Fact check: How has LAPD's ICE cooperation policy changed over the past decade?

1. Summary of the results

LAPD's ICE cooperation policy has maintained some consistent elements while experiencing notable shifts over the past decade. The department has historically upheld Special Order 40, which explicitly prohibits officers from initiating contact with individuals solely to determine their immigration status ^[1]. The policy underwent multiple revisions between 2009-2018, largely influenced by the California TRUST Act ^[2]. Current LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell has taken a firm stance against ICE cooperation, explicitly stating that officers will not assist or participate in mass deportations ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important nuances are worth noting:

• Despite official non-cooperation policies, activists remain concerned about indirect information sharing through fusion centers and surveillance methods ^[1]
• There's a distinction between formal policy and practical implementation, particularly in situations like responding to ICE calls during protests ^[4]
• The policy changes have been specifically shaped by state-level legislation (the California TRUST Act), not just local decision-making ^[2]
• LAPD's cooperation with ICE is restricted specifically regarding detainer requests, requiring either judicial warrants or probable cause ^[2]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question might suggest a simple linear policy change, when the reality is more complex:

• Stakeholder interests:
• Pro-immigration activists benefit from highlighting any potential cooperation between LAPD and ICE, even indirect ones, to maintain pressure for stricter separation ^[1]
• Law enforcement leadership benefits from emphasizing their non-cooperation stance to maintain community trust ^[3]
• Federal authorities benefit from maintaining some level of information sharing access, even if indirect ^[1]
• Areas of uncertainty:
• While official policy changes are well-documented ^[2], the practical implementation and indirect cooperation methods remain subjects of debate and concern ^{[1] [4]}
• Recent enforcement actions and protests have created additional complexity in understanding the practical application of these policies ^[5]