Skip navigation

A Broken System - Confidential Reports Reveal Failures in U.S. Immigrant Detention Centers, NILC, 2009

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
A BROKEN SYSTEM
Confidential Reports Reveal Failures in U.S. Immigrant Detention Centers

A Broken System
CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS REVEAL FAILURES
IN U.S. IMMIGRANT DETENTION CENTERS

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
HOLLAND & KNIGHT

P R IN CI PA L

AU TH O RS

Karen Tumlin & Linton Joaquin
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER

Ranjana Natarajan
FORMERLY OF THE ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850, Los Angeles, CA 90010 | 213.639.3900 | info@nilc.org | www.nilc.org
The National Immigration Law Center’s mission is to protect and advance the rights and opportunities of lowincome immigrants and their families. Since NILC’s founding in 1979, it has gained national recognition for
its expertise regarding the complex interplay of immigration, public benefits, and employment laws that affect
low-income immigrants. NILC’s attorneys and policy analysts provide analysis and advocacy on these issues
as well as cocounsel impact litigation. NILC has been recognized as one of the leading providers of
information to the immigration field, and NILC’s trainings, publications, website, Listservs, and technical
assistance reach an unusually diverse constituency of legal aid programs, immigrants’ rights groups, community organizations, worker advocates, social service agencies, and policymakers across the United States.
In addition to its Los Angeles, CA, headquarters, NILC has offices in Washington, DC, and Oakland, CA.

ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1313 West Eighth St., Los Angeles, CA 90017 | 213.977.9500 | www.aclu-sc.org
The ACLU was founded to defend and secure the rights granted by the Bill of Rights and to extend them to
people who have been excluded from their protection. Our work can be categorized as follows: FIRST
AMENDMENT — the rights of free speech, free association, and assembly, freedom of the press and religious
freedom, including the strict separation of church and state; EQUAL PROTECTION — The right not to be
discriminated against on the basis of certain classifications, such as race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual
orientation, age, disability, etc.; DUE PROCESS — The right to be treated fairly, including fair procedures when
facing accusations of criminal conduct or other serious accusations that can lead to results like loss of
employment, exclusion from school, denial of housing, cut-off of certain benefits or various punitive measures
taken by the government; PRIVACY — the right to a zone of personal privacy and autonomy; GROUPS AND
INDIVIDUALS THAT CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES — The extension of all the rights described above
to those who are still fighting for the full protections of the Bill of Rights, including women, immigrants, the poor,
people of color, transgender people, members of minority religions, people with disabilities, lesbian, gay, or
bisexual people, the homeless, prisoners, and children in the custody of the state. We accomplish the above by
lobbying, public education, and litigation.

HOLLAND & KNIGHT
For almost 40 years, Chesterfield Smith, the founder and chairman emeritus (1917-2003) of Holland & Knight,
instilled in our lawyers a sense of community purpose and recognition that we have a professional duty to provide
needy people and groups with free legal services. Today, that charge remains woven into the fabric of our firm.
We encourage lawyers in all of our offices to provide legal services to poor people pro bono. In addition, we
maintain a full-time Community Services Team to more effectively marshal our resources to provide legal
representation to those who cannot afford it. The variety of cases we take on is as broad as the needs of the
communities in which we practice. Individual cases are accepted and managed by the Pro Bono Partner in each
of the firm's offices. But consistent across the firm is our pro bono tradition.

THIS REPORT’S PRINCIPAL AUTHORS
Karen Tumlin, Staff Attorney, National Immigration Law Center
Linton Joaquin, General Counsel, National Immigration Law Center
Ranjana Natarajan, an attorney formerly of the ACLU of Southern California
ORDERING INFORMATION
This report may be downloaded free of charge from NILC’s website, www.nilc.org. Printed copies, available for a
fee to cover costs, may be ordered by emailing info@nilc.org or calling 213.639.3900 x. 6. In addition, individuals
interested in obtaining copies of the materials upon which this report is based may initiate the process of arranging
to do so by emailing info@nilc.org. Copies of source materials are available for a fee that covers photocopying and
postage costs.
Copyright © 2009 by the National Immigration Law Center. All rights reserved.
Made in the United States of America

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................ v

Violations Reported by ABA and
UNHCR, but Not Reported by ICE ..............29

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT ..................... v

Conclusion ...........................................................30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................... vi

ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIAL............................31

INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1
Table 1: Numbers of Reports Analyzed,
by Year and Report Type ............................... 1
Table 2: Summary of Detention Standards............ 2
THE ICE DETENTION STANDARDS
MONITORING SYSTEM..................................... 4
ICE Detention Framework .................................... 4
The National Detention Standards......................... 4
The ICE System for Monitoring
Compliance with Detention Standards ........... 5
Problems with ICE’s Monitoring
Procedures and Practices ................................ 7

Introduction..........................................................31
Violations of the Standard Reported by
ICE and Independent Agencies.....................31
Violations Reported by ABA and
UNHCR, but Not Reported by ICE ..............33
Conclusion ...........................................................34
GROUP PRESENTATIONS ON LEGAL
RIGHTS ...............................................................36
Introduction..........................................................36
Deficiencies in the ICE Form and
Procedures for Monitoring
Compliance ...................................................36

Lack of Consequences for Noncompliance ......... 12

Violations of the Group Presentations
Standard ........................................................37

Conclusion........................................................... 13

Conclusion ...........................................................39

VISITATION ............................................................. 14

CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER MAIL .............40

Introduction ......................................................... 14

Introduction..........................................................40

Violations of the Visitation Standard .................. 14

Violations of the Correspondence and
Other Mail Standard......................................40

American Bar Association and United
Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees Reviews ........................................ 16

Conclusion ...........................................................43

RECREATION........................................................... 20

ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY
SEGREGATION: SPECIAL
MANAGEMENT UNITS ....................................44

Introduction ......................................................... 20

Introduction..........................................................44

ICE Monitoring of the Recreation
Standard........................................................ 20

Segregation Standards Violations
Reported by ICE ...........................................44

ICE-Documented Violations of the
Recreation Standard ..................................... 21

Violations Reported by ABA and
UNHCR, but Not Reported by ICE ..............47

Violations Reported by ABA and
UNHCR, but Not Reported by ICE .............. 23

Conclusion ...........................................................48

Conclusion........................................................... 19

Conclusion........................................................... 25

DISCIPLINARY POLICY..........................................49
Introduction..........................................................49

TELEPHONE ACCESS ............................................. 26
Introduction ......................................................... 26

Problems in ICE Reviews of the
Disciplinary Policy Standard ........................49

Violations Reported by ICE, ABA, and
UNHCR........................................................ 26

ICE-Documented Violations of the
Standard ........................................................50

A BROKEN SYSTEM

iv

CONTENTS
Violations Reported by ABA and
UNHCR........................................................ 50

Violations of the Funds and Personal
Property Standard .........................................68

Conclusion........................................................... 51

Conclusion ...........................................................71

DETAINEE HANDBOOK......................................... 52

ADMISSION AND RELEASE ..................................72

Introduction ......................................................... 52

Introduction..........................................................72

ICE Monitoring of the Handbook
Standard........................................................ 52

Violations of the Admission and Release
Standard ........................................................72

Conclusion........................................................... 55

Conclusion ...........................................................73

HOLD ROOMS IN DETENTION
FACILITIES........................................................ 56

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................74

Introduction ......................................................... 56

Increase Accountability for System
Failures .........................................................74

ICE Monitoring of the Standard .......................... 56

Uniformity across Detention Facilities ................75

ICE-Documented Violations of the Hold
Room Standard ............................................. 56

Increase Transparency of the System...................76

Conclusion........................................................... 60
DETAINEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES.............. 61
Introduction ......................................................... 61
ICE Monitoring of the Grievance
Standard........................................................ 61
Conclusion........................................................... 64
DETAINEE TRANSFER ........................................... 65

Uniformity in the Review System........................77
Improve the ICE Internal Review Process ...........78
Increase Independent Review of the
Detention System ..........................................80
Stop the Expansion of Immigration
Detention and Promote Detainee
Rights and Alternatives to Detention ............81
FIGURE 1: Number of Detention Facilities by
State .....................................................................82

Introduction ......................................................... 65
Violations of the Detainee Transfer
Standard........................................................ 65
Conclusion........................................................... 66
FUNDS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY................... 67
Introduction ......................................................... 67

TABLE 3: Detention Facilities, Reviews of
Which Are Analyzed in This Report (by
State and Facility Type) .......................................83
TABLE 4: Detention Facility Reviews
Analyzed in This Report (by Reviewing
Entity) ..................................................................88
NOTES........................................................................ 96

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Acknowledgments
This report could not have been completed without the contributions of many individuals who helped in its
research, editing, and production. Special thanks are due to Richard Irwin, the National Immigration Law
Center’s (NILC’s) editor and publications manager, who edited the report, improved its overall structure and
design, and formatted it. In addition, Joyce Bradberg of the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC)
coordinated the research and writing necessary to complete numerous sections of the report. We also thank the
ACLU/SC’s Pam Noles and Al-Insan Lashley, formerly of the ACLU/SC, who contributed to the report’s
graphic design.
The following individuals from the law firm of Holland & Knight conducted invaluable research and made
contributions to the initial drafts of the report’s subject-area chapters: Javier Alvarez, Paola Canales, Faith
Carter, Maria Enriquez, Suzanne Foster, Mark Gordon, Harry Hsing, Srivitta Kengskool, Diane Rallis, Eric
Ray, Daniel Schaps, and Lissa Schaupp. In addition, Corey Shindel (NILC), Blythe Leszkay (ACLU-SC), and
Maria Constantinescu conducted research for and helped write initial drafts of chapters that were used in this
report.
The following individuals helped fact-check the findings in this report: Stephen Blank, Martha Casillas,
Adam Cherensky, Scott Connor, Marissa Dagdagan, George Espinoza, Jessica Hinkie, Josi Kennon, Rebecca
Koford, Elizabeth Kugler, Muizz Rafique, Jessica Rash, Neda Rastegar, Raymond Rico, Maya Roy, Maya
Rupert, Johari Townes, and Brian Whittaker.
The report also benefited from comments provided by Christopher Nugent, Tom Jawetz, Megan Mack,
and Judy Rabinovitz.
Editing assistance for the report also was provided by Naghmeh Harirchi and Bianca Marquez of NILC,
Christian Lebano of ACLU/SC, and Robert Squires.

Acronyms Used in This Report
ABA - American Bar Association
ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act
CAT - Convention Against Torture
CDF - Contract Detention Facility
COM - Correspondence and Other Mail
DHS - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOM - Detention Operations Manual
DRO - Office of Detention and Removal
DSCU - Detention Standards Compliance Unit
DTNS - Detainee Transfer Notification Sheet
FPP - Funds and Personal Property
GP - Group Presentations on Legal Rights
ICE - U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement

IGSA - Intergovernmental Service Agreement
(or a nonfederal jail or prison that holds
immigrant detainees under such an
agreement)
INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service
LEO – law enforcement officer
NGO - nongovernmental organization
ODRO - Office of Detention and Removal
Operations
OIC – officer-in-charge
PBNDS - Performance Based National
Detention Standards
RIC - reviewer-in-charge
SMU - Special Management Unit
SPC - Service Processing Center
UNHCR - United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Executive Summary

T

his report presents the first-ever system-wide
look at the federal government’s compliance
with its own standards regulating immigrant
detention facilities, a view based on previously unreleased first-hand reports of monitoring inspections. The
results reveal substantial and pervasive violations of the
government’s minimum standards for conditions at
such facilities. As a result, over 320,000 immigrants
locked up each year not only face tremendous obstacles
to challenging wrongful detention or winning their immigration cases, but the conditions in which these civil
detainees are held often are as bad as or worse than
those faced by imprisoned criminals.
Each day, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds more than 31,000 immigrant
detainees in facilities across the U.S.1 — a number that
has steadily increased, from 6,259 in 1992, to approximately 20,000 in early 2006, to the current figure of
31,000.2 This growth in the immigrant detainee population is due to a confluence of policy changes, including
increased immigration raids at homes and workplaces,
and policies that make deporting even lawful permanent
residents easier and which require that all immigrants,
including asylum-seekers, be detained before they are
deported.
By any measure, the U.S. runs a massive immigrant detention program: hundreds of thousands of immigrants are locked up each year in hundreds of facilities across the country. Despite the system’s large size,
not enough is known about the system itself, how the
federal government attempts to monitor detention facilities’ performance with its own minimum standards
with regard to the conditions under which detainees
may be held, or whether this monitoring is adequate.
Detainees are housed primarily in three types of facilities: Service Processing Centers (SPCs), Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs), and Intergovernmental Service Agreement facilities (IGSAs). SPCs, of which
there currently are seven that house approximately 13
percent of ICE detainees,3 are owned and operated by
ICE. CDFs are operated by private companies under
contract with ICE (ICE currently uses seven CDFs,
which house approximately 17 percent of ICE detainees4). And IGSAs, which house approximately 67 percent of all immigrant detainees, are facilities that ICE
uses under contracts with state or local governments.
Typically, IGSAs are state or county jails that provide
bed space for immigration detainees. ICE also houses
approximately 3 percent of immigration detainees in
U.S. Bureau of Prisons facilities or in other facilities.5
Despite the rapid growth since 1992 of the immigrant detention system, it is woefully unregulated.
Neither the first set of detention standards that were

promulgated beginning in 2000 nor their replacement,
the “Performance Based National Detention Standards”
(PBNDS) released in September 2008, are legally
binding, sending a clear message that noncompliance
carries no real penalty. The standards also are undermined by a lack of uniformity across the detention system. Critical provisions within many of the standards,
the new PBNDS included, expressly do not apply to
IGSAs, where the majority of immigration detainees are
held. While the standards state that CDFs and SPCs are
required to follow all standards’ provisions, IGSAs are
permitted to adopt alternative procedures for implementing portions of the standards that are designated by
italicized language in the standards. Moreover, the
government has maintained a deliberate policy of
opaqueness with respect to whether detention facilities
conform to the standards, refusing to allow the public
access either to its own facility audits or to the results
of reviews conducted by the American Bar Association
(ABA) and the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), both of which have been given
access to facilities on the condition that their reports be
shared only with ICE.
This report is based on analysis of previously unreleased portions of ABA, UNHCR, and ICE detention
facility review reports from 2001 through 2005, which
the government released only as a result of court-ordered discovery in Orantes-Hernandez v. Holder.6 In
producing this report, the authors reviewed over 18,000
pages of never-before-released documents. However,
because the government withheld a substantial amount
of the information that the court ordered it to produce,
there is no doubt that the detention standards violations
reported and analyzed here comprise only a fraction of
the violations documented by ICE in 2004 and 2005.
In addition, this report’s description of the system
whereby ICE monitored compliance with the detention
standards is based in part on the deposition testimony of
two ICE officials, each of whom served as chief of the
Detention Standards Compliance Unit (DSCU); the
depositions of three ICE field officers who were selected by the agency to testify regarding their inspection
practices; as well as ICE training and management materials, including its Detention Management Control
Program (DMCP) manual, produced during Orantesrelated discovery.7 Deposition testimony reveals that
the monitoring practices of individual ICE officers
varied in many ways from the procedures spelled out in
the DMCP manual.8
In this report, the chapter titled “The ICE Detention
Standards Monitoring System” provides a description,
based on information gleaned from these previously
unavailable documents, of the government’s oversight

A BROKEN SYSTEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
system and identifies its shortcomings. Subsequent
chapters summarize information on the government’s
compliance, or lack thereof, with 15 detention standards
that relate, either directly or indirectly, to detainees’
constitutional and statutory due process rights and their
ability to effectively challenge their deportation cases
while in detention;9 this summarized information was
obtained from the previously confidential monitoring
reports. Finally, the “Recommendations” chapter provides suggestions for improving the government’s oversight of conditions that obtain throughout the U.S.’s
immigration detention system.

THE ICE SYSTEM FOR
MONITORING COMPLIANCE
The documents and depositions upon which this
report is based also provide new information about how
ICE has attempted to assess compliance with its detention standards at the hundreds of facilities scattered
across the country where immigrants are held. As described below, this information reveals that the government’s past efforts to monitor compliance with the
standards have been woefully deficient and in need of a
major overhaul. Deposition testimony by ICE staff
revealed that the compliance unit (the DSCU), which
the now defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) created in 2002 within the agency’s Office
of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) to monitor compliance with the detention standards, has been
understaffed throughout its history. Nevertheless, the
DSCU has been charged with ensuring that each immigration detention facility is reviewed annually. According to deposition testimony, to become authorized
reviewers, officers from headquarters and ICE field
offices have been required to attend a 40-hour training.
Following this training, officers could be assigned to
conduct three-day “headquarters reviews” of CDFs and
SPCs.10 These reviews were conducted by teams composed of one inspector from the DSCU, who acted as
the reviewer-in-charge (RIC); two field officers, who
participated in the reviews as “collateral duties” to their
other official tasks; and a staff member from the Division of Immigration Health Services.11 By contrast,
IGSAs, the state and local facilities that comprise the
vast majority of immigration detention facilities, were
inspected only by law enforcement officers (LEOs)
from local ICE offices. These were typically ICE deportation or detention officers for whom inspections
were merely an occasional, additional task.12 LEOs
worked in teams of two to conduct two-day “operational reviews” of IGSAs.13 Under the government’s
monitoring system, facilities scheduled for monitoring
have been given at least 30 days’ advance notice, al-

vii

lowing facilities to clean up problems in advance of a
review. And the compliance unit’s practice has been to
conduct no facility reviews without providing advance
notice.14
To conduct a review, the reviewing officers physically inspected the facility and spoke with facility staff,
and sometimes detainees, to obtain the information necessary to complete the relevant review worksheets.
These forms contain one- or two-page checklists pertaining to each of the 38 original detention standards.
In all, the form for facilities designated to house detainees for over 72 hours consists of approximately 85
pages, while the form for facilities that may hold a detainee only for up to 72 hours is much shorter. Reviewers completed the applicable form by marking boxes
next to statements describing various elements of a
standard to indicate whether a facility was in compliance with the given elements, and by adding any relevant comments. Based on the facility’s level of compliance with the listed elements, the reviewer determined whether, in his or her discretion, a facility’s
compliance with each standard was “acceptable,” “deficient,” “at risk,” or a “repeat finding.” Based on a review of each of the standards, the RIC then recommended an overall rating of “superior,” “good,” “acceptable,” or “at risk” to indicate the nature of the facility’s overall compliance with the standards. The
review team’s report was then submitted to the compliance unit, after which it was subject to a completeness
check and reviews by the unit’s chief and the DRO director. Despite these multiple levels of review, our
analysis of the final evaluations revealed a surprising
number of basic errors, such as identifying the wrong
facility and using the wrong form for the type of facility
that was evaluated. Moreover, the headquarters reviewer rarely required that additional steps be taken to
cure identified violations of the detention standards;
instead, he or she often gave facilities higher overall
assessments than the review team’s original ones.
Our analysis also uncovered systemic problems
with the annual review procedures and their inadequacy
for identifying and correcting noncompliance with the
detention standards. Because ICE currently is in the
process of turning over detention standards monitoring
responsibilities to a private contractor, it is critical that
these problems be identified and addressed now, in order to avoid their recurrence under the new PBNDS
monitoring system. Past mistakes and shortcomings
have included:
• Almost exclusive reliance on incomplete
checklists as the basic instruments for
monitoring compliance.
• Reliance on ICE officers with other full-time
duties to carry out the bulk of detention

A BROKEN SYSTEM

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

•
•

•
•
•

standards monitoring, including all of the
monitoring of IGSAs.
Failure to staff the monitoring function with
sufficient full-time, trained staff.
Failure to establish adequate objective criteria
for rating compliance with individual standards
and for facilities’ overall compliance.
Failure to use unannounced reviews as a method
of checking compliance.
Failure to make detainee interviews an essential
element of monitoring.
Keeping the monitoring process and results
secret, thus avoiding accountability to the public.

ANALYSIS OF ICE’S COMPLIANCE
WITH 15 DETENTION STANDARDS
This report analyzes previously unreleased documents that assess the government’s compliance with 15
detention standards that relate to detainees’ constitutional and statutory due process rights and their ability
to effectively challenge their deportation cases while in
detention. The documents reveal widespread and severe violations of the standards. In addition, reviews
conducted by independent agencies — the ABA and the
UNHCR — routinely documented violations that government reviews failed to capture, even when reviews
of the same facilities conducted by the government and
an independent agency occurred within a few weeks or
months of each other. This excerpt from the chapter on
the detention standard for recreation illustrates this
problem:
In May 2003, ICE reviewed Kenosha County Detention Center and rated the facility acceptable for the [recreation] standard, despite noting that the facility had no
recreation staff or specialists, that the OIC did not review
decisions to revoke the recreation privileges of detainees
in disciplinary segregation before those decisions became effective, and that case officers were unaware that
the standard required them to make written transfer recommendations about every six-month detainee lacking
access to outdoor recreation. A report by UNHCR issued four months later further revealed that while male
detainees had access to recreation facilities for about two
hours a day, female detainees were not allowed access to
the facility’s outdoor recreation area because of its location and concerns that male detainees could see the outdoor area from their windows. UNHCR recommended
that female detainees be allowed an hour of outdoor recreation daily, in accordance with the standard. However,
in May 2004, ICE again rated the facility’s recreation
program acceptable, failing to address in any way the
disparity in male and female access noted in the UNHCR
report. Two months later the ABA reported that female

detainees still had no access to outdoor recreation and
were restricted to an indoor gym that lacked equipment.
The ABA also reported that, when outdoors, male detainees were not allowed to run or play ball games. They
were limited to walking and sitting, apparently to prevent
injuries. In June 2005, ICE once again rated the facility
acceptable for the standard, again without any consideration of the prior ABA or UNHCR reports. Subsequently the ABA conducted a second inspection and reported in September 2005 that female detainees were still
barred from the outdoor recreation area. Thus, after
three years of repeated notice, ICE failed to respond to
the need to provide female detainees with an opportunity
for outdoor recreation.

Moreover, for the following reasons, the violations
documented in this report undercount the true number
of detention standards violations system-wide:
1.

The government failed to produce all of its
inspection reports for immigration facilities,
despite the clear court order to do so.

2.

The forms used by ICE reviewers to record
their observations are inadequate in multiple
ways: the forms capture only a portion of each
standard’s actual requirements, and often they
provide only one checklist item for monitoring
two related-but-separate elements of a
standard, thus making it impossible to assess
the actual scope of the violation documented.

3.

The forms contain unclearly worded
instructions, sometimes causing different
reviewers to interpret the forms in
diametrically opposite ways.

Below we present a brief description of each of
these detention standards, along with conclusions we
reached as a result of our analysis.15

Visitation
The standard on visitation sets forth procedures for
both general visitation (by family and loved ones) and
legal visitation (by attorneys, legal representatives, and
their assistants). It contains guidelines for the manner
and frequency of visits, allows detainees to receive
money and select items of personal property from loved
ones, and allows for private consultation between detainees and their legal representatives. The persistent
failures of facilities to respect detainees’ visitation
rights severely hamper detainees’ ability to exercise
their constitutional and statutory rights of access to
counsel. Our analysis found that facilities not only frequently failed to comply with the visitation standard’s
requirement that detainees be notified of available local
pro bono legal services, they also burdened confidential

A BROKEN SYSTEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
attorney-client visitation in numerous ways. Specifically, our review found that over 60 facilities failed to
post the required list of pro bono legal services organizations serving the local area. (The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that detainees who are unrepresented have an opportunity to obtain counsel.) In addition, our review found that facilities violated rules on
general visitation, a practice that inevitably results in
severe and unnecessary deprivation of access to family
and loved ones. Our analysis also revealed that 17 facilities failed to provide detainees the option of a noncontact visit with friends or family members in order to
avoid a subsequent strip search. Given the isolation of
immigration detention, ICE must do more to ensure that
facilities comply with the visitation standard and allow
detainees to meet with their lawyers and loved ones
with the fewest restrictions possible given the circumstances.

Recreation
The detention standard regarding recreation acknowledges the importance of recreational activities to
the mental and physical wellbeing of detainees. To this
end, the standard requires facilities to offer supervised
and safe recreational opportunities to all detainees, including individuals with special needs and those in segregation. Both ICE reviews and reports by the ABA
and UNHCR reveal that detainees were regularly deprived of recreational opportunities that are essential to
their physical, mental, and emotional health. Especially
pervasive was the failure of at least 41 facilities to provide the minimum number of hours and days of recreation required by the recreation standard. These violations render recreational programs inherently inadequate, as they may be offered only sporadically or at the
discretion of facility staff. In addition, many facilities
failed to provide any access to outdoor recreation,
which offers detainees both physical benefits and an
opportunity to interact with the natural environment.
Several of these facilities also failed to implement the
standard’s procedures for transferring detainees to facilities that had such programs. Even where facilities
had recreation programs in place, these were rendered
inadequate or meaningless at a large number of facilities due to a lack of exercise equipment and materials,
and to insufficient space in which to partake in recreational activities. Finally, several facilities unnecessarily
restricted access to recreation by denying opportunities
to individuals in segregation, by providing more limited
offerings to females than males, and by concurrently
scheduling law library and recreation time, so that detainees had to forfeit one or the other. Our analysis
revealed that ICE found 19 facilities to have no outdoor
recreation program of any kind, yet ICE rated only 4 of
these 19 facilities as deficient for the recreation stan-

ix

dard. In addition, when ICE subsequently reviewed 4
of these facilities that had lacked outdoor recreation, it
again rated them as acceptable for the standard, even
though they had failed to add any sort of outdoor recreation since the last inspection.

Telephone Access
The telephone access standard is especially important because it helps facilitate detainees’ access, via
phone, to legal counsel as they challenge the government’s attempts to remove them from the U.S. Access
to telephones while in detention also allows detainees to
maintain contact with family and friends, including
their U.S. citizen children, while they are being detained. ABA and UNHCR reviews, as well as ICE’s
own reviews, offer compelling evidence that ICE has
consistently failed to require detention facilities to
comply with the telephone access standard. The most
pervasive and troubling violations are lack of privacy
afforded to detainees when making confidential legal
calls, monitoring of legal calls by facility officials, failure to post instructions regarding free and other special
access calls, arbitrary and unnecessary time limits
placed on detainees’ telephone calls, and refusal by
facility staff to deliver phone messages to detainees.
Our analysis revealed that 32 facilities failed to allow
detainees to make special access calls to courts, consulates, or free legal service providers and that 30 facilities failed to provide a reasonable degree of privacy for
legal phone calls. In addition, 38 facilities failed to post
telephone-related rules in public spaces as required by
the standard. All told, the reviews paint a picture of a
system in which phones are present, but detainees have
a difficult time using them due to a lack of information
about phone procedures and cumbersome processes for
placing what should be direct calls. As a result, detainees’ ability to obtain legal assistance and develop their
cases is greatly compromised.

Access to Legal Material
Immigration law is notoriously complex, and noncitizens’ chances of being allowed to remain in the U.S.
increase dramatically when they are represented by
qualified counsel. But since hiring counsel is a luxury
that the majority of detained immigrants cannot afford,
the detention standard on access to legal material is
intended to ensure that detainees have the ability to
research and pursue their legal cases while in detention.
The standard requires facilities to set up a physical law
library to provide detainees with an adequate environment in which to conduct legal research and to prepare
their own legal documents. However, the facility reviews we analyzed show that the huge obstacles standing in the way of any immigrant detainee representing

A BROKEN SYSTEM

x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

him or herself effectively were made higher by the fact
that at least 29 detention facilities had no law library,
while other facilities’ few legal holdings were so outdated that they likely presented misguided information
to detainees preparing their cases. Our analysis revealed, for example, that 59 facilities did not make
available some or all of the legal material that the standard requires they have on hand. At still other facilities, detainees could read legal material only if they
made a request for a specific document, regardless of
the fact that most detainees have no way of knowing the
titles of the statutes or court cases that might help them
win the right to remain in the U.S. ICE reviews reveal
that at other facilities, even if the appropriate legal
books were available, there were either no or not
enough typewriters or computers available for detainees
to use in filing their legal paperwork.

Group Presentations on Legal Rights
The “Group Presentations on Legal Rights” detention standard requires facilities to allow authorized attorneys and representatives, upon written request, to
conduct presentations about immigration law and the
rights of immigrant detainees. ICE detention facility
reviews reveal that a striking number of facilities
housing ICE detainees (133 facilities) hosted no legal
rights presentations in the twelve months preceding
their annual reviews. The conclusion we draw from
this fact is that the majority of ICE detainees have no
access to free legal rights presentations while they are
in detention. The extent to which this reality is the result of failure to follow the group presentations standard
is impossible to ascertain in light of deficiencies in the
monitoring instrument used to evaluate compliance
with the standard — the form instructs reviewers to
mark the facility as in compliance with the standard if
no presentations were held in the past year. It is thus
possible that both the scarcity of presenter resources
and improper conduct by facilities contributed to the
striking lack of availability of these important programs. Moreover, ICE reviews indicate that even when
legal rights presentations are offered, their accessibility
to detainees may be limited by the failure of facilities to
provide adequate notice to detainees, to permit a sufficient number of presentations to accommodate all interested detainees, and to admit interpreters to assist in
overcoming language barriers. Equally troubling is the
failure of some facilities to permit individual counseling by presenters or to present showings of ICE-approved legal rights videos. These violations of the
standard have grave consequences for detainees, many
of whom rely exclusively on the information provided
by legal rights organizations to navigate the immigration system and fight their legal cases.

Correspondence and Other Mail
Access to correspondence is crucial for detainees,
since mail is a primary means of communication with
family and loved ones, attorneys and advocates who
assist detainees with their immigration cases, and courts
to which they must make timely legal filings. Facilities’ failure to respect detainees’ correspondence rights
can cause them to lose their cases or their access to
counsel. Facilities most commonly violated aspects of
the standard involving inspection procedures for incoming mail, confiscation of items from detainee mail,
and the procedures to notify detainees of mail policies.
As a result, facility personnel may have read confidential special correspondence, destroyed identity documents, caused detainees to miss court deadlines, and
intimidated detainees from freely sending and receiving
mail. Our analysis showed that dozens of facilities
violated the requirement that facility personnel not inspect or read incoming general correspondence outside
of the detainee’s presence without authorization from
the officer-in-charge. By reading mail in violation of
the standard, facility personnel may have accessed information that motivated them to retaliate against or
mistreat detainees. In addition, our review revealed that
over 20 facilities imposed unreasonable limits on the
number of mail items detainees could send for free.
Since ICE holds thousands of detainees at a great distance from family and available legal service providers,
access to correspondence is vital. Violations of the
correspondence standard impede confidential attorneyclient communications, intimidate detainees from
communicating openly with courts and advocates about
their cases, and prevent indigent detainees from having
adequate access to correspondence.

Administrative and
Disciplinary Segregation
Administrative segregation is supposed to be nonpunitive isolation in which conditions of confinement
are restricted for the limited purposes of ensuring the
safety of the isolated detainee or other detainees, or for
facility security and order. Disciplinary segregation, on
the other hand, is used to temporarily isolate detainees
for punitive purposes when their behavior does not
comply with facility rules. Segregation, particularly
when it is disciplinary, is a severe punishment that
should be used with the utmost caution and with careful
adherence to required procedures. The government and
independent reports reveal, however, that at numerous
facilities segregated detainees were subjected to excessive isolation or punishment, in violation of the detention standards. These reports found widespread violations with respect to unduly limited privileges, inappropriately long segregation periods, unsanitary conditions,

A BROKEN SYSTEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xi

as well as inadequate health care protection for segregated detainees. For example, our review showed that
over 30 facilities failed to provide segregated detainees
with required health care visits. And 32 facilities failed
to provide adequate visitation and recreation for segregated detainees.

ees in the difficult position of either not knowing facility rules and policies or not being able to point to written rules and policies, yet still having to bear the consequences if they violate them.

Disciplinary Policy

The hold rooms standard sets forth physical space
requirements and design specifications for hold rooms,
as well as requirements for holding detainees and for
monitoring and inspecting hold rooms. It is impossible
to assess thoroughly the extent of ICE compliance with
the hold room standard based on the completed ICE
monitoring forms we analyzed, due to fundamental deficiencies in the forms and procedures used by ICE to
monitor compliance with the standard. The forms fail
to provide checklist items to measure some important
elements of the standard, the wrong forms were sometimes used, and the ratings marked on the forms often
were inconsistent with the comments noted by monitors
in the forms’ margins. Most notably, in 47 reviews the
monitors failed to assess whether detainees in hold
rooms had adequate access to toilet facilities, due apparently to the monitors having misunderstood the
checklist questions. Of the violations noted on the
completed checklists, the most widespread one was
keeping detainees in hold rooms for too long a time.
Our review revealed that 34 facilities violated the requirement that detainees not be kept in hold rooms for
over 12 hours.

The “Disciplinary Policy” detention standard is
meant to protect detainees against arbitrary disciplinary
sanctions for acts that violate a facility’s rules. It also
lays out procedures giving detainees notice of their
rights and responsibilities regarding compliance with
facility rules and the opportunity to be heard if sanctions are imposed. In its reviews, ICE found numerous
instances in which facilities failed to notify detainees of
their rights or responsibilities with respect to a facility’s
disciplinary policy. Our analysis revealed that 64 facilities violated the requirement that disciplinary rules
be conspicuously posted. In addition, 33 facilities
failed to meet basic procedural requirements for disciplinary procedures. Perhaps because of limitations in
the review forms used to perform the evaluations, ICE
did not uncover serious violations that ABA and
UNHCR reviewers found, such as the imposition of
prohibited or retaliatory sanctions for disciplinary infractions. Since fair, even-handed, and transparent disciplinary policies are vital to ensuring the rights of individual detainees as well as facility security, stricter
compliance with the disciplinary standard is crucial to
achieving both these objectives.

Detainee Handbook
The detainee handbooks standard requires that
every facility housing immigration detainees develop a
facility-specific detainee manual that provides an overview of the facility’s policies, rules, and procedures,
and requires that every detainee receive a copy of the
handbook upon admission to the facility. Such handbooks serve an essential function when they communicate facility rules and regulations to detainees. The
evidence from ICE and independent reviews shows,
however, that facility handbooks too often presented an
inaccurate or incomplete picture of facility policy, because key portions of the detainee handbook were
missing or contained erroneous or inappropriate information. For example, our analysis revealed that 36
facilities failed to outline in their handbooks the methods for classifying detainees by security level, and 30
facilities failed to include the required sections on law
library procedures and schedules. In many instances,
handbooks presented information on facility programs
or rules that did not match actual facility practice. Being provided no or inadequate handbooks places detain-

Hold Rooms in Detention Facilities

Detainee Grievance Procedures
A key protection against detention staff misconduct
is the ability of detainees to file grievances and have
them resolved by uninvolved officers without fear of
retaliation. The “Detainee Grievance Procedures” detention standard is designed to ensure such a process
exists and that those detainee grievances are resolved in
a satisfactory, impartial, and timely manner. It is impossible to get a firm handle on how many and what
kinds of grievances detainees made or whether facilities
handled these grievances inadequately because the
forms used by ICE to monitor compliance with the
grievance standard were deficient in several key ways
that resulted in an incomplete assessment of the problems that actually existed. Nevertheless, ICE reviews
revealed widespread levels of noncompliance with the
grievance standard. Most fundamentally, detention
facilities did a dismal job informing detainees that they
have a right to file a grievance. Our review found that
40 facilities either failed to include any mention of the
grievance policy in their facility handbooks or omitted
key portions of this policy. Undoubtedly, printing the
grievance procedures in a detainee handbook is one of
the easiest of the grievance standard’s elements to sat-

A BROKEN SYSTEM

xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

isfy, but still it was routinely violated. As we found
with the other standards discussed in this report, the
ABA reports reveal significant violations of the grievance standard that are not captured by ICE reviews.
Specifically, these reports routinely noted that detainee
grievances were not responded to in a timely fashion or
at all, an element of the grievance standard that the ICE
form does not even track.

Detainee Transfer
The detainee transfer standard, which was adopted
in 2004, is intended to ensure that detainees are treated
respectfully, afforded their legal rights, and protected
from security threats when they are transferred from
one facility to another. The process of being transferred
can be traumatic for detainees, especially if they are
moved to remote facilities a great distance away from
their families and loved ones. A transfer can also interfere with attorney-client relationships and obstruct the
effective presentation of a detainee’s legal case. Moreover, for detainees with special medical needs, a transfer made without proper attention being paid to those
needs can be dangerous or even fatal. Given the importance of this standard, facilities’ failures to comply
with (1) its requirements and procedures regarding notifying counsel and family members and (2) its medical
care procedures are cause for serious concern.

Funds and Personal Property
The “Funds and Personal Property” standard is designed to safeguard detainees’ money and personal
property by requiring all facilities to have written procedures for receiving, processing and storing, and returning such items. Noncompliance with this standard
renders the storage of property at many detention facilities a risky proposition for detainees. ICE reviews
reveal, in addition to instances of theft and outright forfeiture of detainee funds and property, that several facilities failed to audit the contents of their property
storage areas to even enable an assessment of whether
property had gone missing. A surprising number of
facilities also failed to account for lost or damaged
property, and our analysis of ICE reviews revealed that
20 facilities failed to reach out to detainees about property they had left behind, probably resulting in other
unwarranted deprivations of property. Equally troubling, two facilities deprived detainees of their right to
retain small possessions, including photos, wedding
rings, addresses, and legal documents, to the potential
detriment of detainees’ mental and emotional health as
well as their legal cases. Still further, two facilities
endangered the health of detainees by failing to separately process medications to ensure their timely transfer to medical staff. The incompleteness of IGSA

monitoring forms strongly suggests that these violations
are only a small percentage of those that actually occur
at facilities housing ICE detainees.

Admission and Release
The detention standard regarding admission and
release is designed to protect the health, safety, and
welfare of detainees by requiring detention facilities to
implement admission procedures that help orient detainees who are new to a facility and release procedures
that are supposed to ensure that the property of departing detainees is returned to them. Our analysis of facility reviews revealed that several facilities failed to
properly orient newly arrived detainees and inform
them of facility procedures and other crucial information. In addition, our analysis found that several facilities applied the standard’s requirements regarding
searches (including strip-searches) inconsistently and
that other facilities failed to provide adequate medical
screening of newly arriving detainees, thus placing their
health, or even lives, at risk, while other facilities violated the standard by either failing to provide detainees
with necessary personal hygiene items or charging them
for the items.

RECOMMENDATIONS
AND CONCLUSION
There is no question that the nation’s immigrant
detention system is broken to its core. The findings in
this report, as well as those recently documented by
various government and independent agencies, reveal
pervasive and extreme violations of the government’s
own detention standards as well as fundamental violations of basic human rights and notions of dignity.
Simply by making detention standards enforceable and
putting resources into enforcing them, both Congress
and the administration could take concrete steps to ensure that no immigrant in the custody of the federal
government is held in a facility that cannot or refuses to
comply with these minimum requirements. More fundamentally, given the documented abuses in the nation’s immigrant detention system, the federal government should halt the system’s further expansion
and make increased use of humane alternatives to detention.
Our recommendations for improving the government’s oversight of conditions within the U.S.’s immigration detention system are the following:

A BROKEN SYSTEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Increase accountability for failures within the
system by
 Promulgating regulations that give ICE’s
detention standards the force of law.
 Strengthening the current ICE detention
standards to ensure that they provide an
appropriate level of protection for civil detainees.
 Codifying key portions of the ICE detention
standards into statute.
 Creating and enforcing a graduated system of
penalties for noncompliant facilities.
 Providing training on detention standards for all
detention-related personnel in all immigration
detention facilities.
 Increasing ICE presence at state and local jails
(IGSAs) and Contract Detention Facilities
(CDFs) holding immigration detainees.
 Ensuring that advocates can report detention
standards violations without facing retaliation
from the agency.
Promote uniformity across detention facilities by
 Ensuring that state and county jails holding ICE
detainees under Intergovernmental Service
Agreements (IGSAs) are held to the same
standards as facilities owned and operated by
ICE (Service Processing Centers, or SPCs) and
privately owned facilities holding ICE detainees
(Contract Detention Facilities, or CDFs).
Increase the transparency of the system by
 Making publicly available and regularly updating
a map of facilities in use, with their precise
locations and a system to locate detainees.
 Making public the reports of the ABA and the
UNHCR, as well as the internal facility reviews
and ratings done by ICE, to ensure that ICE is
held publicly accountable for the conditions at its
detention facilities.
 Compiling data about the most frequently
violated standards and elements of standards to
allow for additional training in problematic areas
and a systematic and meaningful agency
response to deficiencies; and making this
information public, and inviting advocates to
respond.
 Requiring ICE to inform the public about its new
monitoring plans under the Performance Based
National Detention Standards (PBNDS) and to
seek feedback from nongovernmental
organization stakeholders about these plans.

xiii

Promote uniformity in the review system by
 Clarifying the standards and facility ratings
criteria to reduce individual discretion by
reviewing officers.
 Conducting annual audits of facility reviews to
increase uniformity, identify training needs, and
decrease reviewer variation.
Improve the ICE internal review process by
 Revising ICE policy to require unannounced
inspections of all facilities.
 Clarifying and enforcing the requirement that
facility reviewers must conduct confidential
interviews with detainees as part of the review
process, and requiring that interpreters be made
available to facilitate these interviews.
 Strengthening detention standards review
training and requiring all compliance review
staff to take an annual “refresher” training.
 Ensuring that all facilities housing immigration
detainees are inspected by reviewers whose fulltime job is to monitor detention standards
compliance.
 Revising facility review forms to require the
reviewer to write a detailed narrative that in
subsequent years will provide a context for
facility evaluations and recommendations
regarding deficiencies.
 Requiring that detainee grievances for each
facility be reviewed before ICE annual
inspections or independent evaluations.
 Requiring that inspection officers be truly
independent from facilities (to preclude cronyism
and the potential for superficial reviews).
Increase independent review of the detention
system by
 Appointing an independent auditor to monitor
detention conditions, report to Congress, and
suggest changes to the detention monitoring
system.
Stop the expansion of immigration detention and
promote detainee rights and alternatives to
detention. To do this, Congress must:
 Halt the expansion of the immigration detention
system and provide for more alternatives to
detention.
 Expand programs designed to ensure that
detainees are informed about their legal rights
and that those rights are protected.
 Establish and fund a pilot program to provide
court-appointed legal counsel to detained
immigrants.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

The average number of immigrants detained daily tripled between 1996 - 2007.

§ 11

Introduction

T

his report presents the first-ever system-wide
look at the federal government’s compliance
with its own standards regulating immigration
detention facilities. The results reveal substantial and
pervasive violations of the government’s minimum
standards for conditions at the hundreds of facilities it
uses to detain immigrants across 43 states and 2 territories. As a result, over 320,000 immigrants locked up
each year face barriers to accessing telephones, legal
counsel, and basic legal materials, barriers that individually and jointly comprise tremendous obstacles to
challenging their wrongful detention or winning their
cases and thus the right to remain in the United States.
In addition, although they are nominally held in civil
administrative detention, these immigrants face unduly
harsh and restrictive detention conditions.
The majority of facilities used to lock up immigrants are state and local jails that rent bed space to the
federal government or private detention facilities run by
corporations. A substantial number of these facilities
are located in remote areas of the country far away from
the detainees’ family and loved ones and in areas with
few, if any, immigration attorneys or immigrants’ rights
organizations. These conditions, and the violations of
the government’s own standards, undermine immigrants’ constitutional rights to due process and fail to
respect their human dignity.
Over the past decade the number of detained immigrants has skyrocketed due to a confluence of policy
changes, including increased immigration raids at
homes and workplaces, and policies that make deporting even lawful permanent residents easier and which
require that all immigrants, including asylum-seekers,
be detained before they are deported. The average
number of immigrants detained each day tripled between 1996 and 2007. Over the course of fiscal year
2007, over 320,000 immigrants were held in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE).1 Never has it been more critical to ensure that

the facilities in which immigrants are imprisoned meet
basic standards for human dignity and due process.
Despite this rapid growth, the immigration detention system is woefully unregulated. Although the federal government has standards setting out basic requirements for detention, the current standards are not
legally binding, sending a clear message that noncompliance carries no penalty. In addition, there are no real
penalties for facilities’ noncompliance with even the
most fundamental portions of the detention standards or
for repeated, serious violations of the standards. The
lack of compliance with the standards may be due in
large part to ignorance of the standards’ requirements.
ICE has not provided training to state and local jail staff
regarding the detention standards, despite the fact that
these facilities house the majority of immigration detainees.
The standards also are undermined by a lack of
uniformity across the detention system. Critical portions of many of the detention standards are not strictly
applicable to the state and local jails holding ICE detainees. Perhaps most troubling are the efforts the government has taken to ensure that the public does not
know how poorly its detention facilities are run. Since
the national detention standards were created in 2000,
two independent agencies, the American Bar Association (ABA) and the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR), have been evaluating whether
detention centers are complying with the standards.
These agencies have been given access on the condition, however, that their reports be shared only with
ICE. In addition, ICE has conducted its own annual
audits of its detention facilities since 2002 but has refused to make the results public. The agency has doggedly refused to promulgate binding regulations. And,
despite repeated calls for greater transparency, accountability, and internal controls in its detention system, the
government has not taken effective measures to ensure
that even its nonbinding standards are met.

Table 1: Numbers of Reports Analyzed, by Year and Report Type
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

ABA Reports

1

8

16

18

4

UNHCR
Reports
ICE Reviews2

14

3

8

11

7

0

11

13

96

95

A BROKEN SYSTEM

2

INTRODUCTION

This report is based on analysis of previously unreleased portions of ABA, UNHCR, and ICE detention
facility review reports from 2001 through 2005. This
information was released only as a result of courtordered discovery in Orantes-Hernandez v. Holder, a
lawsuit originally brought in 1982 to challenge coercive
practices by immigration agents, including practices at
immigration detention facilities, that pressured nationals of El Salvador fleeing their country’s civil war to
forfeit meritorious claims to asylum. In 2005, through
discovery, the government was ordered to produce all
ABA and UNHCR reports from 2001 through 2005 and
all facility reviews conducted by ICE between 2004 and
2005, plus ICE review reports on ten facilities for 2002
and 2003. In producing this report, the authors reviewed over 18,000 pages of never-before-released
documents, which provide the most comprehensive
look into the government’s monitoring of its own detention standards that has ever been available.
However, the government withheld a substantial
amount of information. It withheld information on detention facilities’ compliance with 20 of the 38 national
detention standards, including those for medical care,
use of force, food service, and religious practices,
among others. The government also failed to produce
all facility reviews conducted by ICE during 2004 and
2005, despite the court order to do so. Instead, for both

2004 and 2005 the government produced complete facility reviews for only 53 facilities. When the court
later ordered the government to produce information on
the “Hold Rooms in Detention Facilities” standard, it
became clear that ICE had withheld facility reviews for
at least 133 facilities that it reviewed in 2004 and 2005.
There is no doubt, therefore, that the detention standards violations reported and analyzed here comprise
just a fraction of the violations documented by ICE in
2004 and 2005.
The 15 detention standards analyzed in this report
relate, either directly or indirectly, to detainees’ constitutional and statutory due process rights and their ability to effectively challenge their deportation cases while
in detention. These standards concern detainees’ ability
to pursue legal claims, and they provide procedural
safeguards to ensure that detainees are not denied certain privileges without recourse. The detention standards analyzed in this report are summarized in table 2.
On September 12, 2008, the government released a
set of 41 new “Performance Based National Detention
Standards” (PBNDS) intended to replace the current
standards. The PBNDS are to apply in stages, and by
January 2010 they are to apply to all facilities used to
house detainees for periods longer than 72 hours. The
PBNDS are extremely similar to the detention standards
that they replace (i.e., those instituted in 2000).

Table 2: Summary of Detention Standards
DETENTION STANDARD

STANDARD’S PRIMARY PURPOSE

Visitation

♦

Establishes minimum number of hours for legal and family
visitation; provides for privacy protections; requires that segregated
detainees have appropriate visitation; lays out policies for
nongovernmental organization (NGO), media, and community
visitation.

Recreation

♦

Provides for daily indoor and outdoor recreation for detainees;
provides that recreation facilities must be maintained and that
detainees in segregation must have recreation opportunities.

Telephone Access

♦

Phones must be kept in working order; detainees must have the
ability to place certain free calls; reasonable privacy protections and
adequate numbers of phones must be provided.

Access to Legal Material

♦

Ensures detainees have access to physical law libraries with
adequate legal materials to assist detainees in preparing their cases.

Group Presentations on
Legal Rights

♦

Facilities must allow outside groups to make legal rights
presentations if prescribed procedures are followed; detainees must
have notice of and access to presentations.

Correspondence and Other
Mail (Legal Mail)

♦

Provides that detainees must be able to send and receive mail;
provides that mail is to be inspected only under certain
circumstances; establishes that implements for mailing must be
provided.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

3

Table 2 (Cont’d): Summary of Detention Standards

DETENTION STANDARD

STANDARD’S PRIMARY PURPOSE

Administrative Segregation
(Special Management Unit)

♦

Area set aside for administrative segregation must be nonpunitive;
detainees must be made aware of reason for segregation;
segregation decisions must be reviewed regularly; segregated
detainees must receive the same or equal services and privileges as
other detainees.

Disciplinary Segregation
(Special Management Unit)

♦

Detainees may be placed in disciplinary segregation only after
panel decision; maximum placement is 60 days; must receive
appropriate services and privileges.

Disciplinary Policy

♦

Facilities must have a disciplinary policy and make detainees aware
of the policy; hearings must be fair and sanctions appropriate;
complaints must be handled in a timely fashion.

Detainee Handbook

♦

Requires facilities to distribute handbooks covering facility
procedures and detainee rights, and to translate handbooks and
update them as necessary.

Hold Rooms in Detention
Facilities

♦

Establishes standards for the appropriate use of hold rooms, which
are cells or rooms used to temporarily hold detainees during
transfer, before court hearings, etc.

Detainee Grievance
Procedures

♦

Establishes policy for detainee grievances; provides notice of this
policy to detainees; requires that grievances must be responded to
in a timely manner and in writing; also establishes process for
emergency grievances.

Detainee Transfer

♦

Family and counsel must be notified of detainees’ transfers;
personal funds and property must accompany detainee; establishes
policy for medical transfers.

Funds and Personal
Property

♦

Establishes procedures for inventory of detainee property and
funds, including procedures to prevent theft and to deal with lost
property.

Admission and Release

♦

Detainees must be made aware of facility policies upon admission;
establishes policy for cataloging detainee property, classifying
detainees, and medical screening upon admission, and return of
property on release.

However, they do include some improvements over the
prior standards, e.g., setting out goals that are more
subject to measurement than was previously the case.
Another improvement is that ICE is contracting out the
task of monitoring compliance rather than relying on its
own self-monitoring. However, as with the prior standards, the PBNDS have not been issued as enforceable
regulations. Moreover, as with the prior standards,
many provisions of the PBNDS are specifically applicable only to facilities directly operated by ICE or by
private companies under contract with ICE; county jails
and other facilities operated under intergovernmental
agreements with ICE — which hold the majority of

immigration detainees — may adopt alternative procedures.
In this report, the chapter titled “The ICE Detention
Standards Monitoring System” describes the government’s oversight system and identifies its shortcomings.
Subsequent chapters present information, gleaned from
the previously unreleased documents that were obtained
as a result of discovery in the Orantes case, on the government’s compliance, or lack thereof, with the 15 detention standards summarized in table 2. And the
“Recommendations” chapter presents suggestions for
improving the government’s oversight of conditions
that obtain throughout the U.S.’s immigration detention
system.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

The ICE Detention Standards Monitoring System
ICE DETENTION FRAMEWORK
Each day, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds more than 31,000 immigration
detainees in facilities across the United States1 — a
number that has steadily increased, from 6,259 in 1992,
to approximately 20,000 in early 2006, to the current
figure of 31,000.2 These detainees are housed primarily
in three types of facilities: Service Processing Centers
(SPCs), Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs), and Intergovernmental Service Agreement facilities (IGSAs).
SPCs, which house approximately 13 percent of
ICE detainees,3 are facilities owned and operated by
ICE, though frequently staffed by guards or other personnel who are employees of private companies with
which ICE contracts. There are currently seven SPCs
in the U.S.4 CDFs, by contrast, are operated by private
companies under contract with ICE. ICE currently uses
seven CDFs, which house approximately 17 percent of
ICE detainees.5 IGSAs are facilities that ICE uses under contracts with state or local governments. Many of
them are also operated by private prison companies,
under contract with the government entity with which
ICE, in turn, contracts. IGSAs play a key role in ICE’s
detention structure, housing the majority (approximately 67 percent) of all immigrant detainees.6 ICE
distinguishes between two categories of IGSAs, based
on the length of time that immigration detainees are
held in them. “Under-72-hour IGSAs” hold detainees
for up to 72 hours, after which time the detainees
should be transferred to other facilities, while “over-72hour IGSAs” may house detainees for months or even
years as their cases progress. The number of IGSAs
used to house ICE detainees constantly fluctuates,7 but
ICE currently uses more than 350 IGSAs,8 approximately 160 of which house detainees for more than 72
hours.9 ICE also houses approximately 3 percent of
immigration detainees in Bureau of Prisons facilities
operated by the federal government, or in other facilities.10

THE NATIONAL DETENTION STANDARDS
In March 1998, in the midst of widespread criticism about conditions at facilities housing immigration
detainees and in response to advocacy by the American
Bar Association (ABA), the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS)11 implemented 12 detention standards to guide the treatment of individuals detained in SPCs and CDFs.12 Importantly, INS did not

establish the standards as enforceable regulations, and
they did not apply at all to IGSAs, the state and local
facilities where the majority of INS detainees are
kept.13 In the years that followed, reports of deplorable
conditions at many detention facilities, particularly state
and local jails, resulted in continuing pressure on the
agency to expand the scope of the standards.14 Negotiations to establish a set of standards that would be applicable to all immigration detention facilities continued
between, on the one hand, the ABA and other advocacy
organizations and, on the other, the INS and the U.S.
Department of Justice until September 2000,15 and in
November 2000 the Justice Department announced the
promulgation of standards applicable to all immigration
detention facilities. 16 The original 36 standards address
three principal subject areas: detainee legal rights, detainee services, and facility security.17 INS first
adopted the 36 standards in September 200018 and released them publicly two months later through the
agency’s Detention Management Control Program
(DMCP).19 Despite the continued urging of the ABA,
the INS refused to promulgate the standards as binding
regulations.20
The standards were to go into effect in stages.
They went into effect for all INS SPCs and CDFs in
January 2001, for the nine largest jails and the Turner
Guilford Knight Correctional Center in July 2001, and
for all other IGSAs by the end of 2002.21 However,
many provisions of the standards expressly do not apply
to IGSAs. While the standards state that CDFs and
SPCs are required to follow all standards’ provisions,
IGSAs are permitted to adopt alternative procedures for
implementing many portions of the standards (generally
designated by italicized language in the standards), provided that the resulting conditions “meet or exceed the
objective represented by each standard.”22
After INS’s functions were taken over by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security in 2003, the new
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued two additional standards, addressing staff-detainee
communication (issued in July 2003) and the transfer of
immigration detainees between facilities (issued in
September 2004).23
Finally, in 2007 ICE began a process of revising
the detention standards. At the conclusion of this process, on September 12, 2008, the government released a
new set of 41 “Performance Based National Detention
Standards” (PBNDS) intended to replace the current
standards.24 The PBNDS are to apply in stages, and by
January 2010 they are to apply to all facilities used to
detain immigrants for periods longer than 72 hours.
The PBNDS include some improvements over the stan-

A BROKEN SYSTEM

THE ICE DETENTION STANDARDS MONITORING SYSTEM
dards included in the Detention
Operations Manual,25 because they
set out goals that are more subject
to measurement by monitoring
than are the prior standards. Another improvement is that ICE is
contracting out the task of monitoring compliance with the standards rather than relying on its
own self-monitoring. However, as
with the prior standards, the
PBNDS have not been issued as
enforceable regulations. Moreover, as with the prior standards,
many provisions of the PBNDS are
specifically applicable only to facilities directly operated by ICE or
by private companies under contract with ICE. Each of the performance-based standards includes
requirements printed in italics and
expressly provides that “IGSAs
must conform to these procedures
or adopt, adapt or establish alternatives, provided they meet or exceed the intent represented by
these procedures.”26

THE ICE SYSTEM FOR
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE WITH
DETENTION STANDARDS

5

KEY FINDINGS
 The Immigration and Naturalization Service refused to promulgate
the national detention standards as binding regulations when it
issued them in 2000, despite the American Bar Association’s
recommendation that they be issued as regulations.
 Many detention standard provisions expressly do not apply to
Intergovernmental Service Agreement facilities (IGSAs), where
about 67% of detained immigrants are kept.
o IGSAs are permitted to adopt alternative procedures for
implementing many portions of the standards.
 ICE’s new “Performance Based National Detention Standards”
(PBNDS) also are not enforceable regulations.
 Many PBNDS provisions are specifically applicable only to
facilities directly operated by ICE or by private companies under
contract with ICE, but not to IGSAs.
 Individual ICE officers’ monitoring practices varied in many ways
from the procedures spelled out by ICE’s Detention Management
Control Program (DMCP), deposition testimony reveals.
 The DMCP manual’s procedures for conducting facility reviews lack
specific criteria for assigning ratings to ensure that ICE’s
monitoring efforts are uniform and consistent.
 A detention facility could be rated “acceptable” despite its having
received a “deficient” rating for several standards.
 A detention facility could be rated “acceptable” for an individual
standard, even where it was found to be “deficient” in several (or
conceivably all) of the core elements composing that standard.
 An ICE officer who had supervised several detention facility reviews
testified that she would mark a facility “acceptable” as to a
standard when it either complied with the intent of the standard or
indicated that it would agree to make changes to comply with the
standard in the future.

Until recently, public information about ICE’s process for
monitoring compliance with the
 Although ICE maintains a database to track overall detention standard
detention standards was limited to
ratings for detention facilities, ICE does not, for example, track
the information made public by the
which specific standards are consistently not being met by
ABA, including, most notably, in
facilities nationwide.
its manual titled The INS Detention
Standards Implementation Initiatraining and management materials produced during
tive: A Training Manual for Advocates.27 In late 2005
Orantes-related discovery.29 Deposition testimony
and 2006, additional information about the ICE monireveals that the monitoring practices of individual ICE
toring process was provided to plaintiffs’ counsel in the
officers varied in many ways from the procedures
class action litigation Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzales
spelled out in the DMCP manual.30 Thus, the DMCP
through depositions that were taken and documents
28
manual was, in many respects, an aspirational docuproduced during discovery. The following descripment rather than a definitive representation of ICE’s
tion of the system whereby ICE monitored compliance
monitoring structure.
with its Detention Operations Manual is based in part
From the beginning, the detention standards
on the deposition testimony of two ICE officials, each
framework contemplated facility monitoring as a means
of whom served as chief of the Detention Standards
of ensuring compliance with the standards. However,
Compliance Unit (DSCU), the depositions of three ICE
due to budgetary limitations in the year following the
field officers who were selected by the agency to testify
standards’ release, INS could not hire sufficient staff to
regarding their inspection practices, as well as ICE

A BROKEN SYSTEM

6

THE ICE DETENTION STANDARDS MONITORING SYSTEM

enable effective monitoring of facility compliance.31 In
2002, INS created the DSCU (also known as the Compliance Unit), which is specifically dedicated to monitoring compliance with the standards, within the
agency’s Office of Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO). In 2002, the DSCU consisted of three officers,32 and it had four officers during the period from
2003 through 2005.33 Although as of April 2006 the
unit was authorized to include one chief, eleven inspection officers, and six support staff, the only staff actually on duty in the unit at that time were Chief Walter
LeRoy, five inspection officers, and three support
staff.34 Thus, throughout its history the unit has had
vacant positions. 35 The DSCU conducted annual reviews of more than 350 approved facilities36 housing
ICE detainees pursuant to the procedures outlined in
ICE’s DMCP manual.37 The DSCU began reviewing
ICE facilities in early 200238 and by the year’s end had
completed more than 400 facility reviews.39
Under the DMCP, the DSCU was charged with ensuring that each SPC, CDF, and IGSA was reviewed
approximately one year after its last inspection. The
unit relied on inspectors from both headquarters and
field offices to perform facility reviews. In order to
become an authorized reviewer, both headquarters officers and local law enforcement officers (LEOs) in ICE
field offices were required to attend a weeklong, inperson training of approximately 40 hours on the standards and the facility review process.40 Five or six of
these trainings were conducted in 2002, and two more
in 2003; then a long gap ensued, and the training was
not offered again until January 2006.41
Following this training, officers could be assigned
to conduct three-day “headquarters reviews” of CDFs
and SPCs.42 These reviews were conducted by teams
composed of one inspector from the DSCU, who acted
as the reviewer-in-charge (RIC); two field office LEOs,
who participated in the reviews as “collateral duties” to
their other official tasks; and a staff member from the
Division of Immigration Health Services.43 By contrast, IGSAs, the state and local facilities that comprise
the vast majority of immigration detention facilities,
were inspected only by LEOs. These were typically
ICE deportation or detention officers for whom inspections were merely an occasional, additional task.44
LEOs worked in teams of two to conduct two-day “operational reviews” of IGSAs.45 As of April 2006, to
conduct IGSA reviews the chief of the DSCU could call
upon approximately 309 LEOs who had attended the
one-week training.46
Once the review team had been assigned, and at
least 30 days before the review date, the RIC notified
the facility about the upcoming review to enable facility
staff to arrange space for visiting reviewers and to alert
them about any documents they needed to compile for
review by the inspecting team.47 The DSCU did not

conduct reviews without such advance notice.48 Prior
to the on-site review, the team was supposed to prepare
by examining past facility reviews and data about incidents and events that had occurred at the facility.49
However, one officer who had conducted reviews of
numerous facilities and served as an RIC testified in a
deposition that he never reviewed such materials.50
On the first day of a typical review, the team met
with the facility’s supervising staff to discuss the review process and what they could expect would occur.
The team then began the review by visiting parts of the
facility and speaking with facility staff, and sometimes
with detainees, to obtain the information necessary to
complete the relevant review worksheet: a form G324A51 for all SPCs, CDFs, and over-72-hour IGSAs,
or a form G-324B52 for all under-72-hour IGSAs.53
These forms contain one- or two-page checklists pertaining to each of the 38 detention standards. In all, the
G-324A consists of approximately 85 pages; the G324B is much shorter, covering only issues considered
relevant to short-term detention. Reviewers completed
the applicable form by marking boxes next to statements describing various elements of a standard to indicate whether a facility was in compliance with the
given elements, and by adding any relevant comments.
Based on the facility’s level of compliance with the
listed elements, the reviewer determined whether, in his
or her discretion, a facility’s compliance with each
standard was “acceptable,” “deficient,” “at risk,” or a
“repeat finding.”54 Based on a review of each of the
standards, the RIC then recommended an overall rating
of “superior,” “good,” “acceptable,” or “at risk” to indicate the nature of the facility’s overall compliance with
the standards.55
Once completed, the form and a written summary
of the team’s findings were submitted to the DSCU to
be reviewed for completeness.56 Following this examination, the form was submitted to the chief of the
DSCU, who gave the form another review and recommended an overall rating for the facility. The completed G-324 was submitted in full, accompanied by the
chief’s recommendations, to the final review authority
for ICE, the director of the DRO. The director assigned
the facility a final rating, which could differ from the
recommendations of the DSCU chief and the RIC. The
DRO director also acted as the final decision-maker
regarding the termination of IGSA or CDF contracts
due to noncompliance with the standards. Despite these
multiple levels of review, the final evaluations reveal a
surprising number of basic errors, such as identifying
the wrong facility and using the wrong form for the
type of facility that was evaluated.57
The DMCP manual provides that, upon approval
by the DRO director or his designee, the completed
review was to be sent to the appropriate ICE field office, which was responsible for promptly serving the

A BROKEN SYSTEM

THE ICE DETENTION STANDARDS MONITORING SYSTEM
reviewed facility with the review findings.58 The officer-in-charge (OIC) of the facility was required to file
with the deputy assistant director of the Detention Management Division, within 45 days, a written response to
the review’s findings, including a discussion of any
findings with which he or she disagreed and an explanation of how any deficiencies had been or would be
corrected.59 The OIC also was required to create a
strategic action plan for any areas of concern for which
corrective action would take longer than this 45-day
period.60 Within 21 days, the director of DRO was to
respond with a written approval or rejection of the officer’s response, as well as an explanation of any required follow-up procedures.61 The director of DRO
was not to close a review until he or she received “reasonable assurance” that a facility had corrected any
deficiencies identified in its review.62 Such assurance
could be provided through an OIC’s follow-up review,
which had to be performed within six months of the
formal review in order to support a request for closure
of the formal review.63
According to the DMCP manual, facilities that received “deficient” or “at-risk” ratings had to be reviewed again within six months.64 According to DSCU
Chief Walter LeRoy, where a facility had been rated
“acceptable” but deficiencies had been identified that
required the development of a plan of action, the facility should have been reinspected 90 days later; this was
not a full inspection, but rather a review limited to the
previously identified deficiencies.65

PROBLEMS WITH ICE’S MONITORING
PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES
In addition to identifying a plethora of violations of
the standards at individual facilities, ICE’s own reports
and those of independent agencies reveal systemic
problems with the procedures used for ICE annual reviews and the inadequacy of ICE’s procedures for
identifying and correcting noncompliance with the
standards. Because the agency currently is in the process of turning monitoring responsibilities over to a private contractor, now is a particularly important time to
identify and address these problems, in order to avoid
their recurrence in the future under the new monitoring
system and ensure that a meaningful monitoring system
is created.

Deficiencies in the Monitoring Forms
Limit the Completeness and Usefulness
of Facility Reviews
The monitoring forms for both over- and under-72hour facilities (the G-324A and G-324B, respectively)

7

consist of a collection of checklists; generally, there is a
two-page checklist for each detention standard. Each
checklist sets out a number of items for which the reviewer can mark a box to indicate either “Y” (for
“yes”), “N” (for “no”), or “N/A” (for “not applicable”).
There is also a final column for “Remarks,” where the
reviewer can write, in a small box, additional information regarding the element. At the end of the checklist
for each standard, there is also a space where the reviewer can enter additional remarks.
Both these forms have serious defects that limit
their effectiveness as monitoring instruments. These
defects are discussed at more length in the following
chapters regarding individual detention standards; here
they are only briefly summarized. First, the checklist
format resulted in monitoring reports that provide very
little specific description. Comments entered in the
“remarks” boxes were relatively rare and almost always
brief. As a result, the entire report presents a limited,
vague picture of how the facility applies the standard.
Many of the elements of each detention standard are
very general, and not readily subject to a “yes” or “no”
measure. In addition, quite often when the remark box
is used, the remark qualifies or even contradicts the box
that is checked next to an element; and it is apparent
that different reviewers interpreted these elements differently. Finally, as discussed in subsequent chapters,
many of the checklists fail to measure compliance with
some important elements of the standard, and other
checklists cover multiple standard requirements in one
question, making it difficult to determine the extent of
any indicated violation.

Lack of Written Criteria Guiding Reviewers,
and Reviewer Confusion Regarding the
Application of Compliance Ratings
The procedures governing ICE monitoring of all
facilities housing immigration detainees are set out in
the ICE DMCP manual.66 This manual served to inform ICE officers about the agency’s policies and procedures for ensuring compliance with the detention
standards. Problematically, the procedures for conducting facility reviews described in the DMCP manual
lack specific criteria for assigning ratings to ensure that
monitoring efforts are uniform and consistent. Although reviewing officers were provided with forms by
which to rate individual facilities regarding their compliance with particular standards, as well as training on
the content of the individual standards, ICE failed to
provide any detailed written guidance with respect to
how reviewing officers should arrive at the ratings of
“acceptable,” “deficient,” “at risk,” or “repeat finding”
for a given standard.67 In the absence of such guidance,
reviewers relied upon their individual discretion to determine whether they had checked a sufficient number

A BROKEN SYSTEM

8

THE ICE DETENTION STANDARDS MONITORING SYSTEM

or type of boxes to warrant the assignment of a given
rating.68
The assignment of overall facility ratings similarly
rested, in large part, on reviewer discretion. The
DMCP manual articulates five “criteria” to guide reviewers in determining the overall ratings of facilities.69
These “criteria” are, in fact, simply general definitions
of the overall ratings that could be assigned to a particular facility: “superior,” “good,” “acceptable,” “deficient,” or “at risk.”70 Although the “criteria” instruct
reviewers that an overall rating of “superior” could not
be assigned to a facility found to have been “deficient”
or “at-risk” for any individual standard, and that a rating of “good” could not be assigned where a facility
was rated “at-risk” or as having a “repeat deficiency”
for any standard, they provide no similar guidance with
respect to the number or type of violations that could
lead to an overall rating of “acceptable,” deficient” or
“at risk.”71 Thus, a facility could be rated “acceptable”
despite its having received a “deficient” rating for several standards.72 More troubling, nothing in the DMCP
manual would prevent a reviewer from assigning an
overall rating of “acceptable” even to a facility that was
rated “deficient” for every standard. Similarly, a facility could be rated “acceptable” for an individual standard, even where it was found to be “deficient” in several (or conceivably all) of the core elements composing that standard.73
Excessive reliance on reviewer discretion and
“good judgment”74 rendered ICE’s self-reviews inherently unreliable, as review findings could neither be
replicated by other reviewers nor meaningfully evaluated for accuracy. Indeed, depositions of reviewers
selected by ICE to testify regarding their monitoring
practices revealed that reviewers had vastly different
interpretations about the ratings and that these differing
interpretations resulted in variable, and sometimes
questionable, practices. For example, one reviewer
who had acted as an RIC for several reviews testified
that she would mark a facility “acceptable” as to a standard when it either complied with the intent of the standard or indicated that it would agree to make changes to
comply with the standard in the future.75 She further
explained her belief that a “deficient” rating was more
severe than an “at-risk” rating, since in her view “atrisk” indicated that a facility was in danger of becoming
“deficient” as to a particular standard.76 In contrast,
another reviewer stated that “at-risk” meant that a facility was “a little more than failing.”77 Neither of these
views were in conformity with the DMCP manual instructions that an overall rating of “at risk” means that a
facility’s “detention operations are impaired to the point
that it is not presently accomplishing its overall mission. Internal controls are not sufficient to reasonably
assure acceptable performance can be expected in the
future.”78

Particular Deficiencies in the
Monitoring of IGSAs
Most of the national detention standards include
provisions that expressly are not requirements for
IGSAs and that apply literally only to SPCs and CDFs.
In the written standards (collected in the Detention Operations Manual), these provisions are printed in italics.
According to the standards, IGSAs may “adopt, adapt
or establish alternatives” to these provisions, provided
that the alternatives “meet or exceed” the intent of these
provisions. The DMCP manual provides no more specific guidance as to how reviewers should determine
whether an IGSA’s procedures “meet or exceed” such
provisions of the standards, and this critical judgment
was left to the discretion of the individual reviewer.
Thus, the problems posed by the lack of specific criteria
for reviewers to use in assigning ratings regarding compliance with individual standards and overall compliance, discussed above, are even greater in the case of
IGSAs, which comprise the vast majority of immigration detention centers.
Although these circumstances would warrant assigning the most experienced reviewers to lead the
evaluation teams monitoring IGSA facilities, the ICE
monitoring policy and practice was to do exactly the
opposite. Whereas a full-time inspector from the
DSCU served as RIC for the reviews of SPCs and
CDFs, all reviews of IGSAs were led by LEOs. LEOs,
unlike their headquarters counterparts, were not dedicated exclusively to conducting and processing facility
reviews and special assessments, and did not deal with
the detention standards on a daily basis.79 Rather, they
conducted reviews only as a duty collateral to their
regular assignments. Typically, LEOs who monitored
IGSAs were either deportation officers,80 whose regular
duties concern removal procedures, or detention officers whose regular duties include the transportation of
detainees between facilities and the courts.81 Indeed,
some LEOs may not have participated in any reviews of
over-72-hour facilities in a given year, or may have
done so as infrequently as twice annually.82 Because it
was possible that individual LEOs thus got very little
opportunity to put their initial week-long training into
practice, they were likely, over time, to forget portions
of it; and some field officers appeared to have been
uncertain about the policies guiding their reviews or
even the meaning of the very ratings they were assigning.83
In addition, LEOs’ regular duties may have directly
impeded their ability to perform monitoring tasks. One
LEO noted that, due to time constraints related to her
regular job assignment, she could not submit final facility reviews to headquarters until days or, indeed,
weeks after she inspected a facility.84 As a result of
such a delay, potentially serious violations of the stan-

A BROKEN SYSTEM

THE ICE DETENTION STANDARDS MONITORING SYSTEM
dards may have gone unremedied for an extended period of time. Of even greater concern: In some cases
there may have been a conflict of interest between an
LEO’s regular duties and the inspection responsibility,
as when a detention officer whose regular duties required a good working relationship with an IGSA facility’s management was assigned to inspect and rate that
particular IGSA.85
In light of these limitations, each review team
should have included an inspector who was dedicated
full time to the performance of facility compliance reviews. Yet throughout the history of the DSCU, fulltime inspectors have not participated in the regular reviews of IGSAs. Former DSCU Chief Yvonne Evans
acknowledged the limited size of the headquarters staff
and noted that it would have been impossible to have
headquarters officers conduct reviews of all IGSAs,
given the sheer number of such facilities.86 She
acknowledged that she had submitted several requests
to increase the number of headquarters officers but,
when those requests were not granted, had determined
that, rather than try to increase the size of the headquarters staff to enable its review of the hundreds of
IGSAs in operation, she could use some of the nearly
300 field office LEOs to help conduct reviews. 87 This
staffing structure posed serious consequences for the
reliability of ICE’s facility monitoring: The facilities
housing a majority of all immigration detainees were
not inspected by headquarters staff, ICE’s “subject
matter experts” on the standards.

Training and Staffing Deficiencies
Disparities in the manner in which reviewers
evaluated facility compliance are unsurprising when
considered in the context of ICE’s training and staffing
structures. The DMCP manual instructs that field staff
reviewers “must complete the DRO Detention Reviewer training course” and that “[r]eviewers may be
required to attend refresher training at a minimum of
three-year intervals or as required by the Review Authority [director of DRO] to ensure consistent and uniform application of the program.”88 The DMCP manual does not elaborate on the content of these trainings
but, rather, states generally that “[t]raining and certification of reviewers is the responsibility of the Compliance Branch within [the Detention Management Division].”89 It similarly does not specify whether identical
or different training is required for headquarters staff;
rather, the manual states only that “[f]or reviews conducted by headquarters DRO, review team members
shall be screened and selected by the [deputy assistant
director for the Detention Management Division].” 90
Depositions of ICE officials and field office reviewers conducted for the Orantes litigation provide
some insight into how ICE reviewers were actually

9

trained to conduct their reviews of detention facilities.
Two former DSCU chiefs explained that facility reviewers were required to complete a 40-hour,91 weeklong training92 on the standards and the review process,
at which training they received copies of the standards,
the DMCP manual, and sample worksheets used for
completing the reviews.93 Importantly, while the
materials for this training provided an overview of the
standards and the procedures for conducting a facility
review,94 including a hands-on inspection of a facility,95
they did not address how individual standards should be
rated,96 nor how overall ratings for detention facilities
should be determined.97
Little further training was provided. The DMCP
manual provides: “Reviewers may be required to attend
refresher training at a minimum of three-year intervals
or as required by the Review Authority [the director of
DRO] to ensure consistent and uniform application of
this program.”98 Deposition testimony of LEOs revealed that intervals between trainings could exceed
three years, and that “refresher” training sometimes was
limited to a 35- to 40-minute online exercise through
ICE’s “virtual university.”99
Staffing deficiencies at DSCU headquarters also
contributed to the lack of adequate support for the detention standards monitoring program. DSCU’s chief
acknowledged a constant turnover in headquarters staff
that leaves several reviewer vacancies at any given
time.100 The resulting inexperience of headquarters
reviewers threatened the reliability of the monitoring
system, as headquarters officers were consulted by field
office LEOs as “subject matter experts” on the standards.101

Notice and the Review Process
The DMCP manual provides that facilities in which
ICE detainees are kept should be given at least 30 days’
advance notice of annual reviews.102 According to the
DSCU’s former chief, notice to inspected facilities is
necessary to ensure that reviews are not foreclosed by
scheduling conflicts, that sufficient space is reserved for
the inspecting teams’ work, and that facilities have the
time to compile any requested paperwork.103
Problematically, however, the lengthy notice period
allows for the possibility that facilities will temporarily
“improve” the conditions to be observed by inspectors.104 One LEO testified that his practice had been to
provide an even longer notice period — of two to three
months.105 Because of the advance notice they gave to
facilities, reviewers were unable to ascertain whether
facility staff had modified conditions in the short term
for purposes of the review, only to avoid having to take
corrective action after the inspection and allow conditions to lapse again into deficiency.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

10

THE ICE DETENTION STANDARDS MONITORING SYSTEM

In apparent recognition of this possibility, the
DMCP manual authorizes the director of DRO to conduct unannounced reviews of facilities, but does not
make such reviews mandatory.106 Deposition testimony
from the Orantes litigation revealed that unannounced
facility reviews are conducted infrequently, if ever.
Notably, DSCU Chief Walter LeRoy stated that while
he thought that some reviews had been conducted without any prior notice or the required 30 days’ notice, this
had been unintentional and was due solely to the failure
of a staff officer to send a letter alerting the facility of
the inspection.107 Former DSCU Chief Yvonne Evans
stated that she was sure that some “visits” took place
with only a short “courtesy” notice, but she could not
say if any took place in any particular year, and could
not identify any such visits.108 Two LEOs testified that
they had never conducted an unannounced inspection.109
Vigorous facility monitoring requires that inspections normally be conducted without prior notice to
ensure that the conditions observed are those regularly
experienced by detainees. Although a brief notice period of a few days may, in some instances, be warranted
to allow for security clearances and to cure scheduling
conflicts, a period of 30 days’ notice is unnecessarily
lengthy and undermines the reliability of review findings. Moreover, by requiring facilities to submit annual
reports detailing their facility capacity, any significant
incidents at the facility, and other relevant information
on an annual basis that may be accessed by reviewers,
ICE could eliminate the need for advance notice to enable facilities to compile necessary paperwork.

Lack of Reviewer-Detainee Communication
Marginalization of detainees from the review process further compounds the potential problems wrought
by advance notice of pending inspections. The DMCP
manual instructs that, when on site, review teams “normally” must conduct “discovery/confirmation interviews,” during which they “interview a sufficient sample of staff and detainees depending upon the evidence
discovered during the course of the review.”110 Two of
the deposed LEOs indicated that they were not aware
that there was a requirement to interview detainees, and
they apparently considered it optional.111 Absent interviews with detainees, reviewers cannot verify or contradict the representations of facility staff. This failing
is particularly troubling in light of the lengthy notice
period for facility reviews. Under the monitoring
structure established by the DMCP manual, a facility
could hurry to modify its conditions for the inspection,
and detainees would have no means by which to alert
the review team of this conduct or to reveal the actual
day-to-day conditions. Another limitation of the ICE
inspection process has been that reviewers often have

not been fluent in any languages other than English and
have not brought interpreters to facilities being reviewed.112 Detainee interviews also may be sidelined
by reviewers in their rush to complete the multitude of
tasks with which they are charged in the two- or threeday time period allotted for facility reviews.
Further, guidance in the DMCP manual may suggest to reviewers that detainee interviews are unreliable
and encourage reviewers to give disproportionate
weight to the reports of facility staff. For example, although the DMCP manual states that interviews are
“extremely valuable,” it cautions that testimonial evidence “is considered the least dependable type of evidence, and information requires corroboration before it
can be used in support of a finding.”113 Elsewhere,
however, the DMCP manual advises that reviewers
must “inform [key facility management] and staff that
all comments which might alter findings and recommendations or provide information concerning the
cause of a deficiency will be fully investigated and
given due consideration.”114 The DMCP manual further advises that “[t]he reviewer shall place deficiencies
or noteworthy accomplishments into perspective and
avoid exaggeration. Only information adequately supported by sufficient evidence in the working papers can
be included in the report.”115 Finally, the DMCP manual advises reviewers to “give credit when management
has already noted a problem and is taking steps to correct it or is actively searching for solutions.”116 The
combination of these instructions, though each seems
benign by itself, have the effect of limiting detainee
participation in the review process, as many detainees
would be unable to corroborate their experiences with
documentary or other evidence, or could be pitted
against facility staff, whose comments regarding the
causes of any deficiency are to be given “due consideration.” Notably, the DMCP manual includes no
similar provision regarding the assignment of “due consideration” to the comments of detainees regarding the
conditions in which they are detained.

Failure to Track Trends in Deficiencies and
Proactively Address Them
The prevention of future problems or deficiencies
should be among the principal goals of any effective
monitoring system. ICE, however, has woefully failed
to implement procedures to enable policy reforms
aimed at increasing compliance with the detention standards. Although ICE maintains a database, known as
the Automated Information System, that tracks overall
ratings for immigration detention facilities, the agency
does not synthesize information across facilities; for
example, ICE does not track which standards are out of
compliance at facilities nationwide. DSCU Chief Walter LeRoy testified that the unit has used a database to

A BROKEN SYSTEM

THE ICE DETENTION STANDARDS MONITORING SYSTEM
record the overall ratings of facilities, but that it has not
been used to record the ratings as to individual standards.117 Moreover, the DSCU has made no effort to
determine whether particular standards are out of compliance across all facilities that are inspected in a given
year.118 When he was asked if he had any sense of
which detention standards had the highest rates of noncompliance in the previous year, LeRoy testified that he
did not, “because that’s not tracked.”119
The failure to identify trends in detention standard
violations has been a weakness of the monitoring system, because it has deprived ICE of the ability to take
affirmative action to prevent other facilities from experiencing similar problems.

Secrecy and Lack of Accountability
Since the national detention standards were
adopted in 2000, first the INS and then its successor,
ICE, have refused to make public the facility reviews
conducted by the immigration enforcement agency itself and by independent agencies. This policy of secrecy has undermined the explicit mission of the
DMCP, which is “to ensure detention facilities are operated in a safe, secure and humane condition for both
detainees and staff.”120

ICE Self-Reviews
ICE has classified its facility self-reviews as confidential and for the sole use of ICE and the federal government. Advocates, recognizing the importance of the
agency’s self-reviews in holding the government accountable for the conditions of ICE detention facilities,
long have pushed for public access to this information.
The government for years denied requests for this material, which first was made available to plaintiffs’ counsel in Orantes in 2006, following a discovery battle.
Most of the facility reviews produced in the Orantes
case are not covered by a court protective order and,
thus, now are available for inspection by advocates,
albeit in the incomplete and redacted form in which
they were produced. However, ICE continues to maintain that its internal facility reviews are confidential and
not available to the public. By limiting access to facility reviews, ICE effectively forecloses meaningful critique of its adherence to the detention standards and its
own internal procedures for monitoring facility compliance. The result is a monitoring system subject to inherent bias, as the system is not open to public oversight and input.

Inspections by Independent Agencies
Delegations from both the ABA and the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

11

make annual visits to detention facilities and detail their
findings in written reports.121 The ABA devotes
particular attention during its visits to ICE’s compliance
with the detention standards regarding attorney visitation, access to telephones, access to legal materials, and
group legal rights presentations.122 For its part,
UNHCR primarily documents those conditions that
threaten the rights of asylum-seekers or signal violations of international standards.123 Although UNHCR
does not purport to monitor ICE’s compliance with the
detention standards, it notes that several of the detention standards are coextensive with international standards and, thus, may be discussed in UNHCR reports.124 Importantly, the ABA and UNHCR reports are
not made available to the public; rather, the two organizations’ findings are distributed only to ICE, pursuant
to confidentiality agreements required as a condition of
access to the facilities. By refusing to allow these independent organizations to disclose their findings to the
public, ICE circumvents public oversight and devalues
compliance with the detention standards.
Furthermore, in depositions taken in the Orantes
litigation, key ICE officials responsible for ensuring
ICE’s compliance with the detention standards discounted efforts by the ABA and UNHCR to monitor
ICE’s compliance. Although these comments may reflect the personal opinions of ICE officials rather than
ICE’s formal positions,125 they are telling in their similarity and in their distrust of oversight by independent
agencies. Former DSCU Chief Yvonne Evans commented that the ABA and UNHCR reviews were not
helpful to DRO’s mission “[b]ecause they were written
by people who had no clue about a detention facility or
a correctional facility and how operations should be
conducted.”126 Evans added, however, that she would
generally give “a little more credence” to the UNHCR
reports because “[i]t’s always the same officers who are
doing the visits.”127 Her successor as DSCU chief,
Walter LeRoy, expressed similar skepticism, asserting
in his deposition that UNHCR “reports are their observations and conversations with detainees based on tours
of facilities. There is no meaningful inspection process
involved with their tours, as opposed to when we go out
there with trained jail inspectors and conduct tours that
last two to three days as opposed to their . . . one-afternoon walk-through.”128 LeRoy added, however, that he
has a “great relationship with the UNHCR,” and one
senior protection officer in particular, such that he and
his staff personally facilitate UNHCR visits.129 LeRoy
similarly criticized the monitoring efforts of the ABA,
explaining, “Similar to UNHCR tours, the ABA uses, I
believe, student interns and co-ops to visit jails. They
take a tour of a facility, and again there is no meaningful inspection or no measure of compliance with the
standards going on. Those are merely tours.”130

A BROKEN SYSTEM

12

THE ICE DETENTION STANDARDS MONITORING SYSTEM

While DSCU may order a follow-up inspection of
a facility that has been reviewed by an independent
agency, reviews of this nature are neither mandatory
nor have they been frequent. Indeed, DSCU’s former
chief, Yvonne Evans, noted that ICE did not require
follow-up inspections based on the ABA or UNHCR
reports but, rather, conducted such inspections only
when ICE itself had previously identified adverse conditions at a facility that warranted further inquiry. For
example, the DSCU ordered a follow-up inspection at
the Tangipahoa Parish Jail, a facility that was the subject of a critical report by UNHCR, because ICE staff
had earlier expressed concerns to ICE management
about the conditions at the facility.131 LeRoy, testifying
as DSCU chief, suggested that while an ABA report
citing serious issues might give rise to a response by the
agency, it was not likely that it would result in another
full-blown inspection of the facility.132 LeRoy could
not, in fact, recall an instance in which such an inspection had been ordered. He stated that a full reinspection
was a similarly unlikely response to a UNHCR report,
but added that ICE officers often accompany UNHCR
staff on their visits, such that ICE itself would have
observed any substandard conditions and already determined whether to fashion its own response.133
The actual evidence contained in the ICE, ABA,
and UNHCR reviews produced in the Orantes case reveals a very different reality. The following chapters
discuss numerous examples of ABA or UNHCR facility
reviews identifying serious deficiencies that one or
more subsequent ICE reviews completely overlooked.
Through its failure to take seriously the reports of independent agencies monitoring compliance with the detention standards, ICE demonstrates its willingness to
turn a blind eye to grave violations of its own policies
as well as the rights of ICE detainees.

Advocacy by Advocates, Detainees,
and the Media
ICE’s lack of transparency with regard to monitoring compliance with its own detention standards is
similarly evident in the agency’s failure to make public
the most basic information about its detention structure.
At present, advocates and family members of detainees
are unable to easily access information about the locations of ICE’s detention facilities or the process by
which they may report complaints and concerns to ICE
and local facility staff. Consequently, it is extremely
difficult for families to ascertain where their relatives
and friends are detained or to convey concerns about
the treatment of their loved ones. The inaccessibility of
this information proves similarly crippling to legal advocates, who, if they are to assist multiple clients and
comply with fixed court schedules, must be able to
navigate ICE’s detention system in a timely manner.

Local advocates also must grapple with the unspoken
reality that if they lodge complaints about the conditions at detention centers, they will damage their
working relationships with facility officers on whom
they depend for future access to detainee clients.

LACK OF CONSEQUENCES FOR
NONCOMPLIANCE
The DMCP manual provides no written guidance
regarding what level or type of noncompliance with the
standards would cause ICE to close one of its own facilities or terminate an agreement with a contract facility, or with a state or local jail.134 Indeed, while former
DSCU chief Evans stated that an agreement between
ICE and a state or local facility might be terminated for
the facility’s noncompliance with the standards,135 she
confirmed that there were no ICE policies requiring that
the agency terminate its agreements with facilities receiving overall ratings of “deficient” or “at-risk,” or
ratings of “deficient” in one or more individual standards.136 Evans explained that the termination of an
IGSA instead results from a recommendation by the
DSCU chief to the Acquisitions Unit, which makes the
final decision.137 Evans recalled that, during her tenure
as DSCU chief, ICE acted on the DSCU’s recommendations and terminated its agreements with facilities in
Brazoria, Texas, and Miami, Florida, on account of
noncompliance, although she could not recall which
standards had been violated.138 She added that at some
point, possibly outside of her tenure as chief, ICE discontinued its use of another facility, in Eureka, Oklahoma, due to a civil rights violation.139 In the case of
the facility in Eureka, ICE transferred detainees out of
the facility within days of the DSCU’s recommendation.140 ICE discontinued use of the Brazoria facility
within weeks, and of the Miami facility within weeks or
months, of DSCU’s recommendations.141
As with the ratings themselves, the lack of meaningful criteria guiding the termination of ICE agreements and contracts raises serious concerns about the
agency’s monitoring system. In the absence of criteria
detailing when ICE must discontinue use of a facility
on the basis of noncompliance, the agency can maintain
contracts and agreements with facilities that violate the
detention standards. This may be so even in the case of
grave violations, given that the DMCP manual makes
no distinction between the standards in terms of their
importance to the well-being of detainees.142 As a result, detainees must rely on the DSCU chief to interpret
a situation as sufficiently egregious to recommend
transferring detainees out of the facility before they
have a hope of obtaining relief from violative conditions. Evans’s deposition testimony suggests, however,
that termination of a facility’s contract is an infrequent

A BROKEN SYSTEM

THE ICE DETENTION STANDARDS MONITORING SYSTEM
occurrence; indeed, Evans could recall only three facilities whose contracts had been terminated by ICE in
accordance with DSCU’s recommendations.143
The infrequency with which facility contracts are
terminated and the unpredictability of termination decisions work to create a system that is ineffective in deterring noncompliance with the standards. Detention
facility staff may become disinterested in remedying
violations of the standards, as noncompliance yields no
practical consequences, either for them or their facilities. In order to ensure that facilities devote due attention to compliance with the standards, ICE should develop standardized criteria for terminating agreements
and contracts with detention facilities, as well as a system of financial penalties to underscore the costs of
noncompliance.

CONCLUSION

13

shortcomings include:
 Almost exclusive reliance on incomplete
checklists as the basic instruments for
monitoring compliance.
 Reliance on ICE officers with other full-time
duties to carry out the bulk of detention
standards monitoring, including all of the
monitoring of IGSAs, and failure to staff the
monitoring function with sufficient full-time,
trained staff.
 Failure to establish adequate objective criteria
for rating compliance with individual standards
and for facilities’ overall compliance.
 Failure to use unannounced reviews as a method
of checking compliance.
 Failure to make detainee interviews an essential
element of monitoring.

What we have managed to learn about ICE’s woefully inadequate system for monitoring the 2000 national detention standards provides important lessons
about what ICE and the federal government should
avoid as the agency implements its new Performance
Based National Detention Standards. Past mistakes and

 Keeping the monitoring process and results
secret and avoiding public accountability.
The recommendations section of this report provides specific suggestions for avoiding these problems.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Visitation
INTRODUCTION
The detention standard on visitation is intended to
guarantee detainees visitation from family and loved
ones as well as from legal representatives and their assistants. The standard sets forth procedures for both
general visitation (by family and loved ones) and legal
visitation (by attorneys, legal representatives, and their
assistants). It contains guidelines for the manner and
frequency of visits, allows detainees to receive money
and select items of personal property from loved ones,
and allows for private consultation between detainees
and their legal representatives.1
General visitation enables detainees to maintain
family relationships during an extremely difficult experience. Legal visitation allows detainees to obtain
legal representation to prepare and defend their immigration cases. Legal visitation is guaranteed to all detainees, including those in segregation, seven days per
week, and facilities must allow private attorney-client
communications.
The standard also requires facilities to provide
visitation access to members of the media and nongovernmental organizations.2 This allows nongovernmental organizations to provide know-your-rights presentations to detainees and members of the media to highlight cases of interest to the public. Finally, the standard requires facilities to post their visitation policies,
to ensure that detainees and visitors know their visitation rights.

VIOLATIONS OF THE
VISITATION STANDARD
Legal Visitation
Prominent Posting of List of Pro Bono
Legal Service Organizations
The visitation standard requires the facility to
prominently post a list of pro bono legal services organizations serving the local area.3 The purpose of this
requirement is to ensure that detainees who are unrepresented have an opportunity to obtain counsel for their
removal cases, regardless of their ability to pay. Since
immigrants, even detained ones, have no general right
to appointed counsel in removal proceedings, information about pro bono and low-cost legal services is crucial for the vast majority of detainees who are unrepresented.

Over 60 facilities failed to post a list of pro bono
legal services organizations, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reviews.4 Facilities’ failure to post these lists deprived detainees of
critical information that might have helped them obtain
counsel and win their removal cases.

Confidentiality of Legal Visitation
The standard requires that detainees must be afforded a place in which to meet with legal representatives and their assistants that will afford the parties in
the meeting complete confidentiality.5 Facility officials
may watch, but may not hear, discussions between detainees and their legal representatives.6 Confidentiality
is paramount to ensuring that detainees can freely discuss their removal cases and report any facility staff
misconduct to counsel. Several facilities violated this
requirement.7 In addition, in some facilities, in order to
avoid a strip search, detainees were forced to meet with
their attorneys in a nonprivate setting where their conversations could be monitored.8

Minimum Hours and Days of
Legal Visitation
The standard requires that legal visitation must be
available seven days per week, eight hours per day
during normal business hours, and four hours per day
on weekends.9 Over a dozen facilities violated at least
one of these elements of the standard.10 Some facilities
provided an hour less of legal visitation per day than the
minimum, while others severely limited weekend legal
visitation. One facility did not allow legal visitation on
weekends except in “high profile” cases.11 These shortcomings may have resulted in severe deprivations of
detainees’ right to counsel.
In many facilities, it can take an hour or longer to
transport a detainee from the housing area to the visitation area. In others, only one or two confidential legal
visitation rooms exist for several hundred detainees. In
such cases, reducing legal visitation by even two to four
hours a week results in fewer detainees being able to
meet with counsel.

Strip-Searches Not Mandatory
The standard provides that if a facility requires
strip-searches after contact visits, it must allow the detainee to choose a noncontact visit to avoid a strip
search.12 The purpose of this requirement is to allow
detainees to maintain their dignity and avoid invasive

A BROKEN SYSTEM

VISITATION
searches. Seventeen facilities violated this requirement.13

Ability to Exchange Legal
Documents
The standard provides that detainees must be able to exchange
legal documents with their legal representatives during legal visitation.14
This element is critical to enabling
detainees to prepare and review court
documents with the assistance of
counsel. Unfortunately, the ICE facility review form does not require
reviewers to verify whether a facility
has satisfied this element. The form
has one “yes” or “no” checkbox for
both this and the confidentiality element.15 As a result, ICE reviewers
typically do not indicate whether
facilities comply with this requirement. ICE reviews found, however,
that several facilities prohibited contact visits between detainees and
their legal representatives, and these
same facilities may have violated this
element as well if they failed to provide a means for the confidential
exchange of documents. Finally, at
one facility, detainees could exchange documents with counsel only
by giving them to facility staff.16

Legal Visits for Detainees in
Disciplinary Segregation

15

KEY FINDINGS
 Over 60 facilities failed to post a list of pro bono legal
services organizations, according to ICE reviews.
 17 facilities failed to provide detainees the option of avoiding
a strip search by choosing that a visit be “noncontact.”
 More than a dozen facilities failed to allow detainees in
disciplinary segregation access to legal visits.
 ICE monitoring forms and practices preclude it from adequately
reviewing facilities’ compliance with certain elements of the
visitation standard. Two examples:
o ICE forms do not contain items designed to evaluate
whether a facility is reasonably allowing contact such as
handshakes, embraces, and kisses.
o ICE forms do not distinguish between access to legal or to
general visitation, nor do they distinguish between access for
detainees in administrative versus those in disciplinary
segregation.
 Over two dozen facilities failed either to allow detainees to
retain certain small items of personal property or to post their
policies regarding receipt of property and money.
 Over 20 facilities failed to have in place a procedure whereby
independent medical service providers and experts were
allowed to examine detainees.
o Access to such medical exams is crucial for detainees with
asylum claims who wish to present the courts evidence of
past torture or post-traumatic stress disorder based on past
persecution.

 Failure by facilities to comply with the visitation standard severely
hampers detainees’ ability to exercise their constitutional and
statutory rights of access to counsel.

The standard requires that facilities allow detainees in disciplinary segregation to have
access to legal visitation.17 Denying legal visitation to a
detainee who is entitled to it unlawfully interferes with
his or her access to counsel. Over a dozen facilities
violated this element of the standard.18

Legal Visitation Uninterrupted by Meals
The standard requires that detainees be allowed to
continue a legal visit through a meal without having to
skip the meal.19 Forcing a detainee to choose between
sustenance and the opportunity to prepare his or her
case with counsel is obviously coercive. A few facilities violated this element.20

General Visitation
Contact Visits
The standard allows facilities to limit contact visits
between detainees and loved ones, but implies that
contact including handshakes, embraces, and kisses
should be allowed on a reasonable basis.21 ICE’s facility review forms do not contain items designed to
evaluate whether a facility is meeting this requirement.22 Thus, ICE reviews do not indicate whether
facilities unduly limit contact visits. In a few instances,
however, ICE reviewers noted on a facility review form
that the facility being reviewed completely prohibits
contact visits.23

A BROKEN SYSTEM

16

VISITATION
Posting of Visitation Policies

Other Visitation Requirements

The standard requires facilities to notify detainees
of the facility’s visitation policies in the detainee handbook and to prominently post them in the facility.24
Both types of notice are necessary for effective notification of the visitation hours and rules. Over a dozen
facilities failed to properly notify detainees of visitation
rules or hours.25

Personal Property of Detainees,
Deposits of Money
The standard provides that each facility must allow
detainees to retain certain small items of personal property and that each facility should post its policy regarding receipt of property and money.26 Over two
dozen facilities violated this element.27

Visitation by Minors
If a facility does not permit visits by minors, the
standard requires the facility to make provisions for
visits with a detainee’s children or stepchildren within
thirty days.28 Several facilities violated this element of
the standard.29 Several others imposed restrictions on
visitation by minors.30

Detainees in Segregation: Right to Visitation
The standard provides that facilities should allow
detainees in administrative or disciplinary segregation
access to visitation.31 Also, these detainees must be
given legal visitation rights.32 ICE does not adequately
evaluate facilities’ compliance with the access-to-visitation element for detainees in segregation because the
facility review forms do not distinguish between access
to legal visitation and access to general visitation, and
they also do not distinguish between access for detainees in administrative versus those in disciplinary segregation.33

Other Limits on General Visitation
One facility prohibited visits by people who arrived
on foot, effectively excluding families traveling by
public transportation.34 Two facilities unduly limited
visitation hours, without making accommodations for
families who might need alternate arrangements.35
Some facilities required detainees to maintain visitor
lists, and only those on the list were allowed to visit; or
they imposed other burdens that made family visitation
more difficult.36

Availability of Independent Medical Exams
The standard requires facilities to have a procedure
whereby independent medical service providers and
experts are allowed to examine detainees.37 Access to
such medical exams is crucial for detainees with asylum
claims or claims under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT) who wish to present medical evidence, such as
evidence of past torture or post-traumatic stress disorder based on past persecution, in their immigration
cases. Over 20 facilities violated this element of the
standard.38 One facility expressly prohibited independent medical exams.39

Nongovernmental Organizations
(NGOs), News Media, and Law
Enforcement Visitation
The standard requires facilities to allow certain
nongovernmental and media organizations to visit and
have access to nonconfidential and nonclassified information about the facility.40 Over a dozen facilities violated this element of the standard.41 Several facilities
also violated the element relating to law enforcement
visitation.42

Improper Delegation of Authority to
Permit or Deny Tours
The ICE facility review form provides a means of
evaluating whether facilities delegate the decision to
permit or deny a tour of the facility to a field office director or other ICE personnel with similar or greater
authority.43 ICE reviews found that over a dozen facilities violated this element of the standard.44 One facility
simply banned all such tours.45

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER
FOR REFUGEES REVIEWS
Additional Violations Found by the
ABA and UNHCR
American Bar Association (ABA) and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR) reviews of detention facilities found additional violations
of the visitation standard. These independent agency
reviews help shine greater light on the extent to which
facilities simultaneously violated several ICE visitation
rules.
In a June 2002 review of Mira Loma Detention
Center, the ABA found that the facility violated the

A BROKEN SYSTEM

VISITATION
visitation standard by requiring attorneys to show state
bar cards to gain admission and by forbidding attorneys
from giving detainees more than one business card.46
The facility also prohibited any contact during family
visitation, and the facility’s remote location made it
difficult for detainees’ family members to visit them.47
In an August 2002 review of Kern County Jail, the
ABA found that the facility required attorneys to show
state bar cards to gain admission.48 In addition, the
ABA found, among other things, that the facility effectively forced detainees to undergo a strip search in order to have confidential legal visits, did not provide
them notice of consular visitation, and limited family
visitation by number of relatives.49
In January 2003, the ABA reviewed the Houston
Service Processing Center and uncovered visitationrelated problems.50 The facility’s legal visitation area
was not adequately private, and the facility imposed a
burdensome visitor list requirement on each detainee
and limited the number of family members who could
visit at one time.51
In June 2003, the ABA reviewed St. Mary’s
County Detention Center and found that the facility’s
written visitation policy did not provide the minimum
visitation times required by the standard.52 In addition,
the ABA found that the facility’s policy on strip
searches was unclear, leaving staff with considerable
discretion in conducting them, and that the legal visitation room was extremely cramped.53
The ABA’s June 2003 review of Plymouth County
Correctional Facility also uncovered violations concerning visitation.54 The facility’s legal visitation area
did not provide adequate privacy, detainees encountered difficulties with getting legal documents notarized, and the facility strip-searched detainees after visits with legal representatives.55
The ABA’s July 2003 review of the El Paso Service Processing Center found that the facility’s legal
visitation rooms were noisy and did not adequately
protect confidentiality, and that the facility did not effectively ensure detainees access to contact visits with
attorneys.56
The ABA’s July 2003 review of Middlesex County
Jail uncovered similar problems. The facility did not
allow contact visits with family, it required detainees to
make visitor lists and limited visitation on that basis,
and it did not provide written rules and regulations,
resulting in confusion among detainees.57
The ABA’s review of Monmouth County Correctional Institute in July 2003 found significant violations
of the visitation standard.58 The facility required attorneys either to show a state bar card or membership in a
bar association in order to gain admission to the facility.59 It did not notify detainees adequately of pro bono
legal services organizations, it provided very little storage space for detainees’ personal property and legal

17

documents, and it made contact visits nearly impossible.60
The ABA’s review of Oakland County Jail in July
2003 found that the facility’s handbook contained unclear information on legal visitation rules, that the legal
visitation area was uncomfortable, that the facility did
not post lists of pro bono legal service organizations,
and that it had a policy of limiting family visits to fifteen minutes.61
The ABA’s review of Clay County Jail in August
2003 revealed numerous violations.62 The facility did
not ensure the confidentiality of legal visits, it required
visitor lists that were difficult to amend, and it banned
minors from visiting under any circumstances.63
Shockingly, the facility shackled and handcuffed some
detainees during routine visits with family.64 Finally, it
refused to allow multiple visitors to split the visitation
time with a detainee.65
The ABA’s review of Queens Detention Center in
March 2004 found that facility guards interrupted legal
visits and that detainees in the psychiatric ward had
limited access to legal visits.66 In addition, the facility
refused to accommodate the visitation needs of detainees whose family members lived a significant distance
from the facility, and it did not translate the list of pro
bono legal service organizations into the languages
spoken by large numbers of detainees.67
In July 2004, the ABA reviewed the Ozaukee
County Jail and found that the facility did not allow
detainees to continue legal visits through meals or lockdowns, that pressing the panic button in the room reserved for legal visits resulted in the recording of all
conversations in that room, that the facility prohibited
all contact visits with family, that it turned away all
visitors who were late, and that the facility limited family visits to those visitors identified on detainees’ visitor
lists.68
In July 2004, the ABA reviewed York County
Prison and uncovered numerous violations.69 The facility did not adequately inform detainees of legal visitation rules, it did not allow legal visits during meals or
counts, and it did not properly post lists of pro bono
legal services organizations.70 The facility also required detainees to have visitor lists that were difficult
to amend, it made it difficult to arrange family visitation outside normal visitation hours if needed, and it
allowed minors under 14 to visit only if they were children of detainees.71
The ABA reviewed the Bristol County Jail in August 2004 and reported numerous visitation standard
violations.72 The facility strip-searched a detainee after
a contact visit, it required attorneys to show state bar
cards to gain admission, and it limited family visitation
to certain numbers of visitors.73 In addition, the ABA
noted difficulties in visitor registration and a prohibition on contact visits with family.74

A BROKEN SYSTEM

18

VISITATION

In March 2005, the ABA reviewed Colquitt County
Jail and found that the facility prohibited contact visits
with family and that it did not make detainees adequately aware of available pro bono legal service organizations.75

ABA- and UNHCR-reported Violations Not
Reported by ICE, Though Reviews Conducted
at Approximately the Same Time
In some instances, the ABA and UNHCR discovered visitation-related violations that ICE had not uncovered during its annual reviews conducted at approximately the same time. The ABA and UNHCR
may have uncovered these additional violations by interviewing detainees in the course of their reviews,
which ICE reviews do not require.
ICE reviewed Elizabeth Correctional Facility each
year from 2002 to 2004. While ICE’s 2002 review revealed that the facility did not allow attorneys to call
ahead to determine if a detainee was at the facility,
ICE’s 2003 and 2004 reviews found no problems with
visitation.76 By contrast, the ABA’s October 2003 review found that the facility did not allow contact visits
with family.77
In the ABA’s review of Bergen County Jail in August 2003, the ABA found that the facility did not allow
contact visits with family and that visitors encountered
difficulties in depositing money in detainees’ accounts.78
The ABA reviewed the Dodge County Detention
Facility in June 2004 and found that the facility did not
allow contact visits with legal representatives and that it
made family visitation more difficult than necessary by
requiring detainees to have visitor lists.79 In addition,
facility staff had discouraged detainees from continuing
a legal visit through a meal.80 The ICE annual review
in June 2004 did not uncover these violations.81
In its July 2004 review of the Passaic County Jail,
the ABA found several problems with visitation, including a confusing visitation schedule, a discrepancy
between posted visiting hours and those provided for in
the detainee handbook, a blanket prohibition on contact
visits, and the fact that visits were limited to 15-20
minutes.82 In its August 2005 review of the same facility, the ABA found additional problems, including failure to maintain attorney-detainee confidentiality during
legal visits, failure to provide bathroom breaks and pens
during legal visits, and failure to provide the minimum
30 minutes for family visitation.83 ICE annual reviews
of the facility in 2004 and 2005 failed to uncover these
same violations.84
In July 2004, the ABA reviewed the Dorchester
Detention Center and found that the facility discouraged legal visits on certain days of the week, that it
made contact visits with family very difficult, that the

warden did not notify detainees that exceptions to the
general visitation hours could be made for family members who lived at a great distance from the facility, and
that the facility limited visits to fifteen minutes, in clear
violation of the 30-minute minimum.85 ICE’s review of
the facility in September 2004 missed some of these
violations.86
In July 2004, the ABA reviewed the Santa Ana
Detention Facility and found that the facility prohibited
contact visits with family and that its handbook did not
contain information on its policy of conducting strip
searches after visitation.87 ICE’s review of the facility
in August 2004 did not address these violations.88
The ABA reviewed Pamunkey Regional Jail in
August 2004 and found that the facility did not allow
detainees in segregation to have family visitation; that
its written policy allowed only an attorney of record to
visit the detainee for legal visitation, thereby excluding
interpreters, mental health experts, and legal assistants;
and that the facility required attorneys to show bar
cards to gain admission to the facility, with few exceptions.89 The ABA also found interruptions of legal visits by lockdowns.90

Repeated Reviews Provide a Clearer Picture of
Facilities’ Performance
Finally, when both the ABA or UNHCR and ICE
reviewed a facility repeatedly over a number of years,
the facility’s record of compliance with detention standards, including corrections of violations, or lack
thereof, was more clearly revealed.
ICE reviewed CSC Detention Facility in September 2002 and found that the facility did not have legal
visitation rooms that provided privacy.91 The ABA’s
review four months earlier in May 2002 had found the
same problem.92 In addition, the ABA found that the
facility routinely cut short family visits under the 30minute minimum, that visitation rooms were generally
cramped, and that contact visits were only allowed under “special circumstances,” but that these circumstances were not laid out.93 In July 2003, ICE reviewed
the facility again and uncovered persisting problems,
including failures to post lists of pro bono legal services
organizations and mandatory strip searches.94
ICE reviewed the San Pedro Service Processing
Center five times between 2002 and 2005.95 In May
2002, the ICE review found numerous problems with
visitation, including no mention in the handbook of
consular visits, no provision for NGOs to visit, no procedure for independent medical exams, and no posted
list of pro bono organizations.96 Subsequent ICE reviews found no violations of the visitation standard.
However, the ABA, which reviewed the facility three
times between 2002 and 2005, found serious visitationrelated violations each time.97 In 2002, the ABA found

A BROKEN SYSTEM

VISITATION
extensive difficulties with family visitation, including a
prohibition on contact visits, long waiting lines for
family members, failure to provide special arrangements outside normal visitation hours when necessary,
visits cut short of the 30-minute minimum, and extremely small family visiting rooms.98 Legal visits
were also interrupted for routine headcounts, and the
ABA suggested that facility remodeling might be
needed to improve visitation.99 In its July 2003 review,
the ABA found that the posted list of pro bono legal
organizations was outdated and inaccurate, that conversations during legal visits could be easily overheard,
and that deposits to detainee accounts were capped at
$50.100 In August 2005, the ABA reported that the
facility cut short the minimum time for family visitation, and it noted as an example that one legal visit had
been limited to five minutes because of a guard shift
change.101
ICE reviewed the Kenosha County Detention
Center in 2003 and 2004. In 2003, ICE found that segregated detainees did not have adequate access to visitation, that the facility did not properly post the list of
pro bono organizations, and that procedures for NGO
visitation were not adequate.102 ICE found no visitation-related problems in its May 2004 review.103 However, the ABA reviewed the facility in July 2004 and
found that the facility required legal representatives to
provide advance notice of their visits and that the facility’s restrictive visitation policies may have led to rare
legal visitation.104
The ABA reviewed Clay County Jail in August
2003 and found a lack of attorney-detainee confidentiality during legal visits, a flat ban on minor visitation,
problems changing detainees’ visitor lists, and, most
shockingly, handcuffing and shackling of noncriminal
detainees as routine policy.105 A year later, ICE reviewed Clay County Jail in September 2004 and found
that the facility did not post a list of pro bono legal organizations and that legal visitation was not available
for a sufficient number of hours each week and on
weekends.106
ICE reviewed Aguadilla Service Processing Center
in March 2004 and noted that detainees lacked privacy
during legal visits.107 When UNHCR reviewed the
facility over a year later, in May 2005, the problem had
not been alleviated.108
The ABA reviewed the Krome Service Processing
Center in April 2004 and found that that the facility
required attorneys to show state bar cards to gain admission and that procedures relating to money deposits

19

for detainees were not appropriate.109 ICE reviewed the
facility in June 2005 and found that the procedures relating to detainees’ personal property were still not adequate.110

Shortcomings of ICE Visitation Standard–
related Reviews
A comparative analysis of ICE, ABA, and UNHCR
reports reveals the shortcomings of ICE reviews of facilities with respect to the visitation standard. Unlike
ABA and UNHCR reviewers, ICE reviewers did not
examine the interaction between different requirements
of the standard. For example, while ICE reviews examined whether detainees could avoid strip-searches by
choosing a noncontact legal visit, and whether detainees
were afforded privacy in legal visits, ICE reviews did
not examine these requirements together. By contrast,
ABA reports noted that detainees who chose noncontact
legal visits in order to avoid strip searches were, in
some cases, forced to forego privacy during those legal
visits.111
In addition, ICE reviews did not address one crucial visitation problem, namely the use of visitor lists.
Although the standard prohibits facilities from imposing undue burdens on visitation, many facilities limited
family visitation to only those persons identified on a
detainee’s visitor list. Nine facilities required such lists,
and many of them limited the number of times the list
could be revised to once per month.112 Moreover, many
facilities limited the number of names that could be
included on the lists at any given time.113

CONCLUSION
The persistent failures of facilities to respect detainees’ visitation rights severely hamper detainees’
ability to exercise their constitutional and statutory
rights of access to counsel. Not only did facilities fail
to notify detainees of available pro bono legal services
organizations, they also burdened confidential attorneyclient visitation in numerous ways. In addition, facilities violated rules on general visitation, a practice that
inevitably results in severe and unnecessary deprivation
of access to family and loved ones. Given the isolation
of immigration detention, ICE must do more to ensure
that facilities comply with the visitation standard and
allow detainees to meet with their lawyers and loved
ones with as few restrictions as necessary.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Recreation
INTRODUCTION
The detention standard regarding recreation acknowledges the importance of recreational activities to
the mental and physical wellbeing of detainees. To this
end, the standard requires facilities to offer supervised
and safe recreational opportunities to all detainees,1
including individuals with special needs and those in
segregation.2 The standard provides that “[e]very effort” be made to place detainees in facilities that provide outdoor recreation programs, although the standard
accepts that detainees may be held for significant periods of time (nine months or more) at facilities with no
outdoor recreation.3 Outdoor recreation may include
organized, limited-contact sports and must be provided
a minimum of one hour each day, five days per week,
weather permitting.4 Such recreation provides an
essential release for detainees who are confined indoors
for extended periods, frequently in facilities lacking
exposure to natural light.5 In addition, exposure to
sunlight may alleviate symptoms of depression in immigration detainees. The standard also requires facilities to provide detainees with sedentary recreational
opportunities, including board games and television.6
Recreation activities are to be overseen by a staff recreation specialist.7
The standard sets forth criteria and procedures for
transferring detainees out of facilities that fail to provide outdoor recreation, unless the detainees waive
transfer. Detainees may be held without an offer of
facility transfer for up to nine months in facilities lacking outdoor recreation. In facilities with neither outdoor recreation nor indoor recreation areas, detainees
may be held only for 60 days before a transfer is offered. Facilities must obtain from detainees their written acceptance or waiver of a transfer after they have
been deprived of outdoor recreation for these time periods; however, detainees will not be transferred if their
proceedings before an immigration judge have not been
completed or they are deemed likely imminently to be
either released from detention or removed from the
United States (i.e., deported).8 The standard requires
that facilities inform the detainees’ legal representatives
about any facility plans and client decisions related to
such transfers.9 In theory, allowing detainees to decline
such transfers allows them to determine for themselves
whether their inability to partake in recreational activities is sufficiently important to cause them to move to a

different facility, which may be at a greater distance
from loved ones or potential legal service providers.
The standard also provides for the safety of recreation programs through provisions addressing staff supervision, inspections of recreation areas and equipment, and searches of detainees for contraband.10 Each
of these provisions is necessary, as recreation areas that
expose detainees to security risks or lack functioning
equipment deprive detainees of the psychological release and physical benefits that recreational programs
provide.
In addition, the standard sets forth various requirements for the recreation of detainees in the Special
Management Unit (SMU), where detainees are held in
segregation, and for the procedures whereby facilities
may deny or suspend such privileges.11 These provisions are necessary to ensure that detainees in segregation are not denied access to recreation merely because
it is more difficult to administer their recreational opportunities. Finally, the standard states that outside
groups may offer recreational, religious, or educational
activities to detainees, provided that they give notice to
the officer-in-charge (OIC) and that there are no countervailing security concerns.12

ICE MONITORING OF THE
RECREATION STANDARD
As with the other standards, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) reviewers use a checklist
as the principal tool for monitoring compliance. 13 A
notable defect of the checklist used to monitor the recreation standard is that it combines into a single element the monitoring of the availability of outdoor and
indoor recreational facilities. In addition, the checklist
for this standard has no element relating to differences
in recreational access by gender. ICE reviewers can
capture such information only by noting it in the comments section of the form. Similarly, the checklist fails
to contain elements to assess specific inadequacies with
recreational equipment. Therefore, these problems,
which some inspectors commented upon in the comments sections of the monitoring forms, are likely to be
more widespread than the specific violations reported
on the checklists would indicate, since the form does
not require ICE reviewers to report these problems.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

RECREATION
ICE-DOCUMENTED
VIOLATIONS OF THE
RECREATION STANDARD
Availability of Recreation Programs
The recreation standard mandates that
facilities provide detainees with recreational opportunities under the supervision
of facility staff.14 This policy is intended
to ensure that recreational programs are
offered as a mandatory component of immigration detention and are not contingent
upon facility discretion, staffing, or resources.
Despite this requirement, the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) found that one
facility had no recreation areas, either indoors or outdoors..15 Although detainees
at this facility were permitted to exercise
in their cells or a common dayroom, they
were denied access to a dedicated recreation space. Staff reported that the facility
lacked sufficient personnel to allow for a
recreation program.16

Availability of Outdoor
Recreation Programs

21

KEY FINDINGS
 Though provision of outdoor recreation is a basic
requirement of the recreation standard, ICE reviewers
rated facilities as being in compliance even when the
facilities lacked outdoor recreation programs.
o Only 4 of 19 ICE-reviewed facilities that had no outdoor
programs received a rating of deficient for the
recreation standard.
o When ICE subsequently reviewed 4 facilities that had
lacked outdoor programs, it rated each of them as
acceptable for the standard, even though they still
lacked such programs.

 One UNHCR-reviewed facility lacked either indoor or
outdoor recreation programs.
 Six ICE-reviewed facilities lacked an indoor recreation
program, as did one ABA-reviewed facility.
o Of these 7, reviewed a total of 10 times, 2 were found in
consecutive years to have no indoor recreation.
o Yet ICE gave only 2 of these facilities ratings of
deficient for the standard.

 16 facilities did not provide detainees the minimum
amount of required recreation time, according to ICE
reviews.
o 8 of these were shown in more than one review to have
failed this requirement.
o 25 additional facilities violated this requirement,
according to ABA and UNHCR reports.

The recreation standard provides that
ICE must make every attempt to assign
detainees to facilities with outdoor recrea 18 facilities provided recreation areas that could not
tion space.17 Weather permitting, outdoor
accommodate all detainees.
recreation must be offered for a minimum
of one hour per day, five days per week,
and may include organized, limited-conees. Lacking exposure to the outdoors, detainees may
tact sports.18
feel increasingly isolated or depressed, and they underICE reviews reveal, however, that many facilities
standably interpret their confinement as a form of punfailed to provide such programs. In addition to the
ishment rather than as a civil measure intended to sefacility inspected and documented by UNHCR, which
cure their appearance at future proceedings. This result
lacked any recreational programs, ICE reviews of
is particularly troubling as it pertains to detained asynineteen other facilities found that they had no outdoor
lum-seekers, many of whom seek refuge from abusive
recreation programs at the time of their annual reand inhumane treatment in their native countries. It
views,19 yet only four of these facilities were rated
defies logic that facilities lacking outdoor recreation
deficient for the recreation standard.20 Moreover, for
space could be rated acceptable for the recreation stanfour of the facilities ICE found to lack outdoor recreadard, as provision of recreational opportunities is the
tion, a subsequent ICE annual review found that each
quintessiental requirement of the standard.
still lacked any outdoor recreation, yet every one of
these subsequent annual reviews rated the facility acTransfer Provisions for Facilities Lacking
ceptable for the recreation standard.21 Moreover, ICE
Recreation Programs
reported that another facility planned to close its outdoor recreation area within the year following its reAcknowledging the hardship posed by lacking exview, yet it was rated acceptable for the standard.22
posure to fresh air and outdoor recreation, the recreaFailure to offer outdoor recreation poses dire contion standard sets forth procedures whereby detainees
sequences for the physical and mental health of detainmay be transferred out of facilities that lack outdoor

A BROKEN SYSTEM

22

RECREATION

recreation opportunities.23 Pursuant to the standard,
staff must review the files of detainees who are held for
six months without outdoor recreation to determine the
detainees’ eligibility for transfer to another facility with
such opportunities; no detainees are to be held longer
than nine months in a facility lacking outdoor recreation
unless they sign a waiver of transfer.24
However, ICE reviews reveal that, of the twentyfour facilities lacking outdoor recreation, three failed to
consider the transfer eligibility of detainees lacking
access to outdoor recreation within the designated time.
The UNHCR reported the same problem at two additional facilities.25 Detainees in these facilities thus were
subjected to indefinite periods without outdoor recreation.

Indoor Recreation Activities
The standard requires that, in the event that outdoor
recreation is not provided, facilities must designate an
indoor space for detainees that affords access to exercise equipment and sunlight.26 In such cases, indoor
recreation must be offered for a minimum of one hour
each day.27 Although this alternative is inadequate to
meet the standard’s outdoor recreation requirement,28 it
is an important stopgap, providing detainees at least
some exposure to sunlight and exercise until they are
offered either outdoor recreation or an option to transfer
to another facility. Nevertheless, several facilities
failed to implement even this minimal provision. In
addition to the Racine County Jail, which UNHCR
found to lack either indoor or outdoor recreation programs, six other facilities failed to offer indoor recreation to detainees, according to ICE reviews.29 The
American Bar Association (ABA) found the same violation at an additional facility.30 Of these seven facilities, reviewed a total of ten times, two were found in
consecutive years to have no indoor recreation.31 Yet
ICE reviewers gave only two of these facilities ratings
of deficient for the standard.32

Minimum Hours and Days of Recreation
The standard specifies that, weather permitting, facilities must offer detainees outdoor recreation for a
minimum of one hour each day, five days per week.33
The standard further specifies that, when possible, Service Processing Centers (SPCs) and Contract Detention
Facilities (CDFs) also should allow detainees to participate in outdoor recreation on weekends.34 Where indoor recreation alone is offered, facilities must ensure
that detainees have access to an indoor recreation area
with sunlight for a minimum of one hour daily.35
ICE reviews reveal that sixteen facilities failed to
provide detainees with the minimum amount of recreation time required by the standard,36 and that eight of

these facilities were shown in more than one review to
have failed to meet this requirement.37 ICE gave seven
facilities deficient ratings for the standard as a whole,
three of which were found in more than one annual review to have violated this requirement.38 Moreover,
ABA and UNHCR reports identified violations of this
requirement at an additional twenty-five facilities.39 All
told, the evidence reveals that at least forty-one facilities failed to provide detainees with the minimum
amount of recreation time required by the standard.

Law Library and Recreation Scheduling
Pursuant to the standard, facilities may not schedule recreation periods such that detainees must choose
between use of the law library or participation in recreational activities.40 This provision recognizes that the
concurrent scheduling of library and recreation time
puts an unjustifiably high price on a detainee’s pursuit
of his or her legal case. Detainees should not be presented with the unfair and impossible choice of researching their cases or enjoying recreation due to arbitrary and coercive scheduling practices. Unfortunately,
the monitoring checklist for the recreation standard
does not include this requirement, although it is included in the “Access to Legal Material” standard. Reports by the ABA and UNHCR reveal that the schedules at six facilities required detainees to choose between using the library and exercising recreation privileges, in violation of the standard.41 (See also the chapter in this report titled “Access to Legal Material.”)

Provision of Recreation Materials
and Equipment
The standard states that exercise areas in facilities
must contain “fixed and movable equipment” for use by
detainees.42 Additionally, detainees lacking outdoor
recreation opportunities must be afforded access to cardiovascular exercise through a recreation room
equipped with cardiovascular machines.43 Cardiovascular exercise provides detainees with a desperately
needed means of maintaining their health and burning
otherwise unspent energy that accumulates during confinement. In addition, facilities must offer sedentary
recreational activities such as television and board
games in supervised dayrooms, and must distribute the
materials for such activities at least once daily.44
However, the checklist for the recreation standard
does not monitor compliance with all these requirements. Instead, it simple asks: “Does regular maintenance keep recreational facilities and equipment in
good condition?” and “Do dayrooms offer sedentary
activities, e.g. board games, cards, television?” Despite
the lack of elements on the checklist to systematically
review equipment requirements, ICE reviewers did note

A BROKEN SYSTEM

RECREATION
violations at four facilities.45 It is likely that violations
are far more widespread. Indeed, the ABA and
UNHCR identified significant violations at fourteen
additional facilities, where little or no equipment was
provided.46

The Condition and Sufficiency of
Recreational Areas
ICE reviews and reports from independent agencies suggest that several conditions not always tracked
by ICE annual reviews may imperil detainee access to
recreation. Although the standard does not specify
space parameters for recreation areas, it clearly implies
that facilities must provide rooms and outdoor spaces of
sufficient size to allow all detainees to participate in
recreational activities for the minimum periods outlined
by the standard. ABA and UNHCR reports and some
ICE annual reviews reveal, however, that eighteen facilities provided recreation areas that were insufficient
to accommodate recreational opportunities for all detainees.47 Moreover, five facilities severely limited the
recreational activities of detainees, sometimes permitting only walks around outdoor areas.48 In three facilities, recreational offerings varied by gender, with male
detainees receiving more favorable recreation privileges
than female detainees.49

23

Supervision of Recreational Activities
The standard contains various provisions addressing the safety of recreational programs. These include
requirements that staff routinely supervise recreational
activities and maintain radio contact with a control
center, inspect recreational spaces and equipment, and
search detainees traveling to and from recreation areas
for contraband.57 Each of these provisions is important,
as recreation areas that either expose detainees to security risks or lack functioning equipment deprive detainees of the very release that recreational programs are
intended to provide.
Several facilities failed to comply with the supervision and safety requirements set forth in the standard.
ICE identified six facilities where recreation areas were
not under constant staff supervision,58 only one of
which received a deficient rating.59 Moreover, reviewers of two facilities revealed that detainees had escaped
or attempted to escape from recreation areas that year.60
In three facilities, staff members lacked radios or other
communication devices with which to communicate
with the control center while supervising detainees.61
In addition, staff at two facilities did not search recreation areas both before and after use by detainees; both
facilities were rated deficient for the standard.62

VIOLATIONS REPORTED BY ABA AND
UNHCR, BUT NOT REPORTED BY ICE

Segregation and Detainee Recreation
The recreation standard mandates that facilities
provide recreational opportunities for detainees in administrative or disciplinary segregation that are distinct
in time and place from those offered to the general
population.50 It specifies that segregated detainees may
be denied recreational privileges only upon written authorization from the OIC stating that the detainee poses
a safety risk to himself or others.51 The standard further
requires facilities to review on a weekly basis the cases
of detainees whose recreation privileges have been denied.52 In cases where privileges have been suspended
for disciplinary reasons, facilities must notify detainees
in writing regarding the reasons for and all conditions
related to such decisions.53
According to ICE reviews, detainees at four facilities did not receive written explanations when their recreation privileges were suspended or revoked,54 yet all
these facilities received acceptable ratings for the standard.55 Moreover, in an additional five facilities, the
OICs did not review all of the revocation decisions
made by disciplinary panels before these decisions took
effect.56

Further deficiencies in the ICE monitoring process
are revealed by an examination of ICE’s annual reviews
for particular facilities in conjunction with reports from
the ABA and UNHCR for the same facilities during the
same time period. The five facilities discussed below
provide clear examples of the failures of the ICE annual
reviews to capture or account for violations documented by independent reviewers.

Kenosha County Detention Center
In May 2003, ICE reviewed Kenosha County Detention Center and rated the facility acceptable for the
standard, despite noting that the facility had no recreation staff or specialists,63 that the OIC did not review
decisions to revoke the recreation privileges of detainees in disciplinary segregation before those decisions
became effective, and that case officers were unaware
that the standard required them to make written transfer
recommendations about every six-month detainee
lacking access to outdoor recreation.64 A report by
UNHCR issued four months later further revealed that
while male detainees had access to recreation facilities
for about two hours a day, female detainees were not
allowed access to the facility’s outdoor recreation area

A BROKEN SYSTEM

24

RECREATION

because of its location and concerns that male detainees
could see the outdoor area from their windows.65
UNHCR recommended that female detainees be allowed an hour of outdoor recreation daily, in accordance with the standard.66 However, in May 2004, ICE
again rated the facility’s recreation program acceptable,
failing to address in any way the disparity in male and
female access noted in the UNHCR report.67 Two
months later the ABA reported that female detainees
still had no access to outdoor recreation and were restricted to an indoor gym that lacked equipment.68 The
ABA also reported that, when outdoors, male detainees
were not allowed to run or play ball games. They were
limited to walking and sitting, apparently to prevent
injuries.69 In June 2005, ICE once again rated the facility acceptable for the standard, again without any consideration of the prior ABA or UNHCR reports.70
Subsequently the ABA conducted a second inspection
and reported in September 2005 that female detainees
were still barred from the outdoor recreation area.71
Thus, after three years of repeated notice, ICE failed to
respond to the need to provide female detainees with an
opportunity for outdoor recreation.
In addition to shedding light on the nonresponsiveness of ICE to troubling disparities in the recreational
opportunities offered to men and women, the reports of
UNHCR and the ABA highlight the insufficiency of the
ICE checklist for documenting such problems. Since
the checklist for this standard has no element related to
differences in recreational access by gender, and ICE
reviewers can only capture such information by noting
it in the comments or remarks sections of the form, it is
quite possible that other facilities experienced similar
problems that went unnoticed by ICE.

Passaic County Jail
In March 2004, ICE reviewed the Passaic County
Jail. Despite reporting that volunteers were not required to sign waivers of liability before entering a secure area where detainees were present (and advising
staff to make this a requirement),72 ICE rated the facility acceptable for the recreation standard.73 However,
when the ABA reviewed the facility four months later,
it found that the facility “fail[ed] to meet, in large part,
the detention standards regarding recreational programs
and activities.”74 While facility staff reported that
detainees received one hour of exercise and recreation
per day, including one hour per week in an outdoor
rooftop area, detainees whom the ABA interviewed
reported receiving far less than this amount.75 The detainees also reported that after waiting to sign in to use
the recreation facilities, they were left with only 20
minutes of recreation time.76 One detainee said that he
was prevented from using the recreation facilities because he would not receive his HIV medication if he

was not in his cell when the nurse came.77 In June
2005, ICE once again rated the facility as acceptable for
the recreation standard, finding no violations of it that
year,78 while the ABA found the facility still “fail[ing]
to meet, in large part,” the standard.79 In its August
2005 report, the ABA stated that the large facility had
only one weight room and two outdoor areas, that detainees were required to formally request board games
and card games from the guards, and that a recreation
specialist supervised activities but did not tailor them to
the detainees’ needs.80 The ABA further noted that
while staff claimed that a “recreation rotation” system
provided detainees with five days of indoor recreation
and two days of outdoor recreation per week, for an
hour at a time,81 detainees stated that recreation was
rarely available, and that outdoor recreation was often
cancelled due to inclement weather — and that whenever it was cancelled, it was not rescheduled.82 The
deficiencies suggest both ICE’s failure to speak with
detainees during its reviews and the need for such
communication in order to ascertain the actual conditions at facilities housing ICE detainees.

Dodge County Detention Center
In June 2004, ICE reviewed Dodge County Detention Center and reported that the facility had no outdoor
recreation and no recreation specialist.83 The reviewer
rated the facility acceptable for the recreation standard,84 while urging it to “continue to find a way to
comply with” the standard’s outdoor recreation requirement.85 In the same month, the ABA reviewed the
facility and found several additional violations and substandard conditions. In addition to providing no access
to outdoor recreation, this facility failed to provide detainees with cardiovascular or muscular exercise
equipment, or to offer access to natural light in its indoor recreation area, or to permit detainees to play basketball, even though the recreation room contained a
basketball hoop.86

Dorchester County Detention Center
In September 2004, ICE also reviewed Dorchester
County Detention Center and reported that daily recreational opportunities were provided to detainees, but
that outdoor recreation was available only two days per
week.87 The review also noted that the facility had no
recreation specialist, and the checklist item requiring
that recreation areas be under constant staff supervision
was marked “N/A,” with no further explanation.88 ICE
rated the facility deficient for the standard.89 Just three
months earlier, the ABA had noted several other violations at the facility, each of which was overlooked by
ICE in its later review. The ABA observed the potential for conflicts between a detainee’s time for attorney

A BROKEN SYSTEM

RECREATION
visitation and possible library use, and the facility’s
daily gym period;90 reported that detainees were denied
outdoor recreation for long periods during the winter;
and stated that detainees receiving pain medication
were not permitted to participate in outdoor recreation,
resulting in the refusal of some detainees to take
necessary medications.91 The ABA further noted that
detainees in segregation were denied recreation
opportunities92 and that the facility had no fixed weight
training or other exercise equipment, apparently for
“security reasons.”93

Santa Ana Detention Facility
In August 2004, ICE reviewed the Santa Ana Detention Facility and rated the facility’s compliance with
the standard acceptable,94 while noting that the facility
had no recreation specialist or equivalent, that recreation volunteers were not required to sign waivers of
liability, and that the element of the standard regarding
regular maintenance of the recreation areas and equipment was “N/A.”95 A month earlier, the ABA had reviewed the facility and found that the outdoor recreation site was limited to a small concrete area with high
walls that blocked much natural light from entering;
that there was only one piece of exercise equipment,
consisting of a pull-up bar and sit-up bench; and that
the indoor recreation area had no board games, despite
the handbook indicating that they were available.96

25

CONCLUSION
Both ICE reviews and reports by independent
agencies reveal that detainees were regularly deprived
of recreational opportunities that are essential to their
physical, mental, and emotional health. Especially pervasive was the failure of many facilities to provide the
minimum number of hours and days of recreation required by the recreation standard. These violations
render recreational programs inherently inadequate, as
they may be offered only sporadically or at the discretion of facility staff. In addition, many facilities failed
to provide access to outdoor recreation, which offers
detainees both physical benefits and an opportunity to
interact with the natural environment. Problematically,
several of these facilities also failed to implement the
standard’s procedures for transferring detainees to facilities that had such programs. Even where facilities
had recreation programs in place, these were rendered
inadequate or meaningless at a large number of facilities due to a lack of exercise equipment and materials,
and to insufficient space in which to partake in recreational activities. Finally, several facilities unnecessarily
restricted access to recreation by denying opportunities
to individuals in segregation, by providing more limited
offerings to females than males, and by concurrently
scheduling law library and recreation time.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Telephone Access
INTRODUCTION
The telephone access standard is intended to ensure
that facilities provide detainees “reasonable and equitable access to telephones.”1 This standard is important
because it helps facilitate detainees’ access to legal
counsel as they challenge the government’s attempts to
remove them from the United States. Access to telephones while in detention also allows detainees to
maintain contact with family and friends, including
their U.S. citizen children, while they are being detained.
The telephone access standard has several key provisions. First, upon admittance to the facility, detainees
must be provided the facility’s phone access rules in
writing.2 Second, the telephones must be in proper
working order and there must be at least one telephone
for every 25 detainees.3 Third, detainees must be permitted to make direct calls to legal service providers,
consulates, and certain courts and government offices.4
These calls must be free for indigent detainees if the
number is local.5 Fourth, detainees must be afforded
privacy for their legal calls.6 Fifth, detainees must be
permitted to make inter-facility calls to immediate family members held in other U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities.7 Sixth,
detainees must be able to receive phone messages.8
Seventh, detainees in administrative segregation for
nondisciplinary reasons must be permitted telephone
access similar to detainees in the general population.9
Detainees in disciplinary segregation must be able to
make all calls mandated under the standard, except if
“compelling” security reasons require otherwise.10

VIOLATIONS REPORTED BY ICE,
ABA, AND UNHCR
Notice to Detainees of Telephone
Access Policies
Each facility must provide telephone access rules
in writing to each detainee when the detainee first arrives and must also post these rules where detainees
may easily see them inside the facility. ICE reviews
revealed that 38 facilities failed to abide by this requirement—they did not post telephone-related rules in
public spaces in the detention facility.11 The American
Bar Association (ABA) identified one additional facility that violated this requirement.12 Five of these 39
facilities failed to post phone rules for two years in a

row.13 In addition, ICE reviews found that 14 facilities
failed to fully explain the telephone policy in detainee
handbooks as required, leaving detainees confused
about their rights and the proper phone procedures.14
Two of these facilities had multiyear violations. The
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) found one additional facility that failed to
fully explain the phone procedures in its handbook.15
Detainees who are not fluent in English find it difficult to navigate any detention policies. For that reason, the telephone access standard requires facilities to
make a “reasonable effort” to translate their telephonerelated rules into languages spoken by a large number
of detainees; but, unfortunately, it does not define what
constitutes a “reasonable effort.” ICE reviews showed
that 10 facilities failed to provide information regarding
telephone access in the languages spoken by a significant portion of the facility’s population.16 One of these
facilities failed this element of the standard two years in
a row, and at 6 of these facilities no phone instructions
were provided in any language aside from English.17
The ABA identified another facility where no phone
rules were provided in languages other than English.18

Privacy
The standard requires facilities to ensure that detainees can place private phone calls regarding their
legal cases. Facilities must provide a reasonable number of telephones to allow detainees making such calls
to talk without being overheard by officers, other staff,
or other detainees. Detainees in numerous facilities
routinely report that the lack of privacy for legal calls is
a serious problem and undermines their attorney-client
relationships and their ability to pursue legal relief. For
example, a detainee pursuing an asylum claim based on
past persecution on account of his sexual orientation
may fear harassment if other detainees overhear his
conversations and, therefore, may fail to provide critical
details to his counsel. ICE reports revealed that 16 facilities failed to provide detainees with a reasonable
degree of privacy for legal phone calls.19 The ABA and
UNHCR also documented violations of these privacy
requirements at 14 additional facilities, one of which
was a multiyear violation.20
The standard also requires facilities to inform detainees that they may contact a detention facility officer
if they have difficulty making a confidential legal call,
so that arrangements can be made to accommodate the
detainee’s need for privacy. ICE reviews found that
procedures in place at three facilities were insufficient
to allow detainees to ask for assistance when they had

A BROKEN SYSTEM

TELEPHONE ACCESS
difficulty placing a confidential call, and the
ABA found an additional facility that violated
this requirement.21
In addition, the standard requires each facility to have a written policy on the monitoring
of detainee calls. Under the standard, facility
staff may not electronically monitor detainee
legal calls unless they first obtain a court order.
If other calls are monitored, the facility must
notify detainees in the detainee handbook when
they first enter the facility and must place a notice at each monitored phone stating (1) that
calls from that phone are subject to monitoring
and (2) the procedure for obtaining an unmonitored call to a court or legal representative. ICE
reviews revealed that six facilities failed to post
notices next to telephones that were monitored,
and the ABA identified one additional facility
violating this requirement.22 ICE reviews also
showed that three facilities inappropriately
monitored all detainee calls, including legal
calls, without the required court order.23

Direct Calls and Free Calls

27

KEY FINDINGS
¾ 38 facilities failed to post telephone-related rules in
public spaces.
¾ 16 facilities did not provide a reasonable degree of
privacy for legal phone calls, according to ICE reviews.
o The ABA and UNHCR found violations of these
privacy requirements at 14 additional facilities,
one of which was a multiyear violation.
¾ 13 facilities failed to allow detainees to make special
access calls, the ICE found.
o The ABA and UNHCR found violations of the
special access call requirements at 19 additional
facilities, one of which violated these requirements
two years in a row.
¾ 20 facilities did not afford detainees in
nondisciplinary segregation the same rights as those
in the general population.
o 2 of these facilities violated this element two years in
a row.
¾ 11 facilities did not have a system in place for taking
and delivering emergency phone messages, ICE
found.
o 2 of these facilities violated this element of the
standard 2 years in a row.
o At least 1 of these facilities had no system for
delivering any messages to detainees.
o The ABA and UNHCR found serious violations of
the message requirements at 8 additional
facilities.

The standard requires facilities to establish
systems to allow detainees to make “special access” calls, which are direct calls to (1) the local
immigration court and the Board of Immigration
Appeals, (2) federal and state courts presiding
over legal proceedings in which detainees are
involved, (3) consular officials, (4) legal service
providers, and (5) government offices, to obtain
documents regarding their cases. In addition,
facilities must also allow free calls in cases of
personal or family emergency, or when the
detainee demonstrates a compelling need to make such
a call. Facility staff must allow detainees to make these
direct calls as soon as possible after the request,
generally within 8 waking hours of the request and no
longer than 24 hours. Incidents of delays beyond 8
waking hours must be documented and reported to ICE.
Indigent detainees may not be required to pay for
the aforementioned types of calls if they are local calls
or nonlocal calls that need to be made for a compelling
reason. All detainees, regardless of whether or not they
are indigent, must be allowed to make calls to the ICEprovided list of free legal service providers and consulates at no charge to the detainee or the receiving party.
ICE reviews reveal that 13 facilities failed to allow detainees to make such special access calls.24 The ABA
and UNHCR also documented violations of the special
access call requirements at 19 additional facilities, one
of which violated these requirements two years in a
row.25

Inter-Facility Telephone Calls
Upon a detainee’s request, a facility must make arrangements permitting the detainee to call an immediate
family member detained in another facility. ICE reports reveal a staggering number of violations of this
requirement. At least 33 facilities failed to make special arrangements for detainees to call immediate family members in other facilities,26 and 3 of these facilities
had violations in two consecutive years.27 Some of
these facilities allowed detainees to call family members in other detention centers only when there was an
emergency, although the telephone access standard
contemplates no such limitation.28

Telephone Privileges for Detainees
in Segregation
According to the standard, detainees placed in segregation for nondisciplinary or administrative reasons,

A BROKEN SYSTEM

28

TELEPHONE ACCESS

such as for their own safety, must have telephone access comparable to detainees in the general population,
only with restrictions required to accommodate the special security needs of these units. Similarly, facilities
must permit detainees placed in segregation for disciplinary reasons to make free calls regarding legal matters, family emergencies or other compelling matters,
except when security necessitates limits.
The ICE reviews show that twenty facilities did not
afford detainees in nondisciplinary segregation the
same rights as those in the general population,29 and
that two of these facilities violated this element two
years in a row.30 In addition, ABA reviews found two
additional instances of inappropriate restrictions on
phone access for detainees in nondisciplinary segregation.31 In three facilities, the phone access rights of
detainees in disciplinary segregation were also violated.32

Phone Messages
The standard requires each facility to take and deliver all telephone messages to detainees as promptly as
possible. Emergency messages are to be handled in an
expedited fashion. ICE reviews found that eleven facilities did not even have a system in place for taking
and delivering emergency detainee telephone messages.33 For two of these facilities, ICE reviews documented violations two years in a row.34 And at least
one of these facilities had no system for delivering messages of any kind to detainees.35 In addition, the ABA
and UNHCR found serious violations of the message
requirements at eight additional facilities.36

Telephone Maintenance
Of course, even the most detailed phone access and
privacy provisions are useless if a facility’s actual
phones do not work. Therefore, the standard requires
that each facility must ensure that telephones available
to detainees are in working order. Facility staff must
inspect the telephones regularly, promptly report outof-order telephones to the repair service, and ensure
that repairs are completed quickly. However, ICE reports revealed that in four facilities the telephones were
not inspected regularly and that those facilities relied on
detainees to inform detention facility staff about any
malfunctions.37 The ABA and UNHCR identified four
additional facilities where significant phone problems
indicated that facilities were failing to regularly inspect
their phones.38 ICE reviews of two additional facilities
found that facility staff did not promptly report the existence of out-of-service telephones to their service
providers or monitor repairs to ensure they were completed in a timely fashion.39 In one of these facilities,

several phones were found to be out of service for an
extended period of time.40

Insufficient Access to Telephones
The standard requires that detainees be provided
“reasonable and equitable access to telephones during
established facility waking hours.”41 Specifically, each
facility must provide at least one telephone for every 25
detainees. ICE reports show that adequate numbers of
phones were not provided at two facilities, and the
ABA and UNHCR documented inadequate numbers of
phones at two additional facilities.42
In addition, facilities may “not restrict the number
of calls a detainee places to his/her legal representatives, nor limit the duration of calls by rule or automatic
cut-off, unless necessary for security purposes or to
maintain orderly and fair access to telephones.”43 If
time limits are necessary for such calls, they cannot be
shorter than 20 minutes, and the detainee must be allowed to continue the call, if desired, “at the first available opportunity.”44 The ICE reviews revealed that
three facilities limited detainees’ calls in contravention
of the standard, and in each of these cases the ICE reviewer still rated the facility’s performance with regard
to the overall telephone access standard as acceptable.45
The ABA, too, documented inappropriate time restrictions on calls at two other facilities.46

ICE Rates Facilities “Acceptable”
Despite Violations
ICE reviewers often documented significant violations of the telephone access standard at particular detention facilities but then failed to assign them a “deficient” rating for the standard as a whole. For example,
in 2004 ICE reviewed the York County Prison and
found several phone access violations. ICE found that
the access rules were not posted in the housing units,
but listed only in the handbook. The reviewer, however, nevertheless marked the checklist item for this
element of the standard “acceptable.”47 Next, the ICE
reviewer found that the facility took and delivered only
emergency messages to detainees, but still marked “acceptable” the checklist item for the element of the standard requiring a general message system for detainees.48 Finally, the reviewer reported that detainees in
nondisciplinary segregation were denied telephone
privileges afforded to the general population.49 In spite
of these three clear violations, the ICE reviewer rated
the facility’s performance with respect to the overall
telephone access standard as “acceptable,”50 thus sending a mixed message to the facility about whether it
should take immediate steps to remedy the telephone
access–related problems identified in the review.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

TELEPHONE ACCESS
Excessive Costs
The standards do not set limits on the amount detainees can be charged for phone calls. Nonetheless,
some ICE reviewers noted that facilities they reviewed
charged detainees excessive amounts of money for using the facility’s telephones.51 ICE should revise the
telephone access detention standard to set maximum
charges for phone calls, because excessive phone
charges can have the same impact as simply failing to
make phones available for detainees’ use.

VIOLATIONS REPORTED BY ABA AND
UNHCR, BUT NOT REPORTED BY ICE
Tellingly, at many facilities, ICE reviews failed to
document telephone access violations that were discovered by the ABA or the UNHCR in their reviews of the
same facilities within six months or in the same calendar year of the ICE reviews. The facts reported below
are from reviews of facilities for which the discrepancies and unreported violations were the most pervasive
and severe.52
In 2004, ICE reviewed the Berks County Prison,
found no violations of the telephone access standard,
and gave the facility an “acceptable” rating for telephone access.53 The ABA visited the facility the same
month, however, and found numerous violations of the
standard. The ABA reported that for their first four
days at the facility detainees were placed in “quarantine,” where they were denied telephone access and
permitted to make only one free call;54 when first
admitted to the facility, detainees were not provided a
handbook informing them of telephone access rules;55
and rules for telephone use were not posted near the
telephones.56 Furthermore, the ABA reported that detainees were afforded virtually no privacy when using
the phones, as there were no privacy partitions and the
phones were located in common areas where legal calls
could be overheard by officers, staff, or other detainees.57 In addition, the facility electronically monitored
phone calls without informing detainees of this fact via
notices posted at the telephones, and it had no procedures whereby detainees could request unmonitored
legal calls.58 The ABA also documented that detainees
were not permitted to receive incoming messages of
any kind, including emergency messages.59
ABA and UNHCR reviews of the Kenosha County
Detention Center in 2003 and 2004 also revealed violations that ICE failed to report. ICE reviewed the detention center in 2003 and, despite finding that the facility
failed to make a reasonable effort to provide key information to detainees in languages spoken by any significant portion of the detainee population,60 rated the facility “acceptable” for phone access.61 Four months later,

29

UNHCR visited the facility. In addition to confirming
that the facility was not providing rules and orientation
materials to detainees in the most common languages
spoken by the population,62 UNHCR found that phone
cards were not made available to detainees because,
according to staff, the jail “needs the revenue stream
from collect calls.”63
In 2004, ICE again reviewed the Kenosha County
Detention Center, found no violations, and gave the
facility an “acceptable” rating for phone access.64
However, the ABA reviewed the facility two months
later and found several violations, the most serious being the facility’s monitoring of detainees’ telephone
calls with their attorneys.65 In 2005, ICE once again
found no violations and gave the facility a rating of
“acceptable,”66 but an ABA report dated three months
later found numerous problems and violations, including lack of privacy,67 failure to provide written notice of
telephone usage instructions,68 and failure to deliver
telephone messages to detainees.69
When the ABA reviewed the Passaic County Jail
three months after the ICE reviewed it in 2004, the
ABA found several violations that the ICE reviewer did
not report. ICE had rated the facility “acceptable” for
phone access,70 even though it found that the facility
violated the standard by failing to post notification by
the telephones when calls were being monitored.71
After the ABA reviewed the facility, it reported that the
facility failed to provide phone usage instructions for
illiterate or non–English speaking detainees;72 there
were no instructions on how to use the preprogrammed
phone technology;73 the phones were located in open
spaces that afforded detainees no privacy;74 and the
facility staff did not take or deliver phone messages to
detainees because they refused to be “an answering
service.”75
In 2005, ICE again gave the facility a rating of “acceptable,”76 despite finding that detainees in nondisciplinary segregation were not given the same telephone privileges as those in the general population.77
The ABA reviewed the facility two months later and
found repeat violations with respect to telephone privacy,78 the ability to telephone free legal service providers and consulates free of charge,79 and the taking
and delivery of messages.80
In June 2004, ICE reviewed the Dodge County
Detention Facility, found no violations of the telephone
access standard, and assigned the facility an “acceptable” rating.81 However, when the ABA reviewed the
facility that same month, it found many violations. The
ABA reported that the facility would allow detainees to
make only collect calls,82 and that all calls made by
detainees were subject to a 15-minute time limit.83 The
ABA also found that the facility did not post any notification near the phones regarding detainees’ ability to
place direct calls,84 and the facility appeared to lack the

A BROKEN SYSTEM

30

TELEPHONE ACCESS

necessary technology to allow detainees to place the
needed direct calls free of charge.85 Detainees were not
afforded privacy for their phone calls, since the phones
were located in public dayrooms without privacy partitions.86 A detainee interviewed by the ABA reported
that all phone conversations made on the outgoing
phones were monitored and recorded.87 In addition, the
facility did not accept phone messages88 and denied
telephone access to detainees placed in disciplinary
segregation.89
In 2004, ICE reviewed the Keogh-Dwyer Correctional Facility. Although ICE found that the facility
violated the standard by failing to post notification by
the phones informing detainees that their calls may be
monitored,90 it nevertheless rated the facility “acceptable” for this standard.91 The ABA had reviewed the
facility one month before and, in addition to confirming
the privacy violation that ICE found,92 discovered that
telephones in the housing unit were located in open
areas without privacy panels and that there were no
areas designated to ensure that legal phone calls could
be made in private.93 The ABA also found that the
facility’s written rules limited all telephone calls to 15
minutes,94 the facility did not provide detainees with a
procedure for making or receiving unmonitored legal

calls,95 and the facility did not take nonemergency
phone messages for detainees.96

CONCLUSION
The ABA and UNHCR reviews, as well as ICE’s
own reviews, offer compelling evidence that ICE has
consistently failed to require detention facilities to
comply with the telephone access standard. The most
pervasive and troubling violations are lack of privacy
afforded to detainees when making confidential legal
calls, monitoring of legal calls by facility officials, failure to post instructions regarding free and other special
access calls, arbitrary and unnecessary time limits
placed on detainees’ telephone calls, and refusal by
facility staff to deliver phone messages to detainees.
All told, the reviews paint a picture of a system in
which phones are present, but detainees have a difficult
time using them due to a lack of information about
phone procedures and cumbersome processes for placing what should be direct calls. As a result, detainees’
ability to obtain legal assistance and develop their cases
is greatly compromised.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Access to Legal Material
INTRODUCTION
Taking into account the fact that the majority of
detainees cannot afford their own legal counsel, the
detention standard on access to legal material is intended to ensure that detainees have the ability to research and pursue their legal cases while in detention.
The standard requires facilities to set up a physical law
library to provide detainees with an adequate environment in which to conduct legal research and writing and
to prepare their own legal documents.1 Specifically,
facilities are required to have a well-lit law library with
typewriters and/or computers and writing utensils.2 The
law library must contain all required legal material and
also must post a list of that required material. This
material is to be catalogued and updated regularly by a
designated facility employee.3 The standard provides
that the Office of General Counsel of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS), an agency that was
abolished in 2003,4 is required to review the contents of
the list at least annually and update the list as needed.5
Legal material is to be available in languages other than
English in order to provide equal access to English and
non–English speaking detainees.6
The standard provides that each detainee must be
permitted to use the law library for a minimum of five
hours per week and may not be forced to forgo recreation time to use it.7 Moreover, a facility shall permit
detainees to assist other detainees in researching and
preparing legal documents, upon request.8 Detainees in
administrative segregation or disciplinary segregation
are to be given the same access to the law library as the
general population, barring security concerns.9
Finally, the standard contains elements intended to
protect detainees who make use of law library resources
by stating that detainees may not be subject to reprisals,
retaliation, or penalties because of a decision to seek
judicial relief on any matter, including (1) the legality
of their confinement, (2) the legality of the conditions
in which they are detained or how they are treated while
in detention, (3) any issue relating to their immigration
proceedings, or (4) any allegation that the government
is denying them a right protected by law.10
A facility’s compliance with the Access to Legal
Material detention standard is particularly critical because many detainees are unable to retain legal counsel
for their immigration cases and therefore represent
themselves. In addition, without access to a law library
with basic immigration law and other legal holdings,
detainees cannot raise challenges to the legality of their
detention or the conditions they must endure while detained.

VIOLATIONS OF THE STANDARD
REPORTED BY ICE AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Lack of Law Libraries, Required Legal
Material, or Equipment
According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and independent agency reviews, an
alarming total of twenty-nine facilities lacked a physical law library. The ICE reviews revealed twenty-four
facilities that lacked a physical law library, five of
which had multiyear violations.11 The American Bar
Association (ABA) documented five additional instances of facilities lacking a law library.12 In some
facilities, mobile carts with some books were used in
lieu of a physical law library. In others, detainees had
to request a specific case or statute through a designated
facility staff person in order to receive any legal material to review. In still other facilities, there was no sort
of substitute for the required physical law library.
Many ICE reviewers indicated that they thought
that computer access to Lexis-Nexis could be provided
in lieu of a physical library with written legal material,
though the standard contemplates no such exception.
For example, the 2004 ICE review for the Yavapai
County Detention Center noted that the facility lacked a
law library, but suggested that the facility remedy this
violation by providing a computer with Lexis-Nexis
“[d]ue to the benefit ICE would gain from the additional bed space” if no space were allocated to a law
library.13
At fifty-nine facilities, the law libraries failed to
contain some or all of the required legal material. ICE
reviews revealed that at least thirty-nine facilities did
not have all the material, and that four of these facilities
had multiyear violations.14 In addition, the ABA and
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) found that twenty additional
facilities failed to provide all the required material.15
The ABA and UNHCR also reported that five of the
facilities that ICE reported as being noncompliant with
this element of the standard had violations in additional
years that were not reported by ICE.16 Some facilities
had none of the required material.17 One facility incorrectly claimed that the list of required law library material had been withdrawn by the federal government.18
In addition, several facilities violated the requirement that facilities post a list of the required material
where detainees can see it.19 The full extent of noncompliance with this requirement was impossible to
determine because the checklist used by ICE reviewers

A BROKEN SYSTEM

32

ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIAL

to evaluate compliance with this detention standard
combines into one question the separate elements of
(1) whether the list was posted and (2) whether all required material was provided.
The standard also requires facilities to designate an
employee to update legal material and to discard outdated material. Thirty facilities failed to designate such
an employee. ICE reviews revealed that twenty-four
facilities failed to meet this requirement, one of which
had a multiyear violation.20 The ABA documented an
additional six facilities that violated this element of the
standard.21 The ABA also documented a violation of
this element at one facility where ICE had found a violation in a different year.22 With regard to many facilities, reviewers commented that the material available
was terribly outdated, meaning that much of it was
useless to detainees or even potentially harmful, as it
may have provided outdated and inaccurate legal information.23
In order to file court documents, detainees also
need access to typewriters or computers; for that reason, the standard requires facility libraries to contain
sufficient typewriters or computers. A total of fifteen
facilities failed to equip their law libraries with any
typewriters or computers. ICE reviews revealed fourteen of these violations, two of which were multiyear
violations.24 In addition, the ABA documented repeat
violations at two of these facilities, but in different
years.25 The ABA also found that one additional facility failed to allow detainees to use the one available
computer for legal research.26 In addition, a total of
twenty facilities had inadequate numbers of computers
or typewriters for detainees. ICE reviews documented
nine of these violations, one of which was a repeat deficiency,27 while the ABA and UNHCR documented
similar violations at eleven additional facilities, one of
which had a multiyear violation.28
The law libraries at twelve facilities were found to
be inadequate in size, poorly lit, or lacking the appropriate number of chairs for detainees. ICE reviews
found six of the facilities whose law libraries were substandard in these ways, one of which it found to be substandard in multiple years, and another of which the
ABA found to be substandard in multiple years.29 The
ABA and UNHCR documented similar violations at six
additional facilities. 30 In addition, ICE reviews of two
facilities found that their libraries’ location affected
their noise level, making it difficult for detainees using
those libraries to research their legal claims.31
ICE reviews found that twenty-six facilities did not
supplement the required legal material with access to
Lexis-Nexis,32 while the ABA documented one additional instance in which Lexis-Nexis was not pro-

vided.33 Several facilities had outdated versions of
Lexis-Nexis available.34 Some facilities used LexisNexis in lieu of providing a law library with written
material.35
The standard also requires facilities to accept legal
material from outside persons or organizations. Furthermore, if the facility declines to add such material to
the library, it must forward the material to ICE for review. Several facilities failed to accept material from
outside persons or organizations.36

Inappropriate Limits on Detainees’
Access to Law Libraries
Twenty-seven facilities inappropriately limited
detainees’ access to their law libraries. ICE reviews
found that nine facilities inappropriately limited detainees’ law library use,37 while the independent agency
reports documented similar violations at eighteen additional facilities, one of which had a violation during
three different years.38 Many facilities inappropriately
imposed limits on which detainees could visit the library or imposed other arbitrary limits on law library
use. For example, at some facilities detainees could
visit the law library only after making a request, while
at other facilities certain classifications of detainees
were denied library access altogether. At several facilities, arbitrary limits on the number of detainees allowed in the library at one time or limits on the number
of hours a housing pod could use the library impeded
detainee access to the law library.
At twenty-four facilities segregated detainees were
not provided with the same access to the law library as
the general population, as required by the Access to
Legal Material standard. ICE reviews showed this
violation at twenty-one facilities, three of which had
multiyear violations.39 The ABA found three additional
violations of this requirement, one of which was at a
facility where ICE reviewers had documented a violation in a previous year.40 ICE reviews revealed that
twelve facilities failed to document instances in which
detainees were denied access to legal material, as required by the standard.41 The ABA documented one
additional violation at a separate facility.42
At seven facilities, detainees were not permitted to
assist other detainees in researching and preparing legal
documents, as required by the standard. ICE documented violations at five facilities,43 while the ABA
and UNHCR documented similar violations at two additional facilities.44 In addition, the UNHCR found that
that one of the facilities that ICE had found to be in
violation of this requirement also violated it in a year
when ICE did not review the facility.45

A BROKEN SYSTEM

ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIAL
Lack of Sufficient
Accommodations for Non–
English Speaking or Illiterate
Detainees

33

KEY FINDINGS
 29 detention facilities lacked an actual law library containing
immigration law–related material, according to ICE and independent
agency reviews.
o ICE reported that 24 facilities lacked actual law libraries.
o The ABA reported that 5 additional facilities lacked actual law
libraries.

ICE reviews found that seventeen facilities failed to ensure that
illiterate or non–English speaking
detainees had adequate access to legal material they could understand,
and that two of these facilities had
 Law libraries at 59 facilities did not contain some or all of the
required legal material.
multiyear violations.46 The ABA
documented similar violations at four
o ICE reported that 39 facilities were deficient in this area.
additional facilities, as well as an
o The ABA and UNHCR reported that 20 additional facilities
additional violation (in a different
were deficient.
year) at one of the facilities where
 30 facilities failed to designate an employee to update legal
ICE had found a violation.47
material and discard outdated material.
The form used by ICE to monitor compliance with this element of
 27 facilities inappropriately limited detainees’ access to their
the standard inappropriately states
law libraries.
that ICE staff should ensure compli At 24 facilities, segregated detainees were not provided with the
ance with this requirement, while the
same access to the law library as the general population, as
actual standard requires facility staff
required by the standard.
(whether or not the facility is run by
ICE) to ensure compliance with it.
 15 facilities failed to equip their law libraries with any
As a result, many ICE reviewers intypewriters or computers.
terpreted this requirement as apply 20 facilities had inadequate numbers of computers or
ing only to facilities where ICE staff
typewriters for detainees.
is present; therefore, the actual vioo ICE documented 9 such violations, 1 of which was a repeat
lations of this requirement were, no
violation.
doubt, underreported.
o
The ABA and UNHCR documented 11 additional violations, 1
The standard provides for a
of which was a multiyear violation.
meager, and likely ineffective, remedy to the obvious problem con At 12 facilities, the law libraries were too small, poorly lit, or
fronted by non–English speaking or
lacking the appropriate number of chairs for library users.
illiterate detainees trying to use law
library materials to prepare their legal cases. According to the standard,
facilities are to attempt to facilitate
UNHCR. An analysis of these reviews’ results makes
translation assistance by other detainees or provide such
clear that the ICE review process routinely missed key
detainees a list of local low-cost legal service providers
violations of the Access to Legal Material standard that
(who generally receive many more requests for legal
subsequently were identified by independent monitors.
assistance than they can comply with). The standard
For example, an ICE review marked as “acceptable” the
does not specifically require that any particular types of
fact that the law library at the Colquitt County Jail was
legal material be provided in Spanish or other lanlocated “in Chief’s Office,” without providing any exguages commonly spoken by non–U.S. citizen detainplanation of how detainees accessed the library.48 The
ees. Nor does the standard require specifically that faABA review of that same facility, however, found the
cility law libraries include Spanish/English–Engfacility deficient because it had only one computer and
lish/Spanish dictionaries in their collections.
one typewriter for 39 ICE detainees who were in the jail
at the time of the visit.49 In the case of the Seattle Contract Detention Center, ICE reviewers discovered no
violations, while the ABA review highlighted the abVIOLATIONS REPORTED BY ABA AND
sence of dictionaries and legal material in languages
UNHCR, BUT NOT REPORTED BY ICE
other than English as an indicator that non–English
speaking detainees did not use the library at all.50
A handful of the facilities reviewed by ICE were
reviewed shortly afterward by either the ABA or

A BROKEN SYSTEM

34

ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIAL

At the Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility, ICE reviewers marked as “not applicable” the section of the
monitoring form that asks whether the law library contains all required legal material and whether the list of
resources is posted in the library for detainees to see. 51
However, the ABA review of the same facility states
that it had no immigration law library: The “law library” was a mobile cart on which books were haphazardly stacked. There was, however, a well-lit, quiet
computer room in the ICE detention unit, equipped with
two computers and one typewriter. The computers appeared old and outdated. The facility did have a “general library,” but it contained New Jersey statutes and
New Jersey case law,52 which would not be helpful to
most noncitizens preparing immigration law–related
cases.
Though ICE found no violations of the Access to
Legal Material standard at the San Pedro Servicing
Center, the ABA emphasized in its 2003 review that all
of the law library’s material was in English. A facility
officer explained to ABA reviewers that detainees
translate for each other and that often they (improperly)
charge for translating.53
When ICE reviewed the Passaic County Jail, it
failed to note that detainees must submit a written request to use the library and that priority for using it is
given to detainees with upcoming court appearances.54
As a result, some detainees had to wait several weeks to
use the law library, and many detainees reported to the
ABA that they had to make multiple requests to use the
library before they were finally granted access to it.55
In 2003, ICE found that the required immigration
law–related legal material was missing or not available
at the Queens Detention Center in Queens, New York.56
One year later, when ABA reviewers toured the facility,
the problem had not been fully addressed. The ABA
report states that, although the library contained most of
the required legal material, most of it was outdated, and
detainees could not request more current material from
outside sources. In addition, ABA reviewers found that
the library provided no immigration forms, such as the
Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal
(Form I-589).57
In several instances, ABA or UNHCR reports provide more details on violations than do ICE reports for
the same detention facilities. For example, ICE reviewers noted the following about the Pamunkey Regional
Jail: “under equipment, no typewriter.”58 ABA reviewers elaborated that the law library was located in very
small room, so only two to three detainees could comfortably use the library at a time. There was no typewriter, no computer, and detainees could not store information on computer discs.59
In reviewing the Dorchester Detention Center, the
ICE staffer marked as “not applicable” the item on the
monitoring form that asks whether ICE is notified when

detainees are denied access to the law library, even
though the same form states that detainees in segregation lose such access.60 The ICE reviewer’s response
does not make clear whether ICE is notified that detainees in segregation were denied access to legal material,
as required. In its review of the Dorchester Detention
Center, the ABA reports that detainees could sign up to
use the law library for one hour on Wednesdays; therefore, the facility was not in compliance with the element of the standard which requires that detainees be
provided at least five hours of access to the law library
per week.61 While the ICE review also noted this violation of the standard’s requirements, it nonetheless rated
the facility as acceptable for compliance with the Access to Legal Material standard.
The ICE review of the law library at the Elizabeth
Correctional Facility states that it is noisy because it is
located right by the entrance gate.62 The ABA review
of the same facility provides more information: the law
library was “cramped, disorganized and in need of improvement.” It provided only one typewriter for 300
detainees.63

CONCLUSION
Immigration law is notoriously complex, and noncitizens’ chances of being allowed to remain in the U.S.
increase dramatically when they are represented by
qualified counsel. Hiring counsel, however, is a luxury
that many detained noncitizens simply cannot afford.
As a result, many detainees attempt to represent themselves in their immigration proceedings and are heavily
dependent on the quality of their detention facility’s law
library as they prepare their cases. The available evidence makes clear that this is a herculean task for many
detainees, some of whom are held in facilities that have
no law library at all, while others of whom are held in
facilities where the few legal holdings are so outdated
that they likely present misguided information to detainees preparing their cases. At still other facilities,
detainees can read legal material only if they make a
request for a specific legal document, regardless of the
fact that most detainees have no way of knowing the
titles of the statutes or court cases that might help them
win the right to remain in the U.S. ICE reviews reveal
that at other facilities, even if the appropriate legal
books are available, there are either no or not enough
typewriters or computers available for detainees to use
in filing their legal paperwork.
All told, ICE and independent agency reviews present an appalling picture of noncompliance with the
Access to Legal Material standard and indicate that
detained immigrants have regularly been denied their
constitutional right of access to the courts. So long as
our immigration system remains one in which govern-

A BROKEN SYSTEM

ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIAL
ment-appointed counsel is unavailable to noncitizens in
immigration proceedings, ICE must do much more to

35

ensure at least that all detention facilities meet the standard’s minimal requirements for law libraries.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Group Presentations on Legal Rights
INTRODUCTION
The detention standard titled “Group Presentations
on Legal Rights” (referred to in this chapter as “GP”) is
designed to enable detainees to obtain vital information
about their legal rights and remedies. The standard
requires facilities to allow authorized attorneys and
representatives, upon written request, to conduct presentations about immigration law and the rights of immigrant detainees.1 It encourages such presentations by
requiring facilities to provide detainees with at least two
days’ notice of presentations by posting announcements,2 permitting presenters to distribute short handouts to detainees,3 and requiring that facilities play legal
rights videos at regular intervals, at the request of organizations.4 Presenters must be permitted at least one
hour to make their presentations, which may include a
question-and-answer component.5 Crucially, facilities
also must allow presenters to provide individual legal
counseling to small groups of detainees following presentations, provided that these meetings do not pose
safety risks.6 The standard provides that facilities
should encourage group legal rights presentations by
cooperating with legal representatives and advocates.7
It requires only that facilities be receptive to requests
from presenters, not that they affirmatively organize
legal rights programs.8 The protections of this standard
have become increasingly important because as the
number of detained immigrants has increased, more and
more detention facilities have been located further from
free or low-cost legal services, making it more difficult
for detained immigrants to secure counsel. These group
presentations on legal rights may be the only time a
detainee is able to speak to someone who can help the
detainee assess if he or she has a valid claim to relief
from deportation.

DEFICIENCIES IN THE ICE FORM
AND PROCEDURES FOR
MONITORING COMPLIANCE
A fundamental deficiency in the form used by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 9 to monitor compliance with the GP standard precludes evaluating whether facilities that have not had a group legal
rights presentation in the past twelve months in fact
comply with the standard. This form contains a checklist for reviewers to use in evaluating a facility’s compliance with a series of elements of the standard. However, the instruction at the top of the form states:

 Check here if No Group Presentations were conducted within the past 12 Months. Mark Standard
as Acceptable overall and continue on with next
portion of worksheet.10

At 133 facilities, reviewers followed these instructions
literally, skipping review of the GP standard’s individual elements and marking the facility acceptable for the
standard.11 In numerous other instances, reviewers
checked this box and marked all the elements as either
acceptable12 or not applicable13 and rated the facility’s
compliance with the GP standard acceptable overall. In
none of these cases does the form provide meaningful
information about whether a facility has adhered to the
GP standard or is even aware of the standard’s requirements. By instructing reviewers not to proceed with
evaluating a facility’s compliance with the standard
upon finding that the facility hosted no presentations
during the preceding year, the checklist trivializes the
basic requirements of the standard. For example, this
instruction effectively directs reviewers to disregard the
form’s element inquiring whether “[t]he Field Office is
responsive to requests by attorneys and accredited representatives for group presentations.”14 As a result,
reviewers do not consider whether ICE or the facility
itself is responsible for the lack of legal rights presentations at the facility. Similarly, reviewers heeding this
instruction need not report whether facilities play ICEapproved legal rights videos at the request of organizations or whether they make their GP policies available
to detainees upon request.15

Deficiencies Found by ICE Monitors
At a small number of facilities, reviewers disregarded the monitoring form’s instruction and proceeded
to consider several elements of the standard on an individual basis, despite indicating that no presentations
had taken place during the preceding year and marking
the majority of the elements as not applicable.16 These
facility reviews are, however, the exception rather than
the rule.
ICE rated thirty-five facilities deficient for the GP
standard in 2004, with a shocking thirty-four of these
representing repeat deficiencies. Fifteen facilities received “at-risk” ratings the same year. With no explanation, “deficient” ratings fell dramatically the following year, with only three facilities receiving such ratings for the standard in 2005, two of which were repeat
deficiencies. However, because of the pervasive failure
of ICE monitors to evaluate compliance with the standard at facilities at which no presentation was con-

A BROKEN SYSTEM

GROUP PRESENTATIONS ON LEGAL RIGHTS
ducted in the prior 12 months, as well as the lack of any
consistent criteria for rating deficiencies, the smaller
number of “deficient” ratings in 2005 cannot be taken
as any indication of improvement in actual compliance
with the standard. The most telling evaluation of this
standard is that in 2004 and 2005 there were at least
133 facilities where no group legal rights presentation
had been conducted in at least a 12-month period.

Failure to Investigate Deficiencies
Found by NGOs

37

VIOLATIONS OF THE GP STANDARD
Despite the fact that the above-described deficiencies in the monitoring form precluded effective review
of compliance with the standard at a majority of facilities, violations and remarks that were sporadically reported by ICE reviewers, as well as reports by independent agencies, identify several areas in which facilities have failed to comply with the standard. These
failings, while likely underreported, are discussed in
detail below.

Another problem with ICE monitoring of the stanAvailability of Group Legal Presentations
dard is the agency’s failure to investigate deficiencies
identified in monitoring conducted by nongovernmental
Several facilities hindered, rather than encouraged,
organizations (NGOs). For example, one year before
legal rights presentations. At three facilities, staff were
the August 2004 ICE review of the Bergen County Jail,
not responsive to requests from legal representatives to
the American Bar Association (ABA) had inspected the
make group legal presentations,21 and at one of these
same facility and found that although staff claimed that
facilities group presentations reportedly were not perthe facility hosted group presentations once each
mitted.22 At another facility, group presentations were
month, they were unable to produce documentation
not permitted, although the facility designated particurelated to the prior month’s presentation.17 A facility
lar areas, such as the kitchenette, in which visiting orofficer also stated that he was unfamiliar with the ICEganizations could and did meet with individual detainapproved know-your-rights video produced by the Florees. Problematically, the facility required detainees to
ence Project.18 Moreover, in contrast to the facility’s
submit written requests to attend these meetings, proassertion that presentations were conducted regularly,
hibited detainees in disciplinary segregation from parone detainee told the ABA that he had not seen a single
ticipating in the sessions, and deducted time spent at
group rights presentation during the six weeks he had
such meetings from the recreation time allotted to debeen at the facility, and another detainee stated that he
tainees.23 Staff at another facility explained that no
19
had never seen such a presentation. Yet in August
group presentations had taken place or, to their knowl2004, ICE reviewed the jail and rated the facility acedge, been requested but expressed that such presentaceptable for the GP standard, noting “yes” for the
tions do not make sense in light of the relatively small
monitoring form’s first two elements (that the facility is
number of ICE detainees and the relatively short time
responsive to requests for group presentations and notieach detainee spends at the facility.24 In the evaluation
fies attorneys when presentations are authorized), and
of still another facility, a reviewer remarked that the
marking all eleven of the remaining
elements as “not applicable” (including
whether posters announcing the
presentations to detainees are put up at
KEY FINDINGS
least 48 hours in advance of
presentations, sign-up sheets are made
 ICE’s monitoring form trivializes the basic elements of
available and accessible, detainees in
the standard by instructing reviewers not to proceed with
segregation are permitted to attend,
evaluating a facility’s compliance with it if they find that the
facility hosted no legal rights presentations during the
interpreters are admitted, presenters are
preceding year.
afforded a minimum of one hour for the
presentation and to conduct a question ICE rated 35 facilities deficient for the standard in 2004.
and-answer session, small group
o 34 of these were repeat deficiencies.
meetings are permitted, and presenters
20
o 15 facilities received “at-risk” ratings.
are permitted to distribute materials).
This example actually illustrates two
 In 2004 and 2005, there were at least 133 facilities where no
defects with ICE monitoring: ICE’s
group legal rights presentation had been conducted in at
failure to use its monitoring visits to
least a 12-month period.
follow up on the findings of prior
 ICE failed to investigate deficiencies identified by NGOs
inspections by NGOs, and ICE monithat monitored the ICE detention facilities.
tors’ misunderstanding of the elements
of the checklist.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

38

GROUP PRESENTATIONS ON LEGAL RIGHTS

facility was “unaware of present [Immigration and
Naturalization Service] policy and procedure regarding
Group presentations.”25

was complying with this element, even though the legal
rights video was not being shown due to construction.35

Process for Rejecting the Material of Presenters
Posting of Announcements and Sign-up
Sheets for Presentations
The standard requires that facilities place posters
and sign-up sheets for presentations in common areas at
least 48 hours in advance of the presentation.26 Sixteen
facilities failed to satisfy this element.27 These deficiencies suggest that even in facilities where presentations are offered, they may in actual practice be rendered inaccessible because detainees are not notified of
or able to sign up for them.

Documenting Denials of Group Legal
Presentation Requests
Pursuant to the GP standard, facilities must make
group legal presentations accessible to all detainees,
except to those individuals who pose security concerns.28 The ICE checklist further requires that officers
in charge document the reasons underlying any decisions to deny detainees access to these presentations.29
These provisions are intended to prevent facilities from
arbitrarily depriving detainees of access to crucial legal
information. Three facilities failed to comply with this
element of the GP standard.30

Providing for Attendance by All Detainees
Acknowledging space constraints and security concerns that may arise at facilities, the standard allows
officers-in-charge to cap the number of detainees permitted to attend any one group presentation, provided
that they permit presenters to conduct additional presentations to accommodate any remaining detainees interested in attending group presentations.31 Three
facilities violated this element of the standard.32

Airing of ICE-approved Videotapes
on Legal Rights
The standard requires that, if requested by organizations, facilities must play ICE-approved legal rights
videos for detainees at regular intervals.33 Videos play
an important role in transmitting vital legal rights information to large numbers of detainees, many of
whom are housed in facilities located a significant distance from urban areas. ICE reviews and ABA reports
reveal that at least seven facilities had no legal rights
videos, either because ICE failed to provide them or
because the videos were not in working order.34 At
another facility, the reviewer indicated that the facility

The standard provides that ICE must approve all
written materials and videotapes before they are presented to detainees.36 ICE may reject or request modifications to these materials based on concerns that the
material poses a threat to facility security and order or
contains inaccurate statements of law or policy.37
These provisions ensure that facilities do not have unbridled discretion to censor legal rights presentations.
ICE reviews reveal that seven facilities failed to follow
ICE policy and procedures regarding the rejection or
requested modification of a presenter’s materials or
program.38

Availability of Facility Presentation Policy
The standard requires facilities to make copies of
their GP policies, including all relevant attachments,
available to detainees who request them.39 Five facilities violated this element of the GP standard.40 One
ICE reviewer mistakenly conflated this element of the
standard with the requirement that facilities comply
with the “Access to Legal Material” standard, which
requires facilities to provide detainees with regular access to a law library and make photocopiers, pens, paper, and computers or typewriters available for detainees to use in preparing legal documents.41 While both
the GP and “Access to Legal Material” standards play a
vital role in enabling detainees to access legal information and materials that are essential to the pursuit of
their cases, these standards are not coextensive. Compliance with both standards must be evaluated thoroughly and independently.

Admission of Presenters and Interpreters
Recognizing that language barriers may limit the
reach of legal rights presentations, the GP standard requires that facilities permit interpreters to accompany
legal rights presenters.42 Reports from the ABA highlight the necessity of interpretation in making legal
rights presentations meaningful and accessible to diverse detainee populations. In its December 2003 report about the Yuba County Jail, the ABA reports that
language barriers were so great that a group of 50 detainees had to be broken down into several small
groups.43 In its May 2002 report on the facility, the
ABA notes that an advocate from the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project had explained, “I know there are
people who have no knowledge of Spanish or English
that completely fall through the cracks in our current
system.”44 Nevertheless, ICE reviews reveal that one

A BROKEN SYSTEM

GROUP PRESENTATIONS ON LEGAL RIGHTS
facility failed to admit interpreters when necessary to
assist presenters.45 The failure of even one facility to
permit interpretation of legal rights presentations may
have ramifications for hundreds of detainees, and the
failure of this particular facility is striking as it is one of
only seven ICE-owned-and-operated facilities, where
knowledge of, if not compliance with, the detention
standards would be presumed to be higher.

CONCLUSION
ICE reviews reveal that a striking number of facilities housing ICE detainees (133 facilities) hosted no
legal rights presentations in the twelve months preceding their annual reviews. The simple fact is that the
majority of ICE detainees have no access to free legal
rights presentations while they are in detention. The
extent to which this reality is the result of failure to
follow the GP standard is difficult to ascertain in light
of deficiencies in the monitoring instrument used to

39

evaluate compliance with the standard. It is thus possible that both the scarcity of presenter resources and
improper conduct by facilities contributed to the striking lack of availability of these important programs.
Moreover, ICE reviews indicate that even when legal
rights presentations are offered, their accessibility to
detainees may be limited by the failure of facilities to
provide adequate notice to detainees, to permit a sufficient number of presentations to accommodate all interested detainees, and to admit interpreters to assist in
overcoming language barriers. Equally troubling is the
failure of some facilities to permit individual counseling by presenters or to present showings of ICE-approved legal rights videos. These violations of the
standard have grave consequences for detainees, many
of whom rely exclusively on the information provided
by legal rights organizations to navigate the immigration system and fight their legal cases. Unfortunately,
due to the deficiencies in ICE monitoring, the reported
violations likely represent only a small percentage of
the actual violations.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Correspondence and Other Mail
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the standard titled “Correspondence
and Other Mail” (referred to in this chapter as COM) is
to ensure that detainees may send and receive correspondence in a timely manner, subject to limitations
based on facility security and orderly operation.1 Access to correspondence is crucial for detainees, as mail
is a primary means of communication with family and
loved ones, attorneys and advocates who assist detainees with their immigration cases, and courts to which
they must make timely legal filings. Facilities’ failure
to respect detainees’ correspondence rights can cause
detainees to lose their cases or their access to counsel.
The standard provides for timely collection and
distribution of mail, with incoming correspondence to
be distributed to detainees within 24 hours of the time it
is received by the facility.2 It also provides that each
facility must notify detainees of its policies on sending
and receiving correspondence, timelines for processing
mail, how to obtain writing implements, and procedures
for obtaining postage.3
The standard also sets limits on the inspection of
incoming correspondence. With respect to special correspondence, which refers to detainee written communications with attorneys, judges, courts, consulates,
elected officials and the media, the standard allows inspection only for physical contraband. Facility personnel are not allowed to read or copy special correspondence.4 All other incoming correspondence, which is
termed general correspondence, must be opened and
inspected in the presence of the detainee and read only
to the extent necessary to maintain security, as authorized by the officer-in-charge (OIC).5
With respect to outgoing correspondence, the standard allows facility personnel to inspect and/or read
general correspondence only if it is addressed to another detainee or if there is reason to believe that it
might present a threat or danger.6 In contrast, outgoing
special correspondence may not be opened, inspected,
or read.7 In addition, the standard sets forth procedures
for notifying detainees when facility staff confiscate or
withhold incoming or outgoing mail, in whole or in
part.8 It also requires staff to record in writing when
they find and remove contraband items from a detainee’s mail.9
The standard provides that indigent detainees may
send at least five pieces of special correspondence and
three pieces of general correspondence per week.10 It
further requires facilities to have a system for detainees

to purchase stamps or to allow detainees to mail at government expense all special correspondence and at least
five items of general correspondence per week.11 In
addition, it requires facilities to provide writing paper,
writing implements, and envelopes at no cost to detainees.12 Finally, facilities must allow detainees in administrative or disciplinary segregation the same mail
privileges as other detainees.13

VIOLATIONS OF THE COM STANDARD
Inspection of Correspondence and Other Mail
Dozens of facilities violated the standard’s requirement that facility personnel not inspect or read
incoming general correspondence outside of the detainee’s presence without authorization from the OIC.14
Some of the facilities that violated this provision provided the vague excuse that they did so for “security
reasons.”15 However, their failure to be more specific
leaves open the possibility that the actual reasons were
frivolous or baseless. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) review forms and practices
employed in evaluating facilities’ compliance with this
element of the standard added confusion regarding
whether and how it had been violated.16 For example,
some reviewers noted in comments that incoming general correspondence was “scanned” outside detainees’
presence, without explaining how scanning differed
from other types of inspection and why they had
scanned the correspondence rather than inspecting it.17
Many facilities also inspected or searched outgoing
mail, in violation of the standard’s requirements.18
Violations of these inspection provisions can easily
undermine detainees’ right of access to counsel. Many
detainees use correspondence as the primary means of
communicating with attorneys and advocates.19 Facilities’ failure to respect the confidentiality of special correspondence may intimidate detainees from communicating candidly and thoroughly with their attorneys,
which communication is essential to preparing their
cases.
The American Bar Association (ABA) also found
that facilities violated the rules on inspecting and reading incoming and outgoing correspondence.20 In one
facility, the ABA found that a facility retaliated against
a detainee who alleged that his outgoing mail had been
improperly read. The retaliation consisted of refusing
to send out his mail and, later, of reading all his mail.21

A BROKEN SYSTEM

CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER MAIL

41

removed items from detainee mail.34

Notification to Detainees of
Correspondence Policies
The standard requires facilities to notify detainees
of correspondence policies through detainee handbooks
and by posting rules in conspicuous locations within
housing areas.22 Several facilities violated at least one
of these provisions.23 The ABA also found that some
facilities failed to notify detainees about how to properly label special correspondence or how to send or
receive packages, and about other mail procedures.24
The standard also requires facilities to make “all
reasonable efforts” to notify detainees of correspondence policies in languages other than English that are
spoken by any significant portion of the facility’s
population.25 ICE reviews found that over twenty facilities violated this provision.26 Although some facilities claimed to use oral translation services to notify
detainees of mail and other policies, ICE reviews revealed that translators were not always available. 27
Notably, only a single detention center reported having
handbooks available in English, Spanish, Chinese, and
Arabic.28
ABA reports revealed that some facility handbooks
provided inadequate notice to detainees regarding their
correspondence rights. For example, one handbook did
not state that special correspondence may be opened
only in the detainee’s presence and may be inspected
for contraband, but not read, while another did not inform detainees about how to label special correspondence.29 Another Service Processing Center’s handbook lacked vital information on correspondence policy, including protections for
special correspondence, procedures to send or

receive packages, instructions on obtaining
writing implements, and rules regarding free
postage for indigent detainees.30

Handling of Specific Items: Cash
The standard requires facilities to handle particular
contraband items in a detainee’s mail, such as cash,
identity documents, or contraband, in a specific manner.
Although facilities may prohibit detainees from receiving cash through the mail, if cash does arrive through
the mail, facilities must safeguard it, credit it to the detainee’s account, and provide the detainee with a receipt.35 Several facilities violated this requirement by
refusing to process cash received through the mail.36
As a result, many detainees may have been unable to
receive cash from family members who lived a great
distance away, preventing these detainees from buying
supplies at the facility, such as phone cards or extra
food.

Handling of Specific Items: Records
and Identity Documents
The standard requires facilities to place any identity document sent to the detainee via mail in the detainee’s A-file, and to make a certified copy available to
the detainee upon request.37 Many facilities did not
keep detainee identity documents at the facility; instead,
ICE kept these documents off-site, presumably at ICE

KEY FINDINGS
Dozens of facilities violated the standard’s requirement
that facility personnel not inspect or read incoming
general correspondence outside of the detainee’s
presence without authorization from the officer-in-charge.

 Many facilities also inspected or searched outgoing
mail, in violation of the standard’s requirements.

Notice for Rejected or Censored Mail
The standard requires that each facility provide written notice, with an explanation, to both
the sender and the addressee when the facility
rejects incoming or outgoing mail — for example, because of contraband items or sexually
explicit material.31 Over twenty facilities violated this requirement.32 As a result, detainees
who received no explanation for the rejection of
particular items of mail could not take steps to
correct any problems.
The standard also requires facility personnel
to record in writing when items are removed
from a detainee’s mail.33 This record must specify the reasons for removing the items. A number of facilities violated this requirement by
failing to make any written record when they

 Many facilities did not keep detainee identity
documents at the facility, or provide copies of such
documents to detainees on request.
o At one Florida facility, personnel destroyed
detainees’ documents rather than securing them.
 Over 20 facilities imposed unreasonable limitations on
the number of mail items detainees could send for
free, and several violated the requirements regarding
access to writing implements.
o Typically, detainees might be limited to mailing only
two items for free per week.
o Facilities charged some detainees but not others
for writing implements, or imposed cumbersome
procedures for obtaining them.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

42

CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER MAIL

offices.38 As a result, detainees likely had difficulty
obtaining copies of identity documents in a timely
fashion, if at all. Indeed, many facilities admittedly did
not provide copies of identity documents to detainees
upon request.39
In one Florida facility, personnel destroyed detainees’ identity documents, including passports and birth
certificates, rather than securing them.40 This facility,
like most facilities around the country in which individuals are detained under an “Intergovernmental Service Agreement” (IGSAs), had no ICE staff assigned to
it.

Inspection of Special Correspondence
The standard makes clear that facility staff may
neither read nor copy incoming special correspondence.41 Likewise, facility staff may not read, copy, or
even inspect outgoing special correspondence.42 A
violation of these requirements may compromise the
confidentiality of attorney-client and court communications and inhibit the detainee from communicating
valuable case-related information.
Several facilities violated these requirements. In
one Florida facility, a detainee reported to the ABA that
facility staff had read his outgoing special correspondence that had been clearly marked as such and addressed to his attorney. 43 Thereafter, a jail guard approached him with the letters in hand and asked, “What
the hell is this? How can you write this about us?” The
detainee stated that, after reading his mail, facility personnel retaliated against him for his complaints by
placing him in solitary confinement, where he was
mistreated.44
In another facility, a detainee reported to the ABA
that facility staff frequently read incoming special correspondence outside the presence of the detainee to
whom it was addressed.45 At another facility, staff read
incoming mail, including special correspondence, if
they suspected it to be from another detainee. 46 At yet
another facility, detainees reported that facility staff
opened special correspondence outside their presence
and that staff delayed the distribution of such correspondence, often causing detainees to miss court deadlines.47
Detainees in a Massachusetts facility reported to
the ABA numerous serious problems. For example,
special correspondence such as court documents often
arrived late; mail sometimes took a week to reach detainees after the facility received it; and one detainee’s
incoming special correspondence had been opened and
delivered with a note saying, “Sorry opened by mistake.”48
In a Dallas, Texas, facility a detainee complained
to the ABA that, although the facility allowed indigent
detainees to send special correspondence without

charging for postage, the facility insisted on reading all
such mail before sending it to ensure that it was indeed
special correspondence.49
Finally, the standard requires facilities to treat detainee correspondence to a politician or the media as
special correspondence. A few facilities violated this
requirement.50

Access to Mail and Writing Implements
The standard requires facilities to provide writing
paper, writing implements, and envelopes at no cost to
all detainees.51 It also requires facilities to provide indigent detainees a postage allowance at government expense.52 Indigent detainees must be allowed to send a
reasonable amount of mail each week, including at least
five pieces of special correspondence and three pieces
of general correspondence.53 In addition, facilities may
not limit the amount of correspondence that detainees
may send at their own expense, except for purposes of
facility safety.54
ICE reviews found that over twenty facilities violated these requirements by imposing unreasonable
limitations on the number of mail items that detainees
could send for free, typically by limiting the number to
two free items per week.55 A number of facilities violated the requirements regarding access to writing implements, by charging some or all detainees for such
implements, or by imposing cumbersome procedures to
obtain such implements.56
The ABA found similar violations. In a Colorado
facility, one detainee complained that although the facility generally provided stamps and envelopes and
paper for legal correspondence, it would restrict such
supplies for any detainees who allegedly had “abused
this privilege.”57 Other detainees at the same facility
complained that the facility did not provide them with
stamps and stationery for correspondence to judges and
lawyers.58 At a Connecticut facility, the ABA found
that indigent detainees were allowed only two free
pieces of general correspondence per week and only
five pieces of special correspondence per month.59 At a
New Jersey facility, the ABA found that indigent detainees were limited to three pieces of mail per month at
government expense.60 At an Illinois facility, the ABA
found that all detainees were charged for each piece of
mail, including special correspondence.61
Finally, standards for determining a detainee’s indigent status varied from one facility to another, resulting in some facilities imposing extremely restrictive
rules that unfairly denied detainees access to postage.
For example, one facility defined a detainee as indigent
only if he had “less than 50 cents in his account for at
least 30 days.”62 Another facility termed detainees
indigent only if they had $2.50 in their accounts.63 Yet
another facility termed detainees as indigent only if

A BROKEN SYSTEM

CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER MAIL
they had $3 or less in their accounts for at least thirty
days.64
The ABA and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) found similar violations
of access to mail and writing implements, especially
with regard to indigent detainees. At a Wisconsin facility, for example, facility personnel stated that the
facility provided envelopes and stamps to detainees on
a reasonable basis. Detainees reported to the ABA,
however, that indigent detainees were forced to purchase stamps. One detainee reported that “she could
not get envelopes or stamps if she had no money” in her
account.65 At an ICE-run facility in California, the
ABA found that although facility personnel claimed to
provide free envelopes and stamps for legal correspondence to all detainees, without limit to the amount of
materials provided, some detainees reported that they
were limited to one envelope per day.66 Similarly, the
UNHCR found at a Florida facility that indigent detainees lacked adequate access to mail services.67

Timely Delivery and Processing
The standard requires facilities to distribute incoming correspondence to detainees within 24 hours of
the time the facility receives it, and to deliver outgoing
correspondence to the postal service no later than the
day after the facility staff receives it.68 A few facilities
failed to distribute mail in a timely fashion because, for
example, staff did not distribute mail on weekends or
holidays.69 Other facilities did not record priority, overnight, and certified mail delivered by the U.S. Postal
Service and deliveries from alternative delivery services, as required. 70 The ABA recorded one detainee’s
complaints regarding timely receipt of mail.71

Problems with ICE Reviews of
the COM Standard
ICE facility reviews give only a cursory overview
of detention standard violations because of the checkbox forms used. In contrast, ABA reports provide a
more in-depth view of violations of mail privacy, mis-

43

handling of mail and correspondence, limited access to
mail implements, and instances of retaliation against
detainees for having complained about a facility in correspondence. One key deficiency in ICE reviews is the
lack of information provided directly by detainees. By
contrast, ABA reports include detainee interviews,
which add dimension and help explain the real-life consequences of violations of the standard.
ICE reviews are not always clear or thorough. For
example, ICE reviewers marked checkboxes for certain
elements as “not applicable” without any explanation or
comment, making it impossible to determine whether a
violation had occurred.72 In addition, reviewers often
marked the facility’s rating for the standard as “acceptable” despite three or more violations.73

CONCLUSION
Facilities most commonly violated aspects of the
standard involving inspection procedures for incoming
mail, confiscation of items from detainee mail, and the
procedures to notify detainees of mail policies. As a
result, facility personnel may have read confidential
special correspondence, destroyed identity documents,
caused detainees to miss court deadlines, and intimidated detainees from freely sending and receiving mail.
In addition, by reading mail, facility personnel may
have accessed information that caused them to retaliate
against or mistreat detainees.
Since ICE holds thousands of detainees at a great
distance from family and available legal service providers, access to correspondence is vital. For many detainees it is the primary means of communication. Violations of the correspondence standard impede confidential attorney-client communications, intimidate detainees from communicating openly with courts and advocates about their cases, and prevent indigent detainees
from having adequate access to correspondence. ICE
must do much more to ensure consistent compliance
with the COM standard.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Administrative and Disciplinary Segregation
Special Management Units
spondence be more limited than it is to those in the
general detainee population.10

INTRODUCTION
When the detention facility reviews upon which
this report is based were conducted, two detention standards regulated the isolation of certain detainees from
the general detainee population in any particular facility: the “Special Management Unit (Administrative
Segregation)” standard and the “Special Management
Unit (Disciplinary Segregation)” standard.1 The two
types of segregation, administrative and disciplinary,
serve different purposes. Administrative segregation is
supposed to be nonpunitive isolation in which conditions of confinement are restricted for the limited purposes of ensuring the safety of the isolated detainee or
other detainees, or for facility security and order.2 Detainees placed in administrative segregation include,
among others, victims of assault by other detainees;
informants; witnesses; and those who seek protection,
or who appear to be in danger of bodily harm, or who
require separation for medical reasons.3 Disciplinary
segregation, on the other hand, is used to temporarily
isolate detainees for punitive purposes when their behavior does not comply with facility rules.4
Although administrative and disciplinary segregation are designed to isolate different populations, the
core requirements of the standards are the same. Both
standards require (1) that detainee placement in segregation be reviewed regularly;5 (2) that detainees be allowed to maintain their personal hygiene; (3) that medical personnel visit segregated detainees regularly; (4)
that the segregation quarters be well-maintained and
sanitary; and (5) that occupancy limits for the segregation quarters be strictly enforced.6 Because administrative segregation is supposed to be nonpunitive, the
standard generally requires that detainees in administrative segregation have the same privileges as those in
the general population, including regular access to legal
materials, telephones, visitation, recreation, and correspondence.7 The administrative segregation standard
also requires that a supervisory officer approve isolation and make a written order before a detainee is isolated8 and that certain basic living standards be maintained. By contrast, the disciplinary segregation standard requires (1) that a hearing be held and the detainee
be found to have violated a particular facility rule or
regulation before he or she may be segregated, (2) that
placement in disciplinary segregation be limited to 60
days for a single incident,9 and (3) that access to legal
materials, telephones, visitation, recreation, and corre-

SEGREGATION STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
REPORTED BY ICE
Lack of Separate Segregation Units
At the most basic level, the segregation standards
require facilities to establish a Special Management
Unit (SMU) that is physically isolated from the general
detainee population and to separate administrative and
disciplinary segregation within the SMU.11 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reviews12
found that 13 facilities either did not have a separate
SMU or they used other units, such as a maximum security unit, as the SMU.13 Nevertheless, ICE reviewers
rated half of these facilities “acceptable” with respect to
compliance with the standards.14 At least 3 facilities
that did not have an SMU transferred detainees in need
of segregation to other facilities, causing unnecessary
disruption in their detention.15 Two additional facilities
failed to separate administrative and disciplinary segregation within their SMUs.16

Timely Review of Placement and
Right to Appeal
Because segregation can constitute a severe punishment with serious ramifications for the segregated
detainee’s mental state, the standards provide specific
guidelines for how long the detainee may be kept in
segregation and establish set periods of time after which
facility officials must review whether the segregated
detainee should be kept in or removed from segregation. The administrative segregation standard requires
that a supervisory officer approve a detainee’s placement in segregation and review the placement after several intervals.17 A written record of the decision and
justification to keep the detainee segregated must be
made after each review.18 At twenty-one facilities it
reviewed, ICE found that the required reviews were not
conducted at the required intervals. Two of these facilities had multiyear violations.19 The United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) found a
similar violation at one additional facility.20
The administrative segregation standard also provides detainees the right to appeal a review decision to
a higher authority within the facility.21 According to

A BROKEN SYSTEM

ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION

45

ICE reviews, this right to appeal was curtailed at six
provide detainees with the written order placing them in
facilities.22
segregation.38 In addition, twenty-two facilities failed
The disciplinary segregation standard limits segreto provide a copy of the decision and justification for
gation to 60 days for a single incident.23 ICE reviews
each review to the detainees; one facility failed to do
revealed that sixteen facilities violated this requirement,
this for two consecutive years.39 If they are not propsubjecting detainees to excessive lengths of punisherly informed of the specific reasons why facility manment.24 Seven of these facilities allowed a 90-day
agement decided to place—and keep—them in segregation, detainees have no real means of challenging
maximum,25 and three placed detainees in segregation
their continued segregation.
for as many as 180 days for a single incident.26 One
facility held detainees in disciplinary segregation for
“up to 365 days” per incident.27
Basic Living Conditions
The standard requires that whenever a detainee is
Both segregation standards attempt to ensure that
held in administrative or disciplinary segregation for
segregated detainees live in sanitary and habitable envimore than 30 days, facilities must notify the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) assistant district director of
detention and removal.28 ICE reKEY FINDINGS
ported sixteen violations of this
29
provision. In an additional
 13 facilities either did not have a separate Special Management
eleven facilities, it was unclear
Unit, as required, or they used other units, such as a maximum
whether ICE was appropriately
security unit, as the SMU, ICE found.
notified.30 When a detainee has
o Nevertheless, ICE reviewers rated half of these facilities
been in administrative segregation
“acceptable” with respect to compliance with the standard.
for more than 30 days and objects
 21 facilities failed to conduct required reviews, at the required
to this placement, the standard
intervals, of the decision to keep a detainee segregated.
requires the officer in charge
o 2 of these facilities had multiyear violations.
(OIC) to review the detainee’s
case.31 This requirement was vio 16 facilities segregated detainees for more than 60 days for a
lated in eleven facilities.32 Three
single incident, in violation of the disciplinary segregation standard.
more facilities inappropriately reo 7 facilities allowed 90 days of segregation for a single
quired detainees to file a grievance
incident.
under the grievance procedure
o 3 facilities allowed 180 days of segregation for a single
rather than following the stanincident.
dard’s requirement that the OIC
o 1 facility allowed “up to 365 days” of segregation for a single
33
conduct a direct review. At two
incident.
facilities where the OIC did review
the cases of detainees who ob 16 facilities did not provide detainees with the written order
authorizing their segregation.
jected after 30 days in the SMU,
the OIC did not provide written
o 22 facilities failed to provide detainees a copy of the
decision and justification for each review of detainees’
justification for prolonging segresegregation.
gation,34 as was required.35
o 1 facility failed to do this for two consecutive years.

Detainee Knowledge of
Reason for Placement

 32 facilities failed to provide each segregated detainee a visit by
a health care professional three times per week, as required.

Both standards require that a
detainee receive a copy of the
written order approving the detainee’s placement in segregation
within 24 hours of such placement.36 Facilities are also required
to provide the detainee with a copy
of the decision and justification for
each review of the detainee’s
placement.37 According to ICE
reviews, sixteen facilities did not

 36 facilities failed to provide detainees in disciplinary
segregation a visit by a health care professional every workday,
as required.
 Numerous facilities violated the requirement that the number of
segregated detainees in each cell or room “should not exceed
the capacity for which it was designed.”
o 14 facilities violated this requirement with respect to
administratively segregated detainees.
o 10 facilities violated it with respect to detainees segregated for
disciplinary reasons.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

46

ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION

ronments and have regular access to health care, laundry exchange, and barbering services. The administrative segregation standard generally requires that detainees in segregation be treated the same as detainees in
the general population. The disciplinary segregation
standard allows more restrictions on the services segregated detainees can access but generally prohibits living
conditions from being modified for disciplinary purposes.40
The ICE reviews revealed a shockingly widespread
level of noncompliance with the requirements that
health care professionals visit segregated detainees
regularly. The administrative segregation standard requires that a health care professional visit every segregated detainee at least three times a week.41 Thirty-two
facilities violated this requirement.42 Detainees in
disciplinary segregation must be visited by a health care
professional every workday.43 Thirty-six facilities violated this critical requirement.44 When segregated
detainees are denied regular access to health care professionals, their health is put at serious risk. Immigration detention facilities have come under increasing
scrutiny for their failure to treat sick detainees appropriately.45 In some cases, negligence has led to detainees’ deaths.
According to the segregation standards, facilities
must permit segregated detainees to maintain a normal
level of personal hygiene, and they must provide them
with regular access to barbering services.46 ICE reviews found that fifteen facilities violated this requirement.47 Facilities are also required to provide segregated detainees with the same opportunity for laundry
and exchange of clothing, bedding, and linen as those in
the general detainee population.48 According to ICE
reviews, eight facilities violated this requirement.49
Both standards require that the number of segregated detainees in each cell or room “should not exceed
the capacity for which it was designed.”50 ICE reviews
revealed that fourteen facilities violated this element of
the standard with respect to administratively segregated
detainees.51 In addition, ten facilities violated it with
respect to detainees segregated for disciplinary reasons.52 Further, five facilities did not have beds for
every segregated detainee, and one violated this element of the standard for two consecutive years.53
Violations of physical space requirements have a
greater impact on detainees in segregation, since they
have extremely limited access to common areas and
must remain in overcrowded cells for extended periods.
The segregation standards also require that “quarters used for segregation shall be well ventilated, adequately lit, appropriately heated and maintained in a
sanitary condition.”54 According to ICE reviews, thirteen facilities had segregation areas that did not meet
this minimal requirement; and some facilities were
alarmingly unsanitary.55 For example, the 2004 ICE

review of the Smith County Jail revealed that segregation areas were poorly lit, that the cells were so cold
that detainees used paper plates to block the vents, and
that the segregation area had “[t]errible sanitation” including bags of trash in cells and enormous amounts of
mildew in showers.56
The segregation standards also require that detainees in administrative segregation receive three nutritionally adequate meals per day from the menu served
to the general population.57 Detainees in disciplinary
segregation “shall receive their meals according to the
schedule used by the general population” and “ordinarily from the menu served to the general population.”58
And both the administrative and disciplinary segregation standards ban facilities from using food as punishment.59 ICE reviews revealed that six facilities did not
meet the standard with regard to meals and nutrition. 60

Adequacy of Services and Privileges
Facilities are required to allow detainees in administrative segregation to have all the same privileges as
general population detainees, including access to the
law library,61 telephones,62 visitation,63 and recreation.64
ICE reviews revealed that more than twenty-two facilities violated these basic requirements.65 A correctional
officer interviewed at one facility was “forthright but
erroneous in stating that those placed in segregation
lose all privileges, including visitation and telephone
use, thus precluding their ability to contact even their
attorneys.”66
The disciplinary segregation standard contemplates
that detainees in disciplinary segregation will have
fewer privileges than those housed in administrative
segregation, including “more stringent personal property control, restricted reading material, and limitations
imposed on television viewing, commissary/vending
machine privileges, etc.”67 However, facilities are not
permitted to modify standard living conditions for disciplinary purposes.68 ICE reviews revealed that many
facilities limited detainees in disciplinary segregation in
impermissible ways.
Facilities are generally required to provide visitation and recreation for detainees in administrative and
disciplinary segregation as required under the “Visitation” and “Recreation” standards,69 but ICE reviews
found that thirty-two facilities violated this requirement.70 According to the recreation standard, facilities
must provide detainees housed in administrative segregation at least one hour of recreation time daily, five
times a week.71 Twelve facilities violated this requirement, and segregated detainees at one facility lost all
recreation privileges.72
ICE reviews revealed that detainees in both forms
of segregation often were inappropriately denied access
to a law library. Thirteen facilities did not meet the law

A BROKEN SYSTEM

ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION
library access component of the administrative segregation standard.73 Several more facilities technically
did provide access to a law library, but the libraries
were inadequately equipped, so the access was not
meaningful.74 Segregated detainees’ access to a law
library was unclear at two additional facilities.75 The
ICE reviews also showed that law library access was
also inappropriately restricted for detainees in disciplinary segregation. Alarmingly, seven facilities provided
no law library access for detainees in disciplinary segregation.76 At least five additional facilities had libraries that were technically available but inadequate.77
ICE reports revealed that at eight facilities
detainees in administrative segregation were not
provided the same telephone access as the general
population, in violation of the standard.78 While access
to telephones may be restricted for detainees segregated
for disciplinary reasons, they must be able to make
legal calls, calls to consular/embassy officials, and calls
in family emergencies.79 According to ICE reports,
eighteen facilities failed to comply with this
requirement.80

Sufficiency of Written Policies
and Segregation Documentation
Both segregation standards require
facilities to develop and follow written
policies consistent with the standards.81
ICE reviews found that six facilities did
not have a written disciplinary segregation policy in place.82 In addition,
four facilities did not have adequate
written policies for administrative segregation.83 Only one facility subsequently adopted such policies after an
ICE review noted the deficiency.84
Both standards require facilities to
maintain a permanent log to record all
activities, including meals, recreation,
visitation, showers, and so on.85
Thirty-two facilities failed to keep adequate documentation of these activities.86 Without adequate documentation, it is impossible to verify that segregated detainees receive adequate
visitation and other privileges.87
The administrative segregation
standard further requires that a new
record be created for each week the
detainee is in administrative segregation.88 Thirty-nine facilities failed to
follow this requirement,89 making it
difficult to determine if detainees were
placed in administrative segregation for
inappropriate lengths of time.

47

VIOLATIONS REPORTED BY ABA AND
UNHCR, BUT NOT REPORTED BY ICE
In addition to the reviews conducted by ICE, the
American Bar Association (ABA) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) conducted independent reviews of various detention facilities throughout the United States. This section presents
a nonexhaustive list of the segregation standards violations that the ABA or UNHCR found but that ICE either did not discover or did not consider severe enough
to be reported.
For example, the ABA delegation to the Berks
County Prison in 2004 reported that, for segregated
detainees, visits were extremely limited. One detainee
told the delegation that while he was segregated “he
was limited to one half-hour visit per week, social or
legal, and thus chose not to meet with his attorney during that time,” according to the delegation’s report.90
An ICE review conducted two months later, however,
found that the visitation standard was met for all segre-

KEY FINDINGS

(Continued)

 13 facilities violated the requirement that “quarters used
for segregation shall be well ventilated, adequately lit,
appropriately heated and maintained in a sanitary
condition.”
 22 facilities failed to allow detainees in administrative
segregation to have all the same privileges as general
population detainees.
 32 facilities failed to provide adequate visitation and
recreation for detainees in administrative and disciplinary
segregation.
 Numerous facilities failed to provide adequate access to a
law library for detainees in segregation.
o 13 facilities did not comply with the law library access
element of the administrative segregation standard.
o The law libraries of several facilities were inadequately
equipped.
o 2 facilities’ policy or practice with respect to this element
was unclear.
o 7 facilities provided no law library access for detainees in
disciplinary segregation.
 32 facilities failed to keep adequate documentation of all
detainee activities, including meals, recreation, visitation,
showers, etc., as required by the standards, making it difficult to
determine if these requirements were met.
 39 facilities failed to create a new record for each week that
a detainee was in administrative segregation, making it
difficult to determine if detainees were segregated for
inappropriate lengths of time.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

48

ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION

gated detainees.91
The 2002 ABA report on the San Pedro Service
Processing Center states the following with respect to
reviews of segregation placements: “According to INS
staff, segregation cases are usually reviewed after five,
fifteen, and thirty days, but [they] also noted that ‘it
depends’—an apparent reference to exercise of discretion on a case-by-case basis. There did not appear to be
a fixed time period or policy.”92 The ICE review conducted two months later also indicated that review of
administratively segregated detainees within 72 hours
by an OIC was “[i]nconsistent.”93 Nevertheless, the
ICE reviewer marked the facility as being compliant
with the standard’s requirement that placements be reviewed every week for the first month and every 30
days thereafter.94 The ICE review also found that the
facility met the standard for reviewing disciplinary segregation cases “at set intervals.”95
Regarding access to legal materials for segregated
detainees, the July 2004 ABA delegation to the
Kenosha County facility reported that such detainees
“may only use the legal research system at the discretion of the Facility staff.”96 In order to make the system
available, facility officers had to transport its computer
to the segregation unit from a different part of the facility, and thus only did so, according to the ABA report,
“if the particular Detainee making the request has an
urgent need for legal information, such as an imminently pending hearing.”97 In addition, the ABA reported, “When considering a request for computer use
from a segregated Detainee, Facility officers take into
account the duration of the Detainee’s stay in segregation. For example, if a segregated Detainee requests
computer use but is due to be released from segregation
shortly, Facility officers generally will not transport the
computer to the segregated Detainee.” 98 These deviations from the segregation standard were not reflected

in the ICE review of that facility two months earlier,
which stated, without explanation, that the facility was
in compliance with legal access standards for detainees
segregated for both administrative and disciplinary reasons.99
With respect to telephone privileges in disciplinary
segregation, the ABA delegation to the Kenosha facility
in 2005 could not make an assessment regarding compliance with the standard. The report noted that the
facility’s detainee handbook inappropriately provides
for a “loss of ‘Privileges’ for both Minor and Major
violations,”100 and found that, “While the Handbook
does not define ‘Privileges,’ the Handbook section on
telephones refers to ‘telephone privileges’ implying that
detainees could lose telephone privileges if they were
being disciplined.” 101 The 2005 ICE review of this
facility, which was conducted three months before the
ABA review, stated that it met the standard regarding
telephone use in disciplinary segregation.102

CONCLUSION
Segregation, particularly when it is disciplinary, is
a severe punishment that should be used with the utmost caution and with careful adherence to required
procedures. The government and independent reports
reveal, however, that at numerous facilities segregated
detainees were subjected to excessive isolation or punishment in violation of the detention standards. These
reports found widespread violations with respect to
unduly limited privileges, inappropriately long segregation periods, unsanitary conditions, as well as inadequate health care protection for segregated detainees.
More must be done to ensure the safety, good health,
and basic privileges of segregated detainees.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Disciplinary Policy
INTRODUCTION
The detention standard titled “Disciplinary Policy”
is meant to protect detainees against arbitrary disciplinary sanctions for acts that violate a facility’s rules. It
also lays out procedures giving detainees notice of their
rights and responsibilities regarding compliance with
facility rules and the opportunity to be heard if sanctions are imposed. Specifically, the standard requires
progressive levels of sanctions, appeals, and reviews,
and it prohibits capricious or retaliatory discipline.1 It
further requires specific investigatory procedures, provides for a Unit Disciplinary Committee and Institutional Disciplinary Panel to administer disciplinary
sanctions, establishes a disciplinary severity scale, limits the duration of punishment that may be imposed, and
provides a documentation procedure for hearings and
sanctions imposed.2 Finally, it categorizes offenses
based on severity. Compliance with this standard is
vital to ensuring a fair and reasonable facility disciplinary policy. The policy also is intended to protect the
mentally incompetent and those who cannot understand
why they are subject to disciplinary proceedings.

PROBLEMS IN ICE REVIEWS OF
THE DISCIPLINARY POLICY
STANDARD
Several problems with U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE’s) review
methods for this standard decrease review
accuracy and usefulness.3 ICE uses a standard
form to review compliance with the standard.4
The form contains 15 subcategories of the
standard, each of which a reviewer must mark
as being compliant, noncompliant, or not applicable. The reviewer may add remarks to
explain his or her notations.
Because ICE reviewers sometimes failed
to mark one of the boxes for each subcategory, it is impossible to determine whether a
facility that was being evaluated complied
with particular provisions of the standard.5 In
addition, the form itself is written in a cumulative manner, with several of its subcategories each summarizing multiple provisions of
the standard. Where reviewers marked a subcategory as noncompliant but failed to include
specific comments, as is often the case, it is
impossible to determine the exact nature of

the facility’s noncompliance. For example, one critical
subcategory reviews whether a facility prohibits staff
from imposing sanctions, including corporal punishment, deviations from normal food service, loss of correspondence privileges, and deprivations of clothing,
bedding, personal hygiene items, and physical exercise.6 But unless the reviewer wrote in comments, it is
impossible to tell whether a noncompliant facility is
sanctioning detainees by imposing corporal punishment
or by depriving them of clean clothing.
Furthermore, reviewers’ checkmarks sometimes
indicate that a facility is complying with one of the
standard’s subcategories while their written comments
indicate otherwise. For example, one reviewer checked
“Yes” for the element that limits disciplinary segregation to 60 days, implying compliance, but then commented that the maximum time imposed is 90 days,
which clearly violates the standard.7 And, finally, the
reviewers’ answers are not consistent. For example,
with respect to the component of the form evaluating
compliance with the facility’s conspicuous posting of
sanctions and rules in English and Spanish, two reviewers came to different conclusions based on the same

KEY FINDINGS
 64 facilities violated the requirement that disciplinary
rules be conspicuously posted, according to ICE reviews.
 Detention facilities must not allow staff to impose
certain sanctions, such as:
o corporal punishment
o deprivation of food, exercise, clothing, or personal
hygiene items
o withholding of correspondence privileges
11 facilities violated this standard, according to ICE
reviews.
 33 facilities failed to meet basic procedural
requirements for disciplinary procedures, ICE reviews
revealed.
 Impermissible and retaliatory discipline was a common
problem reported by ABA and UNHCR reviewers.
Violations reported included:
o deprivation of recreation and library time
o deprivation of hygiene items
o use of corporal punishment, including shackling

A BROKEN SYSTEM

50

DISCIPLINARY POLICY

facts. While both reviewers found that this information
was not posted and was available only in the facility
handbook, one reviewer marked this treatment of the
information as compliant, while the other did not.8
These problems with the facility review procedures
make it highly likely that violations of the standard are
more widespread than is indicated on the forms.

ICE-DOCUMENTED VIOLATIONS
OF THE STANDARD
Notification to Detainees of Facility
Disciplinary Policies
The standard requires facilities to conspicuously
post rules, prohibited acts, the disciplinary severity
scale, and possible sanctions for prohibited acts in
Spanish, English, and/or other languages spoken by
significant numbers of detainees.9 This was by far the
most widely violated provision, with 64 facilities failing
to make the required postings.10 In addition, several
facilities failed to define in writing the rules of conduct,
sanctions, and procedures for violations, and to communicate them to all detainees.11

Limitations on Sanctions for Violations
of Facility Rules
The standard requires that facilities have rules that
prohibit staff from imposing certain sanctions, including corporal punishment; deviation from normal food
service; loss of correspondence privileges; deprivation
of clothing, bedding, and personal hygiene items; and
denial of opportunities to engage in physical exercise.
Reviewers found that 11 facilities violated this provision.12 The standard also requires the facility rules to
state that disciplinary action shall not be capricious or
retaliatory; 6 facilities violated this provision.13 Finally, the standard provides that the duration of punishment should not exceed established sanctions, including a maximum time in segregation of 60 days; 25
facilities violated this provision.14

Procedures for Investigation and
Imposition of Sanctions
The standard provides for particular procedures
with respect to a disciplinary panel that adjudicates infractions. Several facilities failed to follow these procedures, which include that the panel judge based on
the preponderance of evidence and impose only authorized sanctions.15 Also, one facility failed to investigate incidents within 24 hours.16 In addition, the standard provides that minor infractions should be resolved
informally wherever possible, and that an intermediate

disciplinary process — not a full disciplinary panel —
should be used to adjudicate minor infractions. Two
facilities violated this latter provision.17
When a disciplinary investigation is conducted, the
standard requires certain facility staff to complete and
distribute specific forms and documents, including
those provided to the detainee to help him prepare his
defense. Four facilities violated this provision.18
The standard provides, among other things, that
each facility must make a staff representative available
upon request to a detainee facing a disciplinary hearing.
Twelve facilities failed to comply with this provision.19
In addition, the standard requires each facility to allow
postponement or a continuance of a disciplinary hearing
when conditions warrant. Four facilities failed to comply with this provision.20 Finally, with respect to disciplinary hearings, ICE reviewers examined whether facilities have procedures to handle information from
confidential informants, and criteria for recognizing
“substantial evidence.” Thirty-three facilities failed to
comply with these provisions.21

VIOLATIONS REPORTED BY
ABA AND UNHCR
In addition to ICE reviews, reports by the American Bar Association (ABA) and the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) of select
detention facilities contained information relating to
disciplinary policies. The problem most commonly
noted by ABA and UNHCR reviewers was the use of
impermissible or retaliatory discipline.22 These reports
note the use by facilities of deprivation of recreation23
and library time,24 deprivation of personal hygiene
items,25 imposition of disproportionate punishment,26
and even the use of corporal punishment,27 including
shackling.28 In addition, nine facilities’ handbooks
were found to be inadequate in communicating disciplinary policies and rules to all detainees.29
Another common violation noted by ABA and
UNHCR reviewers was inadequate notice to detainees
concerning an aspect of the disciplinary policy. Their
reports found that facilities did not adequately post detainees’ rights30 or prohibited acts,31 or they did not
provide adequate notice of the discipline severity
scale,32 or they failed to explain the facility’s discipline
procedure.33 In addition, three facilities did not post the
rules and regulations in English, Spanish, and/or other
languages spoken by significant numbers of detainees34.
Other violations concerned the investigation of incidents. Five facilities either failed to explain the investigation procedure in the handbook,35 failed to get an
incident report to detainees within 24 hours as required,36 or failed to investigate an incident within 24
hours.37

A BROKEN SYSTEM

DISCIPLINARY POLICY
Facilities failed to have fair, transparent, and impartial disciplinary policies in numerous ways. One
facility flatly claimed it could not comply with the
standard, without explaining why it could not.38 Another facility did not have a sufficiently structured disciplinary scale.39 One facility posted its rules and
regulations in the required languages but not in plain
sight.40 Another punished detainees “informally” even
though the nature of the alleged offense and attendant
punishment require a hearing.41 Others segregated asylum-eligible detainees based on minor rule infractions.42 One facility imposed 72-hour segregation for a
minor violation but did not conduct a hearing on the
matter for seven days.43

51

CONCLUSION
ICE found numerous instances in which facilities
failed to notify detainees of their rights or responsibilities with respect to a facility’s disciplinary policy. Perhaps because of limitations in the review forms used to
perform the evaluations, ICE did not uncover the serious violations that ABA and UNHCR reviewers found,
such as the imposition of prohibited or retaliatory sanctions for disciplinary infractions. Since fair, evenhanded, and transparent disciplinary policies are vital to
ensuring the rights of individual detainees as well as
facility security, stricter compliance with the disciplinary standard is crucial to achieving both these objectives.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Detainee Handbook
INTRODUCTION
The detention standard on detainee handbooks requires that every facility housing immigration detainees
develop a facility-specific detainee manual that provides an overview of the facility’s policies, rules, and
procedures.1 Every detainee must receive a copy of this
handbook upon admission to the facility.2 And facilities must establish procedures for immediately communicating handbook revisions to staff and detainees —
for example, by posting any such changes in detainee
housing units.3 To promote accessibility, the standard
specifies that handbooks should be written in English
and translated, at a minimum, into Spanish.4 The standard further contemplates translation of the handbook,
when appropriate, into the next most common language(s) spoken by detainees.
Handbooks are vital sources of information for detainees and, pursuant to the standard, must advise detainees of their rights and responsibilities while in immigration custody.5 Handbooks also must include descriptions about the facility programs and services
available to detainees, as well as any associated rules.6
Specifically, detainees must be informed about:
(1) voluntary work programs, (2) recreation opportunities, (3) correspondence, (4) library use, (5) canteen/
commissary access, (6) telephone policies, (7) visitation, (8) the schedule for group legal presentations,
(9) meal service, and (10) barber hours.7 Handbooks
also must apprise detainees about facility policies related to smoking, restricted areas of the facility, disposable razors, and contraband.8 In addition, handbooks
must outline the detainee grievance process and the
facility’s disciplinary policy, including any prohibited
acts and the scale against which detainee conduct will
be measured.9 Facility detention rules are notoriously
complex. Handbooks serve as detainees’ guide to navigating life while detained, including how to access all
facility services and to remain in compliance with facility rules.

ICE MONITORING OF THE
HANDBOOK STANDARD
Violations of the Detainee Handbook Standard
For a disturbingly large number of facilities, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reviewers noted that handbooks were not appropriately translated into languages other than English.10 At eighteen
facilities, ICE reviewers found that facility handbooks

were not available in Spanish, and four of these facilities had multiyear violations of this element of the standard.11 At one additional facility, the ICE review noted
that a translation of the handbook in a language other
than Spanish was necessary to accommodate the detainee population, but was not available.12 These failures to translate handbooks into Spanish or other appropriate languages in all likelihood left thousands of
non–English speaking detainees without a way to understand basic facility protocols.
Furthermore, many facilities’ handbooks failed to
include information that is central to a detainee’s ability
to access legal services and materials. For example,
ICE reviews revealed that 30 facility handbooks did not
describe law library procedures and schedules, and 2 of
these facilities had multiyear violations.13 ICE reviews
also found that 27 facilities’ handbooks failed to discuss
attorney visitation hours, the location of a list of pro
bono legal services, and the schedule for group legal
rights presentations.14 Since these three elements of the
standard were grouped together in one question on the
review form, it was usually not clear which component
was missing from the handbook, or if all were missing.
At 6 of these facilities, ICE reviewers found that information about pro bono legal services and group legal
rights presentations was provided only to detainees directly by ICE, rather than being included in the handbook.15
ICE reviews also identified widespread deficiencies in the handbook descriptions of the detainee grievance processes. Reviewers reported that at 30 facilities,
handbooks were missing some or all of the required
information about the grievance process.16 ICE reviewers found that the handbooks at several facilities did not
explain how detainees could file complaints with the
U.S. Department of Justice or with ICE regarding
problems at the facility. At other facilities, whether and
how detainee grievance procedures were made known
to detainees appeared to depend on the discretion of
facility staff rather than on established procedures. For
example, upon reviewing the Reno County Jail, the ICE
reviewer noted that information about the grievance
process was given to detainees only when a “problem
occurs,” so the “disciplinary policy,” rather than the
grievance procedure, was applied.17 At Anchorage Jail
Complex, the ICE reviewer noted that the grievance
process section was missing from the handbook, but
that “when there is a problem, ICE is notified immediately.”18
ICE reviews also revealed that many facilities
failed to include in their handbooks descriptions of
various services and policies that are important to de-

A BROKEN SYSTEM

DETAINEE HANDBOOK

53

tainees. For example, ICE reviews revealed
that 36 facility handbooks lacked sections
KEY FINDINGS
outlining the methods for classifying detainees and relevant classification levels, as
 18 facilities did not have handbooks available in Spanish,
well as the process by which detainees
ICE reviewers found.
19
could appeal classification determinations.
o 4 of these facilities had multiyear violations of this
In addition, 13 facilities failed, in their
element.
handbooks, to cover the timing of medical
o The standard requires that handbooks be available in
examinations.20 ICE reviews found that
English and Spanish, at a minimum.
handbooks at 19 facilities failed to adequately describe the facilities’ telephone
 30 facility handbooks did not describe law library
policies and procedures, and one of these
procedures and schedules, as required.
facilities had a multiyear violation.21 On the
o 2 of these facilities had multiyear violations of this
ICE review form, several different teleelement.
phone-related requirements were grouped
 27 facility handbooks failed to discuss attorney visitation
together as part of one question, so in most
hours, the location of a list of pro bono legal services, and
instances someone examining a reviewer’s
the schedule for group legal rights presentations.
answers to the question could not definitively determine which of the standard’s
 36 facility handbooks failed to outline the methods for
requirements were missing from a facility’s
classifying detainees and relevant classification levels.
handbook.
 30 facility handbooks were missing required information
ICE reviews also revealed that 19 faabout the grievance process.
cilities did not include appropriate descriptions of voluntary work programs in their
 19 facility handbooks failed to describe adequately the
handbooks.22 For example, the handbooks
facilities’ telephone policies and procedures.
for immigration detainees at many of these
o 1 of these facilities had a multiyear violation of this
facilities listed voluntary work programs,
element.
even though ICE detainees could not par 19 facility handbooks lacked appropriate descriptions of
ticipate in them, thus creating false expecvoluntary work programs.
tations in detainees. Reviewers also reported that the handbooks at 8 facilities did
 13 facility handbooks failed to cover the timing of medical
not address general facility visiting hours.23
examinations.
In addition, 15 facilities’ handbooks
did not mention the procedures for obtaining shaving supplies, and one of these faof clothing and hygiene items; its segregation units; its
cilities had a multiyear violation.24 Another 22 facilicount times, meal times, and smoking policy; its barties failed to include information on the timing of head
bering and shaving procedures; its telephone procecounts.25 And 12 facility handbooks did not cover the
dures; its religious programming or detainee rights.28
personal items that detainees could retain and the initial
26
All told, the ICE review found the facility to be nonissuance of clothes, while 5 facility handbooks did not
compliant with 24 of the 30 elements of the handbook
mention the procedures for clothing exchange and ob27
standard.
taining personal hygiene items.
And the Pettis County’s severely deficient handICE reviews identified several facilities whose
book was not an isolated example of a facility falling
handbooks were deficient in numerous, striking ways.
far short of the handbook standard. The 2004 ICE reFor example, in 2004 the Pettis County Detention Cenview for the Madison County Jail revealed that the fater was rated “at-risk” for its handbook, as the review
cility was not providing a handbook to immigration
showed that the facility’s handbook failed to include
detainees at all—this despite being written up for this
information on commissary/vending machine use; the
violation in the prior year’s review.29 In addition, the
facility’s voluntary work program; the law library; atreview found that, although the facility had prepared an
torney visitation hours; the facility’s group legal rights
English-language handbook, it was missing crucial
presentation schedule; the facility’s classification syscontents, and that the facility had not prepared a Spantem; the location of the pro bono legal services list; the
ish-language translation of the deficient handbook.
facility’s correspondence policy; important portions of
Finally, other ICE reviews showed that reviewers
the facility’s disciplinary policy; the facility’s grievance
rarely rated a facility as deficient for the handbook
process; its recreation program; its sick call policy; its
standard even when they had identified numerous areas
detainee dress code; its procedures for the initial issuing

A BROKEN SYSTEM

54

DETAINEE HANDBOOK

of noncompliance. For example, the 2004 review for
the Charleston County Detention Center noted that the
facility handbook was not translated into Spanish, as
required, and that it failed to include mandated information on the law library location and hours, the detainee grievance process, religious programming, and
the detainee classification system.30 Despite these deficiencies, the facility still was rated “acceptable” for the
standard.

ICE’s Failures to Report Violations of the
Detainee Handbook Standard
In several instances, the independent agency visits
to immigration detention facilities conducted by the
American Bar Association (ABA) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
identified violations of the handbook standard that ICE
failed to report when it visited facilities during the same
year. What the ABA and UNHCR found at the five
facilities discussed below underscores the continuing
need for these independent facility reviews, which routinely uncover violations of the standard that the government reviews miss or fail to report.

Passaic County Jail

The ABA noted continuing, egregious errors in the
Passaic County Jail handbook when it again reviewed
this facility in 2005. At that time, the ABA found that
the facility still did not have an immigration-specific
handbook and that the facility had not properly revised
the handbook’s description of the classification and
grievance procedures. In addition, the ABA again
noted a concern that there were no provisions for communicating information from the handbook to detainees
who did not speak English or Spanish, or who could not
read.39 The ABA also noted that the list of rights in the
handbook did not include the “right to protection from
personal abuse, corporal punishment, unnecessary or
excessive use of force, personal injury, disease, property damage, and harassment.” Neither did the handbook inform detainees of the “right to freedom from
discrimination based on race, religion, national origin,
sex, handicap, or political beliefs.” Finally, the handbook’s section on recreation fell drastically short of the
recreation standard’s requirements. Despite this long
list of deficiencies identified by the ABA, ICE had not
marked any deficiencies with regard to the handbook
standard when it had reviewed this facility two months
earlier.40

Dodge County Jail

For example, when the ABA visited the Passaic
County Jail in 2004, it found numerous deficiencies in
the facility’s handbook.31 First, most immigration detainees interviewed by the ABA said that they had
never received a copy of the handbook.32 The ABA
also noted that the handbook that had been prepared
was intended for distribution to all inmates and, therefore, did not address concerns specific to immigration
detainees. The ABA also found that the facility made
no attempt to communicate the handbook information
to detainees who did not speak English or Spanish, or
who could not read.33 In addition, the ABA review
revealed that the facility handbook only briefly described the detainee grievance procedure,34 and it did
not appropriately explain the classification levels or the
procedures by which a detainee might appeal his or her
classification.35 Many sections of the handbook were
not accurate or were at odds with the facility’s actual
policies. For example, the handbook explained that
detainees could use the law library and could expect
recreation at certain times, but the ABA observed that
detainees actually were granted less time for these activities than what the handbook allowed for.36 In addition, the ABA noted that the actual visiting schedule
posted in the facility differed significantly from the one
published in the handbook.37 When ICE reviewed this
facility four months earlier, however, it noted none of
these deficiencies with the handbook.38

When UNHCR visited Dodge County Jail in June
2004, it noted several deficiencies with the facility’s
handbook. UNHCR found that the handbook did not
adequately explain either the detainee classification
levels, and the conditions and restrictions associated
with each, or the facility’s grievance procedure.41
When the ABA reviewed the Dodge County facility in
the same month, it also documented the facility’s failures to include appropriate information on the detainee
classification system and the grievance process. Specifically, the handbook covered neither the fact that
detainees could receive assistance in filing grievances
nor the procedures for filing a complaint about officer
misconduct with the U.S. Department of Justice. The
ABA review also revealed that the facility handbook
was not specific to immigration detainees, but was a
general handbook for all inmates.42 The ABA further
found that the handbook incorrectly stated that attorney
visitation was not available during meals. However,
when ICE reviewed this facility during the same month,
its reviewer did not note any deficiencies with facility’s
handbook.43
In 2005, the ABA again reviewed the Dodge
County Jail and found that the facility still lacked a
handbook that was specifically for immigration detainees and that contained all the required information outlined in the ICE detention standards.44 The 2005 review also showed that the facility had not fixed the deficiencies in the handbook sections on the detainee clas-

A BROKEN SYSTEM

DETAINEE HANDBOOK
sification system or grievance process previously identified by the ABA and the UNHCR. The ABA review
also indicated that the handbook section on special correspondence did not contain important information and
that the handbook incorrectly stated that legal visitation
would not be allowed during meals.45

El Centro and San Pedro Service
Processing Centers
ICE noted no deficiencies for the facility handbooks during its review of the El Centro and San Pedro
Service Processing Centers in 2005.46 However, the
2005 ABA reviews of these facilities noted deficiencies
with their handbooks. The ABA found that the El
Centro facility did not have a handbook specifically for
immigration detainees and that the criminal inmate
handbooks provided to immigration detainees lacked
information required by the ICE detention standards.47
During its review of the San Pedro facility, the ABA
found that the facility’s handbook did not specify that
special correspondence may be opened in a detainee’s
presence, but not read.48

Dorchester County Jail
The ABA reviewed the Dorchester County Jail in
2004 and found that it did not have an immigration detainee–specific handbook, and that a single set of rules
was used for both immigration detainees and other inmates.49 The ABA also noted that the handbook contained only a cursory description of the classification
system, and that it did not make any mention of the
procedures for contacting ICE to appeal a grievance

55

decision or any information on the opportunity to file a
complaint about officer misconduct directly with the
U.S. Department of Justice. The ABA also noted that
the written hours and procedures for the use of the law
library fell below the detention standard’s requirements.
When ICE reviewed this facility two months later, it
noted that the handbook’s description of the classification system was still inadequate—indicating that the
handbook likely had not been updated since the ABA
visit—but failed to report any of the other handbook
deficiencies that the ABA had identified.50

CONCLUSION
Detainee handbooks serve an essential function
when they communicate facility rules and regulations to
detainees. The evidence from the government and independent reviews show, however, that facility handbooks too often presented an inaccurate or incomplete
picture of facility policy, because key portions of the
detainee handbook were missing or contained erroneous
or inappropriate information. In many instances, handbooks presented information on facility programs or
rules that did not match actual facility practice. ICE
must do better to ensure that all immigration detention
facilities provide adequate handbooks to detainees.
Being provided no or inadequate handbooks places detainees in the difficult position of either not knowing
facility rules and policies or not being able to point to
written rules and policies, yet still having to bear the
consequences if they violate them.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Hold Rooms in Detention Facilities
INTRODUCTION
The detention standard titled “Hold Rooms in Detention Facilities” provides that “hold rooms will be
used for the temporary detention of individuals awaiting removal, transfer, [Executive Office for Immigration Review] hearings, medical treatment, intra-facility
movement, or other processing into or out of the facility.”1 This standard sets forth physical space requirements and design specifications for hold rooms, requirements for holding detainees, and requirements
regarding monitoring and inspecting hold rooms. The
hold room standard is important because it sets forth
minimum standards of habitability, including provision
for rudimentary needs, such as basic hygiene and food,
and the applicable hour limits for detention of different
groups in hold rooms. Because hold rooms are often
used when detainees are moved around a facility, violations of this standard have the potential to impact a
large number of detainees. In practice, numerous facilities do not comply with the standard, so detainees
frequently are held for much longer periods than the
hour-limit standards allow. The fact that many detainees are held for inappropriately long lengths of time in
hold rooms exacerbates other violations of the standard.
The hold room standard contains many specific
elements that are applicable only to U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE)–run Service Processing Centers (SPCs) and private Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs).2 These elements do not apply strictly to
the hundreds of local and state jails in which individuals are detained under an “Intergovernmental Service
Agreement” (IGSAs). With respect to these requirements, the hold room standard specifies that IGSAs
may establish alternative procedures, “provided they
meet or exceed the objective represented by each standard.”3 The standard includes detailed specifications
for the design of hold rooms in SPCs and CDFs.4

ICE MONITORING OF THE STANDARD
ICE uses two different monitoring checklists for
reviewing facilities with respect to hold rooms, which
reflect the fact that many of the requirements of the
standard apply only to SPCs and CDFs.5 Thus, one
monitoring checklist is used to review IGSAs (“IGSA
checklist”),6 and the other checklist is used to review
the majority of SPCs and CDFs (“SPC/CDF checklist”).
Both checklists are deficient in terms of content when
compared with the original Immigration and Naturali-

zation Service detention standard monitoring instrument, “Hold Rooms in Detention Facilities,” dated
September 20, 2000 (“INS checklist”) and consisting of
25 elements; and evidence reveals that both forms have
consistently been misapplied by ICE reviewers. These
defects result in a flawed review process, since ICE
reviewers have not checked (and likely still are not
checking) all the elements necessary to determine
whether facilities are meeting the hold room standard.
The IGSA checklist consists of 15 elements. Some
of the INS checklist elements are absent from this list
because they pertain only to SPCs and CDFs. However, 2 elements are missing from the IGSA checklist
that do pertain to IGSAs and should be on the IGSA
checklist. One of the missing elements requires that
officers provide a meal to any adult who is in the hold
room for more than six hours, and that juveniles, babies
and pregnant women must have regular access to meals
and snacks.7 This element is very important, because
the standard allows that a detainee can be held for up to
twelve hours in a hold room. The second element
missing from the IGSA checklist is the requirement that
each facility maintain a detention log for every detainee
placed in a hold cell.8 This element is also very important, because detention logs are the only accurate means
for monitoring detainees’ length of detention in a hold
room9 or whether anything unusual or unsafe occurred
while they were detained there.
The SPC/CDF checklist contains 24 elements.
While this form conforms quite closely to the INS
checklist, it is missing one important element: the one
forbidding detainees from smoking in the hold room.10
However, an examination of the reviews of SPCs and
CDFs on which this report is based reveals that quite
often ICE reviewers used the IGSA checklist instead of
the SPC/CDF checklist. Out of a total of 25 reviews of
SPCs and CDFs, there were 7 instances in which the
ICE reviewer used the abbreviated IGSA checklist to
review an SPC or CDF, the result of which was that, for
those 7 facilities, they reviewed only 15 of the 25 elements of the hold room standard applicable to SPCs and
CDFs.11 There is no doubt that the form used to monitor the hold room standard results in undercounting of
actual violations of the standard. Nonetheless, numerous violations were documented by ICE reviews.

ICE-DOCUMENTED VIOLATIONS OF
THE HOLD ROOM STANDARD
In 2004, ICE reviewers rated nine facilities as being deficient with respect to the hold room standard,

A BROKEN SYSTEM

HOLD ROOMS IN DETENTION FACILITIES

57

seven of which facilities had been rated
deficient for the standard previously.
KEY FINDINGS
That year, ICE reviewers rated two facilities as being “at risk” with respect to
 In 2004, ICE reviewers rated 9 facilities as deficient with respect
the standard. In 2005, ICE reviewers
to the hold room standard.
rated three facilities as being deficient for
o Of these, 7 had previously been rated deficient for the
the hold room standard and four facilities
standard.
as being “at risk” with respect to it. In
2006, ICE reviewers rated four facilities
 28 facilities were rated in violation of the requirement that bunks,
as being deficient for the standard.
cots, beds, and other makeshift sleeping apparatus are not
permitted inside hold rooms.
Five of the reviewed detention facilities did not even have hold rooms;
 34 facilities were rated in violation of the requirement that
nevertheless, an ICE reviewer gave each
individuals must not be held in hold rooms for more than 12
of the five an “acceptable” rating with
hours.
respect to the hold room standard.12 In
o In 13 additional instances, reviewers’ checkmarks indicated
most instances when a detention facility
that a facility was in compliance with this standard, but their
had no hold room, the reviewer assigned
written remarks indicated the opposite.
an “N/A” for each element of the hold
 12 facilities violated the standard that male and female
room standard, despite observing that
detainees must be segregated from each other at all times,
detainees were being held under various
according to ICE reviews.
conditions that did not meet the stan13
dard. For example, at one facility de 11 facilities violated the requirement that, in all facilities,
tainees who, under standard conditions,
minors be held apart from adults, “unless the adult is an
would have been placed in a hold room
immediate relative or recognized guardian and no other adult
detainees are present in the hold room.”
were instead “placed on wall [sic] under
constant supervision.”14 At another facil In 47 reviews, monitors failed to assess whether detainees in
ity, the ICE reviewer noted that because
hold rooms had adequate access to toilet facilities, due
there was no hold room, “[b]enches with
apparently to the monitors having misunderstood checklist
handcuffs” were used to hold detainees
questions.
during processing.15 At yet another facility, the ICE reviewer wrote “N/A” for
many elements because “facility has no
detainees) have two combi-units. Reviewers noted two
holding room,” and yet the reviewer marked on the
violations of this hold room standard element.17
checklist that the facility was acceptably meeting some
The second element pertaining to both SPCs/CDFs
elements of the standard.16
and IGSAs is: “In older facilities officers are within
visual or audible range to allow detainees access to toiPhysical Space Requirements
let facilities on a regular basis.”18 Many IGSA reviews
indicate “N/A” for this element of the hold room stanToilet Facilities
dard. Seven comments made by ICE reviewers in the
remarks section for this element indicate that the reUnder the hold room standard, toilet facilities must
viewers misinterpreted this element as applying only to
have lavatory/toilet fixtures with modesty panels and
older facilities, when in fact the element applies if there
meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requireare no toilets in the hold room.19
ments. The SPC/CDF checklist contains two elements
It appears that if the facility being reviewed was
that address toilet facilities in hold rooms, one setting
not “older,” the reviewer simply marked “N/A,” withforth physical requirements and the other pertaining to
out addressing the actual meaning and intent of this
toilet facility access. The first element, pertaining only
element, which is that detainees must have regular acto SPCs and CDFs built after 1998, addresses whether
cess to toilet facilities. If a hold room is not equipped
the hold rooms are equipped with stainless steel combiwith toilet facilities, detainees held in it do not have
nation lavatory/toilet fixtures with modesty panels.
access to toilet facilities unless they can, whenever necThis element also addresses (1) whether the lavatories
essary, either signal or speak to an officer who can proare compliant with the ADA, (2) whether small hold
vide them access. Forty-seven facility reviews indirooms (those that, according to the room-size standard,
cated “N/A” for this element, without providing any
may hold 1-14 detainees) have one combi-unit, and (3)
indication of whether detainees being held in hold
whether large hold rooms (those that may hold 15-49
rooms actually had access to toilet facilities.20

A BROKEN SYSTEM

58

HOLD ROOMS IN DETENTION FACILITIES
Beds, Bunks, Etc.

Bunks, cots, beds, and other makeshift sleeping
apparatus are not permitted inside hold rooms.21
Twenty-eight facilities were rated to be in violation of
this requirement.22 Also, in six instances the ICE reviewer indicated that the detention facility being reviewed was in compliance with this element of the hold
room standard even though accompanying remarks
contradicted such a conclusion.23 A common reason
noted on the checklist for a facility not being in compliance with this element is that hold rooms are frequently
used for other purposes, such as segregation (e.g., of
women from men), detoxification, and emergency bed
space.24

Escape- and Tamper-Proof
Hold rooms must be escape- and tamper-proof.25
ICE reviews found that two detention facilities were in
violation of this element of the hold room standard, and
the reviewers’ remarks in both instances indicated very
unsafe conditions.26 At one facility, the reviewer reported that the “[h]old room was wide open with 10 or
more inmates inside.”27 At another facility, the reviewer reported that there was “[g]lass in [the] holding
room broken and [a] detainee [was] left unattended.”28
At two other facilities the ICE reviewers indicated that
the facility was in compliance with this element of the
standard; however, the reviewer’s remarks indicated
that the facilities had drop ceilings that were not tamper-proof.29

Ventilation and Lighting
Under the standard, the hold room must be well
ventilated and lighted, and all activating switches must
be located outside the room.30 Four detention facilities
were rated as being in violation of this element of the
standard, one on multiple occasions.31 There were
violations regarding all aspects of this element, including ventilation, lighting, and having activating switches
located within the hold room.32 In two reviews, the
reviewer indicated that the facility was in compliance
with this element of the standard even though the comments in the remarks section of the monitoring instrument clearly indicated that the detention facility was not
in compliance.33

Sufficient Seating
Hold rooms must have sufficient seating.34 Five
detention facilities were found to be in violation of the
standard requiring that hold rooms contain sufficient
seating for the number of detainees held.35 In three of
the facilities found to be in violation of this element of
the standard, the underlying issue was that of general

overcrowding in the hold rooms.36 For one facility, the
reviewer remarked that there was no seating for the
detainees at all.37 With respect to another facility, the
reviewer reported, “Inmates lying on floor in overcrowded cell.”38

Room Size
Hold rooms must meet minimum size requirements.39 One SPC did not meet the minimum space
requirements set forth in this element of the hold room
standard for at least two consecutive years.40

Doors
Hold room doors must swing outward rather than
inward.41 Two SPCs were rated to be in violation of
this element of the standard.42

Drainage
Hold rooms must have floor drains.43 Four SPCs
were rated to be in violation of this element of the standard.44 In one instance the reviewer indicated in the
remarks section that the facility was not in compliance
with this element of the standard because it was constructed before the standard was implemented.45

Handicap Rails 46
One of the memoranda accompanying an ICE annual review of a facility indicated that the hold rooms at
the facility under review needed to have handicap rails
installed.47

Operational Requirements for
Holding Detainees
Time Limit
Under the hold room standard, individuals must not
be held in hold rooms for more than 12 hours.48 Thirtyfour facilities were rated to be in violation of this element of the standard.49 The ICE annual reviews provide evidence that detainees are being held for periods
significantly longer than 12 hours. For example, reviewers indicated the following periods of time for
which individuals were detained in hold rooms: 20
hours,50 24-48 hours,51 55 hours,52 and 72 hours.53 In
thirteen additional instances, reviewers indicated via
checkmarks that the facility was in compliance with this
element of the standard even though the reviewer’s remarks indicated that the facility was not in compliance.54 In addition, one facility was found at fault for
not logging detainees in and out of hold rooms.55 A
facility’s failure to log detainees in and out is problem-

A BROKEN SYSTEM

HOLD ROOMS IN DETENTION FACILITIES
atic because this eliminates the possibility of monitoring whether the facility is in compliance with the 12hour limit on detaining individuals in hold rooms.56

Detention Log

59

another facility, the ICE reviewer indicated that this
element of the standard was inapplicable because detainees are never in hold rooms for over one hour.67

Medical Emergencies

Detention facilities must maintain a detention log
for each detainee placed in their hold rooms.57 Though
at least six facilities violated the requirement to maintain detention logs, three of the six nonetheless received
an “acceptable” rating for the standard.58

Segregation by Gender
Male and female detainees must be segregated
from each other at all times.59 According to ICE reviews, twelve facilities violated this element of the
standard.60 In four of these instances the ICE reviewer
rated the detention facility as being in compliance with
this element of the standard even though the comments
of the reviewer in the remarks section indicated that the
facility was not in compliance.

Segregation by Age
Every effort must be made to ensure that any detainee who is a minor (under 18 years of age) is held
separate from any adult detainee who is not an immediate relative or “recognized guardian” of the minor.61
ICE reviews reveal that eleven facilities violated this
element of the standard, which requires that in all facilities minors be held apart from adults, “unless the
adult is an immediate relative or recognized guardian
and no other adult detainees are present in the hold
room.”62 In seven of these instances the reviewer rated
the detention facility as being in compliance with this
element even though the reviewer’s comments in the
remarks section indicated that the facility was not in
compliance, frequently because this element purportedly conflicted with state law.63 In two additional ICE
annual reviews, the reviewer indicated that this standard
was not applicable to the facility under review.64

Personal Hygiene Items

When detention facility staff see that a detainee
may be experiencing a medical emergency, they must
immediately call an appropriate emergency service.68
In four instances, the ICE reviewer rated the detention
facility as being in compliance with this element of the
standard even though the reviewer’s comments in the
remarks section indicated that it was not in compliance.69

Inspection and Supervision of Hold Rooms
Direct Supervision and Monitoring
Every Fifteen Minutes 70
According to ICE reviews, thirteen facilities violated the element of the hold room standard requiring
that officers conduct irregular visual monitoring of detention hold rooms every fifteen minutes.71 However,
in four of these instances the ICE reviewer rated the
detention facility as being in compliance with this element even though the reviewer’s comments in the remark section indicated that supervision of the hold
room was via camera rather than through direct observation.72

Pat-down Searches for Weapons
and Contraband
Per the hold room standard, all detainees must be
given a pat-down search for weapons or contraband
before being placed in the hold room.73 ICE reviews
revealed that two facilities violated this element of the
standard by requiring substantially more intrusive
searches.74 One facility required a strip search, while
another facility utilized a metal detection chair to conduct the search. 75

Inspection and Cleaning of Hold Rooms 76

Detainees in hold rooms must be provided basic
personal hygiene items.65 According to ICE reviews, at
least five facilities violated this element of the hold
room standard.66 In two of these facilities, reviewers
indicated that hygiene items were available only upon
request. These deviations from this element of the
standard are particularly problematic because many
detainees are not able to ask for needed hygiene items
in a language understood by detention facility staff.
Moreover, reviewers are in no position to verify
whether and to what extent such requests are met. At

Four facilities were rated in violation of the element of the hold room standard requiring that a hold
room be cleaned and inspected once the last detainee
has been removed from it.77 Inspectors’ notes regarding two of these violations indicated that the facilities
did not clean their hold rooms.78 For example, one
reviewer remarked that “[t]he ICE detainee hold room
was filthy, no toilet paper, feces were evident on the
walls.”79 In addition, one reviewer rated a facility in
compliance even though the reviewer’s written comment indicated that the hold room was inspected peri-

A BROKEN SYSTEM

60

HOLD ROOMS IN DETENTION FACILITIES

odically, but not necessarily cleaned due to its seldom
being empty.80

Written Evacuation Plan
ICE reviews revealed that four facilities were in
violation of the element of the standard requiring that a
facility have a written evacuation plan to remove detainees from the hold rooms in case of fire and/or
evacuation of the building.81 In two of the cases, ICE
reviewers rated the facilities in question in compliance
with this element even though the reviewer’s comments
in the remarks section indicated that the facilities were
not in compliance.82

Inspection of Detainees’ Personal Property
In SPCs and CDFs, officers must inspect all property, including parcels, suitcases, bags, bundles, and
boxes, before accepting the property. One facility was
found to be in violation of this element of the hold
room standard.83

CONCLUSION
It is impossible to assess thoroughly the extent of
ICE compliance with the hold room standard based on
the completed ICE monitoring forms, due to fundamental deficiencies in the forms and procedures used by
ICE to monitor compliance with the standard. As explained above, the forms fail to measure some important elements of the standard, the wrong forms are
sometimes used, and the ratings marked on the forms
are often inconsistent with the comments noted by
monitors in the margins. Most notably, in 47 reviews
the monitors failed to assess whether detainees in hold
rooms had adequate access to toilet facilities, due apparently to the monitors having misunderstood the
checklist questions. Of the violations noted on the
completed checklists, the most widespread was keeping
detainees in hold rooms for over 12 hours, which was
noted in 47 facility reviews.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Detainee Grievance Procedures
INTRODUCTION

ICE MONITORING OF THE
GRIEVANCE STANDARD

A key protection against detention staff misconduct
is the ability of detainees to file grievances and have
Deficiencies in ICE Form and Procedures
them resolved by uninvolved officers without fear of
for Monitoring Compliance
retaliation. The “Detainee Grievance Procedures” detention standard is designed to ensure such a process
The form ICE uses to monitor compliance with the
grievance standard is deficient in several ways. As a
exists and that those detainee grievances are resolved in
result, the summary of grievance standard violations
a satisfactory, impartial, and timely manner. The standard requires every facility to implement procedures
listed below is certainly under-inclusive. First, the form
that establish a reasonable time limit for processing,
does not measure whether responses are provided to
investigating, and responding to grievances.1 The stanformal or informal detainee grievances in a timely
fashion. According to reviews conducted by the
dard encourages facilities to resolve detainee comAmerican Bar Association (ABA), the most common
plaints at the lowest level possible; to that end, facilities
detainee complaint regarding facility grievance procemust allow detainees to make oral complaints to any
dures was that facility staff ignored detainee grievances.
staff member within five days of the event about which
In addition, the only places on the facility monithey are complaining.2 Facilities also must establish a
toring forms that require reviewers to determine
formal, written grievance process for detainees who opt
whether appropriate grievance policies and procedures
to skip the informal process or for grievances that canexist are in the form used for monitoring compliance
not be resolved to the detainees’ satisfaction inforwith the detainee handbook standard.9 Consequently,
mally.3 Detainees have the right to appeal the decision
although the completed review forms frequently indimade under the formal grievance process to the officercate in the handbook standard section that a facility is
in-charge (OIC) of the facility.4 The standard also requires Contract Detention Facilities
(CDFs) and Intergovernmental Service Agreement facilities (IGSAs or
local jails) to allow detainees to
KEY FINDINGS
communicate directly with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
 At least 12 facilities failed to include any of the required
(ICE)5 regarding their grievances,
grievance procedure information in their detainee handbooks.
and mandates these facilities to foro 1 of these facilities did this in two consecutive years.
ward all grievances involving alleged
o 4 of these facilities received an acceptable rating for the
staff misconduct to ICE so that ICE
handbook standard despite not having the required
may investigate these charges. Ungrievance sections in their detainee handbooks.
der the standard, facilities are di Another 28 facilities failed to include portions of the required
rected to establish procedures for
information in their handbooks.
handling emergency grievances,
o 1 of these facilities did this in two consecutive years.
which include situations posing an
immediate threat to a detainee’s
 At least 1 facility had no system whatsoever for tracking
safety or welfare.6 Under the standetainee grievances, yet the ICE reviewer rated the facility’s
dard, all facilities must document
compliance with the grievance standard as acceptable.
detainee grievances in a grievance
 ICE reviews documented 12 other instances in which facilities
log.7 The standard also specifies that
failed to maintain a grievance log.
each facility’s detainee handbook
o 2 of these facilities had such violations in consecutive years.
must include details of the facility’s
grievance procedure and set out de One of the ABA reports’ most pervasive findings is that
tainees’ rights.8
grievances were not responded to either at all or in a timely
fashion—an element of the grievance standard that the ICE form
does not track.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

62

DETAINEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

not complying with the grievance element of the handbook standard, these deficiencies are not noted on the
form used to review compliance with the grievance
standard. In addition, the handbook form lists several
required elements of the standard beside one checkbox,
making it difficult to determine what is actually missing
from the handbook and how extensive any omissions
are.
The ICE form for monitoring compliance with the
grievance procedures standard also fails to include a
question about whether detainee grievance forms are
available at the facilities being reviewed. Several ICE
and ABA reports show, however, that grievance forms
were not made available to detainees at several facilities.
In addition, the item on the ICE form regarding
whether detainees are protected against retaliation when
they file grievances is so confusing that it is impossible
to know, based on reviewers’ responses to that item,
whether or not retaliation is routinely occurring. The
item is written as follows: “There are no documented or
substantiated cases of staff harassing, disciplining, penalizing, or otherwise retaliating against a detainee who
lodges a complaint. If yes, explain.” Because of the
way this item is written, a “no” response would indicate
that there are documented cases of retaliation; and, presumably, these are the cases that should be explained.
Yet the form asks the reviewer to explain only “yes”
responses.10 ICE reviewers often checked “no” for this
element of the form, but it appears that they intended to
indicate that there were no documented cases of retaliation, since they did not proceed to rate the facility as
being noncompliant for the standard. Due to the confusing phrasing of this question, it is hard to determine
from ICE reviews whether any facilities were inappropriately retaliating against detainees who filed grievances. Given these deficiencies in the forms used to
monitor the grievance procedures standard, there is no
question that the ICE reviews fail to capture many instances of noncompliance with the standard.

Grievance Policies in Detainee Handbooks
As noted above, the monitoring form for the handbook standard combines several questions regarding the
content of the grievance section of the detainee handbook into one question, making it difficult to determine
the scope of the omission when this element is marked
to indicate that the facility is noncompliant. Nevertheless, ICE reviews reveal a staggering level of noncompliance with the requirement that detainee handbooks
lay out the facility’s basic grievance procedures. At
least 12 facilities failed to include any of the required
grievance procedure information in their detainee handbooks, and at one of these facilities the deficiency occurred in two consecutive years.12 Four of these facilities still received an acceptable rating for the handbook
standard despite the fact that the required grievance
sections were entirely missing from their detainee
handbooks. Another 28 facilities failed to include portions of the required information in their handbooks,
one of which facilities had a repeat violation for two
consecutive years.13 All told, the ICE reviews documented violations of this requirement at 40 facilities.
The implication of these failures is simple: detainees
cannot file grievances when they do not know the procedures for doing so. As a result, both ICE and immigration detention facility staff are likely to underestimate the true level of detainee grievances.
In addition, at two facilities ICE reviews found that
grievance forms were not regularly issued to detainees
upon request or that detainees did not know how to pursue a grievance, vastly compromising detainees’ ability
to file grievances seeking redress for violations of their
rights.14 At two other facilities, the reviewer noted that
the facility’s number of grievances recorded seemed far
too low for the number of detainees housed there, indicating a concern that detainees were not properly advised of the grievance procedures or did not feel free to
use them.15

Grievance Logs
Violations of the Grievance Standard
Documented by ICE
At one facility, a combination of grievance standard violations all but eliminated the possibility that
any detainee would have been able to file a grievance.
At this facility, the detainee handbooks did not cover
the grievance procedures, detainees did not have access
to the grievance committee, and no formal grievance
appeal procedures were in place.11 As a result, detainees at the facility had virtually no way of knowing that
they had the right to file a grievance, and even if they
had tried to file one no real procedure was in place to
handle it. Therefore, the facility was unable to monitor
staff behavior towards detainees.

ICE reports revealed numerous violations of the
minimum requirement that facilities maintain a detainee
grievance log. These violations are likely substantially
underreported because the ICE review form indicates
that an alternative recordkeeping system can be used,
but the standard itself does not contemplate such an
exception.16 Several facilities failed to keep a log, but
instead placed grievances in detainees’ files or used
other systems. Centralized recordkeeping allows a facility to assess the overall level of detainee grievances,
trends in grievances, and whether grievances are resolved in a timely and appropriate manner.17 Keeping
grievances in the individual detainee files, in contrast,
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to review the ag-

A BROKEN SYSTEM

DETAINEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
gregate data. At least one facility had no system whatsoever for tracking detainee grievances, yet the ICE
reviewer rated the facility’s compliance with the grievance standard as acceptable.18 In addition, ICE reviews
documented twelve other instances in which facilities
failed to maintain a grievance log.19 At two of these
facilities the violations occurred in consecutive years.20
At another facility, although the review indicated that a
log was kept, the review found that at least one substantiated grievance against facility officers was not
documented.21
The reliability of facility grievance logs is further
compromised by the fact that the standard does not require IGSAs to record “nuisance” or trivial complaints.
Under the standard, only Service Processing Centers
(SPCs) and CDFs had to record nuisance complaints.
Recording these complaints is important because it
helps facilities distinguish between meritorious and
nonmeritorious complaints, and it also ensures that
proper procedures are followed in every case, which
gives credibility to the facility’s grievance system. According to ICE reviews, two SPCs and one CDF failed
to record “nuisance” complaints in the facility grievance logs—a significant finding, given that at the time
there were no more than twenty of these facilities. 22

Grievance Complaint Process
At six facilities, staff did not know how to handle
emergency grievances, or they treated them no differently than nonemergency grievances.23 According to
the standard, each facility should have separate, expedited procedures for handling emergency grievances
that threaten detainees’ lives or wellbeing.
In addition, ICE reports revealed other deficiencies
in facility grievance procedures. At least one facility
had no informal grievance process whatsoever,24 and
another facility had no grievance committee to review
formal detainee complaints and instead used one official to review all detainee complaints.25

Violations of the Grievance Standard
Documented by the ABA
The ABA monitoring reports provide additional insight into the degree to which detention facilities are
complying with the grievance standard. While ICE
reports indicate that the main violations of the grievance standard are facilities’ failures to outline grievance
procedures in detainee handbooks and to maintain
grievance logs, the ABA reports reveal more fundamental failures. One of the ABA reports’ most pervasive findings is that grievances were not responded to
either at all or in a timely fashion—an element of the
grievance standard that the ICE form does not track. In

63

addition, the ABA reviews found that detainees either
did not know about facilities’ grievance procedures, or
felt that it was no use to file a grievance, or, in some
cases, feared that they would be retaliated against if
they did file a grievance.

Widespread Failure to Respond
to Grievances
The detainee grievance standard provides that a facility shall make every effort to resolve detainee grievances in an orderly and timely manner. The ABA reports, however, document facility failures to respond in
a timely fashion, or at all, to detainee grievances. Detainees at four facilities reported that grievances were
not responded to in a timely manner.26 At an additional
six facilities, detainees reported that grievances were
not responded to at all.27 At the Kenosha facility,
detainees reported to the ABA two years in a row that
their grievances were never responded to.28 Detainees
reported problems with timely response two years in a
row at the Passaic facility.29 The ABA also documented that one facility failed to specify a timeline for
responding to grievances, as required under the standard.30 At two other facilities, detainees reported that
no reason was provided by a facility when a grievance
was denied—a fact that undermined their faith in the
grievance system or the utility of making a grievance.31
The 2004 ABA report for the Queens detention facility includes two compelling examples of detainee
grievances that received no response. In the first example, two detainees reported that a facility guard “displayed extremely unprofessional behavior towards detainees over a period of several years, including taking
some of his clothes off and simulating sexual acts with
detainees, stating jocularly that he wanted to have sex
with detainees, and cursing routinely in his speech.
When detainees complained, the [facility] tour commander and security chief dismissed the concerns, stating that [the officer] was crazy and that they could not
help.” In the second example, a detainee reported that
he was being transported back to the facility after an
outside dental appointment “when he was made to
crawl from the bus to the Facility (approximately sixtyfive feet) because the officers aiding in the transport
would not loosen the shackles on his legs so that he
could walk. . . . Upon reaching the Facility, [detainee]
Y complained to other [facility] staff and was told that
he would have to address his complaint to the security
officers who handle detainee transportation.” Each of
these detainees filed a formal written grievance against
the Queens detention facility and forwarded a copy to
the U.S. Justice Department in Washington, DC, but
neither received a response.32

A BROKEN SYSTEM

64

DETAINEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Lack of Knowledge of the Grievance Process

Like the ICE reviews, the ABA reviews showed
that facility handbooks often fail to cover all the required information. Deficiencies were found at seven
facilities.33 ICE reports were produced in discovery for
only three of these facilities where the ABA documented handbook violations.34 However, the ICE reviews for these facilities failed to note a handbook violation. Most commonly, the handbook failed to discuss
the procedures for filing an appeal to ICE or a complaint of officer misconduct with the U.S. Justice Department.
In addition, the ABA reviews revealed that facilities failed to inform detainees that a grievance process
existed, and, as a result, few grievances were filed.35 At
two facilities, detainees reported that obtaining the
grievance forms from the facility staff was difficult.36
At another facility, detainees reported that they did not
know of the existence of grievance forms, which the
staff reported were available in the library and at the
main desk in each housing unit. However, when ABA
reviewers asked to be shown the forms, the lieutenant
responsible for reviewing them could not locate the
forms at either of those locations.37

Retaliation and Other Violations
of the Standard
Detainees at several facilities reported that detainees who filed grievances were likely to face retaliation
by facility staff.38 At one facility, according to an ABA

report, a detainee stated that she “worried about retaliation for filing a grievance, with one guard telling her
that, ‘we will get [her]’ if she filed a grievance.”39
In addition, three facilities provided no translation
assistance to detainees filing either formal or informal
grievances.40 Finally, three facilities failed to convene
a grievance committee to review formal complaints, but
the corresponding ICE reviews failed to note these violations.41

CONCLUSION
It is impossible to get a firm handle on how many
and what kinds of grievances detainees make or
whether facilities are adequately handling these grievances because the forms used by ICE to monitor compliance with the grievance standard are deficient in several key ways that result in an incomplete assessment of
the problems that actually exist. Nevertheless, ICE
reviews revealed widespread levels of noncompliance
with the grievance standard. Most fundamentally, detention facilities do a dismal job informing detainees
that they even have a right to file a grievance. Undoubtedly, printing the grievance procedures in a detainee handbook is one of the easiest of the grievance
standard’s elements to satisfy, but it was routinely violated.
As we have found with the other standards discussed in this report, the ABA reports reveal significant
violations of the grievance standard that are not captured by ICE reviews.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Detainee Transfer
INTRODUCTION

they are being transferred to remote and distant facilities.

The detainee transfer standard lays out procedures
to be followed when detainees are transferred from one
facility to another. This standard, which was adopted
VIOLATIONS OF THE DETAINEE
only in late 2004, is intended to ensure that detainees
TRANSFER STANDARD
are treated respectfully, afforded their legal rights, and
protected from security threats during transfer. 1
Notification
The standard provides that detainees may be transThe standard requires facilities to provide detainees
ferred only for particular reasons, which include
being transferred with a Detainee Transfer Notification
(1) medical care transfers, made to accommodate a deSheet (DTNS) at the time of transfer. The purpose of
tainee’s specialized medical needs; (2) change-of-venue
the DTNS is to inform the detainee of the name, adtransfers, which occur when a detainee’s removal (i.e.,
dress, and phone number of the facility to which he or
deportation) case moves from one jurisdiction to anshe will be transferred.3 According to reviews conother; (3) recreation transfers, which a detainee may
ducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
elect when adequate opportunities for recreation are not
(ICE),4 19 facilities failed to provide completed DTNSs
available at a particular facility; (4) security transfers,
as required.5
made when a detainee poses a threat to the facility
The standard also requires facilities to inform dewhere he or she is currently being detained, or is violent
tainees or their attorneys that they are responsible for
or causes a major disturbance, or when a security threat
notifying family members of the transfer.6 Unless they
exists that cannot be cured by segregating detainees
are told, detainees might not know that they must diwithin the facility; and (5) transfers made for other rearectly inform their families of their new whereabouts.
sons, such as to control overcrowding or to meet a deA number of facilities failed to comply with this provitainee’s special needs.2
If adhered to, the standard also protects detainees during transfers by ensuring that they are notified of the transfer,
that their legal materials accompany
KEY FINDINGS
them, that their personal property accompanies them or is properly stored, and that
 19 facilities failed to provide completed Detainee Transfer
their medical needs are documented and
Notification Sheets, which provide detainees with the name,
will be met both in transit and at the faaddress, and phone number of the new facility they are being
sent to.
cility to which they are being transferred.
Under the standard, a transferring facility
 Several facilities failed to inform detainees or their attorneys
must notify the detainee of the pending
that they, not the facility, are responsible for notifying the
transfer and provide the name, address,
detainee’s relatives of the detainee’s transfer.
and phone number of the destination fao Unless they are told, detainees might not know that they
cility. To prevent any immediate intermust directly inform their families of their new whereabouts.
ruption in the relationship between the
 Some facilities failed to fully notify detainees or their
detainee and his or her attorney, the faattorneys that they were being transferred, often by failing to
cility also must notify the detainee’s atinform them of the reason for the transfer.
torney of record of the transfer at the time
it is carried out. Finally, the facility must
 Being transferred from one facility to another is traumatic for
notify the detainee or the detainee’s atdetainees.
torney that the detainee or attorney is
o The trauma is exacerbated when detainees are moved far
responsible for informing the detainee’s
away from families and loved ones.
family members of the transfer.
o Transfers can also interfere with attorney-client
Compliance with this standard is virelationships and obstruct the effective presentation of a
tal to preventing detainees from losing
detainee’s legal case.
contact with their attorneys and families
or suffering from lack of medical care as

A BROKEN SYSTEM

66

DETAINEE TRANSFER

sion.7 In addition, according to the standard, attorneys
for detainees must be notified when their client is being
transferred. This notification must be made when the
transfer is under way, and the fact that it has been made
must be noted in an ICE database.8 Some facilities
failed to notify attorneys of transfers as the standard
requires.9
Still other facilities failed to fully notify detainees
or their attorneys of a transfer, often by failing to inform them of the reason for the transfer.10 Finally,
some facilities failed to use a form required to ensure a
safe transfer, which is supposed to contain the detainee’s name and destination, the purpose of the transfer, and other security-related information.11

Adequate Medical Care
The standard requires facilities to undertake certain
procedures relating to a detainee’s medical care prior to
and at the time of transferring the detainee.12 Among
the procedures required, medical staff must be alerted
to the transfer, and medications and medical records in
at least a summary form must accompany the detainee

during the transfer.13 ICE reviews found that three facilities failed to ensure that the necessary medical paperwork was completed and sent with transferred detainees.14 One facility did not even have procedures in
place to comply with the standard’s medical care provisions.15

CONCLUSION
The process of being transferred from one facility
to another can be traumatic for detainees, especially if
they are moved to remote facilities a great distance
away from their families and loved ones. A transfer
can also interfere with attorney-client relationships and
obstruct the effective presentation of a detainee’s legal
case. Moreover, for detainees with special medical
needs, a transfer made without proper attention being
paid to those needs can be dangerous or even fatal.
Given the importance of this standard, facilities’ failures to comply with the notification requirements and
with medical care procedures are cause for serious concern.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Funds and Personal Property
INTRODUCTION

as well as to obtain legal assistance, detainees must be
able to have in their possession vital addresses and legal
documents. In addition, by allowing detainees to retain
small items of personal significance, the standard
acknowledges and seeks to alleviate emotional and
psychological disturbances that may result due to
prolonged confinement. Pursuant to the standard, any
other detainee property is deemed contraband and must
be turned over to facility staff for processing and
storage.10
The standard also addresses the processing of detainee medications. It mandates that medical staff at all
facilities determine the disposition of any medicine
accompanying an arriving detainee.11 Attentive processing reduces the risk that medications essential to
detainees’ physical or mental health will not be misplaced during the shuffle of intake and that detainees
will not be prevented from continuing to maintain their
necessary medication regimen.
In addition to delineating procedures for processing
incoming detainee property, the standard requires that

The detention standard titled “Funds and Personal
Property” (referred to in this chapter as “FPP”) is designed to safeguard detainees’ money and personal
property by requiring all facilities to have written procedures for receiving,1 processing and storing,2 and
returning3 such items. These procedures are intended to
ensure that even if a detention facility is lacking in organization and security, individuals detained there are
not permanently deprived of personal property that may
be of sentimental, financial, or legal value.
The detailed “implementing procedures” of the
FPP standard, including the many provisions setting
forth the types of forms, tags, and storage containers to
be used in identifying and tracking detainee property,
apply only to Service Processing Centers (SPCs) and
Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs), while the provisions that are also applicable to facilities where individuals are detained under an “Intergovernmental Service Agreement” (IGSAs) set out
general principles.4 For example, while
the standard includes detailed
requirements and procedures applicable
KEY FINDINGS
to SPCs and CDFs for issuing receipts
to detainees for all funds, valuables, and
 The ICE checklist for “Intergovernmental Service Agreement”
facilities contains only 11 elements for review.
other items stored at facilities, the
general principle applicable to IGSAs
o By contrast, the monitoring form for Service Processing
requires only that there be “a written
Centers and Contract Detention Facilities contains 29
elements.
standard procedure for inventory and
receipt of detainee funds and
o The IGSA form’s incompleteness raises questions about the
valuables.”5 The standard does require
degree to which reviews of IGSAs reflect actual compliance
with the FPP standard.
that all facilities limit access to detainee
property to designated officers or
 When detainees are not allowed to keep correspondence and
supervisors,6 and that they implement
legal papers in their possession, this seriously hinders their
procedures for regularly auditing and
ability to fight their legal cases and obtain release from
inventorying the contents of property
confinement.
storage areas.7 Restricted access to
 Failure to implement procedures for securing and returning a
property and routine audits lessen the
detainee’s property can result in the detainee effectively forfeiting
likelihood that detainees’ belongings
money and personal property to detention facilities or corrupt staff
will be tampered with or stolen by fel— a consequence of detention that’s shocking and unwarranted.
low detainees or dishonest staff.
Detainees are permitted, however,
 9 non–ICE-run facilities either had no written policies for
dealing with property left behind by former detainees or failed
to keep with them a “reasonable
to follow such written policies. Of these facilities, ICE reviewers
amount” of property, provided that such
rated only 4 “deficient” or “at-risk” for the FPP standard.
items do not threaten facility security.8
Therefore, SPCs and CDFs must permit
 20 facilities did not attempt to notify detainees regarding
detainees to retain small religious items,
property left behind, as required by the FPP standard. ICE
legal papers, addresses, photos, and
reviewers rated only 6 of these facilities “deficient” or “at-risk” for
wedding rings, among other belongthe standard.
ings.9 To be able to communicate with
family and friends about their situation,

A BROKEN SYSTEM

68

FUNDS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY

facilities have written procedures for investigating and
documenting claims of property damage or loss.12 In
addition, to facilitate the reuniting of detainees with
property that is lost or left behind, facilities are required
to collect forwarding addresses from detainees who
arrive with personal property.13 Such procedures are
intended to ensure that facility staff will inform detainees of their property that remains at the detention center following their release rather than treating it as
abandoned. The procedures also seek to ensure that
detainees can receive compensation for property losses
attributable to facility staff.
Finally, the standard requires that all detainee
handbooks distributed to detainees describe fully the
procedures for processing, storing and returning detainee property, and for addressing claims of loss or
damage.14 Handbooks also must advise detainees about
what kinds of items they are permitted to keep with
them.15 This information helps enable detainees to hold
facilities accountable for the mistreatment of their
property or violations of the standard.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) reviews reveal that facilities frequently violate
the FPP standard.16 The violations compromise the
detainees’ right to keep certain property in their possession and to regain custody of their belongings upon
release. The full extent of these violations is difficult to
ascertain, however, in light of the generality of this
standard as it relates to IGSAs, as well as important
differences in the monitoring forms used to evaluate
IGSAs and those used for SPCs and CDFs.

detainee property than SPCs and CDFs. A system intended to ensure the humane and uniform treatment of
immigration detainees nationwide should require the
same minimum standards of all facilities, regardless of
whether they are owned or operated by ICE or by government contractors. Disparities in the standard’s comprehensiveness as it applies to IGSAs are replicated in
the monitoring instruments used to evaluate compliance
with the standard. Thus, while the monitoring form for
SPCs and CDFs contains 29 elements for review, the
checklist for IGSAs contains only 11 elements. 19 Although these forms share several elements, the IGSA
form notably fails to include many important questions
asked of SPCs and CDFs — for example, whether the
facility under review provides detainees with receipts
for their processed property, whether the facility maintains logbooks to track these receipts, and whether the
facility conducts routine audits of stored property to
identify and prevent loss. Compliance with these provisions is essential to the integrity of property processing and storage systems and they should be evaluated
during IGSA reviews.
The incompleteness of the IGSA monitoring form
raises questions about the degree to which IGSA reviews reflect actual compliance with the standard. Indeed, because the form does not require reviewers to
evaluate whether IGSAs have complied with several
elements of the standard, even if in a manner that differs from that of SPCs or CDFs, ICE reviews likely
underreport violations of the standard by IGSAs. The
value of ICE reviews is further undermined by at least
one reviewer’s use of the abbreviated IGSA form to
evaluate an SPC.20 Notwithstanding these limitations,
ICE’s own reviews reveal that many facilities fail to
comply with the standard. These violations are discussed below.

Monitoring Discrepancies Muddy the Picture

Securing Detainee Property

Unlike some of the detention standards, which include both detailed procedures with which all facilities,
including IGSAs, must comply as well as specific procedures described in italics that are mandatory only for
SPCs and CDFs, the FPP standard announces in only
the most general of terms what is required of IGSA
facilities. For example, the standard provides that all
facilities must have written procedures related to the
inventory and receipt of detainee funds and valuables,17
but it does not specify the required content of these procedures for IGSAs. In contrast, the standard contains,
printed in italics, detailed procedures for this and other
requirements as they relate specifically to SPCs and
CDFs.18
It defies logic that IGSAs, which house more than
half of all immigration detainees and lack an on-site
ICE presence, are permitted greater latitude in handling

Pursuant to the standard, funds and valuables must
be separated from other property and stored in a safe
that is accessible only to designated supervisors. 21 Of
the facilities reviewed by ICE, twelve violated this element,22 two in consecutive years.23 Nevertheless, five
of these facilities received “acceptable” ratings (the
highest possible) for the standard.24 Two other facilities failed to adequately secure and limit access to storage areas holding personal property.25
Two examples of violations illustrate the vulnerability of detainee funds and the importance of procedures for tracking and securing such monies. At one
facility, an ICE reviewer reported that staff routinely
confiscated funds from detainees when they were admitted to the facility and after they received visitors,
and documented these funds in a money ledger, but did
not return them to detainees upon their release or trans-

VIOLATIONS OF THE FUNDS AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY STANDARD

A BROKEN SYSTEM

FUNDS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
fer from the facility.26 The reviewer added that, since
1997, the facility had taken more than $3,290 from detainees, the majority of which had been confiscated
from Spanish-speaking detainees.27 At another facility,
an ICE reviewer noted that the facility’s property storage areas were not properly secured and that “an intake
officer was previously identified, prosecuted and terminated for pilfering inmate monies.”28 The reviewer
further remarked that, despite this incident, the facility
had not taken steps to prevent future theft by facility
staff.29 These egregious examples clearly show how
the lack of procedures for securing and returning detainee property may result in the effective forfeiture of
these items to facilities or corrupt staff — a shocking
and unwarranted consequence of detention.
The standard also addresses the processing of large
valuables. It mandates that facilities place such items in
secure lockers to be accessed only by designated supervisors.30 ICE reviews reveal that eighteen facilities did
not store large valuables in secure locations with the
specified limited access.31 One of these facilities was a
repeat violator, having failed to comply with this element in two consecutive years.32 Notably, however,
only two of these facilities were rated “deficient,” and
one “at-risk,” for the FPP standard.33 Moreover, six
facilities failed to accept large valuables,34 some of
them requiring detainees to send such items to family
members, despite the standard’s requirement that facilities store the property of detainees who lack addresses or family or trusted others to whom excess
property may be shipped.35

Processing Detainee Property
The standard provides that all facilities must have
written procedures for inventorying and receiving detainee funds and valuables as well as baggage and other
personal property.36 SPCs and CDFs must follow the
detailed procedures set forth in the standard. Specifically, these facilities must process baggage and other
personal property by using a property inventory form
that documents the date the property is processed, the
name and A-number of the detainee, a description of
the property and its disposition, and the signatures of
both the detainee and the processing officer. After
completing this form, officers also must fill out a threepart baggage check form. They must then distribute
one portion of the form to the detainee, place another in
the detainee’s file, and attach a third portion to the detainee’s property. These baggage checks must then be
recorded in a logbook. Finally, officers must secure
baggage and other personal property containers with
tamperproof straps before placing property in secure
storage areas. Once property is secured with the straps,
they should be broken only in the detainee’s presence.

69

Acknowledging the heightened risk of loss or theft
that attends the storage of funds and valuables, the
standard mandates separate, specific procedures for
processing these items.37 These requirements create an
essential chain of custody, enabling facilities to track
and ultimately return detainee property. ICE reviews
reveal, however, that several facilities failed to comply
with these requirements.
While four facilities failed to itemize baggage in
accordance with ICE standards,38 only one was rated
“deficient” for the standard.39 In addition, four facilities failed to tag large valuables or other property with
the forms required by the standard;40 one such facility
was nevertheless rated acceptable for the FPP standard.41 Two facilities failed to have two officers present to document the receipt of funds and valuable
property,42 one in consecutive months of the same
year.43 Another facility failed to provide detainees with
property receipts.44 Finally, of eight facilities that
failed to secure property containers with tamperproof
straps,45 only five received “deficient” or “at-risk” ratings for the overall standard.46 These deficiencies expose detainees to the serious and unnecessary risk of
property loss.

Auditing Detainee Property
The standard mandates that facilities have written
procedures for conducting routine audits of detainee
property to prevent and identify property loss.47 In
addition to the regular audits that are required of all
facilities upon staff shift changes, supervisors and staff
of CDFs and SPCs without commissaries must conduct
comprehensive audits on a weekly basis.48 The standard also requires SPCs and CDFs to conduct quarterly
inventories of detainee baggage and nonvaluable property and to record these audits in a daily logbook. 49
Seven facilities failed to conduct the required
weekly audits,50 one in two consecutive review years.51
Despite this deficiency, three of these facilities received
an “acceptable” rating for the standard.52 Moreover,
three facilities failed to conduct or log quarterly property audits,53 one of which facilities was nevertheless
rated “acceptable” for the standard.54
Property audits are not mere administrative hurdles; they are important safeguards through which facilities may be held accountable for the security of detainee property. The failure of several facilities to observe auditing protocols raises concerns about the integrity of the storage systems at facilities housing ICE detainees.

Retention of Property by Detainees
According to the standard, detainees must be allowed to keep certain personal property in their possession, so long as these items do not pose a security

A BROKEN SYSTEM

70

FUNDS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY

risk.55 American Bar Association (ABA) reports reveal
that two facilities did not permit detainees to retain
small personal belongings, including photographs, religious items, wedding rings, correspondence, and legal
papers.56 These failings deprive detainees of meaningful reminders of their outside lives. The withholding of
items such as correspondence and legal papers can seriously hinder detainees’ ability to fight their legal cases
and obtain release from confinement.

Review of Detainee Medication
by Medical Staff
The standard provides that on intake of an arriving
detainee, “medical staff will determine the disposition
of all medicine accompanying” the detainee.57 Though
vaguely worded, this element is crucial, given that the
failure to expeditiously forward medications to appropriate medical staff may jeopardize the health of detainees whose survival depends on these medications. ICE
reviews reveal that two facilities failed to comply with
this element of the standard,58 and were rated “deficient” for the overall standard.59

Returning Property to Detainees
The standard requires facilities to have written procedures for returning property to detainees upon their
transfer or release.60 Although four facilities lacked
such procedures,61 two of these were rated “acceptable”
for the standard.62 Importantly, the violation of this
element by any one facility may have ramifications for
hundreds of detainees. Indeed, the failure of one facility to return more than $3,290 in detainee funds serves
as a cautionary example of the significant loss that can
occur in the absence of procedures guiding the return of
detainee property.63

Identifying and Managing Abandoned Property
The standard also contains provisions pertaining to
property that is left behind by detainees following their
release. When former detainees have left any items at
SPCs or CDFs, ICE must contact them via a certified
letter sent to their last known address to alert them
about the items and inform them that they have 30 days
in which to contact ICE about reclaiming their property.64 To facilitate these efforts, the standard requires
facilities, or district office staff in the case of IGSAs, to
acquire forwarding addresses from all detainees arriving with personal property.65 If a detainee does not
respond to a notice or indicate a desire to reclaim the
forgotten property, the property will be deemed abandoned, and the government will assume ownership of
it.66 CDFs and IGSAs must document and forward to
ICE any abandoned property.67 Pursuant to agency

procedure, ICE may then use, destroy, or sell the property, but the standard does not contemplate donating the
property to charity. However, ICE must dispose of
clearly abandoned or broken property as well as property of insignificant value.68
Of the facilities reviewed by ICE, nine either had
no written policies for returning left-behind property to
ICE or failed to follow their own written policies.69 Of
these facilities, only four were rated “deficient” or “atrisk” for the FPP standard.70 Two facilities failed to
obtain the addresses of incoming detainees who brought
property with them,71 and one of these facilities nevertheless was rated “acceptable” for the standard.72
Twenty facilities did not attempt to notify detainees
regarding property left behind, as required by the standard;73only six of these facilities were rated “deficient”
or “at-risk” for the standard as a whole.74 These violations are particularly disturbing, as they suggest the
unjust enrichment of facilities and staff at the expense
of former detainees. Finally, fourteen facilities did not
dispose of abandoned property in accordance with the
guidelines outlined in the standard, or had no written
policies for disposing of abandoned property.75 Only
five of these facilities received “deficient” or “at-risk”
ratings for the standard.76

Handling Claims of Lost or Damaged Property
Pursuant to the standard, all facilities must have
written policies and procedures in place for addressing
claims of missing or damaged property.77 In SPCs and
CDFs, officers must report claims of missing or damaged property to supervisory staff, who will investigate
such claims and respond with any necessary remedial
measures.78 Moreover, staff must file with the facility’s
officer-in-charge a report of property that cannot be
located or is found in a damaged state.79 In SPCs, any
resulting claims against the U.S. government must be
documented on a form specified by the standard.80
CDFs and IGSAs, on the other hand, must reimburse
detainees for all property losses stemming from facility
negligence.81 The above procedures recognize both the
limited choice that detainees have in surrendering their
property to facilities and the importance of claims procedures in holding facilities accountable for any losses
they cause.
Four facilities either lacked procedures for handling property claims or had procedures that were insufficiently similar to those of ICE.82 At one SPC, staff
did not regularly inform supervisors about property
claims made by detainees.83 Moreover, two facilities
lacked or failed to complete forms documenting the loss
of or damage to detainee property, as required by the
standard.84 Another facility did not complete the appropriate forms for property claims against the United
States.85

A BROKEN SYSTEM

FUNDS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
CONCLUSION
Noncompliance with the FPP standard renders the
storage of property at many detention facilities a risky
proposition for detainees. ICE reviews reveal, in addition to instances of theft and outright forfeiture of detainee funds and property, that several facilities failed
to audit the contents of their property storage areas to
even enable an assessment of whether property had
gone missing. A surprising number of facilities also
failed to account for lost or damaged property and to
reach out to detainees about property they had left behind, probably resulting in other unwarranted depriva-

71

tions of property. Equally troubling, two facilities deprived detainees of their right to retain small possessions, including photos, wedding rings, addresses, and
legal documents, to the potential detriment of detainees’
mental and emotional health as well as their legal cases.
Still further, two facilities endangered the health of detainees by failing to separately process medications to
ensure their timely transfer to medical staff. The incompleteness of IGSA monitoring forms strongly suggests that these violations are only a small percentage
of those that actually occur at facilities housing ICE
detainees.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Admission and Release
INTRODUCTION
The detention standard regarding admission and
release is designed to protect the health, safety, and
welfare of detainees by requiring detention facilities to
implement admission procedures that help orient detainees who are new to a facility and release procedures
that are supposed to ensure that the property of departing detainees is returned to them.
When a newly arrived detainee is admitted, facility
staff must provide the detainee with an orientation and
a handbook, medical screenings, proper classification,
an opportunity to safeguard personal belongings, and
information regarding pro bono legal services.1 Upon
arrival, detainees also undergo screening interviews,
complete questionnaires, attend the facility’s orientation
program (which should involve viewing a video), and
receive facility-issued personal hygiene items and
clothing, towels, and bedding.2 The orientation program is particularly important, as it informs newly arrived detainees of the facility’s operations, programs
and services, including prohibited activities and the
associated sanctions.3 During the release process, detainees return facility-issued clothing, bedding and
other items, receive their personal property that had
been stored for them, and fill out certain paperwork.4
The admission and release standard sets protocols
to protect the health and safety of both the newly arrived detainees as well as detainees already living at the
facility. These protocols also help inform newly arrived detainees of the legal resources available to them.
Moreover, the classification protocols in this standard
help ensure that detained individuals are properly classified and housed, to avoid any danger to their personal
safety and to accommodate their medical needs.

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMISSION AND
RELEASE STANDARD
Orientation and Handbook Procedures
The standard requires facilities to provide newly
arrived detainees an orientation to the facility.5 For
nonfederal facilities where individuals are detained under an “Intergovernmental Service Agreement” (IGSA)
with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE),6 the local ICE office must approve orientation
procedures.7 At a minimum, orientation procedures at
Service Processing Centers (SPCs) and Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs) must cover standards of conduct, disciplinary procedures, methods for contacting an

ICE deportation officer, and the schedule of facility
programs.8 Several facilities for which ICE conducted
reviews failed to properly orient newly arrived detainees and inform them of facility procedures and other
crucial information.9 As a result, detainees remained
unaware of important facility procedures. In some
cases, facilities failed to inform newly arrived detainees
of available pro bono legal services, and one facility
violated this requirement in consecutive years.10
Other facilities either failed to issue handbooks to
all newly arrived detainees or the handbooks that were
issued were not translated into Spanish or other languages spoken by detainees.11 (See also the chapter in
this report titled “Detainee Handbook.”) Reviewers
found that one facility did not complete the admissions
forms properly, 12 another did not inform detainees of
how to contact ICE deportation officers, 13 and another
did not have adequate physical space to accommodate
detainee traffic during admission. 14

Detainee Funds, Valuables, and
Personal Property
Several facilities did not properly document every
claim for missing or lost personal property made by a
newly arriving detainee, as required by the standard.15
Other facilities failed to have an adequate system for
tracking and responding to such claims.16

Classification, Medical Screenings, Searches,
Contraband, Clothes, and Hygiene
The standard requires each newly arriving detainee
to be strip-searched.17 It also requires that an officer of
the same sex as the detainee conduct the search in a part
of the processing area that affords as much privacy as
possible.18 Facilities apply this provision inconsistently. Some facilities conduct strip searches of all new
arriving detainees,19 others conduct strip searches if a
detainee arrives from a custodial setting,20 others conduct strip searches if probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists to justify them,21 and other facilities simply conduct visual searches of newly arriving detainees.22 One facility applied state law in determining
whether to strip-search new detainees.23 At some facilities, reviewers noted that the facility did not conduct
strip searches of all detainees but did not clarify what
criteria were used to determine who would be stripsearched and who would not.24
The standard also requires prompt medical screening of all newly arriving detainees.25 The screening is
intended to protect the health of the detainee and others

A BROKEN SYSTEM

ADMISSION AND RELEASE

73

in the facility by identifying medical conditions that
property, and reclaiming facility clothing and bedrequire immediate or ongoing treatment.26 To review
ding.42 Reviewers found that some facilities did not
compliance with the medical screening provision, ICE
complete all of the required procedures.43
reviewers examined only whether medical screenings
are conducted and, if they were, by what type of facility
staff. One facility failed to conduct medical screenings
CONCLUSION
at all.27 Others completed medical screenings without
When they fail to implement procedures required
any involvement by medical staff.28 In some cases faby the admission and release standard, facilities may
cilities had no medical staff at all on site.29 One facility
place detainees at grave physical risk. Detainees who
did not complete medical screenings in a timely fashare not oriented properly may not understand how to
ion.30
conform their actions to facility rules and thus may be
Several facilities failed to comply with aspects of
unjustly subjected to disciplinary action. Detainees
the standard relating to providing clothing, bedding,
who are classified improperly or who are not properly
and personal hygiene items to detainees and then rescreened medically may suffer neglect of serious mediplenishing these basic necessities.31 In some facilities,
cal needs. Detainees may also lose valuable personal
detainees either did not receive necessary personal hyproperty because a facility does not have procedures in
giene items or were charged for them.32 Other facilities
place to report and track claims for missing property.
charged detainees for replenishment hygiene items.33
Given the serious consequences of not complying with
One facility failed to provide pillow cases or towels,
the admission and release standard, ICE facilities must
and shampoo was not available.34 One facility did not
do more to adhere to its provisions.
provide socks and underwear to detainees; these items
had to be brought by visitors or
purchased at the commissary.35
Another facility placed detainees in
temporary cots on the floor of the
KEY FINDINGS
visitation waiting room and the
basement holding room, where
 Several facilities failed to properly orient newly arrived
conditions were unsanitary.36
detainees and inform them of facility procedures and other crucial
The standard requires facilities
information.
to provide new detainees with cloth Facilities applied the strip-search requirement inconsistently:
ing of a particular color, depending
o Some facilities strip-searched all newly arriving detainees.
on their security classification level,
as well as color-coded wristbands,
o Others strip-searched only detainees arriving from a custodial
setting.
based on their housing and classification levels.37 Many facilities did
o Others strip-searched based on probable cause or reasonable
not follow these color-coding and
suspicion.
classification policies.38 Some simo Others conducted only visual searches of newly arriving
ply had no security classification
detainees.
system in place at all.39
 Facilities failed to provide adequate medical screening of newly
Facilities also had problems with
arriving detainees.
properly classifying detainees at the
o No medical staff participated in medical screenings, at some
time they were admitted. In many
facilities.
facilities, staff failed to classify de40
o Some facilities had no medical staff on site to conduct
tainees when they first arrived. In
screenings.
other facilities, classification methods were inconsistent or based on
 Detainees either did not receive necessary personal hygiene
inadequate information.41
items or were charged for them at some facilities, in violation of
the standard.

Release Procedures
The standard requires facilities
to complete certain procedures at the
time a detainee is released, including
closing files, returning personal

 Many facilities did not follow required security classification
policies.
o They failed to issue clothing or wristbands of different
colors to detainees based on their security and housing
classifications, as required by the standard.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Recommendations
counsel in light of the fact the immigration
detainees do not enjoy court-appointed counsel
and face tremendous obstacles to securing free
or low-cost legal representation.

INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
SYSTEM FAILURES
1.

2.

Promulgate regulations that give U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
(ICE’s) national detention standards the force
of law.
 Problem: No administrative or judicial means
exists to enforce core components of ICE’s
national detention standards. Compliance is a
low priority because there is no sanction.
 Solution: ICE must promulgate regulations
that transform core national detention
standards from ICE policy into enforceable
statutes or regulations. Making ICE subject to
a legal mechanism by which the agency could
be held accountable for the conditions at
immigration detention facilities would be
consistent with the agency’s mission of
ensuring the humane treatment of all
immigration detainees.
These regulations must also include
provisions setting up a monitoring system to
ensure compliance with the detention
standards.
Strengthen the current ICE national detention
standards to ensure that they provide an
appropriate level of protection for civil
detainees.
 Problem: The current detention standards
grew out of rules developed for criminal
detainees. As such, they were designed for a
higher-security population and may be overly
restrictive for civil, immigration detainees. In
addition, in some respects the protections
provided for by the standards are too modest
because they were designed for criminal
detainees who enjoy greater procedural
protections, such as the right to courtappointed counsel. For that reason, the
standards regarding immigrants’ access to
legal materials and counsel are insufficient to
protect civil detainees.
 Solution: ICE must take a hard look at the
existing standards and make necessary
revisions to strengthen them so that they
sufficiently protect detainees’ rights in practice
and not simply on paper. ICE must pay
special attention to strengthening the standards
related to detainees’ access to the courts and

3.

Congress must codify key portions of the ICE
national detention standards into statute.
 Problem: As noted above, the detention
standards are not currently legally binding.
 Solution: Congress must make key portions of
the detention standards binding through
statute. At a minimum, Congress should enact
a law that includes mandatory protections to
allow detainees to sue ICE when it violates
core components of the detention standards
that undermine detainees’ due process rights or
threaten detainees’ health and safety. These
provisions should be incorporated into
Immigration and Nationality Act section 236.

4.

Create and enforce a graduated system of
penalties for noncompliant facilities.
 Problem: Under the current system, facilities
face no real penalties when they fail to comply
with even the most fundamental detention
standards. Nor, when they receive dismal
ratings under the ICE annual review process,
are they subject to any clear repercussions. In
addition, there are no rules requiring that
detainees be temporarily transferred out of a
facility if it is in gross violation of the
standards and no rules outlining when a
facility should lose its contract with ICE for
having repeatedly and seriously violated the
standards.
 Solution: ICE must create a graduated system
of penalties for noncompliant facilities. At the
most basic level, ICE should, in consultation
with nonprofit stakeholders, identify core
components of the detention standards that, if
violated, require immediate ameliorative
action, which may include: temporary transfer
of detainees out of the facility; temporary
takeover of the facility by ICE or by a
receiver; temporary suspension of the facility
contract; or termination of the facility contract.
The ameliorative step warranted should take
into account the severity of the violation at
issue. At a minimum, when an ICE or
independent agency review finds that facilities
have violated key portions of the detention
standards, the problems must be resolved

A BROKEN SYSTEM

RECOMMENDATIONS
within five days. If the problem cannot be
resolved within this time period, ICE should
consider supervised release of detainees or
transferring them out of the facility to another
facility in the area.
In consultation with nonprofit
stakeholders, ICE should set up a penalty
scheme for facilities that have repeatedly
violated the detention standards, even if the
individual violations would not necessitate
immediate ameliorative action. Facilities or
private companies with a persistent record of
noncompliance should have a more difficult
time renewing their contracts with ICE or
securing other federal contracts and,
ultimately, should face early termination of
their current ICE contract for noncompliance.
5.

6.

Provide training on detention standards for all
detention-related personnel in all immigration
detention facilities.
 Problem: Although the standards instituted in
2000 were in effect for over eight years, staff
in detention facilities never gained sufficient
familiarity with them. ICE does not provide
training on detention standards either to
contract detention center staff or to staff at
state and county jails that hold immigration
detainees, where the majority of immigration
detainees are held. Staff at state and local
jails, which primarily hold criminal detainees,
often have little knowledge of the immigration
system or of the ICE detention standards.
 Solution: All detention-related personnel
involved in operations and oversight at any
immigration facility must receive in-person
training on the detention standards. The
training should cover how to handle detainee
grievances and how to ensure compliance with
the standards. All detention-related personnel
at each immigration detention facility must
also receive a current copy of ICE’s Detention
Operations Manual, the policy manual in
which the detention standards historically have
been spelled out, as well as any updates to the
manual.
Increase ICE presence at state and local jails
(IGSAs) and Contract Detention Facilities
holding immigration detainees.
 Problem: Staff at Intergovernmental Service
Agreement facilities (IGSAs) and Contract
Detention Facilities (CDFs) have little
connection to or familiarity with ICE policies
and procedures. Because IGSAs primarily
house criminal pretrial and post-conviction

75

detainees, these facilities are unaccustomed to
dealing with the special needs presented by
civil immigration detainees, including asylumseekers who may be suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. Staffs at IGSAs and
CDFs are less likely to be aware of the
detention standards, their requirements, and
other issues of concern for civil immigration
detainees. ICE personnel are not stationed at
IGSAs or CDFs, impeding ongoing, effective
oversight.
 Solution: An ICE detention officer trained in
the requirements of the detention standards
and tasked with oversight of detention
conditions should be assigned to monitor
detention conditions at every facility housing
an average of 10 or more ICE detainees a day,
including CDFs and IGSAs. Detainees should
have the ability to place a free phone call to
this officer at any point to report violations and
other issues. In addition, this officer should
make a minimum of two visits a month to the
facility to meet privately with detainees and
facility staff.
7.

Ensure advocates can report detention
standards violations without facing retaliation
from the agency.
 Problem: Attorneys and advocates who
observe violations of detention standards often
are afraid to report these violations out of fear
that they may face retaliation by the agency,
including losing the ability to make legal
rights presentations or facing additional
barriers to visit their clients.
 Solution: ICE must ensure that attorneys and
advocates who conduct legal rights
presentations or visit detainees can report
violations without fear of retaliation. ICE
must adopt an explicit nonretaliation policy
and provide training to all detention-related
personnel on the policy. In addition, this
policy must encourage, rather than discourage,
the reporting of violations of the standards.

UNIFORMITY ACROSS
DETENTION FACILITIES
8.

Ensure that state and county jails holding ICE
detainees under Intergovernmental Service
Agreements (IGSAs) are held to the same
standards as facilities owned and operated by
ICE (Service Processing Centers, or SPCs) and
privately owned facilities holding ICE detainees
(Contract Detention Facilities, or CDFs).

A BROKEN SYSTEM

76

RECOMMENDATIONS
 Problem: Although the detention standards are
supposed to apply to all detention facilities
holding ICE detainees, critical portions of
many of the detention standards are not strictly
applicable to IGSAs, where a majority of ICE
detainees are held. For example, the
“Correspondence and Other Mail” standard
makes clear that in SPCs and CDFs, incoming
general correspondence must be opened or
inspected in the presence of the detainee, and
that usually outgoing general correspondence
may be inspected only if the detainee is
present. The standard, as currently written,
fails to explicitly extend these protections for
confidential correspondence to IGSAs.
 Solution: ICE must require that all portions of
the detention standards apply equally to
IGSAs. If these facilities have contracts to
hold ICE detainees, they should be expected to
meet the same standards as ICE-owned-andoperated facilities. The regulations that should
be promulgated covering the detention
standards should apply equally to all
immigration facilities.

INCREASE TRANSPARENCY OF THE SYSTEM
9.

Increase transparency regarding the detention
system by making publicly available and
regularly updating a map of facilities in use,
with their precise locations and a system to
locate detainees.
 Problem: Immigration detainees are held in
over 350 facilities scattered across the country.
Many of these facilities are located in remote
areas, far away from legal service providers.
Due to space and transportation issues,
detainees are often transferred from facility to
facility across state lines. Detainees’ relatives
and even their attorneys often find it difficult
to track the location of their loved ones and
clients because no public list of all detention
facilities is currently available.
 Solution: Require ICE to provide a map that
identifies all the facilities it uses to house
immigration detainees across the country and a
public system to locate detainees. This map
should be updated regularly and should
provide information on the facility’s location,
phone number, and visiting hours and policies.
In addition, this map should clearly state
where complaints regarding detention issues at
each facility should be directed. ICE should
establish and maintain a current Internet-based

database system into which attorneys and
family members could enter a detainee’s name
and alien registration number, and thus
determine at which facility the person was
being held. Similar Internet-based systems
already exist to help family members locate
criminal detainees.
10. Make public the reports of the American Bar
Association (ABA) and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as well
as the internal facility reviews and ratings done
by ICE, to ensure that ICE is held publicly
accountable for the conditions at its detention
facilities.
 Problem: Although substantial monitoring has
been done of the conditions at immigration
detention facilities, this information has been
systematically kept out of the public eye. ICE
has refused to release its own reports and has
allowed the ABA and UNHCR to visit
facilities only on condition that they not make
their findings public.
 Solution: ICE must make public the reports
that it conducts each year as well as those
conducted by the ABA and UNHCR. These
reports should be redacted only as necessary to
protect detainee and staff names. In addition,
ICE already maintains a database that tracks
the overall and individual detention standard
ratings assigned to facilities as a result of its
own reviews. These ratings must be made
public.
11. Compile data about the most frequently violated
standards and elements of standards to allow
for additional training in problematic areas
and a systematic and meaningful agency
response to deficiencies. Make this information
public and invite advocates to respond.
 Problem: ICE has invested considerable
resources in conducting annual reviews at
immigration detention facilities, but little has
been done with these reviews’ product. The
chief of the Detention Standards Compliance
Unit (DSCU) admitted that although he
reviewed each facility review, he did not keep
track of problems that recurred across the
country.
 Solution: ICE must analyze annual reviews to
identify which standards are the most
frequently violated. When these analyses
reveal that particular standards are being
systematically violated, ICE should convene a
workgroup of agency staff and
nongovernmental organization (NGO) experts

A BROKEN SYSTEM

RECOMMENDATIONS
to make suggestions for additional training on
these standards or system reform to ensure
improved compliance. The workgroup should
be convened annually to address any
systematic problems identified from the last
year’s reviews. In determining whether
systematic problems exist regarding
compliance with a particular standard, ICE
should consider the pervasiveness of the
violations found across facilities, the number
of detainees impacted by the violations, and
the nature of the violations. At a minimum, if
nine or more of the facilities across the country
were deficient on any single standard, ICE
should convene such a workgroup. In
addition, if fewer than nine facilities were
rated deficient on any single standard, but
enough facilities were rated deficient to put
1,000 detainees at risk, a workgroup should be
convened. Findings of deficiencies at facilities
that put fewer than 1,000 detainees at risk may
also require a workgroup to be convened,
depending on the nature and severity of the
violations identified. In addition, NGO
experts on immigrant or civil detention should
participate in any training on the detention
standards monitoring.
12. ICE should inform the public about its new
monitoring plans under the Performance Based
National Detention Standards (PBNDS) and
seek feedback from NGO stakeholders about
these plans.
 Problem: ICE not only has kept information
on compliance with the detention standards
secret, it also has failed to inform and consult
NGO stakeholders and experts about its plans
to revise the detention standards monitoring
system under the recently issued PBNDS.
Although ICE has announced its plans to use
the private Nakamoto Group to conduct
detention standards compliance reviews, it has
failed to make public the scope of this work or
how it would differ, if at all, from ICE’s prior
monitoring under the 2000 National Detention
Standards. In addition, ICE has not sought
input from NGO stakeholders and other
experts on its current plans to monitor
detention standards compliance across the
hundreds of facilities housing immigration
detainees. Such actions further detract from
ICE’s transparency with regard to the
detention system.
 Solution: Plans for monitoring compliance
with the PBNDS should not be finalized before
NGO stakeholders are consulted. The

77

detention standards were originally designed
in close consultation with NGO stakeholders.
Given that the available evidence shows
widespread noncompliance with the existing
standards, ICE should not revise its
compliance review system without seeking
input from NGOs and other experts in a
position to comment on the system’s current
deficiencies and strengths.

UNIFORMITY IN THE REVIEW SYSTEM
13. Clarify the standards and facility ratings
criteria to reduce individual discretion by
reviewing officers.
 Problem: According to ICE’s Detention
Operations Manual, each detention facility
housing ICE detainees is to be reviewed
annually for compliance with the detention
standards. During this review, reviewers
determine whether a facility’s compliance with
each detention standard is “acceptable,”
“deficient,” or “at risk.” In addition, reviewers
must assign the facility an overall rating of
either “superior,” “good,” “acceptable,” or “at
risk.” But ICE has no written guidelines to
instruct reviewers on rating facility
compliance with individual detention
standards. Moreover, reviewers historically
have been provided only minimal guidance on
how they should determine overall facility
ratings. As a result, a facility could be out of
compliance with several key aspects of a
particular standard and still have that standard
deemed “acceptable.” And even if a facility’s
compliance with numerous standards were
found to be “deficient,” it could nevertheless
receive an overall rating of “acceptable.” It is
no surprise, therefore, that different reviewers
rated facilities in vastly different ways and that
largely deficient facilities continued to operate
as though their performance was acceptable.
These anomalous results undermined the
utility of the annual detention reviews.
 Solution: ICE must create a set of objective
criteria for detention standards and overall
facility ratings. These criteria should consider
the nature and severity of the violations
observed, the number of violations, and
whether there has been a pattern of
noncompliance at the particular facility. A
facility that has only one standard out of
compliance may merit an overall facility rating
of “deficient” due to the nature of the

A BROKEN SYSTEM

78

RECOMMENDATIONS
violations found or their severity. For
example, a facility that routinely subjects all
detainees to unsafe food or that routinely has
phones that do not work should be rated
“deficient” overall. In the case of unsafe food,
the health of the detainee population is put at
risk, necessitating a low overall rating.
Similarly, if problems with phones are
pervasive, detainees with meritorious claims to
relief will be unable to pursue their claims.
ICE should also establish numerical
benchmarks for overall facility ratings.
Facilities that have deficiencies in several
detention standards should not receive positive
ratings. At a minimum, no facility should be
rated as “good” unless it receives “acceptable”
ratings on at least 90 percent of the detention
standards. No facility should be rated as
“acceptable” unless it receives “acceptable”
ratings on at least 85 percent of the detention
standards.
Finally, ICE should require that if a core
component of a standard is marked “deficient,”
the entire standard must be marked “deficient.
What a core component of a detention
standard is must be designated in consultation
with experts on immigration and civil
detention.

14. Conduct annual audits of facility reviews to
increase uniformity, identify training needs, and
decrease reviewer variation.
 Problem: As noted above, ICE reviews
provide limited insight into facility
compliance, given the lack of guidance on how
individual reviewers should assign ratings. As
a result, similar problems observed at different
facilities may be rated in radically different
ways.
 Solution: Staff in the Detention Standards
Compliance Unit at ICE should conduct
annual audits of the ICE reviews to identify
common mistakes made by reviewers,
systematic problems with compliance, and
training needs. In addition, these audits should
ensure that benchmarks for ratings are being
observed and determine whether reviewers are
generally applying the same criteria to rate
facilities. A facility’s overall rating or ratings
for individual standards should not vary
significantly depending on the particular
reviewer conducting the review.

IMPROVE THE ICE INTERNAL
REVIEW PROCESS
15. Revise the ICE policy to require unannounced
inspections of all facilities.
 Problem: ICE’s current policy of notifying
facilities of pending inspections at least 30
days in advance undermines its ability to
obtain an accurate picture of actual conditions
experienced by detainees in those facilities.
 Solution: Revise the ICE policy to require
unannounced inspections, in order to ensure
that reviews are based on observing actual
conditions rather than temporary fixes that
conceal chronic deficiencies.
16. Clarify and enforce the requirement that facility
reviewers must conduct confidential interviews
with detainees as part of the review process and
require that interpreters be made available to
facilitate these interviews.
 Problem: Though ICE’s current stated policy
is that reviewers are encouraged to interview
detainees as part of the annual review process,
the form historically used to conduct the
annual review provides no space in which to
record information from detainees. In
addition, neither are reviewers required to
interview a minimum number of detainees, nor
is any provision made to ensure that they have
the language capacity or interpreters necessary
to communicate with detainees who do not
speak English. As a practical matter,
therefore, despite the stated policy, the actual
one is to discourage reviewers from
interviewing detainees, and such interviews
have been rare.
 Solution: Require that a minimum of 10
detainees be interviewed per inspection at each
facility that houses at least 100 detainees on a
regular basis. For facilities that house fewer
detainees, a minimum of 3 to 7 detainees
should be interviewed per inspection. For
larger facilities, more interviews may be
required to ensure adequate representation of
detainees’ concerns. In addition, ICE should
provide interpreters to ensure that non–English
speaking detainees have the ability to
communicate with the ICE reviewers. And the
detainees interviewed should be from various
parts of the facility, to increase the chance that
issues specific to those different areas are
identified.
The annual review form also should be
revised to systematically include information

A BROKEN SYSTEM

RECOMMENDATIONS
gained via detainee interviews. Also, a space
should be provided on the form to document
the number of facility staff interviewed or
consulted during the review as well as the
number of detainees interviewed. And
personnel conducting reviews for ICE should
be trained in how to conduct interviews with
detainees in a confidential and
nonconfrontational way. The interviews
should be conducted in a location that is
private, where they cannot be overheard by
detention center staff or other detainees.
17. Strengthen detention standards review training
and require all compliance review staff to take
an annual “refresher” training.
 Problem: Under the monitoring system used
through 2008, ICE annual reviewers were
trained only one time. Most reviewers were
deportation officers, transportation officers,
and others who had no background in
corrections oversight. For most of these
reviewers, facility reviews were a small
portion of their job, nor did they spend time
throughout the year working on detention
conditions issues. With the release of the
PBNDS in September 2008, ICE announced
that compliance reviews will be conducted by
reviewers of the Nakamoto Group, a private
contractor. However, ICE has not made public
any information regarding its plans for initial
and ongoing training of these contracted
compliance monitors.
 Solution: Require a yearly training session to
be provided in local offices for all review staff.
This yearly training session should be run by
DSCU staff and should include NGO civil
detention and immigration experts. The
training should discuss any changes to the
detention review process over the past year as
well as common mistakes and the most
violated standards from the prior year. In
addition, before a reviewer conducts an annual
review of a facility, he or she should speak
with the reviewer-in-charge who conducted
the facility’s review the previous year. In
addition, each reviewer should read any
available independent agency report about the
detention facility that he or she will be
reviewing.
The initial training for new annual
reviewers also should be conducted by DSCU
staff in conjunction with NGO experts. The
training should, among other things, stress the
importance of (and methods for) conducting

79

the review as objectively and impartially as
possible.
18. Ensure that all facilities housing immigration
detainees are inspected by reviewers whose fulltime job is to monitor detention standards
compliance.
 Problem: Historically, staff from the
Detention Standards Compliance Unit (DSCU)
conducted the reviews only for the seven ICEowned-and-operated Service Processing
Centers (SPCs) and the seven privately owned
and operated Contract Detention Facilities
(CDFs).1 The over 300 state and county jails
that routinely house immigration detainees
were reviewed by ICE personnel (such as
deportation officers) who had other full-time
positions and conducted such reviews as an
additional task.
 Solution: Either have reviews of all
immigration facilities conducted by Nakamoto
Group contractors whose full-time job is to
conduct such reviews or increase DSCU
staffing to ensure that at least one DSCU staff
member is a part of each annual review team.
ICE’s decision to engage an independent firm
to conduct some detention compliance reviews
is a positive and important step to ensuring
meaningful compliance with detention
standards. However, ICE must also ensure
that the individuals who conduct these reviews
are sufficiently familiar with the detention
standards and compliance issues that the
reviews they conduct are thorough and
meaningful. One option is for ICE to contract
with the Nakamoto Group to conduct all the
required detention reviews and to ensure that
this is the full-time job of the individuals
conducting these reviews. Alternatively, ICE
could increase DSCU staffing to ensure that at
least one DSCU staff member is a part of each
annual review team. A full-time staff of 32
would be sufficient — allowing each staff
member to participate in 10 trips a year to
cover the approximately 320 facilities.
1

“Office of Detention and Removal (DRO)” (U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, last updated Jan. 9, 2009),
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/index.htm (last visited Feb. 2, 2009). ICE
currently operates the following SPCs: Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (Puerto Rico); Buffalo Federal Detention
Center (New York); El Centro Service Processing Center
(California); El Paso Service Processing Center (Texas); Florence
Service Processing Center (Arizona); Port Isabel Service
Processing Center (Texas); Krome Service Processing Center
(Florida); and San Pedro Service Processing Center (California);
however, the San Pedro SPC has been closed for repair and
renovation since October 2007.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

80

RECOMMENDATIONS
Ensuring DSCU involvement in every annual
review would increase uniformity in review
standards and methods as well as DSCU
understanding of the degree to which detention
standards are, or are not, being met
nationwide.

19. Revise facility review forms to require the
reviewer to write a detailed narrative that in
subsequent years will provide a context for
facility evaluations and recommendations
regarding deficiencies.
 Problem: To conduct an annual facility
review, historically the ICE reviewer has
marked items and written comments on
checklists that correspond to each detention
standard. Each checklist poses specific
questions designed to assist the reviewer in
determining whether the facility is complying
with particular elements of the detention
standard. Each checklist also provides a small
space in which the reviewer can write
comments, but reviewers rarely have made use
of this space. The rare comments written in
these spaces, however, can identify important
violations. For example, at one facility the
reviewer noted that the position of the detainee
telephones was inappropriate, such that
detainees could not stand or sit while making
their phone calls — they had to squat.
Overall, the facility review form has
discouraged reviewers from recording
qualitative information relating to the
detention conditions they observed. In
addition, the form provides little room for
reviewers to identify or describe novel
problems they have observed.
 Solution: Revise ICE review forms to require
and encourage reviewers to record more
contextual information relating to detention
conditions. Require each reviewer to complete
a narrative section that includes overall
impressions of problems at facilities,
information on the time spent at each facility,
the individuals spoken to, and other supporting
information that was reviewed.
20. Detainee grievances for each facility must be
reviewed before ICE annual inspections or
independent evaluations.
 Problem: The detention standard for detainee
grievances sets out a process for individual
detainees to make complaints about detention
conditions or their treatment at immigration
detention facilities. This information could
provide critical insight into facilities’

compliance with the detention standards, but it
is not systematically used in ICE or
independent agency reviews.
 Solution: Make detainee grievances for each
facility available to ICE and independent
agency reviewers before each facility review.
When an independent agency or ICE (or ICE
contractor) reviews a facility, the reviewer
should receive advance copies of all detainee
grievances over the previous year to
incorporate into his or her report. These
grievances should be redacted only as
necessary to protect detainee and staff names.
21. To preclude cronyism and the potential for
superficial reviews, require that inspection
officers be truly independent from facilities.
 Problem: Historically, ICE reviews of IGSAs
generally were conducted by detention officers
whose regular duties require the cooperation
and good will of the IGSA staff. This situation
creates an inherent conflict of interest.
 Solution: In assigning inspection officers to
review facilities, ensure that the reviewer-incharge has no connection to the facility being
reviewed. However, because the review team
may benefit from having a member who is
familiar with the facility being reviewed, it
would be helpful if one member of the review
team had a connection to the facility under
review. However, that member should be
committed to completing his or her tasks
objectively.

INCREASE INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE
DETENTION SYSTEM
22. Appoint an independent auditor to monitor
detention conditions, report to Congress, and
suggest changes to the detention monitoring
system.
 Problem: ICE reviews often have failed to
find violations of detention standards
identified by independent monitoring agencies.
Independent agencies have repeatedly found
serious violations of basic detention conditions
at facilities across the country. These reports
have been a pivotal force in exposing the dire
conditions immigrants in detention face.
 Solution: Congress should create an
independent office to monitor conditions at
immigration detention facilities on an ongoing
basis. Adequate funds must be appropriated to
ensure that the office has sufficient staff to

A BROKEN SYSTEM

RECOMMENDATIONS
monitor facilities and prepare a yearly report
to Congress on detention conditions. This
report should be made public. Based on the
findings in this report, the office should have
the authority to identify necessary revisions to
the ICE monitoring system and the detention
standards themselves. In its monitoring, the
office should pay particular attention to
observed variations between how IGSA
facilities comply with the standards and how
ICE-owned-and-operated SPCs or contract
detention facilities, where the standards apply
more strictly, comply with them.

STOP THE EXPANSION OF IMMIGRATION
DETENTION AND PROMOTE DETAINEE
RIGHTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
23. Congress must halt the expansion of the
immigration detention system and provide for
more alternatives to detention.
 Problem: The immigration detention system is
both woefully under-regulated and
characterized by severe and pervasive
violations of the government’s own detention
standards. Nevertheless, over the last decade
the federal government has dramatically
expanded the system, notwithstanding such
evidence and even though detention is
significantly more costly than nondetention
alternatives — and despite the fact that
alternatives to detention are effective in
ensuring that individuals do not flee while
their immigration proceedings are pending.
Given these facts, it is inhumane and overly
punitive to continue to lock up more than a
quarter of a million immigration detainees
annually and to continue to appropriate more
funds to build more immigration detention
facilities. Current detention conditions often
have the effect of coercing immigrants to give
up meritorious claims to remain in the U.S.
rather than remaining locked up while their
cases wind through the system.
 Solution: A moratorium must be placed on
expanding bed space in the immigration
detention system until conditions in
immigration detention are dramatically
improved and the changes outlined above are
implemented. In addition, ICE must seriously

81

consider alternatives to detention, including
supervised release, as it is irresponsible to hold
over a quarter of a million civil detainees
annually in deplorable conditions. ICE must
promulgate regulations establishing criteria for
supervised release and other alternatives to
detention. For those immigrants who remain
detained, legal orientation programming and
other educational programming should be
available at every facility.
24. Expand legal rights and other programming in
immigration detention.
 Problem: Many of the immigration detention
facilities ICE uses are located in remote areas,
far away from cities that have low-cost legal
service providers. In addition, the evidence in
this report reveals pervasive violations of the
detention standards governing telephone
access, visitation, and access to legal
materials, all of which violations further
undermine immigrants’ ability to secure
counsel or to pursue their own cases.
 Solution: Given immigrants’ impaired
abilities to secure counsel or pursue their own
cases, ICE must expand legal rights
presentations at detention facilities.
Additional funds should be appropriated to
ensure regular legal rights presentations at all
facilities.
25. Establish and fund a pilot program to provide
court-appointed legal counsel to detained
immigrants.
 Problem: Represented immigrants are far
more likely to win the right to remain in the
U.S, but detainees’ ability to find and secure
low-cost legal assistance is severely impeded
by widespread violations of the detention
standards, including standards relating to
access to telephones, law libraries, and
visitation. In addition, given the current
immigration detention conditions, the dividing
line between criminal detention, where
detainees are entitled to court-appointed
counsel, and immigration detention, where
they are not, is murky at best.
 Solution: Given immigrants’ impaired
abilities to secure counsel or pursue their own
cases, Congress must authorize and fund a
pilot program to provide court-appointed
counsel to detained immigrants in select
locations across the country.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Figure 1: Number of Detention Facilities by State

(A color PDF of this figure is available at http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/Figure-1-detention-facilities-by-state.pdf.)

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Table 3: Detention Facilities, Reviews of Which Are Analyzed in This Report
(BY STATE & FACILITY TYPE)
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona

Arkansas
California

Colorado

FACILITY NAME
Etowah County Detention
Center
Anchorage Jail Complex
Central Arizona Detention
Center (Flagstaff)
Central Arizona Detention
Center (Florence)
Eloy Detention Center
Florence Service Processing
Center
La Paz County Jail
Santa Cruz County Jail
Yavapai County Detention
Center
Miller County Correctional
Facility
El Centro Service Processing
Center
Kern County Jail (Lerdo PreTrial Facility)
Mira Loma Detention Center
Monterey Park City Jail
Oakland City Jail
Otay Mesa Adult Detention
Center
Pomona City Jail
Sacramento County Jail
San Diego Correctional
Facility
San Pedro Service Processing
Center
Santa Ana City Jail
Santa Clara Main Jail
Complex
Yuba County Jail
Aurora Contract Detention
Facility
Garfield County Detention
Center
Jefferson County Jail
Las Animas County Jail
Park County Jail
Pueblo County Detention
Center
Southern Ute Detention
Center

TYPE
IGSA

STATE
Connecticut

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

Florida

IGSA
SPC
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
SPC
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
CDF
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

Georgia

SPC
IGSA
IGSA
Guam
IGSA
CDF

Idaho

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

Illinois

A BROKEN SYSTEM

FACILITY NAME
Hartford Community
Correctional Center
Osborn Correctional
Institution
York Correctional Institution
Broward County Detention
Center
Broward Transition Center
Citrus County Jail
Clay County Jail
Comfort Suites Hotel
Krome Service Processing
Center
Manatee County Detention
Facility (Annex)
Manatee County Detention
Facility (Central)
Manatee County Jail
Monroe County Jail
Osceola County Jail
Palm Beach County Jail
Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center
Wakulla County Sheriff’s
Office
Atlanta Airport
Atlanta City Detention
Center
Chatham County Detention
Center
Colquitt County Jail
Harris County Jail
Department of Corrections
(DEPCOR)
Bannock County Jail
Bingham County Jail
Bonneville County Jail
Canyon County Jail
Dale G. Haile Detention
Center
Mini-Cassia County Jail
Twin Falls Criminal Justice
Facility
Broadview Service Staging
Area

TYPE
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
CDF
IGSA
IGSA
Private
Hotel
SPC
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

84
STATE

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

TABLE 3: DETENTION FACILITIES, REVIEWS OF WHICH ARE ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

FACILITY NAME
Dupage County Jail
Jefferson County Detention
Facility
McHenry County Jail
Tri-County Detention Center
Hardin County Correctional
Center
Linn County Correctional
Center (Linn County Jail)
Polk County Jail
Pottawattame County Jail
Butler County Jail
Chase County Jail
Finney County Jail
Jefferson County Law
Enforcement Center
Reno County Jail
Saline County Jail
Sedgwick County Jail
Shawnee County Detention
Center
Boone County Detention
Center
Grayson County Detention
Center
Warren County Regional Jail
Avoyelles Parish Jail
Avoyelles Women’s
Correctional Center
Calcaseau Parish
Correctional Center
Oakdale Federal Detention
Center
Orleans Parish (Community
Corrections Center)
Orleans Parish Prison
Women’s Facility
Pine Prairie Correctional
Center
Plaquemines Parish
Detention Center
Pointe Coupee Parish
Detention Center
St. Martin Parish
Correctional Center (St.
Martin Parish Jail)
Tangipahoa Parish Prison
Tensas Detention Center
West Carroll Detention
Center

TYPE
IGSA
IGSA

STATE
Maine
Maryland

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

Massachusetts

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
Michigan
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

Minnesota

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
Missouri
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

A BROKEN SYSTEM

FACILITY NAME
Penobscot County Jail
Piscataquis County Jail
Carroll County Detention
Center
Dorchester County Detention
Center
Howard County Detention
Center
St. Mary’s County Detention
Center
Wicomico County Detention
Center (Wicomico County
Jail)
Worcester County Jail
Berkshire County Jail and
House of Corrections
Bristol County House of
Correction (Bristol County
Jail)
Franklin County Jail and
House of Corrections
Plymouth County
Correctional Facility
Suffolk County House of
Correction
Calhoun County Jail
Crawford County Sheriff’s
Department (Crawford
County Jail)
Kent County Jail
Macomb County Jail
Monroe County Jail
Wayne County Sheriff’s
Department (Detroit)
Wayne County Sheriff’s
Department (Hamtramack)
Carver County Jail
Minnesota Correctional
Facility
Morrison County Jail
Nobles County Jail
Ramsey Adult Detention
Center
Sherburne County Jail
Washington County Jail
Audrain County Jail
Caldwell County Detention
Center
Christian County Jail
Green County Jail
Jennings Correctional
Facility

TYPE
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

85

TABLE 3: DETENTION FACILITIES, REVIEWS OF WHICH ARE ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

STATE

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New
Hampshire
New Jersey

New Mexico

FACILITY NAME
Lincoln County Detention
Center (Lincoln County Jail)
Miller County Adult
Detention Center
Mississippi County Detention
Center
Montgomery County Jail
Morgan County Adult
Detention Center
Pettis County Detention
Center
Platte County Detention
Center
St. Francois County
Detention Center
Hill County Detention Center
Missoula County Detention
Facility
Yellowstone County
Detention Facility
Cass County Jail
Douglas County Department
of Corrections
Hastings Correctional Center
Madison County Jail
Phelps County Jail
Scottsbluff County Jail
City of Las Vegas Detention
Center
North Las Vegas Detention
Center
Rockingham County
Department of Correction
(Rockingham County Jail)
Bergen County Jail
Elizabeth Contract Detention
Center
Hudson County Department
of Corrections
Keogh-Dwyer Correctional
Facility (Sussex County Jail)
Middlesex County
Department of Corrections
(Middlesex County Jail)
Monmouth County Jail
Passaic County Jail
Union County Correctional
Center
Cibola County Detention
Center
Otero County Prison Facility
Regional Correctional Center

TYPE
IGSA

STATE

IGSA

New York

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

North
Carolina

North Dakota
Ohio

IGSA

IGSA
CDF
Oklahoma
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

Oregon

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

Pennsylvania

A BROKEN SYSTEM

FACILITY NAME
Torrance County Detention
Center
Batavia Federal Detention
Facility (Batavia Service
Processing Center)
Cayuga County Jail
Chautauqua County Jail
Clinton County Jail
Erie County Holding Center
Franklin County Jail
Genesee County Jail
Madison County Jail
Monroe County Jail
Niagara County Jail
Onondaga County Jail
Orleans County Jail
Queens Contract Detention
Facility
Wayne County Jail
Wyoming County Jail
Forsyth County Law
Enforcement and Detention
Center
Mecklenburg County Jail
(Central)
Mecklenburg County Jail
(North)
Grand Forks County
Correctional Center
Bedford Heights City Jail
Maple Heights City Jail
Pickaway County Jail
Seneca County Jail
Solon County Jail
Trumbull County Jail
Canadian County Jail
Carter County Detention
Center
Garvin County Detention
Center (Garvin County Jail)
Oklahoma County Detention
Center
Columbia County Jail
Grant County Jail
Josephine County Jail
Northern Oregon
Correctional Center
(NORCOR)
Allegheny County Jail
Bedford County Jail

TYPE
IGSA
SPC

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

IGSA
IGSA

86

TABLE 3: DETENTION FACILITIES, REVIEWS OF WHICH ARE ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

STATE

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee

Texas

FACILITY NAME
Berks County Prison
Cambria County Prison
Carbon County Correctional
Facility
Clinton County Correctional
Facility (Clinton County Jail)
Erie County Prison
Lackawanna County Prison
Montgomery County
Correctional Facility
Pike County Correctional
Facility
Snyder County Jail
York County Prison
Aguadilla Service Processing
Center
Guaynaba Metropolitan
Detention Center
ACI-Cranston Intake Service
Center
Donald W. Wyatt Detention
Center
Charleston County Detention
Center
Minnehaha County Jai
Pennington County Jail
Blount County Jail
CCA Silverdale
Hamilton County Jail
West Tennessee Detention
Facility
Williamson County Jail
Angelina County
Correctional Facility (Lufkin
Detention Facility)
Bexar County GEO (Central
Texas Parole Violators
Facility)
Brewster County Jail
Brooks County Detention
Center
Cameron County Jail
Comal County Jail
Culberson County Jail
Dallas County Jail System
Facility
Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport
Denton County Detention
Center
Dickens County Correctional
Center

TYPE
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

STATE

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
SPC
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

IGSA

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

Utah

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

A BROKEN SYSTEM

FACILITY NAME
Ector County Correctional
Center
El Paso Service Processing
Center
Frio County Jail
George Allen Jail
Grayson County Jail
Grimes County Jail
Guadalupe County Adult
Detention Center
Harlington Sub Processing
Office
Houston Contract Detention
Facility (CCA)
Jefferson County Jail
Karnes County Correctional
Center
Laredo Contract Detention
Facility
La Salle County Regional
Detention Center
Limestone County Detention
Center
McLennan County Detention
Center
Navarro County Detention
Center
Newton County Correctional
Center
Odessa Detention Center
Port Isabel Service
Processing Center
Rolling Plains Regional
Detention Center
Smith County Jail
South Texas Detention
Center
Suzanne L. Kays Detention
Facility (Dallas County Jail)
Val Verde County Detention
Center
Victoria County Jail
West Texas Detention
Facility
Williamson County Jail
Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Complex
Summit County Jail
Tooele County Detention
Center
Utah County Jail
Wasatch County Jail

TYPE
IGSA
SPC
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
CDF
IGSA
IGSA
CDF
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
SPC
IGSA
IGSA
SPC
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

TABLE 3: DETENTION FACILITIES, REVIEWS OF WHICH ARE ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

STATE

Vermont

U.S. Virgin
Islands
Virginia

FACILITY NAME
Washington County
Purgatory Detention Facility
Weber County Jail
Vermont Department of
Corrections/Northern State
Correctional Facility
Golden Grove Adult
Detention Center
Arlington Adult Detention
Facility (Arlington County
Jail)
Clarke, Fauquier, Frederick
and Winchester Regional
Adult Detention Center
Hampton Roads Regional
Jail
Pamunkey Regional Jail
Piedmont Regional Jail
Rappahannock Regional Jail
Riverside Regional Jail
Rockingham Roads Regional
Jail
Virginia Beach Correctional
Facility

TYPE
IGSA

STATE
Washington

IGSA
IGSA

West Virginia
Wisconsin

IGSA
IGSA

IGSA

Wyoming

IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

A BROKEN SYSTEM

FACILITY NAME
Northwest Detention Center
Yakima County Jail
South Central Regional Jail
Dodge County Detention
Facility (Dodge County Jail)
Douglas County Jail
Kenosha County Detention
Center
Ozaukee County Jail
Racine County Jail
Laramie County Detention
Center
Platte County Detention
Center

87

TYPE
CDF
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA
IGSA

Table 4: Detention Facility Reviews Analyzed in This Report
(BY REVIEWING ENTITY)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
ACI-Cranston Intake Service Center,
Cranston, RI (May 2002)

Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility
(Sussex County Jail), Newton, NJ (July
2004)

Aurora Contract Detention Facility,
Aurora, CO (Sept. 2004)

Kern County Jail (Lerdo Pretrial
Facility), Bakersfield, CA (Aug. 2002)

Bergen County Jail, Hackensack, NJ
(Aug. 2003)

Krome Service Processing Center,
Miami, FL (Apr. 2004)

Berks County Prison, Leesport, PA (July
2004)

Middlesex County Jail, Middlesex, NJ
(July 2003)

U.N. HIGH COMMISSIONER
FOR REFUGEES

Bristol County Jail, North Dartmouth,
MA (Aug. 2004)

Mira Loma Detention Center, Lancaster,
CA (June 2002)

Aguadilla Service Processing Center,
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (May 2005)

Clay County Jail, Green Cove Springs,
FL (Aug. 2003)

Mira Loma Detention Center, Lancaster,
CA (July 2004)

Avoyelles Parish Jail, Marksville, LA
(Apr. 2001)

Colquitt County Jail, Moultrie, GA
(Mar. 2005)

Monmouth County Correctional
Institute, Freehold, NJ (July 2003)

Avoyelles Parish Women’s Correctional
Center, Cottonport, LA (Apr. 2001)

Corrections Corporation of America,
Houston, TX (Jan. 2003)

Montgomery County Correctional
Facility, Norristown, PA (July 2004)

Avoyelles Parish Women’s Correctional
Center, Cottonport, LA (May 2004)

CSC Detention Facility, Seattle, WA
(May 2002)

Oakland City Jail, Oakland, CA(July
2003)

Broadview Service Staging Area,
Broadview, IL (Sept. 2003)

Dallas County Jail System Facility,
Dallas, TX (Mar. 2002)

Osborn Correctional Institution, Somers,
CT (July 2004)

Broward County Detention Center,
Miami, FL (Dec. 2002)

Dodge County Detention Facility,
Juneau, WI (June 2004)

Ozaukee County Jail, Port Washington,
WI (July 2004)

Clinton County Jail, Plattsburgh, NY
(Mar. 2005)

Dorchester Detention Center,
Cambridge, MD (July 2004)

Pamunkey Regional Jail, Hanover, VA
(Aug. 2004)

Comfort Suites Hotel, Miami, FL (Dec.
2002)

DuPage County Jail, Wheaton, IL (July
2003)

Passaic County Jail, Paterson, NJ (July
2004)

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport,
Dallas, TX (Nov. 2003)

El Centro Service Processing Center, El
Centro, CA (Jan. 2003)

Passaic County Jail, Paterson, NJ (Aug.
2005)

Denton County Detention Center,
Denton, TX (Oct. 2001)

El Paso Service Processing Center, El
Paso, TX (July 2003)

Plymouth County Correctional Facility,
Plymouth, MA (June 2003)

Dodge County Detention Facility,
Juneau, WI (Sept. 2003)

Elizabeth CCA Facility, Elizabeth, NJ
(July 2001)

Queens Detention Center, Jamaica
(Queens), NY (Mar. 2004)

Elizabeth Detention Facility, Elizabeth
NY, (June 2002)

Elizabeth CCA Facility, Elizabeth, NJ
(Oct. 2003)

San Pedro Service Processing Center,
San Pedro, CA (July 2003)

Franklin County Jail, St. Albans, VT
(Mar. 2005)

Franklin County Jail and House of
Corrections, Greenfield, MA (Jan. 2002)

San Pedro Service Processing Center,
San Pedro, CA (Aug. 2005)

George Allen Jail, Dallas, TX (Oct.
2001)

Hudson County Jail, Kearny, NJ (Aug.
2003)

Santa Ana Detention Facility, Santa Ana,
CA (Oct. 2002)

Grayson County Jail, Sherman, TX (Oct.
2001)

INS Processing Center, San Pedro, CA
(Mar. 2002)

Santa Ana Detention Facility, Santa Ana,
CA (July 2004)

Kenosha County Detention Center,
Kenosha, WI (Sept. 2003)

Kenosha County Detention Facility,
Kenosha, WI (July 2004)

St. Mary’s County Detention Center,
Leonardtown, MD (June 2003)

Krome Detention Center, Miami, FL
(Apr. 2001)

Kenosha County Detention Facility,
Kenosha, WI (Sept. 2005)

Turner Guilford Knight Correctional
Center, Miami, FL (Apr. 2001)

Laredo Detention Facility, Laredo, TX
(Dec. 2004)

Wackenhut Corrections Corporation,
Aurora, CO (Apr. 2002)

McHenry County Jail, Woodstock, IL
(Aug. 2001)

A BROKEN SYSTEM

York Correctional Institution, Niantic,
CT (Nov. 2003)
York County Prison, York, PA (July
2004)
Yuba County Jail, Marysville, CA (Dec.
2003)

TABLE 4: DETENTION FACILITY REVIEWS ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

89

McHenry County Jail, Woodstock, IL
(Sept. 2003)

Allegheny County Jail, Pittsburgh, PA
(Oct. 2004)

Bristol County Jail, North Dartmouth,
MA (June 2005)

Metropolitan Detention Center,
Guaynaba, Puerto Rico (May 2005)

Anchorage Jail Complex, Anchorage,
AK (Dec. 2004)

Bristol County Sheriff’s Department,
North Dartmouth, MA (Apr. 2004)

Monroe County Jail, Monroe, MI (Apr.
2003)

Angelina County Correctional Facility,
Lufkin, TX (Feb. 2004)

Brooks County Detention Center,
Falfurrias, TX (Jan. 2006)

Navarro County Detention Center,
Corsicana, TX (Oct. 2001)

Angelina County Correctional Facility,
Lufkin, TX (Sept. 2004)

Broward Transitional Center, Pompano
Beach, FL (Mar. 2003)

Oakdale Federal Detention Center,
Oakdale, LA (Apr. 2001)

Arlington Adult Detention Facility,
Arlington, VA (May 2005)

Broward Transitional Center, Pompano
Beach, FL (Oct. 2004)

Orleans Parish Prison Women’s Facility,
New Orleans, LA (May 2004)

Atlanta City Detention Center, Atlanta,
GA (Feb. 2004)

Buffalo Federal Detention Center,
Batavia, NY (Aug. 2002)

Otay Mesa Adult Detention Center, San
Diego, CA (Feb. 2001)

Atlanta City Detention Center, Atlanta,
GA (May 2004)

Buffalo Federal Detention Center,
Batavia, NY (May 2003)

Otay Mesa Adult Detention Center, San
Diego, CA (Oct. 2002)

Atlanta City Detention Center, Atlanta,
GA (May 2005)

Buffalo Federal Detention Center,
Batavia, NY (May 2004)

Ozaukee County Justice Center, Port
Washington, WI (Sept. 2003)

Audrain County Detention Center,
Mexico, MO (May 2004)

Buffalo Federal Detention Center,
Batavia, NY (May 2005)

Pamunkey Regional Jail, Hanover, VA
(Aug. 2005)

Bannock County Jail, Pocatello, ID
(June 2004)

Buffalo Federal Detention Center,
Batavia, NY (Mar. 2006)

Piedmont Regional Jail, Farmville, VA
(July 2001)

Bedford County Jail, Bedford, PA (Nov.
2004)

Butler County Jail, El Dorado, KS (Mar.
2004)

Pine Prairie Correctional Center, Pine
Prairie, LA (Apr. 2001)

Bedford Heights City Jail, Bedford
Heights, OH (June 2005)

Butler County Jail, El Dorado, KS (Apr.
2005)

Racine County Jail, Racine, WI (Aug.
2001)

Bergen County Jail, Hackensack, NJ
(Aug. 2004)

Butler County Jail, El Dorado, KS (Mar.
2006)

Rolling Plains Regional Detention
Center, Haskell, TX (Nov. 2003)

Berks County Prison, Leesport, PA (July
2004)

Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center,
Lake Charles, LA (June 2004)

Suzanne L. Kays Detention Facility,
Dallas, TX (Nov. 2003)

Berks County Prison, Leesport, PA
(Sept. 2004)

Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center,
Lake Charles, LA (Oct.-Nov. 2005)

Tangipahoa Parish Jail, Amite, LA (Apr.
2001)

Berks County Prison, Leesport, PA (July
2005)

Caldwell County Detention Center,
Kingston, MO (Nov. 2004)

Tangipahoa Parish Jail, Amite, LA (May
2004)

Berkshire County Jail and House of
Corrections, Pittsfield, MA (Dec. 2005)

Caldwell County Detention Center,
Kingston, MO (July 2005)

Tensas Detention Center, Waterproof,
LA (May 2004)

Bexar County GEO Detention Center,
San Antonio, TX(June 2004)

Calhoun County Jail, Battle Creek, MI
(Feb. 2005)

Tri-County Detention Center, Ullin, IL
(Aug. 2001)

Bexar County GEO Detention Center,
San Antonio, TX (July 2005)

Cambria County Prison, Ebensburg, PA
(Oct. 2004)

Turner Guilford Knight Correctional
Center, Miami, FL (Apr. 2001)

Bingham County Jail, Blackfoot, ID
(May 2005)

Cambria County Prison, Ebensburg, PA
(Oct. 2005)

Wackenhut Detention Facility, Jamaica
(Queens), New York (June 2002)

Blount County Jail, Maryville, TN (July
2004)

Cameron County Jail, Olmito, TX (Apr.
2004)

Bonneville County Jail, Idaho Falls, ID
(June 2004)

Canadian County Jail, El Reno, OK (Jan.
2005)

Bonneville County Jail, Idaho Falls, ID
(May 2005)

Canyon County Jail, Caldwell, ID (Sept.
2004)

Boone County Detention Center,
Burlington, KY (Dec. 2004)

Carbon County Correctional Facility,
Nesquehoning, PA (May 2004)

Boone County Detention Center,
Burlington, KY (Oct. 2005)

Carbon County Correctional Facility,
Nesquehoning, PA (May 2005)

Brewster County Jail, Alpine, TX (Oct.
2004)

Carroll County Detention Center,
Westminster, MD (June 2004)

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Aguadilla Service Processing Center,
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (Mar. 2005)
Aguadilla Service Processing Center,
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (July 2005)
Aguadilla Service Processing Center,
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (Nov. 2005)

A BROKEN SYSTEM

90

TABLE 4: DETENTION FACILITY REVIEWS ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

Carter County Detention Center,
Ardmore, OK (Nov. 2004)
Carver County Jail, Chaska, MN (Oct.
2004)
Carver County Jail, Chaska, MN (Nov.
2005)
Cass County Jail, Plattsmouth, NE (Jan.
2004)
Cass County Jail, Plattsmouth, NE (June
2005)
Catahoula Parish Correctional Center,
Harrisonburg, LA (Aug. 2004)
Cayuga County Jail, Auburn, NY (Sept.
2005)
Cayuga County Jail, Auburn, NY (Aug.
2004)
CCA Laredo Texas, Laredo, TX (July
2005)
CCA Silverdale Correctional Facility,
Chattanooga, TN (Dec. 2004)
CCA Silverdale Correctional Facility,
Chattanooga, TN (Mar. 2006)
Central Arizona Detention Center,
Florence, AZ (Aug. 2005)
Charleston County Detention Center,
North Charleston, SC (May 2004)
Charleston County Detention Center,
North Charleston, SC (May 2005)
Chase County Jail, Cottonwood Falls,
KS (July 2004)
Chase County Jail, Cottonwood Falls,
KS (Sept. 2005)
Chatham County Detention Center,
Savannah, GA (July 2004)
Chatham County Detention Center,
Savannah, GA (Aug. 2005)
Chautauqua County Jail, Mayville, NY
(Apr. 2004)
Chautauqua County Jail, Mayville, NY
(Apr. 2005)
Christian County Jail, Ozark, MO (Sept.
2004)
Christian County Jail, Ozark, MO (Sept.
2005)
Cibola County Detention Center, Grants,
NM (May 2004)
Citrus County Detention Facility,
Lecanto, FL (Nov. 2005)
City of Las Vegas Detention Center, Las
Vegas, NV (Sept. 2004)

Clark, Fauquier, Frederick and
Winchester Regional Adult Detention
Center, Winchester, VA (Apr. 2004)
Clay County Jail, Green Cove Springs,
FL (Sept. 2004)
Clay County Jail, Green Cove Springs,
FL (Jan. 2006)
Clinton County Correctional Facility,
McElhattan, PA (Dec. 2004)
Clinton County Jail, Plattsburgh, NY
(Aug. 2004)
Clinton County Jail, Plattsburgh, NY
(Aug. 2005)
Cococino County Detention Facility,
Flagstaff, AZ (Feb. 2004)
Colquitt County Jail, Moultrie, GA
(Mar. 2004)
Colquitt County Jail, Moultrie, GA
(Mar. 2005)
Colquitt County Jail, Moultrie, GA
(Mar. 2006)
Columbia County Jail, St. Helens, OR
(Jan. 2004)
Columbia County Jail, St. Helens, OR
(Jan. 2005)
Comal County Jail, New Braunfels, TX
(Oct. 2004)
Crawford County Jail, Grayling, MI
(Mar. 2005)
Culberson County Jail, Van Horn, TX
(Dec. 2004)
Dale G. Haile Detention Center,
Caldwell, ID (Sept. 2004)
Dale G. Haile Detention Center,
Caldwell, ID (Sept. 2005)
Denver Contract Detention Facility,
Aurora, CO (Oct. 2002)
Denver Contract Detention Facility,
Aurora, CO (Aug. 2003)
Denver Contract Detention Facility,
Aurora, CO (Aug. 2004)
Denver Contract Detention Facility,
Aurora, CO (Nov. 2005)
Department of Corrections (DEPCOR),
Hagatna, Guam (Aug. 2004)
Department of Corrections (DEPCOR),
Hagatna, Guam (July 2005)
Dickens County Correctional Center,
Spur, TX (June 2004)
Dickens County Correctional Center,
Spur, TX (June 2005)

A Broken System

Dodge County Detention Facility,
Juneau, WI (June 2004)
Dodge County Detention Facility,
Juneau, WI (June 2003)
Dodge County Detention Facility,
Juneau, WI (May 2005)
Donald Wyatt Detention Center, Central
Falls, RI (Dec. 2004-Jan. 2005)
Donald Wyatt Detention Center, Central
Falls, RI (Jan. 2006)
Dorchester County Detention Center,
Cambridge, MD (Sept. 2004)
Dorchester County Detention Center,
Cambridge, MD (Sept. 2005)
Douglas County Department of
Corrections, Omaha, NE (Sept. 2005)
Douglas County Jail, Superior, WI (Dec.
2004)
Douglas County Jail, Superior, WI (Aug.
2005)
Ector County Correctional Center,
Odessa, TX (Nov. 2004)
El Centro Service Processing Center, El
Centro, CA (Jan. 2004)
El Centro Service Processing Center, El
Centro, CA (July 2004)
El Centro Service Processing Center, El
Centro, CA (July 2005)
El Paso Service Processing Center, El
Paso, TX (June 2002)
El Paso Service Processing Center, El
Paso, TX (Mar. 2004)
El Paso Service Processing Center, El
Paso, TX (Mar. 2005)
El Paso Service Processing Center, El
Paso, TX (Mar. 2006)
Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility,
Elizabeth, NJ (Dec. 2002)
Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility,
Elizabeth, NJ (Sept. 2003)
Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility,
Elizabeth, NJ (Sept.-Oct. 2004)
Eloy Detention Center, Eloy, AZ (Mar.
2006)
Erie County Holding Center, Buffalo,
NY (Nov. 2004)
Erie County Prison, Erie, PA (Mar.
2005)
Erie County Prison, Erie, PA (Mar.
2006)
Etowah County Detention Center,
Gadsden, AZ (June 2004)

TABLE 4: DETENTION FACILITY REVIEWS ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

91

Etowah County Detention Center,
Gadsden, AZ (June 2004)

Hampton Roads Regional Jail,
Portsmouth, VA (Jan. 2005)

Jefferson County Jail, Golden, CO (Jan.
2006)

Etowah County Detention Center,
Gadsden, AZ (June 2005)

Hardin County Correctional Center,
Eldora, IA (Apr. 2004)

Jefferson County Jail, Mt. Vernon, IL
(Oct. 2004)

Finney County Jail, Garden City, KS
(May 2004)

Hardin County Correctional Center,
Eldora, IA (Oct. 2004)

Jefferson County Jail, Mt. Vernon, IL
(Dec. 2004)

Finney County Jail, Garden City, KS
(June 2005)

Hardin County Correctional Center,
Eldora, IA (Oct. 2005)

Jefferson County Jail, Mt. Vernon, IL
(Oct. 2005)

Florence Service Processing Center,
Florence, AZ (Mar. 2004)

Harris County Jail, Hamilton, GA (Mar.Apr. 2004)

Jefferson County Jail, Beaumont, TX
(Feb. 2004)

Florence Service Processing Center,
Florence, AZ (May 2004)

Harris County Jail, Hamilton, GA (Mar.
2005)

Jefferson County Jail, Beaumont, TX
(Feb. 2005)

Florence Service Processing Center,
Florence, AZ (May 2005)

Harris County Jail, Hamilton, GA (Mar.
2006)

Jefferson County Law Enforcement
Center, Oskaloosa, KS (Oct. 2004)

Forsyth County Law Enforcement
Center, Winston-Salem, NC (June 2004)

Hartford Community Correctional
Center, Hartford, CT (Mar. 2006)

Josephine County Jail, Grants Pass, OR
(Apr. 2004)

Forsyth County Law Enforcement
Center, Winston-Salem, NC (June 2005)

Hastings Correctional Center, Hastings,
NE (Dec. 2004)

Josephine County Jail, Grants Pass, OR
(May 2005)

Franklin County Jail, Malone, NY (Aug.
2004)

Hill County Detention Center, Havre,
MT (Oct. 2004)

Karnes County Correctional Center,
Karnes City, TX (Feb. 2005)

Frio County Jail, Pearsall, TX (Sept.
2004)

Hill County Detention Center, Havre,
MT (Sept. 2005)

Kenosha County Detention Center,
Kenosha, WI (May 2003)

Garfield County Detention Center,
Glenwood Springs, CO (June 2005)

Houston Contract Detention Facility,
Houston, TX (July 2003)

Kenosha County Detention Center,
Kenosha, WI (May 2004)

Garvin County Detention Center, Paul’s
Valley, OK (Dec. 2004)

Houston Contract Detention Facility,
Houston, TX (Oct. 2003)

Kenosha County Detention Center,
Kenosha, WI (June 2005)

Genesee County Jail, Batavia, NY (Nov.
2004)

Houston Contract Detention Facility,
Houston, TX (Feb. 2004 – Monthly
Report)

Kenosha County Pre Trial Detention
Center, Kenosha, WI (June 2004)

Golden Grove Adult Detention Center,
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (Aug.
2005)
Grand Forks County Correctional
Center, Grand Forks, ND (Dec. 2004)
Grand Forks County Correctional
Center, Grand Forks, ND (Dec. 2005)
Grant County Jail, Canyon City, OR
(Feb. 2005)
Grant County Jail, Canyon City, OR
(Jan. 2006)
Grayson County Detention Center,
Leitchfield, KY (Feb. [year not shown])
Greene County Jail, Springfield, MO
(Sept. 2004)
Greene County Jail, Springfield, MO
(Sept. 2005)
Grimes County Jail, Anderson, TX (Feb.
2004)
Guadalupe County Adult Detention
Center, Seguin, TX (July 2004)
Hamilton County Jail, Chattanooga, TN
(Nov.-Dec. 2004)

Houston Contract Detention Facility,
Houston, TX (Mar. 2004 – Monthly
Report)
Houston Contract Detention Facility,
Houston, TX (Apr. 2004 – Monthly
Report)
Houston Contract Detention Facility,
Houston, TX (May 2004 – Monthly
Report)
Houston Contract Detention Facility,
Houston, TX (Aug. 2004)
Houston Processing Center, Houston,
TX (Mar. 2005)
Houston Processing Center, Houston,
TX (Aug. 2005)
Houston Processing Center, Houston,
TX (Feb. 2006)
Howard County Detention Center,
Jessup, MD (June 2004)
Howard County Detention Center,
Jessup, MD (July 2005)
Hudson County Department of
Corrections, Kearny, NJ (Apr. 2005)

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Kenosha County Pre Trial Detention
Center, Kenosha, WI (June 2005)
Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections, Kenosha, WI (July 2002)
Kent County Jail, Grand Rapids, MI
(Feb. 2005)
Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility
(Sussex County Jail), Newton, NJ (Aug.
2004)
Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility
(Sussex County Jail), Newton, NJ (Dec.
2005)
Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility
(Sussex County Jail), Newton, NJ (Aug.
2006)
Kern County Jail (Lerdo Pretrial
Facility), Bakersfield, CA (Dec. 2004)
Krome Service Processing Center,
Miami, FL (Feb. 2004)
Krome Service Processing Center,
Miami, FL (Feb. 2005)
Krome Service Processing Center,
Miami, FL (June 2005)

92

TABLE 4: DETENTION FACILITY REVIEWS ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

La Paz County Jail, Parker, AZ (Apr.
2005)

McHenry County Jail, Woodstock, IL
(Nov. 2005)

Monterey Park City Jail, Monterey Park,
CA (Aug. 2004)

La Salle County Regional Detention
Center, Encinal, TX (Dec. 2004)

McLennan County Detention Center,
Waco, TX (Nov. 2004)

Montgomery County Jail, Montgomery,
MO (Oct. 2004)

Lackawanna County Prison, Scranton,
PA (Oct. 2004)

Mecklenburg County Jail (Central),
Charlotte, NC (Apr. 2004)

Montgomery County Jail, Montgomery,
MO (Oct. 2005)

Lackawanna County Prison, Scranton,
PA (Mar. 2006)

Mecklenburg County Jail (Central),
Charlotte, NC (Apr. 2005)

Morgan County Adult Detention Center,
Versailles, MO (May 2004)

Laramie County Detention Center,
Cheyenne, WY (May 2004)

Mecklenburg County Jail (North),
Charlotte, NC (Apr. 2005)

Morgan County Adult Detention Center,
Versailles, MO (May 2005)

Laredo Contract Detention Facility,
Laredo, TX (Sept. 2003)

Middlesex County Department of
Corrections, North Brunswick, NJ (Oct.
2004)

Morrison County Jail, Little Falls, MN
(Sept. 2004)

Laredo Contract Detention Facility,
Laredo, TX (Oct. 2004)

Newton County Correctional Center,
Newton, TX (Apr. 2004)

Las Animas County Jail Center,
Trinidad, CO (Dec. 2004)

Middlesex County Department of
Corrections, North Brunswick, NJ (Dec.
2005)

Las Animas County Jail Center,
Trinidad, CO (Apr. 2005)

Miller County Adult Detention Center,
Tuscumbia, MO (May 2004)

Niagara County Jail, Lockport, NY
(Aug. 2003)

Limestone County Detention Center,
Groesbeck, TX (May 2004)

Miller County Correctional Facility,
Texarkana, AR (July 2004)

Niagara County Jail, Lockport, NY (Oct.
2004)

Limestone County Detention Center,
Groesbeck, TX (May 2005)

Mini-Cassia Criminal Justice Center,
Burley, ID (June 2004)

Niagara County Jail, Lockport, NY
(Dec. 2005)

Lincoln County Jail, Troy, MO (Oct.
2004)

Mini-Cassia Criminal Justice Center,
Burley, ID (Aug. 2005)

Nobles County Jail, Worthington, MN
(May 2005)

Lincoln County Jail, Troy, MO (June
2005)

Minnehaha County Jail, Sioux Falls, SD
(May 2004)

North Las Vegas Detention Center,
North Las Vegas, NV (July 2004)

Linn County Jail, Cedar Rapids, IA
(May 2005)

Minnehaha County Jail, Sioux Falls, SD
(June 2005)

North Las Vegas Detention Center,
North Las Vegas, NV (Aug. 2005)

Linn County Jail, Cedar Rapids, IA
(Aug. 2005)

Minnesota Correctional Facility, Rush
City, MN (Oct. 2004)

Macomb County Jail, Mt. Clemens, MI
(Mar. 2004)

Mira Loma Detention Center, Lancaster,
CA (July 2004)

Northern Oregon Correctional Institute
(NORCOR), The Dalles, OR (June
2005)

Macomb County Jail, Mt. Clemens, MI
(May 2005)

Mira Loma Detention Center, Lancaster,
CA (Aug. 2005)

Madison County Jail, Madison, NE
(June 2004)

Mississippi County Detention Center,
Charleston, MO (Aug. 2004)

Madison County Jail, Madison, NE (July
2004)

Mississippi County Detention Center,
Charleston, MO (Aug. 2005)

Madison County Jail, Madison, NE (July
(year unknown))

Missoula County Detention Facility,
Missoula, MT (July 2005)

Madison County Jail, Wampsville, NY
(Aug. 2004)

Monmouth County Jail, Freehold, NJ
(Nov. 2004)

Madison County Jail, Wampsville, NY
(Sept. 2005)

Monroe County Jail, Key West, FL
(Aug. 2004)

Manatee County Detention Facility
(Annex), Palmetto, FL (June 2004)

Monroe County Jail, Key West, FL (July
2005)

Manatee County Jail, Bradenton, FL
(July 2005)

Monroe County Jail (Dormitory),
Monroe, MI (May 2005)

Maple Heights City Jail, Maple Heights,
OH (June 2005)

Monroe County Jail (Main), Monroe, MI
(May 2005)

McHenry County Jail, Woodstock, IL
(July 2004)

Monroe County Jail, Rochester, NY
(July 2004)

A Broken System

Newton County Correctional Center,
Newton, TX (Feb. 2005)

Northwest Detention Center, Tacoma,
WA (July 2004)
Northwest Detention Center, Tacoma,
WA (July 2005)
Oakland City Jail, Oakland, CA (Jan.
2004)
Oakland City Jail, Oakland, CA (Mar.
2005)
Odessa Detention Center, Odessa, TX
(Nov. 2004)
Oklahoma County Detention Center,
Oklahoma City, OK (Dec. 2004)
Onondaga County Jail, Syracuse, NY
(Dec. 2003)
Onondaga County Jail, Syracuse, NY
(Dec. 2004)
Orleans County Jail, Albion, NY (June
2004)
Orleans County Jail, Albion, NY (June
2005)

TABLE 4: DETENTION FACILITY REVIEWS ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

93

Orleans Parish (Community Corrections
Center), New Orleans, LA (Sept. 2004)

Pine Prairie Correctional Center, Pine
Prairie, LA (Nov. 2004)

Regional Correctional Facility,
Albuquerque, NM (Aug. 2004)

Osceola County Jail, Kissimmee, FL
(unknown)

Pine Prairie Correctional Center, Pine
Prairie, LA (Nov. 2005)

Regional Correctional Facility,
Albuquerque, NM (Oct. 2005)

Otero County Prison Facility, Chaparral,
NM (Jan. 2004)

Piscataquis County Jail, Dover-Foxcroft,
ME (June 2004)

Reno County Jail, Hutchinson, KS (Sept.
2004)

Otero County Prison Facility, Chaparral,
NM (Nov. 2005)

Plaquemines Parish Detention Center,
Braithwaite, LA (Mar. 2004)

Reno County Jail, Hutchinson, KS (Sept.
2005)

Ozaukee County Jail, Port Washington,
WI (Oct. 2004)

Plaquemines Parish Detention Center,
Braithwaite, LA (Aug. 2004)

Riverside Regional Jail, Hopewell, VA
(May 2005)

Palm Beach County Jail, West Palm
Beach, FL (Oct. 2004)

Plaquemines Parish Detention Center,
Braithwaite, LA (Apr. 2005)

Pamunkey Regional Jail, Hanover, PA
(Aug. 2002)

Platte County Detention Center,
Wheatland, WY (Apr. 2004)

Rockingham County Department of
Corrections, Brentwood, NY (May
2004)

Pamunkey Regional Jail, Hanover, PA
(Aug. 2003)

Platte County Detention Center,
Wheatland, WY (Sept. 2004)

Rockingham County Department of
Corrections, Brentwood, NY (June
2005)

Pamunkey Regional Jail, Hanover, PA
(Aug. 2004)

Plymouth County House of Correction,
Plymouth, MA (Apr. 2004)

Rockingham Roads Regional Jail,
Harrisonburg, VA (Aug. 2002)

Pamunkey Regional Jail, Hanover, PA
(Oct. 2005)

Plymouth County House of Correction,
Plymouth, MA (June 2005)

Rockingham Roads Regional Jail,
Harrisonburg, VA (Aug. 2003)

Park County Detention Center (Park
County Jail), Fairplay, CO (May 2005)

Point Coupee Parish Detention Center,
New Roads, LA (May 2004)

Rolling Plains Regional Detention
Center, Haskell, TX (Feb. 2004)

Passaic County Jail, Paterson, NJ (Mar.
2004)

Polk County Jail, Des Moines, IA (Mar.
2004)

Rolling Plains Regional Detention
Center, Haskell, TX (Mar. 2004)

Passaic County Jail, Paterson, NJ (Nov.
2004)

Polk County Jail, Des Moines, IA (May
2005)

Rolling Plains Regional Detention
Center, Haskell, TX (Feb. 2005)

Passaic County Jail, Paterson, NJ (June
2005)

Pomona City Jail, Pomona, CA (June
2005)

Rolling Plains Regional Detention
Center, Haskell, TX (Mar. 2006)

Pennington County Jail, Rapid City, SD
(June 2004)

Port Isabel Service Processing Center,
Los Fresnos, TX (Feb. 2004)

Sacramento County Jail, Sacramento,
CA (Aug. 2004)

Pennington County Jail, Rapid City, SD
(Aug.-Sept. 2005)

Port Isabel Service Processing Center,
Los Fresnos, TX (Feb. 2005)

Sacramento County Jail, Sacramento,
CA (June 2005)

Penobscot County Jail, Bangor, ME
(Mar. 2004)

Port Isabel Service Processing Center,
Los Fresnos, TX (unknown)

Sacramento County Jail, Sacramento,
CA (Nov. 2005)

Pettis County Detention Center, Sedalia,
MO (July 2004)

Pottawattamie County Jail, Council
Bluff, IA (May 2004)

Saline County Jail, Saline, KS (Aug.
2004)

Phelps County Jail, Holdrege, NE (Apr.
2004)

Pottawattamie County Jail, Council
Bluff, IA (July 2004)

Phelps County Jail, Holdrege, NE (May
2005)

Pottawattamie County Jail, Council
Bluff, IA (July 2005)

Salt Lake County Adult Detention
Complex, Salt Lake City, UT (Sept.
2004)

Pickaway County Jail, Circleville, OH
(Oct. 2005)

Pueblo County Detention Center,
Pueblo, CO (Mar. 2004)

Piedmont Regional Jail, Farmville, VA
(Apr. 2004)

Queens Contract Detention Facility,
Jamaica (Queens), NY (Oct. 2003)

Piedmont Regional Jail, Farmville, VA
(Apr. 2005)

Queens Contract Detention Facility,
Jamaica (Queens), NY (Oct. 2004)

Pike County Correctional Facility, Lords
Valley, PA (Dec. 2002)

Ramsey County Adult Detention Center,
St. Paul, MN (Nov. 2004)

Pike County Correctional Facility, Lords
Valley, PA (Dec. 2003)

Ramsey County Adult Detention Center,
St. Paul, MN (Nov. 2005)

Pike County Correctional Facility, Lords
Valley, PA (Jan. 2005)

Rappahannock Regional Jail, Stafford,
VA (Jan. 2005)

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Correctional Facility, San Diego, CA
(Aug. 2003)
San Diego Correctional Facility, San
Diego, CA (Aug.-Sept. 2004)
San Diego Correctional Facility, San
Diego, CA (Oct. 2005)
San Pedro Service Processing Center,
San Pedro, CA (May 2002)
San Pedro Service Processing Center,
San Pedro, CA (Jan. 2003)
San Pedro Service Processing Center,
San Pedro, CA (Nov. 2003)

94

TABLE 4: DETENTION FACILITY REVIEWS ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

San Pedro Service Processing Center,
San Pedro, CA (July 2004)

St. Mary’s County Detention Center,
Leonardtown, MD (July 2004)

San Pedro Service Processing Center,
San Pedro, CA (Aug. 2005)

St. Mary’s County Detention Center,
Leonardtown, MD (July 2005)

Santa Ana City Jail, Santa Ana, CA
(Aug. 2004)

Suffolk County House of Correction,
Boston, MA (May 2005)

Santa Ana City Jail, Santa Ana, CA
(Aug. 2005)

Summit County Jail, Park City, UT
(Nov. 2004)

Santa Clara County Main Jail Complex,
San Jose, CA (Oct. 2004)

Suzanne L. Kays Detention Facility,
Dallas, TX (Apr. 2004)

Santa Cruz County Jail, Nogales, AZ
(Sept. 2005)

Tangipahoa Parish Jail, Amite, LA (June
2004)

Scottsbluff County Jail, Gering, NE
(Apr.-May 2005)

Tensas Parish Detention Center,
Waterproof, LA (Aug.-Sept. 2002)

Seattle Contract Detention Center,
Seattle, WA (Sept. 2002)

Tensas Parish Detention Center,
Waterproof, LA (Aug. 2003)

Seattle Contract Detention Center,
Seattle, WA (July 2003)

Tensas Parish Detention Center,
Waterproof, LA (Aug. 2004)

Sedgwick County Jail, Wichita, KS
(June 2004)

Tensas Parish Detention Center,
Waterproof, LA (Aug. 2005)

Seneca County Jail, Tiffin, OH (Sept.
2004)

Tooele County Detention Center,
Tooele, UT (Nov. 2004)

Shawnee County Detention Center,
Topeka, KS (Nov. 2003)

Torrance County Detention Center,
Estancia, NM (June 2002)

Shawnee County Detention Center,
Topeka, KS (Dec. 2004)

Torrance County Detention Center,
Estancia, NM (July-Aug. 2003)

Sherburne County Jail, Elk River, MN
(Oct. 2004)

Torrance County Detention Center,
Estancia, NM (June 2004)

Sherburne County Jail, Elk River, MN
(Nov. 2005)

Torrance County Detention Center,
Estancia, NM (June 2005)

Smith County Jail, Tyler, TX (June
2004)

Tri-County Detention Center, Ullin, IL
(Mar. 2004)

Snyder County Jail, Selinsgrove, PA
(Sept. 2004)

Tri-County Detention Center, Ullin, IL
(Mar. 2005)

Solon City Jail, Solon, OH (July 2005)

Trumbull County Jail, Warren, OH (May
2004)

South Central Regional Jail, Charleston,
WV (Nov. 2004)
South Central Regional Jail, Charleston,
WV (Nov. 2005)
South Texas Detention Center, Pearsall,
TX (Oct. 2005)
Southern Ute Detention Center, Ignacio,
CO (Oct. 2004)
Southern Ute Detention Center, Ignacio,
CO (Dec. 2005)
St. Francois County Detention Center,
Farmington, MO (June 2004)
St. Francois County Detention Center,
Farmington, MO (May 2005)
St. Martin Parish Correction Center, St.
Martinville, LA (Aug.-Sept. 2004)

Turner Guilford Knight Correctional
Center, Miami, FL (Mar. 2004)
Twin Falls Criminal Justice Facility,
Twin Falls, ID (Aug. 2005)
Union County Correctional Center,
Elizabeth, NJ (Mar. 2004)
Union County Correctional Center,
Elizabeth, NJ (Aug. 2005)
Utah County Jail, Spanish Fork, UT
(Oct.-Nov. 2005)
Val Verde County Detention Center, Del
Rio, TX (June 2004)
Val Verde County Detention Center, Del
Rio, TX (July 2004)

A Broken System

Vermont Department of
Corrections/Northern State Correctional
Facility, Newport, VT (May 2005)
Victoria County Jail, Victoria, TX (Mar.
2004)
Wakulla County Jail, Crawfordville, FL
(Sept. 2004)
Wakulla County Jail, Crawfordville, FL
(Nov. 2005)
Warren County Regional Jail, Bowling
Green, KY (Feb. 2004)
Wasatch County Jail, Heber City, UT
(Aug. 2004)
Washington County Jail, Stillwater, MN
(Oct. 2004)
Washington County Jail, Stillwater, MN
(Nov. 2005)
Washington County Purgatory Detention
Facility, Hurricane, UT (Nov. 2004)
Wayne County Jail, Lyons, NY (Jan.Feb. 2006)
Wayne County Sheriff’s Department,
Detroit, MI (Feb. 2004)
Wayne County Sheriff’s Department,
Detroit, MI (Mar. 2006)
Weber County Jail Facility, Ogden, UT
(Nov. 2004)
Weber County Jail Facility, Ogden, UT
(Nov. 2005)
West Carroll Detention Center, Epps,
LA (Sept. 2004)
West Carroll Detention Center, Epps,
LA (Nov. 2005)
West Tennessee Detention Facility,
Mason, TN (Oct. 2004)
West Texas Detention Facility, Sierra
Blanca, TX (Jan. 2005)
West Texas Detention Facility, Sierra
Blanca, TX (Oct. 2005)
Wicomico County Jail, Salisbury, MD
(July 2004)
Wicomico County Jail, Salisbury, MD
(June 2005)
Wicomico County Jail, Salisbury, MD
(Apr. 2006)
Williamson County Jail, Franklin, TN
(Aug. 2004)
Williamson County Jail, Georgetown,
TX (Aug. 2004)
Worcester County Jail, Snow Hill, MD
(Nov.-Dec. 2004)

TABLE 4: DETENTION FACILITY REVIEWS ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

95

Worcester County Jail, Snow Hill, MD
(Nov. 2005)

Yavapai County Detention Center, Camp
Verde, AZ (June 2005)

York County Prison, York, PA (Dec.
2004)

Wyoming County Jail, Warsaw, NY
(Aug. 2004)

Yavapai County Detention Center, Camp
Verde, AZ (Nov. 2005)

Yuba County Jail, Marysville, CA (Aug.
2004)

Yakima County Department of
Correction, Yakima, WA (Dec. 2004)

Yellowstone County Detention Facility,
Billings, MT (Oct. 2004)

Yuba County Jail, Marysville, CA (Nov.
2005)

Yellowstone County Detention Facility,
Billings, MT (Oct. 2005)

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Notes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1

“Detention Management,” U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Nov.
20, 2008,
www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/detention_m
gmt.htm (last visited Feb. 2, 2009)
(hereinafter “Detention Management”).
2
Deposition of Walter LeRoy (hereinafter
“LeRoy Dep.”) at 54; Immigration Control:
Immigration Policies Affect INS Detention
Efforts, GAO/GGD-92-85 (U.S. Government
Accountability Office, June 1992),
http://archive.gao.gov/d33t10/147090.pdf.
3

See “Detention Management.”

4

“Office of Detention and Removal (DRO)”
(U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
last updated Jan. 9, 2009),
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/index.htm (last visited
Feb. 2, 2009); see also “Detention
Management.”
5

LeRoy Dep. at 53.

6

Orantes is a lawsuit originally brought in
1982 to challenge coercive practices by
immigration agents, including practices at
immigrant detention facilities, that pressured
nationals of El Salvador fleeing their
country’s civil war to forfeit meritorious
claims to asylum.
7
Nearly 20,000 pages of documents
regarding detention standards compliance
were produced through discovery, with each
page separately paginated with a Bates
stamp. Throughout this report these materials
are cited by the Bates number of the page
being referenced. The documents produced
through discovery and the depositions cited
herein may be obtained from NILC.
8

The “DMCP manual” is a detailed and
comprehensive set of instructions for the
operation of the ICE Detention Management
Compliance Program. The DMCP was
produced in discovery for the Orantes case. It
should not be confused with the Detention
Operations Manual that contains the actual
national detention standards.
9

These 15 detention standards comprise a
subset of the 38 original standards
promulgated by immigration authorities
between 2000 and 2008.
10
LeRoy Dep. at 72; see also DMCP
manual (Bates 8842).
11

LeRoy Dep. at 67–69.

12

Id. at 48

13
Id. at 70, 72; see also Bates 8848. The
DMCP manual states that field office
directors, in their discretion, select the
examiners for the review teams, subject to
approval by the reviewing authority — the
director for the Office of Detention and
Removal (DRO). See DMCP manual, Bates
8843, 8848.

14
LeRoy Dep. at 79–80 (the unit never
intentionally conducted an inspection without
this advance notice, though there may have
been cases where notice accidentally was not
given).
15
One section, “Administrative and
Disciplinary Segregation,” discusses two
related standards.

INTRODUCTION
1

The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
This figure (320,000) comes from testimony
of Gary Mead, deputy director, Office of
Detention and Removal Operations, ICE,
before the U.S. House of Representatives
Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security and International Law, Feb. 13,
2008,
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Mead
080213.pdf, p. 2.
2

For all the reviews it produced for
discovery in the Orantes case, ICE was
required to provide information about only 18
(out of 38) standards. ICE was required to
produce this information for all the reviews it
conducted in 2004 and 2005, but only for a
limited number of reviews it conducted in
2002 and 2003. However, ICE did not
provide the required information for all the
reviews it was ordered to produce, nor did it
produce reviews for all the facilities it
evaluated in 2004 and 2005. We considered
that ICE had produced a full review of a
facility for a particular year only if ICE
provided information from the review dealing
with at least half (10 of 18) of the detention
standards.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

THE ICE DETENTION
STANDARDS MONITORING
SYSTEM
1
“Detention Management,” U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Nov.
20, 2008,
www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/detention_m
gmt.htm (last visited Feb. 2, 2009)
(hereinafter “Detention Management”).
2
Deposition of Walter LeRoy (hereinafter
“LeRoy Dep.”) at 54; Immigration Control:
Immigration Policies Affect INS Detention
Efforts, GAO/GGD-92-85 (U.S. Government
Accountability Office, June 1992),
http://archive.gao.gov/d33t10/147090.pdf.
3

See “Detention Management.”

4

“Office of Detention and Removal (DRO)”
(U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
last updated Jan. 9, 2009),
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/index.htm (last visited
Feb. 2, 2009). ICE currently operates the
following SPCs: Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (Puerto Rico); Buffalo
Federal Detention Center (New York); El
Centro Service Processing Center
(California); El Paso Service Processing
Center (Texas); Florence Service Processing
Center (Arizona); Port Isabel Service
Processing Center (Texas); Krome Service
Processing Center (Florida); and San Pedro
Service Processing Center (California);
however, the San Pedro SPC has been closed
for repair and renovation since October 2007.
5
Id.; see also “Detention Management.”
ICE currently uses the following seven
CDFs: Aurora Contract Detention Facility
(Colorado); Elizabeth Contract Detention
Facility (New Jersey); Houston Contract
Detention Facility (Texas); Laredo Contract
Detention Facility (Texas); Otay Detention
Facility (California); Tacoma Contract
Detention Facility (Washington); and Varrick
Federal Detention Facility (New York).
6

“Detention Management.”

7

See LeRoy Dep. at 56 (stating that the
approved facilities list changes throughout
each year as new facilities are added and
others are removed).
8
See “Detention Management”; LeRoy Dep.
at 52; 56; 96–102.
9

LeRoy Dep. at 53.

10

Id. ICE also makes use of joint federal
facilities, including the Federal Detention
Center (Oakdale, Louisiana) and the Eloy
Contract Detention Facility (Arizona), which
is owned and operated by a contractor through
the Bureau of Prisons. “Office of Detention
and Removal (DRO)” (U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, last updated Jan. 9,
2009), www.ice.gov/pi/dro/index.htm (last
visited Feb. 2, 2009).

NOTES
11

The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
12

See American Bar Association, The INS
Detention Standards Implementation
Initiative: A Training Manual for Advocates
(American Bar Association, 2001)
(hereinafter “ABA Manual”), “Overview,”
p. 1. The standards grew out of a 1996
meeting of the Deputy Attorney General with
ABA leaders. See also Michael Wishnie,
National Immigration Project of the National
Lawyers Guild, et al., Petition for Proposed
Rulemaking, Jan. 25, 2007 (hereinafter
“Wishnie”), at 5 (describing the history of the
detention standards and the circumstances and
conditions giving rise to them).
13

See ABA Manual, “Overview,” at 1.

14

See Wishnie at 5.

15

ABA Manual, “Overview,” at 1.

16

Id. at 1–2; see also “INS to Adopt New
Detention Standards,” INS news release, Nov.
13, 2000; see also DHS Office of Inspector
General, Treatment of Immigration Detainees
at Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Facilities (OIG-07-01, Department of
Homeland Security Office of Inspector
General, Dec. 2006) (hereinafter “OIG
Report”) at 2.
17
See OIG Report at 2; and “2000 Detention
Standards,”
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
last visited Mar. 12, 2009).
18

See OIG Report at 2.

19

See “INS to Adopt New Detention
Standards,” INS news release, Nov. 13, 2000;
Wishnie at 6.
20
ABA Manual, “Overview,” at 4. The
ABA explains: “Unlike regulations, the
standards are subject to agency discretion, and
there is no legal remedy for their violation.
However, in litigation over conditions issues,
courts might take into account lack of
compliance under the standards as relevant

evidence to bolster a cause of action under
tort or civil rights law.” Id.
21

ABA Manual, “Overview,” at 2.

22

See “2000 Detention Standards”; see also
Deposition of former Detention Standards
Compliance Unit Chief Yvonne Evans
(hereinafter “Evans Dep.”), at 100.
23

Id.; OIG Report at 2.

24
The PBNDS are available at
www.ice.gov/partners/dro/PBNDS/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 12, 2009).

97
37

See Evans Dep. at 43 (describing the
DMCP as “the plan, the blueprint for
implementing the standards”).
38

See id.

40

LeRoy Dep. 49; 69.

41

Evans Dep. at 112; LeRoy Dep. at 124–

27.
42
LeRoy Dep. at 72; see also DMCP
manual (Bates 8842).
43

LeRoy Dep. at 67–69.

44

Id. at 48

25

The Detention Operations Manual
contains the national detention standards
promulgated in 2000, and is available at
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 12, 2009).
26
See PBNDS,
www.ice.gov/partners/dro/PBNDS/index.htm.
27

See note 12, supra.

28

The plaintiffs obtained this discovery in
response to the government’s motion to
dissolve a nationwide permanent injunction
first issued in 1988 (Orantes-Hernandez v.
Meese, 685 F.Supp. 1488 (C.D.Cal. 1988),
aff’d. sub nom Orantes-Hernandez v.
Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1991)).
In July 2007, the federal district court in Los
Angeles denied the government’s motion,
except as to two provisions of the injunction,
and the case is now on appeal. See OrantesHernandez v. Gonzales, 504 F.Supp.2d 825
(C.D.Cal. 2007).
29
Nearly 20,000 pages of documents
regarding detention standards compliance
were produced through discovery, with each
page separately paginated with a Bates
stamp. Throughout this report these materials
are cited by the Bates number of the page
being referenced. The documents produced
through discovery and the depositions cited
herein may be obtained from NILC.
30
The “DMCP manual,” cited throughout
this chapter, is a detailed and comprehensive
set of instructions for the operation of the ICE
Detention Management Compliance
Program. The DMCP was produced in
discovery for the Orantes case. It should not
be confused with the Detention Operations
Manual that contains the actual national
detention standards.
31

ABA Manual, “Overview,” at 4.

32

Evans Dep. at 73.

33

Id. at 46.

34

Deposition of Detention Standards
Compliance Unit Chief Walter LeRoy
(hereinafter “LeRoy Dep.”) at 40–41.
35

LeRoy Dep. at 40–42 (“There’s been at
least one or two vacancies at all times we’re
constantly trying to fill.”); see also id. at 45
(“There’s always been a constant turnover [in
staff].”)
36
See “Detention Management Program,”
www.ice.gov/partners/dro/dmp.htm (last
modified Feb. 20, 2009) (last visited Mar. 12,
2009).

A BROKEN SYSTEM

See id.

39

45

Id. at 70, 72; see also Bates 8848. The
DMCP manual states that field office
directors, in their discretion, select the
examiners for the review teams, subject to
approval by the reviewing authority — the
director for the Office of Detention and
Removal (DRO). See DMCP manual, Bates
8843, 8848.
46

LeRoy Dep. at 48.

47

Id. at 76–77; see also DMCP manual,
Bates 8851 (stating that RICs should notify
the officer in charge of a facility at least 30
days before the review, but that such notice
may be waived by agreement).
48

LeRoy Dep. at 79–80 (the unit never
intentionally conducted an inspection without
this advance notice, though there may have
been cases where notice accidentally was not
given).
49

See DMCP manual, Bates 8851.

50

Deposition of Adam Garcia (hereinafter
“Garcia Dep.”) at 109–10 (never looked at
ABA reports, UNHCR reports, or prior DHS
reviews of any of the facilities he reviewed).
51
Bates 8868–8905; DMCP manual, Bates
8848; see also Detention Management
Division Detention Inspection Unit Course
DRC-03 materials, Bates 8795.
52

Bates 8906–8915.

53

See Bates 8795.

54

See DMCP manual, Bates 8858.

55

Id. According to DSCU staff, in practice,
the entire review team, rather than one officer,
often contributed to the completion of the G324 form. For SPC and CDF reviews, the
RIC typically divided the G-324 into its three
component sections, with each member of the
three-member team responsible for one
section of the form. For IGSAs, the twomember team typically divided the standards
such that the LEO who was acting as RIC
assumed responsibility for half of the
standards, with the second member of the
team responsible for the remainder. In both
circumstances, the officer responsible for a
given standard would complete the pages of
the G-324 pertaining to his or her standard
and make a recommendation regarding the
facility’s compliance with that standard. The
reviewer would then submit his or her work to
the RIC, who would incorporate the findings
into the final G-324. LeRoy Dep. at 67–72.

98
56

NOTES
Evans Dep. at 47–48.

57

DSCU training materials include a
checklist of “Common Mistakes” made in the
“RIC Memorandum,” which lists as one such
mistake: “The RIC utilizes a sample RIC
Memorandum and forgets to change the name
of the facility, date of inspection, etc.” Bates
8749–50.
58

See DMCP manual, Bates 8859–60.

59

See id., Bates 8862–63.

60

See id., Bates 8863.

61

See id.

62

See id., Bates 8864.

63

Id., Bates 8864–65, 8867.

64

DMCP manual, Bates 8848.

65

LeRoy Dep. at 128–29.

66

DMCP manual, Bates 8839–8867. In
2008, ICE began arranging for private
contractors to monitor detention standards
compliance, and the authors of this report do
not know whether this monitoring is
conducted under the DMCP manual.
67
See Garcia Dep. at 136–137; Deposition
of Michael Vaughn (hereinafter “Vaughn
Dep.”) at 57.
68

See deposition testimony of ICE facility
reviewers: Leroy Dep. at 165–7; Evans Dep.
at 109:2–12; Deposition of Kristine Brisson
(hereinafter “Brisson Dep.”) at 46–47; Garcia
Dep. at 137–138.
69

See DMCP manual, Bates 8857–8858; see
also Training Materials, Bates 8741–42.
70

A facility may be rated “superior,”
provided that it is “[p]erforming all of its
functions in an exceptional manner, has
excellent internal controls and exceeds
expectations. The facility cannot receive a
Superior rating if any standard is rated
deficient or at-risk.” See DMCP manual,
Bates 8858. A facility may receive a “good”
rating if it is “[p]erforming all of its functions,
and there are few deficient procedures within
any function. Internal controls are such that
there are limited procedural deficiencies.
Overall performance is above an acceptable
level. The facility cannot receive a good
rating if any standard is rated at-risk or is a
repeat deficiency.” Id. An “acceptable” rating
“is the ‘baseline’ for the rating system. The
detention functions are being adequately
performed. Although deficiencies may exist,
they do not detract from the acceptable
accomplishment of the vital functions.
Internal controls are such that there are no
performance breakdowns that would keep the
program from continuing to accomplish its
mission.” Id. A “deficient” rating signals that
“[o]ne or more detention functions are not
being performed at an acceptable level.
Internal controls are weak, thus allowing for
serious deficiencies in one or more program
areas.” Id. Finally, an “at-risk” rating means
that “[t]he detention operations are impaired
to the point that [the facility] is not presently
accomplishing its overall mission. Internal

controls are not sufficient to reasonably
assure acceptable performance can be
expected in the future.” Id.
71

See generally DMCP manual; see also
Brisson Dep. at 51 (responding that it is “not
necessarily” the case that the rating of a
standard as “acceptable” is based on the
number of elements that were marked as
compliant).
72
Inspectors, including the former head of
DSCU, confirmed this to be the case. See
Evans Dep. at 108; Garcia Dep. at 120, 140;
Vaughn Dep. at 87–88 (a deficiency as to a
single standard that would cause harm to
detainees or breach security could result in a
deficient rating, but deficiencies as to five
other standards might not).
73
See Evans Dep. at 108:22–109:1; Garcia
Dep. at 142:12–143:6; DMCP manual, Bates
8858.
74

See DMCP manual, Bates 8739–40, 8849.

75

See Brisson Dep. at 51, 54–57 (noting that
she marked a facility compliant with the
element of the “Access to Legal Material”
standard requiring that the library contain the
materials outlined in a list attached to the
standard, even though the facility did not have
these during the review, because the facility
indicated its willingness to accept and provide
them in the future); id.at 57–58 (marking a
facility as “acceptable” for the element of the
“Correspondence and Other Mail” standard
requiring that original identity documents be
forwarded to ICE staff for placement in
immigration files, where reviewer also
indicated that documents “[c]urrently
remain[] in inmate property; [but the facility]
will begin doing this”).
76

Id. at 49.

77

See Garcia Dep. at 136.

78

See DMCP manual, Bates 8858.

79

See Brisson Dep. at 9–12.

80
See Garcia Dep. at 7:9–9:8; 59:21–60:2;
see also Vaughn Dep. at 8:1–9:10; see
Brisson Dep. at 6:12–15, 11:5–12:4.
81

See Garcia Dep. at 5:16–23; 35:21–37:15.

82

See Vaughn Dep. at 38:1–39:3 (stating
that he had yet to participate in a facility
inspection in 2006 and acknowledging his
participation in inspections of only two over72-hour facilities in 2005, and two over-72hour facilities in 2004); see also Brisson Dep.
at 12:11–14:8; 15:1–11 (noting that she had
yet to participate in a review in 2006,
reviewed a total of two facilities in 2005, two
facilities in 2004, and three facilities in 2003,
and she was RIC for all of these reviews); see
also Garcia Dep. at 35:21 (noting that he had
yet to participate in any inspections in 2006
and recalling that he had conducted two
inspections in 2005, none in 2004, three in
2003, and three in 2002).
83
See Brisson Dep. at 50:1–9 (stating, in
response to a question regarding whether the
“deficient” or “at-risk” rating was more
severe, “I would have to refer to my materials

A BROKEN SYSTEM

or my guide if I ever had to mark either one of
those boxes.”).
84

See Brisson Dep. at 38:1–13.

85

See Vaughn Dep. at 8, 11–12, 16–17
(officer in charge of ICE Los Angeles Staging
Facility — “the reception area for any
detainee coming into ICE custody” —
responsible for conducting reviews of the
local jails in the area that those detainees are
sent to and from); Garcia Dep. at 5–6, 36–37
(supervisory immigration enforcement agent
responsible for handling transportation with
local jails responsible for conducting reviews
of those jails).
86

See Evans Dep. at 55:15–19.

87

Evans Dep. at 55:20–56:3. The DMCP
manual itself incorporates this model and
explains that “[t]he use of field participants as
examiners is a cost-effective practice that
supports the DMCP and enhances the
professional development of the staff
member.” DMCP manual, Bates 8848.
88
See DMCP manual, Bates 8848 (emphasis
added).
89

See id.

90

See id.

91

See LeRoy Dep. at 49:20–22.

92

See id. at 49:17–19; Evans Dep. at
110:21–111:6; see also Garcia Dep. at 22:13–
14.
93
See Evans Dep. at 124:12–125:4; see also
LeRoy Dep.
94

See id. at 124–25; Garcia Dep. at 22:21–

25.
95

See LeRoy Dep. at 121:11–18.

96

See Vaughn Dep. at 57 (acknowledging
that training manual provided no information
or guidance as to how to reach ratings for
individual detention standards).
97
See also discussion under “Lack of
Written Criteria Guiding Reviewers, and
Reviewer Confusion Regarding the
Application of Compliance Ratings,” above.
98

DMCP manual, Bates 8848.

99

See Garcia Dep. at 21–22, 30–31 (training
in 2001 followed by 35- to 40-minute on-line
refresher in 2005); Vaughn Dep. at 15, 107–8
(training in 1999 followed by two-day
refresher training in 2003).
100
LeRoy Dep. at 44–45 (“there’s always
been a constant turnover”).
101

Evans Dep. at 54.

102

See DMCP manual, Bates 8851; see also
Bates 8736 (PowerPoint slide).
103

LeRoy Dep. at 76–77.

104

See Garcia Dep. at 79–80.

105

See Vaughn Dep. at 48–49 (noting also
that he was unaware of a “hard, written
policy” in his field office for notice pertaining
to inspections).
106
See DMCP manual, Bates 8851 (“The
Review Authority retains the authority to

NOTES
conduct reviews without prior notification or
on short notice if deemed necessary to
achieve reasonable assurance that a detention
facility is operating in accordance with
applicable law and policy, and property and
resources are effectively utilized and
adequately safeguarded.”).
107

See LeRoy Dep. at 79:17–80:13.

108

See Evans Dep. at 61–62. Her use of the
term “visit” suggests that she may have been
referring to something less than a full
inspection.
109

See Brisson Dep. at 21:13–15; Vaughn
Dep at 63–64.

Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to
the Detention of Asylum Seekers (Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, Feb. 1999),
www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.p
df (last visited Mar. 12, 2009).
124

See LeRoy Dep. at 32:24–33:2 (clarifying
that “[t]he opinion of the meaningfulness of
the ABA reports is [LeRoy’s] opinion, not an
ICE position.”).
126

See Evans Dep. at 80–82.

127

See id.

128

See LeRoy Dep. at 26:3–12.

110

See DMCP manual, Bates 8855; Training
materials, Bates 8737.
111

See Garcia Dep. at 110 (no written policy
requires that inspectors speak with detainees);
116–17 (may not have spoken to any
detainees at his last inspection); Brisson Dep.
at 33 (would “maybe ask questions of
detainees using the facility”); 44—45 (has
only spoken to detainees in English).
112

See Evans Dep. at 98–99 (reviewers are
not required to speak a second language, and
are not provided with interpreters); Vaughn
Dep. at 67–68 (not fluent in Spanish; once
used another detainee as interpreter for a
Chinese detainee); Brisson Dep. at 44–45
(speaks “some” Spanish; has only spoken to
detainees in English); Garcia Dep. at 116–17
(does not speak Spanish and does not bring an
interpreter; relies on a correction officer or
another detainee for language interpretation).
113
See DMCP manual, Bates 8852; Training
Manual, Bates 8730.
114

See DMCP manual, Bates 8852.

115

Id., Bates 8858; Training Materials, Bates
8742.

See Gabaudan Letter at [3].

125

129

See LeRoy Dep. at 30:17–31:3 (“. . . I
have a great relationship with the UNHCR,
and Andrew [Painter, a Senior Protection
Officer at UNHCR] always comes to me or
one of my staff members to organize
[visits].”).
130

See LeRoy Dep. at 28:2–9.

131

See Evans Dep. at 80–82.

132

See LeRoy Dep. at 51:4–52:2.

133

See id. at 52:5–52:16.

134

See generally DMCP manual; see also
Evans Dep. at 68–69 (noting that she is
unsure whether the DMCP manual states that
facility use may be discontinued for
noncompliance with the standards).
Elsewhere in her deposition, Evans
distinguished between contracts, which are
made between the government and a forprofit entity, and agreements, which are made
between government agencies, for example,
ICE and a state or local jail. See Evans Dep.
at 131–32. She clarified that while an
agreement could be terminated for
noncompliance with the standards, she was
uncertain whether a contract could be
similarly terminated. See id. at 132.

116

Id., Bates 8859.

117

LeRoy Dep. at 190.

135

See Evans Dep. at 68.

118

Id. at 190–91.

136

See id. at 127:20–128:1; 70:3–6.

119

Id. at 191.

137

See id. at 62:3–16.

120

See DMCP manual, Bates 8839.

138

121

ABA and UNHCR monitoring reports
were produced to the plaintiffs during
discovery in Orantes.
122
See Declaration of Irena Lieberman on
Behalf of the American Bar Association,
dated Dec. 14, 2005, filed in the Orantes
litigation.
123

See Letter from Michael Gabaudan,
Regional Representative of UNHCR, to
Ranjana Natarajan, dated Nov. 22, 2006
(hereinafter “Gabaudan Letter”), filed in the
Orantes case. UNHCR discourages the
practice of detaining asylum-seekers. In
recognition of actual detention practice,
however, UNHCR has issued a statement
announcing several principles that should
inform any such detention and setting forth
the relevant international legal authority
governing the detention of asylum-seekers.
See UNHCR, UNHCR Revised Guidelines on

See id. at 65–67. Evans could not recall
the years of these terminations. See id. at 62.
139
See id. at 67. Evans believed that an
investigation was still pending and the
government objected to any further deposition
testimony regarding the civil rights violation.
140

See id. at 64.

141

See id. at 64:23–34 (responding that ICE
discontinued use of the TGK facility in
“weeks also. Weeks to months. I’m not
sure.”).
142

See generally DMCP manual.

143

See Evans Dep. at 62–64. Defendants, on
the ground of deliberative process privilege,
refused to allow Evans to discuss any
instances in which she recommended
termination of a facility’s contract, but these
recommendations were not acted upon. Thus,
while only three contracts were terminated on
the basis of DSCU’s recommendations, it is

A BROKEN SYSTEM

99
possible that the unit made recommendations
at other facilities as well.

VISITATION
1

See INS Detention Standard: Visitation
(hereinafter “Visitation”) § I (Policy), in U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/vi
sit.pdf.
2

Visitation § III.L–N (Standards and
Procedures: Non-Government Organization
Visitation with Detainees and Tours of
Facilities, Visits from Representatives of
Community Service Organizations, and News
Media Interviews of Detainees).
3
Visitation § III.I.14 (Visitation by Legal
Representatives and Legal Assistants: Pro
Bono Lists and Detainee Sign-Up).
4
ICE Annual Review, Cass Co. Jail (June &
July 2005), Bates 10253; ICE Annual
Review, Chautaqua Co. Jail (Apr. 2005),
Bates 10502; ICE Annual Review, Crawford
Co. Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13254; ICE
Annual Review, Josephine Co. Jail (May
2005), Bates 1107; ICE Annual Review,
Madison Co. Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates 1543;
ICE Annual Reviews, Mecklenburg Co. Jail
(Central) (Apr. 2004), Bates 4917 and (Apr.
2005), Bates 1067; ICE Annual Reviews,
Minnehaha Co. Jail (May 2004), Bates 5075
and (June 2005), Bates 2850; ICE Annual
Review, Niagara Co. Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates
12818; ICE Annual Review, Nobles Co. Jail
(May 2005), Bates 2689; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Co. Jail (June 2005), Bates
12937; ICE Annual Review, Wicomico Co.
Jail (June 2005), Bates 249; ICE Annual
Review, Wyatt Detention Center (Dec. 2004 –
Jan. 2005), Bates 12563; ICE Annual Review,
Wyoming Co. Jail (Aug. 2004 – Aug. 2005),
Bates 5441; ICE Annual Review, Audrain Co.
Detention Center, Chicago District (May
2004), Bates 7777; ICE Annual Review,
Cayuga Co. Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 10300;
ICE Annual Review, Charleston Co.
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 8017;
ICE Annual Review, Coconino Co. Detention
Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates 3843; ICE Annual
Review, Eerie Co. Holding Center (Nov.
2004), Bates 4162; ICE Annual Review,
Finney Co. Jail (May 2004), Bates 3393; ICE
Annual Review, Genesee Co. Jail (Nov.
2004), Bates 3433; ICE Annual Review,
Jefferson Co. Jail, Mt. Vernon, IL (Oct.
2004), Bates 3598; ICE Annual Review,
Madison Co. Jail (July 2004), Bates 4589;
ICE Annual Review, McHenry Co. Jail (July
2004), Bates 4782; ICE Annual Review,
Mecklenburg Co. Jail (North) (Apr. 2004),
Bates 4870; ICE Annual Review, Monroe Co.
Jail (July 2004), Bates 669; ICE Annual
Review, Morrison Co. Jail, Little Falls, MN
(Sept. 2004), Bates 11941; ICE Annual
Review, Niagara Co. Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates

100
11993; ICE Annual Review, Orleans Co. Jail
(June 2004), Bates 7336; ICE Annual
Review, Pettis Co. Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 6461; ICE Annual Review,
Phelps Co. Jail (Mar. & Apr. 2004), Bates
6223; ICE Annual Review, Polk Co. Jail
(Mar. 2004), Bates 6103; ICE Annual
Review, Pottawattamie Co. Jail (July 2004),
Bates 6071; ICE Annual Review, Regional
Correctional Facility (Albuquerque) (Aug.
2004), Bates 6027; ICE Annual Review,
Smith Co. Jail (June 2004), Bates 5681; ICE
Annual Review, Weber Co. Jail (Nov. 2004),
Bates 346; ICE Annual Review, West Carroll
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 5633;
ICE Annual Review, Williamson Co. Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 5591; ICE Annual
Review, Yakima Co. Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates
5543; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co.
Sheriff’s Dept., Corrections (May 20003),
Bates 18795; ICE Annual Review, Seattle
Contract Detention Center, Seattle, WA (July
2003), Bates 11459; ICE Annual Review,
Torrance Co. Correctional Facility (July –
Aug. 2003), Bates 17969; ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Processing Center (May
2002), Bates 18480. In addition, the
checklists for this standard for the following
facilities were either marked “not applicable”
or included comments that indicated a
violation: ICE Annual Review, Bergen Co.
Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 9129; ICE Annual
Review, Boone Co. Detention Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 9385; ICE Annual Review,
Butler Co. Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 9948; ICE
Annual Review, Canadian Co. Jail (Jan.
2005), Bates 10114; ICE Annual Review,
Chase Co. Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates 10419; ICE
Annual Review, Hudson Co. Dept. of
Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates 529; ICE
Annual Review, Karnes Co. Correctional
Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 1325; ICE Annual
Review, Manatee Co. Jail (July 2005), Bates
571; ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3244;
ICE Annual Review, Northern Oregon
Correctional Center (June 2005), Bates
12897; ICE Annual Review, Passaic Co. Jail
(June 2005), Bates 885; ICE Annual Review,
Pennington Co. Jail (June 2004), Bates
11798; Follow-up ICE inspection,
Plaquemines Parish Detention Center (Mar.
2004), Bates 1030; ICE Annual Review,
Plaquemines Parish Detention Center (Apr.
2005), Bates 3202; ICE Annual Review,
Regional Correction Center, Albuquerque
(Oct. 2005), Bates 2159; ICE Annual Review,
Reno Co. Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 7244; ICE
Annual Review, Sacramento Co. Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 7155; ICE Annual Review, Salt
Lake Co. Adult Detention Complex (Sept.
2004), Bates 6873; ICE Annual Review,
Santa Clara Main Jail Complex (Oct. 2004),
Bates 5780; ICE Annual Review, Santa Clara
Main Jail Complex (Oct. 2004), Bates 14161;
ICE Annual Review, Union Co. Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 6975; ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept Corrections
(July 2002), Bates 18751.

NOTES
The Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS), formerly an agency within the U.S.
Department of Justice, was abolished and
replaced by parts of the newly formed U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on
Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296,
116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002). Many of the
INS’s enforcement-related duties, including
responsibility for detention, were transferred
to the newly formed Bureau of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, which
subsequently came to be known as “U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” or
“ICE.” Any reference in this report to
“Immigration and Customs Enforcement” or
“ICE” refers to the immigration enforcement
agency that was operating at the time the
events associated with the particular reference
took place. So, for example, a reference to an
“ICE review” that took place in 2002 should
be understood to mean an “INS review,” since
the INS was the U.S.’s immigration
enforcement agency during all of 2002.
5

Visitation § III.I.9 (Standards and
Procedures: Visitation by Legal
Representatives and Legal Assistants: Private
Meeting Room and Interruption for Head
Counts).
6

Id.

7

UNHCR report, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (Puerto Rico) (May 2005),
Bates 8662; ICE Annual Reviews, Aguadilla
Service Processing Center (Puerto Rico)
(Mar. 2004), Bates 12579–80 and (Mar.
2005), Bates 10746; ICE Annual Review,
Seattle INS Detention Facility, Seattle, WA
(July 2003), Bates 11527. In addition, the
checklists for this standard for the following
facilities were either marked “not applicable”
or included comments that indicated a
violation: ICE Annual Review, Harris Co.
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 2411; ICE Annual
Review, Krome Service Processing Center
(June 2005), Bates 16957; ICE Annual
Review, Turner Guildford Knight
Correctional Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7434.
8
See, e.g., ABA report, Kern County Jail
(Aug. 2002), Bates 17475; see infra
(discussing ABA and UNHCR reports
regarding strip searches after legal visitation).
9

Visitation § III.I.2 (Standards and
Procedures: Visitation by Legal
Representatives and Legal Assistants: Hours).
10
ICE Annual Review, Polk Co. Jail (May
2005), Bates 3075; ICE Annual Review, Clay
Co. Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 3745; ICE Annual
Review, Dorchester Co. Detention Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 4023; ICE Annual
Review, Garvin Co. Detention Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 3392; ICE Annual Review, Hill
Co. Detention Center (Oct. 2004), Bates
3597; ICE Annual Review, Minnesota
Correctional Facility – Rush Facility (Oct.
2004), Bates 297; ICE Annual Review,
Tensas Parish Jail (Aug. - Sept 2004), Bates
18576. In addition, the checklists for this
standard for the following facilities were

A BROKEN SYSTEM

either marked “not applicable” or included
comments that indicated a violation: ICE
Annual Review, Atlanta City Detention
Center (May 2005), Bates 9678; ICE Annual
Review, Chase Co. Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates
10419; ICE Annual Review, Karnes Co.
Correctional Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 1324;
ICE Annual Review, Niagra Co. Jail (Dec.
2005), Bates 12818; ICE Annual Review,
North Las Vegas Detention Center (Aug.
2005), Bates 3244; ICE Annual Review,
North Las Vegas Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 12045; ICE Annual Review, Salt
Lake Co. Adult Detention Complex (Sept.
2004), Bates 6872; ICE Annual Review, St.
Martin Parish Jail (Aug. – Sept. 2004), Bates
938; ICE Annual Review, Washington Co.
Purgatory Detention Facility (Nov. 2004),
Bates 6927.
11
ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake County
Adult Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates
6872.
12
Visitation § III.I.11 (Standards and
Procedures: Visitation by Legal
Representatives and Legal Assistants:
Detainee Search).
13

ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co. PreTrial Facility (June 2005), Bates 843; ICE
Annual Review, Morgan Co. Adult Detention
Center (May 2005), Bates 1625; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha Co. Pre-Trial Detention
Center (June 2004), Bates 4285; ICE Annual
Review, Kern Co. Sheriff’s Office, Lerdo
Pretrial Facility (Dec. 2004), Bates 4321; ICE
Annual Review, Tensas Parish Detention
Center (Aug. 2004), Bates 6564; ICE Annual
Review, Central Arizona Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 10340; ICE Annual
Review, Houston Contract Detention Facility
(Aug. 2004), Bates 11211; ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(July 2003), Bates 11459; ICE Annual
Review, Morgan Co. Detention Center (Oct.
2004), Bates 11891; ICE Annual Review,
Aguadilla Service Processing Center (Mar.
2004), Bates 12580; ICE Annual Review, El
Centro Service Process Center (Jan. 2004),
Bates 12665; ICE Annual Review, Torrance
Co. Detention (June & July 2004), Bates
13947; ICE Annual Review, Kern County Jail
(Dec. 2004), Bates 17473–75 (noting
uncertainty regarding whether detainees could
avoid strip searches after visitation); ICE
Annual Review, Tensas Parish Jail (Aug.
2002), Bates 18577. In addition, the
checklists for this standard for the following
facilities were either marked “not applicable”
or included comments that indicated a
violation: ICE Annual Review, Chase County
Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates 10419; ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 12045; ICE Annual
Review, Crawford Co. Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates
13254.
14
Visitation § III.I.10 (Standards and
Procedures: Visitation by Legal
Representatives and Legal Assistants:
Materials Provided to Detainees by Legal
Representatives).

NOTES
15

Id., Visitation Monitoring Instrument.

16

ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish
Criminal Sheriff’s Office (Sept. 2004), Bates
7288.
17
Visitation § III.I.12 (Standards and
Procedures: Visitation by Legal
Representatives and Legal Assistants: Legal
Visitation for Detainees in Administrative and
Disciplinary Segregation).
18

ICE Annual Review, Dodge County
Correctional Facility (May 2005), Bates
21170 (inadequate access to legal visitation
for detainees in segregation); ICE Annual
Review, Dodge Co. Jail (May 2005), Bates
13567; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co.
Pre-Trial Facility (June 2005), Bates 843; ICE
Annual Review, Limestone Co. Detention
Center (May 2005), Bates 2492; ICE Annual
Review, Harris Co. Jail (Mar. - Apr. 2004),
Bates 3468; ICE Annual Review, Madison
Co. Jail (July 2004), Bates 4603; ICE Annual
Review, Manatee Co. Jail (June 2004), Bates
1228; ICE Annual Review, McHenry Co. Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4689; ICE Annual Review,
Pine Prairie Correctional Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 6394; ICE Annual Review,
Plaquemines Parish Detention Center (Aug.
2004), Bates 981; ICE Annual Review,
Pottawattamie Co. Jail (July 2004), Bates
6070; ICE Annual Review, Sherburne Co. Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 5814; ICE Annual Review,
Williamson Co. Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5590;
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co. Detention
Center (May 2003), Bates 18794; ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates
18576.
19
Visitation § III.I.2 (Standards and
Procedures: Visitation by Legal
Representatives and Legal Assistants: Hours).
20
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co. PreTrial Facility (June 2005), Bates 843; ICE
Annual Review, Mini-Cassia Criminal Justice
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 2890; ICE Annual
Review, City of Las Vegas Detention Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 4447; ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 12045; ICE Annual
Review, Summit Co. Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates
14010; ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish
Jail (Aug – Sept 2002), Bates 18576.
21

Visitation § III.H.4 (Standards and
Procedures: Visits by Family and Friends:
Contact Visits).
22
See Visitation, Monitoring Instrument
Form.
23
Comments indicate that contact visits with
family are not allowed at several facilities.
Comments indicate that contact visits with
family are not allowed at several facilities.
See ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10113; ICE Annual
Review, Case County Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates
10419; ICE Annual Review, Cass County
Correctional Facility (June 2005), Bates
10253 (“All visits are non-contact”); ICE
Annual Review, Crawford County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 13253; ICE Annual Review,

Hardin County Correctional Center (Oct.
2005), Bates 1367; ICE Annual Review,
Montgomery County Jail (Oct. 2005), Bates
12211; ICE Annual Review, Norcor County
Jail (June 2005), Bates 12897; ICE Annual
Review, Bedford County Jail (Nov. 2004),
Bates 9082; ICE Annual Review, Snyder
County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 13881; ICE
Annual Review, Williamson County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 14076; ICE Annual
Review, Yakima County Jail (Dec. 2004),
Bates 5542.
24
Visitation § III.B (Standards and
Procedures: Notification).
25
ICE Annual Review, Calcasieu Parish
Correctional Center (June 2004), Bates 9421;
ICE Annual Review, Community Corrections
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7484; ICE Annual
Review, Kern Co. Sheriff’s Office, Lerdo
Pretrial Facility (Dec. 2004), Bates 4321; ICE
Annual Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7288;
ICE Annual Review, Pine Prairie Correctional
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 6394; ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Detention Center
(Aug. 2004), Bates 6564; ICE Annual
Review, Torrance County Detention Center
(June 2004), Bates 13948 (visitation hours not
posed in visitation area); ICE Annual Review,
Wyoming County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates
13773 (written visitation rules and hours not
made available to visitors); ABA report, York
County Prison (July 2004), Bates 8491
(attorney visitation policy not included in
handbook); ICE Annual Review, Laredo
Contract Detention Facility (Sept. 2003),
Bates 11297; ICE Annual Review, San Diego
Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates
11348; ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish
Jail (Aug. - Sept. 2002), Bates 18576. In
addition, the checklists for this standard for
the following facilities were either marked
“not applicable” or included comments that
indicated a violation: ICE Annual Review,
Erie Co. Prison (Mar. 2005), Bates 13305;
ICE Annual Review, La Paz Co. Jail (Apr.
2005), Bates 1502.
26
Visitation § III.D (Standards and
Procedures: Incoming Property and Money
for Detainees).
27

ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua Co. Jail
(Apr. 2005), Bates 10502; ICE Annual
Review, Grant Co. Jail (Feb. 2005), Bates
1276; ICE Annual Review, Hudson Co. Dept.
of Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates 528; ICE
Annual Review, Krome Service Processing
Center (June 2005), Bates 16956; ICE Annual
Review, Madison Co. Jail (June 2005), Bates
1543; ICE Annual Review, McHenry Co. Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 1458; ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 3244; ICE Annual
Review, Tri-County Detention Center (Mar.
2005), Bates 1831; ICE Annual Review,
Bonneville Co. Jail (June 2004), Bates 9347;
ICE Annual Review, Calcasieu Parish
Correctional Center (June 2004), Bates 9421;
ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua County Jail
(Apr. 2004), Bates 8160; ICE Annual Review,

A BROKEN SYSTEM

101
Community Corrections Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 7484; ICE Annual Review, Genesee
Co. Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 3432; ICE Annual
Review, McHenry Co. Jail (July 2004), Bates
4781; ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish
Community Corrections Center, New
Orleans, LA (Sept. 2004), Bates 7288; ICE
Annual Review, Regional Correctional
Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates 6026; ICE Annual
Review, Santa Clara Main Jail Complex (Oct.
2004), Bates 5779; ICE Annual Review,
Tensas Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2004),
Bates 6564; ICE Annual Review, Torrance
Co. Detention (June & July 2004), Bates
13947; ICE Annual Review, Williamson Co.
Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5590; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha Co. Sheriff’s Dept.
Corrections (May 2003), Bates 18750. In
addition, the checklists for this standard for
the following facilities were either marked
“not applicable” or included comments that
indicated a violation: ICE Annual Review,
City of Las Vegas Detention Center (Sept,
2004), Bates 4447; ICE Annual Review, Clay
Co. Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 3745; ICE Annual
Review, Mira Loma Detention Facility (Aug.
2005), Bates 2930.
28
Visitation § III.H.2(d) (Standards and
Procedures: Visits by Family and Friends:
Persons Allowed to Visit). After 30 days, the
standard requires ICE to consider whether to
transfer detainees to a facility that does allow
minor visitation.
29
ICE Annual Review, Torrance Co.
Detention Center (June 2005), Bates 1794;
ICE Annual Review, Garvin Co. Detention
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3392; ICE Annual
Review, Genesee Co. Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates
3432. In addition, the checklists for this
standard for the following facilities were
either marked “not applicable” or included
comments that indicated a violation: ICE
Annual Review, Carver Co. Jail (Nov. 2005),
Bates 10211; ICE Annual Review, Chase Co.
Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates 10419; ICE Annual
Review, Dickens Co. Jail (June 2005), Bates
13532; ICE Annual Review, Lin Co. Jail,
Cedar Rapids, IA/Culberson Co. Jail (May
2005), Bates 12168; ICE Annual Review,
Ozaukee Co. Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 7380.
30
ICE Annual Review, Garvin Co.
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3392 (no
minor visitation allowed); ICE Annual
Review, Ozaukee County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 7380 (no minor visitation allowed);
ABA report, Ozaukee County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8379 (facility officials
confirmed policy in handbook banning
visitation by all minors); ICE Annual Review,
Reno County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 7243
(banning visitation by minors under age
sixteen). Other facilities limited visitation to
minors who are children or immediate family
of the detainee. See ICE Annual Review,
Odessa Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates
13714; ICE Annual Review, Pike County
Correctional Facility (Dec. 2003), Bates
18332.

102

NOTES

31

Bates 3746; ICE Annual Review, Genesee
Co. Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 3432; ICE Annual
Review, Monroe Co. Jail (July 2005), Bates
2811 (ICE reviewer did not answer question);
ICE Annual Review, Nobles Co. Jail (May
2005), Bates 2690; ICE Annual Review,
Oklahoma County Detention Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 12094; ICE Annual Review,
Plaquamines Parish Detention Center (Apr.
2005), Bates 3202; ICE Annual Review,
Tensas Parish Detention Center (Aug 2004),
Bates 6565.

Visitation § III.H.5 (Standards and
Procedures: Visits by Family and Friends:
Visits for Administrative and Disciplinary
Segregation Detainees).
32

Visitation § III.I.12 (Standards and
Procedures: Visitation by Legal
Representatives and Legal Assistants: Legal
Visitation for Detainees in Administrative and
Disciplinary Segregation).
33
See Visitation Monitoring Instrument
(“Detainees in special housing afforded
visitation”). The review form does not
distinguish between administrative and
disciplinary segregation, nor between legal
and general visitation.
34

ICE Annual Review, El Paso Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 11584.
35
ICE Annual Review, San Diego
Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates
11348 (limited visitation hours, without any
accommodations); ABA report, Dupage
County Jail (July 2003), Bates 17376.
36

ABA report, Keogh Dwyer Correctional
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8478 (noting
burdensome process for facility to approve
visitors); ABA report, Hudson County Jail
(Aug. 2003), Bates 17622; ICE Annual
Review, El Paso Service Processing Center
(June 2002), Bates 12445. The standard
explicitly does not require visitor lists and
allows visitation by immediate and extended
family, minors, as well as friends and
associates. See Visitation § III.H.2 (Standards
and Procedures: Visits by Family and Friends:
Persons Allowed to Visit).
37

Visitation § III.O.5 (Standards and
Procedures: Other Special Visits:
Examinations by Independent Medical
Service Providers and Experts).
38

ICE Annual Review, Macomb Co. Jail
(May 2005), Bates 1586; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Co. Jail (June 2005), Bates
12938; ICE Annual Review, Polk Co. Jail
(May 2005), Bates 3076; ICE Annual
Review, Tri-County Detention Center (Mar.
2005), Bates 1832; ICE Annual Review,
Cayuga County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
10300; ICE Annual Review, Erie Co. Holding
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 4162; ICE Annual
Review, Frio Co. Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates
3342; ICE Annual Review, Garvin Co.
Detention Center (Dec 2004), Bates 3393;
ICE Annual Review, Polk Co. Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 6103; ICE Annual Review,
Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5252;
ICE Annual Review, Sherburne County Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 5815; ICE Annual Review,
Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (Aug.
2002), Bates 18016; ICE Annual Review, San
Pedro Service Processing Center (May 2002),
Bates 18480; ICE Annual Review, Tensas
Parish Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates 18577. In
addition, the checklists for this standard for
the following facilities were either marked
“not applicable” or included comments that
indicated a violation: ICE Annual Review,
Sussex Co. Jail (Aug 2006), Bates 387; ICE
Annual Review, Clay Co. Jail (Sept. 2004),

39
ICE Annual Review, Sherburne County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 5815.
40
Visitation § III.L (Non-Government
Organization Visitation with Detainees and
Tours of Facilities); III.M (Visits from
Representatives of Community Service
Organizations); III.N (News Media Interviews
of Detainees); III.O.1 (Law Enforcement
Officials’ Visits).
41

ICE Annual Review, Chatauqua Co. Jail
(Apr. 2005), Bates 10503; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Co. Jail (June 2005), Bates
12938; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co.
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18795;
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18480;
ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish Jail (Aug.
2002), Bates 18577. In addition, the
checklists for this standard for the following
facilities were either marked “not applicable”
or included comments that indicated a
violation: ICE Annual Review, Howard Co.
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 2333;
ICE Annual Review, Bergen Co. Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 9129; ICE Annual Review,
Cayuga Co. Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 10300;
ICE Annual Review, Douglas County Jail
(Dec. 2004), Bates 4068; ICE Annual
Review, Ector Co. Correctional Center (Nov.
2004), Bates 4117 (ICE reviewer marked
facility as complying with element even
though facility indicated compliance with
family and legal visitation only); ICE Annual
Review, Erie Co. Holding Center (Nov.
2004), Bates 4162; ICE Annual Review,
Genesse Co. Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 3433;
ICE Annual Review, Odessa Detention
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 12259, 13715; ICE
Annual Review, Oklahoma Co. Detention
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 12095; ICE Annual
Review, Regional Correctional Facility
(Albuquerque) (Aug. 2004), Bates 6027; ICE
Annual Review, Santa Clara Main Jail
Complex (Oct. 2004), Bates 5780, 14161;
ICE Annual Review, Smith Co. Jail (June
2004), Bates 5681, 14103.
42
See Visitation Monitoring Instrument
(noting whether or not “Law enforcement
officials, requesting to visit with a detainee,
are referred to the ICE F eld Office for
approval.”); ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua
County Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 10503; ICE
Annual Review, Krome Service Processing
Center (June 2005), Bates 17018; ICE Annual
Review, Lin County Jail, Cedar Rapids,
IA/Culberson Co. Jail (May 2005), Bates
12169; ICE Annual Review, Mini-Cassia

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Criminal Justice Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
2891; ICE Annual Review, Nobles Co. Jail
(May 2005), Bates 2690; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Co. Jail (June 2005), Bates
12938; ICE Annual Review, Weber Crawford
Co. Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13254; ICE
Annual Review, San Diego Correctional
Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates 16872; ICE
Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18480;
ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish Jail
(Aug.-Sept. 2002), Bates 18577. In addition,
the checklist for the Odessa Detention Center
included comments indicating a violation:
ICE Annual Review, Odessa Detention
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 12259.
43
See Visitation Monitoring Instrument
form, noting that “The decision to permit or
deny a tour is not delegated below the level of
Field Office Director.”
44
ICE Annual Review, Canadian Co. Jail, El
Reno, OK (Nov. 2005), Bates 10114; ICE
Annual Review, Hardin Co. Correctional
Center, (Oct. 2005), Bates 1368; ICE Annual
Review, Krome Service Processing Center
(June 2005), Bates 16957; ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha Co. Jail (June 2005),
Bates 2851; ICE Annual Review, Nobles Co.
Jail (May 2005), Bates 2690; ICE Annual
Review, Douglas County Jail (Dec. 2004),
Bates 4069; ICE Annual Review, Frio Co. Jail
(Sept. 2004), Bates 3342; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha Co. Detention Center (May
2003), Bates 18795; ICE Annual Review,
Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5252;
ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11459;
ICE Annual Review, Worcester Co. Jail (Nov.
– Dec. 2004), Bates 5955. In addition, the
checklists for this standard for the following
facilities were either marked “not applicable”
or included comments that indicated a
violation: ICE Annual Review, Bexar County
GEO Detention Facility (July 2005), Bates
9760; ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3245;
ICE Annual Review, Odessa Detention
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 5350, 12259.
45
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10114.
46

ABA report, Mira Loma Detention Center
(June 2002), Bates 17424. The standard
allows legal visitation by attorneys who do
not have state bar cards but who can verify
with other documentation that they are
licensed to practice law. See Visitation §
III.I.4 (Standards and Procedures: Visits by
Legal Representatives and Legal Assistants:
Identification of Legal Representatives and
Assistants).
47

Id., Bates 17426–27.

48

ABA report, Kern County Jail (Aug.
2002), Bates 17473.
49

Id., Bates 17473–75.

50

ABA report, Houston Service Processing
Center (Jan. 2003), Bates 17566–67.
51

Id.

NOTES
52

ABA report, St. Mary’s County Detention
Center (June 2003), Bates 17604.
53

Id., Bates 17605.

54

ABA report, Plymouth County
Correctional Facility (June 2003), Bates
17663–64.
55

Id.

56
ABA report, El Paso Service Processing
Center (July 2003), Bates 17503.
57

ABA report, Middlesex County Jail (July
2003), Bates 17765–66.
58

ABA report, Monmouth County
Correctional Institute (July 2003), Bates
17746, 17748–50.
59
60

Id.
Id.

61
ABA report, Oakland County Jail (July
2003), Bates 17650–51.
62

ABA report, Clay County Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 17691–94.
63

Id., Bates 17693–94.

64

Id., Bates 17693.

65

Id., Bates 17692.

66
ABA report, Queens Detention Facility
(Mar. 2004), Bates 8432–33.
67

Id., Bates 8434–35.

68

ABA report, Ozaukee County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8364–66.
69
ABA report, York County Prison (July
2004), Bates 8492–94.
70

Id., Bates 8492.

71

Id., Bates 8494.

72
ABA report, Bristol County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8236–38.
73

Id., Bates 8236–37.

74

Id.

75

ABA report, Colquitt County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 8621–22.
76
ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth
Correctional Facility (Sept. 2004), Bates
17344–45; ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth
Correctional Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates
11259–61; ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth
Correctional Facility (Dec. 2002), Bates
18112–13.
77

ABA report, Elizabeth Correctional
Facility (October 2003), Bates 17718.
78

ABA report, Bergen County Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 17360–61.
79

ABA report, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2004), Bates 8364, 8637.
80

Id. , Bates 8636-38.

81

ICE Annual Review, Dodge County
Detention Facility (June 2004), Bates 3976–
77.
82

ABA report, Passaic County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8413–15.
83

ABA report, Passaic County Jail (Aug.
2005), Bates 8551, 8555.

84

ICE Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(Mar. 2004), Bates 14677–78; ICE Annual
Review, Passaic County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 14496-97.
85

ABA report, Dorchester Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 8258–59.
86
ICE Annual Review, Dorchester
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), 4023–24.
87
ABA report, Santa Ana Detention Facility
(July 2004), Bates 8457–58.
88

ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana Detention
Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates 5251–52.
89
ABA report, Pamunkey Regional Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 8391–92.
90

Id.

91

ICE Annual Review, CSC Detention
Facility (Sept. 2002), Bates 11527.
92
ABA report, CSC Detention Facility (May
2002), Bates 17730–31.
93

Id., Bates 17731.

94

ICE Annual Review, CSC Detention
Facility (July 2003), Bates 11420, 11459.
95
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 12277;
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (July 2004), Bates 12332;
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (January 2003), Bates
18494; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro
Service Processing Center (Nov. 2003), Bates
17857; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro
Service Processing Center (May 2002), Bates
18442.
96
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18479–
80.
97

ABA report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 8558;
ABA report, San Pedro Service Processing
Center (July 2003), Bates 1758; ABA report,
San Pedro Service Processing Center (Mar.
2002), Bates 17448.
98
ABA report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2002), Bates 17453–
55.
99

Id. Bates 17453.

100

ABA report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (July 2003), Bates 17583–
86.

103
107

ICE Annual Review, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 12609.
108
UNHCR report, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (May 2005), Bates 8666.
UNHCR noted that lack of confidentiality had
particularly adverse impacts on asylumseekers, given their precarious position and
need for informed legal advice to pursue a
potential claim.
109
ABA report, Krome Service Processing
Center (Apr. 2004), Bates 17048–49.
110
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (June 2005), Bates 16956.
111
See, e.g., ABA report, Kern County Jail
(Aug. 2002), Bates 17473.
112
ABA report, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2004), Bates 8638–39; ABA
report, Montgomery County Correctional
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8325; ABA report,
Ozaukee County Jail (July 2004), Bates 8366;
ABA report, York County Prison (July 2004),
Bates 8494; ABA report, Corrections
Corporation of America (January 2003),
Bates 17567; ABA report, Hudson County
Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates 17622; ABA report,
Middlesex County Jail (July 2003), Bates
17765-66; ABA report, Yuba County Jail
(Dec. 2003), Bates 17678-80;. ABA report,
Dallas County Jail Systems Facility (Mar.
2002), Bates 17388.
113
ABA report, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2004), Bates 8638 (12 adults
allowed on detainee visitor list); ABA report,
Middlesex County Jail (July 2003), Bates
17765-66 (four persons allowed on detainee
visitor list).

RECREATION
1
See INS Detention Standard: Recreation
(hereinafter “Recreation”) § I (Policy), in U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/re
creat.pdf.
2
See Recreation § III.H (Recreation for
Special Management Unit).
3
Recreation § III.C (Transfer Option Where
Only Indoor Recreation is Available).

101
ABA report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 8562.

4
See Recreation § III.B (Recreation
Schedule).

102
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Facility (May 2003), Bates 18794–
95.

5
See Physicians for Human Rights and the
Bellevue/NYU Survivors of Torture Program,
From Persecution to Prison: The Health
Consequences of Detention for Asylum
Seekers (advance copy, June 2003), available
from
www.pegc.us/archive/Organizations/PHR_det
ention.pdf (last visited Mar. 25, 2009).

103
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Facility (May 2004), Bates 3647–
48.
104
ABA report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8283.

6

105

ABA report, Clay County Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 17693–94.
106

ICE Annual Review, Clay County Jail
(Sept. 2004), Bates 3745–46.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

7

See Recreation § III.G (Program Content).

See Recreation § III.F (Recreation
Specialist).

104
8

Recreation § III.C (Transfer Option Where
Only Indoor Recreation Is Available) at 1.
9

Id. at 3.

10

See Recreation § III.G (Program Content).

11

See Recreation § III.H (Recreation For
Special Management Unit (SMU)).
12
Recreation § III.I (Volunteer Program
Involvement).
13
The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
14

Recreation § I (Policy).

15

UNHCR report, Racine County Jail (Aug.
2001), Bates 18864–65. It is unclear if this
problem was corrected as the government did
not produce a subsequent ICE review for
Racine County Jail in the discovery mandated
under the Orantes case.
16

Id.

17

See Recreation § III.A (Requirements for
Recreation).
18

Recreation § III.B (Recreation Schedule).

19
ICE Annual Review, Christian County
Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates 9596–97; ICE Annual
Review, Cass County Jail (July 2005), Bates
10249; ICE Annual Review, Crawford
County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13249–50;
ICE Annual Review, Dodge County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 3972–
73; ICE Annual Review, Hampton Roads
Regional Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 2447–48;
ICE Annual Review, Hardin County
Correctional Center (Oct. 2005), Bates 1363–
64; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Pre-Trial Detention Center (June 2004), Bates
4280–81; ICE Annual Review, Linn County
Jail (May 2005), Bates 12164–65; ICE
Annual Review, McHenry County Jail (Nov.
2005), Bates 1454–55; ICE Annual Review,
Minnehaha County Jail (May 2004), Bates
5070–71; ICE Annual Review, Morgan
County Adult Detention Center (May 2004),
Bates 11887–88; ICE Annual Review,
Oakland City Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 2246–

NOTES
47; ICE Annual Review, Pennington County
Jail (Aug.-Sept. 2005), Bates 3004–05; ICE
Annual Review, Phelps County Jail (May
2005), Bates 2004–05; ICE Annual Review,
Sherburne County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
13017–18; ICE Annual Review, Douglas
County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 4064–65; ICE
Annual Review, Garvin County Detention
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3388–89; ICE
Annual Review, Madison County Jail (July
2004), Bates 4587–88; ICE Annual Review,
Polk County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 6101–02.
20
ICE Annual Review, Lin County Jail
(May 2005), Bates 12164–65; ICE Annual
Review, Garvin County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 3388–89; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Pre-Trial Detention
Center (June 2004), Bates 4280–81; ICE
Annual Review, Morgan County Adult
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 11887–
88.
21
ICE Annual Review, Dodge County
Detention Center (May 2005), Bates 13563–
64; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Pre-Trial Detention Center (June 2005), Bates
839–40; ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 2846–47; ICE
Annual Review, Morgan County Adult
Detention Center (May 2005), Bates 1621–22.
22

ICE Annual Review, Chase County Jail
(Sept. 2005), Bates 10415–16.
23
Recreation § III.C (Transfer Option
Where Only Indoor Recreation Is Available).
24

Id.

25

ICE Annual Review, Cass County Jail
(July 2005), Bates 10249; ICE Annual
Review, Phelps County Jail (May 2005),
Bates 2004–05; ICE Annual Review, Douglas
County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 4064–65;
UNHCR report, George Allen Jail (Oct.
2001), Bates 17785; UNHCR report,
McHenry County Jail (Aug. 2001), Bates
18874.
26
Recreation § III.A (Requirements for
Recreation) at 1 (noting, however, that an
indoor recreation room of this kind “does not
meet the requirement for outdoor recreation”).
27

Id.

28

Id.

29

ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua County
Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 10498–99; ICE
Annual Review, Chautauqua County Jail
(Apr. 2004), Bates 8156–57; ICE Annual
Review, Boone County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 9380–81; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 7331–32; ICE Annual Review, St.
Martin Parish Jail (Aug.-Sept. 2004), Bates
934–35; ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11453–
54; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18475–
76; ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (Sept. 2002), Bates 11521–
22.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

30

ABA report, York Correctional Institution
(Nov. 2003), Bates 17529.
31
ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua County
Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 10498–99; ICE
Annual Review, Chautauqua County Jail
(Apr. 2004), Bates 8156–57; ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(July 2003), Bates 11453–54; ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(Sept. 2002), Bates 11521–22).
32
ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11453–
54; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18475–
76.
33

Recreation § III.B (Recreation Schedule).

34

Id.

35

Id.

36

ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10109–10 (less than
one hour per day, five days a week); ICE
Annual Review, Cass County Jail (July 2005),
Bates 10109–10 (opportunity to participate in
indoor recreation Monday-Friday; not on
weekends); ICE Annual Review, Crawford
County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13249–50 (no
set schedule); ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
3240–41 (three hours a week); ICE Annual
Review, Park County Jail (May 2005), Bates
796–97 (15 minutes outside, 45 minutes
inside daily); ICE Annual Review, Yuba
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2639–40
(detainees rotated through recreation yard 4
times per week for 2 hours, but not every
day); ICE Annual Review, Blount County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 9298–99 (three days a
week); ICE Annual Review, Clay County Jail
(Sept. 2004), Bates 3741–42 (3 hours per
week); ICE Annual Review, Dickens County
Correctional Facility (June 2004), Bates 4241
(3 hours per week); ICE Annual Review,
Dorchester County Detention Center (Sept.
2004), Bates 4019–20 (7 days a week but only
2 days outdoors); ICE Annual Review, Polk
County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 6088, 6101
(one hour of recreation, five times per week
not possible in main jail, only in interim jail);
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5676–77 (three hours per week);
ICE Annual Review, St. Francois County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 6650–51
(3-4 times per week); ICE Annual Review,
Yakima County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 5538–
39 (3 hours per week); ICE Annual Review,
Yuba County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5484–
85 (detainees rotated through recreation yard
4 times per week for 2 hours, but not every
day); ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11453–
54 (detainees have opportunity to participate
in daily recreation, but not always for an hour,
according to log book); ICE Annual Review,
Torrance County Correctional Facility (JulyAug. 2003), Bates 17964–65 (5 days per week
“per ACA complaint”); ICE Annual Review,
Seattle Contract Detention Center (Sept.
2002), Bates 11521–22 (no set schedule).

NOTES
37

ICE Annual Review, Cass County Jail
(July 2005), Bates 10249–50; ICE Annual
Review, Crawford County Jail (Mar. 2005),
Bates 13249–50; ICE Annual Review, Park
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 796–97; ICE
Annual Review, Yuba County Jail (Nov.
2005), Bates 2639–40; ICE Annual Review,
Dorchester County Detention Center (Sept.
2004), Bates 4019–20; ICE Annual Review,
Polk County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 6088,
6101; ICE Annual Review, Yuba County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 5484–85; ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(July 2003), Bates 11453–54; ICE Annual
Review, Torrance County Correctional
Facility (July-Aug. 2003), Bates 17964–65;
ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (Sept. 2002), Bates 11521–
22); ICE Annual Review, Torrance County
Correctional Facility (June 2002), Bates
17922–23.
38

ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3240–
41; ICE Annual Review, Clay County Jail
(Sept. 2004), Bates 3741–42; ICE Annual
Review, Dickens County Correctional Facility
(June 2004), Bates 4241; ICE Annual
Review, Dorchester County Detention Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 4019–20; ICE Annual
Review, Polk County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates
6088, 6101; ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5676–77; ICE
Annual Review, Seattle Contract Detention
Center (July 2003), Bates 11454.
39

ABA report, Passaic County Jail (Aug.
2005), Bates 8538–39 (5 days of outdoor and
2 days of indoor recreation per week,
according to staff; however, detainees report
that recreation is rarely available and is not
rescheduled when cancelled for inclement
weather); ABA report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 8571
(recreation available only 45 minutes per day,
according to detainees); ABA report,
Dorchester County Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 8266–67 (7 days per week but
only 2 days outdoors); ABA report, Mira
Loma Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
8309–10 (“yard time” twice a day for 40
minutes, but schedule is unpredictable and
often cancelled); ABA report, Osborn
Correctional Institution (May 2004), Bates
8350 (officially 1 hour daily, but closer to 45
minutes, according to detainees); ABA report,
Passaic County Jail (July 2004), Bates, 8422
(detainees reported receiving half an hour of
indoor recreation twice a week and half an
hour of outdoor recreation three times a week;
after waiting to sign in, detainees received
only 20 minutes of recreation time); ABA
report, Sussex County Jail (a/k/a Keogh
Dwyer Correctional Facility) (July 2004),
Bates 8486 (45 minutes-1 hour, 5 days per
week); UNHCR report, Tangipahoa Parish
Jail (May 2004), Bates 21860 (1 hour/day
according to deputy sheriff; 30-60
minutes/week, according to detainees);
NGO/ICE delegation, Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Facility (a/k/a TGK Detention

Facility) (Jan. 2004), Bates 14378–80 (3
times per week for 45 minutes, plus additional
time as a result of Florida Immigrant
Advocacy Center’s advocacy); UNHCR
report, McHenry County Jail (Sept. 2003),
Bates 17829–33 (no set schedule; times
determined by officers; recreation available
only upon request and limited to 30 minutes
per day); UNHCR report, Ozaukee County
Jail (Sept. 2003), Bates 17843 (amount of
times depends on where detainees are housed;
2-5 hours/week); ABA report, Plymouth
County Correctional Facility (June 2003),
Bates 17671–72 (detainees reported that
recreation had been cancelled a number of
times in the last month); ABA report, York
Correctional Institution (Nov. 2003), Bates
17529 (45 minutes, 5 days per week); ABA
report, Yuba County Jail (Dec. 2003), Bates
17684–85 (detainees rotated through
recreation yard 4 times per week for 2 hours,
but not every day); UNHCR report, ACICranston Intake Service Center (May 2002),
Bates 17404 (recreation allowed every third
day; ABA report, CSC Detention Facility
(May 2002), Bates 17738–39 (amount of time
depends on the day and guard on duty); ABA
report, Dallas County Jail System Facility
(Mar. 2002), Bates 17393 (one hour MondayFriday indoors); ABA report, Kern County
Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates 17485–87 (schedule
provides for 3 hours per week, but staff
reported 1.5-2 hours, 2 times per week;
detainees reported 1 time per week, if at all; 4
hours in 11 days; depending on the officer on
duty); ABA report, Mira Loma Detention
Center (June 2002), Bates 17418 (recreation
time is lost waiting in line for store, retrieving
money, etc.); ABA report, Santa Ana
Detention Facility (Oct. 2002), Bates 17517–
18 (detainees reported recreation time is
limited because criminals and noncriminals
must split time; extended lockdowns for 72
hours because of staff shortages); Torrance
County Correctional Facility (June 2002),
Bates 17922–23 (5 days per week “per ACA
complaint”); ABA report, Wackenhut
Corrections Corp. (Apr. 2002), Bates 17641–
42 (some detainees do not have outdoor
recreation access every day); UNHCR report,
Denton County Detention Center (Oct. 2001),
Bates 17792–93 (1 hour, 3 times per week);
UNHCR report, George Allen Jail (Oct.
2001), Bates 17785 (1 hour, 5 days a week
indoors); UNHCR report, Grayson County
Jail (Oct. 2001), Bates 17797 (3 times a week
for 1 hour); UNHCR report, Navarro County
Detention Center (Oct. 2001), Bates 17802
(three times a week, 45-60 minutes; recreation
time depends on officers’ schedules; reported
no recreation for 5-6 days); UNHCR report,
Piedmont Regional Jail (July 2001), Bates
18892–96 (policy allows 30-45 minutes per
day of outdoor recreation, but detainees
reported 1-2 sessions per week); UNHCR
report, Tangipahoa Parish Jail (Apr. 2001),
Bates 18889 (1 hour, 3 times per week
according to staff; only one hour in last
month, according to detainee); UNHCR
report, Tri-County Detention Center (Aug.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

105
2001), Bates 18869 (no schedule, recreation
determined by officers on duty; detainees
complained no outdoor recreation for one
month because of bad weather
(heat/mud/rain) and short staff).
40
See Recreation § III.B (Recreation
Schedule).
41
ABA report, Bristol County House of
Correction (Aug. 2004), Bates 8248; ABA
report, Dorchester County Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 8266–67; ABA report,
Osborn Correctional Institution (May 2004),
Bates 8351; ABA report, Corrections
Corporation of America (Jan. 2003), Bates
17573; ABA report, Elizabeth Detention
Center (Oct. 2003), Bates 17721–22; UNHCR
report, ACI-Cranston Intake Service Center
(May 2002), Bates 17413.
42

See Recreation § III.G (Program Content).

43

Id.

44

See Id.

45

ICE Annual Review (Headquarters),
Macomb County Sheriff’s Department (Mar.
2004), Bates 4543 (board games be brought
from outside or purchased at facility); ICE
Annual Review, Madison County Jail (July
2004), Bates 4587–88 (no equipment except
rubber balls); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Pre-Trial Detention Center (June
2004), Bates 4280–81; ICE Annual Review,
Pettis County Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 6456–57.
46
ABA report, Aurora Contract Detention
Facility (Sept. 2004), Bates 8231 (equipment
worn down, broken, or dangerous to use);
ABA report, Berks County Prison (July
2004), Bates 16610 (broken equipment);
ABA report, Bristol County House of
Correction (Aug. 2004), Bates 8248 (no
outdoor equipment except a few game balls;
most books in English); NGO/ICE delegation
visit, Comfort Suites Hotel (Jan. 2004), Bates
14381 (no toys or crayons for children); ABA
report, Dodge County Detention Center (June
2004), Bates 8647 (no cardiovascular or
muscular exercise equipment); ABA report,
Dorchester County Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 8266 (no weights or exercise
equipment); ABA report, Kenosha County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 8286–87
(gym contains no equipment); ABA report,
York County Prison (July 2004), Bates 8504–
05 (balls not firm enough to play real games;
no cardio equipment; only weight machines in
some areas); ABA report, Clay County Jail
(Aug. 2003), Bates 17706 (no recreation
equipment of any kind); ABA report,
Plymouth County Correction Facility (June
2003), Bates 17671 (no recreation
equipment); ABA report, Yuba County Jail
(Dec. 2003), Bates 17685 (no exercise
equipment); UNHCR report, ACI-Cranston
Intake Service Center (May 2002), Bates
17413 (basketball nets only; few books or
games); UNHCR report, Comfort Suites
Hotel (Dec. 2002), Bates 17814–18 (no toys
or crayons for children); ABA report, Dallas
County Jail System Facility (Mar. 2002),

106
Bates 17393 (ping-pong table broken; no free
weights); ABA report, Kern County Jail
(Aug. 2002), Bates 17487 (few pleasure
books available are extremely old).
47

ABA report, Passaic County Jail (Aug.
2005), Bates 8538–39; ABA report, Bristol
County House of Correction (Aug. 2004),
Bates 8248 (too confining for anything but inplace exercise); ABA report, Dodge County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 8647 (no
exposure to natural light); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center (Sept.-Oct. 2004), Bates
7480–81; ABA report, Pamunkey Regional
Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 8405 (too small for
running or jogging); ABA report, Santa Ana
Detention Facility (July 2004), Bates 8465–66
(small area without much direct sunlight);
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5676–77; UNHCR report,
Tangipahoa Parish Jail (May 2004), Bates
21860 (small concrete area); NGO/ICE
delegation visit, Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center (Jan. 2004), Bates
14378–80 (small, restrictive area); ABA
report, Clay County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates
177704–06; ABA report, Elizabeth Detention
Center (Oct. 2003), Bates 17721–22; ABA
report, Oakland City Jail (July 2003), Bates
17656 (no windows facing outside in indoor
recreation area); ABA annual review,
Plymouth County Correction Facility (June
2003), Bates 17671–72 (too small); ICE
Annual Review, Seattle Contract Detention
Center (July 2003), Bates 11453–54; ABA
report, Yuba County Jail (Dec. 2003), Bates
17684–85 (detainees locked on roof with no
bathroom access); ABA report, CSC
Detention Facility (May 2002), Bates 17738–
39 (detainees not given proper jackets so
often choose to remain indoors during
recreation); Bates 17704–06 (no access to
sunlight, water); ABA report, Kern County
Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates 17486–87 (too small);
ABA annual review, Santa Ana Detention
Facility (Oct. 2002), Bates 17518 (small area
without much direct sunlight); ABA report,
Wackenhut Corrections Corp. (Apr. 2002),
Bates 17641–42 (small, crowded area); ABA
report, Elizabeth Detention Center (July
2001), Bates 18837–38; UNHCR report,
Tangipahoa Parish Jail (Apr. 2001), Bates
18889 (small concrete area).
48

ICE Annual Review, Northern Oregon
Correctional Center (June 2005), Bates
12893–94 (no outdoor sports); ABA report,
Kenosha County Detention Center (July
2004),Bates 8286–87; ABA report,
Montgomery County Correctional Facility
(July 2004), Bates 8337 (only allowed to walk
around outdoor area); ICE Annual Review,
Pettis County Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 6456–57 (detainees allowed to play
sock ball or walk around recreation area); ICE
Annual Review, Seattle Contract Detention
Center (July 2003), Bates 11453–54.
49

ABA report, Kenosha County Detention
Center (Sept. 2005), Bates 8598–99 (female
detainees have no access to outdoor

NOTES
recreation); ABA report, Bristol County
House of Correction (Aug. 2004), Bates 8248;
ABA report, Kenosha County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 8286–87 (female
detainees have no access to outdoor
recreation); UNHCR report, Kenosha County
Detention Center (Sept. 2003), Bates 17839
(female detainees have no access to outdoor
recreation); ABA report, ABA report,
Wackenhut Corrections Corp. (Apr. 2002),
Bates 17641–42.
50

See Recreation § III.H (Recreation for
Special Management Unit (SMU)).
51

Id. For detainees in administrative
segregation or protective custody and special
needs detainees, recreation may only be
denied on a finding that the detainee poses an
“immediate and serious threat” to himself or
others. Id. For detainees in disciplinary
segregation, privileges may be denied
temporarily on a finding that the detainee
poses an “unreasonable risk” to himself or
others. Id.
52
53

Memo from County Sheriff’s Office re:
Plans of Action, Aguadilla Service Processing
Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 10639; ICE Annual
Review, CCA Silverdale (Dec. 2004), Bates
5713–14.
61
ICE Annual Review, St. Mary’s County
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 1745–46;
ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish
Community Corrections Center (Sept.-Oct.
2004), Bates 7480–81; ICE Annual Review,
Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5676–
77.
62
ICE Annual Review, Garvin County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3388–
89; ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 1145311454.
63
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co.
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18791.
64

UNHCR report, Kenosha Co. Detention
Center (Sept. 2003), Bates 17839.
66

Id.

67

ICE Annual Review, Batavia Service
Processing Center (May 2005), Bates 10810–
11; ICE Annual Review, Carver County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 10207–08; ICE Annual
Review, Morrison County Jail (Sept. 2004),
Bates 11936–37 (only upon request by
detainee); ICE Annual Review, Saline County
Jail (Aug.-Sept. 2004), Bates 7074–75 (no
explanation if reason is discipline or security;
administrative segregation detainees receive
explanation only if appealed).
Id.

56
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (February 2005), Bates
16753–54; ICE Annual Review, Mini-Cassia
Criminal Justice Center (June 2004), Bates
5023–24; ICE Annual Review, Mira Loma
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 5120–21;
ICE Annual Review, Rockingham County
Department of Corrections (May 2004), Bates
7189–90; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Detention Center (May 2003), Bates
18790–91.
57
See Recreation § III.G (Program
Content).
58

ICE Annual Review, Bonneville County
Jail (May 2005), Bates 9837–38; ICE Annual
Review, Cayuga County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 10295–96; ICE Annual Review,
Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (May
2003), Bates 18059–60; ICE Annual Review,
Seattle Contract Detention Center (July
2003), Bates 11453–54 (staff are inside in
corridors while detainees recreate outdoors;
potential for escape); ICE Annual Review,
Harris County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 2407–
08; ICE Annual Review, Dorchester County
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4019–
20.
59

ICE Annual Review, Dorchester County
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4019–
20.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Id., Bates 18790.

65

Id.

54

55

60

Id.

ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co.
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 3644
(notably, the checklist’s failure to separately
request information regarding male and
female access may have contributed to this
oversight).
68
ABA report, Kenosha Co. Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 8287.
69

Id., Bates 8286–87.

70

ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co.
Detention Center (June 2005), Bates 2289.
71
ABA report, Kenosha Co. Detention
Center (Sept. 2005), Bates 8598.
72
ICE Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(Mar. 2004), Bates 14675.
73

Id., Bates 14676.

74

ABA report, Passaic County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8422.
75

Id.

76

Id.

77

Id.

78

ICE Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 14493.
79

ABA report, Passaic County Jail (Aug.
2005), Bates 8538.
80

Id.

81

Id.

82

Id., Bates 8538–39.

83

ICE Annual Review, Dodge County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 3972.
84

Id., Bates 3973.

85

Id., Bates 3945.

86

ABA report, Dodge Co. Detention Center
(June 2004), Bates 8647.
87
ICE Annual Review, Dorchester Co.
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4019.
88

Id.

NOTES
89

Id., Bates 4020.

10

90

Id.

11

91

Id., Bates 8267.

92

Id.

93

ABA report, Dorchester Co. Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 8266.
94
ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana Detention
Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates 11057.
95

Id., Bates 11058.

96

ABA report, Santa Ana Detention Facility
(July 2004), Bates 8465.

TELEPHONE ACCESS
1
INS Detention Standard: Telephone
Access (hereinafter “Telephone Access”) § I
(Policy), in U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/te
lephone.pdf.
2
Telephone Access § III.B (Standards and
Procedures: Detainee Notification).
3
Telephone Access § III.C & D (Standards
and Procedures: Numbers of Telephones, and
Telephone Maintenance).
4

Telephone Access § III.E (Standards and
Procedures: Direct Calls and Free Calls).
5

Id.

6

Telephone Access § III.J (Standards and
Procedures: Privacy for Telephone Calls on
Legal Matters).
7
Telephone Access § III.H (Standards and
Procedures: Inter-facility Telephone Calls).
The Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS), formerly an agency within the U.S.
Department of Justice, was abolished and
replaced by parts of the newly formed U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on
Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296,
116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002). Many of the
INS’s enforcement-related duties, including
responsibility for detention, were transferred
to the newly formed Bureau of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, which
subsequently came to be known as “U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” or
“ICE.” Any reference in this report to
“Immigration and Customs Enforcement” or
“ICE” refers to the immigration enforcement
agency that was operating at the time the
events associated with the particular reference
took place. So, for example, a reference to an
“ICE review” that took place in 2002 should
be understood to mean an “INS review,” since
the INS was the U.S.’s immigration
enforcement agency during all of 2002.
8

Telephone Access § III.I (Standards and
Procedures: Incoming Calls).
9
Telephone Access § III.G (Standards and
Procedures: Telephone Privileges in the
Special Management Unit).

Id.

ICE Annual Review, Dale G. Haile
Detention Center (Sept. 2005), Bates 13251;
ICE Annual Review, Finney County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 13391 (not marked as
violation, but noncompliance with standard
indicated by remarks); ICE Annual Review,
Harris County Jail, (Mar. 2005) Bates 2409;
ICE Annual Review, Hudson County
Department of Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates
14627; ICE Annual Review, Josephine
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 1105; ICE
Annual Review, Madison County Jail (Sept.
2005) Bates 1541; ICE Annual Review,
McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
1456; ICE Annual Review, Montgomery
County Jail (Oct. 2005), Bates 11842
(reviewer noted that rules are posted “usually
if not removed by detainees”); ICE Annual
Review, Niagara County Jail (Dec. 2005),
Bates 12816 (rules not posted); ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 3242; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 12935; ICE Annual Review, Park
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 798; ICE
Annual Review, Reno County Jail (Sept.
2005), Bates 3152; ICE Annual Review, St.
Francois County Detention Center (May-June
2005), Bates 13063 (not marked as violation,
but noncompliance with standard indicated by
remarks); ICE Annual Review, Twin Falls
Criminal Justice Facility (Aug. 2005), Bates
12976; ICE Annual Review, Audrain County
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 7774;
ICE Annual Review, Blount County Jail,
(Aug. 2004), Bates 9300; ICE Annual
Review, Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center
(June 2004), Bates 9419; ICE Annual
Review, Carbon County Correctional Facility
(May 2004), Bates 9500, 9532; ICE Annual
Review, City of Las Vegas Detention Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 4445; ICE Annual
Review, Clay County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates
3743; ICE Annual Review, Cayuga County
Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 10297; ICE Annual
Review, Chautauqua County Jail (Apr. 2004),
Bates 8158; ICE Annual Review, Dickens
County Correctional Center (June 2004),
Bates 4241; ICE Annual Review, Dorchester
County Detention Center (Sept. - Oct. 2004),
Bates 4021 (reviewer incorrectly checked
“N/A” for this standard because the policy is
in the detainee handbook); ICE Annual
Review, Erie County Holding Center (Nov.
2004), Bates 4159 (rules only provided in the
detainee handbook); ICE Annual Review,
Genesee County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates
3430; ICE Annual Review, Macomb County
Sheriff’s Department (Mar. 2004), Bates
4545; ICE Annual Review, Niagara County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 11990; ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 12043; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 7333; ICE Annual Review, Pine Prairie
Correctional Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 6392;
ICE Annual Review, Pettis County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6458; ICE Annual
Review, Pottawattami County Jail (July

A BROKEN SYSTEM

107
2004), Bates 6068; ICE Annual Review, Reno
County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 7241 (rules
are only provided in detainee handbook;
reviewer marked this as “Acceptable”); ICE
Annual Review, Saline County Jail (Aug.
2004-Sept. 2004), Bates 7076; ICE Annual
Review, Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5678; ICE Annual Review, St. Martin Parish
Jail (Aug.-Sept. 2004), Bates 936 (reviewer
incorrectly marked “N/A”); ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Detention Center
(Aug. 2004), Bates 6562; ICE Annual
Review, Turner Guilford Knight Correctional
Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7432; ICE Annual
Review, Wyoming County Jail, (Aug. 2004),
Bates 5438 (rules only provided in detainee
handbook); ICE Annual Review, York
County Prison (Dec. 2004), Bates 5271,
5297–98 (rules only provided in the detainee
handbook; reviewer incorrectly marked this as
“acceptable”); ICE Annual Review, Seattle
Contract Detention Center (July 2003), Bates
11420, 11456; ICE Annual Review, El Paso
Service Processing Center, (June 2002), Bates
12443.
12
ABA report, Berks County Prison (July
2004), Bates 15872; ICE Annual Review,
Seattle Contract Detention Center (July
2003), Bates 11420, 11456.
13
ICE Annual Review, Niagara County Jail
(Dec. 2005), Bates 12816 (rules not posted);
ICE Annual Review, Niagara County Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 11990; ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 3242; ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 12043; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 12935; ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7333; ICE
Annual Review, Reno County Jail (Sept.
2005), Bates 3152; ICE Annual Review, Reno
County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 7241; ICE
Annual Review, Seattle Contract Detention
Center (July 2003), Bates 11420, 11456;
ABA Report, Seattle Contract Detention
Center, (May 2002), Bates 17732.
14
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention (June 2005), Bates 2282; ICE
Annual Review, Lincoln County Jail (June
2005), Bates 2509–23; ICE Annual Review,
Mecklenburg County Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates
1058 (does not address high-demand periods);
ICE Annual Review, Mississippi County
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 2946–56
(does not describe direct/free calls or
emergency calls); ICE Annual Review, Park
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 798 (detainees
not made aware of the facility’s telephone
access policy upon admittance); ICE Annual
Review, Yuba County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
2633 (no description at all in handbook); ICE
Annual Review, Berks County Prison (July
2004), Bates 9202 (emergency calls and
message system not described); ICE Annual
Review, Calcasieu Center (June 2004), Bates
9408; ICE Annual Review, Finney County
Jail (May 2004), Bates 4229 (emergency calls
and message system not described); ICE

108
Annual Review, Kern County Sheriffs’ Office
Lerdo pretrial Facility (Dec. 2004), Bates
4310 (no description at all in handbook); ICE
Annual Review, Mecklenburg County Jail
(Apr. 2004), Bates 4856–58 (no procedure for
emergency calls, message system, or highdemand periods); ICE Annual Review,
Mississippi County Detention Center (Aug.
2004), Bates 5140, 5157–59 (does not
describe direct/free calls, emergency calls, or
message system); ICE Annual Review,
Niagara County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 11979
(ability to receive emergency messages not
covered); ICE Annual Review, Pettis County
Jail (June 2004), Bates 6447 (entire
“handbook” is only two pages long); ICE
Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5667; ICE Annual Review, El
Paso Service Processing Center (June 2002),
Bates 12458.
15
ICE Annual Review, Mecklenburg
County Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 1058; ICE
Annual Review, Mecklenburg County Jail
(Apr. 2004), Bates 4856–58; ICE Annual
Review, Mississippi County Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 2946–56; ICE Annual
Review, Mississippi County Detention Center
(Aug. 2004), Bates 5140, 5157–59; UNHCR
Report, Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug. 2005),
Bates 8678 (detainees unaware of ability to
make free calls to legal service providers).
16
ICE Annual Review, Macomb County
Sheriff’s Department (May 2005), Bates 1583
(English only); ICE Annual Review, Niagara
County Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates 12816
(reviewer indicated that there was no
“significant language” aside from English
spoken at the facility); ICE Annual Review,
St. Mary Detention Center (July 2005), Bates
1747 (English only); ICE Annual Review,
Clay County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 3743
(facility stated it was in the process of
translating rules into Spanish); ICE Annual
Review, Dorchester County Detention Center,
(Sept. - Oct. 2004), Bates 4033 (English
only); ICE Annual Review, Jefferson County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 3595; ICE Annual
Review, Macomb County Sheriff’s
Department (Mar. 2004), Bates 4545 (English
only); ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
detention Center (July 2004), Bates 12043
(information given in other languages by
AT&T phone line “in case of emergencies”);
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5678 (English only); ICE
Annual Review, Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7432–
33 (Chinese and Creole only); ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(July2003), Bates 11456.
17
Id.; ICE Annual Review, Macomb County
Sheriff’s Department (May 2005), Bates
1583; ICE Annual Review, Macomb County
Sheriff’s Department (Mar. 2004), Bates
4545.
18
ABA Report, Passaic County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8416 (no instructions for
illiterate or non–English speakers).

NOTES
19

ICE Annual Review, Krome Services
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 17015–
16 (no privacy panels; phones located under
televisions, making it difficult to have a
conversation or any privacy; repeat violation
from prior year); ICE Annual Review, Lin
County Jail Cedar Rapids (May 2005), Bates
12140; 12166 (no privacy barriers); ICE
Annual Review, Oakland City Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 2248 (detainees have to request
private calls); ICE Annual Review, Polk
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 3073 (phones
are close together and no privacy panels are
set up); ICE Annual Review, Yuba County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2641 (no privacy on
phone used for collect and debit call cards);
ICE Annual Review, City of Las Vegas
Detention Center, (Sept. 2004), Bates 4445
(no privacy as phone located in center of day
room, but this element was marked
acceptable); ICE Annual Review, Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7023–
24, 7482 (requests must be made through
caseworker for private calls); ICE Annual
Review, Dickens County Correctional Facility
(June 2004), Bates 4241 (no privacy in
housing areas); ICE Annual Review, Keogh
Dwyer Correctional Facility (Aug. 2004),
Bates 384–85 (detainees must request private
calls through caseworker); ICE Annual
Review, Berks County Prison (July 2004),
Bates 15304 (phones are in common areas of
day rooms); ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
12043–44 (no privacy in housing areas); ICE
Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 2848; 5249 (reviewer indicated
that privacy was adequate because “officers
do not eavesdrop” even though the phones are
located in common areas where staff and
detainees could hear private legal
conversations.); ICE Review (July 2004),
Tangipahoa Parish Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
143 (no privacy for calls to a legal
representatives or consulates; these calls must
be made in presence of a staff member); ICE
Annual Review, San Diego Correctional
Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates 11313, 11346,
16869, 16910–11 (no privacy in housing areas
privacy panels are insufficient and telephones
are located under televisions, making it
difficult to have a conversation and detainees
must squat to use the telephones); ICE Annual
Review, Seattle INS Detention Facility (Sept.
2002), Bates 11524 (no privacy at all).
20
ABA report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility, (Sept. 2005), Bates 8588 (no privacy
in housing areas); ABA Report, Passaic
County Jail (Aug. 2005), Bates 8417, 8530
(no privacy in housing areas, resulting in
physical altercations); ABA Report, San
Pedro Service Processing Center (Aug. 2005),
Bates 8565 (no privacy in housing areas);
ABA Report, Aurora Contract Detention
Facility (Sept. 2004) Bates 8223-27 (no
privacy for legal calls); ABA Report, Bristol
County Jail, (Aug. 2004), Bates 8225–26,
8239–41 (no privacy on calls; telephones
located in open areas; no privacy panels);
ABA Report, Dodge County Detention

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Facility (June 2004), Bates 8640 (no privacy
in housing areas); ABA Report, Dorchester
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 8260 (no
privacy in housing areas); ABA Report,
Ozaukee County Jail (July 2004), Bates 8369;
ABA Report, Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8396–98 (no privacy on calls,
including those from lawyers); ABA Report,
Passaic County Jail (July 2004); ABA report,
Queens Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates
8437 (no privacy in housing areas); ABA
Report, York County Prison (July 2004),
Bates 8491 (no privacy for legal calls); ABA
Report, Plymouth County Correctional
Facility (June 2003), Bates 17665 (no privacy
in housing areas); ABA Report, ACI Cranston
Intake Services Center (May 2002), Bates
17408 (no privacy); UNHCR Report,
Piedmont Regional Jail (July 2001), Bates
18823 (no privacy; calls rushed). The ABA
found privacy violations two years in a row at
the Passaic facility.
21
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (June 2005), Bates 16954
(no procedure for detainees having trouble
making private calls; a deaf/mute detainee
was unable to place a private legal call due to
a lack of equipment); ICE Annual Review,
Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5249
(requests are handled on a case-by-case basis,
no set procedure); ICE Annual Review,
Seattle INS Detention Facility (Sept. 2002),
Bates 11524 (no procedure for detainees
having trouble making private calls); ABA
report, Berks County Prison (July 2004),
Bates 15873 (no procedure for a detainee to
request an unmonitored call to court, legal
representative, or attorney).
22

ICE Annual Review, Colquitt County Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 13197 (no notice when
calls are monitored; not marked as violation,
but noncompliance with standard indicated by
remarks on review form); ICE Annual
Review, Grant County Jail (Feb. 2005), Bates
1275 (no notice posted by phones); ICE
Annual Review, Community Corrections
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7023–24 (no
notice that calls are monitored); ICE Annual
Review, Keogh-Dwyer Correctional Facility
(Sussex County Jail) (Aug. 2004), Bates 385
(facility does not post a notice when calls are
monitored); ICE Annual Review, Penobscot
County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 6480
(reviewer incorrectly checked this standard as
“N/A” because the calls were “recorded but
not monitored”); ICE Annual Review, El Paso
Services Processing Center (June 2002),
Bates 12444 (no notice when calls are
monitored); ABA report, Berks County Prison
(July 2004), Bates 15873 (detainee calls
monitored but no notice posted; no procedure
for a detainee to request an unmonitored call
to court, legal representative, or attorney).
23
ABA Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8239 (all calls are monitored);
ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 12044
(all calls, including special access calls, are
monitored); Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug.

NOTES
2004), Bates 8397–98 (all calls are
monitored).
24
ICE Annual Review, Dickens County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 13530 (special access calls
are not free; not marked as violation, but
noncompliance with indicated by remarks);
ICE Annual Review, Finney County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 13391 (special access calls
permitted only for emergencies; not marked
as violation, but noncompliance indicated by
remarks); ICE Annual Review, Montgomery
County Jail (Oct. 2005), Bates 11842 (special
access calls permitted only on case-by-case
basis); ICE Annual Review, Northern Oregon
Correctional Center, (June 2005), Bates
12895 (restrictions are placed on calls to legal
services providers on approved list); ICE
Annual Review, Polk County Jail (May
2005), Bates 3073 (special access calls are not
free); ICE Response to UNHCR Report,
Cottonport Women’s Facility and Tangipahoa
Parish Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 143 (no system
for free calls); ICE Annual Review, Palm
Beach County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 11700
(no free calls to legal services providers); ICE
Annual Review, Plaquemines Parish
Detention Center (Aug. 2004), Bates 995–99
(phone system does not allow for calls to
consulates, courts, and free legal assistance
providers); ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana
City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 11059 (special
access calls permitted only on case-by-case
basis); ICE Annual Review, West Carroll
Detention (Sept. 2004), Bates 13905 (no
policy or procedure for special access calls;
calls are not free); ICE Annual Review,
Worcester County Jail (Nov. - Dec. 2004),
Bates 5952 (no free special access calls); ICE
Annual Review, Yakima County Jail, (Dec.
2004), Bates 13838 (special access calls
permitted on a case-by-case basis; not marked
as violation, but noncompliance indicated by
remarks); ICE Annual Review, Buffalo
Federal Detention Facility (Aug. 2002), Bates
18807–08 (requests for free calls to
Immigration Court, consulates, and pro bono
legal service providers frequently take up to
one month).
25
UNHCR Report, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center and Guaynaba
Metropolitan Detention Center (Aug. 2005),
Bates 8663 (detainees unable to place collect
calls to a free legal service provider; notice in
handbook saying no free legal service
providers; unable to contact consulates or
attorneys, despite repeated verbal and written
requests); ABA Report, Kenosha County
Detention Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8588
(detainee unable to call lawyer who did not
accept collect calls); UNHCR Report,
Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug. 2005), Bates
8678 (detainee reported that they were
unaware they could make free or direct calls
and that phone access codes did not work);
ABA Report, Aurora Contract Detention
Facility (Sept. 2004) Bates 8223–27 (indigent
detainees not permitted free phone access for
legal services calls; only one local legal call
per day, by special request; no free calls to

find counsel); ABA Report, Berks County
Prison (July 2004), Bates 15871 (only one
call during first four days in jail allowed);
ABA Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 8239, 8241 (only collect or domestic
calls); ABA Report, Dodge County Detention
Facility, (June 2004), Bates 8640 (collect
calls only; improving phone access “not a
priority”); ABA Report, Dorchester Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 8260 (no free
emergency calls); ABA Report, Montgomery
County Correctional Facility, (July 2004),
Bates 8329 (no free emergency calls); ABA
Report, Osborn Correctional Institution (July
2004), Bates 8347 (calls to attorneys limited
to two per month); ABA Report, Ozaukee
County Jail (July 2004), Bates 8368–69 (only
domestic collect calls, with exception of free
legal services numbers; no incoming calls);
ABA Report, Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8395 (no calling cards for
purchase; no international calls); ABA
Report, Passaic County Jail (July 2004), Bates
8416 (no collect calls unless recipient has
Verizon phone service); UNHCR Report,
Tangipahoa Parish Prison (May 2004), Bates
8696 (ABA unable to place collect call from
facility to DC office); ABA Report, York
County Prison (July 2004), Bates 8491 (no
free direct calls to legal representatives);
ABA Report, DuPage County Jail (July
2003), Bates 17377, 17383 (collect calls only;
no incoming calls; preprogrammed phone
system allowing free calls not installed); ABA
Report, Plymouth County Correctional
Facility (June 2003), Bates 17665 (limited to
collect calls, unable to reach consulate for
four months); ABA report, ACI Cranston
Intake Service Center (May 2002), Bates
17405, 17408 (only collect calls and only
after receiving a PIN number, which took a
month or longer; calls allowed only to
preapproved numbers; no free calls to court or
consulate); ABA Report, Franklin County Jail
and House of Corrections (Jan. 2002), Bates
17558–59 (no ability to make any free calls;
no plans to implement a phone system in
accordance with the standard); UNHCR
Report, Piedmont Regional Jail (July 2001),
Bates 18818–19 (no procedure for free calls
to legal service providers, courts, or
consulates); UNHCR Report Rappahannock
Regional Jail (July 2001), Bates 18826
(collect calls only).
26

ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10111; ICE Annual
Review, Carver County Jail (Nov. 2005),
Bates 10209; ICE Annual Review, Charleston
County Detention Center (May 2005), Bates
10379; ICE Annual Review, Colquitt County
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13196 (no provision
for these calls); ICE Annual Review, Dickens
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 13530; ICE
Annual Review, El Centro Processing Center
(July 2005), Bates 11842; ICE Annual
Review, Finney County Jail, (June 2005),
Bates 13391 (allowed only for emergencies;
not marked as violation, but noncompliance
with standard indicated by remarks); ICE
Annual Review, Grant County Jail (Feb.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

109
2005), Bates 1274 (calls only allowed in
emergencies); ICE Annual Review, Harris
County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 2409; ICE
Annual Review, Macomb County Jail (May
2005), Bates 1583; ICE Annual Review,
McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
1456; ICE Annual Review, Mecklenburg
County Jail (Central) (Apr. 2005), Bates
1065; ICE Annual Review, Montgomery
County Jail (Oct. 2005), Bates 12210
(reviewer wrote “never been an issue?,”
indicating a question as to whether
arrangements could be made for such calls);
ICE Annual Review, Niagara County Jail
(Dec. 2005), Bates 12816 (no provision for
these calls); ICE Annual Review,
Plaquamines Parish Detention Center (Apr.
2005), Bates 3199 (reviewer marked this “not
applicable” and wrote “No history exists of
this.” There is no indication of whether
appropriate provisions exist.); ICE Annual
Review, Catahoula Parish Detention Center
(Aug. 2004), Bates 7976; ICE Annual
Review, Chase County Jail (July 2004), Bates
8067 (detainees are allowed to call family
members only in emergencies and only from
the ICE office); ICE Annual Review, Clay
County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 3743; ICE
Annual Review, Colquitt County Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 3895 (no policy in place); ICE
Annual Review, Community Corrections
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7482; ICE Annual
Review, Garvin County Detention Facility
(Dec. 2004), Bates 3390; ICE Annual
Review, Macomb County Sheriff’s
Department (Mar. 2004), Bates 4545; ICE
Annual Review, Mecklenburg County Jail
(North) (Apr. 2004), Bates 4867; ICE Annual
Review, Mini-Cassia County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5025; ICE Annual Review,
Niagara County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates
11990; ICE Annual Review, Pine Prairie
Correctional Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 6392
(calls are not allowed because of security
concerns); ICE Annual Review, Regional
Correctional Facility (Albuquerque) (Aug.
2004), Bates 6024 (detainees can make calls
to immediate family members in other
facilities only if ICE makes a request to the
facility); ICE Annual Review, Rockingham
County Department of Corrections (May
2004), Bates 7191 (requests are referred to
ICE); ICE Annual Review, Rolling Plains
Regional Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates
7534 (no procedures in place because the
“[s]ituation has never arise[n]”); ICE Annual
Report, Salt Lake County Adult Detention
Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 6870; ICE
Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 5249; ICE Annual Review,
Sherburne County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates
5812; ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 5678; ICE Annual
Review, Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5678; ICE Annual Review, West Carroll
Detention (Sept. 2004), Bates 13905; ICE
Annual Review, Wyatt Detention Center,
(Dec. 2004- Jan. 2005), Bates 12560 (no
provision for these calls); ICE Annual
Review, Denver Contract Detention Facility

110
(Aug. 2003), Bates 11168 (this element
marked “not applicable”).
27
ICE Annual Review, Colquitt County Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 13196; ICE Annual
Review, Macomb County Jail (May 2005),
Bates 1583; ICE Annual Review, Niagara
County Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates 12816; ICE
Annual Review, Colquitt County Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 3895; ICE Annual Review,
Macomb County Sheriff’s Department (Mar.
2004), Bates 4545; ICE Annual Review,
Niagara County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 11990.
28
Telephone Access § III.H (Inter-facility
Telephone Calls); ICE Annual Review,
Finney County Jail, (June 2005), Bates
13391; ICE Annual Review, Grant County
Jail (Feb. 2005), Bates 1274 (even though this
clearly violates the standard, the reviewer
believed that this procedure was satisfactory,
and incorrectly checked the “Acceptable”
box); ICE Annual Review, Mini-Cassia
Criminal Justice Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
2888; ICE Annual Review, Chase County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 8067.
29
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10298 (restricted
access); ICE Annual Review, Colquitt County
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13196 (detainees in
administrative segregation not provided with
the same privileges as those in the general
population; not marked as violation, but
noncompliance with standard indicated by
remarks); ICE Annual Review, Department of
Corrections, Hagatna (July 2005), Bates
13484 (detainees in disciplinary segregation
are “maximum security inmates” and are only
allowed one phone call a month); ICE Annual
Review, Dickens County Jail (June 2005)
Bates 13530–31 (detainees denied the same
phone privileges); ICE Annual Review,
Dodge County Jail (May 2005), Bates 13453
(denied same privileges); ICE Annual
Review, Erie County Prison (Mar. 2005),
Bates 13316, 13363 (denied legal, consular,
and family calls, and limited calls by time and
quantity); ICE Annual Review, Howard
County Detention Center (July 2005), Bates
2341 (denied legal, consular, and family calls,
and limited calls by time and quantity); ICE
Annual Review, Hudson County Department
of Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates 527, 569
(detainees only able to use phones during one
hour of free time each day); ICE Annual
Review, Krome Services Processing Center
(June 2005), Bates 16955 (not allowed
nonlegal calls of any sort); ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005),
Bates 1457 (one hour of phone access); ICE
Annual Review, North Las Vegas Detention
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3243 (detainees in
administrative segregation are not given the
same amount of time to make phone calls);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 12935–36 (detainees in
administrative segregation not provided
appropriate phone privileges); ICE Review
Including Detainee Handbook Passaic County
Jail (June 2005), Bates 14495 (detainees only
able to use phones during one hour of free

NOTES
time each day); ICE Annual Review, St. Mary
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 1758
(denied legal, consular, and family calls, and
limited calls by time and quantity); ICE
Annual Review, Allegheny County Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 7583 (denied legal, consular, and
family calls, and limited calls by time and
quantity); ICE Annual Review, Angelina
County Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates
7680, 7687 (no phone access; standard still
rated “acceptable”); ICE Annual Review,
Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center (June
2004), Bates 9419 (denied legal, consular, and
family calls, and limited calls by time and
quantity); Bates 10112 (denied legal,
consular, and family calls, and limited calls
by time and quantity); ICE Annual Review,
Garvin County Detention Facility (Dec.
2004), Bates 3390 (detainees must request
telephone use and requests are considered on
a “case-by-case basis”); ICE Annual Review,
North Las Vegas Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 12044 (detainees in
administrative segregation only allowed
phone calls when out of their cell; or upon
written request); ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7334; ICE
Annual Review, South Central Regional Jail
(Nov. 2004), Bates 70 (Detainees in
administrative segregation only allowed to
make calls regarding legal matters upon the
approval of an inmate request form); ICE
Annual Review, Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center, (Mar. 2004), Bates 7400,
7431–33 (collect calls only; no calls to
consulates, embassies, or legal service
providers).
30
ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3243
(detainees in administrative segregation are
not given the same amount of time to make
phone calls); ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
12044 (detainees in administrative
segregation only allowed phone calls when
out of their cell; or upon written request); ICE
Annual Review, Orleans County Jail (June
2005), Bates 12935–36 (detainees in
administrative segregation not provided
appropriate phone privileges); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 7334.
31

ABA Report, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2004), Bates 8641, 8655 (no
phone access); ABA Report, ACI-Cranston
Intake Service Center, (May 2002), Bates
17404 (detainees in segregation lose all phone
privileges).
32
ICE Annual Review, Colquitt County Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 13196 (detainees in
disciplinary segregation are not always
allowed calls for family emergencies); ICE
Annual Review, Berks County Prison (July
2004), Bates 15304–05 (detainees in
disciplinary segregation must obtain approval
for calls to consulates or attorneys or for legal
matters; not marked as violation, but
noncompliance with standard indicated by
remarks); ICE Annual Review, Orleans

A BROKEN SYSTEM

County Jail (June 2005), Bates 12935–36
(detainees in disciplinary segregation only
allowed 5 minutes per week for phone calls).
33
ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua County
Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 10500 (no system for
emergency messages); ICE Annual Review,
Dodge County Jail (May 2005), Bates 13565
(messages only delivered if “a real
emergency;” not marked as violation, but
noncompliance indicated by remarks); ICE
Annual Review, El Paso Service Processing
Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 11609 (emergency
messages are only given to detainees after
“staff verification;” not marked as violation,
but noncompliance indicated by remarks);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 12935 (no system for
emergency messages); ICE Annual Review,
Cayuga County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 10297
(no system for emergency messages); ICE
Annual Review, Chautauqua County Jail
(Apr. 2004), Bates 8158 (no system for
emergency messages); ICE Annual Review,
Mini-Cassia County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5025 (no system for emergency messages);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 7333 (no system for
emergency messages); ICE Annual Review,
Rockingham County Department of
Corrections (May 2004), Bates 7191 (only
emergency messages from ICE are delivered;
not marked as violation, but noncompliance
indicated by remarks); ICE Annual Review,
Silverdale Correctional Facility (Dec. 2004),
Bates 13742 (messages only after warden
verifies emergency; not marked as violation,
but noncompliance indicated by remarks);
ICE Annual Review, Worcester County Jail
(Nov.- Dec. 2004), Bates 5778 (only legal
messages are delivered); ICE Annual Review,
Wyoming County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
5438 (no system for emergency messages);
ICE Annual Review, San Diego Correctional
Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates 11346 (no ability
for messages of any kind).
34

Multiyear violations were found at the
Chautauqua and Orleans County detention
facilities.
35
ICE Annual Review, San Diego
Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates
11346.
36
ABA Report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8589–90 (phone
messages are generally not taken; attorney
messages not delivered unless facility staff
determines it is an emergency); ABA Report,
Berks County Prison (July 2004), Bates
15873 (no ability to receive messages of any
kind; prison staff said they will not give
emergency messages out of fear the messages
are fabricated and codes for prison breaks or
other illegal activities); ABA reports, Osborn
Correctional Institution (July 2004), Bates
8347, 8379 (detainees reported that phone
messages are not delivered; handbook states
that messages will not be taken, though
facility claimed to have an “informal”
procedure for delivering messages for legal
matters or emergencies, if they are verified);

NOTES
ABA Report, Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8398 (no procedure for
delivering attorney messages; staff stated that
they “try to limit the number of messages
from attorneys”; detainees reported that they
did not receive messages from attorneys;
death in detainees’ families may be the only
kind of emergency message delivered and
these must be verified); ABA report, Passaic
County Jail (July 2004), Bates 8417 (no
messages of any kind taken; staff said they
refuse to be “an answering service”); ABA
Report, Bergen County Jail (Aug. 2003),
Bates 17361 (no messages taken from
attorneys); ABA Report, Dupage County Jail
(July 2003), Bates 17377 (no messages taken,
not even from attorneys); ABA report, ACICranston Intake Service Center (May 2002),
Bates 17408 (messages not taken; no set
procedure for emergency messages).
37

ICE Annual Review, Harris County Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 2409 (review indicates
that failure to inspect is acceptable because
detainees report problems); ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 4779 (staff relies on detainee to inform
about malfunctions); ICE Annual Review,
Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5249
(phones only inspected visually; staff relies
on detainees to inform about malfunctions);
ICE Annual Review, San Diego Correctional
Facilities (Aug. 2003), Bates 11346 (staff
relies on detainees to inform about
malfunctions).
38
ABA Report, Dallas County Jail, (Mar.
2002), Bates 17665 (phone system goes down
for 24-hour periods, and calls cut off
suddenly); ABA Report, Seattle Contract
Detention (CSC) Facility, (May 2002), Bates
17732 (connection problems); UNHCR
Report, Pamunkey Regional Jail (July 2001),
Bates 18807 (calls cut off sporadically; phone
service disconnected for days at a time due to
disciplinary infractions of other inmates);
UNHCR Report, Virginia Beach Correctional
Facility, (July 2001), Bates 18823 (phones cut
off after every two to three minutes; unable to
make free calls due to system technology
problems).
39

ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3242
(two telephones were found to be inoperable
and no documentation was found that these
telephones had been inspected or reported to
the service provider); ICE Annual Review,
Yakima County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 5540,
Bates 7883 (several phone out-of-service for
an extended time; out-of-service phones not
reported promptly; repairs not monitored to
ensure timely resolution).
40

ICE Annual Review, Yakima County Jail
(Dec. 2004), Bates 7883 (phones found to be
“out of service for an extended period of
time”).
41

Telephone Access § III.A (Standards and
Procedures: Detainee Access to Telephones).
42

ICE Annual Review, Central Arizona
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 10338;

111
56

Id., Bates 15872.

57

Id.

58

Id., Bates 15873.

ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11420,
11456–57 (ratio of phones to detainees was as
high as one phone per 40 detainees); ABA
Report, Franklin County Jail and House of
Corrections (Jan. 2002), Bates 17558–59 (no
phones); UNHCR Report, Piedmont Regional
Jail, (July 2001), Bates 18892 (no phones in
women’s pod).

Id. (prison staff will not give emergency
messages to detainees out of fear that the
emergencies are not real emergencies, but
instead are coded messages regarding prison
breaks or other illegal activities).

43
Telephone Access § III.F (Standards and
Procedures: Telephone Usage Restrictions).

60
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18792.

44

59

61

Id.

45

ICE Annual Review, Jefferson County
Jail (Feb. 2005), Bates 473 (handbook
indicated that calls limited to 10 minutes
when demand is high; standard rated as
“acceptable”); ICE Annual Review,
Allegheny County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates
7582–83 (calls limited to 15 minutes each, not
marked as violation, but noncompliance with
standard indicated by remarks; the facility
rated as “acceptable” for the overall
standard); ICE Annual Review, Minnesota
Correctional Facility-Rush Facility (Oct.
2004), Bates 295–96 (calls are limited to 15
minutes each; not marked as violation, but
noncompliance with standard indicated by
remarks; the facility rated as “acceptable” for
the overall standard).
46

ABA Report, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2004), Bates 8640 (15-minute
limit on all calls); ABA Report, Franklin
County Jail and House of Corrections (Jan.
2002), Bates 17558–59 (15-minute limit on
all calls).

UNHCR report, Kenosha County
Detention Center (Sept. 2003), Bates 17837.
63

48

Id., Bates 5297

49

Id., Bates 5298.

50

Id.

ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 3645–46.
65
ABA report, Kenosha County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 8285.
66

ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (June 2005), Bates 2290–91.
67
ABA report, Kenosha County Detention
Center (Sept. 2005), Bates 8588.
68

Id., Bates 8586, 8589.

69

Id., Bates 8589.

70

Id.

71

ICE Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(Mar. 2004), Bates 11751.
72
ABA report, Passaic County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8416.
73

Id.

74

Id., Bates 8417.

75

Id.

76

ICE Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 14495.
77

Id.

78

51
ICE Annual Review, Rolling Plains
Detention Center (Feb. 2004), Bates 213–19;
300–03 (noting that costs for collect calls
appear too high; detainees are charged up to
$4.84 for access to a phone line and the first
minute); ICE Detention Facility Special
Assessment, Wicomico County Jail (July
2004), Bates 171–77.
52
The ABA and UNHCR also discovered
violations that ICE failed to report at the
Calhoun County Jail, the Clinton County Jail,
the Colquitt County Jail, the Dorchester
Detention Center, the Elizabeth Correctional
Facility, the Houston Processing Center, the
Krome Service Processing Center, the Mira
Loma Detention Center, the Monroe County
Jail, the Pamunkey Regional Jail, the Queens
Contract Detention Facility, the San Pedro
Service Processing Center and the Santa Ana
Detention Facility.

ABA report, Passaic County Jail (Aug.
2005), Bates 8530 (since phones are located
in either the corners of cells or the office of
the ombudsman, all calls occur in the
presence of officers and/or other detainees).
79
Id., Bates 8531 (phones in cells do not
accept preprogrammed numbers for pro bono
attorneys and there are no preprogrammed
phones for calling the local immigration
court, Board of Immigration Appeals, or
consular offices).
80
Id., Bates 8532 (officers do not take and
deliver messages to detainees unless they are
of an emergency nature).
81
ICE Annual Review, Dodge County
Detention Facility (June 2004), Bates 3974–
75.
82
ABA report, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2004), Bates 8640.
83

Id.

84

Id.

85

Id.

86

Id.

87

Id., Bates 8641.

88

Id.

53

ICE Annual Review, Berks County Prison
(July 2004), Bates 9176–77.
54

ABA report, Berks County Prison (July
2004), Bates 15871.
55

Id., Bates 17839.

64

47

ICE Annual Review, York County Prison
(Dec. 2004), Bates 5297–98.

Id., Bates 18793.

62

Id.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

112

NOTES

89

2005), Bates 10365 (no designated room for a
law library, but there is a designated area set
aside for legal material with one desk and one
chair); ICE Annual Review, Colquitt County
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13182–83
(inappropriately marked as “acceptable”;
comment states that law library is “[k]ept in
Chief’s Office”); Follow-up DHS inspection,
Las Animas County Jail Center (Apr. 2005),
Bates 4368–69 (no law library, no
typewriters, no paper, no pencils, no
equipment for detainees to do any kind of
meaningful research); ICE Annual Review,
Pottawattame County Jail (July 2005), Bates
2034 (no actual room for a law library;
instead each pod has some reading items on a
cart); ICE Annual Review, Ramsey County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2091 (book cart is
moved to each cell, but no physical law
library); ICE Annual Review, Yavapai
County Detention Center (June 2005), Bates
1248; ICE Annual Review, Charleston
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
7995–96 (books are in a central location, but
there is no actual library); ICE Annual
Review, Chautauqua County Jail (Apr. 2004),
Bates 8138–39 (no law library, but review
notes that “every attempt is made to ensure all
legal needs/ materials are furnished through
the County courts”); ICE Annual Review,
Coconino County Detention Center (Feb.
2004), Bates 3821; ICE Annual Review,
Finney County Jail (May 2004), Bates 4221–
22 (no physical law library; detainees can
check out materials and take them back to
their living areas); ICE Annual Review,
Hamilton County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates
3509, 3514–15 (lack of law library is noted,
but every item on the standard is still marked
“acceptable”); ICE Annual Review, Jefferson
County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 3576 (space
has been designated for the library but no
equipment or materials yet); ICE Annual
Review, Las Animas County Jail Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 4365 (no physical law library;
computer and software will be placed on
rolling cart for detainees to use in their pods);
ICE Annual Review, Oklahoma County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 12073
(facility has a law library, but detainees are
not allowed to visit it; all materials “must be
requested and delivered); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7267–
68, 7453 (facility has no law library; uses
system to deliver requested materials to
detainees but many detainees stated that their
requests had never been fulfilled; review also
noted that in 2003, facility received legal
materials from ICE that it placed on a cart that
was pushed around, but the books were
missing and destroyed); ICE Annual Review,
Pottawattamie County Jail (May 2004), Bates
6049 (no actual library; materials are on a
cart); ICE Annual Review, Ramsey Adult
Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 963
(book carts are used); ICE Annual Review,
Salt Lake County Adult Detention Complex
(Sept. 2004), Bates 6850 (no physical law
library; uses some kind of computerized

Id.

90

ICE Annual Review, Keogh-Dwyer
Correctional Facility (Sussex County Jail)
(Aug. 2004), Bates 385.
91

Id.

92

ABA report, Keogh Dwyer Correctional
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8484.
93

Id.

94

Id.

95

Id., Bates 8485.

96

Id.

ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIAL
1
INS Detention Standard: Access to Legal
Material § III.A, in U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement’s Detention Operations
Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/le
gal-material.pdf.
2

Access to Legal Material § III.A–B.

3

Access to Legal Material § III.C.

4

INS, formerly an agency within the U.S.
Department of Justice, was abolished and
replaced by parts of the newly formed U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on
Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296,
116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002). Many of the
INS’s enforcement-related duties, including
responsibility for detention, were transferred
to the newly formed Bureau of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, which
subsequently came to be known as “U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” or
“ICE.” Any reference in this report to
“Immigration and Customs Enforcement” or
“ICE” refers to the immigration enforcement
agency that was operating at the time the
events associated with the particular reference
took place. So, for example, a reference to an
“ICE review” that took place in 2002 should
be understood to mean an “INS review,” since
the INS was the U.S.’s immigration
enforcement agency during all of 2002.
5

Access to Legal Material § III.E. It is not
clear which government office, if any,
currently has this responsibility. The 2008
Performance-Based Detention Standards still
reference the INS Office of General Counsel,
which no longer exists.
6

Access to Legal Material § III.L.

7

Access to Legal Material § III.G.

8

Access to Legal Material § III.K.

9

Access to Legal Material § III.M.

10
11

Access to Legal Material § III.R.

ICE Annual Review, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 10754
(facility lacks space for a law library); ICE
Annual Review, Canadian County Jail (Jan.
2005), Bates 10092; ICE Annual Review,
Charleston County Detention Center (May

A BROKEN SYSTEM

system through a jail program clerk to give
detainees access to legal materials); ICE
Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 5228; ICE Annual Review,
Santa Clara County Main Jail Complex (Oct.
2004), Bates 5831, 14206 (facility closed its
physical law library due to a reduction in ICE
beds; requested materials can be delivered to
detainees’ living quarters); ICE Annual
Review, Shawnee County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 14116–17 (detainee
requests information and a legal aid
researches and copies materials for detainees);
ICE Annual Review, Silverdale Correctional
Facility, Corrections Corporation of America
(Dec. 2004), Bates 5374–75 (detainees can
request information which is to be researched
and delivered by a legal aide); ICE Annual
Review, Williamson County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 5568–69 (materials available only upon
request); ICE Annual Review, Yakima
County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 5521–22 (uses
a “mobile library cart” that is brought to each
pod); ICE Annual Review, Shawnee County
Department of Corrections (Nov. 2003), Bates
5732; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18445,
18456–57 (law library space being used to
store personal hygiene products).
12
ABA Report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8590–94; ABA
Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 8242–46 (no law library; instead, the
facility has one computer workstation per
housing unit); ABA Report, Keogh Dwyer
Correctional Facility (July 2004), Bates
8479–82 (law library is a mobile cart on
which books are haphazardly stacked; there is
also a “general library” which New Jersey
statutes and case law); UNCHR Report,
Ozaukee County Justice Center (Sept. 2003),
Bates 17841 (no law library; no immigration
legal materials); ABA Report, Santa Ana
Detention Facility (Oct. 2002), Bates 17512–
21 (no library; there is one computer
terminals with Westlaw per housing module
but only detainees representing themselves
pro se have access to the computers);
UNHCR Report, Racine County Jail (Aug.
2001), Bates 18865–66.
13
ICE Annual Review, Yavapai County
Detention Center (June 2005), Bates 770.
14
ICE Annual Review, Charleston County
Detention Center (May 2005), Bates 10364–
65; ICE Annual Review, Citrus County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 13138–39; ICE Annual
Review, Erie County Prison (Mar. 2005),
Bates 13284–85; ICE Annual Review,
Garfield County Jail (June 2005), Bates
13421–22; ICE Annual Review, Hudson
County Department of Corrections (Apr.
2005), Bates 512–13 (some materials are
missing and list of materials required is not
posted); ICE Annual Review, McHenry
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1440–41; ICE
Annual Review, North Las Vegas Detention
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3226–27 (facility
only had a few books, which were outdated);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail

NOTES
(June 2005), Bates 12921–22; ICE Annual
Review, Park County Detention Center (May
2005), Bates 783–84; ICE Annual Review,
Regional Correction Center Albuquerque
(Oct. 2005), Bates 2137–38 (list of required
materials also appears missing); ICE Annual
Review, Tri-County Detention Center (Mar.
2005), Bates 1815–16 (reviewer
inappropriately marked “not applicable” for
whether all required materials are available
and whether the list of required materials is
posted); ICE Annual Review, Bannock
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 9017–18; ICE
Annual Review, Berks County Prison (July
2004), Bates 9156–57; ICE Annual Review,
Cambria County Prison (Oct. 2004) Bates
9449–50; ICE Annual Review, Cayuga
County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 10278–79;
ICE Annual Review, Clinton County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 3769–70; ICE Annual
Review, Colquitt County Sheriff’s Office and
Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3875–76; ICE Annual
Review, Community Corrections Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 7453 (most books were
missing, the rest were destroyed, and requests
for materials by detainees were ignored;
nonetheless, the facility received an
“acceptable” rating because it promised to
have ICE install computers with legal
materials for detainees’ use); ICE Annual
Review, Ector County Correctional Center
(Nov. 2004), Bates 4095–96; ICE Annual
Review, Forsyth County Detention Center
(June 2004), Bates 4177–78 (several law
books are missing); ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Detention Center (May
2004), Bates 3626–27 (reviewer
inappropriately marked “not applicable” for
whether the library has all required materials
and whether the list of required materials is
posted; comments indicate that facility only
has a CD library); ICE Annual Review,
Keogh-Dwyer Correctional Facility (Aug.
2004), Bates 373 (reviewer inappropriately
marked “not applicable” for whether the law
library contains all materials in Attachment
“A” and whether the list is posted in the
library); ICE Annual Review, Las Animas
County Jail Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 4368–
69 (materials are either outdated or missing);
ICE Annual Review, Macomb County
Sheriff’s Department (Mar. 2004), Bates
4519, 4527–28 (library does not contain all
required materials and the list of required
materials is not posted); ICE Annual Review,
McHenry County Jail (July 2004), Bates
4760–61 (library does not have all required
materials and list of required materials is not
posted); ICE Annual Review, Middlesex
County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 4940–41
(library does not have all required materials
and list of required materials is not posted);
ICE Annual Review, Mini-Cassia County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 5006–07 (library does not
have all required materials and list of required
materials is not posted); ICE Annual Review,
Odessa Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates
13706–07; ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7314–15; ICE
Annual Review, Orleans Parish Community

Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7267–
68 (the legal materials provided to the facility
were lost or defaced or unusable); ICE
Annual Review, Pettis County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6439–40; ICE
Annual Review, Phelps County Jail (Apr.
2004), Bates 6201–02; ICE Annual Review,
Pine Prairie Correctional Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 6373–74; ICE Annual Review, Santa
Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 11031
(repeat deficiency); ICE Annual Review,
Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates 14097–
98; ICE Annual Review, South Ute Detention
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 51–52 (reviewer
inappropriately marked “not applicable” for
this requirement and noted that ICE materials
needed to be updated); ICE Annual Review,
Tensas Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2004),
Bates 6542–43; ICE Annual Review,
Torrance County Detention (June 2004),
Bates 13943–44; ICE Annual Review,
Williamson County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
13874–75 (materials are only made available
“upon request”); ICE Annual Review,
Elizabeth Contract Detention Center (Sept.
2003), Bates 11235–36; ICE Annual Review,
Tensas Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2003),
Bates 18606–07 (library does not have all
required materials and does not post a list of
materials); ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth
Contract Detention Facility (Dec. 2002),
Bates 18089–90; ICE Annual Review,
Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates
18647–48; ICE Annual Review, Tensas
Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2002), Bates
18556–57.
15
ABA Report, Passaic County Jail (Aug.
2005), Bates 8532–34; ABA report, Berks
County Prison (July 2004), Bates 16606;
ABA Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 8242–46 (only one of the male housing
units had some of the required materials);
ABA Report, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2004), Bates 8642–44; ABA
Report Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility
(July 2004), Bates 8478–82 (only two of the
thirty required materials are available); ABA
Report, Kenosha County Detention Facility
(July 2004), Bates 8278–80; ABA Report,
Passaic County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 8417–
8419; ABA Report, Queens Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 8439–45 (most, but not all
materials are available); ABA Report, Bergen
County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates 17363 (only
has 5 of the 30 required materials); ABA
Report, Clay County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates
17699; ABA Report, DuPage County Jail
(July 2003), Bates 17379; ABA Report, El
Centro Service Processing Center (Jan. 2003),
Bates 17542–44; ABA Report, Elizabeth
Corrections Corporation of America Facility
(Oct. 2003), Bates 17720; ABA Report,
Monmouth County Correctional Institute
(July 2003), Bates 17751–52; UNCHR
Report, Monroe County Jail (Apr. 2003),
Bates 17825–26; ABA Report, Plymouth
County Correctional Facility (June 2003),
Bates 17667–68; ABA Report, St. Mary’s
County Detention Center (June 2003), Bates
17608–09; ABA Report, ACI-Cranston Intake

A BROKEN SYSTEM

113
Service Center (May 2002), Bates 17409–10;
ABA Report, Franklin County Jail and House
of Corrections (Jan. 2002), Bates 17559–60;
ABA Report, Kern County Jail (Aug. 2002),
Bates 17481–82; ABA Report, Mira Loma
Detention Center (June 2002), Bates 17432;
UNHCR Report, CCA Otay Mesa Adult
Detention Center (Oct. 2002), Bates 17812;
ABA Report, San Pedro Service Processing
Center (Mar. 2002), Bates 17456–58; ABA
Report, Seattle CSC Detention Facility (May
2002), Bates 17732–35 (only had 15 of the 30
required materials; most were outdated);
UNCHR Report, Oakdale Federal Detention
Center (Apr. 2001), Bates 18882–83
(materials are either outdated or missing).
16
ABA Report, Pamunkey Regional Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 8398–403; ABA Report,
Hudson County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates 17625
(only 17 of 30 required materials; most were
outdated); ABA Report, Elizabeth Detention
Center (July 2001), Bates 18835; UNCHR
Report, McHenry County Jail (Aug. 2001),
Bates 18875–76 (facility does not have all
required materials and many that are available
are outdated; updated regulations are
collected in a folder as they come in, rather
than inserted into the regulations book to
update the outdated regulations making the
regulations basically “useless”); UNCHR
Report, Tri-County Detention Center (Aug.
2001), Bates 18870–71 (all materials are
missing or outdated).
17
ICE Annual Review, Wicomico County
Adult Detention Center (June 2005), Bates
233–34 (facility has neither required materials
nor list of materials); ICE Annual Review,
Yavapai County Detention Center (June
2005), Bates 770–71; ICE Annual Review,
Catahoula Parish Detention Center (Aug.
2004), Bates 7957–58; ICE Annual Review,
Chautauqua County Jail (Apr. 2004), Bates
8138–39; ICE Annual Review, Coconino
County Detention Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates
3821–22; ICE Annual Review, Dickens
County Correctional Facility (June 2004),
Bates 4241; ICE Annual Review, Erie County
Holding Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 4140–
41(no materials at facility; notes indicate an
ability for detainees to request materials that
are received quickly; unclear if list of
materials is posted); ICE Annual Review,
Forsyth County Detention Center (June
2004), Bates 4177–78; ICE Annual Review,
Linn County Jail (May 2004), Bates 3261–62;
ICE Annual Review, Odessa Detention
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 5329–30; ICE
Annual Review, Palm Beach County Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 11682–83; ICE Annual
Review, Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5649, 5659–60; ICE Annual Review, St.
Martin Parish Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 917–18
(facility lacks required materials and list of
materials is not posted); ICE Annual Review,
West Carroll Detention Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 5611–12; ICE Annual Review,
Williamson County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
13874–75; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Detention Center (May 2003), Bates

114
18773–74; ICE Annual Review, Queens
Contract Detention Facility (Oct. 2003), Bates
11378–79; UNHCR Report, Pamunkey
Regional Jail (Aug. 2005), Bates 8678
(facility technically had the materials, but
they were not available to detainees because
they were still in boxes); ABA Report,
Ozaukee County Jail (July 2004), Bates
8371–73; UNCHR Report, Kenosha County
Detention Center (Sept. 2003), Bates 17836
(no legal materials covering immigration
topics available); UNHCR Report, Denton
County Detention Center (Oct. 2001), Bates
17794; UNHCR Report, Navarro County
Detention Center (Oct. 2001), Bates 17803.
18
ABA Report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8590–94.
19

ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua County
Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 10486–87; ICE
Annual Review, Columbia County Jail (Jan.
2005), Bates 13217; ICE Annual Review,
Hudson County Department of Corrections
(Apr. 2005), Bates 15417–15418; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 12921–22; ICE Annual Review,
Bannock County Jail (June 2004), Bates
9017–18; ICE Annual Review, Catahoula
Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2004), Bates
7957–58; ICE Annual Review, Madison
County Jail (July 2004), Bates 4570–71; ICE
Annual Review, Odessa Detention Center
(Nov. 2004), Bates 13706–07; ICE Annual
Review, Pettis County Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 6439–40; ICE Annual Review,
Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
13627–28; ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 14097–98;
ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7400;
ICE Annual Review, West Carroll Detention
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 5611–12; ICE
Annual Review, Wyoming County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 5419–20; ICE Annual Review,
Elizabeth Contract Detention Center (Sept.
2003), Bates 11235–36; ICE Annual Review,
Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates
18647–48; ABA Report, Passaic County Jail
(Aug. 2005), Bates 8532–34; ABA report,
Berks County Prison (July 2004), Bates
16606; ABA Report, Bristol County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 8242–46 (only one of the
male housing units had some of the required
materials); ABA Report Keogh Dwyer
Correctional Facility (July 2004), Bates
8478–82; ABA Report, Kenosha County
Detention Facility (July 2004), Bates 8278–
80; ABA Report, Pamunkey Regional Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 8398–403; ABA Report,
Bergen County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates
17363; ABA report, DuPage County Jail (July
2003), Bates 17379.
20
ICE Annual Review, Cass Correctional
Center (June 2005), Bates 10236–37; ICE
Annual Review, Crawford County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 13233–34; ICE Annual Review,
La Paz County Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 1486–
87; ICE Annual Review, Macomb County Jail
(May 2005), Bates 1568–69; ICE Annual
Review, Pottawattamie County Jail (July

NOTES
2005), Bates 2034–35 (inappropriately
marked as “not applicable” and notes indicate
that it is “unknown” whether an employee is
designated to maintain and update materials);
ICE Annual Review, Wicomico County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 233–34 (reviewer
incorrectly marked this element as compliant
even though noting that “ICE has not
promptly updated and supplemented outdated
materials,” which the standard does not
require ICE to do); ICE Annual Review,
Berks County Prison (July 2004), Bates
15285–86; ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua
County Jail (Apr. 2004), Bates 8138–39; ICE
Annual Review, Cayuga County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 10278–79; ICE Annual Review,
Ector County Detention Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 4095–96; ICE Annual Review, Erie
County Holding Center (Nov. 2004), Bates
4140–41; ICE Annual Review, Garvin
County Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
3371–72; ICE Annual Review, Genesee
County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 3411–12
(inappropriately marked as “not applicable”);
ICE Annual Review, Las Animas County Jail
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4374–75; ICE
Annual Review, Macomb County Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 4519, 4527–28; ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 12022–23; ICE Annual
Review, Odessa Detention Center (Nov.
2004), Bates 5329–30; ICE Annual Review,
Orleans County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7314–
15; ICE Annual Review, Palm Beach County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 11682–83; ICE Annual
Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 13627–28; ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 14097–98;
ICE Annual Review, St. Martin Parish Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 917–18; ICE Annual
Review, West Carroll Detention Center (Sept.
2004), Bates 5611–12; ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Detention Center (May
2003), Bates 18773–74; ICE Annual Review,
Tensas Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2003),
Bates 18606–07.
21
ABA Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8242–46; ABA Report, Bergen
County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates 17363; ABA
Report, Clay County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates
17699; ABA Report, El Centro Service
Processing Center (Jan. 2003), Bates 17542–
44; ABA Report, ACI-Cranston Intake
Service Center (May 2002), Bates 17409–10;
ABA Report, San Pedro Service Processing
Center (Mar. 2002), Bates 17456–58.
22
ABA Report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8278–80.
23
ICE Annual Review, Odessa Detention
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 12240–41;
UNHCR Report, Avoyelles Women’s
Correctional Center (May 2004), Bates 8692–
93; ABA Report, Berks County Prison (July
2004), Bates 16606; UNHCR Report,
Tangipahoa Parish Jail (May 2004), Bates
8695; ABA Report, Clay County Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 17699; ABA Report, El Centro
Service Processing Center (Jan. 2003), Bates
17542–44; ABA Report, Hudson County Jail

A BROKEN SYSTEM

(Aug. 2003), Bates 17625; ABA Report,
Monmouth County Correctional Institute
(July 2003), Bates 17751–52; ABA Report,
ACI-Cranston Intake Service Center (May
2002), Bates 17409–10; ABA Report,
Franklin County Jail and House of
Corrections (Jan. 2002), Bates 17559–60;
ABA Report, Kern County Jail (Aug. 2002),
Bates 17481–82; ABA Report, Mira Loma
Detention Center (June 2002), Bates 17432;
UNHCR Report, CCA Otay Mesa Adult
Detention Center (Oct. 2002), Bates 17812;
ABA Report, Seattle CSC Detention Facility
(May 2002), Bates 17732–35; UNHCR
Report, George Allen Jail (Oct. 2001), Bates
17786; ABA Report, Elizabeth Detention
Center (July 2001), Bates 18835.
24
Follow-up DHS inspection, Las Animas
County Jail Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 4368–
69; ICE Annual Review, Bannock County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 9017–18; ICE Annual
Review, Berks County Prison (July 2004),
Bates 9156; ICE Annual Review, Charleston
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
7995–96; ICE Annual Review, Colquitt
County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3876; ICE
Annual Review, Forsyth County Detention
Center (June 2004), Bates 4177–78; DHS
review Las Animas County Jail Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 4365; ICE Annual Review,
Phelps County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 6201
(no computer; but review noted that ICE
detainees were not yet held at this facility);
ICE Annual Review, Pottawattamie County
Jail (May 2004), Bates 6049; ICE Annual
Review, Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5649; ICE Annual Review, Yakima County
Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 5521–22 (a computer
is available upon request); ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Detention Center
(May 2003), Bates 18773–74; ICE Annual
Review, Queens Contract Detention Facility
(Oct. 2003), Bates 11378 (one computer that
did not work); ICE Annual Review,
Rockingham Roads Regional Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 18227–28; ICE Annual Review,
Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates
18647–48 (the one computer donated by the
ICE District Office to the facility is being
used by facility staff, and is not available to
detainees); ICE Annual Review, Rockingham
Roads Regional Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates
18186–87.
25
ABA Report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8590–94 (facility
has only one computer, which, upon request,
may be brought to a multi-purpose room for
detainees; detainees interviewed were not
aware of their access to a computer and stated
that requests had been denied); ABA Report,
Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
8399–03.
26
UNHCR Report, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (May 2005), Bates 8665
(one computer and one printer; detainees were
not allowed to use the computer for legal
research or to prepare legal documents).
27
ICE Annual Review, Columbia County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 13217 (one computer

NOTES
without legal materials; typewriter available
only upon request); ICE Annual Review, Dale
G. Haile Detention Center (Sept. 2005), Bates
6333; ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3226–27
(reviewer noted that 3 computers for 800
detainees was insufficient; only 1 computer
had Lexis-Nexis; suggested 2 additional
computers with Lexis); ICE Annual Review,
Dickens County Correctional Facility (June
2004), Bates 4241 (no typewriter available
and only one computer, which is locked at all
times); ICE Annual Review, Finney County
Jail (May 2004), Bates 3262 (no typewriter;
jail prints materials for the detainees from the
computer); ICE Annual Review, Pettis
County Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
6439; ICE Annual Review, Regional
Correctional Facility (Albuquerque) (Aug.
2004), Bates 6005; ICE Annual Review,
Worcester County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates
5938; ICE Annual Review, Queens Contract
Detention Facility (Oct. 2003), Bates 11366
(repeat deficiency).
28

ABA Report, Colquitt County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 8626 (only has one computer
and one typewriter for 39 ICE detainees);
ABA Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 8242–46 (one computer workstation per
housing unit, which is insufficient); ABA
Report, Ozaukee County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 8372–73 (only one computer and no
typewriter); ABA Report, Santa Ana
Detention Facility (July 2004), Bates 8462
(one computer; no employee present knew
how to turn on the computer; one detainee
stated that she had asked to use the computer
for legal research and had been denied
access); ABA Report, Clay County Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 17700 (two computers, which
had been dismantled by inmates and staff
stated that they had no intent of acquiring new
ones; only two typewriters, which was
insufficient for the number of detainees);
ABA Report, DuPage County Jail (July
2003), Bates 17381 (no computer; only one
typewriter for all ICE detainees and criminal
inmates); ABA Report, El Centro Service
Processing Center (Jan. 2003), Bates 17542–
44 (only has three typewriters, which was
inadequate given the number of detainees;
one typewriter had been broken for over one
year); ABA Report, Kern County Jail (Aug.
2002), Bates 17470–99 (needs more than two
typewriters); UNCHR Report, Monroe
County Jail (Dec. 2002), Bates 17825–26
(only one computer); ABA Report, Santa Ana
Detention Facility (Oct. 2002), Bates 17512–
21 (one computer terminal per housing
module but only detainees representing
themselves pro se have access to the computer
terminals); ABA Report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2002), Bates 17448–
69 (needs more supplies and typewriters);
ABA Report, Elizabeth Detention Center
(July 2001), Bates 18835 (only one typewriter
for 300 detainees).
29
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Pre-Trial Facility (June 2005), Bates 825

(maximum of two people can use the law
library at once); ICE Annual Review,
Aguadilla Service Processing Center (Mar.
2004), Bates 12587–88 (insufficient space);
ICE Annual Review, Ramsey Adult Detention
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 963 (requirements
for sufficient chairs and library lighting are
marked as not applicable); ICE Annual
Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 13627–28 (insufficient number of
chairs; not well-lit); ICE Annual Review,
Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center
(Mar. 2004), Bates 7400 (library does not
have sufficient space; only one room for three
to four detainees at once); ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Detention Center
(May 2003), Bates 18773–74 (insufficient
number of chairs); ICE Annual Review,
Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates
18647–48 (insufficient number of chairs);
ABA Report, Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8399–403 (library is in very
small room; only two to three detainees can
use the library at once).
30

ABA Report, Queens Detention Center
(Mar. 2004), Bates 8439–45 (insufficient
seating); ABA Report, CSC Detention
Facility (May 2002), Bates 17732–35
(insufficient chairs and desks; only two chairs
and two small desks for 160 detainees); ABA
Report, Franklin County Jail and House of
Corrections (Jan. 2002), Bates 17559–60
(library cold and too small); ABA Report,
Wackenhut Corrections Corp. (Apr. 2002),
Bates 17639 (library is too small; only two
worktables and six chairs for 340 detainees);
ABA Report, Elizabeth Detention Center
(July 2001), Bates 18835 (library is too
small); UNCHR Report, Tangipahoa Parish
Jail (Apr. 2001), Bates 18889–90 (closet-like
room).
31
ICE Annual Review, Harris County Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 2395 (library is part of the
multi-purpose room, which may affect the
noise level); ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth
Contract Detention Facility (Dec. 2002),
Bates 18089–18090 (library is noisy because
it is by the entrance gate).
32
ICE Annual Review, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 10753–
54; ICE Annual Review, Charleston County
Detention Center (May 2005), Bates 10364–
65; ICE Annual Review, Citrus County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 13138–39; ICE Annual
Review, Erie County Prison (Mar. 2005),
Bates 13284–85; ICE Annual Review, La Paz
County Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 1486–87; ICE
Annual Review, Macomb County Jail (May
2005), Bates 1568–69; ICE Annual Review,
Yuba County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2627–
28 (Lexis did not work because the facility
did not have Adobe Acrobat on its
computers); ICE Annual Review, Cambria
County Prison (Oct. 2004) Bates 9449–50
(software does not work); ICE Annual
Review, Chautauqua County Jail (Apr. 2004),
Bates 8138–39; ICE Annual Review, Cayuga
County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 10278–79;
ICE Annual Review, Clinton County Jail

A BROKEN SYSTEM

115
(Aug. 2004), Bates 3769–70; ICE Annual
Review, Coconino County Detention Facility
(Feb. 2004), Bates 3821–22; ICE Annual
Review, Douglas County Jail (Dec. 2004),
Bates 4047–48; ICE Annual Review, Ector
County Correctional Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 4095–96; ICE Annual Review, Forsyth
County Detention Center (June 2004), Bates
4177–78; ICE Annual Review, Genesee
County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 3411–12; ICE
Annual Review, Madison County Jail (July
2004), Bates 4570–71; ICE Annual Review,
Mira Loma Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 5103–04; ICE Annual Review, Odessa
Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 12240–
41; ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 7314–15; ICE Annual
Review, Palm Beach County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 11682–83; ICE Annual Review,
Pottawattamie County Jail (July 2004), Bates
6049–50; ICE Annual Review, Smith County
Jail (June 2004), Bates 14097–98; ICE
Annual Review, St. Martin Parish Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 917–18; ICE Annual Review,
West Carroll Detention Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 5611–12; ICE Annual Review,
Williamson County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
5568–69 (this element of the checklist was
marked “not applicable” without explanation).
33
ABA report, Berks County Prison (July
2004), Bates 16606.
34
ICE Annual Review, Cass Correctional
Center (June 2005), Bates 10236–37; ICE
Annual Review, Rolling Plains Regional
Detention Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 1898–99;
ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail
(Aug. 2005), Bates 1857–58; ICE Annual
Review, Boone County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 9363–64; UNHCR Report,
Avoyelles Women’s Correctional Center
(May 2004), Bates 8692–93.
35
ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3226–27
(only one computers had Lexis, which was
insufficient for 800 detainees).
36
ICE Annual Review, Madison County Jail
(Sept. 2005), Bates 1527–28 (reviewer
incorrectly marked “not applicable” for
whether outside persons/organizations could
provide legal materials); ICE Annual Review,
Garvin County Detention Center (Dec. 2004),
Bates 3371–72; ICE Annual Review, South
Ute Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 51–
52; ABA Report, Queens Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 8439–45.
37
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10092–93 (detainees
are only allowed to use library upon request);
ICE Annual Review, Mecklenburg County
Jail (Central) (Apr. 2005), Bates 1052–53
(detainees must sign-up for library use); ICE
Annual Review, North Las Vegas Detention
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3226–27 (two
detainees act as law clerks and research
requests from other detainees; other detainees
are not allowed to visit the library); ICE
Annual Review, Dorchester County Detention
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4002–03

116
(detainees only have access to the law library
one hour per week); ICE Annual Review,
Forsyth County Detention Center (June
2004), Bates 4177–78 (detainees only
guaranteed one hour per week of library use
and may have to forgo recreation to use the
library); ICE Annual Review, Harris County
Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3448–49 (detainees
must request to use Lexis-Nexis); ICE Annual
Review, Macomb County Sheriff’s
Department (Mar. 2004), Bates 4519, 4527–
28 (library is open one day per cell block for
one to two hours per detainee); ICE Annual
Review, Passaic County Jail (Mar. 2004),
Bates 11731–32 (detainees are only allotted
four hours library use per week); ICE Annual
Review, Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug.
2002), Bates 18647–48 (detainees have access
to the law library only on weekends).
38
ABA Report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 8565–
68 (detainees must forego recreation time to
visit the law library; because only 10
detainees can visit the library at one time,
detainees do not have access 5 hours/week as
the standard requires); ABA Report, Bristol
County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 8242–46
(female detainees only have library access
during recreation, so much choose between
use of the library or recreation); ABA Report,
Dodge County Detention Facility (June
2004), Bates 8642 (access is restricted by
detainees’ classification status; some
classification levels cannot visit the library, if
they have a specific statutory cite, they can
get a photocopy of that statute); ABA Report
Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility (July
2004), Bates 8478–82 (mobile cart only
available to detainees 4.5 hours/week;
“general library” can be accessed 5 days a
week for 45 minutes, but only during
recreation time); ABA Report, Osborn
Correctional Institution (July 2004), Bates
8348–50 (detainees not given adequate time
to use the library; to use the library detainees
must forgo their recreation time); UNHCR
Report, Tensas Detention Center (May 2004),
Bates 8699–700 (female detainees reported
that they did not have access to the law
library; warden stated that to avoid
comingling men and women, women only
have library access at night); ABA Report,
Bergen County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates 17363
(law library is open only four hours a week
total; only 12 detainees are allowed in the
library at one time; detainees must sign up
and may be passed on the list if they already
recently used the law library); ABA Report,
Houston Corrections Corporation of America
(Jan. 2003), Bates 17571 (detainees are forced
to choose between using the law library and
recreation); ABA Report, Middlesex County
Jail (July 2003), Bates 17769 (detainees
complained that each housing units only had
library access for one hour two or three times
per week); ABA Report, Monmouth County
Correctional Institute (July 2003), Bates
17751–54 (detainees stated that access to the
law library was severely limited; detainees
only have access one day per week); ABA

NOTES
Report, Plymouth County Correctional
Facility (June 2003), Bates 17667–69
(detainees complained about not having
sufficient access to the library, about waiting
from 1 1/2 weeks to 1 month to have access);
ABA Report, San Pedro Service Processing
Center (July 2003), Bates 17591 (officer
stated that the detainees can use the library
one hour/day in groups of 10; but this is
inconsistent with the fact that the facility has
between 300 to 400 detainees; and a
maximum of 24 groups can visit the library in
one day, assuming 24-hour library access);
Lawyers Without Borders Report, York
Correctional Institution (Nov. 2003), Bates
17522–32 (law library only allows five
detainees at one time, resulting failure to
allow each detainee to use the library five
hours per week); ABA Report, Yuba County
Jail (Dec. 2003), Bates 17681 (detainees
complained about delays in library access:
one detainee stated that he was given access
two days after his request; another stated that
he his request was never honored); ABA
Report, Kern County Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates
17470–99 (detainees limited to four hours of
library use per week, which librarian
confirmed is often not actually provided due
to the high demand; detainees complained
that it took up to two weeks to have access to
the law library after making a request); ABA
Report, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(Mar. 2002), Bates 17458 (law library
accommodates only 10 detainees at one time;
detainees noted long waits for library use due
to this limit); UNHCR Report, Denton County
Detention Center (Oct. 2001), Bates 17794
(detainees in the old wing of the facility only
have library access three hours a week; there
is no law library in the new wing, there is no
library, and detainees can only request
immigration law materials); UNHCR Report,
George Allen Jail (Oct. 2001), Bates 17786
(detainees only have library access one hour
per week); UNCHR Report, McHenry County
Jail (Aug. 2001), Bates 18875 (detainees can
only use the law library one hour per week);
UNHCR Report, Navarro County Detention
Center (Oct. 2001), Bates 17803 (detainees
must request to use materials and are
sometimes inappropriately denied).
39

ICE Annual Review, Berks County Prison
(May 2005), Bates 9743 (detainees in
segregation can request legal materials, but
not visit the library); ICE Annual Review,
Bexar County GEO Detention Facility (Nov.
2005), Bates 9783–84 (law library manager
visit detainees in segregation every Friday
and brings materials to them); ICE Annual
Review, Crawford County Jail (Mar. 2005),
Bates 13233–34 (segregated detainees can
request materials for delivery, but cannot visit
the library); ICE Annual Review, Hudson
County Department of Corrections (Apr.
2005), Bates 15696–97 (segregated detainees
can request materials for delivery, but cannot
visit the library) ICE Annual Review, Niagara
County Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates 12800–01
(segregated detainees can request materials
for delivery, but cannot visit the library); ICE

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Annual Review, North Las Vegas Detention
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3226–27
(segregated detainees can request legal
materials, but cannot visit the library); ICE
Annual Review, Pike County Correctional
Facility (Jan. 2005), Bates 6288 (segregated
detainees can request materials for delivery,
but cannot visit the library); ICE Annual
Review, Plaquamines Parish Detention Center
(Apr. 2005), Bates 3180–81 (segregated
detainees can only use law library to contest
segregation; also time limitation on library
use for “court case”); ICE Annual Review,
Allegheny County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates
7563–64 (segregated detainees may request
legal materials, but cannot visit library); ICE
Annual Review, Bergen County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 9107–08 (segregated detainees
have their library requests brought to their
housing areas); ICE Annual Review, Berks
County Prison (June 2004), Bates 15285–86
(segregated detainees can request materials
for delivery, but cannot visit the library); ICE
Annual Review, City of Las Vegas Detention
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4426–27
(segregated detainees can make legal material
requests through classification officers, but
cannot visit the library); ICE Annual Review,
Dorchester County Detention Center (Sept.
2004), Bates 4002–03 (segregated detainees
lose library privileges; inappropriately
checked as “not applicable” for whether the
facility notified ICE when detainees are
denied access to law library); ICE Annual
Review, Finney County Jail (May 2004),
Bates 4221–22 (segregated detainees may
request library materials, but cannot visit the
library; denials of access to legal materials are
not documented); ICE Annual Review,
Limestone County Detention Center (May
2004), Bates 4474–75 (legal materials
delivered to detainees in segregation); ICE
Annual Review, Minnesota Correctional
Facility-Rush Facility (Oct. 2004), Bates 276
(segregated detainees can request items from
the library for delivery, but cannot go to the
library); ICE Annual Review, Niagara County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 11970–71 (segregated
detainees can request materials, but cannot
visit the library); ICE Annual Review, North
Las Vegas Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 12022–23 (segregated detainees can
request materials from law clerks, but cannot
visit the library); ICE Annual Review,
Ramsey Adult Detention Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 963–64 (segregated detainees can
request library materials for delivery, but
cannot visit the library); ICE Annual Review,
Sacramento County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
7133–34 (no access for detainees in
disciplinary segregation); ICE Annual
Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 13627–28 (segregated detainees do not
have access to law library); ICE Annual
Review, Turner Guilford Knight Correctional
Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7400 (detainees in
administrative segregation do not have access
to library; they cannot even request
materials); ICE Annual Review, Union
County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 6953–59

NOTES
(segregated detainees can make material
requests, but cannot visit library); ICE Annual
Review, York County Prison (Dec. 2004),
Bates 5280–81 (segregated detainees in
segregation can request material delivery, but
cannot visit library).

conducted by attorney”); ICE Annual Review,
Macomb County Sheriff’s Department (Mar.
2004), Bates 4519, 4527–28; ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 4760–61 (requests for detainee to assist
other detainees are forwarded to ICE).

40
ABA Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8242–46 (segregated detainees
had no access to immigration legal materials);
ABA Report, Hudson County Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 17626 (segregated detainees can
request materials for delivery, but cannot visit
the library); ABA Report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (July 2003), Bates 17591
(segregated detainees can request materials
for delivery, but cannot visit the library).

44
ABA Report, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2004), Bates 8642–44; UNHCR
Report, McHenry County Jail (Sept. 2003),
Bates 17834 (detainees are not allowed to
assist one another to use the computer);
UNHCR Report, Kenosha County Detention
Center (Sept. 2003), Bates 17836 (detainees
are not allowed to assist one another to use
the computer).

41

ICE Annual Review, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 10753–
54; ICE Annual Review, Hudson County
Department of Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates
512–13; ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 7707–08
(facility does not report denials of access to
library; instead facility reached agreement
with ICE Field Office for detainees to file
their own grievances when they were denied
access to the library); ICE Annual Review,
City of Las Vegas Detention Center (Sept.
2004), Bates 4426–27; ICE Annual Review,
Community Corrections Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 7453, 7463–64 (repeat finding); ICE
Annual Review, Dorchester County Detention
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4002–03
(inappropriately checked as “not applicable”
for whether the facility notified ICE when
detainees are denied access to law library);
ICE Annual Review, Finney County Jail
(May 2004), Bates 4221–22; ICE Annual
Review, Las Animas County Jail Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 4374–75; ICE Annual Review,
Macomb County Sheriff’s Department (Mar.
2004), Bates 4519, 4527–28; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7267;
ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7400,
7412–7413; ICE Annual Review, San Diego
Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates
11322–11323 (no process to report denials of
access to library unless detainee submits a
grievance); ICE Annual Review, San Pedro
Service Processing Center (May 2002), Bates
18456–18457.
42

ABA Report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8278–80
(segregated detainees given computer access
only if they had an urgent need to do legal
research such as an upcoming preliminary
hearing; detainees who were scheduled to be
released from segregation soon were not
given access to the library).
43

ICE Annual Review, Dale G. Haile
Detention Center (Sept. 2005), Bates 6333–
34; ICE Annual Review, Boone County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 9363–
64; ICE Annual Review, Coconino County
Detention Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates 3821
(element inappropriate marked as “not
applicable” because “research and doc prep

45

UNHCR Report, McHenry County Jail
(Sept. 2003), Bates 17834 (detainees are not
allowed to assist one another to use the
computer).
46

ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua County
Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 10486–87; ICE
Annual Review, Hardin County Correctional
Center (Oct. 2005), Bates 1349–50 (remarks
indicate that requests by illiterate or non–
English speaking detainees for legal materials
are made in writing, but it is not clear how
effective this process is given these detainees
inability to write in English); ICE Annual
Review, Nobles County Jail (May 2005),
Bates 2668–69 (reviewer incorrectly marked
this element as compliant although the
remarks indicate that the facility only assists
illiterate or non–English speaking detainees
“if possible”); ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
3226–27; ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 12922–23;
ICE Annual Review, Polk County Jail (May
2005), Bates 3058–59; ICE Annual Review,
Yuba County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2627–
28; ICE Annual Review, City of Las Vegas
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4426–
27; ICE Annual Review, Coconino County
Detention Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates 3821–
22 (reviewer incorrectly marked this element
as “not applicable” because there were
“currently no long-term ICE detainees,” but
the review indicates that significant numbers
of ICE detainees were held at the facility over
the year); ICE Annual Review, Douglas
County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 4047–48
(reviewer incorrectly marked this element as
“not applicable”); ICE Annual Review,
Genesee County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates
3411–12 (inappropriately marked this element
of the standard as “not applicable”); ICE
Annual Review, Houston Contract Detention
Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates 11190–91; ICE
Annual Review, Macomb County Sheriff’s
Department (Mar. 2004), Bates 4519, 4527–
28; ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 7314–15; ICE Annual
Review, Pottawattamie County Jail (May
2004), Bates 6049–50 (reviewer
inappropriately marked this element as
acceptable although noting that it was
unknown whether the local ICE office
ensured that this requirement was met;
standard clearly requires all facilities to

A BROKEN SYSTEM

117
ensure this requirement is met, it is not the
responsibility of ICE); ICE Annual Review,
Rolling Plains Regional Detention Center
(Mar. 2004), Bates 7515–16; ICE Annual
Review, Yakima County Jail (Dec. 2004),
Bates 5521–22 (reviewer incorrectly marked
this element as “not applicable” because
there are no ICE staff at the facility, although
the standard clearly requires all facilities to
ensure that illiterate and non–English
speakers have access to legal materials); ICE
Annual Review, Kenosha County Detention
Center (May 2003), Bates 18773–74.
(reviewer inappropriately checked “not
applicable” because no law books are
provided); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Sheriff’s Dept. Corrections (July
2002), Bates 18729.
47
ABA Report Keogh Dwyer Correctional
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8478–82 (non–
English speaking detainees do not have access
to other detainees to use as translators; all
legal materials are in English); ABA Report,
Houston Contract Detention Center (Jan.
2003), Bates 17571 (law library had very few
Spanish language materials. One detainee
complained that the law library did not have a
Spanish-English dictionary. The staff stated
that the reason the library was missing
Spanish language materials was because they
had been checked out, but the reviewers
questioned this explanation because it did not
appear possible to fit any additional materials
on the available shelves); ABA Report,
DuPage County Jail (July 2003), Bates 17379
(all materials are in English and non–English
speaking detainees must request and pay for
non-English materials); ABA Report, San
Pedro Service Processing Center (July 2003),
Bates 17593 (all of the materials are in
English; officer stated that detainees can
translate for each other and often improperly
charge for translating); ABA Report, Seattle
Contract Detention Facility (May 2002),
Bates 17732–35 (absence of dictionaries and
legal materials in languages other than
English means that non–English speaking
detainees do not use the library at all).
48
ICE Annual Review, Colquitt County Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 13182–83.
49
ABA Report, Colquitt County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 8626–27.
50
ABA Report, CSD Detention Facility
(May 2002), Bates 17732–35.
51

ICE Annual Review, Keogh Dwyer
Correctional Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates
7004–05.
52
ABA Report Keogh Dwyer Correctional
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8478–82.
53

ABA Report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (July 2003), Bates 17593.
54
ICE Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(Mar. 2004), Bates 14,648–91; ICE Annual
Review, Passaic County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 858–904.
55
ABA Report, Passaic County Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 8417–19; ABA Report, Passaic

118
County Jail (Aug. 2005), Bates 8532–34
(detainees must submit several requests
before being given access to the library and
may not be given sufficient time).
56

ICE Annual Review, Queens Contract
Detention Facility (Oct. 2003), Bates 11378–
79.
57

ABA Report, Queens Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 8439–45.
58

ICE Annual Review, Pamunkey Regional
Jail (Oct. 2005), Bates 419.
59
ABA Report, Pamunkey Regional Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 8398–03.
60
ICE Annual Review, Dorchester County
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4002–
03.
61
ABA Report, Dorchester Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 8262–63.
62
ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth Contract
Detention Facility (Dec. 2002), Bates 18089–
90.
63
ABA Report, Elizabeth Detention Center
(July 2001), Bates 18835.

GROUP PRESENTATIONS ON
LEGAL RIGHTS
1
INS Detention Standard: Group
Presentations on Legal Rights (hereinafter
“GPLR”) § III (Standards and Procedures), in
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/gr
plegal.pdf.
2
GPLR § III.C (Detainee Notification and
Attendance).
3

GPLR § III.F (Written Materials).

4

GPLR § III.I (Videotaped Presentations).

5

GPLR § III.E (Presentation Guidelines).

6

GPLR § III.G (Individual Counseling
Following a Group Presentation).
7

GPLR § I (Policy).

8

GPLR § III (Standards and Procedures).

9

The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated

NOTES
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
10
Form G-324A, Detention Inspection Form
Worksheet, Group Legal Presentations
Checklist. In the original instruction, “No
Group Presentations,” “Months,” “Standard,”
and “Acceptable” are capitalized, exactly as
quoted here.
11
ICE Annual Review, Sussex County Jail
(Aug. 2006), Bates 378-79; ICE Annual
Review (facility not identified) (June 2005),
Bates 9–10; ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City
Detention Center (June 2005), Bates 9671–
72; ICE Annual Review, Caldwell County
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 9981–82;
ICE Annual Review, Cambria County Prison
(Oct. 2005), Bates 10064–65; ICE Annual
Review, Canadian County Jail (Jan. 2005),
Bates 10105–06; ICE Annual Review, Carbon
County Correctional Facility (May 2005),
Bates 10163–64; ICE Annual Review, Carver
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 10204–05;
ICE Annual Review, Cass County Jail (June–
July 2005), Bates 10246–47; ICE Annual
Review, Chatham County Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 10451–52; ICE Annual
Review, Christian County Jail (Sept. 2005),
Bates 9593–94; ICE Annual Review, Citrus
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 13148–49;
ICE Annual Review, Department of
Corrections (July 2005), Bates 13479–80;
ICE Annual Review, Dickens County
Correctional Facility (May 2005), Bates
13525–26; ICE Annual Review, El Centro
Processing Center (July 2005), Bates 10847–
48; ICE Annual Review, Erie County Prison
(Mar. 2005), Bates 13297–98; 13345–46; ICE
Annual Review, Finney County Jail (June
2005), Bates 13386–13387; ICE Annual
Review, Forsyth County Law Enforcement
Center (June 2005), Bates 13101–02; ICE
Annual Review, Garfield County Detention
Center (June 2005), Bates 13430–31; ICE
Annual Review, Grant County Jail (Feb.
2005), Bates 1269–70; ICE Annual Review,
Greene County Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates 1400–
01; ICE Annual Review, Hardin County
Correctional Center (Oct. 2005), Bates 1360–
61; ICE Annual Review, Harris County Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 2404–05; ICE Annual
Review, Hill County Detention Center (Sept.
2005), Bates 2363–64; ICE Annual Review,
Howard County Detention Center (July
2005), Bates 2325–26; ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Pre-Trial Facility (June
2005), Bates 836–7 (standard not given a
rating); ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 17009–
10; ICE Annual Review, La Paz County Jail
(Apr. 2005), Bates 1495–96; ICE Annual
Review, Limestone County Detention Center
(May 2005), Bates 2485–86; ICE Annual
Review, Linn County Correctional Center
(May 2005), Bates 12161–62; ICE Annual
Review, Lincoln County Jail (June 2005),

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Bates 2526–27; ICE Annual Review,
Mecklenburg County Jail (Central) (Apr.
2005), Bates 1060–61; ICE Annual Review,
Minnehaha County Jail (June 2005), Bates
2843–44; ICE Annual Review, Mississippi
County Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
2962–63; ICE Annual Review, Monroe
County Jail (July 2005), Bates 2803–04; ICE
Annual Review, Newton County Correctional
Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 12851–52; ICE
Annual Review, Niagara County Jail (Dec.
2005), Bates 12811–12; ICE Annual Review,
Nobles County Jail (May 2005), Bates 2681–
82; ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3237–
38; ICE Annual Review, Park County Jail
(May 2005), Bates 793–4; ICE Annual
Review, Passaic County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 14490–91; ICE Annual Review,
Pennington County Jail (Aug. - Sept. 2005),
Bates 3001–02; ICE Annual Review, Phelps
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 2001–02; ICE
Annual Review, Plaquemines Parish
Detention Center (May 2005), Bates 1023–
24; ICE Annual Review, Pottawattamie
County Jail (July 2005), Bates 2043–44; ICE
Annual Review, Ramsey County Jail (Nov.
2005), Bates 2100–01; ICE Annual Review,
Regional Correction Center Albuquerque
(Oct. 2005), Bates 2150–51; ICE Annual
Review, Reno County Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates
3147–48; ICE Annual Review, Sherburne
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 10556–57;
ICE Annual Review, Sherburne County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 13014–15; ICE Annual
Review, St. Francois County Detention
Center (May 2005), Bates 13058–59; ICE
Annual Review, St. Mary Detention Center
(July 2005), Bates 1742–43; ICE Annual
Review, Torrance County Detention Center
(June 2005), Bates 1786–87; ICE Annual
Review, Wicomico County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 242–3; ICE Annual Review, Yuba
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2636–37; ICE
Annual Review, Atlanta City Detention
Center (May 2004), Bates 7720–21 (standard
not rated); ICE Annual Review, Berks County
Prison (July 2004, Sept. 2004), Bates 9169–
71; 9207–08 (standard not rated); ICE Annual
Review, Berks County Prison (June 2004),
Bates 15298–99 (standard not rated); ICE
Annual Review, Bexar County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 9250–51; ICE
Annual Review, Blount County Jail (July
2004, Aug. 2004) Bates 9294–95; ICE
Annual Review, Calcasieu Parish
Correctional Center (June 2004), Bates 9413–
14; ICE Annual Review, Cambria County
Prison (Oct. 2004) Bates 9458–59; ICE
Annual Review, Catahoula Parish Detention
Center (Aug. 2004), Bates 7970–71; ICE
Annual Review, Charleston County Detention
Center (May 2004), Bates 8008–09; ICE
Annual Review, Chatham County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 8106–07; ICE
Annual Review, Christian County Jail (Sept.
2004), Bates 8197–98; ICE Annual Review,
City of Las Vegas Detention Center (Sept.
2004), Bates 4439–40; ICE Annual Review,
Clay County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 3737–

NOTES
38; ICE Annual Review, Clinton County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 3782–83; ICE Annual
Review, Colquitt County Sheriff’s Office and
Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3889–90 (standard not
rated); ICE Annual Review, Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7476–
77 (standard not rated); ICE Annual Review,
Douglas County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates
4060–61; ICE Annual Review, Erie County
Holding Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 4153–54;
ICE Annual Review, Garvin County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3384–
85; ICE Annual Review, Grand Fork City
Correctional Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3523–
24; ICE Annual Review, Harris County Jail
(Mar.–Apr. 2004), Bates 3461–62; ICE
Annual Review, Jefferson County Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 3589–90; ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Pre-Trial Detention Center
(Aug. 2004), Bates 4277–78; ICE Annual
Review, Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility
(Aug. 2004), Bates 7017–18; ICE Annual
Review, Mecklenburg County Jail (North)
(Apr. 2004), Bates 4861–62; ICE Annual
Review, Mecklenburg County Jail (Central)
(Apr. 2004), Bates 4908–09; ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha County Jail (May 2004),
Bates 5066–67; ICE Annual Review,
Minnesota Correctional Facility – Rush City
(Oct. 2004), Bates 289–90; ICE Annual
Review, Mississippi County Detention Center
(Aug. 2004), Bates 5162–63; ICE Annual
Review, Monroe County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 660–1; ICE Annual Review, Monroe
County Jail (July, 2004), Bates 8939–40; ICE
Annual Review, Niagara County Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 11984–85; ICE Annual Review,
North Las Vegas Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 12036–37; ICE Annual Review,
Oklahoma County Detention Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 12086–87; 12109–10; ICE
Annual Review, Onondaga County Justice
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 7830–31; ICE
Annual Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7280–
81 (standard not rated); ICE Annual Review,
Pennington County Jail (June 2004), Bates
11789–90; ICE Annual Review, Pettis County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6452–53;
ICE Annual Review, Pine Prairie Correctional
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 6386–87; ICE
Annual Review, Plaquemines Parish
Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 6163–
64; ICE Annual Review, Pottawattamie
County Jail (July 2004), Bates 6062–63; ICE
Annual Review, Ramsey Adult Detention
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 975–6; ICE
Annual Review, Rockingham County
Department of Corrections (May 2004), Bates
7185–86; ICE Annual Review, San Diego
Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates
16863–64; ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana
City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5241–42; ICE
Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 11053–54; ICE Annual Review,
Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
13630–31; ICE Annual Review, Seneca
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 14226–27;
ICE Annual Review, Shawnee County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 14118–

19; ICE Annual Review, Sherburne County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 5806–07; ICE Annual
Review, Sherburne County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 14172–73; ICE Annual Review,
Silverdale Correctional Facility (Dec. 2004),
Bates 5387–88; ICE Annual Review, CCA
Silverdale Correctional Facility (Dec. 2004),
Bates 5711–12; ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5672–73; ICE
Annual Review, Snyder County Jail (Sept.
2004), Bates 6811–12; ICE Annual Review,
Snyder County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates
14072–73; ICE Annual Review, South
Central Regional Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates
6775–76 (standard not rated); ICE Annual
Review, St. Martin Parish Jail (Aug.–Sept.
2004), Bates 930–1; ICE Annual Review,
Summit County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates
6688–89; ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish
Detention Center (Aug. 2004), Bates 6555–
56; ICE Annual Review, Torrance County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 6601–
02; ICE Annual Review, Torrance County
Detention (June 2004; July 2004), Bates
13945–46; ICE Annual Review, Trumbull
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
13963–64; ICE Annual Review, Union
County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 6966–67; ICE
Annual Review, Val Verde County Detention
Center (June 2004), Bates 709–10; ICE
Annual Review, Val Verde County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6510–11; ICE
Annual Review, Washington County
Purgatory Detention Facility (Nov. 2004),
Bates 6920–21; ICE Annual Review, West
Carroll Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates
5624–25; ICE Annual Review, West Carroll
Detention (Sept. 2004), Bates 13903–04; ICE
Annual Review, West Tennessee Detention
Facility (Oct. 2004), Bates 5913–14; ICE
Annual Review, West Tennessee Detention
Facility (Oct. 2004), Bates 13923–24; ICE
Annual Review, Williamson County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 5582–83 (standard not
rated); ICE Annual Review, Yakima County
Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 7877–78; ICE Annual
Review, Yakima County Jail (Dec. 2004),
Bates 13846–47.
12
ICE Annual Review, Hudson County
Department of Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates
15709–15710; ICE Annual Review, South
Central Regional Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
1702–1703.
13
ICE Annual Review, Anchorage Jail
Complex (Dec. 2004), Bates 7614–7615; ICE
Annual Review, Madison County Jail (July
2004), Bates 4583–4584; ICE Annual
Review, Weber County Jail (Nov. 2004),
Bates 338–339; ICE Annual Review,
Wyoming County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
5432–5433, 13769–13770; ICE Annual
Review, Yakima County Jail (Dec. 2004),
Bates 5534–5535.
14
Form G-324A, Detention Inspection Form
Worksheet, Group Legal Presentations
Checklist.
15
In just a few cases, ICE reviewers used an
earlier version of the checklist that did not
contain this instruction. See, e.g., ICE Annual

A BROKEN SYSTEM

119
Review, Palm Beach County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 11694–11695. Even in these cases,
reviewers have varied in their approaches to
completing these forms with respect to
facilities that have not received requests from
presenters. For example, one DHS reviewer
commented that a facility had not received
any requests for presentations but appeared to
be open to them, and thus marked “Y’ for the
elements of the standard related to ICE’s
responsiveness to the requests of presenters
and the facility’s presentation of legal rights
videos, but marked “N” for all other elements
of the standard. See, e.g., ICE Annual
Review, Berks County Prison (July 2004),
Bates 16903–16905; see also ABA Report
Colquitt County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 8628
(“As CCJ has never had a request for a Group
Rights Presentation, we are unable to
ascertain if this section of the Standards has
been substantially implemented.”). The
facility nonetheless was rated “acceptable” for
the standard. ICE Annual Review, Berks
County Prison (July 2004), Bates 16903–
16905. In contrast, at another facility, the
reviewer indicated that the facility was
compliant with every element of the standard,
even though no requests for presentations had
been received. The reviewer added that the
facility would allow such presentations, if
requested, pending a consideration of their
safety and security, and rated the facility
acceptable for the standard. ICE Annual
Review, Finney County Jail (May 2004),
Bates 4234. The diversity of these responses
indicates the limited effectiveness of DHS
reviews in measuring compliance with the
standard.
16
ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua County
Jail (Apr. 2005) 10495–10496; ICE Annual
Review, Madison County Jail (Sept. 2005),
Bates 1536; ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 12930; ICE
Annual Review, Aguadilla Service Processing
Center (2004), Bates 12597; ICE Annual
Review, Cayuga County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 10291; ICE Annual Review, Macomb
Country Sheriff’s Department (Mar. 2004),
Bates 4539; ICE Annual Review, Orleans
Country Jail (June 2004); ICE Annual
Review, San Diego Correctional Facility
(Aug. 2003), Bates 11339. In another review,
the reviewing officer checked the box to
indicate no presentations were held, marked
“no” for nearly all of the elements of the
checklist, and rated the facility “acceptable.”
17
cf. ABA Report, Bergen County Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 17366.
18

Id.

19

Id.

20

ICE Annual Review, Bergen County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 9120.
21
ICE Annual Review, Palm Beach County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 11694–11695; ICE
Annual Review, South Central Regional Jail
(Nov. 2004), Bates 64; ICE Annual Review,
South Ute Detention Center (Oct. 2004),
Bates 1175.

120
22

ICE Annual Review, Palm Beach County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 11694.

NOTES

24

2003; Dec. 2004), Bates 13669 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark: “As
needed”); Elizabeth Contract Detention
Facility (Dec. 2002), Bates 18104 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark: “Not
as often”).

25

28
GPLR § III.C (Detainee Notification and
Attendance).

23
ABA Report, Plymouth County
Correctional Facility (June 2003), Bates
17671.

ABA Report, Oakland City Jail (July
2003), Bates 17652.
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Sheriff’s Department Corrections (May
2003), Bates 18786.
26

GPLR § III.C (Detainee Notification and
Attendance).
27

ICE reviewers noted violations of this
element at the following facilities: ICE
Annual Review, Calhoun County Jail (Feb.
2005), Bates 10026 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “The INS liaison at
the facility notifies the population of any
upcoming presentations.”); ICE Annual
Review, Dale G. Haile Detention Center
(Sept. 2005), Bates 6342 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “Presentations
are on a scheduled basis and open to
everyone.”); ICE Annual Review, Dodge
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 13560 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark:
“Verbal announcements”); ICE Annual
Review, Monroe County Jail (May 2005),
Bates 2762; ICE Annual Review, South
Central Regional Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 64;
ICE Annual Review, South Ute Detention
Center (Oct. 2004), Bates 1175; ICE Annual
Review, ICE Annual Review, San Pedro
Service Processing Center (May 2002), Bates
18471; ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish
Jail (Aug. – Sept. 2002), Bates 18568.
In addition, ICE reviewers’ comments
indicated violations at the following
facilities: ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Detention (June 2005), Bates 2285
(answer marked: “N/A”; accompanying
remark: “All detainees are allowed to attend,
no signups are required.”); ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005),
Bates 1451 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Some are
unannounced, but held in the units for all to
attend.”); ICE Annual Review, Audrain
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
7768 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “Has never happened, but would do
so.”); ICE Annual Review, Passaic County
Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 11744; 14671; 15799;
16812 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “No sign up sheet. All ICE detainees
are allowed to participate unless in SDU.”);
ICE Annual Review, St. Francois County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 6646
(answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “Never asked to do this, but will.”);
ICE Annual Review, St. Francois Detention
Center (June 2004), Bates 13985 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark:
“Never asked to do this, but will”); ICE
Annual Review, York County Prison (Dec.
2004), Bates 5290 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “As needed.”); ICE
Annual Review, York County Prison (Nov.

29

See GPLR, Monitoring Instrument,
Question 6.
30
ICE Annual Review, South Central
Regional Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 64; ICE
Annual Review, South Ute Detention Center
(Oct. 2004), Bates 1175; ICE Annual Review,
Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (Aug.
2002), Bates 18007.
31
GPLR § III.C (Detainee Notification and
Attendance); see also G-324A, Detention
Inspection Form Worksheet, Group Legal
Presentations Checklist.
32
ICE Annual Review, South Central
Regional Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 64; ICE
Annual Review, South Ute Detention Center
(Oct. 2004), Bates 1175; ICE Annual Review,
Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (Aug.
2002), Bates 18007.
33

GPLR § III.I (Videotaped Presentations).

34

ABA Report, Colquitt County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 8628 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “CCJ does not have a
copy of the “Know Your Rights” video
because ICE did not have sufficient quantities
to distribute to all facilities.”); ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005),
Bates 1451 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “New units are set up
with capability to show in housing units.”);
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4773 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “Spanish tape
is broken. Will be replaced by ICE.”); NGO
delegation to Miami/Dade facilities,
Miami/Dade Detention Facilities; Krome
(Jan. 2004), Bates 14390 (indicating that ICE
tapes are not being shown on a regular basis);
ICE Annual Review, Mini-Cassia County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 5019 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “Facility does
not have ICE approved video tapes.”); ICE
Annual Review, Morrison County Jail (Sept.
2004), Bates 11932 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Don’t have any
tapes”); ICE Annual Review, St. Francois
County Detention Center (June 2004), Bates
6646 (answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Tapes forthcoming from ICE”); ICE
Annual Review, St. Francois Detention
Center (June 2004), Bates 13985 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark: “Tapes
forthcoming”); ABA Report, Clay County Jail
(Aug. 2003), Bates 17702 (reporting that the
“Know Your Rights” videotape had not been
aired and that facility officials interviewed
were unaware of the existence of the video);
ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth Contract
Detention Facility (Dec. 2002), Bates 18104
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “no video, OIC will obtain video”);

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Memorandum accompanying ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Jail (Aug.–Sept.
2002), Bates 18545 (“At this time the Service
has not made available a video describing
legal rights.”); ICE Annual Review, Tensas
Parish Jail (Aug.– Sept. 2002), Bates 18568
(“The Service has not provided this video.”).
35
ICE Annual Review, El Centro Service
Process Center (Jan. 2004), Bates 12657
(answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “Not showing at present time due to
construction.”).
36
GPLR § III.F (Written Materials); see also
GPLR, Attachment A.
37

Id.

38

ICE Annual Review, Genesee County Jail
(Nov. 2004), Bates 3424; ICE Annual
Review, Palm Beach County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 11694–11695; ABA Report, Oakland
City Jail (July 2003), Bates 17652; ICE
Annual Review, Kenosha County Sheriff’s
Department Corrections (May 2003), Bates
18786–18787; ABA Report, Plymouth
County Correctional Facility (June 2003),
Bates 17671; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
Country Sheriff’s Department Corrections
(July 2002), Bates 18742–18743; ICE Annual
Review, Pike County Prison (Dec. 2002),
Bates 18281; ICE Annual Review, Review
Summary Report for Tensas Parish Jail (July–
Aug. 2002), Bates 18545.
39

GPLR § III.J (Availability of Policy).

40

ICE Annual Review, McHenry County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1451; ICE Annual
Review, Polk County Jail (May 2005), Bates
3068; ICE Annual Review, Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility (Aug. 2002), Bates 18007;
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18471;
ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish Jail
(Aug.-Sept. 2002), Bates 18568 (“No written
policy”).
41
See generally “INS Detention Standard:
Access to Legal Material,” in U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009); ICE Annual
Review, Santa Clara Main Complex (Oct.
2004), Bates 5771 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Policy in place for
Inmate access to legal material.”).
42

GPLR § III.D (Entering the Facility).

43

ABA Report, CSC Detention Facility
(May 2002), Bates 17735. A lack of
language-specific information also posed
difficulties for Chinese-speaking detainees at
the CSC Detention Facility. ABA Report,
CSC Detention Facility (May 2002), Bates
17735.
44
45

Id. at 17736.

ICE Annual Review, Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility (May 2003), Bates 18955.

NOTES
CORRESPONDENCE AND
OTHER MAIL
1

INS Detention Standard: Correspondence
and Other Mail (hereinafter “COM”) § I
(Policy), in U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/co
rrespondence.pdf.
2
COM § III.C (Standards and Procedures:
Processing).
3
COM § III.B (Standards and Procedures:
Detainee Notification).
4
COM § III.E.2 (Standards and Procedures:
Inspection of Incoming Correspondence and
Other Mail: Special Correspondence).
5
COM § III.E.1 (Standards and Procedures:
Inspection of Incoming Correspondence and
Other Mail: General Correspondence and
Other Mail).
6
COM § III.F.1 (Standards and Procedures:
Inspection of Outgoing Correspondence and
Other Mail: General Correspondence and
Other Mail).
7
COM § III.F.2 (Standards and Procedures:
Inspection of Outgoing Correspondence and
Other Mail: Special Correspondence).
8
COM § III.G (Standards and Procedures:
Rejection of Incoming and Outgoing Mail).
9
COM § III.H (Standards and Procedures:
Contraband Recording and Handling).
10

COM § III.I (Standards and Procedures:
Postage Allowance).
11

Id.

12

COM § III.J (Standards and Procedures:
Writing Implements, Paper, and Envelopes).
13
COM § III.K (Standards and Procedures:
Detainees in Special Management Units)
(setting for policies for SPC’s and CDF’s);
COM § II (Applicability) (noting that IGSAs
must meet or exceed the objectives of the
standard).
14
COM § III.E.1 (Standards and Procedures:
Inspection of Incoming Correspondence and
Other Mail: General Correspondence and
Other Mail).
15
ICE Annual Review, Minnesota
Correctional Facility-Rush Facility (Oct.
2004), Bates 282; ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Pre-Trial Facility (June
2005), Bates 831; ICE Annual Review,
Ramsey Adult Detention Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 969 (all incoming mail is scanned); ICE
Annual Review, Mecklenburg County Jail
(Central) (Apr. 2005), Bates 1056; ICE
Annual Review, Macomb County Jail (May
2005), Bates 1573; ICE Annual Review, TriCounty Detention Center (Mar. 2005), Bates
1819; ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City
Jail (Aug. 2005), Bates 1862; ICE Annual
Review, Pottawattamie County Jail (June
2005), Bates 2038; ICE Annual Review,
Howard County Detention Facility (July

2005), Bates 2320 (violation indicated by
comments that facility has policy of
inspecting mail outside of detainee presence);
ICE Annual Review, Harris County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 2399 (incoming general mail
inspected outside of detainee presence); ICE
Annual Review, Monroe County Jail (May
2005), Bates 2757; ICE Annual Review,
Minnehaha County Jail (June 2005), Bates
2838; ICE Annual Review, Mira Loma
Detention (Aug. 2005), Bates 2918; ICE
Annual Review, Plaquemines Parish
Detention Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 3186
(general correspondence opened upon receipt
but special correspondence opened in detainee
presence); ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
3231; ICE Annual Review, Finney County
Jail (May 2004), Bates 3267; ICE Annual
Review, Genesee County Jail (Nov. 2004),
Bates 3417; ICE Annual Review, Harris
County Jail (Mar. – Apr. 2004), Bates 3454;
ICE Annual Review, Jefferson County Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 3582; ICE Annual Review,
Erie County Holding Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 4146; ICE Annual Review, Dickens
County Correctional Center (June 2004),
Bates 4241 (all incoming mail opened outside
presence of detainee); ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Pre-Trial Detention Center
(June 2004), Bates 4271; ICE Annual
Review, City of Las Vegas Detention Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 4432; ICE Annual
Review, Limestone County Detention Center
(May 2004), Bates 4480; ICE Annual
Review, Macomb County Sheriff’s
Department (Mar. 2004), Bates 4533; ICE
Annual Review, Madison County Jail (July
2004), Bates 4576; ICE Annual Review,
Mini-Cassia County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5012; ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha
County Jail (May 2004), Bates 5059; ICE
Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 5234; ICE Annual Review, York
County Prison (Dec. 2004), Bates 5284
(repeat violation); ICE Annual Review,
Sherburne County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates
5799; ICE Annual Review, West Tennessee
Detention Facility (Oct. 2004), Bates 5906;
ICE Annual Review, Worcester County Jail
(Nov./Dec. 2004), Bates 5942; ICE Annual
Review, Regional Correctional Facility
(Albuquerque) (Aug. 2004), Bates 6011; ICE
Annual Review, Phelps County Jail (Mar.,
Apr. 2004), Bates 6207; ICE Annual Review,
Pike County Correctional Facility (Jan. 2005),
Bates 6294; ICE Annual Review, Snyder
County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 6804; ICE
Annual Review, Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 6857;
ICE Annual Review, Washington County
Purgatory Detention Facility, San Francisco,
CA (Nov. 2004), Bates 6915 (violation
indicated by comments that “procedures states
that staff ‘may’ read contents of inmate mail
as necessary”); ICE Annual Review, Union
County Jail, Elizabeth, NJ (Mar. 2004), Bates
6959 (all mail is inspected and logged in
mailroom, and only special mail is opened in
presence of detainee); ICE Annual Review,

A BROKEN SYSTEM

121
Saline County Jail, Salina, KS (Aug., Sept.
2004), Bates 7063 (two officers present, but
no indication that detainee is present); ICE
Annual Review, Minnesota Correctional
Facility - Rush City (Oct. 2004), Bates 7102;
ICE Annual Review, Rockingham County
Department of Corrections, Brentwood, NH
(May 2004), Bates 7178; ICE Annual
Review, Reno County Jail, Hutchinson, KS
(Sept. 2004), Bates 7228 (two officers
present, but not detainee); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center, New Orleans, LA (Sept.
2004), Bates 7273; ICE Annual Review,
Orleans County Jail, Albion, NY (June 2004),
Bates 7320; ICE Annual Review, Ozaukee
County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 7365 (“all
detainee mail are inspected for contraband”);
ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center, Miami, FL (Mar. 2004),
Bates 7419 (violation indicated by comments
that all mail is opened for contraband); ICE
Annual Review, Community Corrections
Center, New Orleans, LA (Sept. 2004), Bates
7469; ICE Annual Review, Rolling Plains
Regional Detention Center, Haskell, TX
(Mar. 2004), Bates 7521; ICE Annual
Review, Allegheny County Jail, Pittsburgh,
PA (Oct. 2004), Bates 7569; ICE Annual
Review, Anchorage Jail Complex (Dec.
2004), Bates 7608; ICE Annual Review,
Minnesota Correctional Facility - Rush City
(Oct. 2004), Bates 4720; ICE Annual Review,
Catahoula Parish Detention Center (Aug.
2004), Bates 7963; ICE Annual Review,
Charleston County Detention Center (May
2004), Bates 8001; ICE Annual Review,
Chase County Jail (July 2004), Bates 8054;
ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua County Jail
(Apr. 2004), Bates 8145; ABA report,
Ozaukee County Jail (July 2004), Bates 8374
(“in a non-emergency situation, it is unclear
whether or not the detainee is present for
inspection” of mail); ICE Annual Review,
Bedford County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 9067;
ICE Annual Review, Bergen County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 9113; ICE Annual
Review, Berks County Prison (July 2004),
Bates 9162; ICE Annual Review, Blount
County Jail (July 2004), Bates 9287 (blanket
policy of inspecting all incoming and
outgoing mail); ICE Annual Review,
Bonneville County Jail (June 2004), Bates
9332; ICE Annual Review, Boone County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 9369; ICE Annual
Review, Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center
(June 2004), Bates 9406; ICE Annual
Review, Cambria County Prison (Oct. 2004),
Bates 9453; ICE Annual Review, Calhoun
County Jail (Feb. 2005), Bates 10020; ICE
Annual Review, Cayuga County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 10284 (comments indicating
violation, in that facility follows state
regulations allowing mail to be opened
outside presence of detainee); ICE Annual
Review, Chatham County Detention Center,
Savannah, GA (Aug. 2005), Bates 10446; ICE
Annual Review, Sherburne County Jail, Elks
River, MN (Nov. 2005), Bates 10551; ICE
Annual Review, Salt Lake County Detention

122
Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 10614; ICE
Annual Review, Batavia Service Processing
Center, Batavia, NY (May 2005), Bates
10802; ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City
Jail, Santa Ana, CA (Aug. 2004), Bates
11046; ICE Annual Review, San Diego
Correctional Facility, San Diego, CA (Aug.
2003), Bates 11328 (“All general mail is
opened without detainee present…. All aliens
are notified in writing of this policy during
Intake and have the option of refusing.
However, if an alien refuses to have all
general mail opened, he/she will receive no
mail and all mail will be sent back to
sender.”); ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center, N. Las Vegas, NV
(July 2004), Bates 12028; ICE Annual
Review, Oklahoma County Detention Center,
Oklahoma City, OK (Dec. 2004), Bates
12079; ICE Annual Review, Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility, Batavia, NY (May 2004),
Bates 12394 (violation indicated by
comments that facility houses both ICE and
criminal detainees, that volume of mail is
high, and that as a result, to “open and screen
all incoming mail in the presence of the
detainee would be very time consuming,
impractical, and disruptive”); ICE Annual
Review, Northern Oregon Correctional Center
(June 2005), Bates 12886 (facility policy
states that detainees do not have to be
present); ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 12925; ICE
Annual Review, Crawford County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 13239 (“everything is
inspected”); ICE Annual Review, Dickens
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 13520; ICE
Annual Review, Dodge County Jail (May
2005), Bates 13555; ICE Annual Review,
Santa Ana City Jail, Santa Ana, CA (Aug.
2004), Bates 13615 (repeat violation indicated
by remarks that facility “still scans both
incoming and outgoing mail without the
detainee present”); ICE Annual Review, York
County Prison (Nov. 2003; Dec. 2004), Bates
13656; ICE Annual Review, Wyoming
County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5412; ICE
Annual Review, San Diego Correctional
Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates 16856 (all mail
except legal mail opened without detainee
present); ABA report, Dupage County Jail
(July 2003), Bates 17380 (all incoming
general mail inspected outside presence of
detainee); ICE Annual Review, Buffalo
Federal Detention Facility (Aug. 2002), Bates
17998; ICE Annual Review, Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility (May 2003), Bates 18032
(repeat violation); ICE Annual Review, Pike
County Prison (Dec. 2002), Bates 18274; ICE
Annual Review, Pike County Prison (Dec.
2003), Bates 18317 (repeat violation); Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates
18562; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Sheriff’s Dept. Corrections (July 2002), Bates
18735; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18779
(repeat violation).
16
The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished

NOTES
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.

4008 (correspondence rules not posted in
housing areas); ICE Annual Review, Pettis
County Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
6445 (correspondence rules not posted in
housing or common areas); ICE Annual
Review, Queens Contract Detention Facility
(Oct. 2003), Bates 11384 (correspondence
rules not posted on walls); ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(July 2003), Bates 11438 (violation indicated
by comments that rules are contained in
handbook only); ICE Annual Review,
Oklahoma County Detention Center, (Dec.
2004), Bates 12079 (correspondence rules not
posted in housing areas); ICE Annual Review,
El Paso Service Processing Center (June
2002), Bates 12455 (correspondence rules not
provided in handbook or otherwise
communicated to detainees at admission);
ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish Jail (Aug.
2002), Bates 18562 (correspondence rules not
provided in handbook).

17
ICE Annual Review, Ramsey County Jail
(aka Ramsey County Adult Detention Center)
(Nov. 2005), Bates 2095; ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 4766; ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana
City Jail, Santa Ana, CA (Aug. 2004), Bates
11046.

24
ABA Report, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2004), Bates 8645 (facility does
not notify detainees of rules and procedures
relating to special correspondence, sending
and receiving packages, receipt of identity
documents, obtaining writing implements,
and free postage for indigent detainees; ABA
Chart, Detention Standards Implementation
Initiative, Summary of Implementation
Problems (Jan. 2006), Bates 8520 (noting that
Dodge County Detention Facility handbook
does not inform detainees how to label special
correspondence and that San Pedro Service
Processing Center handbook does not inform
detainees of confidentiality protections for
special correspondence).

18
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County
Jail (July 2004), Bates 4749; ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha County Jail (May 2004),
Bates 5059; ICE Annual Review, Garfield
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 13425; ICE
Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 11046; ICE Annual Review,
Oklahoma County Detention Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 12079 (facility inspects all
outgoing mail prior to it being sealed); ICE
Annual Review, Crawford County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 13239 (“All mail going in and
out of the facility besides legal mail is
inspected.”); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Sheriff’s Dept. Corrections (July
2002), Bates 18735 (all outgoing mail is
scanned).
19

See, e.g., ABA report, Dorchester
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 8262.
20
ABA report, Dorchester Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 8262; ABA report, St.
Mary’s County Detention Center (June 2003),
Bates 17610.
21
ABA report, St. Mary’s County Detention
Center (June 2003), Bates 17610.
22
COM § III.B (Standards and Procedures:
Detainee Notification) (requiring notification
through handbook or its equivalent; in
languages spoken by any significant portion
of the facility population; by posting of rules
in housing areas of SPCs and CDFs); COM §
II (Applicability) (noting that IGSAs must
meet or exceed objectives of the standard if
they adopt alternative procedures).
23
ICE Annual Review, St. Martin Parish Jail
(Aug.–Sept. 2004), Bates 923
(correspondence rules not posted in housing
areas); ICE Annual Review, Dorchester
County Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates

A BROKEN SYSTEM

25

COM § III.B (Standards and Procedures:
Detainee Notification).
26
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1445 (facility
handbook not yet translated into Spanish);
ICE Annual Review, St. Mary Detention
Center (July 2005), Bates 1737
(correspondence information in English only);
ICE Annual Review, Finney County Jail
(May 2004), Bates 3267 (correspondence
information not in Spanish); ICE Annual
Review, Clinton County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 3775 (noting facility reliance on college
students for translation of policies); ICE
Annual Review, Macomb County Sheriff’s
Department (Mar. 2004), Bates 4533
(correspondence information in English only);
ICE Annual Review, Madison County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4576 (correspondence
information not translated for large number of
African detainees); ICE Annual Review,
Wyoming County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
5425 (noting facility reliance on translators
because materials not available in other
languages); ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5665
(correspondence information in English only);
ICE Annual Review, Phelps County Jail
(Mar., Apr. 2004), Bates 6207
(correspondence information not in Spanish);
ICE Annual Review, St. Francois County

NOTES
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 6639
(correspondence information not in Spanish);
ICE Annual Review, St. Mary’s County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6724
(correspondence information in English only);
ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 6857
(correspondence information not yet
translated into Spanish); ICE Annual Review,
Saline County Jail, Salina, KS (Aug., Sept.
2004), Bates 7063 (correspondence
information not yet translated into language(s)
other than English); ICE Annual Review,
Reno County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 7228
(correspondence information in English only);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 7320 (correspondence
information in English only); ICE Annual
Review, Anchorage Jail Complex (Dec.
2004), Bates 7607 (correspondence
information in English only); ICE Annual
Review, Chautauqua County Jail (Apr. 2004),
Bates 8145 (correspondence information in
English only); ICE Annual Review, Seattle
Contract Detention Center (July 2003), Bates
11438 (violation indicated by remarks stating
that Chinese language handbook is needed);
ICE Annual Review, Pennington County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 11782 (violation indicated
by remarks that Spanish handbook not yet
completed); ICE Annual Review, Niagara
County Jail, Lockport, NY (Oct. 2004), Bates
11977 (violation indicated by remarks that
Spanish handbook not yet completed and
translation must be done by fellow detainees);
ICE Annual Review, El Paso Service
Processing Center (June 2002), Bates 12455
(no handbook or notification of
correspondence policy at time of detainees’
admission); ICE Annual Review, Crawford
County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13239
(correspondence information in English only);
ICE Annual Review, Wyoming County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 13758 (correspondence
information in English only); ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Jail, (Aug. 2002),
Bates 18562 (handbook does not contain key
correspondence information); ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Detention Center
(May 2003), Bates 18779 (correspondence
information in English only).
27

See, e.g., ICE Annual Review, Berks
County Prison (July 2004), Bates 9200
(noting that translation service was not always
available); ICE Annual Review, Seattle
Contract Detention Center (July 2003), Bates
11438 (noting that Spanish speaker was not
always available for translation).
28
ICE Annual Review, Mira Loma
Detention Facility (Aug. 2005), Bates 2918.
29
ABA Chart, Detention Standards
Implementation Initiative, Summary of
Implementation Problems (Jan. 2006), Bates
8520 (noting that San Pedro Service
Processing Center handbook “does not state
that special correspondence may only be
opened in a detainee’s presence, and may be
inspected for contraband, but not read” and
Dodge County Detention Facility handbook

“does not inform detainees how to label
special correspondence”).
30
ABA Report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 8569.
31
COM § III.G (Standards and Procedures:
Rejection of Incoming and Outgoing Mail).
32

ICE Annual Review, Ramsey Adult
Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 969
(only addressee is notified regarding rejected
mail, and no written notice regarding rejected
outgoing mail); ICE Annual Review,
Macomb County Jail (May 2005), Bates 1573
(no written notice to detainee of rejected
mail); ICE Annual Review, Ramsey County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2095 (no notice to
sender of rejected incoming mail); ICE
Annual Review, Nobles County Jail (May
2005), Bates 2674 (no notice to detainee of
rejected mail); ICE Annual Review, North
Las Vegas Detention Center (Aug. 2005),
Bates 3231 (no notice to sender of rejected
incoming mail); ICE Annual Review,
Coconino County Detention Facility (Feb.
2004), Bates 3827 (no written notice to
detainee of rejected incoming mail); ICE
Annual Review, Forsyth County Detention
Center (June 2004), Bates 4183 (no written
notice to detainee and no notice at all to
sender of rejected incoming mail); ICE
Annual Review, City of Las Vegas Detention
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4432 (no written
notice when incoming or outgoing mail is
rejected); ICE Annual Review, Macomb
County Sheriff’s Department (Mar. 2004),
Bates 4533 (no written notice to detainee of
rejected incoming mail); ICE Annual Review,
Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5665
(no written notice when incoming or outgoing
mail is rejected); ICE Annual Review, Pettis
County Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
6445 (no notice to detainee of rejected
incoming or outgoing mail); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7273
(no notice given regarding rejected mail); ICE
Annual Review, Ozaukee County Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 7365 (no notice to detainee or
sender of rejected incoming mail); ICE
Annual Review, Community Corrections
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7469 (no notice
given regarding rejected incoming or
outgoing mail); ICE Annual Review,
Bannock County Jail (June 2004), Bates 9023
(no written notice to sender when incoming
mail is rejected); ICE Annual Review, Boone
County Detention Facility (Dec. 2004), Bates
9369 (no notice to sender when incoming
mail is rejected); ICE Annual Review,
Chatham County Detention Center (Aug.
2005), Bates 10446 (no notice to detainee of
rejected mail); ICE Annual Review,
Sherburne County Jail, Elks River, MN (Nov.
2005), Bates 10551 (no notice to sender of
rejected incoming mail); ICE Annual Review,
San Diego Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003),
Bates 11329 (violation indicated by remarks
that rejected mail was only indicated by
annotation on envelope); ICE Annual Review,
El Paso Service Processing Center (June

A BROKEN SYSTEM

123
2002), Bates 12455 (no written notice to
detainee of rejected incoming mail); ICE
Annual Review, Wyatt Detention Center
(Dec. 2004; Jan. 2005), Bates 12547 (no
notice to sender of rejected incoming mail);
ICE Review including detainee handbook,
Passaic County Jail (June 2005), Bates 14484
(no written notice to detainee of rejected
incoming mail, and mail is returned to sender
without explanation); ICE Annual Review,
Hudson County Department of Corrections
(Apr. 2005), Bates 15422 (no written notice
regarding rejected incoming mail); ICE
Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18463
(no written notice regarding rejected
incoming mail); ICE Annual Review, Tensas
Parish Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates 18562 (no
written notice regarding rejected incoming
mail); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Sheriff’s Dept. Corrections (July 2002), Bates
18735 (no policy regarding written notice of
rejected mail).
33
COM § III.H (Standards and Procedures:
Contraband Recording and Handling).
34

ICE Annual Review, Nobles County Jail
(May 2005), Bates 2674 (no written record
made of items removed from detainee mail);
ICE Annual Review, Finney County Jail
(May 2004), Bates 3267 (no written record
made of items removed from detainee mail);
ICE Annual Review, Genesee County Jail
(Nov. 2004), Bates 3417 (facility gives verbal
notice to detainees only and does not keep
written record of items removed from
detainee mail); ICE Annual Review,
Coconino County Detention Facility (Feb.
2004), Bates 3827 (facility gives verbal notice
to detainees only and does not keep written
record of items removed from detainee mail);
ICE Annual Review, Dorchester County
Detention Center (Sept. – Oct. 2004), Bates
4008 (no written record made of items
removed from detainee mail); ICE Annual
Review, Dickens County Correctional Center
(June 2004), Bates 4241 (no written record
when items are removed from detainee mail);
ICE Annual Review, Middlesex County
Department of Corrections (Oct. 2004), Bates
4946; ICE Annual Review, Mira Loma
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 5109
(written record made only for removal of
“hard” contraband, not other items, from
detainee mail); ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5665 (no
written record made of items removed from
detainee mail); ICE Annual Review,
Worcester County Jail (Nov./ Dec. 2004),
Bates 5942 (no written record made of items
removed from detainee mail); ICE Annual
Review, St. Francois County Detention
Center (June 2004), Bates 6639 (no written
record when items are removed from detainee
mail); ICE Annual Review, Rockingham
County Department of Corrections (May
2004), Bates 7178 (no record of items
removed from detainee’s mail); ICE Annual
Review, Chatham County Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 10446 (no written record

124
made of items removed from detainee mail);
ICE Annual Review, Point Coupee Parish
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 10615
(no written record made when items are
removed from detainee mail); ICE Annual
Review, San Diego Correctional Facility
(Aug. 2003), Bates 11329 (violation indicated
by remarks that logbook for rejected mail had
not been updated); ICE Annual Review, El
Centro Service Process Center (Jan. 2004),
Bates 12646 (no written record made of items
removed from detainee mail); ICE Annual
Review, El Centro Service Processing Center,
El Centro, CA (Jan. 2004), Bates 15500 (no
written record made of items removed from
detainee mail, and no such records found in
contraband logbooks).
35
COM § III.H.1 (Standards and
Procedures: Contraband Recording and
Handling).
36
ICE Annual Review, Howard County
Detention Facility (July 2005), Bates 2321
(cash is not accepted by mail); ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 4767 (cash returned to sender); ICE
Annual Review, West Tennessee Detention
Facility (Oct. 2004), Bates 5907 (violation
indicated by remarks that cash cannot be
received through mail); ICE Annual Review,
Pike County Correctional Facility (Jan. 2005),
Bates 6295 (cash returned to sender); ICE
Annual Review, Saline County Jail (Aug.,
Sept. 2004), Bates 7063 (cash returned); ICE
Annual Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7274
(facility does not accept cash; money order
only); ICE Annual Review, San Diego
Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates
11329 (violation indicated by remarks that
facility does not accept cash via mail, only
cashier’s check or money orders); ICE
Annual Review, Wyatt Detention Center
(Dec. 2004; Jan. 2005), Bates 12548 (cash not
accepted by mail); ICE Annual Review,
Tensas Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2003),
Bates 18563 (cash is not accepted by mail, is
returned to sender, and facility does not make
any documentation); ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept. Corrections,
Kenosha, WI (July 2002), Bates 18736
(facility does not accept cash; money order or
checks only).
37
COM § III.H.2 (Standards and
Procedures: Contraband Recording and
Handling).
38
ICE Annual Review, St. Martin Parish Jail
(Aug.-Sept. 2004), Bates 924 (marked not
applicable, indicating that facility did not
keep detainee identity documents on-site);
ICE Annual Review, St. Mary Detention
Center (July 2005), Bates 1738 (facility did
not keep detainee identity documents on-site);
ICE Annual Review, Lincoln County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 2522 (noting that ICE was
responsible for detainee identity documents);
ICE Annual Review, Yuba County Jail (Nov.
2005), Bates 2632 (noting that ICE was
responsible for detainee identity documents);
ICE Annual Review, Garvin County

NOTES
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3378
(marked not applicable, indicating that facility
did not keep detainee identity documents onsite and did not provide copies to detainees
upon request); ICE Annual Review,
Dorchester County Detention Center (Sept. Oct. 2004), Bates 4009 (ICE, not facility, was
responsible for all detainee identity
documents); ICE Annual Review, Ector
County Correctional Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 4102 (noting that facility did not keep
A-files, and arresting agency kept detainee
identity documents); ICE Annual Review,
Erie County Holding Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 4147 (noting that ICE, not facility, was
responsible for detainee identity documents);
ICE Annual Review, Forsyth County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 4184
(ICE, not facility, was responsible for
detainee identity documents); ICE Annual
Review, City of Las Vegas Detention Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 4433 (ICE, not facility,
was responsible for detainee identity
documents); ICE Annual Review, Odessa
Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 5335
(arresting agency, not facility, kept detainee
identity documents); ICE Annual Review,
Pine Prairie Correctional Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 6380 (ICE, not facility, was responsible
for detainee identity documents); ICE Annual
Review, Pettis County Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 6446 (marked not applicable,
indicating that ICE not facility, was
responsible for detainee identity documents);
ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 6858
(ICE, not facility, was responsible for
detainee identity documents); ICE Annual
Review, Keogh-Dwyer Correctional Facility
(Aug. 2004), Bates 7011 (marked not
applicable, indicating that facility did not
keep detainee identity documents on-site);
ICE Annual Review, Audrain County
Detention Center, Chicago District (May
2004), Bates 7762 (marked not applicable,
indicating that facility did not keep detainee
identity documents on-site); ICE Annual
Review, Bonneville County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 9333 (marked not applicable, indicating
that facility did not keep detainee identity
documents on-site); ICE Annual Review,
Cambria County Prison (Oct. 2004), Bates
9454 (ICE, not facility, was responsible for
detainee identity documents); ICE Annual
Review, Butler County Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates
9937 (ICE, not facility, was responsible for
detainee identity documents); ICE Annual
Review, Calhoun County Jail (Feb. 2005),
Bates 10021 (remarks indicating that ICE, not
facility, was responsible for detainee identity
documents off-site at ICE office); ICE Annual
Review, Chase County Jail (Sept. 2005),
Bates 10410 (ICE, not facility, was
responsible for detainee identity documents);
ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11439
(noting that “ALL identity documents turned
over to BICE”); ICE Annual Review, North
Las Vegas Detention Center (July 2004),

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Bates 12029 (ICE, not facility, was
responsible for detainee identity documents).
39
ICE Annual Review, St. Mary Detention
Center (July 2005), Bates 1738 (facility does
not provide copy of identity documents to
detainees upon request); ICE Annual Review,
Pettis County Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 6446 (marked not applicable, indicating
that facility does not provide copy of identity
documents to detainees upon request); ICE
Annual Review, Bonneville County Jail (June
2004), Bates 9333 (marked not applicable or
violation, indicating that facility does not
provide copy of identity documents to
detainees upon request); ICE Annual Review,
San Diego Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003),
Bates 11329 (facility does not provide copy of
identity documents to detainees upon
request); ICE Annual Review, El Paso
Service Processing Center (June 2002), Bates
12456 (facility does not provide copy of
identity documents to detainees upon
request); ICE Annual Review, San Pedro
Service Processing Center, San Pedro, CA
(May 2002), Bates 18463 (facility does not
provide copy of identity documents to
detainees upon request).
40
ICE Annual Review, Palm Beach County
Sheriff’s Office (Oct. 2004), Bates 11673
(noting that because facility did not have any
place to secure identity documents are
therefore destroyed them); Bates 11689
(noting no ICE personnel at facility).
41
COM § III.E.2 (Standards and Procedures:
Inspection of Incoming Correspondence and
Other Mail: Special Correspondence).
42
COM § III.F.2 (Standards and Procedures:
Inspection of Outgoing Correspondence and
Other Mail: Special Correspondence).
43
ABA report, Clay County Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 17701.
44

Id.

45

ABA report, Montgomery County
Correctional Facility (July 2004), Bates 8335.
46
ICE Annual Review, Allegheny County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 7569.
47
ABA report, Berks County Prison (July
2004), Bates 16607.
48
ABA report, Plymouth County
Correctional Facility (June 2003), Bates
17671.
49
ABA report, Dallas County Jail System
Facility (Mar. 2002), Bates 17392.
50

ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake County
Adult Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates
6857 (mail to politician or media not treated
as special correspondence); ICE Annual
Review, Rockingham County Department of
Corrections (May 2004), Bates 7178 (mail to
politician or media not treated as special
correspondence); ICE Annual Review,
Ozaukee County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 7365
(mail to politician or media not treated as
special correspondence); ICE Annual Review,
Crawford County Sheriff’s Department (Mar.
2005), Bates 13239 ICE Annual Review,

NOTES
Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (Aug.
2002), Bates 17998 (media mail is not treated
as special correspondence); ICE Annual
Review, Garfield County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 13425 (mail to politician or media not
treated as special correspondence); ICE
Annual Review, Buffalo Federal Detention
Facility (Aug. 2002), Bates 17998 (mail to
media not treated as special correspondence);
ICE Annual Review, Pike County Prison
(Dec. 2002), Bates 18274 (mail to politician
or media not treated as special
correspondence); ICE Annual Review, Pike
County Prison (Dec. 2003), Bates 18317
(repeat violation, mail to politician or media
not treated as special correspondence); ICE
Annual Review, Kenosha County Sheriff’s
Dept. Corrections (July 2002), Bates 18735
(media mail not treated as special
correspondence).
51
COM § III.J (Standards and Procedures:
Writing Implements, Paper, and Envelopes).
52

COM § III.I (Standards and Procedures:
Postage Allowance).
53
Id. If the facility has no system for
detainees to purchase stamps, it must allow all
detainees to mail all special correspondence
and at least five items of general
correspondence per week at government
expense.
54
55

Id.

ICE Annual Review, Yuba County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 2632 (indigent detainees
allowed to send only two free letters per
week); ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 2839 (indigent
detainees allowed only one letter per day);
ICE Annual Review, Polk County Jail (May
2005), Bates 3064 (detainees limited to two
postage-paid envelopes per week); ICE
Annual Review, Genesee County Jail (Nov.
2004), Bates 3418 (detainees limited to two
postage-paid envelopes per week); ICE
Annual Review, Clinton County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 3776 (indigent detainees allowed
to send only two free letters per week); ICE
Annual Review, Erie County Holding Center
(Nov. 2004), Bates 4147 (detainees limited to
two postage-paid envelopes per week); ICE
Annual Review, Mecklenburg County Jail
(North) (Apr. 2004), Bates 4855 (indigent
detainees required to make requests to send
special correspondence at government
expense to chaplain); ICE Annual Review,
Mecklenburg County Jail (Central) (Apr.
2004), Bates 4902 (marked not applicable,
indicating violation that detainees are not
allowed to send at least three general
correspondence items per week); ICE Annual
Review, Wyoming County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 5426 (detainees limited to two postagepaid envelopes per week); ICE Annual
Review, Polk County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates
6096 (detainees limited to two outgoing
postage-paid envelopes per week for general
correspondence); ICE Annual Review,
Rockingham County Department of
Corrections (May 2004), Bates 7179 (all

detainees allowed only three pieces of mail
per week); ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7321 (free
general correspondence limited to two pieces
per week); ABA report, Pamunkey Regional
Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 8401(providing
indigent detainees only four envelopes and
writing implements every two weeks); ICE
Annual Review, Berks County Prison (July
2005), Bates 9748 (detainees limited to two
postage-paid envelopes per week); ICE
Annual Review, Bonneville County Jail (May
2005), Bates 9830 (detainees allowed to send
only two letters per week); ICE Annual
Review, Canadian County Jail (Jan. 2005),
Bates 10099 (free general correspondence for
indigent detainees limited to two pieces per
week); ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua
County Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 10491 (free
general correspondence for indigent detainees
limited to two pieces per week); ICE Annual
Review, Niagara County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 11977 (indigent detainees limited to
two pieces of general correspondence per
week); ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 12029
(facility provides only two stamped envelopes
per week and “additional items must be
requested”); ICE Annual Review, Oklahoma
County Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
12080 (detainees provided only one stamp per
week); ICE Annual Review, Orleans County
Jail (June 2005), Bates 12926 (free general
correspondence for indigent detainees limited
to two pieces per week); ICE Annual Review,
Citrus County Jail (Nov. 2005; Dec. 2005),
Bates 13144 (free general correspondence for
indigent detainees limited to two pieces per
week); ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish
Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates 18563 (detainees
allowed to send only two letters per week).
56

ICE Annual Review, Macomb County
Sheriff’s Department (May 2005), Bates 1574
(detainees required to buy writing
implements); ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
3232 (requiring detainees to make written
request for two stamped envelopes, sheets of
paper, and a pencil); ICE Annual Review,
City of Las Vegas Detention Center (Sept.
2004), Bates 4433 (indigent detainees allowed
only one stamp and one envelope per week);
ICE Annual Review, Macomb County
Sheriff’s Department (Mar. 2004), Bates 4534
(requiring detainees to purchase writing
implements for mail); ICE Annual Review,
Wyoming County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
5426 (no envelopes, writing paper, or pencils
provided to any detainees free of charge); ICE
Annual Review, Niagara County Jail (Dec.
2005), Bates 12806 (marked not applicable,
and comments indicating violation that all
ICE detainees are not provided writing
implements at no cost).
57
ABA report, Aurora Contract Detention
Facility (Sept. 2004), Bates 8228.
58

Id.

59

ABA report, Osborn Correctional
Institution (July 2004), Bates 8358.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

125
60

ABA report, Keogh Dwyer Correctional
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8482.
61
ABA report, Dupage County Jail (Illinois)
(July 2003), Bates 17380.
62
ABA report, Pamunkey Regional Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 8401.
63

ICE Annual Review, Bexar County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 9244 .
64
ABA report, Kern County Jail (Aug.
2002), Bates 17483; ABA report, Corrections
Corporation of America, Houston, TX (Jan.
2003), Bates 17570 (indigents are those with
less than $3.00 in their account for more than
thirty days).
65

ABA report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8612.
66
ABA report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2002), Bates 17460.
67
UNHCR Report, TGK Detention Facility
(Apr. 2001), Bates 18850.
68

COM § III.C (Standards and Procedures:
Processing).
69
ICE Annual Review, Ramsey Adult
Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 969 (no
weekend mail delivery); ICE Annual Review,
CCA Silverdale (Dec. 2004), Bates 7045
(delivery of packages to detainees may take
48 hours); ICE Annual Review, Catahoula
Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2004), Bates
7963 (no holiday or weekend mail delivery);
ICE Annual Review, Northwest Detention
Center (July 2005), Bates 10960 (mail
received on Saturdays not distributed until
Mondays).
70
ICE Annual Review, Coconino County
Detention Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates 3827;
ICE Annual Review, Finney County Jail
(May 2004), Bates 4227; ICE Annual
Review, Kern County Sheriff’s Office, Lerdo
Pre-Trial Facility (Dec. 2004), Bates 4308;
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4766; ICE Annual Review,
Mecklenburg County Jail (North) (Apr.
2004), Bates 4854 (facility refused to accept
certified or priority mail); ICE Annual
Review, Mecklenburg County Jail (Central)
(Apr. 2004), Bates 4901; ICE Annual Review,
Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5665;
ICE Annual Review, Santa Clara Main Jail
Complex (Oct. 2004), Bates 5765 (no log
books); ICE Annual Review, Summit County
Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 6683 (marked not
applicable or violation indicated by
comments); ICE Annual Review,
Rockingham County Department of
Corrections (May 2004), Bates 7178; ICE
Annual Review, Reno County Jail (Sept.
2004), Bates 7228 (facility does not allow
deliveries via priority, overnight or certified
mail); ICE Annual Review, Boone County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 9369;
Annual Review, Tensas Parish Jail (Aug.
2002), Bates 18562 (noting that such
packages “may” be logged, and require prior
approval); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Sheriff’s Dept. Corrections (July
2002), Bates 18735.

126
71

ABA report, Plymouth County
Correctional Facility (June 2003), Bates
17671.
72
See, e.g., ICE Annual Review, St. Mary
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 1738
(marked not applicable, as to whether every
indigent detainee had the opportunity to send
reasonable correspondence at the government
expense, without further comment or
explanation).
73
See, e.g., ICE Annual Review, Worcester
County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 5942-43; ICE
Annual Review, Community Corrections
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7469.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND
DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION
1
The 2008 Performance-Based National
Detention Standards include one detention
standard on Special Management Units that
encompasses the prior two detention
standards on administrative and disciplinary
segregation.
2
INS Detention Standard: Special
Management Unit (Administrative
Segregation) (hereinafter “AS”) § III.A, in
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/s
mu_adm.pdf.
3

AS § III.A.

4

INS Detention Standard: Special
Management Unit (Disciplinary Segregation)
(hereinafter “DS”) § III.A, in U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/s
mu_discip.pdf.
5

AS § III.C; DS § III.C.

6

AS § III.D; DS § III.D.

7

AS § III.D.

8

AS § III.B.

9

DS § III.A.

10

DS § III.D.

11

AS § I; DS § I.

12

The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs

NOTES
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
13

ICE Annual Review, Madison County Jail
(Sept. 2005), Bates 1549–50; ICE Annual
Review, Monroe County Jail (May 2005),
Bates 2774 (classification unit sometimes
used as administrative segregation, although
facility does have SMU); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 12942, 12945 (“keeplock status” used);
ICE Annual Review, Yuba County Jail (Nov.
2005), Bates 2650, 53 (no SMU “per se,” but
cells in old part of facility serve as functional
equivalent; received “acceptable” rating); ICE
Annual Review, Chautauqua County Jail
(Apr. 2004), Bates 8166, 8168–69 (“All
administrative and disciplinary segregation
detainees are kept under [illegible] in the
maximum security block.”); ICE response to
UNHCR Report, Cottonport Women’s
Facility and Tangipahoa Parish Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 154 (hold cells and maximum
security cells improperly used for
administrative and disciplinary segregation);
ICE Review, Las Animas County Jail Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 4398, 4402; ICE Annual
Review, Monterey Park City Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 8998, 9002; ICE Annual Review,
Orleans County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7340,
7347; ICE Annual Review, Port Isabel
Service Processing Center (Feb. 2004), Bates
12689, 15599 (facility procuring funds for
SMU, rated “acceptable,” speculating that
“when the unit is constructed this standard
should receive an acceptable rating”); ICE
Annual Review, Rockingham County
Department of Corrections (May 2004), Bates
7198 (“D Block is used as seg. D Block is a
regular unit. . . . There are only 4 seg cells in
the facility and they are used for females.”);
ICE Annual Review, Tangipahoa Parish Jail
(June 2004), Bates 15879; ICE Annual
Review, Wyoming County Jail (Apr. 2004),
Bates 5449–52.
14
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 12944; ICE Annual
Review, Yuba County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
2650; ICE Annual Review, Las Animas
County Jail Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4401
(but overall “at risk” facility rating: Bates
4364); ICE Annual Review, Orleans County
Jail (June 2004), Bates 7343; ICE Annual
Review, Port Isabel Service Processing
Center (Feb. 2004), Bates 12703, 15636
(reviewer gives “acceptable” rating and
predicts that “when the unit is constructed this
standard should receive an acceptable
rating”); Wyoming County Jail (Apr. 2004),
Bates 5449–52 (“NA” marked for every
question, but facility rated “acceptable”).

A BROKEN SYSTEM

15

ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish
Community Corrections Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 7258 (rated “deficient”); ABA Report,
Osborn Correctional Institution (July 2004),
Bates 8357; ICE Annual Review,
Rockingham County Department of
Corrections (May 2004), Bates 7198.
16
ICE Annual Review, Polk County Jail
(May 2005), Bates 3082 (“housed in the same
area albeit in separate cells”); ICE Annual
Review, Rockingham County Department of
Corrections, Brentwood, NH (May 2004),
Bates 7198 (“There are only 4 seg cells in the
facility and they are used for females.”).
17

AS § III.B–C.

18

Id.

19

ICE Annual Review, Berks County Prison
(May 2005), Bates 9736, 9764 (status review
after two weeks instead of required 72 hours);
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County PreTrial Facility (June 2005), Bates 848 (review
conducted every 10 days); ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005),
Bates 1463 (review conducted every 15 days;
“policy does not include the detainee presence
for each additional review”); ICE Annual
Review, Mini-Cassia Criminal Justice Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 2895; ICE Annual
Review, Niagara County Jail (Dec. 2005),
Bates 12823; ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
3249 (“classification tech” conducts reviews;
review not properly logged); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 12942; ICE Annual Review, Blount
County Jail (July 2004, Aug. 2004) Bates
9307 (reviews are “10 days”); ICE Annual
Review, Cayuga County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 10304 (“30 day reviews”); ICE Annual
Review, Clinton County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 3795 (no review after 7 days, noting the
“detainees average less than 1 week
detention”); ICE Annual Review, Colquit
County Sheriff’s Office and Jail (Mar. 2004),
Bates 3902; ICE Annual Review, Finney
County Jail (May 2004), Bates 3285
(Detainees do not stay in administrative
segregation “that long. They are moved to
another facility if needed.”); ICE Annual
Review, McClennan County Detention Center
(Nov. 2004), Bates 4796–831 (“Every 2
months”); ICE Annual Review, Morgan
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
11898 (“Will implement”); ICE Annual
Review, Niagara County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 11997; ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7340; ICE
Annual Review, Rockingham County
Department of Corrections (May 2004), Bates
7198 (“NA” checked); ICE Annual Review,
Salt Lake County Adult Detention Complex
(Sept. 2004), Bates 6877 (“reviewed at the
request of the staff or inmate”); ICE Annual
Review, Shawnee County Department of
Corrections (Dec. 2004), Bates 5739; ICE
Annual Review, Seattle Contract Detention
Center (July 2003), Bates 11422, 11468 (no
supporting documentation; no progress from
2002); ICE Annual Review, Shawnee County

NOTES
Detention Center (Nov. 2003), Bates 14134;
ICE Annual Report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18447,
18487 (“Time frame for reviews, decisions,
and execution of appropriate paperwork is
inconsistent.”); ICE Annual Review, Seattle
INS Detention Facility (Sept. 2002), Bates
11480, 11489 (no documentation).
20
UNHCR Report, Tensas Detention Center
(May 2004), Bates 8702 (mental health
review after 30 days and every three months
thereafter; one detainee with apparent severe
mental health issues in administrative
segregation for six months).
21

AS § III.C.

22

ICE Annual Review, Berks County
Prison, Leesport, PA (May 2005), Bates 9764
(appeal after two weeks; rated deficient); ICE
Annual Review, Colquit County Sheriff’s
Office and Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3902 (no
opportunity to appeal); ICE Annual Review,
Garvin County Detention Center (Dec. 2004),
Bates 3397 (no opportunity to appeal); ICE
Annual Review, Jefferson County Jail, Mt.
Vernon, IL (Oct. 2004), Bates 3602 (no
opportunity to appeal; rated deficient); ICE
Annual Review, Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 6877,
6878; ICE Annual Report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center, San Pedro, CA (May
2002), Bates 18488 (no appeal after seven
days; comment states, “NDS is followed”).
23
24

DS § III.A.

ICE Annual Review, Bexar County GEO
Detention Facility (Nov. 2005), Bates 9808
(“No” checked, but comment states, “case by
case basis/ 30 days or less.”); ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Detention (June
2005), Bates 2300; ICE Annual Review, Lin
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 12178 (“No”
checked, but comment states, “meets
standard.”); ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 2858 (“90
days maximum”); ICE Annual Review,
Niagara County Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates
12826, 12828 (“The maximum sanction that a
detainee can receive for a serious infraction is
90 days. This doesn’t apply to ICE detainees,
as they do not spend a significant amount of
time at this facility. Long term detainees are
not housed at the NCJ. Problem detainees are
immediately removed from this facility.”);
ICE Annual Review, Nobles County Jail
(May 2005), Bates 2698; ICE Annual
Review, Northern Oregon Correctional Center
(June 2005), Bates 12905; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 12945 (“Some go up to 180 days.”);
ICE Annual Review, Polk County Jail (May
2005), Bates 3083 (“No” checked, but
comment states, “meets standard.”); ICE
Annual Review, Bexar County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 9267 (“No”
checked, but comment states, “Handled on a
case by case basis none over thirty days.”);
ICE Annual Review, Cayuga County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 10308 (“90 day
maximum”); ICE Annual Review, Dorchester

County Detention Center (Sept. - Oct. 2004),
Bates 4032; ICE Annual Review, Minnesota
Correctional Facility - Rush Facility (Oct.
2004), Bates 312; ICE Annual Review,
Niagara County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 12001
(“Maximum disciplinary sanction at this
facility is 90 days for serious infractions. ICE
detainees that fail to abide by NCJ rules and
regulations are required to leave, so these
sanction[s] really don’t apply to ICE
detainees.”); ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7344 (“up
to180 days”); ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana
City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5262 (“90 days
maximum”); ICE Annual Review, Sherburne
County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 5823 (“90-180
days”).
25
ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha County
Jail (June 2005), Bates 2858; ICE Annual
Review, Niagara County Jail (Dec. 2005),
Bates 12826 (but it does not apply to ICE
detainees); ICE Annual Review, Northern
Oregon Correctional Center (June 2005),
Bates 12905; ICE Annual Review, Cayuga
County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 10308; ICE
Annual Review, Minnesota Correctional
Facility - Rush City (Oct. 2004), Bates 7126;
ICE Annual Review, Niagara County Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 12001 (but it does not
apply to ICE detainees); ICE Annual Review,
Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5262.
26
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 12945; ICE Annual
Review, Sherburne County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 5823; ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7344; ICE
Annual Review, Orleans County Jail (June
2005), Bates 12945.
27
ICE Annual Review, Erie County Holding
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 4170.
28

AS § III.C; DS § III.A.

29

ICE Annual Review, Bonneville County
Jail (May 2005), Bates 9846 (“Will comply”);
ICE Annual Review, Hudson County
Department of Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates
15439, 15441 (“30 days maximum”); ICE
Annual Review, Niagara County Jail (Dec.
2005), Bates 12823; ICE Annual Review,
North Las Vegas Detention Center (Aug.
2005), Bates 3252 (no documentation that
reviews are completed); ICE Annual Review,
Passaic County Jail (June 2005), Bates 14503
(“30 days maximum”); ICE Annual Review,
Santa Cruz County Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates
195; ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 7735;
ICE Annual Review, Blount County Jail (July
2004, Aug. 2004) Bates 9307 (“NA”
checked); ICE Annual Review, Charleston
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
8021 (“facility will implement”); ICE Annual
Review, Houston Contract Detention Facility
(Aug. 2004), Bates 11217 (detainee in
administrative segregation for six months
with no 30-day notice); ICE Annual Review,
Mecklenburg County Jail (Central) (Apr.
2004), Bates 4925 (“Once the hearing is
conducted there is an appeal process, but

A BROKEN SYSTEM

127
there is no further review”); ICE Annual
Review, Niagara County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 11997; ICE Annual Review, Onondaga
County Justice Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
7841 (“NA” checked); ICE Annual Review,
Sacramento County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
7159; ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City
Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5258; ICE Annual
Review, York County Prison (Dec. 2004),
Bates 5309.
30
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (June 2005), Bates 16933
(“NA” checked); ICE Annual Review,
Cayuga County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 10304
(“NA” checked); ICE Annual Review, Clay
County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 3750 (“NA”
checked, but “yes” checked for whether the
OIC reviews the case of detainees who object
to segregation after 30 days.); ICE Annual
Review, Pettis County Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 6465 (“NA” checked); ICE
Annual Review, Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 6877
(“NA” checked); ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5685, 14104
(“NA” checked, noting, “No detainees housed
here.” However, this statement contradicts
the fact that the reviewer commented on other
aspects of the administrative segregation unit
at this facility); ICE Annual Review,
Williamson County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
5595 (“NA” checked, but “yes” checked for
whether the OIC reviews the case of every
detainee who objects to administrative
segregation after 30 days.); ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(July 2003), Bates 11422 (no supporting
documentation), Bates 11468; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept of
Corrections (July 2002) Bates 18755
(comment states, “No detainees housed”);
ICE Annual Report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18487
(“NA” checked); ICE Annual Review, Seattle
INS Detention Facility (Sept. 2002), Bates
11480, 11489 (no documentation).
31
32

AS § III.C.

ICE Annual Review, Bonneville County
Jail, Idaho Falls, ID (May 2005), Bates 9846
(“Will comply”); ICE Annual Review,
Chautauqua County Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates
10507; ICE Annual Review, Niagara County
Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates 12823; ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 3249 (“Supervisory
review only if the detainee files a grievance”);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 12942; ICE Annual
Review, Atlanta City Detention Center (May
2004), Bates 7735; ICE Annual Review,
Cayuga County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
10304; ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua
County Jail (Apr. 2004), Bates 8165; ICE
Annual Review, Colquit County Sheriff’s
Office and Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3902; ICE
Annual Review, Orleans County Jail (June
2004), Bates 7340; ICE Annual Review,
Pettis County Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 6465; ICE Annual Review, Bonneville

128
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 9846 (“Will
comply”); ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua
County Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 10507; ICE
Annual Review, Niagara County Jail (Dec.
2005), Bates 12823; ICE Annual Review,
North Las Vegas Detention Center (Aug.
2005), Bates 3249 (“Supervisory review only
if the detainee files a grievance”); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 12942.
33
ICE Annual Review, Santa Clara Main
Jail Complex (Oct. 2004), Bates 5784; ICE
Annual Review, Shawnee County Detention
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 14137; ICE Annual
Review, Shawnee County Detention Center
(Nov. 2003), Bates 14134.
34
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10118; ICE Annual
Review, Jefferson County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 3602 (“The decision is logged but there
is no separate decision. Detainee is told
verbally.”).
35

AS § III.C.

36

AS § III.B (exception for when delivery
of order “would jeopardize the safety,
security, or orderly operation of the facility”);
DS § III.B.
37
38

AS § III.C; DS § III.C.

ICE Annual Review, McHenry County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1466 (copy of order
given to detainee within 72 hours); ICE
Annual Review, Santa Cruz County Jail
(Sept. 2005), Bates 195; ICE Annual Review,
Angelina County Detention Center (Sept.
2004), Bates 7686; ICE Annual Review,
Colquit County Sheriff’s Office and Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 3902 (“Facility does not use
orders to place people in Admin Seg.”); ICE
response to UNHCR Report, Cottonport
Women’s Facility and Tangipahoa Parish Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 155; ICE Annual Review,
Culberson County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates
3937 (“Upon request”); ICE Annual Review,
Finney County Jail (May 2004), Bates 3285
(“[does] not use written orders”); ICE Annual
Review, Jefferson County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 3606; ICE Annual Review, Morgan
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
11898 (“Will implement”); ICE Annual
Review, Morrison County Jail (Sept. 2004),
Bates 11949 (“Yes” checked, but comment
states, “If requested.”); ICE Annual Review,
Pettis County Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 6465 (“Verbal approval from
supervisor”); ICE Annual Review, Reno
County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 7252 (“when
requested”); ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5689, 14108;
ICE Annual Review, Union County Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 6983 (copy of written order
provided within 48 hours “due to
classification processing”); ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(July 2003), Bates 11422 (detainees do not
receive a copy of segregation order; facility
compliance rated at “at-risk” due to the lack
of appropriate levels of supervision and lack
of practice in accordance with current policy

NOTES
and procedure), Bates 11475; ICE Annual
Report, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(May 2002), Bates 18491 (“inconsistent”).
39
ICE Annual Review, Bedford Heights
City Jail (July 2005), Bates 9729; ICE Annual
Review, Maple Heights City Jail (June 2005),
Bates 2585; ICE Annual Review,
Pottawattame County Jail (July 2005), Bates
2056 (detainees are informed but are not
given a copy of the decision and justification
for each review); ICE Annual Review, Solon
City Jail (July 2005), Bates 1677; ICE Annual
Review, Audrain County Detention Center,
Chicago District (May 2004), Bates 7783
(detainee only spoken to, written copy is
maintained in “ITI”); ICE Annual Review,
Bannock County Jail (June 2004), Bates 9042
(in “disciplinary only” is a detainee given a
copy); ICE Annual Review, Calcasieu Parish
Correctional Center (June 2004), Bates 9426;
ICE Annual Review, Colquit County Sheriff’s
Office and Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3902; ICE
Annual Review, Garvin County Detention
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3397; ICE Annual
Review, Jefferson County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 3602 (both disciplinary and
administrative units rated deficient); ICE
Annual Review, Mira Loma Detention
Facility (July 2004), Bates 5129 (“Yes”
checked, but comment states, “advised
verbally not in writing.”); ICE Annual
Review, Morgan County Detention Center
(May 2004), Bates 11898 (“Will
implement”); ICE Annual Review, Oklahoma
County Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
12099 (copies only provided if the detainee is
requesting removal); ICE Annual Review,
Pettis County Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 6465; ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake
County Adult Detention Complex (Sept.
2004), Bates 6877; ICE Annual Review, York
County Prison (Dec. 2004), Bates 5306; ICE
Annual Review, North Las Vegas Detention
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3249 (notice of
decision and justification for each review is
given verbally); ICE Annual Review, Buffalo
Federal Detention Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates
18172; Houston Contract Detention Facility
(July 2003), Bates 15662 (“no supporting
documentation”); ICE Annual Review, Seattle
Contract Detention Center (July 2003), Bates
11422 (no supporting documentation); ICE
Annual Review, York County Prison (Nov.
2003; Dec. 2004), Bates 13685; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept of
Corrections (July 2002) Bates 18755 (“Verbal
decision given at time of review. Can request
written copy at time of review or receive
copies of all reviews upon release.”); ICE
Annual Review, Seattle INS Detention
Facility (Sept. 2002), Bates 11480, 11489
(lack of documentation).
40

DS § III.D.3.

41

AS § III.D.12.

42

ICE Annual Review, Carver County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 10217 (“Yes” checked,
but comment states, “Health Care visits upon
request.”); ICE Annual Review, Chase
County Jail, Cottonwood, Falls, KS (Sept.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

2005), Bates 10425 (“Only if requested”);
ICE Annual Review, Colquitt County Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 13206 (“Available daily,
visits occur as needed”); ICE Annual Review,
Department of Corrections (July 2005), Bates
12521, 13492; Hudson County Department of
Corrections (Apr. 2005) Bates 539, 15439,
15721 (“Yes” checked, but comment states,
“nurse visit[s] per medication or when
called.”); ICE Annual Review, Mini-Cassia
Criminal Justice Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
2896 (“Upon written request and according to
scheduled visits”); ICE Annual Review,
Niagara County Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates
12824, 12825 (detainee must request in
writing, then daily if needed); ICE Annual
Review, Santa Cruz County Jail (Sept. 2005),
Bates 210 (“No medical staff at SCCJ, but
SMU detainees have same access to medical
care as other detainees.”); ICE Annual
Review, Scottsbluff County Jail (Apr. 2005,
May 2005), Bates 10594 (“Twice a week and
upon request.”); ICE Annual Review,
Brewster County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 9872
(“Health care available upon request. The
facility takes the inmate to a local health
clinic.”); Annual Review, Carter County
Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 7947
(“Yes” checked, but comment states, “by
request.”); ICE Annual Review, Chase
County Jail (July 2004), Bates 8076 (“Only if
requested”); ICE Annual Review, Coconino
County Detention Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates
3849 (“Yes” checked, but comment states,
“upon request.”); ICE Annual Review,
Colquit County Sheriff’s Office and Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 3903 (“if needed”); ICE Annual
Review, Culberson County Jail (Dec. 2004),
Bates 3937 (“Upon request”); ICE Annual
Review, Douglas County Jail (Dec. 2004),
Bates 4077; ICE Annual Review, Finney
County Jail (May 2004), Bates 3286 (“Only if
requested by detainee or referred by staff”);
ICE Annual Review, Garvin County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3399
(“Must be requested or suggested by staff”);
ICE Annual Review, Jefferson County Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 3604, 10740 (“This will be
corrected once the new medical is in place”;
visit at least every 15 days); ICE Annual
Review, Kern County Sheriff’s Office (Dec.
2004), Bates 4327 (“Detainees are afforded
the same access to healthcare as the general
population.”); ICE Annual Review, City of
Las Vegas Detention Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 4453 (“Yes” checked, but comment
states, “Dr. visit[s] Tuesday and Thursday.”);
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4788, 4790 (nurse visits
the SMU each day and is available “upon
request”; rated acceptable); ICE Annual
Review, Mini-Cassia County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 5034 (“Two times a week if needed”);
ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha County Jail
(May 2004), Bates 5082 (“daily sick call, but
not routinely visited”); ICE Annual Review,
Niagara County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 11999
(“When requested by detainee”); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 7342 (“same medical schedule as

NOTES
general pop as they are just kept on keep
lock”); ICE Annual Review, Pettis County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6467
(“medical request form”); ICE Annual
Review, Piscataquis County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 1134 (“as needed”); ICE Annual
Review, Saline County Jail (Aug., Sept.
2004), Bates 7085 (“Yes” checked, but
comment states, “If necessary or requested.”);
ICE Annual Review, Shawnee County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 14137
(“only as requested”); ICE Annual Review,
Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5687,
14106 (“sick call request”); ICE Annual
Review, Shawnee County Detention Center
(Nov. 2003), Bates 14134 (“only as
requested”).
43
44

DS § III.D.16.

ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10123 (“Yes” checked,
but comment states, “3x weekly same as gen
pop.”); ICE Annual Review, Carver County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 10220 (“Yes”
checked, but comment states, “Health Care
visits upon request.”); ICE Annual Review,
Colquitt County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates
13209 (“Yes” checked, but comment states,
“Available 7 days as needed, or upon
request.”); ICE Annual Review, Finney
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 13402 (“Only
if requested or on a watch”); ICE Annual
Review, Grant County Jail (Feb. 2005), Bates
1286 (“three times a week and on call when
needed”); ICE Annual Review, Department of
Corrections (July 2005), Bates 12524, 13495;
ICE Annual Review, Hill County Detention
Center (Sept. 2005), Bates 2379 (“Tuesday,
Thursday, and Friday and as needed on off
days”); ICE Annual Review, McHenry
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1467 (“visits
by nurse or supervisor are not documented”);
ICE Annual Review, Mini-Cassia Criminal
Justice Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 2899; ICE
Annual Review, Nobles County Jail (May
2005), Bates 2699 (“Medical staff does not
specifically visit with each detainee in SMU.
She will if they request but she doesn’t visit
just because they are in the SMU.”); ICE
Annual Review, Niagara County Jail (Dec.
2005), Bates 12827–28 (“Written request is
needed from detainee.”); ICE Annual Review,
North Las Vegas Detention Center (Aug.
2005), Bates 3253 (“There is no
documentation that medical reviews or see the
detainees in SMU.”); ICE Annual Review,
Orleans County Jail (June 2005), Bates 12946
(“Still done via sick call—no SMU.”); ICE
Annual Review, Santa Cruz County Jail
(Sept. 2005), Bates 211 (“Yes” checked, but
comment states that there is no medical staff
at facility.); ICE Annual Review, Scottsbluff
County Jail (Apr. 2005, May 2005), Bates
10595 (“Twice a week and upon request”);
ICE Annual Review, Brewster County Jail
(Nov. 2004), Bates 9873 (“Health care is
available upon request. The inmate is taken
to a local health clinic.”); ICE Annual
Review, Carter County Detention Center
(Nov. 2004), Bates 7950 (“by request”); ICE

Annual Review, Chase County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8079; ICE Annual Review,
Coconino County Detention Facility (Feb.
2004), Bates 3852 (“Yes” checked, but
comment states, “upon request of detainee.”);
ICE Annual Review, Finney County Jail
(May 2004), Bates 3289 (“Yes” checked, but
comment states, “Medical visits only on
request of the detainee.”); ICE Annual
Review, Jefferson County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 3607; ICE Annual Review, Department
of Corrections (Aug. 2004), Bates 3940, 3943
(“Correctional Officer, i.e. health care
professional” visits only upon request and
periodically throughout week; rated
acceptable); ICE Annual Review, Kern
County Sheriff’s Office (Dec. 2004), Bates
4330 (“same access to medical care as the
general population”); ICE Annual Review,
Madison County Jail (July 2004), Bates 4599
(“Every day, all detainees are eligible for sick
call by request. The nurse does not make
‘house calls’ except for medicine issues.”);
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4792, 4794 (“nurse visits
SMU during MedPass each day, but
interviews/examines detainees only upon
request”; “this facility needs to mandate
regular visits to the SMU by medical
personnel, in order to specifically check the
condition of each detainee”); ICE Annual
Review, Mecklenburg County Jail (Central)
(Apr. 2004), Bates 4926 (“Yes” checked, but
comment states, “If a detainee completes a
sick call form indicating that he needs to see
the nurse, she will see him.”); ICE Annual
Review, Morrison County Jail, Little Falls,
MN (Sept. 2004), Bates 11950 (“Yes”
checked, but comment states, “If requested.”);
ICE Annual Review, Niagara County Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 12002, 12004 (“Health
care professionals visit segregation either as
needed or when requested by the detainee”);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 7345 (“same medical
access as general population—sick call used
for needed treatment”); ICE Annual Review,
Ozaukee County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 7390
(“Yes” checked, but comment states,
“Medical staff visits on Saturday or
Sunday.”); ICE Annual Review, Pettis County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6470
(medical request form filled out); ICE Annual
Review, Piscataquis County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 1135 (“as needed”); ICE Annual
Review, Santa Clara Main Jail Complex (Oct.
2004), Bates 5788; ICE Annual Review,
Shawnee County Department of Corrections
(Dec. 2004), Bates 5739; ICE Annual
Review, Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5690, 14109; ICE Annual Review,
Williamson County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
5984 (“Yes” checked, but comment states,
“Doctor available 2x Week, paramedics 5x
week.”).

129
More Detainees,” New York Times, Dec. 5,
2008.
46

ICE Annual Review, Berks County Prison
(May 2005), Bates 9768 (opportunity to
shower and shave only every third day); ICE
Annual Review, Canadian County Jail (Jan.
2005), Bates 10123 (no barbering; “max 10
days”); ICE Annual Review, Dickens County
Jail (June 2005), Bates 13542 (barbering
services must be requested and approved);
DHA Annual Review, Dodge County Jail
(May 2005), Bates 13578; ICE Annual
Review, Hudson County Department of
Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates 15439, 15441,
15724 (“Yes” checked, but comment states,
“when needed”; detainees cut their own hair.);
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 1464 (no barbering); ICE
Annual Review, Aguadilla Service Processing
Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 12616, 12620 (“No
barbering service.”); ICE Annual Review,
Berks County Prison (July 2004, Sept. 2004),
Bates 9188, 9225 (detainees are only allowed
to shower twice a week); ICE response to
UNHCR Report, Cottonport Women’s
Facility and Tangipahoa Parish Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 156 (“Yes” checked, but
comment states, “With the exception of
Razors.”); ICE Annual Review, Garvin
County Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
3402 (no barbering services); ICE Annual
Review, Jefferson County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 3606 (no barbering); ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Processing Center (July
2004), Bates 12368 (towels for showering not
available but had been ordered; rated
acceptable); ICE Annual Review, Houston
Contract Detention Facility (July 2003), Bates
15661 (detainee shaved own head because no
barbering services); ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept. of
Corrections (July 2002), Bates 18759–60 (no
barbering); ICE Annual Review, Pike County
Prison (Dec. 2002), Bates 18298 (answer is
blank).
48

See, e.g., Nina Bernstein, “Ill and In Pain,
Detainee Dies in U.S. Hands,” New York
Times, Aug., 12, 2008; Nina Bernstein,
“Detention Center Facing Inquiry will get no

A BROKEN SYSTEM

AS § III.D.4; DS § III.D.8.

49

ICE Annual Review, Howard County
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 2388;
ICE Annual Review, St. Mary’s County
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 1755;
ICE Annual Review, Dorchester County
Detention Center (Sept. – Oct. 2004), Bates
4029; ICE Annual Review, Erie County
Holding Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 4170; ICE
Annual Review, Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 6878;
ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth Contract
Detention Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 18169;
Houston Contract Detention Facility (July
2003), Bates 15661; ICE Annual Review,
Tensas Parish Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates 18582.
50
51

45

DS § III.D.11–12; AS § III.D.6–7.

47

AS § III.D.3; DS § III.D.7.

ICE Annual Review, Howard County
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 2338;
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 1464; ICE Annual
Review, Northern Oregon Correctional Center

130
(June 2005), Bates 12903; ICE Annual
Review, Northwest Detention Center (July
2005), Bates 10980; ICE Annual Review, St.
Mary Detention Center (July 2005), Bates
1755 (facility rated acceptable for
administrative segregation unit); ICE Annual
Review, Dorchester County Detention Center
(Sept. - Oct. 2004), Bates 4029; ICE Annual
Review, Houston Contract Detention Facility
(Aug. 2004), Bates 11217 (“due to space
limitations, one cell was being doubled up
during the final day of our inspection”); ICE
Annual Review, Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7442;
ICE Annual Review, Union County Jail,
Elizabeth, NJ (Mar. 2004), Bates 6980; ICE
Annual Review, Worcester County Jail
(Nov./Dec. 2004), Bates 5960; ICE Annual
Review, Pike County Correctional Facility
(Dec. 2003), Bates 18386; ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(Nov. 2003), Bates 17889 (“Too many
detainees in one . . . cell. The TransGender
males are in two cells. One has 8 beds and 8
detainees. The other cell has four beds and
five detainees. A stackable bed is brought in
for the other detainee.”); ICE Annual Report,
San Pedro Service Processing Center (May
2002), Bates 18488 (“When space is a
premium, a seg. cell is used as an 8-man
pod.” Bed bolted in middle of room.);
UNHCR Report, Piedmont Regional Jail (July
2001), Bates 18893–94.
52
ICE Annual Review, Northern Oregon
Correctional Center (June 2005), Bates 12905
(“The OIC will look at each case by
individual case.”); ICE Annual Review,
Hudson County Department of Corrections
(Apr. 2005), Bates 14637 (“Over-population
may occur due to number of detainees with
similar offenses.”); ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Detention (June 2005),
Bates 2300, 2302; ICE Annual Review, Lin
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 12178 (“No”
checked, but comment states, “meets
standard.”); ICE Annual Review, Northwest
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 10983;
ICE Annual Review, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 12619;
ICE Annual Review, Dorchester County
Detention Center (Sept. - Oct. 2004), Bates
4032; ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford
Knight Correctional Center (Mar. 2004),
Bates 7445; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro
Service Processing Center (Nov. 2003), Bates
17892 (“OIC has approved the extra
transgender in the cell.”); UNHCR Report,
Piedmont Regional Jail (July 2001), Bates
18893–94.
53

ICE Annual Review, McHenry County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1430 (mattresses
taken away during the day and returned at
night); ICE Annual Review, Charleston
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
8025 (“Sometimes they use mattress[es] for
their detainees.”); ABA report, Dodge County
Detention Facility (June 2004), Bates 8655
(no beds in the SMU); ICE Annual Review,
Garvin County Detention Center (Dec. 2004),

NOTES
Bates 3398, 3401 (no beds in observation cell
or beds not securely fastened); ICE Annual
Review, City of Las Vegas Detention Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 4453. 4456 (“Most cells
have beds, some overflow cells for suicide or
medical have mattresses.”). ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 4791 (no mattresses during the day).
54

AS § III.D.2; DS § III.D.6.

55

ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 17060
(“Lighting, ventilation, and sanitation are
inadequate.”); ICE Annual Review, Polk
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 3047, 3052,
3081, 3083 (SMU dirty and “pervasive foul
odor”; lack of cleanliness and pervasive bad
smell may indicate poor ventilation; rated
acceptable); ICE Annual Review, Santa Cruz
County Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates 210; ICE
response to UNHCR Report, Cottonport
Women’s Facility and Tangipahoa Parish Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 155; ICE Annual Review,
Houston Contract Detention Facility (Aug.
2004), Bates 11215, 11217–18 (lights burned
out, no lighting in shower, food trays left in
cells for hours); ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5650, 5655,
5686–89, 14096, 14105 (poor lighting, cold,
and “[t]errible sanitation”; bags of trash in
cells, enormous amounts of mildew in
showers); ICE Annual Review, Tangipahoa
Parish Jail (June 2004), Bates 15890; ICE
Annual Review, Yakima County Jail (Dec.
2004), Bates 5552, 7854, 7891–97, 13858
(“SMU needs to be cleaned better”; almost
every shower had black mold, black growth
under bunks in cells, so think it resembled
carpet; dangerously slippery shower area; 3
showers would not turn off; poor air quality,
thick dust hanging from ventilation shafts;
still rated “acceptable”); Houston Contract
Detention Facility (July 2003), Bates 15661–
62 (cells very cold, poor lighting, guards turn
off lights without regard to detainees’ needs,
hot water became lukewarm after seven
minutes); UNHCR Report, Avoyelles Parish
Jail (Apr. 2001), Bates 18884 (“Lock-down
areas with poor ventilation”); UNHCR
Report, Piedmont Regional Jail (July 2001),
Bates 18893 (“noticeably unclean”).
56
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 5650, 5655, 5686–89,
14096, 14105.
57

AS § III.D.5.

58

DS § III.D.10.

59

AS § III.D.5; DS § III.D.10.

60

ICE Annual Review, Berks County Prison
(May 2005), Bates 9767 (“‘Food loaf’ used
for food related offences”); ICE Annual
Review, Northern Oregon Correctional Center
(June 2005), Bates 12906 (“Food deviates
from the normal menu only if the detainee
tries to use it against others, in that case he
gets finger food.”); ICE Annual Review,
Berks County Prison, (July 2004, Sept. 2004),
Bates 9188, 9221 (“‘Nutri loaf’ is served to
detainees who spit or throw food.”); ICE
Annual Review, Pine Prairie Correctional

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 6406 (“Dessert is
with held from detainees in disciplinary
segregation.”); ICE Annual Review, York
County Prison (Dec. 2004), Bates 5272, 5310
(food loaf served for first 15 days; reviewed
every 15 days); ICE Annual Review, Pike
County Prison (Dec. 2002), Bates 18298
(answer is blank).
61

AS § III.D.18–19.

62

AS § III.D.16.

63

AS § III.D.13.

64

AS § III.D.8.

65

ICE Annual Review, Dickens County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 13538; ICE Annual
Review, El Centro Processing Center (July
2005), Bates 10860 (no television like the rest
of the general population); ICE Annual
Review, Department of Corrections (July
2005), Bates 12521; 13448–13492 (no
recreation, one personal phone call per
month); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Pre-Trial Facility (June 2005), Bates
849; ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (June 2005), Bates 16933
(first page of the checklist is blank (Bates
16932) so it is unclear whether there were
additional violations; detainees “cannot watch
TV whenever they want. The recreation area
for the SHU is very small”); ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005),
Bates 1464 (“requires written policy”; no
nonlegal reading materials provided except
the Bible); ICE Annual Review, Mini-Cassia
Criminal Justice Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
2896; ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3250
(“Some privileges limited”); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 12943; ICE Annual Review, Angelina
County Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates
7687 (no access to telephones, personal
property, or television); ICE Annual Review,
Audrain County Detention Center (May
2004), Bates 7784 (no television privileges or
solo cells); ICE Annual Review, Charleston
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
8022 (“NA” checked); ICE Annual Review,
Houston Contract Detention Facility (Aug.
2004), Bates 11215 (no TV); ICE Annual
Review, Onondaga County Justice Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 7842 (do not enjoy the
same privileges, as they are locked in their
cells for 23 hours); ICE Annual Review,
Orleans County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7341
(no personal calls); ICE Annual Review, San
Pedro Processing Center (July 2004), Bates
12368 (no access to vending machines); ICE
Annual Review, Shawnee County Detention
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 14137; ICE Annual
Review, Turner Guilford Knight Correctional
Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7442; ICE Annual
Review, Denver Contract Detention Facility
(Aug. 2003), Bates 11178 (“no day room, no
tv”); ICE Annual Review, Shawnee County
Detention Center (Nov. 2003), Bates 14134;
ABA report, ACI-Cranston Intake Service
Center (May 2002), Bates 17404 (segregated
detainees “lose all privileges, including

NOTES
visitation and phone use, thus preventing their
ability to contact even their attorneys”); ICE
Annual Review, Buffalo Federal Detention
Facility (Aug. 2002), Bates 18022 (no TV).
66

ABA report, ACI-Cranston Intake Service
Center (May 2002), Bates 17404.
67

DS § III.D.2.

68

DS § III.D.3.

69

AS § III.D; DS § III.D.

70

ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City
Detention Center (June 2005), Bates 9686
(“This depends on if visitation is revoked.”);
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County Jail
(Jan. 2005), Bates 10123 (“special access
only”); ICE Annual Review, Dickens County
Jail (June 2005), Bates 13542; ICE Annual
Review, Dodge County Jail (May 2005),
Bates 13578 (no visits unless approved in
advance by supervisor); ICE Annual Review,
Forsyth County Law Enforcement Center
(June 2005), Bates 13119; ICE Annual
Review, Harris County Jail (Mar. 2005),
Bates 2420; ICE Annual Review, Lincoln
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 2542
(“Temp[orarily] suspended. ICE to be
notified if any complaint is made by associate
of detainee.”); ICE Annual Review, McHenry
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1464, 1467
(“should be included in SMU policy”); ICE
Annual Review, Mecklenburg County Jail
(Central) (Apr. 2005), Bates 1074 (only
attorney visits are allowed, no family visits);
ICE Annual Review, Wyatt Detention Center
(Dec. 2004; Jan. 2005), Bates 12572 (“only
legal visits”); ICE Annual Review, Finney
County Jail (May 2004), Bates 3289 (“Yes”
checked, but comment states, “Case by case
basis.”); ICE Annual Review, Garvin County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3402
(No place for visitation); ICE Annual Review,
Jefferson County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 3607
(“Case by case basis”); ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Detention Center (May
2004), Bates 3657 (“Only Professional
Visitors”; acceptable rating); ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Pre-Trial Detention
Center (June 2004), Bates 4292 (case-by-case
review by supervisor); ICE Annual Review,
Kern County Sheriff’s Office (Dec. 2004),
Bates 4330 (“Sometimes visitation is
restricted as part of their assignment to the
unit.”); ICE Annual Review, Madison County
Jail (July 2004), Bates 4596 (“Visitation is
based on the reason for being in Seg.”); ICE
Annual Review, Mecklenburg County Jail
(Central) (Apr. 2004), Bates 4926 (“DDU
inmates are not allowed visitation.” In rating
the unit acceptable, the reviewer elaborates
that “DDU is punitive in nature. Inmates are
placed there as a result of rule violation(s).
They are not allowed to have visitors until
they get out of the DDU back into the general
population.”); ICE Annual Review,
Mecklenburg County Jail (North) (Apr.
2004), Bates 4879 (“No personal visits. Only
legal or religious.”); ICE Annual Review,
Ozaukee County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 7392
(no visitation for first 24 hours on lock-

down); ICE Annual Review, Pine Prairie
Correctional Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 6406
(“Yes” checked, but comment states, “written
request for visit approved by warden.”); ICE
Annual Review, Sherburne County Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 5824 (“Yes” checked, but
comment states, “Professional visits only.”);
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5687, 14106 (“Wednesdays
only”); ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish
Detention Center (Aug. 2004), Bates 6571
(“Yes” checked, but comment states, “unless
specified in the seg order for security
purposes.”); ICE Annual Review, Union
County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 6984; ICE
Annual Review, York County Prison (Nov.
2003; Dec. 2004), Bates 5310, 13686 (“After
30 days in SMU allowed 1 visit per month”);
ICE Annual Review, Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 18173;
ABA report, ACI-Cranston Intake Service
Center (May 2002), Bates 17404 (segregated
detainees “lose all privileges, including
visitation and phone use, thus preventing their
ability to contact even their attorneys”); ICE
Annual Review, El Paso Service Processing
Center (June 2002), Bates 12472–73
(question left blank, comment states that the
facility needs to ensure same privileges as
those in general population); ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept of
Corrections (July 2002), Bates 18757–59
(“Professional visits only”; case-by-case
review by supervisor); ABA Report, Kern
County Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates 17492.
71
INS Detention Standard: Recreation, §
III.B, in U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/re
creat.pdf.
72
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10123 (no recreation
for “max 10 days”); ICE Annual Review,
Dodge County Jail (May 2005), Bates 13578
(“Detainees can exercise in their cells, ie:
push-ups, sit-ups, jumping jacks.”); ICE
Annual Review, Department of Corrections
(July 2005), Bates 12524, 13495 (“One hour
fresh air . . . six days a week”); ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 3250; ICE Annual
Review, Garvin County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 3398; 3402 (no recreation
privileges); ICE Annual Review, Jefferson
County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 3606 (no
recreation); ICE Annual Review, Oklahoma
County Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
12100 (“dayroom rec only” is noted,
indicating detainees do not have outdoor
recreation time); ICE Annual Review, Passaic
County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 14687,
15815,16830 (“Facility was advised that
Disciplinary unit detainees are allowed
recreation privileges as long as not deemed a
security risk.”); ICE Annual Review, Snyder
County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 6828, 14069–

A BROKEN SYSTEM

131
14082 (no outdoor recreation privileges); ICE
Annual Review, San Diego Correctional
Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates 11314
(administrative segregation detainees receive
same recreation as disciplinary detainees, but
they are entitled to recreation similar to
general population; rated acceptable); ICE
Annual Review, Kenosha County Sheriff’s
Dept of Corrections (July 2002) Bates 18759–
60 (but the reviewer commented that
“[r]evocation of privileges do not overly
affect detainees as ten days is the maximum
time in disciplinary segregation for each
violation”); ABA report, ACI-Cranston Intake
Service Center (May 2002), Bates 17413
(segregated detainees lose all recreation
privileges; only permitted to “walk around in
a circle inside their unit for a few minutes
after the first five days in which they are not
allowed out of their cell at all”).
73
ICE Annual Review, Department of
Corrections (July 2005), Bates 13493; ICE
Annual Review, Howard County Detention
Center (July 2005), Bates 2339 (rated
acceptable); follow-up ICE inspection, Las
Animas County Jail Center (Apr. 2005), Bates
4368–69 (rated acceptable); ICE Annual
Review, Northern Oregon Correctional Center
(June 2005), Bates 12904; ICE Annual
Review, St. Mary Detention Center (July
2005), Bates 1756 (rated acceptable); ICE
Annual Review, Dorchester County Detention
Center (Sept. - Oct. 2004), Bates 4030; ICE
Annual Review, Mecklenberg County Jail
(Apr. 2004), Bates 4923; ICE Annual Review,
Mini-Cassia County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5034; ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford
Knight Correctional Center (Mar. 2004),
Bates 7401, 7443 (no physical access and
cannot request materials); ICE Annual
Review, Union County Jail, Elizabeth, NJ
(Mar. 2004), Bates 6981 (“No” checked;
comment states, “Legal information/Material
is brought to them per their request.”); ICE
Annual Review, Worcester County Jail
(Nov./Dec. 2004), Bates 5961; ICE Annual
Review, Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility
(Sept. 2003), Bates 18170; ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates
18583.
74
Follow-up ICE inspection, Las Animas
County Jail Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 4368–
69 (“The library is void of the basic essentials
required (typewriter, writing utensils, paper,
etc.). Secondly, inadequate security measures
are in place to physically monitor inmate
presence inside the library, which prevents its
usage. Thirdly, there is no written policy or
procedure for ordering legal material not
readily available. Finally, legal material that
is present in the library is outdated or
missing.”); NGO Delegation to Miami/Dade
Detention Facilities, Krome (Jan. 2004),
Bates 14376 (no BIA decisions); ICE Annual
Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 5260, 13646 (“no ICE law library
materials”); UNHCR Report, Tangipahoa
Parish Jail (Apr. 2001), Bates 18888, 18889–
90 (“Inadequate library resources”).

132

NOTES

75

segregated detainees are treated like
maximum security inmates re phone calls);
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (June 2005), Bates 16935
(“Detainees in the SHU can make legal and
emergency phone calls. The detainees in
administrative segregation are not allowed to
call family and friends anytime they want
to—they do not have the same phone access
as the general population.”); ICE Annual
Review, Angelina County Detention Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 7687 (no access to
telephones); ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua
County Jail (Apr. 2004), Bates 8166 (“Not
authorized to use phones for personal calls”);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 7341 (no personal calls);
ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7401
(“[D]etainees do not have the ability to place
calls to their respective consulates/embassies
or to contact legal service providers. This is
of special concern since TGK acts as a
hearing site for the female detainees housed
here.”); ABA report, ACI-Cranston Intake
Service Center (May 2002), Bates 17404
(segregated detainees “lose all privileges,
including visitation and phone use, thus
preventing their ability to contact even their
attorneys”).

ICE Annual Review, Plaquamines Parish
Detention Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 3168,
3208 (Reviewer notes that facility does not
provide administrative/disciplinary segregated
detainees “with the same access to the legal
library as detainees in general population.
Access to legal materials has been
downgraded to Deficient.” However, “yes” is
checked, indicating segregated detainees do
have access, and the comment states,
“Scheduled separately from the general
population.”); ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake
County Adult Detention Complex (Sept.
2004), Bates 6879 (“NA” checked).
76

ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City
Detention Center, Atlanta, GA (June 2005),
Bates 9686; ICE Annual Review, Forsyth
County Law Enforcement Center (June 2005),
Bates 13119, 13120 (rated acceptable); ICE
Annual Review, Plaquamines Parish
Detention Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 3168
(“Access to legal materials has been
downgraded to Deficient.”); ICE Annual
Review, Garvin County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 3403 (no law library
access; “Disc. Seg considered lock-down”);
ABA report, Osborn Correctional Institution
(July 2004), Bates 8358 (no library access and
no library cart); ICE Annual Review, Turner
Guilford Knight Correctional Center, Miami,
FL (Mar. 2004), Bates 7401, 7403 (detainees
“can neither physically go to the library or
request materials from it”); ABA Report,
Kern County Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates 17492.
77
ICE Annual Review, Coconino County
Detention Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates 3853
(“Access to legal materials through atty. hired
for legal research on habeas and civil cases.”);
ABA report, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2004), Bates 8660 (detainees
“must provide a statute citation in writing to
receive a copy of the information”); Followup ICE inspection, Las Animas County Jail
Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 4369, 4404–05
(“[T]he law library is inadequately equipped
to provide a viable means for inmates to
pursue meaningful legal research. The library
is void of the basic essentials required
(typewriter, writing utensils, paper, etc.).
Secondly, inadequate security measures are in
place to physically monitor inmate presence
inside the library, which prevents its usage.
Thirdly, there is no written policy or
procedure for ordering legal material not
readily available. Finally, legal material that
is present in the library is outdated or
missing.” The facility was rated acceptable
for the standard.); ICE Annual Review, Salt
Lake County Adult Detention Complex (Sept.
2004), Bates 6883 (“access to legal issues via
other means”); ICE Annual Review, Santa
Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5264
(“facility has no ICE law library materials”).
78
ICE Annual Review, Dickens County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 13538 (“must request
telephone”); ICE Annual Review, Department
of Corrections (July 2005), Bates 12489,
13453 (“one personal phone call per month”;
maximum security housed in SMU and

79

DS § III.D.19.

80

ICE Annual Review, Department of
Corrections (July 2005), Bates 13453 (one
personal call per month; treated like
maximum security inmates housed with
them); ICE Annual Review, Howard County
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 2341
(rated acceptable); ICE Annual Review, Linn
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 12179 (“No”
checked, but comment states, “meets
standard.”); ICE Annual Review, McHenry
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1467 (“written
SMU policy should include this”); ICE
Annual Review, Orleans County Jail (June
2005), Bates 12946 (“One 5 minute legal call
per week”); ICE Annual Review, St. Mary
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 1758;
ICE Annual Review, Berks County Prison
(July 2004, Sept. 2004), Bates 9224 (no
phone calls unless given special permission
by the supervisor); ABA report, Dodge
County Detention Facility (June 2004), Bates
8641 (“Detainees at DCDF placed in the
SMU for disciplinary reasons do not have
access to the telephones.”); ICE Annual
Review, Dorchester County Detention Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 4033; ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 4791 (one five-minute telephone call
per week); ICE Annual Review, Ozaukee
County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 7392 (no
telephone for first 24 hours on lock-down);
ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 6882;
ICE Annual Review, Santa Clara Main Jail
Complex (Oct. 2004), Bates 5788, 14166
(“NA” checked, but comment states, “No
phone for OSU if taken away.”); ICE Annual
Review, Turner Guilford Knight Correctional

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7401 (“[D]etainees
do not have the ability to place calls to their
respective consulates/embassies or to contact
legal service providers. This is of special
concern since TGK acts as a hearing site for
the female detainees housed here.”); ICE
Annual Review, Williamson County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 5599, 13889 (no phone);
ICE Annual Review, Worcester County Jail
(Nov./Dec. 2004), Bates 5963 (rated
acceptable); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Sheriff’s Dept of Corrections (July
2002) Bates 18759 (“Any calls not completed
during the allotted time require supervisor
approval.”); ABA Report, Kern County Jail
(Aug. 2002), Bates 17479 (detainees not on
disciplinary isolation will be allowed
reasonable access to collect call only
telephones).
81

AS § III.A; DS § III.C.

82

ICE Annual Review, McHenry County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1434 (finding of
“deficient”); ICE Annual Review, Broward
Transition Center (Oct. 2004), Bates 166; ICE
response to UNHCR Report, Cottonport
Women’s Facility and Tangipahoa Parish Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 145, 155 (“major
difficulties” related to lack of segregation
policy); ICE Annual Review, Phelps County
Jail (Mar., Apr. 2004), Bates 6190, 6231–34
(“There is no comprehensive policy on
(SMU).”); Annual Review, Pettis County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6434;
ICE Annual Report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18491,
18493 (“written Policy and Procedures needs
to be created”).
83
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1468; ICE response to
UNHCR Report, Cottonport Women’s
Facility and Tangipahoa Parish Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 145, 154 (“No written seg
plan.”); ICE Annual Review, Pettis County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6468;
ICE Annual Review, Phelps County Jail
(Mar., Apr. 2004), Bates 6230; ICE Annual
Review, Tangipahoa Parish Jail, Amite, LA
(June 2004), Bates 15890.
84
ICE Annual Report, San Pedro Service
Processing Center, San Pedro, CA (Jan.
2003), Bates 18499.
85
86

AS § III.E.1; DS § III.E.1.

ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10120; ICE Annual
Review, Colquitt County Jail (Mar. 2005),
Bates 13207 (“Medical visits recorded”); ICE
Annual Review, Dodge County Jail (May
2005), Bates 13574, 13575 (“Shift logs are
maintained as part of the facility’s Tiburon
program. Only significant events or
occurrences that are not part of the normal
operating standard for the unit are recorded.
If an unusual event, e.g. meal refusal, occurs
for an inmate in Special Management, an
entry would be made in the detainee’s
individual file in Tiburon. As such, separate
logs are not maintained for the individual’s
stay in Special Management.”); ICE Annual

NOTES
Review, Finney County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 1340003 (comments states general
information is kept except “when meals are
served, meds passed, etc.”); ICE Annual
Review, Hudson County Department of
Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates 15443
(“Everything” recorded, except phone calls);
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 17060
(log book poorly maintained); ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005),
Bates 1430, 1465, 1468 (consistent activity
log not maintained; no comprehensive
segregation policies in place); ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 2860 ( “One log”); ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 3254 (rated acceptable);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 12944, 12947 (no separate
SMU, regular log book); ICE Annual Review,
Pomona City Jail. (June 2005), Bates 2079
(rated acceptable); ICE Annual Review,
Scottsbluff County Jail (Apr. 2005, May
2005), Bates 10595; ICE Annual Review, TriCounty Detention Center (Mar. 2005), Bates
1841 (“Yes” checked, but comment says,
“[On] cell check sheets.” It is unclear
whether “cell check sheets” are equivalent to
a permanent log.); ICE Annual Review, Yuba
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2650; ICE
Annual Review, Berks County Prison (July
2004, Sept. 2004), Bates 9185, 9222 (no
records kept for showers); ICE Annual
Review, Cayuga County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 10310; ICE Annual Review, Colquit
County Sheriff’s Office and Jail (Mar. 2004),
Bates 3904; ICE Annual Review, Genesee
County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 3438; ICE
Annual Review, Jefferson County Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 3604–08; ICE Annual Review,
City of Las Vegas Detention Center (Sept.
2004), Bates 4454–58 (consistent activity log
not maintained for showers; door log is
checked); ICE Annual Review, Madison
County Jail (July 2004), Bates 4600 (“Yes”
checked, but comment states, “Health records
are kept in the med dept. There aren’t many
separate records kept specifically for Seg.”);
ICE Annual Review, Mini-Cassia County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 5034 (“NA” checked);
ICE Annual Review, Niagara County Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 12000–03 (“[S]taff only
records when a detainee takes his/her
medication and engages in recreational
activities. Detainee meal consumption and
showering is not recorded.”); ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 12053 (“Log does not
show when they showered. It only shows out
time. The Medical personnel logs [sic] all the
medical services. This is not logged in the
SMU log.”); ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7342–46 (No
separate SMU, but “yes” checked and
comment states, “No special log — all entries
in regular floor logbook.”); ICE Annual
Review, Passaic County Jail (Nov. 2004),
Bates 17060 (logbook poorly maintained;
“inability to document activities and actions

taken for detainees installed in these housing
environments, places staff and detainees at
risk”); ICE Annual Review, Pettis County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6467,
6471; ICE Annual Review, Plaquemines
Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2004), Bates
999 (no separate logbook); ICE Annual
Review, Salt Lake County Adult Detention
Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 6883 (“NA”
checked); ICE Annual Review, Smith County
Jail (June 2004), Bates 5691; ICE Annual
Review, St. Francois County Detention
Center (June 2004), Bates 6663–68; 13997
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18801
(“Yes” checked, but comment states, “Log is
generic, not individualized.”).
87
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center, Miami, FL (Feb. 2005),
Bates 17060 (as the reviewer noted, “The
inability to document activities and actions
taken for detainees installed in these housing
environments, places staff and detainees at
risk.”).
88

AS § III.E.2.

89

ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City
Detention Center (June 2005), Bates 9685
(“There is only one file, however it is updated
weekly with the weekly review.”); ICE
Annual Review, Canadian County Jail (Jan.
2005), Bates 10120; ICE Annual Review,
Chautauqua County Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates
10509 ( “All events recorded in logbook.”);
ICE Annual Review, Colquitt County Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 13207; ICE Annual
Review, Dickens County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 13539; ICE Annual Review, Dodge
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 13574, 13575
(“separate logs are not maintained for the
individual’s stay in Special Management”);
ICE Annual Review, Hudson County
Department of Corrections, Kearny, NJ (Apr.
2005), Bates 15439, 15722 (“Yes” checked,
but comment is, “log book only.”); ICE
Annual Review, McHenry County Jail (Nov.
2005), Bates 1465; ICE Annual Review,
Mini-Cassia Criminal Justice Center (Aug.
2005), Bates 2897 (one record is kept for
entire stay in segregation); ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 2857 (“One log”); ICE Annual Review,
Orleans County Jail (June 2005), Bates 12944
(“All events recorded in logbook.”); ICE
Annual Review, Passaic County Jail (June
2005), Bates 14502 (“Yes” checked, but
comment is, “log book only.”); ICE Annual
Review, Twin Falls Criminal Justice Facility
(Aug. 2005), Bates 12985; ICE Annual
Review, Bannock County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 9044; ICE Annual Review, Berks
County Prison (July 2004, Sept. 2004), Bates
9185, 9222; ( “Other than medical records no
other record in kept in the admin seg.”); ICE
Annual Review, Cayuga County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 10306; ICE Annual Review,
Chautauqua County Jail (Apr. 2004), Bates
8167; ICE Annual Review, Colquit County
Sheriff’s Office and Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates
3904; ICE Annual Review, Erie County

A BROKEN SYSTEM

133
Holding Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 4168
(“Yes” checked, but comment is, “records
kept in log book.”); ICE Annual Review,
Finney County Jail (May 2004), Bates 3287
(“Yes” checked, but comment states, “Daily
log is used.”); ICE Annual Review, Garvin
County Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
3399 (“Ongoing computer file with no hard
copy”); ICE Annual Review, Genesee County
Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 3438; ICE Annual
Review, Grand Forks County Correctional
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3537; ICE Annual
Review, Harris County Jail (Mar. - Apr.
2004), Bates 3475 (“NA” checked); ICE
Annual Review, Jefferson County Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 3604; ICE Annual Review, City
of Las Vegas Detention Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 4454 (“1 continuous file”); ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha County Jail (May 2004),
Bates 5082; ICE Annual Review, Minnesota
Correctional Facility - Rush Facility (Oct.
2004), Bates 310 (“Up-dated info is placed in
the original file.”); ICE Annual Review,
North Las Vegas Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 12053; ICE Annual Review,
Orleans County Jail (June 2004), Bates 7342;
ICE Annual Review, Pettis County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6467; ICE Annual
Review, Plaquemines Parish Detention Center
(Mar. 2004), Bates 6179 (one record is kept
for entire stay in segregation); ICE Annual
Review, Sacramento County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 7161 (“NA” checked, but comment
states, “ongoing record.”); ICE Annual
Review, Salt Lake County Adult Detention
Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates 6879; ICE
Annual Review, St. Francois County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 6663;
ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish Detention
Center (Aug. 2004), Bates 6568 (“A monthly
segregation log (broken down weekly) is
used.”); ICE Annual Review, Torrance
County Detention, Estancia, NM (June 2004;
July 2004), Bates 13942–51 (“A monthly
segregation log (broken down weekly) is
used.”); ICE Annual Review, Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 18170;
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center, Kenosha, WI (May 2003),
Bates 18801; ICE Annual Report, San Pedro
Service Processing Center (May 2002), Bates
18490.
90
ABA report, Berks County Prison (July
2004), Bates 16600.
91
ICE Annual Review, Berks County Prison
(Sept. 2004), Bates 9222, 9225.
92

ABA report, INS Processing Center, San
Pedro, CA (Mar. 2002), Bates 17468.
93
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2004), Bates 18487.
94

Id.

95

ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2004), Bates 18491.
96
ABA report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8279.
97

Id.

98

Id.

134
99

ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 3654,
3657.
100

ABA report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8590.
101

Id.

102

ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (June 2005), Bates 2301.

DISCIPLINARY POLICY
1

INS Detention Standard: Disciplinary
Policy (hereinafter “DP”) § III (Standards and
Procedures), subsections A–C (Guidelines,
Incident Reports, and Investigations), in U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/di
sciplinary.pdf.
2

DP § III.D–J (Unit Disciplinary
Committee, Staff Representation, Institutional
Disciplinary Panel, Postponement of
Disciplinary Proceedings, Duration of
Punishment, Disciplinary Severity Scale and
Prohibited Acts, and Documents).
3
The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
4
DP, Disciplinary Policy Monitoring
Instrument form.
5
E.g., ICE Annual Review, Yakima County
Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 7887.
6
Id., Disciplinary Policy Monitoring
Instrument form (No. 3). See also, e.g., No.
14, which addresses two unrelated items: the
handling of information from confidential
informants and the criteria for “substantial
evidence” as related to disciplinary hearings.
Without comments, it is impossible to
determine which of these elements of the
standard was violated.

NOTES
7

ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha Co. Jail
(June 2005), Bates 2853.
8
ICE Annual Review, Grant Co. Jail
(February 2005), Bates 1278 (marked as
compliant); ICE Annual Review, Hardin Co.
Correctional Center (October 2005), Bates
1369 (marked as noncompliant).
9
DP § III (Standards and Procedures),
subsection A.5 (noting the posting
requirement for SPCs and CDFs, and noting
in § II that IGSAs must meet or exceed the
objective represented by each standard).
10
ICE Annual Review, Manatee Co. Jail
(July 2005), Bates 622; ICE Annual Review,
Monroe Co. Jail (July 2004), Bates 672; ICE
Annual Review, Grant Co. Jail (Feb. 2005),
Bates 1278 (marked not applicable or
comments showed violation); ICE Annual
Review, Hardin Co. Correction Center (Feb.
2005), Bates 1369; ICE Annual Review,
Rollins Plains Regional Detention Center
(Feb. 2005), Bates 1921; ICE Annual Review,
Colquit Co. Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3899; ICE
Annual Review, Clinton Co. Jail (Aug. 2005),
Bates 3792; ICE Annual Review, Ramsey
(Co. Jail (aka Ramsey Co. Adult Detention
Center) (Nov. 2005), Bates 2110; ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha Co. Jail (June 2005),
Bates 2852; ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
3246; ICE Annual Review, Garvin Co.
Detention Center (aka Garvin Co. Jail) Dec.
2004), Bates 3374; ICE Annual Review,
Genesee Co. Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 3434;
ICE Annual Review, Jefferson Co. Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 3599; ICE Annual Review, Las
Animas Co. Jail Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
4375; ICE Annual Review, McHenry Co. Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4783; ICE Annual Review,
Mecklenburg Co. Jail (North) (Apr. 2004),
Bates 4871 (marked not applicable or
comments showed violation); ICE Annual
Review, Pettis Co. Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 6462; ICE Annual Review, St.
Francois Co. Detention Center (June 2004),
Bates 6658; ICE Annual Review, St. Mary’s
Co. Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6741
(marked not applicable or comments showed
violation); ICE Annual Review, (Salt Lake
Co. Adult Detention Complex (Sept. 2004),
Bates 6874; ICE Annual Review, Saline Co.
Jail (Aug. - Sept. 2004), Bates 7080; ICE
Annual Review, Sacramento Co. Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 7156 (marked not applicable or
comments showed violation); ICE Annual
Review, Rockingham Co. Department of
Corrections (May 2004), Bates 7195; ICE
Annual Review, Reno Co. Jail (Sept. 2004),
Bates 7245; ICE Annual Review, Orleans
Parish (Community Corrections Center)
(Sept. 2004), Bates 7290; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Co. Jail (June 2004), Bates
7337; ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish
Community Corrections Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 7488; ICE Annual Review, Charleston
Co. Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 8018
(marked not applicable or comments showed
violation); ICE Annual Review, Chautauqua
Co. Jail (Apr. 2004), Bates 8162; ICE Annual

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Review, Bannock Co. Jail (June 2004), Bates
9039; ICE Annual Review, Berks Co. Prison
(July 2004), Bates 9180 (marked not
applicable or comments showed violation);
ICE Annual Review, Berks Co. Prison (July
2004 & Sept. 2004), Bates 9217; ICE Annual
Review, Blount Co. Jail (July 2004 & Aug.
2004), Bates 9304; ICE Annual Review,
Boone Co. Detention Center (Dec. 2004),
Bates 9386; ICE Annual Review, Carbon Co.
Correctional Facility (May 2004), Bates 9536;
ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City Detention
Center (May 2005), Bates 9680 (marked not
applicable or comments showed violation);
ICE Annual Review, Brewster Co. Jail (Nov.
2004), Bates 9870; ICE Annual Review,
Butler Co. Jail (Apr. 2005), Bates 9950; ICE
Annual Review, Carbon Co. Correctional
Facility (May 2005), Bates 10173; ICE
Annual Review, Cayuga Co. Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 10301; ICE Annual Review, El Centro
Processing Center (July 2005), Bates 10856;
ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11464;
ICE Annual Review, Pennington Co. Jail
(June 2004), Bates 11799; ICE Annual
Review, Morrison Co. Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates
11942; ICE Annual Review, Niagara Co. Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 11994; ICE Annual
Review, El Paso Service Processing Center
(June 2002), Bates 12447; ICE Annual
Review, Niagara Co. Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates
12820; ICE Annual Review, Orleans Co. Jail
(June 2005), Bates 12939; ICE Annual
Review, St. Francois Co. Detention Center
(May 2005), Bates 13069; ICE Annual
Review, Citrus Co. Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
13159; ICE Annual Review, Crawford Co.
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13257; ICE Annual
Review, Berks Co. Prison (July 2004), Bates
15308; ICE Annual Review, Tangipahoa
Parish Jail (June 2004), Bates 15888; ICE
Annual Review, Krome Service Processing
Center (June 2005), Bates 16929; ICE Annual
Review, Krome Service Processing Center
(Feb. 2005), Bates 17019; ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(Nov. 2003), Bates 17884; ICE Annual
Review, Denver Contract Detention Facility
(Oct. 2004), Bates 18381; ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(May 2002), Bates 18482; ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Detention Center
(Aug. – Sept. 2002), Bates 18578; ICE
Annual Review, Kenosha Co. Sheriff’s Dept.
Corrections (July 2002), Bates 18752 (marked
not applicable or comments showed
violation); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co.
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18796
(marked not applicable or comments showed
violation).
11

ICE Annual Review, Pettis Co. Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6462; ICE Annual
Review, Chautauqua Co. Jail (Apr. 2005),
Bates 10504; ICE Annual Review, El Paso
Service Processing Center (June 2002), Bates
12447; ICE Annual Review, Aguadilla
Service Processing Center (Mar. 2004), Bates
12611; ICE Annual Review, Orleans Co. Jail
(June 2005), Bates 12939; ICE Annual

NOTES
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(May 2002), Bates 18483 (no written
disciplinary system with clearly defined and
progressive levels of review and appeals).
12

ICE Annual Review, Monroe Co. Jail
(July 2005), Bates 672; ICE Annual Review,
St. Martin Parish Jail (Aug. – Sept. 2004),
Bates 940; ICE Annual Review, Colquit Co.
Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3899; ICE Annual
Review, Pennington Co. Jail (Aug. – Sept.
2005), Bates 3010; ICE Annual Review,
Monroe Co. Jail (July 2004), Bates 8949; ICE
Annual Review, Bonneville Co. Jail (June
2004), Bates 9349; ICE Annual Review,
Cambria Co. Prison (Oct. 2004), Bates 9467
(marked not applicable or comments showed
violation); ICE Annual Review, Berks Co.
Prison (July 2005), Bates 9761; ICE Annual
Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 11063; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro
Service Processing Center (May 2002), Bates
18482.
13
ICE Annual Review, St. Martin Parish Jail
(Aug. – Sept. 2004), Bates 940; ICE Annual
Review, Harris Co. Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates
2413; ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake County
Adult Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates
6874; ICE Annual Review, Monroe Co. Jail
(July 2004), Bates 8949; ICE Annual Review,
Bonneville Co. Jail (June 2004), Bates 9349;
ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City Detention
Center (May 2005), Bates 9680.
14
ICE Annual Review, Madison Co. Jail
(Sept. 2005), Bates 1546; ICE Annual
Review, Dorchester Co. Detention Center
(June 2004), Bates 4026; ICE Annual
Review, Erie Co. Holding Center (Nov.
2004), Bates 4164; ICE Annual Review,
Clinton Co. Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 3793;
ICE Annual Review, Howard Co. Detention
Center (June July 2005), Bates 2335; ICE
Annual Review, Minnehaha Co. Jail (June
2005), Bates 2853 (marked not applicable or
comments showed violation); ICE Annual
Review, Polk Co. Jail (May 2005), Bates
3078; ICE Annual Review, Minnesota
Correctional Facility – Rush City (Oct. 2004),
Bates 4738; ICE Annual Review, Orleans Co.
Jail (June 2004), Bates 7338; ICE Annual
Review, Chautauqua Co. Jail (Apr. 2005),
Bates 10505; ICE Annual Review, Monterey
Park City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 8993
(marked not applicable or comments showed
violation); ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City
Detention Center (May 2005), Bates 9681;
ICE Annual Review, Cayuga Co. Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 10302; ICE Annual Review, ),
Bates 10505; ICE Annual Review, Niagara
Co. Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 11995; ICE
Annual Review, Linn Co. Jail (May 2005),
Bates 12173; ICE Annual Review, Niagara
Co. Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates 12821.
15
ICE Annual Review, Madison Co. Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4590 (marked not
applicable or comments showed violation);
ICE Annual Review, Monterey Park City Jail
(August 2004), Bates 8992 (marked not
applicable or comments showed violation);
ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City Detention

Center (May 2005), Bates 9680; ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(January 2003), Bates 18530; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept.
Corrections (July 2002), Bates 18752.
16
ICE Annual Review, Orleans Co. Jail
(June 2005), Bates 12939.
17
ICE Annual Review, Colquit Co. Jail
(Mar. 2004), Bates 3899; ICE Annual
Review, Mini-Cassia Criminal Justice Center
(August 2005), Bates 2892; ICE Annual
Review, Dorchester Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 8262.
18
ICE Annual Review, Montery Park City
Jail (August 2004), Bates 8993; ICE Annual
Review, El Paso Service Processing Center
(June 2002), Bates 12448; ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(May 2002), Bates 18483.
19
ICE Annual Review, St. Martin Parish Jail
(Aug. – Sept. 2004), Bates 940; ICE Annual
Review; Harris Co. Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates
2413; ICE Annual Review, Nobles Co. Jail
(May 2005), Bates 2691; ICE Annual
Review, Macomb Co. Sheriff’s Dept. (Mar.
2004), Bates 4549; ICE Annual Review,
Madison Co. Jail (July 2004), Bates 4590
(marked not applicable or comments showed
violation); ICE Annual Review, Orleans
Parish (Community Corrections Center)
(Sept. 2004), Bates 7290; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Co. Jail (June 2004), Bates
7337; ICE Annual Review, Monterey Park
City Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 8992 (marked not
applicable or comments showed violation);
ICE Annual Review, Boone Co. Detention
Center Boone Co. Detention Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 9386; ICE Annual Review, El
Paso Service Processing Center (June 2002),
Bates 12447; ICE Annual Review, Orleans
Co. Jail (June 2005), Bates 12939; ICE
Annual Review, Kenosha Co. Sheriff’s Dept.
Corrections (July 2002), Bates 18752 (marked
not applicable or comments showed
violation).
20

ICE Annual Review, Madison Co. Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4590 (marked not
applicable or comments showed violation);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish Comm.
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7290;
ICE Annual Review, Monterey Park City Jail
(August 2004), Bates 8992 (marked not
applicable or comments showed violation);
ICE Annual Review, Calcasieu Parish
Correctional Center (June 2004), Bates 9423.
21

ICE Annual Review, Tri-Co. Detention
Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 1834; ICE Annual
Review, Mira Loma Detention Facility (July
2004), Bates 5127; ICE Annual Review,
Pottawattame Co. Jail (July 2005), Bates
2054; ICE Annual Review, Harris Co. Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 2414; ICE Annual
Review, Mini-Cassia Criminal Justice Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 2893 (marked not
applicable or comments showed violation);
ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3247;
ICE Annual Review, Garvin Co. Detention

A BROKEN SYSTEM

135
Center (aka Garvin Co. Jail) (Dec. 2004),
Bates 3395; ICE Annual Review, Genesee
Co. Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 3435; ICE Annual
Review, Harris Co. Jail (Mar. 2004 – Apr.
2004), Bates 3471; ICE Annual Review,
Jefferson Co. Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 3600;
ICE Annual Review, Madison Co. Jail (July
2004), Bates 4592 (marked not applicable or
comments showed violation); ICE Annual
Review, McHenry Co. Jail (July 2004), Bates
4784; ICE Annual Review, Pettis Co.
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6463;
ICE Annual Review, Monterey Park City Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 8993 (marked not
applicable or comments showed violation);
ICE Annual Review, Berks Co. Prison (July
2004 & Sept. 2004), Bates 9181; ICE Annual
Review, Berks Co. Prison (July 2004 & Sept.
2004), Bates 9218; ICE Annual Review,
Blount Co. Jail (July & Aug. 2004), Bates
9305; ICE Annual Review, Cambria Co.
Prison (Oct. 2004), Bates 9468; ICE Annual
Review, Atlanta City Detention Center (May
2005), Bates 9681; ICE Annual Review,
Denver Contract Detention Facility (Aug.
2003), Bates 11177; ICE Annual Review,
Seattle Contract Detention Center (July
2003), Bates 11465; ICE Annual Review,
Seattle Contract Detention Center (aka Seattle
Immigration Detention (Sept. 2002), Bates
11498 (marked not applicable or comments
showed violation); ICE Annual Review,
Morrison Co. Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 11943;
ICE Annual Review, Linn Co. Jail (May
2005), Bates 12173; ICE Annual Review, El
Paso Service Processing Center (June 2002),
Bates 12448; ICE Annual Review, Colquitt
Co. Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13203; ICE
Annual Review, Berks Co. Prison (July
2004), Bates 15309; ICE Annual Review, San
Pedro Service Processing Center (May 2002),
Bates 18483; ICE Annual Review, Tensas
Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2003), Bates
18629; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha Co.
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18797.
22
ABA Report, Kenosha Co. Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8604; Letter from
UNHCR re UNHCR report, Avoyelles
Women’s Correctional Center and
Tangipahoa Parish Prison (May 2004), Bates
15025; Summary of UNHCR reports, Various
locations (various dates), Bates 15031; ABA
report, Bergen Co. Jail (August 2003), Bates
17371; ABA report, ACI-Cranston Intake
Service Center (May 2002), Bates 17415;
ABA report, Mira Loma Detention Center
(June 2002), Bates17446; ABA report, Kern
County Jail (August 2002), Bates 17489;
ABA report El Centro Service Processing
Center (January 2003), Bates 17533; ABA
report, Corrections Corporation of America
(January 2003), Bates 17578; UNHCR report,
Otay Mesa Adult Detention Facility (October
2002), Bates 17813; UNHCR report, Otay
Mesa Adult Detention Facility (February
2001), Bates 18848.
23
ABA report, Middlesex Co. Jail,
Middlesex, NJ (July 2003), Bates 17772.

136
24

NOTES
39

ABA report, Wackenhut Corrections
Corporation (Apr. 2002), Bates 17646.

ABA report, Ozaukee County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8384.

25
Summary of UNHCR, various locations
(various dates), Bates 15031.

40
ABA report, St. Mary’s Co. Detention
Center (June 2003), Bates 17614.

26
ABA report, Santa Ana Detention Facility
(July 2004), Bates 8471.

41
ATA report, Middlesex Co. Jail,
Middlesex, NJ (July 2003), Bates 17772.

27

Letter from UNHCR re UNHCR report,
Avoyelles Women’s Correctional Center and
Tangipahoa Parish Prison (May 2004), Bates
15026.
28

ABA report, Corrections Corporation of
America (Jan. 2003), Bates 17578 (physical
restraints may be used under certain
circumstances).
29

ABA report, Kenosha Co. Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8613, ABA
report, Dodge Co. Detention Facility (June
2004), Bates 8657, ABA report, Kern Co. Jail
(Lerdo Pretrial Facility) (Aug. 2002), Bates
17489, ABA report, Wackenhut Corrections
Corporation (Apr. 2002), Bates 17646, ABA
report, Yuba Co. Jail (Dec. 2003), Bates
17687, ABA report 17772.
30
ABA report, Montgomery Co.
Correctional Facility (July 2004), Bates 8342,
ABA report, Ozaukee Co. Jail (July 2004),
Bates 8384, ABA Chart Detention Standards
Implementation Initiative (various), Bates
8520, ABA report, Passaic Co. Jail (Aug.
2005), Bates 8543, ABA report, El Centro
Service Processing Center (Jan. 2003), Bates
17551, ABA report, Oakland City Jail (July
2003), Bates 17659, ABA report, Yuba Co.
Jail (Dec. 2003), Bates 17688, ABA report,
Elizabeth Detention Center (July 2001), Bates
18842.
31

ABA report Kern Co. Jail (Lerdo Pretrial
Facility) (Aug. 2002), Bates 17488, ABA
report, Middlesex Co. Jail, Middlesex, NJ
(July 2003), Bates 17772.
32

ABA report, Ozaukee Co. Jail (July
2004), Bates 8384, ABA report, Kern Co. Jail
(Lerdo Pretrial Facility) (Aug. 2002), Bates
17488-17489, ABA report, Santa Ana
Detention Facility (Oct. 2002), Bates 17519.
33
ABA report, Wackenhut Corrections
Corporation (Apr. 2002), Bates 17646.
34
ABA report, Montgomery Co.
Correctional Facility (July 2004), Bates 8342;
ABA report, Keogh Dwyer Correction
Facility (aka “Sussex County Jail”) (July
2004), Bates 8488; ABA report, Ozaukee Co.
Jail (July 2004), Bates 8384.
35
ABA report, Montgomery Co.
Correctional Facility (July 2004), Bates 8342.
36
ABA report, Oakland City Jail (July
2003), Bates 17658.
37
ABA report, Oakland City Jail (July
2003), Bates 17658, ABA report, Yuba Co.
Jail (Dec. 2003), Bates 17687, ABA report,
Monmouth Co. Correctional Institute (July
2003), Bates 17758; ICE Annual Review,
Orleans Co. Jail (June 2005), Bates 12939.
38

ABA report, Dallas Co. Jail System
Facility (Mar. 2002), Bates 17401.

42

ABA report, Kenosha Co. Detention
Center (Sept. 2003), Bates 17840; UNHCR
Report, Otay Mesa Detention Facility (Feb.
2001), Bates 18848.
43

UNHCR Report, Otay Mesa Detention
Facility (Feb. 2001), Bates 18848.

DETAINEE HANDBOOK
1

INS Detention Standard: Detainee
Handbook (hereinafter “Handbook Standard”)
§ I, in U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/ha
ndbook.pdf.
2

Handbook Standard § I.

3

Handbook Standard § III.H.

4

Handbook Standard § III.E.

5

Handbook Standard § III.D.

6

Handbook Standard § III.B.

7

Handbook Standard § III.B. The standard
does not specifically require that information
on barbering hours and group legal rights
presentations be listed, but these requirements
are implicit and are specifically monitored on
ICE review forms.
8

Handbook Standard § III.C.

9

Handbook Standard § III.D.

10

The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
11
ICE Annual Review, Berks County
Prison, (May 2005), Bates 9749 (English
only); ICE Annual Review, Carbon County
Correctional Facility (May 2005), Bates

A BROKEN SYSTEM

10158 (English only); ICE Annual Review,
Crawford County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates
13241 (English only); ICE Annual Review,
Hudson County Department of Corrections
(Apr. 2005), Bates 15424 (English only); ICE
Annual Review, Orleans County Jail (June
2005), Bates 12927 (English only); ICE
Annual Review, St. Francois County
Detention Center (May 2005; June 2005),
Bates 13055 (English only); ICE Annual
Review, Allegheny County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 7574 (English only); ICE Annual
Review, Berks County Prison (July 2004),
Bates 9145, 9162 (English only; “translation
services are available through the treatment
counselor assigned to the dormitory”); ICE
Annual Review, Carbon County Correctional
Facility (May 2004), Bates 9500–01, 9521
(English only); ICE Annual Review, Clinton
County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 3777 (English
only); ICE Annual Review, Garvin County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3379
(English only); ICE Annual Review, Jefferson
County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 3584 (English
only); ICE Annual Review, Madison County
Jail (July 2004), Bates 4578 (English only);
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 7312; ICE Annual
Review, Saline County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 7065 (reviewer indicated that facility is
“in process of translating highlights”); ICE
Annual Review, Santa Clara Main Jail
Complex (Oct. 2004), Bates 5767 (English
only); ICE Annual Review, Tangipahoa
Parish Jail (June 2004), Bates 15882 (English
only); ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford
Knight Correctional Center (Mar. 2004),
Bates 7401, 7421 (English only; notes
indicated that Spanish and Creole translations
are needed); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Detention Center (May 2003), Bates
18781–82 (English only); ICE Annual
Review, Pamunkey Regional Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 18696 (English only); ICE
Annual Review, Pamunkey Regional Jail
(Aug. 2002), Bates 18655 (English only); ICE
Annual Review, Tensas Parish Jail (Aug.
2002), Bates 18545, 18565 (English only).
12
ICE Annual Review, Monroe County Jail
(May 2005), Bates 2759 (review form
checked as noncompliant with standard; only
translated into Spanish only; phone service
used when facility has questions in other
languages).
13
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10101; ICE Annual
Review, Charleston County Detention Center
(May 2005), Bates 10372; ICE Annual
Review, Colquitt County Jail (Mar. 2005),
Bates 13189 (only the library location is
provided); ICE Annual Review, Lincoln
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 2523; ICE
Annual Review, Montgomery County Jail
(Oct. 2005), Bates 12202; ICE Annual
Review, St. Francois County Detention
Center (May 2005), Bates 13055; ICE Annual
Review, Yuba County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
2634 (information only covered in
orientation); ICE Annual Review, Blount

NOTES
County Jail, (July 2004, Aug. 2004) Bates
9290 (incorrectly checked “N/A”); ICE
Annual Review, Bonneville County Jail (June
2004) Bates 9335; ICE Annual Review,
Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center (June
2004), Bates 9409; ICE Annual Review,
Charleston County Detention Center (May
2004), Bates 8004; ICE Annual Review,
Finney County Jail (May 2004), Bates 4230
(information only available in housing pod);
ICE Annual Review, Forsyth County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 4186;
ICE Annual Review, Grand Forks County
Correctional Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3520
(incorrectly checked “N/A”); ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Detention Center
(May 2004), Bates 3635 (No); ICE Annual
Review, Las Animas County Jail Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 4383; ICE Annual Review,
Manatee County Detention Center (June
2004), Bates 4630 (reviewer indicated that
handbook incorrectly says that use of law
library is only by written request); ICE
Annual Review, Middlesex County Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 4949; ICE Annual Review,
Mississippi County Detention Center (Aug.
2004), Bates 5158; ICE Annual Review,
Oklahoma County Detention Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 12061–133; ICE Annual
Review, Pettis County Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 6448; ICE Annual Review, Port
Isabel Service Processing Center (Feb. 2004),
Bates 15616 (information is only posted in
housing pods); ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake
County Adult Detention Complex (Sept.
2004), Bates 6860 (incorrectly checked
“N/A”); ICE Annual Review, Santa Clara
County Main Jail Complex (Oct. 2004), Bates
5839 (incorrectly checked “N/A”); ICE
Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5668; ICE Annual Review,
Washington County Purgatory Detention
Facility (Nov. 2004), Bates 6917; ICE Annual
Review, Yakima County Jail, (Dec. 2004),
Bates 7873; ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth
Contract Detention Center (Sept. 2003), Bates
11245; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18782;
ICE Annual Review, San Diego Correctional
Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates 16896 (incorrectly
marked as in compliance, information only
available in housing units); ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(May 2002), Bates 18466; ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates
18565.
14
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10101; ICE Annual
Review, Atlanta City Detention Center, (May
2004), Bates 7716; ICE Annual Review,
Bergen County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 9116
(incorrectly marked as in compliance;
detainees only receive pro bono list from
ICE); ICE Annual Review, Berks County
Prison (July 2004), Bates 9203 (none are
described); ICE Annual Review, Calcasieu
Parish Correctional Center (June 2004), Bates
9409 (visitation information only listed on
visitation forms); ICE Annual Review,
Cambria County Prison (Oct. 2004) Bates

9456 (none of this information is provided);
ICE Annual Review, Clarke, Fauquier,
Frederick, and Winchester Regional ADC
(Apr. 2004), Bates 3683 (inappropriately
checked “N/A” because information posted in
cell block); ICE Annual Review, Garvin
County Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
3380 (information not provided and notes
indicate that group legal presentations are not
allowed); ICE Annual Review, Harris County
Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3457 (incorrectly
marked as in compliance, notes indicate that
pro bono lists are only provided to the
detainee when arrested by immigration); ICE
Annual Review, Kenosha County Detention
Center (May 2004), Bates 3635; ICE Annual
Review, Macomb County Sheriff’s
Department (Mar. 2004), Bates 4536
(incorrectly marked as in compliance; pro
bono lists only provided by ICE); ICE Annual
Review, Madison County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 4579 (pro bono services and group legal
services not in handbook; only provided by
ICE); ICE Annual Review, McHenry County
Jail (July 2004), Bates 4769 (no information
on legal rights presentations; information is
only given as presentations are scheduled);
ICE Annual Review, Monroe County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 8935 (pro bono list given
by ICE / CBP); ICE Annual Review, North
Las Vegas Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 12031 (information only posted in
housing units); ICE Annual Review, Passaic
County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 11740 (ICE
detainees receive lists of pro bono lists only
from ICE); ICE Annual Review, Pettis
County Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
6448; ICE Annual Review, Port Isabel
Service Processing Center (Feb. 2004), Bates
15616 (information not described, only posted
in housing pods); ICE Annual Review,
Pottawattami County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
6058 (group presentations not covered as
facility has never had a request for one); ICE
Annual Review, Sacramento County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 7142 (incorrectly marked
as in compliance; pro bono lists provided by
ICE); ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake County
Adult Detention Complex (Sept. 2004), Bates
6860; ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford
Knight Correctional Center (Mar. 2004),
Bates 7422 (pro bon lists and group legal
presentations not described); ICE Annual
Review, Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility
(Sept. 2003), Bates 18147; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Detention Center
(May 2003), Bates 18782; ICE Annual
Review, Laredo Contract Detention Facility
(Sept. 2003), Bates 11283 (pro bono list only
provided with Notice to Appear document);
ICE Annual Review, San Diego Correctional
Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates 16896
(information not described, only posted in
housing pods; unclear if group rights
information is provided, review says no group
rights presentations); ICE Annual Review,
San Pedro Service Processing Center (May
2002), Bates 18466; ICE Annual Review,
Tensas Parish Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates 18565
(legal visitation is not described).

A BROKEN SYSTEM

137
15

ICE Annual Review, Bergen County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 9116 (incorrectly marked
as in compliance; detainees only receive pro
bono list from ICE); ICE Annual Review,
Macomb County Sheriff’s Department (Mar.
2004), Bates 4536 (incorrectly marked as in
compliance; pro bono lists only provided by
ICE); ICE Annual Review, Madison County
Jail (July 2004), Bates 4579 (pro bono
services and group legal services not in
handbook; only provided by ICE); ICE
Annual Review, Monroe County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8935 (pro bono list given by ICE
/ CBP); ICE Annual Review, Passaic County
Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 11740 (ICE detainees
receive lists of pro bono lists only from ICE);
ICE Annual Review, Sacramento County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 7142 (incorrectly marked
as in compliance; pro bono lists provided by
ICE).
16
ICE Annual Review, Citrus County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 13146 (does not cover
guarantees against staff retaliation or how to
file a complaint about officer misconduct);
ICE Annual Review, Lincoln County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 2524 (does not cover how
to file complaint of officer misconduct); ICE
Annual Review, Mississippi County
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 2960
(No guarantee against staff retaliation; no
information on how to file a complaint against
officer misconduct); ICE Annual Review,
Plaquamines Parish Detention Center (Apr.
2005), Bates 3189; ICE Annual Review, Reno
County Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates 3145
(information only given to detainee when
problem occurs; disciplinary policy used
instead); ICE Annual Review, Yuba County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2634 (does not cover
how to file complaint of officer misconduct,
posted in all housing areas); ICE Annual
Review, Anchorage Jail Complex (Dec.
2004), Bates 7611 (no information listed;
reviewer indicated that when there is a
problem ICE is notified immediately); ICE
Annual Review, Bonneville County Jail (June
2004) Bates 9335; ICE Annual Review,
Cambria County Prison (Oct. 2004) Bates
9456 (does not cover appeals to ICE
personnel, does not provide information on
civil rights complaints); ICE Annual Review,
Canadian county Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates
101000 (does not cover step-by-step
procedures); ICE Annual Review, Coconino
County Detention Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates
3830 (reviewer indicated that because there
are currently no ICE detainees currently held
for over 72 hours, some of these procedures
are not followed); ICE Annual Review, Ector
County Correctional Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 4104 (reviewer indicated that updated
information is needed); ICE Annual Review,
Erie County Holding Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 4149 (No set grievance procedures; jail
contacts ICE with any possible grievances);
ICE Annual Review, Forsyth County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 4186
(does not cover notification of DOJ); ICE
Annual Review, Jefferson County Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 3585 (incorrectly marked as in

138
compliance; does not cover procedures for
filing a complaint with Department of
Justice); ICE Annual Review, Kern County
Sheriff’s Office (Dec. 2004), Bates 4311
(does not cover ICE appeals); ICE Annual
Review, Las Animas County Jail Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 4383 (not covered at all); ICE
Annual Review, Mecklenburg County Jail
(North) (Apr. 2004), Bates 4857 (does not
cover procedures for filing an appeal with
ICE); ICE Annual Review, Mira Loma
Detention Facility (July 2004), Bates 5112
(information only posted in barracks); ICE
Annual Review, Mississippi County
Detention Center (Aug. 2004), Bates 5137–
58; ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 12030;
ICE Annual Review, Oklahoma County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 12061–
133 (does not cover appeals process,
guarantee against retaliation, ability to obtain
staff/detainee help to file grievance, or stepby-step process); ICE Annual Review,
Pennington County Jail (June 2004), Bates
11785 (incorrectly marked as in compliance;
does not cover guarantee against employee
retaliation and filing of DOJ complaint); ICE
Annual Review, Pettis County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6448; ICE Annual
Review, Pottawattamie County Jail (May
2004), Bates 6058 (does not cover step-bystep appeals process and staff availability to
assist with complaint with DOJ); ICE Annual
Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 5237; ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5668; ICE
Annual Review, Summit County Jail (Nov.
2004), Bates 6686 (incorrectly marked as in
compliance; does not cover appeals process);
ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7422
(does not cover guarantee against staff
retaliation or how to file a complaint with
DOJ); ICE Annual Review, Yakima County
Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 5530 (does not cover
filing an appeal with ICE); ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Detention Center
(May 2003), Bates 18782.
17
ICE Annual Review, Reno County Jail
(Sept. 2005), Bates 3145.
18
ICE Annual Review, Anchorage Jail
Complex (Dec. 2004), Bates 7611.
19

ICE Annual Review, Central Arizona
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 10330;
ICE Annual Review, Citrus County Jail (Nov.
2005), Bates 13144; ICE Annual Review,
Dickens County Jail (June 2005), Bates
13522; ICE Annual Review, Hudson County
Department of Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates
15424; ICE Annual Review, Montgomery
County Jail (Oct. 2005), Bates 12202; ICE
Annual Review, Niagara County Jail (Dec.
2005), Bates 12807 (does not cover appeals
process for classification levels); ICE Annual
Review, Nobles County Jail (May 2005),
Bates 2676; ICE Annual Review, Pennington
County Jail (Aug. - Sept. 2005), Bates 2998;
ICE Annual Review, Reno County Jail (Sept.
2005), Bates 3144; ICE Annual Review, St.

NOTES
Francois County Detention Center (May
2005), Bates 13055; ICE Annual Review,
Yuba County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2633
(does not explain each level); ICE Annual
Review, Berks County Prison (July 2004),
Bates 9164; ICE Annual Review, Charleston
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
8003; ICE Annual Review, City of Las Vegas
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4434;
ICE Annual Review, Community Corrections
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7471; ICE Annual
Review, Garvin County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 3379; ICE Annual
Review, Douglas County Jail (Dec. 2004),
Bates 4055; ICE Annual Review, El Centro
Service Process Center (Jan. 2004), Bates
12648; ICE Annual Review, Harris County
Jail (Mar.- Apr. 2004), Bates 3456; ICE
Annual Review, Jefferson County Jail (Oct.
2004), Bates 3584; ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Detention Center (May
2004), Bates 3634 (ICE detainees arrive
already classified by ICE); ICE Annual
Review, Las Animas County Jail Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 4382; ICE Annual Review,
Madison County Jail (July 2004), Bates 4578;
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4768; ICE Annual Review,
Mississippi County Detention Center (Aug.
2004), Bates 5157; ICE Annual Review,
Oklahoma County Detention Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 12061–133; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7275;
ICE Annual Review, Ozaukee County Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 7367; ICE Annual Review,
Pettis County Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 6447; ICE Annual Review, Phelps
County Jail (Mar., Apr. 2004), Bates 6209 (no
classification section at all); ICE Annual
Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 5236; ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5667; ICE
Annual Review, St. Mary’s County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6726; ICE Annual
Review, Turner Guilford Knight Correctional
Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7421; ICE Annual
Review, Washington County Purgatory
Detention Facility (Nov. 2004), Bates 6917;
ICE Annual Review, Worcester County Jail
(Nov. 2004), Bates 5944.
20

ICE Annual Review, Chase County Jail
(Sept. 2005), Bates 10411; ICE Annual
Review, Mississippi ICE Annual County
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 2959;
ICE Annual Review, Montgomery County
Jail (Oct. 2005), Bates 11831; ICE Annual
Review, Reno County Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates
3144 (gives rules for sick call); ICE Annual
Review, Boone County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 9371; ICE Annual
Review, Bonneville County Jail (June 2004)
Bates 9334; ICE Annual Review, Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7471;
ICE Annual Review, Harris County Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 3456; ICE Annual Review,
Madison County Jail (July 2004), Bates 4578;
ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish
Community Corrections Center, (Sept. 2004),
Bates 7275; ICE Annual Review, Pettis

A BROKEN SYSTEM

County Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
6447; ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City
Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 11048; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Sheriff’s
Department Corrections (July 2002), Bates
18737 (notes indicate exams are “not
conducted unless a need presents”).
21
ICE Annual Review, Bonneville County
Jail (May 2005), Bates 9831; ICE Annual
Review, Lincoln County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 2523; ICE Annual Review, Mississippi
County Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
2959 (does not describe direct and emergency
calls); ICE Annual Review, Montgomery
County Jail (Oct. 2005), Bates 11831; ICE
Annual Review, Niagara County Jail (Dec.
2005), Bates 12807 (does not describe
emergency messaging); ICE Annual Review,
Yuba County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2633
(only posted housing areas); ICE Annual
Review, Berks County Prison, (July 2004),
Bates 9202 (does not specify emergency call
procedure and phone message system); ICE
Annual Review, Finney County Jail (May
2004), Bates 4229 (incorrectly marked as in
compliance; does not describe emergency
phone calls and detainee message system);
ICE Annual Review, Genesee County Jail
(Nov. 2004), Bates 3419 (incorrectly marked
in compliance; no description of message
system); ICE Annual Review, Kern County
Sheriff’s Office(Dec. 2004), Bates 4310
(policy only posted by phones); ICE Annual
Review, Las Animas County Jail Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 4382 (emergency phone call
procedure not described); ICE Annual
Review, Mecklenburg County Jail (Central)
(Apr. 2004), Bates 4903 (information only
provided by staff); ICE Annual Review,
Mississippi County Detention Center (Aug.
2004), Bates 5157 (does not describe direct
and free calls, emergency calls or message
system); ICE Annual Review, Pettis County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6447;
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5667; ICE Annual Review, St.
Francois County Detention Center (May
2005), Bates 13055 (does not describe direct,
free, or emergency phone calls); ICE Annual
Review, Worcester County Jail (Nov./Dec.
2004), Bates 5944; ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Detention Center (May
2003), Bates 18781; ICE Annual Review,
Tensas Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2003),
Bates 18614; ICE Annual Review, Buffalo
Federal Detention Facility (Aug. 2002), Bates
180001; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro
Service Processing Center (May 2002), Bates
18465 (does not describe debit cards, phone
locations, and message system).
22
ICE Annual Review, Citrus County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 13145; ICE Annual
Review, Hudson County Department of
Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates 15425
(information included even though ICE
detainees cannot participate); ICE Annual
Review, Montgomery County Jail (Oct.
2005), Bates 12202; ICE Annual Review,
Yuba County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2633

NOTES
(only covered in orientation); ICE Annual
Review, Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center
(June 2004), Bates 9409; ICE Annual
Review, Coconino County Detention Facility
(Feb. 2004), Bates 3830 (information only
given to detainees involved in program); ICE
Annual Review, Douglas County Jail (Dec.
2004), Bates 4056; ICE Annual Review,
Forsyth County Detention Center (June
2004), Bates 4186; ICE Annual Review,
Genesee County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 3420
(“No” marked; review indicates “Trustee
program” with no additional explanation.);
ICE Annual Review, Las Animas County Jail
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4382 (information
included even though ICE detainees cannot
participate in program); ICE Annual Review,
Madison County Jail (July 2004), Bates 4579
(information included in proposed handbook
even though ICE detainees cannot participate
in program); ICE Annual Review, Manatee
County Detention (June 2004), Bates 4614,
4630 (information is only provided verbally
during intake); ICE Annual Review, Pettis
County Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
6448; ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City
Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 5237; ICE Annual
Review, Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5668; ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth
Contract Detention Center (Sept. 2003), Bates
11245; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18781;
ICE Annual Review, Laredo Contract
Detention Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 11283
(no mention of pay procedures); ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Detention Center
(Aug. 2003), Bates 18615.
23
ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 7715;
ICE Annual Review, Calcasieu Parish
Correctional Center (June 2004), Bates 9409
(only listed on “visitation forms”); ICE
Annual Review, Community Corrections
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7472; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Detention Center
(May 2004), Bates 3635; ICE Annual
Review, Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility
(Aug. 2004), Bates 7013 (hours not listed);
ICE Annual Review, Port Isabel Service
Processing Center (Feb. 2004), Bates 15616
(only posted in pods); ICE Annual Review,
Elizabeth Contract Detention Center (Sept.
2003), Bates 11244; ICE Annual Review, San
Diego Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003),
Bates 16896 (only posted in housing units).
24

ICE Annual Review, Citrus County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 13145; ICE Annual
Review, Garfield County Detention Center
(June 2005), Bates 13427 (posted in housing
units); ICE Annual Review, Hudson County
Department of Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates
15424; ICE Annual Review, Niagara County
Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates 12807; ICE Annual
Review, St. Francois County Detention
Center (May 2005), Bates 13055; ICE Annual
Review, Berks County Prison (June 2004),
Bates 15293; ICE Annual Review,
Community Corrections Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 7471; ICE Annual Review, Dorchester

County Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates
4010; ICE Annual Review, Forsyth County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 4185;
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 3634;
ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish
Community Corrections Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 7275; ICE Annual Review, Pettis
County Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
6447; ICE Annual Review, Plaquemines
Parish Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates
6142 (posted in housing units); ICE Annual
Review, Turner Guilford Knight Correctional
Center, (Mar. 2004), Bates 7421; ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Detention Center
(May 2003), Bates 18781; ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Detention Center
(Aug. 2003), Bates 18614.
25
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10100; ICE Annual
Review, Central Arizona Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 10330 (this element
marked deficient without specifying whether
count times is included); ICE Annual Review,
Citrus County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 13145
(this element marked deficient without
specifying whether count times is included);
ICE Annual Review, Dickens County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 13522 (this element is
marked acceptable, but remarks on form
indicate deficiency for count times and
smoking policy); ICE Annual Review, Harris
County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 2401 (count
information was not described clearly); ICE
Annual Review, Montgomery County Jail
(Oct. 2005), Bates 12202 (no count or meal
times); ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3233;
ICE Annual Review, Polk County Jail (May
2005), Bates 3065 (times not provided
because of “security reasons”); ICE Annual
Review, Bannock County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 9026 (no official count times or meal
times listed); ICE Annual Review, Bonneville
County Jail (June 2004) Bates 9334; ICE
Annual Review, Community Corrections
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7471 (this element
marked deficient without specifying whether
count times is included); ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Detention Center (May
2004), Bates 3634 (this element marked
deficient without specifying whether count
times is included); ICE Annual Review, Las
Animas County Jail Center (Dec. 2004),
Bates 4382 (official count times and
procedures and special diets not listed); ICE
Annual Review, Madison County Jail (July
2004), Bates 4578 (count times and
procedures and special diets are not
addressed); ICE Annual Review, Monroe
County Jail (July, 2004), Bates 8934 (not
marked deficient, but indicated by comments
on form); ICE Annual Review, Oklahoma
County Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
12081; ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish
Community Corrections Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 7275 (this element marked deficient
without specifying whether count times is
included); ICE Annual Review, Pettis County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6447

A BROKEN SYSTEM

139
(this element marked deficient without
specifying whether count times is included);
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5667 (this element marked
deficient without specifying whether count
times is included); ICE Annual Review,
Washington County Purgatory Detention
Facility (Nov. 2004), Bates 6917 (count
times, meals times, religious diets, smoking
policy, clothing exchange, and hygiene
procedures are all missing); ICE Annual
Review, Yakima County Jail (Dec. 2004),
Bates 5529; ICE Annual Review, Elizabeth
Contract Detention Center (Sept. 2003), Bates
11244 (this element marked deficient without
specifying whether count times is included);
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18781
(this element marked deficient without
specifying whether count times is included).
26
ICE Annual Review, Harris County Jail
(Mar. 2005), Bates 2401 (initial issuance not
addressed; marked as “acceptable”;
noncompliance indicated by comments on
form); ICE Annual Review, Bonneville
County Jail (June 2004) Bates 9334; ICE
Annual Review, City of Las Vegas Detention
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 4434 (initial
issuance of clothing not covered); ICE
Annual Review, Community Corrections
Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7471; ICE Annual
Review, Oklahoma County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 12081; ICE Annual
Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7275;
ICE Annual Review, Pettis County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6447; ICE Annual
Review, West Carroll Detention Center (Sept.
2004), Bates 5619; ICE Annual Review,
Elizabeth Contract Detention Center (Sept.
2003), Bates 11244; ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Detention Center (May
2003), Bates 18781; ICE Annual Review, San
Diego Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003),
Bates 11331 (does not list personal items
permitted); ICE Annual Review, Tensas
Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2003), Bates
18614.
27
ICE Annual Review, Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7471;
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 3634;
ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish
Community Corrections Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 7275; ICE Annual Review, Pettis
County Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
6447; ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish
Detention Center (Aug. 2003), Bates 18614.
28
ICE Annual Review, Pettis County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6447–49.
29

ICE Annual Review, Madison County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4578–80.
30
ICE Annual Review, Charleston County
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 8003–05.
31
ABA Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 8410–27.
32

ABA Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 8422.

140
33

Id.

34

ABA Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 8426.
35
ABA Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 8424.
36
ABA Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 8422.
37
ABA Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 8414.
38
ICE Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(Mar. 2004), Bates 15775–818.
39
ABA Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(Aug. 2005), 8524–57.
40
ICE Annual Review, Passaic County Jail
(June 2005), 14460–617.
41
UNHCR Annual Review, Dodge County
Jail (June 2004), Bates 8634–61.
42
ABA Annual Review, Dodge County
Detention Facility (June 2004), Bates 8634–
61.
43
ICE Annual Review, Dodge County
Detention Center (June 2004), Bates 3945–
3989.
44
Summary of ABA Annual Reviews, Bates
8519.
45
Summary of ABA Annual Reviews, Bates
8519–20.
46
ICE Annual Review, Dodge County Jail,
(May 2005), Bates 13557–58; ICE Annual
Review, El Centro Service Processing Center
(July 2005), Bates 10843–44; ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Processing Center (2005),
Bates 12296–97.
47
Summary of ABA Annual Reviews, Bates
8519.
48
Summary of ABA Annual Reviews, Bates
8519–20.
49
ABA Annual Review, Dorchester County
Jail (July 2004), Bates 8255–73.
50
ICE Annual Review, Dorchester County
Jail (Sept. 2004), 3990–4036.

HOLD ROOMS IN
DETENTION FACILITIES
1

INS Detention Standard: Hold Rooms in
Detention Facilities (hereinafter “HRDF”) § I
(Policy), in U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/h
oldrooms.pdf.
2
HRDF § II (Applicability) (“Within the
[HRDF] document additional implementing
procedures are identified for SPCs and CDFs.
Those procedures appear in italics.”).
3
4

Id.

HRDF § III.A (Standards and Procedures:
Physical Conditions/Time Limit). The design
specifications standards emerged from the
Hold Room Design Standards Workshop held
in 1999 in Fort Worth, TX, and became

NOTES
effective immediately upon their
promulgation. The checklist used to monitor
SPCs and CDFs, which contains the
additional design specification elements,
states that these elements apply to “SPCs
constructed after 1998.”
5
The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
6
G-324A Detention Inspection Form
Worksheet for IGSAs, Rev: 09/25/03 (“G324A Form”).
7
HRDF § III.D.3 (Standards and
Procedures: Basic Operational Procedures).
(In the HRDF standard posted at
www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/dro/opsmanual/holdrm
.pdf (last visited Mar. 25, 2009), the section
titled “Basic Operational Procedures” is
mislettered. The section title is preceded by
the letter “C” despite the fact that the title of
the immediately preceding section also is
preceded by the letter “C.” Hereinafter,
citations to “§ III.D” refer to the “Basic
Operational Procedures” section in the posted
HRDF standard.)
8

HRDF § III.D.2.

9

See, e.g., ICE Annual Review, Rolling
Plains Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates
21195.
10

HRDF § III.D.5.

11
ICE Annual Review, Houston Processing
Center (Feb. 2006), Bates 21852–53; ICE
Annual Review, Aquadilla Service Processing
Center (Nov. 2005), Bates 21792; ICE
Annual Review, El Centro Service Processing
Center (July 2005), Bates 21797; ICE Annual
Review, Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility
(Sept.-Oct. 2004), Bates 21816; ICE Annual
Review, Laredo Contract Facility (Oct. 2004),
Bates 2182; ICE Annual Review, Port Isabel
Service Processing Center (Feb. 2004), Bates
21748–49; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro
Service Processing Center (July 2004), Bates
21764–69 (reviewers used the correct
SPC/CDF checklist in 18 instances); ICE
Annual Review, Port Isabel Service

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Processing Center (Feb. 2006), Bates 21854–
57; ICE Annual Review, Aquadilla Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 21768–
70; ICE Annual Review, El Paso Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 21774–
75; ICE Annual Review, Florence Service
Processing Center (May 2005), Bates 21992–
93; ICE Annual Review, Houston Processing
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 21963–65; ICE
Annual Review, Denver Contract Detention
Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates 21811–14; ICE
Annual Review, Florence Service Processing
Center (May 2005), Bates 21802–03; ICE
Annual Review, Houston Contract Detention
Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates 21821–24; ICE
Annual Review, Krome Service Processing
Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 21780–82; ICE
Annual Review, Port Isabel Service
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 21804–
06; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 21784–
86; ICE Annual Review, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 21732–
34; ICE Annual Review, El Centro Service
Processing Center (July 2004), Bates 21736–
38; ICE Annual Review, El Paso Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 21756–
58; ICE Annual Review, Florence Processing
Center (May 2004), Bates 21742–44; ICE
Annual Review, Krome Service Processing
Center (Feb. 2004), Bates 21761–63; ICE
Annual Review, Broward Transitional Center
(Mar. 2003), Bates 21807–10; ICE Annual
Review, Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility
(date unknown), Bates 21960–61.
12
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 21380 (detainees
“placed on wall under constant supervision”);
ICE Annual Review, Department of
Corrections (DEPCOR) (July 2005), Bates
21430, 21433; ICE Annual Review, Garvin
County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 20957 (answer
marked: “N/A”; accompanying remark: “No
hold room. Benches with handcuffs.”); ICE
Annual Review, Lufkin Detention Facility
(Feb. 2004), Bates 21029 (most elements
marked “N/A” because “facility has no
holding room”); ICE Annual Review,
Broward Transitional Center (Mar. 2003),
Bates 21808–10 (standard not rated; all boxes
marked “N/A”).
13

Id.

14

ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 21380 (detainees
“placed on wall under constant supervision.”).
15
ICE Annual Review, Garvin County Jail
(Dec. 2004), Bates 20957 (answer marked:
“N/A”; accompanying remark: “No hold
room. Benches with handcuffs.”).
16
ICE Annual Review, Lufkin Detention
Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates 21029.
17
ICE Annual Review, Krome Processing
Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 21780 (“No
modesty panels”); ICE Annual Review, El
Centro Service Processing Center (July 2004),
Bates 21736 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Very minor
observation: Hold Room A has a sign on the

NOTES
door that states capacity of 15 [which is above
the 1-14 limit] but that room has only 1
toilet.”).
18
HRDF § III.B (Standards and Procedures:
Unprocessed Detainees).
19

ICE Annual Review, Butler County Jail
(Mar. 2006), Bates 21690 (“New facility”);
ICE Annual Review, NORCOR (June 2005),
Bates 21582 (“Not an older facility.”); ICE
Annual Review, Columbia County Jail (Jan.
2004), Bates 21421 (“Facility opened in
2001.”); ICE Annual Review, La Salle
County Regional Detention Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 21017 (“This facility is ‘NEW,’
all conditions are very new.”); ICE Annual
Review, Onondaga County Justice Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 21120 (“Built in 19995
[sic]”); ICE Annual Review, Rolling Plains
Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 21199
(“Facility is considered a newer facility.”);
ICE Annual Review, Val Verde County
Detention Facility (June 2004) (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark:
“Facility is still in very new conditions
[sic].”).
20
ICE Annual Review, Eloy Detention
Center (Mar. 2006), Bates 21703; ICE Annual
Review, Erie County Prison (Mar. 2006),
Bates 21708; ICE Annual Review, Jefferson
County Jail (Jan. 2006), Bates 21718; ICE
Annual Review, Cambria County Prison (Oct.
2005), Bates 21377; ICE Annual Review,
Carbon County Correctional Facility (May
2005), Bates 21383; ICE Annual Review,
Dickens County Correctional Center (June
2005), Bates 21436; ICE Annual Review,
Dodge County Jail (May 2005), Bates 21439;
ICE Annual Review, Erie County Prison
(Mar. 2005), Bates 21451; ICE Annual
Review, Garfield County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 21460; ICE Annual Review, Hill
County Detention Center (June 2005), Bates
21478; ICE Annual Review, Jefferson County
Justice Center (Oct. 2005), Bates 21490; ICE
Annual Review, Mini-Cassia Criminal Justice
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 21539; ICE
Annual Review, Mississippi County
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 21548;
ICE Annual Review, Niagara County Jail
(Dec. 2005), Bates 21569 (“Newer facility”);
ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 21579;
ICE Annual Review, Plaquemines Parish
Detention Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 21612;
ICE Annual Review, West Texas Detention
Facility (Jan. 2005), Bates 21672; ICE
Annual Review, Yavapai County Detention
Center (June 2005), Bates 21681; ICE Annual
Review, Las Animas City Jail (Dec. 2005),
Bates 21014; ICE Annual Review, Otero
County Prison Facility (Jan. 2005), Bates
21147; ICE Annual Review, Allegheny
County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 20804; ICE
Annual Review, Blount County Jail (July
2004), Bates 20834; ICE Annual Review,
Chase County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates 20885;
ICE Annual Review, Clay County Jail (Sept.
2004), Bates 20903; ICE Annual Review,
Etowah County Detention Facility (June

2004), Bates 20942; ICE Annual Review, Hill
County Detention Center (Oct. 2004), Bates
20987; ICE Annual Review, Houston
Contract Detention Facility (Aug. 2004),
Bates 21822 (“Facility was constructed in
1983 [before 1998],” and “N/A” indicated for
“older facilities standard”); ICE Annual
Review, Jefferson County Detention Facility
(Oct. 2004), Bates 20996; ICE Annual
Review, Mississippi County Detention Center
(Aug. 2004), Bates 21075; ICE Annual
Review, Monroe County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 21084; ICE Annual Review, Niagara
County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 21102; ICE
Annual Review, Northwest Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 21831; ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(Oct. 2004), Bates 21105; ICE Annual
Review, Oklahoma County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 21117; ICE Annual
Review, Ozaukee County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 21126; ICE Annual Review,
Plaquemines Parish Detention Center (Mar.
2004), Bates 21165; ICE Annual Review,
Platte County Detention Center (Apr. 2004),
Bates 21168; ICE Annual Review, Regional
Correctional Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates
21839; ICE Annual Review, Sacramento
County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates 21205; ICE
Annual Review, Saline County Jail (Aug.Sept. 2004), Bates 21208; ICE Annual
Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 21214; ICE Annual Review, Summit
County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 21255; ICE
Annual Review, Washington County
Purgatory Correction Facility (Nov. 2004),
Bates 21299; ICE Annual Review,
Washington County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates
21302 (“Newer facility”); ICE Annual
Review, Williamson County Sheriff
Department (Aug. 2004), Bates 21317; ICE
Annual Review, Dodge County Detention
Facility (June 2003), Bates 20927 (“New
facility”); ICE Annual Review, Utah County
Jail (date unknown), Bates 21281.
21
HRDF § III.A.5. This specific
requirement applies only to SPCs and CDFs,
but IGSAs must meet the objective of the
standard. This element is also included on the
IGSA checklist.
22
ICE Annual Review, Harris County Jail
(Mar. 2006), Bates 21713 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “[H]old rooms
double as Seg cells for females.”); ICE
Annual Review, Jefferson County Jail (Jan.
2006), Bates 21718 (answer marked “N/A”);
ICE Annual Review, Bonneville County Jail
(May 2005), Bates 21359; ICE Annual
Review, Harris County Jail (Mar. 2005),
Bates 21475 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Hold rooms are used
for ISO.”); ICE Annual Review, Howard
County Detention Center (July 2005), Bates
21481; ICE Annual Review, Jefferson County
Justice Center (Oct. 2005), Bates 21490
(answer marked: “Yes/No”; accompanying
remark: “Hold cells also used for seg and
detox.”); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Detention Center (June 2005), Bates

A BROKEN SYSTEM

141
21502; ICE Annual Review, McHenry
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 21529; ICE
Annual Review, Nobles County Jail (May
2005), Bates 21572; ICE Annual Review,
NORCOR (June 2005), Bates 21582; ICE
Annual Review, Orleans County Jail (June
2005), Bates 21588 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Each single cell has a
bunk.”); ICE Annual Review, St. Mary’s
County Detention Center (July 2005), Bates
21657; ICE Annual Review, Tri-County
Detention Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 21663
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Hold rooms can be used for
emergency bed space if necessary. Beds can
be quickly moved in or out as needed.”); ICE
Annual Review, Calcasieu Parish
Correctional Center (June 2004), Bates
20849; ICE Annual Review, Caldwell County
(Nov. 2004), Bates 20852 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “Padded bench
which could double as a cot”); ICE Annual
Review, Grand Forks County Correctional
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 20963; ICE Annual
Review, Harris County Jail (Mar.-Apr. 2004),
Bates 20981 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “The hold rooms also
double as segregation rooms due to the
facility being small.”); ICE Annual Review,
Jefferson County Detention Facility (Oct.
2004), Bates 20996 (answer marked:
“Yes/No”; accompanying remark: “Not when
used as holding cell. Can also be use a seg
cell or a detox tank.”); ICE Annual Review,
McLennan County Detention Center (Nov.
2004), Bates 21051; ICE Annual Review,
Orleans County Jail (June 2004), Bates 21123
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “[T]here are bunks in the individual
cells.”); ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake
County Adult Detention Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 21211 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “only blankets”); ICE
Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 21214; ICE Annual Review, St.
Martin Parish Jail (Aug.-Sept. 2004), Bates
21244, 21246; ICE Annual Review, TriCounty Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates
21269 (answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Holding rooms can be used for
emergency bed space if necessary.”); ICE
Annual Review, Trumbull County Jail (May
2004), Bates 21272 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Holding rooms can
be used for emergency bed space if
necessary.”); ICE Annual Review,
Worchester County Jail (Nov.-Dec. 2004),
Bates 21320; ICE Annual Review, Utah
County Jail (date unknown), Bates 21281;
ICE Annual Review, Weber County Jail
Facility (date unknown), Bates 21308.
23

ICE Annual Review, Houston Processing
Center (Feb. 2006), Bates 21852 (answer
marked: “N/A”; accompanying remark: “Do
not use.”); ICE Annual Review, Finney
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 21454 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark:
“Unless emergency situation”); ICE Annual
Review, El Centro Service Processing Center
(July 2004), Bates 21736, 21740 (answer

142
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark: “Bunk
beds are located in the holding rooms.”); ICE
Annual Review, Grayson County Detention
Center (Feb. 2004), Bates 20966 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark: “An
elevated floor is located in the back of the
holding room for mat placement if needed.”);
ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha County Jail
(May 2004), Bates 21069 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “This area has
beds . . .”); ICE Annual Review, Madison
County Jail (July, year unknown), Bates
21038 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “The ‘holdrooms’ are 2-4 man
individual cells in the booking area. Beds
have been added.”).
24

ICE Annual Review, Harris County Jail
(Mar. 2006), Bates 21713 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “[H]old rooms
double as Seg cells for females.”); ICE
Annual Review, Harris County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 21475 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Hold rooms are used
for ISO.”); ICE Annual Review, Jefferson
County Justice Center (Oct. 2005), Bates
21490 (answer marked: “Yes/No”;
accompanying remark: “Hold cells also used
for seg and detox.”); ICE Annual Review,
Tri-County Detention Center (Mar. 2005),
Bates 21663 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Hold rooms can be
used for emergency bed space if necessary.
Beds can be quickly moved in or out as
needed.”); ICE Annual Review, Harris
County Jail (Mar.-Apr. 2004), Bates 20981
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “The hold rooms also double as
segregation rooms due to the facility being
small.”); ICE Annual Review, Jefferson
County Detention Facility (Oct. 2004), Bates
20996 (answer marked: “Yes/No”;
accompanying remark: “Not when used as
holding cell. Can also be use a seg cell or a
detox tank.”); ICE Annual Review, TriCounty Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates
21269 (answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Holding rooms can be used for
emergency bed space if necessary.”); ICE
Annual Review, Trumbull County Jail (May
2004), Bates 21272 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Holding rooms can
be used for emergency bed space if
necessary.”).
25
Again, this element is identified by the
hold room standard as being only for SPCs
and CDFs. HRDF § III.A.8. However, it is
also contained on the ISGA checklist.
26
ICE Annual Review, Brooks County
Detention Center (Jan. 2006), Bates 21687;
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2006), Bates 21229, 21232.
27
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail
(June 2006), Bates 21229, 21232.
28
ICE Annual Review, Brooks County
Detention Center (Jan. 2006), Bates 21687
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Glass in holding room broken and

NOTES
detainee left unattended, time log sheet on
desk, no staff around to monitor detainees.”).
29
ICE Annual Review, Boone County
Detention (Dec. 2004), Bates 20840 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark: “Area
does have a drop ceiling in hallways.”); ICE
Annual Review, Warren County Regional Jail
(Feb. 2004), Bates 21296 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “Area does
have a drop ceiling.”).
30

HRDF § III.A. Although this element of
the standard is applicable only to SPCs and
CDFs, it is also included on the IGSA
checklist for monitoring hold rooms.
31
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail
(June 2006), Bates 21229, 21232 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark: “Poor
lighting”; “Very poor light in hold rooms.”);
ICE Annual Review, Krome Processing
Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 21778–80
(“Lavatory switch is inside.” Comments
indicate this is a repeat deficiency.); ICE
Annual Review, Blount County Jail (July
2004), Bates 20834 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “One room has a light
switch inside the cell. This room is not used
except in emergency situations.”); ICE
Annual Review, Krome Service Processing
Center (Feb. 2004), Bates 21760 (“Female
holding area does not have sufficient
ventilation.”); ICE Annual Review,
Minnehaha County Jail (May 2004), Bates
21069–70 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Not well lit or
ventilated per new jail standards.”).
32
See, e.g., ICE Annual Review, Krome
Service Processing Center (Feb. 2004), Bates
21760 (“Female holding area does not have
sufficient ventilation.”); ICE Annual Review,
Smith County Jail (June 2006), Bates 21229,
21232 (answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Poor lighting”; “Very poor light in
hold rooms.”); ICE Annual Review, Krome
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 21780
(“Lavatory switch is inside”).
33

ICE Annual Review, Blount County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 20834–35 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “One room has
a light switch inside the cell. This room is not
used except in emergency situations.”); ICE
Annual Review, Minnehaha County Jail (May
2004), Bates 21069–70 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “Not well lit or
ventilated per new jail standards.”).
34
This element is identified as being for
SPCs and CDFs; however, it is also included
on the IGSA checklist. HRDF § III.A.4. On
both checklists the element states, “The hold
rooms contain sufficient seating for the
number of detainees held.”
35
ICE Annual Review, Eloy Detention
Center (Mar. 2006), Bates 21703, 21706
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Over crowding visual observation”
[sic].); ICE Annual Review, Smith County
Jail (June 2006), Bates 21229, 21232 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark:
“Inmates lying on floor in overcrowded

A BROKEN SYSTEM

cell.”); ICE Annual Review, Krome
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 21780;
ICE Annual Review, Pueblo County
Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 21180
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “On occasion during peak hours cells
are crowded.”); ICE Annual Review, St.
Martin Parish Jail (Aug.-Sept. 2004), Bates
21244, 21246 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “NO SEATING”).
36
ICE Annual Review, Eloy Detention
Center (Mar. 2006), Bates 21703, 21706
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Over crowding visual observation”
[sic].)ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail
(June 2006), Bates 21229, 21232 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark:
“Inmates lying on floor in overcrowded
cell.”); ICE Annual Review, Pueblo County
Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 21180
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “On occasion during peak hours cells
are crowded.”).
37
ICE Annual Review, St. Martin Parish Jail
(Aug.-Sept. 2004), Bates 21244, 21246
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “NO SEATING”).
38
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail
(June 2006), Bates 21229, 21232.
39
HRDF § III.A.2. This element is
identified by the hold room standard as
applying only to SPCs and CDFs.
40
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (Feb. 2004), Bates 21760
(“Hold rooms are too small for the number of
detainees housed and processed through
Krome.”); ICE Annual Review, Krome
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 21780
(“Current Hold Rooms are not in compliance
to standard. New construction of Hold
Rooms that will be in compliance is
underway.”).
41
This element of the hold room standard
applies only to SDFs and CDFs.
42
ICE Annual Review, Krome Processing
Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 21780 (“Doors
swing inward.”); ICE Annual Review, San
Pedro Service Processing Center (Aug. 2005),
Bates 21778.
43
This element of the hold room standard
applies only to SDFs and CDFs.
44

ICE Annual Review, El Paso Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 21774,
21776 (“Not in compliance because hold
room was constructed before standard was in
place.”); ICE Annual Review, Krome
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 21780;
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 21778
(“There are no floor drains in the Hold
Rooms.”); ICE Annual Review, El Centro
Service Processing Center (July 2004), Bates
21736 (answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Two of these rooms do not have
drains.”).
45

ICE Annual Review, El Paso Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 21774,

NOTES
21776 (“Not in compliance because hold
room was constructed before standard was in
place.”).
46
Handicap rails are not an element on the
SPC/CDF checklist; however, the element
setting forth the design specifications for hold
room toilet facilities states that toilet facilities
must be compliant with the American
Disabilities Act.
47
ICE Annual Review, El Paso Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 21754,
21756 (answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Need handrail in rest rooms.”).
48
HRDF § III.B (Standards and Procedures:
Unprocessed Detainees). This requirement
applies to all facilities.
49

ICE Annual Review, Brooks County
Detention Center (Jan. 2006), Bates 21687;
ICE Annual Review, Eloy Detention Center
(Mar. 2006), Bates 21703, 21706 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark: “In
accurate [sic] records”); ICE Annual Review,
Smith County Jail (June 2006), Bates 21229,
21233 (answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Held overnight until 8 am the next
morning.”); ICE Annual Review, Aquadilla
Service Processing Center (Nov. 2005), Bates
21790 (“Log showed 5 detainees held for over
55 hrs 7/23/05 thru 7/25/05.”); ICE Annual
Review, Caldwell County Jail (July 2005),
Bates 21371 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “MO. Statute allows
for 20 hour investigative hold.”); ICE Annual
Review, Calhoun County Jail (Feb. 2005),
Bates 21374 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “No longer than 8
hours except in female holding. On the
Weekend the females can be in Holding tanks
for 24 to 48 hours. Space availability”); ICE
Annual Review, El Centro Service Processing
Center (July 2005), Bates 21795 (“Detainees
are held longer than twelve hours in hold
rooms. . . . The facility was previously found
deficient in this standard.”); ICE Annual
Review, Harris County Jail (Mar. 2005),
Bates 21475; ICE Annual Review, Howard
County Detention Center (July 2005), Bates
21481; ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (June 2005), Bates 21502;
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 21529, 21532, 21534
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “No policy for 12 hour standard.”);
ICE Annual Review, Monroe County Jail
(Main) (May 2005), Bates 21551; ICE Annual
Review, Nobles County Jail (May 2005),
Bates 21572, (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “One was in during
review for 14 hrs for detox.”); ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(Aug. 2005), Bates 21579 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “Occasionally
some inmates held for over 12.”); ICE Annual
Review, NORCOR (June 2005), Bates 21582;
ICE Annual Review, Orleans County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 21588 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “Sometimes
used as overflow or short stays.”); ICE
Annual Review, St. Mary’s County Detention

Center (July 2005), Bates 21657; ICE Annual
Review, Bannock County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 20819; ICE Annual Review, Calcasieu
Parish Correctional Center (June 2004), Bates
20849; ICE Annual Review, Caldwell County
(Nov. 2004), Bates 20852 (“Individuals may
be held on 20 hr. investigative holds in the
State of Missouri.”); ICE Annual Review,
Cass County Jail (Jan. 2004), Bates 20873
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Not generally, but these rooms are
also used to monitor detainees who require
close monitoring, i.e. suicidal, etc.”); ICE
Annual Review, Dorchester County Detention
Facility (Sept. 2004), Bates 20930; ICE
Annual Review, El Centro Service Processing
Center (July 2004), Bates 21736, 21738,
21740 (answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Hold Room logs show some
detainees spending up to 17 hours in the
holding room area.”); ICE Annual Review,
Grand Fork County Correctional Facility
(Dec. 2004), Bates 20963; ICE Annual
Review, Oklahoma County Detention Center
(Dec. 2004), Bates 21117 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “ICE no/state
and fed. May be [sic] on occasion.”); ICE
Annual Review, Orleans County Jail (June
2004), Bates 21123; ICE Annual Review,
Port Isabel Service (Feb. 2004), Bates 21746,
21748 (“Detainees are currently being held in
hold rooms for more than 12
hours. . . . Several hold room logs reviewed
demonstrated that detainees were held in hold
rooms as long as 20 hours.”); ICE Annual
Review, Rolling Plains Detention Center
(Mar. 2004), Bates 21197, 21199 (“A
detainee was held from 7:00 p.m. until 11:00
a.m. in a hold room during our inspection.”);
ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 21211
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “On occasion, if jail is crowded.”);
ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 21214; ICE Annual
Review, St. Martin Parish Jail (Aug.-Sept.
2004), Bates 21244, 21246 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “HELD FOR
MAXIMUM OF 72 HOURS”); ICE Annual
Review, Worchester County Jail, (Nov.-Dec.
2004), Bates 21320; ICE Annual Review,
Madison County Jail (July, unknown year),
Bates 21038 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Detainees can/are
held in these rooms for up to 48 hours for
observation.”); ICE Annual Review, Utah
County Jail (date unknown), Bates 21281
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Up to 24 hours on rare occasions.”).
50
ICE Annual Review, Port Isabel Service
(Feb. 2004), Bates 21746, 21748 (“Detainees
are currently being held in hold rooms for
more than 12 hours. . . . Several hold room
logs reviewed demonstrated that detainees
were held in hold rooms as long as 20
hours.”).
51
ICE Annual Review, Utah County Jail
(date unknown), Bates 21281 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark: “Up to

A BROKEN SYSTEM

143
24 hours on rare occasions.”); ICE Annual
Review, Calhoun County Jail (Feb. 2005),
Bates 21374 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “No longer than 8
hours except in female holding. On the
Weekend the females can be in Holding tanks
for 24 to 48 hours. Space availability”).
52
ICE Annual Review, Aquadilla Service
Processing Center (Nov. 2005), Bates 21790
(“Log showed 5 detainees held for over 55 hrs
7/23/05 thru 7/25/05.”).
53
ICE Annual Review, St. Martin Parish Jail
(Aug.-Sept. 2004), Bates 21244, 21246
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “HELD FOR MAXIMUM OF 72
HOURS”).
54

ICE Annual Review, Harris County Jail
(Mar. 2006), Bates 21713 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “Hold rooms
in booking/intake serve double duty as SEG
cells for female inmates.”); ICE Annual
Review, Crawford County Sheriff’s
Department (Mar. 2005), Bates 21424
(answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “HOLD ROOMS ALSO USED FOR
SUICIDE WATCH.”); ICE Annual Review,
Hardin County Correctional Center (Oct.
2005), Bates 21472 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Except when cells
are used as a segregation unit.”); ICE Annual
Review, Las Animas County Jail (Dec. 2005),
Bates 21014 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Exception:
Medical/Psychiatric observations – suicidal
observation.”); ICE Annual Review, Park
County Detention Center (May 2005), Bates
21594 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “exception suicide behaviorial [sic]
observation”); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha
County Pretrial Detention Center (June 2004),
Bates 21005 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “If detainee is
noncooperative, booking would be slowed, so
12 hours could be passed [sic].”); ICE Annual
Review, North Las Vegas Detention Center
(July 2004), Bates 21105 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “Detainees
awaiting court, etc, ICE’s hold rooms are
housed there for longer than 12 hours.”); ICE
Annual Review, Pennington County Jail (June
2004), Bates 21135 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Jail Cmdr. must be
notified if over 12 hours.”); ICE Annual
Review, Pueblo County Detention Center
(Mar. 2004), Bates 21180 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “Exception:
Medical/Psychiatric observations — suicidal
[sic] observation.”); ICE Annual Review,
Rockingham County Department of
Correction (May 2004), Bates 21192; (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark:
“unless level 1 suicide”); ICE Annual
Review, Saline County Jail (Aug.-Sept.
2004), Bates 21208 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Except that
intoxicated persons may be held in detoxt
[sic] up to 18 hours.”); ICE Annual Review,
San Diego Correctional Facility (Aug. 2004),
Bates 21842 (answer marked: “Yes”;

144
accompanying remark: “Still awaiting
contract modification.”); ICE Annual Review,
Southern Ute Detention Center (Oct. 2004),
Bates 21241 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Exception:
Medical/Psychiatric observations — suicidal
[sic] observation.”).
55

ICE Annual Review, El Paso Service
Processing Center (Oct. 2004), Bates 21112
(“The facility needs to consistently log
detainees in and out of hold rooms.”).
56
See, e.g., ICE Annual Review, Rolling
Plains Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates
21195.
57
The standard provides that “each facility
shall maintain a detention log . . . for every
detainee placed in a hold cell. HRDF §
III.D.2. However, the IGSA checklist does
not contain this element. The IGSA checklist
does state that, as a part of the close and direct
supervision required by an officer, “[u]nusual
behavior or complaints are noted.”
58
ICE Annual Review, Aquadilla Service
Processing Center (Nov. 2005), Bates 21790–
93 (facility rated “acceptable” for the standard
despite this violation); ICE Annual Review,
El Paso Service Processing Center (Mar.
2004), Bates 21754–58 (facility rated
“acceptable” for the standard despite this
violation); ICE Annual Review, Port Isabel
Service (Feb. 2004), Bates 21746–49
(“Unusual behavior or complaints of
detainees housed in the hold rooms are not
recorded.”); ICE Annual Review, QueensGeo Group (Oct. 2004), Bates 21836 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark: “One
discrepancy on 9/21/04 that was corrected by
COB today.”); ICE Annual Review, Rolling
Plains Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates
21195–97 (facility does not maintain logs that
indicate arrival and departure of detainees
from hold room, so reviewer was unable to
find specific documentation corroborating
evidence indicating that detainees are
generally processed in under 6 hours).
59

HRDF § III.B.2. This requirement applies
to all facilities.
60
ICE Annual Review, Boone County
Detention (Dec. 2004), Bates 20840 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark: “In
same room for booking purposes[,] then
separated.”); ICE Annual Review, Bristol
County Sheriff’s Dept. (Apr. 2004), Bates
20843 (“They occasionally interact.”); ICE
Annual Review, Minnehaha County Jail (May
2004), Bates 21069 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Inmates in this
temporary intake area are not separated by sex
at this time.”); ICE Annual Review, Warren
County Regional Jail (Feb. 2004), Bates
21296 (answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “In same room for booking purposes
then sperated [sic].”); ICE Annual Review,
Rolling Plains Detention Center (Mar. 2006),
Bates 21723 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Movements
witnessed with males and females moving in
same area.”); ICE Annual Review, Port Isabel

NOTES
Service (Feb. 2004), Bates 21746, 21748
(“Male and females are not always segregated
from each other at all times.”); ICE Annual
Review, Krome Service Processing Center
(Feb. 2004), Bates 21760 (“Sight and sound
separation of males and females and [sic] is
not conducted.”); ICE Annual Review,
Florence Service Processing Center (May
2005), Bates 21800 (“A male officer was
observed supervising female detainees in the
Florence Staging Facility, segregated holding
room.”); ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
21105 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “With the exception of intake when
officers bring them into the facility.”); ICE
Annual Review, Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 21211
(answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “After booking male/females share a
‘pit’ area, awaiting housing, clothing issue,
etc. Lt. Sorensen reported no incidents ever,
inmates closely monitored.”); ICE Annual
Review, Sherbourne County Jail (Oct. 2005),
Bates 21645 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “females to not
wander the halls”); ICE Annual Review,
Brooks County Detention Center (Jan. 2006),
Bates 21687 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “During inspection
saw that females were taken to library and no
lock on that door with males allowed to move
in hall way [sic]. Males would be able to
enter the library no resistance [sic].”).
61

HRDF § III.B.3.

62

ICE Annual Review, Caldwell County Jail
(July 2005), Bates 21371 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “State of MO.
17 is considered adult.”); ICE Annual
Review, Chautauqua County Jail (Apr. 2005),
Bates 21406; ICE Annual Review, Forsyth
County Law Enforcement and Detention
Center (June 2005), Bates 21457 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark: “Will
house 16-18 w/in facility.”); ICE Annual
Review, Orleans County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 21588 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Mixed in recreation
only.”); ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City
Jail (Aug. 2005), Bates 21642 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark:
“Housing of juveniles is extremely rare.”);
ICE Annual Review, Caldwell County (Nov.
2004), Bates 20852 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “17 YOA is adult in
Missouri”); ICE Annual Review, Jefferson
County Detention Facility (Oct. 2004), Bates
20996 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “17 year olds can be held on adult
charges.”); ICE Kenosha County Detention
Center (May 2004), Bates 21002 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark: “Only
if Judge adjudicates as an adult.”); ICE
Annual Review, Pointe Coupee Parish
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 21174
(answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “ONLY WHEN TRIED AS AN
ADULT”); ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake
County Adult Detention Center (Sept. 2004),

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Bates 21211 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Based on court
orders”); ICE Annual Review, Utah County
Jail (date unknown), Bates 21281 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark:
“Unless court ordered.”).
63
ICE Annual Review, Jefferson County
Detention Facility (Oct. 2004), Bates 20996
(answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “17 year olds can be held on adult
charges.”); ICE Kenosha County Detention
Center (May 2004), Bates 21002 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark: “Only
if Judge adjudicates as an adult.”); ICE
Annual Review, Pointe Coupee Parish
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 21174
(answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “ONLY WHEN TRIED AS AN
ADULT”); ICE Annual Review, Salt Lake
County Adult Detention Center (Sept. 2004),
Bates 21211 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Based on court
orders.”); ICE Annual Review, Utah County
Jail (date unknown), Bates 21281 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark:
“Unless court ordered.”); ICE Annual
Review, Forsyth County Law Enforcement
and Detention Center (June 2005), Bates
21457 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “Will house 16-18 w/in facility.”);
ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail
(Aug. 2005), Bates 21642 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “Housing of
juveniles is extremely rare.”).
64
ICE Annual Review, Jefferson County
Jail (Jan. 2006), Bates 21718 (answer marked:
“N/A”); ICE Annual Review, Smith County
Jail (June 2006), Bates 21229 (answer
marked: “N/A”; accompanying remark:
“Texas age 17 is an adult.”).
65
The standard requires that detainees in
hold rooms be provided with basic personal
hygiene items such as water, disposable cups,
soap, toilet paper, feminine hygiene times,
diapers, and sanitary wipes. HRDF § III.B.4.
66
ICE Annual Review, Carver County Jail
(Nov. 2005), Bates 21386 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “As needed or
requested.”); ICE Annual Review, North Las
Vegas Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
21579 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “Can be requested by detainee, or if
officer observes a need.”); ICE Annual
Review, Kern County Sheriff’s Office (Dec.
2004), Bates 21008 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “Drinking fountain no
cups.”); ICE Annual Review, Smith County
Jail (June 2006), Bates 21229, 21233 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark: “No
soap, cups, or toilet paper.”); ICE Annual
Review, Turner Guilford Knight Correctional
Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 21264, 21266
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “While there was a toilet available,
there was no toilet paper and the detainees did
not have the opportunity to wash their hands,
due to lack of handwashing equipment.”).

NOTES
67

ICE Annual Review, Orleans Parish
Criminal Sheriffs Office (Community
Corrections Center) (Sept. 2004), Bates 21141
(answer marked: “N/A”; accompanying
remark: “Detainees are never in hold rooms
over 1 hour.”).
68
HRDF § III.E.2 (Standards and
Procedures: Fire, Building Evacuations, and
Medical Emergencies). This requirement
applies to all facilities.
69

ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail
(Aug. 2005), Bates 21642 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “Clinic is in
close proximity to hold rooms.”); ICE Annual
Review, Pennington County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 21135 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Jail Medical staff,
when on duty.”); ICE Annual Review,
Warren County Regional Jail (Feb. 2004),
Bates 21296 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Fire alarm is routed
through a contractor and 911 services.”); ICE
Annual Review, Pottawattamie County Jail
(July [year not provided]), Bates 21177
(answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “Jail Medical staff, when on duty.”).
70
71

HRDF § III.D.4.

ICE Annual Review, Brooks County
Detention Center (Jan. 2006), Bates 21687
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “In processing booking detainee left
alone in holding room, without officer within
visual or hearing range. Log sheet noted last
round made was 35 minutes prior.”); ICE
Annual Review, Eloy Detention Center (Mar.
2006), Bates 21703, 21706; ICE Annual
Review, Berks County Prison (July 2005),
Bates 21353 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “Not documented”);
ICE Annual Review, Dorchester Detention
Center (Sept. 2005), Bates 21445 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark: “30
minutes”); ICE Annual Review, Montgomery
County Jail (Oct. 2005), Bates 21560 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark:
“Cameras”); ICE Annual Review, Audrain
County Jail (May 2004), Bates 20816)
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Via camera”); ICE Annual Review,
Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center (June
2004), Bates 20849 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “The facility has
constant visual monitoring and performs
physical checks every 30 minutes.”); ICE
Annual Review, Cass County Jail (Jan. 2004),
Bates 20873 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “No specific
requirement to monitor at specific
intervals.”); ICE Annual Review, Charleston
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
20882 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “Cameras and rounds every hour.”);
ICE Annual Review, Montgomery County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 21090 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark:
“Cameras”); ICE Annual Review, Grayson
County Detention Facility (Feb. [year
unknown]), Bates 20966 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “The control

center operates and monitors the holding cell
via cameras.”); ICE Annual Review,
Pennington County Jail (June 2004), Bates
21135 (answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Every 30 minutes”); ICE Annual
Review, Pottawattamie County Jail (July
[year unknown]), Bates 21177 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark: “Every
30 minutes.”).
72
ICE Annual Review, Montgomery County
Jail (Oct. 2005), Bates 21560 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark:
“Cameras”); ICE Annual Review, Charleston
County Detention Center (May 2004), Bates
20882 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “Cameras and rounds every hour”);
ICE Annual Review, Montgomery County
Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 21090 (answer
marked: “Yes”; accompanying remark:
“Cameras”); ICE Annual Review, Grayson
County Detention Facility (Feb. [year
unknown]), Bates 20966 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “The control
center operates and monitors the holding cell
via cameras.”).
73

HRDF § III.C (Standards and Procedures:
Detainee Search).
74
ICE Annual Review, Donald Wyatt
Detention Center (Jan. 2006), Bates 21700
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “strip search”); ICE Annual Review,
Bristol County Sheriff’s Dept. (Apr. 2004),
Bates 20843 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “metal detection
chair”).
75

Id..

76

HRDF § III.D.7.

145
remark: “The hold room is seldom empty, but
the corrections staff periodically inspect the
hold rooms.”).
81
ICE Annual Review, Brooks County
Detention Center (Jan. 2006), Bates 21688
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “No post orders [sic] this area is not
posted only during book in [sic] and release
and then not staffed when detainees are in
holding area.”); ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 21588; ICE
Annual Review, Cass County Jail (Jan. 2004),
Bates 20873; ICE Annual Review, El Centro
Service Processing Center (July 2004), Bates
21736, 21740 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “There is not a written
evacuation plan that addresses removing
detainees from Hold Rooms in case of fire
and/or building evacuation.”); ICE Annual
Review, Plaquemines Parish Detention Center
(Mar. 2004), Bates 21165 (answer marked:
“Yes”; accompanying remark: “plan calls for
removal of all detainees, doesn’t specifically
address hold rooms”).
82
ICE Annual Review, El Centro Service
Processing Center (July 2004), Bates 21736,
21740 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying
remark: “There is not a written evacuation
plan that addresses removing detainees from
Hold Rooms in case of fire and/or building
evacuation.”); ICE Annual Review,
Plaquemines Parish Detention Center (Mar.
2004), Bates 21165 (answer marked: “Yes”;
accompanying remark: “plan calls for
removal of all detainees, doesn’t specifically
address hold rooms”).
83

77
ICE Annual Review, Brooks County
Detention Center (Jan. 2006), Bates 21687
(“No cleaning”); ICE Annual Review, Cass
County Jail (Jan. 2004), Bates 20873; ICE
Annual Review, El Centro Service Processing
Center (July 2004), Bates 21737 (answer
marked: “No”; accompanying remark: “Staff
states that the areas are cleaned by workers
once emptied but failed to specifically
mention a security inspection after
cleaning.”); ICE Annual Review, Turner
Guilford Knight Correctional Center (Mar.
2004), Bates 21264, 21266 (answer marked:
“No”; accompanying remark: “The ICE
detainee hold room was filthy, no toilet paper,
feces were evidence [sic] on the walls.”).
78
ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford
Knight Correctional Center (Mar. 2004),
Bates 21264, 21266; ICE Annual Review,
Brooks County Detention Center (Jan. 2006),
Bates 21687.
79

ICE Annual Review, Turner Guilford
Knight Correctional Center (Mar. 2004),
Bates 21264, 21266 (answer marked: “No”;
accompanying remark: “The ICE detainee
hold room was filthy, no toilet paper, feces
were evidence [sic] on the walls.”).
80

ICE Annual Review, Yakima County
Department of Correction (Dec. 2004), Bates
21678 (answer marked: “Yes”; accompanying

A BROKEN SYSTEM

ICE Annual Review, El Centro Service
Processing Center (July 2004), Bates 21736
(answer marked: “No”; accompanying
remark: “Property is not inventoried until
later in processing after detainee is
accepted.”).

DETAINEE GRIEVANCE
PROCEDURES
1
INS Detention Standard: Detainee
Grievance Procedures (hereinafter
“Grievance”) § I (Policy), in U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/gr
ievance.pdf.
2
Grievance § III.A.1 (Informal/Oral
Grievance).
3
Grievance § III.A.2 (Formal/Written
Grievance).
4
5

Grievance § III.C (Appeal).

The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.

146
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
6
Grievance § III.B (Emergency
Grievances).
7
Grievance § III.E (Recordkeeping and File
Maintenance).
8

Grievance § III.G (Detainee Handbook).

9

The most recent version of the ICE
Inspection Worksheet available (Oct. 18,
2004) does not have questions about whether
facility handbooks have adequate sections on
the detainee grievance process in the
grievance procedure section. The 2003 and
2002 versions of the Inspection Worksheet
did contain a question on handbooks in the
grievance procedure section.
10
Reviewers indicated confusion about the
question. For example, some reviewers
checked “yes,” then went on to comment:
“There are no cases.” ICE Annual Review,
Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility (Sussex
County Jail) (Aug. 2004) Bates 380.
11

ICE Annual Review, El Paso Service
Processing Center, El Paso, TX (June 2002),
Bates 12464–65.
12
Follow-up ICE inspection, Las Animas
County Jail Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 4369
(Repeat finding of failure to include grievance
information in detainee handbook; review
notes that while the facility indicates “that
there has not been a grievance by ICE
detainees in the last 4 years, it is because
detainees are unaware a grievance process
exists. There is no written guidance for the
resolution of informal or formal grievances.
Staff is unaware or has not been trained in the
handling of grievances nor has a log been
established to annotated dispositions. Inmates
have no recourse in addressing their
concerns.”); ICE Annual Review,
Montgomery County Jail, Montgomery, MO
(Oct. 2005), Bates 12203; ICE Annual
Review, Plaquamines Parish Detention Center
(Apr. 2005), Bates 3189 (standard still rated
acceptable despite this omission); ICE Annual
Review, Reno County Jail (Sept. 2005), Bates
3145 (no grievance policy listed in handbook,
remarks indicate that the policy is “given to
detainee when problem occurs”; standard is
still rated acceptable); ICE Annual Review,
Tri-County Detention Center (Mar. 2005),
Bates 1826 (no grievance information in

NOTES
handbook); ICE Annual Review, Erie County
Holding Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 4149
(standard still rated acceptable despite this
omission); ICE Annual Review Las Animas
County Jail Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4383;
ICE Annual Review, Mira Loma Detention
Facility (July 2004), Bates 734, 5092, 5112–
13 (noting that during the prior review, the
facility failed to include grievance procedures
in its handbook and that this information was
still missing from the handbook); ICE Annual
Review, Mississippi County Detention Center
(Aug. 2004), Bates 5140, 5148 (Handbook
does not include and/or describe the
following: “grievance procedures, to include
formal/informal procedures, how to file an
appeal with ICE, staff/detainee assistance
during the grievance process, guarantee
against retaliation and how to contact DOJ
with an officer misconduct complaint.”); ICE
Annual Review, Pettis County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6448 (comments
state that “‘handbook’” consists of a two
sheets of paper describing visitation and
detainee responsibilities; handbook standard
rated “at risk”); ICE Annual Review,
Pottawattamie County Jail (May 2004), Bates
6058–59 (facility handbook does not cover
“step-by-step appeals process, staff/detainee
availability to help, how to file complaint
with DOJ,” nonetheless the standard rated
acceptable); ICE Annual Review, El Paso
Service Processing Center, El Paso, TX (June
2002), Bates 12464–65.
13

ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail, El Reno, OK (Jan. 2005), Bates 10101
(does not provide information on grievance
steps; standard still rated acceptable); ICE
Annual Review, Citrus County Jail (Nov.
2005; Dec. 2005), Bates 13146 (does not
cover procedures for filing an appeal with
ICE or guarantees against staff retaliation);
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center, Miami, FL (Feb. 2005),
Bates 17005 (does not cover appeals with
ICE, availability of help during grievance,
guarantee against retaliation, or how to file
complaint with DOJ); ICE Annual Review,
Lincoln County Jail (June 2005), Bates 2524
(does not include instructions on filing a
complaint about officer misconduct with the
Dept. of Homeland Security, or DHS); ICE
Annual Review, Linn County Correctional
Facility, Cedar Rapids, IA (May 2005), Bates
12158 (does not cover the appeals process to
ICE, availability of staff or other detainees to
help with a grievance, or mention a guarantee
against retaliation for filing or pursuing a
grievance); ICE Annual Review, Manatee
County Jail (July 2005), Bates 610
(insufficient explanation of the appeals
process; no mention of protection from
retaliation or DOJ officer complaint process);
ICE Annual Review, Mississippi County
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 2946,
2960 (does not include a guarantee against
staff retaliation for filing/pursuing a grievance
or instructions for filing a complaint about
officer misconduct with the DHS); ICE
Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug.

A BROKEN SYSTEM

2005), Bates 1848, 1851 (“grievance section
is brief and basic and does not provide details
such as: appeals process, grievance assistance,
guarantee against staff retaliation, or filing
complaints with DHS”; grievance standard
still marked acceptable, although handbook
standard marked deficient); ICE Annual
Review, Yuba County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
2634 (does not include instructions on filing a
complaint about officer misconduct with
DHS, but indicates this information is posted
in the housing areas); ICE Annual Review,
Anchorage Jail Complex (Dec. 2004), Bates
7611; ICE Annual Review, Bonneville
County Jail, Idaho Falls, ID (June 2004),
Bates 9335 (standard rated acceptable); ICE
Annual Review, Cambria County Prison (Oct.
2004), Bates 9456 (does not address appeals
to ICE personnel and does not provide
information to contact the Department of
Justice for civil rights complaints; standard
still rated acceptable); ICE Annual Review,
Forsyth County Detention Center (June
2004), Bates 4186 (does not include
notification of Department of Justice); ICE
Annual Review, Houston Contract Detention
Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates 11199 (does not
include procedures for filing an appeal with
ICE); ICE Annual Review, Jefferson County
Jail, Mt. Vernon, IL (Oct. 2004), Bates 3585
(does not include instructions on filing a
complaint with the Department of Justice);
ICE Annual Review, Kern County Sheriff’s
Office, Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility (Dec. 2004),
Bates 4311 (does not include instructions for
appealing to ICE appeals); ICE Annual
Review, Mecklenburg County Jail (Central)
(Apr. 2004), Bates 4904, 4911 (does not
include procedures for filing an appeal with
ICE; handbook and grievance procedure
standard still rated acceptable); ICE Annual
Review, Pennington County Jail, Rapid City,
SD (June 2004), Bates 11785 (does not cover
staff retaliation or filing a DOJ complaint);
ICE Annual Review, Polk County Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 6100 (does not include the
ability to get help from another inmate, a
guarantee against staff retaliation, or followup with ICE); ICE Annual Review, St.
Francois County Detention Center (June
2004), Bates 6648 (handbook does not
include information on filing an appeal with
INS or a complaint with the Department of
Justice; standard rated acceptable); ICE
Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 5238; ICE Annual Review,
Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5668;
ICE Annual Review, Summit County Jail
(Nov. 2004), Bates 6686 (does not contain
information on appeal process); ICE Annual
Review, Tensas Parish Detention Center
(Aug. 2004), Bates 6551 (although handbook
section was marked as compliant, comments
indicate that handbook does not contain a
statement against retaliation for
filing/pursuing a grievance); ICE Annual
Review, Turner Guilford Knight Correctional
Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 7422 (does not
contain a guarantee against staff retaliation or
instructions on filing a complaint of officer

NOTES
misconduct with the Department of Justice);
ICE Annual Review, Yakima County Jail
(Dec. 2004), Bates 5530 (does not include
information on filing an appeal with ICE);
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18788;
ICE Annual Review, San Diego Correctional
Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates 16859 (does not
cover procedures for filing an appeal with
ICE, availability of help during grievance,
guarantee against retaliation, or how to file
complaint with DOJ; handbook standard still
rated acceptable despite violations of other
standard elements); ICE Annual Review, San
Pedro Service Processing Center (May 2002),
Bates 18474.
14
ICE Annual Review, Manatee County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 1199, 1223–24 (noting
“significant drop” in grievances from the
previous year and “numerous complaints from
detainees that forms are not being given out”);
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Jan. 2003), Bates 18522–
23 (random interviews with female detainees
indicated that they did not know how to file a
grievance).
15
ICE Annual Review, Karnes County
Correctional Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 1298
(noting that the total grievances for the
facility, which houses nearly 600 detainees,
seemed low (39 in 12 months)); ICE Annual
Review, Houston Contract Detention Facility,
Houston, TX (Aug. 2004), Bates 11205
(noting that there were an “unusually low
number of grievances again this year).
16
The monitoring form asks “Do procedures
include maintaining a Detainee Grievance
Log? If not, what is the record keeping
system?” Compare Grievance § III.E (Record
Keeping and File Maintenance).
17

Maintaining detainee grievances in each
detainee’s file for three years is a separate
requirement of the standard.
18
ICE Annual Review, Platte County
Detention Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 1139.
19

ICE Annual Review, Crawford County
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13247 (no log;
grievances kept in detainee files); ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005),
Bates 1453 (checked “yes” for this element,
but comments reveal that there is no log and
that grievances are kept in “intake files”); ICE
Annual Review, Minnehaha County Jail (June
2005), Bates 2845 (no log; grievances kept in
detainee files); ICE Annual Review, Colquitt
County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 3891 (no log;
grievances are logged into the daily logbook
for the pods); ICE Annual Review, Jefferson
County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates 3591 (no log);
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4775 (no log); ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha County Jail (May 2004),
Bates 5068 (no log; grievances kept in
detainee files); ICE Annual Review, Mira
Loma Detention Facility (July 2004), Bates
5118 (checked “yes” for this element but
comments reveal that there is no log and
grievances are kept in the detainee files); ICE

147

Annual Review, Passaic County Jail, (Nov.
2004), Bates 10881 (no log); ICE Annual
Review, Pettis County Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 6454–55 (no log); ICE Annual
Review, Sacramento County Jail (Aug. 2004),
Bates 7148 (checked “yes” for this element,
but comments reveal no log kept and
grievances are in “inmate custody file”); ICE
Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Jan. 2003), Bates 18523
(grievance logs and databases not complete or
up-to-date).

can take up to a month to receive a response
to a formal grievance; other detainees
reported that informal grievances often do not
receive any response, or when they do
responses are not prompt); ABA Report,
Queens Detention Center (Mar. 2004), Bates
8448; ABA Report, Clay County Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 17709–10 (grievances not
answered promptly; detainees are sometimes
told their forms cannot be found); ABA
Report, Kern County Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates
17495.

20
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1453 (checked “yes”
for this element, but comments reveal that
there is no log and that grievances are kept in
“intake files”); ICE Annual Review,
McHenry County Jail (July 2004), Bates 4775
(no log); ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 2845 (no log;
grievances kept in detainee files); ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha County Jail (May 2004),
Bates 5068 (no log; grievances kept in
detainee files).

27
ABA Report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8603; ABA
Report, Passaic County Jail (Aug. 2005),
Bates 8544 (detainees reported that
grievances are ignored despite repeated
submissions); ABA Report, Aurora Contract
Detention Facility (Sept. 2004), Bates 8232
(facility stopped responding at all if more than
one grievance was filed); ABA Report,
Kenosha County Detention Facility (July
2004), Bates 8289 (several detainees noted
that they had never received responses to their
complaints); ABA Report, York County
Prison (July 2004), Bates 8509 (detainees
report nonresponse to grievances); ABA
Report, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(Mar. 2002), Bates 17465 (detainees reported
that nothing would be done if grievance forms
were submitted and that officers tore up
grievance forms after receiving them).

21
ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3239
(noting that there was no documentation of a
substantiated grievance against one officer).
22
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Jan. 2003), Bates 18522–
23; ICE Annual Review, Buffalo Federal
Detention Center (Aug. 2002), Bates 18009;
ICE Annual Review, Houston Contract
Detention Facility, Houston, TX (Aug. 2004),
Bates 11205.
23
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (Feb. 2005) Bates 11007
(standard rated acceptable, but comments
indicated that contract workers untrained in
proper procedures for identifying and
handling emergency grievances); ICE Annual
Review, Colquitt County Jail (Mar. 2004),
Bates 3891 (emergency grievances treated the
same as nonemergency grievances); ICE
Annual Review, McHenry County Jail (July
2004), Bates 4774–75 (not marked as a
violation, but comments indicate that
emergency grievances treated the same as
nonemergency grievances); ICE Annual
Review, Pettis County Detention Center (July
2004), Bates 6455 (“Staff need to be trained
on how to identify emergency grievances and
how to deal with them.”); ICE Annual
Review, Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5674 (medical grievances not handled
appropriately); ICE Annual Review, Buffalo
Federal Detention Center (Aug. 2002), Bates
18009 (policy for staff is not “specific
enough” to cover emergency grievances).
24
ICE Annual Review, Linn County
Correctional Facility, Cedar Rapids, IA (May
2005), Bates 12158 (no informal grievance
process).
25
ICE Annual Review, Houston Contract
Detention Facility, Houston, TX (Aug. 2004),
Bates 11204.
26

ABA Report, Passaic County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8426 (one detainee reported it

A BROKEN SYSTEM

28
ABA Report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (July 2004), Bates 8289; ABA
Report, Kenosha County Detention Facility
(Sept. 2005), Bates 8603.
29

ABA Report, Passaic County Jail (Aug.
2005), Bates 8544; ABA Report, Passaic
County Jail (July 2004), Bates 8426.
30
ABA Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8250 and 8251.
31

ABA Report, Pamunkey Regional Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 8407 (response would
indicate a denial without explanation or that
grievance was “not a grievable offense”
without further explanation); ABA Report,
Clay County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates 17709–
10. (some detainees reported that no reason is
provided for grievance denials).
32
ABA Report, Queens Detention Center
(Mar. 2004), Bates 8449–51.
33
ABA Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8250 & 8251 (does not cover
procedures for appealing decisions to ICE or
the opportunity to file a complaint about
officer misconduct directly with the Justice
Department); ABA Report, Dodge County
Detention Facility (June 2004), Bates 8653
(does not cover information on filing a
complaint about officer misconduct directly
with the Justice Department); ABA Report,
Dorchester Detention Center (July 2004),
Bates 8271 (does not cover information on
filing a complaint about officer misconduct
directly with the Justice Department); ABA
Report, Ozaukee County Jail (July 2004),
Bates 8383 (does not include the grievance
form and does not cover grievance review

148
procedures or the ability of obtaining
assistance to file or appeal a grievance); ABA
Report, Passaic County Jail (July 2004), Bates
8426 (handbook does not cover procedures
for appealing decisions to ICE or the
opportunity to file a complaint about officer
misconduct directly with the Justice
Department); ABA Report, Queens Detention
Center (Mar. 2004), Bates 8448 (detainees not
informed of ability to file complaints about
officer misconduct directly with the
Department of Justice); ABA Report, Clay
County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates 17709–10
(does not cover procedures for appealing
decisions to ICE or filing a complaint about
officer misconduct directly with the Justice
Department).
34

ICE Annual Review, Bristol County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 9895–96; ICE Annual
Review, Dodge County Detention Facility
(June 2004), Bates 3945–78; ICE Annual
Review, Dorchester Detention Center (June
2004), Bates 4011–12. In discovery the
government only produced information on the
Hold Room standard from the annual ICE
reviews for the Clay County Jail, Ozaukee
County Jail, Passaic County Jail, and Queens
Detention Center.
35
ABA Report, Passaic County Jail (July
2004), Bates 8426(several detainees never
received the handbook and were unfamiliar
with grievance procedures; most detainees
had never filed a grievance and did not know
who to file a grievance with).
36
ABA Report, Queens Detention Center
(Mar. 2004), Bates 8449–51; ABA Report,
Kern County Jail (Aug. 2002), Bates 17495
(to get a form detainees must request them
from the floor officer, which they are often
hesitant to do).
37

ABA Report, Bergen County Jail (Aug.
2003), Bates 17370.
38
ABA Report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8603; ABA
Report, Passaic County Jail (Aug. 2005),
Bates 8545 (detainee reported that retaliation
was a problem, but would not elaborate);
ABA Report, York County Prison (July
2004), Bates 8509 (detainees reported that
filing a grievance can result in retaliation);
ABA Report, Kern County Jail (Aug. 2002),
Bates 17495 (detainees reported fear to file
grievances because officers will take away
their privileges).
39
ABA Report, Kenosha County Detention
Facility (Sept. 2005), Bates 8603.
40

ABA Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8250 and 8251; ABA Report,
Passaic County Jail (July 2004), Bates 8426;
ABA Report, Clay County Jail (Aug. 2003),
Bates 17709–10.
41
ABA Report, Bristol County Jail (Aug.
2004), Bates 8250 and 8251; ABA Report,
Dodge County Detention Facility (June
2004), Bates 8653; ABA Report, Clay County
Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates 17709–10.

NOTES
DETAINEE TRANSFER
1

ICE Detention Standard: Detainee Transfer
(approved by ICE Sept. 9, 2004) (hereinafter
“DT”), in U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/de
tainee-transfer.pdf. ICE reviews of this
standard are fewer in number because of its
relatively recent adoption.
2

DT § III.B (Types of Transfers).

3

DT § III.A.3 (Notification Procedure:
Detainee).
4
The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
5

ICE Annual Review, Bexar County GEO
Detention Facility (July 2005), Bates 9773–
9813 (Detainee Transfer Notification Sheet
(hereinafter “DTNS”)); ICE Annual Review,
Cass County Jail (June 2005, July 2005),
Bates 10225–10266 (detainee not provided
with a completed DTNS); ICE Annual
Review, Dickens County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 13507–13546 (detainee not provided
with a completed DTNS); ICE Annual
Review, Erie County Prison (Mar. 2005),
Bates 13277–13367 (detainee not provided
with a completed DTNS); ICE Annual
Review, Finney County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 13374–13411 (detainee not provided
with a completed DTNS); ICE Annual
Review, Forsyth County Law Enforcement
Center (June 2005), Bates 13082–13123
(detainee not provided with a completed
DTNS); ICE Annual Review, Howard County
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 2306–
2345 (detainee not provided with a completed
DTNS); ICE Annual Review, Hudson County
Department of Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates
14618–14647 (detainee not provided with a
completed DTNS); ICE Annual Review,
North Las Vegas Detention Center (Aug.
2005), Bates 3215–3257 (detainee not

A BROKEN SYSTEM

provided with a completed DTNS); ICE
Annual Review, Passaic County Jail (June
2005), Bates 858–904 (detainee not provided
with a completed DTNS); ICE Annual
Review, Pottawattame County Jail (July
2005), Bates 2024–2064 (detainee not
provided with a completed DTNS; only
verbal notification provided); ICE Annual
Review, St. Mary Detention Center (July
2005), Bates 1723–1762 (detainee not
provided with a completed DTNS); ICE
Annual Review, Anchorage Jail Complex
(Dec. 2004), Bates 7600–7646 (detainee not
provided with a completed DTNS); ICE
Annual Review, Grand Forks County
Correctional Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3511–
3551 (detainee not provided with a completed
DTNS); ICE Annual Review, Kern County
Sheriff’s Office, Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility
(Dec. 2004), Bates 4299–4336 (detainee not
provided with a completed DTNS); ICE
Annual Review, Oklahoma County Detention
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 12061–12133
(detainee not provided with a completed
DTNS); ICE Annual Review, Summit County
Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 6675–6714 (detainee
not provided with a completed DTNS); ICE
Annual Review, Washington County
Purgatory Detention Facility (Nov. 2004),
Bates 6909–6948 (detainee not provided with
a completed DTNS); ICE Annual Review, Lin
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 12134–12183
(detainee notification of detainee transfer to
another detention facility has not been taking
place; facility does not provide any
information to detainees about pending
transfers).
6
DT § III.A.2 (Notification Procedure:
Family).
7
ICE Annual Review, Cass County Jail
(June 2005, July 2005), Bates 10225–10266
(attorney and the detainee are not notified that
it is their responsibility to notify family
members regarding a transfer); ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 2824–2863 (attorney and detainee are
not notified that it is their responsibility to
notify family members regarding a transfer);
ICE Annual Review, Yuba County Jail (Nov.
2005), Bates 2613–2656 (attorney and
detainee are not notified that it is their
responsibility to notify family members
regarding a transfer); ICE Annual Review,
Lin County Jail (May 2005), Bates 12134–
12183 (attorney and the detainee are not
notified that it is their responsibility to notify
family members regarding a transfer).
8
DT § III.A.1 (Notification Procedure:
Attorney).
9
ICE Annual Review, Lin County Jail (May
2005), Bates 12134–12183 (attorneys not
notified of detainee transfer to another
detention facility); ICE Annual Review, Yuba
County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2613–2656
(attorney notification not noted in detainee’s
ICE file or in ICE database).
10
ICE Annual Review, Erie County Prison
(Mar. 2005), Bates 13277–13367 (notification

NOTES
does not include the reason for the transfer or
the location of the new facility); ICE Annual
Review, Forsyth County Law Enforcement
Center (June 2005), Bates 13082–13123
(notification does not include the reason for
the transfer or the location of the new
facility); ICE Annual Review, Howard
County Detention Center (July 2005), Bates
2306–2345 (notification does not include the
reason for the transfer or the location of the
new facility); ICE Annual Review, Polk
County Jail (May 2005), Bates 3022–3089
(facility does not notify detainees or attorneys
of transfers to another jail within the Omaha
area); ICE Annual Review, St. Mary
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 1723–
1762 (notification does not include the reason
for the transfer and the location of the new
facility); ICE Annual Review, Yuba County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 2613–2656
(notification does not include the reason for
the transfer or the location of the new
facility); ICE Annual Review, Grand Forks
County Correctional Center (Dec. 2004),
Bates 3511–3551 (no deportation office at
facility to oversee notifications).
11

DT § III.D.8 (Preparation and Transfer of
Records: G-391, “Official Detail”); ICE
Annual Review, Dickens County Jail (June
2005), Bates 13507–13546 (a G-391 form or
equivalent authorizing the removal of a
detainee from a facility is not used); ICE
Annual Review, Finney County Jail (June
2005), Bates 13374–13411 (a G-391 form or
equivalent authorizing the removal of a
detainee from a facility is not used); ICE
Annual Review, Anchorage Jail Complex
(Dec. 2004), Bates 7600–7646 (a G-391 form
or equivalent authorizing the removal of a
detainee from a facility is not used); ICE
Annual Review, Oklahoma County Detention
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 12061–12133 (a G391 form or equivalent authorizing the
removal of a detainee from a facility is not
used).
12

DT § III.D.6 (Medical Procedures and
Information Required for Transfer).
13

Id.

14
ICE Annual Review, Bexar County GEO
Detention Facility (Nov. 2005), Bates 9773–
9813 (detainees with medical needs are not
transferred with a completed transfer
summary sheet in a sealed envelope with the
detainee’s name and A-number and the
envelope marked “Medical Confidential”);
ICE Annual Review, Howard County
Detention Center (July 2005), Bates 2306–
2345 (detainees with medical needs are not
transferred with a completed transfer
summary sheet in a sealed envelope with the
detainee’s name and A-number and the
envelope marked “Medical Confidential”);
ICE Annual Review, St. Mary Detention
Center (July 2005), Bates 1723–1762
(detainees with medical needs are not
transferred with a completed transfer
summary sheet in a sealed envelope with the
detainee’s name and A-number and the
envelope marked “Medical Confidential”).

15

ICE Annual Review, Dickens County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 13507–13546 (medical
transfer standards are not in place).

FUNDS AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY
1

INS Detention Standard: Funds and
Personal Property (hereinafter “FPP”) § III.C
(Standards and Procedures: Admission), in
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/fu
ndprop.pdf.
2
FPP §§ III.D (Standards and Procedures:
Officer Processing of Funds and Valuables)
and III.E (Standards and Procedures: Officer
Processing of Baggage and Personal Property
Other Than Funds and Valuables).
3

FPP § III.G (Standards and Procedures:
Release or Transfer).
4

FPP § II (Applicability).

5

FPP §§ III.D and E.

6

FPP § III.A (Standards and Procedures:
General).
7
FPP § III.F (Standards and Procedures:
Inventory and Audit).
8

FPP § III.B (Standards and Procedures:
Limitations on Possession of Detainee
Personal Property).
9

Id.

10

FPP § III.A.

11

FPP § III.C.

12

FPP § III.H (Standards and Procedures:
Lost/Damaged Property - General).
13

FPP § III.C.

14

FPP § III.J (Standards and Procedures:
Notice to Detainees).
15

FPP § III.B.

16

The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in
this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was

A BROKEN SYSTEM

149
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
17

See FPP § III.D.

18

See FPP § II.

19

Compare ICE Annual Review, Orleans
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 12929 (IGSA),
and ICE Annual Review, Crawford County
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13243 (IGSA), with
ICE Annual Review, Port Isabel Service
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 11648–
49 (SPC), and ICE Annual Review, Aguadilla
Service Processing Center (Mar. 2005), Bates
10763–64. No CDF reviews from 2005 were
provided in discovery in the Orantes case,
and thus none were available to this study for
comparison with 2004.
20
ICE Annual Review, El Centro Service
Processing Center (July 2005), Bates 10845–
46.
21

See id.

22

ICE reviewers noted violations of this
element at the following facilities: ICE
follow-up inspection, Las Animas County Jail
Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 4369; ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha County Jail (June 2005),
Bates 2842 (if at facility, but not at ICE
office—accessible by any staff); ICE Annual
Review, Nobles County Jail (May 2005),
Bates 2679–80; ICE Annual Review, Rolling
Plains Detention Center (Feb. 2005), Bates
1908–09 (valuables being stored with regular
property); ICE Annual Review, Las Animas
County Jail Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4385–
86 (only inmate funds are secured; storage
room, including valuables, is easily accessible
to all); ICE Annual Review, Pettis County
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 6450–51
(accessible by all jail officers); ICE Annual
Review, Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates
5670–71 (book-in officers have access to
valuables at all times); ICE Annual Review,
Yakima County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 5532–
33 (accessible to line officers); ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(Nov. 2003), Bates 17870–72 (funds and
personal property unsecured, uninventoried in
property room); ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept. Corrections
(July 2002), Bates 18740–41 (valuables
retained by INS; funds deposited and receipt
issued).
In addition, ICE reviewers’ comments
indicated violations at the following
facilities: ICE Annual Review, Crawford
County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13243
(accessible to all staff); ICE Annual Review,
San Pedro Service Processing Center (July
2004), Bates 12348–49 (secured entrance,
accessible only to supervisors, opened several
times to allow access to IEAs instead of
conducting business through pass-through
window).
23
ICE follow-up inspection, Las Animas
County Jail Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 4369;
ICE Annual Review, Las Animas County Jail
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4385–86; ICE
Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (July 2004), Bates 12348–

150
49; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Nov. 2003), Bates 17870–
72.
24
ICE Annual Review, Crawford County
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13243-44; ICE
Annual Review, Nobles County Jail (May
2005), Bates 2679–80; ICE Annual Review,
Rolling Plains Detention Center (Feb. 2005)
Bates 1908–09; ICE Annual Review, Yakima
County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 5532–33; ICE
Annual Review, Kenosha County Sheriff’s
Dept. Corrections (July 2002), Bates 18740–
41.
25

An ICE reviewer noted a violation of this
element at the following facility: ICE Annual
Review, Carter County Detention Center
(Nov. 2004), Bates 7902 (“The storage area
for personal property has no restricted access
to staff members and is not locked. There is
no written tracking of notification for
property that is left behind.”). In addition, an
ICE reviewer’s comments indicated a
violation at the following facility: San Pedro
Service Processing Center (July 2004), Bates
12348–49 (funds and property located
unsecured in property room; safe and cash
drawer found unlocked).
26
ICE Annual Review, Houston Contract
Detention Facility (July 2003), Bates 15660–
63 (facility keeping funds and not returning to
detainees; funds not being deposited into
commissary accounts; facility has taken more
than $3,290 from detainees since 1997;
detainee in custody at time of review had $40
taken from him following visitation with his
wife).
27

Id.

28
ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha County
Jail (Aug. 2005) (Headquarters review,
containing comments), Bates 2828; see also
ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha County Jail
(June 2005), Bates 2842 (same; comments
partially redacted).
29

Id.

30

FPP § III.A.

31
ICE reviewers noted violations of this
element at the following facilities: ICE
Annual Review, Aguadilla Service Processing
Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 10763-64; ICE
Annual Review, Atlanta City Detention
Center (May 2005), Bates 9670 (large
valuables not stored — handled by Atlanta
Field Office); ICE Annual Review, Forsyth
County Detention Center (June 2005), Bates
13100 (placed on shelf); ICE Annual Review,
McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
1449–50; ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha
County Jail (June 2005), Bates 2842; ICE
Annual Review, Nobles County Jail (May
2005), Bates 2679–80); ICE Annual Review,
Port Isabel Service Processing Center (Feb.
2005), Bates 11648–49 (large valuables
mailed to family members); ICE Annual
Review, Rolling Plains Detention Center
(Feb. 2005), Bates 1908–09 (valuables being
stored w/regular property); ICE Annual
Review, Scottsbluff County Jail (Apr.-May

NOTES
2005), Bates 10590–91 (large valuables not
allowed); ICE Annual Review, Catahoula
Parish Detention Center (Aug. 2004), Bates
7968-69 (detainees are required to mail large
valuables to family); ICE Annual Review, El
Centro Processing Center (Jan. 2004), Bates
12655 (due to construction, incoming
property stored in unsecured area); ICE
Annual Review, Las Animas County Jail
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4385–86;
Minnehaha County Jail (May 2004), Bates
5064–65 (not secured; any staff can get in);
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (July 2004), Bates 12348–
49; ICE Annual Review, Sussex County Jail
(aka Keogh Dwyer Correctional Facility)
(Aug. 2004), Bates 7015–16 (ICE only).
In addition, ICE reviewers’ comments
indicated violations at the following
facilities: ICE Annual Review, Genesee
County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates 3422 (ICE
retains property and valuables); ICE Annual
Review, Grand Forks County Correctional
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3522; ICE Annual
Review, Middlesex County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 4951–52 (ICE maintains all large
items); ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Sheriff’s Dept. Corrections (July 2002), Bates
18740–41 (large items not accepted).
32
ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha County
Jail (June 2005), Bates 2842; ICE Annual
Review, Minnehaha County Jail (May 2004),
Bates 5064–65.
33
ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha County
Jail (June 2005), Bates 2842; ICE Annual
Review, Las Animas County Jail Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 4385–86; ICE Annual Review,
San Pedro Service Processing Center (July
2004), Bates 12348–49.
34

ICE Annual Review, Atlanta City
Detention Center (May 2005), Bates 9670
(large valuables not stored — handled by
Atlanta Field Office); ICE Annual Review,
Catahoula Parish Detention Center (Aug.
2004), Bates 7968-69 (detainees are required
to mail large valuables to family); ICE
Annual Review, Kenosha County Sheriff’s
Dept. Corrections (July 2002), Bates 18740–
41 (large items not accepted); ICE Annual
Review, Middlesex County Jail (Oct. 2004),
Bates 4951–52 (ICE maintains all large
items); ICE Annual Review, Port Isabel
Service Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates
11648–49 (large valuables mailed to family
members); ICE Annual Review, Scottsbluff
County Jail (Apr.-May 2005), Bates 10590–
91 (large valuables not allowed).
35

FPP §§ III.A and B.

36

FPP §§ III.D and E.

37

At SPCs and CDFs, two officers must be
present to receive the detainee’s funds or
valuables and to inventory this property on a
property-receipt form, to be completed in
front of the detainee. The officers must give a
copy of the completed form to the detainee
and also place a copy of the form in the
detainee’s file and another in the envelope
containing the detainee’s property. Finally,

A BROKEN SYSTEM

the officers must record each receipt form in a
log book and add their initials and
identification numbers to the relevant entries
before placing the items in a designated safe.
38

ICE Annual Review, Aguadilla Service
Processing Center (Mar. 2005), Bates 1076364; ICE Annual Review, Pine Prairie
Correctional Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 6384–
85; ICE Annual Review, Worcester County
Jail (Nov.-Dec. 2004), Bates 5946-48; ICE
Annual Review, El Paso Processing Center
(June 2002), Bates 12461–63.
39
ICE Annual Review, El Paso Processing
Center (June 2002), Bates 12461–63.
40
ICE reviewers noted violations of this
element at the following facilities: ICE
Annual Review, Houston Contract Detention
Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates 11200–02; ICE
Annual Review, El Paso Processing Center
(June 2002), Bates 12461–63; ICE Annual
Review, Elizabeth Detention Center (Dec.
2002), Bates 18101–03. In addition, the ICE
reviewers’ comments indicated a violation at
the following facility: San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Jan. 2003), Bates 18517–
19 (marked “Y” for this element, but remarks
state that “[l]arge valuables need to be tagged
with a G-589 and I-77”); see also
Memorandum from Reviewer-In-Charge to
Anthony Tangeman, Deputy Executive
Associate Commissioner, Review Summary
Report for San Pedro Service Processing
Center (Jan. 21, 2003), Bates 18497 (“The
facility does not tag large valuable[s] with a
G-589 and I-77.”).
41
ICE Annual Review, Houston Contract
Detention Facility (Aug. 2004), Bates 11200–
02.
42
ICE monthly report, Houston Contract
Detention Facility (Mar. 2004), Bates 15667;
ICE monthly report, Houston Contract
Detention Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates 15654;
ICE Annual Review, Houston Contract
Detention Facility (July 2003), Bates 15660–
63 (facility lacks sufficient staff); ICE Annual
Review, Elizabeth Detention Center (Dec.
2002), Bates 18101–03.
43
ICE monthly report, Houston Contract
Detention Facility (Mar. 2004), Bates 15667;
ICE monthly report, Houston Contract
Detention Facility (Feb. 2004), Bates 15654;
ICE Review Summary Report for Houston
INS Detention Facility (Aug. 30, 2003), Bates
15660–63.
44
ICE Annual Review, Laredo Contract
Detention Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 11285–
87.
45
ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (Feb. 2004), Bates 11109–
11; ICE Annual Review, Denver Contract
Detention Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates 11158–
61; ICE Annual Review, Houston Contract
Detention Facility (July 2003), Bates 15660–
63; ICE Annual Review, Laredo Contract
Detention Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 11285–
87; ICE Annual Review, Queens Contract
Facility (Oct. 2003), Bates 11390–92; ICE

NOTES
Annual Review, Denver Contract Detention
Facility (Oct. 2002), Bates 18367-69; ICE
Annual Review, El Paso Processing Center
(June 2002), Bates 12461–63; ICE Annual
Review, Elizabeth Detention Center (Dec.
2002), Bates 18101–03); ICE Annual Review,
Seattle Contract Detention Center (Sept.
2002), Bates 11514–16.
46
ICE Annual Review, Houston Contract
Detention Facility (July 2003), Bates 15660–
63; ICE Annual Review, Queens Contract
Facility (Oct. 2003), Bates 11391–92; ICE
Annual Review, El Paso Processing Center
(June 2002), Bates 12461–63; ICE Annual
Review, Elizabeth Detention Center (Dec.
2002), Bates 18101–03; ICE Annual Review,
Seattle Contract Detention Center (Sept.
2002), Bates 11514–16.
47

See FPP § III.F.

48

See id.

49

See id.

50

ICE reviewers noted violations of this
element at the following facilities: ICE
Annual Review, Houston Contract Detention
Facility (July 2003), Bates 15660–63; ICE
Annual Review, Laredo Contract Detention
Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 11285–87; ICE
Annual Review, Queens Contract Facility
(Oct. 2003), Bates 11390–92; ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(Jan. 2003), Bates 18497, 18517–19; ICE
Annual Review, El Paso Processing Center
(June 2002), Bates 12461–63; ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(May 2002), Bates 18468–70; ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(Sept. 2002), Bates 11514–16.
In addition, an ICE reviewer’s comments
indicated a violation at the following facility:
ICE Annual Review, El Centro Processing
Center (July 2005), Bates 10845–46 (current
method is to count funds and match amount to
total on G-589s, but no record of how many
G-589s there are supposed to be; better
accountability if logbook were kept).
51

ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Jan. 2003), Bates 18497,
18517–19; ICE Annual Review, San Pedro
Service Processing Center (May 2002), Bates
18468–70.
52
ICE Annual Review, El Centro Processing
Center (July 2005), Bates 10845–46; ICE
Annual Review, Laredo Contract Detention
Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 11285–87; ICE
Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18468–
70.
53

ICE Annual Review, Queens Contract
Facility (Oct. 2003), Bates 11390–92; ICE
Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18468–
70; ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (Sept. 2002), Bates 11514–
16.
54

ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (May 2002), Bates 18468–
70 (rating the standard acceptable, but adding

in remarks, “DOS needs to log all weekly
audits of detainee funds. Needs to develop a
quarterly baggage and non valuable
inventory.”).
55

Id.

56

ABA report, Kern County Jail (Aug.
2002), Bates 17498–99 (detainees not allowed
to keep photographs or religious items, and
doubt as to whether detainees were allowed to
keep correspondence or legal papers); ABA
report, Wackenhut Corrections Corp. (Apr.
2002), Bates 17645 (detainees not allowed to
retain any jewelry, including wedding rings).
57

See FPP § III.C.

58

ICE Annual Review, Phelps County Jail
(Apr. 2004), Bates 6212–13; ICE Annual
Review, San Pedro Service Processing Center
(Nov. 2003), Bates 17870–72 (detainee
medication found in property room).
59
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Nov. 2003), Bates 17870–
72.
60

FPP § III.G.

61

ICE Annual Review, Crawford County
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13243 (marked “no,”
but stating in remarks: “TRY TO CONTACT,
THEN AFTER 30 DAYS DESTROY.”); ICE
Annual Review, Pettis County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6450–51; ICE
Annual Review, Pine Prairie Correctional
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 6384–85; ICE
Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5670–71.
62
ICE Annual Review, Crawford County
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13243; ICE Annual
Review, Pine Prairie Correctional Center
(Nov. 2004), Bates 6384–85.
63
ICE Review Summary Report for Houston
INS Detention Facility (Aug. 30, 2003), Bates
15660–63 (facility keeping funds and not
returning them to detainees; funds not being
deposited into commissary accounts; facility
has taken more than $3,290 from detainees
since 1997; detainee in custody at time of
review had $40 taken from him following
visitation with his wife. The reviewer
observed, “[I]t is curious to note that the
majority of funds taken have been from
Spanish speaking nationals.”).
64
FPP § III.I (Standards and Procedures:
Abandoned Property).
65

FPP § III.C.

66

FPP § III.I.

67

Id.

68

Id.

69

ICE Annual Review, Crawford County
Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13243; ICE Annual
Review, Colquitt County Jail (Mar. 2004),
Bates 3887–88; ICE Annual Review, Colquitt
County Jail (Mar. 2005), Bates 13190; ICE
Annual Review, Culberson County Jail (Dec.
2004), Bates 3932–33; ICE Annual Review,
Las Animas County Jail Center (Dec. 2004),
Bates 4385–86; ICE Annual Review, Passaic
County Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates 14669–70;

A BROKEN SYSTEM

151
ICE Annual Review, Phelps County Jail (Apr.
2004), Bates 6212–13; ICE Annual Review,
Smith County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5670–
71 (property room had massive unclaimed
property); ICE Annual Review, El Paso
Processing Center (June 2002), Bates 12461–
63; ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (Sept. 2002), Bates 11514–
16.
70
ICE Annual Review, Las Animas County
Jail Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4385–86; ICE
Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5670–71; ICE Annual Review,
El Paso Processing Center (June 2002), Bates
12461–63; ICE Annual Review, Seattle
Contract Detention Center (Sept. 2002), Bates
11514–16.
71
ICE Annual Review, Laredo Contract
Detention Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 11285–
87; ICE Annual Review, El Paso Processing
Center (June, 2002), Bates 12461–63.
72
ICE Annual Review, Laredo Contract
Detention Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 11285–
87.
73
ICE reviewers noted violations of this
element at the following facilities: ICE
Annual Review, Chautauqua County Jail
(Apr. 2005), Bates 10494; ICE Annual
Review, Dickens County Correctional Facility
(June 2005), Bates 13524; ICE Annual
Review, McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005),
Bates 1449–50; ICE Annual Review, Niagara
County Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates 12809; ICE
Annual Review, Orleans County Jail (June
2005), Bates 12929; ICE Annual Review,
Carter County Detention Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 7902 (no written tracking); ICE Annual
Review, City of Las Vegas Detention Center
(Sept. 2004), Bates 4437; ICE Annual
Review, Clay County Jail (Sept. 2004), Bates
3721 (policy needs to include forwarding of
commissary order); ICE Annual Review, Las
Animas County Jail Center (Dec. 2004),
Bates 4385–86; ICE Annual Review,
Oklahoma County Detention Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 12084–85 (notification via
telephone numbers given at intake, but no
written notification); ICE Annual Review,
Orleans Parish Community Corrections
Center (a/k/a Community Corrections Center)
(Sept.-Oct. 2004), Bates 7474–75; ICE
Annual Review, Point Coupee Parish
Detention Center (May 2004), Bates 10616;
ICE Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5670–71; ICE Annual Review,
Wyoming County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
5430–31 (notification done by phone call; call
logged in logbook); ICE Annual Review,
Laredo Contract Detention Facility (Sept.
2003), Bates 11285–87; ICE Annual Review,
Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept. Corrections
(July 2002), Bates 18740–41; ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(Sept. 2002), Bates 11514–16.
In addition, ICE reviewers’ comments
indicated violations at the following
facilities: ICE Annual Review, Boone
County Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
9374–75; ICE Annual Review, Garvin

152
County Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates
3382–83 (not by certified mail); ICE Annual
Review, Kenosha County Detention Center
(May 2003), Bates 18784–85.
74

ICE Annual Review, Carter County
Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 7902;
ICE Annual Review, Clay County Jail (Sept.
2004), Bates 3721; ICE Annual Review, Las
Animas County Jail Center (Dec. 2004),
Bates 4385–86; ICE Annual Review, Point
Coupee Parish Detention Center (May 2004),
Bates 10616; ICE Annual Review, Smith
County Jail (June 2004), Bates 5670–71; ICE
Annual Review, Seattle Contract Detention
Center (Sept. 2002), Bates 11514–16.
75

ICE reviewers noted violations of this
element at the following facilities or
incorrectly noted that this element of the
standard was “not applicable”: ICE Annual
Review, Dickens County Correctional Facility
(June 2005), Bates 13524; ICE Annual
Review, Nobles County Jail (May 2005),
Bates 2679–80 (unwritten policy); ICE
Annual Review, Plaquemines Parish
Detention Center (Apr. 2005), Bates 3191–92
(element marked “not applicable”); ICE
Annual Review, Las Animas County Jail
Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4385–86; ICE
Annual Review, North Las Vegas Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 12034–35 (ICE
office usually not notified about unclaimed
property unless detainee has made it known to
ICE office that he/she is missing property and
wants it back); ICE Annual Review, Orleans
Parish Community Corrections Center (a/k/a
Community Corrections Center) (Sept.-Oct.
2004), Bates 7474–75 (no written policy);
ICE Annual Review, Pine Prairie Correctional
Center (Nov. 2004), Bates 6384–85; ICE
Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5670–71; ICE Annual Review,
Yakima County Jail (Dec. 2004), Bates 5532–
33 (no written policy); ICE Annual Review,
Pike County Correctional Facility (Dec.
2003), Bates 18322–23 (no written policy;
ICE contacted); ICE Annual Review, San
Pedro Service Processing Center (Jan. 2003),
Bates 18497, 18518–19 (staff thinks donating
property to charity is permitted, but policy
forbids it); ICE Annual Review, El Paso
Processing Center (June 2002), Bates 12461–
63; ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (Sept. 2002), Bates 11514–
16; ICE Annual Review, Tensas Parish
Detention Center (Aug.-Sept. 2002), Bates
18566–67.
In addition, ICE reviewers’ comments
indicated violations at the following
facilities: ICE Annual Review, Plaquemines
Parish Detention Center (Apr. 2005), Bates
3191–92 (element marked “not applicable”);
ICE Annual Review, North Las Vegas
Detention Center (July 2004), Bates 12034–
35.
76
ICE Annual Review, Las Animas County
Jail Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4385–86; ICE
Annual Review, Smith County Jail (June
2004), Bates 5670–71; ICE Annual Review,
San Pedro Service Processing Center (Jan.

NOTES
2003), Bates 18497, 18518–19; ICE Annual
Review, El Paso Processing Center (June
2002), Bates 12461–63; ICE Annual Review,
Seattle Contract Detention Center (Sept.
2002), Bates 11514–16.
77
FPP § III.H (Standards and Procedures:
Lost/Damaged Property - General).
78

Id.

79

Id.

80

Id.

this report to “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement” or “ICE” refers to the
immigration enforcement agency that was
operating at the time the events associated
with the particular reference took place. So,
for example, a reference to an “ICE review”
that took place in 2002 should be understood
to mean an “INS review,” since the INS was
the U.S.’s immigration enforcement agency
during all of 2002.
7

81

AR § III.J (Orientation).

8

FPP § III.H (Standards and Procedures:
Lost/Damaged Property in CDFs and IGSAs).

Id. subsection c (detailing portions of SPC
/ CDF orientation video).

82
ICE review summary report for Carter
County Detention Center (Nov. 2004), Bates
7902; ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (Sept. 2002), Bates 11514–
16 (no procedure); ICE Annual Review, Pettis
County Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
6450–51 (marked “N/A” for this element);
ICE Annual Review, San Pedro Service
Processing Center (Jan. 2003), Bates 18497,
18518–19 (marked “N/A” for this element).

9
ICE Annual Review, Lin County Jail (May
2005), Bates 12134–12183 (no in-process
orientation exists); ICE Annual Review,
North Las Vegas Detention Center (Aug.
2005), Bates 3215–3257 (no orientation
provided during processing procedure and no
orientation video used); ICE Annual Review,
Garvin County Detention Center (Dec. 2004),
Bates 3355–3405 (facility count procedures
and times are not covered during orientation);
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County PreTrial Detention Center (June 2004), Bates
4249–4298 (no formal orientation program
and no orientation video); Las Animas
County Jail Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4371–
4406 (in-process orientation not conducted on
an ongoing basis); ICE Annual Review, Pine
Prairie Correctional Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 6363–6414 (no orientation session);
ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11415–
11475 (not all detainees receive an orientation
during intake).

83
ICE Annual Review, El Paso Processing
Center (June 2002), Bates 12461–63.
84
Memo from ICE reviewer-in-charge to
Victor Cerda, acting director, Office of
Detention and Removal, “Plan of Action and
Request for Closure: Point Coupee Parish
Detention Center” (July 2004), Bates 10616
(no lost property claim form); ICE Annual
Review, Seattle Contract Detention Center
(Sept. 2002), Bates 11514–16.
85
ICE Annual Review, El Paso Processing
Center (June 2002), Bates 12461–63.

ADMISSION AND RELEASE
1
INS Detention Standard: Admission and
Release (hereinafter “AR”) § I (Policy), in
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009). A copy of this
standard is available also at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/dom/ad
mission-release.pdf.
2
AR § III (Standards and Procedures),
subsections A–K.
3

AR § III.J (Orientation).

4

AR § III.L (Releases).

5

AR § III.J (Orientation).

6

The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), formerly an agency within the
U.S. Department of Justice, was abolished
and replaced by parts of the newly formed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on Mar. 1, 2003, as a result of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Many of the INS’s enforcement-related
duties, including responsibility for detention,
were transferred to the newly formed Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which subsequently came to be known as
“U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,” or “ICE.” Any reference in

A BROKEN SYSTEM

10
ICE Annual Review, Mississippi County
Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 2944–
2982 (ICE review indicates compliance with
the standard, but orientation does not discuss
the availability of or ways to obtain pro bono
legal services.); ICE Annual Review, Niagara
County Jail (Dec. 2005), Bates 12788–12831
(pro bono legal services not addressed by
facility staff); ICE Annual Review, Madison
County Jail (July 2004), Bates 4560–4603
(noting ICE must provide a list of pro bono
services and a list of officers’ names and
telephone numbers); ICE Annual Review,
Niagara County Jail (Oct. 2004), Bates
11956–12005 (facility’s in-processing
orientation does not address pro bono
immigration legal services).
11
ICE Annual Review Las Animas County
Jail Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 4371–4406
(handbooks are not issued to all incoming
inmates/detainees); ICE Annual Review,
Madison County Jail (July 2004), Bates
4560–4603 (detainee handbook was not yet
completely translated into Spanish); ABA
report, Bergen County Jail (Aug. 2003), Bates
17360–17372 (handbooks available only in
English and Spanish, and not provided to
detainees at arrival); ICE Annual Review,
Houston Contract Detention Facility (July
2003), Bates 15657–15664 (as confirmed by
detainee interviews, not all detainees receive a
handbook during intake).

NOTES
12

ICE Annual Review, Houston Processing
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 10898–10942
(admissions paperwork often incomplete, with
data information and signatures were missing
in several admission files; noting that First
Line Supervision is not reviewing completed
paperwork as required).
13
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Detention Center (May 2003), Bates 18761–
18806 (in-processing is conducted at another
facility, and detainees are not provided with
instructions on how to contact their
deportation officer).
14

ICE Annual Review, Krome Service
Processing Center (Feb. 2005), Bates 15729–
15773 (the amount of physical space in
processing area does not accommodate all of
the traffic that flows through).
15
AR § III.I (Missing Detainee Property)
(requiring completion and transmission of
Form I-387 to ICE, for every claim of missing
property by newly arrived detainee); ICE
Annual Review, Crawford County Jail (Mar.
2005), Bates 13223–13266 (staff does not
complete Form I-387 or similar form for
every lost or missing property claim); ICE
Annual Review, Nobles County Jail (May
2005), Bates 2657–2701 (staff does not
complete Form I-387 or similar form for
every lost or missing property claim); ICE
Annual Review, Culberson County Jail (Dec.
2004), Bates 3919–3938 (staff does not
complete Form I-387 or similar form for
every lost or missing property claim); ICE
Annual Review, Penobscot County Jail (Mar.
2004), Bates 6474–6495 (staff uses an inhouse form for lost or missing property rather
than an I-387 form, but does not forward the
in-house form to ICE).
16
ICE Annual Review, McHenry County
Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates 1421–1471 (there is
no missing property form identified); ICE
Annual Review, Santa Cruz County Jail
(Sept. 2005), Bates 178–212 (missing
property claims referred to jail administrator
or arresting agency, but not ICE); ICE Annual
Review Las Animas County Jail Center (Dec.
2004), Bates 4371–4406 (facility does not
have a form for tracking lost property); ICE
Annual Review, Orleans Parish Community
Corrections Center (Sept. 2004), Bates 7254–
7301 (there is no I-387 property form); ICE
Annual Review, Pennington County Jail (June
2004), Bates 11766 – 11810 (no form used for
lost or missing property claims); ICE Annual
Review, Rockingham County Department of
Corrections (May 2004), Bates 7168–7212
(detainees must review and sign the
completed inventory form, but receive a copy
only upon request); ICE Annual Review,
Wyoming County Jail (Aug. 2004), Bates
5410–5453 (detainees fill out letters
concerning missing property claims rather
than staff filling out I-387 forms); ICE
Annual Review, Seattle INS Detention
Facility (Sept. 2002), Bates 11476–11536 (no
form used for lost or missing property
claims).

17

AR § III.C (Search of Detainee and
Property).
18

Id.

19

ICE Annual Review, Berks County Prison
(July 2005), Bates 9732–9772 (all detainees
are strip-searched); ICE Annual Review,
Central Arizona Detention Center (Aug.
2005), Bates 10313–10353 (all
detainees/inmates are strip-searched as
routine policy) ICE Annual Review, Dale G.
Haile Detention Center (Sept. 2005), Bates
6323–6362 (all incoming detainees are stripsearched regardless of security class upon
intake); ICE Annual Review, Mississippi
County Detention Center (Aug. 2005), Bates
2944–2982 (all detainees are strip-searched
upon initial booking, and strip searches occur
as detainees remove their clothing and dress
into jail clothes); ICE Annual Review, North
Las Vegas Detention Center (Aug. 2005),
Bates 3215–3257 (all detainees are stripsearched before they are placed in general
population, and a detainee’s failure to agree to
strip search will delay his housing
assignment).
20
ICE Annual Review, Santa Ana City Jail
(Aug. 2005), Bates 1845–1887 (all detainees
are strip-searched upon entry only if coming
from a custodial setting, and reasonable
suspicion for search is based on detainees’
arrival from another custodial setting).
21
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Pre-Trial Facility (June 2005), Bates 815–857
(Detainees are not routinely strip-searched
unless there is probable cause. A visual
observation is conducted when they change
into their uniforms.); ICE Annual Review,
McHenry County Jail (Nov. 2005), Bates
1421–1471 (Strip searches are conducted only
when articulable circumstances warrant. The
searches are more of a pat-down/hygiene
search than a strip search.); ICE Annual
Review, Santa Ana City Jail (Aug. 2005),
Bates 1845–1887 (All detainees are stripsearched upon entry only if coming from a
custodial setting. Reasonable suspicion is
established based on detainees arriving from
custodial settings.).
22
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Pre-Trial Detention Center (June 2004), Bates
4249–4298 (A visual search is done on all
detainees when they remove their clothing in
exchange for jail uniforms. Strip searches are
done only when needed.); ICE Annual
Review, Mini-Cassia County Jail (June 2004),
Bates 4995–5040 (a visual search of detainees
is conducted during the clothing exchange to
jail uniforms).
23
ICE Annual Review, Northern Oregon
Correctional Center (June 2005), Bates
12872–12910 (under Oregon law, anyone
charged with a felony is strip-searched).
24
ICE Annual Review, Ozaukee County Jail
(Oct. 2004), Bates 7349–7395 (noting only
that not all new detainees are strip-searched);
ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11415–
11475 (the revised strip search policy has not

A BROKEN SYSTEM

153
been instituted at this facility); ICE Annual
Review, Torrance County Correctional
Facility (July 2003), Bates 17938–17979
(noting that all new arrivals are not stripsearched).
25
AR § III.A (New Arrivals), subsection 3;
INS Detention Standard: Medical Care § III.D
(Medical Screening: New Arrivals), in U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
Detention Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009).
26

Id.

27

ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11415–
11475 (although the admissions process
includes classification and medical screening,
neither is conducted as required by the
standards).
28
ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10085–10140 (medical
screenings based solely on questions asked by
admitting jailer); ICE Annual Review, Pettis
County Detention Center (July 2004), Bates
6427–6473 (medical screenings are done by
booking questionnaire not by medical staff);
ICE Annual Review, Kenosha County
Sheriff’s Dept. Corrections (July 2002), Bates
18719–18760 (noting that correctional staff
could use additional medical screening
training).
29

ICE Annual Review, Canadian County
Jail (Jan. 2005), Bates 10085–10140; ICE
Annual Review, Santa Cruz County Jail
(Sept. 2005), Bates 178–212 (The facility has
no medical staff. Intake officers complete a
medical form and all medical problems are
referred to the local hospital for clearance to
be detained.); ICE Annual Review, TriCounty Detention Center (Mar. 2005), Bates
1808–1844 (no specialized training for jail
staff for conducting medical screenings); ICE
Annual Review, Culberson County Jail (Dec.
2004), Bates 3919–3938 (no specialized
medical staff to perform medical screenings);
ICE Annual Review, Garvin County
Detention Center (Dec. 2004), Bates 3355–
3405 (there is no medical staff in the jail);
ICE Annual Review, Pettis County Detention
Center (July 2004), Bates 6427–6473.
30
ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11415–
11475 (Medical screenings are not performed
in a timely manner. Screenings may not
occur for up to 48 hours after admission.).
31
AR §§ III.F (Clothing and Bedding Issued
to New Arrivals) and III.G. (Personal
Hygiene Items); see also INS Detention
Standard: Issuance and Exchange of Clothing,
Bedding, and Towels, in U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement’s Detention
Operations Manual,
www.ice.gov/pi/dro/opsmanual/index.htm
(last visited Mar. 24, 2009).
32
ICE Annual Review, Minnehaha County
Jail (June 2005), Bates 2824–2863
(nonindigent detainees are charged for

154
replenishment of personal hygiene items);
ICE Annual Review, Bergen County Jail
(Aug. 2004), Bates 9096–9141 (jail charges
the detainees for personal hygiene items).
33

ICE Annual Review, Hudson County
Department of Corrections (Apr. 2005), Bates
506–585 (initial hygiene items given, but
certain replenishment items will be charged).
34

ICE Annual Review, Manatee County Jail
(June 2004), Bates 1198–1242 (several
detainees had never been issued pillow cases
or towels, and the facility offers only soap and
not shampoo).
35
ICE Annual Review, Madison County Jail
(July 2004), Bates 4560–4603 (“Socks and
underwear are not issued by the facility. They
may be brought in by visitors or purchased at
the commissary.”).
36
ICE Annual Review, Seattle Contract
Detention Center (July 2003), Bates 11415–
11475 (A number of detainees are placed in
temporary cots on the floor. They were
located in the visitation waiting area and the
basement holding room. Conditions were not
sanitary.).
37

AR §§ III.B (Classification) and III.H.
(Admissions Documentation).
38
ICE Annual Review, Colquit County
Sheriff’s Office and Jail (Mar. 2004), Bates
3864–3910 (facility has no contraband
policy); ICE Annual Review, McHenry
County Jail (July 2004), Bates 4749–4795
(facility has no contraband policy); ICE
Annual Review, Houston Contract Detention
Facility (July 2003), Bates 15657–15664
(facility does not issue color-coded uniforms
or wristbands); ICE Annual Review, Laredo
Contract Detention Facility (Sept. 2003),
Bates 11263–11311 (no classification system;
all wristbands in the same color); ICE Annual
Review, San Diego Correctional Facility
(Aug. 2003), Bates 16844–16918 (all
detainees have same color of uniforms); ICE

NOTES
Annual Review, Seattle Contract Detention
Center (July 2003), Bates 11415–11475 (all
the wristbands white; only uniforms colorcoded); ICE Annual Review, Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility (Aug. 2002), Bates 17980–
18027 (clothes and wristbands not colorcoded); ICE Annual Review, El Paso Service
Processing Center (June 2002), Bates 12430–
12477 (clothes and wristbands not colorcoded).
39
ICE Annual Review, Cass County Jail
(June 2005 , July 2005), Bates 10225–10266;
ICE Annual Review, Laredo Contract
Detention Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 11263–
11311; ICE Annual Review, San Diego
Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates
16844–16918; ICE Annual Review, Seattle
INS Detention Facility (Sept. 2002), Bates
11476–11536.
40
ICE Annual Review, Cass County Jail
(June 2005, July 2005), Bates 10225–10266
(ICE does not routinely provide I-213 forms
to identify and classify each new arrival.);
ICE Annual Review, Houston Processing
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 10898–10942 (the
classification system is not consistent); ICE
Annual Review, North Las Vegas Detention
Center (Aug. 2005), Bates 3215–3257 (some
classification files did not have any
documentation regarding reassessment/
reclassification); ICE Annual Review, El
Centro Service Processing Center (Jan. 2004),
Bates 15487–15536 (when staff does not have
adequate classification documents for arriving
detainees, those detainees are automatically
classified as level 2); ICE Annual Review,
Pine Prairie Correctional Center (Nov. 2004),
Bates 6363–6414 (all detainees are classified
medium security unless ICE notifies the
facility that they should be classified
otherwise); ICE Annual Review, Houston
Contract Detention Facility (July 2003), Bates
15657–15664 (although the admissions
process includes classification, this is not
conducted as required per the standards); ICE

A BROKEN SYSTEM

Annual Review, Laredo Contract Detention
Facility (Sept. 2003), Bates 11263–11311 (all
uniforms are blue; there is no classification
system in place); ICE Annual Review, San
Diego Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003),
Bates 16844–16918 (All ICE detainees
receive the same color uniform. Detainees
are given a blue wristband at intake only to
indicate that they have been medically
cleared. Such band is taken off upon arrival
at the unit.); ICE Annual Review, San Diego
Correctional Facility (Aug. 2003), Bates
16844–16918 (The admissions process does
not include classification. Detainees are
classified by ICE prior to arrival at CCA. All
detainees are sent to one unit for classification
once the admission process is over.); ICE
Annual Review, Seattle Contract Detention
Center (July 2003), Bates 11415–11475
(noting that files do not accompany detainees
to the facility from the arresting authority,
making proper identification and
classification difficult); ICE Annual Review,
Seattle INS Detention Facility (Sept. 2002),
Bates 11476–11536 (the facility fails to
classify detainees during intake processing).
41
ICE Annual Review, Denver Contract
Detention Facility (Oct. 2002), Bates 18345–
18392 (there is no supporting documentation
used to identify and classify each new
arrival).
42
43

AR § III.L (Releases).

ICE Annual Review, Torrance County
Detention Center (June 2005), Bates 1763–
1807 (no ICE staff at facility to perform
database updates); ICE Annual Review,
Brewster County Jail (Nov. 2004), Bates
9855–9873 (no ICE staff at facility to perform
database updates); ICE Annual Review, San
Pedro Service Processing Center (May 2002),
Bates 18442–18493 (staff does not complete
required paperwork for release, and I-77s are
not logged out).

 

 

Federal Prison Handbook - Side
Advertise Here 4th Ad
Prisoner Education Guide side