How does ICE define 'line of duty' death and has that definition changed since 2003?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
ICE publicly memorializes personnel who “died in the line of duty” on its Fallen Officers/Wall of Honor pages and in related reporting, and that roster emphasizes deaths that occurred while employees were performing “officially assigned duties,” including COVID-19 deaths the agency attributes to on-the-job exposure [1] [2]. There is no clear, publicly posted historical rulebook in the available reporting that shows a formal, documented redefinition of “line of duty” by ICE since 2003; independent sources instead compare ICE’s practice to broader law‑enforcement definitions and critique how ICE counts deaths in custody and ascribed causes [3] [4] [5].
1. What ICE’s public materials show about “line of duty”
ICE’s Fallen Officers or Wall of Honor entries describe individual cases as deaths that occurred while the person was “performing her officially assigned duties” or after exposure while on duty, and the site lists causes such as COVID-19 complications and on‑assignment violent deaths [1]. Mother Jones and other reporters note the Wall of Honor includes officers who died of COVID‑19 contracted during duty and even incorporates cases from predecessor agencies to build a longer institutional history, indicating ICE’s public practice of including both violent and health‑related deaths tied to official duties [6].
2. How standard law‑enforcement definitions compare
Model definitions used across U.S. law enforcement — for example the Office of Justice Programs and policy guidance cited by police associations — define a “line‑of‑duty death” broadly as the death of an active‑duty officer by felonious or accidental means occurring while performing police functions, whether on‑ or off‑duty, and often explicitly include health events related to duty [3] [7]. Those templates are consistent with ICE’s public practice of listing deaths from non‑violent causes such as disease or duty‑related medical conditions alongside felonious deaths [1] [6].
3. Evidence about change since 2003: what is — and is not — in the record
Reporting and ICE’s public pages document the outcomes ICE counts — including increases in deaths in custody and the prominence of COVID‑19 on the Wall of Honor — but do not produce a dated, formal policy document that states ICE changed a statutory or administrative definition of “line of duty” after 2003 [1] [6] [5]. Independent watchdogs and advocates focus on related issues — such as how ICE reports detainee deaths versus officer deaths and whether ICE releases people before deaths to avoid reporting obligations — but those critiques address reporting practices and accountability, not a clear textual redefinition of “line of duty” itself [4].
4. Why definition disputes matter: accountability, benefit eligibility, and public narrative
How “line‑of‑duty” is defined affects memorial listings, survivor benefits, legal obligations and public perceptions of risk: reporters and researchers have emphasized that many ICE officer fatalities have been health‑related (notably COVID‑19) rather than felonious attacks, which shapes both public claims about occupational danger and the allocation of benefits and honors [2] [6]. Separately, human‑rights organizations and health investigators have documented preventable deaths of detainees and questioned reporting practices that can obscure facility responsibility — a distinct but related transparency concern that influences the larger debate about what deaths the agency highlights or downplays [4] [5].
5. Bottom line and limits of available reporting
Available public records and reporting show ICE treats as “line‑of‑duty” both violent and duty‑related health deaths and that the agency’s Wall of Honor and death notices reflect that practice, including COVID‑19 cases attributed to on‑duty exposure [1] [2] [6]. However, the sources provided do not include a dated ICE policy document showing an explicit definitional change since 2003; therefore, the conclusion is that ICE’s public practice aligns with broad law‑enforcement norms and has emphasized certain categories (e.g., COVID‑related deaths) in recent years, but there is no clear published record in these sources proving a formal redefinition of “line of duty” by ICE after 2003 [3] [1]. Further confirmation would require direct agency policy archives or a policy‑change memo that are not present in the material reviewed.