Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11113063 (posted Oct. 30, 2014)"
Key to this administration's strategy has been programs that partner with local law enforcement (such as Secure Communities) and the civil immigration detainers on which they rely. These programs have come under attack due to their negative impact on community policing, susceptibility to racial profiling, and their indiscriminate approach to immigration enforcement.
AILA Press Statements
State and Local Actions
Recent News (Updated 10/29/2014)
- Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon) (4/11/2014) (AILA Doc. No. 14042148.) The court agreed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that detainers are not mandatory. The court further found that the county violated the Fourth Amendment by holding Ms. Miranda-Olivares solely on the basis of the detainer, without determining whether it had probable cause to detain her.
- Galarza v. Lehigh County (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) (3/3/2014) (AILA Doc. No. 14030447.) The court held that immigration detainers are nonbinding, voluntary requests. Lehigh County "was free to disregard the ICE detainer." The suit involved a U.S. citizen who was held in Lehigh County Prison for 3 days on a detainer after posting bail.
- Morales v. Chadbourne (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island) (2/12/2014) U.S. citizen plaintiff held in state correctional facility for 24 hours on a detainer survived motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against ICE officials and state officials for Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations.
- Villars v. Kubiatowski (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) (5/5/14) (AILA Doc. No. 14060344.) The court agreed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that detainers are not mandatory. The court further found that Villars, who was held on a detainer after posting bail, had successfully stated a claim against police and county defendants for detaining him without probable cause under the Fourth Amendment as well as procedural and substantive due process violations, noting that local officers generally lack authority to arrest individuals suspected of civil immigration violations (citing Arizona v. U.S.).
State and Local Advocacy