United States (2012) 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2500-01 [internal quotation marks omitted].)
The Supreme Court and other courts have held that state laws, like those at issue in Arizona v.
United States, were preempted by federal immigration law when the States attempted to regulate
immigration themselves and intruded on the federal government’s authority.
This bill, unlike the Arizona law, has no similar risk of preemption because it leaves federal
immigration enforcement to federal officials. Far from being preempted, SB 54 reinforces the
federal framework set forth in Section 1357 that leaves the determination of whether to have
their employees function as immigration officers to the states. Because States need not

SB 54
Page 13
participate in federal immigration enforcement, and because of the explicit non-preemptive text
and structure of Section 1357, the bill clearly does not conflict with federal law.
As proposed to be amended, the bill appropriately retains current law that provides public
access to public records. As currently in print, the bill gives the reporting agency that sends task
force information to the Attorney General, or the Attorney General himself, to do the following:
[D]etermine a report, in whole or in part, shall not be subject to disclosure pursuant to
subdivision (f) of Section 6254, the California Public Records Act to the extent that
disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person
involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the
investigation or a related investigation.
This language is confusing because the task force information reported to the Attorney General
would not seem to contain such information. The confusion is compounded by the fact that
Government Code Section 6254 (f) itself is very confusing. It establishes a rule that
investigative reports are not required to be disclosed, but then gives a series of exceptions and
alternative rules for disclosure and non-disclosure of information within investigative reports. In
order to clarify that reports of task force information made by state and local law enforcement
agencies (and school security) to the Attorney General are public records (which they are,
according to the CPRA’s definition of that term in Government Code Section 6252 (e), because
they are records possessed by a public agency) and are subject to the exemptions provided by
that act, the author proposes to amend the bill to say just that. The author’s proposed
amendments also appropriately clarify that “personal identifying information may be redacted
prior to public disclosure” of task force information provided to the Attorney General.
Regarding the information reported by the Attorney General about task force information, the bill
also requires the Attorney General to omit from his report any “particular information [that]
would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation” or otherwise hinder an
ongoing investigation. This provision is consistent with existing law, including Government
Code Section 6255, which gives a public agency authority to withhold “any record by
demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or
that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record
clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”
Other proposed author’s amendments and other minor ambiguities that the author may wish
to clarify in the future. The author proposes to make a number of clarifying amendments to the
bill’s language, including changes to provide more guidance to law enforcement agencies about
how to comply with the requirements of the bill. Among other things, the amendments will do
both of the following: (1) ensure that confidential information in state databases remains
confidential; and (2) clarify that all actions of law enforcement agencies relating to immigration
which are specifically authorized under the bill must comply with local laws and policies of the
jurisdiction in which an agency operates.
Ambiguity about when reports about task force operations are required to be submitted to the
Attorney General and what period of time they are required to cover. As currently in print, the
bill requires law enforcement agencies that choose to participate in a joint law enforcement task
force to “submit a report every six months to the Department of Justice” detailing the task force
operation, including the following about each operation: the purpose of the task force, the
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies involved, the number of California law

SB 54
Page 14
enforcement agency personnel involved, a description of arrests made for any federal and state
crimes, and a description of the number of people arrested for immigration enforcement
purposes. The bill also requires the Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and twice a year
thereafter, to report on the types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces. But the
bill does not clarify when task force reports must be submitted to the Attorney General, or what
time period the reports must cover.
Ambiguity about law enforcement operations that do not constitute “immigration enforcement”
but could fail in the catch-all category of prohibited “immigration enforcement” activities. The
bill broadly prohibits the use of law enforcement resources “to investigate, interrogate, detain,
detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes” including “but not limited to” a
list of specific examples for how resources cannot be used. Because the list is non-exhaustive,
presumably other uses of resources for immigration enforcement purposes are also prohibited.
The bill defines “immigration enforcement” as follows:
“Immigration enforcement” includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist
in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also
includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or
enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence
in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.
The bill then goes on to specify that “Immigration enforcement” does not include either of the
following, which otherwise would clearly qualify as immigration enforcement under the bill’s
definition:
(1) Efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of a
violation of Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that may be subject to
the enhancement specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code and
that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity.
(2) Transferring an individual to federal immigration authorities for a violation of Section
1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that is subject to the enhancement specified
in Section 1326(b)(2) of that title if the individual has been previously convicted of a
violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code.
The bill also has a list of specific activities that state and local law enforcement agencies may
perform, despite the fact that they may meet the definition of “immigration enforcement.” The
fact that these two activities that would otherwise meet the definitio n of “immigration
enforcement” are exempted from the definition, while other similar activities are specifically
allowed to be performed, despite meeting the definition could possibly create confusion among
law enforcement agencies and officials about whether certain conduct is authorized.
The author may wish to consider clarifying the dates on which task force reports must be
submitted to the Attorney General and what time period the reports must cover. The author may
also wish to consider consolidating either the exemptions from the definition of “immigration
enforcement,” or the law enforcement activities that are authorized, despite meeting the
definition of that term.

SB 54
Page 15
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Mario G. Obledo National Coalition of Hispanic
Organizations writes in support of the bill that “using local police resources to support
immigration law enforcement detracts from their primary goal of preserving the public order and
ensuring that violent felons are apprehended and incarcerated in a timely manner.” SB 54, it
continues, “properly ensures that state and local law enforcement agencies, including school
police agencies, will not engage in immigration enforcement. Further, SB 54 requires that
California courts health facilities and schools remain safe and accessible regardless of
immigration status. It is a compassionate bill designed to afford human rights to all of
California's inhabitants.” Similarly, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, write that “SB 54
would disentangle local law enforcement from the business of deportations” and as a result will
“create safer spaces at schools, libraries, courthouses, shelters, DLSE facilities, and health care
facilities, by limiting immigration enforcement at these locations.” The ACLU of Northern
California observes that “SB 54 upholds California’s core values of equal treatment, community,
family unity, and common humanity by ensuring that California’s police departments, schools,
healthcare facilities and courts remain accessible to Californians from all walks of life.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Peace Officers Research Association of California writes
that it opposes SB 54 for “three critical reasons” which it identifies as the requirement to report
task force operations to the Attorney General; the unintended impact of detained immigrants
likely being taken outside the state “thereby separating them from their families, communities
and networks” and “the breakdown of local, state, and federal partnerships [that]will prevent our
officers from being able to do their jobs; consequently, violent criminals will remain on the
streets and our families will be in danger.” The California State Sheriffs Association writes that
although “Sheriffs do not wish to act as immigration police.. . .we need to continue to cooperate
with our law enforcement partners to ensure that those who victimize our communities are not
given unnecessary opportunities to do more harm.” The association continues that “The bill,
with limited exception, precludes law enforcement from sharing information that is not publicly
available about persons in custody with federal authorities” so that “sheriffs would still be
precluded from relaying information about people convicted of crimes like domestic violence
and drunk driving unless they also had current or prior convictions for serious or violent
felonies.” The California Police Chiefs Association also opposes the bill, for the same general
reasons as expressed by other law enforcement groups, and concludes about the bill that “SB 54
will make it more difficult to work with our federal law enforcement partners in apprehending
dangerous criminals, and threatens to create more fear in our communities by forcing federal
immigration operations out of our jails and into our communities.”
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Abriendo Puertas / Opening Doors
ACLU of California
Advancement Project
Alliance San Diego
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
American Friends Service Committee’s US-Mexico Border Program
Anti-Defamation League
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – California
Asian & Pacific Islanders Equality-LA

SB 54
Page 16
Asian Pacific Islander Forward Movement
Asian Pacific Policy & Planning Council
Bay Area Community Resources
CalAsian Chamber
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Calls
California Conference for Equality and Justice
California Chapters of the American Immigration Lawyers Association
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Partnership
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California School-Based Health Alliance
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians Together
Canal Alliance
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies – California
Central American Resource Center-LA
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy
Central Valley Children’s Services Network
Centro Laboral de Graton
Child Care Law Center
Children’s Defense Fund
Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement
CLEAN Car Wash Campaign
CLUE: Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice
Ventura County Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice
Community Coalition
Courage Campaign
CREDO
Day Worker Center in Santa Cruz County
Day Worker Center of Mountain View
Defending Rights and Dissent
Dream Team – Los Angeles
Dolores Huerta Foundation
EBASE
Employee Rights Center
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
Environmental Center of San Diego
Equal Justice Society
Equal Rights Advocates
Equality California
Escondido Indivisible
Esperanza Community Housing
Evergreen Teachers Association
Faith in the Valley
Filipino Advocates for Justice
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Garment Worker Center

SB 54
Page 17
IKAR
Immigrant Defenders Law Center
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Indivisible Conejo
Indivisible Ventura
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice
Inland Empire – Immigrant Youth Collective
Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de California
Intercity Struggle
Iranian American Bar Association
Jus Semper Global Alliance
Justice for Immigrants of the Diocese of San Bernardino
Khmer Girls in Action
Korean Resource Center
Koreatown Immigrant Worker’s Alliance
La Raza Centro Legal
Latino and Latina Roundtable
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
Little Tokyo Service Center
Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition
Los Angeles LGBT Center
Loyola Law School Immigrant Justice Clinic
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Mi Familia Vota
Mom’s Rising
Monument Impact
Mujeres Unidas y Activas
National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Council of Jewish Women
National Day Laborer Organizing Network
National Domestic Workers Alliances
Native Hawaiian & Pacific Islander Alliance
Nikkei for Civil Rights & Redress
Nikkei Progressives
North Bay Jobs with Justice
North County Immigration Task Force
OCA – GLA
OneJustice
Orange County Immigrant Youth United
Our Family Coalition
Our Revolution
Parent Voices CA
People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Right
PICO California
Pilipino Workers Center
Public Counsel
Restaurant Opportunities Center of Los Angels
Root & Rebound

SB 54
Page 18
Sacred Heart
San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium
Social Action Committee of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of
Redwood City
Somos Mayfair
South Asian Network
South Bay People Power
Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education
Stronger California
Tahirih Justice Center
Thai Community Development Center
UDW/AFSCME Local 3930
UNITE HERE Local 30
UPLIFT
Vigilant Love
Vital Immigrant Defense Advocacy and Services
Warehouse Worker Resource Center
YWCA
Numerous Individuals
Opposition
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs Association
City of Camarillo
City of Glendora
City of Torrance
Kern County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Shasta County Board of Supervisors
The Remembrance Project
We the People
West Covina City Council
Numerous individuals
Analysis Prepared by: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / [phone]

EXHIBIT H

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General

INFORMATION
BULLETIN

California Department of Justice
DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Kevin Gardner, Chief

Subject:

No.

Contact for information:

Responsibilities of Law Enforcement Agencies Under the
California Values Act, California TRUST Act, and the
California TRUTH Act

DLE-2018-01

Kevin Gardner, Chief
Division of Law Enforcement
[phone]

Date:

3/28/2018

TO: Executives of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
This bulletin provides guidance to law enforcement agencies regarding Senate Bill 54, effective January 4, 2018 (Sen.
Bill No. 54 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.)). SB 54 makes significant changes to California’s Transparency and
Responsibility Using State Tools (TRUST) Act (Gov. Code, §§ 7282 and 7282.5), establishes California’s Values Act
(Gov. Code, §§ 7284, 7284.2, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7284.10, and 7284.12), and repeals Health and Safety Code section
11369. Together, these provisions define the parameters under which state and local law enforcement agencies may
engage in immigration enforcement-related activities.
The Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, Government Code sections 7283, 7283.1,
7283.2, effective January 1, 2017, creates mandatory notice and procedural protections for individuals in the custody of
local law enforcement agencies should federal immigration officers wish to contact them. This bulletin also provides
guidance regarding local law enforcement agencies’ obligations under the TRUTH Act, including similar provisions
within SB 54 that apply to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
This bulletin replaces the previous law enforcement bulletins entitled “Responsibilities of Local Law Enforcement
Agencies under Secure Communities and the TRUST Act,” Information Bulletin No. 14-01 (June 25, 2014) and
“Responsibilities of Local Law Enforcement Agencies under Secure Communities,” Information Bulletin No. 2012DLE-01 (Dec. 4, 2012). This bulletin does not provide guidance on the reporting obligations of law enforcement
agencies to the California Department of Justice with respect to the activities of joint law enforcement task forces and
transfers of individuals to immigration authorities; these reporting requirements are set forth in a separate information
bulletin entitled California Values Act’s Statistical Reporting Requirements (18-02-CJIS).
SUMMARY
I.

Amendments to the TRUST Act
The TRUST Act previously described the circumstances under which a local California law enforcement agency
could detain an individual past their scheduled release in response to a hold request from immigration
authorities. As amended by SB 54, the TRUST Act no longer addresses detentions in response to hold requests
because the Values Act prohibits such detentions. The TRUST Act, as amended by SB 54, now describes the
circumstances under which a California law enforcement agency can respond to transfer and notification
requests from immigration authorities.

II.

Overview of the Values Act
In enacting the Values Act, the Legislature made clear in its findings that immigrants are valuable and essential
members of the California community. The Legislature further determined that “a relationship of trust between

Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01
Page 2 of 9
California’s immigrant community and state and local agencies is central to the public safety of the people of
California.” (Gov. Code, § 7284.2). Thus, the core purpose of the Values Act is to ensure effective policing and
to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of California. (Ibid.)
The Values Act does the following:
1. Sets the parameters under which California state and local law enforcement agencies may engage in
“immigration enforcement,” as defined, and requires certain information about joint law enforcement
task forces and transfers of individuals to immigration authorities to be reported to the California
Department of Justice.
2. Requires the CDCR to provide individuals in its custody with information about their legal rights should
federal immigration officers request to make contact with them, similar to the requirements of the
TRUTH Act (Gov. Code, § 7283 et seq.), which applies to local law enforcement agencies.
3. Requires the Attorney General’s Office to issue model policies, to be adopted by public schools, state or
locally operated health facilities, courthouses and other enumerated state and local facilities, that limit
assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state
law. The Attorney General’s Office will further provide guidance to agencies regarding ways to protect
privacy and limit the dissemination of information contained in their databases for immigration
enforcement purposes, as permitted under federal and state law.
It should be noted that the Values Act defines many terms, some of which may seem familiar to law
enforcement officers, but have special meaning within the context of this new law. For example, the Values
Act defines “California law enforcement agency” as “a state or local law enforcement agency, including
school police or security departments.” (Gov. Code, § 7284.4, subd. (a).) This term, however, does not
include the CDCR. (Ibid.) Therefore, the provisions of Government Code sections 7284.6 and 7284.8 do
not apply to the CDCR.
Further, the Values Act defines “immigration enforcement” as “any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or
assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all
efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal
immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United
States.” (Gov. Code, § 7284.4, subd. (f).) And, under the Values Act, a “judicial warrant” means “a warrant
based upon probable cause for a violation of federal criminal immigration law and issued by a federal judge
or a federal magistrate judge that authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest and take into custody the
person who is the subject of the warrant.” (Gov. Code, § 7284.4, subd. (i), emphasis added.) While this
bulletin points out a few of the relevant definitions, individual agencies should review the law to ensure full
understanding of all the key terms in the Values Act.
III.

The Discretion of California Law Enforcement Agencies to Participate in Immigration-Related
Activities is Limited By SB 54 in the Following Ways:
1. Prohibits use of resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for
immigration enforcement purposes, including:

Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01
Page 3 of 9
a. Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status;1
b. Detain an individual in response to a hold request2;
c. Provide personal information, as defined in Civil Code section 1798.3, including but not limited to
home or work addresses, unless this information is “available to the public.” For purposes of this
prohibition, “personal information” means “any information that is maintained by an agency that
identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, his or her name, social security
number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters,
and medical or employment history. It includes statements made by, or attributed to, the individual.”
(Civ. Code, § 1798.3, subd. (a).)
Although not expressly defined in the act, the phrase “available to the public” refers to information
where a law enforcement agency has a practice or policy of making such information public, such as
disclosing the information on its website or if it has a practice or policy of providing the information
to individuals in response to specific requests. Law enforcement agencies should, in addition to
ensuring compliance with the Values Act, take care to ensure that they comply with applicable state
or federal privacy laws.
However, there is an important exception to this limitation on providing personal information:
federal law (8 U.S.C. §§ 1373, 1644) prohibits restrictions on the exchange of information regarding
a person’s citizenship or immigration status, and all California law enforcement agencies should
comply with these laws.
d. Make or intentionally participate in arrests based on “civil immigration warrants,” which means any
warrant for a violation of federal civil immigration law and includes civil immigration warrants
entered in the National Crime Information Center database; and
e. Assist immigration authorities in immigration enforcement activities at the United States borders, as
described in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3), or performing the functions of an immigration officer whether
informally or formally, through an 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) agreement or any other law, regulation or
policy.

This provision does not prohibit inquiries into an individual’s immigration status to immigration authorities, or exchanging
immigration status information with any other federal, state, or local government entity, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and
1644. (See Gov. Code, § 7284.6, subd. (e).)

1

“Hold request” means a request by any immigration authority that a local law enforcement agency maintain
custody of an individual currently in its custody beyond the time he or she would otherwise be eligible for release in
order to facilitate transfer to an immigration authority. (Gov. Code, §§ 7283, subd. (b); 7284.4, subd. (e).)

2

“Notification request” means a request by any immigration authority that a local law enforcement agency inform an
immigration authority of the release date and time in advance of the public of an individual in its custody. (Gov.
Code, §§ 7283, subd. (f); 7284.4, subd. (e).)
“Transfer request” means a request by any immigration authority that a local law enforcement agency facilitate the
transfer of an individual in its custody to an immigration authority. (Gov. Code, §§ 7283, subd. (g); 7284.4, subd.
(e).)
Hold, notification, and transfer requests include requests issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or
U.S. Customs and Border Protection as well as any other immigration authorities. (Gov. Code, § 7284.4, subd. (e).)
“Immigration authority” means any federal, state, or local officer, employee or person performing immigration
enforcement functions. (Gov. Code, § 7284.4, subd. (c).)

Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01
Page 4 of 9
2. California law enforcement agencies cannot honor transfer and notification requests or provide
information regarding a person’s release date except in certain circumstances:
California law enforcement agencies are never required to respond to transfer or notification requests -under the Values Act they retain the discretion to decline these requests for any reason. (Gov. Code, §
7282.5, subd. (a).) Thus, law enforcement agencies may honor transfer and notification requests as specified
in the Values Act as follows:
a. Transfer Requests: Responding to transfer requests is permitted only if:
i. The transfer is authorized by a judicial warrant, as defined by Government Code section 7282.4,
subdivision (i), or a judicial probable cause determination, as defined by Government Code
section 7282.4, subdivision (h), regarding a violation of federal criminal immigration law;
or
ii. Where the transfer would not otherwise violate any federal, state, or local law, or local
policy, and the individual in custody meets any one of the conditions set forth in the
TRUST Act, Government Code section 7282.5, subdivision (a). These qualifying
conditions are:
1) The individual has been convicted at any time of a serious or violent felony, as
defined in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c), or Penal Code section 667.5,
subdivision (c).
2) The individual has been convicted at any time of a felony that is presently punishable
by imprisonment in state prison.
3) The individual was convicted within the past 15 years of a felony listed in
Government Code section 7282.5, subdivision (a)(3), or within the past five years of
a wobbler (i.e., a crime punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor) listed in
Government Code section 7282.5, subdivision (a)(3).
4) The individual is a current registrant on the California Sex and Arson Registry.
5) The individual has been convicted of certain specified federal aggravated felonies
identified in section 101(a)(43)(A)-(P) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A)-(P)).
6) The United States Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) identifies the person as the subject of an outstanding federal
felony arrest warrant for any federal crime.
Furthermore, if a law enforcement agency does transfer an individual to immigration authorities,
Government Code section 7284.6, subdivision (c)(2) requires the agency to report to the California
Department of Justice the number of transfers it makes in a calendar year, as well as the offense that
allowed for the transfer. For more information regarding these reporting obligations, please see
Information Bulletin 18-02-CJIS (California Values Act’s Statistical Reporting Requirements).

Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01
Page 5 of 9
b. Notification Requests: Providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to
notification requests from immigration authorities by providing an individual’s release date or other
information is permitted only if:
i. The information is available to the public;
or
ii. The individual is subject to (1) the qualifying conditions in the TRUST Act, Government Code
section 7282.5, subdivision (a) described above with respect to transfer requests; or (2) the
individual has been arrested and taken before a magistrate judge on the following types of
charges, and the magistrate makes a probable cause determination (Pen. Code, § 872) for the
charge: (i) a serious or violent felony (Pen. Code, §§ 1192.7, subd. (c) or 667.5, subd. (c)); or (ii)
a felony that is punishable by imprisonment in state prison. (Gov. Code, § 7282.5, subd. (b)).
A conviction for a straight misdemeanor, i.e., a crime that is presently punishable only as a
misdemeanor, is not listed in section 7285, subdivision (a), and therefore is not a valid
justification for honoring a transfer or notification request. And misdemeanor convictions for
crimes affected by Proposition 47 (2014), the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act,” including
felony convictions that were reduced to misdemeanors or re-designated as misdemeanors by a
court as a result of Proposition 47, cannot serve as the basis for transfers or providing release date
information to immigration authorities. (Gov. Code, § 7285.5, subd. (a)(6)). The crimes affected
by Proposition 47 include, but are not limited to: simple drug possession for personal use,
shoplifting, forgery, writing bad check, petty theft, and receiving stolen property.
Before honoring a transfer or notification request on the basis of a qualifying conviction,
California law enforcement agencies should carefully review an individual’s Record of Arrests
and Prosecutions to determine whether a listed felony conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor,
or re-designated as a misdemeanor, by a court under Proposition 47. If so, cooperation with
immigration authorities is prohibited, unless there is another valid basis for cooperation (for
transfers, a judicial warrant; for notifications, if the information is publicly available).
3. Other Restrictions on Immigration Enforcement
California law enforcement agencies may not (1) allow officers to be supervised by federal agencies or
deputized for immigration enforcement purposes; (2) use immigration authorities as interpreters for law
enforcement matters relating to individuals in custody; (3) provide office space exclusively for
immigration authorities in city or county law enforcement facilities; or (4) enter into a contract, after
June 15, 2017, with the federal government to house or detain adult and minor noncitizens in a locked
detention facility for purposes of immigration custody; agencies with existing federal contracts cannot
renew or modify the contract if doing so would expand the number of contract beds available to detain
noncitizens for purposes of civil immigration custody. (Gov. Code, §§ 7310, 7311).
IV.

If agency policy or local law or policy permit, a California law enforcement agency has discretion, but
is not required, to perform the following immigration enforcement activities:
1. Investigate, enforce, detain persons upon reasonable suspicion of, or arrest, persons for violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a), the federal criminal violation for reentry by a noncitizen after removal, but only if the
individual was removed because of an aggravated felony conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and the
suspected violation was detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity. This is the one limited
circumstance in which the Value Act permits a law enforcement official to exercise their discretion to

Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01
Page 6 of 9
arrest or assist in the arrest of a person for a federal immigration law violation. Transfers of these
individuals to immigration authorities are subject to the above restrictions regarding transfers.
2. Provide individual criminal history in response to a request from immigration authorities about a specific
person’s criminal history, including information obtained from CLETs or similar local databases, as long
as it is otherwise permitted by state law.
3. Participate in a joint law enforcement task force, including the sharing of confidential information with
task force participants, if all of the following conditions are met:
a. The task force’s primary purpose is not immigration enforcement;
b. Enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to violations of state or federal law
unrelated to immigration enforcement; and
c. The local law or policy that the agency is subject to permits such participation.
Nothing in the Values Act prohibits a California law enforcement agency from asserting its own
jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement matters, i.e., engaging in an investigation, detention or arrest
for criminal activities based upon California state law, even when its activities may indirectly impact or
assist a federal agency that is engaged in immigration enforcement as part of a joint task force or
otherwise. (Gov. Code, § 7284.6, subd. (f).) This includes circumstances in which an officer is
responding to a call for service involving a violation of a state criminal law or during an immigration
enforcement action where the safety of the public or a law enforcement officer, including an immigration
enforcement officer, is in danger. In these limited circumstances, a California law enforcement officer
may assist any law enforcement official, even if those officials are engaged in immigration enforcement,
but only when the California law enforcement officer is enforcing state law. This narrow public safety
exception should not be used to avoid the prohibitions in the Values Act on using state resources to
conduct immigration enforcement.
If a California law enforcement agency has agreed to dedicate personnel or resources on an ongoing
basis to a task force, it must report the information set forth in Government Code section 7284.6
subdivision (c)(1) concerning the activities of the task force to the Department of Justice, as explained in
Information Bulletin 18-02-CJIS (California Values Act’s Statistical Reporting Requirements).3
4. Ask for information necessary to certify potential victims of crime or human trafficking with respect to
T-visas and U-visas (8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(T) and 1101(a)(15)(U)),4 or to comply with 18 U.S.C. §
922(d)(5), which prohibits the sale or disposition of firearms or ammunition to a person who law
enforcement knows or has reasonable cause to believe is not lawfully present in the United States.
California Penal Code sections 679.10 and 679.11 mandate that certifying state and local agencies
submit certifications for T- or U-Visa applicants when certain conditions are met. Certifying law
enforcement agencies are prohibited from disclosing the immigration status information of a victim or
person requesting T- or U-visa certification forms except to comply with federal law or legal process, or
if authorized by the victim. For guidance regarding law enforcement agencies’ obligations under
An “ongoing basis” means more than one interaction with any federal, state, or local LEA on a task force to discuss task
force operations. Accordingly, isolated interactions with a federal law enforcement agency are not subject to these reporting
requirements because the California LEA did not dedicate personnel or resources to the task force on more than one
occasion.
4
The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act (VTVPA) of 2000 is a federal law that, among other things,
provides temporary immigration benefits to individuals without immigration status who are victims of specified qualifying
crimes including human trafficking. (VTVPA, Pub. L. No. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464-1548 (2000).)
3

Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01
Page 7 of 9
California Penal Code section 679.10 with respect to U-Visas, see the Information Bulletin by California
Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement, dated October 28, 2015, available at
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/dle-2015-04.pdf.
5. Provide ICE with access to interview an individual in custody, if the agency gives the notices required
by the TRUTH Act (Gov. Code, § 7283 et seq.). Local law or policy, or agency policy, may be more
restrictive than the Values Act. Agencies should determine whether, even if the Values Act permits
assistance in immigration enforcement related activities, the agency’s policy or local law or policies
prohibit such activities. Further, if a particular activity is prohibited by the agency or the agency’s
jurisdiction, the agency must comply with the more restrictive conditions of the agency or jurisdiction so
long as the local law or policy complies with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644, governing restrictions on the
exchange of a person’s immigration and citizenship status with government officials.
In addition, if officers are working in a school district pursuant to a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between the law enforcement agency and the district, the officer must adhere to the requirements
of the MOU, even if that MOU conflicts with agency policy with respect to immigration enforcement
matters, so long as the MOU complies with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644.
V.

Additional Law Enforcement Activity Under the Values Act
1. The Values Act does not prohibit a law enforcement agency from exchanging information regarding a
person’s immigration status with governmental entities, including immigration authorities, and the Act
specifically cites 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and 8 U.S.C. § 1644 as authority for that provision. Under those
federal statutes, law enforcement officers must be allowed to:
a. Send to, or receive from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship
or immigration status, whether lawful or unlawful, of any individual;
b. Request information from federal immigration authorities regarding any individual’s
immigration status, whether lawful or unlawful; and
c. Maintain or exchange information regarding the immigration status of any individual with other
governmental entities.
The Values Act also permits the disclosure of an individual’s name for purposes of making or
responding to an inquiry about an individual’s immigration or citizenship status to other governmental
entities.
2. One federal district court in California has ruled on the scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and determined that
Section 1373 does not bar all restrictions on communications between state and local law enforcement
and the federal government, and specifically, does not bar restrictions on the sharing of inmates’ release
dates. That court determined that Section 1373 “only” prohibits restrictions on the exchange of
information regarding a person’s citizenship or immigration status. (Steinle v. City & Cty. of San
Francisco (N.D. Cal. 2017) 230 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1015.) Thus, under the Values Act, the disclosure of
all other personal information that does not encompass information regarding a person’s citizenship or
immigration status, including a person’s home and work address, is prohibited from disclosure unless it
is publicly available or permitted under Government Code section 7284.6, subdivision (b)(2).

Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01
Page 8 of 9
VI.

The Requirements of the TRUTH Act

The TRUTH Act, Government Code sections 7283, 7283.1, 7283.2, provides individuals who are in
the custody of local law enforcement agencies with information about their procedural and legal rights
should ICE wish to contact them. Specifically, the statute requires:
1. Before any interview between ICE and an individual in custody of a local law enforcement
agency regarding civil immigration violations, the local law enforcement entity shall provide
the individual with a written consent form,5 that explains all of the following:
a. The purpose of the interview;
b. That the interview is voluntary; and
c. That the individual may decline the interview or may choose to be interviewed with
only their attorney present.
2. Upon receiving any ICE hold, notification, or transfer request, the local law enforcement
agency shall:
a. Provide a copy of the request to the individual; and
b. Inform the individual whether the law enforcement agency intends to comply with the
request. However, with respect to ICE hold requests, the LEA may not hold an
individual past the time that he or she normally would be released, as is now required
under the Values Act. (Gov. Code, § 7284.6, subd. (a)(1)(B).)
3. If a local law enforcement agency chooses to provide ICE with notification that an individual
will be released from custody on a certain date, the local law enforcement agency must
promptly provide the same notification in writing to the individual and to his or her attorney or
other person designated by the individual being held. (Gov. Code, § 7283.1, subd. (b).)
4. All records relating to ICE access provided by local law enforcement agencies, including all
communication with ICE, shall be public records for purposes of the California Public
Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250)), including the exemptions
provided by that Act. The TRUTH Act explicitly provides that personal identifying
information may be redacted prior to public disclosure as provided under the California Public
Records Act. When responding to such requests, law enforcement agencies should therefore
keep in mind California’s privacy laws and all applicable exemptions under the California
Public Records Act that protect such personal information from disclosure.6 (Gov. Code, §
7283.1, subd. (c).)
5. Beginning January 1, 2018, the local governing body of any county, city, or city and county in
which a local law enforcement agency has provided ICE access to an individual during the last
The local law enforcement agency is required to make the written consent form available in English, Spanish, Chinese,
Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean, and any additional languages that meet the county threshold as defined in Health and
Safety Code section 128552, subdivision (d), if certified translations in those languages are made available to the local
law enforcement agency at no cost. In keeping with the spirit of the law to advise individuals of their rights, a local law
enforcement agency should not pre-populate or presuppose the responses in the consent form.
6
Records relating to ICE access as provided in the TRUTH Act include, but are not limited to, data maintained by the local
law enforcement agency regarding the number and demographic characteristics of individuals to whom the agency has
provided ICE access, the date ICE access was provided, and whether the ICE access was provided through a hold, transfer,
or notification request or through other means.
5

Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01
Page 9 of 9
year is required to hold at least one community forum open to the public during the following
year. (Gov. Code, § 7283, subd. (d).)
VII.

SB 54 Requires State Prisons Provide Similar Information Required by the TRUTH Act
The Values Act requires CDCR to provide an individual in custody with a written consent form and other
notifications before allowing an interview between ICE and the individual regarding civil immigration
violations. Specifically, this form must explain the purpose of the interview, that the interview is voluntary, and
that the individual may decline to be interviewed or may choose to be interviewed only with their attorney
present. The consent form must be available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalong, Vietnamese and Korean.
The CDCR must also give a copy of an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request to the individual and inform
the person whether the agency or CDCR intends to comply with the request. (Gov. Code, § 7284.10.)
In addition, CDCR cannot restrict access to certain opportunities based solely on an individual’s citizenship or
immigration status (Gov. Code, § 7284.10, subd. (b)(1)), and cannot consider citizenship or immigration status in
determining an individual’s custodial classification level. (Gov. Code, § 7284.10, subd. (b)(2).)

VIII.

Repeal of Health and Safety Code section 11369
SB 54 also repeals Health and Safety Code section 11369, which required an arresting law enforcement agency
to notify the appropriate federal agency if it believed that a person arrested for certain drug violations may not be
a United States citizen.
Sincerely,

KEVIN GARDNER, Chief
Division of Law Enforcement
For

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General

EXHIBIT I

AB 450
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 17, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair
AB 450 (Chiu) – As Amended April 27, 2017
Policy Committee:

Labor and Employment
Judiciary

Vote:

5-2
8-3

Urgency: No

State Mandated Local Program: No

Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:
This bill imposes various requirements upon employers related to federal immigration worksite
enforcement actions. In summary, this bill:
1) Prohibits an employer from providing federal immigration enforcement agents access either
to certain work areas without a properly executed warrant, except as otherwise provided by
federal law, or to employee records without a subpoena.
2) Requires an employer to provide certain notifications to an employee, or an employee’s
representative, regarding federal immigration worksite enforcement actions or the results of
those actions, and requires an employer to notify the Labor Commissioner of these actions
within a defined timeframe.
3) Prohibits employers from checking the employment eligibility of current employees, except
as required by federal law, and requires them to notify Labor Commissioner before
conducting these checks in instances when they have to as required by federal law.
4) Prescribes penalties against employers for failure to satisfy the requirements and
prohibitions, specified of $10,000 to $25,000 for each violation.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Increased costs to the Division of Labor Standards and Employment (DLSE) in the range of $6.5
million to $11.5 million. While there is considerably uncertainty about the precise fiscal impacts
of this bill, DLSE would likely need “on call” staff across the 17 DLSE regional office as well as
significant legal resources to review worksite incidents and potentially seek remedies in civil
court.
COMMENTS:
1) Background. Under existing federal law and regulations, immigration officers are prohibited
from entering the non-public areas of a business or a farm for the purpose of questioning the
occupants or employees concerning their right to be or remain in the United States, unless the
officer has either a warrant, or the consent of the owner, or some agent of the owner who has
authority to grant consent. If the immigration officer is denied access to conduct a site
inspection, a warrant may be obtained. Moreover, federal agents sometimes come to the
workplace not to search the premises, but to inspect business and employee records. In such a

AB 450
Page 2
case, federal agents must provide the employer with a subpoena and a three-day notice before
inspecting any records.
2) Recent federal actions. Recent executive actions from the new federal administration have
signaled that all immigrants here without permission are now enforcement priorities for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Nationwide, there are reports of ICE agents
descending on worksites for mass round-ups of immigrants. Additionally, the Trump
administration has called for hiring 10,000 more ICE agents to expedite deportations.
3) Purpose. This bill seeks to ensure that all California workers, regardless of immigration
status, enjoy the protections afforded to them under state law “without fear of harassment,
detention, or deportation." According to the author, AB 450 will help achieve this by
insisting that federal immigration enforcement agents meet the full procedural requirements
of federal law and by making affected workers aware of federal enforcement actions and
cognizant of their rights during such actions.
Analysis Prepared by:

Luke Reidenbach / APPR. / [phone]

EXHIBIT J

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Senator Steven Bradford, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No:
Author:
Version:
Urgency:
Consultant:

AB 450
Chiu
June 21, 2017
No
Gideon Baum

Hearing Date:
Fiscal:

June 28, 2017
Yes

Subject: Employment regulation: immigration worksite enforcement actions
KEY ISSUES
Should the Legislature prohibit an employer from providing access to a federal government
immigration enforcement agent to any non-public areas of a place of labor if the agent does not
have a warrant?
Should the Legislature prohibit an employer from providing access to a federal government
immigration enforcement agent to I-9 employment records if the agent doesn’t have a subpoena?
Should the Legislature require notices to employees and the Labor Commissioner from the
employer in the event of an immigration enforcement action at the worksite?
ANALYSIS
Existing law:
1) Provides that all protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, except any
reinstatement remedy prohibited by federal law, are available to all individuals regardless
of immigration status who have applied for employment, or who are or who have been
employed, in California. (Labor Code §1171.5)
2) Provides that a State may provide that an individual who is not lawfully present in the
United States is eligible for any State or local public benefit for which such alien would
otherwise be ineligible through the enactment of a State law which affirmatively provides
for such eligibility. (8 U.S. Code § 1621(d))
3) Prohibits any attempt to reinvestigate or reverify an incumbent employee’s authorization
to work using an unfair immigration-related practice. (Labor Code §1019.1)
4) Requires that employers must attest, under penalty of perjury and on a form designated or
established by the federal Attorney General by regulation, that it has verified that the
individual is not an unauthorized alien by examining specified documents, which include
a United States passport, resident alien card, and an identification card with a photograph
that contains security features that prevents counterfeit or fraud. The worker must also
attest, under the penalty of perjury, that he or she can legally work in the United States.

AB 450 (Chiu)

Page 2 of 10

These attestations and records are commonly known as I-9 Employment Eligibility
Verification forms/records. (8 U.S. Code § 1324a)
5) Requires that employers retain a copy of the attestations discussed above and make
available for inspection by officers of the Service, the Special Counsel for ImmigrationRelated Unfair Employment Practices, or the Department of Labor during a period
beginning on the date of the hiring, recruiting, or referral of the individual and ending
with 1 year of a worker’s termination. (8 U.S. Code § 1324a)
AB 450 creates various requirements on public and private employers with regard to federal
immigration agency worksite enforcement actions.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Prohibits an employer, except as otherwise provided by federal law, from providing a federal
immigration enforcement agent access to nonpublic areas of a place of labor without a
properly executed warrant.
2) Prohibits an employer, except as otherwise provided by federal law, from providing a federal
immigration enforcement agent voluntary access to the employer’s employee records without
a subpoena.
3) Requires an employer, except as otherwise prohibited by federal law, to provide an
employee, and the employee’s representative, a written notice of an immigration worksite
enforcement action to be conducted by a federal immigration agency at the employer’s
worksite. That notice must be in the language the employer normally uses to communicate
employment information and contain:
a) The name of the federal immigration agency conducting the immigration worksite
enforcement action.
b) The date that the employer received notice of the worksite enforcement action.
c) The nature of the worksite enforcement action to the extent known.
d) A copy of the notice of an immigration worksite enforcement audit or inspection of I9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records, worksite
investigations, worksite interviews of employees, worksite raids, or any other
immigration worksite enforcement action to be conducted.
e) Any other information that the Labor Commissioner (LC) deems material and
necessary.
This notice must be hand delivered or, if not possible, mailed or emailed to the employee
within 24 hours.
4) Requires an employer, except as otherwise prohibited by federal law, to provide to an
affected employee, and to the employee’s representative, a copy of the written federal
immigration agency notice describing the results of an immigration worksite enforcement
audit or inspection and written notice of the obligations of the employer and the affected
employee arising from the action, as specified. The notice shall contain the following
information:

AB 450 (Chiu)

Page 3 of 10

a) A description of any and all deficiencies or other items identified in the written
federal immigration audit or immigration worksite enforcement action results notice.
b) The time period for correcting any potential deficiencies identified by the federal
immigration worksite enforcement action.
c) The time and date of any meeting with the employer to correct any identified
deficiencies.
d) Notice that the employee has the right to representation during any meeting scheduled
with the employer.
e) Any other information that the Labor Commissioner deems material and necessary.
This notice must be hand delivered or, if not possible, mailed or emailed to the employee
within 24 hours.
5) Requires an employer, except as otherwise prohibited by federal law, to notify the LC of a
federal government immigration agency immigration worksite enforcement action within 24
hours of receiving notice of the action and, if the employer does not receive advance notice,
to immediately notify the Labor Commission upon learning of the action, unless prohibited
by federal law.
6) Requires an employer to notify the LC before conducting a self-audit or inspection of
specified employment eligibility verification forms, and before checking the employee work
authorization documents of a current employee, in a manner not required by federal law.
7) Prohibits an employer from re-verifying employment eligibility of a current employee, at a
time or in a manner not required by specified federal law.
8) Requires the LC, upon a determination that an employee complainant or employee witness is
necessary to conduct an investigation or prosecution, to issue a certification to the employee
stating that he or she has submitted a valid complaint and is cooperating in the investigation
and prosecution.
9) Prescribes penalties against employers for failure to satisfy the requirements and prohibitions
described in this bill of $2,000-$5,000 for a first violation, or $5,000-$10,000 for each
subsequent violation, to be recoverable by the LC.
10) Provides that the provisions of AB 450 are severable.

COMMENTS
1. Immigration, Federal Policy, and the California Legislature:
“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

AB 450 (Chiu)

Page 4 of 10
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
- Emma Lazarus, “The New Colossus”

In popular culture, it is common to hear the United States of America be referred to as a
“Nation of Immigrants”. As many Americans can trace their roots to ancestors who
voluntarily immigrated to this country, this sentiment has particular currency. Moreover, as
touched on by Lazarus’s poem, it evokes a powerful image: oppressed and exiled, my
ancestors were welcomed into a land of freedom and plenty. Today, because of their
sacrifices, I am able to enjoy everything that America has to offer, and I will be able to
extend that gift to those who come after me.
Unfortunately, the historical record shows many instances where America fell short in
extending the light of freedom to the exiled and huddled masses of the world. For example,
in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by a Congress made up of many
Founding Fathers and signed by President George Washington, naturalization was limited to
“a free white person” who resided in the United States for two years. The Naturalization Act
of 1795 kept the restriction of naturalization to “a free white person”, but extended the
residency period to 5 years. It wasn’t until 1870 that individuals born in Africa could
naturalize as American citizens. However, exclusions from naturalization were kept in place
for Asians.
In 1913, building off of this exclusion, the California State Legislature passed the Alien Land
Law, which excluded “aliens” who are not eligible for citizenship from owning land,
specifically targeting Japanese farmers. The bill passed 35-2 in the Senate (where it was
introduced) and 72-3 in the Assembly. The bill was signed into law by Governor Hiram
Johnson. The bill that became law was actually a compromise measure, and the Legislature
had considered several bills that were much more stringent. During the Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing on one of the more stringent bills, farmers testified “with tears streaming
down their faces” of white farmers being driven off the land by Japanese farmers and the
inevitability of violence if nothing is done. 1 Prior to the passage of the final Alien Land Law,
one Assemblyman offered amendments to make the measure more stringent, stating “This is
not a question of dollars and cents but of civilization.”2
Then, in 1920, the Alien Land Law was further strengthened by an initiative, which passed
668,483 (75%) to 222,086 (25%), that inhibited the ability of Japanese farmers to lease
agricultural land. The California State Legislature went on to strengthen and expand the
Alien Land Law in 1923 and 1927. Despite this, Japanese farmers circumvented the law by
1

“We have a dead line at Elk Grove now, beyond with the brown man cannot pass. If we are denied relief from the
situation that confronts us , I will not be responsible for what will surely happen. “ M.A. Mitchell, Elk Grove farmer,
March 19, 1913. From Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1913 by Franklin Hichborn, pg. 225.
2
Ibid., Pg. 271.

AB 450 (Chiu)

Page 5 of 10

developing complex ownership arrangements. These ownership arrangements, however,
were illegal and could result in enforcement actions where the State would seize and sell the
land or fine the Japanese immigrant due to the violation of the law. For example, the State
Attorney General reported to the Legislature that, in the period between 1943 and 1945, he
has secured a $100,000 penalty from one farming concern alone, which is the equivalent of
approximately $1.45 million in today’s dollars.
Upheld by the United States Supreme Court as constitutional in 1923 and 1933, the Alien
Land Law continued to be enforced throughout the 1940s. As Japanese individuals were
released from internment camps, Governor Earl Warren signed into law SB 415 (Chapter
1136, Statutes of 1945), which clarified that there was no statute of limitations on seizing
“alien” land, while another bill passed the same year created a trust fund and appropriation
for the enforcement of the Alien Land Act. Declared unconstitutional in 1948 and 1952 by
the U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court respectively, it wasn’t until 1955 that
the California State Legislature put on the ballot an initiative to repeal the Alien Land Law,
which was overwhelmingly passed by the voters in 1956 (66.8% to 33.2%).
From the vantage point of contemporary California, it is difficult to comprehend how our
government could privilege and enforce a system of naked racial animus upon a group of
immigrants for more than 40 years. Forced to circumvent a fundamentally unjust law in order
to make a living, Japanese farmers sought to improve their lives and the lives of their
children, just like other immigrants. The difference, unfortunately, was that Japanese
individuals not born in the United States were unable to become citizens due to federal
immigration policy. Fortunately, this is no longer the case for Japanese immigrants: a federal
immigration reform bill in 1952 created a path for Japanese immigrants to become
naturalized citizens, ending decades of discrimination. Finally, after Congress took action,
the lamp was raised a bit higher by the golden door.
2. Staff Comments:
The Basic Components of AB 450
Broadly speaking, AB 450 requires employers to do three things: first, ask immigration
enforcement officers for a warrant before granting access to non-public areas of employment;
second, requiring immigration enforcement officers to have a subpoena before accessing
employee records; and third, requiring that notice of immigration enforcement actions be
communicated to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and workers, including
affected workers if necessary. Each provision will be discussed in detail below.
Warrants
As noted above, AB 450 requires employers to request a judicial warrant before granting
access to non-public areas of a workplace. Under federal regulations, an immigration officer
needs to secure either the consent of the employer or a warrant in order to access a nonpublic area of the workplace, with certain exceptions (such as exigent circumstances). As
with other warrants, an immigration officer would need to show probable cause of the
presence of an illegally employed worker before securing a warrant from a judge. However,
unlike other judicial warrants, immigration officers have a relaxed standard for a valid
warrant, and it does not need to include the names of the individuals who are employed at the

AB 450 (Chiu)

Page 6 of 10

specific location or factory. This is frequently referred to as a “Blackie’s warrant” after the
case which originated it (Blackie’s House of Beef v. Castillo, 659 F. 2d 1211 (D.C. Cir.
1981)). In short, the impact of AB 450 is to require that the employer request a judicial
warrant before granting immigration enforcement officials access to non-public areas to
ensure that the immigration enforcement action is lawful, rather than consenting to an
immigration enforcement action without ascertaining legality.
Subpoenas
Unlike warrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is part of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, can issue its own subpoenas under federal law. As such,
the requirement in AB 450 that a request to inspect I-9 documents be accompanied with a
subpoena would not require ICE to contact a judge. Moreover, an employer must comply
with a subpoena from ICE. If an employer does not comply, ICE can compel compliance
through the court system.
Notice
As discussed above, AB 450 has four separate notice requirements: one for workers when
ICE inspects I-9 employment records; one for affected workers after ICE inspects I-9
employment records; one for the Labor Commissioner when ICE conducts an enforcement
action, including the inspection of I-9 employment records; and one for the Labor
Commissioner when the employer self-audits I-9 OR when the employer checks I-9
verification in a manner not required by federal law. Each of these notices must be provided
within 24 hours. Otherwise, an employer would face penalties of $2,000 to $10,000 per
violation, depending on prior violations.
Noting that an employer is getting ready for the ICE enforcement action, reaching out to
workers, contacting the Labor Commissioner AND operating the business in as normal a
manner as possible, such truncated timelines may not be feasible for many employers.
Additionally, as an employer may wish to shred expired I-9 employment information,
requiring a notice be given to the Labor Commissioner prior to the destruction of sensitive,
out-of-date documents may not lead to superior policy outcomes. Finally, while AB 450
requires the Labor Commissioner be notified if the employer is checking I-9 verification
forms outside of federal requirements, it does not require such notice be given to the
employee’s labor representative, who may be in a position to give assistance to the worker.
Possible Amendments
Therefore, the Committee may wish to consider the following amendments:
1) In Labor Code Section 90.25(a) of the bill, lengthening the timeline for an employer to
notify his or her employees of an upcoming inspection of I-9 employment records from
“within 24 hours” to “within 72 hours”;
2) In Labor Code Section 90.25(b) of the bill, lengthening the timeline for an employer to
notify his or her employees affected by an I-9 employment records from “within 24
hours” to “within 48 hours”; and

AB 450 (Chiu)

Page 7 of 10

3) In Labor Code Section 90.9(b) of the bill, strike “before conducting a self-audit of,
inspection of, or review of, I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and” from the
bill and insert “employee’s labor representative”.
3. Proponent Arguments:
Proponents argue that “immigration raids undermine workers’ rights in significant ways: they
drive down wages and labor conditions for all workers, regardless of immigration status; they
interfere with workers’ ability to freely exercise their workplace rights; they incentivize
employers to employ undocumented workers in substandard conditions because the threat of
immigration enforcement prevents workers from complaining; they undermine the efforts of
the state to enforce labor and employment laws.” The author also notes that “past experience
with worksite raids demonstrates the likelihood of raids violating employee due process. ICE
has routinely violated basic constitutional rights, such as the 4th amendment's protections
against unreasonable search and seizure. ICE has detained all workers, without any
individualized suspicion, regardless of status when conducting workplace raids. For example,
in prior worksite raids, ICE has used individual arrest warrants and administrative warrants to
question and detain every single worker - including U.S. citizens & lawfully present workers
- in a workplace without individualized suspicion. ” Proponent argue that AB 450, through
notices to the employees and Labor Commissioner, will ensure that workers understand their
rights and are aware of what enforcement actions are taking place. Further, by requiring a
warrant or subpoena before certain ICE enforcement actions, proponents argue that AB 450
will ensure that ICE’s enforcement actions do not violate the due process rights of both
employers and employees.
4. Opponent Arguments:
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) opposes AB 450, arguing:
“Compliance with the provision in the bill requires multiple employees at the employers’
place of work to understand fully federal law regarding ICE agents’ access and puts
employers in a bind. For example, an administrative assistant who is approached by an ICE
agent is likely to comply with what the uniformed officer asks. If the ICE officer is asking for
access beyond what is provided for in federal law, it is highly unlikely that the administrative
assistant will be aware. It is unreasonable to expect many people within organizations
(administrative, HR professionals, security staff, etc.) to have such detailed knowledge of
federal law that would be required to comply. Training these employees would require major
resource expenditures from employers.”
SHRM also argues that the I-9 notices to the employee and the Labor Commissioner are
burdensome, noting: “This could be the entire workforce for the company, as well as those
who have left the company in the last year. Federal law requires the retention of I-9s for three
years after hire or one year after termination of employment, whichever is later. Getting
notice out in a 3-day window would be an administrative challenge requiring significant
resources, particularly for large employers who have thousands in their workforce.”
SHRM also argues that the requirement to notify the Labor Commissioner before a self-audit
of I-9 verification forms “to mean that an employer is required to notify the state every time
they re-verify an employee who needs to be re-verified for a legitimate reason, such as an H-

AB 450 (Chiu)

Page 8 of 10

1B visa holder who receives an extension. This is highly burdensome because the new
requirement is on-going and could happen more than once with the same employee.
Additionally, self-audits of I-9 files performed by our members are reasonable and should be
encouraged, not discouraged. There is a distinction to be made between an audit of forms to
ensure they are filled out correctly in compliance with federal law, and situations where
employers actually go back and look at documents again or ask employees for new
documentation – practices that are already prohibited by law.”
5. Double Referral:
This bill has been double-referred and, if approved by this committee, will be sent to the
Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing.
6. Prior Legislation:
SB 1001 (Mitchell), Chapter 782, Statutes of 2016, prohibits, among other things, any
attempt to reinvestigate or reverify an incumbent employee’s authorization to work using an
unfair immigration-related practice.
SB 624 (Lara), Chapter 290, Statutes of 2015, restates and reinforces existing law on the
right of undocumented workers to be eligible for benefits from the Uninsured Employers
Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) and the Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF).
SB 666 (Steinberg), Chapter 577, Statutes of 2013, prohibits employer from making,
adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing
information to a government or law enforcement agency, as provided, and would extend
those prohibitions to preventing an employee from, or retaliating against an employee for,
providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation,
hearing, or inquiry.
SUPPORT
California Labor Federation (Co-sponsor)
SEIU California (Co-sponsor)
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – California
Bet Tzedek Legal Services
Brightline Defense
California Association of Local Conservation Corps
California Domestic Workers Coalition
California Federation of Teachers
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Professional Firefighters
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
CHIRLA
City and County of San Francisco
San Francisco Labor Council
San Mateo Labor Council

AB 450 (Chiu)

Page 9 of 10

State Building and Construction Trades Council
UAW Local 5810
United Domestic Workers
United Farm Workers
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Worksafe
OPPOSITION
Agricultural Council of California
Associated General Contractors of California
Association of California Egg Farmers
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Bankers Association
California Bean Shippers Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Inc.
California Employment Law Council
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Framing Contractors Association
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Pear Growers Association
California Pool & Spa Association
California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Seed Association
California Trucking Assn
California Warehouse Association
Camarillo Chamber of Commerce
Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties
Construction Employers’ Association
El Centro Chamber of Commerce and Tourist Bureau
Family Business Association of California
Family Winemakers of California
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce
Grower-Shipper Association of Central California
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
National Federation of Independent Businesses

AB 450 (Chiu)
North Orange County Chamber of Commerce
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Official Police Garages of Los Angeles
Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and Tourist Bureau
Santa Maria Chamber of Commerce
Society for Human Resource Management
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
Southwest California Legislative Council
The Chamber of Commerce of the Santa Barbara Region
Tulare Chamber of Commerce
Vacaville Chamber of Commerce
Ventura County Agricultural Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Carwash Association
Western Growers Association
Wine Institute
Yuba-Sutter Chamber of Commerce
-- END --

Page 10 of 10

EXHIBIT K

Management Alert on
Issues Requiring
Immediate Action at the
Theo Lacy Facility in
Orange, California

March 6, 2017
OIG-17-43-MA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov

March 6, 20 17
MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas D. Homan
Acting Assistant Secretary
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
FROM:

John Roth ~~
~
Inspector General

SUBJECT:

Management Alert on Issues Requiring Immediate
Action at the Theo Lacy Facility in Orange, California

A November 16, 2016 unannounced Office of Inspector General (OIG)
inspection of the Theo Lacy Facility (TLF) in Orange, California, raised serious
concerns, some that pose health risks and others that violate U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) 2008 Performance-Based National Detention
Standards (PBNDS) and result in potentially unsafe conditions at the facility.
Because of concerns raised during the inspection, we recommended that ICE
take immediate action to ensure compliance with the 2008 PBNDS and
strengthen its oversight of TLF. Specifically, we expressed the following
concerns about:
• Food handling at TLF poses health risks. Detainees were being served,
and reported being regularly served, meat that appeared to be spoiled.
Orange County Sheriffs Department (OCSD) staff members are not
handling meat safely, including meat being sent to other ICE detention
facilities.
• Unsatisfactory conditions and services at the facility, including moldy
and mildewed shower stalls, refuse in cells, and inoperable phones.
• Some "high-risk" detainees are in less restrictive barracks-style housing
and some "low-risk" detainees are in more restrictive housing modules;
the basis for housing decisions is not adequately documented.
• Contrary to ICE detention standards, inspectors observed high-risk
detainees and low-risk detainees together in parts of TLF. Although
detainees were purportedly identified by classification level, this was not
apparent to the inspectors.
• Moves from less restrictive barracks to more restrictive housing modules
are not explained to detainees, nor are detainees given the opportunity to
appeal changes, as required by ICE detention standards.

www.oig.dhs.gov

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

• OCSD 's more restrictive disciplinary segregation violates ICE detention
standards.
• Neither ICE nor OCSD properly documents grievances from detainees to
ensure resolution, notification of resolution, and opportunities to appeal.
After inspecting this facility on November 16, 2016, the OIG team briefed local
OCSD and ICE management on these concerns. To address the concerns
detailed in the alert, we recommended that, as soon as possible, ICE prevent
further health risks by ensuring that OCSD follow U.S. Department of
Agriculture guidelines for safe food handling. We also recommended that ICE
undertake a full review of TLF and OCSD's management of the facility to
ensure its compliance with ICE's 2008 PBNDS. Finally, we recommended that
ICE develop a comprehensive oversight plan for TLF to ensure OCSD's future
compliance with ICE's 2008 PBNDS.
We provided a draft of this alert to ICE for management comments and
corrective actions. ICE concurred with the intent of all three recommendations
and is implementing corrective actions to address our concerns. All three
recommendations are resolved and open. We have included ICE's comments,
proposed corrective actions, and our analysis in the alert, and we have
attached a copy of the ICE response.
Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will
provide copies of this alert to appropriate congressional committees with
oversight and appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland
Security. We will post a version of the alert on our website.
You may call me with questions, or your staff may contact Laurel Loomis
Rimon, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Inspections and Evaluations, at
[phone].
Attachment

www.oig.dhs.gov

2

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Management Alert
The Theo Lacy Facility (TLF), operated by
the Orange County Sherriff’s Department
(OCSD), houses U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees
through an Intergovernmental Service
Agreement. TLF has the capacity to house
3,442 males, all with some degree of
criminal history. Some detainees have been
convicted of crimes, served their prison
sentence, and have been transferred to TLF Figure 1. Entrance to Theo Lacy Facility
Source: OCSD
to await deportation by ICE or an
immigration court hearing. Other detainees have violated immigration laws and
are also awaiting either deportation or an immigration court hearing. At the
end of October, 478 detainees were housed at Theo Lacy. That detainee count
typically changes daily as new detainees enter the facility and others are
released.
Prior to detention, ICE reviews each detainee’s criminal record and assigns a
risk level of high, medium/high, medium/low, or low. ICE bases its risk levels
on the severity of past criminal charges and convictions, including immigration
violations and other security risks, such as gang affiliation or a history of
substance abuse. For example, individuals convicted of major drug offenses,
national security crimes, and violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter,
rape, robbery, or kidnapping are assessed as having a higher risk level than
those convicted of minor drug and property offenses such as burglary, larceny,
fraud, and money laundering.
Facilities such as TLF that are maintained for ICE through an
Intergovernmental Service Agreement are to comply with ICE’s 2008
Performance-Based National Detention Standards (ICE detention standards).
Poor Conditions at the Theo Lacy Facility
Problems with Food Handling
In the TLF kitchen, we identified a host of potential food safety problems, which
could endanger the health of detainees at TLF and in other facilities serviced by
the TLF kitchen. Of deepest concern, when inspecting the refrigeration units,
we observed slimy, foul-smelling lunch meat that appeared to be spoiled.
www.oig.dhs.gov

3

OIG-17-43-MA

O FC O I S E T RG N R L
FI E F N P C O
E E A
D pr e to H ea dS c r y
e atm n f oml n e u t
i

A cri g ok c e sa, hs m a w ssae t b sr e t dti e s o
c o dn t i h n tf ti et a lt d o e ev d o ean e fr
t
f
l n h h d yo o rs evs. Dti e s e ot dbi g e et dysr e
u c t e a f u i ii ean e r pre en r p ael ev d
t
t
l n h m a t a smle a d at db d wi h h y i s d w h wtrbfr
u c et ht e d n t se a, hc t e rn e i
l
t ae eoe
etn.
a g
i
W as o sr e crl s a dpt n a yu sf h nln of o:
e l o b ev d aee s n oe t l
i l n ae a d g f o d
i
• M a t a w s mr e a “ e p r z n o t e m nf c u n l bl w s
et ht a a k d s k e foe ” n h a uat r g a e a
i
soe i a e i eao w hn i dcto o h w o gth db e
tr d n rf grtr i
r
t o ni a n f o l n i a e n
i
t ai g
h wn.
• L n h m a a dgo n b e w ssoe u c vr d n ag wl-n
u c et n r u d ef a tr d n o ee i lr e ak
i
rf grtr.
e i eaos
r
• Dfr n t p so u wa p d s c d u c m a wr mnl d n
i ee t y e f n r p e, l e l n h et ee i ge i
f
i
c nanr a dnt d nfe; o e aml,ac nanr a ee a bl g a
o ti es n oi e ti dfr x pe
i
o ti e l bl d s oo n
c nan dbl g aa ds c d u k y
o ti e oo n n l e t r e.
i
• U wa p d u c m a w ssoe i ul bl d u c vr dc nanr
n r p e l n h et a tr d n na ee, n o ee o ti es
w hn ifrmto d srbn c ne t,po e sn dt s o e p a o
i
t o no a n e c i g o t ns r c si g ae, r xi t n
i
i
ri
dt s
ae.
.

Fg r 2 T a i g m a w hn dt s dfr nl n h m assoe t gt e w hn l bl;
i ue . h wn et i
t o ae; i ee t u c et tr d o e hr i
f
t o a es
l bl r bl g a n e i eao fr7d y p s t epe ae dt;a o sr e b t e Oi e
a efom oo n i rf grtr o
r
a s at h r pr d ae l b ev d y h f c
l
f
oI s etr G nrl IG a T Fo N v br1,2 1
f n p co e ea(O ) t L n o em e 7 0 6
S uc : O
ore IG

F r hrI Esa ifrm du:
ut e C tf no e s
,
f
• L a e ol n h m a wr dlvr d r z nt a e i t e e i eao fr
o v s f u c et ee e ee foe, h w d n h rf grtr o
i
r
s vrld y,s c d rfoe,a ds n t o hrdt n o f ci e i t e
e ea a s l e, e z n n e t o t e ee t n ait s n h
i
r
i
li
ae.
ra
• L a e ol n h m a wr dlvr d r z nt a e i t e e i eao fr
o v s f u c et ee e ee foe, h w d n h rf grtr o
i
r
s vrld y, h ns c da d e i eae fr mr t a a w e bfr
e ea a st e l e n rf grt d o oe h n
i
r
e k eoe
bi gsr e.
en ev d
A cri g o h US D pr e to Arcl ue U A t esf soa eim
c o dn t t e .. e atm n f g u r ( SD) h ae tr g t e
i t
,
i a e i eao fro e e p c a e ol n h m ai 35d y.T epatc o
n rf grtr o p n d a k g s f u c et s - a s h r c e f
r
i
t a i g s cn, h n e ezn m afr r n pr w ud m k i dfclfr
h wn, l i gt e rf e g et o ta s ot ol a et ii u o
i
r i
f
t
T Fk c e sa t a hr t t o e o dsft r c
L i h n tf o d ee o h s f o aey e omm n a o s F r hr b
t
f
e dt n. ut e y
i
,
wwwogd sg v
.i. h. o

4

O - 74-M
IG1- 3 A

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

not labeling the sliced, open lunch meat in the refrigeration unit, the kitchen
staff has no way of knowing how long the portion packs have been in the
containers. These practices could lead to detainee illness from ingesting spoiled
meat.
Recommendation 1: We recommend that, as soon as possible, ICE ensure
that the Orange County Sherriff’s Department is following U.S. Department of
Agriculture safe food handling guidelines to prevent health risks to detainees at
the Theo Lacy Facility and other detention facilities that receive food from the
Theo Lacy Facility.
ICE Response: ICE concurs. OCSD reported that it follows the California Code
of Regulations, Title 15 for Local Detention Facilities. Although ICE indicated
that Theo Lacy kitchen facilities, sanitation, and food preparation, service, and
storage must comply with standards set forth in the California Health and
Safety and Retail Food Codes, it also acknowledged that it must have safe food
handling practices to prevent health risks to detainees as outlined in the
reporting of spoiled food slated for service to detainees. ICE reported that Theo
Lacy food handling guidelines follow USDA methods or protocols for safe food
handling. TLF has been using these food service handling guidelines prior to
the contract with ICE (for over 5 years). Although, USDA's methods or protocols
for safe food handling are not a requirement of ICE’s 2008 PBNDS, ICE concurs
that OCSD must have safe food handling practices and guidelines to prevent
health risks to detainees or other individuals in their custody.
The standard from the 2008 PBNDS on Food Service requires, in part, that
each facility has a food service program under the direct supervision of an
experienced food service administrator (FSA) who is responsible for:
•
•
•

planning, controlling, directing, and evaluating food service;
establishing standards of sanitation, safety and security; and
developing specifications for the procurement of food, equipment, and
supplies.

According to ICE, TLF has a certified FSA (as well as two food service
managers) and, in addition to ICE detention standards, follows the Orange
County, California's Health Care Agency’s Environmental Health Services
guidelines for food safety. County health inspectors routinely inspect OCSD
facilities, including TLF.
ICE also reported that OCSD is in the process of re-competing its pre-packaged
lunch meat vendor, which was expected to be posted for bids before the end of
January 2017. The procurement process is projected to take approximately 4
www.oig.dhs.gov

5

OIG-17-43-MA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

months. Although the contract re-compete is part of OCSD's routine
procurement process, the sack lunches that are currently being prepared at
TLF will be replaced with pre-packaged box lunches with set expiration dates
that will be brought in from an outside vendor. Estimated completion date: May
2017.
Although ICE reported that TLF does not provide food to any other detention
facility, this was reported in error. ICE revised its statement and indicated that
it still provides food to other detention facilities; it is addressing its food
handling issues by moving to a vendor that will provide pre-sliced and
individually packaged lunch meat, which will address concerns at all affected
facilities.
OIG Analysis: ICE’s response to this recommendation addresses the intent of
the recommendation. This recommendation is resolved and will remain open
until ICE provides evidence that current food handling complies with USDA
standards or similar standards that prevent health risks to detainees. Once
completed, ICE should also provide a copy of the new pre-packaged box lunch
contract that shows requirements ensuring set expiration dates are
documented and followed.
Lack of Cleanliness in Common Showers and Individual Cells
In two modules housing
detainees, common area
showers were not clean. We
found trash, mildew, and
mold in the shower stalls.
According to OCSD staff,
detainees are required to
clean their showers daily;
however, detainees are only
given a scrub brush and an
all-purpose cleaner, which
does not combat mold and
mildew. Additionally,
requiring detainees to
clean common areas used
by all detainees is in
violation of ICE standards,
as detainees are only
required to clean their
immediate living area.
www.oig.dhs.gov

Figure 3. Moldy, mildewed shower stalls observed by OIG
at TLF on November 16, 2016 Source: OIG
6

OIG-17-43-MA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Also, in two of the modular housing units, we observed individual detainee cells
that did not appear to be well-maintained or clean. In two cases, detainees had
large collections of empty food containers and newspapers. According to ICE
detention standards, garbage and refuse are to be collected and removed as
often as necessary to maintain sanitary
conditions and to avoid creating health hazards.
Collections of items in individual cells could
potentially attract vermin and present a health
hazard for detainees.
Unusable Telephones
An ICE Office of Professional Responsibility,
Office of Detention Oversight report from a 2013
inspection of TLF identified telephone problems,
including low volume and inoperable phones. In
Figure 4. Broken plug on phone
three modules we visited, the telephones were
observed by OIG at TLF on
November 16, 2016 Source: OIG
not operable. Detainees interviewed also
confirmed that some phones did not work and
the low volume on others prevented them from using the phones.
Failure to Properly Document Detainee Classification Decisions and
Comply with ICE Detention Standards
Inadequate Documentation of Decisions on Detainee Classification
ICE detention standards require detention facilities to implement a system to
classify detainees based on past criminal convictions, including immigration
violations, and other security risk factors. Facilities must physically house
detainees according to their classification level. Through our observations and
interviews with OCSD staff, we determined that OCSD is not properly
documenting its detainee classification process, and its housing
reclassifications do not comply with ICE detention standards.
Before in-processing at TLF, ICE gives OCSD a classification form for each
detainee that contains ICE’s classification risk assessment of high,
medium/high, medium low, or low. Facilities are permitted to develop local
classification systems, as long as the classification criteria are objective and
uniformly applied and procedures meet ICE requirements. OCSD staff informed
us that they do not change ICE’s initial classification level, but they consider

www.oig.dhs.gov

7

OIG-17-43-MA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

the ICE’s classification along with their own detainee classification interview to
determine the level of “criminal sophistication” 1 and assign housing.
Although OCSD personnel showed us examples of completed questionnaires
from classification interviews, OCSD does not document these interviews in the
detainee’s file. Through our review of detainee files, we found detainees
identified by ICE as high risk who were housed in the least restrictive barracks
and detainees identified by ICE as medium/low risk housed in more restrictive
modular housing. Even though OCSD officials said they use ICE’s initial
classification, we found no detainee file documentation showing they took this
classification into consideration when determining initial housing assignments.
Additionally, we found no correlation between ICE’s initial classification and
OCSD’s assessment.
High-risk and Low-risk Detainees Are Allowed to Mix
ICE detention standards also specify that facilities may not mingle low-risk
detainees with high-risk detainees. During the facility tour, we observed that
detainees of all risk levels were housed in the barracks. OCSD staff explained
that detainees of different classification levels do not “program” together,
meaning they do not eat or attend religious services or recreation activities at
the same time. Fundamentally, this setup satisfies the ICE detention
standards’ prohibition against mingling high-risk detainees and low-risk
detainees. However, while touring the barracks area, we noted that detainees of
all risk levels were able to roam the entire area, accessing the phones, law
library, and outdoor space, and entering and exiting the housing bays freely.
Although OSCD personnel said each detainee is issued an armband and
identification card indicating risk classification, these were not readily
apparent to the OIG team. Some detainees were not wearing an armband at all.
This type of mingling may allow a less restrictive living environment for
detainees, but it skirts the ICE detention standards’ prohibition, which is
designed to “protect the community, staff, contractors, volunteers, and
detainees from harm.”
Changes to Detainee Housing Do Not Comply with ICE Detention Standards
During our review of detainee files, we determined that OCSD staff were not
informing detainees of their reasons for moving detainees from barracks to
more restrictive modules. There was also no evidence of a process for detainees
to formally appeal such a move. OCSD staff told the OIG team that detainees
OCSD staff referred to criminal sophistication as an overall assessment of a detainee’s
criminal background, including gang affiliation, past incarceration record, and types of
violations on criminal history.
1

www.oig.dhs.gov

8

OIG-17-43-MA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

housed in the modules were there because they needed closer supervision than
the barracks allowed, but we determined the reasons behind the need were not
properly documented in detainee files. OCSD also does not review detainees’
classifications before moving them from barracks to modules.
According to ICE detention standards, facility classification systems must
include procedures for detainees to appeal their classification levels, but OCSD
staff said they never, for any reason, change ICE’s initial classification of
detainees. Because they do not change classification levels, OIG concluded that
OCSD is able to avoid the requirement for allowing detainees to appeal housing
decisions. We also concluded that, as a result, OCSD staff can move detainees
at will without technically violating ICE detention standards, and detainees are
stripped of their right to appeal housing decisions, which should be based on
their classification level.
OCSD’s More Restrictive Disciplinary Segregation Violates ICE Detention
Standards
OCSD is violating ICE detention standards for disciplinary segregation.
Detainees at TLF are placed in disciplinary segregation in a special
management unit as punishment for violations of facility rules. According to
OCSD staff and the OCSD-provided detainee handbook, disciplinary
segregation at TLF means a person is isolated for 24 hours a day in a cell with
no access to visitors, recreation, or group religious services. The detainees are
released briefly every other day to shower. In contrast, ICE detention standards
require that detainees placed in disciplinary segregation receive a minimum of
1 hour of recreation five times per week, opportunities for general visitation,
religious guidance, and limited access to telephones and reading material.
However, through observation and interviews, we determined that detainees
are not allowed any recreation time, visitation, religious guidance, or telephone
access. They were permitted to access one book from the library for the
duration of their stay in solitary, lasting up to 30 days.
ICE Does Not Track Detainee Grievances
We identified problems with processes for filing both written and oral
grievances with ICE and OCSD. Detention standards require facilities to have a
procedure for formal grievances to ensure detainees are being treated fairly.
Detainees may file grievances related to the conditions of confinement,
including medical care, staff misconduct, food, telephones, visiting procedures,
and disability discrimination. TLF has two grievance processes, one overseen
by ICE and one by OCSD. Detainees wishing to file a written grievance with
ICE fill out an ICE form and place it in ICE’s box in their living area, which is
picked up by a contractor daily. Detainees wishing to file a written grievance
www.oig.dhs.gov

9

OIG-17-43-MA

O FC O I S E T RG N R L
FI E F N P C O
E E A
D pr e to H ea dS c r y
e atm n f oml n e u t
i

w h O S flo tadfr nfrm wi h spa e i adfr n b xa d s
i
t
C Di u
l
i ee t o , hc i l c d n i ee t o n i
f
f
pc e u b s prii gd p te a e e c si.
i k d p y u evsn e u s f r a h ht
i
t
f
T r u h neve s w h h I E G e a c Oi e w i e ti d h flo i g
ho g i tri w i t e C r v n e f cr e d nfe t e o wn
t
i
f
i
l
pol s w h h I Eg e a c po e s
r bem i t e C r v n e r c s:
t
i
• I Ed e nt r c w te g e a c s r dti e s n h f ciy o
C o s o ta k r t n r v n e fom ean e i t e ait t
i
i
l
e s r t eg e a c sae e ev d r sl e,a d htdti e s e ev a
n ue h r v n e r r ci e, e ov d n t a ean e r ci e
i
r s o s. G e a c sae mi ti e i adt b s o n db ap vt
e p n e r v n e r anan d n aa a e w e y r ae
i
i
c nr co a d h I E G e a c Oi e si I Ed e nth v a c s
o tatr n t e C r v n e f cr ad C o s o a e c e s
,
i
f
t ti dt b s.
o hs aa a e
• I Epr o nld ntd c e to ta koa g e a c s r dti e s
C es n e o o o um n r r c rl r v n e fom ean e,
i
a ddti e sd nt e ev ad c e t d e p n e
n ean e o o r ci e o um ne r s o s.
• Dti e ssi t e wr ntgv n h o pr uiy oa p at e
ean e ad h y ee o i e t e p ot n t p el hi
t
r
g e a cs w h C.
r v ne i I E
i
t
• W e I E e ev sa w te g e a c t a O SD m s a de sI E
h n C r ci e
r t n r v n e ht C
i
i
ut d r s, C
fr a d t eg e a c t O SDo t e m dclsa fr e p n e
o wr s h r v n e o C
i
r h ei a tf o r s o s.
f
H w vr a e fr a dn t e eg e a c sI Ed e nt r c t em o
o e e f r o wri g h s r v n e, C o s o ta k h t
, t
i
e s r t e ae e ov da d htdti e s e ev a e p n e
n ue h y r r sl e n t a ean e r ci e r s o s.
T r u h neve s w h O S oiil a ddti e s a wl a d c e t
ho g i tri w i
t
C D f cas n ean e, s e s o um n
f
l
r ve , w i e ti d h flo i gpol s w h h O SDg e a c po e s
ei w e d nfe t e o wn r bem i t e C
i
l
t
r v n e r c s:
i
• I Ed e nt r c t e eg e a c so h v vsbiy no h s
C o s o ta k h s r v n e r a e iiit i t t e e
i
l
g e a c sie w h O SD oe s r t e ae e ov da ddti e s
r v ne f d i
i
l
t
C t n ue h y r r sl e n ean e
r ci ea e p n e
e ev r s o s.
• O S s n s C a emi s
C D e d I E n a ummr i g h g e a c r ci e a d h
l
a zn t e r v n e e ev d n t e
i
i
r sl to,b t C pr o nlh v n a s r n e h yh v b e nti d
e ou n u I E es n e a e o s ua c t e a e e n ofe
i
i
o a g e a c so t a a g e a c sh v b e fly e ov d W
f l r v n e r ht l r v n e a e e n u r sl e. e
l i
l i
l
r ve e s eot e eemisa dc n rm d h yddnt nl d fl
ei w d om f h s
a
l n of e t e i oi cu e u
i
l
dtiso dti e s g e a c s ad srp o ot e e ou o,o
ea f ean e r v n e, e c t n f h r sl t n r
l
’ i
ii
i
c n rmto t a t edti e h db e nti da o t h r sl to.
of a n ht h ean e a e n ofe b u t e e ou n
i
i
i
i
• Dti e ssi t e wr ntgv n h o pr uiy oa p a g e a c s
ean e ad h y ee o i e t e p ot n t p el r v n e.
t
i
W r ve e a 4 dti e g e a c sie w h O SD n2 1,a d
e ei w d l 6 ean e r v n e f d i
l
i
l
t
C i 06 n
f u d ht hr wr n d c e t da p as
o n t a t ee ee o o um ne p el.
Rc
e omm n ai n2 W r c
e d to : e e omm n t a I Eu dra ea u r ve a d
e d ht C n et k fl ei w n
l
i s eto ot eT e L c F ciya d h Oa g C u t S erf
n p c n f h h o a y ait n t e r n e o ny hr f s
i
l
i’
D pr e t m n g e tot e ait t e s r c p a c w h C’ 2 0
e atm n s a a em n f h f ciy o n ue oml n e i I E 0 8
’
l
i
t
s
Pro a c- a e Nto a Dt n o Sa dr s
e rm ne B s d a nl eet n t n a d .
f
i
i
I E R s o s: C c n usI E e ot d ou t a t eT F s n p ce
C e p n e I E o c r. C r pre t s ht h L i i s et d
y a yb I E c nr ci s etrt e N k oo Go p a d ss h dl d o
er y C' o tat n p co h a amt r u, n i c e ue fr
l
s
,
wwwogd sg v
.i. h. o

1
0

O - 74-M
IG1- 3 A

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

its next full inspection to ensure compliance with the 2008 PBNDS during the
week of October 23, 2017. In the interim, TLF will undergo an inspection by the
ICE Office of Detention Oversight within the Office of Professional
Responsibility, beginning February 7, 2017. At the end of the inspection, the
Office of Detention Oversight will conduct an onsite out-briefing of facility staff
and local field office management regarding any deficiencies identified during
the review, followed by an official report of findings to ICE leadership. The Los
Angeles Field Office (LAFO) will work with the facility to put in place any
necessary corrective action plans, should deficiencies be identified. Estimated
completion date: November 2017
OIG Analysis: ICE’s response to this recommendation addresses the intent of
the recommendation. In ICE’s corrective actions, we will look specifically at the
handling and management of grievances and at the segregation processes used
at TLF. This recommendation is resolved and will remain open until ICE
provides evidence that it is in full compliance with the 2008 PBNDS, based on
the results of an independent contractor’s full inspection and Office of
Detention Oversight inspection. Once completed, ICE should provide a copy of
the completed inspections identifying compliance with the standards.
Recommendation 3: We recommend that ICE develop a comprehensive
oversight plan for the Theo Lacy Facility to ensure the Orange County Sherriff’s
Department’s future compliance with both the intent and the implementation
of ICE’s 2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards.
ICE Response: ICE concurs. ICE reported that it recently instituted a group
meeting at TLF for onsite ICE staff and facility leadership, including food
service managers, for the purpose of discussing facility compliance issues and
other areas of concern. In addition, the group has developed a facility-specific
form that will be used to document routine and recurring inspections of the
food service areas and food-related processes at the facility.
According to ICE, its Detention Standards Compliance Officer is onsite at TLF 3
weeks per month to work with facility staff and other onsite ICE supervisory
personnel to monitor facility compliance and implement any necessary
corrective action. ICE will continue to monitor and evaluate whether additional
oversight staff should be deployed to TLF for additional coverage.
LAFO will continue to engage with OCSD and monitor any developing issues to
expeditiously remedy and correct any compliance deficiencies. In addition,
LAFO management has continued to conduct independent onsite spot
inspections of any notable problematic areas or areas of concern. The results of
the spot inspections are immediately addressed with OCSD for any necessary
www.oig.dhs.gov

11

OIG-17-43-MA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

corrective action in order to ensure compliance with the 2008 PBNDS.
Estimated completion date: November 2017
OIG Analysis: ICE’s response to this recommendation addresses the intent of
the recommendation. This recommendation is resolved and will remain open
until ICE provides evidence it has modified its oversight of the facility to ensure
the intent of the 2008 PBNDS is being met and the standards are being
implemented. We will look specifically for changes in handling grievances and
segregation at TLF. Corrective actions completed must include all areas of
concern identified in the report, not just proper food handling. Once completed,
ICE should provide a copy of its revised oversight plan to ensure ongoing
monitoring of compliance at TLF.
Scope and Methodology
During our inspection, we interviewed the following ICE staff members: ICE
Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer, Orange County Detainee
Program; ICE Assistant Field Office Director, Detention Management and
Compliance; and Medical Oversight at Theo Lacy facility. We interviewed three
employees of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office: Orange County Administrative
Manager, ICE Detention Custody Division; OCSD Classification Deputy, ICE
Compliance; and Lieutenant, ICE Compliance. We also interviewed five
detainees.
As part of our inspection we toured the following areas of the facility:
• General medical unit for detainees housed in barracks-style housing
• Medical modular housing detainees who require more frequent medical
assistance
• Kitchen, including food preparation, food storage, and equipment
cleaning areas, intake/out-processing area
• Special Management Unit (commonly known as solitary confinement)
• Modular housing units, including individual cells, common showers, and
medical units within modules
• Barracks-style housing
• Control room
During the unannounced inspection, we interviewed ICE and OCSD staff from
the facility and five detainees. We reviewed documentation from a previous ICE
inspection and documentation of grievances.
We used ICE’s 2008 PBNDS to conduct our inspection, as these are the
standards the facility reported currently operating under. These standards,
which were developed in coordination with component stakeholders, prescribe
www.oig.dhs.gov

12

OIG-17-43-MA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

the expected outcomes of each standard and the expected practices required to
achieve them. ICE detention standards were also designed to improve safety,
security, and conditions of confinement for detainees.

www.oig.dhs.gov

13

OIG-17-43-MA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov

14

OIG-17-43-MA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov

15

OIG-17-43-MA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov

16

OIG-17-43-MA

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES
To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov.
For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General Public Affairs
at: [e-mail]. Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig.

OIG HOTLINE
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click on the red
"Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at [phone], fax our
hotline at [phone], or write to us at:
Department of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305
Attention: Hotline
245 Murray Drive, SW
Washington, DC 20528-0305

EXHIBIT L

Advocacy Group: If You’re Abused in Immigration Detention, the Government Doesn’t ...

Page 1 of 3

Powered by

Advocacy Group: If You’re Abused in
Immigration Detention, the Government
Doesn’t Care
Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement
(CIVIC) reports Otay Mesa Detention Center ranks in the top
five facilities in the United States related to complaints of sexual
and physical assault
By Mari Payton
Published at 5:26 PM PDT on Apr 27, 2017 | Updated at 8:23 AM PDT on Apr 28, 2017

NBC 7 Investigates' Mari Payton spoke with a young man, who claims he was abused, humiliated and
violated at a local detention center.
(Published Friday, April 28, 2017)
Yordy Cancino moved to California as a child.
He graduated at the top of his high school class at Jackie Robinson High School in Los Angeles and
was accepted to numerous colleges, including UCLA and UC Santa Cruz.
“My ultimate dream is to be a fashion designer,” he said with a smile.
Cancino said he couldn't afford to pay for college and as an undocumented immigrant, couldn’t get
financial aid. “They didn't have funding for undocumented students. Unfortunately, when I graduated
in 2011, DACA wasn’t present.”
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a United States immigration policy founded in
June 2012. DACA allows certain undocumented immigrants who entered the country as minors, to
receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for a work
permit.
Read more about DACA here.
Cancino said without another option to pay for college, he returned to Mexico.

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&action=cpt&partnerID=523787&fb=Y... 5/3/2018

Advocacy Group: If You’re Abused in Immigration Detention, the Government Doesn’t ...

Page 2 of 3

“The risks I knew,” he said. “I wasn't going to be able to come back, it’s like me leaving my family
behind, for me fulfill my dream.”
After two years studying in Mexico City, Cancino said he wanted to return to California.
In 2014, he turned himself in at the Otay Mesa border, seeking asylum, swearing under penalty of law
that he’d been beaten and stalked in Mexico. He said he was targeted because he was gay.
Cancino was held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, a Department of Homeland Security and ICE
facility managed by a private company, CoreCivic.
Cancino said he never thought he'd be harassed by the guard who was supposed to uphold order. He
said that guard gave him pet names and ridiculed his sexuality.
“He was always looking at me, so I didn't even feel comfortable taking a shower,” he said. “He was
always approaching me in different ways I shouldn't be approached. As an officer, he should have
been taking care of me, he wasn't taking care of me.”
According to Cancino, he complained to the guard's supervisor but his complaints were not taken
seriously or documented correctly.
“I think by not investigating each allegation, each complaint of sexual assault our government is
sending a message that sexual assault of immigrants will be tolerated,” said Christina Fialho, cofounder of Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC). “These are
thousands of human beings who are being sexually assaulted, raped, either because the government
has been unwilling or unable to protect them or because the government has been the perpetrator of
these sexual assaults.”
According to CIVIC, the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General Received
1,016 complaints related to sexual abuse or assault on detainees, from May 2014 to July 2016. Details
on individual cases were not disclosed, including whether the alleged perpetrators were corrections
officers, or detainees themselves.
Fialho said the number of complaints is likely much higher, noting the Inspector General reported
more than 33,000 allegations of a broader range of abuse from January 2010 to July 2016, including
702 complaints of coerced sexual contact, 714 complaints of physical or sexual abuse and 589
complaints of sexual harassment. Fialho said the majority of those complaints were filed against ICE
and the inspector general investigated less than "1 percent" of those complaints.
“In California, there were 4,500 complaints lodged with the Inspector General, but only 45, a very
small number, were investigated by OIG,” she said. “With the current climate under President
Trump, it is very concerning. He is planning on expanding immigration detention system by 30,000
on any given day. Right now, there are about 40,000 people in immigration detention on any given
day.”
On April 11, CIVIC sent a letter to homeland security demanding a thorough investigation of all
complaints, including Cancino's.
Read the letter here.
The group said it has not received a response.

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&action=cpt&partnerID=523787&fb=Y... 5/3/2018

Advocacy Group: If You’re Abused in Immigration Detention, the Government Doesn’t ...

Page 3 of 3

A spokeswoman with DHS, Gillian M. Christensen, told NBC 7 Investigates the department will
review the letter "to determine if further action or recommendations are warranted." Christensen also
noted the allegations represent a tiny percentage of the more than 2 million admissions to ICE
detention facilities in the six-year period covered in the report and the agency has a "zero-tolerance
policy" related to sexual abuse.
Recalling his time in custody, Cancino said, “I suffered a lot. I would cry. It was a nightmare.
Mentally and physically, my family didn't know what was going on with me. You are not just a
human to them you are an object .”
He spent three months at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, which CIVIC ranks the 5th highest for
sexual abuse complaints, out of 211 ICE Immigration detention facilities.
Cancino now has a 5-year work visa, but his permanent status is still in question.
He knows speaking out is risky, but he said he won't stay silent, “You have to have some type of
respect.”
Lauren Mack, a spokeswoman for ICE in San Diego would not provide an interview to NBC 7
Investigates for this story. Repeated emails and phone calls to CoreCivic, the company that manages
the Otay Mesa facility, were not returned.
Fialho said she wants Congress to create a bipartisan commission to investigate sexual assault
complaints in ICE immigration facilities. Her group also wants the Department of Homeland Security
to publish details about all documented sexual assaults and investigations.
If that's not done, Fialho said her group may sue DHS, to force changes.

Find this article at:
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Advocacy-Group-If-Youre-Abused-in-Immigration-Detention-the-Government-Doesnt-Care420666314.html
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

© NBC Universal, Inc. | All Rights Reserved.

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&action=cpt&partnerID=523787&fb=Y... 5/3/2018

High levels of lead found in county correctional facility water | The Sacramento Bee

Page 1 of 4

LOCAL

High levels of lead found in county
correctional facility water
BY PHILLIP REESE

[e-mail]
March 04, 2017 03:49 PM
Updated March 06, 2017 10:05 AM

Water at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in southern Sacramento County
has tested positive for high levels of lead and copper, but there is no immediate
health risk, county officials said Saturday.
“Out of an abundance of caution,” county public health officials have advised the
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department to provide drinking water that does not
pass through the center’s existing plumbing, according to a county statement.
“Public Health is working closely with Environmental Management, the Sheriff’s
Department and Water Resources to ensure the health and safety of inmates and
staff,” said Dr. Olivia Kasirye, Sacramento County public health officer. “Though
some test sites exceeded the action levels, we consider this low risk.”
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials transferred all 134
immigration detainees held at RCCC to a detention facility near Los Angeles
because of the water issues, said Virginia Kice, an ICE spokeswoman. ICE contracts
with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department to house immigration detainees.

Breaking News
Be the first to know when big news breaks
Enter Email Address
Close

I'm not a robot
reCAPTCHA
Privacy - Terms

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article136502123.html

5/3/2018

High levels of lead found in county correctional facility water | The Sacramento Bee

Page 2 of 4

“ICE anticipates being able to return the detainees to the Sacramento-area center
soon,” Kice said in an email. “In the meantime, ICE … has begun notifying
detainees’ private attorneys about the transfers.”
Children and pregnant women are most at risk for lead poisoning, which can delay
physical and mental development of children. But Rio Cosumnes does not house
children or pregnant inmates.

Phillip Reese: 916-321-1137, @PhillipHReese
  COMMENTS  

SPONSORED CONTENT

An Incredible $200 Intro
Bonus Just For Using This Card
A leading bank just upped the intro bonus
on its top cash back card to an insane
$200. Plus get unlimited 1.5% cash back,
no annual fee and more
By NextAdvisor

Close

SUBSCRIPTIONS
Start a Subscription

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article136502123.html

5/3/2018

High levels of lead found in county correctional facility water | The Sacramento Bee

Page 3 of 4

Customer Service
eEdition
Vacation Hold
Pay Your Bill
Rewards

SITE INFORMATION
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletters
News in Education
Photo Store

SOCIAL, MOBILE & MORE
Text News Alerts
Mobile & Apps
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube

ADVERTISING
Place a Classified Ad
Place a Legal Notice
Place a Digital Ad
Place a Newspaper Ad
Shopping

MORE
Copyright

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article136502123.html

5/3/2018

High levels of lead found in county correctional facility water | The Sacramento Bee

Page 4 of 4

Commenting Policy
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article136502123.html

5/3/2018

Mexican man’s widow sues, says immigration detention facility staff ignored pleas for help Page 1 of 5

TO P IC S

SUBSCRIBE

SEA RC H

4 weeks for o nly 99¢

LOG

TRIAL OFFER | 4 weeks for 99¢
Fewer people are visiting Las

Christopher Nolan restores

Electronics-recycling innovator is

More than 800 West Hollywood

Vegas. One insider thinks hotel

Kubrick sci-fi masterpiece '2001:

going to prison for trying to

buildings could collapse in a big

resort and parking fees are to
bl

A Space Odyssey' the oldf hi
d

extend computers' lives

quake

ADVERTISEMENT

L. A. N O W

By KRISTINA DAVIS

MAR 24, 2017

|

7:30 PM |

SA N D I E GO

ADVERTISEMENT

Detainees at the Otay Mesa Detention Center wait in the medical section. (Nelvin C. Cepeda /
San Diego Union-Tribune) (Nelvin C. Cepeda / San Diego Union-Tribune)

The widow of a Mexican man who crossed into the U.S. illegally in the trunk of
a car is suing the U.S. government, alleging that staff at a detention facility in
Otay Mesa repeatedly ignored his pleas for medical care, causing him to die
from complications of pneumonia weeks later.
The lawsuit, filed in San Diego federal court, is among a string of cases alleging
negligence when it comes to the medical problems of immigrants held at
detention centers across the country. A 2007 lawsuit filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union, which was settled in 2010, addressed similar issues in Otay
Mesa.
"If these facts in the complaint are true, then this would violate the core
principles not only of the Constitution but of the settlement," said David Loy,
legal director for the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. The prior
lawsuit "addressed precisely this kind of problem of people begging for care and
not getting care."

LATEST L.A. NOW

Golden State Killer suspect must
provide new DNA samples and
fingerprints, judge rules
14m

Costa Mesa joins Orange County
rebellion against California's

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-detention-lawsuit-20170324-story.html

5/3/2018

Mexican man’s widow sues, says immigration detention facility staff ignored pleas for help Page 2 of 5

Most of those in the Otay Mesa Detention Center are being detained by U.S.
SEA RC H
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The facility also houses criminal
TRIAL Service.
detainees and material witnesses for the U.S. MarshalsOFFER | 4 weeks for 99¢

SUBSCRIBE

TO P IC S

Fewer people are visiting Las

The lawsuit hotel
Vegas. One insider thinksnames

Christopher Nolan restores

4 weeks for o nly 99¢

LOG

About a third of caravan
More than 800 West Hollywood

Electronics-recycling innovator is

migrants enter U.S., butbuildings could collapse in a big
'we
the federal government, as well as CoreCivic — the privateprison for trying to
Kubrick sci-fi masterpiece '2001:
going to
last
resort and parking fees are to
A Space Odyssey' the old- and a guard identified as
extend computers' lives won’t be happy until thequake one
company contracted to run the Otay Mesa center —
of us gets through'
bl
f hi
d
C.O. Langdon.
2h

Healthcare at the facility is provided by ICE's health service corps and the
federal Public Health Service, according to the lawsuit. A San Diego ICE
spokeswoman declined to comment on the case last week, saying she didn't
have enough information. A CoreCivic spokesman in Tennessee, where the
company is headquartered, said officials had not yet reviewed the lawsuit.
According to court records, Gerardo Cruz-Sanchez, 32, tried to cross into the
U.S. in the trunk of a car on Feb. 4, 2016, at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. The
driver, Juan Carlos Ortega-Gonzalez, had presented someone else's U.S.
passport to the Customs and Border Protection officer. Cruz-Sanchez and two
other immigrants in the U.S. illegally were then found in the trunk.

More than 800 West
Hollywood buildings could
collapse in a big quake
4h

Arrest of Golden State Killer
suspect could unlock other
cold case mysteries
5h

Cruz-Sanchez wasn't charged with a crime but was held as a material witness in
the case against the smuggler, agreeing to testify against him. Cruz-Sanchez
was granted bail — $15,000 with a 10% cash deposit — but was unable to pay so
he remained detained, according to court records.
Cruz-Sanchez was healthy when he was arrested but contracted pneumonia
later, according to the complaint.
"He would be alive today if authorities had honored their legal and moral duty
to care for their own witness," according to the lawsuit.
The illness began with flulike symptoms, and Cruz-Sanchez's requests for
medical attention were rebuffed, the complaint said. He then started coughing
up blood, "saturating his clothing and bed sheets." He pleaded with Langdon
and medical staff members for intervention but received none, the suit said. His
condition deteriorated so that he could not talk, move or swallow food. He also
suffered from respiratory distress and wheezing.
ADVERTISEMENT

His cellmate, Alejandro Chavez, called the Mexican consulate 20 to 30 times
asking for assistance, and on Feb. 22 a Spanish interpreter visited CruzSanchez. It was unclear from the lawsuit if the interpreter tried to take action.
The cellmate repeatedly begged Langdon — a Spanish-speaking officer — to
help Cruz-Sanchez, but Langdon mocked him, told the two to stop
"complaining" and told Cruz-Sanchez to "man up" and "stop being a chicken,"
the lawsuit said.
On Feb. 26, Cruz-Sanchez was taken to the emergency room at Scripps Mercy
Hospital in Chula Vista, where he died three days later.
The lawsuit alleges Cruz-Sanchez was never examined by a doctor while in
custody. His widow, Paula Garcia Rivera, requested her husband's medical
records from the detention center but was ignored, the complaint said.
The driver who had brought Cruz-Sanchez across the border pleaded guilty to
human smuggling and was sentenced to time served, which was about three
months.
[e-mail]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-detention-lawsuit-20170324-story.html

5/3/2018

Hunger Strike at California’s Biggest Immigration Detention Center | Th...

1 of 6

https://www.kqed.org/news/11549587/hunger-strike-at-californias-bigges...

THE CALIFORNIA REPORT

A guard escorts an immigrant detainee from his 'segregation cell' back into the general population at the Adelanto Detention
Facility on November 15, 2013 in Adelanto, California. (John Moore/Getty Images)

Activists say that more than 30 people began a hunger strike at the Adelanto
Detention Facility on Tuesday, seeking better medical care and release
pending their immigration court dates.
In the last five years, six people have died while being detained -- three of
them since March 22 -- at the San Bernardino County facility, the largest
immigration detention center in California. It can hold about 1,900 detainees

4/17/2018, 10:25 AM

Hunger Strike at California’s Biggest Immigration Detention Center | Th...

2 of 6

https://www.kqed.org/news/11549587/hunger-strike-at-californias-bigges...

and was almost at capacity in March, according to data from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
Detainees say this is the fourth hunger strike they've conducted at the facility
since June 12. During breakfast that morning nine men, mostly asylumseekers from El Salvador, linked arms and refused to return to their cells until
they could speak to guards about their concerns. Guards used pepper spray
and physically removed the men to solitary cells, according to Tristan Call, a
spokesman for the detainees, and ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice.
Then they began the hunger strike.
NSORED BY

"We are not anyone's toys," said Isaac Lopez Castillo, a
27-year-old from El Salvador, in a Facebook video about
the strike.
The men filed a complaint with the Department of
Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties alleging that they were beaten and denied
medical care and access to their attorneys.

4/17/2018, 10:25 AM

Hunger Strike at California’s Biggest Immigration Detention Center | Th...

3 of 6

https://www.kqed.org/news/11549587/hunger-strike-at-californias-bigges...

GEO Group, the private prison company that owns and
operates the facility, is investigating the incident, and ICE
officials will review that probe, according to Kice.
"The claim the men involved in this disturbance were
beaten is a gross and regrettable exaggeration," wrote
Kice in an email.
On June 14, a group of
nearly 30 women refused to
eat for about 24 hours -asking for medical care,
"basic respect" from jail
guards, lower bond rates
and to be reunited with
their families. Call said that
they ended the strike after
many of the women
received medical care on
June 15.
Then, on June 22, eight of
the same men from the June

Immigration Detention in
California

As State
Lawmakers
Look to Change
Immigration
Policy, What
Will Happen to
Adelanto?
What Happens
to Immigrants
Detained by
ICE? A Cartoon
Explainer
Trump Wants to
Detain More
Immigrants. He
Could -- With
California's Help

12 action began a new
hunger strike, after one was
deported. Call said that
detainees throughout the facility have refused food
periodically since they began striking on June 12.

Kice says that the agency will implement hunger strike
protocols, including medical supervision, if detainees
refuse food for more than 72 hours.

4/17/2018, 10:25 AM

Hunger Strike at California’s Biggest Immigration Detention Center | Th...

4 of 6

https://www.kqed.org/news/11549587/hunger-strike-at-californias-bigges...

While the city of Adelanto holds the contract with ICE to
detain immigrants in the facility, the city also has a
contract with GEO Group to run it. Early last year, GEO
Group stopped providing its own medical care and
subcontracted with Correct Care Solutions, keeping on
many of the same staff.
ICE’s own investigators found problems at the facility,
including health care delays, poor record keeping and
failures to properly report sexual assaults.
In a federal investigation into one of the California deaths,
inspectors noted that the person who died had waited
more than a year to see a specialist, that the high turnover
of medical staff led to inadequate care and that a dearth of
laboratory services led to delays in treatment.
Independent medical experts for Human Rights Watch
analyzing ICE’s investigation found that the man probably
suffered from symptoms of cancer for two years.

Detainees are also requesting to be released on their own
recognizance, on bond or to receive a monitoring device.
Immigrant detainees, including asylum-seekers, can wait
weeks, months and even years for their day in
immigration court. There are currently 326 immigration
judges nationwide — and they’re handling nearly 600,000
pending cases, according to the Department of Justice
and data from Syracuse University’s TRAC research

4/17/2018, 10:25 AM

Hunger Strike at California’s Biggest Immigration Detention Center | Th...

5 of 6

https://www.kqed.org/news/11549587/hunger-strike-at-californias-bigges...

center. Even if the immigration courts didn’t accept a
single additional case, it would take longer than two years
to go through the backlog, according to TRAC.
Both ICE and immigration judges can release people. ICE
officers make an initial determination about whether
people should be detained while their immigration cases
are pending.
"ICE makes such determinations on an individual basis
taking into account all facets of the person's situation,
including the individual's immigration history and
criminal record, if applicable. Likewise, the agency also
considers an alien's family ties, any humanitarian issues
that may be involved, and whether the person is a
potential flight risk," wrote Kice.
Detainees who have been convicted of criminal activity
are mandatorily held in detention.
Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to rehear a case
that could require immigration courts to conduct bond
hearings every six months. The named plaintiff in the
case, Alejandro Rodriguez, spent three years in ICE
detention without a hearing for his release.
Court records analyzed by TRAC showed that at least half
-- and in some years upward of two-thirds -- of people are
held in ICE detention while the DHS begins court
proceedings to deport them. The median immigration
bond was set at $8,000 in fiscal year 2016. About one in
five people granted bond stayed in detention, presumably
because they can't afford it.

4/17/2018, 10:25 AM

Hunger Strike at California’s Biggest Immigration Detention Center | Th...

6 of 6

https://www.kqed.org/news/11549587/hunger-strike-at-californias-bigges...

In a statement during the first hunger strike, the men
wrote that they cannot afford bail:
"We are from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. We
ask for your attention, because Adelanto is one of the
prisons which exists for those who are seeking political
asylum, and in reality our records are clean, none of us
have prior criminal records. The bail is set impossibly
high, and it’s a humiliating joke because we are poor, we
don’t have that kind of money."

COPYRIGHT © 2018 KQED INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. | TERMS OF SERVICE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US

4/17/2018, 10:25 AM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case Name:

The United States of America v.
The State of California, et al.

No.

2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN

I hereby certify that on May 4, 2018, I electronically filed the following documents with the
Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 4, 2018, at Sacramento, California.

Tursun Bier
Declarant
LA2018500720
13073765.docx

/s/ Tursun Bier
Signature