ICE calls the courthouse arrest common sense
ICE spokesperson, in a statement to reporters
“The ability of law enforcement to make arrests of criminal illegal aliens in courthouses is common sense. It conserves valuable law enforcement resources because they already know where a target will be. It is also safer for our officers and the community. These illegal aliens have gone through security and been screened to not have any weapons.”
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
Reports an ICE spokesperson's statement defending the Meriden arrest and a brief quote from Governor Lamont.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
A partisan outlet that says it obtained a full statement from DHS and ICE. We use it only for the portion of the statement that overlaps verbatim with WSHU's independently reported excerpt, and for the identification of Welington Leonel Almara-Diaz, which the Hartford Courant separately corroborated. We did not verify the article's uncorroborated claim that a marshal threatened an officer, and we do not repeat that specific claim.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The statement came after activists confronted agents outside the courthouse and after Connecticut officials said they were reviewing whether the operation complied with the TRUST Act.
After the quotation
The statement did not address whether the agents were permitted to wear face coverings inside the courthouse under state law.
How this statement is classified
Responding to: Arresting Welington Leonel Almara-Diaz inside the Meriden courthouse was appropriate because he already had a final order of removal, and making the arrest there conserved law-enforcement resources and was safer for officers and the community.
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The statement argues the courthouse arrest and the practice behind it were appropriate and safer, which defends the conduct rather than criticizing or denying it.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Connecticut Judicial Branch
Did ICE's conduct at the Meriden, Connecticut, courthouse violate the state's TRUST Act?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full caseHands Off Connecticut
“When federal agents barged into the state courthouse in Meriden, they did not just abduct another community member, they fundamentally challenged the legitimacy of our state government. Marshals opened the doors wide for ICE while pushing the citizens out of their own courthouse. ICE went so far as to pepper spray bystanders and a marshal assaulted another, causing one to be taken from the court by ambulance to the ER. This is an unforgivable act of collaboration, for which we demand justice.”Read statement
“The agency operating ICE inherently understands that some of what they’re doing is shameful, and that’s why they don’t want to be identified. It’s an extraordinary thing for people engaged in law enforcement to think they have to remain anonymous. It means that they don’t have confidence in the morality of their own mission. FBI agents do not wear masks. ATF agents — they don’t wear masks, either. Federal marshals who protect courthouses — they don’t wear masks.”Read statement
“If you look at the law that we passed, adherence to that law is going to avoid the type of situations that we’ve seen that put not only officers in harm’s way but also people they’re trying to apprehend. Storming courthouses or hospitals or schools is not going to make people safer, and I don’t think it’s a good outcome for law enforcement, either. ... It puts our law enforcement in a tough spot. I think it puts the federal officers in a tough spot. We should not have people going into those types of places. They are very sensitive and have long been considered sensitive sites.”Read statement