Women’s March Florida Key’s Statement Re-Sheriff’s Lack of Policy
Women’s March Florida Keys Demands a Clear Policy from Monroe County Sheriff’s Office Regarding the Questioning of Florida Keys Residents about their Immigration Status
As Monroe County residents and constituents we demand a clear policy from our Monroe County Sheriff’s Department regarding questioning residents and visitors about their immigration status, and sharing this information with federal immigration officials. The recent body cam footage of an officer questioning the immigration status of multiple Florida Keys residents is very concerning. As there is no clear policy or tracking mechanism for these situations, there is no accountability, and this can easily invite discrimination by even the most well intentioned officers.
Our residents have the right to know what to expect when encountering local law enforcement. The Florida Sheriffs Association has stated that Florida Sheriffs departments do not have the jurisdiction to investigate immigration cases, yet the actions and speech on the body cam footage clearly shows that the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office is doing just that. If our Monroe County deputies are coordinating with ICE or any other immigration officials, we would like to see policy and transparency as it relates to our citizens and community members. By not having a clear policy and leaving it up to the discretion of each officer, Sheriff Ramsay is putting our county in dangerous territory, allowing his officers to pursue lines of questioning that are outside of their job training and qualifications. As taxpayers, we are concerned with the possibility of liability as it relates to the breach of civil liberties. As constituents, we are deeply concerned with the well-being of all of our community members that could be affected by this laissez-faire approach to policy.
~~~~~
About Women’s March Florida Keys
Women’s March Florida is a 501(c)(3) focused on social justice. We are committed to equality and celebrating our diversity. We represent the 100,000+ marchers that participated in the numerous solidarity marches throughout the state as well as the 3,200+ that marched in Key West on January 21st, 2017.
For more information about the Women’s March Florida Keys visit, womensmarchflkeys.org/
http://www.womensmarchfl.org/florida-keys.html
Besides Natalia Duke, open link above, i’m wondering who “Women’s March Florida Keys are: names? numbers?
I’m wondering if they are okay with Rick Ramsay working closely with Border Patrol/ICE to round up illegal aliens in Key West and Florida Keys?
It could go that way, it could go the way KWPD has gone.
I wonder how they feel about Key West’s policy of giving homeless Americans one-way Greyhound bus tickets to the mainland with the stipulation they cannot return and stay at the city’s homeless shelter?
I wonder how they feel about the city’s homeless shelter banning homeless Americans from the shelter for life, without any right of trial, appeal, due process or forgiveness? {Not having anything to do with one-way bus tickets)
I wonder how they feel about illegal immigrants without driver’s licenses driving motor vehicles in Key West?
I wonder how they feel about illegal Muslim terrorists coming to America?
I wonder if they have any way to really know who is a law abiding Muslim immigrant and who is a Muslim terrorist?
I wonder if they have any way to really know which Hispanic illegal immigrants are law abiding and which work for south of the American border drug cartels?
If you look at the home page — the very first post this week is a press release from the Women’s March about the issue of local law enforcement questioning aliens about their legal status during routine traffic stops. They are asking the Sheriff to state his clear policy on the matter. So you should be able to find the answer to your first question there. The press release was furnished to all local media publications.
I am glad that they are questioning them about their status. As long as they question other races of people and not just meztisos and indian latinos.
I am a proud member of The Women’s March Fl. Keys group. Well organized and responsible to the community. Various “committees” to address different issues effecting our quality of life. Sloan is an idiot. Do your homework before you spout off. Attacking the Blue Paper the way you did is shameful. Done with you! Get help..
Here we go again: Another incident involving the SAME deputy sheriff. I want to point out that I am NOT an apologist for the Sheriff’s Department — OR this particular deputy.
NOR am I arguing with the assertion that local authorities lack the necessary “authority” to “investigate” problems with immigration status.
But I certainly AM trying to present “the other side” here. Though it is not apparent from the video, I am assuming that the deputy had probable cause to stop the vehicle. If that is the case, the deputy had the duty/responsibility to satisfactorily determine the identity of the driver — the long-time chef from El Siboney. The only piece of paper produced by the driver was some bogus “document” conjured up by some document mill in Miami. The driver could NOT produce a driver license from ANY country! He could not (in the video) produce ANY documentation as to his identity. ANY citizen of the U.S. can be (and is) detained on that basis alone…let alone any “illegal”, at least until an officially-recognized identity can be confirmed. That IS the law in many states, including Florida. In addition, the driver committed an additional actionable criminal offense by presenting a bogus ID. Now, faced with all that, what was this much-maligned deputy supposed to do?
In my view, he did exactly what any citizen should rightly expect…his job! He had every right as a sworn law enforcement officer AND as a common citizen, to determine the proper disposition of this incident and his detainee: He asked if the driver was a legal citizen. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “if you see something, say something”? Well, that’s exactly what this deputy, to his credit, did. Based upon his knowledge and experience, he enlisted the aid of the proper federal authorities who ARE tasked with the responsibility AND the authority to pursue the actual investigation of this driver’s legal status in the U.S. He did NOT “investigate” anything in that regard. Every CITIZEN in this country is charged with the same responsibility: As an employer, El Siboney is officially tasked with determining the employment eligibility of every ONE of its staff! I know that you know that. So…why all this quibbling?
Oh…as for the Sheriff’s Department issuing an “official policy” of some sort? That has already been established in long-settled law. I suggest that your claim of lack of transparency is due more to a “practiced blindness” than anything else. Yes, the lack of compassion for our fellow man is obvious here. Sadly, our current national fervor does not allow for much in that vein. I would further suggest that we focus our efforts on changing laws and attitudes, rather than singling out individuals, such as this deputy, to achieve those goals.
Dickford
Just some thoughts… but first a question: What is the harm in asking the Sheriff to publish a transparent policy on the matter? For example: Shall deputies also be questioning the alien status of crime victims? [The only policy we have is “no policy”.] In Arizona legislators created a very explicit state statute to guide their officers and inform the public. After reading what I write below, please explain why you defend a “no policy” position.
1. As to the international driver’s license that the deputy claimed was bogus, there are indeed bonafide international driver’s licenses and I see no reason to believe this one was a “fake” – other than the proclamation by the deputy. Does the Deputy have expertise in that area? I don’t know. I do know he didn’t pursue that charge at all. We do not know exactly what the second ID was. It was described as an Argentinian ID. It could very well have been an Argentinian driver’s license – likely expired. The officer did indeed identify the chef from Argentina using those two forms of ID and he issued his citation and Notice to Appear based on those two forms of ID. He did not have any issues with identifying the chef – he even had his boss there to identify him as a back-up. Do you honestly believe that KWPD can not handle cases of foreigners who don’t have american driver’s licenses without ascertaining alien status and calling in Border Patrol? I’m not buying it. If KWPD can do it so can MCSO. In fact the Deputy could have chosen to arrest the man for not having a valid driver’s license – another option he could use when indeed he does have an issue with identifying the person [not the case here]. Had he done so his fingerprints would have been shared with ICE via the “secure communities” program.
2. In both cases the officer[s] [FHP was also involved in the bicyclist incident] detained the men for lengthy periods of time after the traffic stop mission had been met, requiring them to await Border Patrol which gets us to the point of needing “probable cause” for an “arrest” because clearly these men did not believe they had the right to leave. [Of course, since they don’t know their rights, it could be argued that they gave consent and therefore the detention is valid.]
3. I wonder whether your standard of “reasonable suspicion” of a crime being committed [to begin inquiring as to alien status] is not too broad. For example: The reasons you use [no american driver’s license, speaks with an accent, comes from a foreign country] could describe millions of foreign born citizens in the US or it could also describe someone who has committed a CIVIL violation of INS code – something the Supreme Court said in Arizona v US [2012] is outside the powers of the local police to enforce absent federal authorization.
4. Constitutional safeguards, while they sometimes protect the guilty were put in place to protect the innocent from unnecessary police intervention in their lives: My mother never learned to drive, she was born in Switzerland and spoke with a thick accent till the day she died. She came with a visa through an official port of entry and later became a naturalized US Citizen. There is no law that says she needed to carry her naturalization papers or passport around to show police. Had an MCSO deputy decided, while she was visiting me, that he had a “reasonable suspicion” to start questioning my mother about her alien status because she had jaywalked or something, had no drivers license and spoke with an accent, I would argue that he was violating her civil rights. Are you not clouding your analysis with the fact that these particular people happen to [allegedly] have committed INS violations?
5. The Supreme Court visited the question in 2015 [Rodriguez v U.S.] of whether or not a traffic stop could be lengthened for even a de minimus amount of time for a fishing expedition [again I don’t see that there is “reasonable suspicion” in these cases that any CRIME was being committed – even with a confession about violating CIVIL INS law.] Yes, the deputy could call ICE afterwards and tell them they might want to check on this guy – but that is not the same as detaining the man after the traffic stop mission was complete.
6. In Arizona v US [2012] SCOTUS stated that though they would allow one of four statutes that Arizona had enacted to survive, the one allowing deputies to ASCERTAIN alien status during a routine traffic stop, they said it could be tested by further challenges in the lower courts. They also stated that a local officer could not add ANY more time at all to the traffic stop for that purpose.
7. In Arizona, after the surviving statute was further challenged, it was amended and now it says that local law enforcement must have federal authorization to ASCERTAIN alien status.
8. I believe the federal statutes and the supreme court allow for deputies to CALL ICE and find out if ICE has a warrant for the subject of their inquiry, just like they can and do regarding warrants from other agencies including their own. If there is a warrant then there is probable cause to detain the person. The time it takes to ascertain whether there is an INS warrant, like all other warrants, is considered as legitimate and within the scope of the mission of the stop.
9. The US Code [8 USC 1357] spells out when states and local law enforcement can meddle in INS civil code enforcement. It says there must be an agreement and special authorization for officers that “qualify”. It also says that local law enforcement can not be prohibited from “sharing” information or “obtaining” information FROM ICE about alien status or “cooperating” with the Attorney General in immigration enforcement and that no special authorization is needed to “share” or “cooperate” with the Attorney General. Surely you don’t believe the Sheriff’s “no policy” policy falls into some general concept of “cooperation” with the Attorney General?
10. Based on that legislation, the federal government created the “safe communities” program [MCSO has signed up for that program calling for sharing of fingerprints of jailed persons] and the 287(g) program [MCSO has not signed up for that program – officer are trained and deputized and there is tracking and oversight by ICE.] Surely you don’t believe that the federal government would enact legislation and a special program that could be entirely ignored in favor of “whatever my deputies want to do is fine with me.”
11. Let’s take into account all of the binding jurisprudence we know of and the law itself: the federal law describes the functions and powers of federal immigration officers and in the same breath says state and local officers need federal authorization to obtain these powers [excepting situations that can be described as “sharing” or “cooperating”] [8 USC 1357], the federal gov’t created specific programs (287(g)) to allow local police to be deputized; programs that provide safeguards such as training, tracking, and oversight, the supreme court said local law enforcement does NOT have the power to enforce CIVIL immigration law absent federal authorization [Arizona v US, 2012]. Arizona, the state that took this issue all the way to SCOTUS, has settled for a statute that requires federal authorization for officers to ASCERTAIN alien status. [As in, “Are you illegal?”] In light of the federal law and 287(g) program created for this very purpose, it makes no sense to me that we would find it perfectly OK to have deputies in the streets “ascertaining alien status” and detaining people based on the Sheriff’s message to them that he has “no policy”.
12. Again, federal law describes the functions of and arrest powers of federal INS agents and specifically says that state or local officers may be empowered through a special “agreement” after being determined to be “qualified” — to also have those powers and to carry out those functions. Here is an excerpt from that law:
“…the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be QUALIFIED to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the INVESTIGATION, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State and local law.”
While I am really enjoying learning about the law here – and of course could have misinterpreted some of this – the main take away from all of this research and interviewing of immigration attorneys – for me – is that it seems obvious that “no policy” can not be the answer.
Here is the federal law 8 USC 1357 [note that even federal agents are limited in what they can do without a warrant]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357
Well, Dear Editor…I am not sure that I can answer all of your questions in one sitting. But, I’ll give it a shot.
I’m not “defending” a no policy position: I am merely stating that a policy is not required. The laws themselves are self-explanatory.
1. You know as well as I do that there is no such thing as an “international drivers license”, insofar as official purposes are concerned. These “documents” are issued by private companies with the explicit qualification that they are NOT official documents. Any person can buy one of these doohickeys online or through the mail.
While any official Argentinian document the driver may have produced could well have been valid, its validity would not extend beyond Argentina without other officially-recognized government documents…passport, visa, green card, etc.
2. The deputy already had adequate cause for detention, due to the lack of official ID and whatever traffic infraction was involved. The deputy had the official duty and the right as a citizen to contact immigration officials to determine the driver’s true identity. Why? Simply because NO valid ID was presented that had been issued by ANY issuing governmental authority in the U.S. Since the driver indicated that he was a foreign national who had been living in the U.S. for a number of years, the deputy had a lead as to his identity. Please note that any verbal confirmation as to who the driver was…by anybody, is not an adequate substitute for documentation. I know this firsthand…from my recent attempt to renew my Florida ID, that dates back to 2004: The new “Real ID” is a bear to conform to. And I was born in the U.S.!
As to the rest of your response, I say “right on!” Go for it! You’ve done some fine research on the subject and have formed lucid, articulate arguments that richly deserve to be considered. You are to be commended for these wonderful efforts. Yet, neither you nor I nor anyone else here writes and enforces the laws. We must re-focus these efforts on the powers that be to effect any desired changes. Not even the Sheriff’s Office can be expected to effect changes…policy or no policy. Why even waste the time and the paper when these facts at the reality?
Keep up the great work!
Dickford
There are alot of fake international drivers permits out there and the deputy was likely correct but there are indeed legitimate international drivers permits.
International Drivers Permit for US drivers is issued by AAA. The US signed a multilateral treaty agreeing to honor IDP’s. Argentina also signed the treaty.
In Florida until recently foreign drivers needed to show the IDP and their foreign license. Now the IDP is no longer required in FL.
It’s possible that the Argentinian consulate in Miami could issue them for Argentinians.
In any event my point was the deputy decided he had all the ID he needed. He had two photo id’s – they matched each other and they matched the registration of the car in terms of address. He issued the citation and the Notice To appear based on that ID and he was done with the traffic stop. The documents were entered in the system , printed out, and signed long before the BP got there. I’ve seen dozens of cases of foreignors without drivers licenses who have been processed with absolutely no need for BP help in identifying them. Border Patrol did not help the deputy in this case with his traffic stop in any way. Border Patrol just came and picked the guy up. The deputy could of had the thoughts you described but he didn’t.
Here is the link for us US residents to learn about getting a legitimate one: http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/idp.html
Your usual well-sourced response. Thank you. We could argue the vagaries of how the laws are applied in specific situations and have a lot of fun doing it: The best characterization of that process that I can think of is “mercurial”.
The best explanations I can come up with regarding this specific incident, although purely speculative, is that the deputy was satisfied as to the drivers ID. But, that, in no way, absolved the driver of the criminal offense of driving without a license. One look at the Sheriff’s log will prove to you that citizens are routinely detained on that charge alone. Yet, this deputy didn’t even charge that. Why not? I’m guessing that he had no confirmable way to prove that this “IDP” was invalid -or- maybe, he decided to use a li’l compassion here and give this poor fellow the benefit of the doubt…seeing as how he already could be in deep doo-doo. I don’t know…I’m not conversant with all the details.
That said, I will only stress that this deputy did have the authority to turn this driver in to immigration authorities, both as a sworn LEO and as a private citizen: All citizens are being encouraged to exercise that right. I’m not saying if that’s right or wrong…it just is.
One encouraging bit of news has just crossed the wires: Apparently, the White House has officially reversed itself — it will continue to adhere to the “DREAM Act”…a reversal of Trump’s campaign commitment. Ya’ never know…
Take care and hang in there.
Dickford
Thank you for letting me know about the Dream Act reversal.. Just one more thing: The deputy did charge the Argentinian man for driving without a license. Deputies always have the discretion to either issue a Notice To Appear or arrest the person for that criminal offense. The deputy chose to issue a Notice To Appear on the charge of Driving without a license. Apparently, technically you are “arrested” and “released” with the Notice to Appear.. at least that is what an attorney explained to me after looking at a citation for that particular crime.
And thank you, dear Editor, for clarifying the charges brought against this driver. To my mind, it is rare for any LEO to exercise the option of merely issuing a citation for driving without a license: Normally such offenders are arrested and the SAO is left with the responsibility of legal disposition of the offense.
What amazes me in this case, is that this miscreant apparently made no attempt to establish legal residence here, Even more amazing is that the owner of the restaurant, which is on my list of favorite dining spots, apparently made no effort to guide this fellow with regard to establishing legal residency. The owner does have a good reputation…as does his restaurant: I have referred dozens of people to his establishment over the years and will continue to do so.
That said, the blatant disregard for the laws exhibited in this instance is at least partially to blame for the predicament that this Argentinian finds himself. Had he made any real attempt to establish legal residency, that may have served as mitigation for any attempt to deport him…especially due to his long term residency, his family and the fact that he has remained a law-abiding person.
Hopefully, this incident will serve as a wake-up call to the many establishments in the Keys that regularly employ “illegals”. The current attitude in Washington is working tirelessly to bolster enforcement of our immigration laws, It really doesn’t matter what “policy” exists at the local level. The feds have the law on their side. Those laws have been around for decades. It is within that context that I have asserted that the Sheriff is wisely remaining above the fray: From the official standpoint, it does not matter what, or if, the Sheriff establishes a policy concerning this issue. The federal government can and will override such a policy at their whim.
That’s the current reality…
Dickford