Sheriff Luna Outlines Inmate Transfers to ICE Protocol

Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna addressed the department’s protocols for transferring inmates to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during a press conference on Thursday.

Sheriff Luna clarified that such transfers are infrequent but have occurred over the past two months.

He emphasized that transfers only happen when a federal judicial warrant, signed by a judge, is presented. This aligns with both California state law and county policy.

The Sheriff’s department is fully compliant with existing legislation,including California Senate bill 54,also known as the “sanctuary state” law. This law restricts local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration officials, except under very specific and lawful conditions.

Luna detailed the specific circumstances under which the county will cooperate and transfer inmates.

As of Thursday, 20 individuals had been transferred between May and June. The majority of these individuals faced serious or violent charges, including attempted murder, robbery, rape, and sexual battery.

In every instance, a judicial warrant signed by a judge was obtained prior to the transfer.

Sheriff Luna described these warrants as an effective and peaceful method for transferring individuals who have committed serious or violent offenses.

What legal basis does the Sheriff’s Office use to justify not honoring ICE detainers without a warrant?

Understanding the New Protocol for ICE Detainers

Sheriff Luna today detailed a revised protocol governing inmate transfers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This update, effective promptly, aims to clarify procedures, ensure legal compliance, and enhance transparency regarding the handling of individuals potentially subject to deportation.The new guidelines address growing concerns surrounding ICE detainer requests, immigration enforcement, and the rights of incarcerated individuals. This policy impacts county jails, immigration law, and local law enforcement practices.

Key components of the Protocol

The revised protocol centers around a multi-step verification process before any inmate transfer to ICE is authorized. Here’s a breakdown of the core elements:

Detainer Review: All ICE detainer requests will undergo a thorough legal review by the Sheriff’s Office legal counsel. This review will assess the validity of the detainer,ensuring it meets all legal requirements and is supported by probable cause.

Warrant Requirement: Unless a valid judicial warrant is presented, the Sheriff’s Office will not honor ICE detainers. This aligns with recent court rulings emphasizing the need for judicial oversight in immigration enforcement.

Inmate Notification: Inmates will be informed of any ICE detainer issued against them and provided with facts regarding their rights, including access to legal counsel.

Data Collection & Reporting: The Sheriff’s Office will maintain detailed records of all ICE detainer requests, including the outcome of the legal review and any subsequent actions taken. This data will be publicly reported annually to promote accountability.

Training for Jail Staff: Extensive training will be provided to all jail staff on the new protocol, focusing on recognizing ICE detainers, understanding legal requirements, and respecting inmate rights. This training will cover jail procedures, constitutional rights, and immigration court processes.

Legal Basis and Justification

Sheriff Luna emphasized that the protocol is grounded in a commitment to upholding both public safety and the constitutional rights of all individuals. The policy is a direct response to evolving legal interpretations surrounding ICE detainers, especially the Fourth Amendment implications of prolonged detention without judicial review.

Recent court cases have highlighted the potential for unlawful detention when ICE detainers are honored without a warrant. This new protocol aims to mitigate legal risks for the county and ensure that all actions taken are consistent with the law. The policy also acknowledges the distinction between the roles of sheriffs and police, with sheriffs often handling jail operations and inmate transfers.

Impact on Local Communities & Stakeholders

This revised protocol will have a notable impact on various stakeholders:

Immigrant Communities: The policy provides increased protections for individuals potentially facing deportation, ensuring due process and access to legal representation.

Legal Advocates: The enhanced transparency and data reporting requirements will allow legal advocates to monitor ICE enforcement activities and advocate for their clients.

ICE: The protocol necessitates a higher standard for ICE detainer requests, requiring valid warrants in most cases.

County Taxpayers: by minimizing the risk of legal challenges, the protocol aims to protect the county from costly litigation.

Addressing Common Concerns: ICE Detainer vs. immigration Warrant

A frequent point of confusion revolves around the difference between an ICE detainer and an immigration warrant.

ICE Detainer: A request from ICE asking a local jail to hold an inmate for up to 48 hours beyond their release date, allowing ICE to take custody. It is not a warrant.

Immigration Warrant: A legally issued document signed by a judge authorizing the arrest and detention of an individual for immigration violations.

Sheriff Luna stressed that the new protocol prioritizes honoring valid immigration warrants issued by a judge, while scrutinizing ICE detainers to ensure legal compliance.

Benefits of the New Protocol

Implementing this protocol offers several key benefits:

reduced Legal Risk: Minimizes the potential for lawsuits related to unlawful detention.

Enhanced Public Trust: Demonstrates a commitment to upholding constitutional rights and due process.

Improved Transparency: Provides greater accountability and public access to information regarding ICE enforcement activities.

Strengthened Community relations: Fosters trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.

Clear Guidelines: Provides jail staff with clear and concise instructions for handling ICE detainer requests.

Real-World Example: The City of Portland Case

The City of Portland, Oregon, faced a lawsuit over its policy of honoring ICE detainers without warrants