OGDEN, Utah (ABC4) One man who appeared in the Ogden Justice Court for misdemeanor charges was informed by a judge that he would be taken into ICE custody following the hearing of his case.

Court records show the man was charged with three misdemeanors after rear-ending another driver while driving under the influence. He then fled the scene before later being confronted and taken into custody.

During the hearing, Judge Clay Stucki told the man that ICE had given an order to take him into custody – something he did not want to have to do.

“I personally feel bad that we’re going to have to take you into custody,” Stucki could be heard saying in the courtroom video. “That isn’t my choice or decision, but it’s something under federal law that I’m going to have to follow.”

Stucki ordered the man not to leave the courthouse as he wanted to give him a chance to resolve the case. Before leaving the stand, the defendant thanked Judge Stucki, who simply replied, “Don’t thank me. I am sad.”

The man was able to find a resolution to the case, having two of his charges dismissed and the other reduced to a lesser charge.

While the punishment for the crime required a jail sentence, probation, and regular drug and alcohol evaluations, Stucki waived it all as the man would be taken into ICE custody. Stucki argued that this would prevent the man from completing his state requirements.

“I don’t think impaired driving makes you a bad person or would make you a bad citizen. It’s just a mistake that you don’t need to make again,” explained Stucki. “I hope whatever judge you see in the immigration system sees it the same way.”

A memo obtained by ABC4 that was sent to Judiciary employees from the Administrative Office of the Courts explained that courts do not have the power to stop ICE. Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and State Court Administrator Ron Gordon said in the memo that judiciary employees cannot interfere with ICE enforcement nor warn courthouse patrons about any potential ICE plans to be on location.

“We recognize and understand that this may be concerning for some judicial officers and employees and that these issues can evoke strong personal feelings,” wrote Durrant and Gordon. “The judiciary values the well-being of all judicial officers and employees and remains committed to fostering a professional and respectful workplace. It is also essential that we uphold the judiciary’s role as a neutral and impartial institution.”