Use of ICE Detainers: Obama vs. Trump

The latest case-by-case Immigration and Customs Enforcement data reveal that its use of detainers, commonly called immigration holds, began to increase last year well before either the election or inauguration of Donald Trump. Once President Trump assumed office, detainer usage rose rapidly. By March 2017, the second full month of the Trump Administration, ICE recorded preparing 13,971 detainers - up 31.7 percent from January's level.

Against a longer time frame, the number of detainers issued in March of 2017 is still slightly lower than during March of 2014. It is also only half the level of six years ago (March 2011) when ICE detainer usage peaked. See Figure 1.


Figure 1. Immigration Detainers by Month

TRAC's detainer report series examines the role ICE I-247s have played in effectuating actual deportations. ICE detainers have frequently been used to ask local police and sheriffs to hold individuals booked into local jails beyond when they would ordinarily be released. In theory, their purpose is to allow ICE time to take the individuals into custody. But in a surprisingly high proportion of occasions this never occurs.

A number of myths have grown up around the use of ICE detainers. Detainers are often characterized as being the main tool that ICE needs to apprehend suspects it seeks to deport. Detainer usage climbed in the waning years of the Bush Administration, and expanded rapidly under President Obama. However, results from their widespread use during the last two administrations never lived up to expectations. They provided a surprisingly small contribution to ICE's actual deportations.

Detainer usage was severely cut back in 2014 when much more targeted and selective enforcement policies were instituted by the Obama Administration. Now the Trump Administration has resurrected widespread use of detainers, and is pressuring local law enforcement agencies to comply.

In reporting on this topic, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University sought to examine whether the effectiveness of the detainer program shows any improvement under President Trump when judged against this administration's stated goals. TRAC found the agency surprisingly reticent to reveal how detainers now are actually being used. This has left many questions unanswered.

The Data and TRAC's Revised Detainer App

Results presented here are based upon TRAC's analysis of agency records on over two million ICE detainers prepared from October 2002 through March 2017 during the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations. The Center obtained these data in a series of separate releases in response to over fifty individual Freedom of Information submissions, and a successful lawsuit against the agency. Three additional lawsuits in federal court are currently ongoing. Each lawsuit seeks formerly public information ICE is now withholding covering recent time periods[1].

Accompanying this report, a revised web-based application allows the public to drill into these data to examine where detainers are now being sent - to each state, county, and individual law enforcement agency (LEA). Information is separately compiled for each month, as well as year by year, to make it easier to determine how targeting has recently changed. The revised app also includes information on the gender and citizenship of individuals who are the subject of these detainers.

Current information in agency files recording when detainers are refused is also included. It is important to emphasize that ICE itself now admits that this data field is inaccurate and unreliable. Users therefore should be cautious in placing any faith in these particular numbers. ICE apparently believes that the field is so error prone that it discontinued issuing its "detainer refused" report that was based on this field.

TRAC's original version of its detainer app can also be viewed. While it doesn't include any data on the current administration, it continues to contain much greater information on detainer usage during the Bush and Obama years. Data available include the criminal records along with the ages of persons targeted by detainers, whether the agency actually took the individual into custody, and (in a companion app), whether these detainers resulted in actual deportations.

Table 1. Law Enforcement Agencies Sent
ICE Detainer Requests,
February - March 2017
Detainer Requests Law Enforcement Agencies
Number of LEAs Cumulative Percent
1 642 29.1%
2 363 45.5%
3 195 54.4%
4 161 61.7%
5 126 67.4%
6-9 260 79.2%
10-19 199 88.2%
20-29 91 92.3%
30-39 38 94.0%
40-49 32 95.5%
50-74 33 97.0%
75-99 22 98.0%
100-149 23 99.0%
150-199 10 99.5%
200-299 6 99.7%
300 or more 6 100.0%
Total 2,207

2,207 Law Enforcement Agencies Sent New ICE Detainer Requests

The new data provide details on the specific law enforcement agencies sent ICE detainers. During February and March of 2017, ICE prepared detainers addressed to some 2,207 different law enforcement agencies. About three out of ten (29.1%) received a single detainer request during this two-month period. Over half (54.4%) received up to three requests. Only one in five out of the 2,207 LEAs received ten or more requests. See Table 1.

The largest number of law enforcement agencies receiving ICE detainers during these two months were located in Texas. In that state alone ICE records listed 286 different law enforcement agencies sent detainers. California had the next highest total with 206 different law enforcement agencies that were recipients. Georgia had the third highest with 105 of its local police, sheriff's and other law enforcement agencies recorded as receiving detainer requests during this two-month period. The other states in the top five were Florida (98 LEAs) and New York (85 LEAs). Some of these detainers were addressed to federal correctional facilities that happened to be located in these states.

The line-up of states shifts, however, if the focus is on the actual number of ICE detainers, rather than the number of LEAs receiving them. California then tops the list racking up 5,292 detainer requests, followed by Texas with 5,091, and Florida with 1,431.

Georgia has the fourth highest total of ICE detainers requests (1,365), these were sent to 105 individual law enforcement agencies. Arizona had the fifth highest number of detainers, with 1,298 noted in ICE records during February and March of 2017. Corresponding figures for the remaining states can be found in Table 2.

The 100 LEAs Sent the Most ICE Detainers

A total of 100 law enforcement agencies received fifty or more detainer requests from ICE during February and March of this year. However, because these agencies received the highest volume of requests they alone accounted for half (50.0%) of all ICE detainers ICE recorded as prepared during this two-month period. These top 100 agencies are listed in Table 3.

Topping this list was the Harris County Jail in Texas - the county Houston is located in. To the extent ICE records reliably record this information, the Harris County Jail was sent 738 of these immigration holds. This averages out to almost 13 ICE detainer forms arriving each day.

ICE records indicate that the Los Angeles County Jail received the second highest number of detainer requests. According to the records ICE provided TRAC, the agency prepared 696 detainer requests addressed to this one jail. In third place was the Maricopa County Jail in Arizona where Phoenix is located. It was sent a total of 501 detainer requests during February and March of 2017.

State or Territory Detainer Requests Law Enforcement Agencies
TEXAS 5,091 286
CALIFORNIA 5,292 206
GEORGIA 1,365 105
FLORIDA 1,431 98
NEW YORK 1,070 85
ILLINOIS 370 74
NORTH CAROLINA 839 72
TENNESSEE 383 62
ALABAMA 302 57
VIRGINIA 572 57
MISSOURI 154 50
MINNESOTA 285 47
WASHINGTON 461 47
PENNSYLVANIA 469 46
OKLAHOMA 552 45
SOUTH CAROLINA 459 45
COLORADO 420 44
KANSAS 164 44
OHIO 217 44
WISCONSIN 178 44
ARKANSAS 199 43
LOUISIANA 263 42
IOWA 149 39
ARIZONA 1,298 37
MICHIGAN 143 36
INDIANA 170 35
NEW JERSEY 709 35
MASSACHUSETTS 214 33
KENTUCKY 122 31
MISSISSIPPI 334 31
OREGON 189 30
MARYLAND 238 28
NEW MEXICO 84 25
NEBRASKA 122 24
NEVADA 446 23
IDAHO 128 22
CONNECTICUT 87 20
UTAH 271 16
WYOMING 37 16
SOUTH DAKOTA 34 12
HAWAII 16 10
MONTANA 13 9
NEW HAMPSHIRE 61 8
WEST VIRGINIA 60 8
MAINE 11 7
NORTH DAKOTA 19 7
ALASKA 7 4
DELAWARE 29 4
GUAM 27 4
PUERTO RICO 22 3
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 12 2
RHODE ISLAND 13 2
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 4 1
VERMONT 1 1
VIRGIN ISLANDS 6 1
Facility Name Not Listed 387
25,999 2207

The Dallas County Jail according to ICE records was sent the fourth highest total with 432 separate detainer forms addressed to jail officials there. The Gwinnett County Jail -located 30 miles northeast of Atlanta, Georgia -- was in fifth place with 416 detainer requests.

Rounding out the top ten recipients of ICE detainers during the first two full months of the Trump Administration were: Hidalgo County Jail in Texas (321), the Los Angeles City Jail in California (292) the ASPC Alhambra in Maricopa County, Arizona (272), Taft Federal Correctional Institution in Kern County California (271), and the Orange County Jail in California (260),

Table 3 also shows comparative numbers for the detainers received at each of these same facilities during January 2017 so that the impact facility-by-facility of President Trump's new policies can be more readily seen. (Complete month by month figures are available in the new detainer app.

Also for comparison purposes, the detainers prepared back in March of 2014 are also listed in Table 3. This is when detainer totals nationally were slightly higher than the levels in March of 2017. However, for both the Harris County Jail and the Los Angeles County Jail, these facilities received even more detainer requests in March 2017 than they had three years earlier. In contrast, the opposite was true for the Maricopa County Jail in Arizona. Maricopa County Jail received 324 detainers back in March of 2014 but only 260 in March of 2017.

ICE's Current Campaign To Hide Information on Its Detainer Program

Because of the agency's withholding, there are a surprising number of questions that the new data can't answer on ICE detainer practices during the Trump Administration. Among basic information now being withheld, as mentioned above, are any details on the criminal records for the subjects of these detainers. Thus, we can't tell how many detainers were issued on individuals without any criminal record, or how many were lodged for noncitizens who had only been convicted of petty or minor offenses.

Also being withheld is information on whether ICE actually took these individual into custody after issuing a detainer, or ultimately deported them. All of this information had been routinely released in response to TRAC's past FOIA requests. The last ICE release that contained this information was made as recently as January of this year.

Given the past failures of ICE's detainer program to achieve its stated goals, success of the Trump Administration's policies cannot be assumed. For example, stepped up issuance of detainers could be an empty exercise if it outstrips the staffing available to actually take individuals into custody. It could be counter-productive if it clogs the deportation pipeline with individuals who pose little threat to public safety while diverting attention from attending to and deporting those individuals actually convicted of committing serious crimes.

Rather than trumpeting their accomplishments, ICE officials are carrying out a puzzling campaign to hide what their detainer efforts are achieving. The initial reason agency officials gave to explain why data fields had mysteriously disappeared from the data files TRAC received was perplexing. The exact words in ICE's response to our administration appeal to the Office of Principal ICE Legal Advisor were:

"In response to your FOIA request, ICE provided the data fields from the Enforcement Integrated Database (EID) that are responsive to your request. To the extent your request seeks ICE to provide additional data sets, those data fields do not exist in EID."

Thus, ICE did not assert the information was somehow exempt from disclosure. Rather it essentially claimed that the agency had retained no record of whether individuals were taken into custody after a detainer was issued; that it did not know anything about whether anyone targeted by a detainer had ever been arrested or what they had been charged or convicted of; and it did not have any record of whether any of these individuals were ever deported.

TRAC's co-directors then sued the agency challenging the truthfulness of these claims. After suit was filed, agency officials changed their story. Yes, they admitted the information existed. Their new claim? Because these details were recorded in different database tables, the agency didn't feel obligated to retrieve it and was now refusing to do so.

While we continue to challenge this unlawful withholding in court, we sent off a series of separate requests limiting the data fields to those contained in any one request to a single ICE database table. This would then obviate any need to fetch data from more than one database table at a time. We also limited our request to a narrow time period to make it simpler to respond.

However, the agency has now refused to process even these new requests. It simply administratively closed each request without bothering to conduct any search.

So we appealed again. The agency's final response from its Office of Chief Legal Advisor arrived last week. Again the agency switched gears and came up with a new reason for its refusal to retrieve the requested data. The agency now claims it couldn't process our requests because officials were unable to remember where to look to find information on which individuals it had booked into its detention facilities, or just who the agency had recently deported.

Despite the fact that our requests cited the specific previous agency FOIA response (by the agency's own tracking number) when it had provided exactly this information, and our letter had included the precise name the agency itself had used for this data field, the agency now claims:

"Under the FOIA, it is a statutory requirement that a requester reasonably describe the requested records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). You must describe the records that you seek in enough detail to enable Department personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. 6 C.F.R. § 5.3(b). ... Upon a complete review of the administrative record, ICE has determined that your request ... does not reasonably describe identifiable records."

The public might well ask, what exactly the agency is so determined to hide?

Table 3. Top 100 Law Enforcement Agencies Receiving Most ICE Detainer Requests, by Selected Months
Rank State County and Facility ICE Detainers Prepared
March 2014 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 Feb-Mar 2017
1 Texas Harris County - Harris County Jail 368 279 334 404 738
2 California Los Angeles County - Los Angeles County Jail 324 184 317 379 696
3 Arizona Maricopa County - Maricopa County Jail 324 240 241 260 501
4 Texas Dallas County - Dallas County Jail 264 164 206 226 432
5 Georgia Gwinnett County - Gwinnett County Jail 202 78 217 199 416
6 Texas Hidalgo County - Hidalgo County Jail 158 131 167 154 321
7 California Los Angeles County - Los Angeles City Jail 126 100 141 151 292
8 Arizona Maricopa County - ASPC Alhambra 193 116 127 145 272
9 California Kern County - Taft Fed.Corr.Inst. 145 86 131 140 271
10 California Orange County - Orange County Jail 182 110 130 130 260
11 California San Bernardino County - Fci Victorville 9 21 16 220 236
12 Nevada Clark County - Clark County Det.Center 83 76 113 111 224
13 North Carolina Hertford County - Rivers Correctional Institution 22 47 174 19 193
14 Oklahoma Oklahoma County - Oklahoma County Jail 78 90 102 91 193
15 California Fresno County - F.C.I. Mendota 0 3 3 176 179
15 Mississippi Adams County - Adams County Det Center 13 12 31 148 179
17 Arizona Maricopa County - US Marshal - Phoenix 57 57 42 136 178
18 Texas Howard County - BSCC Flightline Unit 332 39 74 94 168
19 Utah Salt Lake County - Salt Lake County Jail 58 88 62 104 166
20 Florida Collier County - Collier County Sheriff Facility 74 46 80 76 156
21 Pennsylvania Centre County - Moshannon Valley Correctional 124 217 83 67 150
21 Texas Travis County - Travis Cty Jail 174 65 94 56 150
23 Oklahoma Caddo County - Great Plains Correctional 0 29 26 116 142
23 Texas Bee County - Garza West Transfer Facility 15 56 39 103 142
25 California Santa Barbara County - Santa Barbara County Jail 21 49 51 86 137
26 California Ventura County - Ventura County Jail 16 58 63 69 132
27 Georgia Cobb County - Cobb County Jail 50 44 74 57 131
28 California San Diego County - San Diego County Jail 37 52 63 66 129
29 California San Diego County - Vista Detention Facility 71 33 58 63 121
30 Alabama Pickens County - Aliceville Fci 17 37 34 85 119
30 California San Bernardino County - West Valley 102 56 50 69 119
32 New York Queens County - Rikers Island, Queens, Ny 139 16 57 58 115
33 Texas Jefferson County - Beaumont Fcc, Medium 18 4 56 58 114
34 Georgia Hall County - Hall County Jail 33 25 53 60 113
34 Texas Walker County - Huntsville State P. 94 172 40 73 113
36 New York Queens County - Queens Central Booking 64 1 49 61 110
37 North Carolina Wake County - Wake County Sheriff Dept. 73 58 45 64 109
37 Texas Montgomery County - Montgomery County Jail 15 33 59 50 109
39 California Kern County - Wasco State Prison 43 56 48 59 107
39 Nevada Clark County - City Of Las Vegas Det.Center 9 34 47 60 107
41 California Santa Clara County - Santa Clara County Main Jail 28 37 48 56 104
42 North Carolina Wake County - N.C. Dept Of Corrections 49 50 65 38 103
43 Virginia Manassas City - Prince William Facility 72 49 60 41 101
44 California Fresno County - Fresno County Jail 40 24 41 59 100
44 New York Suffolk County - Suffolk Co.Correc Fac 54 54 59 41 100
46 California San Bernardino County - San Bernardino County Jail 24 21 40 55 95
47 California San Francisco County - San Francisco Co Jail 33 21 45 49 94
47 Colorado Adams County - Adams County Jail 31 20 43 51 94
49 Florida Miami-Dade County - Dade County Correctional 79 26 48 44 92
49 New York Nassau County - Nassau County Correctional Center 50 61 51 41 92
51 California Monterey County - Monterey Co. Jail 36 28 33 58 91
51 California Santa Barbara County - Lompoc U.S. Prison 24 53 40 51 91
51 Texas Tarrant County - Tarrant County Jail 43 21 43 48 91
54 New Jersey Cumberland County - Southwood State Prison 2 4 29 59 88
54 Texas Tarrant County - Mansfield L.E. Center 6 33 50 38 88
56 Florida Hillsborough County - Hillsborough County Jail 54 14 33 53 86
57 Texas Collin County - Collin County Jail 19 20 44 41 85
58 California Riverside County - Riverside County Sheriff 50 39 44 40 84
59 California Alameda County - Santa Rita Jail 81 30 32 50 82
59 Minnesota Hennepin County - Hennepin County Adc 42 34 35 47 82
61 Florida Palm Beach County - Palm Beach County Jail 34 21 40 41 81
61 Louisiana Jefferson Parish - Jefferson Parish Cor. Center 6 24 34 47 81
63 Texas Taylor County - Texas Doc - Middleton Unit 11 41 28 52 80
64 Florida Miami-Dade County - Turner Guiford Knight (Tgk) Jail 14 35 36 42 78
65 Texas Anderson County - Gurney Transfer Facility 8 46 30 47 77
66 California San Mateo County - San Mateo Co Jail 29 24 37 39 76
67 Arizona Pima County - Pima County Jail 62 21 32 43 75
68 New York Kings County - Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center 31 21 54 20 74
69 Texas Tarrant County - Arlington Police Dept. 9 34 33 41 74
70 Georgia Clayton County - Clayton County Jail 12 8 21 52 73
71 Texas Walker County - Holliday Transfer Unit 30 52 35 37 72
72 Texas Bexar County - San Antonio (City Of) Magistrate 64 29 28 43 71
73 Texas Cameron County - Candadian County, El Reno 28 24 28 43 71
74 Virginia Fairfax City - Fairfax Co. Adult Detention Center 2 30 41 30 71
75 New York Kings County - Brooklyn Central Booking 41 0 47 23 70
76 Colorado El Paso County - Colo Dept Of Corrections 21 17 17 52 69
77 Florida Leon County - Fl Dept Of Corrections 33 28 26 41 67
78 North Carolina Mecklenburg County - Mecklenburg County Jail Central 46 30 35 31 66
78 Oklahoma Tulsa County - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center (Jail) 68 39 34 32 66
80 California Tulare County - Tulare County Jail 42 34 26 38 64
81 California Sacramento County - Sacramento County Jail 29 23 27 36 63
81 Texas El Paso County - El Paso County Jail (Tx) 8 11 31 32 63
81 Washington King County - King County Adult Jail 28 25 31 32 63
84 Florida Broward County - Broward County Jail 34 22 31 31 62
84 Illinois Cook County - Cook County Jail 63 16 27 35 62
86 South Carolina Charleston County - Charleston County Correctional Facility 22 9 36 25 61
87 California Contra Costa County - Contra Costa County Jail 41 21 32 26 58
87 California Santa Clara County - Santa Clara Co Jail/Men's 11 20 38 20 58
87 Florida Miami-Dade County - South Florida Recept Cent 10 28 24 34 58
87 New York Westchester County - Westchester Co.Jail,valha 27 10 20 38 58
91 Texas Denton County - Denton County Jail 18 14 18 39 57
92 Florida Martin County - Martin County Jail 28 13 34 21 55
92 Texas Bexar County - Us Marshals,west.Dist.,tx 32 31 32 23 55
94 New Jersey Essex County - Northern State Prison 0 3 24 29 53
94 Texas Concho County - Ci Eden 127 24 45 8 53
96 California Los Angeles County - Los Angeles Police Pd 77th Div. 14 15 20 32 52
96 New Jersey Cumberland County - Southern State Corr. Fac. 2 8 15 37 52
96 Texas Walker County - James H. Byrd Facility 5 12 14 38 52
99* California Sonoma County - Sonoma Co Main Adult Det 26 19 26 24 50
99* Florida Duval County - Duval/Jacksonville Jail 33 12 23 27 50
* tied for last place among the 100 facilities.
Note: For complete monthly figures on all LEAs sent ICE detainer requests see new detainer app.

Footnotes

[1] See TRAC's June 2017 suit, May 2017 suit, and February 2014 suit.

TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University. For more information, to subscribe, or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.