Key point: ICE enforces federal law, but Colorado law places limits on how state and local officers and facilities may participate in civil immigration enforcement.
No arrest/detention on civil detainers.
Colorado law states: “A law enforcement officer shall not arrest or detain an individual on the basis of a civil immigration detainer request.” C.R.S. 24‑76.6‑102(2). It also confines local authority to what state law expressly grants and allows cooperation only to execute a judicial warrant. C.R.S. 24‑76.6‑102(3)–(4). Colorado General Assembly
Probation information protections.
Probation officers and probation department employees may not disclose “personal information” (defined to include contact details, appointment dates/times, etc.) to federal immigration authorities. C.R.S. 24‑76.6‑103(1); 24‑76.6‑101(4). (There is no indication from the article that probation staff shared such information, but the rule is relevant to the setting.) Justia Law+1
The described coordination (escorting ICE outside, planning where to stand, coaxing the individuals out of a secure interior area, and closing the door behind them) looks like active assistance to facilitate a civil immigration arrest. While §24‑76.6‑102 is clearest about detaining on detainers, the statute’s limits and “warrant only” cooperation clause cut against using county personnel/facilities to stage civil immigration arrests absent a judicial warrant. That is a plausible policy/legal concern you can raise. Colorado General Assembly
Statewide statute: “A person shall not be subject to civil arrest while the person is present at a courthouse or on its environs, or while going to, attending, or coming from a court proceeding.” C.R.S. 13‑1‑403(1). Courts have express authority to enforce this, and to “preserve access” and “enforce protection from civil arrest” at or near courthouses. C.R.S. 13‑1‑114(1)(e). Justia Law+1
Local judicial order (11th JD): Chief Judge Directive 18‑04 (effective in Salida) prohibits non‑criminal/administrative arrests inside any courthouse in the 11th Judicial District and allows such arrests on courthouse grounds only with prior notice to courthouse security. Colorado Judicial Branch
ICE first tried to arrest Mr. Arriche‑Sierra as he left his court hearing. If that occurred on courthouse property or while he was coming from the proceeding, it potentially conflicted with C.R.S. 13‑1‑403 and the 11th JD directive; the judiciary can inquire and enforce compliance. The later arrest occurred at the off‑site probation office, so the courthouse‑specific statute/order may not directly apply to that second location. The Colorado SunColorado Judicial Branch
Peace officers must wear and activate BWCs “when responding to a call for service or during any interaction with the public initiated by the officer … for the purpose of enforcing the law.” Limited exceptions allow shutting cameras off for administrative/tactical discussions when civilians are not present or during long unrelated breaks. Failure to record as required creates a permissive inference of misconduct; intentional deactivation to conceal actions can trigger discipline up to termination and POST suspension. C.R.S. 24‑31‑902(1)(a)(II)–(IV), (1)(a)(III); and mandatory public release within 21 days after a misconduct complaint. C.R.S. 24‑31‑902(2)(a). Colorado General Assembly
Deputies reportedly “turned off their body cameras” while they positioned themselves to watch the ICE arrest unfold in a public lobby. That context—still on a call for service, civilians present—does not fit the statute’s narrow shut‑off exceptions, and it triggers the permissive inference provisions. The Colorado SunColorado General Assembly
In 2021, SB21‑131 barred state agencies from sharing nonpublic personal identifying information for civil immigration enforcement. In 2025, SB25‑276 extended these restrictions to political subdivisions and their employees (i.e., counties/sheriffs), and created related limitations (including on allowing federal immigration authorities into non‑public areas of detention facilities without a judicial warrant). See revised §24‑74‑103 and §24‑74‑104; bill summary pp. 2, 10–12. Colorado’s Attorney General has already enforced the new restrictions in a case where a deputy shared personal and vehicle data with immigration agents. Colorado General Assembly+1AP News