Federal Judge Rules ICE Agents Are 'Willing to Lie' and Strips Agency of Presumption of Honesty

US District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated an Oregon court order governing warrantless civil immigration arrests and withdrew the presumption that the defendants had performed their duties properly.

An earlier injunction prohibited ICE from making warrantless civil immigration arrests in Oregon unless officers first determined that the person was likely to escape before they could obtain a warrant. Kasubhai found that agents continued making arrests without that advance assessment and failed to provide records demonstrating compliance.

His 50-page opinion identified inaccurate reports, missing records and accounts that conflicted with evidence about the arrests. The findings prompted him to withdraw the presumption of regularity from the defendants in the case, meaning they would no longer benefit from the usual assumption that government officials had properly performed their duties.

'This presumption no longer holds for defendants', Kasubhai wrote. 'Defendants are held to the same expectation as any other litigant before this court. One must earn credibility by acting with integrity'.

The False Record Behind the ICE Warrantless Arrests Ruling

Central to the decision was an officer's report claiming agents had recognised a passenger before stopping a vehicle and already held an arrest warrant for him. Testimony at an evidentiary hearing contradicted that account.

The officer admitted copying much of the narrative from a separate report about the driver and failing to revise the details. He testified that he had not known the passenger was in the vehicle, did not know his identity when agents stopped it and had no warrant for him then.

He characterised the discrepancy as an oversight. Kasubhai rejected that explanation after considering the officer's testimony and documentary evidence, finding that he had lied in an official record to create the impression of a lawful arrest under a warrant.

The judge also cited the officer's previous experience as a sworn police officer and his testimony explaining the information required to obtain warrants and prepare affidavits.

'This court found he lied after evaluating his live testimony and the documentary evidence', Kasubhai wrote. 'Evaluating live testimony is a time-tested method for truth finding. Written declarations are convenient, but insufficient on their own when witnesses are willing to lie'.

Wider Disclosure Ordered in ICE Warrantless Arrests Case

The order requires ICE to provide plaintiffs with a broader collection of records. These include administrative arrest warrants, supporting evidence, documents provided to detainees and body-camera footage from civil immigration arrests within the period specified by the court.

ICE's classification of an arrest as warrant-based will no longer, by itself, exclude it from the disclosure requirements. The agency must also provide previously disclosed material without redactions and repeat the court's instructions to relevant employees every 30 days.

The plaintiffs challenging ICE's arrest practices are represented by the nonprofit firm Innovation Law Lab.

Other discrepancies concerned basic details of where arrests occurred and which vehicles were involved. One report placed an arrest near an address in Napa, California, although it occurred in Hood River, Oregon.

Another described a man's vehicle as a Toyota Camry when he was driving a Toyota Corolla. According to the judge and plaintiffs, the report apparently confused his car with his brother's.

How ICE Warrantless Arrests Were Counted

Kasubhai also disputed the government's reported total of 13 warrantless arrests in Oregon over a six-month period. After reviewing testimony and other evidence, Kasubhai concluded that the number was 'significantly more than 13'.

Kasubhai also found that agents sometimes treated immigration status itself as grounds to believe someone might flee. That did not satisfy the court's requirement to assess the individual's circumstances before proceeding without a warrant.

The judge linked the need to question officers directly to the consequences for people detained. 'Real people's lives and liberties are at stake and they should remember that', Kasubhai stated, admonishing government lawyers defending another challenged arrest.