By Seth Boyes,
Update March 28, 2025: This article has been updated to include information regarding the lawsuit Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird filed in a Polk County district court against Winneshiek County Sheriff Dan Marx and Winneshiek County. The article has also been updated to clarify county officials unsuccessfully proposed the use of a Feb. 14 letter penned by Marx as an alternative to the remedial statement scripted by Bird’s office.
Iowa’s top prosecutor believes a statement issued in February by Winneshiek County Sheriff Dan Marx regarding what the sheriff called “non-judicially vetted detainers” violated immigration enforcement law. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird filed a lawsuit against Marx and Winneshiek County late on Thursday, March 26, and the Winneshiek County Attorney’s Office is preparing to defend Marx’s statements in court.
“While we are disappointed and disagree with the attorney general’s conclusion, we remain confident that this issue can be resolved,” the sheriff’s office said in a March 27 statement.
Bird’s office released a report on March 26, saying the sheriff’s Feb. 4 message — which was posted to social media and submitted to area news outlets for publication — was at odds with a portion of Iowa Code prohibiting law enforcement from discouraging cooperation with federal immigration authorities. State officials took issue with what Marx’s letter called his “long-time stance on not recognizing detainers.” The sheriff said detainers differ from court ordered warrants, and he sees such detainers as potential violations of the Fourth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, saying “the only reason detainers are issued is because the federal agency does not have enough information or has not taken the time to obtain a valid judicial warrant.”
Bird’s report said information provided by county officials during her office’s investigation found the sheriff’s office has complied with all 21 detainers it has received from federal officials — though Bird’s report indicated her office was still awaiting formal confirmation of that fact from officials with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement as of the report’s release. The report also said written policies adopted by the Winneshiek County Sheriff’s Office in November of 2018 comply with state law.
Marx noted in a Feb. 14 letter to Bird that a number of federal courts had differed in their approaches to address what he called “potential liability exposure stemming from incarceration of detainees without court ordered warrants.” Marx’s letter to Bird specified his office previously worked with local judicial officials to include language in his office’s conditions of release to address such concerns. Marx’s statement also indicated his office would “make every effort to block, interfere and interrupt” such enforcement actions if sought by federal agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“I expect my deputies to obey all federal, state, local and constitutional requirements as they serve the people of Winneshiek County,” Marx wrote in his letter to Bird. “When my deputies work with another state, local or federal law enforcement agencies, it is my expectation that those agencies will also obey the law and protect the constitutional rights of those people that we are expected to serve. This does not mean that we will not cooperate with ICE or other agencies in the lawful execution of their duties. I acknowledge that some of the language I used in the letter could have been clearer on this point, as I believe portions of the letter have been misinterpreted and taken out of context. However, it is my belief that all law enforcement officials have an obligation to conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach and sets an example for the general public. I do not believe law enforcement officials should have to choose between upholding their sworn duty to the Constitution and following the state statute.”
The Iowa Attorney General’s report argued Marx’s statements on the nature of such detainers were false and “discouraged cooperation with federal immigration authorities.” Bird gave the sheriff until 5 p.m. the same day her findings were released to remove the February post and issue a separate statement Bird’s office included in that day’s report.
“Iowa law makes clear that there are no sanctuary counties,” Bird said in a statement. “Any reports of sanctuary counties or sheriffs will be investigated. Our investigation into Winneshiek County found that the sheriff is violating the law, and we are giving the sheriff a chance to fix the problem. Failure to do so means that his county may lose all state funding.”
Winneshiek County received approximately $7.5 million in state funding during the 2023-24 fiscal year, according to information from the Iowa State Association of Counties.
Winneshiek County Attorney Andy Van Der Maaten said Bird’s office was allowed 40 days to complete its investigation into Marx’s statement — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds submitted a complaint to Bird’s office on Feb. 5, and Bird released her office’s findings on the last day of that 40-day window, according to Van Der Maaten. The county attorney said he and other local officials were informed of the attorney general’s proposed remedy and deadline the same day of the announcement.
“There was not a great deal of time to address an issue that is of pretty substantial importance to the county as a whole,” Van Der Maaten said.
The social media post in question was still visible the morning of March 27, but the Winneshiek County Sheriff’s Office issued a statement later that afternoon saying, “to demonstrate good faith, we chose to take the post down.”
Van Der Maaten said county officials had proposed Marx’s Feb. 14 letter to the attorney general’s office as an alternate remedial statement, but Bird’s office rejected the idea – Van Der Maaten confirmed local officials had been in contact with Bird’s office on March 26 to discuss the proposal.
“They have chosen to stand by their proposal, we’ve chosen to stand by ours, and we’re a ways apart,” Van Der Maaten said the next morning, adding discussions were ongoing at that time.
Van Der Maaten said, with the state investigation complete, Bird’s office was able to file a lawsuit which could potentially stop state dollars from flowing to Winneshiek County — an option Bird pursued the afternoon her office’s report was released — but Van Der Maaten said the court itself will ultimately decide whether the county’s state funding should be suspended. Van Der Maaten said he feels there are a number of issues which will need to be addressed in court concerning the attorney general’s investigation and what he called Bird’s perception Sheriff Marx’s statement violated Iowa Code.
“We are intending to move forward and defend Dan’s statements and try to rectify this matter so we can put it behind us,” Van Der Maaten said.
Iowa AG’s office proposes specific language as remedy
An investigation by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird’s office recently concluded a statement issued by Winneshiek County Sheriff Marx on Feb. 4 violated state law, and the attorney general’s office said on March 26 the alleged violation may be resolved if the sheriff were to delete the Feb. 4 post and issue a separate statement which substantially aligns with a statement provided by Bird’s office. Winneshiek County Attorney Andy Vander Maaten said county officials proposed their own version of a remedial statement soon after being informed of Bird’s findings and proposed remedy, but the county’s language was rejected by the state attorney general’s office. Marx’s original statement and Bird’s proposed statement are included below.
Sheriff Marx’s original statement – Feb. 4, 2025
People of Winneshiek County,
With the recent news, chatter and happenings surrounding federal agents from three letter agencies including ICE, FBI and others, I have fielded a fair number of concerns about their tactics and questions regarding the level of involvement or role the Winneshiek County Sheriff’s Office would play during such a visit or operation. Given what we have seen from these agencies, I share your mistrust and many of your concerns with the legitimacy of how these federal agents conduct business. Hopefully, the following helps clear things up as to my position and the role of my office in these situations.
The elected sheriff (sheriff’s office) serves as the chief law enforcement officer/peace officer of each respective county. You can (and should) always contact us, or the respective sheriff’s office of the county you are in, to help navigate these situations should you find yourself or others in an encounter with any federal agents. We are always willing to assist with verifying credentials and the legitimacy of any paperwork federal agents should have to make certain your rights are not being abused.
Our sole oath and allegiance are to the Constitution and the protection of an individual’s rights. Therefore, if the fed’s actions and paperwork are within constitutional parameters (such as proper and valid judicial warrants/court orders) we will assist if needed or requested to ensure their actions are carried out professionally and in the least intrusive fashion possible. If their actions or paperwork are not within constitutional parameters (such as non-judicially vetted “detainers,” which are very different than warrants and are simply an unconstitutional “request” from ICE or other three letter federal agency to arrest or hold someone), then we will make every effort to block, interfere and interrupt their actions from moving forward.
The only reason detainers are issued is because the federal agency does not have enough information or has not taken the time to obtain a valid judicial warrant. Simply put, they are not sure they are detaining the right person and need more time to figure it out. For the person who could be held erroneously (or determined to be someone other than who ICE is seeking), there is a gross violation of rights at hand. Specifically, these detainers are violations of our 4th Amendment protection against warrantless search, seizure and arrest, and our 6th Amendment right to due process.
You may say, “Those who entered our country illegally are not US citizens and, therefore, are not afforded constitutional rights!” But what if the person being held is a US citizen who happens to have the same name or shares other similarities with the subject of the detainer? Are you willing to sit in jail or a federal prison on an unconstitutional detainer with no right to due process until ICE clears your name? Or, if it were you or a loved one falsely arrested and/or detained, would you feel differently?
My office’s actions and involvement will solely be based on constitutional standards. They will not be based on opinions, politics or emotions.
Bottom line – due to my long-time stance on not recognizing detainers, I have acquired two labels from opposing political parties – both intended to negatively impact my reputation as sheriff. The first is “Sanctuary Sheriff” and the second is “Constitutional Sheriff.” Regardless of labels that others impose on me, I am uninterested in political agendas or propaganda stunts by either side. My job is to be fair, impartial, just and constitutional. Period. That is what I have done and will continue to do.
Thank you for your continued trust and confidence in me and my office to protect and defend your rights and freedoms.
Respectfully,
Sheriff Dan Marx
Attorney General Bird proposed statement – March 26, 2025
People of Winneshiek County, the Winneshiek County Sheriff’s Office fully complies with all state and federal law. We cooperate with ICE, FBI and others under both state and federal law. Iowa law requires full and complete cooperation with federal immigration authorities. We follow that law. We will always comply with ICE detainers and, at least since Nov. 26, 2018, we have done so. This post serves as formal revocation of my earlier Feb. 4, 2025, post.
Since we adopted our official policy that we will comply with ICE detainers, we have complied with all 21 ICE detainers that ICE has made with our office. We will continue to comply with every ICE detainer request made in Winneshiek County.
On Feb. 4, I posted a message on Facebook that implied we would not fully comply with state and federal law. I have deleted that message, which I disavow. It was wrong. It made many incorrect statements regarding my office’s policies on ICE detainers. This message explaining that the Winneshiek County Sheriff’s Office has always complied with every single ICE detainer made and will continue to comply, as required by both state and federal law, replaces that message.
My office has a long-time stance on recognizing and complying with ICE detainers. We will continue to do so.
Respectfully,
Sheriff Dan Marx
Submit A Comment
Fill out the form to submit a comment. All comments require approval by our staff before it is displayed on the website.
With the Sheriff on his view point
Stand firm Sheriff…. Support the Constitution. We are not the 1930s Germany as much as Bird likes to believe that we are.