The ruling, made public this week, stems from body-camera footage, sworn statements and internal text messages gathered during litigation over immigration sweeps that rattled Los Angeles neighborhoods in the summer of 2025. U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong upheld an earlier preliminary order finding that Border Patrol and ICE agents cannot simply take someone into custody — even someone suspected of being in the country illegally — without first assessing whether that person is likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained.

“This court finds sufficient evidence that defendants have a continuing policy and practice of making warrantless arrests in violation of the requirement to conduct a flight-risk analysis,” Frimpong wrote.

Federal law allows immigration officers to make warrantless arrests only when they have reasonable grounds to believe a person is in the country unlawfully and is likely to escape before a warrant can be secured. Attorneys representing immigrant rights groups argued that agents routinely skipped that step altogether, instead detaining people first and sorting out their legal status later.

“This ruling is one of the most significant decisions to date in the community’s fight to end the federal government’s cruel and unlawful practice of snatching people off the street and tearing families apart,” said Mayra Joachin, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.

The Department of Homeland Security defended its agents’ conduct, saying in a statement that ICE has legal authority to make arrests under federal statute, using “reasonable suspicion” to investigate immigration status and probable cause to justify detentions in line with the Fourth Amendment. The agency noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously sided with it on similar enforcement questions.

The case grew out of a lawsuit filed last year by the ACLU and a coalition of advocacy organizations against the Department of Homeland Security, following a series of high-profile raids across Los Angeles led by former Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino. DHS attorneys have said those specific operations ended in February, but the broader deportation push under President Donald Trump has only accelerated since then. Nationally, arrests hit their highest point of Trump’s second term in July, with nearly 50,000 detentions recorded, according to the Deportation Data Project. In California, arrests were up more than 15% compared with the same period a year earlier.

One case at the center of the ruling involved a man identified in court records only by his initials, AT, who was detained outside a car wash in Los Angeles on a scorching August day. Body-camera footage shows a Border Patrol agent running up behind him as he stood near a Mazda with a rag and spray bottle in hand. Within seconds, the agent grabbed him by the collar of his Handy J Car Wash shirt.

“Hey, sir, let’s go,” the agent said in Spanish. Confused, the man asked where they were going and told the agent he had documentation. He was handcuffed within ten seconds and driven away in an unmarked Dodge Charger to an ICE processing facility, leaving his cleaning supplies behind on the hood of the car. He was fingerprinted and released later that day once officials realized he was a lawful permanent resident.

The arresting agent’s report claimed AT made “a couple of quick movements” suggesting he might flee — a claim not supported by the body-camera video. The agent also wrote that when asked about his citizenship, AT answered “United States” but appeared “confused and unsure of his answer, similar to people I have arrested previously.” Court records show the agent never attempted to check identification or ask basic background questions before handcuffing him — the kind of assessment federal law requires before a warrantless arrest can be made.

At the same car wash that day, another worker was detained by a different agent. That agent’s report noted the man had complied with instructions, yet later justified the arrest by claiming the man had “disobeyed the agent’s orders” — a contradiction that judges and attorneys pointed to as evidence of the pattern advocates have described. In legal filings, attorneys said roughly 80% of the arrest reports they reviewed either lacked any real flight-risk analysis or relied on boilerplate language that didn’t match the footage.

Frimpong specifically cited that car wash arrest in her ruling, noting stark differences between the government’s written justification and what the video actually showed. She wrote that although agents claimed the worker, identified as EGG, was likely to flee based on alleged “flight from law enforcement,” the footage showed him standing in the same spot throughout the encounter, working, until an agent called him over. “Contrary to the government’s written flight-risk analysis,” the judge wrote, “he did not flee.”

In that same recording, a supervising agent tells the worker, “We’re going to take you in and check that everything is fine. If everything checks out, we’ll let you go” — a comment attorneys say reveals how these operations actually functioned: arrest first, verify later.

Other footage submitted in the case appears to show agents disregarding earlier immigration court decisions altogether. In one clip from September, an agent asks a colleague whether they are still detaining people who already have scheduled immigration court hearings — a circumstance that typically signals a person has already been screened and found not to be a flight risk. Another agent responds, “I don’t care if you have a court date coming up, you’re a custody redetermination case,” indicating that agents were overriding prior judicial findings.

Attorneys representing the detained workers argued that even individuals already moving through the immigration court system, previously released on the presumption that they weren’t flight risks, were being swept up again. Agency policy requires Border Patrol officers to ask about identification, address and other flight-risk indicators before making an arrest, but plaintiffs say body-camera footage repeatedly shows agents skipping that step.

In one August 2025 raid captured on video, Border Patrol agents jumped out of a Penske rental truck to detain people in a Home Depot parking lot in Los Angeles. According to court records, an agent arrested a man identified as Tijerino-Garmendia after writing in his report that the man “stated he did not have any identification indicating his identity or address.” Footage reviewed by attorneys shows the agent never actually asked him those questions.

Similar rulings barring warrantless arrests have been issued by federal judges in Oregon, Colorado and Washington, D.C., though in at least two of those cases, courts later found that agents continued the practice despite the orders.

In the Los Angeles case, Frimpong directed agents to document the “specific and particularized facts” supporting probable cause that a person was likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained. She declined, however, to require agents to document community ties — such as employment, housing or family connections — when flight risk could be shown through other means. She also declined to require documentation of encounters where agents speak with someone but do not make an arrest.

The federal government asked for a two-week delay before the order took effect while it considered an appeal. Frimpong denied that request, stating that the government could not reasonably claim harm from being ordered simply to follow the law.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Judge Rules Immigration Agents Must Halt Warrantless Arrests appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong and unsealed this week, cements a preliminary ruling she first signaled last month. It represents a significant setback for federal immigration enforcement tactics that have drawn intense scrutiny across Los Angeles since aggressive street operations swept through the region in 2025.

The case centers on a basic legal requirement: immigration officers cannot arrest someone without a warrant unless they have probable cause both that the person is undocumented and that the person is likely to escape before a warrant could be secured. Frimpong found overwhelming evidence that agents have been ignoring that second requirement altogether.

“This Court finds ample evidence that Defendants have an ongoing policy and practice of conducting warrantless arrests in violation of the requirement to conduct a likelihood-of-escape analysis,” she wrote.

One case illustrating the pattern involved a man identified only by the initials A.T., a worker at Handy J Car Wash in Los Angeles. Body camera footage from August 2025 shows a Border Patrol agent sprinting toward him as he wiped down a vehicle, then grabbing him by his shirt collar. Within ten seconds, A.T. was in handcuffs, despite telling the agent he had legal documentation. He was placed in an unmarked Dodge Charger and taken to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, where he was fingerprinted and released hours later after officials determined he was a lawful permanent resident.

The agent’s written report claimed A.T. made sudden movements suggesting he might flee — a claim the body camera footage does not support. The agent also noted that A.T. seemed “confused and unsure” when asked about his citizenship, and used that uncertainty to justify the arrest. At no point, according to the footage, did the agent attempt to check identification or ask basic background questions before making the arrest — the type of assessment the law requires.

The lawsuit that led to Frimpong’s ruling was filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union and several advocacy organizations, following widely criticized immigration raids across Los Angeles overseen by former Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino. Attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security have said those large-scale operations ended in February. Still, nationwide arrest numbers have continued to climb under the Trump administration’s expanded deportation push, hitting nearly 50,000 arrests in July — the highest monthly total of the administration, according to the Deportation Data Project. In California, arrests during that period were up more than 15 percent compared with the same time last year.

Attorneys representing those detained say the discrepancies between agents’ official arrest narratives and body camera footage were central to their case. In one example cited in Frimpong’s ruling, an agent claimed a worker identified as E.G.G. had tried to flee — but footage instead shows the man standing in place at the car wash the entire time, from when agents entered the business to when he was called over and detained. A supervising agent is heard on the recording telling the man, “We’re going to give you a ride, and check if everything is OK. If everything is OK, we’ll let you go” — a comment attorneys say reveals a pattern of arresting first and sorting out legal status afterward.

Other footage submitted in the case appears to show agents disregarding determinations already made by immigration courts. In one recording, an agent asks a colleague whether they are still detaining individuals who hold a notice to appear before an immigration judge — a document typically issued to people who have already been found not to pose a flight risk. Another agent responds bluntly that a pending court date does not matter, saying the person is subject to what he called a “custody redetermination.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued this showed agents were not merely failing to perform their own flight-risk evaluations, but actively overriding judicial findings that a person was safe to release.

In another episode captured on video, agents jumped from a rented Penske truck to detain workers in a Home Depot parking lot in August 2025. One man, identified in court records as Tijerino-Garmendia, was reported by the arresting agent as having no identification or verified home address. But according to attorneys, the footage shows the agent never actually asked him those questions — undermining the written justification for the arrest.

Attorneys for the ACLU say such gaps were common. In a review of arrest reports connected to the case, they found that roughly 80 percent lacked any genuine flight-risk analysis, instead relying on generic, repeated language that did not reflect what agents actually observed or asked in the field.

“This ruling is one of the most important decisions to date in the community’s effort to end the federal government’s cruel and illegal practice of abducting people and separating them from their families,” said Mayra Joachin, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.

Frimpong’s order requires agents going forward to document specific, individualized facts supporting their belief that a person was likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained. She stopped short, however, of requiring agents to detail community ties — such as employment, housing or family connections — as long as flight risk can be established through other means. She also declined to require documentation in cases where agents question someone but ultimately do not make an arrest.

Similar rulings restricting warrantless immigration arrests have been issued by federal judges in Oregon, Colorado and Washington, D.C. In two of those cases, courts later found that agents continued the practice despite the orders.

The Department of Homeland Security had requested a two-week delay before the new requirements take effect, citing the possibility of an appeal. Frimpong rejected that request, stating that the government could not reasonably claim to be harmed by simply being required to follow the law.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Judge Orders Immigration Agents to Halt Warrantless Arrest Tactics appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In the end, worried that state-issued IDs might stop being accepted at airports and federal buildings, legislators voted this summer to let the Department of Motor Vehicles move forward with sharing driver data.

What they didn’t know at the time was that the Trump administration was already pressing the same national nonprofit for records on millions of drivers — and planned to use that information for immigration enforcement.

This summer, federal agencies demanded, and later subpoenaed, sweeping data on commercial drivers from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the nonprofit that serves as a data-sharing hub for state motor vehicle departments across the country. It’s the same organization California intends to entrust with all of its driver records starting next year.

Those federal demands came to light only last month, when 22 state attorneys general — including California’s — sued to block the government from enforcing a subpoena for the driver records.

Now, critics of California’s data-sharing plan say their warnings were justified, and they’re calling on the state to hit pause. At stake is a broader debate over how much privacy and protection California can realistically promise nearly 30 million licensed drivers.

“AAMVA’s handling of these commercial driver’s license records gives California good reason not to trust that it will safeguard the far larger set of noncommercial license records the DMV plans to upload next year,” said Ed Hasbrouck of the civil liberties group the Identity Project.

Hasbrouck and other privacy and immigrant-rights advocates say AAMVA took weeks to notify California and other member states about the federal demands — and, at first, was prepared to comply and hand the information over in bulk.

AAMVA spokesperson Claire Jeffrey declined to answer questions about the federal demands but said the organization “is working through the difficult circumstances of the data request and ongoing litigation” and “remains committed to working with all stakeholders to address the competing concerns in this matter.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, which backed the data-sharing legislation, has dismissed concerns about the situation as overblown — much as it did earlier this year when critics warned that any California data sent to AAMVA could eventually be swept up in a federal subpoena.

Tapping state licenses for a federal crackdown

The Trump administration’s push for license data appears tied to a broader crackdown on noncitizen commercial truck drivers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration began strictly enforcing English proficiency requirements in May 2025, and in February 2026 finalized a rule barring immigrants with legal work authorization — including asylum seekers, Temporary Protected Status holders and DACA recipients — from obtaining commercial driver’s licenses.

According to court records and an Aug. 11 subpoena from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to AAMVA, federal officials sought data on 17 million commercial license holders, citing “civil immigration law enforcement” as the purpose. The request covered names, birth dates, states of residence, license numbers and Social Security numbers for every driver in AAMVA’s commercial license database over the past five years.

The subpoena also directed the nonprofit not to disclose its existence “for an indefinite period of time,” arguing that doing so would “impede the investigation” and interfere with federal law enforcement.

Court filings show the federal government first approached AAMVA on June 25 seeking the commercial license data. Citing “conflicting legal obligations” between state and federal governments, AAMVA initially agreed to hand over the information — prompting state officials to threaten legal action, arguing that doing so would violate agreements with state motor vehicle departments as well as state and federal privacy laws.

California has long shared commercial license data with AAMVA. Under the plan lawmakers funded in June, the DMV intends to begin uploading records for all California license holders, including noncommercial licenses — a group that includes more than a million immigrants who obtained licenses under a 2013 state law allowing undocumented residents to drive legally. Lawmakers funded the plan after DMV officials and the governor’s office warned that withholding the data could put California out of compliance with the 2005 REAL ID Act, potentially rendering state-issued IDs unusable at airports and federal facilities.

According to a sworn declaration from Kristin Triepke, who heads the license policy division at the California DMV, the department only learned of the federal government’s request to AAMVA for commercial license data on July 23 — when AAMVA’s executive director emailed the group’s board. That was 10 days after Newsom signed the bill authorizing the data-sharing arrangement. AAMVA had signed an agreement with California’s DMV last year promising not to share commercial driver data without written authorization.

In her declaration, Triepke warned that handing driver data over to federal authorities could push more noncitizens to drive without a license altogether — creating what she called serious public safety risks.

In an apparent effort to placate California and other member states, AAMVA had proposed letting individual state motor vehicle departments decide whether to share commercial license data in bulk with the federal government, according to a court filing. That proposal triggered threats from the Trump administration that the U.S. Department of Transportation would pull grants and cancel contracts with AAMVA, and DHS responded by issuing the subpoena, arguing it was entitled to data on all commercial license holders regardless of state consent.

On Aug. 21, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia temporarily blocked AAMVA from complying with the request, calling it unlawful. Judge Anthony Trenga is scheduled to hear arguments Sept. 10 on whether to issue a preliminary injunction permanently barring AAMVA from releasing the data.

The outcome of that legal fight could have significant implications for whether states can actually protect driver data once it’s shared with a national database.

Newsom’s office isn’t convinced there’s cause for alarm.

Are Californians at risk?

Earlier this spring, the governor’s communications team accused CalMatters reporters of “fear-mongering with lies” for covering concerns about the data-sharing plan, including the possibility that federal officials could obtain the information through a subpoena. Asked about the subsequently revealed federal subpoena for shared license data, a spokesperson stressed differences between the commercial driver data the Trump administration recently sought and the broader set of driver records lawmakers agreed to share with AAMVA — even though both datasets are housed by the same organization.

“These are separate systems governed by different rules, purposes, and legal authorities,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a Newsom spokesperson. “The federal government’s demand in this case involves bulk access to [commercial license] data, not the individual searches federal officials already conduct, and California has not provided the bulk data requested.”

Crofts-Pelayo noted that commercial drivers already submit Social Security numbers for verification through federal databases as part of the licensing process. A key argument against California sharing noncommercial license data is that missing or provisional Social Security numbers in that pool could be used by federal authorities to identify drivers for immigration enforcement purposes.

Still, immigrant and privacy advocates say the state’s drivers remain at risk under the planned data-sharing arrangement.

Saira Hussain, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital privacy nonprofit, said the subpoena confirms earlier warnings and argued the DMV should delay its plans to share driver information.

“AAMVA’s response was completely inadequate — it took them a full month to even tell states about the subpoena, and they were prepared to comply with it,” she said.

Crofts-Pelayo did not answer directly when asked whether the state would delay sharing noncommercial driver data with AAMVA while the litigation plays out.

The DMV said it cannot weigh in on the legal merits of the DHS subpoena but that the department “takes very seriously its responsibility to protect the personal information of Californians.”

“California has opposed the bulk disclosure of commercial driver information,” said Eva Spiegel, deputy director of public affairs for the DMV.

A DHS spokesperson, who asked not to be named, told CalMatters in an email: “It is extremely dangerous to have illegal aliens, who often don’t know our traffic laws or even English, driving vehicles on American roads. We are confident we will win this important case in court.”

Advocates say the federal government’s data demands are exactly what they warned about before the Legislature voted in June to fund the license data-sharing plan.

“We take no pleasure in saying, ‘We told you so,'” Hasbrouck said. “But in this case, we did tell you so.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Amid California’s Debate Over Sharing Driver Data, Homeland Security Sought 17 Million Records via Subpoena appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

For months, they warned Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration that sharing driver’s license data through a national verification system could expose undocumented residents to federal immigration enforcement. Now, following a federal subpoena targeting millions of commercial driver records, those warnings look prescient.

According to reporting by CalMatters journalists Wendy Fry and Khari Johnson, Newsom’s office and the California Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed earlier this summer that they would begin sharing driver data with a multistate verification network operated by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, a nonprofit known as AAMVA. Advocacy groups objected loudly at the time, arguing the arrangement could put undocumented Californians at greater risk of deportation should federal agencies access the information.

Their concerns proved timely. Just ten days after Newsom signed legislation authorizing the data-sharing arrangement, the California DMV learned that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had already demanded records from AAMVA covering roughly 17 million commercial driver’s license holders nationwide — including full names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers. Less than a month after that, federal officials went further, issuing a formal subpoena to AAMVA for the information.

Ed Hasbrouck, who works with the civil liberties organization The Identity Project, didn’t mince words about the outcome. “We hate to have to say, ‘We told you so.’ But in this case, we told you so,” he said.

The federal push appears connected to a wider Trump administration effort targeting non-citizen commercial truck drivers. California officials have defended their participation in the data-sharing system, however, arguing that opting out could put the state out of compliance with federal identification requirements — potentially causing California driver’s licenses to be rejected at airport security checkpoints.

Newsom’s office has downplayed fears that the federal subpoena represents a broader privacy threat, echoing arguments it made earlier this year when critics first raised concerns about the data-sharing plan.

“The federal government’s demand … is for bulk access to (commercial license) data — not the individual searches that federal officials already conduct — and California has not provided the requested bulk data,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor.

Elsewhere in Sacramento, a bill that supporters describe as protection for small businesses from nuisance privacy lawsuits is drawing sharp criticism from consumer advocates who call it a giveaway to major technology companies.

State Sen. Anna Caballero, a Merced Democrat, authored the legislation in response to what her office describes as a wave of “frivolous litigation” under a nearly 60-year-old state surveillance law. Attorneys representing small businesses say more than 4,000 claims alleging privacy violations have been filed against companies in the past four years alone.

But national privacy organizations, including the ACLU and the Tech Oversight Project, argue the bill would strip individuals of their right to sue companies over unauthorized consumer tracking. The measure has drawn financial backing from Amazon, Meta, X and Google. Critics point specifically to a retroactivity clause in the bill that they say could undercut a high-profile ongoing privacy lawsuit against Meta.

In more encouraging news for California classrooms, the state Assembly passed a bipartisan measure clarifying how school districts can spend roughly $1 billion in arts education funding approved by voters through Proposition 28 in 2022.

That ballot measure required schools to use the new money to add to, not replace, existing arts programs. But confusion over how to comply led numerous districts to return their allocated funds to the state, fearing lawsuits if they misspent the money. Los Angeles Unified is currently facing exactly that kind of legal challenge, filed by former district superintendent Austin Beutner, who accuses the district of using Prop. 28 dollars to substitute for arts programs it had already cut. The district denies wrongdoing, and the case remains unresolved.

Beutner, who helped write Proposition 28, initially opposed the new clarifying bill but withdrew his objection after reaching a compromise with lawmakers.

Meanwhile, another attempt to regulate automated license plate readers has stalled in Sacramento. The bill, which would have placed new limits on how law enforcement agencies collect and share license plate data, died quietly this week before reaching the Assembly floor — the fifth such effort to fail despite growing public concern over the privacy implications of the technology.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Trump Administration’s Push for Trucker Records Raises Privacy Concerns in California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In the end, worried that state-issued IDs might stop being accepted at airports and federal buildings, legislators voted to let the Department of Motor Vehicles move forward with the data-sharing plan.

What they didn’t realize at the time was that the Trump administration was already pressing the same nonprofit organization for access to millions of driver records — and preparing to use that information for immigration enforcement.

Over the summer, federal officials first requested and then subpoenaed bulk data on commercial drivers from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, known as AAMVA. The Virginia-based nonprofit serves as a central repository for driver information collected by state motor vehicle agencies across the country — the very organization California intends to entrust with all of its driver records by next year.

Those federal demands only came to light last month, after attorneys general from 22 states, including California, sued to stop the subpoena from being carried out.

Now, critics of California’s data-sharing plan are pointing to the episode as proof that their warnings were justified, and they are pushing the state to pump the brakes and reconsider. At stake are difficult questions about how much privacy protection — and how much practical usefulness — the state can offer to its nearly 30 million licensed drivers.

“AAMVA’s behavior with respect to these commercial driver’s licenses gives California compelling reasons not to trust AAMVA to safeguard the much larger number of non-commercial driver’s license records that the DMV plans to upload to AAMVA next year,” said Ed Hasbrouck of the civil liberties organization The Identity Project.

Hasbrouck and other advocates for immigrants and privacy rights say AAMVA waited weeks before alerting California and other member states about the federal request — and that the group initially appeared willing to comply with a bulk data handover.

AAMVA spokesperson Claire Jeffrey would not answer specific questions about the federal demands, saying only that the organization “is working through the challenging circumstances of the data request and now active litigation” and “remains committed to working with all interested parties to navigate competing concerns in this matter.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, which supported the original data-sharing legislation, dismissed the concerns as overstated — much as it did earlier this year when critics first warned that any driver data shared with AAMVA could eventually be swept up in a federal subpoena.

A widening crackdown on immigrant truckers

The push for commercial driver data appears tied to a broader federal campaign targeting non-citizen truck drivers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration began strictly enforcing English-language proficiency rules in May 2025, and in February of this year it finalized a rule barring immigrants with valid work permits — including asylum seekers, Temporary Protected Status holders and DACA recipients — from obtaining commercial driver’s licenses, even though they are legally authorized to be in the country.

Court records show the federal government sought information on 17 million commercial license holders through an Aug. 11 subpoena issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The subpoena described its purpose as “civil immigration enforcement” and demanded names, birth dates, license numbers, states of record and Social Security numbers for every driver in AAMVA’s commercial license database dating back five years. It also instructed AAMVA to keep the subpoena confidential “for an indefinite period of time,” warning that disclosure “will impede the investigation and thereby interfere with the enforcement of federal law.”

According to court filings, the federal government first approached AAMVA about the commercial license data on June 25. Caught between conflicting obligations to state and federal governments, AAMVA initially indicated it would comply — prompting several states to threaten legal action, arguing that doing so would breach agreements with state DMVs and violate privacy laws.

California has already been sharing commercial license information with AAMVA. Under the funding measure lawmakers approved in June, the DMV plans to begin uploading data for all California license holders, including more than a million immigrants who obtained licenses under a 2013 state law that allows undocumented residents to drive legally. Supporters of the plan, including officials in the DMV and the governor’s office, argued that without it, California could fall out of compliance with the federal REAL ID Act, potentially making state-issued IDs useless at airports and federal facilities.

A sworn declaration from Kristin Triepke, who leads the DMV’s Licensing Policy branch, states that California officials didn’t learn of the federal request for commercial license data until July 23 — when AAMVA’s chief executive emailed the organization’s board. That was 10 days after Newsom signed the legislation authorizing the state’s broader data-sharing plan. AAMVA had signed an agreement with California last year promising not to release commercial driver data without explicit written consent.

In her declaration, Triepke cautioned that turning over driver data to federal authorities could discourage undocumented immigrants from obtaining licenses altogether, which she said could create serious public safety hazards on the road.

In an effort to satisfy California and other member states, AAMVA proposed letting individual state DMVs decide for themselves whether to share commercial license data in bulk with federal authorities, according to court filings. But the Trump administration pushed back hard, with the U.S. Department of Transportation threatening to pull grants and cancel contracts with AAMVA. The Department of Homeland Security then issued its subpoena, asserting that it had the legal authority to obtain records on every commercial license holder nationwide.

On Aug. 21, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia temporarily halted AAMVA from turning over the data, calling the demand “unlawful.” Judge Anthony Trenga is scheduled to hear arguments Sept. 10 on whether to extend that block with a preliminary injunction.

The outcome of the case could have far-reaching consequences for how much control states retain over driver records once they’re shared with a national database.

Newsom’s office, however, maintains there’s little cause for alarm.

Is California’s data at risk?

Earlier this year, the governor’s communications team accused CalMatters reporters of “manufacturing fear and panic with lies” after the news organization raised concerns that shared driver data could eventually be subpoenaed by federal authorities. Asked to respond now that such a subpoena has surfaced, a Newsom spokesperson drew a distinction between the commercial driver records sought by the Trump administration and the larger pool of data — covering all California license holders — that the state plans to share with AAMVA. Both categories of information are housed by the same organization.

“[They] are separate systems governed by different rules, purposes and legal authorities,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor. “The federal government’s demand at issue in this case is for bulk access to [commercial license] data — not the individual searches that federal officials already conduct — and California has not provided the requested bulk data.”

Crofts-Pelayo pointed out that commercial drivers already must submit Social Security numbers for federal verification as part of the licensing process. One of the central worries about extending data-sharing to non-commercial licenses is that missing or placeholder Social Security numbers — often associated with licenses issued to undocumented immigrants — could be used to single out drivers for immigration enforcement.

Immigrant rights advocates and privacy experts remain unconvinced that California drivers are adequately protected.

Saira Hussain, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the subpoena confirms fears raised earlier this year and argued the DMV should pause its data-sharing timeline.

“AAMVA’s response was entirely insufficient, as they took a full month to inform the states of the demand and even contemplated complying with the demand,” she said.

Crofts-Pelayo did not directly answer whether California intends to delay sharing non-commercial driver data with AAMVA while the litigation plays out.

The DMV said it could not weigh in on the legal merits of the Homeland Security subpoena but stressed that the agency “takes seriously its responsibility to protect Californians’ personal information.”

“California has opposed the release of bulk commercial driver information,” said Eva Spiegal, the DMV’s deputy director of public affairs.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, who asked not to be named, told CalMatters in an email: “It is incredibly dangerous for illegal aliens, who often don’t know our traffic laws or even English, to be operating vehicles on America’s roads. We look forward to winning this important argument in court.”

For advocates who raised alarms before the Legislature’s vote in June, the federal subpoena feels like vindication.

“We hate to have to say, ‘We told you so,'” Hasbrouck said. “But in this case, we told you so.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Homeland Security Subpoenaed 17 Million California Driver Records Amid State Data-Sharing Debate appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The governor faces a Sept. 30 deadline to sign or veto bills sent to his desk, and among them are a handful of measures with familiar storylines — ones Newsom rejected in previous years that lawmakers have revived, sometimes with tweaks, sometimes not.

One of those is a proposal allowing students without legal immigration status to work campus jobs at California’s public colleges and universities. Newsom vetoed a similar bill in 2024 after the University of California warned it could provoke retaliation from the Trump administration, potentially putting federal research dollars and financial aid funding at risk. Democratic lawmakers have sent him a new version anyway, hoping the political landscape has shifted enough to change his mind.

Water use at data centers is also back on the table. Two bills would force developers of these energy- and water-intensive facilities to disclose how much water their operations actually consume. One of the measures closely mirrors a bill Newsom vetoed last year under pressure from tech industry lobbyists, when he said he didn’t want to saddle the sector with “rigid reporting requirements.” Since then, opposition to data centers has grown louder across the state, with several California cities moving to ban new projects outright or impose moratoriums while they sort out the environmental and infrastructure costs.

Firefighters, meanwhile, are making a second attempt at securing better pay and retirement benefits from Cal Fire. Last year, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have established a new formula for raises. This year’s ask is even bigger: legislation that would let firefighters and police officers retire earlier with larger pensions. The state Senate passed that measure unanimously Sunday night, adding fresh pressure on the governor to finally deliver for public safety unions.

Special Treatment for San Diego, Bay Area Projects

Two other bills headed to Newsom’s desk would fast-track major redevelopment efforts in San Diego and the East Bay.

In San Diego, a last-minute legislative maneuver would clear the way for a contentious development that includes a sports arena backed by a billionaire investor, thousands of new housing units built atop a long-vacant arena parking lot, and nearly 15 acres of new public parkland. The project would also be shielded from environmental lawsuits — a provision that drew sharp criticism from some lawmakers who opposed the bill. Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego argued that carving out special legal protection for a politically connected developer sends the wrong message to the public.

Up north, budget legislation moving through the Legislature would redirect $125 million toward purchasing Golden Gate Fields, the shuttered horse racing track along the East Bay shoreline, with plans to convert it into a public park. The money would come from Proposition 4, the $10 billion climate bond voters approved in 2024. Newsom backs the idea, but some lawmakers have questioned whether such a large expenditure on one project could crowd out other climate funding priorities.

Salton Sea Lithium Projects Stall

For years, state leaders — Newsom among them — have talked up the economic potential of extracting lithium from deposits beneath the Salton Sea, envisioning a homegrown supply chain for electric vehicle batteries and consumer electronics. But legal challenges are keeping much of that lithium in the ground.

The Salton Sea region is believed to hold enough lithium to produce roughly 375 million EV batteries, more than the total number of vehicles currently on U.S. roads. Yet one major extraction project, designed to generate enough lithium annually to supply tens of thousands of homes with power, has been tied up in lawsuits alleging the company behind it failed to adequately address environmental concerns.

An Imperial County supervisor noted that delays are somewhat expected given the technical complexity of lithium extraction. But local tribal representatives, community organizations and environmental groups are pushing officials to slow down and take a more careful look at the long-term impacts. Kwaaymii tribal elder Carmen Lucas summed up the sentiment: she isn’t against development, she said, but wants it done responsibly and with balance.

911 Calls at ICE Detention Centers

The Legislature has also passed a bill requiring government agencies to release information about 911 calls placed from immigration detention facilities. State Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach Democrat, introduced the measure after reporting revealed rape investigations tied to the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Rejected These Bills Before. Now They’re Back for Another Look appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The measure, which takes effect Oct. 1, 2027, expands California’s long-running Safe at Home program to cover immigration support workers, following what Democratic lawmakers describe as a troubling increase in harassment and threats directed at immigrants and the advocates who assist them.

For Inland Empire residents who work in immigrant services — from legal aid attorneys to nonprofit volunteers — the change could offer new protections. But the law has also become a flashpoint in a broader political fight, with Republican critics arguing it tramples on constitutional free press protections.

Tensions boiled over last week in Sacramento, where Terry Schanz, chief of staff for Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, got into a heated, recorded confrontation outside the state Capitol with Nick Shirley, a conservative social media personality and vocal opponent of the legislation. In the exchange, which quickly spread across social media, Schanz hurled a crude insult at Shirley. Assembly officials have declined to say whether Schanz will face any disciplinary action.

What the law actually does

The legislation, Assembly Bill 2624, allows immigration support workers, employees and volunteers to enroll in California’s Safe at Home program. Enrollees — along with family members living in their household — can use an alternative mailing address issued through the California secretary of state’s office instead of disclosing their actual home address in public records. Participants are also permitted to vote confidentially.

The law further bars any “person, business, or association” from knowingly publishing online the home address, photograph or personal information of a program participant, or their spouse or child, with the intent of inciting someone else to cause serious physical harm. Violators could face civil penalties of up to $4,000.

Assemblymember Mia Bonta, who championed the bill, said the protections respond to real cases of intimidation.

“We heard directly from organizations whose staff and volunteers have been doxxed, harassed, followed and filmed at their workplaces and threatened, with that harassment sometimes reaching their families at home,” Bonta said during the bill’s final vote in the Legislature last week. “These are not hypothetical concerns. No one should have to fear that doing their job will put their family at risk.”

A program with a long history

California created Safe at Home nearly three decades ago to protect the identities of domestic violence survivors. Since then, lawmakers have steadily broadened who qualifies, adding survivors of stalking, sexual assault, human trafficking and elder abuse, as well as reproductive health care workers and, during the pandemic, public health officials.

Last year, the state extended the program to workers in gender-affirming care, using similar language barring the public posting of their addresses or personal details. That measure also passed largely along party lines, though it picked up some bipartisan support in committee votes.

How to enroll

To participate, applicants must live in California and schedule an appointment with a designated enrolling agency, where they’ll work with an application assistant to complete the paperwork. Applicants need to show evidence of credible threats — such as police reports or court records — and submitting false information is a misdemeanor.

Once the secretary of state’s Safe at Home program approves an application, participants receive an official ID card bearing their substitute address, which state and local government agencies are required to accept. Private businesses and the federal government, however, are not obligated to honor it. Enrollment lasts four years and can be renewed.

Republican pushback

Opposition from Republican lawmakers has been intense, with some vowing to challenge the law in court on First Amendment grounds. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, one of the law’s most vocal critics, has branded it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” claiming its real intent is to shield organizations from scrutiny by journalists and investigators like Shirley.

Shirley has built a following by investigating alleged fraud at child care centers, including a 2025 video accusing Minnesota facilities of wrongdoing that preceded a surge in federal immigration enforcement there. He also visited several Somali-run day care centers in San Diego this past February, alleging they were “ghost facilities” without children actually present.

“They’ve essentially created a protected class by calling this group — the immigration support service providers — saying that I and you cannot expose them,” Shirley told supporters at a rally outside the Capitol last week. “None of our money should be going towards illegal migrants, nor should it be going towards the nonprofits that are funded by your tax dollars.”

Jenny Rae Le Roux, a Republican running for California’s 47th Congressional District, called the law unnecessary, noting that inciting violence is already illegal. She also criticized the bill’s wording — including its use of the term “image” — as overly vague. Le Roux said she intends to keep investigating government spending regardless of the new restrictions, even inviting arrest under the statute.

“We will double down on our efforts … to expose waste, fraud and corruption wherever we find it, including immigration service providers,” she said at the rally. “And if Gavin Newsom doesn’t like it, he can come arrest me himself.”

Supporters of the bill reject the idea that it protects organizations from legitimate oversight. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat who backed the measure, noted that no news organization has formally opposed the law.

“The opposition to AB 2624 has not come from them,” Pellerin said during the floor debate. “It has come from bad faith actors looking for an available vehicle to smear immigrant communities and the people who serve them.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post What Californians Should Know About the New Privacy Law Stirring a Free Speech Debate appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Board Chair Terra Lawson-Remer and Vice Chair Paloma Aguirre announced the proposal Monday at a news conference at the county administration building, arguing that public facilities meant to serve San Diego residents should not double as training grounds for what they described as the federal government’s mass deportation campaign.

“Our local public facilities serve our residents — they do not exist to support federal immigration operations that ignore and trample due process and the rule of law,” Lawson-Remer said.

The two supervisors are calling for the county to terminate its agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection that allow agents to use county firing ranges. The measure is expected to go before the full Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

The proposal stands in contrast to a similar debate that played out in Escondido earlier this year. In February, that city’s council voted to uphold its own contract with the Department of Homeland Security allowing ICE and CBP to train at Escondido’s firing range, despite public backlash.

Aguirre and Lawson-Remer say the push to end the county’s arrangement is rooted in growing alarm over aggressive immigration enforcement tactics that they say have torn families apart and spread fear throughout San Diego communities.

“Parents are afraid to drop their kids off at school, afraid to go to the grocery store, afraid to walk to work — simple moments that should be safe,” Aguirre said. “And while all of this is happening, ICE and CBP have been training at county gun ranges.”

That fear has been fueled by a string of high-profile raids and arrests over the past year and a half. In May 2025, ICE agents raided Buona Forchetta restaurant in San Diego, arresting four people in an operation that drew widespread public outrage. Months later, in August, agents detained parents outside elementary schools in Encinitas, Chula Vista and San Diego.

A CalMatters investigation using government data found that immigration arrests in the region spiked 1,500% between May and October compared with the same period the previous year.

According to figures released by Rep. Mike Levin, a Democrat representing parts of San Diego and Orange counties, immigration authorities deported more than 16,000 people from San Diego County between Jan. 20, 2025, and April 1, 2026. Federal officials have said their enforcement priority is immigrants with serious criminal records, but Levin said ICE has not disclosed how many of those detained locally actually had criminal convictions.

Supervisors argue that the aggressive enforcement approach carries public safety risks of its own, discouraging some residents from reporting crimes or cooperating with local law enforcement out of fear of deportation.

“Providing training grounds for Trump’s deportation force is a slap in the face to our residents, and it undermines our clear commitment to the rule of law and civil rights here in San Diego County,” Lawson-Remer said.

Since 2024, federal immigration agents have logged roughly 3,350 hours at the Regional Firearms Training Center in Otay Mesa, near the border, according to county records. The agreements permitting ICE and CBP to use county firearms facilities date back to 2021 and generate an estimated $126,780 in revenue, according to a letter submitted to the board. Because the contracts fell below a certain dollar threshold, they were approved administratively and never required a vote from the Board of Supervisors.

The new proposal would end not only that arrangement but also the use of a separate range the county leases from the U.S. Navy at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

“The federal government cannot terrorize our families all week long and then rent our gun range on the weekends — not in this county, not anymore,” Aguirre said.

Federal immigration agencies did not respond to questions from CalMatters about the proposal. However, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott said he was disappointed by the county’s move, warning that losing access to training facilities could lead to longer wait times at border crossings and San Diego International Airport.

Aguirre dismissed that warning, saying the relatively modest contract would have little bearing on federal operations. “The lines at San Ysidro would not be a consequence of this board’s actions,” she said. “They would be a decision made by the Trump administration and funded by us here in San Diego.”

The firing range proposal marks the latest effort by county leaders to distance San Diego from federal immigration enforcement. In January, the Board of Supervisors approved the Civil Liberties Enforcement and Accountability Rules ordinance, known as the CLEAR ordinance, which restricts federal immigration agents’ access to non-public county spaces. That measure passed with support from Lawson-Remer, Aguirre and fellow Democrat Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe, while the board’s two Republican members, Jim Desmond and Joel Anderson, voted against it.

In June, San Diego County also won a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security that granted county health officials the ability to conduct sanitary inspections at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. That legal victory came months after Lawson-Remer, Aguirre and County Public Health Officer Dr. Sayone Thihalolipavan were denied access to the facility.

Original source: CalMatters

The post San Diego County Supervisors Move to Bar ICE From County Firing Range appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong indicated she is inclined to order agents to stop making warrantless arrests unless they first determine, individually, that a person is both likely undocumented and likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained. That standard has been required under federal law since 1946, but attorneys representing immigrants swept up in recent raids argue agents have been ignoring it altogether.

If finalized, the ruling would rank among the most consequential yet in a sprawling lawsuit challenging immigration enforcement tactics in the Los Angeles area, home to roughly 19 million people. It would force agents to fundamentally change how they approach arrests, requiring them to weigh a person’s ties to the community — including employment, housing and family — before detaining someone without a warrant.

Court records and body-camera footage cited in the case describe a pattern in which supervisors told agents to simply “go out and start detaining people,” resulting in agents targeting individuals with no knowledge of their immigration history. Many of those swept up were confronted at car washes, bus stops and other public places, with attorneys alleging agents relied on the appearance of being Latino as their main basis for stopping people.

Last month, attorneys for the plaintiffs submitted text messages and body-camera recordings showing federal agents using racist language to describe potential targets during Los Angeles-area operations, evidence they say reinforces claims that agents were profiling people based on race rather than any individualized suspicion.

Should Thursday’s tentative ruling be made permanent, Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong would become at least the fifth federal judge nationally to block the administration’s warrantless arrest practices, joining courts in Oregon, Colorado and Washington, D.C. In at least two of those cases, judges found that agents continued using the disputed tactics even after being ordered to stop.

This is not the first time the judge has intervened in the case. In July 2025, shortly after the raids began, she issued an order barring agents from detaining people based on factors such as apparent race, speaking Spanish or type of clothing worn. The U.S. Supreme Court later put that order on hold. Thursday’s ruling takes a different approach — rather than dictating who agents can stop, it would require them to document specific evidence of flight risk before making a warrantless arrest.

The latest ruling stems from a motion filed by attorneys representing immigrants detained during the Los Angeles raids, which began under then-Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino and drew national attention for their scale. Though public scrutiny has faded somewhat, the operations have continued into 2026 with less visibility.

Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and Public Counsel, among other organizations, reviewed 113 arrest reports submitted as evidence and found that nearly 80% contained no genuine assessment of flight risk, relying instead on boilerplate language.

In several of those reports, agents claimed a person was likely to flee because they supposedly ran from law enforcement, lived in a so-called sanctuary state, ignored commands, or simply because of their “unlawful presence in the United States.”

In multiple instances, the government’s own body-camera footage appeared to contradict the written arrest reports. In one case, an agent wrote that a man was “running in the opposite direction” during a warehouse raid in Pomona. Body-camera video, however, shows the man was not running and had significant mobility limitations, according to court filings.

In another example, an agent reported that a man was “fleeing” during an August 2025 raid at a Home Depot in the Westlake area. Video instead shows the man walking toward the agent while looking at his phone.

Federal officials have defended the warrantless arrests in sworn statements. A Border Patrol supervisor who oversaw the arrest of three men detained at a Pasadena bus stop testified that if a person “voluntarily admits” to being in the country illegally, that alone is sufficient grounds for an arrest without a warrant.

Just Walking the Dogs

As part of their motion, attorneys for the detained immigrants submitted hundreds of additional pieces of evidence, including previously unreleased body-camera footage, internal text messages and formal directives from ICE headquarters.

One video shows a group of federal agents moving through a parking lot before detaining a man walking two small, barking dogs. A woman nearby can be heard trying to explain that the man does have legal documentation — he simply didn’t have it with him because he had only stepped out to walk his dogs. An agent responds that he doesn’t understand. Another tells her, “It’s the law, ma’am,” and suggests she file a complaint with U.S. Border Patrol if she disagrees.

At no point in the footage do agents ask the man about his address, his job or whether he has family in the area — the kind of questions courts have said are required before someone can be arrested without a warrant.

Citing newly disclosed evidence, attorneys for the plaintiffs also argued that immigration officials have deliberately created poor conditions inside detention facilities to pressure detainees into agreeing to voluntary deportation.

One man, identified in a court declaration only by the initials DVV, said that while held at the ICE Processing Center in Adelanto, in San Bernardino County, he was repeatedly pressured to sign a document he did not understand.

“I asked to see the form. The second time, the agents took me to a meeting room where a man told me they would force me to sign if I refused,” DVV wrote in a sworn declaration filed with the court. “When I refused, they brought in a bigger man who said he would make me sign. It felt like they were trying to intimidate me.”

Other evidence submitted in the case points to lasting psychological harm. In one declaration, a tamale vendor who has lived in the United States for more than 30 years described the toll of being held for five months at Adelanto.

“I want to be strong and keep moving forward, but it’s very hard for me. I feel an overwhelming sadness. I’m not the same man I was before my detention. I feel like a stranger to myself. Sometimes I can’t hold back my emotions and I cry for a long time. At night, I can’t sleep,” he wrote.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Federal Judge Moves to Limit Immigration Detention Tactics Used in Los Angeles Raids appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The unanimous decision, issued Thursday, centers on Angela Hernandez, a Mexican citizen who had lived in the United States as a legal permanent resident for 19 years before her 2013 arrest on two drug trafficking charges in Kern County. At the time, Hernandez was 55 years old with a father, husband, children and grandchildren all living in the U.S.

During her plea hearing, Hernandez initialed a standard advisement form stating that a guilty plea could trigger deportation, a bar on reentry, and denial of naturalization — and that deportation was mandatory for certain offenses. A certified interpreter confirmed the document had been translated in full, and her defense attorney believed she understood its implications.

She pleaded guilty and served 27 days of a 180-day sentence. Two years later, with permission from the state parole department, she traveled to Mexico. When she attempted to return through Los Angeles International Airport, a customs official detained her and launched deportation proceedings.

Hernandez later told the court she had signed the form without grasping its consequences.

“Well, because if he’s my attorney and he tells me, ‘Sign here, initial here,’ I’m going to sign,” Hernandez testified, according to the court’s ruling. “I was also very nervous at that time.”

She spent years trying to get her conviction thrown out, arguing her attorney had failed to adequately represent her. Both a trial judge and an appellate court rejected that claim. But the state Supreme Court found legal errors in how those courts evaluated her case and reversed the rulings.

Writing for the majority, Justice Joshua Groban said that although Hernandez verbally agreed to the deportation warning during her plea hearing, her subsequent actions undercut any claim that she actually comprehended it.

“Her decisions to request and obtain permission from the parole department to leave the United States, travel to Mexico, and attempt to reenter lawfully through a port of entry support the inference that she did not ‘meaningfully understand’ the immigration consequences of her conviction,” Groban wrote.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had urged the court to uphold Hernandez’s conviction. But public defender organizations and immigrant advocacy groups filed briefs arguing that California courts have applied inconsistent standards when it comes to informing defendants about the immigration fallout of guilty pleas.

The court directed the 5th District Court of Appeal to send Hernandez’s case back to the trial court, which must now vacate her convictions.

In a separate opinion agreeing in part and dissenting in part, Justice Carol Corrigan called for Hernandez to present a fuller record once the case returns to the lower court.

“The trial court can resolve factual and credibility questions, then issue an appropriate ruling in light of all relevant evidence,” Corrigan wrote. “If the record demonstrates that the legal error impaired her ability to meaningfully understand and accept the immigration consequences of her plea, the motion should be granted.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Woman Pleaded Guilty to Drug Trafficking Charge, Then Learned Too Late She Couldn’t Return From Mexico appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.