AGENDA #5b
MEMORANDUM
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
Terrie Gale, Chapel Hill Police Attorney Brian Curran, Chief of Police |
|
SUBJECT: |
Immigration Report |
|
Date: |
November 7, 2007 |
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Council regarding the Chapel Hill Police Department’s involvement in two separate immigration enforcement encounters in response to a petition submitted on October 8, 2007 by Margaret Misch.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The Chapel Hill Police Department (CHPD) does not inquire into the immigration status of complainants, victims, witnesses, arrestees, or other persons whom we encounter, with the exception that we may check the status of a person who is in our custody for a felony or other violent crime resulting in injury to another person.
In the cases of both Ms. Sima Fallahi and Mr. Nelson Herrera Ventura, information about immigration status came to the CHPD’s attention from receiving a “hit” from the databases of the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC). A “hit” means that a name entered into a database matches a name listed in the database. Names are listed in the databases for a variety of reasons: criminal arrest warrants, missing persons, sex offender registrations, etc., as well as immigration detainers. The two databases are linked; a name or drivers license number run through the DMV database will receive a “hit response” if there is a match in either the DMV or NCIC database.
Until 2002, only information relevant to criminal matters was included within the NCIC database. But during that year federal officials began placing United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) civil immigration detainers in NCIC. These civil detainers typically are for “alien absconders,” i.e. persons who entered the United States legally but have overstayed their visas. Federal officials could charge these persons with criminal offenses under 8 U.S.C. 1253 or 8 U.S.C. 1304, but choose instead to issue civil detainers for them. There appears to have been no notice to local law enforcement of this change to the NCIC database. Ms. Fallahi’s case was the first time that the issue of civil immigration detainers came to the attention of the CHPD.
Prominent national police organizations, including the Major Cities Chiefs and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, have asked the federal government – to no avail - to remove civil detainers from the NCIC database because of the confusion it creates for law enforcement officers. Officers in North Carolina and across the country are trained that a “hit” for a wanted person means that the person should be arrested. But the arrest authority of state and local officers is dependent on state law and most states limit officers’ arrest authority to criminal matters. In North Carolina, police officers’ arrest authority is derived from North Carolina General Statute 15A-401, which refers only to arrest based on criminal arrest warrants or probable cause of criminal offenses. Thus, a reasonable reading of the statute indicates that police officers do not have authority to arrest a person based on a civil detainer. (North Carolina courts have not addressed this issue.)
Names are run through databases only in particular circumstances. On November 29, 2006, Ms. Fallahi’s name was entered into the databases because she came to the CHPD seeking a door-to-door solicitation permit under Chapel Hill Town Code Chapter 13. Section 13-4 requires that applicants’ criminal records be checked. A civilian employee of the CHPD explained the permit procedures to Ms. Fallahi and asked if she was willing to have her name run through the database. Ms. Fallahi agreed and her name was entered. There was a “hit response” from ICE, and ICE officers notified the CHPD that they would pick up Ms. Fallahi.
On January 12, 2007, after the case of Ms. Fallahi had brought the issue of NCIC civil detainers to the attention of the CHPD, the police attorney issued an email to all officers briefly describing the two types of ICE “hit responses” they might receive (one type is a felony detainer which officers should enforce; the other is the type of civil detainer in question), and instructing officers to call the police attorney immediately if a “hit response” indicated a civil detainer.
In the late afternoon of Saturday, March 10, 2007, a CHPD patrol officer contacted Orange Central Communications (the 911 call and dispatch center) to check Mr. Herrera Ventura’s license number. An officer on traffic patrol can provide either a license tag number or a driver’s license number to Orange Central, which then checks the number through the DMV database. Orange Central told the officer that it had received a “hit” from ICE without specifying whether the “hit” was civil or criminal. The officer, not having seen the January email, did not ask. The officer arrested Mr. Herrera Ventura, the driver, and brought him before a Magistrate who sent him to Orange County Jail. On Monday morning, March 12, 2007, the CHPD Chief learned of this arrest, determined that there were no criminal charges against Mr. Herrera Ventura and that he therefore had been arrested in error, and arranged for his immediate release. CHPD personnel picked him up from the jail and drove him to his home.
Following the incident involving Mr. Herrera Ventura, the CHPD conducted an investigation which concluded that the January 12 message should have been given more emphasis within the department and that a simple e-mail was not sufficient to ensure that all employees were aware of the nuances of this new procedure for dealing with these Immigration “hits”. Because the procedure for handling civil detainers is contrary to officers’ standard training for dealing with database “hits,” the CHPD initiated special training to ensure that each individual officer was familiar with the new procedure. On March 13, 2007, a new, more detailed message was sent to all officers. Supervisors provided instruction to each officer and Captains confirmed that each officer clearly understood the new procedure.
Since that time, the CHPD has not encountered any civil immigration detainers.
ATTACHMENTS