Immigration Detainers and Governmental Liability When A Person Is Wrongly Held - Galarza v. Szalczyk

In an opinion filed on March 4, 2014, (Galarza v. Szalczyk, Case No. 12-3991) the 3^rd Circuit potentially dealt Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) a major blow, subjecting local law enforcement to new litigation and liability, and offered those held on ICE detainers an avenue for relief.

In this precedential decision, the 3^rd Circuit ruled that a plain language reading of the federal law made the ICE Detainer a permissive basis for local law enforcement to extend the detention of individuals in local custody, but stated that the extended detention was not a requirement.  The Court reasoned that ICE could not mandate continued detention through the detainer as doing so would violate the anti-commandeering principle found in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  As a consequence, the Court removed liability for wrongful detention from ICE and placed it firmly on local law enforcement officials.  To understand the importance of this ruling you must understand the ICE detainer system.

When ICE learns that an individual is in the custody of local law enforcement officials, it has the authority to issue a detainer to the local sheriff’s department requesting that the sheriff’s office notify them when the person has satisfied their terms of imprisonment and retain that individual in custody for 48 hours, allowing ICE an opportunity to take custody of that individual.  This must be broken down a little more in depth for greater understanding.  A person satisfies their terms of imprisonment when they have either completed the sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court or tribunal or posted a bond allowing them to be released from criminal custody. Additionally, it is important to know that the 48 hour period does not include weekends or holidays, and begins running upon the completion of the criminal custody.

With that brief explanation of the ICE detainer, let us now explore what Galarza tells us and the potential impact that it might have.  Currently, many local law enforcement officials are under a belief that the detainer is a federal mandate and will adhere to the detainer even when ICE has not done the same.  Galarza, at least within the 3^rd Circuit, for now, clarifies that this is not the case.  In Galarza, ICE had local law enforcement (Lehigh County) detain an individual following his completion of a sentence on a conviction for a drug crime.  This detention continued for three days beyond the completion of his sentence, and, as it turned out, the individual was a United States Citizen.  Mr. Galarza sued Lehigh County and the county attempted to argue that they were issued the detainer which was mandatory and should exempt them from suit.  The 3^rd Circuit ruling allowed the lawsuit against Lehigh to proceed.

The consequences of this decision are multi-faceted.  First, individuals wrongfully detained on an ICE detainer may have the ability to sue the local law enforcement entities detaining them. This is good news for many as they have been caught in that limbo world of attempting to find out who is responsible for the violation of their constitutional rights. 

As a result of their potential liability, many local law enforcement entities should think long and hard about whether or not they want to comply with an ICE detainer.  In fact, local entities lack the ability in many cases to determine the immigration status of an individual and they are at the mercy of ICE to get it right and do so very quickly.  As a result it is likely that litigation adverse local law enforcement entities may start refusing to cooperate with ICE detainers.  This could be a boon for the immigrant community allowing them to avoid ICE detention.  However, it will likely become much more difficult for ICE to detain potentially dangerous criminals, jeopardizing the safety of our communities.  Regardless, one impact that is will be seen is that ICE will become much more taxed and enforcement initiatives will be much more difficult to attain.           

If you or a loved one are detained by local law enforcement, it is still in your best interest to consult with an attorney trained in immigration law prior to paying a criminal bond.  This ensures that your (or your loved one’s) interests and rights are protected.