Undermine Public Safety Through
Unnecessary Enforcement
Issue Brief
American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland
MAIN OFFICE:
3600 Clipper Mill Road
Suite 350
Baltimore, MD 21211
FIELD OFFICE:
6930 Carroll Avenue
Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
Learn more and get involved:
http://www.aclumd.org/issues/immigrants_rights
This report has been a project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland.
The report was researched and authored by ACLU of Maryland Immigrants’
Rights Attorney and Arthur Liman Public Interest Fellow Sirine Shebaya.
ACLU of Maryland staff Sara Love, Meredith Curtis, Toni Holness, and Peter
Cimbolic as well as ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project staff Kate Desormeau
provided invaluable review and feedback. Meredith Curtis created the layout.
Special thanks goes to ACLU of Maryland interns Alexandria Kim and Annie
Stallman for their many hours of work on the data entry and analysis that was
so integral to the production of this report.
The report is dedicated to the hundreds of thousands of aspiring citizens who
have faced indescribable obstacles to live and work in the United States and who
have needlessly been detained, criminalized, deported, separated from their
families, and treated without compassion or justice by a broken and inhumane
immigration enforcement system.
Cover photo shows a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent
arresting an immigrant (Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/).
Restoring Trust
How Immigration Detainers In Maryland Undermine Public Safety
Through Unnecessary Enforcement
November 2013
4 Executive Summary
6 Background: Overzealous Enforcement of a Broken Immigration System
8 A Way Forward: How Local Jurisdictions Can Take Control of Their Entanglement With
Immigration Enforcement
12 What the Numbers Show: Immigration Detainers Are Used Mostly Against Individuals
Charged with Traffic Violations and Minor Offenses
15 Spotlight on Maryland: A Deeper Look at Local Immigration Detainer Practices
18 Costs: The Social, Public Safety, and Financial Costs of Immigration Detainers
20 Conclusion
21 Endnotes
27 Appendix I: Form I247
30 Appendix II: Maryland Attorney General October 31 Letter of Advice to Senator Victor Ramirez
Re: Immigration Detainers
36 Appendix III: County fact sheets
49 Appendix IV: Law enforcement speak out in support of limited detainer policies
50 Appendix V: ICE admissions that immigration detainers are voluntary
Table of Contents
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
3
Amid record numbers of deportations and a climate of steppedup immigration enforcement that
reaches deep into the heart of Maryland communities, local law enforcement officials are unwittingly
being transformed into proxy immigration enforcers through their responses to immigration detainer
requests. Immigration detainers shift the burden of immigration enforcement activities from the fed
eral government to local law enforcement agencies. This imposes substantial costs on those agencies
and undermines the trust the Maryland communities they serve have in them.
Immigration detainers, often referred to as “ICE holds” or “immigration holds,” are notices sent from
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to local law enforcement agencies. Their purpose is
to request that the local law enforcement agency continue to hold the person named in the detainer
for up to 48 hours (exclusive of weekends and holidays) past the date they are eligible for release on
state grounds. Immigration detainers are issued by a single administrative ICE officer, without any
due process or review, and often for no better reason than that ICE wishes to investigate whether the
person has committed a civil immigration violation. The local law enforcement agency is then asked
to incur the expense of holding the person named in the detainer until ICE comes to pick him or her
up, potentially adding someone who may only ever have been picked up for a traffic violation to the
record number of deportations that break apart families all over the United States.
However, more and more jurisdictions are refusing to act as surrogates in the current deportation
frenzy. Recently, the Maryland Attorney General joined a number of other state and county attorneys in
recognizing that complying with immigration detainers is discretionary. Maryland should join other
states in deciding that complying with these requests is an inefficient use of our limited law enforce
ment resources and results only in destroying our communities.
Immigration detainers are not public safety tools. Their sole purpose is to further federal civil immi
gration enforcement efforts. Both in Maryland and nationwide, most immigration detainers are lodged
against individuals with no criminal record. In Maryland, most are lodged against individuals charged
only with traffic violations or with misdemeanors. Only a very small percentage are lodged against in
dividuals with serious or felony charges. The effect of this is simply to prolong the detention of individ
uals who would otherwise have been released—not to enhance public safety or local policing efforts
in any way.
Much confusion about the legal status of immigration detainers pervades state and local authorities’
understanding of their obligation to respond to immigration detainers. As several state and county at
torneys, including the Maryland Attorney General, have now concluded, immigration detainers are
purely discretionary, and the federal government does not have the authority to mandate compliance
with such requests. Immigration detainers are not criminal warrants; they are not civil administrative
warrants; and they are not and bear almost no resemblance to criminal detainers. Immigration de
tainers are merely requests initiated at the sole discretion of a single administrative officer and with
no review by a neutral magistrate or even by a supervising officer. Because of this, detention on the
sole basis of an immigration detainer raises serious constitutional concerns under the Fourth and the
Fourteenth Amendments.
Immigration detainers also impose significant financial costs on state and local jurisdictions, which
do not get reimbursed for the cost of responding to these requests. Every jurisdiction that has con
Executive Summary
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
4
ducted a fiscal impact study has found the net result to be a significant strain on local budgets.
Immigration detainers undermine public safety and community trust in police by turning them into
immigration enforcers; and they often catch victims and witnesses of crimes in their net. They also re
inforce perceptions of racial profiling. Both in Maryland and nationwide, they are used overwhelmingly
against individuals of Latin American origin. In large part as a result of such disproportionate target
ing, studies have found a resulting fear and unwillingness among Latinos to report crimes or to other
wise cooperate with local law enforcement.
As a result, several states, counties, and cities, including most recently the State of California, have
enacted policies or laws that eliminate or strictly narrow the parameters of their responsiveness to
immigration detainers. Law enforcement officials around the country have spoken out in favor of
these efforts, including former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano,
who publicly stated that she supports legislation in California that will limit state and local collabora
tion with the very federal agency she herself once headed.
Because of the negative impacts of immigration detainers on public safety, victims of crime, and local
budgets, Maryland should take control of its own policies and procedures with regard to federal immi
gration enforcement. By declining to comply without scrutiny with every immigration detainer request
that comes through the door, Maryland would eliminate a major source of fear within the Latino and
immigrant communities and would join the growing number of jurisdictions around the country that
are taking similar steps.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
5
Over the past few years, deportations from the United States have hit record highs. As of December
2012, President Obama had deported 1.5 million individuals, reaching an unprecedented 409,849 de
portations in the 2012 fiscal year (up from 396,906 in the 2011 fiscal year).
1
The number of immigrants
in detention has also grown exponentially: it now approaches half a million individuals annually and
more than 34,000 on any given day.
2
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including asylum seekers,
victims of trafficking, families with small children, and the mentally disabled are routinely detained for
months or even years in connection with their civil immigration proceedings, even when their release
from detention would pose no danger or flight risk and even when they have a strong chance of pre
vailing in their civil immigration proceedings.
3
In this climate of steppedup enforcement, tens of thousands of working families have been caught in
the fray. Those deported include individuals who have been living and working peacefully in the United
States, sometimes for years, and who come into contact with law enforcement through traffic stops or
other routine matters—or even worse, as victims of domestic violence or other crimes.
4
They include
parents with U.S. citizen children who have longstanding ties to the United States and no criminal
records; veterans of the U.S. military with old, minor, or posttraumatic stress disorder related crimi
nal records;
5
and unaccompanied children or mentally disabled individuals who appear in immigra
tion court without access to legal counsel. Even U.S. citizens have wrongfully been deported,
6
as have
lawful permanent residents who have known no home other than the United States since they were
children, and many others who have valid claims to remaining in the U.S. but lack the expertise to nav
igate an unwieldy, complicated, and broken immigration system.
The Secure Communities program (SComm), a federal biometrics program launched in 2008 and op
erationalized in all Maryland jurisdictions by April 2011,
7
has been a key tool in this enforcement effort
that has caught so many in its web. SComm has expanded the reach of immigration enforcement
deep into local communities in unprecedented ways. When an individual is fingerprinted at a local law
enforcement agency, the agency usually uploads the fingerprints to be checked against FBI criminal
databases. Under SComm, those fingerprints are then automatically sent on to the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), where they are checked against various databases that provide information
about immigration status.
As a result of this program, even the most routine encounter with local law enforcement can become a
direct pipeline into deportation proceedings. SComm is currently active in every jurisdiction in Mary
land and in most of the United States. Even localities that initially attempted to opt out of the program
— for example, New York State
8
— were forced back in when the federal government made “interop
erability” between FBI and DHS databases automatic, thereby effectively making the program manda
tory for any law enforcement agency that wishes to check fingerprints against FBI criminal databases.
Meanwhile, federal comprehensive immigration reform efforts, while still ongoing, are slow in coming,
leaving states to bear the full brunt of a broken immigration system that cuts into the heart of commu
nities so integral to their social, economic, and cultural fabric. Responding to this pressure, more and
more states have begun to take action to mitigate the problems the federal immigration system has
created. Over the past two years, numerous states have passed laws providing instate tuition for
DREAMers—undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children;
9
expanding access to
Background:
Overzealous Enforcement of a Broken Immigration System
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
6
driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants;
10
and, most recently, strictly narrowing the parame
ters under which local law enforcement participate in federal immigration enforcement efforts.
11
While Maryland now has an instate tuition law and a driver’s license law that is set to take effect in
January 2014, we have yet to take any real action to disentangle state and local law enforcement agen
cies from immigration enforcement efforts. This lack of clear separation has detrimental effects on
public safety. As the Major Cities Chiefs Association has stated, “[w]ithout assurances that contact with
the police would not result in purely civil immigration enforcement action, the hard won trust, commu
nication and cooperation from the immigrant community . . . disappear[s]. Such a divide between the
local police and immigrant groups . . . result[s] in increased crimes against immigrants and in the
broader community, creating a class of silent victims and eliminat[ing] the potential for assistance
from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.”
12
This effect is exacerbated by
the fact that, as the data presented in this report will show, the overwhelming majority of immigration
detainers in Maryland (and nationwide) are lodged against individuals charged only with traffic viola
tions or minor offenses, with only a very small percentage lodged against individuals charged with
felonies or serious offenses.
Figure 1: How the Secure Communities Program Works
Credit: Advancing Justice  Asian Law Caucus and Center for Popular Democracy
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
7
Despite SComm, state and local jurisdictions have a clear avenue for taking control of whether and
under what circumstances they wish to be pulled into immigration enforcement efforts: since ICE does
not reimburse localities for the costs of responding to these requests, the federal government lacks
the authority to mandate that state and local law enforcement agencies continue to respond to them.
The most common way local law enforcement have — sometimes unwittingly — become proxy immi
gration enforcers is through their responses to ICE immigration detainer requests.
What Is an Immigration Detainer?
Immigration detainers or Form I247, often referred to as “ICE holds” or “immigration holds,” are no
tices sent from ICE to local law enforcement agencies. Their purpose is to request that the local law
enforcement agency continue to hold the person named in the detainer for up to 48 hours (exclusive of
weekends and holidays) past the date he/she is eligible for release on state grounds. Eligibility for re
lease on state grounds can happen because an individual has posted bond, has been acquitted, has
had charges dismissed, or has otherwise received a final disposition or resolution of his or her state
charges. Thus, the most basic effect of an immigration detainer is to prolong the detention of individu
als in state or local custody past the time when they should otherwise be released.
This request for additional detention is made solely by ICE agents themselves, without any kind of re
view by a neutral magistrate, most often without so much as an underlying administrative warrant,
and even when no immigration charges are pending, simply because ICE wants additional time to in
vestigate the person’s immigration status. It is worth stressing, as will be discussed more fully in this
report, how astonishing and unique the looseness of this request is when compared to standard law
enforcement tools such as warrants and criminal detainers.
An immigration detainer is not a public safety tool. It is purely a means for ICE to take hold of individu
als who may be of interest to them in their civil immigration enforcement efforts. Immigration detain
ers do not substitute for state bail hearings, which are the proper avenue for determining whether an
individual poses a flight risk or a safety threat and whether he/she should be released or detained. In
deed, most immigration detainers, nationwide and in Maryland, are lodged against individuals with no
criminal record; and in Maryland, most are lodged against individuals with traffic charges only.
14
An immigration detainer may be issued against an individual at any point during the criminal justice
process, from initial arrest to final resolution. ICE can issue an immigration detainer request during
the initial police stop or arrest; at the point of booking into jail after an arrest; while the arrestee is in
jail (both before and after the bail hearing); at bail or custody hearings; anytime during the course of
the arrestee’s state criminal proceedings; and during the postconviction stage.
A Way Forward:
How Local Jurisdictions Can Take Control of Their Entanglement
With Immigration Enforcement
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
8
Figure 2: When An Immigration Detainer May Be Issued
Credit: Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus and Center for Popular Democracy
One damaging side effect is to unnecessarily prolong the pretrial detention of individuals with the
most minor offenses who pose no safety threat or flight risk and who ordinarily would have been re
leased on minimal bond.
15
This flies in the face of Maryland’s commitment to, in the recent words of
the state’s Court of Appeals, “avoid whenever possible the pretrial detention of accused persons.”
16
And, again, immigration detainers do not — and cannot—substitute for state court determinations of
flight risk or dangerousness in bond hearings.
17
Instead, they merely prolong the detention of indi
viduals who for the most part should not be detained without any due process and for the sole pur
pose of aiding federal immigration enforcement efforts.
To better understand the anomalous nature of immigration detainer requests, consider how they
compare with three other familiar law enforcement tools with which they are sometimes confused:
criminal warrants; administrative warrants; and criminal detainers.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
9
An immigration detainer is not a criminal warrant.
An immigration detainer differs from a criminal warrant in many ways. First, a criminal warrant may
only be issued by a court. While ICE, just like any other law enforcement agency, can put in a warrant
application to a court that results in the issuance of a criminal warrant, as an administrative agency, it
cannot issue a criminal warrant on its own authority. Second, a criminal warrant of arrest must be
supported by probable cause that the person named in the warrant has committed a crime and must
be issued by a neutral magistrate. By contrast, immigration detainers issue at the sole discretion of a
single administrative official working for ICE, the law enforcement agency. They are not reviewed by a
judge or neutral magistrate, and there is no clear standard of proof or probable cause that governs
their issuance. For this reason, immigration detainers raise serious constitutional concerns under the
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
An immigration detainer is not a civil administrative ICE warrant.
An immigration detainer is also not an administrative ICE warrant (Form I200). An ICE warrant issues
against individuals who are suspected of civil immigration violations. While administrative ICE war
rants also lack the significant procedural and substantive safeguards applied to criminal warrants and
criminal detainers, they at least indicate that the person in question is facing civil immigration
charges. Immigration detainers are frequently not based on an underlying immigration warrant and
do not even have the force of an ICE administrative warrant.
18
An immigration detainer is not a criminal detainer.
Finally, an immigration detainer is not, and does not have the same legal force as, a criminal detainer.
Criminal detainers do not call for additional detention time, and they are based on pending charges for
which a trial will be held. Criminal detainers are also subject to extensive procedural safeguards, usu
ally including approval by a judge. By contrast, immigration detainers call for additional detention
without due process or an opportunity for a prompt hearing to contest the detention. As previously
noted, they involve no meaningful substantive safeguards or procedural review.
For all these reasons, immigration detainers raise significant constitutional concerns under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments that are not at issue for criminal warrants and criminal detain
ers, and that differ in substance and context from the constitutional concerns that arise with respect to
administrative ICE warrants.
19
Indeed, the Major Cities Chiefs Association concluded long ago that
“civil detainers do not fall within the clear criminal enforcement authority of local police agencies and
in fact lay[] a trap for unwary officers who believe them to be valid criminal warrants or detainers.”
20
Immigration detainers are discretionary
Immigration detainers are requests, not orders. Local jurisdictions have the discretion to determine
how, if at all, they wish to respond to them. As an initial matter, the revised immigration detainer form
itself states, more than once, that immigration detainers are requests.
21
Second, the regulation under
which these forms are issued also states that immigration detainers are requests.
22
Third, ICE offi
cials have stated, repeatedly and in a variety of contexts, that compliance with these requests is not
mandatory.
23
In recent litigation, ICE formally stated in a brief it submitted to the court that “ICE de
tainers issued pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 are voluntary requests” and that “[i]t does not conscript
state or local law enforcement to take any action or administer any program.”
24
Indeed, if immigration
detainers were not discretionary, they would violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the Supreme
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
10
Court’s ruling in Printz v. United States,
25
the federal government does not have the authority to com
mandeer state and local resources for its own purposes.
26
Thus, the federal government does not
have the authority to mandate compliance with immigration detainers.
In fact, the Maryland Attorney General recently issued a letter of advice stating exactly that—that im
migration detainers are discretionary. This opinion is consistent with that of other state and county at
torneys across the country, including the California Attorney General and the Illinois Attorney General,
who have concluded for similar reasons that immigration detainers are discretionary.
27
Yet despite the fact that compliance with detainers is discretionary, most jurisdictions in Maryland
treat immigration detainers as though they were mandatory, and local law enforcement agencies ex
pend limited resources by responding to every immigration detainer request sent to their agencies.
Indeed, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, some counties have explicitly taken the position that
such requests are mandatory. For example, in correspondence with the ACLU of Maryland, the County
Attorney for Montgomery County stated that immigration detainers are “lawfully binding” requests and
that county officials are obligated to enforce them.
28
This contradicts ICE’s own repeated statements
and would, if true, entail that immigration detainers violate the Tenth Amendment by commandeering
state and local resources.
In effect, immigration detainers shift the burden of immigration enforcement activities from the fed
eral government to local law enforcement agencies. ICE does not assume responsibility or liability for
inmates held by local facilities.
29
This has led to significant indirect costs for jurisdictions that detain
individuals on the sole basis of an immigration detainer.
30
ICE also does not reimburse for the direct
or indirect costs of responding to immigration detainers.
31
From this overview, the negative impacts of local compliance with immigration detainer requests
should be clear. Immigration detainers are not public safety tools. They are purely civil immigration
enforcement tools and are issued indiscriminately and without due process or oversight. By entan
gling local law enforcement in immigration enforcement, they undermine public safety and commu
nity trust in local police and contribute to a culture of fear and suspicion. By shifting all the liability and
all or most of the direct and indirect costs of additional time in detention to local jurisdictions, they im
pose significant financial costs. Thus, responding to immigration detainers comes at social, economic,
and public safety costs to state and local jurisdictions.
Responding to these problems, a number of states, cities, and counties, including California, the Dis
trict of Columbia, Connecticut, New Orleans, LA, Newark, NJ, New York City, NY, and Champaign
County, IL have enacted laws or policies eliminating or strictly limiting their entanglement with ICE de
tainers.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
11
A number of myths pervade perceptions about immigration enforcement and recent ICE policies, in
cluding: that ICE is now targeting and deporting mostly criminals; that the subjects of immigration de
tainers are always undocumented or outofstatus individuals; that immigration enforcement has no
negative effects on U.S. citizens; and that immigration enforcement efforts are not based on race or
national or ethnic origin. Yet the numbers tell a very different story.
Most ICE detainers target noncriminals and minor offenders
While it is assumed that recent changes in ICE policy have resulted in more highlevel criminals being
targeted, the most recent national data shows otherwise. According to data gathered and analyzed by
the Syracuse Transactional Records Clearinghouse, six months after the new guidelines were issued
in December 2012,
32
less than 11 percent of detainers were lodged against individuals who pose a
threat to public safety or to national security. Only 38 percent were listed as having any criminal con
viction at all, including minor traffic violations. Indeed, if traffic offenses and marijuana possession are
discounted from that total, only 26 percent of individuals against whom detainers issued had criminal
convictions.
33
For nearly half the individuals against whom detainers were lodged (47.7 percent), ICE
listed no record of criminal convictions, not even for a traffic violation.
34
This continues a long trend of enforcement that targets individuals without a criminal record or with
only lowlevel offenses. During a 50month period from 2008 to 2012, more than two out of three de
tainers issued by ICE—over 77 percent—were against individuals who had no criminal record either
at the time the detainer issued or subsequently. Of those who had a criminal record, only 8.6 percent
were classified as Level 1 (the category of offenses ICE considers most serious).
35
These numbers are replicated throughout the immigration system, not just at the point of issuance of
immigration detainers. Only 14 percent of recent immigration court filings over the past year were
based on any kind of criminal offense.
36
Moreover, many of these were old offenses: almost half (49
percent) of the most serious offenses occurred more than five years ago; about a quarter (23 percent)
occurred more than 10 years ago; and a significant number occurred as long as 20 or 40 years ago.
37
According to ICE’s own data, between October 27, 2008 and May 31, 2013, only 29 percent of deported
individuals were convicted of Level 1 offenses; 49 percent of Level 2 and 3 offenses; and 22 percent
had no criminal conviction whatsoever.
38
In Maryland, the rates are even starker: of 1475 deportations during that period, only 350 (24 percent)
were for Level 1 offenses; 484 (33 percent) were for Level 2 or 3 offenses, which include traffic viola
tions and possession of marijuana; and fully 641 (43 percent) were individuals with no criminal of
fenses whatsoever.
What the Numbers Show:
Immigration Detainers Are Used Mostly Against Individuals
Charged with Traffic Violations and Minor Offenses
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
12
Figure 3: Deportations in Maryland
Chart created based on TRAC data
Immigration detainers are lodged against U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents
There is a common misperception that immigration detainers are lodged only against undocumented
individuals. In reality, an immigration detainer does not mean that a person is not lawfully present in
the country. Indeed, over the same 50month period covered in the TRAC data, ICE lodged at least 834
detainers against U.S. citizens, 724 (almost 87 percent) of whom had no criminal convictions. At least
seven of those individuals, none with criminal convictions, were from Maryland, with at least 3 from
Prince George’s County. The real numbers are likely higher, since fully 263 of the U.S. citizens held on
immigration detainers were from unspecified locations,
39
and data the ACLU of Maryland collected lo
cally shows at least 6 individuals from Puerto Rico who were mistakenly held on an immigration de
tainer.
Nationwide, 28,489 immigration detainers were lodged against lawful permanent residents, nearly
three quarters (20,281) of whom had no criminal convictions. At least 108 of those were from Mary
land, with only 21 (19.4 percent) recorded as being convicted of any crime.
40
It is important to note that U.S. citizens are never properly the subjects of immigration detainers, and
are never deportable, whether or not they are convicted of any crimes. Lawful permanent residents
are deportable only for very specific crimes and often have substantial defenses against deportation,
none of which are taken into account in the issuance of immigration detainers. Thus, by responding
to immigration detainers, local jurisdictions are often wasting their resources and possibly exposing
themselves to liability for unlawful detention when they indiscriminately rely on immigration detainer
requests as sufficient legal grounds for continued detention.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
13
Immigration enforcement negatively affects U.S. citizens
According to a recent study by the Berkeley Warren Institute, more than onethird (39 percent) of indi
viduals arrested through Secure Communities report having a U.S. citizen spouse or child. This trans
lates to about 88,000 families with US citizens nationwide who are impacted by immigration
enforcement actions.
41
Immigration enforcement disproportionately targets Latinos
The burden of overzealous immigration enforcement unquestionably falls most heavily on Latino and
Hispanic communities. The Warren Institute report concluded that 93 percent of those detained
through SComm are Latino, even though Latinos account only for about 77 percent of the total undoc
umented population in the US.
42
The Maryland data, which will be laid out more fully in the next section, shows a similar trend of lop
sided enforcement against individuals of Latin American origin.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
14
In an effort to better understand how immigration detainers are used in Maryland, the ACLU of Mary
land sent a public records request to all state and local detention centers or departments of correc
tions seeking detailed information about detainer practices in each jurisdiction. Based on the
responses we received and our analysis of the data,
43
we were able to draw some important conclu
sions about detainer practices in Maryland, at least for those counties that responded to our request.
44
For those counties that did not respond to our request or supplied insufficient information, we supple
mented the data through information obtained in a nationwide ACLU Freedom of Information Act re
quest to ICE, from which we were able to isolate some data, at least about overall numbers and
countries of origin, for several counties in Maryland.
45
From this data, we were able to draw three important conclusions about detainer practices in Mary
land:
46
1) that they are lodged mostly against individuals with only traffic offenses; 2) that they are
lodged mostly against individuals of Latin American origin; and 3) that most jurisdictions do not have
specific policies for dealing with immigration detainers but instead automatically respond to every re
quest that comes through their door.
Immigration detainers are lodged mostly for traffic offenses
First, immigration detainers in Maryland are used mostly against individuals with traffic violations or
misdemeanor charges, and only rarely against individuals with serious or felony charges. Note that
since the data reflects only charges, not convictions, the results would likely be even starker with re
spect to the targeting of only minor offenders or persons with no criminal record once acquittals and
dismissals are factored in. These results were true both overall and for each county for which we had
good available information. The graphs below represent the totals for Anne Arundel County, Baltimore
County, Charles County, Frederick County, Kent County, St. Mary’s County, Talbot County, and Washing
ton County. Individual fact sheets for each of those counties are included in the Appendix to this report.
Spotlight on Maryland:
A Deeper Look at Local Immigration Detainer Practices
Figure 4: Maryland immigration detainers by offense category
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
15
Immigration detainers are used overwhelmingly against people of Latin American origin
While the specific breakdown of the undocumented population in Maryland is unavailable, the overall
proportion of foreignborn persons from Latin American countries in Maryland is approximately 37
percent.
47
Yet, enforcement patterns against individuals from Latin American countries are consis
tently in the 85 percent range. The “Maryland PIA” graphs represent totals from the Maryland Public
Information Act request.
48
The “Maryland FOIA” graphs represent totals from all Maryland counties
except Allegany, Carroll, Dorchester, and Washington.
Figures 57: Maryland immigration detainers by region of origin
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
16
Law enforcement in Maryland automatically respond to virtually every immigration detainer request
Almost no county in Maryland has policies specific to immigration detainer requests. Only one county
in Maryland, Talbot County, has its own limiting policy and does not respond to immigration detainer
requests against individuals with civil traffic violations. Neither any other county nor the State of
Maryland has any kind of policy limiting responsiveness to immigration detainer requests. Indeed,
most jurisdictions do not even have written policies for procedures relating to immigration detainer
requests. By and large, neither the State of Maryland nor the counties distinguish between warrants
and immigration detainers, and most counties do not even keep records about their practices with re
spect to immigration detainer requests.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
17
Local law enforcement entanglement with immigration enforcement harms victims of crime. This is
best illustrated by stories of victims who call law enforcement for help and instead find themselves in
deportation proceedings.
This is exactly what happened to Maria Bolanos Hernandez.
49
One Christmas Eve a few years ago,
she had a heated argument with the father of her twoyearold daughter. The argument turned vio
lent, and she called the police for help. To this day, she regrets having made that call. The Prince
George’s County Police officers who responded to her call chose to later charge her with illegally sell
ing a $10 phone card—an allegation that was unsubstantiated and that the police later dropped. In the
meantime, however, they had already run her fingerprints through the system. Because of SComm,
her fingerprints were transferred automatically to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who sent
an immigration detainer request to Prince George’s County Police, who detained her then turned her
over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to face immigration proceedings.
The only contact Ms. Bolanos had ever had with local law enforcement was the one phone call she
made to try to escape a domestic violence situation. Instead of helping her, police charged her with an
unrelated minor offense, which was sufficient to route her into immigration proceedings.
Domestic violence victims, in fact, are a group particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of local
entanglement with immigration enforcement efforts. Victims of domestic violence can get caught up
when, as with Ms. Bolanos, police file unrelated charges against them. They can also get caught up
when police arrive and arrest everyone on the scene.
50
Sometimes, their assaulters file cross
charges against them after they complain to the police. Finally, domestic violence survivors often re
port not wanting to call the police because, while they would like their assaulter to be removed from
their presence, they do not wish to see him deported, for various complicated reasons sometimes
having to do with their ability to generate sufficient income to support children they may have had with
their abusers.
The public safety impacts of stories like this are significant. A recent study found that Latinos, both
nativeborn and immigrants, often fear contacting the police, even when they are victims of crime,
and are unwilling to cooperate with criminal investigations because of fears about racial profiling and
immigration consequences for themselves or their family members.
51
Law enforcement officials also
acknowledge these public safety effects, and a number of them have spoken out in favor of state and
local measures that stop or significantly limit responses to immigration detainer requests or have en
acted such policies on their own.
52
Significantly, former Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently endorsed the Cali
fornia TRUST Act, which will limit local collaboration with the federal agency she herself once
headed.
53
As previously noted, the Major Cities Chiefs Association has also long taken a position
against state and local enforcement of immigration laws.
In California, three of San Diego County’s top law enforcement officers also endorsed these limita
tions: San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne; Chula Vista Police Chief David Bejarano, and Na
tional City Police Chief Manuel Rodriguez. Each of them released a letter in support of California
legislation limiting local responsiveness to immigration detainers.
54
Costs:
The Social, Public Safety, and Financial Costs of Immigration Detainers
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
18
In addition to these social and public safety costs, immigration detainers also impose financial costs
on state and local jurisdictions—costs that the federal government does not reimburse. In every local
ity where a study has been conducted, the finding has been that holding individuals on an immigration
detainer imposes a significant financial burden on local agencies. As previously noted, the presence
of an immigration detainer has generally been found to result on average in doubling the amount of
time an individual spends in state or local detention, partly because of indirect effects such as the de
nial of bond or failure to post bond for fear of being transferred to ICE. In addition, because ICE does
not assume any liability for individuals held in local custody based solely on an immigration detainer
request, several counties have incurred costs defending and settling lawsuits. While the ACLU of
Maryland has not yet been able to obtain sufficient information to conduct a full estimate of the fiscal
impact of immigration detainers on Maryland’s state and local jurisdictions, there is every reason to
expect that those costs are significant.
Under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), some limited reimbursement may be
available to local jurisdictions, but only for a fraction of the total cost and only if the person is undocu
mented, has been convicted of a felony or of multiple misdemeanors, and has spent more than four
days in state or local detention. Most individuals held on an immigration detainer in Maryland do not
meet these criteria. In addition, SCAAP reimbursement only takes account of the costs for correc
tional officers, the number of “eligible” undocumented individuals and the number of days in deten
tion, and only reimburses for a fraction—usually well under 25 percent—of the total costs. Thus,
SCAAP reimbursement does not cover the total costs of this additional detention and does not affect
the conclusion that responding to immigration detainers is a costly undertaking and a strain on local
budgets.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
19
Every day in Maryland, local resources are being wasted on immigration enforcement efforts. Local
law enforcement are dragged into those efforts through ICE immigration detainer requests. Both in
Maryland and nationwide, those requests are lodged mostly against individuals charged with traffic
violations or misdemeanors and do not serve any discernible local law enforcement public safety
function.
But state and local authorities can take back control of their entanglement in this broken system. Be
cause immigration detainer requests are discretionary, state and local jurisdictions can set their own
parameters for how they wish to respond to these requests. Those parameters should include safe
guards that address the significant due process and other constitutional concerns raised by immigra
tion detainers; safeguards that restore and help build community trust in law enforcement and the
willingness of local community members to seek help from and collaborate with police; and safe
guards that ensure that local jurisdictions are fully reimbursed for any expenses they incur in the
process of responding to immigration detainer requests.
More and more states and local jurisdictions are acting to take control of their own policies and prac
tices with respect to immigration detainers. It is time for Maryland to do the same.
Conclusion
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
20
1
See ICE Total Removals, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/eroremovals1.pdf; ICE Re
moval Statistics (FY 2012), https://www.ice.gov/removalstatistics/.
2
See Nick Miroff, Controversial quota drives immigration detention boom, Washington Post, October
13, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/controversialquotadrivesimmigrationdetention
boom/2013/10/13/09bb689e214c11e3ad1a1a919f2ed890_story.html; Gretchen Gavett, Map: The U.S.
Immigration Detention Boom, PBS Frontline, October 18, 2011, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front
line/racemulticultural/lostindetention/maptheusimmigrationdetentionboom/.
3
See Amnesty International, Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA (September
2008), http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf; National Immigration Forum, The
Math of Immigration Detention (August 2013),
http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/mathofimmigrationdetention.pdf.
4
See, e.g., Lee Romney & Paloma Esquivel, Noncriminals Swept Up in Federal Deportation Program,
LA Times, April 25, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/25/local/lamesecurecommunities
20110425; Stephen Magnanini, Mexican couple’s deportation leaves behind two small children in Lodi,
Sacramento Bee, November 2, 2010, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/02/103001/mexicancou
plesdeportationleaves.html.
5
See, e.g., Griselda Nevarez, Deported U.S. Veterans Want to Return Home, Many Find Safe Haven
Near Mexican Border, Huffington Post, April 26, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/de
portedveteranswanttoreturnhome_n_3165406.html; Kevin Sullivan, Deported veterans: Banished
for committing crimes after serving in the U.S. military, Washington Post, August 12, 2013, http://arti
cles.washingtonpost.com/20130812/politics/41333669_1_usmarineuscitizensimmigration; Im
migrant Justice Network, Howard Dean Bailey,
http://immigrantjusticenetwork.org/readthestories/infographichowardsstory/.
6
See, e.g., William Finnegan, The Deportation Machine, The New Yorker, April 29, 2013,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/29/130429fa_fact_finnegan; Julia Preston, Immigration
Crackdown Also Snares Americans, NY Times, December 13, 2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/measurestocaptureillegalaliensnabcitizens.html?page
wanted=all.
7
See ICE, Activated Jursdictions, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/securecommunities/pdf/scactivated.pdf.
8
NYCLU Applauds Gov. Cuomo for Suspending Federal Deportation Program in New York State, June
1, 2011, http://www.nyclu.org/news/nycluapplaudsgovcuomosuspendingfederaldeportation
programnewyorkstate.
9
To date, Texas, California, Utah, New York, Washington, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Wis
consin, Maryland, Connecticut, and Rhode Island provide instate tuition to certain undocumented im
migrants brought to the U.S. as children.
10
To date, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico,
Nevada, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Utah, Vermont, and Washington State have enacted laws providing ac
cess to driver’s licenses for certain undocumented immigrants.
11
To date, at least 18 jurisdictions have enacted policies or laws stopping or strictly restricting the cir
cumstances under which local law enforcement will respond to immigration detainers, including Cali
fornia, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New York City, NY, New Orleans, LA, and Champaign
County, IL. A number of other state and local jurisdictions are currently considering enacting such
measures.
Endnotes
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
21
12
Major Cities Chiefs Immigration Committee Recommendations For Enforcement of Immigration
Laws By Local Police Agencies, Adopted by: Major Cities Chiefs Association, June 2006,
http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/mcc_position.pdf, p. 6.
13
ICE has stated that it “does not reimburse localities for detaining any individual until ICE has as
sumed actual custody of the individual.” Letter from David Venturella, Assistant Director of Immigra
tion and Customs Enforcement, to Mr. Miguel Marquez, County Counsel, County of Santa Clara, CA,
http://media.sjbeez.org/files/2011/10/4ICEresponsetoSCC.pdf. Thus, local jurisdictions pay the
cost of holding people at ICE’s request. Every local jurisdiction that has conducted a fiscal impact
study has found that holding individuals on immigration detainers imposes substantial costs. For ex
ample, a 2012 study found that Los Angeles County taxpayers spend over $26 million per year on ICE
detainers. See Judith A. Greene, The Cost of Responding to Immigration Detainers in California (Au
gust 2012), http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Justicestrategies.pdf.
14
See below for nationwide and Maryland data to this effect.
15
For example, responses to an ACLU of Maryland public records request under the Maryland Public
Information Act revealed numerous instances of individuals spending a month or more, in some
cases up to 4 or 5 months, in jail for very minor offenses such as traffic violations, making a false
statement to a peace officer, and other very minor charges that would ordinarily not have resulted in
time in detention. Similar effects have been found in other jurisdictions, where the presence of an im
migration detainer has generally been found to result on average in doubling the amount of time a
person would typically spend in detention. See, e.g., Andrea Guttin, The Criminal Alien Program: Im
migration Enforcement in Travis County, Texas, Immigration Policy Center (Feb. 2010); Aarti Shahani,
New York City Enforcement of Immigration Detainers, Preliminary Findings, Justice Strategies (Oct.
2010), http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/JusticeStrategiesDrugDeportationsPre
limFindings_0.pdf; and Judith A. Greene, The Cost of Responding to Immigration Detainers in Califor
nia, Justice Strategies (Aug. 2012).
16
Big Louie Bail Bonds LLC v. State of Maryland, Md. C. A. No. 31, Sept. 2013 (argued Dec. 4, 2012; filed
Oct. 23, 2013) at *19.
17
In this connection, ICE itself has stated that it does not view immigration detainers as relevant to
bond determinations: “It is not ICE’s position that the existence of an immigration detainer should
have any particular consequence for bail or bond.” ICE Briefing Video, How to Respond to an Immigra
tion Detainer, available at http://www.ice.gov/news/galleries/videos/immigration_detainers_ad.htm
(at 5:20).
18
While ICE warrants problematically appear in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) data
base despite the fact that they merely indicate civil and not criminal charges, immigration detainers
do not appear in NCIC.
19
The Fourth Circuit recently held, in Orellana Santos v Frederick County, 725 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013),
that local law enforcement do not have the authority to stop, arrest, or detain an individual based
solely on a civil immigration warrant against that individual unless they have specifically been depu
tized to do so by federal authorities. The Santos court noted that the Supreme Court “has said that
local officers generally lack authority to arrest individuals suspected of civil immigration violations.”
Id. at 464, citing Arizona v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2505 (2012). Neither the Fourth Circuit nor the
Supreme Court have yet ruled on the constitutionality of detention based solely on immigration de
tainer requests. However, in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court emphasized that “[d]etaining
individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.” 132 S.Ct.
2492, 2509 (2012). Yet that is precisely what ICE asks local agencies to do when it issues an immigra
tion detainer. With respect to the constitutionality of immigration detainers, the key issues are that
they result in detention in the absence of due process and probable cause.
20
Major Cities Chiefs Immigration Committee Recommendations For Enforcement of Immigration
Laws By Local Police Agencies, Adopted by: Major Cities Chiefs Association, June 2006,
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
22
http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/mcc_position.pdf, p. 8.
21
See Appendix I, Form I247 (immigration detainer request).
22
See 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a) and § 287.7(d).
23
For example, ICE has stated in internal documents that [a detainer] is a request. There is no penalty
if [local agencies] don’t comply.” http://altopolimigra.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/ICEFOIA
2674.017695.pdf. See also Appendix V, ICE admissions that immigration detainers are requests.
24
Def. Mem. In Support of Mtn for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt # 107, Jimenez v. Morales,
No. 11CV05452 (N.D. Il.) at 89. See also Def’s Resp. to Pl’s First Set of Requests For Admissions,
Dkt. # , Jimenez v. Morales: “Request No. 16: Admit that ICE has no legal authority to require state or
local law enforcement to detain an individual during the 48hour detention period. Response to Re
quest No. 16: Defendants admit that ICE detainers . . . do not impose a requirement upon state or local
law enforcement agencies.”
25
521 U.S. 898, 92535 (1997).
26
Note that in its brief cited in n.24, above, ICE itself acknowledged this point by arguing that detainers
do not violate the Tenth Amendment because they are voluntary.
27
See Appendix II, Letter of Advice from the Maryland Attorney General, Office of Counsel to the Gen
eral Assembly to the Honorable Victor R. Ramirez, State Senator, October 31, 2013.
28
“For over twenty years, it has been the view of the Managing Officials of the Montgomery County De
partment of Correction (which view has been supported by legal counsel) that 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 requires
DOCR to maintain custody of inmates regarding whom DOCR receives INS detainers for a period of 48
hours (pending the arrival of ICE agents), if the individual is not otherwise committed to custody. . . .
The language of the ICE detainer, which is based upon the language of the federal regulation, consti
tutes a lawfully binding request that the County Department of Correction hold/detain the affected per
sons in custody.” Letter from David Stevenson, Assistant County Attorney for Montgomery County to
Sirine Shebaya, ACLU of Maryland, June 24, 2013 (on file with author).
29
See Letter from David Venturella, Assistant Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to
Mr. Miguel Marquez, County Counsel, County of Santa Clara, CA,
http://media.sjbeez.org/files/2011/10/4ICEresponsetoSCC.pdf (stating that ICE does not reimburse
for the cost of detaining individuals and that ICE does not indemnify localities against liability).
30
See, e.g., Quezada v. Mink, No. 10879 (D. Colo.) (filed April 21, 2010) ($50,000 settlement); Harvey v.
City of New York, No. 070343 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed June 12, 2009) ($145,000 settlement).
31
For more on the costs of immigration detainers, see the final section of this report.
32
See John Morton, December 21, 2012 Memorandum re: Civil Immigration Enforcement: Guidance on
the Use of Detainers, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detentionreform/pdf/detainerpolicy.pdf.
33
Syracuse Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (hereinafter “TRAC”), “New ICE Detainer
Guidelines Have Little Impact,” http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/333/.
34
TRAC, “Few ICE Detainers Target Serious Criminals.” http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/330/.
35
TRAC, “Who Are the Targets of ICE Detainers?” http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/310/.
36
TRAC, “Fewer Immigration Removal Filings Based on Criminal Activity,” http://trac.syr.edu/what
snew/email.131015.html.
37
TRAC, “Few ICE Detainers Target Serious Criminals,” http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/330/.
38
ICE, Secure Communities Monthly Statistics through May 31, 2013,
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/scstats/nationwide_interop_statsfy2013todate.pdf.
39
TRAC, “ICE Detainers Placed on U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents.”
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/311/.
40
TRAC, “ICE Detainers Placed on U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents.”
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/311/.
41
Berkeley Warren Institute Report, “Secure Communities by the Numbers”, http://www.law.berke
ley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
23
42
Berkeley Warren Institute Report, “Secure Communities by the Numbers”, http://www.law.berke
ley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf.
43
A note on methodology: Data provided in response to the ACLU of Maryland’s April 15, 2013 request
for information on immigration detainer practices in Maryland under the Maryland Public Information
Act (PIA data) was analyzed in the following manner: raw data was entered into a spreadsheet, dupli
cates were eliminated, offenses were categorized by felony, misdemeanor, traffic, immigration, or un
clear/no charge; and countries of origin were grouped into regions. The data was verified through
doubleentry and comparison. For the FOIA data reflected in some of the region of origin graphs,
Maryland data was isolated from a national spreadsheet provided by ICE to the ACLU’s Immigrants
Rights Project. Because ICE included only the name of the detention facility and not the state in which
it was located, we did not include counties for which it was not possible to determine to a reasonable
degree of certainty that the detention facility was in Maryland (Allegany, Carroll, Dorchester, and
Washington).
44
We received thorough, helpful, and for the most part prompt responses from Anne Arundel County,
Baltimore County, Charles County, Frederick County, Kent County, St. Mary’s County, Talbot County, and
Washington County. Prince George’s County Detention Center and the Pretrial Division of the Maryland
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, which runs the Baltimore City detention facili
ties, informed us that they do not have records available other than a snapshot of individuals currently
in detention who had immigration detainers lodged against them. While they provided us with that in
formation and, in the case of Prince George’s County, with supplemental information we sought about
data on that list, the sample size in both cases was unfortunately too insignificant to allow us to draw
any meaningful conclusions about detainer practices over time in those counties. Garrett County in
formed us via letter that they have not had experience with immigration detainers in the recent past.
The remainder of the counties unfortunately—and unlawfully—either denied us the information we
sought or wished to charge us exorbitant fees in order to provide it. Inexplicably, several of those
counties asserted that the request for information did not qualify for a waiver of fees because the in
formation sought would not contribute to the public interest. We hope that this report will help dispel
their confusion on that point. Montgomery County very surprisingly refused to provide us with any in
formation at all even though the records we sought are clearly public records covered by the MPIA.
Part of their reasoning for the denial rested on confusion between immigration detainees held in ICE
custody or pursuant to a contractual agreement with ICE on the one hand, and individuals in local cus
tody but against whom an immigration detainer request had been lodged, held by and at the discre
tion of the local facility, on the other. By and large, one important takeaway from our experience with
this records request has been that most detention and correctional facilities across the State of Mary
land need to be more transparent and need to do a better job of keeping records relating to immigra
tion detainers, given the unique nature of this detention, the questions surrounding the legal basis for
it, and the significant direct and indirect costs incurred as a result.
45
The FOIA data itself was incomplete in a number of important respects. For one thing, it provided no
information about the substance of the charges and instead only indicated whether they were Level 1,
2, or 3, which made it impossible to parse out the felonies from the misdemeanors from the traffic of
fenses. Second, the recordkeeping about levels of offenses was woefully incomplete, with only a
small fraction of the entries including even the level of the offense. Finally, because the FOIA data in
explicably failed to include the location of the named detention facility, in some cases it was not possi
bly to conclude to a reasonable certainty that the numbers we were looking at represented Maryland
numbers. For this reason, our information about Maryland totals usually represent only the counties
for which we received complete responses to our MPIA request. The country of origin FOIA graphs
represent totals not including Allegany, Carroll, Dorchester, and Washington counties. Note that the
ACLU of Maryland sent a separate FOIA request to ICE on April 15, 2013 (received on April 17, 2013)
requesting Marylandspecific information. For reasons that remain mysterious, we never received an
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
24
acknowledgment or response to our request.
46
Except for graphs based on FOIA data, aggregated data is based on results from the counties that
responded to our PIA requests. However, we have every expectation, based on information from com
munity organizations, immigration lawyers and public defenders as well as patterns we have ob
served over time, that those conclusions would be confirmed and possibly even exacerbated by any
additional data from the counties that failed to provide it. The more expansive FOIA data reinforces
this conclusion.
47
Department of Legislative Services 2011, International Immigration to Maryland: Demographic Pro
file of the State’s Immigrant Community at 6 (data source: US census bureau 20062008).
48
“South or Central America” includes Mexico. “North America” includes only Canada.
49
Shankar Vedantam, Call for help leads to possible deportation for Hyattsville mother, Washington
Post, November 1, 2010, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/arti
cle/2010/11/01/AR2010110103073.html.
50
This is what happened to Maria PerezRivera, who was arrested along with her boyfriend after a do
mestic violence call and was deported to Mexico, leaving two small U.S. citizen children behind,
Stephen Magnanini, Sacramento Bee, November 2, 2010, available at
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/02/103001/mexicancouplesdeportationleaves.html; and to
Elena Cabrera, who was arrested along with her partner and turned over to ICE, Edward Sifuentes,
North Country Times, October 19, 2011, http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/19/exclusivees
condidowomanturnedoverto/.
51
Nik Theodore, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration En
forcement, University of Illinois at Chicago (May 2013), http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci/docu
ments/1213/Insecure_Communities_Report_FINAL.pdf.
52
See Appendix IV, quotes from law enforcement in support of limited detainer policies.
53
See Larry Gordon, UC student leaders meet with new system president Napolitano, LA Times, Octo
ber 1, 2013, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/lamelnnapolitanostudents
20131001,0,286409.story#axzz2jt6Ox6LY; and Elise Foley, Janet Napolitano Endorses Trust Act To Limit
U.S. Agency She Headed, Huffington Post, October 2, 2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/janetnapolitanotrustact_n_4032806.html.
54
See ACLU of San Diego, Three San Diego County Police Chiefs Back TRUST Act to Limit Deporta
tions, August 20, 2013, http://www.aclusandiego.org/breakingnews/threesandiegocountypolice
chiefsbacktrustacttolimitdeportations/.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
25
Appendix I: Form I247
Appendix II: Maryland Attorney General October 31 Letter of Advice to Senator Victor Ramirez
Re: Immigration Detainers
Appendix III: County fact sheets
Appendix IV: Law enforcement speak out in support of limited detainer policies
Appendix V: ICE admissions that immigration detainers are voluntary
Appendices
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
26
DHS Form I247 (12/12) Page 1 of
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
IMMIGRATION DETAINER  NOTICE OF ACTION
Subject ID:
Event #:
File No:
Date:
TO: (Name and Title of Institution  OR Any Subsequent Law
Enforcement Agency)
FROM: (Department of Homeland Security Office Address)
MAINTAIN CUSTODY OF ALIEN FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 48 HOURS
Name of Alien: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Date of Birth: _________________________ Nationality: __________________________________ Sex: ____________
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ACTION RELATED TO
THE PERSON IDENTIFIED ABOVE, CURRENTLY IN YOUR CUSTODY:
Determined that there is reason to believe the individual is an alien subject to removal from the United States. The individual (check
all that apply):
has a prior a felony conviction or has been charged with a felony
offense;
has been convicted of illegal entry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1325;
has three or more prior misdemeanor convictions;
has a prior misdemeanor conviction or has been charged with a
misdemeanor for an offense that involves violence, threats, or
assaults; sexual abuse or exploitation; driving under the influence
of alcohol or a controlled substance; unlawful flight from the
scene of an accident; the unlawful possession or use of a firearm
or other deadly weapon, the distribution or trafficking of a
controlled substance; or other significant threat to public safety;
has illegally reentered the country after a previous removal
or return;
has been found by an immigration officer or an immigration
judge to have knowingly committed immigration fraud;
otherwise poses a significant risk to national security, border
security, or public safety; and/or
other (specify): __________________________________.
Initiated removal proceedings and served a Notice to Appear or other charging document. A copy of the charging document is
attached and was served on ______________________ (date).
Served a warrant of arrest for removal proceedings. A copy of the warrant is attached and was served on _________________ (date).
Obtained an order of deportation or removal from the United States for this person.
This action does not limit your discretion to make decisions related to this person's custody classification, work, quarter
assignments, or other matters. DHS discourages dismissing criminal charges based on the existence of a detainer.
IT IS REQUESTED THAT YOU:
Maintain custody of the subject for a period NOT TO EXCEED 48 HOURS, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, beyond
the time when the subject would have otherwise been released from your custody to allow DHS to take custody of the subject. This
request derives from federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 287.7. For purposes of this immigration detainer, you are not authorized to hold
the subject beyond these 48 hours. As early as possible prior to the time you otherwise would release the subject, please notify
DHS by calling________________during business hours or_______________after hours or in an emergency. If you cannot reach a
DHS Official at these numbers, please contact the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center in Burlington, Vermont at: (802) 8726020.
Provide a copy to the subject of this detainer.
Notify this office of the time of release at least 30 days prior to release or as far in advance as possible.
Notify this office in the event of the inmate's death, hospitalization or transfer to another institution.
Consider this request for a detainer operative only upon the subject's conviction.
Cancel the detainer previously placed by this Office on ____________________ (date).
(Name and title of Immigration Officer) (Signature of Immigration Officer)
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY CURRENTLY HOLDING THE SUBJECT OF THIS NOTICE:
Please provide the information below, sign, and return to DHS using the envelope enclosed for your convenience or by faxing a copy
to . You should maintain a copy for your own records so you may track the case and not hold the
subject beyond the 48hour period.
Local Booking/Inmate #: ___________ Latest criminal charge/conviction: ________ (date) Estimated release: __________(date)
Last criminal charge/conviction: _____________________________________________________________________________
Notice: Once in our custody, the subject of this detainer may be removed from the United States. If the individual may be the victim of a
crime, or if you want this individual to remain in the United States for prosecution or other law enforcement purposes, including acting
as a witness, please notify the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center at (802) 8726020.
(Name and title of Officer) (Signature of Officer)
t ID: Subjec
IGRATION IMM
DEPARTME
DETAINER  NOTICE IGRATION
HOMELAND SECURITY T OF N DEPARTME
File No
ACTION OF DETAINER  NOTICE
HOMELAND SECURITY
Date of Birth: ____
n: _____ Name of Alie
enc Ag Enforcement
of Title and (Name TO:
Event #:
t ID: Subjec
________ _______ _______ ________ _____ ____ n: ________
___ Nationalit
____ ____ ___ ____ ____ _ ___ n: _____
Y OF ALIEN FO D STO U C IN A MAINT MAINTA
) y enc
La bsequent Su y An OR  ion ut Instit
________ _______ _______ ________ _______ _______
y: _______ ___ Nationalit
____ ____ ___ ____ ____ ___ ____
OT TO EXCE N A PERIOD R Y OF ALIEN FO
(Department FROM:
w La
S
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
R
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___ Sex: ___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
________
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___ _______ ____ _______ ____ ________ ___ _______ ____ _______
OU D 48 H E OT TO EXCE
Office y Securit land e Hom of (Department
Date:
: File No
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
________
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_______
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___ Sex: ___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_______
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Address)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Date of Birth: ________
): ply all that ap
at there is reas ed th Determin
N E D I ON S R E PE TH
PARTME THE U.S. DE
____ Date of Birth: ____
offense;
y felon has a prior a
t n o c a r o l o h o c l a ff o
b a l a u x e s ; s t l u a s s a
r for an offense t o n a misdeme
misdeme has a prior
has three or more prior mis
______ Nationalit _______ ________ _______ _______
wful
the ind e iev on to bel at there is reas
TLY I N E CURR ABOVE, D TIFIE
CURI AND SE NT OF HOMEL PARTME
___ Nationalit ___ ____ ____ ___ ____
charge n e e on or has b icti conv y
flight from the ful w a ance; unl t s b u s d e l l o r t
d n u g n i v ri d ; n o i t a t i o l p x e r o e s u b
e, threats olenc lves vi hat invo r for an offense t
n charg s bee a or h n r convictio o n a misdeme
ictions; v n anor co deme has three or more prior mis
ge to hav
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
removal from the United S t to ec ubj ien s al an ual is vid i
: Y OD T S CU UR O Y N TLY I
N TH TAKE HAS ) Y (DHS TTY (DHS CURI
____ ____ ________ __ ______ y: _______ y: _________ ___ Nationalit
y felon th a i w d charge
flight from the
e c n e u l f n i e h t r e d
or , e, threats
th a i w ed n charg
ictions;
5; 132
has been c
or return;
gal has ille
jud
n found b has bee
other
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ates.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
removal from the United S
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ACTION RE
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___ Sex: ___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
purs
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
entr
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
nvicted of il
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
after a previ
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ed the
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
reenter
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e kno
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ge to hav
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n officer or an immi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
gratio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
immi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
T
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
G
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
N
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
E FOLLOWI
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
N TH
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
______ Sex: ___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_______
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
________
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_______
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_______
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
leg
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
has been c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
or return;
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
countr
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
gal
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
itted immigra
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n found b
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ant risk to natio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ific
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ses a sig
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
check
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
he indiv
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
D TO
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
LATE
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ACTION RE
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___ Sex: ___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___ Sex: _______
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
(
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
al
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
du
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
T
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
________
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
§
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t to 8 U.S.C.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
val ous remo after a previ
ion fraud; t itted immigra
on grati n officer or an immi
der , b rit nal sec
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
tance; or other bs ed su controll
e w y adl or other de
cident; the u ac scene of an
t n o c a r o l o h o c l a ff a o
REQUESTED IT IS
e h tth o rr o ts, o en m n assig
tt o does n s action iis action h TTh
der of an or d Obtaine
nt of rra a w Served a
s served o a w and attached
proc l a v o rem Initiated
ficant threat to public saf signi tance; or other
n or trafficking of a stributio on, the di ap
or use of a firearm n ssio e poss l u f w la n cident; the u
flight from the ful wwful a ance; unl t s b u s d e l l o r t
YOU: THAT
es d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ag rrag u sco iisco r matters. DHS d r matters. DHS di e
make
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
to n scretio iiscretio ddi rr d limit you
m o r f l a on or remov portati de der of
gs. A in d e l proce remova arrest for nt of
__ ___ _____ __ _____ __ ____ ___ _____ __ _____ ___ _____ _____ n s served o
tice o N a ed serv and gs in eed proc
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
,
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
securit
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
se p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
other
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ch
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
al
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
crimin
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
sin
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
smis
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ismis
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
es d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
es di
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
th
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
to
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
rela
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ecisi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
f
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
St
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e Un
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
nt is attached a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
rra
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
the
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
of
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
cop
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
at
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
(d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ng doc
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
other charg
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ear
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
other (specif
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
;
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ficant threat to public saf
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n or trafficking of a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
or use of a firearm
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
flight from the
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
es b
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
arg
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
rso
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
is
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ted
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
h
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
h
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
gs. A
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e).
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
__
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
or
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
App
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
to
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
tice
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
or public safet
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ses a sig
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
nt is attached a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ume
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ng doc
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
other (specif
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
; and/or y
ant risk to natio ific n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
se p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a d f ce o e existen th n o dd o e s a es b
wo , n ificatio class y ddy sto cu s ''s n rso
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
__ __ ____ __ ____ n d o rve e s s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ng d i harg the c of y cop
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t. A
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___ __ _____ ___ _____ ___ ______ _____ ___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____ ______
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y): __
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y): _____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___ _____ _____ _____ _____
__ ____ _____ _____ ______ ____ ____
der r o , b y rit u nal sec ant risk to natio
er. in ta e a d
arter qu , rk rk, wo
. ) e t a d ( _ __ ___ __ ___ __
ent is cum o ng d
. _ _ ___ __ ___ ___ _ ___
office in the ev
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
office of
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
of y d in custo Mainta
REQUESTED IT IS
this y Notif
this y Notif
the subject to y e a cop Provid
these num DHS Official at
_____ g n i l l a c y b S H D
ond y be t ubjec s the
from federal r s est derive requ
e su hen th w me e ti th
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
NOT TO EXCEED
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a period
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
the inmate'
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ent of
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
office in the ev
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e at
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
releas
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
the time of
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ner
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
this detai
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
of
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
the subject
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t the ICE Law
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s, please contac
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
hours or
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
b
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
__d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
rly as p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
As
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
hours
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
8 C.F
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e be
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
he
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t for
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
the subj
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
of
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
YOU:
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
THAT
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
h, h
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
deat
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t 30 da
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
as
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
le
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
office of
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ber
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
these num
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
________
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_________
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
8
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e 4
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
thes
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ond
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
§
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
R.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
latio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
egu
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
from federal r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ve
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d ha
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ou
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ect
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
bj
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e su
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
HOURS
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
48
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
NOT TO EXCEED
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t the ICE Law
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
le p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ssib
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
pur
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
F
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
7
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
8
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
2
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d fro
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
en rele
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e be
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
udi , excl
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
anoth r to e ation or transf z i l spita o h, h
in adva far s e or a releas
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
to
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ys prior
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t 30 da
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Enforcement Support Center
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
hours or _after __ ___after __ ____ ___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_____ __
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
___
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
__
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
_____
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
hours or
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u ot the time yo
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ior to
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
rly as p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m m i s hi t ff t o s e pos
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
7
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
stody to cu r ou y m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d hol s, an y a d s, Sun y rda u ng Sat udi
stitution. r in e anoth
e. bl as possi e c n in adva
in Burlington, Vermont Enforcement Support Center
ou ca If y . y c n e erg in an em hours or
ject, ple e the sub eas d rel ul o w se i w her
a t o n e r a u o y , ner ai et on d i t a gr i m
f o dy custo ke to ta S H D w o l l a stody to
yond ys, be a id d hol
(802) 8726020. at:
ot reach a nn ou ca
y se notif a ject, ple
d l o h o t d e z i r o h t u
s i h T t. c e j e sub e subj th f
(Name
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Cancel the detainer prev
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
equ
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
der this r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
the informatio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e provi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
an
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Consi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
to
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Pleas
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Inmate #: ___ ng/ ooki Local B
the 48ho nd yo ect be subj
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
title
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
an
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
iously
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Cancel the detainer prev
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
tainer o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
est for
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Officer) Immigration
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
of
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Office is h t placed by
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y u ative onl per
a d m You shoul .
n , and retur n , sig
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
bel
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
the informatio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
est crimin Lat Inmate #: ___
riod. ur pe the 48ho
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
______________ ____________________ _______ ______ on Office
ion. s convict ect' the subj n o p y u
cords so re n w your o r o f y p in a co inta a
encl ope vel n g the e S usin H D to n
NTLY HOLDI CURRE AGENCY TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
/convicti charg al est crimin
. ) e t a d ( _______
Officer) migration Im of (Signature
se and n the ca track y a you m cords so
or b ence eni v n your co ed for s o encl
T OF C SUBJE G THE N NTLY HOLDI
Estimated rel
Officer)
d the t hol o se and n
opy ng a c faxi y or b
THIS NOTICE: T OF
rm I247 (12/12) o DHS F
(Name
e notif eas l tness, p i w as a
nt this ind a w u o y crime, or if
our custod n Once i tice: No
/convicti e l charg Last crimina
Inmate #: ___ ng/ ooki Local B
_____ ______ ____ ____ _____ : ______
____ ______ ____ Inmate #: ____
rm I247 (12/12)
Officer) of title d an (Name
t n e m e c r Enfo ww Enfo La ICE e h t y e notif
in the Un n remai l to dua vi i nt this ind
n i this deta ect of the subj y, our custod
__ ___ ___ _ ___ __ : ____ n o /convicti
est crimin Lat _ ___ ___ _ Inmate #: ___
_____ ______ ____ ____ _____ _____ ______ ____ ____ _____
on: _____
0 6  2 7 8 2) 0 8 ( t a r e t n e C t r o p p u S
ution or oth c prose for ates t ed S it in the Un
from the Unite d e be remov y r ma e n
__ ___ ___ _ ___ __ ___ ___ _ ___ __
__ on: ___ /convicti e charg al est crimin
_____ ______ ____ ____ _____ _____ ______ ____ ____ _____
_____
cer) Offi of (Signature
. 0 2 0
es, in t purpos n forceme n e ww e la r e ution or oth
ual ma d i indiv the If States. d from the Unite
__ ___ ___ _ ___ __ ___ ___ _ ___ __
ase: ___ e Estimated rel date) ( ___ __
____ ______ ____ ____ _____
_____ _____ ase: _____
Page 1 of
cer)
ng ng acti cludi es, in
a be the victim of y ual ma
_ ___ ___ _ ___ __
) e t a d ( __ ___ __ ase: ___
Appendix I
Form I247
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
27
DHS Form I247 (12/12) Page 2 of
NOTICE TO THE DETAINEE
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed an immigration detainer on you. An immigration detainer is a notice from
DHS informing law enforcement agencies that DHS intends to assume custody of you after you otherwise would be released from
custody. DHS has requested that the law enforcement agency which is currently detaining you maintain custody of you for a period not
to exceed 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) beyond the time when you would have been released by the state or
local law enforcement authorities based on your criminal charges or convictions. If DHS does not take you into custody during that
additional 48 hour period, not counting weekends or holidays, you should contact your custodian (the law enforcement agency
or other entity that is holding you now) to inquire about your release from state or local custody. If you have a complaint regarding
this detainer or related to violations of civil rights or civil liberties connected to DHS activities, please contact the ICE Joint
Intake Center at 18772INTAKE (8772468253). If you believe you are a United States citizen or the victim of a crime, please
advise DHS by calling the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center toll free at (855) 4486903.
NOTIFICACIÓN A LA PERSONA DETENIDA
El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) de EE. UU. ha emitido una orden de detención inmigratoria en su contra. Mediante
esta orden, se notifica a los organismos policiales que el DHS pretende arrestarlo cuando usted cumpla su reclusión actual. El DHS ha
solicitado que el organismo policial local o estatal a cargo de su actual detención lo mantenga en custodia por un período no mayor a
48 horas (excluyendo sábados, domingos y días festivos) tras el cese de su reclusión penal. Si el DHS no procede con su arresto
inmigratorio durante este período adicional de 48 horas, excluyendo los fines de semana o días festivos, usted debe
comunicarse con la autoridad estatal o local que lo tiene detenido (el organismo policial u otra entidad a cargo de su custodia
actual) para obtener mayores detalles sobre el cese de su reclusión. Si tiene alguna queja que se relacione con esta orden de
detención o con posibles infracciones a los derechos o libertades civiles en conexión con las actividades del DHS,
comuníquese con el Joint Intake Center (Centro de Admisión) del ICE (Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas)
llamando al 18772INTAKE (8772468253). Si usted cree que es ciudadano de los Estados Unidos o que ha sido víctima de
un delito, infórmeselo al DHS llamando al Centro de Apoyo a los Organismos Policiales (Law Enforcement Support Center)
del ICE, teléfono (855) 4486903 (llamada gratuita).
Avis au détenu
Le département de la Sécurité Intérieure [Department of Homeland Security (DHS)] a émis, à votre encontre, un ordre d'incarcération
pour des raisons d'immigration. Un ordre d'incarcération pour des raisons d'immigration est un avis du DHS informant les agences des
forces de l'ordre que le DHS a l'intention de vous détenir après la date normale de votre remise en liberté. Le DHS a requis que
l'agence des forces de l'ordre, qui vous détient actuellement, vous garde en détention pour une période maximum de 48 heures
(excluant les samedis, dimanches et jours fériés) audelà de la période à la fin de laquelle vous auriez été remis en liberté par les
autorités policières de l'État ou locales en fonction des inculpations ou condamnations pénales à votre encontre. Si le DHS ne vous
détient pas durant cette période supplémentaire de 48 heures, sans compter les fins de semaines et les jours fériés, vous
devez contacter votre gardien (l'agence des forces de l'ordre qui vous détient actuellement) pour vous renseigner à propos de votre
libération par l'État ou l'autorité locale. Si vous avez une plainte à formuler au sujet de cet ordre d'incarcération ou en rapport
avec des violations de vos droits civils liées à des activités du DHS, veuillez contacter le centre commun d'admissions du
Service de l'Immigration et des Douanes [ICE  Immigration and Customs Enforcement] [ICE Joint Intake Center] au
18772INTAKE (8772468253). Si vous croyez être un citoyen des ÉtatsUnis ou la victime d'un crime, veuillez en aviser le
DHS en appelant le centre d'assistance des forces de l'ordre de l'ICE [ICE Law Enforcement Support Center] au numéro
gratuit (855) 4486903.
AVISO AO DETENTO
O Departamento de Segurança Nacional (DHS) emitiu uma ordem de custódia imigratória em seu nome. Este documento é um aviso
enviado às agências de imposição da lei de que o DHS pretende assumir a custódia da sua pessoa, caso seja liberado. O DHS pediu
que a agência de imposição da lei encarregada da sua atual detenção mantenhao sob custódia durante, no máximo, 48 horas
(excluindose sábados, domingos e feriados) após o período em que seria liberado pelas autoridades estaduais ou municipais de
imposição da lei, de acordo com as respectivas acusações e penas criminais. Se o DHS não assumir a sua custódia durante essas
48 horas adicionais, excluindose os fins de semana e feriados, você deverá entrar em contato com o seu custodiante (a
agência de imposição da lei ou qualquer outra entidade que esteja detendoo no momento) para obter informações sobre sua liberação
da custódia estadual ou municipal. Caso você tenha alguma reclamação a fazer sobre esta ordem de custódia imigratória ou
relacionada a violações dos seus direitos ou liberdades civis decorrente das atividades do DHS, entre em contato com o
Centro de Entrada Conjunta da Agencia de Controle de Imigração e Alfândega (ICE) pelo telefone 18772468253. Se você
acreditar que é um cidadão dos EUA ou está sendo vítima de um crime, informe o DHS ligando para o Centro de Apoio à
Imposição da Lei do ICE pelo telefone de ligação gratuita (855) 4486903
O N
E E N I A TTA E D E H T O T E C I T O
g callin y se DHS b i v ad
72INT 187 at er t Cen take In
related rr related er o tain e d is th
ho is that y tit n e r e oth or
pe hour 8 4 l a n dditio a
cement a enfor w la local
xclu e ( ours h 48 d e e exc to
quest has re S H D y. custod
n e w a l g n i m or f n i S H D
o H f o nt e m t r a p e D e h T
t Su en cem r fo En w a L e ICE th g
If 3). 825  6 24 7 7 8 ( E K A 72INT
s t h rig il v ci f o s n atio l o i v to related
bout a e quir n i to ) w no u yo g n ldi ho
nds e k e e w ing ount c t o , n riod pe
i m i r c r u o y n ed o ies bas t thori u cement a
an ys, nda u S s, y Saturda ng di xclu
forcement a en w la the that ed quest
S H D t a h t s e i c n e g a nt e em c r o f
p s a h ) S DH ( y it r u c e S d n a el m o
O N
55) 4 free at (8 ll er to t Cen t r o p p t Su
ited Un a e ar u o y e v lie e b u o y If
ected n n co erties lib il v ci rr ci o s
l or state m fro e eas rel ur yo bout
onta d c houl s ou , y s y lida o h or
f I . s n o i t c i v n o c or s e g r a h c l a n i
w time the d n yo be s) y a d i hol d an
tain e d y rrentl u h is c ic h w y c n e g forcement a
y of yo custod me u s s a o t ds n e nt i
ner detai n o i t a r g i m m i n a d e c la
E E N I A TTA E D E H T O T E C I T O
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
cti
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
903. 486 55) 4
i v e th r o citizen States ited
ease co l , p s tie i v ti c DHS a to
c a e v a h u o y f I . y d custo l ca o
w (the la n odia t s u c our y t c onta
c o t n i u o y e k a t t o n s e o d S H D
rele n e e b e v a h uld o w u yo en h w
y of custod in inta you ma g in tain
u o w ise w r e u oth o y after u y of yo
a t e d n o i at gr immi An you. on
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
(the la y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
crim
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e ICE
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
eas
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e,
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
f
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
J
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
act th
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ease co
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c en t ag
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n rceme o f n e
t a h t g n i r u d y d o t s u c
or state e th y b d ase rele
ot d n o ri e a p for u yo y of
m o ed fr leas be re d l u
m o r f e c i ot n a s i r e in
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y t ag
2INT 1877 llamando al
el n co ese u q í n mu co
pos on c o ón i nc e t de
tener m b o para actual)
la au n co carse i n mu co
te n dura orio t inmigra
do sá yen u l xc ras (e o 48 h
nismo p e el orga do qu solicita
n, se notifica de or esta
o de Se t n rtame a El Dep
usted 8253). Si (877246 E K A 2INT
tro (Cen rr (Cen e t take Cen In t in Jo
de os l a s one i c c a r nf i s e l b i pos
e e el ces br les so s detal yore a tener m
e u q cal lo o atal est ridad to la au
de l ona i ic d a ríodo pe e t s ees
t s y días fe ngos s, domi o d ba do sá
l o estatal a cargo de a l loc a lici o nismo p
ue q iales ic pol ismos gan or a los
HS) de EE. al (D on Naci d a d guri o de Se
A NOTIFIC
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
udadano
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
(Ser
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
es ci cree que usted
ICE
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l e d ) n misió d A e d tro
s e ile v es ci rtad be i o l os h c e r de
lguna a e n tie Si n. ió reclus u s e d e
ismo gan (el or o d i ten e d e tien lo e
fi los endo y lu c x e , s hora 8 4
s lu c e r u s e d e s ce l e s a r t ) s o v i t
ón lo ma tenci e su actual d l o estatal a cargo de
u rrestarlo c a e d n e HS pret D el ue
n d orde una do . ha emiti U U HS) de EE.
T DE A PERSON A A L IÓN C A
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Estados
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
los
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ació
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ci
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
(Ser
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
las acti
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
co
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
exió
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ione
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
la
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
que
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ja
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ad
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ia
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
polic
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o día
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a por un pe
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a en custodi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
eng
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
usió
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
cl
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
su
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
cum
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
uste
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
gratori
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n inmi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
que
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Unidos o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Co
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
mig
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
In
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
co
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
re
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
que
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
queja
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
lguna
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a car
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
entid
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
otra
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ismo
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
fe
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
fes
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ne
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
fi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
DHS
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Si el
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ó
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
nt
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ón lo ma
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
en s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ió
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
detenc
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
NIDA
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
E
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
T
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a por un pe
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
actual. E
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
an
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
contra. Med
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e d ctima í v sido ha
) s a n a u d A e d l o r t n Co
S, H D l e es d ad d i v las acti
de n orde a t s on e c
a i d o cust u o de s g a car
be
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
te
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
us
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
, os
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
esto
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
arr
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
su
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
co
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
or
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ríodo no m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
S ha
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
DH
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
usió
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
en s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e d res è ici pol autorités
s, diman i med a ant les s lu (exc
s forces de l' e nce d age l'
e que l r ord forces de l'
mi m i ' d ns o s i a r es d r u o p
Sécur la de t n parteme dé Le
(855) del ICE, teléfono
o l e rmes ó inf o, lit un de
2INT 1877 llamando al
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
des
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n onctio en f s e l a loc ou État l'
rs fériés) a u o j hes et c s, diman
tient actu
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
é us d e, qui vo dr or s forces de l'
d s u o v e n d intentio a l' DHS e e que l
ation p carcér n i ' d e r d r o n U . n o i t a gr mi
n epartme [D eure Intéri té i Sécur
gratuita). (llamada 6903 448 (855)
ntro Ce l a ndo ma lla DHS l a o
usted 8253). Si (877246 E K A 2INT
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ations ou
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
culp
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
des
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
à
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
rio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de la p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
rde en d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
vous ga
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ment,
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ell
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
at
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ès
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
immigratio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d'
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
on
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
our des rais
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
DHS)]
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Sec
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
and
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
mel
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
H
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
nu
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
déte
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
is au
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
os
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
nis
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
udadano
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
amnati
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ond
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
in
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
fin
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
la
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
é
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
à
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
tenti
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
é
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
tient actu
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ni
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
é
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ation p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
(
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
of
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Av
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Orga
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
los
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
A
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ntro
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
es ci
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
cree que
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
usted
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
immigratio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
DHS)]
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
le
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ia
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Polic
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Estados
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
los
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ontre. e enc r vot à ales pén ons
remis été ez ri u a vous e uell aq l de
xim de ma rio é e p ur un on po tenti
e L . é t r e b i l n e e s mi e r e r ot v e e d
DHS informan un avis du
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
est
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n u ontre, c n e tre o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
à
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
is,
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
é
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ent m e rc o Enf w (La
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
os
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
que Unidos o de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
us o v ne Si le DHS
s ar le p erté lib n e remis
es eur m de 48 h u xim
e u q s i u q e r a HS D e
s des e les agenc t DHS informan
on ti a carcér n i d' e ordr
nter) e C port Sup ent
e d ctima í v sido ha
3 0 9 6 8 4 4 ) 55 8 ( t i u t ra g
le appelant DHS en
(877246 E K A 18772INT
atio r l'Immig e d e ic v Ser
de v olations i v ec des v a
ou État l' par n atio libér
tre o v r e t c onta z c e dev
e c t n dura s pa t n tie dé
e d res è ici pol autorités
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
g
DHS en
18772INT
Ser
a
libér
dev
dé
autorités
s forces de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
assistance de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
être
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
croyez
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ous
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Si
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
[ICE
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Do
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ées à des
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ils
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
z
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s forces de l'
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ire de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ta
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
3
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
centre d'
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
8253).
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
(877246
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
nes
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
es
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
et
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
atio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ci
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s droits
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
S
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
local
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
é
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
autor
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
'
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
agenc
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
(l'
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
rdie
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ga
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
tre
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
upplé
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
tte période
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
des
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
onctio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
en f
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
loc
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ou
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
État
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l'
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s forces de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
être
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
mig
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Im
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
acti
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ées à des
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
in
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
p
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
z
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ordre q
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s forces de l'
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
, sa
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ures
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
he
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
48
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ire de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ations ou
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
culp
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
des
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
O T EN ET D AVISO AO
l'ICE [ICE de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
re
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l'ord
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ÉtatsUnis des
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
yen
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
cito
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
un
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s m sto Cu and
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
io
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
at
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
uillez e v DHS, tés du
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s u a rr a e l u m r o f
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
à
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
nt act détie i vous
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
mpter les fins o c ns
amnati ond c in
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Center] au ent Support Enforcem w La
v crime, un d' ctime i v la ou ÉtatsUnis
t in Jo [ICE t] rcemen fo En s
commun tre cen contacter le uillez
a r é c r a nc i ' d e r d r o t e c e d t e uj s
gn s rensei u o ment) pour v e uell
les t e s aine m e s de mpter les fins
ontre. e enc r vot à ales pén ons
numéro Center] au
le ser i av illez en u e v
au er] t Cen take In
d'admissions du commun
t r o p p a r n e u o n o i t a
tre os de vo er à prop
us o v , riés fé urs jo les
us o v ne Si le DHS
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
tadua
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
es
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
siçã
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
imp
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
adicionais,
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
horas
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
da l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ão
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
imposiç
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
dos,
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
se
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
lui
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
(exc
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
imp
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ênci
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
que
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ênci
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
às ag
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Seg
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
um c é que rr dita e r c a
C a d a r t n E e d o r t n e C
açõ
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
relacio
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
stódi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
da
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ncia
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
agê
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
48
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
acord
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i, de
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
sába
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ag
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s de im
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ado
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
envi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Departame
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
O
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
açõ relacio
da
agê
48
imposiç
(exc
que
envi
O
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
acord
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ngos
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
domi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
dos,
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
siçã
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
sição d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
po
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s de im
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
nal
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a Nac
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ç
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ra
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Seg
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
se á t s e u o AA EU dos dão ida um c
t n o C e d a i c n e g A a d a t n u j n o
lib u o s reito i d s seu s o d es açõ
h ten cê o v aso C
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
icipa
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n u m u o
de a d enti a outr quer
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
al
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
qu
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
le
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
semana de fins os
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
excluindose
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
vas acusaçõ pecti com as res
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o ós ap ) s o d ria e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
f
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a d da ega arr enc
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
le
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
da
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
imp
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
HS pr que o D i de le
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
HS) emiti (D u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
informe ime r c um de tima í v ndo
e d n â f l A e o ã ç a r g i m I e d e l o r t
as d e t rren eco d s i v ci des a erd
zer a f a ão aç eclam r ma u alg a h
mo o n o o d n dete esteja que de
rá e v cê de o v feriados, e semana
DHS n Se o nais. nas crimi e pe s e vas acusaçõ
bera li ria e s e qu em ríodo e p o
nha mante o ã enç t e d atual a su a
r a custódi i e assum etend HS pr
g imi stódia u de c m e a ord um u HS) emiti
O T EN ET D AVISO AO
o ra pa ndo DHS liga o informe
 7 7 8  1 e n o f e l e t o l e p ) E C I ( a g e
tre DHS, en o d s e ad d i v ati as
stó cu e d m e d r o ta s e e r b so zer
s e õ formaç n i ter b o a par o) ent m
o com o contat em entrar rá
stó cu a mir a su assu o ã DHS n
ais du es esta ad id autor las e p o d bera
no te, n dura ia d stó sob cu o nha
bera li a oa, caso sej sua pess a da
doc me. Este o n seu ria em rató g
à poio A ntro de Ce
ê c o v e S . 53 2 8 46 2 
o m co ato t n co em
u o ria rató imig a i d stó
ção a ber li a su bre so s
(a custodiante seu
sas es te ran u d a i d stó
e d pais nici mu u o ais
as hor 48 ximo, á m no
u i d DHS pe do. O bera
iso v a é um ento m u doc
I o d ei L a d o ã ç si o p m I
um c é que rr que dita e r c a
rm I247 (12/12) o DHS F
g o ã ç a g i l e d e n o f e el t o el p E C
se á t s e u o AA o EU dos dão ida um c
rm I247 (12/12)
3 0 9 6  8 44 ) 5 5 8 ( a t i u t ra g
informe , ime r c um de tima í v ndo
o ra pa ndo DHS liga o informe
à poio A ntro de Ce
Page 2 of
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
28
DHS Form I247 (12/12) Page 3 of
THÔNG BÁO CHO NGUÒI B[ GIAM
GIÜ
Bô Quôc Phòng (DHS) dã có lênh giam giü quý vj vì lý do di trú. Lênh giam giü vì lý do di trú là thông báo cúa DHS cho
các co quan thi hành luât pháp là DHS có ý djnh tam giü quý vj sau khi quý vj duoc thá. DHS dã yêu câu co quan thi
hành luât pháp hiên dang giü quý vj phái tiêp tuc tam giü quý vj trong không quá 48 giò dông hô (không kê thú Báy, Chú
nhât, và các ngày nghi lê) ngoài thòi gian mà lë ra quý vj së duoc co quan thi hành luât pháp cúa tiêu bang hoãc dja
phuong thá ra dua trên các bán án và tôi hình su cúa quý vj. Nêu DHS không tam giam quý v[ trong thòi gian 48 giò
bô sung dó, không tính các ngày cuôi tuân hoåc ngày lê, quý v[ nên liên lac vói bên giam giü quý v[ (co quan thi
hành luât pháp hoãc tô chúc khác hiên dang giam giü quý vj) dê hói vê viêc co quan dja phuong hoãc liên bang thá quý
vj ra. Nêu quý v[ có khiêu nai vê lênh giam giü này hoåc liên quan tói các truòng hçp vi pham dân quyên hoåc tµ
do công dân liên quan tói các hoat dông cúa DHS, vui lòng liên lac vói ICE Joint Intake Center tai sô
18772INTAKE (8772468253). Nêu quý v[ tin rång quý v[ là công dân Hoa Ký hoåc nan nhân tôi pham, vui lòng
báo cho DHS biêt bång cách gçi ICE Law Enforcement Support Center tai sô diên thoai miên phí (855) 4486903.
N THÔ
I G [ I B Ò U CHO NG O G BÁ N
M A I
liên n công dâ do
có [ v uý u q ê N . a r j v
c ã ho p phá t â lu hành
không ó, d sung ô b
trên a u d ra á th ng o u ph
ng ngày c cá và t, â nh
n ê i h áp t ph â lu hành
hành thi n qua o c c cá
(DHS) ng Phò c ô Qu ô B
ng ô d t a ho các i ó quan t
giam gi nh ê l ê i v a u n ê khi có
a i g g n a d n ê hi c á h k c ú ch ô t c
h n â tu i ô cu ngày ác c tính không
s hình i ô t và án n á b c cá trên
mà an gi i ò th ngoài ) ê l i h ng
u t p ê ti i á ph j v ý qu ü ng gi a d
j d ý có DHS là pháp t â lu hành
ý qu ü gi giam nh ê l có ã d (DHS)
N THÔ
liên lòng ui v DHS, a ú c ng
c i ó quan t liên c å ho y nà ü
ê vi ê v i ó h ê d ) j v quý ü i g m a
liên nên [ v quý , ê l y ngà c å o h
không DHS u ê N . j v quý a ú c u s
uan q o c c o u d ë s j v quý ra ë l
khôn ong r t j v ý qu ü m gi a c t u
qu khi sau j v quý ü gi m a t nh
giam nh ê L ú. r t di o d ý l ì v j v ý
Ü GI
I G [ I B Ò U CHO NG O G BÁ N
dân qu
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ã
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ho
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ü
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
oint Intake
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
J ICE i ó v c a l liên
m
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a h p vi p ç g h n ò u r t c á c
ng o u ph a j d n qua o c c ê
quý
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
gi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
giam bên i ó v c a l liên
trong [ v giam quý m a t không
ti a ú c pháp t â lu h hàn hi t uan
ông (kh ô h ng ô d ò gi 8 4 uá q g
yêu ã d DHS . á th c o u d j v ý qu
g thôn là trú di do lý vì ü gi giam
M A I
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
pháp â
ô
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Cen
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
å
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n ho
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ê
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
dân qu
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
á
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
h
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
b
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
iê
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
qu
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
gian
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
er
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
oint Intake
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
µ
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
quý
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
hi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
an
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
(c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
[
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
quý
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ò
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
gi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
48
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ò
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
th
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
trong
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a j
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d c ã
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ho g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ban u ê ti
ú h y, C á B ú th ê k ông
thi n qua o c u â c yêu
cho DHS a ú c o á b g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
j ã g
t b ê bi cho DHS báo
(877 AKE 72INT 187
liên n công dâ do
forc En w La ICE i ç g ng cách å t b
tin [ v uý q u ê N ). 8253 6 24 (877
ng ô d t a ho các i ó quan t
t er t ort Cen Supp ement forc
n â d g n ô c à l [ v quý g n å r tin
liên lòng ui v DHS, a ú c ng
n phí (855)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ê
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i mi
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
nhân
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
oint Intake
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
h
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ê
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ô
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
å
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ho
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ý
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
K
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
o
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
H
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
J
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ICE
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ó
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
liên
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
69
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
48
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
n phí (855)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ng
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
m,
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ph
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ô
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
ô
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Cen
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
3.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
0
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
4
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
lò
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
i
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
u
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
v
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
er
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
oint Intake
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
rm I247 (12/12) o DHS F
rm I247 (12/12)
Page 3 of
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
29
Appendix II
Maryland Attorney General October 31 Letter of Advice to Senator Victor Ramirez
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
30
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
31
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
32
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
33
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
34
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
35
This Appendix provides more detailed facts and graphs on immigration detainers in each of the coun
ties for which we were able to obtain reliable data. The graphs are based on responses to an ACLU of
Maryland Public Information Act request to state and local detention facilities. Where such responses
were not provided, we were for the most part able to obtain some more limited information from a re
sponse to an ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project Freedom of Information Act request to ICE. We have
included this more elementary data for Montgomery County and Prince George’s County in this Ap
pendix. We were unable to obtain reliable information from either source for Allegany, Carroll, and
Dorchester counties.
For more detailed information and yearly breakdowns from the PIA data or for data and graphs from
the FOIA data for other counties, please contact the ACLU of Maryland at (410) 8898555 or at
aclu@aclumd.org.
Appendix III
County Facts and Graphs
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
36
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
MPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 843 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• More than 40 percent were charged only with traffic violations or held solely on the basis of
civil immigration charges.
• More than 42 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• Over 90 percent were from Latin American countries.
• At least 2 were U.S. citizens.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
37
BALTIMORE COUNTY
MPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 815 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• More than 36 percent were charged only with traffic or immigration offenses.
• More than 36 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• Almost 75% were from Latin American countries.
• At least 3 were U.S. citizens.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
38
CHARLES COUNTY
MPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 47 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• More than 42 percent were charged only with traffic or immigration offenses.
• More than 25 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• Almost 62 percent were from Latin American countries.
• At least 2 were U.S. citizens.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
39
FREDERICK COUNTY
MPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 628 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• Almost 54 percent were charged only with traffic or immigration offenses.
• More than 29 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• More than 86 percent were from Latin American countries.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
40
KENT COUNTY
MPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 45 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• Almost 65 percent were charged only with traffic offenses.
• Almost 29 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• Almost 98 percent were from Latin American countries.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
41
ST. MARY’S COUNTY
MPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 44 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• Almost 55 percent were charged only with traffic offenses.
• More than 34 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• More than 94 percent were from Latin American countries.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
42
TALBOT COUNTY
MPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 44 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• More than 34 percent were charged only with traffic or immigration offenses.
• 50 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• More than 94 percent were from Latin American countries.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
43
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MPIA Data
• Between 2010 and 2012, about 35 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• More than 31 percent were charged only with traffic or immigration offenses.
• Almost 43 percent were charged only with misdemeanors.
• Almost 66 percent were from Latin American countries.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
44
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
FOIA Data FY2011
• In FY2011, about 362 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• Almost 85 percent were of Latin American or Caribbean origin.
• More than 57 percent had no threat level indication.
• At least 24 percent were charged only with Level 2 or 3 offenses, which include traffic, minor
misdemeanor, and immigration offenses.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
45
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
FOIA Data FY2012
• In FY2012, about 450 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• More than 80 percent were of Latin American or Caribbean origin.
• More than 59 percent had no threat level indication.
• At least 20 percent were charged only with Level 2 or 3 offenses, which include traffic, minor
misdemeanor, and immigration offenses.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
46
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY
FOIA Data FY2011
• In FY2011, about 710 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• More than 80 percent were of Latin American or Caribbean origin.
• More than 75 percent had no threat level indication.
• Almost 14 percent were charged only with Level 2 or 3 offenses, which include traffic, minor
misdemeanor, and immigration offenses.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
47
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY
FOIA Data FY2012
• In FY2012, about 597 individuals were held on an immigration detainer.
• More than 85 percent were of Latin American or Caribbean origin.
• More than 66 percent had no threat level indication.
• At least 16 percent were charged only with Level 2 or 3 offenses, which include traffic, minor
misdemeanor, and immigration offenses.
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
48
“The ‘Secure’ Communities program has diminished trust in our immigrant communities of local law
enforcement. This has resulted in less cooperation and conflict for immigrant victims and witnesses
of crime.”
“It is my opinion that the ‘Secure’ communities program has reduced the number of victims and wit
nesses in immigrant communities and thus made our communities less safe.”
“The Trust Act will ease the unfair budgetary burden which the program places on local govern
ments.”
William Lansdowne, Chief of Police, San Diego, CA: http://www.aclusandiego.org/site/
wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/ChiefLansdowneTRUSTActSupportletter.pdf
“[SComm has resulted in] documented and undocumented immigrants who are victims or witnesses
to crime being fearful of cooperating with police, since any contact can potentially result in separation
from their families and deportations.” For this reason, Chief Bejarano wrote a letter in support of the
California TRUST Act.
David Bejarano, Chief of Police, Chula Vista, CA: http://www.aclusandiego.org/site/
wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/ChiefBejaranoSupportLetter.pdf
“The excessively wide net cast by SComm undercuts community policing strategies and undermines
the ability of local law enforcement to build trust with immigrant communities they serve.”
Manuel Rodriguez, Chief of Police, National City, CA: http://www.aclusandiego.org/site/wp
content/uploads/2013/08/ChiefRodriguezACLUTheTRUSTActAB4Support.pdf
“[A]fter the point that someone is arrested for a minor violation and detained because of their immi
gration status, the message has already been sent to the immigrant community that police are to be
feared.”
Arturo Venegas, Jr., retired Police Chief, Sacramento, CA
“She was a victim of domestic violence, she was taken to jail and she ended up getting turned over to
ICE. All because she sought help from the Escondido Police Department.”
Bill Flores, retired Assistant Sheriff, Escondido, CA (about the negative impact of SComm and
immigration detainers on domestic violence victims).
Appendix IV
Law enforcement speak out in support of limited detainer policies
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
49
Appendix V
ICE admissions that immigration detainers are voluntary
ICE det
ow s Ackn t emen t a t ICE S
us re j s a quest er re n i a ICE det
: heet S ct ct S Fa LU AC
et E D IC t ha g t n gi led ow
hat t t us s. request
s equest e R ers Ar n i a et
ICE det
a i e u e F
(emphasi
artment Dep
en Wh
uses a for it it uses a for
u i v o i p
u i
us re j s a quest er re n i a ICE det
h t e u i v o i p s n o i t a l u g e i l a
). ed d s ad (emphasi so l a See C 8
artment uest eq r a h p m e ( ) " .
eq r r ne ai et s a d d sen E C I
m tha uses a for s i h t s i o i i i m t
S I T I " : s e u D E T S QUE RE T
0 B 8 4 B E E C X E 0 T T 0 N u
hat t t us s. request
a s i i e n i a t e u " E C I n a t a r
T " u e l t i t ( ) u ( 7 . 7 8 2 § . R . F . C
. ) u e u u a s i s a
al law enfor loc or te o a sta uest t eq
h t n i e g a u g n a l " t s e u q e i "
n custod ai nt ai M YOU: T A H T
" j  S R 0 0 F ai Det E C I
uest eq . R . F . C 8 " j .  7 8 § 2
t a n o i t n e t e u y i a i o p m e T
(LE agency cement al law enfor
I m i o F . n o i t a l u g e i e h 247
a or f ect ect f j the sub of of the sub y n custod
m I 7 4 2 2 Dec. ed evis (r
(a) 7 .
), A (LE
247
) 1 1 0 2
u o i i e p
h p m e (
ne ai et d
s A eral co ed f
ni ecog r
request
at mand
ublic, p
0 B 8 4 B E E C X E 0 T T 0 N u
C I , yy, l i a l i m i S . ) u e u u a s i s a h
to . . es . serv r ne uest eq r that
ts r u eral co , lar al scho leg
, ed z ni lega ot re n LEAs a
s request many LE , ertheless Nev .
ed efit en has b E C I . y or at
o av tries t erally erally tries t en g E C I ublic,
" j .  S R 0 0 or F r ne ai Det E C I
n w o s ' E C e sit eb w s e t a t s
the that that the u c n i a t n i a m A E L
s d an , v al go loc d an te sta
ly w comp o d t quire y re ll
eve that eli b ly en k s mista A many LE
om r ffr ÷ d an cu osely p ur p
on on t ositi p r a clea g in k ta oid o av
m I or  7 4 2 2 Dec. ed evis (r
n o i t a i g i m m i n j a  " t a h t
" . n e i l a n a f o y u o t s
s y ne tor at ernment v e hav
er n i a et h these d t i ly w
e ers ar n ai et d E C I eve that eve that I
ed at v lti cu ÷ sion onfu c that that c
tur na ary nt olu he v on on t
) 1 1 0 2
e
sion. n I
e of tur
e u E C I
" ect exp
hen p w , Yet Yet,
t repea
example a few
t a h t y l n o g n i y a s , s i e n i a t
[s] ect " i o " s te a p ci ti an E L "
r te in in d an , d esse r hen p
ckn a y edl t hat ged t led ow
s: example
ur t en V id Dav om r ffr r te et L
ta an S ounsel of ounsel of C ounty C
e i l a m i o f " e i a s i e n i a t e u
. y l p m o c l l i w s A E
s, ment ocu l d na r d DH n E a C I
re mer ers a n i a et E d IC hat hat IC
t Director an ssist A E C I ella, ur
ia n or f ali C y nt nty a Cou lar C ta
E C I h c i h w h t i w " s t s e u q e
ve ha ls a ci i ffi of off S d DH
s t ues ely req re mer ere are j H .
z árque el M igu to M , t Director
t ), a 0 1 0 2 ed at nd (u ia
ust ere are j
,
ta an S ounsel of ounsel of S C ounty C
g or . ez e b sj . ia //med : http
age p o t e s n o p s e i n i ( ) 1 1
m . . . i o . . . u e i i u q e i " e i a
) " t s e u q e i
) 1 1 0 2 , 6 2 n. Ja &A ( Q E C I
com a. r olimig //altop : http
f d p . 5 9 6 7 1 0 . 4 7 6 2 e u Q  (
t? uir A
ia n or f ali C , y nt nty a Cou lar C ta
4 / 0 /1 1 1 0 /files/2 g  E C I r
s ' l e s n u o C y tty n u o C e h t o q
i u t n e v " , s t s e u q e i y l e i e m
5 9 6 7 1 0 . 4 7 6 2 A OI F E C I , )
p /w com  s/2 /upload nt conte
s I " j : n o i t s er a r n ai et d E C I an
i h T t i t I
t ), a 0 1 0 2 , ed at nd (u ia
onse esp r to f d p . C C S e (se
ne ai et hether d on w uesti q
s e b i i c s e u a l l e i a " s a m e h t
, 5
E C I / 2 /1 1 1 0 s/2  A OI F 
a uest or eq er a r
t ' u h t f i t l
e
s r ne
a
st Up La
t? emen uir eq r : i e w s n A
) " . y l p m o c
2 1 20 , 55, 2 ber ber 2 o ct ted O da st Up
n s i e i e h T . t s e u q e i a s i t I
t ' n o u y e h t f i y tty l a n e p o n
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
50
of g in ffin ie Br emo Re: M E C I
, 2 1 6 0 2 0 . 4 7 6 2 A OI F E C I
/1 1 1 0 s/2 /upload nt conte
are not es] agenci cement cement agenci or f en
o n o u y e h t s n o i t c i u s i i u j
ic Cauc an sp l Hi ona essi ongr C of of C
at a. r olimig //altop : http
E C /I 2 /1  A I O F  0 2 0 . 4 7 6 2
to honor ed at mand are not are not mand
) " t o
0 1 0 2 ct. (O us staff us staff (O ic Cauc
p /w com 
f d p . 2 1 6 w a l l a c o L  " (
om s in d an , r ne ai et a d to honor
), 0
e om
o n o u y e h t s n o i t c i u s i i u j
t h g i R l i v i C f o e c i ffi fff 0 S B B
a i g i m m I n a o t u n o p s e R
/ne ov g . ice . w w //w : http
a t e u n o i t a i g i m m i e h T " (
) " . . . s n e i l a
Q ed sk A ly uent eq r F E C I
) . t o
e i i B s e i t i e b i L l i v i C u n a s t
2 ( S S : 1 t a " i e n i a t e B n o i t
m eos/i alleries/vid s/g w
t t s e u q e i l a m i o f a s i i e n i
at ons, uesti Q
o t w o B " n o o e u i v g n i ffi e
t a ) 2 1 u 2
mig m ht s. r ne ai et ion_d at r
. . . n i a t e u y l i i a i o p m e t o t
m
.
/ne ov g . ice . w w //w : http
t s e u q e i " a s a s i e n i a t e u
/ ary r s/lib w d s/ sheet act ffact
u c n i a t n i a m A E L e h t t a h t
r ne ai et d  htm s. aq ffaq escr (d
) " n e i l a n a f o y u o t s u
g in ib escr
st Up La
2 1 20 , 55, 2 ber ber 2 o ct ted O da st Up
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
I
V
I
L
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
E
S
U
N
I
O
N
O
F
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
51
www.aclumd.org