Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to require officers to report suspected undocumented immigrants draws opposition from law enforcement groups
Summary
Representative Jim Casper’s bill would require peace officers who reasonably believe an immigrant is in the U.S. illegally to report the person to federal immigration authorities. Law enforcement associations and county groups testified against the proposal as written, citing operational concerns, culpability standards and reporting channels; the
Representative Jim Casper opened a hearing on House Bill 15 85, which would require peace officers to report, as soon as practicable, any person the officer reasonably believes is present in the United States illegally to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) via the federal tip line or agency website.
Casper said the measure aims to ensure local law enforcement cooperates with federal immigration enforcement; he cited a January presidential executive order and framed the bill as aligned with federal efforts to identify and remove persons present unlawfully.
Nut graf: Representatives and law enforcement officials said they already cooperate with federal authorities in many instances, but county sheriffs’ offices and police associations opposed the bill as written, urging revisions to clarify reporting channels, add a culpability standard (for example, “intentional” or “knowingly”), and avoid making an officer guilty of an infraction for routine or unclear encounters.
What proponents said Casper told the committee he intended the bill to lower the criminal standard for failure to report from a class B misdemeanor to an infraction and to make reporting to federal authorities a statutory duty for peace officers. He said officers had relayed inconsistent practices and that statutory clarity would ensure cooperation.
What opponents said Lieutenant Dustin Olson (Burleigh County Sheriff's Department) and representatives of the Chiefs of Police Association opposed the bill in its present form. Olson said officers already contact Customs and Border Patrol or Border Patrol/ICE when they encounter suspected undocumented persons and that practice tools and workflows differ by locality. He warned the bill’s “shall report” language and the proposed infraction penalty could criminalize routine policing or place officers at risk if reporting channels are unclear.
Other opponents, including the Association of Counties, recommended adding a mental state (for example, “intentionally”) to avoid strict‑liability infractions for officers who reasonably believed someone else had already reported the person or where Border Patrol had instructed a different process. Chiefs’ counsel Stephanie Ingebretsen suggested replacing “reasonably believes” with the more established legal standard “probable cause” and broadening allowable reporting channels beyond a specified tip line.
Ending: The committee closed the hearing without taking action; witnesses asked the sponsor to work with county sheriffs, chiefs and prosecutors to clarify reporting routes and culpability language before the bill would move forward.
