County sheriffs in Kansas would be able to detain an inmate for 48 hours at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials following the individual’s release on other charges under legislation considered in the Kansas House.
House Bill 2771 heard in the Committee on Federal and State Affairs was viewed by supporters as an effective law enforcement tool to protect communities, while opponents claimed it was an infringement on civil rights and an example of federal government excess.
Among the bill’s provisions:
- County jails would be able to hold individuals up to 48 hours after receiving either an ICE detainer or an administrative warrant, which differs from a judicial warrant in that the administrative warrant is issued by a government agency, such as the Department of Homeland Security, while a judicial warrant is signed by a judge.
- Include local law enforcement involved in federal government operations in the insurance pool now providing liability coverage for county and municipal law enforcement personnel.
- The state will pay any judgement in a federal civil lawsuit against local law enforcement officers if those officers assisting ICE are found to be acting in good faith.
- The Kansas attorney general will represent any local law enforcement agency assisting the federal government in any such federal civil lawsuit or habeus corpus hearing
- A county sheriff may enter into an agreement with ICE for a 287g Program expanding local law enforcement authority in immigration issues without receiving authority from that county’s board of commissioners.
Testimony on HB 2771 ICE legislation
We asked Bruce Chladny with the Kansas Association of Counties for comment on the bill allowing ICE to bypass county commissions and work directly with sheriffs in ICE enforcement:
“HB 2771 deals with how responsibilities are divided between county commissioners and sheriffs. In Kansas, sheriffs are independently elected officials. County commissioners do not direct the day-to-day operations of a sheriff’s office, including decisions related to law enforcement activity.
“KAC’s focus is making sure the law clearly defines who is responsible for what. When changes in the law involve sheriffs, county commissioners, and federal agencies, it’s important that everyone understands their role so there is no confusion about authority.
“As HB 2771 moves through the legislative process, it is important that the final language respect the structure of county government and clearly define roles.”
Sheriff Jeff Easter of Sedgwick County representing the Kansas Association of Sheriffs, summarized the various 287g programs:
“The first one is the Jail Enforcement Model. This model allows local jails to utilize ICE databases to determine if an individual in the jail’s custody is in the U.S. illegally. That puts all the onus on the sheriff and his staff to go through all those databases to ensure that someone is here illegally.
“The second program is the Warrant Service Officer Program, which is the program that’s used the most by sheriffs. This model allows ICE to determine if a person in jail’s custody is in the U.S. illegally, and if so, the detainer is sent to the jail for commission. Deputies served as detainers on the person in custody instead of an ICE agent. This particular program does not change anything other than ICE does not come into the jail to serve the detainer on the individual that is in our custody for crimes they committed in our community; it has nothing to do with them being here illegally, rather, why they’re in our jail. They’re in there because they committed crimes in our community. Therefore, ICE will not come in and serve those. They send it to us. We simply serve the paperwork.
“The third model is the Task Force Model. This model allows law enforcement to have the same arrest powers as ICE on administrative warrants.”
Logan DeMond with the Kansas American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found fault with the legislation in several areas:
“This bill disregards civil rights, disregards due process, disregards necessary checks on law enforcement, and the likelihood of error exposes the state to what will be costly litigation.”
Also opposing the bill was Alejandro Lopez of New Frontiers, who warned of the dismantling of communities:
“HB2771 would allow the unbridled expansion of federal overreach to our backyard, making county sheriffs do their bidding, when it comes to immigration enforcement, at the same time, being the highest funded federal law enforcement agency in existence in this moment. We know that Kansans want to feel safe where they live. Turning every county jail in our state into an immigration detention facility, does nothing demonstrably to increase safety, and only serves to diminish the trust that immigrant communities have in their local communities and their law enforcement.”
Ellis County Sheriff Scott Braun countered that the bill protects both community and law enforcement:
“It clarifies statutory authority, provides similar civil immunity for good faith actions, and that’s important. It insures representation by the attorney general and protects counties through indemnification, if a judgment occurs. If a judgment occurs, it can be in the millions. And it could devastate our communities, and we need to protect them. And we need to protect our sheriffs, because all we’re trying to do is the right thing. This issue is not about politics. It’s about clarity, of liability, fiscal responsibility, and protecting Kansas sheriffs, counties and Kansas taxpayers from a catastrophic financial exposure. Kansas must ensure sheriffs and counties do not stand alone.
