(Photo courtesy of U.S. District Court, Tucson)

Wads of used toilet paper piled in corners against rusted stainless steel toilets.

(Photo courtesy of U.S. District Court, Tucson)

This drinking fountain in a Border Patrol holding cell was missing a faucet.

A federal judge earlier this week compelled the U.S. Homeland Security Department to release images of its Border Patrol holding cells in the agency’s Tucson Sector. The holding cells have long been referred to as hieleras, or ice boxes, because of the freezing temperatures inside.

In June 2015, plaintiffs including the American Immigration Council in Washington, D.C., the National Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona sued on behalf of people who crossed the border illegally, were detained, then held inside Border Patrol temporary detention facilities. The Tucson Sector has eight such holding cells.

Plaintiffs argued these people were held in “overcrowded and filthy holding cells with the lights glaring day and night; stripped of outer layers of clothing and forced to suffer in brutally cold temperatures.”

They also argued that detainees have no access to soap, showers, towels, toothpaste or toothbrushes, that women were not regularly provided sanitary napkins and women with babies were not given enough diapers to keep their infants clean.

The case is a class action suit and focuses on three individuals, one referred to as Jane Doe. Her lawyers argue she came to the United States out of fear for her life in her unspecified home country and was detained in the Arizona desert. The complaint states she and others were bound and had to sit on the ground for two hours while a Border Patrol dog walked among them and agents took photos. The complaint alleges that when asked, the Border Patrol agents said they were taking photos for the dog’s Facebook page.

The woman was held at the Border Patrol’s Casa Grande, Arizona, facility for 24 hours. They allege she was forced to remove her sweatshirt, in spite of freezing cold temperatures inside and she was not screened for illnesses or medical conditions. They also allege she was not given a bed and only given a thin aluminum blanket to lie with. According to the complaint, the only drinking water tasted bad and came out of a fountain on top of the toilet.

When she was taken to the Border Patrol’s Tucson facility, her lawyers say the conditions were similar to those in Casa Grande.

A second woman, a Nicaraguan national described as Jane Doe #2, gave a similar account.

A third plaintiff, Norlan Flores, had recently received his certification by the Pima County Sheriff’s Office for a "U visa," a nonimmigrant visa established for victims of crime who assist law enforcement in the United States with the criminal investigation or the prosecution of their case.

In August 2014, Flores was pulled over by the Tucson Police Department for a traffic violation then taken into custody by the Border Patrol, the complaint alleges. It states Flores was held for about 36 hours and not given a bed or bedding. The complaint states the cells he was kept in had no soap, towels or showers and that there was garbage on the floor, which was only cleaned by inmates who were offered extra burritos in exchange for cleaning the cells. Flores, the complaint states, was not allowed to meet with his attorney while in custody.

On Aug. 14, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge David Bury granted plaintiffs the opportunity to photograph and document conditions at Border Patrol facilities in the Arizona cities of Tucson, Douglas, Nogales and Casa Grande. He also ordered the United States to preserve video surveillance tapes of the detention facilities.

On Sept. 4, 2015, Sarah Fabian, senior litigation counsel for the Department of Justice, argued against the judge’s sanctioning the government for the videos. She wrote:

“This motion for sanctions is therefore unnecessary and without merit. Defendants should not be sanctioned for any actions they took before the Court’s August 14, 2015 order because the video surveillance footage Plaintiffs seek could not and should not have been preserved by Defendants and, in any event, Defendants acted in good faith and the Plaintiffs have not suffered any prejudice. Preserving the video surveillance footage that Plaintiffs assert should have been preserved would have either:

(1) created security risks for thousands of Border Patrol agents as well as tens of thousands of aliens detained at Border Patrol stations in the Tucson sector, or

(2) been unduly burdensome and expensive because the means of preservation in the manner Plaintiffs’ propose were physically and financially nonexistent.

Defendants should not be sanctioned for their good faith action of continuing to record video surveillance footage to protect the safety and security interests of Border Patrol agents and detainees at Border Patrol stations.”

On Sept. 28, 2015, Bury stated that between July 8 and Aug. 14, 2015, the government had “destroyed or failed to preserve video footage depicting the conditions of confinement in Tucson-sector stations.”

Because of that, Bury said, “the court concludes the destruction of the video-tape recordings made prior to this court’s Aug. 14, 2015, order was, at best, negligent and was certainly willful.”

On June 27, 2016, Bury ordered photos of the holding cells taken by the plaintiff’s lawyers unsealed.

The photos show wads of used toilet paper piled in corners against rusted stainless steel toilets.

Water fountains are mounted on top of the toilets with a sign overhead that reads in Spanish, “Water to Drink” with an arrow pointing down.

Thin mattresses dusted in shoe prints lie on the floor with empty juice containers nearby. Some water fountains are missing faucets.

“There were reams of materials filed under seal and we have moved to unseal those documents,” said Travis Silva, an attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area which is a plaintiff in the case. “Judge Bury’s order dealt with part but not all of the documents. There are others that remain under seal and we’ll continue to fight to get those out from under seal.”

A Border Patrol official declined to comment citing the pending litigation. Plaintiff attorneys in the case say more photos are expected to be released.