MD House passes bills on ICE detention standards, collection of federal agent data

Listen to this article

The Maryland House of Delegates passed several measures Thursday centered around placing guardrails on federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including the planned detention center in Washington County.

“This is no longer an immigration issue. This is an issue of basic human rights,” House Majority Leader David Moon, D-Montgomery, said, pointing to recent media reports of ICE orders for thousands of ready-to-eat meals, more than $100 million in weaponry and dozens of new SUVs at field offices in Maryland.

On a margin of 98-37, the House passed a bill to require the secretary of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to establish minimum mandatory standards for the care, custody and conditions of people held in detention facilities across the state — including the planned 54-acre ICE detention center in Williamsport purchased by the Department of Homeland Security for $102.4 million in January.

The 825,620-square-foot facility, which was built as a commercial warehouse, has limited office space, four toilets and two water fountains. 

The facility has plans to house up to 1,500 people at a time. Williamsport has a population of 2,000.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Maryland Monday, alleging that DHS violated both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act in the process of purchasing and moving forward with construction on the facility. 

Brown has asked the federal courts to halt construction and operation of the facility to ensure proper environmental review and to allow for public input.

Referencing a letter of advice from the Office of the Attorney General on the bill, House Minority Leader Jason Buckel, R-Washington County, said that “no one can predict with 100% certainty what a court will do, unless there is a clear case of prior precedent on all fours” — or a previously settled case with nearly indistinguishable facts and legal issues. 

Additionally, Buckel said the letter suggests that the bill “is not clearly unconstitutional, but there is a significant chance that at least portions of it could not be enforced against immigration detention facilities — especially facilities run by ICE — as opposed to a private operator.”

“In particular, the Attorney General’s Office tells us, ‘I do not think the state could require an immigration detention facility — … federal or private — to close or cease operations,” said Buckel. “I’m sure that is extremely disappointing to 101, 102 of you in this room because that is clearly the intent of all of this legislation.”

Although he commended the Attorney General’s Office for writing a letter detailing how the state would be unable to close down ICE facilities, Buckle criticized Brown for filing the Monday lawsuit.

“That is cognitive dissonance on an off-the-charts level,” he said. 

In defense of the bill, Moon said the bill “does not attempt to shut down any federal immigration detention facility.”

“The state absolutely has an interest in ensuring that basic standards are being met,” Moon continued. “We don’t want sewage seeping into the ground there if they don’t have adequate sewer or septic to, again, handle 1,500 people.”

Referencing his own, more recent letter from Brown’s office, the bill’s sponsor Del. Vaughn Stewart, D-Montgomery, said he was informed that some of the bill’s provisions “could be directly applied to ICE itself,  the federal government itself — specifically as it relates to inspections and minimum health and safety standards.”

“It’s about accountability, sure, for all jails in the state, but, fundamentally, this is about affordability,” said Stewart. “When facilities fail to meet certain standards, the consequences don’t end in the jail. They show up in our local ERs, our EMS response times, our utility bills and in our county budgets.”

The bill now must be heard and passed in the Senate chamber. 

Tracking federal agents

The House also passed legislation Thursday to allow the attorney general’s office to direct Maryland State Police to collect all identifying digital data possible regarding federal agents who are the subject of misconduct complaints, including violations of federal or state constitutional rights, as well as civil rights and criminal laws.

Complainants would be eligible to gain access to said data under a court order in a civil rights case or a criminal proceeding regarding the complaint against the agent.

Del. Matt Morgan, R-St. Mary’s, argued that the bill should be renamed “The Maryland State of Police KGB Act” because it allows for the use of stingray technology, which are fake cellphone towers used by law enforcement to track locations and intercept data.

Morgan argued that it “sets a dragnet” because it captures the data of nontargeted individuals, using the example of civilians driving down the street.

“We’re capturing all this data from people that did nothing wrong,” Morgan said. “I don’t see any provision in the bill to delete that data, ever.”

Further, Morgan said the bill’s purpose is to identify, dox and obstruct law enforcement agents from doing their jobs. 

“This bill is a tragedy,” he said. 

Del. Elizabeth Embry, D-Baltimore City, responded that this technology is currently used by law enforcement in the investigation of crime.

“This law would actually not allow technology to be used against anyone except a federal official for the sole purpose of identifying who they are,” said Embry. “It does not change the parameters, the guidelines, the constitutional limitations about their use. All of those remain in place, but it allows just the identifying information.”

Moon, the bill’s main sponsor, argued that the bill’s main purpose is to know “who to sue” and would equally apply to officials at the ATF and IRS, among other federal agencies.

“We, unfortunately, are in a situation where we have to protect ourselves from people who are choosing to ignore federal court orders and issue illegal orders, putting their employees in a very bad state, and I feel bad that’s what’s going on, but they are absolutely getting bad advice, legally and policy-wise from their hierarchy … where they can kick down your door and enter your private residence — citizen or not — without a warrant,” said Moon. “That is not the law, that should not be done by legal memo, and you better believe that’s going to lead to lawsuits. It should.”

The legislation passed on a vote of 96-38. It now must be heard and passed in the Senate chamber.

This story has been updated.