- Twelve Utah law enforcement agencies signed agreements with ICE for immigration enforcement.
- Most agencies remain silent about the agreements, raising transparency concerns among residents.
- Some agencies cite ICE's control over information release as a reason for secrecy.
SALT LAKE CITY — A dozen Utah law enforcement agencies have inked agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The deals, known as 287(g) agreements, are designed to give local agencies training and some authority to assist with immigration enforcement. With Utah agencies now several months — and in some cases more than a year — into those partnerships, the KSL Investigators wanted to know how the agreements are working in practice.
But most Utah agencies aren't talking about it.
'We need some transparency'
Showing up in force to a Utah County Commissioner meeting last month, community members had no shortage of questions.
"I want to first ask how ICE is actually going to help," one resident said.
Others asked for data showing whether the increased presence of ICE is actually making their community safer.
"Are we actually demonstrably safer because of ICE's increased presence here?" another resident asked.
One after another, community members stepped up to a microphone for a limited, two-minute opportunity to address the county's elected leaders.
"How many people have been detained or arrested with only civil offense charges?" another person asked.
, Daniella Rivera, KSLAn obvious theme appeared during the public comment period, noted by one of several speakers: "We need some transparency."
Transparency is a word Utah County Sheriff Mike Smith used as a reason to sign the agreement during a similar public meeting last summer.
"The importance to me as a sheriff is to be able to have transparency with ICE," he explained last July. "So that we are now on a playing ground with them that I can coordinate."
Unanswered questions
According to ICE's website, 12 Utah law enforcement agencies have now signed agreements with ICE, with local law enforcers often saying the partnerships make Utah safer.
"In reality, that's just not the case," said Molly Karasick, an immigrant rights legal fellow with the ACLU of Utah.
Karasick and ACLU communications director Aaron Welcher said their organization prioritized tracking 287(g) agreements.
"What we've seen is a lot of secrecy when these things are already operating," Welcher said.
In an effort to understand how the agreements are working in Utah, the KSL Investigators sent written questions to each of the 12 agencies that signed 287(g) contracts with ICE. KSL asked agencies why they signed, how they work with ICE under the agreements, what benefits the agency receives, and what feedback they've received from the community.
"Those questions go off of the basic functionality," Karasick said.
But only six of the 12 agencies provided answers. And only one agreed to speak about the agreements in an interview.
'It's not ICE telling us what to do'
"To me, this is not an issue to talk about," said Weber County Sheriff Ryan Arbon.
Arbon said he chose to speak with the KSL Investigators because transparency is a goal of his agency.
"It's not ICE telling us what to do. These are our terms and conditions," he said.
There are three main types of 287(g) agreements: the jail enforcement model, the task force model, and the warrant service officer model. It's not uncommon for an agency to have more than one. Weber County signed both the jail enforcement and task force models.
"Operation of the jail really hasn't changed from before," Arbon said.
Under the task force model, he says deputies can only take someone into custody for immigration status under specific circumstances, including when the individual has a criminal history or a deportation or removal order from the federal courts, or has already re-entered the U.S. twice.
"It's intricate. It's specific," Arbon said. "The 287(g) task force model enables us to focus on the true mission and address local criminal issues and also have a working relationship with ICE, which we feel is key. It's not designed to go look for or participate in anything like a raid or go find someone. It's literally in the course of our normal business."
When asked whether the agreements benefit Weber County, Arbon said, "Yes — it's public safety."
'The topic is problematic'
With so many agencies unwilling to answer basic questions about the agreements, the KSL investigators filed public record requests for internal communications about the media inquiries.
In Tooele County, records show the Sheriff's Office drafted responses to send before ultimately declining to comment. At the time, nine months into the agency's agreement, those draft answers revealed the agency had not yet received training from ICE.
"To have a sense that they're actually not receiving those trainings is extremely problematic," Karasick said.
In Riverton, emails show the mayor recommended responding to KSL's questions with: "Riverton has no comment and no information to share."
And at the Utah Department of Corrections, officials answered written questions but would not agree to participate in an interview. Emails obtained by KSL show a spokesperson alerted the governor's office about the request for an interview and their decision to deny it, writing "nothing has changed and the topic is problematic."
"They said the quiet thing out loud," Welcher said, reacting to the reasoning revealed in the email. "They are problematic."
A secrecy clause
The KSL Investigators scoured the contracts for clues about why Utah law enforcers are being so tight-lipped. In each one, a section about the release of information to third parties makes clear that agencies can release information about their work under the agreements only after getting permission from ICE. The contracts also state that documents related to the agreements are "under the control of ICE and shall not be disclosed" without prior approval from ICE.
While no agency cited this section of the agreement as a reason for why they would not answer questions or participate in an interview, the Utah County Sheriff's Office denied access to some of the records KSL requested, writing that the documents are maintained by ICE.
After the Utah County Sheriff's Office chose not to answer questions or participate in an interview, the KSL Investigators took a question about transparency directly to Utah County commissioners last month, who were considering a request to allow the sheriff's office to be reimbursed by ICE for its services.
The KSL Investigators pointed out language in the county's latest agreement that states, "All press statements and releases shall be cleared, in advance, with the ICE Office of Public Affairs." The contract gives examples of incidents worthy of an alert to the community, including "deaths, escapes from custody, and facility emergencies." The KSL Investigators asked commissioners whether they're concerned the agreements limit the sheriff's ability to communicate freely with the citizens of Utah County.
Commissioners approved the sheriff's request, but KSL's question remains unanswered, as do the questions of several residents who showed up to the meeting hoping for transparency.
Contributing: Emiley Dewey
