United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 83

NOTICE of FILING CORRECTED 74 DECLARATION by Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Cherokee Melton, # 2 Amended Declaration of Cherokee Melton )(Melton, Cherokee) Modified on 5/21/2018 (Benson, A.).

Download PDF
EXHIBIT A Page 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 4 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Plaintiff, 5 vs. : : No. 18-264 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; 6 : EDMUND GERALD BROWN, JR., : Governor of California, in his: 7 Official Capacity; AND XAVIER : BECERRA, Attorney General of California, in his Official : Capacity, 8 : : 9 Defendants. : 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 11 VIDEOTAPED 12 DEPOSITION OF: THOMAS HOMAN 13 DATE: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 14 TIME: 10:12 a.m. 15 LOCATION: Department of Justice 16 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 17 Washington, D.C. 18 REPORTED BY: 19 Denise M. Brunet, RPR Reporter/Notary 20 21 22 23 24 25 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 On behalf of the Plaintiff: 4 COLIN A. KISOR, ESQUIRE 5 EREZ REUVENI, ESQUIRE 6 LAUREN BINGHAM, ESQUIRE 7 U.S. Department of Justice 8 Civil Division 9 450 5th Street, Northwest 10 Washington, D.C. 20530 11 (202) 532-4331 12 colin.kisor@usdoj.gov 13 14 On behalf of the Defendants: 15 CHRISTINE CHUANG, ESQUIRE 16 State of California 17 Department of Justice 18 Bureau of Children's Justice 19 1515 Clay Street 20 Suite 2100 21 Oakland, California 22 (510) 879-0094 23 christine.chuang.doj.ca.gov 94612 24 25 (Appearances continued on the next page.) 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 3 1 APPEARANCES (continued): 2 3 On behalf of the Defendants (continued): 4 LEE I. SHERMAN, ESQUIRE 5 CHEROKEE DM MELTON, ESQUIRE 6 SATOSHI YANAI, ESQUIRE 7 State of California 8 Department of Justice 9 300 S. Spring Street 10 Suite 1702 11 Los Angeles, California 12 (213) 269-6404 13 lee.sherman@doj.ca.gov 90013 14 15 ALSO PRESENT: Rene E. Browne 16 Michael P. Davis 17 Michael F. Arnold 18 Moria Skinner 19 Julie Laughlin 20 Dan Reidy, Videographer 21 22 23 24 25 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 36 1 were accurate and up to date. 2 I'm -- certainly, you know, would say the numbers 3 are different today, as of today, because people 4 have been arrested since I've signed this. 5 Q Thank you. I don't know -- In fiscal year 2018, has ICE 6 increased its immigration enforcement operations 7 in California? 8 9 A We have increased our enforcement footprint in California. 10 Q In what specific ways? 11 A I have sent more officers and agents to 12 the State of California to do the same job we used 13 to do with less officers and agents. 14 Q Besides sending more agents, are there 15 other ways in which ICE has increased its 16 immigration enforcement activities in California? 17 A Again, the prioritization has changed. 18 The aperture of those who fall within a priority 19 has increased. 20 as per the executive order. 21 collateral arrests because we can't work in a 22 jail, which means we have to go to a neighborhood 23 where we'll find collaterals. There are more That's probably the biggest changes. 24 25 So there are more fugitive arrests Q 212-279-9424 Do you attribute the increase to [sic] Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 37 1 immigration enforcement activities in California 2 to SB 54? 3 A I contribute [sic] the increase in 4 non-criminal alien arrests and the increase in 5 collateral arrests to SB 54, yes. 6 7 8 9 Q And can you please explain why you attribute it to SB 54? A Because when we used to have offices inside the jail, one officer could sit in the 10 county jail and process 10, 12 aliens a day. 11 that jail chooses to release those people, I have 12 to send a fug-ops team, which is usually staffed 13 by five or six officers, to locate that person. 14 When So one officer used to process 10 to 12 15 aliens a day. 16 fug-ops team to go find one person. 17 required me to send more resources to the State of 18 California to do the same job we used to do with 19 less. 20 the jail. 21 Now I've got to send an entire So that has We lost the efficiency of working inside So that's had a direct impact on our 22 operations, not only costing more money for the 23 government to send more additional officers out 24 there to support at large operations, it also puts 25 my officers at great risk. 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 38 1 Q You just stated that it costs more money 2 for the government to send additional agents. 3 you have an estimate of how much more money it 4 costs? 5 A I don't know the figure offhand. Do We -- 6 we did operations recently in southern California 7 and in northern California. 8 operations this -- in the past several months in 9 California. We did three We had to send many detail agents to 10 augment existing staff to do these operations. 11 I'm certain we track those expenses. 12 off the top of my head. 13 them. 14 Q 15 16 I don't know We certainly can provide Do you attribute the increase in ICE enforcement activities in California to AB 450? A I think AB 450 is requiring us to work 17 harder and less efficient than prior to the 18 enactment of 450. 19 Q 20 that? 21 A Can you please describe why you believe Well, a couple of things. We just did an 22 I-9 operation in California, and I recently 23 learned that, for instance, one company in San 24 Francisco did not want to supply the I-9 forms per 25 the notice of inspection. 212-279-9424 It was the delay in Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 39 1 giving us the I-9 forms until the company -- the 2 company felt like they would be in violation of 3 450, so they got an attorney. 4 administrative subpoena to get the documents. 5 That caused more work. 6 We had to do an There seemed to be confusion on what the 7 employer thought between 450 versus what the 8 federal requirements are. So we spent more time 9 in working that one case. That's one I was 10 briefed on specifically. 11 Q What company are you referring to? 12 A I don't have that number offhand. 13 Q The name offhand? 14 A I don't know it offhand. 15 Q Okay. 16 17 When did this I-9 operation relating to this company occur? A Within the past eight weeks. I don't 18 know the exact dates. 19 inspection throughout the country. 20 was -- I think we've already completed the first 21 phase in California. 22 Q We have a rolling I-9 California So several weeks ago. And did the company specifically inform 23 you that they did not want to comply with the I-9 24 inspection process? 25 A 212-279-9424 The information I received from HSI Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 40 1 leadership was that the company would not -- 2 didn't think they had to comply with the notice of 3 inspections to give the I-9s within the three days 4 required. 5 violation of 450. 6 They thought they were going to be in They contacted an attorney. We actually 7 did an administrative subpoena, and we got the 8 I-9s after additional work. 9 relayed to me. That is what was 10 Q Who relayed that to you? 11 A Derek Benner, the acting executive 12 associate director for Homeland Security 13 investigations. 14 Q And who relayed that to Derek? 15 A The e-mail was -- first, Derek verbally 16 told me that he followed up with an e-mail. 17 e-mail was from Derek. 18 don't know who -- I'm sure the e-mail split up 19 between -- we have three SACs, special agents in 20 charge: 21 was -- I'm sure he got it from the SACs, but I do 22 not know for sure because I did not ask him that 23 question. 24 Q 25 The And their staff below -- I San Francisco, L.A. and San Diego. So it Do you know if Derek obtained that information directly from the company? 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 42 1 A It has to be submitted and requested 2 through HSI leadership in the field office. 3 don't know if that's -- at what level that is. 4 mean, back when I was an agent, it was the head of 5 that office, which would be the ADDI. 6 sure what the approval level is now for an 7 administrative subpoena. 8 the staff to request an administrative subpoena, 9 draw the administrative subpoena up and have 10 11 So I I I'm not But it requires work by someone approve it, sign it, then serve it. Q In this situation in which you had to 12 obtain an administrative subpoena, how long after 13 the initial request for the I-9 inspection did you 14 obtain the subpoena? 15 A I do not know. 16 Q Do you have enough information to give a 17 good faith estimate of how long? 18 A No. 19 Q Do you know whether it was within one 20 week of the initial request for the I-9 21 inspection? 22 A No. I don't recall what the e-mail said 23 other than there's a delay. 24 time frame in the e-mail or he said it verbally, I 25 don't recall. 212-279-9424 So I -- if there's a But I just -- during the I-9 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 43 1 process, the operations, knowing the difficulties 2 with the legislation, I asked for information on 3 how the operation was going. 4 issue that I remember being briefed on. 5 have a time frame. 6 Q This was just one I do not So after you served the administrative 7 subpoena, were you able to obtain the documents 8 that you needed for your inspection? 9 A That is my understanding. 10 Q Besides this one company that we are just 11 talking about, do you know of any other incidents 12 about employers being confused about what they are 13 or are not allowed to do during an I-9 inspection? 14 A Not specifically other than what I read, 15 of course, the numerous media reports about 16 employers being confused. 17 Q What media reports are you referring to? 18 A News stories. I read news clips every 19 morning when I come to work, and there was a lot 20 of news stories about our worksite operations in 21 California and how some employers seem to be 22 confused on complying with federal law or the 23 state law. 24 25 Q Do you recall any specific employers referenced in these news clips that you reviewed? 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 44 1 A No. 2 Q Besides this one company in San Francisco 3 that we talked about, since the passage of AB 450, 4 have any employers informed ICE that they are 5 confused about what they are or are not allowed to 6 provide during the I-9 inspection? 7 A Not that I'm aware of. 8 Q Since the passage of AB 450, have any 9 employers informed ICE that they are confused 10 about what documents may or may not be provided 11 without a warrant? 12 13 A Can I go back to the previous question? I just remembered something. 14 Q Yes. 15 A On that case in San Francisco, there was 16 another issue. 17 subpoena to get the I-9s because they didn't seem 18 like they could give them voluntarily, notice of 19 inspection, because of 450. 20 We went and got an administrative Also, the company notified our agent that 21 they were withdrawing from the IMAGE program 22 because they thought that was in violation. 23 they were, my understanding, part of the ICE IMAGE 24 program, and now no longer because of the 25 legislation. 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com So 212-490-3430 Page 53 1 your answer was wrong. 2 A It's correct. 3 Q Okay. Do you know whether AB 450 4 prohibits the service of additional documents 5 during a form I-9 inspection? 6 A I do not know. 7 Q Since the passage of AB 450, are you 8 aware of any instances in California where HSI was 9 denied the ability to serve additional notices on 10 an employer? 11 A I'm not aware of any. 12 Q Since the passage of AB 450, are you 13 aware of any instances in California in which an 14 employer did not comply with providing additional 15 notices that were served during an I-9 inspection? 16 17 18 A Additional notices beyond the notice of inspection? Q Yes. So additional notices, as 19 referenced in your declaration, includes a notice 20 of technical procedural failures, notice of 21 discrepancies, notice of suspect documents, 22 warning notice and a notice of intent to fine. 23 A I'm not aware of any. 24 Q If you go to the middle of the paragraph 25 of paragraph 85, the sentence that begins with, 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 54 1 "This prohibition could impede HSI from obtaining 2 valuable evidence (for example, statements from 3 business owners, employees and/or human resources 4 managers)" -- do you see that sentence? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Since the passage of AB 450, are you 7 aware of any instances where HSI has been impeded 8 from obtaining valuable evidence that could have 9 been used in the prosecution of an employer? 10 A Could you repeat the question again? 11 Q Yes. Since the passage of AB 450, are 12 you aware of any instances where HSI has been 13 impeded from obtaining valuable evidence that 14 could have been used in the prosecution of an 15 employer? 16 A 17 18 I'm not aware of any, but we certainly wouldn't know what we don't know. Q The next sentence states, "This 19 prohibition may also prevent HSI from obtaining 20 sufficient determination -- sufficient information 21 to determine the existing -- existence of 22 aggravating or mitigating factors." 23 Do you see that sentence? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Have any such incidents occurred? 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 55 1 A Not that I'm aware of. 2 Q Let's turn -- 3 A I think the reason why this affidavit is 4 worded the way it is is based on our experience of 5 what happens during worksite operations, that this 6 is certainly an issue that we're concerned about 7 from past experience. 8 9 As I discussed before, doing a lot of this work in a public area will tend to -- people 10 won't be freely discussing issues that would be 11 very important to criminal investigations or 12 protecting victims of trafficking or peonage. 13 all of -- well, I don't know of any specific 14 incident that may have happened in California yet. 15 I think the possibility is very strong that it 16 will impede what we're trying to do. 17 Q So And you believe that possibility is very 18 strong based on your experience as a law 19 enforcement official; is that correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Is there any other basis for your belief? 22 A Just my belief, along with other law 23 enforcement officers I've talked to that do this 24 type of work. 25 within law enforcement as a profession that we 212-279-9424 I think there's an understanding Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 57 1 Are those individuals within ICE? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Have you spoken with any law enforcement 4 agencies or officers in California about AB 450 5 and the impact? 6 A No. I spoke to Derek Benner. I told you 7 he relayed his findings from the offices in 8 California, but I have not specifically talked to 9 any agent in the State of California. 10 11 Q Let's turn to paragraph 86. Let me know when you've had a chance to review. 12 A Okay. 13 Q Do you know of any incidents since AB 450 14 went into effect where an employer's inability to 15 consent to federal immigration officials entering 16 the premises impeded an investigation? 17 A No. Other than the one case in San 18 Francisco where they did not hand over -- they 19 felt like they couldn't comply with the notice of 20 inspection. 21 I don't have any information -- any examples of 22 that. 23 Q But as far as entering the premises, At the end of the paragraph, you mention 24 human smuggling and trafficking, and you've 25 mentioned that a few times today as well, as some 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 58 1 of your potential concerns. 2 incidents since AB 450 went into effect that has 3 caused detriment to ICE's enforcement efforts in 4 human smuggling and trafficking efforts? 5 A Do you know of any I don't have any specific examples, but 6 again, we don't know what we don't know, because 7 we haven't had private meetings with 8 employers/employees. That's my concern. 9 Q Let's turn to paragraph 87, please. 10 A Okay. 11 Q Are you aware of any incidents since 12 AB 450 went into effect where an employer's 13 failure to permit entry to federal immigration 14 officials led to the disclosure of an employee's 15 personal information? 16 A No. 17 Q Please turn to paragraph 88. How has 18 AB 450 adversely affected ICE's worksite 19 enforcement investigations? 20 A Other than the incident that we spoke of 21 in San Francisco, I think this paragraph talks 22 about what AB 450 will do to our operations and 23 what risk it will cause. 24 25 Q In the fourth line down, you state that, "This could lead to a violent confrontation." 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 59 1 Do you see that sentence? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Are you aware of any violent 4 confrontations which have occurred as a result of 5 AB 450? 6 A No. 7 Q Let's turn to paragraph 60, please. 8 A You said 60? 9 Q 60, 6-0. This particular paragraph 10 relates to AB 103. 11 inspections pursuant to that section has caused 12 the facilities to expend resources and presents a 13 burdensome intrusion into facility operations and 14 pulls scarce resources away. 15 And you discuss that the Can you please describe, in as much 16 detail as you can, the nature of burdensome 17 intrusion into facility operations? 18 A It has been briefed to me that -- and 19 based on my experience, when you do a facility 20 inspection, it requires people to be present to 21 host the inspection. 22 many documents. 23 the facility. 24 other work are pulled from that work to gather 25 documents, prepare for the inspections, host the 212-279-9424 It requires a gathering of It requires clearances to come in People that would normally be doing Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 60 1 inspections, do follow-ups for the inspections. 2 We don't have a separate staff that does 3 nothing but prepare for inspections. They've got 4 to be pulled from other duties, whether it's guard 5 duty, you know, management duties, you know, 6 whatever. 7 facilities to have yet, you know, another 8 inspection that's going to require them to expend 9 resources and spend time and energy preparing for It just causes an undue burden on 10 and responding to and providing for the 11 inspection. 12 Q Have any specific facilities stated to 13 you or ICE that this is a burdensome intrusion 14 into their operations? 15 A I did not speak to the facilities. I was 16 briefed by my staff and detention management 17 staff. 18 believe Tae Johnson, who runs the detention 19 management division at headquarters, provided the 20 information that the facilities were complaining 21 about the burdensome extra work in pulling 22 resources to do this work from other critical 23 areas. 24 25 Q In the -- gathering the affidavit, I Do you know what facilities complained to Tae Johnson? 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 61 1 A No, I do not. 2 Q When you were briefed by the staff and 3 detention management staff, did they provide you 4 details of which facilities complained to them? 5 A I do not recall. In the supporting 6 documentation I reviewed, I think there was some 7 documentations talking about specific facilities, 8 if I recall correctly, but, again, this was -- I 9 was briefed by my staff who was briefed by the 10 detention staff. 11 personally with Tae Johnson. 12 supporting documentation there was some 13 documentation that talked about the facilities, 14 but I don't specifically recall what facilities. 15 Q I did not have discussions But I believe in the When you refer to supporting 16 documentation, are you referring to e-mail 17 communications? 18 A I believe they're e-mails. 19 Q Are there any other type of -- 20 A I don't recall. 21 Q -- communications? 22 A I don't recall. 23 Q When were you -- 24 A Tae Johnson is a senior executive in my 25 staff, an SES. 212-279-9424 He's been doing detention Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 67 1 dearly, and that's information that, if it became 2 exposed to someone coming in doing an audit, that 3 would be a violation of federal law. 4 even give that information to members of Congress. 5 So there's -- that's very serious. 6 We don't And that's another -- besides the privacy 7 issue, we have certain statutes that protect 8 information from [sic] certain category of aliens. 9 And that's another concern about these 10 11 inspections. Q Do you know of any DHS or ICE privacy 12 policies that have been violated as a result of 13 AB 103? 14 A No. 15 Q I'm going to refer back to -- I believe 16 this is Exhibit 3. It's the February 20th, 2017 17 enforcement memo. 18 page 5 of that memorandum, section G. 19 discusses aligning the department's privacy 20 policies with the law. If you could please turn to And that 21 A Okay. 22 Q So the first sentence states that, "The 23 department will no longer afford Privacy Act 24 rights and protections to persons who are neither 25 U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents." 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Did you implement this change of policy for ICE? A It's my understanding it's still being worked on. Q And when it's still being worked on, do you mean it's in draft form? A It's the privacy office -- last I was 8 briefed on this, the policy office is working on 9 changes of the privacy policy. 10 Q Do you have an estimated time frame for 11 the completion and approval of the new privacy 12 policy? 13 A No. 14 Q So those -- in your understanding of this 15 policy change, does it impact privacy protections 16 for lawful permanent residents? 17 A There's privacy protection for everybody 18 in our custody. But there's a -- I think there's 19 an elevated concern for those who are lawful 20 permanent residents. 21 the victims of domestic abuse, trafficking, not 22 only do they have privacy protection, they 23 actually have statutory protections. And of course, again, for 24 But again, I know what this says, but I 25 can tell you that I'm not a policy expert, but a 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 70 1 memorandum to impact privacy protections for 2 individuals who are not U.S. citizens or who are 3 not lawful permanent residents? 4 5 6 A That's what it says. But again, I think that the policy itself is still being worked on. Q Okay. Do you have an understanding of 7 what privacy rights still exist for individuals 8 who are not U.S. citizens or not lawful permanent 9 residents? 10 A No, I do not. That's why I have a 11 privacy shop and that's why I have the office of 12 principal legal advisor to advise me what we can 13 and can't do as far as release of privacy 14 information. 15 Q Do you know of any public disclosures of 16 any information about detainees that have resulted 17 from the AB 103 inspections? 18 A I'm not aware of any. 19 Q So let's turn to paragraph 65 of your 20 declaration. 21 1367 regarding information relating to individuals 22 who are applicants or beneficiaries of immigration 23 benefits under the Violence Against Women Act or a 24 T or U visa. 25 this before on your last answer. 212-279-9424 So this discusses 8 U.S.C. section I believe you generally mentioned Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 73 1 2 that have been deterred as a result of AB 103? A I believe there are some facilities in 3 the State of California we weren't able to do a 4 new contract with or expand the contract because 5 of that law. 6 Q Which facilities are you talking about? 7 A I believe it's -- in paragraph 53, it 8 says, "ICE's efforts to expand its detention 9 capacity in Sutter, Solano, Placer, Shasta, Fresno 10 Stanislaus and San Mateo counties have been 11 completely frustrated by the enactment of AB 103." 12 13 14 Q Do you understand that the -- whether these facilities are county facilities? A I'm sure they're IGSAs. I don't know if 15 they're county or -- they're serving property -- 16 IGSA is intergovernment service agreements, but I 17 don't know if they're counties or not. 18 know. 19 Q I don't Do you know of any specific private 20 contractors that have been deterred from working 21 with ICE as a result of AB 103? 22 A I can tell you that our two biggest 23 contractors, CoreCivic and Geo, G-E-O, are 24 concerned that this law will cause great hardship 25 for them and require resources being pulled off 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 74 1 critical mission things to, again, do these 2 inspections that we think are unnecessary. 3 4 Q How many facilities in California does CoreCivic operate? 5 A I do not know. 6 Q Do you know if they operate any in 7 California? 8 A I do not know. 9 Q How many facilities in California does 10 11 Geo operate? A I know they have the Adelanto facility, 12 which is a big facility. 13 that. 14 Q 15 But I don't know beyond So besides Adelanto, you don't know what other facilities in California Geo operates? 16 A No. 17 Q Do you know if there are any others? 18 A I do not know. 19 Q When did CoreCivic relay these concerns 20 21 to you or ICE? A CoreCivic, I don't recall. It was a 22 general conversation with them about legislation. 23 I don't even know if it was specific to 24 California, about the way the California 25 legislation, if it would expand beyond -212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 75 1 elsewhere, what their concerns are. 2 3 Geo was specific to California. A couple of months ago in a conversation. 4 Q Did you participate in the conversation? 5 A One of them, yes. 6 Q How many conversations were there? 7 A Just one. 8 Q And please discuss the substance of that 9 10 conversation. A It's just the difficulty in complying 11 with the laws. 12 require yet another inspection that we think is 13 unnecessary, because these are federal contracts, 14 these are federal prisoners detained under federal 15 authority. 16 certainly don't believe there should be any 17 inspections to talk about due process of people 18 that are in federal custody, under federal 19 authority, conditions of confinement when we have 20 our own set of standards which is much higher than 21 most states. 22 As I said before, it's going to We have our own set of standards. We So there's this general feeling that this 23 is -- it's burdensome, that they're going to be 24 required to pull resources to do these 25 inspections, when we have numerous inspections 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 76 1 already at these facilities from various different 2 components. 3 So again, it's -- it's talk of 4 burdensomeness -- right? -- extra work, pulling 5 people from their duties to host these things and 6 gather documents and paperwork and making people 7 available for interviews and so forth. 8 9 10 Q In that conversation, did Geo express any concerns about the Adelanto facility specifically? A No. It was a general conversation about 11 the legislation, how it's going to impact 12 operations. 13 14 Q Okay. And when you say legislation, you mean AB 103? 15 A Right. 16 Q Was there any discussion -- 17 A Yes. 18 Q -- about other legislation? 19 A Not that I can recall. 20 Q Did you discuss anything else in that 21 22 conversation? A I'm certain we did. It was a meeting to 23 discuss -- we have meetings with our contractors 24 all the time. That was brought up during one of 25 the meetings. So I'm certain -- I'm sure -- I 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 77 1 can't remember, but when we have these meetings, 2 we talk about various contracts, various proposals 3 issues with facilities. 4 subject we talked during the meeting. And this is just one 5 Q Was this in person? 6 A In person, in my building. 7 Q Has Geo terminated its contract with ICE 8 relating to federal detention facilities? 9 A No. 10 Q You had mentioned the general 11 conversations that you may have had with 12 CoreCivic. 13 conversations? 14 15 A No. Were you directly involved with those These conversations were relayed to me through my staff. 16 Q And when you say staff, who do you mean? 17 A I believe it was Tae Johnson and Matt 18 Albence. 19 Q And what did they relay to you? 20 A It was a conversation about the whole 21 AB 103 and the predicament it puts us in about -- 22 with our contractors; you know, yet another 23 inspection on top of the ones we already do, how 24 burdensome it is, and we certainly don't agree 25 that California should be doing it because of all 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 98 1 this form, is that encompassed in -- 2 A That's when we -- 3 Q -- that section that I -- 4 A That's when we transfer an alien to 5 another law enforcement agency at their request 6 for criminal investigative purposes or prosecution 7 purposes. 8 Q 9 10 11 So if number 2 on this form is checked off, is that the item that would be checked off if ICE was requesting a transfer back to ICE? A This is regarding -- when we have someone 12 in custody and we transfer them out of our custody 13 to another LEA -- 14 Q Right. 15 A -- saying, when you're done with them, 16 we'd like them back. 17 Q Right. 18 A That's where this falls into play. 19 Q Okay. Great. So when ICE makes a 20 detainer notification or transfer request, ICE 21 would use this form, correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q So in paragraph 39 when you talk about 24 the increase in detainers not being honored, do 25 you refer to both the request to detain, notify 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 99 1 ICE and to transfer individuals to ICE upon 2 completion of their time in custody? 3 A I think it basically is for them to 4 detain somebody for our attention. That's the 5 majority of it. 6 intention was to clearly focus on them detaining 7 an alien for us. It could include both. 8 Q 9 then? 10 A That's my focus, yes. 11 Q Okay. But my So that's your focus in this paragraph, How does ICE know that there's 12 been an increase in detainers not being honored 13 since January 2018? 14 A We track it in various ways. If the 15 PERC, the Pacific Enforcement Response Center, 16 sent the detainer and we are notified they will 17 not honor the detainer, so they proactively tell 18 us they're not going to honor it, then we lift the 19 detainer in our database so it was a detainer 20 lift. 21 Many times if a law enforcement 22 jurisdiction does not honor detainers and don't 23 have a relationship with us, we won't know if they 24 honor the detainer or if they release somebody 25 until we -- he is re-apprehended, either by a 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 100 1 local police department or ourselves. 2 So it depends on the relationship with 3 the LEA. 4 sometimes they we at least notify us they're not 5 going to honor it. 6 anything. Sometimes it's captured in the 7 database. Sometimes it's not. 8 ways we find out about detainers not being 9 honored. 10 There's different relationships. So Sometimes they won't tell us So it's various Certainly if we dropped a detainer on 11 somebody and -- today, and three days later he's 12 rearrested by a law enforcement agency someplace 13 or arrested by us someplace, the detainer wasn't 14 honored. 15 say, I'm not honoring your detainer. 16 released him, didn't honor it. 17 through the rearrest. 18 Q 19 A They just We find out rearrest? 20 But the law enforcement agency didn't And how would you find out through the Because when we rearrest him and enter 21 him in the database, the database is going to show 22 we've had him before, we dropped the detainer for 23 and it will show previous actions for the agency. 24 25 Q So if the person has been rearrested, you would know, and you also mentioned that if the LEA 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 101 1 tells you that they're not honoring the detainer, 2 you would know. 3 would know? 4 A Is there any other way that you It would either be communication from the 5 LEA or we would get information through a 6 rearrest. 7 from a third party that the person was released. 8 9 10 Q It's always possible we could find out And then when you find that information out, then how does ICE track that information? A Of we -- once we verify the detainer 11 hasn't been honored and he's no longer in custody, 12 then we'll add to that an active case to go look 13 for him. 14 Q And where is that information stored? 15 A It would be in the -- I believe it's in 16 the EARM database. 17 in that database. 18 the number of detainers we know weren't honored -- 19 they would have a record of. 20 exact number, because we really don't know, and 21 jurisdictions have zero relationship with us. 22 won't find out they didn't honor -- if they don't 23 honor detainers, somebody who doesn't get 24 rearrested, we may not know for a long time. 25 that data is not as accurate as I wish it would 212-279-9424 I'm not 100 percent sure it's I know we track it. We track Again, it's not an Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com We So 212-490-3430 Page 102 1 be, but we do the best we can with the data we 2 have. 3 Q 4 And when you track it in -- you said EARM, correct? 5 A Yeah. 6 Q When you track it, do you also track if 7 the jurisdiction did not honor the request to -- 8 request to notify ICE or the request to transfer 9 an individual in their custody to ICE? 10 A It should be. 11 Q Is that tracked separately from the 12 request to detain? 13 A I do not know. 14 Q Do you know how many detainers have been 15 issued to California law enforcement agencies in 16 FY 2018? 17 A It's somewheres in here. I've got to 18 find it. 19 California alone, ICE issued over 35,000 20 detainers. 21 Q I thought we said about -- in 2017, in That's in paragraph 18. While we're talking about that number, do 22 you know, out of those 35,000, how many were not 23 complied with? 24 25 A I'm sure we have a number that we're aware of weren't complied with, that we have data 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 103 1 on. Again, we track that, so -- 2 Q Right. 3 A But I don't know, sitting here today, 4 5 what that number is. Q But we would be able to -- or I should 6 say you would be able to identify, looking at 7 EARM, how many detainers that California law 8 enforcement agencies did not comply with in 2017? 9 A I think we -- I think we could tell you 10 how many detainers were not honored because the 11 law enforcement agencies notifies them or not. 12 can also add the number of aliens that were 13 rearrested, so obviously the detainer wasn't 14 honored. 15 We As I said before, I think from a -- 16 different data mines I think we can tell you what 17 we know. 18 Q So before signing your declaration, were 19 you able to determine that there's been an 20 increase in detainers that have been -- that are 21 not being complied with for FY 2018? 22 23 A The detainers -- more detainers are being declined after the enactment of SB 54 -- 24 Q Right. 25 A -- according to the staff that briefs me. 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 104 1 2 3 Q Do you know how they got that information? A I'm sure they got it from the database 4 and through speaking with the field office 5 directors in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San 6 Diego. 7 Q And do you know by how much has there 8 been an increase in declined detainers since 9 SB 54? 10 A I do not have that information today. 11 But I think in my affidavit we cited several 12 examples of egregious cases. 13 14 Q Sure. And we will -- yeah, we will get to that. 15 And when a jurisdiction complies with 16 either a detainer notification or transfer 17 request, is that somewhere -- marked somewhere in 18 ICE's databases? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Where is that marked? 21 A Pardon me? 22 Q Where would the fact that a jurisdiction 23 24 25 complied with a detainer request be marked? A I believe it would be in EARM. If -- if not only there -- again, I think it's in EARM. 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com I 212-490-3430 Page 120 1 detainer notification and transfer request on it, 2 correct? 3 4 5 A I know it as -- I know it as immigration detainer, notice of action. Q Okay. So is -- so does -- how many 6 I-247s have been issued to San Diego since SB 54 7 went into effect? 8 A I don't have that figure with me. 9 Q And do you know if any have been honored? 10 A I do not know. The list I was supplied 11 with had at least 119, and many since then. 12 mean, the list I saw as part of my book clearly 13 listed 119. 14 the data was pulled, but it had, first, the 119. 15 So I don't have the exact number with me. 16 17 Q I Then it had others because of the way But do you know whether there have been any that have been honored? 18 A I don't know for sure. 19 Q And in the -- your declaration you 20 identify that some of the individuals had criminal 21 charges pending. 22 the -- any of this 119 figure had been previously 23 convicted of a criminal offense? 24 25 A Do you know whether any of Based on my experience, many of these criminals are recidivists. 212-279-9424 So certainly, based on Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 121 1 my 34 years, many of these people had prior 2 criminal convictions. 3 as 50 percent within the first year, 75 percent 4 within three to five years. 5 aliens we arrest have numerous criminal 6 convictions, but to speak specifically to the 119, 7 how many had previous convictions, I don't have 8 that information. 9 10 11 Q Recidivism rate is as high Many of the criminal Would that be information that ICE would have access to? A If we knew who he was and we ran it 12 through NCIC, it would show previous convictions 13 that were recorded, yes. 14 Q And to what you were just saying about 15 recidivism, what is your basis for saying that a 16 lot of these individuals would be -- would have -- 17 be at risk of recidivism? 18 I've been doing this for 34 years. I've 19 arrested many criminal aliens in my career. I've 20 seen numerous reports. 21 in front of Congress on data we pulled together to 22 show the risk of those who commit crimes in the 23 United States that are here illegally. 24 them are recidivist criminals. 25 A Q 212-279-9424 I've testified many times Many of So -Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 122 1 A I think when we do at large operations, 2 what we call safe neighborhoods, safe streets, and 3 we target criminal aliens to be arrested, many of 4 those targets have numerous prior criminal 5 convictions. 6 seen -- I've been a part of operations for many 7 years. 8 based on information that I've seen or been 9 supplied to me, many of the targets of operations 10 11 12 So I've seen data sheets. I've So not only based on my experience, but have multiple criminal convictions. Q So I would like to point your attention now to paragraph 43. 13 A Yes. 14 Q Is there anything that is not in this 15 paragraph that you would use to support your basis 16 for thinking that criminal aliens have a risk of 17 recidivism? 18 A Well, these are numbers that were 19 supplied to me by my senior leadership concerning 20 California. 21 just -- which I didn't think was necessary -- it's 22 my personal experience, my 34 years of what I 23 know, based on my enforcing immigration law for so 24 many years, that many criminal aliens have prior 25 criminal history. 212-279-9424 The only thing I would add to this is Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 145 1 officers on the ground that are making these 2 decisions, they think it's impossible. 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q So... Since January 4th, 2018, how many SPBPs have been denied in California? A I don't think I have that with me. I don't think I have a number with me. Q Do you know how many have been authorized? 9 A No. 10 Q Do you know if there's been any that have 11 been authorized other than the one incident you 12 referred to in paragraph 78? 13 A I do not. 14 Q So going to paragraph 78, you say, "In 15 light of the recent enactment of SB 54, ICE must 16 weigh the benefit of a potentially successful 17 prosecution with the very likely risk that the 18 relevant California law enforcement agencies 19 cannot, due to SB 54, notify ICE of an impending 20 release or transfer the [sic] alien to ICE custody 21 for removal upon completion of criminal 22 proceedings." 23 Is -- is this something -- is ICE 24 weighing the benefit something that's new because 25 of SB 54? 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 154 1 Q And again, just talking about the 2 criminal offenses, is that standard practice that 3 ICE would seek a judicial warrant if there is a 4 criminal immigration offense? 5 A Generally. I mean, there's -- there's, 6 as you know, many ways you can do it. You can go 7 through a -- you know, to the U.S. Attorney's 8 Office, you can do an affidavit, and you can go 9 through the whole indictment procedure through the 10 grand jury. There's various ways to do a case. 11 But, yeah, we -- we get judicial warrants for 12 criminal cases as part of our SOP, for criminal 13 prosecutions. 14 Q Are there operational -- 15 A Criminal arrests. 16 Q Are there operational difficulties in 17 obtaining a warrant for a criminal immigration 18 offense? 19 A We do it every day. I mean, it's work, 20 but we do it every day. 21 up a magistrate and -- but it's something we do as 22 part of our job. 23 24 25 Q Again, you've got to free Since SB 54, has ICE sought warrants from federal judges for criminal immigration offenses? A 212-279-9424 We still prosecute criminal cases in the Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 158 1 gang activity and criminal activity within the 2 city of Escondido that we weren't privy to before. 3 So now that we're removed from that cooperative 4 working relationship, that's information we no 5 longer have. 6 And again, that would happen throughout 7 California. Wherever there was task forces, a 8 local law enforcement agency task force, we lost 9 that intelligence. We lost that information, or 10 their perspective on what they know. 11 better what's going on in their neighborhoods than 12 the feds do many times, so when you lose that, it 13 just results in less public safety, less 14 successful investigations. 15 16 Q They know Do you know how many LEAs have removed themselves from task forces? 17 A Not off the top of my head. 18 Q Are there any examples you can point to? 19 A Again, anecdotal, from speaking to Derek 20 Benner, because I always ask how it's going in 21 California. 22 agencies remove themselves. 23 where we did a human trafficking case, and the law 24 enforcement agency left it because there was a 25 immigration context. 212-279-9424 There has been law enforcement There was one case That was up in northern Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 160 1 2 us. Q And when the law enforcement agencies say 3 they don't want to work with ICE anymore, are they 4 providing a reason? 5 A What's shared with me is that HSI wears 6 an ICE moniker that it has to do with immigration 7 enforcement, it has to be, you know, the current 8 legislation in California limiting cooperation and 9 information sharing. Again, specifics, you'd have 10 to ask the SACs in those three areas. 11 relaying information that's shared with me through 12 conversation. 13 14 Q I'm just Are there still task forces that ICE is involved in throughout California? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Do you know how many? 17 A No. 18 Q And do you know the -- how many task 19 forces ICE has been asked to leave since SB 54? 20 A I don't have a number. 21 Q Do you know if ICE was asked to leave 22 task forces in California before SB 54? 23 A Not that I'm aware of. 24 Q Is ICE able to obtain information it 25 seeks from the FBI? 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 162 1 moving, where do you think the load houses are 2 located? 3 These are conversations law enforcement 4 officers should have openly and sharing ideas, and 5 his experiences and his knowledge and how long 6 he's been in that neighborhood, and I don't think 7 anything can replace information sharing in task 8 forces, having face-to-face conversations and 9 trading information. 10 Q And this is information -- the 11 information you're talking about, this is 12 information about criminal activity, correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q So part of this is that you believe that 15 the information about criminal activity is not 16 being shared with ICE. Is that -- is that -- 17 A Yes. 18 Q Is that a part of your concern? 19 A Yes. 20 Q I would like to go to paragraph 72. Have 21 the -- has SB 54's prohibitions on information 22 sharing between local law enforcement agencies and 23 ICE had an impact on HSI's counter-terrorism work? 24 A It's reported to me that it has. 25 Q Are there any specific examples that you 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 163 1 2 can share? A I believe it has to do with the JTTF task 3 force's -- the lack of participation. 4 Again, information and ideas won't be shared. 5 Q Are there any specific examples? 6 A No. I think it goes back to the 7 generality -- again, right now, what's a national 8 security case most of the time don't start out as 9 a national security case. It starts as a local 10 crime. 11 they've got a -- they've got a -- they have a 12 funding mechanism. 13 to raise money, and they do that through, you 14 know -- whether it's bitcoin or whether it's 15 through cyber crime, whether it's through drug 16 sales, whether it's through, you know, counterfeit 17 goods. 18 Most terrorist organizations has -- They've got to -- they've got That's where the lack of information may 19 not seem like a national security nexus, but it 20 will grow into a national security nexus. 21 our investigation in a national security sense 22 don't start as a national security case. 23 you don't have that level of cooperation on these 24 task forces and sharing of information, you're 25 going to build less information to support a 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com Most of So when 212-490-3430 Page 164 1 national security case, or come across information 2 that would lead you to a national security nexus. 3 I don't have any specific examples, no. 4 This is -- again, this is briefings from my senior 5 staff, career professionals who have been criminal 6 investigators their entire career advising me of 7 what's happening on the ground. 8 9 Q I would like to turn to paragraph 73. In that paragraph, you say, "SB 54 has also limited 10 ICE access to aliens who may assist in building 11 criminal cases, thus interfering with ICE's 12 ability to pursue the prosecution or removal of 13 aliens who pose particularly significant threats 14 to public safety or national security." 15 Do you see that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Are there any circumstances where this 18 has happened since January 4th, 2018? 19 A I think we have less access to aliens. 20 It's harder to find aliens because the county 21 jails are releasing them without notification to 22 ICE. 23 relationships are built in the jails. 24 where we build informants. 25 information. 212-279-9424 We don't have access to the jails. Many That's That's where we get Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 165 1 Of course, an illegal alien that's in a 2 jail wants to get out of jail, wants to stay here 3 with a green card and wants to stay here with a 4 work authorization will assist us in our 5 investigation. 6 people and we have to go to try to find people, we 7 just have less to build cases from, less to build 8 our intelligence from. 9 about. 10 Q But when we lose access to these That's what this talks Are there any public safety or national 11 security threats that you believe have been caused 12 because of SB 54? 13 A I think when law enforcement agencies 14 aren't free to share information as partners, 15 intelligence will be lost. 16 detrimental to criminal investigations and 17 national security. 18 of the 9/11 commission. 19 enforcement agencies are comfortable in sharing 20 information. 21 enforcement officer, SB 54 limits that sharing. 22 Q It's going to be That was one of the findings It's important that law And in my opinion as a law So is it fair to say that your 23 allegations in this paragraph are based on your 24 experience as a law enforcement officer rather 25 than specific examples? 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 176 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2 I, Denise M. Brunet, the officer before 3 whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby 4 certify that the witness whose testimony appears 5 in the foregoing deposition was sworn by me; that 6 the testimony of said witness was taken by me 7 stenographically and thereafter reduced to print 8 by means of computer-assisted transcription by me 9 to the best of my ability; that I am neither 10 counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of 11 the parties to this litigation and have no 12 interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome 13 of this matter. 14 15 <%Signature%> 16 Denise M. Brunet 17 Notary Public in and for 18 The District of Columbia 19 20 21 My commission expires: 22 December 14, 2022 23 24 25 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 177 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEPONENT 1 2 3 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury 4 that I have read the foregoing transcript of my 5 deposition and except for any corrections or 6 changes noted on the errata sheet, I hereby 7 subscribe to the transcript as an accurate 8 record of made by me. 9 10 11 12 ....._,,; 13 4 1-.'-( - J r' 14 15 r DATE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 EXHIBIT B FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT C FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT D FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT E Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x : THE UNITED STATES OF : AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : No. 18-264 : THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; : EDMUND GERALD BROWN, JR., : Governor of California, in : his Official Capacity;AND : XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney : General of California, in : his Official Capacity,, : : Defendants. : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF: TODD A. HOFFMAN DATE: TIME: LOCATION: REPORTED BY: Thursday, April 12, 2018 9:23 a.m. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. Denise M. Brunet, RPR Reporter/Notary 21 22 23 24 25 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A P P E A R A N C E S On behalf of the Plaintiff: EREZ REUVENI, ESQUIRE LAUREN BINGHAM, ESQUIRE U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division 450 5th Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 307-4293 erez.reuveni@usdoj.gov On behalf of the Defendants: CHRISTINE CHUANG, ESQUIRE State of California Department of Justice Bureau of Children's Justice 1515 Clay Street Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94612 (510) 879-0094 christine.chuang.doj.ca.gov LEE I. SHERMAN, ESQUIRE CHEROKEE DM MELTON, ESQUIRE SATOSHI YANAI, ESQUIRE State of California Department of Justice 300 S. Spring Street Suite 1702 Los Angeles, California 90013 (213) 269-6404 lee.sherman@doj.ca.gov 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ALSO PRESENT: 22 Julie A.G. Koller Louisa Slocum Liana G.T. Wolf Dan Reidy, Videographer 23 24 25 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 41 1 A I'm sorry. 2 Q That's all right. 3 A Yeah, the 170. 4 Q That 170 refers to individuals who were 5 turned over in 2017, correct? 6 A Correct. 7 Q Do you know the number of individuals 8 turned over from San Diego field office in 2018? 9 A I don't know a number specifically now. 10 Q Do you know that number for the 11 Los Angeles field office? 12 A For '18? 13 Q How about for the San Francisco field 14 15 office in 2018? A I do not. 16 17 I do not. MS. MELTON: Can we take a five-minute break? 18 MR. REUVENI: 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 20 record. Sure. We're going off the The time on the video is 10:11 a.m. 21 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 23 unit number two. 24 10:23 a.m. 25 This begins media BY MS. MELTON: 212-279-9424 The time on the video is We are on the record. Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 46 1 national level. 2 directors are working through this issue now. 3 It's still relatively early in the process, but we 4 are looking at what we need to do at a national 5 level currently. 6 Q Quite frankly, the field So there have been no specific policy 7 changes with respect to California and how -- and 8 if individuals are paroled to law enforcement 9 agencies? 10 A Not at the headquarters level at this 11 time. Field directors, it's their specific -- 12 locations are taking their own actions at this 13 time -- 14 Q What if -- 15 A -- according -- 16 Q I'm sorry. 17 A -- according to the situation they're 18 19 20 21 encountering. Q What does that mean, they're taking their own actions at this time? A Well, for instance, the San Diego port 22 of entry, since the passage of SB 54, I think, on 23 average, are turning five to six criminal aliens. 24 They are removing them immediately at the port of 25 entry verse turning them over to the state and 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 47 1 local agency that wants the individual because we 2 have no assurance we're going to get that 3 individual back. 4 in court. 5 alien at the port of entry. 6 Q So they're not seeing their day We take the action of removing that Are there any circumstances in which 7 you are transferring individuals, aliens to law 8 enforcement agencies in California? 9 A I'm sure they are. Again, based on the 10 charge and, again, that's a discretionary decision 11 that's made by the field leadership in that 12 specific location based on the charge, based on 13 maybe the level of cooperation they have with the 14 specific state and local entity. 15 Again, a lot of that may be governed by 16 the charge itself, whether we want them to see 17 their day in court or be removed at the port of 18 entry, with the understanding we may be exposed on 19 the back end and our authority may be undermined 20 if they're subsequently released without our 21 notification. 22 Q Prior to SB 54, in these counties where 23 you might have -- in these counties where you 24 couldn't be assured that somebody would be 25 returned to you if you paroled them, under what 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 52 1 Q Do you know how many individuals OFO 2 has chosen not or decided not to transfer to law 3 enforcement agencies in California in 2018? 4 A How many specifically? No, other than 5 what I stated earlier. 6 average, about five to six a month they are not 7 turning over criminal aliens to the state and 8 locals. 9 10 11 Q I know San Diego is, on I'm sorry, what is five or six a month for San Diego? A Five or six criminal aliens who are 12 arriving in the San Diego ports of entry who are 13 not being turned over to state and locals. 14 15 Q And all of those individuals are being removed immediately? 16 A They would be removed, correct. 17 Q So you're no longer transferring 18 individuals from the San Diego POE to a law 19 enforcement agency? 20 A No. 21 Q Okay. 22 23 That's not what I said. There are cases where those individuals are being transferred? A Again, it's discretionary based on the 24 field leadership in that location, based on the 25 charge, based on if they believe they're going to 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 53 1 get the individual back. 2 should see their day in court has a higher 3 priority than removing that individual 4 immediately. 5 they make decisions based on that, their 6 experience and their expertise in that area. 7 8 Q Whether they think they All those things are weighed in and Okay. Thank you. Let's go to paragraph 19, please. 9 Are you ready to start? 10 A Oh, yes. 11 Q Do you know of any task force, task 12 forces that have been negatively impacted by 13 SB 54? 14 A 15 16 No. I'm not aware of any impact at this time. Q Okay. On page 20 of that same 17 paragraph, you talk about a chilling effect on 18 existing relationships with state and local 19 partners. 20 21 What do you mean by chilling effect? A Well, again, chilling effect 22 essentially working side by side with fellow law 23 enforcement officers in various capacities, 24 whether it's a task force or where they're coming 25 to the port of entry to pick up warrants and 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 74 1 2 how they became known to the officers. Q Do you know how much after the time of 3 release that the field office found out that the 4 person was released? 5 6 A No. I do not know that level of detail. 7 MR. SHERMAN: I would like to mark as 8 confidential Hoffman Exhibit 12 this document that 9 is Bates number 6 through 11. 10 (Hoffman Confidential Deposition 11 Exhibit Number 12 was marked for 12 identification.) 13 14 15 BY MR. SHERMAN: Q Officer Hoffman, are you familiar with this document? 16 A Yes, I am. 17 Q What is this document? 18 A Again, this is a detainer for this 19 individual, again, wanted via a state or local 20 warrant. 21 this is the document that executed that 22 transaction. 23 24 25 Q We in turn turned that person over and Which jurisdiction was this person turned over to? A 212-279-9424 I'm not -- unless I'm missing the Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 75 1 obvious here, if it's stated, I don't see it in 2 the documentation you provided, whether it's 3 Los Angeles, could be Los Angeles County sheriffs 4 or Orange County. 5 Q Do you have any independent knowledge 6 beyond the documentation of who -- of which 7 jurisdiction this person was turned over to? 8 9 A I don't recall. At one point, I think I knew, but I don't recall right now. I believe 10 this was a fraud charge but not certain which 11 entity they were turned over to within the state. 12 I thought it was one of those two county sheriffs, 13 but I believe it was -- it might have been Orange 14 County, but, again, I'm not seeing that in the 15 documentation you provided. 16 Q I would just like to represent for the 17 record that this was the documentation that was 18 provided to us today that we are showing to you. 19 Do you know what criminal offense the 20 person was charged for? 21 that you're referring to? 22 23 24 25 A Was it this fraud offense My recollection, this was a fraud offense and a warrant for fraud. Q Do you know if this individual had any prior criminal conviction? 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 76 1 A Not to my knowledge. 2 Q How did CBP come into contact with this 3 4 5 person? A This person was an applicant for admission. 6 Q What were the circumstances of that? 7 A I'm not -- I don't know the specific 8 circumstances. I assume they arrived at the 9 Los Angeles International Airport and upon 10 processing is when we determined that they had a 11 NCIC action against them and then we followed up 12 with the originating agency. 13 Q And CBP released this person to an LEA? 14 A I'm sorry? 15 Q Let me -- did CBP release this person 16 17 to a law enforcement agency? A Yes. It would be the same. In this 18 case, at Los Angeles Airport, we would turn the 19 individual over to Los Angeles World Airlines 20 Police Department and then they would work with 21 the originating agency to do the second turn over. 22 Q Do you know if the law enforcement 23 agency that this person ultimately went into 24 custody with released this person? 25 A 212-279-9424 Yes. It's information received from Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 77 1 the field as, again, this person -- the detainer 2 was not honored. 3 public. 4 they have no status in the United States and they 5 were released. 6 7 Q This person was released to the They're still an applicant for admission, Do you know when the law enforcement agency released the person? 8 A I do not know the specifics. 9 Q Do you know how the field office found 10 11 out that the person was released? A Again, like the similar case, it was 12 brought to their attention by doing research and 13 via public website. 14 15 16 Q Do you know if the person reoffended after release? A 17 I do not know. MR. SHERMAN: I would like to mark as 18 Hoffman Exhibit 13, confidential, and this is 19 document Bates numbered 12 through 17. 20 (Hoffman Confidential Deposition 21 Exhibit Number 13 was marked for 22 identification.) 23 24 25 BY MR. SHERMAN: Q Officer Hoffman, are you familiar with this document? 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 86 1 individuals were released at the same time, the 2 two that we intercepted. 3 4 Q And CBP picked up the -- both individuals at around the same time? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And was this person returned to Mexico 7 That's my understanding. as well? 8 A This person was returned to Mexico. 9 Q Can I turn your attention to paragraph 10 15 of your declaration, which is Exhibit 10. 11 A Paragraph 15? 12 Q Yes. 13 A Okay. 14 Q Are the documents that are marked 15 Exhibits 11, 12, 13 and 14 the documents that you 16 believe support your allegations in paragraph 15? 17 A You said 11, 12, 13, 14? 18 Q That's correct. 19 A Yes. 20 21 They support part of the allegations. Q Are there any other instance that you 22 would identify to support your allegations in 23 paragraph 15? 24 25 A Yes. Also in the Los Angeles area, there were four individuals released and the only 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 87 1 reason we knew they were released is they showed 2 up to our deferred inspection office looking for 3 their documents. 4 5 Q And what circumstances were those? What were the -- let me step back. 6 What were the -- let's go one by one. 7 For the first one, under what 8 circumstances did CBP come in contact with the 9 person? 10 A Under the first? 11 Q You said there were four other 12 circumstances, correct? 13 A Correct. 14 Q So let's go one by one. So for the 15 first of those circumstances, when did CBP come in 16 contact with the person? 17 A I don't have the specific dates and 18 times in which they presented themself to the 19 deferred inspection office. 20 aware of is that, you know, we had a detainer 21 against these individuals. 22 from custody and then they went to deferred 23 inspection looking for their documents that we 24 retained during the proceeding. 25 became aware that they were released. 212-279-9424 The only thing I'm They were released Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com And that's how we 212-490-3430 Page 88 1 2 Q And do you know when these incidents occurred? 3 A Not off the top of my head. 4 Q Were they before January 2018? 5 A I believe they were, but I'm not 6 exactly certain, but I think they were sometime in 7 2017. 8 9 10 11 Q Do you know if any of these persons had a criminal history? A They had -- obviously, they had criminal records. That's why we turned them over. 12 Q Do you know -- 13 A I believe grand theft, burglary, 14 15 16 17 18 19 assault. Q Do you know if they had any criminal convictions? A or not. Q I'm not aware if they had convictions I don't have that level of detail. And then when they came -- and can you 20 describe a little bit the circumstances in which 21 they came back to CBP? 22 A I'm not -- I don't know the specific 23 circumstances, but the process, again, in my 24 experience in LA where these occurred is if we 25 have a criminal alien, we will parole them in. 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com We 212-490-3430 Page 89 1 will issue a detainer, the 247, and then we will 2 order a deferred inspection. 3 keep their entry documents and those would be 4 forwarded to their deferred inspection offices 5 downtown LA at the federal building. 6 where we keep the information, keep the record, 7 because deferred inspection officers help handle 8 the back end of the case. 9 And that's -- we And that's If they were called, the field 10 inspection officers would be the officers that 11 would go effectuate the transfer, in this 12 situation, and take custody of those individuals, 13 but since they were released, the individuals then 14 came to us looking for their documents. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Q So they came to the deferred inspection office? A They came to the deferred inspection office. Q And at that time, what happened with these -A I'm not exactly sure what happened, but 22 they should have all been taken into custody and 23 removed. 24 25 Q So other than Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14 and these four instances, are there any other 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 90 1 incidence that you would identify to support your 2 allegations in paragraph 15? 3 4 A In paragraph 15, no, I don't believe so. 5 MR. SHERMAN: I would like to identify 6 as Hoffman Confidential Exhibit 15 the document 7 that's Bates numbered 27 to 32. 8 (Hoffman Confidential Deposition 9 Exhibit Number 15 was marked for 10 11 12 13 identification.) BY MR. SHERMAN: Q Officer Hoffman, are you familiar with this document? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What is this document? 16 A Well, this is essentially the secondary 17 case, the secondary referral form, and then a 18 withdraw of application form. 19 20 Q Was this person transferred to a law enforcement agency within California? 21 A This individual was not transferred. 22 Q Why was that? 23 A Because, in this case, the LAWA police 24 department did not honor the detainer. 25 not take possession of the individual. 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com They did 212-490-3430 Page 99 1 A Not for Los Angeles County. 2 Q For any other jurisdiction in 3 California? 4 A Again, only to the degree it relates to 5 San Diego County or San Diego area where 6 previously discussed they were refusing five to 7 six criminal aliens on average a month and not 8 turning them over to the state and local agencies. 9 Q And is -- since January 2018, has CBP 10 attempted to transfer person -- individuals who -- 11 who there's an active warrant to Los Angeles law 12 enforcement? 13 A I'm not sure I have that information. 14 Q How about any other jurisdictions in 15 California, CBP transferring those -- attempting 16 to transfer those individuals to local law 17 enforcement -- 18 19 20 A I don't have direct knowledge. So it's difficult for me to answer. Q Can you turn to paragraph 21 of your 21 declaration. 22 impact on OFO's ability to execute submissions at 23 point of entries in California? 24 25 A How has SB 54 had a significant Well, again, just fundamentally, I think it's probably the eight cases that we 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 103 1 2 system, people should see their day in court. Q And has that -- has that -- 3 consideration of the charges, has that changed 4 because of SB 54? 5 A No. I mean, I think we're in 6 discussions now as SB 54 evolves. We're still 7 relatively new into it here is what this is going 8 to look like. 9 at the field level at the discretion of the Again, it's really taking place now 10 various field leadership in those locations and 11 we're trying to find out, you know, determine what 12 we might want to do at a national level to assist 13 and to be a little more consistent. 14 Q And I just want to clarify when you 15 were referring to Imperial County. 16 was Imperial County not complying with detainer 17 requests? 18 A Yeah. Before SB 54, The two cases I believe we 19 openly discussed, unless I'm mistaken, was the 20 October and December prior. 21 if we discussed them or not. 22 discuss them. 23 County in October and December whereby -- the same 24 jail where two individuals were released without 25 prior notification. 212-279-9424 Maybe -- I'm not sure Maybe we didn't But there are two cases in Imperial Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 108 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2 I, Denise M. Brunet, the officer before 3 whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby 4 certify that the witness whose testimony appears 5 in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; 6 that the testimony of said witness was taken by me 7 in stenotype and thereafter reduced to typewriting 8 under my direction; that said deposition is a true 9 record of the testimony given by said witness; 10 that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 11 employed by any of the parties to the action in 12 which this deposition was taken; and, further, 13 that I am not a relative or employee of any 14 counsel or attorney employed by the parties 15 hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in 16 the outcome of this action. 17 18 <%Signature%> Denise M. Brunet 19 Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia 20 21 22 My commission expires: 23 December 14, 2022 24 25 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Pa ge 109 ACKNOWLED GMENT OF DEPONENT 1 2 3 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury 4 that I have read the foregoing transcript of my 5 d eposition and e x cept for any c o rr ections o r 6 changes noted on the errata sheet , 7 subscribe to the transcript as an accurate 8 record of the statements made by me . I hereby 9 10 11 12 TODD A . HOFFMAN 13 14 15 DATE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 12-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 2 12-490-3430 Page 110 E R R A T A 1 2 IN RE: U.S.A . vs. 3 DATE: 4/12/2018 4 PAGE LINE 5 \'3 6 1\ 7 -~ 16 15 10 \9 S H E E T 8 5 9 10 ·(Q i 11 l] 12 13 14 3q ~lo. 17 Lt(a 21 22 23 24 25 • l....: 1' ..J 11 • L , unm(}fQDLQ . r l \Q(uuIT .. .l A ) ...1. ,Jt,J re,mo'>L€., ' oaf' l';yro3CW>rncal fcoT) Ch°'¥}€, 1\,D,tl) v-X:\~\" \:D ' ths,~(Mfil')( (~~Jtf11' Ce(/ c.hcfi82. \::u '1<1 IO\- ct avf d Q h1 Cl)Ynf) -vmr) TEC&\, (\~\?08D:J9}),c ol e@r) 1 mm ~ 1> 3~ 16 20 {:.lJ\9fil~un Sbc,a\u ,~ :\ I 32 -1}_ 19 CORRECTION AND REASON 1\ 1-: 1 15 18 5 J STATE OF CALIFORNIA _lfu__ Y9 ~q_ 5t)_ 5\ io \1 ~3 25 1 _1__ Co \I 1#7' ---- ~ (DATE) 212-279-9424 TODD A. ,?- ------ Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com HOFFMAN 212-490-3430 Page 111 1 S H E E T E R R A T A 2 IN RE: U.S . A . vs. 3 DATE: PAGE LINE 5 5:l N U E D 4/12/2018 4 C O N T I 6 7 Cao G\ 7 \ '9 13 8 (~L\ 9 (,g~ 10 "71 7(9 12 :b] \:t, gy \(u CORRECTION AND REASON ch~ /I vJ }aj' ·o ('IV h,lg,, c~'20,~ C(a 1 tmf' r (~'y),' ( boo~ . Clf\d ' m 0:c/ (hp cre[Wbicc,) :£XXDf"J 11 11 ,. )\ ru ,. lS 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 R 15 \00 16 \()0 17 \0\ 18 \ C) \ 19 \O l l\ \i \9 G I Li 'lLJ i:::i 0 15 l Che~, ''tbeknc8~1' ro ''fukn}e\vfhl~Pif/f~'·wt Cb(ll)9Q ' c€n1~ C\h)f' \--p ' [fmDJ a\'' (\o < , ~n:ect ,o\ o..<ld 11 1·~' Qt \::\[ s.e cood II tb,I>,, li)j~opn1ce }{NYOr) \ , r) \ a \ a JjP~CCpb, , aiI J WQl\g-ej "\:bw-\:'' tu 11±b!fc:lJi> (hjpDLJJJ{)n' c<:tf ~r) chcn9£, '%f,r '' ru ·ru.. U t ~p~f c pb,<a l trr)tf hm~. "i ro p,JC )on \-' n> ' ·i .rfuaM d (ncPYYf et vr~) cul{\tf, IA ,. ,, , \A,.. ,, \A) 1TJ' L-.. , u II " ( L • 1 "' i\ 11 <;. 20 23 24 25 (DATE) 2 12-279-9424 ) TODD A . HOFFMAN Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 2 12-490-3430 EXHIBIT F FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT G FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT H FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT I FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT J Alameda County Sheriff's Office https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/dc_srj.php Home Quick Links Agency Divisions Careers Regional Training Center Contact Santa Rita Jail 5325 Broder Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 551-6500 Bail, Booking and Release Information Charges, custody status, court dates, bail amounts, release dates and other inmate information can be obtained 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 1-925-551-6500. You must have the inmate's name, PFN (Person File Number), or correct date of birth before obtaining information. Bail can be posted in the Santa Rita Jail lobby 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Inmates who are determined to be eligible for release, will be released as quickly as possible. However, this procedure can take up to several hours. It is recommended that you wait until receiving a telephone call from the released inmate before coming to the jail. Inmates granted release while at court must return to the jail to complete all necessary paperwork. The inmate will receive all personal property and be released from the jail facility. Inmates being released who are indigent, have inadequate clothing for climatic conditions, do not have clothing available at the time of release, or who can no longer fit into their clothing, will be provided appropriate welfare clothing. Inmates who have no money upon release are given a free bus passe or a free B.A.R.T. ticket. The inmates are also provided with transportation schedules and directions to the B.A.R.T. station if they choose to walk. Pending Release: Once jail staff have determined an inmate may be eligible for release from custody, the inmate is identified as a “pending release” and the release process is initiated. The release process is a multistep administrative process that may take several hours to complete. During this process, a search of law enforcement databases is conducted to determine if the inmate has any outstanding warrants and/or holds that may prevent their release from custody. Should any other legal holding authority be located during this process, the inmate will not be released from custody and the inmate will no longer appear as a “Pending Release.” Expected (EXP)Release Date: Is the date a sentenced inmate will have completed serving time on that specific case, provided no penalties for misbehavior are incurred, no other cases are sentenced to additional jail time and/or no other pending un-sentenced cases are located. Prior to an inmate’s release from custody, the inmate will begin the initial release process as described above and the inmate will appear as a “Pending Release.” Inmates with pending local cases, warrants or holds from other jurisdictions will not necessarily be released on the Exp. Release Date. Emergencies Inmate Services handles all outside emergencies ( please refer to the Inmate Services section ). You can reach the Inmate Services Section at (925) 551-6580, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., excluding holidays. Santa Rita Jail after hours emergency number: (925) 551-6500 1 of 9 5/1/2018, 8:08 PM Alameda County Sheriff's Office https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/dc_srj.php Mail Procedures MAILING ADDRESS Santa Rita Jail Inmate's name and PFN# 5325 Broder Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Incoming Mail Mail will be distributed daily (Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and holidays). Mail will be delivered only to the addressee. Incoming mail MUST have the inmate's name AND PFN. Incoming mail MUST have the name and address of the sender on the outside of the envelope. All mail sent to, or from, any inmate may be opened and inspected by jail staff outside the presence of the inmate involved (except legal mail). Incoming mail with any perceived bio-hazard (i.e. lipstick, gloss, perfume/cologne, etc) shall be returned to sender. Envelopes and letters containing address labels, stickers, tape, glued surface (homemade cards) shall be returned to sender. Items which are considered contraband and will cause the mail to be returned to the sender are envelopes, stamps, and writing materials. Sexually explicit drawings on the outside of mailing envelopes will cause U.S. Postal authorities to return the envelope to sender. Incoming mail from attorneys or governmental officials will be opened by the jail staff in the presence of the inmate involved. Money may be sent by MONEY ORDER or CASHIER'S CHECK ONLY. Personal checks and cash will be returned to sender (refer to money section). Reading Materials NEW Books and Magazines (Limit of six (6) per day) are allowed to receive through the mail (NO HARDBACK BOOKS ALLOWED) - PROVIDED THESE ITEMS ARE SENT DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHER OR "ON LINE" BOOKSTORE, such as Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble.com, etc. On-line bookstore must have a legitimate website that is verifiable and allows consumers to order directly. Any website that re-directs to another website for ordering is not accepted. PACKAGES MUST BE PROFESSIONALLY LABELED and recognized as an on-line bookstore. Books from private sellers will be returned. Envelopes, magazines, and periodicals sent to inmates may not exceed 8-1/2" x 14". Any mail exceeding this size will be returned to sender. Inmate newspaper subscriptions must be made directly to the newspaper company by a third party. Cancellation or change of address for subscriptions must be made directly to the newspaper company. Newspapers will then be distributed through regular mail channels. Weekend and Holiday newspapers will be distributed the next working day. Newspapers for inmates no longer in custody will be disposed of by the mail room staff. (Each housing unit receives six daily Tribune newspapers, paid for by the Inmate Welfare Fund). Photographs Photographs may not be larger than 4" x 6". A maximum of ten (10) photographs may be mailed to inmates in an envelope at a time. Polaroid and negative photographs are not accepted. Photographs that are altered or blacked out in any manner shall be returned to sender. Photographs or pictures that are pornographic, nude, suggestive, showing gangs, gang tattoos, or hand gestures (signs) are not allowed. Money The Alameda County Sheriff's Office takes pride in the services provided to inmates; including meals, library services and inmate programs. In addition, the Sheriff's Office provides the opportunity for inmates to purchase additional items such as snacks, soups, drinks, stationary, hygiene supplies, medicines, and specialty items for women, to name a few. All proceeds from the sale of these items go directly to the Inmate Welfare Fund. This fund is used to support the numerous programs offered to inmates, as well as the televisions, games, recreational supplies, etc. PLEASE FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE: Deposits may be made by mail or in person. Only cash or money orders will be accepted for deposits on inmates accounts' (NO PERSONAL, PAYROLL, TAX REFUND OR SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS OR COINS). Do not send cash through the mail. If depositing money in person, you must have the exact amount. NO CHANGE WILL BE GIVEN. If you have been an inmate within the last six months, you may not deposit money on another inmate's account. 2 of 9 5/1/2018, 8:08 PM Alameda County Sheriff's Office https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/dc_srj.php Visitors must produce valid photo identification (driver's license, military, etc.) and have the inmate's PFN before depositing money on the inmate's account. Money orders must be made out as follows: The Alameda County Sheriff's Office (ACSO) c/o Inmate's Name and PFN HOURS FOR MONEY DEPOSITS Seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Although you may deposit money 24 hours a day, it is recommended you do so during normal lobby hours from 8:00am to 6:30pm. Property Property releases and clothing exchange transactions will be accepted 24 hours a day at the Santa Rita Jail ( SRJ ). Property Release requests forms must be submitted by the inmate and received by lobby personnel prior to the day the visitor will be picking up the property. This usually takes up to 7 working days at SRJ. It is required that you provide photo identification when receiving the released property. It is recommended that you call the lobby to ensure the property is ready for pick-up. Santa Rita Jail: (925) 551-6500 Court clothing for inmates will only be accepted at the Lobby within 72 hours of a jury trial, preliminary examination, or if a Court Order has been received. You may only bring a maximum of two sets of clothing. The clothing in the inmate's property must be taken during the exchange. Clothing is exchanged on a one-for-one basis. All medications are provided to inmates through Prison Health Services. Lobby personnel will accept prescription glasses, dentures and contact lenses solution in sealed packages. It is recommended that you coordinate with Prison Health Services prior to leaving items in the lobby (925) 551-6700. Telephone Calls Pay phones are available to all inmates daily. However, inmates can only make collect telephone calls. In order to eliminate problems associated with 3-way calling, the telephone system in use automatically terminates the call if an attempt is made to connect a third party. If you have call waiting, be advised the telephone system in use may terminate your call if the call waiting "click" is heard. The system cannot differentiate between the call waiting "click" and the 3-way calling "click". Private citizens can prevent collect calls by having a BLOCK put on their personal phone line. This can be done by contacting your local telephone company. Vehicle Impoundment If a vehicle was impounded upon arrest, you will need to contact the arresting police agency to determine the documentation needed for the release of the vehicle. It is often necessary to provide a written letter from the registered owner authorizing the release of the vehicle. Inmates can release keys to the vehicle, by simply filling out a property release request form. Keys must be picked up in the lobby of the jail in which the inmate is being housed. It is recommended that you call the jail lobby to ensure the keys are ready for pick-up. ** Santa Rita Jail Facility (925) 551-6500 ** Visiting Please refer to the Santa Rita Jail Visiting page. Santa Rita Jail Facts The original Santa Rita Jail opened in January 1947. It served as a replacement for the original County Prison Farm that operated on 275 acres next to Fairmont Hospital in San Leandro. The old Santa Rita Jail encompassed about 1000 acres of a World War II military base known as Camp Schumacher that was adjacent to the existing site of the Camp Parks Reserve Training Center. The original site included a Navy Brig that was converted into a maximum-security facility known as Greystone. A wire-enclosed complex of eight barracks was converted into a minimum and medium security facility that was known as the Compound. Women were housed in a horseshoe shaped barracks known as Women's Quarters. Over time, the Santa Rita Jail became overcrowded and the changing demographics of the jail population made it difficult and costly to operate the aging facility in a safe and secure manner. In 1983 Design and development of the "new" Santa Rita began. Construction costs of the new Santa Rita Jail totaled about $172 million. State bonds augmented by matching local funds made the project possible. On September 1, 1989, Sheriff Charles C. Plummer gave the order to open the facility and inmates were transferred from the old to the new jail. The New Santa Rita Jail The facility holds about 4000 inmates housed in one of eighteen modern housing units. It is considered a "mega-jail" and ranks as the third 3 of 9 5/1/2018, 8:08 PM Alameda County Sheriff's Office https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/dc_srj.php largest facility in California and the fifth largest in the nation. Santa Rita is accredited by the American Correctional Association, thus making it the only facility in California holding this prestigious award. It is recognized as one of the most technologically innovative jails in the world. A robotic system speeds delivery of laundry, supplies and food to all areas of the 113-acre campus. State-of-the-art criminal justice systems serve the internal operation while the largest rooftop solar power system converts enough electricity to power nearly one-half of the facilities electrical needs during daylight hours. Sheriff Ahern's philosophy of cost-effective delivery of services is reflected in the private sector partnerships that support the jail's operation. A modem cook-chill food service operation produces 12,000 economical meals per day. On site medical and mental health services saves money while reducing the patient load at county medical facilities. Throughout its history, the Santa Rita Jail Facility has served the criminal justice system and contributed to the safety of the citizen of the County of Alameda by providing a safe, secure and humane environment for inmates and staff. Home About Us Disclaimer Mission Statement Privacy Policy Quick Links Most Wanted ACSO Retiree's Adopt a Pet Alarm Program Anonymous Tip CCW License Community Events Deputy Sheriffs' Association "2.1.1" Eden I & R Forms Glenn Dyer Jail Visiting Inmate Locator Jenny Lin Murder Investigation My Care Pack Operation My Home Town Food Hub Project Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Santa Rita Jail Visiting SB 34 ALPR SB 741 Cellular Interception SB 741 DA's Cellular Interception Policy Sheriff's Sales Text to 911 VINE (Victim Information and Notification Everyday) Youth and Family Services Agency Divisions Sheriff's Administration Agency Watch Commander Countywide Services Detention and Corrections Eden Township Division Law Enforcement Services Management Services Urban Area Security Careers 4 of 9 5/1/2018, 8:08 PM EXHIBIT K Alameda County Sheriffs Decision to Make Inmate Release Dates Pu ... https ://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/arc hi ves/2018/04/0 3/al ... Login/ CreateAcrom1t OAKLAND, BERKELEY, AND EAST BAY NEWS, EVENTS, RESTAURANTS, MUSIC, & ARTS News Archives I RSS SUBSCRIBE TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2018 Alameda County Sheriff's Decision to Make Inmate Release Dates Public Stirs Concern Among Immigrant Rights Advocates By o,mvtn 8onc/Gr,1twn Email Tweet Print dick to enlarge ALAMEDA COUNlY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FACEBOOK Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern. The Alameda County Sheriffs Office recently instituted a new policy of making the release dates of inmates from county jails public on its "inmate locator" website. The move coincides with similar steps taken by the Orange County Sheriffs Office last month to publish inmate release dates as a means of circumventing the state "sanctuary" law, SB 54. But unlike Orange County, where the sheriff said it's their intention to help federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office said today that their decision to make release dates public isn't about working with ICE. "It's part of a broader purpose of being transparent," said Sgt. Ray l<elly. Immigrant rights advocates, however, question the timing of the move. "This is really problematic that this Implementation is happening now," said Yadira Sanchez of the California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance. "It's a further Indication that Sheriff Ahern and his department are continuing to side with the Trump I of 4 5/2/2018, 12:11 PM Alameda County Sheriffs Decision to Make Inmate Release Dates Pu ... https ://www.eastbayexpress.co~/SevenDays/archi ves/2018/04/0 3/al ... administration and [Attorney General] Jeff Sessions, and they're seizing the moment to collaborate with ICE." According to l<elly, release date information for inmates at the county's Santa Rita Jail in Dublin and Glenn Dyer Jail in Oakland have always been available to the public, but requestors had to call the jail. Now the information can be accessed online. Kelly said the move Is in step with the state public records law and recent case law promoting the use of technology to allow faster access to information. It's also less work for sheriff's office employees who don't have to answer the phones. Unlike Orange County and the Contra Costa Sheriff's Office which also recently decided to make release dates public - the Alameda County Sheriff's website doesn't list all of the currently incarcerated people along with their release dates in one document. Instead, users of the system still need to know the name of a person who is detained in the jail before obtaining their information. dick to enlarge A screen shot of an inmate's record [redacted] showing their expected release date. Kelly couldn't say when release dates were added, but the feature was approved recently and went live earlier this year. SB 54 was passed last year and restricts local law enforcement from sharing Information with ICE. The law drew opposition from the California State Sheriffs Association, of which Ahern is a member. "It's a true concern for the Immigrant community and undocumented people," said Sanchez. "Even though the release of information is in a slightly different form, they're still targeting immigrants. They're seizing the moment to collaborate with ICE." l<elly disagreed and said the new feature isn't likely to provide ICE agents with much assistance. "It's not to bolster ICE, or make their job easier or better," he said. But Jon Rodney with the California Immigrant Polley Center said the Alameda County Sheriff's decision could help immigration agents and is the wrong step for the operator of the county's Jails. "Immigrants are a vital part of California, and Californians believe in compassion and equality, and we need from every county sheriff and elected officials to defend those values and not attack them," he said. Kelly acknowledged that the move may not be well timed given the Orange County Sheriff's very public denunciation of the state sanctuary laws at a press confe re nee last week. 2 of 4 5/2/2018, 12:11 PM Alameda County Sheriffs Decision to Make Inmate Release Dates Pu ... https ://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archi ves/2018/04/0 3I al. .. When announcing his agency's decision to make inmate release dates public last week, Orange County Undersheriff Don Barnes told the press, "this is in response to SB-54 limiting our ability to communicate with federal authorities and our concern that criminals are being released to the street." "We know that's going to be said. This is very untimely for this to happen," said Kelly. I Wednesday's Briefing: Low-Inca ... « Tuesday's Briefing: EPA to Rev ... » COMMENTS add a comment Showing 1 -1 of 1 Subscribe to this thread: By Email With RSS Showing 1-1 of 1 Add a comment Anonymous and pseudonymous comments will be removed. Subscribe to this thread Post Comment MOST POPULAR STORIES VIEWED SHARED COMMENTED VIDEOS Oakland Elections: Cat Brooks Jumps in Mayor's Race Plus, contests for two council seats become crowded. Wednesday's Briefing: People's Park May Be Turned into Housing; Oakland to Require Public Approval of Surveillance Tools Tuesday's Briefing: Gas Tax Repeal May Be Headed to Ballot; New Shopping Center Opens in East Oakland Monday's Briefing: Judge Said Desley Brooks Lied Under Oath; Head of Alameda Firefighters Union Seeks $ 2 001< from City Best Of Nomination Voting Is Now Live! Vote for your favorite East Bay businesses and people. RECENT ISSUES Apr25,2018 3 of 4 AprlB,2018 Aprll.2018 5/2/2018, 12:11 PM Alameda County Sheriff's Decision to Make Inmate Release Dates Pu ... Apr 4, 2018 Mar 28, 2018 https ://www. eastbay express. com/Seven Days/arc hi ves/2018/04/03/al. .. Mar 21, 2018 MORE ISSUES» BEST OF THE EAST BAY 2017 OTHER YEARS Best Of Nominees 2016 Best of the East Bay 2017 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 4 of 4 5/2/2018, 12:11 PM EXHIBIT L REDACTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG - UNITED STATES v. CALIFORNIA, et al., 1:18-cv-490-JAM-KJN (E.D. CAL.) Bates # Declaration Paragraph USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 42 000058 - 59 Document Title/Subject Source/From: Crimes of Arrest For N/A San Diego, list of specific crimes and aliens arrested for them Recipient/To: and CC: Date Disposition Description of Redacted Material Privilege(s) N/A N/A Produced with Redactions Throughout document: Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. First Redaction: Name of person who printed e-mail chain - no direct involvement in case example. Second Redaction: Recommendation for handling future criminal warrant cases. First Redaction: Internal questions and discussion about handling immigration case and case history. Second Redaction: Attorney notes regarding immiration case litigation. First Redaction: Internal discussion of techniques/plan for effectuating arrest. Second Redaction: Name of Law Enforcment Agent of Officer. Third Redaction: Internal discussion regarding recommendation for handling future cases generally. Throughout document: Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Throughout document: Three columns labeled Case Notes, FBI #, and Special Instructions. Case Notes and Special Information columns contain officer notes, potential arrest plans or dates, times, locations of potential future arrest opportunity. FBI # contains identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Law Enforcment Privilege; Third Agency Information USvCA_Homan_Depo 000060 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000061 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 42 PART 2 000064 Email chain discussing case example Ziegler, Douglas Hamelin, Scott; Linscott, John; Greene, Joseph; Gross, Paul Jan. 6, 2018 Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo 000066 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 42 000463 - 512 PART 3 N/A ERO San Diego Tracker for Detainers Not Honored N/A N/A Produced with Redactions Not Responsive; Deliberative Process Deliberative Process; Attorney Work Product Law Enforcement; Deliberative Process Third Agency Information Law Enforcement, Deliberative Process; Third Agency Information USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44a 000067, 69, 70, 80, 81 Selected Pages: EARM Search Results N/A N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44a 000071 -79 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000084 Crimional History Record N/A N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Form I-213 N/A N/A Sept. 25, 2017 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44b 000090, 96-97, 10102, 119-20, 122-23, 127-28, 132-33, 13743 Selected Pages: N/A EARM Search Result N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44b 000103 - 17 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000091 - 92 Criminal History Record N/A N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Form I-213 N/A USvCA_Homan_Depo 000088-89 Paragraph 44a PART 2 Paragraph 44b USvCA_Homan_Depo 000094 N/A N/A Produced with Redactions Produced with Redactions Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Throughout document: Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Throughout pages: Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Two Redactions: Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Third Agency Information Third Agency Information Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Third Agency Information Third Agency Information Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44c 000147, 151-52, 16671 Selected Pages: N/A EARM Search Result N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44c 000153-62 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000163-64 Criminal History Record N/A N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Form I-213 N/A Paragraph 44c N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo 000165 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000179, 184-86, 19295 Paragraph 44d Selected Pages: N/A EARM Search Result N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo 000193 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44d 000187-91 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000180 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000182 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000183 Paragraph 44d Criminal History Record N/A Form I-213 N/A N/A N/A N/A Feb. 25, 2018 Produced Redacted in Full Produced with Redactions Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Two Redactions: Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Discussion of attorney advice. Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Third Agency Information Third Agency Information Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive Third Agency Information Third Agency Information Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive Attorney-Client USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44e 000198, 214-15 Selected Pages: N/A EARM Search Result N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44e 000206-11 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000212 Criminal History Record N/A N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Form I-213 N/A Paragraph 44e N/A Mar. 8, 2012 Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo 000213 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44f 000221-22 Selected Pages: N/A EARM Search Result N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44f 000226-28 Form I-213 N/A N/A Sept. 26, 2016 Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44f 000229-35 Criminal History Record N/A N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. First and Second Redactions: Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Third and Fourth Redactions: Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Third Agency Information Third Agency Information Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Third Agency Information; Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive Third Agency Information USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44f 000236-38 PART 2 EARM Search Result N/A N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44g 000239 EARM Search Result N/A N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44g 000260-68 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000269 Criminal History Record N/A N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Form I-213 N/A Paragraph 44g N/A Mar. 1, 2012 Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo 000270 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44h 000278, 301-16 Selected Pages: N/A EARM Search Result N/A N/A Produced with Redactions Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Third and Fourth Redactions: Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Third Agency Information Third Agency Information Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive Not Responsive/Internal Use Only USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44h 000282 Form I-213 N/A N/A Mar. 27, 2018 Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo 000298-99 Paragraph 44h Form I-213 N/A N/A Aug. 1, 2018 Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo 000300 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44h 000284-97 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45a 000318 Criminal History N/A Record EARM Search Result N/A N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Produced with Redactions N/A N/A USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45a 000320 Form I-213 N/A N/A Mar. 28, 2018 Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45a 000324-27 Criminal History Record N/A N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Third and Fourth Redactions: Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Third and Fourth Redactions: Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Third and Fourth Redactions: Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Third Agency Information Third Agency Information Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive Third Agency Information Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Third Agency Information Third Agency Information USvCA_Homan_Depo 000329 Paragraph 45a Form I-213 N/A N/A Jun. 7, 2015 Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo 000330-31 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45b 000332, 341-49 Selected Pages: N/A EARM Search Result N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45b 000337-40 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45b 000336 Criminal History Record Form I-213 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45b 000343 EARM Search Result N/A N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45c 000350-51, 363-64 Selected Pages: N/A EARM Search Result N/A N/A Produced with Redactions Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Third and Fourth Redactions: Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Third and Fourth Redactions: Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Third Agency Information Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Third Agency Information Third Agency Information Protected by Regulation or Statute, Not Responsive Not Responsive/Internal Use Only USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45c 000353 Form I-213 N/A N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45c 000357-60 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45d 000373-78 PART 4 USvCA_Homan_Depo 000379-87 Criminal History Record Criminal History Record N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Produced Redacted in Full Paragraph 45d PART 4 EARM Search Result N/A N/A N/A Produced with Redactions USvCA_Homan_Depo 000386 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 51 000389 PART 2 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 77 000513-523 CA Detention Bed N/A N/A Capacity Numbers Michael Garcia and N/A Significant Public Robert Bonner Benefit Parole Protocol for U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies N/A USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78 000423-460 USCIS Department of Homeland Secuirty USCIS Central Index System U.S. DOJ Criminal Office of Division International Affairs N/A N/A Produced with Redactions Homeland Security Investigations Dec. 1, 2017 Produced Redacted in Full USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78 000461 May 9, 2005 and Sept. 22, 2005 Produced with Redactions Produced with Redactions Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Third and Fourth Redactions: Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Printout from third agency database NCIC information. Top Right and Bottom Left of Page Redactions: Username and internal URL for internal ICE database, disclosure of which would reveal various law enforcement techniques regarding which individuals make which decisions, have access to systems, etc., which would permit those seeking to evade law enforcement to discern which employees to target, and permit the hacking of government systems. Identifying number assigned by another federal law enforcement agency, disclosure of which could compromise ongoing law enforcement activities by that agency. Third and Fourth Redactions: Information redacted that is protected by statute or regulation, and not used or relied upon in declaration. Name of person who submitted, but did not create, the chart. Throughout Document: Internal descriptions, definitions, policies, and procedures regarding the parole process and discussion of law enforcement techniques and operational processes involving paroles, definitions and descriptions of methods known only to the agency and/or law enforcement community Printouts from USCIS databases used to conduct investigative checks on any prior immigration application history of the potential parolee. Request for Significant Public Benefit Parole Third Agency Information Third Agency Information Third Agency Information Not Responsive/Internal Use Only Third Agency Information Not Responsive Law Enforcement Law Enforcement, Third Agency Information Attorney Work Product USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78 000005 PART 2 ICE Memorandum re Signifcant Public Benefit Parole ICE Memorandum re Signifcant Public Benefit Parole ICE Memorandum re Signifcant Public Benefit Parole Mandatory Tracking Requirements Brenda Nevano Joseph Macias Feb. 20, 2018 Produced with Redactions Brenda Nevano HSI Assistant Attache Feb. 20, 2018 Produced with Redactions Brenda Nevano Field Office Parole Coordinator Feb. 20, 2018 Produced with Redactions Brenda Nevano Vaugh Ary, Renee Baer Feb. 20, 2018 Produced with Redactions DHS ICE Parole Chronology and Review Form Department of Homeland Secuirty USCIS Central Index System U.S. DOJ Criminal Division N/A N/A Feb. 20, 2018 Produced with Redactions USCIS N/A N/A Produced Redacted in Full Office of International Affairs Homeland Security Investigations Feb. 13, 2018 Produced Redacted in Full USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78 000053-56 PART 2 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 39 000524-526 Email chain discussing case Email Brenda Nevano Crystal Williams Feb. 20, 2018 LOS Office of Chief Counsel ICE OPLA Feb. 12, 2018 Produced with Redactions Withheld in Full USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44(f) 000527 Emails LOS Field Office LOS Office of Chief Counsel Feb. 21, 2018 Withheld in Full USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45(d) 000528-533 Emails ICE OPLA LOS Office of Chief Counsel Feb. 27, 2018 Withheld in Full USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45(d) 000534-535 Emails ICE OPLA LOS Office of Chief Counsel Feb. 27, 2018 Withheld in Full USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 51 000536 Emails ICE ERO ICE OPLA Mar. 5, 2018 Withheld in Full USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 51 000537-540 Emails ICE OPLA ICE Management and Jan. 16, 2018 Administation Withheld in Full USvCA_Homan_depo Paragraph 78 000541-544 Emails ICE OPLA ICE HSI and DOJ Crim Withheld in Full USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78 000006 PART 2 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78 000007 PART 2 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78 000008 PART 2 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78 000009 PART 2 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78 000010 - 48 PART 2 USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78 000049 PART 2 Jan. 17, 2018 Proposed travel itinerary of parolee and escorting law enforcement officials. Proposed travel itinerary of parolee and escorting law enforcement officials. Proposed travel itinerary of parolee and escorting law enforcement officials. Description of potential monitoring and tracking requirements used for paroles. Internal case history and routing notes. Law Enforcement Printouts from USCIS databases used to conduct investigative checks on any prior immigration application history of the potential parolee. Discussion of draft travel plans and operational details of travel and additional operational requirements needed for further processing. Throughout document: Proposed travel itinerary. Attorney communications and summaries regarding information contained in paragraph 39 in anticipation of litigation. Attorney-client e-mail discussing summary of case in anticipation of litigation Attorney communications and summaries regarding information contained in paragraph 45 in anticipation of litigation. Email and attachment of attorney communications and summaries regarding information contained in paragraph 45 in anticipation of litigation. Attorney and attorney-client discussions and questions regarding information to place into paragraph 51 in anticipation of litigation. Attorney and attorney-client discussions regarding proposed litigation. Attorney and attorney-client discussions regarding parole request. Law Enforcement, Third Agency Information Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Deliberative Process, Not Responsive Law Enforcement, Deliberative, Third Party Information Law Enforcement, Deliberative Attorney Work Product/Attorney Client Privilege Attorney Work Product/Attorney Client Privilege Attorney Work Product/Attorney Client Privilege Attorney Work Product/Attorney Client Privilege Attorney Work Product/Attorney Client Privilege Attorney Work Product/Attorney Client Privilege Attorney Work Product/Attorney Client Privilege USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 88 000545-549 Emails ICE OPLA ICE OPLA Feb. 27, 2018 Withheld in Full Attorney and attorney-client discussions regarding proposed litigation. Attorney Work Product/Attorney Client Privilege EXHIBIT M FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT N FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT O FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT P FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT Q FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT R FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT S FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?