County DA questions legality of new ICE policy at jail
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater has issues with a 2-1 vote by county commissioners requiring the jail to fully cooperate with immigration officers.
He told a judge last week that commissioners have "never had direct operational control of the jail as a matter of law" and that leasing the jail to a trust "would not create any such authority."
District Judge Cindy Truong is being asked to rule that the trust is bound to follow the new ICE policy enacted by county commissioners Oct. 5.
She also is being asked to rule that a jail can legally keep an inmate up to 48 hours past scheduled release if immigration officers issue a hold.
Federal judges have held such detainers are unconstitutional.
Making the request for the judicial rulings are County Commissioner Kevin Calvey, the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association and Tom Vineyard.
"Oklahoma is NOT a sanctuary state," they told the judge in their legal action.
County commissioners enacted the policy after the Oklahoma County Jail Trust
voted 4-2, with one abstention, in September to prohibit ICE officers from being stationed inside the jail to check citizenship status and issue immigration holds. After the meeting, t rustees l earned they needed at least five votes to enact the prohibition.
Trustees may vote again on the prohibition at their regular meeting Monday.
What role the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency should have at the jail has attracted considerable pubic attention. Calveyt old the judge that ICE opponents attempted to intimidate commissioners at the Oct. 5 meeting "by shouting out of turn, cursing and threatening legal action."
Prater is asking to intervene in the legal action for a judicial ruling on the policy.
"Only the District Attorney can represent Oklahoma County in litigation, except for limited instances," he told the judge. "In this case, the validity and enforcement of a 'policy' adopted by Oklahoma County has been submitted for judicial review by private parties and parties not authorized to do so by statute.
He also told the judge the county and its taxpayers face possible financial liability "for enforcement of an illegal policy" or a court finding that the trust is not sufficiently independent of the county.
He pointed out he would be the one having to defend the county if lawsuits "alleging these violations" are filed.
"The 'policy' was not submitted for review or comment to the District Attorney," he wrote in his motion to intervene.
If allowed to intervene, the DA is expected to ask the judge to dismiss the legal action without ruling on the policy.