|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On a quiet morning outside the Bristol County jail in Dartmouth, an unmarked silver Ford Explorer, with red and blue lights flashing through its rear window, drove up to the jail’s sallyport — a secure gateway that controls who gets in and out.
The gate opened, the car entered and reversed into a parking space, and the driver — a man wearing a black sweatshirt, khakis and a baseball cap — deposited his firearm in the trunk, grabbed metal shackles, and entered a side door of the jail.
Minutes later, he stepped out carrying a clear plastic bag containing what appeared to be clothing. Behind him shuffled a woman, her hands cuffed and ankles chained. Rose Monte, 58, born in Portugal and living in Fall River, was scheduled for release that morning after serving over nine months for violating probation for a larceny charge. Instead, she was being taken into federal custody.
“Sir, are you with ICE?” a reporter from The Light asked as he opened the car door. He did not respond, but Monte did.
“Yes, he is,” she said, turning her head over her shoulder before stepping into the SUV, “and they are taking me.”
Across Massachusetts, sheriff’s offices are quietly cooperating with ICE, even without formal contracts and partnerships. In Bristol County and beyond, local jails share a mix of information with federal immigration agents — be it booking logs, court dates, and release times — enabling, and in some cases facilitating, immigration enforcement across the state, The Light has found.
And yet, under state law, sheriffs are also limited in how much they can help ICE. In Massachusetts, county jails cannot hold an inmate after bail has been posted or they are set for release. If ICE agents don’t arrive in time, the inmate is released.
This state legal obligation, and its tempering effect on the federal government’s aggressive immigration agenda, has created tension between local officials and federal agents. Sheriffs have found themselves caught in the middle, trying to cooperate with ICE while seeking to avoid lawsuits for violating inmates’ rights.
As that tension has grown, Bristol County Sheriff Paul Heroux told The Light that ICE recently made an unusual request to his office: the names of individuals paying bail at the jail for incarcerated friends or family members. In a statement to The Light on Oct. 16, Heroux said he has not provided the information to ICE, saying state law is unclear on whether the names of persons posting bail for a detainee are public record.
The Light has contacted all of the state’s sheriff’s offices for this story, first to ask about the extent of their cooperation with ICE, and again to ask whether ICE has asked them, too, for the names of bail payers. Six sheriff’s offices said they had not received a request for information on those posting bail; several others declined to comment or did not respond.
ICE detainers
In Bristol County, the sheriff’s office primarily works with ICE through immigration detainers — requests from ICE that ask jails to notify the agency before they release an individual of interest.
The Bristol County Sheriff’s Office assists ICE by sharing daily booking logs that include the names of detainees and their places of birth; upcoming court hearings and related logistics, such as transportation to court; and upcoming release dates.
Once ICE files a detainer — officially known as Form I-247A — the sheriff’s office stays in contact with ICE, providing regular updates, explained Kenneth Souza, who oversees inmate intake at the Dartmouth House of Correction. The office will also notify the inmate and place the form in their file, he said.
Email exchanges obtained by The Light illustrate the regular flow of information from the Bristol County Sheriff to ICE, with the local agency sometimes coordinating directly with agents for pickups at the Dartmouth facility.
“Just a FYI, [redacted] is going to New Bedford District Court this morning,” wrote Thomas Powers, a booking and intake assistant at the Sheriff’s Office, in a March 4 email to ICE Deportation Officer Kelsey Leydon. “I forwarded them the Ice Detainer and we have it here as well.”
“If he posts bail and gets transported pls let me know immediately. Please,” wrote Leydon in a separate email thread on Feb. 28.
“This individual paid bail last night and will be at New Bedford District Court for GPS this morning,” wrote the booking supervisor in a May 29 email to Leydon.
“Good morning, received. I have agents there to apprehend [redacted],” Leydon replied. (Leydon did not respond to emails seeking comment for this story.)
ICE’s detainer form asks the local law enforcement agency to notify ICE “as early as practicable (at least 48 hours, if possible)” before it releases the inmate from custody. It also asks the local agency to hold the person for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release so immigration authorities have time to take custody.
But in Massachusetts, legal boundaries limit the detainer. In its 2017 Lunn decision, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled that sheriffs do not have the legal authority to detain an inmate solely on a detainer form.
“I think calling it a detainer is a bit of a misnomer,” Heroux said of the form. “We can’t keep somebody past when the court has set their release date or when somebody posts bail.”
“Before the bail takes place, we notify ICE,” Souza said. “If they’re not here by the time the bail is completed, we have to let the person go.” The sheriff’s office said it couldn’t give an average time length for the bail process, saying it depends on several factors, with some detainees moving more briskly through the process than others.
Several other Massachusetts sheriffs adopt similar information-sharing approaches. Those who responded to The Light also cited the SJC’s Lunn decision to affirm they do not hold people for ICE.
The Light requested records from the state’s 14 sheriff’s departments. Only a few provided records, with the rest citing exemptions under public records law. Twelve confirmed they share information with ICE when a detainer request is on file, such as upcoming releases and court hearings. But some differed from the Bristol County sheriff’s approach, stating they do not share booking logs with the federal agency.
The Dukes County Sheriff’s Office provides notice to ICE prior to the release of an inmate if they have a detainer on file. According to the office, when any individual is booked, their fingerprints are run through an automated fingerprint identification system that creates an “automated notification of arrest and request for information from the FBI, State Police, and Department of Homeland Security.”
The office noted, however, that through August, it had not provided any notification to ICE this year.
The Worcester, Hampden and Middlesex County sheriff’s offices said that they do not have a contract with ICE, but “maintain a relationship with ICE per its policy,” including notifying ICE of releases of individuals with detainers.
“If ICE, upon notification, suggests they would like to pick up the inmate, they need to be present at the [sheriff’s office] before an inmate’s release to the public, as there will be no delays in the [inmate’s] release procedure,” the Hampden office said.
“At ICE’s request, the [Middlesex Sheriff’s Office] routinely provides ICE with a list of individuals” in custody, those scheduled to be released, and upcoming court dates, the office said.
“The Worcester County Sheriff’s Office informs DHS about all individuals who come into our custody. Upon request, additional information, which may relate to charges, bail, release dates, etc., is provided,” said a spokesperson in an email.
The Barnstable Sheriff’s Office said it responds to “informational investigative inquiries and provides information concerning persons” in custody to ICE, as it does with other state and federal law enforcement partners.
The office cited President Donald Trump’s January executive order, termed “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” which prompted then-U.S. Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to create an interim policy suggesting that the Department of Justice would identify and prosecute state and local agencies “resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply” with lawful immigration requests.
“Clearly, the Federal Government’s approach regarding ICE Detainers changed with this Interim Policy,” a Barnstable Sheriff’s Office spokesperson said in February, adding that the executive order and policy “make it clear that restrictions on the exchange of information” between local and federal authorities may result in prosecution by the federal government.
Heroux in an interview said he thinks compliance is voluntary, stating he was not aware of any laws that compel the office to share the information. However, since booking logs, for example, are public records, ICE could request them daily. To avoid repeated public records requests, Heroux said his office provides the logs to ICE directly.
“I don’t think we have to,” he said on notifying ICE regarding detainer notices. “But it’s not going to go well for us if we don’t.”
The Light asked the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office what county sheriffs are compelled and not compelled to share with ICE. A spokesperson referred to the Lunn decision, said it will depend upon local ordinances and department policies, and pointed to the AG’s seven-page guidance about ICE enforcement.
According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and ACLU Massachusetts, ICE detainers are voluntary requests that can be disregarded by a local agency.
Though sheriffs have been forthcoming with information to ICE, the system doesn’t always run in ways that satisfy both partners.
Local tensions with ICE
On a Tuesday night in February, an unnamed inmate at the Dartmouth House of Correction was scheduled to post bail. As is the practice of the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office, a staff member contacted ICE to inform them that an inmate with a detainer request was about to be released.
The staff member left a voicemail with an ICE officer, and then called a “duty line” to let the agency know, according to sheriff’s office records. The office was soon after informed that ICE was about 20 minutes away.
At 7:31 p.m., after posting bail, the inmate passed through the gated sallyport and left the Dartmouth facility.
Mere minutes later, at 7:38 p.m., the first ICE agent arrived, followed by a second redacted person at 7:42 p.m.
The ICE officer “became very upset” and spoke in an “aggressive manner” because the jail had released “a rapist and a kidnapper,” according to an incident report that Bristol County Sheriff staff filed afterwards.
“Officer [REDACTED] frustration arose from Inmate [REDACTED] release from custody, leading to unprofessional behavior where [REDACTED] raised [REDACTED] voice in front of my staff,” the Feb. 18 incident report stated.
One of the federal agents allegedly told Bristol County Sheriff staff that an officer was driving “110 mph and [REDACTED] couldn’t drive any faster,” the report states.
The filer of one of the reports wrote that they informed the ICE officer that after an inmate posts bail, the jail is not allowed, by state law, to detain that person.
In a June press release on “Operation Patriot,” DHS seemed to reference this incident, stating federal agents had arrested Denis Javier Aguirre Murillo after the Bristol County sheriff released him on Feb. 19. In a photo, they posed Murillo with federal agents in tactical vests flanking him on both sides. The DHS press release said the Bristol sheriff “did not honor his ICE detainer.”
In a statement provided to The Light, Heroux said, “I categorically reject this characterization and am disappointed that ICE would describe the events” that way.
“We have informed ICE that we are bound by state law and we must release all persons who post bail,” Heroux wrote. “Consistent with this understanding, [Trump-appointed] U.S. Attorney [Leah] Foley told all Mass Sheriffs at a meeting in March that sheriffs are ‘bound by state law.’”
A release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Massachusetts in September stated that Aguirre-Murillo (the office used a different spelling and age) had previously been deported from the country three times. In 2024, he was arrested “under an alias in Fall River for charges that included intimidation and rape,” which was amended down to indecent assault and battery, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. Aguirre-Murillo was arrested May 29 and pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the U.S. in September.
A court search with his alias showed charges going back several years that matched those listed by DHS.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office also said Aguirre-Murillo was released from local custody “without notification.” However, an incident report from the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office disproves that claim, documenting the sheriff’s office’s advance calls to ICE.
Officials cite lack of communication from ICE
The incident is just one example of frustrations that have mounted from local elected officials and agencies.
On Jan. 24, the Norfolk County sheriff faced similar backlash from ICE, which accused the jail of not honoring a detainer. In an announcement of its arrest of a Haitian national in Boston, ICE stated that the Norfolk House of Correction previously released him “without honoring the immigration detainer.”
The same day, Norfolk County posted a release, emphasizing that ICE had been notified about the impending release of the man.
“According to our records ICE indicated they were unable to make a pickup,” the sheriff’s office stated. “We cannot violate a person’s due process by holding them beyond their legally stipulated term of confinement. We comply fully, within our authority.”
Months later, in May and June, the Norfolk Sheriff’s Director of Government Affairs Chris Bell emailed ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, requesting he meet with Norfolk Sheriff Patrick McDermott.
“The Sheriff is looking to meet with you regarding the ongoing ICE operations happening here in Massachusetts,” Bell wrote to Lyons. In earlier outreach, Bell said McDermott was willing to travel to Washington, D.C., for a meeting.
Asked about the request, a Norfolk Sheriff spokesperson in an email said the sheriff’s office received no response from ICE as of September. The sheriff’s office has “excellent relationships with law enforcement agencies across our county and beyond, and Sheriff McDermott was interested in building the same positive relationship with ICE while working cooperatively and responsibly, within our authority,” the spokesperson wrote.
A lack of communication has frustrated elected officials, including U.S. Rep. Bill Keating and Mayor Jon Mitchell, who in April criticized ICE over what they said was a lack of transparency following the window-smashing arrest of a man in New Bedford.
The frustrations have continued, with newly sworn-in New Bedford Police Chief Jason Thody, who has left a call and questions with ICE that have yet to be answered.
ICE posts, removes reference to sheriffs and “sanctuary”
ICE has also drawn the ire of the National Sheriffs’ Association, which represents thousands of members across the country.
In May, the Department of Homeland Security published a statement on its webpage — since removed — listing “sanctuary jurisdictions” that it defined as “deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endangering American communities” and putting law enforcement “in peril.” All Massachusetts sheriffs, with the exception of Hampden, appeared on the list.
National Sheriffs’ Association President Sheriff Kieran Donahue in a statement criticized DHS, calling its designation of sanctuary jurisdictions arbitrary: “The completion and publication of this list has not only violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement, but it also has the potential to strain the relationship between Sheriffs and the White House administration.”
“The Sheriffs of this country feel betrayed,” Donahue continued. “The current list must be removed immediately, and DHS must release an apology to the Sheriffs and the American people.” DHS removed the list afterward.
“They blasted us calling us a sanctuary when in fact we follow all state laws, we follow all federal laws,” said Heroux. On one side, he said, they face criticism for cooperating with ICE; on the other, DHS lambasted them and claimed they are obstructing federal efforts.
“These other sheriffs were frustrated,” Heroux said. “They said, ‘Hey… I’m getting my butt kicked by my conservative members of my county. And I’m getting my butt kicked by the ACLU. So I’m taking it from both ends. And it’s not fair.’”
The Light contacted ICE and DHS for comment on how they view their relationships with Massachusetts sheriffs, why DHS designated the state’s sheriffs as sanctuary jurisdictions (and then rescinded that label), and the February incident at the Dartmouth jail. ICE and DHS did not respond.
Force multiplier
In Bristol County, ICE agents working with the sheriff’s office appear to use the local agency regularly to obtain information, emails show. Some of the information shared, like a hearing date, is publicly available and could be obtained by agents through the state’s district courts.
Peter Mancina, a visiting scholar with Rutgers Law School, said a “culture of cooperation” exists between law enforcement across all levels (local, state and federal), and that camaraderie has been established through long-standing task forces.
“There’s a wide variety of how to cooperate and assist” with immigration enforcement, explained Mancina, a cultural anthropologist and researcher.
Sheriffs’ offices could assist through jail transfers, sharing of information, and (in other states) holding people in the jail for ICE when they have a detainer form.
Mancina said local law enforcement ultimately acts as a “force multiplier” – a term borrowed from the military — meaning a resource that amplifies federal agencies’ mission or work.
As a force multiplier, local agencies help ICE reduce the resources it spends to apprehend an individual. It’s simply easier to arrest someone who is already in jail or court custody.
Such was the case with Rose Monte’s Sept. 4 arrest at the jail. Monte, who came to the U.S. from Portugal with her parents at age 1, according to a relative, has a long criminal history in Fall River and New Bedford District Court starting in 2002, according to court records. In 2019, she pleaded guilty to assault, and most recently, in July 2025, she pleaded guilty of disorderly conduct and threatening to commit a crime.
That same month, she pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a building during daytime for a felony, and assault and battery on a person over 60 or with a disability.
ICE, instead of conducting an operation that might require planning and several officers, dispatched one officer to take her into custody at the Dartmouth jail, an event that lasted under 20 minutes.
Courthouses have been another site for ICE arrests. From January through late September, ICE arrested 51 people at courts in the state’s Southeastern region, according to data provided by the Massachusetts Trial Court.
This region captures about a dozen courthouses, and includes New Bedford, Plymouth, and the Cape and Islands.
And it is made possible, in part, by the role sheriff departments play in notifying ICE of forthcoming hearings — information that is also public through the court system.
As of Oct. 3, the total inmate population, including both the Dartmouth facility and Ash Street Jail, stood at 662. Of these, 12 individuals had ICE detainers.
Since Monte’s arrest, ICE has arrested two more inmates at the Dartmouth jail, per the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office.
“We follow all state and federal laws,” Heroux said. “No more and no less.”
Email Eleonora Bianchi at ebianchi@newbedfordlight.org and Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
Keep The Light shining with your donation.
As an independent, nonprofit news outlet, we rely on reader support to help fund the kind of in-depth journalism that keeps the public informed and holds the powerful accountable. Thank you for your support.
Does anyone else find it discomforting to know that our local and state law enforcement officials are hamstrung by our predominantly liberal elected officials in keeping their communities safer than they could be? But for the grace of God go we!
Not in the least. ICE has already demonstrated that they’re more interested in how many immigrants they can detain than which ones. They’re almost exclusively going after “soft targets” like at the car wash or the drywall crew on their way to work while gang members and other criminals roam free. When all is said and done in a few years both sides will look back on the Trump/Miller/Homan ICE era with horror and regret.
We the the people of New Bedford do not want ICE in our community.
See the No Kings Protest.
The protest is God’s will.
Rose Monte is not a “soft target’ by any stretch of one’s imagination.
Her transfer to ICE’s custody was simplified by local law enforcement’s facilitation of this event. No drama and no injuries with this orderly transfer of custody from one law enforcement agency to another.
State and local law enforcement cooperation with Federal law enforcement agencies should be occurring. It is not and, at times, State and local law enforcement agencies along with State judiciary actually interfere with the function of these Federal agencies. These actions go a long way towards the Federal agencies not “informing” State and local law enforcement agencies about their planned activities. It is safer for Federal agents to proceed unannounced, rather than have their plans “leaked” by local agencies.
More gang members and other criminals would be apprehended, if State and local law enforcement would cooperate with rather than impede Federal agencies.
Illegal activity is illegal activity and it does have consequences civil and criminal.
No soft target here, long list of charges that includes pleading guilty to a felony of breaking and entering into a building during the daytime and assault and battery on a person over 60 or with a disability and not having proper legal documents. Time for her to go, Ice is just doing there job.
We do not want ICE.
It is very clear that you do not speak for everyone, responding to every comment that is posted is totally off the wall, time for you to take a serious break.
I’m appalled that there is any cooperation by local authorities with a “private” federal gang of untrained and unidentifiable thugs. These ICE agents know nothing about proper law enforcement and everyone knows that. Do we really want their helicopters landing on a 5 story apartment building in the middle of the night, breaking down doors, evicting all tenants, including children, babies and the elderly, and handcuffing them for hours? Is this something our regular local and state police do? No. They are trained professionals. I’m ashamed that a noble state like Massachusetts would cooperate in any way with ICE-let them sue you-stand up for the people!
It is very clear that you do not speak for everyone, responding to every comment that is posted is totally off the wall, time for you to take a serious break.
Says the serial commentator.
I never saw the Annette Pelletier comment before, but I do see you Jeff Rogers comment often, perhaps it’s you that needs a break! Stop bullying, commentors, your far right wing side is being displayed again. Do want others to do as you say, not what you do!
Comment was posted by accident and meant for another person, look above. Like the rest anytime someone doesn’t go along with the far left liberal nonsense, you cry foul, get over yourself.