Two 287(g) records appeals show why security evidence and redaction matter
Two Pennsylvania 287(g) records appeals show how evidence and redaction affected disclosure and protection of participating officers’ identities.
Two Pennsylvania police departments received different results in appeals over records related to the federal 287(g) immigration-enforcement program. Both rulings required disclosure, but only West York established a basis to protect officer identities. [S3, pp. 5–7; S4, pp. 7–9]
In West York, Darwin Leuba sought records identifying officers credentialed, certified, trained or nominated under the program during a specified period. The department submitted an attestation from Police Chief Matthew J. Millsaps describing risks associated with identifying participating officers. [S3, pp. 1–2, 4–5]
The OOR credited that evidence under the personal-security exemption. It nevertheless found that the department had not explained why entire records had to be withheld rather than redacted. Its October 16 determination ordered redacted responsive records within 30 days, protecting information that would identify the officers and other agency personnel. [S3, pp. 5–7]
Mount Carmel involved a different request: Leuba sought work, assignment, compensation and related records concerning immigration enforcement or 287(g) activity. The department produced financial records during the appeal and established that it held no additional responsive financial records. [S4, pp. 1–5]
Its security claims for nonfinancial records failed. The OOR found that the supporting attestation did not address those exemptions and that the department did not supply the additional evidence requested. Counsel’s unsupported factual statements were insufficient. The department also failed to establish that federal law exempted records in its possession. [S4, pp. 3, 6–8]
The October 20 order required Mount Carmel to provide all responsive nonfinancial records within 30 days. The appeal was granted in part, denied in part and dismissed as moot in part. [S4, pp. 8–9]
The cases involved different records and evidentiary submissions. They do not establish that all 287(g) records are public, that all participating officers’ names are exempt, or that the OOR applied inconsistent standards. Subsequent disclosures and any court challenges have not been independently verified.
Official sources
- S3: Darwin Leuba v. West York Borough Police Department — AP 2026-3954; 2026-10-16. Archived official PDF.
- S4: Darwin Leuba v. Mount Carmel Borough Police Department — AP 2026-4013; 2026-10-20. Archived official PDF.
Don’t Speculate. Document.