What legal risks have county sheriffs cited in Minnesota when deciding whether to honor ICE detainers?

1. Lack of state-law authority to detain on ICE requests

Sheriffs repeatedly cite the Attorney General’s legal analysis that Minnesota law does not authorize state or local officers to hold someone based solely on an ICE civil detainer, and that continued custody beyond the time a person otherwise would be released is legally considered an “arrest” under federal and state constitutions — a determination that makes warrantless detentions legally precarious ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Civil liability and county responsibility for unlawful holds

County officials and legal filings warn that counties — not the federal government — would bear legal responsibility if someone is held beyond the period Minnesota law allows or if a detainer is mistakenly placed on a U.S. citizen, creating exposure to lawsuits and damages for wrongful arrest or false imprisonment ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Statutory limits on who can enter 287(g) agreements

Sheriffs cite the AG opinion that they cannot unilaterally execute 287(g) agreements with ICE; only a county board of commissioners may approve such pacts under Minnesota law, meaning individual sheriffs who attempt to contract with ICE risk operating outside state statutory authority and facing legal challenge or invalidation of their agreements ^{[4] [2] [7]}.

4. Constitutional contours: when a detainer becomes an arrest

Legal guidance emphasizes that holding someone after they would otherwise be released meets the legal definition of an arrest, which triggers Fourth Amendment protections and requires probable cause or statutory authority — a threshold that most ICE detainers, defined by federal regulations as requests rather than commands, do not meet in Minnesota courts’ reading ^{[1] [6]}.

5. Litigation and advocacy amplify risk calculations

The ACLU and other advocates have both warned sheriffs against honoring detainers as potentially unconstitutional and brought lawsuits against counties that implemented contracts to hold people for ICE, and such litigation has already produced complaints and injunctions that sheriffs cite when assessing the legal and financial risks of compliance ^{[5] [3] [8]}.

6. Operational friction: training delays, costs and federal pressure

Sheriffs who favor cooperation point to practical obstacles — delays in mandatory federal training for local officers under 287(g), county costs for staffing and security equipment to hold detainees, and federal pressure that can label jurisdictions “uncooperative,” but these operational arguments are entwined with legal exposure because training or administrative agreements do not by themselves eliminate questions about state-law authority or constitutional limits ^{[8] [7] [9]}.

7. Conflicting signals from state agencies and federal actors

The risk calculus is complicated by divergent practices: the Minnesota Department of Corrections reports honoring federal detainers as a matter of policy even where state law does not require it, while the AG’s opinions and local court rulings stress legal prohibitions on detainer-based holds in local jails — a split that county sheriffs cite as both a legal hazard and a source of uncertainty about what compliance actually requires ^{[10] [1] [6]}.

8. Alternative viewpoints and political context

Pro-cooperation sheriffs and some county leaders argue honoring detainers is “good police work” and necessary for public safety, and ICE asserts partnerships and criticizes counties that decline to hold detainees; opponents counter that civil detainers lack probable cause and that honoring them without warrant or statutory authority risks constitutional violations and civil suits — positions reflected in public statements, AG opinions, and ongoing litigation ^{[8] [11] [5]}.