RI ACLU sends letter to Providence city officials about police collaboration with ICE
"Regardless of the initial intent of Providence police in not collaborating with ICE... officers inescapably found themselves inextricably aiding ICE by maintaining a presence on the scene..."
Earlier today, Steven Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU, sent a letter critical of a recent incident in which Providence Police Officers were seen collaborating with ICE agents on video to Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez, Mayor Brett Smiley, and all 15 members of the Providence City Council. City Solicitor Jeffrey Dana and PERA Executive Director Ferenc Karoly also received the letter.
Here’s the video:
As I wrote here, video evidence clearly shows the Providence Police collaborating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to apprehend a man on July 13, in violation of policies promulgated by Mayor Smiley and Chief Perez. Shortly after Donald Trump was elected President, Mayor Smiley held a press conference to reinforce his position on ICE collaboration:
“The Providence Police are not, should not be, and will not be immigration officers,” said Mayor Smiley. “We know that we have undocumented immigrants in Providence. Regardless of their documentation status, we are proud of our immigrant community, and our policy will remain the same, which we think is thoughtful and compassionate. If you are going about your business, you have no concern that the Providence Police or law enforcement, empowered by me at least, will be asking for paperwork or checking immigration status.”
On February 6, at a meeting of regional city mayors, Mayor Smiley and Chief Perez reiterated their commitment to the policy. The following has been edited for clarity and concision:
Colonel Perez: …we have a policy. [Federal Immigration Authorities] have a job to do, and we have ours… We stick by it. We don’t ask about legal status. There’s a way we act - especially if it’s criminal activity - but other than that, no… As chief of police, I want to ensure that our community understands that we are not and will never be immigration officers.
Reporter: Is there a policy for police officers who may have their own views? What if an officer, on their own, decides to make a quick call to ICE?
Colonel Perez: In Providence, we have a policy in place, and we stick by that policy. We hold people accountable based on that policy. When you take the oath to protect and serve and to march to marching orders, that’s what you do. That’s what it is.
Mayor Smiley: … Right now, our existing policy, which predates the Trump Administration, is the right policy… We understand the fear and concern, and we take that seriously. I want every city resident to feel safe and know they’re in a city where they are welcomed. I also want to make sure that every resident feels like they can trust and work with the Providence Police to help keep them safe…
The video contradicts statements made by Chief Perez at a press conference, who stated that his officers were there to take a vehicle collision report and that “officers remained at the scene to ensure the safety of residents and to maintain order. Let me repeat that: To ensure the safety of residents and to maintain order consistent with our responsibility to the public. While officers were documenting the vehicle collisions, the individual sought by ICE left a nearby residence and voluntarily surrendered to federal agents. By our established policy and longstanding protocol, Providence Police Officers did not participate in or assist with any enforcement actions by ICE. Our role in the situation was strictly limited to ensuring the wellbeing of everyone present.”
In the letter, the Rhode Island ACLU noted that the “officer whose BWC [body worn camera] footage was publicly released… can be seen assisting ICE in various ways, such as reviewing photos of the target and advising agents of his conversations with the landlord about the target’s presence in the home…”
Here’s the full letter:
Dear Chief Perez:
I am writing in response to the controversial and highly publicized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) action that took place on Alverson Avenue in Providence on July 13, 2025. This incident has, for understandable reasons, generated a great deal of attention and concern, including a call by ten City Council members for review of the incident by the Providence External Review Authority (PERA).
Having watched the only police body-worn camera (BWC) footage of the incident that has thus far been publicly released, as well as two additional officer recordings we obtained through an open records request, we believe it is essential that the police department promptly release all other BWC footage from officers who were at the scene, and review other aspects of their role in the incident and their compliance with department policies.
First, I want to acknowledge — based on the limited BWC footage that has been released thus far — the legitimacy of a number of points that you made at your news conference addressing the incident. It seems clear that Providence police arrived on the scene of this ICE interaction only because they were responding to reports of a traffic accident, and not with any goal of participating in an ICE arrest. It also seems evident that the Providence police officers on the scene had a sincere interest in trying to help protect individuals gathering on the street and evacuate residents from the house where the ICE target was present.
At the same time, other troubling facts emerge from a review of the released footage. Regardless of the initial intent of Providence police in not collaborating with ICE — a prohibition contained both in city ordinance and police department policy and a principle that I know you support — officers inescapably found themselves inextricably aiding ICE by maintaining a presence on the scene long after the traffic accident was addressed.
For instance, one officer on the video can be heard telling ICE agents, “We’ll help you,” while calling on the ICE agents to be the ones to physically grab the target. The officer whose BWC footage was publicly released also can be seen assisting ICE in various ways, such as reviewing photos of the target and advising agents of his conversations with the landlord about the target’s presence in the home. A recent news article1 concisely summarizes various acts of assistance that can be gleaned from this recording, and which, taken as a whole, cannot be summarily written off as merely acts of de-escalation. Rather, these interactions constitute assistance, even if they may have happened only accidentally or secondarily. While the assistance may have been inadvertent, we believe this incident points to the department’s need to provide more detailed training to officers on how to address these situations of unintended contact with ICE, since similar encounters are likely to arise in the future.
The assertion that there was no cooperation is undermined by another facet of the released BWC footage: there are significant periods of time when the BWC recordings of conversations between the police and ICE agents are muted. Specifically, there is an 11-minute audio gap in the publicly released video as that officer talks with ICE agents on the scene.2 An even longer audio silence – over 36 minutes long – is present during another conversation between an officer and ICE agents in one of the additional BWC recordings we obtained. In the absence of a record of those conversations, we do not know how one can claim definitively that officers were not providing, or offering to provide, assistance to the agents.
To the contrary: according to your department’s BWC policy, an officer is allowed to mute their BWC only “if it becomes necessary to discuss issues surrounding an investigation with a supervisor or another officer in private,” which in this instance would mean only if the officer and agents were discussing details of the ICE action. The policy also requires an officer, before muting the device, to first “record on the camera the reason for the interruption.” However, no explanations were verbalized by the officers in these instances before turning off their audio, leaving one to speculate on the nature of the conversations.
It is also important to briefly address the issue of de-escalation, which you emphasized in your comments on the incident. We appreciate the point you have made in describing the officers’ role in that context, but it is extremely disconcerting to realize that, to the extent that the Providence police stayed to de-escalate the situation, it was primarily to protect the public from ICE and not the other way around.3 Unless the Providence police plan to routinely shadow ICE interactions in the city to prevent the misuse of force, unwarranted confrontations with the public, or other abuses from these federal agents, your department should be condemning these tactics, both publicly and privately, and demanding de-escalation from ICE itself while conducting any enforcement actions in the city. Absent your establishment of clearer boundaries, virtually any Providence police cooperation with ICE will be able to be excused as “de-escalation.”
Hopefully, the release of BWC footage from other officers will shed more light on this matter. Perhaps there is a legitimate explanation for the audio recording lapses that does not in any way suggest police-ICE cooperation. But it is important to stress that, rather than definitively resolving the issue of whether Providence police improperly assisted ICE, the BWC recordings released thus far raise as many questions as answers.
Unfortunately, I think it is fair to expect that ICE actions like this are only going to become more, not less, prevalent in the city in the coming months. Thus, it is all the more crucial that police officers understand their limits in interacting with ICE agents in accordance with Providence statutory and administrative policy. As you noted at the news conference, community trust hangs in the balance.
In sum, we ask that you (1) provide clarification on how police officers should respond in the future when encountering chance meetings with ICE during their operations; (2) address the legitimacy of the muted BWC recordings; and (3) release as soon as possible the BWC footage of the other officers who were on the scene.
Finally, we would suggest that you also consider clarifying your department’s General Order on “Immigration Policies and Procedures.” While it, like the city ordinance, bars officers from “comply[ing] with requests by other agencies to support or assist in operations conducted solely for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration law,” it might be helpful to specify that officers cannot initiate offers of assistance on their own either.
Thank you in advance for considering our views on this important issue, and I look forward to hearing back from you about them.
“‘We’ll help you’: Body camera video raises questions about Providence police cooperation with ICE,” Steph Machado, Boston Globe, July 16, 2025.
The recording is also briefly muted beginning at 28:07. Other video footage taken by a person in the house documents that the officer was calling the name of the target in an effort to get him to voluntarily come down the stairs. While the officer may have muted the audio for privacy reasons, this brief interaction raises further questions about the role of the Providence police in aiding ICE.
“Crossing the line? Providence police navigate public safety and ICE involvement,” Mark Reynolds, Providence Journal, July 24, 2025. As you stated in the article, “At the end of the day, any information exchanged between officers and the agents was only done to help protect bystanders and to prevent confusion or unintended consequences.”