Lawsuit Accuses Monroe Sheriff of Illegally Detaining US Citizen for ICE
A lawsuit filed by public-interest law groups and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher highlights an immigration detention pilot program paying Florida sheriffs for their arrests.
December 04, 2018 at 03:26 PM
6 minute read
A lawsuit challenging the arrest of a U.S. citizen on an erroneous immigration detainer is calling attention to a pilot program paying Florida sheriffs $50 a head for helping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
A federal lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Florida on Monday alleges Monroe County sheriff's deputies illegally arrested Peter Brown on a detainer request from ICE.
Brown is a U.S. citizen born in Philadelphia, but the lawsuit said employees of Sheriff Richard Ramsay threatened to deport Brown to Jamaica and refused to investigate his citizenship.
The complaint accused Ramsay of infringing on Brown's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure as well as false imprisonment, a violation under Florida law.
Brown's troubles began April 5 when he turned himself in at the sheriff's office for a parole violation after testing positive for marijuana. He didn't expect an extended stay but spent 22 days in custody.
The sheriff's office forwarded Brown's fingerprints to ICE as part of a routine procedure, and the federal agency responded with a request to hold him “beyond the time when he/she would otherwise have been released” for unspecified reasons.
Ramsay issued a statement Tuesday calling Brown's detention an “unfortunate case of mistaken identity by ICE” and said he had no legal authority to release Brown after receiving the ICE detainer. He said the BOA program amounts to a two-day hold.
“The purpose of the payment is to ensure that no local tax dollars are being spent on housing those in ICE custody. The payment goes directly to Monroe County and is not kept as part of the Sheriff's Office budget,” he said in the statement.
Brown was repeatedly humiliated and his protests that he was a U.S. citizen were continually ignored by deputies, the complaint said.
Read the lawsuit:
One of the incidents detailed in the suit came after Brown learned he was scheduled to be transferred to Miami's Krome Detention Center, an immigration jail, for deportation.
“During the transfer procedure, he again notified jail staff that he was a U.S. citizen. He signed all documents by writing 'U.S. Citizen' after his name. Jail staff again mocked him,” the complaint said. “One of them told Mr. Brown 'Yeah, whatever mon, everything's gonna be alright' in a Jamaican accent.”
He was unceremoniously released after a roommate emailed Brown's birth certificate to ICE officers at Krome.
The suit was filed by attorneys with the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
Amien Kacou, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Florida who specializes in immigration cases, said Brown reported what had happened to him days after his release. The attorney referred to ICE's information databases as “notoriously unreliable.”
“We're not suing ICE. We're suing the local officials who make the mistake of relying on ICE despite evidence of the unreliability of those databases,” Kacou told the Daily Business Review. “We know that many U.S. citizens and permanent lawful residents have been caught into this dragnet.”
He cited “a policy in place of ignoring evidence and blindly processing those requests without probable cause.”
Watch the video on Brown's plight:
|
Besides seeking damages for Brown's troubling encounter with Ramsay's officers, the suit also targets the Basic Ordering Agreement, or BOA, between the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and ICE.
“The BOA scheme, which provides the sheriff with $50 per arrest, is an attempt to put a new gloss on local arrests for ICE,” the suit said. “But the BOA changes nothing about the unlawfulness of the arrest in this case.”
Kacou and Sarah Rich, a staff attorney with the SPLC's Immigrant Justice Project, said the agreement is part of a larger ICE detention pilot program with law enforcement offices around Florida.
“A number of counties signed up for this pilot program that launched in 2018,” Rich explained. The SPLC attorney said the BOAs are ”an attempt by ICE and sheriffs who want to collaborate with ICE” to circumvent federal rules holding law enforcement accountable for detaining individuals.
“When sheriffs collaborate with ICE in this way and hold people not for any criminal reason — but just so ICE can pick them up — that violates their Fourth Amendment rights,” she maintained. “We hope that more counties in Florida won't sign up for the program once they see that it doesn't actually protect them” from legal liability.
Kacou and Rich's sentiments were shared by Gibson Dunn attorney Jonathan Soleimani.
“In this case, the Sheriff's Office stubbornly ignored numerous red flags, including their own records, indicating that Mr. Brown was a U.S. citizen and therefore not subject to removal or detention on an ICE detainer,” the Los Angeles attorney said. “Their decision to do so violated Mr. Brown's constitutional rights, which of course carries legal consequences. The sheriff's agreement with ICE does not change this reality.”
Kacou said his client understands his lawsuit carries a “larger message” beyond his own “quest for justice.” Should the lawsuit be successful, he hopes sheriff's departments will realize they are legally liable for their detainment practices “if they're rational,” he said.
“We believe the lawsuit will prove that [ICE's] promise is nonsense,” he said. “We would like to make sure that local officials do not get a chance to essentially hide behind federal officials.”
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTop Governor's Office Executives Drafted Letters Threatening Florida TV Stations Over Abortion Ads
3 minute readGC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
Eleventh Circuit Rules for Moms for Liberty in Free Speech Case Against School Board
4 minute readJudge Dismisses Civilian Investigative Panel Lawsuit: A Setback for Miami's Police Oversight
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trying a Case for Abu Ghraib Detainees Two Decades After Abuse
- 2The Distribution of Dangerous Products Via Online Marketplaces
- 3The Products Liability Case Against Tianeptine: The Deadly ‘Dietary Supplement’ Found at Your Local Store
- 4The Evolving Landscape of Joint and Several Liability in Pa.: A Post-'Spencer' Analysis
- 5A Deep Dive Into the Product-Line Exception in Pennsylvania
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250