Identifying, Analyzing, and Changing Police Policies Regarding Communication with ICE
Many police departments have policies that direct their officers about whether and when to share information or collaborate with ICE. Many do not. Under the current (March 2026) legal framework in Massachusetts, police departments have wide discretion on what goes into these policies, and advocacy at the municipal level can help make change.
Follow these steps to find, analyze, and advocate for change of police policies concerning communication with ICE.
Step 1: Requesting your local police department's policy:
Check here to see if your department’s policy has already been gathered by CfJJ. Note that this information is only updated as of January 2026.
If your local police department’s policy is not above, you can submit a Public Records Request (PRR) to your police department requesting their policy.
Step 2: Understanding and analyzing the policy (key points to look for)
Once you have your town’s police policy, ask these 7 questions:
In what circumstances are officers allowed to check immigration status?
§ Red flags: Allowing checks on immigration status during public police encounters, checking immigration status for those under police surveillance, checking immigration status as a standard part of the booking process after arrest, or with a long list of exceptions/reasons when checking immigration status is allowed/required.
§ Green flags: Strong wording that does not allow an officer to check immigration status except when required by law. An example from the Brookline PD policy is as follows: “No police officer or other employee of the Department shall inquire about a person’s immigration status… except in limited circumstances specifically identified by the Chief and approved by the Board in public session as not inconsistent with this Policy.”
Are officers allowed to share information with ICE?
§ Red flags: Allowing communication with ICE in the following circumstances:
If an arrestee has a civil immigration warrant or administrative warrant
If an arrestee has previously been convicted of a misdemeanor or nonviolent felony
If sharing information “serves a public safety interest”
If an arrestee is SUSPECTED of street gang activity
§ Green Flags: Not allowing communication with ICE except when required by law.
Does the policy adhere to the Lunn v. Commonwealth court ruling?
§ Red flag: “An officer who has a reasonable suspicion that an individual already lawfully contacted or detained has committed a criminal violation of federal immigration law may detain the person for a reasonable period of time in order to contact federal immigration officials to verify whether an immigration violation is a federal civil violation or a criminal violation.” (example taken from Chicopee Policy 413)
§ Green flag: Lunn v. Commonwealth is mentioned in policy and there is acknowledgement that police cannot extend an individual’s detention for a civil immigration detainer.
What should a police response to an immigration detainer be?
§ Red flags: No mention of making an arrestee aware if they have an immigration detainer. Requiring that civil immigration detainers are added to an individual’s police file.
§ Green flags: requiring that an arrestee is notified when ICE sends the department a detainer for them. Not allowing civil immigration detainers to be added to an individual’s police file.
What are police authorized to do during ICE raids?
§ Red flags: allowing broad assistance when “requested”
§ Green flags: Specifically stating that officers shall not directly assist ICE and limiting officer assistance to keeping the peace, requesting ICE clearly identify themselves, requesting prior notice for when ICE is planning on conducting raids, requiring the department to independently verify ICE warrants.
Are there limits to the funds and resources that local police are allowed to use for immigration enforcement?
§ Red flags: No mention of limiting what departmental funds and resources may be used for the sole purpose of immigration enforcement
§ Green flags: Look for the following: “No funds, resources, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel of the Department shall be used for any federal immigration custody or detainment or other enforcement purpose.”
Is there a ban on 287(g) agreements?
§ Red flag: No mention of 287(g) agreement ban
§ Green flag: Specifically states that the department shall not enter into a 287(g) agreement
Examples of a stronger and weaker police policy
Strong model: Bedford Policy
Specific language that makes this policy strong:
Checking immigration status: “No police officer or other employee of the Department shall inquire about a person's immigration status, nor shall such officer or employee take any policing action against a person based solely on the person’s real or suspected immigration status, except in limited circumstances specifically identified by the Chief.”
Limiting funds and resources: “No funds, resources, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel of the Department shall be used for any federal immigration custody or detainment or other enforcement purpose.”
Detainers & Lunn Acknowledgement: “If, in the course of standard processing procedures, Immigration and Customs Enforcement files an immigration detainer, the arrestee shall be made aware of the detainer and provided a copy. The arrestee shall also be made aware that the Bedford Police Department will not hold them in custody on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer if they post bail or are released on their own recognizance.”
Information Sharing: “No police officer or civilian employee of the Department shall make any information in its databases or other record-keeping systems available to any entity for enforcement of any federal statute or program requiring registration of persons on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national or ethnic origin, or political or social beliefs.”
Where this falls short: There is wide discretion for sharing information with ICE, there are not limits on sharing fingerprints with ICE, The Chief of Police can approve immigration status checks without having a public meeting to obtain the public's approval
Weak model: Lexipol Policy (Chicopee, Tewksbury, Shrewsbury)
Specific language that makes this policy weak:
Checking Immigration Status: “An officer who has a reasonable suspicion that an individual already lawfully contacted or detained has committed a criminal violation of federal immigration law may detain the person for a reasonable period of time in order to contact federal immigration officials to verify whether an immigration violation is a federal civil violation or a criminal violation.”
Funds and Resources: “Requests by federal immigration officials for assistance from this department should be directed to a supervisor. The Department may provide available support services.”
Information Sharing: No member of this department will prohibit, or in any way restrict, any other member from doing any of the following regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual (8 USC § 1373):
Sending information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, federal immigration officials
Maintaining such information in department records
Exchanging such information with any other federal, state, or local government entity
Step 3: What to do about problems with my police department's immigration enforcement policy?
Share your findings with other local advocacy groups.
Advocate for policy changes at your local city/town council meeting.
Request to sit down with your town’s chief of police, mayor, city manager, and/or city/town council members to discuss your concerns. Use this one pager to help guide the meeting.
Write a letter to the editor (find templates here).