Communications Between New Rochelle Police Department and ICE Regarding Immigration Enforcement Policies

Jordan Lassiter

Independent Investigative Journalist
Transparency Report
Email: Jordan@Lassiter.eu

Date: February 12, 2025

To:
Records Access Officer
New Rochelle Police Department
475 North Avenue
New Rochelle, NY 10801

Subject: FOIL Request – Communications Between New Rochelle Police Department and ICE Regarding Immigration Enforcement Policies

To Whom It May Concern,

Pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Officers Law §§ 84-90, I hereby request access to and copies of all records, communications, and documentation related to cooperation, coordination, and enforcement actions between the New Rochelle Police Department (NRPD) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding immigration enforcement activities under the administration of President Donald J. Trump.

This request seeks to clarify the extent of New Rochelle Police Department’s involvement in federal immigration enforcement and whether ICE has made requests, conducted operations, or received assistance from NRPD.

Scope of Request: Specific Records Sought

I request copies of all relevant records, including but not limited to:

1. Communications Between New Rochelle Police Department and ICE
• Copies of all emails, letters, faxes, text messages, internal memos, and reports exchanged between NRPD officers, detectives, supervisors, or administrative personnel and ICE agents or representatives from January 1, 2025, to the present regarding:
• Requests for assistance in immigration enforcement operations in New Rochelle.
• ICE detainers or holds placed on individuals arrested or detained by NRPD.
• Joint operations, task forces, or coordinated efforts between NRPD and ICE.
• Policy discussions regarding the role of NRPD in federal immigration enforcement.
• Requests from ICE for personal data, residency information, or surveillance of specific individuals.

2. New Rochelle Police Department Policies on ICE and Immigration Enforcement
• Copies of all policies, directives, and internal guidelines issued by NRPD regarding:
• Procedures for responding to ICE requests for assistance, detainers, or arrests.
• Limitations, if any, on sharing information about individuals with federal immigration authorities.
• Training materials for officers on handling ICE-related matters, including compliance with New York State’s sanctuary laws.
• Protocols for handling situations where ICE agents seek access to individuals in police custody.

3. Agreements, MOUs, and Funding Arrangements with ICE
• Copies of any Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), contracts, or agreements between NRPD and ICE, including:
• Any formal partnership agreements between NRPD and ICE.
• Participation in ICE’s 287(g) program or any other federal immigration task forces.
• Federal grants, funding, or financial incentives received by NRPD related to immigration enforcement efforts.

4. Records of ICE-Related Enforcement Actions in New Rochelle
• Copies of any incident reports, arrest logs, call logs, or visitor logs documenting:
• ICE agents visiting NRPD facilities or requesting assistance from officers.
• NRPD officers participating in immigration enforcement operations with ICE.
• Any individuals arrested, detained, or transferred to ICE custody as a result of NRPD cooperation.
• Complaints, investigations, or internal reviews regarding potential civil rights violations linked to ICE-related operations.

5. Metadata for Electronic Communications
• For all emails or electronic messages responsive to this request, I request metadata including:
• Sender and recipient information.
• Timestamps of messages exchanged.
• Subject lines and attachment details.

Legal Justification for Disclosure

This FOIL request aligns with Public Officers Law § 87(2), which grants the public a presumptive right to access government records. Courts have ruled that law enforcement agencies must disclose non-exempt information to ensure government accountability (Buffalo Broadcasting Co. v. New York State Dep’t of Correctional Services, 155 A.D.2d 106 (3d Dep’t 1990)).

Additionally, under New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the public’s right to scrutinize government operations. Given the ongoing national debate over local police cooperation with ICE, the public has a compelling interest in understanding NRPD’s role in immigration enforcement.

New York State has implemented sanctuary policies that limit local law enforcement cooperation with ICE, and this request seeks to determine whether NRPD policies comply with these state-level protections (Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575 (1980)).

Obligation to Preserve and Provide Records

Under Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993), government entities must preserve records subject to public disclosure laws. Accordingly, I request that no responsive records be deleted, altered, or destroyed while this FOIL request is under consideration.

Fee Waiver Request

I request a waiver of all applicable fees for processing this request. Disclosure of these records serves the public interest by promoting government transparency and accountability and is not for commercial purposes.

Under Matter of New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Dep’t, 4 N.Y.3d 477 (2005), fee waivers should be granted when disclosure benefits the general public.

If a fee waiver is denied, I agree to pay up to $100 in processing fees. Please notify me in advance if costs will exceed this amount.

Request for Expedited Processing

Due to heightened public concern over immigration enforcement and civil rights issues, I request expedited processing of this FOIL request. Under Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575 (1980), timely disclosure of records affecting public safety and civil liberties is essential for government oversight.

Response Format and Timeline

Pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a), I expect an acknowledgment of receipt within five (5) business days and an estimated timeline for disclosure.

Please provide electronic copies of records whenever possible. If any records are withheld or redacted, I request a written explanation citing specific legal exemptions in accordance with Gould v. New York City Police Dep’t, 89 N.Y.2d 267 (1996).

Contact Information

Should you require any clarification or additional details, please contact me at Jordan@Lassiter.eu.

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and your commitment to transparency.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter
Independent Investigative Journalist
Transparency Report

Jordan Lassiter
Independent Investigative Journalist
Transparency Report
Email: Jordan@Lassiter.eu

February 19, 2025

To: Law Department of the City of New Rochelle
New Rochelle City Hall
515 North Avenue
New Rochelle, NY 10801

Subject: FOIL Appeal – Improper Denial of Records by the New Rochelle Police Department

To Whom It May Concern,

I am formally appealing the denial of my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request regarding communications and agreements between the New Rochelle Police Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The denial was issued under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g), which pertains to inter-agency or intra-agency materials. However, this exemption was misapplied, as my request explicitly seeks finalized documents, factual data, and external communications that do not qualify for exemption under FOIL.

FOIL’s Legislative Intent & Improper Invocation of § 87(2)(g)

New York’s FOIL operates under a presumption of access, meaning that all government records are presumed public unless a specific exemption applies. Courts have narrowly construed exemptions to prevent unjustified secrecy. See Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575 (1980) (“FOIL is based on a presumption of access, and its exemptions must be narrowly interpreted”).

Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g) does not apply here because:
1. Inter-agency or intra-agency communications exemption does not cover factual data, final policies, or external agency interactions.
• I requested communications between the New Rochelle Police Department and ICE, a federal agency, not internal deliberations. Once shared with an external entity, these records are no longer exempt under § 87(2)(g).
• Courts have ruled that communications exchanged between local police and external federal agencies are not protected under inter-agency exemptions. See Matter of City of Newark v. Law Dep’t of the City of New York, 305 A.D.2d 28 (1st Dep’t 2003) (holding that communications exchanged between NYPD and federal agencies must be disclosed).
2. Final policies, agreements, and MOUs must be disclosed.
• FOIL mandates disclosure of final determinations, agreements, or policies.
• My request explicitly included MOUs and funding arrangements, which are final agency decisions and must be released under New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Police Dep’t, 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1543 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2017).
• Any agreements with ICE impact the rights of the public, and withholding them violates Buffalo Broadcasting Co. v. NYS Dep’t of Correctional Servs., 155 A.D.2d 106 (3d Dep’t 1990) (holding that public contracts and agreements must be disclosed).
3. Statistical and factual data are not exempt under FOIL.
• My request sought records of ICE-related enforcement actions, which contain statistical and factual data and must be released per Matter of Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d 454 (2007) (holding that agencies must disclose factual information even if embedded in otherwise exempt records).
• Any metadata, timestamps, sender/recipient information, or subject lines of emails between ICE and New Rochelle PD constitute factual records, which are explicitly required to be disclosed under Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Dep’t, 89 N.Y.2d 267 (1996).
4. Directing me to an online manual does not satisfy FOIL obligations.
• The response referencing the Manual of Procedure does not satisfy FOIL’s requirement to provide direct access to records.
• Matter of Thomas v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 103 A.D.3d 495 (1st Dep’t 2013), explicitly rejected an agency’s attempt to avoid providing records by merely directing requesters to a website.

Preservation of Records & Consequences of Non-Compliance

I formally demand that the New Rochelle Police Department and City of New Rochelle preserve all responsive records while this appeal is pending. Any destruction, alteration, or deletion of records responsive to this request may constitute a violation of state and federal law.
• See Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (holding that agencies must preserve all records potentially subject to disclosure).
• Under Public Officers Law § 89(8), any attempt to willfully withhold records in bad faith could lead to judicial intervention and legal penalties.

Request for Immediate Disclosure

Given the above legal arguments and established case law, I request that the denial be reversed immediately and that the records be provided in electronic format within the statutory timeframe.

If any portion of the records is withheld, I request that you provide a written explanation detailing the legal grounds for withholding, citing specific case law, in compliance with Gould v. New York City Police Dep’t, 89 N.Y.2d 267 (1996).

Required Response Format

Please respond directly via the MuckRock platform for proper tracking of this request and CC my personal email at Jordan@Lassiter.eu.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this appeal.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter
Independent Investigative Journalist
Transparency Report

Jordan Lassiter
Independent Investigative Journalist
Transparency Report
Email: Jordan@Lassiter.eu

February 19, 2025

To: Law Department of the City of New Rochelle
New Rochelle City Hall
515 North Avenue
New Rochelle, NY 10801

Subject: FOIL Appeal – Improper Denial of Records by the New Rochelle Police Department

To Whom It May Concern,

I am formally appealing the denial of my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request regarding communications and agreements between the New Rochelle Police Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The denial was issued under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g), which pertains to inter-agency or intra-agency materials. However, this exemption was misapplied, as my request explicitly seeks finalized documents, factual data, and external communications that do not qualify for exemption under FOIL.

FOIL’s Legislative Intent & Improper Invocation of § 87(2)(g)

New York’s FOIL operates under a presumption of access, meaning that all government records are presumed public unless a specific exemption applies. Courts have narrowly construed exemptions to prevent unjustified secrecy. See Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575 (1980) (“FOIL is based on a presumption of access, and its exemptions must be narrowly interpreted”).

Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g) does not apply here because:
1. Inter-agency or intra-agency communications exemption does not cover factual data, final policies, or external agency interactions.
• I requested communications between the New Rochelle Police Department and ICE, a federal agency, not internal deliberations. Once shared with an external entity, these records are no longer exempt under § 87(2)(g).
• Courts have ruled that communications exchanged between local police and external federal agencies are not protected under inter-agency exemptions. See Matter of City of Newark v. Law Dep’t of the City of New York, 305 A.D.2d 28 (1st Dep’t 2003) (holding that communications exchanged between NYPD and federal agencies must be disclosed).
2. Final policies, agreements, and MOUs must be disclosed.
• FOIL mandates disclosure of final determinations, agreements, or policies.
• My request explicitly included MOUs and funding arrangements, which are final agency decisions and must be released under New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Police Dep’t, 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1543 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2017).
• Any agreements with ICE impact the rights of the public, and withholding them violates Buffalo Broadcasting Co. v. NYS Dep’t of Correctional Servs., 155 A.D.2d 106 (3d Dep’t 1990) (holding that public contracts and agreements must be disclosed).
3. Statistical and factual data are not exempt under FOIL.
• My request sought records of ICE-related enforcement actions, which contain statistical and factual data and must be released per Matter of Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d 454 (2007) (holding that agencies must disclose factual information even if embedded in otherwise exempt records).
• Any metadata, timestamps, sender/recipient information, or subject lines of emails between ICE and New Rochelle PD constitute factual records, which are explicitly required to be disclosed under Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Dep’t, 89 N.Y.2d 267 (1996).
4. Directing me to an online manual does not satisfy FOIL obligations.
• The response referencing the Manual of Procedure does not satisfy FOIL’s requirement to provide direct access to records.
• Matter of Thomas v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 103 A.D.3d 495 (1st Dep’t 2013), explicitly rejected an agency’s attempt to avoid providing records by merely directing requesters to a website.

Preservation of Records & Consequences of Non-Compliance

I formally demand that the New Rochelle Police Department and City of New Rochelle preserve all responsive records while this appeal is pending. Any destruction, alteration, or deletion of records responsive to this request may constitute a violation of state and federal law.
• See Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (holding that agencies must preserve all records potentially subject to disclosure).
• Under Public Officers Law § 89(8), any attempt to willfully withhold records in bad faith could lead to judicial intervention and legal penalties.

Request for Immediate Disclosure

Given the above legal arguments and established case law, I request that the denial be reversed immediately and that the records be provided in electronic format within the statutory timeframe.

If any portion of the records is withheld, I request that you provide a written explanation detailing the legal grounds for withholding, citing specific case law, in compliance with Gould v. New York City Police Dep’t, 89 N.Y.2d 267 (1996).

Required Response Format

Please respond directly via the MuckRock platform for proper tracking of this request and CC my personal email at Jordan@Lassiter.eu.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this appeal.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter
Independent Investigative Journalist
Transparency Report