Microsoft Outlook

From:
Rapp, Marc A

Sent:
Friday, August 27, 2010 2:52 PM

To:
Venturella, David

Subject:
FW : VTC

Attachments:
fernandez_secure_communities_8-23-100001[1].pdf

fernandez_secure_

communities_8...

MAR

----------------------------

Marc A. Rapp

Deputy Director

Secure Communities Program

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

Office: (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

Mobile: (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

-----Original Message-----

From: (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 1:37 PM

To: (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

Subject: RE: VTC

Gents,

(b)(6), ... just forwarded me the attached. I don't believe the email at the end is as clear as

our discussion earlier today. Sure you guys have seen (we got it from Susan), but it goes

to consistent messaging. Hard to take these things back.

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

FBI/CJIS

Global Operations

W (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

C (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

This email may contain Personally Identifiable Information (PII) which must be protected

in accordance with applicable privacy and security policies. If you are not the intended

recipient of this information, disclosure, reproduction, distribution, or use of this

information is prohibited.

________________________________________

From: (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 12:39 PM

To: ' (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) '; ' (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) '

Subject: VTC

Thank you both for the vtc. I think it went very well. We have agreement on the opt out

issue and a plan for outreach to Cook County.

I wasn't fully aware of the issues in Cook until earlier this week, so hadn't had a chance

to discuss with (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) . But sounds like they do have good contacts

for us to work with.

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

FBI/CJIS

ICE FOIA 10-2674.0005303

Global Operations

O (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

C (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

ICE FOIA 10-2674.0005304

 ST A T E O F N E W Y O R K

D IV IS IO N O F C R IM IN A L JU S T IC E S E R V IC E S

Four T ow er P lace

A lbany, N ew Y ork 12203-3764

http://crim inaljustice.state.ny.us

D A V ID A . P A T E R S O N
(b)(6) E

G O VER N O R
A C T IN G C O M M IS S IO N E R

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) FA X

A ugust 23,2010

(b)(6) E sq.

E xecutive D irector

N orthern M anhattan C oalition for Im m igrant R ights

685 W est 182nd Street (at B roadw ay)

.N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork 10033

D ear M s. (b)(6)

I enjoyed m eeting w ith you and your colleagues on W ednesday, A ugust 11,2010

regarding the federal governm ent's "Secure C om m unities" initiative and N ew Y ork State's role

in helping to facilitate that program . I hope that you found our discussion productive.

A s w e discussed, Secure C om m unities isa program of the U nited States D epartm ent of

H om eland Security designed to im plem ent a com prehensive, integrated approach to identify and

rem ove crim inal aliens from the U nited States. T he Secure C om m unities program targets

individuals in our jails and prisons - prim arily those w ho have been convicted or charged w ith a

"level one" offense, such as hom icide, kidnapping, sex offenses arid offenses im pacting national

security. U nder the program , w hen a local law enforcem ent agency in N ew Y ork State, w hich

has decided to participate in the iriitiative, m akes an arrest and subm its fingerprints to the state

identificationbureau, an expanded check takes place at the federal level. .

A s you m ay know , individuals arrested in N ew Y ork State for fingerprintable crim es

already have their fingerprints searched against both the N ew Y ork State and the Federal B ureau

of Investigation crim inal history databases. A lso, D C JS m aintains deportation data on crim inal

aliens w ho w ere deported after release from State prison. Secure C om m unities sim ply allow s the

fingerprints that N ew Y ork State sends to the FB I to be checked against the U nited States

D epartm ent of H om eland Security (D H S) database, if a local law enforcem ent agency has agreed

to participate in the program . T he fruits of this search are then sim ultaneously shared w ith IC E

and the local arresting agency,

A s w e discussed, I recently signed a M em orandum of A greem ent (M O A ) that perm its

local law enforcem ent agencies to participate in this inform ation-sharing initiative if they choose

to do so. T he State is not requiring localities to participate. T he M O A that I executed w ith the

federal governm ent sim ply m akes itpossible for localities to becom e involved in the Secure

C om m unities initiative.

W hile w e in N ew Y ork State governm ent are very cognizant of the civil rights of

im m igrants, w e are equally cognizant of the fact that this State is a prem ier target for terrorism

---- ---

ICE FOIA 10-2674.0005305

 .. . . .

(note the W orld T rade C enter attack of Septem ber 11,2001; the arrests of the "L ackaw anna Six"

in 2002; the 2006 plot to bom b train tunnels; the 2007 attem pt to bom b fuel pipelines near JFK

A irport; and the Tim es Square bom bing incident of M ay 1,2010). In fact, of allthe attacks in

the U nited States from 1970-2007, m ore (284) occurred in N ew Y ork C ity during this period

than in the next four m ost frequently"targeted U .S. cities com bined. T he Secure C om m unities

initiative is an essential tool to identify individuals w ho could be a threat to public safety and, I

believe, strikes an appropriate balance betw een civil liberties and public protection. I w ould note

that the Secure C om m unities program reduces the opportunity for racial and ethnic profiling

because the fingerprints of each and every individual arrested are checked against im m igration

records, notjust those m anually subm itted based upon subjective indicators. H opefully this

provides you w ith an understanding of w hy I thought itw as im portant to provide local

com m unities w ith an opportunity to participate.

W ith regard to the follow -up inform ation that I said I w ould provide, I have enclosed a

July 23, 2010 em aiL betw een: (b)(6) and (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) from IC E w hich notes that D C JS

has prem ised its participation on local agreem ent. Y ou w ill note that IC E agreed that the

decision w hether to participate is left to local option and "no jurisdiction w ill be activated if [a

locality] opposers] it." W e are still in the process of finalizing how D C JS w ill be notified of a

localentity's decision to participate; notably, no jurisdictions have been "activated" to date. W e

have, how ever, been advised that outreach has been com pleted in the follow ing counties:

G enesee, O rleans, W ayne, O sw ego, O nondaga, O neida H erkim er, H am ilton and M adison. IC E ,

is scheduled to conduct outreach in N iagara, M onroe, L ivingston, O ntario, Y ates, Seneca,

C ayuga and W yom ing counties in the next few m onths. In order"togetto this stage of the

agreem ent process, (b)(6) discussed this w ith (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) atIC E ; you m ay w ish to

contact M r. (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) for further inform ation.

Finally.w hile I do not recall agreeing that there w as a lack of clarity regarding w hen

fingerprint subm issions w ould be run against the databases, itm akes the m ost sense to have them

subm itted at arrest; I do, how ever, believe IC E follow -up should be balanced and prudent. A lso,

atthis point in tim e I believe that issues and .com plaints regarding Secure C om m unities should

be discussed and resolved betw een IC E and the local law enforcem ent agency w hich has decided

to be a participant.

I trust that this is responsive to your inquiry and the inform ation I have provided is

helpful.

V ery truly yours,

(b)(6)

A cting C om m issioner

E nclosure

cc: E sq.

(b)(6)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) IC E

ICE FOIA 10-2674.0005306

 From :
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) ]

Sent:'
Friday, July 23,20104:46 PM

T o:
(b)(6) D C JS , .

C c:
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) ; P enney..S usan E ;

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

S ubject:
RE: S ecure C om m unities P rogram

(b)(6)

.T hanks for taking the tim e to speak W ith m e a w hile ago, Ireally appreciate it. I'll keep this short-

Let m e cut to the chas-e and speak to the issue of voluntary participation: W hen a local jurisdiction

expresses a desire to opt out, w e look to the state for guidance. W ith regard to N ew Y ork, w e fully

com prehend the S tate's prem ise for agreeing to go forw ard w ith S ecure C om m unities in the first place: no

jurisdiction w ill be activated ifthey oppose it. T here is no am biguity on thatpoint. W e get it. A nd w e

w ould do nothing to jeopardize our great w orking relationship w ith D C JS . W e w ill do everything w e can to

w ork w ith a N Y law enforcem ent agency to satisfy its concerns but at the end of the day, ifthey are

opposed, w e w on't go forw ard.

R e the O R I validation process: It has been our experience that in m ost states, the validations have been

done by the state identification bureau because they are accustom ed to being the link in the chain

betw een local LE A s and C JIS -and in som e places they are absolutely insistent on perform ing that role

rather than let them selves be sidelined. In those places, w e have trod carefully so as not to insert

ourselves betw een S IB s and their client LE A s. N ew Y ork S tate has been a novel experience for us in that

regard. Iim agine it has been difficult for C JIS because it is.different from the w ay they're accustom ed to

doing business (Lisa I C hristina: Iam sorry about that), but w e are slow ly w orking our w ay through it. .

Ifthere is anything at all that you w ant to discuss further, please don't hesitate to let m e know . '1 hope w e

get a chance to m eet in person at the upcom ing N ew Y ork S tate S heriffs. A ssociation conference.

A s alw ays, best regards,

(b)(...

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

IC E S ecure C om m unities

R egional C oordinator·

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

I-
-- -----~ --

ICE FOIA 10-2674.0005307