Background
- Ramsey County requested an opinion whether it may lawfully continue to hold detainees based solely on ICE immigration detainers (now I-247A plus administrative warrants I-200 or I-205).
- ICE detainers are administrative requests that ask local authorities to notify ICE and hold a person up to 48 hours for ICE to assume custody; detainers are issued by federal immigration officers, not judges.
- Ramsey County previously concluded (2014) such detention was unconstitutional; the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a nonprecedential injunction in Esparza reaching a similar conclusion.
- The Attorney General’s Office analyzed whether prolonging custody on a detainer constitutes an "arrest" under the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions and whether state or federal law authorizes state/local officials to do so.
- The opinion concludes that prolonging detention beyond the time the person should be released is an arrest, and Minnesota law does not authorize state or local officials to make such detainer-based arrests.
- The opinion further concludes federal law (including the 1357(g) cooperation clause) does not independently authorize state/local detainer arrests absent state statutory authority or a valid delegation agreement; counties face exposure to civil liability if they enforce detainers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ICE/U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Ramsey/State AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continued detention on an ICE detainer is a "seizure"/arrest | Detainers are administrative requests and (historically) not necessarily a new arrest | Prolonging custody beyond release is a new, separate arrest requiring constitutional/statutory authority | Continued detention to satisfy a detainer is an arrest under the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions |
| Whether Minnesota law authorizes arrest/detention based solely on a detainer | Cooperation with federal immigration enforcement is permitted by statute/policy | Minnesota has no civil or criminal statutory authority authorizing immigration detainer arrests; I-200/I-205 are not state arrest warrants | Minnesota law does not authorize arrests or continued detention based solely on detainers |
| Whether federal law (e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) / § 1357(g)(10)) authorizes state/local detainer arrests absent state law | The INA’s cooperation provisions permit state/local assistance, including honoring detainers | §1357(g)(10) permits cooperation only to the extent authorized by state law; it does not grant independent arrest power to states | Federal law does not independently authorize state/local detainer arrests; cooperation cannot override lack of state authority |
| Consequences for counties that comply with detainers | Federal interest in immigration enforcement justifies cooperation | Counties lack authority and therefore risk civil liability for unlawful arrest/false imprisonment | Counties risk civil liability if they detain persons solely on detainers; damages and attorney fees are possible |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (an arrest is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (prolonging an otherwise-complete seizure for a different purpose is a new seizure)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (removal is a civil, not criminal, matter)
- Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2014) (immigration detainers are requests, not commands)
- Morales v. Chadbourne, 793 F.3d 208 (1st Cir. 2015) (prolonging detention on a detainer constitutes a new arrest)
- Lunn v. Commonwealth, 78 N.E.3d 1143 (Mass. 2017) (detainer-based prolongation is a new seizure/arrest)
- Ramon v. Short, 460 P.3d 867 (Mont. 2020) (broad consensus that detainer-based prolongation is a new arrest)
- Askerooth v. State, 681 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. 2004) (Minnesota requires independent justification for each incremental expansion of a seizure)
- Parada v. Anoka County, 54 F.4th 1016 (8th Cir. 2022) (civil damages awarded for wrongful detention based on detainer)