An immigration attorney has contacted the Iowa chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union on a possible lawsuit against Woodbury County officials, concerning what she says is “seizure of a person” against his 4th Amendment rights.
Attorney Revathi Vongsiprasom told Siouxland Public Media News that the man was arrested Friday evening by police for violating a city ordinance. The man is a non-U.S. citizen, with lawful status.
Vongsiprasom said the man was seen by a judge on Saturday in relation to the alleged charges, and was released on his own recognisance until his next court date.
However, U.S. immigration and Custom Enforcement officials had placed an ICE detainer on the man. Woodbury County jail officials kept the man in their custody even after the judge ordered the man to be released. Vongsiprasom said the county is choosing on their own to honor the ICE detainer, which they are not required to do.
She said detainers are only requests made by ICE, and compliance is voluntary. A law enforcement agency has discretion to decide which detainers to honor and under what circumstances. Detainers are not judicial warrants, Vongsiprasom added.
She said she sent a cease and desist letter to the Woodbury County Attorney’s Office on Monday, and had not heard from the county as of Wednesday midafternoon.
"ICE detainers often lead to unlawful, unconstitutional detentions and expose state and county officials—like those in Woodbury County—to serious legal liability. Non ICE law enforcement agencies are choosing between honoring a non-binding request from a federal agency or upholding the constitutional rights of the people in their custody,” Vongsiprasom said.
“We all operate within the realm of law enforcement—whether as immigration attorneys, county attorneys, sheriffs, or ICE. Part of our shared responsibility is to ensure that, in carrying out our respective duties, we do not violate the constitutional rights of the individuals we serve or encounter.”
Siouxland Public Media News sent questions on the case to Woodbury County Attorney James Loomis and Sheriff Chad Sheehan.
Loomis emailed a response Wednesday showing disagreement with the assertion by Vongsiprasom that compliance with ICE detainers is voluntary.
Loomis cited the Iowa Legislature passing a law in 2018, codified in Chapter 27A of the Iowa Code, that county sheriffs are to comply with immigration detainer requests.
Section 27A.2 says, “A law enforcement agency in this state that has custody of a person subject to an immigration detainer request issued by United States immigration and customs enforcement shall fully comply with any instruction made in the detainer request and in any other legal document provided by a federal agency.”
Vongsiprasom said the man’s family in the Sioux City area are distraught over the matter. She said there were respectful talks with ICE and county law enforcement employees, but the upshot is that as long as the man is being held, he is being denied his liberty without due process.
"The U.S. Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. When we start making exceptions to who is entitled to its protections, we begin to erode the very spirit of democracy,” Vongsiprasom said.
Elsewhere in Iowa, the Winneshiek County Sheriff continues to not help Immigration and Customs Enforcement detain residents.
Earlier this year, Winneshiek County Sheriff Dan Marx wrote that he was concerned about the constitutionality of ICE’s actions in his county.
He said, “If their actions or paperwork are not within constitutional parameters, then we will make every effort to block, interfere and interrupt their actions from moving forward.”
Marx justified his department’s position by claiming that detainers are a constitutional violation, saying they are issued because federal agencies haven’t taken the time to get a valid judicial warrant.
He wrote, “Simply put, they are not sure they are detaining the right person and need more time to figure it out.”
In response, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird in March sued the Winneshiek County Sheriff’s Office over an alleged violation of the state’s sanctuary county laws. The state also may strip away funding going to the county.
