MONROE COUNTY, Ind. — A new complaint filed by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita claims the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office is not properly enforcing federal immigration laws.
The complaint indicates Sheriff Ruben Marte and his office “violated Indiana law by implementing a policy which limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”
According to the complaint, the rule in question was implemented by Marte on June 29. Rokita’s office claims the rule could “prohibit or limit voluntary cooperation by personnel of the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office with federal officials in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
Per the complaint, the rule mandates deputies not engage in enforcement of immigration or citizenship status unless required to do so by law. The complaint also claims the rule prohibits deputies from attempting to gather information on the citizenship or immigration statuses of the individuals they interact with on the job, unless they are required to do so in the execution of their official duties.
Rokita’s complaint claims the rule restricts deputies’ ability to cooperate with federal agencies and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Such restriction is a violation of Indiana laws, according to the complaint.
Indiana Code 5-2-18.2-3 stipulates a governmental body may not enact regulations that restrict other agencies from taking certain actions with regard to information on the citizenship status of an individual.
The complaint also indicates the sheriff’s office rule violates Indiana Code 5-2-18.2-4, which states governmental bodies may not limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
Rokita’s complaint alleges that, because the rule violates multiple Indiana codes, it harms the state “by violating the sovereignty of the State.”
Rokita’s office claims it has been in communication with the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office about the rule since May 14. The complaint state Rokita sent Marte a letter to inform him that the rule does not comply with state law.
In the letter, Rokita asked the sheriff’s office to rescind its policies that were inconsistent with state law.
According to the complaint, Marte responded to Rokita’s letter, indicating he intended to revise the policy. Upon review of the sheriff’s revisions, Rokita determined that the policy still violated state law.
The complaint concludes by requesting the court system issue an order that prohibits the sheriff’s office from violating any Indiana laws or other departmental policies.
“After filing a lawsuit against East Chicago earlier this week, I am now taking similar action in Monroe County over an ‘Immigration and Citizenship Status’ policy, which we find also violates state law,” Rokita wrote in a prepared statement. “After multiple conversations with the sheriff’s office to rescind its illegal policy, it didn’t work, and now my office is taking the next step to enforce state law as passed by the General Assembly.”
Marte issued a response to Rokita’s complaint on Tuesday afternoon. In his response, Marte claimed Rokita’s complaint specifically challenges an aspect of the policy that indicates the sheriff’s office will not hold a person in detention based solely upon an administrative request from the federal government when that request is not supported by probable cause that a crime has been committed or a detention order from a judge.
In his rebuttal, Marte wrote that his office’s standard operating procedure is crafted to comply with all applicable state and federal laws.
“My office takes seriously our obligation to enforce the laws while respecting everyone’s constitutional rights,” Marte wrote. “Our Standard Operating Procedure does exactly that. We are prepared to defend vigorously the policy in court.”
Per a release, the sheriff’s office will be represented by attorneys from the Monroe County Legal Department and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center during its legal battle with Rokita.
As of this article’s publication, no additional information on the complaint’s status had been made available.