IOLERO Community Advisory Council public meeting report

The Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach (IOLERO), which came about as a result of the Andy Lopez shooting in Santa Rosa, has turned its attention to the issue of Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cooperation.

It is Sheriff’s Office policy to not engage in immigration enforcement at all, in any way, during field operations, i.e. while officers are on patrol. The nexus for cooperation with ICE happens at the jail, and has to do with level of Sheriffs voluntary notifications to ICE about who, how, when, and why undocumented inmates will be released.

Of note, anyone held in jail, if they meet certain conditions, is entitled to be released. This release process is independent of whether a person is an undocumented immigrant or not. For example, a person may be charged but presumed innocent; they may have made bail.

At last night’s IOLERO Community Advisory Council (CAC) meeting in Santa Rosa, a series of recommendations to the Sheriff’s Office, and supporting research was discussed. The preliminary recommendations and research can be seen in this packet. The final recommendations will be posted soon on the IOLERO website. A motion was made to approve recommendations essentially similar to the packet, by unanimous vote of the CAC. A request was made for the Sheriff’s Office to report back to the CAC at next month’s 4/3/17, 5:30 PM IOLERO meeting: 2550 Ventura, Santa Rosa, hearing room.

For the recommendations, three CAC subcommittees addressed different areas: one, data and research on local law enforcement cooperation with ICE; two, community engagement; and three, immigration policy recommendations.

The CAC data and research subcommittee found compelling evidence that disentangling from ICE as much as possible maintains higher levels of public safety, and is better for the economy. Sanctuary cities are safer and have lower crime rates. Sanctuary is a “win-win” policy, said member Liz Cozine, and “the research backs it up.”

Member Rick Brown said sanctuary (the highest tier of ICE disentanglement) amounts to a “preventative versus a reactionary orientation.” Brown drew attention to a quote by an organization of 200 current and former law enforcement professionals nationwide that says, “a mistrustful community puts police officers at risk. Without cooperation between law enforcement and the community, enhancing public safety is next to impossible.”

The CAC community engagement subcommittee found a climate of fear has taken hold of the immigrant community. This fear is based on perceptions of Sheriffs and police cooperation with ICE, and results in a lack of trust in local law enforcement.

The CAC immigration policy subcommittee made four recommendations. The recommendations in general seek to limit an undiscriminating ICE dragnet that has the goal of deporting 8 million undocumented immigrants regardless of innocence of a crime, or degree of possible infraction. The first CAC recommendation: “after bail is posted, an inmate shall be immediately released, unless ICE has a warrant signed by a judge to hold the inmate.”

The second CAC recommendation is to, “…not comply with ICE requests for information, relating to a specific inmate unless: 1. It is for a legitimate law enforcement purpose relating to a criminal violation, or 2. ICE agents present a warrant signed by a judge to release information.”

The third CAC recommendation also has to do with limiting voluntary cooperation with ICE, unless there is a violation of California law, unless an ICE agent’s safety is at stake, or unless ICE presents a valid warrant issued by a judge. Recommendation three also stipulates that there shall be no I-247D Detainers unless ICE agents present a warrant signed by a judge.

The fourth recommendation has the Sheriff no longer honoring ICE immigration detainers, in compliance with the 2013 Trust Act, unless ICE has probable cause and an arrest warrant; and the Sheriff shall cease voluntarily notifying ICE through the I 247 N Form process, prior to the release of inmates. I 247 N requests may be honored for a series of serious criminal offenses laid out by the CAC, that is consistent with the Trust Act. This is in an effort to hold bad guys, but not throw all the possible good guys, who have due process rights, under the bus with them.

During public comment, immigration attorney Rick Coshnear said, the “CAC has done its homework.” Coshnear said these were “admirable policy recommendations.”

Should the Sheriff adopt these CAC recommended policies, particularly about voluntary notification to ICE, this could build public trust and confidence in local law enforcement and increase public safety in the county. The Sheriff could then say, with clarity, that ICE cooperation was limited as much as reasonably possible, that constitutional due process was honored, while still filtering out legitimately identified bad guys.

A law enforcement policy balance is in the process of being struck, in the county and at the state level. Through just what means vis-à-vis ICE cooperation, is public safety better enhanced? SB-54 is under consideration by state legislators; this would basically make California a sanctuary state. The IOLERO CAC is making recommendations along these same lines. Being debated is just what level of criminal should require Sheriff’s cooperation with ICE? Should misdemeanors, non-violent felonies and civil infractions not require cooperation?

In other public comment, Susan LaMont asked the CAC do conduct city council workshops to educate electeds on this critical issue. Another person, as do many, wanted to know exactly why Sheriff Freitas visited Jeff Sessions? What was the intent?

For the public, the discovery of exactly how, why, and under what jail circumstances the Sheriff’s Office cooperates with ICE, has been a matter of some consternation. One public comment noted that “the more I read, the less I understand.”

From a reporting standpoint, clear, transparent, unambiguous information has been hard to come by, and to interpret, possibly owing to covert political dimensions on how this jailhouse/ ICE cooperation information may be spun by various parties and actors. For the Sheriff and the police, it has been a challenge to communicate clearly just what all the law enforcement dimensions are, and just what is voluntarily under their control as to ICE cooperation. And, what of those voluntary cooperations hinges on what interpretation of public safety?

For continuing IOLERO business, the CAC discussed outreach, and reviewing a number of different law enforcement policy aspects, including use of force, privacy/ surveillance technology, substance abuse, homelessness, and mental illness. The Sheriff will be consulted on which topics they would like to have public input. The immigration recommendation is the first major action by the IOLERO CAC.