FILE – Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents escort a detained immigrant into an elevator after he exited an immigration courtroom, June 17, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Olga Fedorova, file)
Olga Fedorova/AP
AUSTIN — A Big Sandy Police Department officer pulled over a man driving past one of the town’s only restaurants this spring, then detained him to investigate his immigration status, according to the man’s lawyer.
The lawyer’s account is the only version of events available to the public, despite longstanding Texas law that says basic information about an offense report or arrest must be provided to anyone who asks.
Big Sandy police, among the 301 law enforcement agencies in Texas that work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, refused to provide any records about the stop and subsequent detainment by one of its officers. Chief David Easterling said he consulted with ICE about the request and decided the local records belong to the federal government.
Article continues below this ad
Easterling’s response reflects two ICE directives sent in April informing state and local law enforcement that local officials must consult with the federal agency before releasing records to the public — even if the documents were created by a Texas law enforcement agency.
The two directives went to the Texas Department of Public Safety, the state’s largest law enforcement agency and other agencies in Texas. ICE refused to say whether it sent the notice to all 2,000 agencies in the program, known as 287(g). However, other reports have confirmed multiple law enforcement agencies in Florida, which has the second-most agencies in the program behind Texas, received the memos.
A copy of both emailed directives, reviewed by The Dallas Morning News, opens with the line “Dear 287(g) partners.”
Open records experts say refusing to release state records without consulting with the Texas Attorney General’s office — or citing specific exemptions under Texas law — is illegal and violates the state’s open records law. Both memos could contribute to a dispute over states’ rights.
Article continues below this ad
“Since when do we have a federal agency just deciding on their own telling us to ignore our state law?” asked Austin attorney Bill Aleshire. “Texas has its rights to have its own laws about the conduct and operation of its own employees.”
Aleshire reviewed Easterling’s response to the records request and said the police chief violated state law if he asked anyone besides the attorney general’s office whether to release the records.
Easterling did not respond to two phone calls or an email asking why he consulted with a federal agency and not the attorney general’s office when declining to release records on the encounter.
The attorney general’s office, which enforces the state’s open records law, did not respond to a phone call, email or text message asking if the agency had received a request for a ruling from the Big Sandy Police Department.
For Belinda Arroyo, the immigration attorney, the lack of records is impacting her ability to properly represent her client as he seeks residency in the country.
Article continues below this ad
“The problem is the lack of transparency and their unwillingness to answer just the simplest of questions,” Arroyo said. “Why are they taking their legal advice from a federal entity when they’re a state entity?”
‘Fairly unprecedented’
The Big Sandy Police Department signed its agreement with ICE on Nov. 6, 2025, according to a federal database.
As a result, some of Big Sandy’s six sworn officers are allowed to arrest individuals suspected of violating federal immigration laws while out on normal patrol.
On April 21, ICE sent out a directive informing agencies under the 287(g) program to filter open records requests to the agency. The directive said that the “prohibition on your agency’s unilateral release of ICE information is expansive and should guide your agency’s actions.”
Article continues below this ad
“If your agency receives FOIA requests, sunshine law requests, or other similar requests for 287(g)-related information from media, organizations, or individuals, you should immediately consult with the ICE FOIA office, ICE Public Affairs, or your local Field Office Director,” the email said.
But Joe Larsen, a Houston-based First Amendment lawyer, said a local police department cannot stop sharing records simply because it is working with a federal agency.
“They keep their own share of records, and those records are subject to the Texas Public Information Act,” Larsen said.
In 1991, Texas Attorney General Dan Morales ruled that, “a governmental body cannot promise to keep information confidential if the Open Records Act requires that the information be available to the public.”
On April 24, ICE sent a second email, which has not previously been reported, regarding records requests, clarifying its previous email, and requiring agencies to reach out to ICE even if the agency doesn’t need advice from ICE on how to respond to records requests.
Article continues below this ad
“Even if you do not need guidance, you must contact the ERO FOIA team prior to any release of federal records or jointly owned records (explained below), as required by law, the Memorandums of Agreement, and any applicable Service Agreements,” the April 24 email said. ERO stands for enforcement and removal operations, the division of ICE that arrests and deports individuals.
The directive said that once a record contains information about ICE or an individual migrant, “it is no longer a ‘solely state record’; it becomes a joint record” and is subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Paul Watler, a First Amendment attorney in Dallas, called the memos “fairly unprecedented” and said he’d never seen a federal agency assert such a broad claim to state records.
For ICE, the memos add to the veil of secrecy the agency has adopted under the Trump Administration. Its officers have been criticized for wearing masks and refusing to identify themselves. Democratic lawmakers have at times been denied access to detention facilities to conduct oversight tours, leading to protests and public outrage.
ICE refused to say how many agencies received the two directives when provided a copy of both. Instead, an agency spokesperson said the partnerships with law enforcement agencies are critical to having more resources to arrest undocumented migrants with criminal records or charges.
Article continues below this ad
“ICE communicates regularly with its state and local law enforcement partners, which can include clarification on the contents within existing Memoranda of Agreements,” the spokesperson said.
ICE transparency
Last year, Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill requiring every sheriff’s office in the state that operates a jail to sign an agreement with ICE by Dec. 1, 2026.
The law, known as Senate Bill 8, is eight pages but makes no mention of public records disclosures.
Arroyo said as more agencies have signed up for the program, she’s had issues getting information from state law enforcement agencies because of the fight over who owns the records. It’s resulting in a lack of accountability.
“There’s no way for us to hold the state actors accountable for what they’re actually doing on the state level,” she said.
The attorney general’s office has issued prior decisions stating that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to state records.
“Neither the Federal Freedom of Information Act nor the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 applies to records held by an agency of this state or its political subdivision,” Texas Attorney General Mark White wrote in an opinion in 1979.
There are examples of overlap between the state and federal government where a state agency does release its own records. Last year, when a gunman in Dallas killed two migrants in an attack at the Dallas ICE field office, the Dallas Police Department released basic information regarding the department’s response to the scene, even though the FBI was leading the investigations.
The directives from ICE are not federal laws, Aleshire, the Austin attorney, pointed out.
“If they don’t want to have Texas laws on transparency apply,” he said, “then ICE shouldn’t be using Texas officials conducting ICE activities as part of their official business.”