Rokita appeals decision in his case against the St. Joseph County sheriff

“Our claims are strong and we will continue to seek legal remedy for the Sheriff’s clear violations of state law,” said a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office. “Sheriff Redman has called our lawsuit a ‘legal circus’ and taxpayer burden. That’s incorrect. Numerous illegal aliens have been released into St. Joseph County, jeopardizing public safety, because of his refusal to honor ICE detainers. That’s not speculation—that is a demonstrable fact shown by data we obtained from ICE and alleged in our complaint. That is the real burden on taxpayers.”

Michael Smyth, an South Bend attorney representing Redman, said that while Rokita has the right to file the appeal, he noted the trial court’s decision that Rokita lacks standing to bring the case in the first place.

“As far as I’m concerned, this is a straightforward case,” Smyth said.

Smyth said that Rokita neither alleged nor articulated any injury—a constitutional requirement of standing—and that the statute at the heart of the complaint does not give the attorney general authority to enforce without standing.

According to Indiana Code 5-2-18.2-5, if the attorney general determines that probable cause exists that a governmental body has violated part of the chapter, namely that an entity has implemented a policy or restricts an employee from taking “specified actions with regard to the information of the citizenship or immigration status” of an individual, then the attorney general may “bring an action to compel the governmental body or postsecondary educational institution to comply” with the requirements.

The trial court emphasized that a law enacted by the General Assembly cannot override constitutional requirements.

“The Constitution trumps the statute,” Smyth said. “The Constitution requires injury. There is no injury, so the statute can say whatever it wants. The General Assembly can’t legislate in contradiction of the state constitution.”

The attorney general’s office disagreed.

“The judge dismissed our complaint on standing grounds, ruling that the Attorney General cannot bring suit to enforce a state law that the General Assembly expressly gave his office authority to enforce,” the spokesperson said. “That is a novel and incorrect legal conclusion that no other court in the state has reached.”

The lawsuit was originally filed in January and alleged that last year, ICE designated the St. Joseph County Police Department as a noncooperative law enforcement agency, meaning that the department does not provide notification to ICE before releasing illegal immigrants from custody and does not honor ICE detainer requests.

The attorney general alleged in the complaint that Redman and the department implemented policies and practices that restricted its officers from cooperating and communicating with federal immigration authorities.

The department denied the allegation, stating in a social media post following the complaint that it regularly communicates with ICE, and when the jail receives an immigration detainer request, its staff “promptly” informs immigration officials.

According to the complaint, after sending a letter to Redman, asking him to confirm whether such immigration-related policies exist, the defendants responded that they didn’t.

The attorney general then concluded that, since the defendants didn’t acknowledge some of the accusations in their response letter, he had enough reason to determine probable cause existed that the department violated state law.

The court was not satisfied with the attorney general’s argument, stating that the state must supply “operative facts” to support its inference that Redman and the department established policies that would restrict communications and cooperation with ICE.

The case can be followed here.