287(g) Agreement Type

Warrant Service Officer

504 participating agencies · as of June 5, 2026

Overview

This is the most limited model. Officers execute ICE administrative warrants on specific named individuals already incarcerated. ICE has already identified the person; WSO officers only serve the warrant and make the arrest.

The main distinction from JEM is investigative authority: JEM officers find potentially removable individuals by screening. WSO officers execute warrants for people ICE has already identified. WSOs have no investigative authority at all.

Key distinction: Officers cannot interview anyone about immigration status, screen detainees for potential removability, initiate removal proceedings, or issue detainers independently — inside or outside of jail.

Officers can

→ Execute pre-existing ICE warrants (Form I-200 or I-205) within the facility
→ Transfer the individual to ICE custody

Training requirements

8-hour online course — the lowest training requirement of the three models.

Key findings & history

Launch: May 6, 2019 — Pinellas County, Florida: Designed for two audiences: agencies in sanctuary jurisdictions whose state laws restricted full 287(g) participation, and small rural agencies without budget for JEM programs.
No oversight mechanism (GAO-21-186, 2021): "ICE did not have an oversight mechanism for participants in the WSO model...ICE did not have clear policies on 287(g) field supervisors' oversight responsibilities or plan to conduct compliance inspections for WSO participants." Unlike JEM (biennial inspections), WSO has no scheduled compliance inspections at all.
Critics' arguments: Generally considered the least invasive model because it involves no interrogation or screening. Critics argue: (1) the absence of inspections means violations at the warrant-execution stage go undetected; (2) it serves as a deliberate mechanism to achieve immigration enforcement in sanctuary jurisdictions that prohibit broader programs.

Program-wide oversight findings

▪
DHS OIG (2010): More than half of immigrants identified through JEM were arrested for misdemeanors, primarily traffic offenses. ICE and local agencies were not complying with MOA terms. At least 33 recommendations were issued.
▪
ACLU "License to Abuse" (2022): Of 142 participating agencies, 65% had documented patterns of racial profiling, 77% operated detention facilities with documented inhumane conditions.
▪
UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2022): Called on the Biden administration to terminate the program, describing it as "indirectly promoting racial profiling."
▪
Cato Institute (2018): Analysis of North Carolina counties found no causal relationship between 287(g) apprehensions and crime reduction. Unexpectedly found a correlation with increased assaults on law enforcement, attributed to community trust erosion.
▪
Detainer authority (legally contested): Courts in multiple jurisdictions have held that civil immigration detainers are not binding on local jails, and that holding someone solely on a detainer past their legal release date may violate the Fourth Amendment. ICE maintains they are lawful requests. See Morales v. Chadbourne, 1st Cir. 2015.

How the three models compare

	WSO	JEM	TFM
Setting	Jail only	Jail only	Anywhere
Can interrogate suspects	No	Yes	Yes
Can initiate removal	No	Yes	Yes
Can arrest without state charges	No — warrant required	Yes (in facility)	Yes (anywhere)
Training	8 hrs online	160 hrs (4 weeks)	40 hrs online
Compliance inspections	None	Biennial	Unclear
Agencies as of June 5, 2026	504	179	1,220