Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The St. Joseph Superior Court dismissed Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s lawsuit against the county’s sheriff and police department, after Rokita had alleged earlier this year that the department persistently failed to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
Judge Jenny Manier wrote in the court’s order that Rokita has not provided “any real factual basis” to support his argument that St. Joseph County Sheriff Bill Redman and the St. Joseph County Police Department were not cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Redman posted a statement on the department’s Facebook page that he has maintained from “day one” that his office adheres to the law.
“It’s unfortunate that taxpayers were forced to pay for this legal circus. What’s also unfortunate, the comments made by local elected officials trying to use this moment to create fear and division within our community,” Redman said. “My door has and will always be open to conversation. The fact that never happened, especially between local elected officials is extremely disappointing.”
The attorney general’s office did not respond to The Indiana Lawyer’s request for comment by Tuesday’s deadline.
The lawsuit–which was filed in January–alleged that in June 2024, ICE designated the St. Joseph County Police Department as a noncooperative law enforcement agency, meaning that the police department does not provide notification to ICE before releasing illegal immigrants from custody and does not honor ICE detainer requests.
Rokita contended that between March and September of last year, the police department failed to honor nine ICE detainer requests.
According to the complaint, Redman and the department implemented policies and practices that restricted its officers from cooperating and communicating with federal immigration authorities.
“Attorney General Todd Rokita has determined probable cause exists that, by implementing and maintaining these policies and practices, Sheriff Redman and SJCPD have committed multiple violations of Indiana Code chapter 5-2-18.2,” stated the January complaint.
That statute states that a governmental body “may not limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”
The attorney general held a streamed press conference in January after he filed the lawsuit.
The St. Joseph County Police Department posted a response after Rokita’s announcement on the department’s Facebook page, saying it had not received a copy of the lawsuit and challenging Rokita’s accusations that it does not cooperate with ICE.
“We regularly communicate with ICE. When the jail receives a detainer or request from ICE, staff promptly informs immigration officials when that individual will be released on their criminal charges for detainment by ICE,” the department posted.
The department’s post noted that neither state nor federal law requires the sheriff or county jail to enforce federal immigration laws.
“Sheriff and the department fully comply with all state and federal laws, and will now unfortunately have to defend itself in court against the State of Indiana,” the post stated.
The department concluded its response by stressing it was proud of its close working relationships with all federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE.
In the circuit court’s dismissal order, Manier stated she was not satisfied with the attorney general’s argument, saying the state must “supply operative facts” to support the inference that such restrictive policies by Redman and the department actually exist.
“The Complaint does not allege operative fact other than the ICE posting of Defendant’s ‘noncooperation,’ which is insufficient to infer policy much less sufficient conduct that could be said to manifest the existence of policy or, more precisely, the implementation of policy,” Manier wrote. “That Plaintiffs’ have ’cause’ to ‘believe’ that Defendants violated the statutes at issue, without providing any real factual basis support those beliefs, is not enough to satisfy the low barrier established by Indiana’s notice pleading regime.”
According to his complaint, upon learning that the police department had been designated as a non-cooperative law enforcement agency, Rokita sent a letter to Redman, asking him to confirm whether the department maintains a policy or engages in practices that restrict communications and cooperation with ICE.
The defendants responded, claiming that they do not maintain any such immigration-related policy that would violate state law.
Rokita wasn’t satisfied with their answer, stating that the defendants “did not acknowledge or attempt to provide any explanation for their failure to honor nine ICE detainers between March and September 2024,” and that they did not provide any discussion about whether the department has placed “limits or restrictions on their own engagement in immigration enforcement activities, such as by honoring ICE detainers.”
For Rokita, that was enough to determine probable cause existed that the department violated state law.
“If anything, the omissions and evasions in Defendants’ response served to confirm that SJCPD deliberately limits or restricts its engagement in immigration enforcement activities and communications and cooperation with ICE,” the complaint stated.
In the Friday order, the court questioned whether the attorney general’s office was trying to utilize state law to “free up” St. Joseph’s law enforcement officers to “deputize themselves” as ICE agents.
“And if so, is doing so a violation of the 10th Amendment?” the court asked, adding that the question was left for future exploration.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.