Connect with us

Local News

The Monroe County Sheriff’s Office is the target of an updated complaint filed by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita

Published

on

Bloomington, Indiana – According to freshly posted court documents, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed an updated complaint against the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office on January 9 after a court order deemed his initial claim inadequate.

On July 11, 2024, Rokita filed a lawsuit against Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté and the sheriff’s office, contesting the sheriff’s office’s federal immigration detention policy. According to the lawsuit, MCSO’s policy did not adhere to Indiana law.

According to Indiana law, municipal regulations are not permitted to restrict the application of federal immigration laws or to hinder local officials’ collaboration with federal officials in immigration-related matters. Because of Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 181, Rokita is permitted to bring this action in her capacity as Attorney General.

Rokita contested MCSO-12, a sheriff’s office policy that prohibits staff from holding or detaining someone past their scheduled release date on the basis of a non-criminal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer alone. When ICE issues an immigration detainer, it requests that a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency alert ICE prior to releasing a noncitizen and detain them for a maximum of 48 hours.

Rokita, however, requested that the policy be amended to specify that MCSO staff members must detain any person in custody upon receiving an Immigration Detainer Notice of Action and must follow all applicable state or federal laws regarding immigration detainers during the person’s detention. According to his lawsuit, MCSO’s first policy was in violation of state law.

Officials must be able to “communicate or cooperate with federal officials,” “send to or receive information from the United States Department of Homeland Security,” “maintain information,” and “exchange information with another federal, state, or local government entity,” according to state law.

On September 4, 2024, Marté submitted a motion to dismiss the case, claiming that MCSO-12 complies entirely with Indiana state law and denouncing Rokita’s allegation as “baseless.”

On December 19, 2024, the Monroe County Circuit Court issued an order regarding Marté’s request to have the case dismissed. The court granted Rokita the opportunity to revise his lawsuit after concluding that it was insufficient evidence of MCSO-12’s violation of Indiana law.

The lawsuit’s modified version is longer than the first draft and provides several clarifications to support its claim that the MCSO policy is illegal in Indiana.

It mentions that MCSO officials are prohibited by policy from asking ICE for details regarding a person’s citizenship and immigration status. Additionally, the policy restricts officials’ access to such information at ICE’s request unless they are “required to do so by law.” According to the lawsuit, these limitations are in violation of the law, which mandates that local governments permit law enforcement officials to collaborate with federal immigration law enforcement.

Additionally, according to the updated lawsuit, MCSO’s prohibitions on entering into agreements with ICE about immigration or citizenship breaches are illegal. The lawsuit contends that local authorities’ right to enter into agreements with ICE cannot be restricted, even though Indiana law does not require them to do so.

Additionally mentioned as unlawful is the limitation of MCSO staff members’ ability to communicate and collaborate with federal immigration officials. The policy restricts employees’ ability to enforce federal immigration laws to “the full extent permitted by federal law,” according to the lawsuit, which makes it illegal.

Lastly, the original lawsuit’s language changes in the “cause of action” section of the revised lawsuit from asserting that MCSO-12 violates Indiana law “in whole or in part” to asserting that MCSO-12 violates Indiana law “including but not limited to for the reasons explained above.” This phrase makes it clear that the document enumerates the primary ways in which MCSO-12 has broken state law.

Advertisement

Trending