Connecticut prosecutors will have new limits on their ability to communicate with federal immigration authorities under an expansion of the Trust Act taking effect in October.
Lawmakers this year revised the act, which generally prohibits law enforcement officers from holding someone under a civil immigration detainer, or communicating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about migrants in their custody.
An expansion of the law will apply those provisions to employees of the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ), including prosecutors who try criminal cases around the state.
In recognition of the change, the division this month revised its policy on interactions with ICE, updating previous guidelines in place since 2019.
A policy adopted Aug. 13 by the DCJ Advisory Board instructs division staff to direct all civil detainer requests to a supervisor. State's attorneys in each jurisdiction will determine how to respond. Division employees must also document interactions with ICE agents, including the date, time and nature of the request.
Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin said the policy changes are minimal, as prosecutors rarely have contact with immigration enforcement officers, in large part because they don’t house or take custody of defendants.
Immigration status also has a limited role in the state judicial process, he said.
“We do not have statutory authority over immigration matters, and whether an individual is in this country lawfully or unlawfully, as a matter of course, is really not a relevant factor for the court to consider,” he said.
Nonetheless, immigration enforcement is increasingly occurring around Connecticut courts, sparking controversy and posing operational challenges for prosecutors and officials from the Judicial Branch.
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont last week criticized federal authorities for carrying out immigration enforcement at courthouses, saying it undermines public safety in the state.
Data shows migrants in Connecticut with pending criminal charges now comprise the largest share of those arrested by ICE, a shift from previous years.
Advocacy groups in Stamford, Danbury and some other communities say they routinely witness arrests occurring on the premises of court buildings. In one high-profile incident, witnesses saw a group of federal officers apprehend two brothers inside the Stamford courthouse, removing them from a court bathroom.
ICE officials later announced the arrests were carried out as part of a coordinated crackdown on migrants residing in Connecticut. Federal immigration officers took 65 people into custody during the four-day operation, including 29 they said had been convicted or charged in the United States with serious crimes.
In announcing the immigration sweep, dubbed Operation Broken Trust, the acting director of ICE’s Boston field office criticized Connecticut’s Trust Act, describing it as “sanctuary legislation” that “endangers the communities it claims to protect.”
Established in 2013, the Trust Act applied to a narrower group of law enforcement officials for much of its history. Among them are municipal police, Connecticut State Police and school police or security officers. Police at the University of Connecticut and other state colleges and universities are also covered, as are Department of Correction officials, judicial marshals and probation officers.
Revisions this year broaden the scope of the act to include juvenile probation officers, the Board of Pardons and Paroles and DCJ staff, including state’s attorneys.
The law now prohibits state prosecutors and other DCJ employees from expending time, money, equipment or other resources to notify federal authorities someone targeted by an immigration detainer is in custody or set to be released, except in certain circumstances spelled out in state law.
Those exemptions include cases in which migrants are convicted of a class A or B felony, or suspected of links to terrorism. Lawmakers this year added 13 crimes to the list, including certain crimes against children, second or third degree sexual assault and criminal violation of a protection order.
Law enforcement officers are permitted to provide information about migrants convicted of those offenses to ICE, allowing them to be arrested or detained.
For prosecutors, escalating immigration enforcement also presents challenges unrelated to the Trust Act. In numerous instances, defendants in Connecticut have been arrested by ICE and removed from the country before criminal charges are adjudicated in court.
Griffin said in those circumstances, prosecutors will weigh the specific factors in each case.
“If an individual has been removed from the country, and that individual has pending cases, then, quite candidly, it makes it difficult for us to pursue those charges,” Griffin said. “So clearly, that is an issue that we're going to wrestle with, with probably increased frequency, in the coming time period.”
If a defendant cannot participate in the court process, prosecutors can withdraw the charges, then reopen the case and seek a new arrest warrant. Doing so allows police to take someone who was removed from the country into custody if they reenter.
In cases of lower level crimes, Griffin said prosecutors may take a different approach.
“If somebody got charged with shoplifting and the person has been deported and we have no ability to get that individual back, are we going to try to keep that case open? You know, common sense dictates the answer on that,” he said.
