A city can promise not to share residents’ information with ICE while handing that information to a private company that then serves it up to immigration enforcement. That potential gap in sanctuary protections deserves scrutiny in Culver City, where an investigation by FinePrint raises questions about whether police records are entering a national database accessible to ICE. The investigation does not establish that Culver City intended to circumvent its sanctuary commitments, or that ICE accessed a particular local record. It raises the question of whether the city’s contracts could allow information to reach immigration authorities indirectly.
The broader workaround is well documented. The ACLU has described how ICE obtains information through private companies that local governments would otherwise withhold. ICE itself explained the need for commercial access by pointing to jurisdictions restricting information sharing. A sanctuary promise can lose much of its force if a private contractor provides another route to the same records.
MVV recently reported that Culver City invited the Electronic Frontier Foundation to participate in its review of Flock license plate cameras and is pursuing an independent assessment. The city’s relationship with data company LexisNexis shows why that scrutiny needs to extend beyond the cameras. Residents need to know where their information goes across the police department’s contracts and whether restrictions on direct cooperation with ICE also cover sharing through private companies.
Culver City’s relationship with LexisNexis stretches back decades. A 2015 city staff report says police had already used the company’s Accurint database for more than 15 years. Officers could search for addresses, relatives, business associates, employment, vehicles and cellular telephone information. The report described Accurint searches as standard procedure once police identified a suspect.
A regional arrangement later expanded the information available. A 2017 Hawthorne council report describes a purchase allowing participating police departments to search sensitive police records alongside public information. Hawthorne would manage the agreement and help connect the region’s police and dispatch records to LexisNexis. A 2020 company quote lists Culver City’s share at roughly $17,800 annually, although current spending has not been verified.
LexisNexis also names Culver City Police Department on its own national police data exchange list, alongside LAPD, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and other nearby agencies. The list supports a connection to the exchange but does not explain what each department shares or who can access its records.
FinePrint identifies Culver City as a “probable contributor” because its own data-sharing agreement has not been released. Another city in the same regional arrangement signed an agreement covering calls for service, police narratives and certain offender records. Such information can expose people who have never been accused of a crime, including victims, witnesses and residents calling for help. Exactly what Culver City contributes remains unconfirmed.
ICE’s use of LexisNexis is established independently of those local questions. In 2023, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and more than 80 allied organizations urged ICE to end a $22 million surveillance-services contract. EPIC reported that ICE searched the database more than 1.2 million times during seven months in 2021. That history explains the concern about local information entering a company’s database, even when a city prohibits direct sharing with immigration authorities.
Reporting in Portland illustrates why officials’ assurances need to be checked against their contracts. An April investigation by Feet in 2 Worlds, republished by Route Fifty, found that Portland police subscribed to Accurint. A police spokesperson denied participation in the national exchange, but reporters obtained an agreement requiring the department to contribute information.
Other communities are attempting to close these gaps. WBEZ reported in June that Cook County officials were seeking tighter restrictions on a company operating a victim notification service after advocates warned that jail information could reach ICE through commercial databases. Officials said they were working on clearer contract language and considering a replacement vendor.
Culver City declared itself a sanctuary city in 2017. Upholding that commitment requires accounting for what private contractors do with residents’ information. The city should release its current LexisNexis agreements and explain what records it provides, whether ICE can access them and how any restrictions are enforced. Its surveillance review should address the full route from local collection to outside access.
For organizers interested in investigating these arrangements locally, De-ICE Action Network is hosting a virtual training on October 22. Learn more and register here.