The facts on immigration—right in your inbox. Sign up with the American Immigration Council to receive the latest in immigration law and policy as well as opportunities and resources to educate the public about the value of immigration to American society.
The collusion between local law enforcement agencies and U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) is well-documented. Local law enforcement agencies like the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) often work in concert with USBP agents in constructing a dragnet that serves as a force multiplier for USBP to funnel immigrants—most of whom have no criminal history—into deportation proceedings. These enforcement practices often go unchecked despite accounts suggesting a pattern of potentially unconstitutional practices.
This unfettered enforcement upends the lives of immigrants who have developed deep ties to the United States and often impacts U.S. citizens and immigrants with lawful status who are part of mixed status families. It also makes Latino residents and people of color who are U.S. citizens or lawful immigrants undue targets of enforcement. Immigrants of color including those of Latin American origin who live, travel, or work in Ohio often bear the brunt of these disproportionate and discriminatory immigration enforcement practices.
This is the problem
The consequence for most people pulled over by a highway patrol officer for a traffic violation is a ticket. But for a Latin American family traveling through Ohio on February 21, 2017, the consequences were far more serious. The driver, his wife, and their two U.S. citizen children, ages four and seven, were heading home to Maryland after attending a wedding in Chicago.1 On that fateful afternoon, the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) trooper who stopped the family’s car had a U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agent riding in his vehicle. After stopping the family’s car, the trooper asked the USBP agent to “assist by running record checks using the government tablet and identification cards provided by the subjects.” The driver had a valid Maryland driver's license, raising the question of why the trooper needed the USBP agent to run a records search on the entire family.
The Border Patrol agent’s presence was no casual ride-along—it was to conduct an immigration check of all the vehicle’s occupants. During the agent’s interrogation of the family, the agent identified the husband and wife as undocumented and their two children as U.S. citizens. The agent arrested the entire family and transported them to the U.S. Border Patrol Sandusky Bay station for processing.
Even though during the arrest U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recommended to Border Patrol that they release the family and place the parents in removal proceedings, Border Patrol held the entire family in custody overnight. The next morning, USBP issued an arrest warrant for the parents denying them bond and arranged for the Ottawa County Child Protective Services (CPS) to take custody of the children. At 10:50 a.m., one of the parents told USBP agents that a family member was coming by car to pick up the children. But at approximately 12:45 p.m., CPS took the children away. USBP agents transported the parents to the Seneca County Jail, an ICE contract facility in Tiffin, Ohio shortly thereafter.
The family featured above is not the only one to suffer from local law enforcement colluding with USBP. Local law enforcement in Ohio has engaged in a pattern of troubling collaboration with USBP agents.
Executive Summary
The American Immigration Council (the Council) and Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE) analyzed USBP’s enforcement records, including the USBP Apprehension Log and a systemic sample of immigration arrest reports formally known as Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, from the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol station. This is what the organizations found:
The primary targets of immigration enforcement actions were male laborers of Latin American origin, between the ages of 23 and 40, of darker skin complexion.
Eighty-nine percent of arrests were individuals of color, labeled by USBP’s “complexion” categories as “Black,” “Dark Brown,” “Dark,” “Light Brown,” “Medium Brown,” and “Medium.”
U.S. nationals made up 23.2 percent of USBP apprehensions and an additional 1.3 percent of individuals apprehended were not deportable.
USBP and Ohio local law enforcement’s problematic tactics included:
Civil rights violations such as the use of racial profiling and prolonged stops by local law enforcement under the pretext of contacting USBP for “identification assistance” to allow USBP to conduct immigration checks.
The use of pretextual stops to initiate contact and investigate vehicle occupants’ immigration status.
Immigration checks at transportation stations. Fifteen percent of arrests were initiated at Amtrak or Greyhound stations where the subjects were passengers.
Biased, inaccurate, and unclear narrative information recorded by USBP agents in various I-213s.
USBP is deeply entangled with local law enforcement. Fifty-seven percent of arrests documented in the I-213s sample were initiated by local law enforcement. Additionally, 60.6 percent of USBP’s daily Apprehension Log detentions were initiated by an “Other Agency.”
Sixty-nine percent of arrests documented in the I-213s sample had no criminal history.
Apprehensions and arrests for immigration purposes harm children and families.
Of USBP’s daily apprehensions, 2.6% were of children under the age of 18.
Twenty-eight percent of individuals arrested had at least one U.S. citizen child and/or a U.S. citizen spouse.
The I-213s sample documented 145 children who had parents arrested by USBP.
Background
United States Border Patrol (USBP) is the subcomponent of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) tasked with enforcing federal immigration law between U.S. ports of entry. Federal regulations grant CBP authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. “external boundary,” which includes an extensive area in northern Ohio. Agents from USBP are obligated to adhere to the limitations established by the U.S. Constitution, as well as the laws and rules that regulate immigration enforcement. However, U.S. Border Patrol is an agency with a troubled history, rife with misconduct and impunity.
USBP set up temporary offices to house a station in Sandusky in 2009 and then opened its existing facility in Port Clinton in 2012.
In 2009, Advocates for Basic Leqal Equality (ABLE), an Ohio-based legal services organization, and other community-based organizations received complaints from Latino community members in northwest Ohio about being profiled by USBP agents. ABLE received complaints from the Immigrant Worker Project and Farm Labor Organizing Committee AFL-CIO stating that USBP agents from the Sandusky Bay station targeted members of their organizations for enforcement due to their Latin American origin. ABLE increased its community outreach and conducted “Know Your Rights” presentations at Seneca County Jail in Tiffin, Ohio, where ABLE staff found many more impacted individuals.
ABLE partnered with the Council to investigate USBP’s enforcement practices at the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol station in northern Ohio.
Overview of relationship between USBP and Ohio local law enforcement
From the opening of the Sandusky Bay station in 2009, USBP agents there publicized their presence to local law enforcement. USBP agents visited county sheriff departments, police departments, and state law enforcement agencies including the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The agents involved in this outreach campaign told state law enforcement agencies that they were available for interpretation and identification purposes at the scene of law enforcement activities, including traffic stops.
For example, ABLE found a June 9, 2009 email from Captain Jack O’Neil of the Norwalk Police Department adopting a practice of reporting persons believed to be civil immigration violators to USBP.
Additionally, ABLE learned through litigation discovery that USBP agents attended county-wide and regional meetings of law enforcement agencies, increasing the number of referrals of immigrants from those agencies.
Federal litigation efforts
In 2009 and 2018, ABLE filed several lawsuits2 against USBP, state, and local law enforcement agencies alleging constitutional and statutory violations of individuals’ rights. ABLE’s litigation efforts showed a need to engage in a more in-depth investigation of the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol station’s immigration enforcement patterns and practices and the extent of its agents’ collaboration with Ohio’s various law enforcement agencies. Additionally, law enforcement in places like the City of Norwalk, Village of Attica, Village of Plymouth, and Village of Wakeman adopted policies for interacting with limited English proficiency individuals and non-discriminatory policing.
FOIA transparency efforts
In March 2021, the Council and ABLE filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records on USBP’s enforcement practices at the Sandusky Bay station and several requests for public records under state law with the OSHP. The organizations filed a lawsuit under FOIA in January 2022 to compel USBP to respond to the request.
That same month, the ACLU of Michigan published a report titled The Border’s Long Shadow exposing how USBP racially profiles immigrants from Latin America and other people of color throughout Michigan with the assistance of local law enforcement. The report included limited data from the Sandusky Bay station but did not analyze it. The Council and ABLE’s findings are consistent with the ACLU of Michigan’s conclusions, and we are indebted to their work.
Data Sources
The Council and ABLE reviewed over 2,825 pages of federal and state documents describing enforcement actions at or near the U.S.-Canada border in Ohio by USBP agents from the Sandusky Bay station. These included: more than 2,741 daily apprehension entries from the Sandusky Bay station’s Apprehension Log dated January 3, 2016, through October 11, 2021; a systemic sampling of 327 individual arrest reports, formally known as Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien dated November 1, 2015, through August 25, 2020; and 1,312 pages of Ohio state law enforcement records. Source documents produced by USBP in response to the organizations’ FOIA requests and subsequent litigation are available via DocumentCloud. Systematic sampling, a technique for selecting a representative sample by picking elements at regular intervals from a larger population, is employed in research to ensure the selected sample accurately mirrors the broader group. To further verify the representativeness of the I-213 records, this data was cross-referenced with the Apprehension Log data.
Apprehension Logs
USBP daily Apprehension Log records contain basic demographic data about individuals detained by USBP agents including age, sex, nationality, whether they are deportable, arrest method, the amount of time they resided in the United States, their most recent manner of entry into the country, and the disposition of the encounter.
Form I-213
Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien is a document USBP agents complete when they arrest noncitizens based on alleged immigration violations. Form I-213 is the source document that provides the basis for the government to initiate deportation proceedings. It contains details of the apprehension encounter and the alleged reasons for removability. It includes biographical information, a physical description (including agents’ perception of individuals’ skin complexion classified as a spectrum ranging from Black to Fair), immigration status, details of the apprehension encounter, and a narrative that includes immigration history, criminal record, residence/employment, travel, and disposition/property. Form I-213 is one of the primary articles of evidence presented in the government's case before an immigration court and is part of the individual’s A-File.
The organizations employed the DocumentCloud platform for reviewing documents and annotating the sample I-213 data file (n=327). Additionally, they utilized a PDF parsing and extraction script in R, developed by the Human Rights Data Analysis Group (HRDAG) for the University of Washington Center for Human Rights (UWCHR). For statistical analysis of the data from apprehension logs and I-213 forms, they implemented programs in STATA and Python.
Demographic Findings
Primary Targets of Immigration Enforcement were Male Laborers of Latin American Origin, Age 23-40, of Darker Skin Complexion
The data strongly suggests that the primary targets of enforcement for USBP agents from the Sandusky Bay station were darker skinned Latino males classified as laborers, between the ages of 23-40. Of the arrests documented in the I-213s sample, 47.1 percent were individuals that fit this profile. When expanded to a wider group of working age individuals between 18-55 years old, that number jumps to 67.6 percent.
Share of Ohio I-213 Forms: Complexion, Gender, Age, & Occupation
Individuals of Latin American origin and people of color are disproportionately identified for investigation
According to the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year sample, Hispanics comprise 4.3 percent of Ohio's population. The ACS also indicates that individuals of Latin American origin constitute 18.6 percent of the total foreign-born population in Ohio. The highest region of origin for Ohio’s foreign-born population is Asia at 35.9 percent, followed by Europe (including Russia) at 20 percent, Africa at 17.8 percent, and 3.2 percent “Other” (including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Pacific Islands). The immigrant share of the population in Ohio is five percent.
Yet, analysis of USBP’s documents found that individuals from Latin America were significantly over-represented in immigration enforcement. To determine whether individuals were from Latin American countries in the data, the organizations used the Latin American Network Information Center country directory and the ICE country codes hosted on the Bureau of Justice Assistance website for the country abbreviations in the Apprehension Log.
Review of the data from the Apprehension Log showed that individuals of Latin American origin made up 65.9 percent of all apprehensions. No other group constituted more than five percent. Further, the I-213s sample showed that 88.4 percent of those arrested by USBP were from Latin American countries.
Apprehension Rates Compared to Ohio's Foreign-Born Population by Region of Origin
Analysis of the I-213s sample shows that local law enforcement agencies collaborating with USBP target individuals of Latin American origin at an even greater rate than when USBP initiated the detention. When dividing the total arrests featured in the I-213s sample by the agency that initiated the stop, USBP had a total of 123 stops, 77.2 percent of which were individuals of Latin American origin. However, 97.3 percent of the 183 stops initiated by local law enforcement were individuals of Latin American origin.
Individuals classified as having darker skin complexion were the primary targets of immigration enforcement
Analysis of USBP agents’ classifications of skin complexion for individuals arrested for alleged immigration violations found a troubling pattern. Form I-213 contains a box where officers note individuals’ complexion by relying on predetermined categories. In 2017, CBP released a portion of its 2006 training materials instructing officers to enter “Light,” “Medium,” “Dark,” or “Very Dark” to mark individuals’ complexion, noting that those were the only options available.3 However, as a result of a 2016 FOIA lawsuit, CBP released different codes agents could use to note individuals’ complexion.
Individuals labeled as having darker skin complexion were overrepresented in the I-213s sample. Also, some I-213s showed that USBP agents used complexion categories other than the ones noted in the 2006 manual. Border Patrol agents classified 89 percent of individuals from the I-213s sample as having “Medium,” “Medium Brown,” “Light Brown,” “Black,” “Dark,” and “Dark Brown” complexion. On the other side of the spectrum, only four percent of arrests recorded on the I-213s were of individuals classified as having “Fair” or “Light” skin complexion.
According to the data from the I-213s sample, both USBP and local law enforcement were more likely to arrest individuals with darker skin complexion. When the I-213s sample is broken down by the agency that initiated the stop, of the 123 stops initiated by USBP, 91.1 percent were individuals of color. Almost 91 percent of the 183 stops initiated by local law enforcement initiated were individuals of color as shown in Table A of the Appendix.
Individuals detained were overwhelmingly male
The available records also suggest that gender played a significant role in immigration enforcement actions. Roughly 85 percent of apprehensions noted in the Apprehension Log were male, while only 14.6 percent of apprehensions were female. The I-213s sample showed a similar pattern: 88.1 percent of individuals were male while 11.9 percent were female.
The vast majority of people detained were of working age
The data also showed significant disparities relating to the age of individuals subject to immigration enforcement actions. Approximately 96 percent of apprehensions were of individuals 18-65 years old and 98.8 percent of arrests noted in the I-213s sample were of individuals in this age range. The propensity of USBP agents to detain people in the 18-65 age range is also visible by analyzing the age factor in the context of individuals’ origin. Out of all individuals identified as being from Latin American origin in the Apprehension Log, 98.2 percent were individuals between 18 and 65 years old. The I-213s sample verifies this finding: 99 percent of the arrests of individuals identified as being of Latin American origin were within the 18-65 year-old range as shown in Table B of the Appendix.
USBP agents classified a large majority of individuals detained as “Laborers”
Another factor that featured prominently as an indicator of the type of individuals detained is the occupation of those arrested as recorded by USBP agents. The available data shows that USBP classified 93.9 percent of people arrested in the I-213s sample as “Laborer”, as shown in Table C of the Appendix. In three instances, however, the I-213 showed that USBP misclassified the individual as a “Laborer” when the narrative described the individual as having a different occupation.
Findings Regarding Tactics Used by USBP
The I-213s sample revealed a wide array of tactics used by USBP agents to enforce immigration laws. The graph below shows the type of tactics noted in the I-213s:
Border Patrol Tactics in Ohio from I-213 Sample
A review of the I-213s revealed that USBP agents conduct immigration checks in parking lots, by tailing vehicles on the highway, and by running license plates—with a significantly higher search rate for vehicles with out of state license plates. Analysis found 13.5 percent of I-213s noted out of state license plates when describing the encounters.
Further, 17 percent of the I-213s referenced that the individuals either did not speak English or that they spoke Spanish or another foreign language.
Take a look at these examples:
I-213 notes “nobody in the vehicle spoke English,” but the agent still questioned each passenger about their citizenship.
I-213 notes Border Patrol agent was advised that the individuals were only able to communicate in Spanish.
In some cases, the subjects’ limited English proficiency is specifically noted as a contributing factor that led to immigration inspections.
“Suspicious Behavior”
Eleven percent of I-213 arrests were of people USBP agents deemed “suspicious,” which law enforcement used to justify investigatory stops. Some of the “suspicious” behavior, however, seems common or may be normal when people engage with law enforcement: avoiding eye contact, ignoring or avoiding looking in the direction of agents, traveling noticeably slower than other commuters, or appearing abnormally rigid.
The following are just two examples of what Border Patrol agents deemed as suspicious behavior:
I-213 notes that when individuals go out of their way to avoid eye contact, they are often involved in human or narcotic smuggling.
I-213 notes that the subject avoided looking towards the agent while they drove past the agent’s car.
Transportation checks
USBP routinely conducted transportation checks at bus and train stations in Toledo and Sandusky, Ohio and interrogated passengers. Fifteen percent of all I-213 arrests reviewed happened at an Amtrak train station or a Greyhound bus station. The data suggests that the individuals’ perceived skin complexion played a significant role in immigration enforcement actions that occurred at these transportation hubs. Out of said 15 percent, 90 percent were people noted as having darker complexion (i.e. labeled as Black, Dark Brown, Dark, Light Brown, Medium Brown, Medium). As USBP agents looked to investigate individuals at public transportation stations, the data suggests that targets’ skin complexion played a significant role in which individuals were selected.
Public Transportation Also Unsafe Option
Migrants often use available public transportation because it is often impossible for immigrants to get a driver’s license. Sandusky Bay station USBP agents target immigrants using public transportation by working “transportation checks”—policing public transportation hubs. During a July 21, 2017 transportation check, and with consent from the bus driver, USBP agents boarded the bus as it stopped in Toledo. One agent then “went directly to the rear of the bus” and asked a Black man whether he was a citizen. The man was traveling from New York to Chicago with his brother, and no suspicious activity by either was articulated in the I-213 narrative. Border Patrol agents arrested the brothers and transported them to Seneca County Jail.
USBP tactics in Ohio extend beyond securing the northern border
The United States and Canada share nearly 4,000 miles of land and maritime borders. USBP’s mission is to patrol the country’s international border to “detect and prevent the illegal trafficking of people, narcotics, and contraband into the United States.” Given Ohio’s proximity to the northern international border and USBP’s mission, one would expect a large number of individuals arrested by USBP in Ohio to have entered the United States through the northern border. This hypothesis is particularly justified in light of USBP’s tactic of conducting immigration enforcement investigations at public transportation hubs such as train and bus stations where international travelers may be found.
The data, however, tells a different story. The Apprehension Log shows that only 3.3 percent of noncitizens apprehended by USBP agents listed a Canada/Northern Border State point of entry. (765 entries did not specify the point of entry.) Similarly, the I-213s sample showed that less than one percent of noncitizens arrested by USBP were apprehended attempting to enter the country without authorization from Canada, i.e. listed Canada in the “status_at_entry”. These very low numbers suggest that USBP agents focus their resources on interior enforcement of immigration laws rather than staying within USBP’s mission of patrolling the international border.
Where did the arrests happen?
Ohio I-213 Enforcement Actions: Border Patrol & Local Law Enforcement
Sandusky Bay CBP Station
Amtrak Station
Detention Center
Increase in detention rates under the Trump administration
In 2017, the Trump administration gave broader authority to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain unauthorized immigrants living in the country. Accordingly, interior arrests by ICE rose 30 percent in FY 2017 and the population of immigration detention centers significantly increased over the administration’s time in office. The I-213s sample is evidence of this increase. In approximately 79 percent of arrests in the I-213s sample (258 arrests), USBP agents placed the individuals in immigration detention. Of those 258, 75 percent were held at Seneca County Jail, as shown in Table D of the Appendix. There was a 24 percent increase in detentions between 2016 and 2017, and an additional nine percent increase in detentions between 2017 and 2018. While 2019 showed a dip in immigration detention rates for the first time under the Trump administration, it was still an 18 percent increase in detention rates from 2016, as shown in Table E of the Appendix.
USBP agents presented biased, inaccurate, unclear narrative information in various I-213s
The I-213 is one of the primary pieces of evidence used by the government in efforts to deport an individual. As such, immigration enforcement officers are trained to write objective, clear, and concise I-213 narratives. For example, the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Basic Immigration Enforcement Training Program has a “Creating a Scratch I-213” section about how ICE officers must complete the form.4
However, document analysis revealed several instances where USBP agents presented inaccurate or unclear information in various I-213 arrest reports. For example, agents regularly used template language in the narrative portion of the I-213s and copied and pasted entire encounter narratives. The narratives should be tailored to describe individuals’ unique circumstances. USBP’s haphazard approach led to numerous errors and unclear accounts of various encounter narratives. These errors made it difficult to discern who is who in the review of encounters—particularly in cases where USBP arrested more than one individual.
For example, one I-213 reviewed included “change this” language in the City, Province (State) and Country of Birth box that was left unchanged, evidence that USBP agents use fill in the blank, stock language when completing these I-213 reports.
Here are some additional instances where a close review of the I-213 revealed mistakes:
USBP agents indicated “LABORER” in the Occupation box of page one of the I-213 report in spite of the fact that the subject’s residence and employment history states the individual was enrolled in school and set to finish their course of studies by the end of the school semester. The individual had a student visa and was clearly a college student. In at least three instances, USBP agents misclassified subjects as laborers.
Another I-213 narrative included blank spaces the agent neglected to fill in when completing the form.
Agents are expected to clearly, accurately, and objectively state the facts of the encounter without unsupported statements.5 Yet, document review found several instances where agents relied on conclusions based on their general knowledge rather than articulating objectively reasonable facts.
Here are a few examples:
In another I-213 narrative, the local law enforcement officer stopped the subject’s car for speeding and because the officer “spotted the vehicle coming from a known narcotics area.”
Another example of drafting errors was found when USBP agents note subjects’ addresses in the I-213s. Many of the I-213s listed a redacted Tiffin, OH address under “US Address” that frequently contradicted the narrative information about subjects’ travel, work, or residence. For example, in an I-213 from August 31, 2016 the individual’s residence and employment history stated they lived and worked in New York, contradicting the “US Address” of Tiffin, OH listed. Through client representation, ABLE learned USBP often uses the Seneca County Jail in Tiffin—an ICE contract facility—when a person is unable to provide proof of address. The contradictory information made USBP’s data entries for individuals’ “US Address” unreliable, making it impossible to accurately determine the true impact of USBP’s tactics on Ohio’s long-term residents.
Omissions and inaccurate, misleading, or unintentional factual errors could impact individuals’ eligibility for immigration benefits or be used to question their credibility in immigration courts and lead to long lasting repercussions.
Ohio Local Law Enforcement Agencies Cooperate Extensively with Border Patrol to Target Immigrants
The entanglement between local law enforcement and USBP often led to apprehension methods that raise serious constitutional concerns. Ohio local law enforcement agencies commonly stopped immigrant drivers for minor traffic offenses and then contacted USBP requesting their presence at the scene, where USBP then conducted immigration checks. The enforcement practices of these local police agencies often go unchallenged and unchecked despite accounts suggesting a pattern of potentially unconstitutional tactics.
More than half of I-213 arrests were stops initiated by Ohio local law enforcement
Review of the available records demonstrates that local law enforcement agencies in northern Ohio regularly use traffic stops to unduly investigate drivers’ immigration status. The I-213s sample analysis found that many immigrants ultimately arrested by USBP agents were initially detained by local or state law enforcement agencies, who then called USBP agents and asked them to provide identification assistance. Once USBP arrived at the scene, the agents conducted immigration checks.
According to the I-213s sample, a total of 183 arrests, or 56 percent, were initiated by an Ohio law enforcement agency, and only 38 percent of arrests were initiated by USBP. Four percent of arrests in the I-213s sample were initiated by a Task Force – joint operations between USBP and local law enforcement agencies – and two percent were blank. The number of arrests initiated by local law enforcement agencies derived from the I-213s sample is similar to the approximately 61 percent of USBP apprehensions noted as originating from an “Other Agency” in the Apprehension Log. Table F of the Appendix shows more details on the sources of detentions in the Apprehension Log.
Of the 183 arrests initiated by local law enforcement, the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) was responsible for 57 percent of those I-213s. By comparison, the next highest number of arrests initiated by a cooperating local law enforcement agency was Henry County Sheriff’s Office with 5.6 percent. Table G of the Appendix lists all of the local law enforcement agencies noted in the I-213s sample.
The Ohio traffic code is often the basis for local law enforcement to initiate the detention of drivers to investigate immigration status
Despite USBP lacking jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws, a review of the I-213s sample shows how deeply embedded USBP agents became in the tactics used by Ohio law enforcement, as well as the use of Ohio’s traffic code to initiate detentions that ended up with the deportation of drivers and passengers. Roughly 80 percent of all arrests recorded in the I-213s sample occurred through traffic stops.
Records show that USBP agents co-patrolled—also described as ride-alongs—in OSHP vehicles to conduct immigration checks at routine traffic stops. In these co-patrols, OSHP officers frequently stopped individuals for minor traffic violations such as marked lane violations or failure to maintain a proper distance between vehicles. After the initial stops, the local officers then invited USBP agents to interrogate drivers and passengers about their immigration status, arresting those who were unable to prove their legal presence in the country. USBP and OSHP formalized their collaboration through Memorandums of Understanding.
A closer look at the narratives in each I-213 shows this pattern in practice: local law enforcement stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation, e.g. speeding, cracked windshield, failure to yield, etc. If there were any indicia that the driver was not born in the United States, the local law enforcement officer contacted USBP agents from the Sandusky Bay station so they could assist in identifying the subject of the stop. This identification check, however, was a check of the driver’s immigration status, not simply a check of the driver’s identity. The local law enforcement officer often referred the individual to a USBP agent for identification check even after the subject presented the officer with valid identification, including driver’s licenses, or an identity document from another country. If the USBP agent determined that the individual lacked authorization to be in the country, the agent arrested the suspect, marking the first step in the immigrant’s path towards removal. This method of enforcement uses local law enforcement agencies as de facto immigration officials and traffic laws become the pretext for suspects’ entry point into the removal process.
This is an example:
Breaking down the 56 percent of I-213 arrests initiated by a local law enforcement agency, the use of traffic stops to detain individuals is evident and alarming:
Forty-three percent of I-213 arrests were initiated by local law enforcement officers executing traffic stops;
Six percent were initiated by a local law enforcement agency and noted the issuance of a detainer;
Five percent were by a local law enforcement agency conducting a ride-along with USBP;
Two percent were initiated by a local law enforcement agency that then contacted a fellow police officer for assistance because USBP was conducting a ride-along with that fellow officer.
Further, in the 183 I-213 arrests initiated by local law enforcement, 71.6 percent requested USBP identification assistance. Another 10.9 percent requested a different form of USBP assistance, such as immigration checks or canine assistance.
The pretextual nature of the stops carried out by local police departments in the Sandusky Bay area is none more evident than in cases where drivers presented valid driver’s licenses from other states. Review of the I-213s sample shows that law enforcement in Ohio, including OSHP, do not recognize these valid, out-of-state licenses as a form of identification, often passing off individuals of color or of Latin American origin who presented these licenses to USBP agents for additional verification of identity. Here is one example where all vehicle occupants presented valid temporary driver’s licenses from Illinois to an officer from the Ohio State Highway Patrol, which led the officer to call USBP:
These are some additional examples:
June 5, 2019 – Driver presented a Maryland driver’s license.
August 1, 2016 – Driver presented a California driver’s license.
Even though the information required to identify the individuals during the course of a normal traffic stop is contained within the driver’s licenses presented, OSHP officers were unsatisfied. The narratives of the I-213s for these stops do not show any indication that the officers had a suspicion that the vehicle occupants had been involved in criminal activity. Rather, they explicitly state that the officers held the vehicle occupants beyond the purpose of the original traffic stop solely for purposes of “identification.”
Further, in three I-213s, the driver presented an Ohio driver’s license during the traffic stop but the officers interrogated and arrested the passengers.
Licensed driver and passengers arrested after OSHP stop
On April 25, 2017, an OSHP trooper stopped a Honda Odyssey with Wisconsin license plates for speeding. The driver presented a valid Wisconsin driver’s license. The trooper issued him a speeding ticket. No suspicious behaviors or other criminal indicators are articulated in the report, and yet the trooper contacted USBP for “identification assistance” for the three passengers. A USBP agent arrived on the scene and began questioning the passengers in Spanish about their immigration status. One of the passengers stated he had been granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) but did not have his ID on him. The driver and all three passengers were arrested and transported to the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol Station.
It is virtually impossible to prove whether officers’ subjective intent in these cases was to check the immigration status of vehicle occupants. However, the manner by which police stop immigrants in Ohio, in light of the reasons for the stops and the outcomes for those individuals—particularly those who carry valid identification—strongly suggests that traffic stops are being used as random immigration checks.
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s warning in Arizona v. U.S. that detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns, the OSHP policy on this topic seems to allow for such detentions.
The policy, however, instructs officers “not detain them any longer, if there are no charges,” in cases where officers send suspects’ information to the nearest customs office and the office does not reply within a “reasonable length of time.” Thus, despite clear Supreme Court precedent against it, the policy seems to authorize the detention of individuals to check their immigration status.
Even more troubling is one USBP agent’s direct involvement in enforcing Ohio’s traffic laws to initiate immigration investigatory stops. In a December 5, 2016 I-213, a USBP agent performed a traffic stop because the agent observed the driver driving erratically and speeding. The I-213, however, noted that this particular agent had been “deputized” by the Lucas County Sheriff’s Office to conduct traffic stops. The validity of this type of agreement, and therefore the vehicle stop itself, is highly questionable because: a) this type of agreement would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce stating that Border Patrol agents have no part in enforcing traffic laws; and b) there is no regulatory authority allowing USBP to enter into these agreements. Disclosure that deputization agreements purportedly granting USBP agents the power to conduct traffic stops raises additional issues as to how many other drivers this agent stopped under this alleged authority and how many other local law enforcement agencies, in Ohio and nationally, have entered into these agreements without legal basis.
Traffic stops prolonged to enforce immigration law
Data shows that local law enforcement purposefully prolonged traffic stops to facilitate USBP’s immigration checks of drivers and passengers. The available records indicate that local law enforcement officers routinely contacted USBP agents and detained drivers and passengers while USBP agents traveled to detention locations to conduct immigration checks. As previously noted, these “identification assistance” requests often occurred after subjects had already presented valid government IDs.
This practice likely contradicts legal precedent and therefore violates detained individuals’ rights. In Rodriguez v. U.S., 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1612 (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a person’s detention becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the traffic stop. In U.S. v. Urrieta, 520 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2008), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that even a six-minute extension of a stop beyond its original purpose with the sole goal of investigating immigration status violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The I-213s in the sample suggest local law enforcement officers routinely detained suspects beyond the time the officers needed to conclude a traffic stop, often for far longer than six minutes.
This I-213 narrative exemplifies the problem:
Here are some additional illustrations:
July 21, 2016 – OSHP officer called USBP for identification assistance at 2:45 a.m. USBP arrived at the scene at 3:50 a.m.; a full hour and five minutes later.
September 11, 2017 – OSHP officer called USBP for identification assistance at 3:32 p.m. USBP arrived at the scene at 4:35 p.m.; more than one hour later.
In yet another example of inadequate record keeping, it is difficult to discern exactly how long the local law enforcement officers prolonged the stops. Seventy-nine percent of the narratives in the I-213s sample failed to identify the time when USBP agents arrived at the detention location to assist the local officers who initiated the stops. Of the 327 I-213 arrest reports, 183 traffic stops were initiated by Ohio local law enforcement and only 35 of them documented time entries for the dispatch call requesting assistance and time entries indicating agents’ arrival at the scene. This omission in documenting response times by USBP does not allow for a calculation of how much longer the local officers detained individuals to wait for USBP agents to arrive, which undermines transparency and accountability. The repeated omission of USBP dispatch and arrival time—whether an intentional omission or inadequate record keeping—makes it all the more difficult for immigrants to assert their Fourth Amendment rights in the aftermath of these arrests.
In some instances, OSHP troopers took physical custody of immigrants after a traffic stop concluded to facilitate "identity assistance.” In these cases, local officers placed the subjects in their patrol vehicles and drove them to meet USBP agents who then immediately performed immigration checks and arrests.
OSHP (no reason for stop indicated) “identification assistance”
A man was travelling from Michigan to Ohio to visit his parents on November 15, 2015, when he was stopped by an OSHP sergeant in Clyde, Ohio. After the man presented a Mexican identification card and an expired Michigan driver’s license, the sergeant contacted USBP, ostensibly requesting “identification assistance.” No criminal indicators or suspicious behavior was articulated in the report. Because of “travel time,” the OSHP sergeant decided to transport the man to meet the USBP agent. Once the sergeant delivered the man to the USBP agent, the sergeant also admitted that, as a response to the sergeant’s questioning of the man, the man allegedly admitted he was undocumented. The man was detained by OSHP and then USBP for an hour before USBP agents placed him under arrest and transported him to the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol station. He is a father to three U.S. citizen children.
Here’s an additional example where local Ohio law enforcement transported individuals to USBP custody:
February 5, 2019 – After a West Salem police officer detained a vehicle for speeding and the driver did not have identification, the officer helped USBP by transporting five individuals to a “meeting place” because the USBP agents lacked the space in their vehicle.
Cooperation between Ohio’s local law enforcement and USBP agents from the Sandusky Bay station such as co-patrols and the potential deputization of USBP officers crystalize how USBP used Ohio local resources to detain and deport immigrants. These examples, as well as the numerous others found in the I-213s sample, show a pattern by local law enforcement of prolonging the detention of drivers and passengers at traffic stops to conduct “identity checks.” Documents reviewed found that passengers of vehicles also were routinely questioned about their identity with no discernable probable cause to justify the passengers’ detention. If the initial purpose of the stop by local law enforcement is to investigate or punish the violation of the traffic law, the detention should cease when that investigation is complete. Yet time and time again, Ohio law enforcement sought information beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop without any articulable reason that would justify the additional detention to feed immigrants into the deportation pipeline.
As outlined above, the I-213s sample shows a pattern of immigrants of color and of Latin American origin living in, working in, or traveling through Ohio bearing the brunt of these immigration enforcement practices. This dynamic subjected individuals of color or Latin American origin to apprehension methods that raise serious constitutional concerns.
Targeted Individuals Do Not Present a Public Safety Threat
Absence of criminal history of individuals detained
According to the Memorandum of Understanding between the local law enforcement agencies and USBP, the main purpose of the agencies’ collaboration is to enhance border security.
However, over two-thirds of the I-213s sample indicate that the individuals arrested had no criminal history. Sixty-nine percent of all I-213s in the sample had no noted criminal history and only four of the entries suggest that USBP agents arrested the subject under suspicion of a crime, but the individual had no past criminal history. Eight percent of entries were unclear or blank as to whether the subject had a negative or positive criminal history. The low number of arrests of individuals with criminal history suggests that USBP is not focusing their detentions on individuals suspected of criminal violations and calls into question the efficiency of these collaborations. Further, despite Border Patrol’s stated mission of “preventing illegal trafficking of people and contraband,” only one arrest documented in the I-213s sample showed indicators of drug trafficking enforcement and none showed indicators of human trafficking related crimes.
In some cases, even individuals who sought assistance from law enforcement became victims of these enforcement practices.
Driver seeks help for vehicle in need of assistance: passengers find themselves in jail
On August 31, 2017, a driver experienced some mechanical issues with his car that caused him to swerve and stop in its lane. Despite observing this, a USBP agent intended to pass by the vehicle. The driver waved down the agent for assistance with the disabled car. The USBP agent, after learning that the driver and six passengers only spoke Spanish, began questioning their immigration status. Four of the passengers the USBP agent interrogated—rather than assisted—had lawful status. Despite this, all seven individuals were detained at the side of the road for almost three long hours. At the end of that time, USBP arrested the three passengers without lawful status and transported them to Seneca County Jail. None had any criminal history; none were offered bond.
Car accident leads to deportations October 11, 2018
On October 11, 2018, around 3:00 p.m. near Liberty Center, Ohio, ten men were involved in a private property vehicle accident. When Henry County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) arrived at the scene, the deputy asked the men for identification. Some of the men carried with them a Mexican voter identification card. Such identification bears the person’s photo, name, gender, and age. This information is often enough for officers to check people’s criminal records, including a check for outstanding arrest warrants. The HCSO deputy proceeded to request USBP agents' assistance in “identifying ten subjects involved” in the accident. The USBP agents identified the ten men. Nine of them were individuals who entered the United States legally with H-2A visas, which are issued to individuals with temporary agricultural work in the country. Records from USBP’s detention of the nine men stated they did not have any prior criminal arrests. The nine were held in custody pending removal proceedings and without bond.
USBP detained U.S. nationals and others who were not deportable
USBP’s enforcement methods also impacted people not subject to removal. The Apprehension Log data showed that 23.2 percent of individuals apprehended by USBP were U.S. nationals and 1.3 percent of people apprehended were not deportable. The high rate of detention of U.S. nationals is concerning, particularly considering the findings that USBP agents targeted men of Latin American origin for apprehension and removal. This finding also shows that these tactics not only impact undocumented immigrants, but also subject U.S. nationals to discriminatory treatment.
USBP arrested individuals who have made the United States their home
Analysis from the I-213s sample found that 72.8 percent of arrest subjects had been in the United States for “Over 1 Year.” Additionally, 15.9 percent had been present in the country for a period of “1 Month to 1 Year.” Only 5.8 percent of the I-213s showed the subjects had been present in the country for “4 to 30 days” and only one entry noted the subject had been present in the United States for less than 72 hours. Seventeen I-213s, or 5.2 percent of the sample, did not have information on the length of subjects’ stay in the country. Data from the I-213 narratives that included the amount of time subjects had been present in the United States shows that median days since subjects’ last entry was 1,834 days, approximately five years.
This is yet another example of how USBP agents from the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol station go beyond USBP’s mission. They are not apprehending immigrants entering the country without authorization, but rather, given the data, spending extensive resources each year apprehending individuals who have developed a sense of belonging in their local communities.
Immigration enforcement’s impact on families
The story of the children unnecessarily separated from their parents featured at the beginning of this report is but one example. The I-213s sample shows that 23 percent of the arrests were of individuals who had at least one U.S. citizen child, and the total number of U.S. citizen children impacted by the arrests was 145. Further, eight percent of individuals reported having a U.S. citizen spouse. Twenty-eight percent of individuals reported having at least one U.S. citizen child and/or a U.S. citizen spouse.
Studies show that families who have a member detained or deported see increased signs of disruptions to children’s routines and relationships, increases in extreme stress, anxiety, and depression, declines in school performance, and increased mental health and behavioral issues. Immigration enforcement’s impact of long-term harm on children is well-documented. Implementing changes to immigration enforcement and limiting enforcement activities would reduce the hardship experienced by noncitizens and their families.
Passengers pay the price in OSHP/USBP collusion
On March 1, 2017, a driver and passenger were traveling on an Ohio highway. They passed an OSHP sergeant. The trooper had a USBP agent riding in his patrol vehicle with him. The sergeant initiated a traffic stop for traveling below the posted speed limit and cutting off another vehicle. The sergeant instructed the driver to exit the vehicle and wait in the patrol car. Without explanation, the sergeant then began questioning the passenger. The passenger gave the sergeant a Matricula Consular, a Mexican consular identification. The sergeant took the Mexican ID card and gave it to the USBP agent waiting in the sergeant’s patrol car. The USBP agent immediately began questioning the passenger—who had committed no traffic offense—about his immigration status. The passenger explained he first entered the U.S. fifteen years earlier. He has lived in the same community in Pennsylvania for over ten years. He has four U.S. citizen children. Instead of allowing the passenger to return home to his family, the USBP agent arrested the man and detained him without bond.
U.S. citizen children arrested alongside their parents
On July 15, 2016, a father, mother, and two children were travelling through Ottawa County, Ohio in a red pickup truck. The family lived in a small town in western Ohio where the father worked on a farm. A deputy from the Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office stopped the car for speeding. The deputy issued the driver a speeding ticket. That driver did not have a license, and gave the deputy his Mexican Matricula Consular card. Once the deputy saw the Mexican document, he contacted USBP for “identification assistance.” The deputy continued to detain the parents and the two children for forty minutes after the traffic stop had ended, waiting for USBP agents to arrive. USBP questioned the parents about their immigration status and arrested the entire family, including their child and nephew. Neither adult had a criminal history, and after several hours of detention the family was eventually released under prosecutorial discretion.
USBP detained children as a consequence of its tactics
Even though USBP most commonly targeted working-age men, children were also caught in USBP’s tactics. Data from USBP’s Apprehension Log showed that USBP detained 90 children under the age of 18, or 3.3 percent of the total apprehensions. Of the 90 children that USBP agents detained, 40 were identified as U.S. nationals, making up 44.4 percent of minor apprehensions. Additionally, 1.4 percent were between the ages of 13-17 and 1.2 percent were between 0-12 years old. Children were less likely to be the subjects of I-213 arrests, but the I-213s sample showed that USBP arrested three subjects between the ages of 13 and 17.
Research shows that negative law enforcement encounters for children “are linked to negative outcomes, such as poor emotional well-being, physical health, and social outcomes.” The enforcement tactics deployed by Ohio law enforcement and USBP may have a detrimental impact on the well-being of the children who have been detained or have seen their parents taken by law enforcement officers.
Recommendations
Recommendations for the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) and other local law enforcement agencies
Develop a clear policy for when “identification assistance” is warranted generally, and specifically when identification assistance is warranted from Border Patrol.
Limit requests for identity to the “name, address, and date of birth” requirements under Section 2921.29 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Receive training on common forms of identity documents, including out-of-state driver’s licenses, the Mexican consular ID card (Matricula Consular), and foreign passports from Mexico and other commonly seen countries.
Immediately cease the practice of asking passengers for identification where there is no probable cause to believe the passengers committed or witnessed a criminal offense, consistent with ORC 2921.29.
Limit state agency and local law enforcement collaboration with USBP, including ending the MOU between the OSHP and Border Patrol.
Require that local and state law enforcement agencies adhere to the Ohio Attorney General opinion prohibiting local law enforcement agencies from enforcing civil provisions of federal immigration law.
OSHP should rescind existing policy 902.08 and instead issue a policy directive similar to the Michigan State Police policy directive that instructs troopers and local law enforcement officers not to inquire about a person’s immigration or citizenship status or initiate or prolong a traffic stop to determine a person’s status unless that information is needed for another legitimate purpose, such as a criminal investigation.
Require documentation for stops by local law enforcement that don’t result in arrest.
Recommendations for federal agencies
The Department of Justice (DOJ) should investigate potential civil rights violations by local law enforcement agencies, including OSHP, and make its findings public.
The DHS should create and publicize an accessible reporting system within its oversight subcomponents, such as its Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to report and track civil rights violations that occur as a result of local law enforcement agencies’ attempts to enforce civil immigration law.
DOJ should monitor civil rights complaints and withhold law enforcement grants from agencies that have been found to violate civil rights.
DHS should issue guidance to ICE’s Office of Principal Legal Advocate attorneys clarifying that removal proceedings brought against victims of Fourth Amendment and Equal Protection violations should be dismissed.
DOJ should publish guidance to immigration judges alerting them to USBP’s pattern and practice of colluding with local law enforcement and the civil rights violations implicated in these practices and instructing immigration judges to consider termination in cases in which respondents’ civil rights have been violated as a result of local law enforcement and USBP collaboration.
DHS should publish all CBP’s cooperation agreements in its FOIA library, including MOUs and funding agreements with local law enforcement agencies.
Conclusion
The experience of communities near USBP’s Sandusky Bay station is evidence of the harms that arise from the inappropriate collaboration between USBP and local law enforcement agencies. The data showed that USBP agents at the Sandusky Bay station engaged in the systemic, pervasive, and unfair targeting, interrogation, and detention of individuals of Latin American origin. USBP agents often worked with Ohio local law enforcement agencies to apprehend immigrants, which all too often led to the detention of U.S. citizens and individuals with valid immigration status. The evidence of widespread racial profiling and the violation of people's constitutional rights raises serious questions about the deference that is often shown to local law enforcement and USBP, including by the Ohio judiciary, legislature, and the public.
While USBP’s stated mission is to police the border, its agents encountered or arrested a very small percentage of people who entered the country without authorization from Canada. Rather, the available data clearly demonstrates USBP and local law enforcement engage in a pattern and practice of discriminatory interior immigration enforcement. USBP’s unlawful enforcement tactics and collusion with local law enforcement agencies on the northern border deserve greater scrutiny.
In light of the harms to families in Ohio and the erosion of constitutional rights for people who live in these communities and are impacted by these tactics, we hope this information helps advocates in the Sandusky Bay region push local elected officials to diminish the harmful cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration enforcement agencies. Community groups and other organizations in northern Ohio may use the findings in this report to advocate against the use of state resources being deployed to increase deportations. Further research is needed to determine the exact economic impact of this collaboration and the budgetary effect of local law enforcement agencies being used by USBP for immigration enforcement.
We also hope this report helps other border communities that may be facing, or could face, these enforcement tactics. Local policy makers should create spaces, like town hall meetings, to gather community feedback about how these civil rights violations impact local communities. Finally, we hope these findings highlight the importance of transparency, oversight, and increased accountability in the context of immigration enforcement.
The collusion between local police and immigration enforcement blurs the lines of enforcement power and jurisdiction, undermining trust and cooperation between local law enforcement and the communities they are entrusted to protect. When we limit this entanglement, we strengthen public safety for all.
1 The detention of the U.S. citizen children in this narrative may be corroborated, with a high degree of certainty, by reviewing U.S. Border Patrol Apprehension Logs. USBP did not create Form I-213s for the children, i.e. immigration arrest records, because of their U.S. citizenship.
2 ABLE federal litigation: Muniz v. U.S. Border Patrol (N.D. Ohio 09-cv-2865 and 6th Cir. 12-4419 and 16-3400); Vasquez-Palafox v. U.S. (N.D. Ohio 12-cv-2380); Saucedo-Carrillo v. U.S. (N.D. Ohio 12-cv-2571)(6th Cir.;13-4502); Martinez-Castro, et al. v. Village of Wakeman, et al. (N.D. Ohio 12-cv-2364); Monzalvo-Lazcano, et al. v. Morrow (N.D. Ohio 1:18-cv-2784); Tomas-Pedro, et al. v. Holden (N.D. Ohio 3:18-cv-1136).
