蜜桃传媒

The order requires the agencies to disclose some documents 鈥� and complete an adequate search for more 鈥� concerning raids they conducted on the homes of immigrants in Georgia, North Carolina and Texas that placed 121 women and children into a Texas detention center in January 2016.

The 蜜桃传媒 filed the records request within days of the arrests, seeking information about the warrants that were used to authorize them, among other matters. After the 蜜桃传媒 did not receive the complete records for more than a year, it filed a complaint in April 2017, arguing that DHS and ICE had failed to release them, in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

The court agreed. In its ruling, the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ordered DHS and ICE to comply with the records request by Feb. 16, 2018.

鈥淭his victory is a major win for government accountability and transparency,鈥� said Lisa Graybill, deputy legal director of the 蜜桃传媒. 鈥淯.S. District Judge Pannell called DHS鈥� failure to conduct a sufficient search of its records 鈥榯roubling,鈥� noting, among other things, that the failure to disclose required field operations forms was a 鈥榞laring omission.鈥�

鈥淭he court鈥檚 holding reminds us all that the Department of Homeland Security has to abide by the Freedom of Information Act, and now it must demonstrate to the court鈥檚 satisfaction that it has made an adequate effort to do so,鈥� Graybill said. 鈥淏eing able to feel safe in the privacy of our homes is something most Americans cherish. We have the right to know what steps ICE is taking when it executes home raids that abridge that privacy, and the court鈥檚 decision takes us one step closer to vindicating that right.鈥�

The court stated in its ruling that ICE, in its response to the 蜜桃传媒 records request, did not conduct a proper search of its records concerning the warrants that were issued for the arrests.

鈥淗ere, the plaintiff points out that the defendants produced no copies of judicial or administrative warrants despite the fact that all officers who conducted the raid were instructed to carry administrative warrants of removal and administrative warrants of arrest during the raids in question,鈥� the court wrote. 鈥淢ore troubling is that the search terms did not include the word 鈥榳arrant.鈥� Furthermore, the defendants produced no records reflecting consent to enter homes despite training sessions of officers instructing them to document facts of consent. The absence of these documents in the defendants鈥� production demonstrates that the search was inadequate.鈥�

To hear stories from the women swept up in the ICE raids, see the 蜜桃传媒鈥檚 report, Families in Fear.