As the Trump administration continues its push to aggressively enforce immigration law, communication between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement is increasing, reigniting debate over how federal requests play out.
GBH News surveyed 13 of Massachusetts’ 14 county sheriffs, asking how and when their offices communicate with ICE. The exception was the Nantucket County sheriff’s office, which sends those in its custody to Barnstable County. Four sheriff’s offices agreed to speak with GBH News while five responded via email. Four offices — Suffolk, Dukes, Essex and Franklin — did not respond.
How does ICE interact with sheriff offices in Massachusetts?
ICE regularly sends detainer requests to local law enforcement agencies if they believe they have custody of an immigrant who is deportable. Sheriffs sometimes alert ICE about specific immigrants to see if they’re interested in issuing a detainer.
Detainers don’t have the force of law of a warrant, which law enforcement agencies are bound to honor.
ICE asks a state or local law enforcement agency to give it as much advance notice as possible before a potentially deportable immigrant is released from local custody, and to hold that person for up to 48 hours beyond when they would ordinarily be released.
Immigrants subject to detainers include those awaiting trial on criminal charges, those who have been convicted and are nearing the completion of their sentences, and in other cases in which ICE believes an immigrant is removable.
“Since President Trump took office, the county sheriff’s office has seen an increase in outreach from ICE agents looking for specific individuals with detainers,” said Robert Rizzuto, communications director with the Hampden County sheriff’s office.
Do sheriffs honor ICE detainers?
Yes, and no. Sheriffs alert ICE about immigrants who might be leaving custody soon. They legally can’t hold those individuals beyond their release date. The 48-hour detainer window was eliminated in Massachusetts by the 2017 Supreme Judicial Court ruling Lunn v. Commonwealth. The state’s high court found that it’s unlawful for local law enforcement agencies to hold people solely on the basis of an ICE detainer. Sheriffs and even advocates say Massachusetts sheriffs have abided to the Lunn ruling since it took effect.
Many ICE press releases note that detainers have not been respected by state courts, but they rarely mention sheriffs.
The Lunn decision, Bristol County Sheriff Paul Heroux said, is “silent on that matter” of communication. Heroux said ICE shows up “basically every single time” to pick people up if they’re done serving time.
There are instances where ICE doesn’t actually pick up an individual, such as the recent case of Wisteguens Jean Quely Charles , a Haitian national with 17 convictions.
When ICE arrested Charles after an extensive manhunt, it said the Norfolk County sheriff’s office had released him in 2023 without honoring its detainer. Norfolk says it notified ICE in advance of Charles’ release but ICE did not pick him up at the time.
“We cannot violate a person’s due process by holding them beyond their legally stipulated term of confinement,” wrote Sheriff Patrick McDermott. “We remain willing to communicate with ICE and we appreciate the work of all law enforcement to keep our communities safe.”
In Plymouth, Sheriff Joseph McDonald Jr. said after they let ICE know the release date, “sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn’t.”
“I hesitate to assign blame or fault to anybody,” said McDonald Jr. when asked about why ICE would not follow up on its own detainer request, and then spend funds to find someone in the community.
“It’s incumbent upon them to make arrangements to come and pick that person up. If they don’t do that, that person is going to walk out the door,” he said.
All sheriffs who responded to GBH News said they provide ICE with ample time to arrange a pickup. “It’s not like somebody leaving in 15 minutes. They have time to plan it out. It really comes down to agency priorities and ability,” said Hampden’s Rizzuto.
How do sheriffs communicate with ICE?
All sheriffs interviewed by GBH News noted that they have open lines of communication with ICE. The sheriffs described a number of different ways they’re in touch with the federal agency. Heroux said ICE will contact his office proactively to learn whether immigrants with detainers are currently in their custody. The county is currently housing ten people with detainers who are serving a criminal sentence or awaiting trial on state charges.
Worcester County Sheriff Lew Evangelidis takes a more involved approach, with his office reaching out to ICE about individuals who ICE might be interested in. “Then they [ICE] make the decision to put a detainer on them, and then we notify them when they’re about to be released,” he said.
When individuals are processed into a county facility, their fingerprints are taken, and those are “run through databases that may generate responses from the federal government,” according to Middlesex County Sheriff Peter Koutoujian’s office.
Worcester County, which has a jail population of about 700, is currently holding some 20 people who also have detainers.
In Plymouth County, which helps house people facing civil immigration violations on behalf of ICE, McDonald Jr. said his staff runs the names of people in custody for state level criminal matters through a computer system during the booking process.
“It will pop up on the computer oftentimes that, yes, this is somebody that ICE has filed a detainer on,” he said. ICE is then notified.
All sheriffs who spoke with GBH News said they have no control over the release of people if ordered by a judge at a court hearing. Though they notify ICE when a court appearance is scheduled, if a person is released by a judge and ICE isn’t present, the defendant is free to leave.
There’s also a question of how immigrants will deal with being detained outside of courts. A federal ruling in the case Ryan v. ICE prohibits the arrest of people on immigration charges at or around local courts in Massachusetts.
Still, there have been some reports of immigrants being detained upon release from court, including last week, when ICE took a teenager into custody at Lynn District Court, after the 11th grader was arrested on charges of pushing her sibling during a fight over a cellphone. She was released from a detention center in Maine after prosecutors dropped the charge.
Should Massachusetts allow detainer holds?
The sheriffs were asked about their support for state legislation prompted by the Lunn ruling that would create a 36-hour window in which sheriffs could hold immigrants beyond their release times at the request of ICE.
“That kind of fills that loophole gap that’s necessary, that these public safety officials need,” said state Rep. Michael Soter, who’s sponsoring one bill on the matter. He says it would also shift arrests to courthouses and jails and reduce the need for ICE enforcement action in communities.
Some sheriffs, like Worcester County’s Evangelidis, support that legislation. He said he thinks it would help public safety and keep immigrants who commit crimes in some form of custody.
“We’ve seen it happen, particularly if they leave our custody and they go to the court and they get bailed out,” Evangelidis said.
Bristol Sheriff Heroux said he believes district attorneys want to see immigrants who are charged with state level crimes convicted before they’re deported, and for them to serve their sentence ahead of removal.
“However, under the new Trump administration agenda, they may be deporting people before they’re sentenced or even before the end of their sentence,” said Heroux.
Could ICE change how it executes detainers?
Worcester County District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr. said his office wants immigrants who’ve committed crimes to be “sitting around for those trials” and not deported before conviction and sentence fulfillment, so victims can get some measure of justice.
“We represent the victims. We represent the voiceless,” said Early. “It helps give victims closure, especially on violent crimes.”
Immigrant advocates have concerns about the constitutionality of ICE detainers, and they argue the legislation would be at odds with the SJC’s Lunn decision.
“The soundbite that keeps getting repeated is that it’s a way to close a loophole,” said Leah Hastings, an attorney with Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts. “Sheriffs are agents of the criminal legal system. That is their job — to enforce and be a part of. Immigration is a civil issue, so there’s no loophole that needs to be closed there.”
Hastings contends that if someone is released from jail or at court, it’s because there’s no basis for their charge to be pursued, or because a judge doesn’t see them as a public safety risk and has ordered their release.
“I’m not sure why sheriffs are trying to put themselves in the position of overriding that determination and saying, 'well, no, actually, this person should be taken into custody in this other [federal] system,'” Hastings said.
Some county sheriffs are lukewarm about the necessity of the legislation.
The Hampden County Sheriff said it doesn’t “take positions on hypotheticals,” and follows the law as it stands. And in Bristol County, Sheriff Heroux said he will do whatever the legislature decides. “I’m a little bit agnostic on it,” said Heroux. “In Bristol County, it’s not needed because ICE has shown up every time to pick somebody up before the person is released.”
