Simpson Again Getting Heat Over Illegal Immigration Failures

By Loudoun Insider

Loudoun Sheriff Steve Simpson’s reluctance to get involved with the federal 287(g) program became an issue in his last re-election campaign, and it looks like there will be more controversy on the topic this season.  Loudoun County had an illegal immigrant in its jail but failed to  find out that he was an back in the country illegally after being deported in 2003.  Shortly after his recent release by Loudoun County, he raped an 8 year old girl in Fairfax County.  The WaPo had a story on this where Simpson tried to explain himself, but an interesting dissection of that showed up on BVBL yesterday by someone obviously with inside knowledge, and Frank Wolf is demanding an investigation.  Sounds kind of like the el-Atari backtracking to me, where political expediency trumps doing the right thing.


Comments

  • Lloyd the Idiot says:

    The press/pressure is really damaging Simpson, and it’s only January.

  • Matt Letourneau says:

    This is a bogus attack. (I’ve got NO dog in this fight whatsoever.) I can’t take BVBL’s “gotcha” mentality seriously on this issue, and I give far greater weight to the fact that virtually every one of Simpson’s peers in law enforcement around the Commonwealth had the same reaction as he did. The Feds screwed up. The database didn’t work. It shouldn’t have read “no match” in the first place. There’s no question this thing was sold as as the end all, be all to local law enforcement agencies and in fact the very same people who were attacking Simpson over this issue in 2007.

    Again, I’m not trying to defend Steve Simpson and I doubt very much you’ll find me saying much else about him on these blogs, but…this particular line of attack strikes me as a bit unseemly. The rapist caused the rape, the system failed and attacking the local law enforcement agency quite transparently in an election year serves only to obscure the true culprit in this kind of screw-up.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    It’s not the rape Simpson should be held accountable for – it is the release of the rapist due to the internal policy and procedure following a “no-match”. Whether this is a man power issue, or lack of knowing the limitations of the database – Simpson is ultimately responsible.

    Frank Wolf is right to order a review. Simpson should do a full scale internal review. Simpson saying he is afraid of “racial fingerpointing” is not a defense for releasing the rapist. The next step in this line of thinking is the Fools in Arlington that don’t want to participate in the program. Is this Simpson’s line of thinking? The citizens of LC deserve to know.

    What worries me the most is the fact that this felon/rapist was residing in Sterling for so many years. What bothers me the most is the gap in the finger print collection was not noted, realized or communicated to 38 states. This isn’t settled and the Wash Post article is not the ultimate authority on this topic.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    So where are all the usual anti-immigration advocates on this???

  • Loudoun Hunter says:

    I read the three blog links in the article and I continue to be saddened by Sheriff Simpson’s conduct. It appears that he continues to blame others for his lack of professional judgment and weak leadership. I see he is now trying to drag his
    old friend Congressman Wolf into this mess as a cover. Congressman Wolf, I have
    all the respect in the world for you and have voted for you since the first time you
    ran for office and every time since. I think you have been mislead be your old
    friend as he is trying to blame others for his failure. Congressman, I know you called for
    an investigation into the facts surrounding Simpson’s office not detaining a suspect
    and who later went on a raped an 8 year old. Simpson is claiming he didn’t know or understand the Secure Communities Program and wants you to help cover for him.
    I saw Simpson’s lame excuses in the Washington Post – please don’t be fooled. You are too honorable of a man to let him hide behind you. Congressman Wolf, I think you should know the facts and I think you will reach the same conclusion as any professional law enforcement official: Simpson dropped the ball. Congressman, I would like to provide you with the following facts that Simpson fails to talk about. The facts I provide can be verified through documents that you and your office have available to you.
    These documents are open and available to the public.

    The first basic fact is that if Simpson would have read the manual titled “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Secure Communities (SC), Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), Distributed for adoption by participating county and local law enforcement agencies” he would find the answer to his excuses. It spells out very clearly what to do in the manual. Congressman, read it for yourself, I think you will find it pretty simple to follow. Below are two sections that would address Simpson failures. The definitions of the acronyms are listed in the manual.

    3.1.4 IAFIS and IDENT search results are processed:
    If there is a positive fingerprint match in IDENT, FBI CJIS generates an IAQ that is sent to the LESC. In states where the SIB has implemented message routing to local LEAs, a “no match” in IDENT will result in FBI CJIS sending of a “No Match” IDR message to the originating local LEA through its SIB. No IAQ will be generated or sent to the LESC in the case of an IDENT “no match” response. Please refer to Section 2.2.7 to initiate an IAQ if a “no match” IDR response is received.

    The above section describes what is occurring using the electronic fingerprint system. It tells what to do when you get a “no match”. It refers to section 2.2.7 when you get a “no match”.

    2.2.7 If authorized, discontinue automated IAQ transmissions:
    In some jurisdictions, an automated IAQ message is transmitted to LESC when a subject’s POB is entered as “unknown” or “other than United States” during the booking process. Where the local LEA has the authority and discretion to do so, upon deployment of IDENT-IAFIS Interoperability, the local LEA will discontinue such automated IAQ processing. IDENT-IAFIS Interoperability automatically performs a function similar to the automated process, making blind booking an unnecessary duplication. However, if a “no match” IDR is received, the LEA has the option of initiating a name-based query to the LESC through the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS).

    It tells the agency that with a “no match” an “immigrant alien query” was not completed.
    When an agency gets a “no match” you have the option of using the manual “immigrant alien query” through NLETS. It reads and sounds pretty clear to any professional law enforcement official. Since the manual is for distribution nationwide it does not cover every state’s specific law. In Simpson’s case, he doesn’t have an option. He is required under Virginia Law (19.2-83.3& 53.1-218) to do the manual “immigrant alien query”. I have attached the code sections. When you read the code sections you see the word “immigrant alien query” mentioned. It is the same as listed in the Secure Communities manual. Under Virginia law,
    when the electronic fingerprint system is used and you get any response other than a “no match” you are in compliance with Virginia Law. When you get a “no match’, you are not in compliance with the law and are required to do an “immigrant alien query”. I am not sure how Simpson doesn’t understand this requirement; it is very clear in the manual.
    19.2-83.2. Jail officer to ascertain citizenship of inmate.
    Whenever any person is taken into custody at any jail, the sheriff or other officer in charge of such facility shall inquire as to whether the person (i) was born in a country other than the United States, and (ii) is a citizen of a country other than the United States. The sheriff or other officer in charge of such facility shall make an immigration alien query to the Law Enforcement Support Center of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement for any person who (i) was born in a country other than the United States, and (ii) is a citizen of a country other than the United States, or for whom the answer to (i) or (ii) is unknown. The sheriff or other officer in charge shall communicate the results of any immigration alien query to the Local Inmate Data System of the State Compensation Board. The State Compensation Board shall communicate, on a monthly basis, the results of any immigration alien query that results in a confirmation that the person is illegally present in the United States to the Central Criminal Records Exchange of the Department of State Police in a format approved by the Exchange. The information received by the Central Criminal Records Exchange concerning the person’s immigration status shall be recorded in the person’s criminal history record.
    53.1-218. Duty of officer in charge to inquire as to citizenship; notice to federal immigration officer of commitment of alien.
    Whenever any person is committed to a correctional facility the director, sheriff or other officer in charge of such facility shall inquire as to whether the person (i) was born in a country other than the United States, and (ii) is a citizen of a country other than the United States. The director, sheriff or other officer in charge of such facility shall make an immigration alien query to the Law Enforcement Support Center of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement for any person who (i) was born in a country other than the United States, and (ii) is a citizen of a country other than the United States, or for whom the answer to (i) or (ii) is unknown.
    In the case of a jail, the sheriff or other officer in charge of such facility shall communicate the results of any immigration alien query to the Local Inmate Data System of the State Compensation Board. The State Compensation Board shall communicate, on a monthly basis, the results of any immigration alien query that results in a confirmation that the person is illegally present in the United States to the Central Criminal Records Exchange of the Department of State Police in a format approved by the Exchange.
    In the case of a correctional facility of the Department of Corrections, the director or other officer in charge of such facility shall communicate the results of any immigration alien query that results in a confirmation that the person is illegally present in the United States to the Central Criminal Records Exchange of the Department of State Police in a format approved by the Exchange.
    The information received by the Central Criminal Records Exchange concerning the person’s immigration status shall be recorded in the person’s criminal history record.
    However, notification need not be made to the Central Criminal Records Exchange if it is apparent that a report on alien status has previously been made to the Exchange pursuant to § 19.2-83.2 or 19.2-294.2.
    Prior to using the Secure Communities Program, Simpson’s office was in compliance with Virginia Law because they use the LIDS-ICE system. It is just a matter of reading the manual and I am sure deputies in the booking area understand it. They just need the leadership to ensure proper application. The break down is not with ICE or the booking deputies but with the failure of Simpson to fully understand the program and its limitations. Maybe he should spend more time engaging with the people that work for him so that everybody understands the proper procedures. According to the Virginia State Compensation Board website, Loudoun County has two people listed as LIDS technicians’, maybe he could have asked them to explain it to him.

    Apparently Simpson should have read the LIDS Gazette September 2008 issue which is published by the Virginia State Compensation Board. I listed below the article:

    DON’T FORGET YOUR IAQ’S
    Last month’s Gazette reminded you to be sure to track your Illegal
    Alien Queries (IAQ) to ICE in the LIDS-ICE Request Tracking System, located
    on the Compensation Board website. In reviewing the data in the LIDS-ICE
    Request Tracking System it seems that there are some facilities who, according
    to data entered in LIDS, should have made Illegal Alien Queries to ICE, and
    either have not made such queries or have not recorded that they have done so
    in the LIDS-ICE Request Tracking System. In view of this, and of the fact that
    the legal requirement of making these IAQ’s to ICE is fairly recent, we wanted
    to take the opportunity to remind you to make IAQ’s to ICE when necessary.

    Below is the article from the LIDS Gazette August 2008 that is mentioned above:

    To assist in determining the presence of illegal aliens in local and regional jails in the Commonwealth of Virginia the 2008 General Assembly has enacted § 53.1-218, which states that upon commitment of any offender to a jail it is the duty of the sheriff/superintendent to inquire as to whether the offender is a citizen of the United States. If the offender states that they are not a U.S. citizen, the following questions must be asked. 1. Was the offender born in a country other than the United States? 2. Can the offender claim citizenship in a country other than the United States? If the offender was born in another country, or is a citizen of another country, or answered “unknown” to either of the above questions, the sheriff/superintendent must make an alien status query to ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement). Once an alien status query has been made to ICE, as part of § 53.1-218, an entry is required to be made in the LIDS-ICE Request Tracking system. A second entry is required once ICE has responded, to record the results of said query. The LIDS-ICE Request Tracking System can be found on the Compensation Board website, http://www.scb.virginia.gov under the Restricted Access option. Click ‘LIDS-ICE’ Request Tracking’ on the Restricted Access page. The Compensation Board uses the data entered in the LIDS-ICE Request tracking system to generate a report of all offenders held in local jails that are confirmed to be illegally present in the United States, required to be submitted monthly to the Department of State Police.

    Again did Simpson read it? It sounds pretty clear as to what he is required to do.

    Congressman Wolf, I don’t know how ICE can make it more clear to people like Simpson. I think it is a disgrace to question ICE when the problem lies squarely with Simpson for not reading or understanding the manual. If he didn’t understand the manual he should have asked ICE questions.

    I looked at the responses Simpson gave the Washington Post and I am appalled by them as you should be. Simpson is clearly only concerned about his image since he is facing an election this year. All the responses were about him. No where did he take a position of leadership in the article and show concern that his office allowed a suspect out of custody who eventually raped an 8 year old girl. He now grandstands by writing a letter to your office to ask for your help to make the system better. Congressman, maybe you could help him by referring him to an “Evelyn Woodhead speed reading course.”

    Congressman Wolf, as I stated earlier, I have always supported you because I believe you’re a man of honor and integrity. However, this will be a decisive moment as to whether or not I will continue to support you. It is clear Simpson’s office made a mistake and he has failed to own up to it and continues to make excuses. I know once you read the manual and Virginia Codes you will reach the same conclusion as any reasonable and intelligent person would. Simpson made the mistake, not anyone else. I know you and he are long time friends and former political supporters of each other. Now he is using you for cover. I would hope that you display the internal fortitude, honor and integrity that it takes to tell him he made the mistake, not someone else. I know there are others in the community that will feel the same way that I do on this issue. Congressman, as a veteran law enforcement professional, if I can give you some professional advice: I think you should distance yourself from Sheriff Simpson as it appears his reign as Sheriff is crumbling around him and he becomes desperate to hold on. I would hate to see you get dragged into his controversies.

  • Loudoun Hunter says:

    Apparently Matt Letourneau, you have not read the manual or Virginia Code either. The system works fine if you read the instructions. I hope you would take the time to read and research on your own. You sound as uneducated as Simpson right now. I guess that is what Simpson is counting on the uneducated. You are correct the rapist caused the rape. There is something called the crime triangle: location-victim-suspect. If you remove one of the three a crime cannot occur. When the suspect was improperly released it allowed him to be in the location and have contact with the victim. If he had been held the victim would have been at the location and no crime would have occurred by the suspect.

  • Matt Letourneau says:

    I read the language you posted and I’m failing to see how the law was violated. To my reading, making the inquiry with Secure Communities satisfies the requirement–particularly the language reads that if “no match” is the response, the local law enforcement agency has the OPTION of submitting a name-based inquiry to the LESC system. Not required to–has the option to. And from the sounds of it, every other jurisdiction would have handled this the exact same way.

    I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here. The inquiry should not have come back with “no response” in the first place. (I hope we’re not arguing that point.) The whole point of the Secure Communities program was alleviate all the rest of that activity because it was literally taking local law enforcement officers off the street and behind the desk spending hours on this stuff. It is entirely appropriate to investigate why after millions of dollars and countless other incidents like this one, the database is missing criminals.

    Again, I have no particular desire to defend Sheriff Simpson in this case or any other. But I worry that in the rush to make political hay over this, the real issue gets obscured. Fortunately, I think Frank Wolf’s office understands it. They’re not trying to “cover” for Sheriff Simpson, they are trying to see why the program that the Congressman has funded and advocated for isn’t working.

  • Loudoun Hunter says:

    The Secure Communities Program has no statutory authority in the Commonwealth; it is just a Federal program for the collection and dissemination of information on immigrants that have been deported. The subject of the incident involving Simpson was deported in 2003 from Prince William County before they became computerized. Those prints and thousands of others from different agencies that were not computerized at the time are not fully entered into the computerized program. That’s one of ways the computer system generates a “no match”. Secure Communities Program gives the Law Enforcement Agency the option to do an IAQ through NLETS. In Virginia, an IAQ is required by law and as section 3.1.4 Secure Communities Manual states “no IAQ will be generated or sent to the LESC in the case of an IDENT “no match” response. That is pretty clear language that no IAQ will be generated with a “no match”. Therefore by Virginia Law which requires an IAQ to be performed – none has been performed by the system. So to be compliant the agency must perform a manual IAQ. I think you are confusing “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Secure Communities (SC), Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), Distrusted for adoption by participating county and local law enforcement agencies” as having some statutory authority here in Commonwealth of Virginia and it is just the standard operating procedure for the system as the title implies. It is like any standard operating procedure manual at any agency, it is in place to help ensure uniform use of the system.

    You can check the facts on your own. If you believe the Washington Post article that the ICE spokesman indicated that when the subject was deported by Prince William County the fingerprints were not computerized. Please re-read the first Washington Post article.

    The system is designed to make the process easier and it does reduce the volume of separate IAQ’S to be run. The system however recognizes that not all prints are entered into the system and it notifies the LEA of that fact by sending a “no match” response.

    I am not sure where you get your information about taking officers off the street to do this work for hours. The IAQ is a computer entry screen no different than any other screen the ADC is required to run (i.e. CCH, wanted checks, OL, etc.) It probably adds as much time as it takes the officer to type the information into the screen. I have done this hundreds of times and it only takes me about thirty seconds or so to type the entry.

    If you are worried about making political hay, maybe it lies with the Sheriff’s personal agenda. He didn’t want to do any 287G or other immigration work until the last election cycle. Maybe he only supported the program because he had to support it. Now it has blown up on him and he needs to pass the buck to duck responsibility.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    It certainly appears that LH knows alot more about this issue than anyone else commenting or writing about it!

    And where in the world are all the loyal LCRC members who comment so much on any LCRC topic here??? I really don’t get the silence on Simpson – are they all scared of him, or do they have orders to keep quiet for some unknown reason??? I really am fascinated by this.

  • cop4ever says:

    Mr.Matt you are totally wrong-not all other law enforcement would handle this the same way-at least not the one where I am from and the chief LE enforcement officer mandates the check with the LIDS system. Unfortunately our current sheriff is out of touch and too busy trying to get his greedy hands on questionable campaign funds. Maybe you check to see if the sheriff is attending and speaking at important LC budget hearings and meetings-guess what? he is not. Why not-because he is lazy and riding the good old boy network. If he is missing the budget meetings-what else is he missing concerning our county. LC deserves better-don’t you think?

  • G. Stone says:

    “So where are all the usual anti-immigration advocates on this??? ”

    Having mowed this field hundreds of times and gotten nowhere maybe they are simply biding their time. This is one area where the loons come out of the woodwork when discussing a pretty straight forward and common sense subject. It does drive one crazy constantly having to reach down grab them by the scuff of the neck and pull them out of the hundreds of rabbit holes they try to go down.

  • Matt Letourneau says:

    Hey, I’m always open to being proven wrong, but so far I’m just not sold. I’ll go back and reread all those statues again.

    So–these two are both wrong?

    Other local officials agreed that it would be too much of a burden to do a manual check.

    “Unless we hired an additional cadre of 20 to 50 deputies, it would be an impossible task,” Fairfax County Sheriff Stan Barry said.

    Said Mary Lou McDonough, director of the Prince George’s County jail: “We process about 25,000 people a year. There’s no way I’m going to second guess” a “no match” result. “They either have a federal detainer or they don’t. If they don’t, they go.”

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    Loudoun Hunter or Cop4ever – Prior to this ICE database inception, wasn’t there a state database that could take fingerprints via upload off a manual slide for deportations and felons? If so, is it still in existence and can it be utilized?

    There are a lot of unanswered questions in the Wash Post article – did the gang member/rapist use his real name when arrested by the LCSO? Did the LCSO guess he was a gang member? Given the time this guy was deported – MS13′s were tattooed up the wazoo – hard to hide when booked.

    Are you bothered by Simpson’s stmt about accusations of racial profiling if you do a manual check? That seemed outrageous to me – LE agency’s have discretion in this matter.

    Sorry I have so many questions, but you guys (or gals?) appear to be quite knowledgeable.

  • Loudoun Hunter says:

    First let’s address Mary Lou McDonough from Prince Georges County, Maryland. It is her option as the Secure Communities manual indicates to do a follow-up manual IAQ. She apparently chooses not to do so. Look at your location – in the State of Maryland, it may not be the law to require an IAQ to be performed. If she were located in the Commonwealth of Virginia where it is the law to perform an IAQ, she would not have the option. She is required to do a manual IAQ.

    Second, I am not sure what Sheriff Stan Barry is talking about the need for 20 to 50 more
    deputies. I am familiar with the bookings procedures at his ADC. During the booking process, the incoming subject is asked if he/she is a US citizen. If the reply is “no”, they ask what country are they are from. When they use live-scanned (fingerprinted), the data bases are checked. If the subject is a “no match” then they are supposed to do a Manual IAQ to be in compliance. This only takes the booking officers just a few minutes to complete on each subject. Also, depending on the country of origin the subject is from, there is a mandatory notification of the subject’s consulate.

    In the Washington Post article Simpson says: “Nobody’s ever heard of calling for a manual check.” If you read the two prior sections listed from the Secure Communities Manual it tells you what to do for a “no match” response. If he would have read the manual he would have heard of it. He makes no indication that he read it and that he was confused.

    The comments made by Vaughan of the Center of Immigration Studies are addressed easily if you read the manual. If you get a “no match” do a manual IAQ. This also would cover the large class of people who aren’t in the system according to Vaughan.

    Michele Waslin at the Immigration Policy Center said it ridiculous for ICE to say “Loudoun should have done more” and “the fact is they did everything right, but he didn’t appear.” The answers to her remarks are to read the Secure Communities Manual and comply with the Code of Virginia.

    I don’t how else to illustrate the application of the Secure Communities Manual and the Code of Virginia. This really isn’t that complicated. The Secure Communities Manual and Virginia Code I think it spells it out pretty clearly. If Simpson would have followed the Secure Communities Manual and followed Virginia Code we would not be having this discussion. Or if he said yes my agency may have made a mistake, we would not be here discussing this. It would have been an accidental oversight.

    It is not about politics, it is just about doing the right thing to protect our communities. If a mistake was made, own up to it because the old adage states: the cover-up is always worst than the crime. No one is saying a crime was committed just an honest mistake – deal with it.

    Reference: Loudoun lady’s question about Simpson’s assertions of racial profiling to do a follow-up beyond a “no match”. Yes, it is way off base and talk about trying to politzice this, that’s the way to do it. First, everyone gets computerized fingerprinted and the system kicks out the “no match”. There are no subjective measures used in the system only your immigration status. So there is no basis for racial profiling by the booking deputies. His assertion does raise an interesting question because he has now moved beyond the excuse I didn’t know or I thought it was completely addressed by the computer check through Secure Communities Program. Now he seems to have other objections about the “no match”. When he read the Secure Communities SOP did he ever raise those objections to ICE or Congressman Wolf that he felt that Manual IAQ would open him up to allegations of racial profiling? Let me quote you from one of the Secure Communities Brochure that all participating agency were given (Benefitting Law Enforcement throughout the United States).

    Reduces opportunities for allegations of racial profiling. The federal biometric information sharing capability reduces the possibility allegations of racial or ethnic profiling because the fingerprints of every individual arrested and booked into custody are checked against immigration records, not just those manually submitted based on subjective indicators. .

    When Simpson read this did he state any objections with anyone from ICE about his fear of racial profiling? His racial profiling concerns don’t ring true unless he doesn’t like following Virginia Code. As we have seen in the code, Whenever any person is taken into custody at any jail, the sheriff or other officer in charge of such facility shall inquire as to whether the person (i) was born in a country other than the United States, and (ii) is a citizen of a country other than the United States. The sheriff or other officer in charge of such facility shall make an immigration alien query to the Law Enforcement Support Center of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement for any person who (i) was born in a country other than the United States, and (ii) is a citizen of a country other than the United States, or for whom the answer to (i) or (ii) is unknown. The sheriff or other officer in charge shall communicate the results of any immigration alien query to the Local Inmate Data System of the State Compensation Board. The State Compensation Board shall communicate, on a monthly basis, the results of any immigration alien query that results in a confirmation that the person is illegally present in the United States to the Central Criminal Records Exchange of the Department of State Police in a format approved by the Exchange. The information received by the Central Criminal Records Exchange concerning the person’s immigration status shall be recorded in the person’s criminal history record. …. . If his fears of racial profiling with the “no match” are continued down its logical path, his assertion would also indicate he feels it is racial profiling to ask a person about their place of birth or citizenship.
    This whole thing still comes back to Simpson’s agency making a mistake but he is trying to defuse it by raising unsubstantiated claims. I have tried to raise factual and legal reasons but the more you delve into the problem with Simpson, there appears to be some political reasons and possible bad judgment once again. I will let someone else discuss those at a later date.

    Mr. Letourneau – I have enjoyed this debate/ discussion with you. Let me apologize for a remark I made in an earlier post where I referred to you as uneducated. It was a poor choice of words after our debate/discussion. I do apologize; I think you were just misinformed as to the facts.

  • Wolverine says:

    Rather mystifying. What kind of central trace facility depends upon the requester asking for a manual check if the initial electronic response comes back nada? Seems to me that, if you know your own system has major flaws, you should be initiating the manual check yourself. It is not the requester who should bear the responsibility. It is your system which is at fault, and you are the one who ought to be initiating the backup check until you can resolve the data gap problem.

  • Lloyd the Idiot says:

    LH, thanks for the comprehensive and compelling analysis. I’m surprised no one from the Simpson camp can offer a similarly thoughtful rebuttal.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Maybe because Matt and Wolverine are right, and the questions they raise remain unanswered?

  • Rizzo says:

    I would hope my chief law enforcement would show some due diligence and initiate a manual check. This may seem like ‘admin work’, but it could have saved an 8 year old from a humiliating and life changing act at the hands of a gang member. This sheriff is out of his league and it shows with each passing incident. I’m beginning to think we need a ‘well rounded’ sheriff with federal LE experience who understands the nuances of federal policies to handle situations like these.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    Secure Communities cited in this Wash Post article on Frederick and PWC’s Illegal immigration enforcement:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013102607.html?hpid=newswell

    The one Loudoun stat they cited was very small in comparison to the other counties:

    “Prince William County was more targeted in its approach than Frederick, the study found. It detained 846 illegal immigrants in 2010, including 237 traffic offenders. In Loudoun, 12 of the 47 people detained had committed a traffic offense.”

Leave Comment