The latest information on ICE detainer policies in Colorado

By May 5, 2014News

This page will serve as a clearing house for information on the implementation and reaction to recent federal court decisions. If you have an update for this page, please email Julie Gonzales at The list of Colorado jurisdictions who have decided to no longer honor unconstitutional ICE holds!  Also, be sure to check out the ACLU’s interactive map with all jurisdictions who no longer honor unconstitutional ICE holds. This list is current as of June 24, 2014 and will be updated regularly:

  1. Adams
  2. Aurora Municipal
  3. Boulder
  4. Clear Creek
  5. Denver
  6. Eagle
  7. Fremont
  8. Garfield
  9. Grand
  10. Gunnison
  11. Hinsdale 
  12. Jefferson
  13. Kit Carson
  14. La Plata
  15. Lake
  16. Logan
  17. Mesa
  18. Moffat
  19. Montrose
  20. Morgan
  21. Otero
  22. Pitkin
  23. Prowers
  24. Pueblo
  25. Rio Blanco
  26. Routt
  27. Saguache
  28. San Juan
  29. San Miguel
  30. Sedgewick
  31. Washington
  32. Yuma

This list was created by consulting public statements by the sheriffs and reports made by community members after speaking with various sheriff departments. We will add links to public sources as available & as time permits. Please contact Julie Gonzales at with any updates.

Resources and Information on ICE detainers, the recent shifts by local jurisdictions, and the gold-standard detainer policy — the RESPECT Policy:

MLO Detainer Policy Memo 05.01.2014 FINAL

MLO Detainer Policy Memo 05.01.2014 FINAL – SPANISH

2014-04-29 ACLU Letter to CO Sheriffs Regarding Detainers

2014-05-02 ACLU Letter to Jefferson County Sheriff Mink regarding RESPECT Policy


2014-05-07 Academics letter supporting RESPECT policy – with 124 Dear Sheriff Faith letter 5_16_14

Administrative Warrants Fact Sheet final (2014 05-13)  



Please visit our page regarding the recent Arapahoe County settlement with Claudia Valdez, who was detained based on an ICE detainer for three days in 2012:  

Media Coverage:

Please contact Julie Gonzales at with any updates.

Denver Post:  “Colorado counties joining list in refusing ICE holds in local jails,” 05.15.2014

NY Times:  “Some Colorado Sheriffs Ending Immigrant Detainers,” 04.29.2014

The Nation:  “More Local Law Enforcement Officials Are Refusing to Comply With Obama’s Deportation Policies,” 05.02.2014

KDVR Fox 31:  “Denver will stop holding immigrants on ICE detainers,” 04.30.2014

Denver Post:  “Denver won’t hold inmates solely on immigration status,” 04.30.2014

Noticias Univision Colorado:  “Alguaciles no colaborarán con autoridades federales,” 04.29.2014

Telemundo Denver:  “Policía no retendrá a inmigrantes,” 04.30.2014

Telemundo Denver:   “Alguaciles limitan colaboración con ICE,” 04.29.2014

ABC Channel 7:  “Denver will not honor federal requests to detain people once they’re eligible to be released,” 04.30.2014

CBS Channel 4: “Denver Sheriff Ending Immigration Detainers,” 04.30.2014


Legal Resources:

ACLU Detainer Fact Sheet Court decision in Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County Galarza v. Szalczyk, a Third Circuit US Court of Appeals decision that held that detainers were voluntary and that local municipalities can be held liable for damages due to detainers

Law review article by Christopher N. Lasch, describing the faulty legal reasoning behind detainers

Morales v. Chadbourne, a federal court in Rhode Island holds that ICE detainers are mere requests to local law enforcement, and local law enforcement may be liable for constitutional violations incurred by holding someone on a detainer
Villars v. Kubiatowski, a federal court in Illinois holds, in sections III.B.1 and III.B.4 (pages 19-23) that county officials may be liable for constitutional violations incurred by holding someone on a detainer, and that the county itself may be liable because of its policy of honoring immigration detainers.

ICE Form I-247 (ICE Detainer form) The Fourth Amendment:  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”