ACLU’s 9 “model” state and local law enforcement policies and rules. How well do Seattle and King County measure up?
#1) The Judicial Warrant Rule: [County/City/State] officials shall require a judicial warrant prior to detaining an individual or in any manner prolonging the detention of an individual at the request of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Seattle and King County: Both Seattle and King County have made clear that they will not honor ICE detainers. See King County Ordinance 16692; Seattle Ordinance 121063; Executive Order 2016-08. In its 2017 Welcoming City Resolution 31370, Seattle repeated the requirement for a judicial warrant.
#2) No Facilitation Rule: [County/City/State] officials shall not arrest, detain, or transport an individual solely on the basis of an immigration detainer or other administrative document issued by ICE or CBP, without a judicial warrant.
Seattle and King County: Both Seattle and King County have made this commitment. See links above.
#3) Defined Access/Interview Rule: Unless acting pursuant to a court order or a legitimate law enforcement purpose that is unrelated to the enforcement of a civil immigration law, no [County/City/State] official shall permit ICE or CBP agents access to [County/City/State] facilities or any person in [County/City/State] custody for investigative interviews or other investigative purposes.
Seattle and King County: in King County this is implicitly covered by the Ordinance 16692 but this could be clarified in discussion with County officials. Seattle does not have its own jail; again this protection is implicit in the Welcoming City Resolution 31370 but this could be clarified in discussion with City officials.
#4) Clear Identification Rule: To the extent ICE or CBP has been granted access to [County/City/State] facilities, individuals with whom ICE or CBP engages will be notified that they are speaking with ICE or CBP, and ICE or CBP agents shall be required to wear duty jackets and make their badges visible at all times while in [County/City/State] facilities.
Seattle and King County: this is unclear from the ordinances but could be clarified in discussion with City and County officials.
#5) Don’t Ask Rule: [County/City/State] officials shall not inquire into the immigration or citizenship status of an individual, except where the inquiry relates to a legitimate law enforcement purpose that is unrelated to the enforcement of a civil immigration law, or where required by state or federal law to verify eligibility for a benefit, service, or license conditioned on verification of certain status.
Seattle and King County: King County Ordinance 16692 Section 2.B covers this. Seattle very explicitly states the “don’t ask” rule in Executive Order 2016-08 and in the 2017 Welcoming City Resolution 31370.
#6) Privacy Protection Rule: No [County/City/State] official shall voluntarily release personally identifiable data or information to ICE or CBP regarding an inmate’s custody status, release date or home address, or information that may be used to ascertain an individual’s religion, ethnicity or race, unless for a law enforcement purpose unrelated to the enforcement of a civil immigration law.
Seattle and King County: This is unclear in the King County ordinance 16692 but could be clarified in discussion with County officials. The 2017 Seattle Welcoming City Resolution 31370 seems to cover this but this could be clarified in discussion with City officials.
#7) Discriminatory Surveillance Prohibition Rule: No [County/City/State] agency or official shall authorize or engage in the human or technological surveillance of a person or group based solely or primarily upon a person or group’s actual or perceived religion, ethnicity, race, or immigration status.
Seattle and King County: The King County ordinance 16692 does not address this directly so this point could be clarified in discussion with County officials. The 2017 Seattle Welcoming City Resolution 31370 in Section G assert the City of Seattle will not cooperate or assist with any unconstitutional or illegal registration or surveillance programs… targeted at those of the Muslim faith. There are existing ordinances in the City of Seattle which address surveillance more generally. A discussion regarding broader surveillance issues could be addressed in discussion with City officials. A brand new City of Seattle Surveillance ordinance has been proposed to the City Council; this ordinance would include substantial protections and notices for all City residents, keeping in mind evolving technologies. This proposed ordinance could be a discussion point as well in discussion with City officials.
#8) Redress Rule: Any person who alleges a violation of this policy may file a written complaint for investigation with [oversight entity].
Seattle and King County: If the complaint regards conduct of law enforcement in King County complaints would presumably be directed to the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO). In Seattle such complaints would presumably go to the Office of Professional Accountability (OPA).
#9) Fair and Impartial Policing Rule: No [County/City/State] official shall interrogate, arrest, detain or take other law enforcement action against an individual based upon that individual’s perceived race, national origin, religion, language, or immigration status, unless such personal characteristics have been included in timely, relevant, credible information from a reliable source, linking a specific individual to a particular criminal event/activity.
Seattle and King County: With regard to immigration specifically, this is implicit in the 2009 Ordinance 16692, also see Office of Civil Rights – King County. In Seattle the 2017 Welcoming City Resolution 31370 covers this issue, also see the Seattle Office for Civil Rights. There are other City and County policies regarding bias and policing generally. These issues can be further clarified in discussion with City and County officials.