ACLU Sues ICE and Sonoma County Sheriff For Exceeding Local Authority in Immigration-Related Arrests –
Last week, a federal judge in San Francisco allowed a lawsuit to move forward that charges the unlawful collaboration between the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department and the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to unlawfully target, arrest, and detain Latinos in Sonoma County.
According to a release from the ACLU, the lawsuit charges that “the Sonoma Sheriff’s department and its officers have collaborated with ICE to stop and search people who appear to be Latino, interrogate them about their immigration status based on their perceived race, and detain them in the County jail without lawful authority. The Sheriff’s Department and ICE have failed to notify individuals who they have targeted of their rights under the law and the charges against them, among other violations of due process.”
The judge considered Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department and ICE motions for reconsideration of a March 10, 2010 ruling that allowed the plaintiffs to seek evidence in support of their constitutional and statutory claims, the ACLU release said on Monday.
“Public safety and crime fighting suffer when we overburden local and state law enforcement agencies with federal immigration authority,” said Richard Coshnear of the Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, a group devoted to educating the public about immigrants’ legal rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. “Instead of making our communities safer, the Sheriff’s actions distract deputies from their crime-fighting duties, create a climate of fear, and decrease the willingness of residents to report crimes.”
Leaving in place an unchallenged legal ruling that the Sonoma County Sheriff’s and ICE’s use of immigration detainers was not per se unlawful, this order gives the green light to plaintiff Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County’s claims that the County and ICE are violating equal protection, due process, search and seizure, and statutory requirements in their use of immigration detainers to arrest persons on suspected civil—as opposed to criminal—immigration violations and hold them in the County jail without criminal charges.
According to the suit, for three years sheriff deputies and ICE agents have stopped and searched people who appear to be Latino, interrogated them about their immigration status, and detained them in the county jail without lawful authority.
The lawsuit charges that the actions by the local sheriff and ICE violated constitutional guarantees of due process, equal protection, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the Sheriff’s Department acted beyond its authority in enforcing federal immigration law.
The suit challenges four specific polices and practices:
- Sheriff’s deputies and ICE agents using race as a motivating factor for traffic stops and other detentions, in violation of constitutional and statutory guarantees of equal protection;
- Sheriff’s deputies and ICE agents stopping, interrogating, searching, and arresting persons without adequate justification;
- Sheriff’s deputies arresting and holding individuals in the County jail without any lawful basis for detention; and
- Denial of due process to people arrested on suspected immigration violations and improperly held in the custody of the Sheriff.
The ACLU-NC filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on behalf of three individuals who were unlawfully detained, as well as on behalf of the Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, a local community organization.
California law, according to the ACLU’s suit, does not permit local sheriffs and police to enforce immigration law. But in Sonoma County, deputy sheriffs have arrested people suspected of violating civil immigration law and placed them in county jail without a warrant or any criminal basis for arrest.
The ACLU charges that once they are booked in county jail, arrestees in Sonoma are typically held for more than three days without being told what the charges are against them, provided with access to legal services, told that statements they make may be used against them in immigration proceedings, or notified that they have a right to a hearing, including a hearing to determine whether they may be released on bond.
The Lawsuit
In part the complaint charges, “On October 5, 2007, at a meeting with representatives of Plaintiff Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Defendant Sheriff Cogbill and other members of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, with counsel, confirmed that Defendant Sheriff’s Department had regularly engaged in joint patrols with ICE for the previous three years, had arrested individuals based on suspected immigration violations without a criminal basis for arrest outside the presence of ICE agents, and has adopted the policy and practice of holding individuals in the Sonoma County jail based on suspected civil immigration violations, and without any criminal basis for arrest, at the request of ICE agents.”
According to the Judge’s ruling, “the basic allegation is that the County has admitted to ongoing and regular participation in the joint patrols with ICE that give rise to the arrests plaintiffs contend are unlawful for other reasons as well.”
The suit contends, “For at least the past four years, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department — under the direction of Sheriff Bill Cogbill — has been working with ICE and its officers to enforce civil immigration law against Latino persons in Sonoma County, in excess of local authority. This collaboration takes place in the field in two ways: (1) by Sheriff’s deputies participating in joint patrols with ICE agents that specifically target Latino residents of Sonoma County, and (2) by Sheriff’s deputies identifying and arresting persons suspected of being unauthorized noncitizens outside the presence of ICE officers, but with the agency’s approval.”
According to the suit, Sheriff Cogbill has created an multi-agency gang enforcement team known as MAGNET. “MAGNET’s purported primary goal is stop gang-related violence and associated criminal activity. However, MAGNET’s participants… do not limit their enforcement activities to such criminal activity.”
Instead the suit alleges that they target Latinos in Sonoma County who are not engaged in criminal activity. MAGNET patrols “areas of Sonoma County that have high Latino populations and target young Latino males or young males who appear to be Latino for traffic stops, often without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or traffic infraction. After stopping such individuals, Defendants interrogate and search them, even where there is no reasonable suspicion that such individuals are engaged in criminal activity or present a threat to safety.”
According to the suit, “Defendants have adopted the policy, practice and custom of relying on the impermissible factors of race, color and/or ethnicity to stop, detain, question and/or search persons who are or appear to be Latino and to prolong their initial stops to probe into their immigration status without reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime or are noncitizens without lawful immigration status.”
After these stops, the suit continues to allege that individuals are placed in the Sonoma County jail without criminal charges or actual criminal basis simply because they are suspected of violating civil immigration laws. Moreover, the Sheriff’s Department has taken to conduct this policy without the presence or even knowledge of ICE agents. Again, “These racially-motivated stops are frequently unsupported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the person or persons stopped have violated any criminal law.”
Furthermore, even where such stops may be supported by initial reasonable suspicion, they have “have adopted the policy, practice and custom of prolonging the initial stop to interrogate individuals about their immigration status and conducting searches of their persons and vehicles despite having neither any criminal basis to prolong the detention nor any investigatory or safety justification for the searches.”
The bottom line here is that while Arizona has gained much attention and notoriety for their actions, virtually the same policy is being carried out in Sonoma County in California, under the direction of the Sheriff’s Department and at times ICE. Such policies would seem to exceed the legal mandate that the Sheriff’s Department and even ICE have in such matters.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“As the nation repudiates Arizona’s racial profiling law”
Actually the polls show that most of the nation is firmly behind Arizona’s new law.
Polls not withstanding, given the number of governmental entities that have voted to either censure, boycott, denounce, or sanction Arizona, I believe that phrase is accurate.
David, do you know how stupid that statement is? A handful of left leaning city councils have voted to boycott Arizona and you say that represents the nation. Let’s just ignore the overwhelming national popularity of the law with your “Polls not withstanding”.
You do realize that I did not say that, it was a quote from the ACLU official. My statement was more nuanced, “While many in the nation including members of our community and adjacent jurisdictions…”
I know that tens of thousands of people in our community or surrounding communities have either gone to Arizona to protest or have protested here. I think the statement is justified.
Come on rusty49, David is counting on the cheap, illegal labor from Mexico so the city can contract out road repairs and facility maintenance, thus eliminating those costly union jobs with all the frills like health care and pensions.(Hyperbole and sarcasm)
DMG: “California law, according to the ACLU’s suit, does not permit local sheriffs and police to enforce immigration law.”
I find this a curious statement. It is my understanding (as an attorney) federal law trumps state law. The local sheriffs and police and ICE agents are mandated to carry out federal immigration law – the CA law notwithstanding – which of course would include the requirements of due process, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to effect a traffic stop, and so forth. Federal law works both ways – defines what is criminal activity, but provides protections to the accused. No state has the right to override federal law with less stringent state restrictions on immigration. Am I missing something here?
Just to clarify Municipal hiring practices for subcontrators:
All City employees and contractors must pay their employee Prevailing wages, i.e. you can’t hire contractors who pay workers “on the cheap” minimum or below wages, but wages comparable to union wages. This is federal law.
We won’t be balancing City budgets on backs of undocumented workers in California…or Arizona. Private companies not doing contracts for government entities can, however.
For those interested in more information, the ACLU’s press release actually includes the [url]case docs[/url].
Rusty 69: “As the nation repudiates Arizona’s racial profiling law”
DPD: “Polls not withstanding, given the number of governmental entities that have voted to either censure, boycott, denounce, or sanction Arizona, I believe that phrase is accurate.”
They often pander to minority groups for votes, but that doesn’t mean their opinion is representative of the community as a whole, including voters.
I also think it is curious that not too long after the immigration law passed, President Obama decided to put troops on the border. My interpretation of this was he was trying to diffuse the amount of traction the Arizona Law was getting. I think the public wants something done about illegal immigration.
[i]”Arizona’s immigration law … gives law enforcement the legal ability to racially profile in an effort to identify potential undocumented workers and residents …”[/i]
This is false in two respects:
1. It does not change anything to make it legal to “racially profile.” In fact, cops won’t ever enforce this law by itself. That is, no one can be arrested under this law unless they are legally stopped by the police for something else. (If there is no underlying violation, the cop would be in trouble.)
Yet profiling might be a realistic consequence of how it is enforced, if it is really enforced. (It’s not yet known.) But if that does happen, the law will be overturned or its enforcement mechanisms will legally be required to change. Here is the specific text from Arizona’s law dealing with profiling: [quote] A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection.[/quote]2. There is no distinction between “undocumented workers” and “undocumented residents.
Moreover, the enforcement mechanism in the law is not “to identify” illegal aliens as such. It is, when someone is arrested by the police (including minor stops* for things like being stopped for traffic violations, drunk in public, loitering, domestic disputes*, etc.), the police officer, who already was authorized to legally ask for identification, must, if the person who is arrested has no legal ID and appears to be an alien**, determine if the arrestee is lawfully in the United States. To do that, the cop is supposed to detain the arrestee and call ICE, who can (through its database) determine the person’s immigration status.***
As I see it, there are three serious problems with this law:
*If someone is a witness to a crime or a victim of a crime, but is an illegal alien, is she going to call the cops or testify? Also, minor violations of the law are very often subjectively enforced. But because this law pressures cops to enforce it — they can be sued if they don’t — cops will lose some of that discretion with minor offenses; and discretion makes law enforcement work.
**Appears to be an alien might be pretty obvious in the case of most Latino illegals. That is, they can’t speak English or they don’t know who Dolly Madison was, etc. But what about Canadian illegals? Or someone from Germany or even say Argentina, who speaks good English and is educated? How would they “appear to be aliens”?
***The problem with having to call up ICE every time you arrest someone for say, jaywalking or littering, is it could take hours of police time. Even if they hire a special force just to take on this task, I suspect ICE will become overwhelmed, as will some law enforcement agencies in Arizona.
Kane 69
“I think the public wants something done about illegal immigration.”
I know the “nation” wants something done which is backed by the polls.
I agree that the public wants something done about illegal immigration. In my view, until we are able to find a way that people who wish to enter this country to work can do so in a realistic and efficient way, illegal immigration and more importantly the problems surrounding it will continue. All these sorts of actions will do is alienate Latinos who are legal residents of this country.
“I find this a curious statement. It is my understanding (as an attorney) federal law trumps state law.”
Elaine, I believe the reference there was to the fact that the ACLU was alleging the Sheriff to be carrying out immigration enforcement independent of ICE. The complaint about ICE is their their racial profiling tactics.
I understand this is not an isolated case and was tipped off to another problem county.
rusty49 wrote, “Actually the polls show that most of the nation is firmly behind Arizona’s new law.”
And because the polls seem to indicate that the majority of Americans support Arizona’s law that means it is an effective solution to the immigration debacle and constitutional?
Politicians were pandering, this law is not the solution. What’s more, this law could make law enforcement’s job more difficult, which brings into question public safety concerns.
Rich, good points. I wonder how Arizona’s law will affect the filing of complaints against local and state law enforcement agencies and their officers? How will they investigate these complaints to determine whether or not there is a basis for them, when the involved parties include, or are solely based of, individuals who are unlawfully residing in the US?
“And because the polls seem to indicate that the majority of Americans support Arizona’s law”
The polls don’t “seem” to indicate, they state it outright.
“Arizona’s law that means it is an effective solution to the immigration debacle and constitutional?”
How can it be unconstitutional, it mirrors the Federal law already on the books.
“How will they investigate these complaints to determine whether or not there is a basis for them, when the involved parties include, or are solely based of, individuals who are unlawfully residing in the US?”
That’s really laughable, “individulas who are unlawfully residing in the US”. I think you just answered your own question.
I remember seeing polls showing that a majority of LEGAL residents of Hispanic descent are in favor of better enforcement of existing immigration laws. They became citizens by the (arduous) legal process and would like to see other Hispanics behave up to the same high standards; also of course they benefit by not having their wages undercut and jobs competed for by incoming illegals.
I think it’s interesting that Mr. Greenwald seems to suggest that the agenda of ‘government entities’ should constitute the will of the nation; rather than the majority of citizens as polled.
“I think it’s interesting that Mr. Greenwald seems to suggest that the agenda of ‘government entities’ should constitute the will of the nation; rather than the majority of citizens as polled.”
The majority of the citizens is the will of the nation.
My guess is that some case like this —
http://www.azfamily.com/news/91769419.html —
will result in a lawsuit, as legal residents sue on the basis that they believe their rights have been violated. The interested parties upset about Arizona’s law are probably legal residents of Arizona who are Hispanic. I don’t have to carry identification when I go for a walk, jog, or bike ride. Legal Hispanics in Arizona may have problems if they don’t now. The key question is how law enforcement officers will interpret probable cause.
I think everyone would like to find a better way to deal with the immigration problem. In terms of enforcement, I agree people of Latino origin would prefer better enforcement, but I think most recognize that these kinds of policies throw all of them into the same boat.
As I said earlier, immigration will remain a problem until we find a way to allow people who want to come to this country to work to do so in a fair and evenhanded manner. Once that occurs, few people will want to deal with the outlaws and criminals who transport people now.
My initial comment had nothing to do with the will of the people, it expressed the fact that some people have focused their attention on Arizona when the same thing appears to be happening next door to their communities.
Rusty,
I haven’t followed the polls closely, but I’ll take your word for it. Regardless, that doesn’t mean this law is a good solution to the problem, does it? The voters elected Obama outright in 2008, how’s that workin’ out for ya? The polls may indicate that people are frustrated with immigration reform(or lack thereof) in general and just want something done, even if that means inacting a law that may in fact adversely affect public safety.
“How can it be unconstitutional, it mirrors the Federal law already on the books. “
We don’t know how this law is going to be enforced. What Federal law does SB 1070 “mirror”?
“That’s really laughable, “individulas who are unlawfully residing in the US”. I think you just answered your own question.”
Not really and how did I answer my own question exactly?
Police abuse is police abuse and even illegal citiznes should not be afraid to report it, for the safety of the public and the agencies abilty to work effectively within its community and its residents(legal and illegal.) Are unlawful residents not protected from police abuse?
A law enforcement agency losing the public’s trust is always bad. Those who are afraid to report police abuse, fearing the result will be their arrest and deportation, may be inclined to let it slied(this already happens, but I think this law exacerbates the problem.) Furthermore, those who feel law enforcement abused its authority will be trepidatious, with regards to filing a complaint, because their family members and friends could be contacted by law enforcement as well, in the process of law enforcement’s investigation into the conduct of the officer and/or agency?
Consequently, these folks may be more inclined not to file a complaint, as to avoid the possibility that they or their friends, family or acuaintences will be put in a compromising position or worse yet, arrested and deported. There’s also the possiblity that the witnesses to the abuse will simply not come forward, avoid law enforcement contacts as best they can or outright lie, out of fear that they will be detained, arrested or deported.
jimt wrote, “also of course they benefit by not having their wages undercut and jobs competed for by incoming illegals”
Can you support your assertion that Latino’s legally residing in the US and Latino’s illegally entering/residing in the US are or would be competing for the same jobs?
[quote]“also of course they benefit by not having their wages undercut and jobs competed for by incoming illegals”
Can you support your assertion that Latino’s legally residing in the US and Latino’s illegally entering/residing in the US are or would be competing for the same jobs? [/quote]
I wonder how much the wage factor is myth and how much is reality. For instance, I actually know a few people who are not legally in this country and from what I know they make the same amount that their either immigrant or citizen co-workers do. Along those lines, I think there are some I think there is some overlap in jobs.
David,
Interesting. Also, when you said ” I think there is some overlap in jobs”, you do mean amognst Latino’s right?
Yes, but also non-Latinos as well.
[i]”They became citizens by the (arduous) legal process and would like to see other Hispanics behave up to the same high standards.”[/i]
The way many, if not most Hispanic immigrants who are now citizens of the United States* became legal citizens was by way of the amnesty program (Simpson-Mazzoli) signed into law by President Reagan.
I don’t think doing that now would solve the problem for the long-term. Like David, I think we need a way to legally allow people who want to come here to work to do that with documentation. But amnesty is an option, and insofar as you are calling that process “arduous” and “legal,” then you should be advocating a Reagan-style amnesty program.
*I don’t know how many former illegal aliens became citizens under the Reagan amnesty law. I was a part owner of a business in San Francisco after the law came into effect. In our company, I recall signing off on the work-history papers of maybe a half dozen of our full-time laborers and maintenance staff (all Latinos, though not all Mexican) who were applying for U.S. citizenship under that program.
DON: [i]” I don’t have to carry identification when I go for a walk, jog, or bike ride. Legal Hispanics in Arizona may have problems if they don’t now.”[/i]
In the story you linked to, the man was driving a truck, not jogging, and he “provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number.” [quote]Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.[/quote] The real question in that case is how the law enforcement officers would have treated him if he were white or spoke with a Canadian accent.
It is odd that he was born in California and speaks with a thick Spanish accent. Then again, Lawrence Welk was born in the United States, grew up in a German-speaking town and never spoke any English until he was past puberty, and thus had a strange German accent his entire adult life … and his life turned out wunnerful ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMvqPffzDMQ[/url]).
{i]”I actually know a few people who are not legally in this country and from what I know they make the same amount that their either immigrant or citizen co-workers do.”[/i]
What you are observing is the market-clearing wage. In other words, if their productivity is equal, they should make (roughly) the same amount. But that does not in any way prove that low-skilled immigrants don’t harm the interests of low-skilled native workers. Ceteris paribus, of course they do. The greater supply of available workers lowers the price of those workers, much the same as the greater supply of any commodity lowers its market-clearing price.
The trouble, though, is that all else is not equal over time. For one thing, the immimgrant laborers, by increasing efficiencies (through low wages for high productivity) raise the standard of living of the rest of us over time, even if they are harming the interests of the native born who would have done those same jobs.
The second dynamic factor in our economy is that, if you keep out immigrants, (over time) employers have other choices: they will invest more in labor saving technologies or they will move their capital out of the country.
For example, when roofing a house, instead of hiring a bunch of laborers to hike up ladders carrying stacks of shingles, they will devise a hydraulic moving belt to move the shingles up onto the roof. (These were developed in the 1970s when there was a labor shortage.) Or farmers will grow less labor intensive crops (like canning tomatoes) in place of crops which still take a lot of workers. Or a manufacturer will close down his plant in Chicago or L.A. and open a new one in Monterrey, Mexico or Xiangnung, China.
So whether immigrants come here and screw over lower-skilled native born American workers or not, those folks are very likely to get screwed, unless they develop highly marketable skills for which there is no really cheap alternative.
CORRECTION: Wikipedia says Welk spoke English much earlier than I said above: [quote]Welk was born in the German-speaking community of Strasburg, North Dakota. … A common misconception is that Welk did not learn English until he was 21. In fact, he began learning English as soon as he started school. The part of North Dakota where he lived had been settled largely by Germans from Russia*; even his teachers spoke English as a second language. Welk thus acquired his trademark accent, a combination of the Russian and German accents.[/quote] A former sister-in-law of mine is one of the Russo-Germans. She grew up in Hague, ND, and her parents generation and earlier all speak English with a German accent. However, my ex-sister-in-law speaks English with the accent you hear in the movie, Fargo.
“It is odd that he was born in California and speaks with a thick Spanish accent.”
Rich: Not odd at all. I never met my mother-in-law, but have been told she was born in New Mexico and spoke with a thick accent, my wife and her siblings used to poke fun of her pronunciation. If you grow up in a Spanish speaking home in a prominently Spanish speaking community, you tend to have an accent regardless of birth.