Judge scolds ICE over warrantless arrests in Oregon, orders compliance

"Indeed, the sole ICE officer who testified admitted to falsely stating facts in official agency documentation about the basis for an arrest. There is no telling how many other agents in Oregon engaged in similar misconduct," U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai wrote.EUGENE, Ore. (CN) — A federal judge on Monday ordered federal immigration authorities to comply with an earlier injunction blocking warrantless arrests, after finding an officer fabricated evidence to justify an arrest.“This case underscores what happens if people were not called to testify under oath in a courtroom, if as a society we do not demand that government agents explain their actions, and if the public fails to shine a spotlight on what is happening under cover — people with authority know they will not be held to account,” wrote U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai in a 50-page opinion.Kasubhai issued a preliminary injunction in February blocking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from making warrantless arrests in Oregon unless officers determined an individual posed a flight risk. The order set new rules and parameters for making arrests that complied with the law.However, the plaintiffs, two men who say they were arrested in Oregon and taken to a Washington state processing facility more than 100 miles away, said ICE was not complying with the injunction.The plaintiffs, who represent a class of Oregon immigrants arrested without a warrant or probable cause, accused ICE of assessing flight risk only after making warrantless arrests, failing to document the circumstances of those arrests, underreporting them and withholding documentation.Over a two-day evidentiary hearing in September, ICE denied violating the court order. Kasubhai disagreed.“The court finds that ICE agents in the District of Oregon have continued to conduct warrantless arrests without adequately making and documenting the requisite particularized finding of escape risk,” the Joe Biden appointee wrote. “Defendants have also failed to comply with the court’s order to appropriately document and disclose warrantless arrests.”From Feb. 5 to July 31, federal immigration officials arrested 574 people in Oregon. Of those, 504 were noncustodial arrests, meaning they likely occurred without a warrant. ICE reported only 13 warrantless arrests during that period.However, testimony from the co-directors of the Deportation Data Project and Portland Immigrant Rights Coalition showed officers conducted significantly more than 13 warrantless arrests, Kasubhai determined.Based on testimonies from people stopped or arrested over the summer, the court also found that ICE inaccurately reported warrantless arrests.One individual, identified as H-D-G-H-, was on his way to fish when ICE deportation officer J.G. arrested him. The two gave conflicting accounts of the arrest, and the court found H-D-G-H- credible and J.G.’s testimony false.That conclusion was bolstered by J.G.’s admission that his written account of the arrest was inaccurate. He testified that he wrote the narrative “as if I … already knew who the person was, but I did not.” J.G. maintained that despite the false narrative, the arrest was lawful.“The court gives no weight to this account,” Kasubhai wrote. “The evidence here clearly establishes ICE officers did not conduct an arrest pursuant to a valid warrant.”As part of the preliminary injunction, the federal defendants are required to provide documentation every 30 days describing the warrantless immigration arrests that occurred in Oregon, and Kasubhai found they failed to properly do so.“These produced documents, as scant a sampling size as it is, reveal defendants’ falsification of I-213s, misstatements of material facts when evaluated against credible testimony under oath, use of boilerplate language that casts significant doubt on ICE agents’ meaningful investigation of necessary facts, and perhaps the least of the worst transgressions, sloppiness,” Kasubhai wrote.Kasubhai noted that the presumption of regularity directs courts to assume government officials acted in good faith and followed required procedures.“This presumption no longer holds for defendants. The evidence in this case proves as much,” Kasubhai wrote. “Defendants are held to the same expectation as any other litigant before this court. One must earn credibility by acting with integrity.”Kasubhai ordered ICE to continue transmitting the terms of the preliminary injunction to officers and employees to ensure compliance. The court also ordered the defendants to produce past documentation to the plaintiffs, as well as body camera footage for arrests after Sept. 1 and any arrest documents requested by the plaintiffs.No parties responded to a request for comment before press time.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads