Emails Reveal Informal Surveillance Coordination Between ICE and Local Oregon Police
Internal emails obtained through public records requests show that local law enforcement agencies in Oregon have collaborated informally with federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the FBI, to exchange surveillance resources and data. The communication, part of a group known as the “Southern Oregon Analyst Group,” includes discussions of facial recognition tools, license plate readers, and the use of fake social media profiles for investigations.
The email exchanges, spanning from 2021 to 2024, were released by a group of researchers in Oregon known as Information for Public Use. They shed light on how police departments and federal agencies sometimes share sensitive surveillance data outside formal contractual arrangements. In at least one instance, a local police analyst in Medford, Oregon, ran automated license plate checks for an ICE agent and later requested the agent run queries in a federal border surveillance system.
The conversations also include members from Oregon State Police, the FBI’s Portland office, and crime analysts from various local departments. While such cooperation may not be illegal in all contexts, privacy advocates argue that these exchanges circumvent state-level policies intended to limit or prevent law enforcement agencies from aiding in immigration enforcement or other federal operations without proper oversight.
Casual Exchanges of Surveillance Tools and Tactics
The emails reveal an informal culture among analysts who routinely offered each other assistance and shared access to software platforms and investigative tools. In one 2023 message, a former Pinkerton contractor working with the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office detailed the use of various surveillance systems including Flock (an automated license plate reader), TLO (a public records and people-search database), and “sock puppet” social media accounts created for undercover monitoring. The analyst described building “pre-raid intelligence packages” and welcomed collaboration from others in the group.
Another analyst from the Ashland Police Department expressed a desire to gain more experience in online investigations. Despite working in a city without camera infrastructure, she described a strong interest in using tools like Flock to aid investigations. She also cited experience with databases such as LeadsOnline and Carfax for police, and stated she was working to build confidence among patrol officers in her support role.
Medford Police Department analysts appeared particularly well-equipped. One analyst listed access to an extensive array of surveillance platforms including Vigilant, PenLink, CellHawk, Milestone XProtect city cameras, and multiple body and dash camera systems. In their message, the analyst invited group members to request license plate reader (LPR) searches, reinforcing the collaborative nature of the group. Other participants echoed similar sentiments, noting the software and analytics tools used in their agencies and expressing interest in ongoing professional networking through planned meetups and demonstrations.
Concerns Over Legal Boundaries and Oversight
Civil liberties advocates have raised alarm over the exchanges, citing Oregon’s sanctuary and data privacy laws that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Kelly Simon, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, said the communications suggest that those legal safeguards are being bypassed in practice. “When I see exchanges like this, I’m very concerned that our firewalls are more like sieves,” Simon told 404 Media.
Simon explained that any collaboration between federal and local law enforcement on data sharing should be court-supervised, involving warrants that set clear limitations on the scope and purpose of surveillance. She emphasized that Oregon’s shield laws were designed to protect access to reproductive care and immigrant rights, and that informal exchanges undermine those legal frameworks.
A member of Information for Public Use, the organization that uncovered the emails, expressed concern about the interagency use of surveillance tools like license plate readers and undercover social media accounts. The group noted that while many of the technologies were deployed under previous administrations, they remain in use and can be repurposed for shifting political priorities. The concern, they said, lies in how readily accessible tools and cooperative frameworks can be turned toward objectives such as workplace immigration raids or reproductive health investigations.
Local Departments Respond as Broader Scrutiny Grows
Following inquiries from 404 Media, some police departments acknowledged the existence of the Southern Oregon Analyst Group and commented on their involvement. A spokesperson for the Medford Police Department stated that the group exists for professional networking and sharing expertise and added that the department complies with both state and federal law. Regarding a 2021 license plate lookup performed for a Department of Homeland Security analyst, the department declined to provide further details, citing time constraints and confidentiality concerns.
The Central Point Police Department responded by stating that it uses technology in line with all applicable laws and generally does not conduct investigations on behalf of other agencies. Oregon’s Department of Justice confirmed it does not participate in the analyst group and declined to comment further. Several other agencies mentioned in the email thread did not respond to requests for comment.
The revelations come amid growing national debate about how technologies like Flock’s license plate readers are used and regulated. Prior reporting by 404 Media has already prompted multiple municipalities to reassess their relationships with surveillance vendors. In Illinois, for example, the Secretary of State has launched an investigation into the use of Flock cameras by local police in support of federal immigration enforcement, which is expressly forbidden by state law.
As surveillance tools become more integrated into routine policing, questions remain about transparency, accountability, and legal compliance. The emails from Southern Oregon illustrate how lines between local and federal enforcement can blur in practice, raising renewed calls for oversight and clearer boundaries in interagency data sharing.