total time: 21.07 minutes
total words: 1279
total time: 10.22 minutes
total words: 604
total time: 9.05 minutes
total words: 398
[Marie Izzo]: OK. You're supposed to be here, right?
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes.
[Ellen Epstein]: It's my understanding.
[Marie Izzo]: Well, the good news is you only need three for a quorum, so. Well, it's good. We'll be around tomorrow. here, here, here.
[Paulette Vartabedian]: report.
[Emily Lazzaro]: That's actually we're good. Okay, we're good. I have copies of the other copies of the agenda on the bench, if anybody would like to grab a copy up here and the report details. a few a bit of background on the welcoming city ordinance. The total number of, uh, ice detainers is not part of the report. Um, the reports also available online. It is, um uh, the welcoming city ordinance requests the total number of ICE detainers, administrative wardens, and other requests for information or assistance from the Federal Immigration Agency. And the report says the Medford Police Department has received some ICE detainers, but we do not know exactly how many we received. The police department does not and has no way to track that information based on its available database used for law enforcement investigations. We will come back to that. And I just want to articulate that section of the report. And I also wanna read out, for additional background on this topic, please be advised that the Medford Police Department's Police Policy and Procedure 2018-01 also sets forth the following requirements. Any person who is arrested by this department shall be booked in accordance with preexisting policy. If in the course of the standard processing procedures, ICE files an immigration detainer with the Medford Police Department, the arrestee shall be made aware of the detainer and provided a copy, which is the original fax sent to Medford Police. The arrestee shall also be made aware that this department will not hold them in custody on the ICE detainer if they post bail or are released on their own recognizance. I have done a bit of research on what an ICE detainer is, and I wanted to help people understand a little bit more about what that means. ICE detainers are a form that is sent by immigration to local police departments. And then it says that the police department must hold somebody until ICE comes and retrieves them and arrest them. That form is then sent with the arrestee and the police department does not keep the form. My understanding is that were the police department to make a copy of the form, they would have to keep the copy of that form and the full criminal record of the arrestee. And then that record would become public record and would be kept indefinitely. My understanding is that it may not be in the best interest of our residents for the Medford Police Department to keep those records, but that a tally of the number of ICE detainers that have come in may be more in line with what we're looking to do. To give a little bit further background here, something that I think is important for us to keep in mind about these conversations and a little bit more about the background of the Welcoming City Ordinance. is that the intention of the Welcoming City Ordinance and in what we're trying to do as this part of this committee and the work that we do in Medford City Council is to be the public facing body, elected body of Medford that is responsive to the residents when there's something that comes up that's concerning to residents. there's been an increase in ICE arrests in Medford or it's been very public, very visible. And we hear from our residents that people are concerned about that. Since we are so public and all of our meetings have to be public, if there is sensitive information about a resident that may be arrested or their records may become part of the public domain, it may not be in their interest for us to talk about it in city council. So what I want us to do as city councilors is to be able to talk to residents about what we know, but not share personal information about other residents and things that may be happening to them. There are things that can be done that protect our residents and other avenues. And those things are happening, but we are not, I am not doing them. Councilor Leming is not doing them. Vice President Collins, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Callahan are not necessarily doing those things. Because we are a public body, and our meetings are public and transparent, and what we can do is we can tell you that, to the best of our knowledge, we are responding to your concerns, we're finding out about things, and then we're sharing back to you that we are doing our best to take care of the people that live in Medford to the best of our ability, but we can't know too much about the individuals or we would have to tell you all their business because that's our job. And I think similarly, that's the job of the Medford Police Department. I want to say that in the beginning of this meeting, so that as we discuss what this reporting should look like going forward. We keep that in the back of our minds and not get it confused what the role of our public facing bodies are as we try to take care of each other. of a mutual aid organization or a social worker that works for a nonprofit or even somebody that works in city hall, but is an appointed person or a staffer or somebody else, but is not necessarily an elected official or somebody who's in a position of authority and speaks to the public and something like this. So I wanted to say that in the beginning. The councilors have all reviewed the report, I believe, and I was hoping that Chief Buckley could speak to the report. This report was also done by the interim chief who was on duty for a few months while Chief Buckley was out, so he didn't prepare this report. But would you mind speaking to the report a little bit and just tell us a little bit about what we have here? Let me, sorry, which one was it?
[Jack Buckley]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. Chief Jack Buckley, City of Medford, 100 Main Street. I'm getting all this feedback. A little work up here. Can you hear me? Well, I'm here to answer questions mostly. I know the report was filed and I've read the report and gone over it. It's accurate. And I understand in my absence, there might have been some changes to the city ordinance and you filled me in on that just the other day, which is okay. We could talk about that also this evening. But I will say, we understand what's going on with Homeland Security and ICE, not just in this city, but across the country. And we are doing our part as per ordinance and per policy to, and following Massachusetts General Law. And so far, I think we've complied with the ordinance and policy and law. So I'm here. I don't know where you want to begin.
[Emily Lazzaro]: No, that's fine. I appreciate you being here. The report says that you didn't track the detainers. There were no administrative warrants received. And there was a response to a public safety call on Route 16 West involving an ICE agent, but that went the police department arrived, there was no nothing to respond to. So they left that there was no information given to a federal immigration agency. And there are no task forces that the Medford Police Department participated in that federal immigration agencies also participated in. That's a summary of what the report outlines. Two, also just to let people know, it's fine if these reports say we received no ICE detainers, we received no administrative warrants, there were no public safety calls, we did nothing with any federal immigration agencies and we participated in no task forces with immigration. That would be great. So it's like, that's absolutely fine. There was actually, I'm gonna have Councilor Leming say the next thing that I was probably about to say. Hold on. Oh, he has questions, great, go ahead. I didn't wanna.
[Matt Leming]: Okay, well, first of all, so, so glad to have you back and a bit of a feedback. Thank you. Okay, well, first off, so so glad to have you back serving serving people of Medford again. And just wanted to. wish you wish you the best and congratulate you on your, your good health right now. Just so there was one part of the of the report that I did ask acting chief Kavina about, but I think it would be good to have some of the answers discussed a little bit more publicly, which is the Medford Police Department has received some ICE detainers, but we do not know exactly how many we received. And yeah, the Police Department does not and has no way to track that information based on its available database used for local law enforcement investigations. So I also previously asked about specific arrest cases in relation to a couple of high profile arrests that the Department of Homeland Security said that Medford made. And I tried to ask the police department about that through a public records request, but it was a very, It was a bit of a strange process because like I had to know the exact potential date that an individual was arrested. And otherwise I couldn't really get too much of an answer on these specific cases when constituents reached out to me. And all of this is a way of saying that it's my impression that the Medford Police Department might be using police database software that could be out of date or it could be that that's just the best available and police database and police. The software that you use is just not all that advanced across all police departments. So I just like, I would appreciate it if you'd be able to just talk a little bit about the software that is used to track these things and why it is sort of difficult from your perspective to, to offer those details in a report.
[Jack Buckley]: So it steer me if I if I go off and I'm not following what you asked me, the software is perfectly fine, right, we make, we write police reports, we respond to incidents is what we make arrests, it's docketed, it's associated with the booking and with the police report that would be associated, we can track you know, multi years it doesn't go away we have all the information. What we don't have if you said to me, I'm going to use your example ice says they have a high profile arrest in the city of Medford. And they don't give a name. They don't give a data, we can't go in and say, we don't know how to track who was arrested and then ice. put a detainer on. In other words, if you arrest Jack Buckley, there's a whole profile and an arrest docket. We are not indicating or marking that arrest or that booking with ICE detainer on a computer database. So we can't go into the computer database and track it by ICE detainers per se. I could track anybody who's been arrested. We need a little information. And what you're referring to would only mean when the police department made an arrest, and then that person's in our custody and ICE files a detainer on that individual. It won't include anything that ICE is doing on their own. Like we don't record, we don't have any, sometimes we don't have any knowledge of them at all, of their activity.
[Matt Leming]: Right, so it's, sorry, just to paraphrase what you're saying about the ice container specifically, it is recorded in some form in the database, but it's difficult to extract. It's not recorded. What? It's not recorded. Oh, it's not. Yes, it's not recorded at all in the database.
[Jack Buckley]: We take the piece of paper. It says, please hold Jack Buckley. We inform the individual who's placed under arrest of the detainer, we give them a copy. They can look it over, we put it in their personal property also. And then we put a copy of that piece of paper in their arrest folder, it's just a manual folder. But in our database, we are not marking that this person was wanted by ICE or immigration status as it relates to detainers. I mean, I could have the company do that, it's not beyond, but do you want that? And these are some of the questions. We're trying to abide by an ordinance. Sorry. Sorry.
[Matt Leming]: I've been having some AV problems in this room lately.
[Jack Buckley]: Yeah. I mean, we have to abide by a booking process that is governed by state law, federal law. We have a city ordinance that wants us to collect certain data, but we also don't want to expose a lot of that data or to mark somebody for like, would you want me to mark individuals for their gang activity? We don't do that. Would you want me to mark somebody for their immigration status? We don't do that. But do we want me to mark? I mean, if you put in the ordinance and you require me to do it, I can do it. I just don't think it's in the best interest of this city or the individuals. So it's not a technology issue. It's that we don't want to do it. We don't want to mark in that sense.
[Emily Lazzaro]: If I may, sorry, Councilor Leming, if I may, there is also, I mean, there are conversations that we've had in other contexts about, you know, not discriminating against residents based on immigration status. And a great way to do that is to not know somebody's immigration status. And we frequently don't. And the police department not knowing somebody's immigration status is like, you know, one of the elements of that. I mean, what is the goal? I think the question we have to ask ourselves is what's the goal of us collecting this information if it's the number of arrests so we can be transparent with our residents and say there is an increased number of ICE activity in the city and we would like to hold us accountable, we would like to make sure our police department is abiding by the ordinance and things of that nature, then maybe it would be in our interest to request that the police department keep a tally and we can keep track of it in that manner and not that we are associating arrests with individuals. Also because often these arrests are of people who are citizens or people who's the thing gets thrown out after and we wouldn't want it to be tagged right away. I do see Councilor Collins hand is raised, but I'll go back to Councilor Leming first.
[Matt Leming]: Well, that does lead into a question that was on my mind in response to what you just said, which is, even if it's not recorded in a computer, is it feasible for the police department to keep a tally just for the sake of these reports on how many ICE detainers are received?
[Jack Buckley]: Yes, it's feasible. The question is, do you want me to tally on a chart? And I'm not being facetious, I'm just like, do you want me to say, okay, one ice detainer, two ice detainers?
[Matt Leming]: Yes, that I would, I would actually like, I'm not kidding, I would like to see that in a report. Yeah, I didn't mean that to be funny, or I mean... No, I'm not being funny either, I think that would be a good idea.
[Jack Buckley]: Yeah, me creating a document or a clipboard of all ice detainers, that's... We're creating public documents, but some of might argue that the simple fact that an agency faxed that to me creates a public document, right? I say, well, I gave it to the individual who the detainee was and we put it in their arrest folder. If you could give me some information, I could go into that folder and see where it is, but it is not a record we are keeping, right? So it's not readily available in that sense. I'm not dancing around the law here, I'm just saying what it is. But if I create a document that has all of these ICE detainees, it would be more readily available and open to public
[Matt Leming]: records. As one city councilor I would appreciate those records because it creates more trust in the process and in the Medford Police Department because if you have a report that says we received a few ICE detainers, nobody really knows if that means two or means 20, but if there is a quantitative amount that is tracked over time, then you could say we received zero one week, two the next week, and then suddenly if you received 30 the week after, then that is some indication to residents that something could be going on. I think What scares people about this is the lack of any sort of information. And the detainers is one data point that would be very useful to residents to be able to keep and pay attention to. So I do think any sort of tally would be helpful.
[Jack Buckley]: OK. And both of those are able to be done, but we're talking tally, like on a chalkboard type tally, as opposed to you want the detainees put in a logbook. I can do both, but one creates a problem over the other. I would personally be fine with just the number. OK. And Chair, can I also just add one? Yes. It's just something that needs to be talked about when it comes to detainment. Every time there is a Homeland Security operation, they can operate independently and take somebody into custody on their own in the city of Medford. That does not, we do not get a detainer, we do not get an administrative warrant, we get probably nothing. Every time an individual is placed under arrest by the Medford Police Department and we get a detainer, it does not mean that they are taken into custody by Homeland Security or ICE. I'm not gonna say it's random, sometimes they are taken into custody, sometimes they are not. So I just want to make it clear that the detainer will not mean that that individual is placed into custody, and there may be other individuals placed into custody by federal agents where we don't get a detainer.
[Emily Lazzaro]: And in a sense, the detainers are not a direct line to arrests or not arrests. They are something like a weather forecast, like it was forecast to rain 15 of the last 30 days. But did it rain? We're not sure. It's an indication of something. And it's something that you as the Medford Police Department would have, as opposed to not having it, because you wouldn't have the number of ICE arrests, because you're not participating in them.
[Jack Buckley]: Correct. I just wanted to publicly say that it does not necessarily represent exactly who was taken into custody in the city of Medford by Homeland Security. It is also possible that we play somebody out arrest, there's no ice detainer filed. and ICE will take them into custody outside of the police station when they're bailed. There's so many different variables that I can produce certain documents, but it doesn't mean what I, I just want the public to know it doesn't mean one certain thing.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I think it's really useful to know that. And I think we should say all of the things that are true publicly. But I also think that in order to be as transparent as possible, it's necessary that we share the information that we can share that's not overly sensitive to an individual, because it builds trust with the people that we're trying to build trust with. I do wanna go to Councilor Collins, because she's been raising her hand lately for a long time. Councilor Collins, are you unmuted? Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, Chair Lodero, but I'm happy to be patient if you wanna finish your thought.
[Emily Lazzaro]: you. Go ahead. No, I'm done. I'm all I'm also.
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Thank you. Um, well, um, I just first want to say, uh, chief. It's so good to have you back. We're all really happy to see you. I apologize that I can't be in the chambers tonight, but thank you for being here and just want to extend. You don't want to echo Councilor Leming and extending a warm welcome back. Thank you for your For all of us, this is a really, really fraught and activating and painful topic. More for the households and families of people who have already been directly affected by ICE detentions, but for everybody who cares about community preservation in Medford. So I just wanted to quickly ground us in, you know, my paraphrasing of the stakes of this conversation. And I know that we're all thinking that and we all put that in our own ways, but it just, I know that we often have to use rather clinical language when we're talking about reports like these, because that's, you know, that's what's needed. We're talking about reports, we're talking about procedures. But I just wanted to begin my remarks tonight by, you know, acknowledging that we're here because of the presence that ICE and DHS have had in our communities and communities like Medford. You know, this has been ripping people out of this community, sending them into a judicial system that is often so opaque and unfair as to be, in my opinion, un-American. And we know, either by fact or by common sense, in a lot of cases, what ICE and DHS are doing in Medford is discriminatory and prejudicial. And I just think it's important to state that at the top. And then, you know, as we're as we're having this conversation about what we can do to document and observe and try to operate in this system together. And I know in light of that, you know, I think that the community is unified in wanting to see, you know, the best possible collaboration between city leaders and our public safety officials to making sure that we're doing everything that we possibly can to protect our public safety in light of this pretty unprecedented vulnerability and threat. So I just wanted to acknowledge that before going on and to you know, dilated on what the, what we're specifically speaking to in this meeting, you know, this is, um, I think it's, I personally, I'm really grateful that we have the welcoming city ordinance on the books, um, at this point in time. Um, and we all know that the purpose of this is to be able to work better together to inform the public and to foster better trust in what our public safety departments are doing and to increase transparency. Um, And specifically when it comes to this report on ice presence in Medford, um, you know, as it's no secret to anybody for months, unfortunately, community members have been looking to city leaders for at the very least information and support about getting a handle on what. Ice activity is happening in Medford. Um, and I do just want to say, I understand that there's a lot of information that Medford police department can't give us and can't give the community. Um, not because you don't want to, but because you don't have it. And I understand those facts, and I think that's important to underline that. But I just want to emphasize what my fellow Councilors are saying, and that I think it is really important for us to parse out what is the, when we're just talking about information reporting, specifically information reporting, I think it's really important for us to have a conversation about what is the information that we do have that we can share to better help the community in protecting themselves and furthering the mutual aid efforts that are occurring in Medford and people forming these really strong networks of looking out for each other. And I think that's the best way to put it. It's frustrating that we're all trying to protect and preserve the community in such a profoundly low information environment. I'm sure that we're all frustrated by that. But I think that this conversation is most important when we're talking about what is the data that we do have that we can share in safe ways to keep people better informed about what's happening. I know I've been really frustrated and I'm sure my fellow councillors and everybody's all been really frustrated by people saying, what's going on and saying, I only know as much as you do for the most part. I think that we're probably all feeling that way. Specifically on the data requested in the report, I think that Councilor Leming brings up a really good point. And so I just want to agree with him. I think it's actually, Great to hear that the specific data of the detainers from ICE are not retained and stored. I think that's good. You know, essentially, we're talking about data security here. We're talking about data security for people who are already marginalized and vulnerable. And I think the best defense is just not having that information, which is not necessary to keep and to have and to share. So I think that sounds like it's where we want it to be. But I do think that having that very simple, obviously anonymized tally of simply how many detainers Medford Police Department is receiving, would be helpful to us, would be the kind of information that would be helpful for Councilors, helpful for city leadership, and helpful for the community to know, simply to get that kind of coarsest understanding of what are the trend lines here? Is ICE having more of a presence in our community? Is it lowering that magnifying glass onto Medford? Are things holding steady? Those are the kinds of things that I think community members really need to know when they're deciding how vigilant they need to be or how much they want to step up and, you know, keep an eye out on behalf of other vulnerable members of the community. Thank you, and thank you again for being here, Chief.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I agree that there's sort of a conundrum about information versus Not information, it reminds me of our the C cups ordinance where it's like the body worn cameras are such an asset to the police department because. It increases accountability, but when you bring in all of this information about residents, you know, how do you balance the need for privacy and consent with the interest in increasing accountability for a police department and just general behavior with public. And like keeping walking that line is so important, and I think that really applies here too. So maintaining privacy, maintaining, you know, some semblance of rational, normal behavior in these circumstances is so hard. So I think you have a great point about that and about wanting to keep people's private information private, and also share what we can share with the public about how things are moving forward. And I think a tally is the way that we can best do it. But I also, I mean, This July, there was an arrest like eight houses away from where I live, of a pizza delivery guy that I got a phone call about. Just, I think it was last week, Councilor Callahan might be able to confirm this for me. Somebody was arrested in South Medford. And when the ICE officer noticed that somebody was taking a video, he pulled his mask up to hide his face. And I just think the whole scenario is there's cognitive dissonance because our role here is to be obvious in how we take care of the city and the people that live here, and to be as honest and truthful and forthright in the way that we share information with the people that ask us questions. And when we don't say something, it's because, and people don't always believe this, but when we don't say something, it's because it's either illegal or because we are trying to protect sensitive information about somebody that we're not at liberty to talk about often. And I hope that as we continue to walk these tricky lines, we can continue to see the value of balancing that and continue to prioritize taking care of our residents to the best of our ability. One thing I did wanna mention, I will go to you Councilor Leming next. Is that on purpose?
[Matt Leming]: No, no, this is just on from the last time.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Nevermind. I did wanna mention that in July, I believe and I meant to send this to you and I'm sorry, I will find it. But I believe it was in July, we passed an amendment to the welcoming city ordinance requesting more frequent reporting. And I wanna follow up on that and just see if we can get more frequent than six months, but I have to clarify what we said it was gonna be. I think at the time, did you find it? I think at the time that we put this into practice, I mean, the welcoming city ordinance was written before President Trump took office, before any of this was happening, and it came like a tidal wave so much more than we anticipated. So, I will go to Councilor Leming to clarify, but I think a more frequent reporting schedule is kind of called for, Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yep, just, sorry, I'm going back to the specific page and the minutes where it was. Yep, so I believe this was 25. 088 where we did request weekly written reports to the council on ice activity in Medford. It was, if you go to the, I could, and again, I understand that this is buried in council minutes from June 10th, 2025 on page 39. So I don't, don't blame anybody for maybe not not tracking this uh if there's a lack of clarity there but the but we did vote to uh request that there be weekly written reports to the council on ice activity in Medford whereas before I believe it was um according to this it was on a monthly basis so Yeah, that I'd be happy to pass it over.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Before that, it was every six months. So I'm sort of I mean, I think that it wouldn't it would not need to be this level of detail if it's weekly and could be an email to the council.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah. Yeah, we don't have to, I don't think we have to do a PDF document where somebody comes to every single council meeting. It could be, I completely agree that it could just be an informal email saying we didn't have any detainers this week, thank you. We didn't have, we had one detainer this week, thank you. And then that could be reported to the public in some form during a council meeting. We are, managing to broadcast these meetings a little bit more widely these days now that we have a YouTube live streaming. So it is one way to work.
[Emily Lazzaro]: What? Who was in charge of that YouTube happening? I can't remember.
[Matt Leming]: Oh, it was it was it was a lot of it was me.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes, I think just like a few questions answered, do you think that would be feasible or would somebody in your department be able to accomplish that, I would always fight against once a week it's adding on to it but it's feasible something we could do it have to take a look at the language.
[Jack Buckley]: Again, I'm repeating myself I understand this, I just want everyone to understand that A number of detainees and or administrative warrants does not indicate a number of people taken into custody by Homeland Security nor does it include things that are outside. It's, I don't want to call it random but it's just, yes, you've already explained it so sort of a benchmark and there is a measurement there but it's, I want to just be clear that it's not go to tell you full activity. Yes.
[Matt Leming]: And I fully expect that if somebody on somebody on the internet actually does take these numbers and puts them on a chart, then there will be people potentially misinterpreting what those numbers mean. But, and that's just, that's always part of the public conversation. And that is why I do appreciate you emphasizing what the detainers really indicate. But again, people, it is one benchmark that we do have that the Medford Police Department has the ability to report. And I know that people would be very appreciative to know what that is and to be able to track it in a quantitative manner because public data increases trust and it increases transparency. And even if there is some potential misinterpretation of what that data may mean, that just ends up being part of the conversation about it. It's our job to clarify that to people.
[Jack Buckley]: And I, again, caution. I agree with a lot of what you said. It is open, there's accountability there, all those numbers, but it also increases public records requests. It's never not in my world. I just say it to you. These are things that I think we all have to talk about at once. I don't want to find out later on down the line, like, you should be surprised at it, because there are people on both sides of the political argument who are gonna want this done.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Understandable. Thank you for being here. Do any other councillors have any other questions for Chief Buckley? Thank you for being here Councilor Tseng I know you had another meeting. I do not have any other questions. The other thing I wanna mention, I mean, of course, is that you don't need a nice detainer if you pick somebody up out of their car on the street, it's just for somebody who's already been arrested. So it's only indicating, right?
[Jack Buckley]: It's only indicating if somebody is- It is most often only used that an administrative mark if you have somebody in custody, however, it is not necessarily needed. If I get arrested and it's a... I don't know, like an armed robbery case, right? And I end up getting bailed. ICE can show up and just sit outside. They don't need to give me a detainer. They're not asking me to hold anyone. And they're not required to give me anything. They could place that individual under custody based on federal law, federal procedure. So there's a lot of, that's, I guess, what my point is. It's like, I could give you detainers, but there are so many variables here that it's- There just aren't really that many other things we can track.
[Emily Lazzaro]: It's all very nebulous. And while we're watching for the other stuff, we can count this. Vice President Collins, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. Yeah, I just wanted to say, again, I really appreciate this discussion. Chief, I really appreciate all of this information. I think that this is productive. I think that getting the, again, the very high level tally of detainers will help. it's very small compared to the scope of what we're talking about, but it's something. And I also, you know, coupled with that, I appreciate the context that you've shared about how imperfect this information is and the disclaimers about how this really can't be extrapolated accurately to shine a light on how many other people are being picked up by ICE and DHS who don't have detainers and how many, you know, Detainers that after which a detention doesn't follow and all of those other caveats. I really appreciate the clarity around that. And at the same time, you know, I think that it's positive for us to have this high level anonymized tally and know everything that it doesn't say to us at the same time. And I think that that is And I think that that is something. And again, I just want to give voice to, you know, at least as one Councilor and as one resident, my frustration that dealing with the encroachment, often illegal encroachment of ICE and DHS into our community and how frustrating it is to have so few tools to do what feels like appropriately protecting our neighbors against these agents. It does kind of feel like trying to build a house out of toothpicks. And I just think that that's important to say. and anything that we can be doing on the city side to empower ourselves and use every tool at our disposal and empower our neighbors to keep themselves safe and to keep their neighbors safe, I think that we should be doing. This is one small part of that. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any other comments from Councilors? Councilor Leming, is your mic just on?
[Matt Leming]: It's just on.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Sorry. You can go ahead and turn that off. Okay. Um, thank you so much, Chief, and I will open the floor for public comment if anybody has anything they would like to say about this paper. Um, you can have it.
[Paulette Vartabedian]: Yeah, you can.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Um, seeing none. Are there any motions? Oh, Councilor Collins. Yes, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to keep the paper in committee.
[Emily Lazzaro]: on the motion pending any. Sorry.
[Kit Collins]: Oh yeah, I was just gonna say pending any further comment by members of the community or councilors. I would motion to keep the paper in committee.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Okay, understood. Any, do we have a second? Okay. Would you like to come?
[Paulette Vartabedian]: Name and address for the record, please. I'm Paulette Vartabedian, Central Lab, Medford. Paulette Vartabedian, Central Lab Medford. Can you explain exactly what a detainer is? And second question, if ICE goes, like if someone's walking down the street and they suspect that this person is illegal for whatever reason, and they pick this person up, does that person have to tell them their name? Chief Buckley, would you mind? Thank you.
[Jack Buckley]: Let me give this a shot. OK. I do not sometimes fully comprehend how the federal government and federal law enforcement works.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Or if they're following any of these rules.
[Jack Buckley]: So a detainer is nothing but a piece of paper. And it simply will just say to a law enforcement agency, or they could send it to a court for safety. You have Jack Buckley in your custody. We want you to hold them until we arrive. That's it, just a piece of paper telling us to detain them. It's a civil order. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has already ruled with their mass Supreme courts that we do not have to abide by that because it's called something called a one decision and that they have to be subjected to bail and let free if they're open for bail, that sort of thing. So it really is just a piece of paper saying, hey, can you hold this individual? from a federal agency to a city, in this case, it would be a city agency, yes. For the individual, we just notify the individual and give them a copy to tell them that this is, there is a detainer placed on you. That no, only if we have them in our custody. Yes, so in other words, if they've been placed under arrest by the Medford police department, if they're just, if there's an individual just walking down the street, we will have no involvement in their immigration status or their immigration custody. If Homeland Security decides that they are looking for an individual and they suspect it's me and I'm walking down the street, they can interact with that individual. They do not have to file a detainer or an administrative warrant with the police department or the jurisdiction. They're operating on federal authority and they can take that individual into custody if they need to, if they believe there's a reason to. I've seen anything, and this is going back in the years, but they could fingerprint them right on scene to know who they are, et cetera. So I think I mostly answered the question, but there's always gonna be variables that I just don't know their procedures, especially now.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. Yeah, I appreciate the chief speaking to that. And I just think that just in response to the question that was asked by the resident, I think it's just important to use these public forums to share, just use yet another platform for people's basic constitutional rights when they're engaging with ICE. If they come to your door, every person has the constitutional right to not open the door, to not answer any questions. and to not sign anything that is given to them and the right to speak with a lawyer before engaging further. There's a lot of groups and also from my fellow Councilors who have been really instrumental in disseminating know your rights information like this throughout the community. And I think it's just, I appreciate the question. It's a great opportunity to just continue repeating everybody's, regardless of immigration status, constitutional rights when engaging with ICE or DHS. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: That's correct. It's unfortunately doesn't apply when you're outside. So that's why we've seen abductions outside with some frequency. That's what happened to Ramesa Ozturk. That's what happened last week. That's what happened in July. lot of the things we've been talking about today. I see one more public comment on zoom, I will go to Micah, I'm going to ask you to unmute and you can. Oh, sorry, actually, Micah, just one second. Councilor Levee. Sorry.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I would also point out that on Councilor Callahan's desk, she's not present at the moment, but Councilor Tseng, there's a pile of red cards right there, if you'd be so kind to grab one for the camera. So I was involved in a campaign to distribute some of those to the community, trying to reach out to churches, nonprofits, etc. And the issue is that technically, in response to Paulette's question, technically, if you are detained even outside, you don't have to say anything. Everybody has the right to remain silent. But the reality is that many folks, especially non-citizens, if they are detained, it's a very traumatic experience for them. Oftentimes, they are panic, they don't really know their rights. And so it's part of this campaign was to encourage any non citizens visa holders to carry around these cards, which say, they say in English on one side, I do not wish to speak with you answer your questions or sign or hand you any documents based on my Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. I do not give you permission to enter my home based on my Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution unless you have a warrant to enter signed by a judge or magistrate with my name on it that you slide under the door. I do not give you my permission to search any of my belongings based on my Fourth Amendment rights. I choose to exercise my constitutional rights. These cards are available to citizens and non-citizens alike. And on the other side, usually translated into another language, it says, and these are instructions to the cardholders themselves, do not open the door if an immigration agent is knocking on the door. Do not answer any questions from an immigration agent. If they try to talk to you, you have the right to remain silent. Do not sign anything without first speaking to a lawyer. You have the right to speak with a lawyer. If you are outside of your home, ask the agent if you are free to leave. And if they say yes, leave calmly. Give this card to the agent. If you are inside of your home, show the card through the window or slide it under the door. And that is an explanation of the rights of any citizens and non-citizens that may encounter an immigration agent.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I will go to Mr. Kesselman. We have a visitor. I'm going to ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please, Micah. Sorry about the timing.
[Micah Kesselman]: It's okay. Thank you. Micah Kesselman, 499 Main Street, I do intend to read in some aggregated statistical data that certain citizen resident groups have. You can turn off your camera if you want. OK, thank you. That certain resident groups have put together. But I did want to ask a few questions for some clarifications first. Okay, Odenski, say hi, and then I have to speak. Hi. Okay, thank you. You're famous. You're a city council speaker now. Well done.
[Matt Leming]: Stand up.
[Micah Kesselman]: Speak up. Sorry about that.
[Matt Leming]: Speak up, guys.
[Micah Kesselman]: So, first off, Chief Buckley, I'm happy to see you return healthy and hail and tackling this head on. Unfortunately, there's many residents in Medford that can't say the same for themselves right now. So what I would appreciate, I think many of the public would appreciate is what is the line that enables a lawful arrest and distinguishes it from an illegal, an illegal abduction. Because my understanding is that, and this is settled by, settled by, well settled by courts, that for DHS agents to arrest someone, they need one of three things. They either need a judicial order, an administrative order, or an articulable and reasonable fear that were they not to arrest this specific person, they would be a flight risk. But that does not seem to be what is currently being enforced. And from my understanding, if they don't have any of those things, it is without question an illegal arrest. And certainly I think you would agree that Federal agents aren't immune from all basic laws. They can't go in and steal a car. They can't go in and shoot someone arbitrarily. I think it would be helpful if the MPD were to give some guidance of what they consider to be the delta between what is something that they can, under the law, protect residents from versus where their hands are tied. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Are there any other public comments? One more, okay. Come on up to the podium and you can state your name and address for the record, please. Can you hear me? You can pull it down in front of you. The whole mic stand.
[SPEAKER_06]: I think I'm okay.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Okay, you're good.
[SPEAKER_06]: Hi, I'm Patty Thibault. I live at 168 Ashcroft Road. I've been a Medford resident for over 30 years. I appreciate what the city council and Chief Buckley are doing here tonight. Since May, I have been going to the ICE headquarters in Burlington every week, and every week we hear stories of people being detained and abducted. And then often we hear that they've had follow-up with lawyers, people are helping them get out of detention. And I guess I'm just, I'm a little befuddled that here in Medford, we don't even have a way to track those people. Chief Buckley has said there's these detainment orders, but once you let someone go, if someone's in the parking lot and ICE takes them, there's no way to track that. Well, can't somebody see it and then say, hey, we've just had a resident taken by ICE in our parking lot. Is there no way for citizens to call and say my neighbor's been taken? There's gotta be some way to track this information, don't you think? other than just these orders? I mean, is there someplace we can call? Is there no way of knowing whether high school students are being taken, if they're showing up in North Medford or South Medford, so that we as citizens can stand up and help them? That's it, thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you for your comment. I would just reiterate what I said at the beginning of the meeting, which is that There are different roles for different members of different bodies in the city. As the city council, we are public facing. We can serve in certain capacities. Medford Police Department can also serve in certain capacities. There are also mutual aid organizations that are a great way to work together with people to come together and help when you might see something happening that you wanna help with. Medford City Council can't really do that. But other people in town can and are doing that. And there are a couple of people with their hands raised on Zoom that I'm gonna call on now to make public comment. Just one moment. Ellen, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Sorry. Oh, Ellen, you're already unmuted. Ellen, go ahead.
[Ellen Epstein]: Thank you, Ellen Epstein, 15 Grove Street, Medford. This is a question for Chief Buckley. I think I understood you to say that an ICE detainer doesn't necessarily equal an ICE arrest. So I'd like to understand more about what happens when you detain someone under an ICE detainer and presumably ICE comes to the police station and then they may or may not take that person away. I just want to make sure I'm understanding that correctly.
[Emily Lazzaro]: A form is faxed. is my understanding.
[Ellen Epstein]: Form is faxed, but that's what a detainer means is that ICE wants the police department to hold that person so that ICE can come and arrest.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yeah, arrest the person that's already been held for a separate reason.
[Ellen Epstein]: But the chief seemed to say that an ICE detainer does not necessarily equal an ICE arrest. And I just, I don't understand that. Or maybe I misunderstood what the chief was saying. Okay, go ahead.
[Jack Buckley]: When we arrest somebody under state law, up for a state charge. We fingerprint them and that information goes filed and somewhere on California Homeland Security gathers up the information and will send a nice detainer to any police agency across the country on that individual. Getting that piece of paper in Massachusetts, the piece of paper does tell us to hold them and detain them. We in the Massachusetts law do not have that authority to do so. And so We give them a copy, we put a copy in a folder, we process them normally, if they're subject to bail, they're released. If someone from Homeland Security does not show up, they're not arrested on that detainer, they're not held on that detainer. They do not come out for every single arrest where there's a detainer. If they do show up, they're not allowed, we don't have them come in the station and we don't assist them, they wait outside and they process, they arrest the individual and they come out. but also they do not have to file a detainer and they could show up and wait for that individual to be released from the police department. So this, again, it kind of goes back, it's a little bit, there's so many different variables, but yes, filing a detainer doesn't always mean that an individual is placed into custody by Homeland Security. They may be, they may never show up.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Alan. I'm gonna go to Anna Meyer. name and address for the record.
[Anna Meyer]: Great. And apologies, I'm getting over a cold. So I'll keep this super brief. But Anna Meyer, 6 Douglas Road. I just want to start by voicing my appreciation for City Councilors who I know are doing everything within their power to protect our neighbors, and I know one of many community members that's been deeply distraught by the effect that these abductions have had on families in Medford. And I hope this is an appropriate place to say, but I just heard someone asking about other resources and I know you're talking about other mutual aid groups, so I would just take a second to plug that there is a hotline called Luce, and it's a great place to call if you think you have seen ICE or know anyone who needs any support. And the number is 617-370-5023, or can also be found on their website, lucemass.org. Thank you. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Micah, I'll go back to you for one more minute.
[Micah Kesselman]: Sure, OK. Well, I want to just sort of read in some of the statistics, aggregated data that we're seeing in the city among resident action groups. So try and figure, fit this into a minute, but I You know, in aggregate, in the last six months, you know, we have seen that have been reported to us, as many as eight, I'm just going to call them abductions because frankly, they're infringements of their abductions by ICE. We have received I at least 33 reports of incidents in the city and throughout and have verified a number of them, a number of them have not been verified. You know, some have been confirmed to not actually be ICE, in fact, but many others, most of the rest have been ICE. And that is to say that, you know, this is a lot of work. A lot of work and data collection and assistance that people are doing in this city to help their neighbors, which is great and laudable, but it's on their own time while they're living their lives. And it's really hard to hear sometimes the call to just let Neighbors keep doing this, right? At the end of the day, it is the city's role. It is the police department's role. It is our various resources role to keep residents safe, keep them healthy and hale and secure in their physical wellbeing. And it can't just be shuffled off to concerned neighbors. would that we could all devote all of our time to that, but we also have to, you know, do our own other jobs, too, at the same time, which is like, so I just wanted to point that out. One more observation, though, from the aggregated data. So, starting in May, There is a number, about 20% of the incidents went unverified. When an event is unverified, that means that just no one could be sent out to confirm and gather information. But in the most recent couple of months, no events have gone unverified. So what that means is that We're getting more and more organized. We're more and more able to actually get people out and get this information and confirm or disconfirm whether or not something actually happened and whether or not someone is in need of assistance. It just goes to show that the need is still there. There's a lot of pressure to do this. I'll leave it at that. I've submitted this information in a document form to this committee, so you can review it when you're able to on your own time. I'm happy to answer any questions, too, about it.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you very much. Okay, go ahead, Paulette.
[Paulette Vartabedian]: One more minute.
[Ellen Epstein]: Go ahead.
[Paulette Vartabedian]: Yep. Paulette Radovidian, Central Lab Method. Can you repeat that number that that woman gave?
[Emily Lazzaro]: You know what, I actually have, I have cards. I can give you a card at the end of the meeting.
[Paulette Vartabedian]: Okay, great, thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Seeing no further public comment, is there anything else from Councilors? Are any further, oh, actually, you know what? We need to do a roll call vote on Councilor Collins' motion. Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?
[Anna Meyer]: I'm sorry, can you repeat the motion?
[Emily Lazzaro]: Anna, yes. Oh, sorry, Councilor Callahan, what was that? Can you repeat the motion? Can you repeat the motion? Yes. Yeah, can you read it out?
[Marie Izzo]: The motion was from Vice President Collins to keep the paper and committee seconded by Councilor Levin. Councilor Callahan, did you hear that?
[Jack Buckley]: I did. Thank you.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan?
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Leming. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Chair Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Five.
[Emily Lazzaro]: None in the negative, the motion passes. On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Council Vice President Collins.
[Ellen Epstein]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Leming. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. And Chair Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, nine in the negative. The motion passes. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much.
|
total time: 21.07 minutes total words: 1279 |
total time: 10.22 minutes total words: 604 |
total time: 9.05 minutes total words: 398 |
|