Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Liberties And Detention Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Grayson County court it is detaining legally innocent people on ICE detainers, citing constitutional risk
Summary
Two public commenters alleged the Grayson County Detention Center honors ICE detainers for payment and unlawfully detains legally innocent people, invoking court decisions they said hold counties liable. No county official response is recorded in the transcript.
Two residents used the public comment period of the Grayson County Fiscal Court meeting to accuse county officials of honoring ICE detainers in a way they said amounts to unlawful detention and financial exploitation.
Britney said she had obtained inspection reports through a FOIA request and alleged chronic overcrowding at the Grayson County Detention Center dating back to 2019. She told the court: "...the detaining of legally innocent people, your refusal to take accountability..." and explicitly accused the county of participating in conduct she characterized as human trafficking by detaining individuals at ICE’s request and receiving payment for beds.
Kylie followed and emphasized legal risk, saying Kentucky law does not require local law enforcement to detain people solely on ICE detainers and arguing detainers are requests, not warrants. Kylie cited case law presented in the record (the speaker referenced "Gonzales versus ICE" and an example named "Miranda Oliveras") and warned the court that counties have been held liable where detainers were honored without proper legal authority. Kylie said: "ICE detainers are requests, not orders, not warrants, not court orders. They do not automatically give you the authority to jail somebody." The moderator limited the comment to the two‑minute speaker allotment.
What was not on the record: no county official provided a response or explanation during public comment in the transcript. The accusations raise potential legal and civil‑rights concerns, but the transcript contains no staff or official rebuttal and provides no record of any county policy change or formal action in response to the allegations.
Why it matters: honoring ICE detainers has led other local governments to face litigation and liability when courts have found detainers do not constitute probable‑cause warrants. The speakers urged the court to stop honoring detainers; the court record in this meeting does not show a staff report or public‑safety official reply.
What’s next: The transcript does not record any immediate motion, staff direction, or action by the court in response to the allegations. If county officials choose to respond or if litigation follows, future meetings or filings would provide additional record and verification.
