In early June, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) announced a formal partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) amidst growing tensions regarding immigration policies.
This partnership, marked by the signing of a 287(g) agreement, allows Metro officers to detain undocumented individuals for an additional two days, providing ICE the opportunity to take them into custody for longer-term detention.
The agreement was signed by Sheriff Kevin McMahill on May 30, just one day after Las Vegas was labeled as one of the alleged ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ by President Donald Trump’s administration, a designation that the Department of Homeland Security has since removed.
ICE sanctioned the agreement two weeks later on June 16, raising questions about whether Metro’s application was a direct response to the controversial listing.
The designation faced substantial backlash from local leaders, including Las Vegas Mayor Shelley Berkley and Republican Governor Joe Lombardo, who collectively stated that ‘the City of Las Vegas is not a sanctuary jurisdiction.’
Following the public outcry, the state’s largest police force officially committed to the 287(g) agreement, which will require Metro personnel to report any interactions with individuals asserting claims of U.S. citizenship to ICE within one hour.
Metro did not respond promptly to inquiries about the rationale behind the timing of the agreement and whether it was influenced by the sanctuary jurisdiction label.
This is particularly significant as Nevada currently lacks state or local laws restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
However, the designation as a sanctuary could jeopardize millions in federal funding, prompting concerns from McMahill about the potential loss of approximately $30 million for various programs and personnel.
In a previous statement, City of Las Vegas spokesman David Riggleman emphasized the need for dialogue with federal officials to address what he called a ‘misunderstanding.’
The agreement represents a notable departure in Metro’s policy.
McMahill had previously stated that the agency would only consider such an agreement if required by federal law.
Under previous practices, Metro would notify ICE of immigrants facing certain charges and their anticipated release dates, allowing ICE to assume custody if desired.
Shortly after signing the agreement, McMahill expressed a desire to prevent undocumented criminals from remaining ‘in my community anymore.’
The ACLU of Nevada voiced concerns about the implications of this partnership.
Sadmira Ramic, a senior staff attorney, characterized the shift as a ‘complete 180 from what [Metro] said before,’ cautioning that the agreement might erode trust between local law enforcement and the communities they serve.
Ramic noted that the agreement could instigate fear among civilians, adding, ‘It is creating panic.’
Moreover, she raised alarms regarding a particular clause mandating the immediate reporting of all encounters with individuals who assert or are suspected of U.S. citizenship to ICE.
She criticized the broad language in the agreement, arguing it could lead to innocent U.S. citizens becoming entangled in immigration enforcement actions.
Ramic commented, ‘The way that I read this is … if they think somehow that this person is not a U.S. citizen, or they have committed an immigration violation, although it’s unclear how that would be determined from this agreement, that they have to call ICE.’
While the partnership follows a standardized agreement template, the full scope of the 287(g) program at Metro appears consistent with broader enforcement objectives.
ICE has pledged to provide training materials and instructors; however, Metro will bear the financial responsibility for salaries and benefits, including overtime, for personnel engaging in the program.
Moreover, Metro will be accountable for local transportation costs associated with the program.
As the relationship between local law enforcement and immigration enforcement evolves, the implications of this agreement will likely continue to provoke discussion and concern within the Las Vegas community.
image source from：thenevadaindependent
