LS. llepnrtment of Homeland Securil.

y
800 North Capitol Street. NW. Suite
WashinglNL DC 20536 .. 5009

U.S. Immigration
and CustonlS
Enforcement

August 12, 2009

This letter is the final response to your Freedom of lnfonnation Act (FOIA) request, dated June 23, 2009 to
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigratioll and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for copies
of e-mails sent from ICE to the Davidson County Sheriff's Office in Tennessee that describe plans by ICE to
no longer detain illegal immigrants identified under the 287(g) program who are arrested for traffic violations
other than OUt Your request was received in this office on July 6, 2009.

A search of the Office of State and Local Coordination (OSLC), Office of Policy and Planning (OPP), and the
Office of Detention and Removal Operations (ORO) for documents responsive to your request produced a
total of2 pages. Of these pages, I have determined that portions of2 pages are exempt from disclosure
pursuant to Title 5 U.S.c. § 552 (b){6) and (b){7)(C) of the FOIA.

With regards to a reference to the June 22 ud Tennessean article in your request letter, note that these ICE
records do not state that ICE will not detain non-U.S. drivers in Nashville.

Portions of2 pages are being withheld asdescribed below.

:FOIA Exemption 6 exempts from disclosure personnel or medical files and similar files the release of which
would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This requires a balancing ofthe public's
right to disclosure against the individual's right pl'ivacy. The types of documents and/or information that we
have withheld may consist of social security numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, or various other
documents and/or information belonging to a third party that are considered personal. The privacy interests of
the individuals in the records you have requested outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the
information. Any private interest you may have in that information does not factor into the aforementioned
balancing test.

FOIAExemption 7(C) protects records or infomlation compiled for Jaw enforcement purposes that eould
reasonably be expected to constitute an unwalTanted invasion of personal privacy. This exemption takes
particular note of the strong interests of individuals, whether they are suspects, witnesses, or investigators, in
not being unwarrantably associated with alleged criminal activity. That interest extends to persons who are
not only the subjects of the investigation, but those who may have their privacy invaded by having their
identities and infonnation about them revealed in connection with an investigation. Based upon the
traditional recognition of strong privacy interest in law enforcement records, categorical withholding of
inf0l1llation that identifies third parties in law enforcement records is ordinarily appropriate, As such, I have
determined that the privacy interest in the identities of individuals in the records you have requested clearly

wwvi.ice.gov
outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information. Please note that any private interest
you may have in that infOlmation does not factor into this determination.

You have a right to appeal the above withholding detennination. Should you wish to do so, you must send
your appeal and a copy ofthis letter, within 60 days of the date of this letter, to: Associate General Counsel
(General Law), U.s. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. 20528, following the procedures
outlined in the DHS regulations at 6 C.F.R. § 5.9. Your envelope and letter should be marked "FOIA
AppeaL" Copies of the FOlA and DHS regulations are available at www.dhs.govifoia.

Provisions of the FOlA and Privacy Act allow us to recover part of the cost of complying ,,,ith your request.
In this instance, because the cost is below the $14 minimum, there is no charge. I

If you need to contact our office about this matter. please refer to case number 09-FOIA-4378. This office
can be reached at (202) 732~0300 or (866) 633-1182.

ik-Keenan

Enclosure(s): 2 Pages

16 CFR § 5.1 1(d)(4).

www.ke.gov
 Page 1 of 1

b6 b7c

From: b6b7c

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:21 PM

To: _ (DCSO),; b6,b7c

Cc: b6 b7c

Subject: Non-Criminals

Gentlemen,

Just a heads up on a change that is strictly budgetary in nature, and hopefully temporary. Non-criminal aliens that
have no prior removals and don't fall within a mandatory removal category will be released on recognizance. We
have to prioritize our resources towards criminal aliens and we will continue to assert high bonds on cases that
fall within the parameters of protecting the public from predatory criminal aliens.

Each case will be judged on a case by case basis and if there are circumstances on a non-criminal that deserve a
bond then those issues should be addressed on the 1-213.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks

7/112009
 Page 1 of 1

b6,b7c
-----------~,--,---"'

From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 20095:23 PM
To:
b6,b7c

Cc: b6,b7c

Subject: Detention priorities

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Attachments: Detain_Priority.pdf

During the FOD conference call today detention priorities were addressed due to the shortfall in detention
funding. I have attached a 2004 Memorandum regarding detention priorities. Please examine the priorities on
that memorandum and consult with me on whether the individual should be detained, released on recognizance
or given voluntary departure under safeguards.

In order to expedite the removal of aliens from our area and free up bed space in Oakdale the Nashville ORO
office will do the following :

1. Cases at the Davidson County 287(g) office and ORO office that have only been charged with traffic
offenses should be offered voluntary departure under safeguards. This means that the 1-826 should be
emphasized and the alien offered the opportunity to depart more quickly than having a hearing with a
judge. This speeds up removal from the U.S. and lessens our jail expenses . If the alien requests a
hearing before immigration judge then they should for now be processed as in the past and typical bond
placed on the subject.
2. Calls from other Sheriffs Offices where the individual has not been convicted will be weighed against the
2004 Detention Priority memorandum. All requests to pick up in response to a detainer that was previously
placed should be examined in light of whether the individual was convicted , what the original charge was
and the individual's prior criminal history. In cases where the individual was not convicted we can still
respond depending on other priorities and work loads.
3. We should continue to place detainers where there have been charges filed against the individuals.
4. Mandatory detentions are still to be detained and issued the appropriate charging document.
5. Pregnant females and females with children should be released on recognizance unless they are a
mandatory detention.

Hopefully this shortfall in detention funds won't last very long and we can resume normal activities, Please help
with these few rules.

Thanks

7/112009