Delaware
After police assist ICE in Seaford, ACLU asks Delaware governor for guidance
Witness captures video of state and Seaford police assisting ICE
Christa Keim took this video the morning of Nov. 6 near the Seaford Lowe’s.
Provided by Christa Keim
The American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware is calling on Gov. Matt Meyer to issue more guidance on when state and local law enforcement can assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after Delaware State and Seaford police did just that.
The two agencies responded to ICE’s request for assistance in detaining Carlos Chag-Gonzalez outside the Seaford Lowe’s the morning of Nov. 6, according to an ACLU DE news release.
“It is still unclear whether ICE possessed a valid judicial warrant for Chag-Gonzalez, nor is it known if state and local law enforcement requested to see a warrant,” the Nov. 13 release said. ICE, Delaware State Police and the Seaford Police Department did not immediately respond when asked if they had or saw a warrant.
ACLU DE Campaign Manager Helen Salita signed the letter to Meyer. Without evidence of a warrant and purported witness statements that indicate there was no public safety emergency, the letter said, the incident raises concerns about whether police violated previous ICE guidance from the governor’s office.
The letter asks Meyer’s office to detail their next steps in creating new guidance by Nov. 20.
Previous guidance
The letter pointed out Meyer’s office has made previous efforts in response “to public outcry to not support the federal administration’s immigration enforcement program.”
Earlier this year, Misty Seemans, a deputy legal counsel with the governor’s office, told Spotlight Delaware’s José Ignacio Castañeda Perez state law enforcement resources would not be used “to effectuate federal administration policies” unless there is a valid court warrant and “an exigent circumstance where the community is at risk.”
And after Camden police entered into an agreement with ICE in April, which they later withdrew, Delaware enacted a law prohibiting agreements between law enforcement and ICE.
Most recently, the Wilmington City Council passed a unanimous resolution “opposing collaboration between the city and ICE,” the letter pointed out.
“However, the incident in Seaford illustrates that despite these meaningful steps, the rules around when and how our state and local law enforcement cooperate with ICE remain murky,” the letter said. “That is why your office must act immediately to issue firm guidance outlining how all Delaware agencies interact with ICE.”
“Without clear guidance, inconsistent responses from state and local agencies risk undermining public safety by decreasing trust in law enforcement and diverting resources away from programs that keep our communities safe. We also run the risk of Delaware being unintentionally dragged in to the federal administration’s immigration enforcement regime under backdoor, misleading pretenses that state and local law enforcement must respond to public safety threats where none actually exist.”
What police, ICE say happened
Chaj-Gonzalez was arrested after resisting officers from ICE Baltimore’s Salisbury sub-office, a Nov. 7 statement provided by ICE spokesperson Casey Latimer said. (Note: The ACLU has spelled the last name as “Chag,” while police and ICE have spelled it “Chaj.” We are working to clarify the correct spelling.)
ICE sought Chaj-Gonzalez because he is an “illegal alien” from Guatemala and has unlawfully entered the U.S. 10 times, the statement said. He has been issued a “notice to appear” and will remain in ICE custody, according to the statement.
Latimer did not respond to requests for Chaj’s age and other information.
Delaware State Police spokesperson India Sturgis said her agency responded to the incident “following a report that a federal agent had been assaulted,” but the ICE statement said no officers were injured. Sturgis later said Delaware State Police happened to be in a neighboring parking lot when Seaford police were dispatched to the incident.
“Given our close proximity, we responded to assist. As far as our threshold, our troopers assist any agency or individual when help is needed,” she said.
A Seaford Police Department news release said Chaj-Gonzalez “allegedly physically resisted federal agents, before fleeing and hiding under a nearby utility trailer,” the news release said.
Seaford officers responded and remained at the scene until more federal agents arrived, the release said. They also assisted in moving the trailer under which the man was hiding so agents could take him into custody, the department added.
The suspect “obtained a minor injury” while being taken into custody, the release said, and was treated by Seaford police util EMS arrived. Seaford police contacted the owner of the trailer but had no other involvement, the release said.
“ICE claimed it was a minor injury,” the ACLU letter said, “However, a statement from a witness said, ‘they busted some [guy’s] head open’ and that ‘a lady cop was putting pressure on his head.’” Neither the letter nor the news release provided the name of the witness.
“I can’t confirm at this time whether or not this was our first assist for ICE,” Seaford Police Department spokesman Tyler Justice said via email Nov. 6. “In this situation, we were requested by them to respond to assist which is generally our threshold for any federal agency or local partners. We do not have any information as to what grounds the individual was being detained on.”
On Nov. 7, the Seaford Police Department released another statement on social media, titling it “incident clarification.”
“We understand in this highly politicized environment that whatever we do, some are going to think we were right and some are going to think we were wrong. So the most we can do for the community is to try and be as honest and transparent as possible,” the statement said.
“We do not participate in civil immigration enforcement. We take our responsibility for the safety and security of ALL of our community members very seriously. However, when situations involving federal partners turns into a criminal investigation, as it did yesterday, we are legally allowed to and will assist, as we would for any criminal investigation within our jurisdiction.”
“(Delaware State and Seaford police’s) actions during the operation led directly to ICE’s ability to detain Chag-Gonzalez. For many Delawareans, especially immigrant communities, state and local law enforcement’s actions equate to undertaking an active role in immigration enforcement,” the ACLU’s letter to Meyer said. “These actions violate community trust, reignite fear and anxiety, and threaten the goodwill our state has built between community members and law enforcement through actions like banning (police and ICE) agreements.”
Delaware is at a crossroads, according to the letter.
“Will we allow our state and local law enforcement to continue to play by the old rules even as ICE terrorizes our communities, or will we hold our state agencies accountable for ensuring that Delaware is not willingly or unwillingly aiding ICE?” the letter said.
“We must be clear about where Delaware stands and ensure our guidelines reflect our state’s values and guarantee that Delaware remains a place where all people — regardless of immigration or citizenship status — can live and thrive without fear.”
You can read the full letter at aclu-de.org.
Shannon Marvel McNaught reports on southern Delaware and beyond. Reach her at smcnaught@gannett.com or on Facebook.
Delaware
DNREC’s decision to prohibit data center upheld by state board
What is a data center? Here’s what you should know
Data centers have been popping up all over Arizona. The massive sites have drawn economic praise and resident criticism. Here’s what you need to know.
Project Washington’s prospects in Delaware appear murkier after a board stood on the state environmental agency’s decision to prohibit the data center proposal.
The public hearings with the Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board kicked off in Dover on March 24 at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control’s Auditorium near Legislative Hall. It finished on March 26 after days of testimony from witnesses supporting and opposing the DNREC decision on the data center, which would be the largest in the state.
Project Washington was prohibited by DNREC in February because the agency said it violated the Coastal Zone Act, which was signed in 1971. Project Washington’s developer, Starwood Digital Ventures, filed an appeal of that decision soon after.
A little more than 30 people attended the meeting on March 24. It was modeled more like a court hearing than a public government meeting. The next two days included testimony from witnesses from both Starwood Digital Ventures’ and DNREC’s attorneys.
The Coastal Zone board consists of nine members, five of which are appointed by the governor and approved by the state Senate. Four other members are the state director of the Division of Small Business and Tourism and the chairs of the planning commissions of each county.
It’s the first time this assembly of the board has been called to action. Board members said they are making decisions on a fact and law basis, and are trying to cut out the noise this project has caused on social media and in other public meetings.
Witnesses and experts explained a ton of technical definitions for generators and got into the nitty-gritty of emissions and infrastructure. It was up to the board to take those facts in stride and make their decision.
“What we have to do is come back to the purpose of the appeal,” said Willie Scott, a member of the board during a break between sessions on March 24.
They voted unanimously to uphold the DNREC decision to prohibit the project based on the Coastal Zone Act.
Courtroom-like arguments for and against the data center
The hearing on March 24 began with opening arguments. Attorneys for Starwood Digital Ventures, Project Washington’s developer, argued that Project Washington’s purpose and infrastructure fall outside of the Coastal Zone Act’s regulations, and that DNREC’s definitions of smokestacks and tank farms are flawed.
“It fails every element of the statutory definition, as interpreted by the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Superior Court,” said Jeff Moyer, an attorney representing Starwood. “Its limited diesel infrastructure is not a tank farm within any reasonable meaning of that term, and each of the core three functions of Project Washington – data storage, electrical infrastructure and backup power – are all expressly not regulated.”
DNREC’s attorneys argued the data center campuses fall under heavy industry in a modern context, and it is the kind of project the act is intended to kill. They also argued it has a potential to pollute when backup generators are working if the power fails.
“The law requires that it be prohibited, not recharacterized, not broken into pieces and minimized, but prohibited,” said Michael Hoffman, attorney representing DNREC. “Over the course of the next few days, we will show that Starwood’s proposed hyperscale data center is one such project.”
Closing arguments on March 26 reiterated arguments from both sides, and the board voted to stand with DNREC.
How Project Washington and DNREC got here
The Coastal Zone Act prevents heavy industrial projects from developing along the Delaware River and Bay, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Atlantic Ocean, Indian River Bay and other Sussex County bays. The 14 projects that have been grandfathered include the Delaware City Refinery and the Port of Wilmington.
Project Washington’s proposed site falls within the defined coastal zone, which extends west to Dupont Highway in that specific spot. In February, DNREC said the massive data center is prohibited, stifling the project while it worked through state and county permits.
It would be 11 two-story data center buildings surrounded by electrical fields on two large land parcels north of Delaware City accessible by Hamburg Road, Governor Lea Road and River Road.
DNREC’s beef with the project is in the backup generators and their accompanying diesel tanks. The data center is proposed to run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. If power goes out, it needs to use the backup generators to keep running. DNREC’s decision says the project includes some 516 double-walled diesel fuel belly tanks, each capable of storing some 5,020 gallons of fuel. That’s about five acres of tank farm.
There would be 516 backup generators with 516 smokestacks, which DNREC said in its original decision is the exact type of infrastructure the Coastal Zone Act targets by prohibiting “heavy industrial” projects.
Starwood Digital Ventures, appealed the decision, mentioning countervailing factors including avoiding wetlands, no direct surface water discharges and projected economic benefits.
Their appeal said the original DNREC decision “solely focuses on alleged environmental risk and worst-case emissions, and does not fairly weigh or explain these countervailing factors in light of regulating criteria.”
Jim Lamb, who is handling media communication for the project, said the backup generators would only run 37 to 45 minutes per month just to test if they are operational. Project Washington will also use a closed-loop cooling system, limiting its water intake.
The appeal required a hearing, which is the first time the board made a decision since 2021.
The developer of the project did not immediately respond to Delaware Online/The News Journal’s request for comment. New Castle County officials did not immediately respond to either.
Shane Brennan covers Wilmington and other Delaware issues. Reach out with ideas, tips or feedback at slbrennan@delawareonline.com.
Delaware
GGE of Delaware Jumps on the Rally Sponsor Train!
Delaware
Lottery ticket worth $730K sold in Delaware County, Pennsylvania
A lottery ticket worth $730,000 was sold in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Tuesday.
The Pennsylvania Lottery announced Wednesday that a Match 6 Lotto ticket that matched all six winning numbers — 4-14-17-19-20-36 — was sold at the ShopRite of Drexeline on State Road in Upper Darby Township. The store will earn a $5,000 bonus for selling the winning ticket.
The winner of the ticket won’t be known until they claim the prize. Winners of the Pennsylvania Lottery Match 6 Lotto have one year from the drawing date to claim it.
If you purchased a winning ticket at a retail store, the Pennsylvania Lottery says you should immediately sign the back of it. Online winnings will automatically appear in a player’s account after the claim has been processed.
More than 29,200 Match 6 Lotto tickets also won prizes during the drawing.
Two other winning lottery tickets were recently sold in the Philadelphia region.
A Match 6 Lotto ticket that won $5,863,758 in the March 16 drawing was sold in Montgomery County. The Sunoco at 330 East Lancaster Avenue, Lower Merion Township, will earn a $10,000 bonus for selling that winning ticket.
Also in Montgomery County, Pottstown Beverage County recently sold a $3 million-winning scratch-off, officials said on March 19.
The Pennsylvania Lottery is the only state lottery to direct all proceeds to programs that benefit older residents. Since ticket sales started in 1972, it has contributed more than $37.2 billion.
-
Detroit, MI1 week agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Science1 week agoHow a Melting Glacier in Antarctica Could Affect Tens of Millions Around the Globe
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago‘Youth’ Twitter review: Ken Karunaas impresses audiences; Suraj Venjaramoodu adds charm; music wins praise | – The Times of India
-
Science1 week agoI had to man up and get a mammogram
-
Sports6 days agoIOC addresses execution of 19-year-old Iranian wrestler Saleh Mohammadi
-
New Mexico5 days agoClovis shooting leaves one dead, four injured
-
Business1 week agoDisney’s new CEO says his focus is on storytelling and creativity
-
Texas1 week agoHow to buy Houston vs. Texas A&M 2026 March Madness tickets