State's Highest Court Hears Controversial Immigration Case

BOSTON - The state's highest court will wade into the murky waters of the federal immigration debate by hearing a case Tuesday that centers on whether police have authority to arrest and detain someone for civil immigration purposes.

In the case of Sreynuon Lunn, the state Supreme Judicial Court will be asked to decide if law enforcement in the state should enforce a detainer request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or whether this violates a person's civil rights.

State law enforcement has the "inherent" authority to arrest and hold immigrants scheduled for deportation, a Department of Justice attorney argued in court.

The effects of the ruling could be have broad implications on both politic and policy, even if the decision is moot for Lunn, both locally and beyond.

"As the national debate over immigration enforcement has escalated, we have sought to have federal authorities provide guidance in keeping with federal judicial decisions, including that of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding the legal sufficiency of detainers," Middlesex Sheriff Peter Koutoujian said in a statement Tuesday. "While that guidance has yet to come, it is my hope a decision in the Lunn case will provide clarity under Massachusetts law and ease some of the confusion created in recent weeks."

Lunn entered the United States as a refugee in 1985 and received lawful permanent resident status in the early 1990s, but he racked up a criminal record in the early 2000s and was ordered deported to Cambodia, Joshua Press, an attorney for the Department of Justice told the court. Cambodia would not accept Lunn back, and he was released from federal custody in October 2008, according to a Department of Justice brief, which said almost exactly eight years later Lunn was arrested on unarmed robbery charges, which allegedly occurred in Boston, and ICE lodged a detainer request with state authorities. An immigration detainer included in one of the briefs lists Lunn's citizenship as Thailand and said he was born in 1985.

On Feb. 6, state prosecutors elected not to prosecute Lunn on the robbery charges and the case was dismissed from Boston Municipal Court, according to court documents. Lunn's attorney asked for him to be released but the judge rejected that, and he was placed in the courthouse lockup until ICE agents took him into custody several hours later, according to an affidavit Lunn signed.

The ACLU of Massachusetts describes this as a "critical case" in Massachusetts for constitutional protections against unlawful arrest, Jessie Rossman, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, states in his court brief.

Under Gov. Charlie Baker, someone can be detained on a federal immigration violation only if he has already been arrested for a state crime and fits a high-priority category, such as if he poses a threat to national security or has been convicted of serious crimes.

ICE issues requests to state and local authorities to detain immigrants for up to 48 hours on an immigration violation, giving the federal authorities time to take custody.

Lunn's attorneys argue it would violate U.S. and Massachusetts law to allow the state police to arrest or detain someone solely based on an ICE detainer, according to court briefs obtained by media outlets.

Attorney General Maura Healey, on behalf of the state of Massachusetts and the Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, argues in her court brief that state courts are not allowed to hold someone based solely on an ICE detainer.

The state, however, may voluntarily work with federal immigration authorities to identify and detain individuals who pose a particular threat to public safety, Healey wrote.

Materials from the State House News Service were used in this report