Detention Center

The Frederick County Adult Detention Center.

A bill passed in the House of Delegates that sparked lengthy floor debate would not end Frederick County’s 287(g) program, according to its sponsor and the state Attorney General’s office.

Del. Vaughn Stewart (D-Montgomery) said via email Saturday there was some confusion between the impact the bill would have on 287(g) agreements between county sheriffs and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), versus another bill, known as the Maryland Trust Act.

Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins (R) has used the 287(g) program since 2008.

Stewart’s bill would prevent county sheriffs from reimbursing or paying for the costs of constructing, operating or managing an immigration detention facility that is privately owned. It also prevents counties from receiving any money for housing individuals in an immigration detention center.

Jenkins said earlier this month his office runs the county’s detention center, and there is no private funding.

That latter legislation deals more with 287(g) agreements, Stewart said. These agreements allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to train sheriff’s deputies to ask about the immigration status of anyone booked into the county’s adult detention center and begin deportation proceedings if necessary.

According to a letter from late February drafted by Sandra Benson Brantley, counsel to the Maryland General Assembly from the state Attorney General’s office, House Bill 16 would not have any effect on existing or future 287(g) agreements.

“While it may be possible that an officer acting pursuant to authority delegated under a 287(g) agreement detains an individual for a federal civil immigration violation, I do not believe the language is intended to bring those agreements into the bill prohibitions regarding detention centers,” Brantley wrote.

The House of Delegates passed House Bill 16 by an 86-44 tally. The House has not yet voted on House Bill 304, which would more directly apply to 287(g) programs, according to Stewart.

Follow Steve Bohnel on Twitter: @Steve_Bohnel

Steve Bohnel is the county government reporter for the Frederick News-Post. He can be reached at sbohnel@newspost.com. He graduated from Temple University, with a journalism degree in May 2017, and is a die-hard Everton F.C. fan.

(30) comments

phydeaux994

The 287(g) Corrections Program in Frederick County Maryland does ONE thing only. It allows CORRECTIONS OFFICERS (NOT DEPUTIES) in the Detention Center, trained and supervised by ICE, to interrogate EVERY person arrested by FPD, FCSO, MSP, and other Law Enforcement Agencies and booked into the Detention Center to determine their Immigration Status and if illegal put a detainer on them to be held in the Detention Center until ICE takes them away. The 287(g) Corrections Program does not authorize anyone in the FCSO to arrest anyone nor does it authorize anyone in the FCSO to order an illegal alien to be Deported nor does it allow the FCSO to profile any segment of the Frederick County population.

KellyAlzan

Please tell that to Sherf Trumpkins. He doesn’t know that

gabrielshorn2013

No Plumbum, he does know that, and he and the DHS director explained that in the last public hearing on the subject. You can find the videos online if you care to look.

KellyAlzan

Not true. He didn’t know. He lost multiple lawsuits and appeals because of his ignorance.

gabrielshorn2013

Multiple? He lost two, due to the actions of the actions of his deputies. He was never involved in the original instances, although he is ultimately responsible. Of course he appealed, as is everyone's right to do so. BTW, the first incident was 12 years ago. The second verdict was strange because the woman was not arrested. She was the one that asked for a Spanish interpreter, who had to be located and then travel to the site of the traffic stop. Hence the longer time than usual during a roadside stop by the deputy. She was ultimately released. Any others settled or pending?

gabrielshorn2013

Plumbum,

In the original (Santos) case they were acting under the “Jail Enforcement Model”, which was designed to identify and process removable aliens with criminal or pending criminal charges who are arrested by state or local LEAs. When Mrs. Santos’ name came up with a prior deportation order, it was considered by the deputies to be an arrest warrant (which it wasn’t). Had it been an arrest warrant, her detention and arrest, subsequently turning her over to ICE would have been perfectly legal. The FCSO no longer participates in that program, and hasn’t in over a decade. But you already know that. The second ruling made no legal sense, since the woman was not arrested, and as stated above, was pulled over for an equipment violation, and requested the Spanish interpreter herself, which led to the lengthening of the roadside stop. BTW, a broken tail light is a valid reason to pull someone over, which many times leads to discovery of additional violations. Her status as an undocumented alien was readily apparent due to her alternative driver’s license. He was allowed to mention it, but she was not required to respond. The two incidents were unrelated, and separated by 9-10 years. They were multiple judges for the same two unrelated cases. So what? Every law enforcement office makes a mistake every once in a while. Restitution is made, and we move on. Are you personally held responsible for the actions of your employees in perpetuity? Should nobody ever hire your construction company because you violated some rules sometime (whether on purpose or not)? If that were true, most people would be unemployed.

No, I won’t be joining you, but thanks for the invitation. Doxxing someone is still creepy.

https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g

KellyAlzan

Gabs - I see you responded. But I will

Not be reading your response. Again, I see you responded. But I will

Not be reading any of it.

I posted my comment here. And that’s that. The verdicts speak volumes.

As I stated before, my role here is not the same as your role here. I hope you understand.

Hugs

phydeaux994

Kelly and gab, below is the summary of the Santos case. Below that is the link to the final Ruling in the case in which the Summary appears. It is incredibly complex, it is understandable why it took years to resolve. But bottom line, the Deputies acted on a General Order issued by the Sheriff which required them to illegally arrest her.

Summary

Finding that the defendant, Sheriff Jenkins was "the final policymaker for Frederick County over the 'particular issue' in question," and thus the county was liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

https://casetext.com/case/santos-v-frederick-cnty-bd-of-comissioners

KellyAlzan

Bill or no bill, the 287 is soon to be just a memory, thing of the past. When I take over as sheriff my first change will be doing away with 287

C.D.Reid

OK Plumbum, tell us, why did you find it necessary to post virtually the exact same thing at 2:04 this afternoon that you did at 7:40 this morning? Do you really think it was that outstanding a comment? Because, trust me, it isn't.

Dwasserba

Real campaign advertising costs.

KellyAlzan

Davey: it’s Sheriff Plumbum to you

KellyAlzan

Bill or no bill. Either way, 287 I’m frederick county will soon be a thing of the past, When I’m sheriff I will end the 287.

FrederickFan

Very confusing article.

public-redux

I think it says that the High Sheriff had a hissy fit over nothing.

C.D.Reid

Sheriff Jenkins having a hissy fit? That's a good one, you seem to forget that he's not a liberal left snowflake.

public-redux

So it was a No True Hissy Fit? I hear bagpipes.

C.D.Reid

Sure, public, if you say so..........

Comment deleted.
KellyAlzan

Speaking of hissy fits - CD name calling.

Comment deleted.
KellyAlzan

Also says “a single person”, which coincides with the personality traits we see here

Comment deleted.
KellyAlzan

According to online public record, there is a David M Reid in Thurmont. Lists the street too.

FNP ::: again, public record

Comment deleted.
C.D.Reid

fido, you're the coward who finds it necessary to hide behind a fake name, just like Plumbum is. People know who I am, who are you two? Hmmm??? And fido, you're a coward for refusing to answer all the questions I've asked of you, particularly why you're so obsessed with me. The one, vague, deflecting answer you ever gave was a blatant lie.

Comment deleted.
C.D.Reid

So what's your point, Plumbum? And why do you have to hide behind a fake name like KellyAlzan? Huh?

Comment deleted.
KellyAlzan

So phy, great job! We got Davey to admit his name and his location. Big day in FNPLand!!

Davey - you’re the one whining about people not using their real names! CD is NOT your real name, not was it ever. But you sure do whine about names.

Gonna run your address on google maps and check out your crib. Be cool to see how the elite live :)

Comment deleted.
KellyAlzan

NOW people “know who” you are. NOW we/they know. Thanks to phy!

Comment deleted.
KellyAlzan

I’d rather be a coward than angry miserable lonely old baffoon!

Awteam2021

What’s the difference between Maryland’s house bill 16 and the house bill 304? Reportedly, according to Stewart, that bill would apply more to 287(g) but hasn’t been voted on. Does anyone know? And if the state senate votes to approve the the house bill 16 by April 14th before close of session, does that end Jenkin’s deportation program In Frederick County? 🤷‍♂️

AOC

As a previous poster noted, "a very confusing article." That is because the reporter obviously does not know the topic, he is reporting on which was apparent when he mis-informed the reader that HB16 would end 287g in a previous article. HB16 only dealt with local detention centers who house immigration detainees for DHS. The only current counties doing so are Frederick, Howard and Worcester.

In yesterday’s article, reporter Bohnel incorrectly claimed that HB16 "would force Jenkins, along with sheriffs in Cecil and Harford counties, to end their 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by Oct. 1, 2022. COMPLETELY WRONG!

Since writing the first article Reporter Bohnel experienced an epiphany and wrote this article which admits HB16 wouldn't affect 287g and said that HB304 had more to do with ending 287g but did nothing to inform the reader about the contents of HB304 or the bill’s status.

HB304 would create road blocks to end local law enforcement from even communicating with federal officials, and barring federal immigration officials from areas within the detention center except areas which are open to the general public.

Here is a brief excerpt:

HOUSE BILL 304

1 A REGULAR PRESENCE IN, A HOME OF ANOTHER.

2 (B) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (D) OF THIS SECTION AND §

3 5–104(E)(2) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE, A UNIT OF STATE

4 GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR AN AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF A UNIT OF

5 STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOT:

6 (1) COORDINATE WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN ANY

7 WAY RELATED TO CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT;

8 (2) ALLOW FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES TO ACCESS AN

9 AREA NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC IN A BUILDING OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY

10 THE STATE OR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT;

11 (3) CONTACT FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES REGARDING AN

12 INDIVIDUAL WHO MAY BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT;

13 (4) NOTIFY FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES OF AN

14 INDIVIDUAL’S RELEASE FROM A STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY OR LOCAL

15 CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, AS DEFINED IN § 1–101 OF THE CORRECTIONAL

16 SERVICES ARTICLE;

17 (5) COMMUNICATE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS

18 OR MAY BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT TO FEDERAL

19 IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES;

20 (6) ASSIST IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CITIZENSHIP OR

21 IMMIGRATION STATUS OF AN INDIVIDUAL, UNLESS THE CITIZENSHIP OR

22 IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS MATERIAL TO A CRIMINAL

23 INVESTIGATION; OR

24 (7) PROVIDE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES WITH ACCESS TO

25 OR USE OF ANY FACILITY, INFORMATION, OR EQUIPMENT OWNED OR CONTROLLED

26 BY A UNIT OF STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR A PURPOSE RELATED TO CIVIL

27 IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

HB304 was scheduled for a hearing in committee on March 3rd. Since there is no other notation it is possible it died in committee. The is the same bill that was introduced last year. Hopefully one of our Senators or Delegates can provide an update or insight.

Obviously FNP has no clue.

Awteam2021

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law enforcement agency under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Awteam2021

I’m only guessing, but I think the HB 16 addresses getting paid to house immigrate detainees for ICE would end, funding would be prohibited. Where HB 304 addresses 287g agreements with local law enforcement agencies that act as agents for ICE.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!