The Pinal County Attorney’s office will continue to provide support to federal immigration enforcement.
This latest development comes after the Pinal County Board of Supervisors attempted to void that agreement this week.
The ICE Phoenix Field Office confirmed the agreement would continue unless it was terminated by either ICE or the Pinal County Attorney.
Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller relayed that confirmation from ICE via a press release on Thursday.
“That confirmation directly contradicts the Pinal County Board of Supervisors’ claim that the agreement is ‘void,’” stated the press release. “The County Attorney’s Office rejects that conclusion and maintains a press statement does not terminate a federal agreement.”
The arrangement between the county and ICE is a 287(g) agreement, which allows ICE and state or local law enforcement agencies to coordinate on immigration enforcement. County attorney’s office personnel gained the authority to perform certain immigration officer functions.
Miller entered the agreement with ICE in December.
Outside counsel hired by the board claimed the agreement was illegal since it didn’t attain supervisors’ approval. The counsel, Brett Johnson, said the county attorney’s office doesn’t qualify as a political subdivision of the state, which is a requirement under the 287(g) Program.
A six-page letter to the board from the outside counsel said the county attorney’s powers were limited to those delegated to it by the Arizona Constitution or statutes, and that those powers don’t include the authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the county or arrest individuals.
The letter also cited state law which grants the county the power to make contracts, and lack of language in the law granting the county attorney the authority to perform the immigration enforcement functions outlined in the agreement. Outside counsel called the arrangement “impractical” as well as unlawful.
“This is inconsistent with the traditional separation of enforcement and prosecution, potentially eviscerates prosecutorial immunity, and impairs prosecutorial discretion,” stated the letter.
The counsel suggested the board take action further against the county attorney’s office by notifying the Department of Homeland Security or suing in the Pinal County Superior Court. Or, the counsel warned Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes may take action by enjoining the agreement and pulling back any funds expended under the agreement. If not the attorney general, the outside counsel said the county or its taxpayers could sue over the expenditures.
“The PCAO is the prosecutorial arm of the County and is not a law enforcement agency, like the Sheriff. Therefore, the PCAO had no authority to enter into the PCAO Agreement on behalf of the County without the Board’s approval and Sheriff’s consent,” stated the letter.
In initial response to the county’s denial of his agreement, Miller said the supervisors had a duty to accept the arrangement by giving their consent — whether it was required or not, which Miller said he didn’t believe was the case.
“If the Board truly stands with our ICE partners, it should place this issue on the agenda for the next Board meeting and ratify the agreement. We stand with President Trump and our federal law enforcement partners,” said Miller.
Be the first to comment