Gallatin County Attorney pushes back on AG’s threat to take over office in ICE records battle

BOZEMAN, Mont. — A dispute between Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell escalated in Bozeman on Monday. 

The disagreement centers on whether county agencies can share confidential criminal justice information, or CCJI, with federal agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. 

The issue started last fall when ICE asked the Gallatin County Records Department for confidential criminal justice information, or CCJI. According to a cease-and-desist letter from the attorney general, Cromwell’s office refused to direct the records department to release the information, saying ICE is not a criminal justice department entitled to CCJI. 

“In Montana, we support our law enforcement officers and federal agents, like ICE officers, are no exception. County Attorney Cromwell’s policy is a flagrant violation of state and federal law and puts the safety of Gallatin County residents at risk just to make apolitical statement,” Attorney General Knudsen said in the press release. 

According to a press release from Cromwell, the county attorney’s office advised that the information should not be released, on the basis that it was for a civil matter. Under Montana law and the right to privacy, CCJI must be protected and only shared for criminal proceedings, Cromwell argued. She said the request came from Enforcement and Removal Operations, which primarily handles civil cases. 

Cromwell also clarified the county has no policy regarding handling requests from ICE, and her advice, sent through a legal assistant to the records department, is not policy. The advice was specific to the case, Cromwell said. 

“Public safety is, and always will be, the top priority of the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office. At the same time, we are sworn to uphold the Montana Constitution. That includes protecting the fundamental right to privacy,” she said in a press release. “When highly sensitive, non-public criminal justice information is requested for civil purposes, the law requires careful review and, in many cases, judicial oversight to ensure those privacy rights are not violated.” 

She then sent a formal request to Knudsen for a general legal opinion for all counties to follow on whether counties could lawfully share CCJI with ICE when the request was not criminal. 

In Knudsen's response, he argued that under Montana law and federal court decisions, ICE is a criminal justice agency, regardless of which department within ICE is making a request. 

"It doesn’t matter if ICE is ‘seeking confidential criminal justice information for a civil administrative immigration purpose’ and ‘not for a criminal investigation or prosecution.’ Montana law simply says ‘dissemination of confidential criminal justice information is restricted to criminal justice agencies.’ ICE is a criminal justice agency. Full stop,” Knudsen wrote in his response. 

He said Cromwell’s department had to repeal any policy stating ICE is not a law enforcement agency and rejected Cromwell's request for a legal opinion, saying it should have been done before she directed the records department not to share CCJI with ICE. He also threatened to take supervisory control over the attorney's office if it does not come into compliance by 5 p.m. April 25, which can be allowed under state law. 

“The recalcitrant nature of your Response is troubling.  I am deeply concerned that the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office is putting the safety of its residents—and all Montanans—in jeopardy,” he wrote in the letter. 

In the latest update, Cromwell responded again in a letter less than two hours to Knudsen’s deadline. She restated her earlier position and said under CCJI laws and Montana’s right to privacy, ICE could have sought a court order for the records, and there were still ways for the agency to obtain the information they were seeking through the proper legal channels. 

“This approach ensures judicial oversight and protects the constitutional privacy rights of Montanans. It is not a denial of access. It is adherence to the rule of Montana law. In this particular case, ICE was free to follow up at its discretion,” Cromwell wrote. 

In the letter, she also insisted Knudsen issue a general legal opinion on the matter, on the grounds that it has been precedent for attorneys general in Montana to do so for over 100 years. 

"The reasonable inference is that there is concern your office’s legal analysis may not withstand judicial scrutiny. If that is not the case, then there is no reason to withhold an opinion that would resolve this matter definitively," she wrote. 

Also included with the letter was a sworn affidavit from Cromwell, where she said she did not issue any policy to the records department regarding sharing information with ICE. The affidavit is signed and notarized. 

A spokesperson from Knudsen's office confirmed they have received the letter and are working to determine the next steps.