When masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entered a courthouse in Meriden last week to take a man into custody, a tumultuous scene unfolded.
A crowd of activists shouted as the agents entered the building and walked through a security area, video shows. At least one person was injured, though the circumstances are under investigation.
In the days since, the arrest has raised a broader legal question that state officials and civil rights organizations are trying to answer: Did ICE agents violate state law?
Connecticut has expanded and enacted new protections for immigrants in recent years. A state law that went into effect in May prohibits most civil immigration arrests on courthouse grounds without a signed judicial warrant. It also bars law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings in court without a medical need.
Onlookers cited the law during last week's tense confrontation with the agents. But some questions about the operation remain unanswered, including what authority the agents had to enter the building.
New records obtained by the Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union show ICE agents presented court officers in Meriden with a warrant for deportation or removal of the man they were seeking. The order was signed Sept. 20 by a deputy director in the ICE field office in Burlington, Massachusetts.
Dan Barrett, ACLU's legal director in the state, said the document is an administrative warrant issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and not the kind of signed judicial warrant required under Connecticut's new law.
However, Barrett said the organization is still waiting for more information before reaching a conclusion about what took place.
“We’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened to figure out if our law was violated here," Barrett said. "And if it wasn't because our laws are so narrow, then I’m reasonably sure you will see us talking to legislators about what needs to be done in order to make sure the laws match our societal expectations."
Under the law, officers are restricted from taking someone into custody on courthouse grounds based on a civil offense, though there are exceptions, including for certain qualifying criminal convictions, or if the person was flagged in a terrorist screening database.
The law requires a judicial marshal to determine whether those statutory exemptions apply before an arrest can take place.
Rhonda Hebert, a spokesperson for the state judicial branch, said in an email that the agency is awaiting further information to assess whether the ICE arrest complies with state law.
The actions of the judicial marshals are also under review by the branch’s Human Resources unit and Connecticut State Police, Hebert said.
In an email, a DHS spokesperson identified the target of their operation as Welington Leonel Almara-Diaz. Border patrol officers previously arrested Almara-Diaz in September 2022 after he entered the country illegally near Hidalgo, Texas. He was released and later received a final order of removal in October 2023, the spokesperson said.
His criminal history includes two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol and two other motor vehicle offenses, according to the agency.
Describing the incident, the spokesperson said several judicial court marshals impeded the arrest, "going as far as telling Almara-Diaz to hide upstairs."
"One Judicial Court Marshal blocked the elevator and exits and threatened one of the officers by saying 'I’ll catch you outside and rip your face off,'" the spokesperson said. "Once outside, anti-ICE agitators blocked the officer’s exit, refusing to move when asked. Officers relied on their training to gain control of the situation."
The agency said Almara-Diaz will remain in ICE custody pending removal.
ACLU-CT has a pending request for the state judicial branch’s policies on how to assess requests made by ICE.
“We have an interest in justice being administered here, and so we ought to really think critically about whether our laws adequately protect against what we saw in Meriden,” Barrett said.
State Rep. Steve Stafstrom, the Democratic chair of the legislature's judiciary committee, said lawmakers will consider future changes.
“We’re continuing to evaluate and continuing to look for ways to provide additional protections for those who live in the state of Connecticut from what has been an abusive, scandal-ridden and frankly destabilizing force that is ICE,” Stafstrom said.
