Massachusetts police share fingerprint data with ICE despite limits, report says

A new report from Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) says Massachusetts police departments, sheriffs, courts, and other justice system actors continue to share information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in ways that make local agencies “force multipliers” for federal immigration enforcement, despite state limits on holding people solely on civil immigration detainers.

The group’s central warning is that without stronger limits, Massachusetts justice institutions will continue to be folded into a federal deportation system that state and local officials are not required to support.

CJJ said it “found that local police, sheriffs, and courthouse staff regularly collaborate and share information with federal immigration authorities, thereby acting as ‘force multipliers’ for ICE. This reduces trust in the justice system, short circuits ongoing legal cases, and undermines our democratic processes.”

The 49-page report, ICE Out: Mapping and Resisting Local Law Enforcement Collusion with ICE in Massachusetts, is based on more than 90 public records requests sent to police departments, sheriff’s offices, and district attorney’s offices across the state.

It argues that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 2017 decision in Lunn v. Commonwealth created an important limit by barring local authorities from arresting or detaining someone solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer, but left intact a broader system of communication, surveillance, and records sharing that can still help ICE identify and detain people.

CJJ found that local cooperation can occur before, during, and after arrest. Fusion centers, automatic license plate readers, gang databases, fingerprinting systems, and booking practices can all move information from local agencies to federal authorities.

The report says the Boston Regional Intelligence Center and the Massachusetts Fusion Center collect and share information with federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, while license plate reader data can be routed through databases used by federal immigration authorities.

Fingerprinting receives particular attention in the report. Although Massachusetts law requires fingerprinting for certain felony arrests, CJJ says many departments fingerprint adults and juveniles after misdemeanor arrests as well.

“These fingerprints get shared with a statewide database, which then forwards the information to federal authorities” which includes ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” the report says. “ICE is using this fingerprint information to locate and detain individuals who have civil immigration detainers.”

CJJ argues that this process can alert ICE to a person’s location and justice system involvement even when the underlying arrest is low-level or nonviolent.

The group’s review of municipal police policies found wide variation across the state. Of the departments analyzed, 28 had policies that allow or require information sharing or collaboration with ICE, 20 had no policy, seven referred to a local ordinance, three had restrictive language, and four did not respond to public records requests.

The report points to policies in Quincy, Everett, and Holyoke, as well as departments using Lexipol language, as examples of rules that permit or encourage immigration checks, ICE notifications, or officer discretion to contact federal immigration authorities.

CJJ says the consequences are already visible. The report cites the May 2025 detention of five juveniles in Chelsea after misdemeanor arrests and fingerprinting, an episode that also prompted advocates to call for ending juvenile fingerprint data sharing with federal authorities.

It also describes a June 2025 incident in Tewksbury in which police allegedly continued holding a person after bail was made to transfer the individual to ICE custody, a practice the report says appears to conflict with Lunn v. Commonwealth.

The report says data from the Deportation Data Project showed 210 ICE arrests associated with 32 police departments in Massachusetts since Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration.

It also says county sheriffs share daily custody logs, court dates, bail information, and release information with ICE, while Massachusetts Trial Court rules allow courthouse-level information sharing.

CJJ says more than 600 people have been taken into ICE custody directly from courthouses since the start of Trump’s second term.

The report’s recommendations include expanding the PROTECT Act, restricting fingerprint transmission to federal authorities, regulating or abolishing gang databases, limiting the use and sharing of license plate reader and facial surveillance data, barring ICE activity in courthouses, ending Massachusetts’ remaining 287(g) agreement between the Department of Correction and ICE, and increasing oversight by the attorney general and the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission.

The revised version of the PROTECT Act passed last month by the Massachusetts House would limit state and local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies. The bill strengthens immigrant protections, restricts data sharing, and requires judicial warrants for courthouse arrests.

CJJ frames the issue as broader than immigration enforcement. The report argues that local cooperation with ICE undermines due process, weakens public trust in the justice system, and discourages immigrants, witnesses, and victims from contacting police or appearing in court.

Article Topics

biometrics  |  criminal ID  |  data sharing  |  fingerprint biometrics  |  ICE - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement  |  law enforcement  |  Massachusetts