State Law Shields Undocumented Suspects in Violent Crimes, Critics Say

(SPOKANE, WASHINGTON) Spokane County’s top law enforcement officials say a Washington state law limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities is allowing undocumented suspects accused of violent crimes to be deported before they face trial, leaving victims without answers and prosecutors without a case. The dispute centers on the Keep Washington Working Act, passed in 2019, which prohibits state, county, and city agencies from using local resources for civil immigration enforcement or assisting in investigations based solely on a person’s immigration or citizenship status.

Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels said the law has blocked coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in cases where suspects post bail and are then taken into federal custody.

“We have victims in this community that may never receive justice because this person is being held in federal custody, and rightly so. They shouldn’t be here. But why can’t we get accountability and closure for these victims,” said Nowels.
He said the county has seen suspects moved into federal facilities after posting bond, only to be deported before local prosecutors can bring charges to trial.

In a detailed account of how cases can break down, Nowels said the county cannot secure a commitment to get a defendant back from federal custody for trial because the law blocks local agencies from promising to return them to ICE after court proceedings.

“They’re being held in federal facilities and they cannot give them back to Spokane County to be tried for these serious crimes, because our jail and our courts cannot promise that after their case is adjudicated that we will return them to the custody of ICE because the Keep Washington Working Act prevents the jail and the prosecutor’s office from promising to give that person back,” Nowels said.
For him, the core problem is that the jail and courts cannot make assurances ICE demands before a handover, stalling prosecutions and, in some cases, ending them altogether.

Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney Preston McCollam pointed to a recent case he described as among the most brutal he has handled.

“At which point, he took out what we believe is a box cutter. And he sliced the victim from the top of his neck to the bottom of his lower back, right down his spinal column. It’s one of the most violent stabbings and slashings that I’ve seen,” McCollam said.
The suspect posted a $20,000 bond and was deported by ICE before trial. With the suspect out of reach, McCollam said the victim will not have a chance to testify in court, and the county cannot move forward.
“It’s extremely frustrating, because, again, this is something that should not be occurring. My take on this is that, as written, Keep Washington Working insulates criminal actors when they commit crimes in our community. It elevates their rights over those of an actual citizen,” McCollam said.

The Keep Washington Working Act was advanced by state lawmakers as a way to separate local policing from federal civil immigration enforcement and to reassure immigrant communities that reporting crimes would not lead to deportation. The law’s text bars local agencies from sharing resources or assistance with federal immigration enforcement when the only issue is immigration status. It also instructs agencies not to inquire about immigration status unless it is directly relevant to a criminal investigation. State officials say the Department of Corrections can notify ICE about prison release dates for people serving sentences, but local jails and courts cannot promise to return individuals to ICE custody after their cases are adjudicated. The Spokane County Sheriff and Prosecutor argue that this gap has real consequences for immigration enforcement and local criminal cases.

A spokesperson cited in a report responding to the sheriff’s and prosecutor’s concerns rejected the claim that the state law is the real barrier to prosecutions, saying federal practices are the deciding factor.

“The Legislature may amend the Keep Washington Working Act at any time, but there is no change we could make that would stop ICE from independently detaining people before they face trial, conviction, or sentencing. The Keep Washington Working Act isn’t what’s preventing our local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors from obtaining justice for victims — it’s the Trump administration’s insistence on deporting people without due process for either those who are accused of crimes or the victims of them,” said the spokesperson quoted in the report.
That line of argument says the power to detain or deport rests with federal authorities, who can act regardless of what state law permits local agencies to promise.

The tension reflects a broader divide over who controls the sequence of custody when a person faces both criminal charges and potential deportation. Many Washington agencies say they do not ask about immigration status unless it is relevant to a criminal investigation, and they will not hold someone for ICE without a judicial warrant. For sheriffs and prosecutors who want to bring violent-crime cases to trial, the practical effect is that once a suspect posts bond or finishes a local sentence, ICE can step in, take custody, and remove the person from the country, with no requirement to return them to a county jail for a state trial. For advocates and state officials, the priority is limiting local involvement in civil immigration enforcement to maintain trust in immigrant communities and ensure policing is focused on public safety rather than federal immigration priorities.

The clash in Spokane gained urgency after the knife attack described by McCollam and the rapid deportation that followed the suspect’s release on bond. The Prosecutor’s Office had prepared to try the case. The victim had given a statement describing the cut that ran “from the top of his neck to the bottom of his lower back, right down his spinal column,” according to McCollam. But once the suspect was deported, he said, the county could no longer proceed. For McCollam, that sequence highlights a gap where immigration enforcement and state criminal prosecution pull in opposite directions.

Nowels, who oversees the county’s jail and works closely with local courts, said he has repeatedly tried to get clarity from federal partners about whether Spokane County might temporarily regain custody for trial if it can meet certain conditions. He said federal officials have told him they cannot return a detainee without a guarantee that ICE will get the person back after the state case concludes, and that the Keep Washington Working Act prevents the jail or prosecutor from giving that guarantee. That, he said, locks up the system.

“They cannot give them back to Spokane County to be tried for these serious crimes,” he said, because local officials cannot promise the return ICE requires.

Advocates for the state law say that framing ignores the broader purpose of its design: to ensure local resources are not used for civil immigration enforcement. They argue that if ICE decides to detain and deport someone who has posted bond in a local case, the federal government is making a choice that local police cannot control. The spokesperson quoted in the report emphasized that the Legislature could change the law but that nothing would stop ICE from acting independently. The statement cast the conflict as a federal-choice problem rather than a state-law problem and linked the deportations to federal policy decisions in recent years.

Another flashpoint has been data sharing and the reach of federal agencies into systems funded by local departments. A University of Washington report found that federal agents accessed data from Flock cameras paid for by local law enforcement without their knowledge.

“What we have is the evidence that the systems were searched hundreds of thousands of times by U.S. Border Patrol, including agencies that have since said they didn’t know their systems were being used,” said Phil Neff, project coordinator at the UW Center for Human Rights.
For critics of the current setup, that scale of search activity shows how easily federal agencies can move through local tools, even as state law tries to set boundaries. For police and sheriffs, it raises questions about who controls data generated within their jurisdictions and whether such access complicates their relationships with immigrant communities.

The dispute over the Keep Washington Working Act touches a national debate about the role of local police in immigration enforcement and the effect on public safety. Sheriffs like Nowels say they are not seeking to police civil immigration matters; they want to ensure that suspects in violent crimes face trial in county courts before any deportation takes place. Prosecutors like McCollam say their duty is to victims who expect the justice system to move forward and deliver a verdict. They argue that if a suspect is deported after posting a $20,000 bond, the state criminal case evaporates and the community is left without a resolution.

State officials and civil rights advocates counter that blending the two systems would deter victims and witnesses from coming forward, fearing that any contact with police could lead to questions about immigration status. They point to consistent statements from Washington police and sheriff’s offices that they do not ask about immigration status unless it bears on a criminal investigation and that they do not hold people for ICE without a judge’s order. That standard, supporters say, keeps the focus on crimes under state law and shields local resources from being drawn into federal immigration enforcement.

Research over the past decade has also shaped the conversation. Multiple studies, including a peer-reviewed 2018 analysis of trends from 1990 to 2014, have found no evidence that undocumented immigration increases violent crime rates; in many cases, the relationship is negative or statistically insignificant. While those studies do not address the custody and cooperation issues playing out in Spokane County, they underpin arguments that immigrant communities should not be viewed as a driver of violent crime and that policies like the Keep Washington Working Act are compatible with public safety.

For communities in Spokane County, the immediate question is how to prevent a repeat of the case described by McCollam, where a suspect accused in “one of the most violent stabbings and slashings” he has seen was removed from the United States before a trial could begin. One option raised by some local officials is a change in state law to allow narrow, court-ordered assurances that a defendant can be returned to federal custody after trial. But state-side defenders of the current framework say such a change would weaken core protections and would not solve the underlying issue if ICE declines to return a detainee or chooses to deport someone who has posted bond.

The legal landscape remains firm for now. The Keep Washington Working Act continues to restrict local cooperation in civil immigration enforcement while allowing the state Department of Corrections to notify ICE about release dates from state prisons. Local jails and courts, however, cannot promise to return individuals to ICE after court cases conclude, and agencies reiterate they will not hold people for federal immigration purposes without a judicial warrant. Those boundaries leave room for conflicts when federal and state priorities collide, as seen in Spokane County.

As the Spokane County Sheriff and Prosecuting Attorney call for solutions, the practical implications for victims sit at the forefront of their case. Nowels said accountability is being lost when ICE detains a suspect after bond and proceeds with removal before a jury can hear evidence. McCollam echoed that view with his description of the slashing case, saying the victim’s chance for justice disappeared when deportation pre-empted trial. Meanwhile, state officials and advocates insist that if federal authorities choose to deport before trial, the remedy lies with federal policy, not with a state law aimed at limiting local participation in immigration enforcement.

The disagreement shows how county-level prosecutions can be pulled off course when immigration enforcement and criminal proceedings move on separate tracks. For Spokane County, that has meant at least one violent-crime case that will not see a courtroom, despite a victim’s prepared testimony and local prosecutors ready to proceed. For a state that passed the Keep Washington Working Act to redraw the line between local policing and federal immigration work, it raises an old question with new urgency: when the systems collide, who yields, and at what cost to victims, communities, and the promise of a trial?

The debate is likely to continue in Olympia and in county courthouses across Washington as lawmakers, sheriffs, prosecutors, and immigrant advocates weigh whether the law needs revision or stronger guidance. For now, the Keep Washington Working Act remains the framework that shapes how the Spokane County Sheriff approaches immigration enforcement conflicts and how prosecutors manage cases when a defendant faces both criminal charges and the possibility of deportation. Details about the law and state guidance are available on the Washington Attorney General’s page for the Keep Washington Working Act, which explains how agencies should handle requests related to federal immigration enforcement and what information can be shared with federal authorities under state law. Readers can review the state guidance here: Washington Attorney General – Keep Washington Working Act.