The latest amendments to Connecticut’s Trust Act include a new measure for accountability and some new parameters on how state and local law enforcement can assist federal immigration officials.
Connecticut advocates, lawmakers and historians say it’s been a long journey to reach this point.
The Trust Act continues to evolve
In 2013, lawmakers passed the Trust Act to put restrictions on the information that local and state police can share with federal immigration agents.
Those limits ensured that ICE could not obtain information to identify and deport undocumented people while conducting work in Connecticut, according to Kris Klein Hernández, an assistant professor of history at Connecticut College.
The law was updated in 2019 to tighten the restrictions placed on information sharing. With the update, state and local law enforcement can only cooperate in arresting someone based on a federal request if ICE has a judicial warrant, if the person is a convicted felon or if the person is a suspected terrorist.
The federal request, known as a detainer, calls for police to hold the arrested individual for up to 48 hours after they’re set to be released so ICE officers can pick them up. State Rep. Steve Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat, co-introduced the bill that passed in 2019. He said the revised law would allow Connecticut police to focus on local crimes and undocumented residents to feel safe when approaching police with any concerns.
Connecticut lawmakers revised the law again this year, after advocates called on them to strengthen it following President Donald Trump’s return to office. Nearly 200 people signed up to testify before the state Judiciary Committee in March, a public hearing that saw hours of debate over the Trust Act.
Here is what changed:
- Migrants can sue over violations of the Trust Act
Starting October 1, individuals will be able to file a lawsuit against a state or local police department that reaches out to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in a way that violates the Trust Act.
Under the original version of the Trust Act, there was no real penalty if state or local police violated the law, according to Mike Lawlor, the Acting Associate Dean of the Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences at the University of New Haven.
“I think that's going to be significant,” Lawlor said, “because anecdotally, there have been examples where even though they're not supposed to do it, police have reached out to ICE and dropped a dime on somebody.”
Lawlor said the fact that starting in October, police departments can be held accountable in court and could be required to cover damages will exact a level of accountability that did not exist before.
“I think that the prospect of getting sued—because, don't forget, at the end of the day, it's not the individual police officer who pays anything, it's the town or city or state that employs them—will mean that there's even more policies enacted to ensure that law enforcement officers are trained properly,” Lawlor said.
That training, Lawlor said, will in turn help build trust so undocumented residents can approach police without fear.
An expansion of the law will also apply those provisions to employees of the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ), including all state and municipal employees and criminal prosecutors.
- More migrants convicted of violent crimes could see ICE interaction
Also, in the Trust Act updates, over a dozen crimes have been added to the list of those that law enforcement can comply with when receiving a federal request from ICE, including sexual assault, burglary with a firearm and injury or risk of injury to a child.
“These are the most serious violent crimes, basically,” Lawlor said, “but the vast majority of people coming through the criminal justice system are relatively low level. They're not really dangerous. You know, bad days, drunk driving, disputes with neighbors, those are the kinds of things that feed a lot of business into the criminal courts. So we're not going to detain people just because ICE asks us to.”
Republican lawmakers pushed for this change earlier this year but also wanted it for individuals that were arrested, not convicted. The Trust Act allows police to hold somebody upon a federal ICE request for up to 48 hours without a warrant if convicted of these crimes.
Republican State Senator Rob Sampson said the ultimate goal should be to assist and fully comply with the federal government in its immigration enforcement.
“It is not up to us to decide which of their rules and laws are appropriate,” Sampson said.
For Sampson, a select list of crimes suggests an opening for other undocumented criminals.
“If I could speak to people in the undocumented community, I mean, the first question I'd ask them is, how do you feel about a policy that actually doesn't just protect you, but it also protects the criminals that are effectively preying on your community?” Sampson said. “It's illogical in my view.”
Democratic State Rep. Matt Blumenthal said the Trust Act does adhere to federal law.
“It was previously approved by the Trump administration in 2017 under Jeff Sessions as attorney general, where the DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice) stated that it was fully compliant with federal law. It continues to be,” Blumenthal said of the law which has been amended twice since then. “It's not our job to do federal immigration enforcement here at the state level. It's the federal government's job, and that's how those roles should be divided.”
Blumenthal also pointed to data released earlier this year that showed that about half of people held in ICE detention don’t have criminal convictions.
“The Trump administration has been detaining immigrants on a widespread basis, with no regard to whether they have committed any crime or [are] dangerous in any way,” Blumenthal said. “So this is a provision of law that exists in Connecticut. It helps make Connecticut the extremely low crime and safe state that it is.”
The debate over future amendments continues
These changes are a positive step forward, according to Juan Fonseca Tapia, an immigrant rights advocate and campaign manager for the Trust Act Now Coalition which pushed for a stronger Trust Act throughout the past legislative session. But he’s unsure if it’s enough.
“How can we know that the law is being followed and not violated?” Fonseca Tapia said.
The Trust Act Now Coalition called for some level of oversight to be added in their proposal submitted to the Judiciary Committee. Some examples they proposed included the creation of an oversight board or a hotline to report Trust Act violations.
It was taken out during the legislative process and was not included in the final version that was signed into law.
“I think that it's needed now more than ever, if we have police officers or police departments or people in power telling us that it is okay for people to show up and cover their faces and dress up as construction workers and take people off the street,” Fonseca Tapia said.
Fonseca Tapia said he is hoping that there will be a special session this fall where Connecticut lawmakers will have “an opportunity to get the things that didn't get done in the legislative session.”
Republican State Senator Sampson, however, is not convinced that a special session will happen.
“In my view, they might as well just wait,” Sampson said. “This particular policy change from the last session, I don't think it's going to have any real effect. What they ought to do is concentrate on helping the Trump administration, where we all should be able to agree, which is to remove criminal aliens.”
Democratic State Rep. Blumenthal said while there may be no formal oversight, lawmakers like him are relying on the public to inform them on whether or not the Trust Act is being enforced properly.
“If people see what they believe to be non-compliance with the Trust Act by any state or local employee, they should absolutely reach out and report it, whether to their legislator or to local officials,” Blumenthal said. “That should be fed up the chain and there should be consequences. We should get to the bottom of it and ensure that this law, which is the law of the state of Connecticut, is fully complied with.”
