This article was originally published by WESA. It cannot be reissued.
Constable’s Initiative in Immigration Enforcement Raises Concerns
David Piakolowitz, a constable serving rural Bradford County, Pennsylvania, believed that partnering with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would enhance local immigration enforcement efforts. With 22 years of military background in the U.S. Army and various overseas assignments, he felt well-equipped to contribute.
Upon learning that the Trump administration was enlisting local police for the 287(g) program—which allows state and local officials to assist in enforcing federal immigration laws—Piakolowitz eagerly signed on. However, after completing the initial online training course, he was informed that the program had been suspended, leaving him uncertain about its future. “Every time you call, it’s still under investigation,” he remarked, expressing his frustration.
Constables’ Roles and Unsanctioned Engagement
Though constables primarily collaborate with local magistrates to execute arrests on outstanding warrants and deliver civil documents, their involvement in federal immigration enforcement remains contentious. Currently, over a quarter of Pennsylvania’s 287(g) affiliates are constables, with 20 out of 73 registered law enforcement agencies in the state falling into this category. Nationwide, ICE claims 1,500 affiliated agencies, sparking debate about the program’s utility and oversight.
Participants in the 287(g) initiative undergo specialized training and gain access to federal grants. Nonetheless, numerous constables across Pennsylvania, like Piakolowitz, reported being placed on hold after expressing their interest, with ICE unavailable for comments regarding the program’s status. The lack of communication has left many constables feeling sidelined and frustrated.
Community Backlash Amidst Misunderstanding
As communities grapple with the integration of local police and federal immigration authorities, critics argue that the 287(g) program undermines relationships between law enforcement and residents. This concern is illustrated by recent disputes over the arrest of Randy Cordova-Flores by the Springdale Borough Police Department, highlighting allegations of constitutional rights violations by immigration officials.
Officer Warren Park from Monroeville’s 6th District expressed his desire to participate in the program for training benefits. However, he too awaited information on if and when training would resume, and he faced backlash from the community due to his registration in the ICE database. “Enrolling in the program feels like trying to erase your ex-girlfriend’s name from a tattoo,” he lamented, indicating the permanence of public perception regarding immigration enforcement.
Legal Ambiguities Surrounding Constable Authority
Critics assert that constables should not engage in 287(g) agreements due to their limited legal authority and their independent contractor status. David Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized the confusion surrounding constable powers, noting that they do not have the legal standing to enforce federal detentions. Ali Chappelle, an attorney from the ACLU of Pennsylvania, echoed this sentiment, stating that federal agreements are only valid between the federal government and state or local authorities, further complicating constable involvement.
Historical Context of Constable Roles
This issue also brings into focus the historical role of constables in law enforcement, a system rooted in early Pennsylvania settlements. A 2014 state report indicated a need for reforms, suggesting that outdated laws must be revised to align with contemporary policing needs. However, the intersection of local policing and federal immigration enforcement has not been adequately addressed.
Concerns Over Local Trust and Governance
The Pennsylvania Crime and Delinquency Commission oversees constable standards but clarifies that training is limited to performing judicial duties, not federal immigration enforcement. Local associations, like the Allegheny County Constables Association, have refrained from providing guidance on the 287(g) program, placing the decision squarely in the hands of independently elected constables.
For many constables, the primary motivation for pursuing enrollment in initiatives like 287(g) is the opportunity for specialized training. Somerset County Constable Joseph Sneddon noted that while he registered with the intent of serving his community better, he encountered delays and uncertainties once the program was suspended. Despite expressed ambitions to support community welfare, the complexities surrounding the constable role continue to challenge local law enforcement.
