Why It Matters: TRUST Act and Civil Rights
The Illinois TRUST Act, enacted in 2017, was a landmark effort to keep local law‑enforcement agencies from becoming conduits for federal immigration enforcement. By prohibiting police and related agencies from assisting in deportations without a federal criminal warrant, the law aimed to preserve community trust and uphold constitutional protections. However, the investigation by Injustice Watch and WIRED reveals a loophole: prosecutors and their staff were not explicitly bound by the same restrictions. In practice, one in every six Illinois counties—over 100 state’s attorney offices—shared sensitive personal data with ICE and DHS agents without warrants or public oversight. This practice undermines the spirit of the TRUST Act, erodes civil‑rights safeguards, and raises questions about the separation of state and federal powers.
The Investigation: Methodology and Findings
The investigative team combed through more than 5,000 pages of public records, FOIA requests, and internal communications from 102 state’s attorney offices. Key steps included:
- Data Mining: Automated parsing of email archives and case management systems to identify instances where defendant information was forwarded to federal agencies.
- Cross‑Referencing: Matching shared data against ICE and DHS case files to confirm the flow of information.
- County‑Level Analysis: Quantifying the frequency and nature of collaborations across all Illinois counties.
The findings were stark:
- Marion County led with the most aggressive data sharing, including personal identifiers and court dates for Rolando Perez Samayoa and a second individual with a Missouri warrant.
- Du Page County emerged as the highest volume contact point, proactively offering cases for federal pursuit and responding to a CBP subpoena for voter fraud records within 90 minutes.
- Menard, Cass, Mason, Kendall, Kane counties also engaged in multiple exchanges, often citing “flight risk” or “criminal history” as justification.
- Lake and Jackson counties stood out as exceptions, implementing policies that barred ICE access without warrants and treating inquiries as standard FOIA requests.
These patterns illustrate a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
County‑by‑County Collaboration Patterns
🔹 --------
• Key Actions: -------------
• Notable Individuals: ---------------------
🔹 Marion
• Key Actions: Shared DOB, address, court dates; forwarded police reports
• Notable Individuals: John Christeson, Sergio Fulgencio
🔹 Du Page
• Key Actions: Highest volume; responded to CBP subpoena
• Notable Individuals: Bob Berlin
🔹 Menard
• Key Actions: Contacted federal agents 5+ times; referred colleagues
• Notable Individuals: Gwendolyn Thomas
🔹 Cass
• Key Actions: Shared info on 3 defendants
• Notable Individuals: Craig Miller
🔹 Mason
• Key Actions: Exchanged data with Kevin Parks
• Notable Individuals: Zachary Bryant
🔹 Kendall
• Key Actions: Sent records to Detroit ICE
• Notable Individuals: Eric Weis
🔹 Kane
• Key Actions: Requested CBP facial‑recognition data
• Notable Individuals: Jamie Mosser
🔹 Lake
• Key Actions: Implemented warrant‑only policy
• Notable Individuals: Eric Rinehart
🔹 Jackson
• Key Actions: Treated inquiries as FOIA
• Notable Individuals: —
The table underscores the uneven application of the TRUST Act across the state. While Lake and Jackson counties adhered to the law’s intent, others leveraged ambiguous language to facilitate data sharing.
Legal and Technical Implications
Legal Standards
- Criminal Proceedings: Require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” and provide appointed counsel. Data sharing without a warrant bypasses these safeguards.
- Removal (Civil) Proceedings: Require “clear and convincing evidence” but do not guarantee counsel. Prosecutors’ data exchanges effectively pre‑qualify defendants for removal without due process.
Technical Breaches
The flow of personal data—home addresses, photographs, court dates—mirrors the vulnerabilities highlighted in recent tech security incidents. For instance, the Zoom Zero‑Day Exploit demonstrated how remote takeover could compromise sensitive information. Similarly, the Zoom Annotation Flaw exposed how AI‑prompt exploits could leak data. These parallels illustrate that data privacy breaches are not confined to the tech sector; they permeate legal and governmental systems as well.
- Data Transmission: Emails and case management uploads often lacked encryption, exposing data to interception.
- Access Controls: ICE agents accessed private prosecutor files without judicial oversight, violating the warrant requirement.
Read the full breakdown originally published at https://ltdeveloperblogs.github.io/posts/the-county-prosecutors-who-became-ice-informants/
