Arizona Tribal Member Nearly Shipped to ICE Custody After Iowa Jail Clerical Error

A troubling administrative mix-up nearly placed an Arizona native in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) following her time at the Polk County Sheriff’s Office Jail in Des Moines, Iowa. The incident underscores systemic risks when local detention facilities cross paths with federal immigration enforcement mechanisms.

The individual, 24-year-old Leticia Jacobo, is a member of the Salt River Pima‑Maricopa Indian Community and a U.S. citizen born in Arizona. According to the jail, she was scheduled for routine release on November 11 after being booked in September for alleged driving with a suspended license.

Her mother, Ericka Burns, was informed by jail staff that Jacobo would not be released as planned because an ICE detainer had been placed against her. “How is she going to get deported if she’s a Native American?” Burns’s sister asked aloud when the family discovered what was happening.

Jail officials say the detainer was erroneously applied to Jacobo’s record. The firm explanation given: another inmate with the same last name was the subject of the detainer, and Jacobo’s file was mistaken for theirs. According to the jail’s lieutenant spokesman, someone with the same surname was in custody simultaneously when the detainer arrived.

While Jacobo was not actually transferred to ICE custody—and the agency affirms she was never technically detained by them, this near‐miss raises broader concerns about local‐federal coordination in immigration holds. ICE spokeswoman Tanya Román emphasized that the agency does not deport U.S. citizens, and that tribal IDs are accepted as valid.

This incident matters for several reasons. First, cases like this highlight how easily a paperwork error can cascade into a threat of wrongful detention or deportation, especially when detention facilities are working under 287(g) agreements with ICE. Second, the fact that Jacobo is a tribal member brings into focus complications at the intersection of tribal sovereignty, citizenship, and immigration enforcement. Third, it calls into question training, oversight, and accountability at facilities where immigration and local criminal justice overlap.

Her family is weighing legal options and calling for greater safeguards. In a statement, jail officials said they will review processes and warn staff to be more vigilant in the future.

Conservatives who back strong border enforcement may see the logic in local‐federal cooperation on immigration. But cases like this test the principle that enforcement must be exacting yet precise. When a U.S. citizen and tribal member almost becomes collateral damage in a detainer program, it signals a failure in process, one that undermines both public trust and civil rights.