NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Padilla Call for Official Investigation into ICE’s Attempt to Enter Sacramento Immigration Law Firm

Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.), members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, formally demanded an investigation into Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) recent attempt to enter an immigration law firm in Sacramento, California.

"The reporting of this operation is alarming. ICE officers attempted to enter private property unlawfully, with one officer allegedly threatening to return in the early morning hours of the following day and break windows to enter the law firm's premises. We request a thorough investigation into this operation, including a review of the officer's conduct, threats made by the Department of Homeland Security and ICE personnel, and timely and comprehensive responses to our questions about ICE's perceived authorities to conduct such actions," the Senators wrote.

In an inquiry directed to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director David J. Ventulla, the lawmakers are pressing for answers on the purpose of ICE's attempted entry onto Morris Law Group's premises, on ICE failing to secure a judicial warrant prior to arriving at the firm, information about ICE's policies to enter private property without warrants and on alleged threats of violence made by an ICE officer during their attempt to gain entry. The lawmakers also pushed back against DHS's statement that ICE officers were not aware that this address was a law firm prior to their arrival, though the firm's name was clearly legible on its premises.

The Senators continued, "after months of significant community indignation, unanswered congressional oversight, and commitments from DHS Secretary Mullin at his nomination hearing that DHS "will not enter a home or a place of business without a judicial warrant, unless we're pursuing the individual that runs into a place of business or a house," DHS is again failing to comply with the law, its commitment to Congress, and its promise to the American people."

The full text of the letter can be found here and below.

Dear Secretary Mullin and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director Venturella:

It has come to our attention that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers conducted an operation in Sacramento, California on Friday, August 14 at an immigration law firm named Morris Law Group. The reporting of this operation is alarming. ICE officers attempted to enter private property unlawfully, with one officer allegedly threatening to return in the early morning hours of the following day and break windows to enter the law firm's premises. We request a thorough investigation into this operation, including a review of the officer's conduct, threats made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE personnel, and timely and comprehensive responses to our questions about ICE's perceived authorities to conduct such actions.

The behavior carried out by DHS enforcement officers and agents throughout this last year in Los Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; and Minneapolis, Minnesota, make clear that immigration enforcement officers and agents are capable of and have acted without regard for the safety and civil liberties of individuals. It is clear that some DHS enforcement personnel wrongly believe they can enter individuals' private properties, including places of business, without valid, judicial warrants required by the Fourth Amendment (notwithstanding exigent circumstances that could be sufficiently established in a court of law). After months of significant community indignation, unanswered congressional oversight, and commitments from DHS Secretary Mullin at his nomination hearing that DHS "will not enter a home or a place of business without a judicial warrant, unless we're pursuing the individual that runs into a place of business or a house," DHS is again failing to comply with the law, its commitment to Congress, and its promise to the American people.

Reporting also states that this same ICE officer claimed to have a "list" from "Washington, D.C." which listed the building's address for inspection and that the officers wanted to "tour the office for beds." Furthermore, in DHS's statement to KCRA 3 following the reporting of this incident, DHS stated that ICE officers approached "an unmarked door" and believed it to be an address with beds, but that after learning it was a law firm, left. We are baffled by this statement. First, a Google search of this address shows that it is a law firm. Second, a Google street view image of the address shows clearly that "Morris Law Group" is written on the front of the entire building, right next to the building number. We find DHS's statement troubling and unsatisfactory.

ICE's conduct here is another example of a broader, systemic effort by this administration to intimidate immigrant communities and the attorneys and legal representatives who represent them. We refuse to tolerate these efforts to target law firms and organizations based solely on who their clients may be or their practice areas. Federal immigration officers and agents must comply with the law as all other federal law enforcement agents are required.

We are troubled by the serious allegations that ICE officers attempted to enter private property without a judicial warrant and further threatened to return to the law firm at 3 a.m. to "break windows" to enter private property. We request that DHS and ICE promptly investigate the nature of these threats by its officers, and request responses to the following questions:

1. What was the purpose of the ICE operation on August 14 at Morris Law Group?
2. Why did the ICE officers fail to secure a judicial warrant prior to their arrival at Morris Law Group's premises?
3. What is ICE's protocol or policy regarding requiring judicial warrants to enter private property since Markwayne Mullin was sworn in as the DHS Secretary? Where and when was that policy made public?
4. Will DHS and ICE commit to investigating this incident, including the allegation that an ICE officer claimed they could return at "3 a.m." to "break windows" to enter private property, and share the outcome of that investigation with our offices?
   • What is ICE's policy regarding investigating officers who threaten violence during enforcement actions?
   • Are ICE officers required to be trained in deescalation in the context enforcement actions? If so, is that training required prior to beginning employment? Are there additional and continuous deescalation trainings throughout their term of employment? Please provide all documentation regarding ICE's policy and training protocol regarding deescalation.

1. Why did ICE officers request to tour the law firm offices for beds?
2. Reporting indicates that ICE officers received a "list" from "Washington, D.C." for this enforcement action.
   • From whom did they receive this list?
   • What is the process for creating lists of targets for ICE enforcement actions? Please provide a list of the offices and officials involved in the process, both at DHS and ICE, as well as any engagement by the White House and other federal agencies.
   • What is the process for creating targeting lists of law firms or legal service providers and what factors are considered for such lists? Please provide a list of the offices and officials involved in the process, both at DHS and ICE, as well as any engagement by the White House and other federal agencies.
   • Who are the officials responsible for creating and approving such lists and distributing them to ICE officers?
   • What were the specific factors that established Morris Law Group as a target for this enforcement action?
   • Was this enforcement action anchored in seeking a particular individual? Or does DHS believe it can target locations without a particular human target?

1. Was the ICE San Francisco Field Office leading this enforcement operation?
   • If yes, what is the protocol for coordinating with the ICE San Francisco Field Office to prepare lists of individuals or law firms subject to enforcement actions?
   • If not, which ICE Field Office was tasked with carrying out this enforcement action?
   • How many officers were involved and were they wearing body cameras? If not, why not?

1. Does ICE have a protocol for verifying addresses before arriving at them?
   • If yes, why was this protocol not followed in this instance? Will ICE investigate possible lack of compliance with protocol here?
   • If not, why not?

Given the serious allegations of this incident, we request responses by Friday, September 11. We appreciate your attention to this matter.

###