Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Committee reviews plan to narrow when state agencies honor ICE detainers; advocates and police differ
Loading...
Summary
HB 368 would restrict Delaware cooperation with federal civil immigration detainer requests except in specified circumstances (violent felonies, certain registrants, repeat DUIs, domestic violence), prompting extensive questioning about data, victim protections and operational impacts; DOC and State Police offered differing operational context and numbers, and the ACLU and immigrant advocates urged release.
Representative Gorman presented House Bill 368 to the Judiciary Committee on April 22, 2026, proposing clear, limited circumstances under which Delaware state and local agencies would comply with federal civil immigration detainer requests.
Sponsor’s framing: the sponsor said detainer requests are administrative (not judicial) and described significant numbers of ICE interactions with people picked up in Delaware, arguing that honoring routine administrative detainers can lead to detention without conviction. She said the bill permits compliance only where there is a demonstrated public‑safety basis: convictions for violent felonies, a probable‑cause finding on a violent felony charge, registrants for certain sexual offenses, three or more DUI felonies, or a misdemeanor domestic‑violence conviction.
Operational testimony and data: the Department of Corrections chief of staff (Paul Shamik) and Sergeant Mike Rippel (Delaware State Police) explained current practices and cautioned about counting differences between detainer requests and judicial warrants. DOC reported there were about 100 people in custody at the time with ICE detainer notices connected to Delaware charges, and estimated roughly 350 such commitments since 2009 in its records; DOC staff clarified ICE can arrest people outside DOC custody and that federal arrest totals differ from DOC-committed counts. The Department of Justice representative said DOC is the best source for custody numbers and that DOJ has consulted with sponsor; DOJ said it would not investigate federal agents under state statute but could investigate state/local compliance.
Stakeholder views: advocacy groups (ACLU, Indivisible, community leaders) urged passage, arguing detainers enable mass deportations that separate families and erode trust in law enforcement; they cited figures that a majority of people subject to detainers had no criminal conviction. Law‑enforcement groups (Delaware Association of Chiefs of Police, state troopers, FOP) opposed the bill, raising concerns about operational conflicts with federal partners, potential loss of federal data systems and funding, and difficulties integrating systems.
Committee concerns and revisions: members pressed for clear data sources and asked whether the bill’s consulate‑notification language might conflict with law; sponsor said she would consider clarifications and had consulted Department of Corrections, Department of Justice, state police and victim‑service advocates during drafting. Multiple members asked for more precise aggregate statistics; sponsor agreed to share the source dataset circulated earlier and to follow up with DOC/ICE data as available.
Outcome: the committee concluded public testimony and left the bill available for further action and possible amendment; sponsors indicated they would circulate additional data and may make technical edits to address consular and victim‑safety concerns.
Why it matters: HB 368 tackles a contentious local‑federal interface — whether state actors should hold or notify federal immigration authorities without a judicial order — with consequences for public‑safety practices, community trust, and individuals’ liberty.
